Invisible Helmet...

Gazlar

So on that basis, it doesn't achieve what it sets out to do and be a less obtrusive method of protection, I won't say that it won't work, but I do fail to see why it needs to work, other than vanity I suppose

thekickingmule

A normal helmet will weigh between 300 and 400 grams, so I don't think 700 is that much different.

I think you're missing the point of the concept of this though, it isn't really designed to replace a helmet, as such. It's to give people that don't like wearing them because of their hair, or that don't like their heads being covered, a chance of protection.
I think with a bit more design and tweaks, that it will sell a lot. There are many more cyclists in the world that don't read or have our views, but they may be interested in this. I like the idea of having the 'Find my Helmet' function, though that would incure more electronics being used.

Gazlar

So pretty much double the weight?

what I meant was, essentially, they do the job of a real helmet, just worse and at a higher cost, but offer cosmetic advantages, like why orange girls buy a fiat 500 instead of a real car

Daz555

At this moment in time I would not be interested in buying one. Who knows how the tech may progress though?

oodboo

FunBus wrote:

That same article shows user feedback as follows:
And it costs €400 so I am worried about theft and forgetting it in places I visit. My old bike helmet I simply put inside my bike lock, so I never have to carry it around. Since Hövding has a serial number and can be synced to my computer, I suggest that Hövding looks at the Find my iPhone function or something similar that might deter theft and help me locate it.[/b]

It's expensive so the reviewer wants to increase the cost by adding GPS and GSM functionality, plus some sort of SIM card and associated costs around that. Good thinking.

There's no way I would wear that think while commuting. In a few years time when the technology has matured a bit and the size reduced then maybe I might look again but still don't like the idea of wearing something round my neck whilst riding.

YeehaaMcgee

FunBus wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

but have you considered that there's already two air bags on your bike that prevent your rims from impacting the ground, and that they do a pretty good job already?

This is true, but those 'airbags' are also inside a rubber carcass....if you rode with JUST inner tubes on your rims, you may of had a point there.

I'm not sure if you're trolling, an idiot, or just misunderstanding something - so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
What difference does it make to have an innertube inside a tyre, or just an inflatable "thing"? A tubeless tyre doesn't have an outer rubber thing and an inner rubber thing, but still works fine.

FunBus

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

FunBus wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

but have you considered that there's already two air bags on your bike that prevent your rims from impacting the ground, and that they do a pretty good job already?

This is true, but those 'airbags' are also inside a rubber carcass....if you rode with JUST inner tubes on your rims, you may of had a point there.

I'm not sure if you're trolling, an idiot, or just misunderstanding something - so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
What difference does it make to have an innertube inside a tyre, or just an inflatable "thing"? A tubeless tyre doesn't have an outer rubber thing and an inner rubber thing, but still works fine.

I'm not even sure what 'trolling' means? I dont think of myself as a total idiot, most of the time. So I must be missing something....so thanks for bearing with me.

There's arguments for an against this product, i personally just feel the negatives outweigh the positives....your opinions obviously may differ. Like said above, i'm sure this will spark a lot of new thinking and, I'm sure eventually something will come to market which is affordable, works better, we'll all agree is the dogs danglys and then live happily ever after.

But....(not wanting to provoke argument)....i still disagree with your comparison to a tyre, tubeless or not. A tyre is a carcass, which is constantly inflated - not just popping out before you hit something. So, i'd compare a tyre more closely to a standard helmet - which is on your head constantly, not reacting to movements/impact. For this new 'invisible' helmet to be compared to a tyre, surely it to would have to be constantly inflated on your head?

YeehaaMcgee

The constant inflation makes no difference at all. The important thing is that it's inflated at the moment of impact.

In light of some of the negative reviews about weight and comfort, then this is looking like a slightly less impressive idea - but if those issues can be improved upon, I still think it's got great potential.

Bigchris

I can't see this working on a mountain bike..it would be firing off every jump and bump. I'm slightly confused.

Now if it used radar or something to know when it is near the floor, maybe.

YeehaaMcgee

It's not really aimed at mountain bikes though.

TheNorthernTrain

Clever design, it looks interesting.

Certainly looks to give better protection than a normal helmet, it inflates to look like a full face and looks as if it possibly supports your neck too - avoiding whiplash I would assume. And I reckon most roadies and commuters would feel quite dumb wearing a full face and neck brace...

I'd wear it... As for taking too long to put on, it can't be any harder than putting on a pair of trousers. Zip, and button. Simple. 10 seconds maximum. (Unless it's just after christmas in which case it's 10 minutes and then bang, the button flies off.)

Something that would be good is the ability to replace the air bag - sort of cartridge style rather than having to replace the whole thing. My only gripe is that it looks as if it goes off whenever you start to fall, which is a bit of a bummer if you have one of those moments but manage to rescue it before you hit the deck. In which case, you've wasted a lot of money for nothing.

clickshots

Sgray wrote:

If I was a roadie type rider I would probably get one of these as it would be a lot cooler (temperature wise). But as other people have mentioned I like going helmet first into bushes

Actually there are quite a few road helmets that claim to be cooler than wearing no helmet at all (e.g. Giro Aeon iirc)

jimmcdonnell

Interesting, but swamped by the 2' 45" of bullshit bingo marketing-speak and whining about being girl designers, for a sub-15 second money shot.

cooldad

clickshots wrote:

Sgray wrote:

If I was a roadie type rider I would probably get one of these as it would be a lot cooler (temperature wise). But as other people have mentioned I like going helmet first into bushes

Actually there are quite a few road helmets that claim to be cooler than wearing no helmet at all (e.g. Giro Aeon iirc)

Which sounds like an absolute load of bollocks.

bluechair84

jimmcdonnell wrote:

Interesting, but swamped by the 2' 45" of bullshit bingo marketing-speak and whining about being girl designers, for a sub-15 second money shot.

It does come across as if they value their success' as women in a patriarchal world as highly as their product. And congratulations to them if they have felt that being women has been a barrier to their entrepreneurialism, but I can't see how this necklace could distinguish between different forces and still know when to activate...

YeehaaMcgee

bluechair84 wrote:

I can't see how this necklace could distinguish between different forces and still know when to activate...

Someone once said (Maybe Stephen Fry) that he weeps for the future of the human race if people refuse to believe things simply because they themselves couldn't have done it.

This kind of thing is already commonplace inside MotoGP race suits.

concorde

6 words...

What the fuck is the point!

Red.Devil.Ghost

Innovation and development is key to all interests and activities.

Imagine when the first idea of suspension appeared, and someone had said, nah it will never catch on? Or using hydraulic disc brakes? Ideas that ultimately started with the car. Now it's similar for air bag head guards. If, with the proper R&D it works, it can only be a good thing.

bluechair84

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

bluechair84 wrote:

I can't see how this necklace could distinguish between different forces and still know when to activate...

Someone once said (Maybe Stephen Fry) that he weeps for the future of the human race if people refuse to believe things simply because they themselves couldn't have done it.

This kind of thing is already commonplace inside MotoGP race suits.

I'm not in total disbelief, but I'd like to know more about a system that can distinguish between movements such as looking around for riding buddies or traffic, and smaller stumbles to the floor and know when to activate. I checked out some of the motoGP stuff and it is pretty impressive. But they only come up as neckbraces and shoulder pads. I know this will go around in circles, it's already been said that we use airbags for heads in cars, but it's how it knows when to inflate that's my concern, not whether an airbag can absorb enough impact. If it doesn't go off, you're crashing with 0 protection. I bet the MotoGP suits would still pass the standards.

warpcow

bluechair84 wrote:

I'd like to know more about a system that can distinguish between movements such as looking around for riding buddies or traffic, and smaller stumbles to the floor and know when to activate.

If you can turn corners in a car without the airbag going off, how can it be so hard to understand how this might work? I don't know what's on the website, but there were a lot of reports in the Swedish press following the development of this helmet: it measures, what it recognises as, extreme changes in velocity. Ok, you can argue what might reasonably be called an 'extreme' or 'sudden' change, but I don't think we can pretend that anyone would be stupid enough to release a product that goes off if you turn your head to look at something.

Edit: I'm sure this has probably been posted/read, but here is their own explantion http://hovding.com/en/how#sensorer

bluechair84

Hovding wrote:

Normal movements: All bicycling in the city and on main roads, as well as all the normal movements you make before, during and after a bicycle ride such as running up and down steps, locking your bicycle, braking suddenly, giving way, pumping the tyres, etc. are defined as normal movements. Normal movements won't cause Hövding to inflate.

Abnormal movements: The movement patterns of a bicyclist in an accident are defined as abnormal movements. In an accident, a bicyclist's movements are completely different from those seen in normal bicycling. That's why the airbag is only triggered by accidents*.

It's clear they've done their testing but I would have concerns that some crash incidents might appear like normal movements. After all, if it doesn't go off your left with nothing, but then they must have pretty sophisticated gyros and sensors to be able to make these claims. I've also found on their website a couple of EN standards conformity... so the EU thinks it works! Ah well, I suppose the critic in me is ebbing.

YeehaaMcgee

bluechair84 wrote:

It's clear they've done their testing but I would have concerns that some crash incidents might appear like normal movements. After all, if it doesn't go off your left with nothing, but then they must have pretty sophisticated gyros and sensors to be able to make these claims. I've also found on their website a couple of EN standards conformity... so the EU thinks it works! Ah well, I suppose the critic in me is ebbing.

You're coming across as pretty moronic, to be honest.
Do you also concern yourself that car airbags may fire innapropriately, or fail to go off? Or that your seatbelt won't lock in a crash or sudden stop?

Irrespective of your disbelief, I'm certain that they haven't just thrown an inertia sensor in there and just hoped for the best.

mcnultycop

I'd rather have a vented helmet permanently there than a super-thick scarf warming me up constantly which "should" work in an emergency situation.

I've not read up around these, but are they single use only or can they be "re-packed"? I know a helmet should be replaced after an accident but at £50 or whatever it is much cheaper than whatever these cost.

bluechair84

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

bluechair84 wrote:

It's clear they've done their testing but I would have concerns that some crash incidents might appear like normal movements. After all, if it doesn't go off your left with nothing, but then they must have pretty sophisticated gyros and sensors to be able to make these claims. I've also found on their website a couple of EN standards conformity... so the EU thinks it works! Ah well, I suppose the critic in me is ebbing.

You're coming across as pretty moronic, to be honest.
Do you also concern yourself that car airbags may fire innapropriately, or fail to go off? Or that your seatbelt won't lock in a crash or sudden stop?

Irrespective of your disbelief, I'm certain that they haven't just thrown an inertia sensor in there and just hoped for the best.

Woop, another one of your flaming opinions. Considering that car airbags are designed to fire under very specific conditions (not every impact at any speed fires them), and seatbelts work on mechanics, not electronics, they're not the equal comparisons. No, I don't think that it's easy to break down all of a cyclists movement into the 'normal and abnormal'. To do so they must have worked very hard and for a long time (did they say 10 years?). They don't say what type of riding it's suitable for on their website (that I can see anyway) and sure, it's worked in motoGP where it has been designed for the sport to supplement the normal protection, but I seriously doubt this would be appropriate for mountain bikers. Not until I see evidence other than a marketing campaign.

YeehaaMcgee

Who said anything about mountain bikers?
Do you really not believe that anything will work because you can;t wrap your brain around it? I guess televisions and mobile phones must be some kind of strange witchcraft that you've banned in your household eh?

nicklouse

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Who said anything about mountain bikers?
Do you really not believe that anything will work because you can;t wrap your brain around it? I guess televisions and mobile phones must be some kind of strange witchcraft that you've banned in your household eh?

Exactly. It is perfect for what it is designed for.

The comuter.

Or getting home from the pub.

bluechair84

I've had a closer read of the website and I see now that it's not intended for anything other than commuting, which kind of shows my point; that this type of active technology would struggle with mountain biking. I'd be surprised if it could ever cope with the greater range of forces in mtb.
I'm not denying that it works yeehaa, I'm was saying that it's a limited technology which is a mute point now considering it's solely aimed at the tamest forms of riding.

YeehaaMcgee

bluechair84 wrote:

I've had a closer read of the website and I see now that it's not intended for anything other than commuting, which kind of shows my point

except... you never actually had a point.

cooldad

bluechair84 wrote:

it's solely aimed at the tamest forms of riding.

I find riding on roads a lot more scary than mountain biking. At least off road I'm the only idiot around.

The Rookie

For info people may like to watch some recordings of the cross country part of the 3 day eventing from the Olympics with the full body airbags they wore, somewhat analagous to MTB riding yet only went off when they fell (did mean it was then game over though as it was a one use 'bag).

I wouldn't for MTBing (too many little nudges on branches etc) - for commuting I may consider it but not at £400!