Paper Helmet ??

[ufkacbln]

Why? What's good about it? To be good design something needs to look good and perform well. This product looks horrible and (absent proper testing) no-one knows how well it performs.

The other interesting aspect for this helmet is how it would be tested and rated as "fit for purpose"

One article has suggetsed that it has already passed EN1078:

To test the helmet, the designer took it to a crash lab at Imperial College London, where it passed the European safety standards.

However the same article also states that the helmet has a life of about 3 hours in the rain:

To make it waterproof, it has been covered in a biodegradable coating that protects it in the rain for up to three hours.

Here is the BIG question...


You wear a helmet that passes EN1078, and it rains, how does the helmet's function change?

Where does this 3 hours figure come from?

Has it been tested after 3 hours in a light shower,, and 3 hours in a downpour - is the deterioration in function the same in both cases ?

Is it 3 hours of continuous rain, or will a thorough soaking in the first half hour start a process by which the function deteriorates ?

Is the failure progressive, and is it still able to pass EN1078 after 3 hours of British weather, and then fails to meet these standards after 3 hours?

These are questions that need detailed answers - at this point the wearer has chosen to use a product that may or may not meet the most basic standards after a few minutes of use

 

[ufkacbln]

This is also far from an original idea

About 6 or so years ago there was a similar Cardboard product called the Kranium

This was a cardboard design with a plastic outer shell..... solves the rain issue

However even with the ABUS manufacturer supporting the product it failed to make an impact*

This is the Abus page about the helmet

* {'ll get my (Hi-Viz) Coat

 

[jonny jeez]

So, Pat is absolutely spot on then. This is in fact a chocolate teapot. And if someone were to design such a thing and win a prize for it, that would be fine?

In case my previous post doesn't make it past moderation.

Yes @Pat "5mph" is totally correct, to have an opinion. She may call it a chocolate tea pot, that's her choice.

Her opinion, however may not be correct, nor might yours, or mine for that matter.

It is an opinion.

 

[ufkacbln]

So, Pat is absolutely spot on then. This is in fact a chocolate teapot. And if someone were to design such a thing and win a prize for it, that would be fine?

In that design is intended to stretch the boundaries of the functionality use and efficiency of materials, then in theory a Chocolate Teapot would be acceptable as an entry into a design competition

Whether it won would depend on the calibre of other entries

Nestle have in fact designed and used a fully functioning Chocolate Teapot, proving the point

 

[jonny jeez]

The other interesting aspect for this helmet is how it would be tested and rated as "fit for purpose"

One article has suggetsed that it has already passed EN1078:



However the same article also states that the helmet has a life of about 3 hours in the rain:



Here is the BIG question...


You wear a helmet that passes EN1078, and it rains, how does the helmet's function change?

Where does this 3 hours figure come from?

Has it been tested after 3 hours in a light shower,, and 3 hours in a downpour - is the deterioration in function the same in both cases ?

Is it 3 hours of continuous rain, or will a thorough soaking in the first half hour start a process by which the function deteriorates ?

Is the failure progressive, and is it still able to pass EN1078 after 3 hours of British weather, and then fails to meet these standards after 3 hours?

These are questions that need detailed answers - at this point the wearer has chosen to use a product that may or may not meet the most basic standards after a few minutes of use

Personally I would work on the assumption that few cycle hires go on, when it's raining. I know this to be the case in London as I use the boris bike system every day (yes even in the rain) and the stands are all full .

As far as getting caught in the rain, again, these are tourists and workers, dressed in usual daywear. It's fair to assume that very few will ride on in a down pour and would more likely seek refuge in a coffee shop or on the underground.

I don't think, given the application, that rain protection or proofing was a main criteria. It just wouldn't make sense.

Don't confuse this with an every day helmet, that has to meet additional design criteria on reuse, waterproofing, sweat resistance etc etc....

This is a single use, 30 minute lid to cater for those who wish to wear a lid when renting a cycle without having to lug that same lid about all day

 

[jonny jeez]

But would it be fine for a chocolate teapot to win a prize?

It would be awesome, if the design of that teapot Met the design criteria and deserved to win.

That would actually be a pretty good design study...but I see @Cunobelin has beaten me to it.

 

[jonny jeez]

And that same Cunobelin has neatly shown why the cardboard hat fails this criterion.

This is the nub of the whole discussion here. You clearly don't agree with the application and that's fair enough...I'm on the fence myself.

But you are allowing that disagreement to colour your appreciation of the design, to the point that you will assume that items like crash protection were part of the design criteria and were weighted sufficiently to result in failure,,or non compliant submission.

It's proven that these Chinese lantern lids offer protection and most likely enough protection to meet the design criteria.

Perhaps not enough protection to satisfy you or maybe even me...but then no lid will ever do that In reality.

 

[ufkacbln]

Personally I would work on the assumption that few cycle hires go on, when it's raining. I know this to be the case in London as I use the boris bike system every day (yes even in the rain) and the stands are all full .

As far as getting caught in the rain, again, these are tourists and workers, dressed in usual daywear. It's fair to assume that very few will ride on in a down pour and would more likely seek refuge in a coffee shop or on the underground.

I don't think, given the application, that rain protection or proofing was a main criteria. It just wouldn't make sense.

Don't confuse this with an every day helmet, that has to meet additional design criteria on reuse, waterproofing, sweat resistance etc etc....

This is a single use, 30 minute lid to cater for those who wish to wear a lid when renting a cycle without having to lug that same lid about all day

I agree about the general usage, but sooner or later there will be a flash shower, or a spilt coffee, something that makes the helmet wet.

 

[ufkacbln]

I think that we could easily be sidetracked here, but.....

The "design" of something like this and the consequent award is about pushing boundaries, using materials in a new way, and in doing so provoking thought, perhaps inspiring someone else to take the idea, or one of its elements further

Perhaps it is my age, but I think of items like the Sinclair Watch, poor battery life, static from your clothing could cause the thing to reset and it was totally unreliable...... yet developments on this basic design have led to the modern watches and even fitness rackers

Also take the original computers..... They were again flawed, and 64k was considered as being more memory than anyone would ever need.but developments on the design have led to modern home computing

Design, even award winning design does not have to be a complete and finished fully functioning product - it is a piece of design

 

[jonny jeez]

I agree about the general usage, but sooner or later there will be a flash shower, or a spilt coffee, something that makes the helmet wet.

I agree and this will likely become a warning at point of vend (along with reams of warnings that any lid is not a guarantee of safety etc. )

We accept all sorts of limits on design because it makes sense. Sell by and eat by dates,, weight limits on carbon frames. We cannot "design out" all of the imperfections of life and at some point need to accept personal responsibility.

If it rains hard and you are wearing a Chinese lantern lid...it will likely cease to meet the design criteria, so go fetch another or take it off.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

my appreciation of the design is around the design criteria and the way in which this product design answers them all, very well

What are all of these criteria and how does this item answer them all "very well"?

The fact that it might actually work is a bonus, it is after all a concept

Surely the primary (intended) function of this device is protection. How can that possibly be described as a bonus?

 

[jonny jeez]

What are all of these criteria and how does this item answer them all "very well"?



Surely the primary (intended) function of this device is protection. How can that possibly be described as a bonus?

http://www.jamesdysonaward.org/the-brief/

Take a look for yourself.

And no, the primary criteria of the brief was nothing of the sort...rightly or wrongly.

Again, it's not about whether the product should exist and as such what safety criteria we may wish to place on it. The criteria were, broadly concentrating on commercial viability, engineering, Developement of design, sustainability and lack of ip infringement.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

i am not really commenting on the aesthetic, that's too subjective. As far as the innovation, yep I agree paper is a very useful material.

my appreciation of the design is around the design criteria and the way in which this product design answers them all, very well.

Many have tried before and failed with super complex and expensive examples. The simplicity of this design is astounding, that's what I see as its success...and "neatness", when you look at is purely as a piece of design work you can start to appreciate how smart it is.

The fact that it might actually work is a bonus, it is after all a concept.

There is a very good argument that those who cannot appreciate a design with objectivity may also struggle to appreciate other forms of creativity, such as art, literature or music...simply because they are not a fan of the genre, the artist or the application.

So @User , can you see the Kings new clothes? (That's a joke by the way, I appreciate the cross argument)

Your statement about appreciation with objectivity rings with me in particular. However, it seems to me you stand no chance of getting your point across in such an emotive crowd. The fact that each post has to be moderated and slow-released like a poison pill makes me wonder. One can only duck so many barbs before you have to hightail it out. I'm off to research the aesthetics of fur coats.

 

[jonny jeez]

There is some fairly bold assumption there.

It's really not. In truth the competition makes no mention of it in the criteria.

I only really mention it because, it has been proven to offer protection and this might (although as @Yellow Saddle points out it's unlikely ) help those who can't make a distinction between the design (and design competition) and the application appreciate it more.

It offers protection, that's a fact. The level of protection is your and others issue

As I say above those that feel strongly about helmets and question their existence, or perhaps use, will never accept that this design meets their own standards of safety criteria...because no helmet ever will in their minds.

It's worthy of the win.

 

[jonny jeez]

You seem very certain about this, so presumably you can equally certainly say exactly what amount of protection?

Yes.

Some.