Mind giving me some feedback on my design concepts? (Head Protection)- Mtbr.com

Poll: Which concept do you like the best?

Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    7

    Mind giving me some feedback on my design concepts? (Head Protection)

    Hi!

    I'm a product design student currently working in a collaborative studio dealing with concussion prevention.

    I have initial concepts and I am looking to get them validated by the users, that's you! In this validation phase I present my concepts and look at all of the feedback that I get which helps me to develop a final direction.

    Please tell me how you feel about each concept, positive and negative. What would you change? What features do you like the best? What would you add? ect. (Anything you want to talk about)

    Link to Project

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,999
    You just took all the existing helmets and combined them into one idea.
    Forefront
    Bell Super 2R
    Met Parachute


  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MadPainterGrafx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    198
    You do know that MIPS is being used by another company right??

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by the-one1 View Post
    You just took all the existing helmets and combined them into one idea.
    Forefront
    Bell Super 2R
    Met Parachute

    When I first started the project, I had started doing rough sketches of helmets with the idea of modularity for mountain bikers, including a removable faceplate. It wasn't until further into the process when I discovered the Bell Super 2r. I'm not claiming that I am the inventor of the ideas by any means, but as I stepped back to look at it I saw these great features on different helmets, why not make the ultimate helmet in function and safety?

    So, that's where I am at the moment. Combine the best of each aspect under a single helmet, kind of like the car industry with new technologies, and provide the rider multiple options instead of multiple helmets, like in your list. Koroyd and MIPS are separate entities that allow their products to be used in other products, and I felt that together they provide a lot more safety than just an EPS shell. Aesthetics is also a large part of this project, but the functions must be ironed out first. These aren't final.

    Again, these are just my first concepts and that's what this exercise is for; seeing where it can lead. Trying to NOT reinvent the wheel with second and third concepts, just make it better.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadPainterGrafx View Post
    You do know that MIPS is being used by another company right??
    I'm sorry, I don't understand your meaning, could you clarify? MIPS is a system used by multiple brands in multiple helmets.

  5. #5
    MMS
    MMS is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    339
    I like the 2nd & 3rd Concepts, the 1st seems a little far fetched to be viable.

    On the 2nd & 3rd, I'd be concerned that the "snap on"/modular accessories wouldn't be as protective/functional as molded in designs. I would have no worry about a visor snapping off, but if I'm gonna be wearing a full face helmet...it better be capable of doing the job it's assigned or it's useless, or even dangerous.
    I'm having more FUN than anybody!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    8,221
    I can't believe you guys clicked on a link by a 5 post member.
    Ripley LS v3
    OG Ripley v2 handed down to son

  7. #7
    MMS
    MMS is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    339
    Gotta start somewhere...
    I'm having more FUN than anybody!

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MadPainterGrafx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by TJMast View Post
    I'm sorry, I don't understand your meaning, could you clarify? MIPS is a system used by multiple brands in multiple helmets.
    I understand these are your first concepts however you have to be careful not to use ideas or designs that are patented. As far as multiple brands(I've only seen it on Giro so far personally) using the MIPS if Giro has this patented(which you'd have to research it some) they might actually be the manufacturer of those other brands. It happens in the motorcycle helmet industry all the time. If they manufacture helmets for other companies those said companies pay Giro for the use and advertising of their technology. But if you just assume that since so and so has it in there's and use it in your design even if it's just at class project you can get into some trouble for that. I deal with this stuff all the time and have actually had to refuse work because of patient's and such so just wanted to give you a heads up.

  9. #9
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,101
    What a ripoff. Can't say I dislike them though. They all seem viable to me. I'd like to see Concept 1 fleshed out more though. Wonder if you can make it like one of them visors, or a baseball cap, and still have good protection.

  10. #10
    9 lives
    Reputation: cyclelicious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14,102
    #3 is good in theory (all in one) but I would loose the pieces in no time.
    F*ck Cancer

    Eat your veggies

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    197
    #1 would be challenging to provide sufficient protection to meet existing helmet safety standards. Easily the most innovative

    #2 Decent idea, more difficult to execute than you think.

    A note about Kyord. Its a very challenging material to integrate aerodynamically with good road ventilation. The straws act to severly restrict airflow in any direction other than along the axis. So a helmet that works at high-speed (horizontal flow) tends to suck at low-speed (vertical flow) and vice versa. Read reviews of the Smith helmets for more details.

    #3 could be an interesting concept. The challenge is providing good airflow with full-face protection.

    The key challenge with removable chin bars is providing decent crash protection while being easily removable.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by MadPainterGrafx View Post
    I understand these are your first concepts however you have to be careful not to use ideas or designs that are patented. As far as multiple brands(I've only seen it on Giro so far personally) using the MIPS if Giro has this patented(which you'd have to research it some) they might actually be the manufacturer of those other brands. It happens in the motorcycle helmet industry all the time. If they manufacture helmets for other companies those said companies pay Giro for the use and advertising of their technology. But if you just assume that since so and so has it in there's and use it in your design even if it's just at class project you can get into some trouble for that. I deal with this stuff all the time and have actually had to refuse work because of patient's and such so just wanted to give you a heads up.
    I completely agree about patented things, but MIPS is a separate company (check out their website) in-and-of itself. They developed the system and then sell the rights to companies. (I haven't found anything to the contrary in the research that I've done) POC, Smith, Scott, Rossignol, Bell, Fox, etc. all have helmets that use MIPS. But these projects are all hypothetical/conceptual anyway, if it were true that Giro held the patent and sold the rights to everyone else, then theoretically this helmet could do the same. Further research into specific patents will definitely be done before it's all said and done. I appreciate the heads up!

    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    What a ripoff. Can't say I dislike them though. They all seem viable to me. I'd like to see Concept 1 fleshed out more though. Wonder if you can make it like one of them visors, or a baseball cap, and still have good protection.
    I like the baseball cap idea; make it look like something else, like a hat, besides a helmet.

    Quote Originally Posted by cyclelicious View Post
    #3 is good in theory (all in one) but I would loose the pieces in no time.
    I have seen some motorcycle helmets where the face/windscreen rotates all the way back instead of detaching. What are your thoughts on those?

    Quote Originally Posted by gsa103 View Post
    #1 would be challenging to provide sufficient protection to meet existing helmet safety standards. Easily the most innovative
    It is a really big challenge. It's all part of what I have to consider when I move forward.

    Quote Originally Posted by gsa103 View Post
    #2 Decent idea, more difficult to execute than you think.
    Completely agree, especially the connection points. This style of helmet is usually the lightest, but those connection points have to be very secure. Also, proportions and design are key.

    Quote Originally Posted by gsa103 View Post
    A note about Kyord. Its a very challenging material to integrate aerodynamically with good road ventilation. The straws act to severly restrict airflow in any direction other than along the axis. So a helmet that works at high-speed (horizontal flow) tends to suck at low-speed (vertical flow) and vice versa. Read reviews of the Smith helmets for more details.
    I have heard the concerns and I see how that can be a problem. Couldn't a way to fix that also be to have specific vents lead to specific areas and the straws are angled accordingly? For example on the very front of the helmet they point forward and that airflow partially directed directly to the head and part is directed through channels toward the back of the helmet to help carry heat away from the users head and out the back. Straws pointing up would act as radiators also carrying heat away from the head. Same principles that crazy supercars use. Thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by gsa103 View Post
    #3 could be an interesting concept. The challenge is providing good airflow with full-face protection.

    The key challenge with removable chin bars is providing decent crash protection while being easily removable.
    The chin guard could be a lattice-type design? Like a bridge, train trestle, or stadium roof. The structure is there with less material.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by TJMast View Post
    I have heard the concerns and I see how that can be a problem. Couldn't a way to fix that also be to have specific vents lead to specific areas and the straws are angled accordingly? For example on the very front of the helmet they point forward and that airflow partially directed directly to the head and part is directed through channels toward the back of the helmet to help carry heat away from the users head and out the back. Straws pointing up would act as radiators also carrying heat away from the head. Same principles that crazy supercars use. Thoughts?
    That's exactly the design the Smith Kyord helmets use. The problem is that's not how a road helmet works. For ventilation at speed you want air to flow horizontally over the top of your head, including leaving enough room in the channels for hair. Most road helmet accomplish this by molding airflow channels into the EPS foam. Go look at the inside of a few of the $200+ road helmets.
    The key thing with air flow is you want a continuous path from intake to exhaust. If you have an obstruction, it creates a high pressure region that will wind up reducing the flow at the intake.

    The vertical Kyord straws wind up blocking horizontal flow, unless there's a significant gap between the helmet and the top of the riders head. The real challenge are the front angled straws. For speed flow you'd want basically all the forward facing straws to be horizontally oriented, which potentially compromises the structure.

    As for the chin guard, the challenging part isn't so much the bar design, its the attachment mechanism. A decent bar basically transfers all the force to the attachment point, which needs to not rip out of the helmet or break the bar at that point. Single piece helmets are much easier because there isn't a joint to weaken the structure.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    7
    ^ Good points, you've intrigued me. I want to swing by my local shop again and study the road helmets even more now. Attachment is a big factor and more research is definitely in store. I'll be talking with engineers later as well.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MadPainterGrafx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by TJMast View Post
    I completely agree about patented things, but MIPS is a separate company (check out their website) in-and-of itself. They developed the system and then sell the rights to companies. (I haven't found anything to the contrary in the research that I've done) POC, Smith, Scott, Rossignol, Bell, Fox, etc. all have helmets that use MIPS. But these projects are all hypothetical/conceptual anyway, if it were true that Giro held the patent and sold the rights to everyone else, then theoretically this helmet could do the same. Further research into specific patents will definitely be done before it's all said and done. I appreciate the heads up!
    Thanks for the info on MIPS as I have not dug into the market very deeply to be honest. There are a lot of companies that do what they are with allowing others to purchase the right to use agreements. What I have come to find out in dealing with Patents is that there are different types and some are just for the looks/design, some are a functional patent which are probably what most companies/designers run into. They are only good for 20 years period and you can not renew a patient but you can apply for a new patent for a design change if you want.

    I'll be honest I like the way you are going about this and it is difficult at times to get things to work out but I think you're onto a good idea!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MadPainterGrafx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by gsa103 View Post
    As for the chin guard, the challenging part isn't so much the bar design, its the attachment mechanism. A decent bar basically transfers all the force to the attachment point, which needs to not rip out of the helmet or break the bar at that point. Single piece helmets are much easier because there isn't a joint to weaken the structure.
    I agree the mounting mechanism is a very crucial point in the design. I do agree about the single shell design is easier however helmet manufacturers design their full face helmets to break at the point where the face piece transitions to the rest of the helmet if the force is great enough on impact. This area would be about in the same general area that your face piece would attach. This is how motorcycle helmet manufacturers do this to try and prevent broken necks or serious injury. Most of your full face mtb helmets are made by motorcycle helmet manufacturers and for good reasons too. They already have a lot of money and time tied up in the development of the full face helmet designs so they can apply that to the full face helmets in MTB.

  17. #17
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,824
    Hey OP, no offense but your team is all designers. Where are the biomechanical and mechanical engineers?

    Helmets should be designed by engineers first, then made pretty by designers, not the other way around. Otherwise they're just hats.

  18. #18
    Always in the wrong gear
    Reputation: Impetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,458
    very cool ideas.
    I voted for #3 because it's the most realisitc, and the most protective, but quite honestly, I'd be most likely to buy #2 if it existed.
    I and most of my riding group are 'old school' riders that don't focus on the downhill or big air, we've never shuttled or taken a lift a day in our lives, and we don't ride jump lines/parks

    With new (better) suspension and geometry, even on our favorite trails the speeds are increasing frighteningly so, and some increased protection is needed, so the chin-bar is a welcome addition, but I still need my helmet to be wearable for an hour-long climb, thus needs venting and the face protection to not be intrusive. Like my knee pads, it would need to be wearable for the whole 3-4 hour ride. I don't want to have to stop and get dressed for the next section. If #2's chin bar provided even moderate crash protection (think slide protection, not direct face-plant impact) without cominig apart, I'd be in line the day they hit the shelves.
    That said, what I want might be a 'unicorn' helmet, that is mythical and can't exist. I voted for #3, because it's the most feasible and covers a wide range of riders, but my primary concern would be adequate venting for the uphills.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MadPainterGrafx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by ARandomBiker View Post
    If #2's chin bar provided even moderate crash protection (think slide protection, not direct face-plant impact) without cominig apart, I'd be in line the day they hit the shelves.
    The problem is that you have to take all impacts, directional forces, angles, etc into account for the chin bar. I broke a fullface motorcycle offroad racing helmet at the spot I described before where the chin bar meets the main part of the helmet and I didn't face plant or even hit my head that hard I slid more then hitting something. I only guess that as I slid it dug into the ground some or caught on a something that let the force break the chin bar on one side of my helmet. But I didn't land on something or face plant what so ever and it broke which me and my riding buddies thought was really odd because 2 of them saw me crash and we was joking about it. I never bought that brand or any helmet they made for another company again.

  20. #20
    Always in the wrong gear
    Reputation: Impetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,458
    I guess we all have our perceptions as to what is 'acceptable' levels of protection. I admit that my use of the term 'sliding' was ambiguous, I meant sliding/tumbling on shoulders, not on your face. I was also generally thinking of the typical speeds mortal MTBRs travel at. We don't all ride like we're in the Redbull Rampage.

    Many years ago, I ended a ride with a trip to the hospital for 8 stitches in my upper lip after a front tire got hung up on an ill-conceived attempt at erosion management. Basically a large, half-buried rubber mudflap spanning the width of the trail at an angle to divert watershed.
    I was moving at about 10 mph. that would have been nice to have a chin bar.

    Last year I just plain-old "didn't see" a thumb-sized branch at face-height across the trail. took a solid thwack to the jaw that scratched me all up and bruised my whole left jawline. that would have been nice to have a chin bar.

    It might well be that both those scenarios destroyed the helmet, but I'd undoubtedly be in better shape with a chin-bar in place both times.

    Any helmet made for serious impacts at even modest speeds is not something I want on my head while granny-ring grinding a 2K vert. ft singletrack climb.

    As for broken MX helmets. I know all about those. They're the reason I have 4 titanium plates in my skull/right eyesocket instead of being a vegetable, or worse. Bad things happen when an out of control rider tangles with you mid-air over a 70' double.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 58
    Last Post: 03-28-2014, 10:24 PM
  2. Downhill Shoes Feedback (Footwear Design Intern)
    By Zach S. in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 10-13-2013, 12:32 AM
  3. Conti TK "Protection" series ... any feedback on these yet?
    By nord1899 in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-25-2013, 09:09 PM
  4. Troy Lee really the best DH protection for your head?
    By Evan55 in forum Apparel and Protection
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-06-2011, 11:41 AM
  5. A couple concepts - thoughts and comments?
    By DesertDog in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-27-2011, 05:30 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.