# Venge, SL4, S-Works Roubaix, Crux & S-Works Epic : My Review



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

I just returned from Specialized after a week of riding on these models and wanted to first share my appreciation for the brand, and give a slight review.

First, I'm über impressed with the brand, philosophy and testing that this company does, on all of its products from helmets to saddles and of course it's frames.

But of course you didn't click on the thread to hear praise for the brand, you wanted to read some feedback and comparison of the products in the title, so here goes.

All bikes tested were a size 58.

Venge (DuraAce mechanical): It may come as a surprise to you but this was my least favorite bike in the bunch. Initially I took the Venge out first because it was the bike I thought would be the best, seeing that it is marketed as the birth child of the Shiv and Tarmac.

Perhaps having ridden the SL4 and SL3 changed my perception of what the Venge offered. I found the Venge to have a somewhat dead feeling. Instead of feeling like a top end combination of qualities, I was disappointed in feeling like it just didnt hit the mark for anything aside of straight line racing and if I needed a bike for only that aspect would probably just use a Shiv TT.

I did have the opportunity to stand over a McLaren and it looked impressive, but was quite heavy outfitted in Di2. For the price, I dont feel the 12r carbon would make that much of a difference from its 10r brother and you are really just paying for a McLaren decal.

Road vibration was addressed and the frame was stiff enough but other bikes from the brand seemed to handle these characteristics better. Again, from the catalog perspective it had the looks and the wow factor but after about 20 miles it was clear that this bike is too specific a model to be quantified as the best of both worlds.

Roubaix SL3 (Di2): I was always put off by Zerts thinking it was unnecessary design marketing. I chose the SL3 because I really liked the HTC Highroad graphics and wanted to get more saddle time with Di2. I was delighted with this bike, more so then I was with Di2 but this is not about the spec or color, it's about the frame.

The SL3 was the all-rounder that I expected the Venge to be and floated effortlessly over all terrain so much that I could see using it as a second cross bike even. It climbed well, again expecting it to be far more flexy given that I am 200lbs at 6'3" tall and it descended like a champ inspiring confidence at every corner and snapping back at every switchback. Weight was terrific. The only place it may lack is acceleration but it did more then it's job in terms of an all round performer and again the Zerts did exactly what they are designed to do. You can definitely ride centuries on this bike and feel fresh at the end. I was pleasantly surprised.

Tarmac SL4 (RED): I saved the best for last. Not as comfortable as a Roubaix obviously but that's not what this bike is about. This bike sheers pure adrenaline, accelerates so well, it should have the McLaren badge on it and climbs so effortlessly I felt like a jet taking off the runway. Its so light I had to look down and make sure I was not floating and there was still a bike under me. Its stiffness so grand I could crack a home run on every sprint. This is a road racer/crits dream bike and if given my choice between the three wouldn't hesitate to add this stead to the stable. I think for longer century rides this would be the only place where it doesn't shine as well as the Roubaix but again, that is not it's purpose.

I also had a chance to ride the S-Works Epic (XTR) and Stumpy (XX) 29'ers but as this is RBR I'll spare you the long story and just say that Epic doesn't even begin to describe this bike. It is the Tarmac of the dirt. From climbing to launching it 10 feet never have I felt so confident in my abilities and the Brain technology is bar none the best suspension design Ive had the pleasure of experiencing. For the price of a McLaren, I'll gladly take a Tarmac and Epic instead.

Crux (RED): The Crux did it's job. I honestly needed more seat time on this beast to formulate a more comprehensive review and quite honestly feel that there are better brands to be had in the cross department but it was a nimble handler, climber and overall was suitable to the task. Again as this is RBR I don't want to focus too much on off road and cross but do yourself the justice of trying out a few different brands before you formulate your opinion.

Make mine a Tarmac SL4 and S-Works Epic, please!

Thanks for reading.


----------



## Devastazione (Dec 8, 2011)

Very interesting reviews,thank you for sharing.


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

Good review.

The Tarmac SL4 is the pinnacle of what Spesh can do with a road bike in terms of weight, handling, stiffness, etc.

If you want more comfort, go Roubaix, but lose a little in terms of all round performance.

If you want aero and you're looking to eeek out the last km/h on the straight, go Venge, but lose a little in terms of all round performance.

If you have money to burn, go Mclaren!!!


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Makes for an interesting, balanced and (as far as I could tell) objective read. Thanks for posting...

Based on my own experiences (albeit, not on an SL4), Tarmac is fully capable of covering 100 miles without beating up its rider. That said, I agree the Roubaix betters it for that specific use.


----------



## nis240sxt (Oct 6, 2004)

Thanks for the insightful reviews! It's just funny how Quickstep just returned to riding Specialized road bikes again and have picked up more wins already early in the season compared to all of last season. Yea I know the team is different this year but it's kinda uncanny. Just saying...


----------



## roadworthy (Nov 11, 2011)

Thanks for the great review. No doubt many will come away disappointed with the Venge and would say many of the comments in the Venge thread echo your impressions of ride quality.
The SL4 Tarmac is just a fantastic race bike.
I just built up a '12 Roubaix Pro frameset...SL3 and 10r carbon and would say your observations are spot on. I too ride a 58 and am a bit shorter at 6'1"..but long legged and the bike has a freakishly good and snappy ride in spite of its stiffness. A great bike for the amateur non racer in particular and sporty enough to keep up with medium fast guys. I may have bought the Tarmac if I were a few years younger but as an older rider who rides long distances, the Roubaix made the most sense.
Thanks for your even handed review. Btw, I too ride a bit off road and the Epic is a masterpiece to be sure. Specialized as of today IMHO makes the best bicycles in the world...and the best saddles and arguably the best shoes. ...a great company.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

Thanks for the great review....now if Spesh could just deliver my SL4 to me.


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

roadworthy said:


> Specialized as of today IMHO makes the best bicycles in the world...and the best saddles and arguably the best shoes. ...a great company.


Add to that the best helmet.

The Prevail S-Works is fantastic. Super light, super comfy.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I think Specialized helmets, and most road specific helmets for that matter, lacks greatly in terms of protection. They have great ventilation and they're light, but a part of this is because they're nothing much more than a head ornament.

I use the Fox Flux mountain bike helmet. It's a little heavier, but I like how it covers most of the back of the head, and cost way less.


----------



## bigdeal (Jul 24, 2002)

aclinjury said:


> I think Specialized helmets, and most road specific helmets for that matter, lacks greatly in terms of protection. They have great ventilation and they're light, but a part of this is because they're nothing much more than a head ornament.


And this is based on........?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

head injury I've seen. Already saw 3 deaths within the last 6 months all head related injuries. One case was trauma to the forehead. One case was trauma to the back of the skull. All were rider's fault (they crashed coming down too fast). And comparing my Fox Flux helmet to some of these super duper expennsive and lightweight helmet, I'll pass on the super duper ones with half my head exposed.

You ride motorcycle? Why do motorcycle racers wear full face and not an open face helmet?

If I could wear a full face climing up a 15% grade, I would. But I can't due to heat issue. So I take my risk with an open face, but at least I'll get one that'll cover most of the back of my head.

I think it's quite ridiculous to see some of these foam super expensive helmets with extremely limited protection costing (MSRP price) almost as much as a racing motorcycle helmet. For that kind of money, there's relatively better helmets. Of course when it comes down to absolute protection, all road helmets are not much more than a fancy colorful skull caps with trick looking vents. Best to keep 2 wheels down!


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> head injury I've seen. Already saw 3 deaths within the last 6 months all head related injuries. One case was trauma to the forehead. One case was trauma to the back of the skull. All were rider's fault (they crashed coming down too fast). And comparing my Fox Flux helmet to some of these super duper expennsive and lightweight helmet, I'll pass on the super duper ones with half my head exposed.
> 
> You ride motorcycle? Why do motorcycle racers wear full face and not an open face helmet?
> 
> ...


With all due respect, thats not even close to enough info to guage whether or not cycling helmets are ineffective or not.


----------



## bernithebiker (Sep 26, 2011)

From this picture, I would say the back of the head is pretty well protected. In fact the foam here is thicker than anywhere else......


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> I think Specialized helmets, and most road specific helmets for that matter, lacks greatly in terms of protection. They have great ventilation and they're light, but a part of this is because they're nothing much more than a head ornament.
> 
> I use the Fox Flux mountain bike helmet. It's a little heavier, but I like how it covers most of the back of the head, and cost way less.


Actually, Specialized tests their helmets at up to a 30% higher standard then SNELL and DOT require but by law are not allowed to disclose this information on their advertisements/materials.

I've been in their helmet testing facility and witnessed these tests being administered first hand. While I currently ride a Giro, I will be considering the Prevail as my next helmet.

A heavier helmet does not mean it is a safer helmet. The safety is brought on my transferring energy, the crumple zone if you will. A harder helmet sometimes transfers that hardened energy onto your dome, resulting in a harder strike. It's whats under the shell that will ultimately withstand these forces. My Giro Atmos actually has even less foam then the Prevail which makes me think it may be time for a new helmet. Add on to the Prevail an inner Kevlar reinforcement which means the helmet will be less prone to splitting apart in an impact and I think the choice becomes more clear. I'm not saying your Flux helmet is in anyway bad since all helmets have to adhere to an industry standard but I'd hardly pawn off the Prevail as nothing more then a head ornament.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> You ride motorcycle? Why do motorcycle racers wear full face and not an open face helmet?


Probably because they are traveling 3-5 times faster then a cyclists fastest sprint.

Your mountain bike helmet and any road bike helmet have to pass the same mandated standards.

The people who designed the Prevail were previous employees of Bell and Giro.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

If you look at Fox Flux, you'll see that it goes down furhter to the base of your skull, and it goes down lower on the sides of your head. It has saved me a good couple times when I hit my head hard on a cased landing on my mtb bike. My head got rung pretty good, but I lived to ride home.

The Fox Flux can easily be had for $99 online, and $50 when it's on sale (eg, Competitive Cyclist).
The Prevail is anywhere $211 - $253 after a quick online search. Sorry but I don't think the difference in money justifies the difference in price & protection. You can't tell me that Fox does not know a thing or two about crash helmet either.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> If you look at Fox Flux, you'll see that it goes down furhter to the base of your skull, and it goes down lower on the sides of your head. It has saved me a good couple times when I hit my head hard on a cased landing on my mtb bike. My head got rung pretty good, but I lived to ride home.
> 
> The Fox Flux can easily be had for $99 online, and $50 when it's on sale (eg, Competitive Cyclist).
> The Prevail is anywhere $211 - $253 after a quick online search. Sorry but I don't think the difference in money justifies the difference in price & protection. You can't tell me that Fox does not know a thing or two about crash helmet either.


I do hope you replaced your helmet after crashing "a good couple of times"...

Fox to me is a suspension manufacturer and while I'm sure they make a great helmet, all companies must adhere to the same standards.

Your argument that it goes down to the base of your skull and temple is somewhat empty considering one rarely lands on ones neck or cheek bones when they crash but I suppose added protection (and weight) is acceptable.

Again, I still ride a Giro helmet and am also happy with my selection but if/when I crash on it will be replacing it with a Prevail. Also, this is RBR and I will never be wearing a mountain bike helmet on any crit or road race but will consider your words for that day I take her off road.

Good luck and stop crashing.


----------



## DonDenver (May 30, 2007)

Aclinjury...

...your passion and concern re helmets is understood. But please move on as the hijack does not fit in this thread. Start a new thread on this subject if you choose.

OP...thanks for your report.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

carbonLORD said:


> Actually, Specialized tests their helmets at up to a 30% higher standard then SNELL and DOT require but by law are not allowed to disclose this information on their advertisements/materials.


That's the first I've heard of such a law. Can you post your source?

I believe that in years past Spec helmets met the higher Snell B-95 standard, but now meets CPSC and Snell B-90 standards - as do all other helmets currently available. The main differences in helmets are retention systems, venting, colors... but no increased protection.

Here's some relevant info along with (IMO) a key passage:
Bicycle Helmet Standards 

Quote:
Snell revised its standard in 1995, and the B-1995 version took effect in September of 1995. It requires slightly more head coverage and has slightly higher drop heights (2.2 meters on the flat anvil and 1.3 meters on the hemispheric anvil) than the B-1990 or CPSC standards. But *Snell has permitted manufacturers to continue to use the B-1990 standard, accommodating those whose current production did not meet the new standard.* In the bicycle field at the present time, a Snell B95 helmet is not much different from a helmet meeting the CPSC standard. Those with only Snell B-90 certification offer no significant performance difference. The main difference is in the certification procedure.
End Quote.

I used to have a link to a helmet meeting the higher B95 standard, but can't locate it. Suffice to say it did have more surface area, less vents and was ugly as sin. The one saving grace was that it was cheap (which I find ironic).


----------



## _Forza_ (Jul 11, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> Makes for an interesting, balanced and (as far as I could tell) objective read. Thanks for posting...
> 
> Based on my own experiences (albeit, not on an SL4), Tarmac is fully capable of covering 100 miles without beating up its rider. That said, I agree the Roubaix betters it for that specific use.


Back on topic to the OP. 

Definitely is...I just did 100+ (+/- 4000 feet each of climbing/descending) on Saturday on my SW/SL4 with my race wheels @ 110psi...and felt fresh. I could have done another 30 miles easy, but ran out of time. Road was a mix of asphalt and chip and seal/crud. In total, I have about 1200 miles on the bike since taking delivery on 12/20.

I was pleasantly surprised Saturday....last year's race bike was a BMC SLR01.


----------



## dcorn (Sep 1, 2011)

Good review man, you are very lucky to get to ride all those bikes. I was kind of surprised by the Venge review because I love the thing when I rode one. I didn't get to experience much of a variety of terrain, but it felt great sprinting from light to light through the city. I was going back and forth between the SL4 and Venge as my new bike, but ended up picking up an SL3 SW for a super deal. After soooo many good reviews on the newer models, hopefully I didn't make a mistake.




aclinjury said:


> If you look at Fox Flux, you'll see that it goes down furhter to the base of your skull, and it goes down lower on the sides of your head. It has saved me a good couple times when I hit my head hard on a cased landing on my mtb bike. My head got rung pretty good, but I lived to ride home.
> 
> The Fox Flux can easily be had for $99 online, and $50 when it's on sale (eg, Competitive Cyclist).
> The Prevail is anywhere $211 - $253 after a quick online search. Sorry but I don't think the difference in money justifies the difference in price & protection. You can't tell me that Fox does not know a thing or two about crash helmet either.


The only guys I've seen wearing Prevail's while mountain biking were on race teams. I've got a cheaper, bulkier Giro helmet for off-road because I figure I'm much more prone to crashing in the dirt and breaking my helmet than I am on the road. Not going to risk a $200 helmet when I almost plan to fall at some point. I had a ~5 year old, cheaper Giro helmet a few years back when I did an endo on my mtn bike and landed about on my forehead on the ground. Nothing but a small bruise to show for it, and the helmet cracked, but it did it's job just fine. In this case, yes I think it's smarter to wear a bit bigger helmet (or one designed for mtn biking) when offroad.

That being said, I did splurge on a Prevail after I saw that video of the dude riding through Africa or wherever and got trucked by the antelope. Pretty sure he got head butted in the dome by a horned animal going 30+ mph and his helmet stayed intact and he lived to tell about it. Plus the thing is crazy light, comfortable and has insane vents. Worth it to me.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

PJ352 said:


> That's the first I've heard of such a law. Can you post your source?


Sorry, nothing as comprehensive as a link to provide. That is simply the way it was explained to me. Otherwise if company A said they tested at a higher standard, company B would say 35%, company C would say 40% and so on, and that would defeat the purpose of the SNELL, DOT and CPSC guidelines.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

carbonLORD said:


> Sorry, nothing as comprehensive as a link to provide. That is simply the way it was explained to me. Otherwise *if company A said they tested at a higher standard, company B would say 35%, company C would say 40% and so on, and that would defeat the purpose of the SNELL, DOT and CPSC guidelines*.


I disagree with your conclusion. Companies can and do make all sorts of claims re: their products. Consistent with that, if you notice, Spec is cagy in their wording of just what standards their helmets meet. If they were higher than B-90 and CPSC (which_ all_ helmets _must_ meet), they'd be sure to note it in their specs, but they don't.

That aside, the 'guidelines' you mention are (in the case of SNELL/ CPSC) actually standards - SNELL B-90 and CPSC being mandated, with the former having much more industry oversight - as was mentioned in the link I previously provided.


----------



## _Forza_ (Jul 11, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> I disagree with your conclusion. Companies can and do make all sorts of claims re: their products. Consistent with that, if you notice, Spec is cagy in their wording of just what standards their helmets meet._* If they were higher than B-90 and CPSC (which all helmets must meet), they'd be sure to note it in their specs, but they don't.
> *_
> That aside, the 'guidelines' you mention are (in the case of SNELL/ CPSC) actually standards - SNELL B-90 and CPSC being mandated, with the former having much more industry oversight - as was mentioned in the link I previously provided.


Not necessarily. The one danger when you start going down the path of absolute numbers is that you remove "interpretation" of what could be expected from a safety standpoint, and open yourself up for lawsuits.

By simply saying you meet or exceed required safety standards, you are loosely creating a security blanket that is more defend-able against a plaintiff seeking damages.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

_Forza_ said:


> Not necessarily. The one danger when you start going down the path of absolute numbers is that you remove "interpretation" of what could be expected from a safety standpoint, and open yourself up for lawsuits.


I think you're missing the fundamental point. That being, by their very nature, helmet safety standards are based on absolute numbers to predict expectations from a safety standpoint. Spec doesn't have to walk on eggs here, because they only have to meet certain standards and no more, and that's what the vast majority of helmet manufacturers do. 



_Forza_ said:


> *By simply saying you* meet or *exceed required safety standards*, you are loosely creating a security blanket that is more defend-able against a plaintiff seeking damages.


I think the opposite holds true. By being vague enough that someone might read that the product meets _all_ the standards (which they don't), Spec is IMO somewhat misleading in an effort to sway consumers. I would bet that there are members here who believe Spec helmets meet those higher standards, but they don't, so the wording sometimes works.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

_Forza_ said:


> Not necessarily.


In the interest of maintaining a level of objectivity, I ran across this info on the bhsi site:
_Specialized Dissident: a full-face downhill racing helmet with few vents and a carbon fiber/kevlar/fiberglass shell. *Certified to the ASTM F1952 Downhill Mountain Bike Racing standard and the ASTM F2032 BMX bike helmet standard, tougher than the CPSC standard*. The large BMX-style visor is bolted on with plastic bolts designed to break away when you snag it on something. Retail is $350._ 
Bicycle Helmets for the 2012 Season

Since Specialized uses essentially the same wording in their Dissident specs (see below) as their other helmets, I'll acknowledge that judged on wording alone I can't surmise that (generally speaking) Specs published helmet standards mislead. 
Specialized Bicycle Components : Dissident

Obviously, this being a BMX helmet, Specialized road helmets aren't going to meet the same standards (so not an apples to apples comparison), but I'd be curious to know exactly what standards their road helmets do meet. May be a question for their customer support.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

> May be a question for their customer support.


Yes, _please_.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

PJ352 said:


> Obviously, this being a BMX helmet, Specialized road helmets aren't going to meet the same standards (so not an apples to apples comparison), but *I'd be curious to know exactly what standards their road helmets do meet.* May be a question for their customer support.


Apparently, here's the answer... and from an independent source.
In addition to the CPSC standard, Specialized models are certified to Snell's older B-90 bicycle helmet standard, very similar to CPSC, and the Deviant models to the Snell B-95 standard, somewhat tougher than CPSC. (Specialized is the only major US bike helmet brand still using Snell certification.) They have also certified the Dissident, Deviant and Deviant Carbon to the ASTM downhill mountain biking standard, F1952. That standard requires better impact performance and coverage than the CPSC standard. 
Source:
Bicycle Helmets for the 2012 Season

So it appears that their road helmets meet the same CPSC/ SNELL B-90 standards that are required by law. Only the aforementioned Dissident/ Deviant models carry the tougher certifications. Since CPSC and SNELL B-90 standards are essentially the same, the fact that Specialized is still using the Snell certification is IMO not very meaningful, because Snell is authorized to issue recalls no matter the sticker on the helmet. 

Some interesting general info under the Specialized heading at that same site.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

^ the above site says this about the latest S-Works Prevail



> S-Works Prevail: the S-Works series has been a major Specialized project pushing technology to produce a lighter helmet. *We regard weight reduction as misplaced effort, but it may sell helmets and may appeal to you.* The Prevail is molded in the shell with a four piece shell for full coverage. It has a large rear point despite the overall compact shape. Designed with a dual-density foam liner to cut weight, it has huge vents and kevlar inner reinforcement. It has extra-light polyester strap material that the manufacturer says will not stretch when you sweat on it, a worthwhile advance. And it has a drilled-out buckle to save a gram or two of plastic, not a worthwhile advance. It has the new non-adjustable strap junctions. Sewing the junction saves weight and simplifies fit as long as it works for you, but check to see if it fits before buying. This model will be available in Europe, where it can be lighter and still meet the CEN standard, and in Japan, where the fit will have to be adjusted for Asian heads. Can be had in visible white and bright red. Retail is $230.


Don't see much justification to spend $230 for this versus $100 for the Fox Flux (which often times goes on sale for $50). that's me.


----------



## _Forza_ (Jul 11, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> I think you're missing the fundamental point. That being, by their very nature, helmet safety standards are based on absolute numbers to predict expectations from a safety standpoint. Spec doesn't have to walk on eggs here, because they only have to meet certain standards and no more, and that's what the vast majority of helmet manufacturers do.
> 
> 
> I think the opposite holds true. By being vague enough that someone might read that the product meets _all_ the standards (which they don't), Spec is IMO somewhat misleading in an effort to sway consumers. I would bet that there are members here who believe Spec helmets meet those higher standards, but they don't, so the wording sometimes works.





PJ352 said:


> In the interest of maintaining a level of objectivity, I ran across this info on the bhsi site:
> _Specialized Dissident: a full-face downhill racing helmet with few vents and a carbon fiber/kevlar/fiberglass shell. *Certified to the ASTM F1952 Downhill Mountain Bike Racing standard and the ASTM F2032 BMX bike helmet standard, tougher than the CPSC standard*. The large BMX-style visor is bolted on with plastic bolts designed to break away when you snag it on something. Retail is $350._
> Bicycle Helmets for the 2012 Season
> 
> ...


There is a difference in testing, achieving, and certifying your product and _publishing_ the numbers. That was my point.

No where in any of these, does it say in absolute "30%, 33%, 15%, etc" higher performing than the standard. Earlier in the thread, the question was raised as to the publishing of these numbers.

The liability and lawsuit exposure of publishing numbers where safety standards are in place is not in the best interest of a company, regardless how good you think they are. Safety numbers are not like other published examples, let's say for grins....component weight. 

For example, I buy a helmet from "company x" based on the fact that they _say_ the are 30% better in preventing head injury in impacts...I go for a ride, dump on pavement (or hit a tree), and sustain a head injury...but because I "thought" they were 30% safer at point of purchase (based on advertising), I feel they are liable for my injury. 

Anytime you make a claim like this, you have to be able to prove it, otherwise...it has to do with other consumer protection laws regarding truth in advertising. The problem is, those tests are in a controlled lab environment, not the open road...way too many variables. It's safer to say you meet or exceed standards and leave it at that. The customer puts faith in the standards against which the product was tested.

My point stands in that it does not benefit any manufacturer to state an absolute number of exceeding a standard. 

Your comments, support my comment...You either meet them or exceed them.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

_Forza_ said:


> My point stands in that it does not benefit any manufacturer to state an absolute number of exceeding a standard.
> 
> Your comments, support my comment...*You either meet them or exceed them*.


You stated it, but are still missing the fundamental point. That being, the certifications 'say' what standards a given helmet meets, exceeding nothing. And if the manufacturers tests _did_ exceed the SNELL B-90/ CPSC standards now in effect, they'd essentially be meeting one of the higher standards, such as B-95. Given the competitive nature of the marketplace, if this were in fact the case, Spec (or any other helmet manufacturer) would submit their helmets to SNELL for testing/ certification, but none to my knowledge has done so. 

What's done in labs or behind the scenes makes no difference to me, but certifications do. I'm not suggesting Spec helmets are 'bad' by any means, because they have some noteworthy features. But if you decide to spend substantially more on one SNELL B-90/ CPSC certified over another under the guise of getting a safer helmet, you're misleading yourself.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

PJ352 said:


> *Given the competitive nature* of the marketplace, if this were in fact the case, Spec (or any other helmet manufacturer) would submit their helmets to SNELL for testing/ certification, but none to my knowledge has done so.



Competitive. I find most S-Works labels to be overpriced, and arguably not any better than another product as far as performance and safety, products costing half the price, or less. Yet, Specialized is still able to get a lot of folks to buy S-Works anything. I think the main competitive edge Specialized has over most of its competitor is marketing. Guys who must buy S-Works label buy them regardless if they're $100 or $300. That is the power of marketing that Spesh has over the competition.

I mean reading some of the S-Works fanboys one might be inclined to think that Specialized is the premiere R&D powerhouse in

- road frame technology
- mtb frame technology (DW-link must be a thorn for Spesh lol!)
- carbon process technology
- helmet technology
- shoe technology
- cloth fabric technology

With all this technology, I wonder how many PhD's are actually working at the big S in Morgan Hill, CA?

Whatever Spesh touches, technology pours out, and enlightenment to be followed.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

aclinjury said:


> *Competitive.* *I find most S-Works labels to be overpriced, and arguably not any better than another product as far as performance and safety, products costing half the price, or less.* Yet, Specialized is still able to get a lot of folks to buy S-Works anything. I think the main competitive edge Specialized has over most of its competitor is marketing. Guys who must buy S-Works label buy them regardless if they're $100 or $300. That is the power of marketing that Spesh has over the competition.
> 
> I mean reading some of the S-Works fanboys one might be inclined to think that Specialized is the premiere R&D powerhouse in
> 
> ...


To clarify, my point in making the 'competitive' statement was that, if in the course of in-house testing, a manufacturer were to find that their helmet exceeded the current/ common standards, they'd submit it for testing in the hopes of getting a higher certification.

That aside, I think the distinction should be made between someone who's all goo-goo eyed over a name that decal on a product and someone who's research and made an educated purchasing decision.

I spent the better part of two years testing a number of bikes before settling on a Tarmac, and subsequently, another. Traveled 5 hours in one day to test ride two brands/ models not available in my area. When it came time to replace my Shimano road shoes (which I loved) I naturally focused on Shimano, only to find they were very uncomfortable. Long story short, ended up with Specialized Elites and think they're a great shoe. 

Point is, (IMO/E) Specialized makes some very fine products. Sure, they load on the marketing hype, but if a consumer takes the time to sift through that hype, as much as is possible checking into the claims and comparing what's available from others, an educated buying decision can be made. 

Last point. My SO (who currently wears a Giro) has been eying a Spec helmet. I told her they're highly regarded, are pricier than some comparable models, but have some noteworthy features, so are worth a look. But added, just don't equate the higher price tag with higher safety ratings, because that just isn't the case.


----------



## carbonLORD (Aug 2, 2004)

Moderators, move the helmet debate outa here would ya.

Thanks.


----------



## hefeweizan (Jan 28, 2009)

Thanks for the review, it's great to here your experiences


----------

