This does sound genuinely useful

BigAl

You may have seen it earlier here on BR:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/the-headkayse-could-be-the-last-helmet-you-ever-need-to-buy-45735/

A reusable helmet.

Being a bit of a p*ssy I don't crash a lot so I haven't bought a new lid for a few years. But I guess some of you guys need to replace fairly often.

Clearly the design needs to be proven to the extent that riders will still have confidence in the lid after a crash.

Manufacturers won't like it as it turns a potential 'consumable' item into a longer term buy. (Though I realise some have pretty good crash replacement policies)

I also imagine some people like to have a new lid from time to time for fashion or 'I just want something new' reasons.

And obviously it'll only work if it can be designed to be sufficiently lightweight and well ventilated

But, in principle, I like it

ilovedirt

Not convinced, doesn't look nice, doesn't look well vented. Also not sure about "one size fits all". Does that mean it's a bit of a crap fit for pretty much everyone?

BigAl

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19744020#p19744020]ilovedirt[/url] wrote:

Not convinced, doesn't look nice, doesn't look well vented. Also not sure about "one size fits all". Does that mean it's a bit of a crap fit for pretty much everyone?

I was commentating on the idea. It's a prototype so looks should be ignored for the time being

I also made comment that it needs to be light and well ventilated

As for fit, who knows

If it ticks the boxes of looks, fit, weight, ventilation then all is good

veronese68

Interesting idea, it also said it folds flat(ish) so is good for travelling. It clearly needs more work, but I like the principle.

Clockworkmark31

It doesn't look good.

When did bubble wrap go out of fashion?

Thankfully I haven't had to replace a lid due to a off. But one of the bike mags did a review on some lids this month that sounded promising.

y2keable

If you look at the simple architecture of a conventional cycle helmet and the materials it's made from, it hasn't changed in decades. There's a reason for that, because it works.

Why start from scratch again?

Also, the sacrificial nature of a helmet is key to how it saves your life. It takes allot of energy to smash one, energy that would be used to smash your skull if you weren't wearing it.

I'm not sold. My head feels hot and itchy just looking at it.

veronese68

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19746350#p19746350]y2keable[/url] wrote:

If you look at the simple architecture of a conventional cycle helmet and the materials it's made from, it hasn't changed in decades. There's a reason for that, because it works.

Maybe the reason is because nobody has thought about it from a different perspective. With advances in materials if it's possible to make a helmet that doesn't destroy itself on impact, but works at least as well, wouldn't that be a good thing? Obviously it would need to be as light and as comfortable as others to make it worthwhile. They are certainly not there yet looking at that thing, but it's an interesting idea that I think is worth pursuing.

BigAl

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19746350#p19746350]y2keable[/url] wrote:

If you look at the simple architecture of a conventional cycle from 1975 and the materials it's made from, it hasn't changed in decades. There's a reason for that, because it works.

Just applying your logic elsewhere.

So no ally frames let alone carbon

No indexed gears, no suspension, no disc brakes.

I could go on.

Just because something 'works' it doesn't mean that all innovation stops