Discussion in 'Helmet Discussions' started by Scoosh, 17 Nov 2016.
Let's ask the engineering brain what he thinks of helmets, shall we?
I think market ready and very close to market ready, are potentially a world apart.
Neither you or I know what the designer is planning tondo to make the product market ready, orbhow ling that will take.
What we do know and what you are continuing overlook is that this design has met the criteria set out within the competition brief.
Well enough to win the competition .
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!
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.
Then you are clearly missing the point of the competition.
Which was established all the way back on page 6
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.
Separate names with a comma.