1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Paper Helmet ??

Discussion in 'Helmet Discussions' started by Scoosh, 17 Nov 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Adrian

    Adrian Heed the elf's wisdom

    You keep banging on about this competition brief but what of it? Have you read the brief? As it says, the brief is broad. At the end of the day, it seems to come down to does James Dyson like the look of it. I am not understanding why you feel this competition aspect is especially relevant here, what we are talking about is what the object is supposed to be offering, and whether or not it is viable in that aim.
    The fact that it fulfilled his brief does not alter the fact that the designer has stated their intention, and is planning on going live next spring. To do that they have to be regarding the current design as the finished article, or close to the finished article. In this context I reckon that the phrase close to carries it's normal meaning, and that isn't potentially a world apart.
    srw and TinyMyNewt like this.
  2. mjr

    mjr Wanting to Keep My EU Citizenship

    I think Dyson probably picked it because he hates cyclists. After all, they use bikes/cycles which are basically English (he prefers the far east), an established design (he prefers new stuff he can patent and withhold from others) and invented by someone else!
  3. srw

    srw It's a bit more complicated than that...

    This is what that brief says:

    "The brief is broad. We’re looking for designers who think differently to create products that work better. Engineers who follow an iterative design process. Rough and ready prototypes. Products that have a significant and practical purpose, are commercially viable, and are designed with sustainability in mind"

    Designers who think differently? No. The idea has been tried many times.
    Products that work better? No. The product doesn't even work, let alone better than the alternative.
    Engineers who follow an iterative design process? That's a definition of an engineer.
    Rough and ready prototypes? Rough, certainly. Not really ready or a prototype - which imples a product that just needs a manufacturing process but is otherwise ready to go. This is more of a concept.
    Products that have a significant and practical purpose? As multiple threads demonstrate that's, at best, debatable.
    Commercially viable? Frankly - no. You'd need to manufacture and distribute so that you can sell for 10p a time to get commercial viability if your business model is an add-on to a £2 bike ride. That's implausible.
    Designed with sustainability in mind? Definitely not. It's a use once, throw away product.
    TinyMyNewt likes this.
  4. Then you are clearly missing the point of the competition.
  5. Adrian

    Adrian Heed the elf's wisdom

    That is because I am not in the slightest bit interested in the competition. The competition is irrelevant. This thread is about the object. To remind you what the OP says
    We are discussing whether or not this item is suitable for its purpose.
    Pat "5mph" and TinyMyNewt like this.
  6. ufkacbln

    ufkacbln Guest

    Which was established all the way back on page 6
  7. Rickshaw Phil

    Rickshaw Phil Overconfidentii Vulgaris Staff Member

    It is now sounding a lot like like a pantomime in here. (Oh no it isn't. Oh yes it is.)

    Since we seem to just be going back and forth over the same ground I think this particular discussion has run its course.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.