Paper Helmet ??

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

Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 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.
     
  2. ufkacbln

    ufkacbln Guest


    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 likes this.
  3. TinyMyNewt

    TinyMyNewt An execrable pun

    Location:
    South coast, UK
    But would it be fine for a chocolate teapot to win a prize?
     
    Pat "5mph" and theclaud like this.
  4. 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
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. TinyMyNewt

    TinyMyNewt An execrable pun

    Location:
    South coast, UK
    And that same Cunobelin has neatly shown why the cardboard hat fails this criterion.
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. ufkacbln

    ufkacbln Guest

    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.
     
    Pat "5mph" likes this.
  9. ufkacbln

    ufkacbln Guest

    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
     
  10. 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.
     
    Yellow Saddle likes this.
  11. glasgowcyclist

    glasgowcyclist Bang on!

    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?
     
    Pat "5mph" and TinyMyNewt like this.
  12. 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.
     
  13. User1252

    User1252 Guest

    There is some fairly bold assumption there.
     
  14. Yellow Saddle

    Yellow Saddle Veteran

    Location:
    Loch side.
    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 19 Nov 2016
  15. 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.
     
    CanucksTraveller likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice