Can you design a better helmet

[eddiekay]

When I started out a rock hard brittle open face was the ultimate, with cool aviator goggles from the surplus store.
Correct me if i'm wrong but I cant remember any helmets being offered that were really much different than what I had 50 years ago. Padding and plastic aside, how would you improve a helmet and why would your tweeks be a good idea. As I recall...the MX guys were the only ones to change the structure.

[Singh2jz]

I think the ice chest+padding can only go so far with improvements, but has been the standard for impact protection. Air bags on a helmet? An ejecto seato type of concoction with a parachute would be crazy.

[adouglas]

Technology that works doesn't need to be changed.

Take a look at seat belts. They've been around for decades, and the now-universal inertia-reel three-point design first showed up around 1970 or thereabouts.

Race drivers still use harnesses that are effectively identical to those used in the late 1960s.

What does change is materials. We now have multiple-density EPS liners that can be shaped to create crush zones (your old helmet didn't have that). We also have lighter materials, which reduce both fatigue and inertia while being stronger.

So as far as the helmet itself-- not sure a whole lot can be done on the design front without big tradeoffs. The idea is to reduce deceleration of your cranium over a short distance. You could make a ginormous helmet that would reduce those deceleration forces dramatically, but it would be useless.

The current tech that I see becoming more common is airbags. MotoGP already has them, there are clunky aftermarket vests (effectively the same thing as an airline life vest) for us mere mortals, and one of the major apparel makers is about to introduce a very cool airbag jacket.

So why not a helmet airbag? A shaped collar that would immobilize your head/neck, and maybe even protect your clavicle (a common break for motorcyclists). Think HANS device.

This already exists, of course, in the form of the Leatt neck brace. But that sucker costs about $500.

[Ralgha]

Originally Posted by Singh2jz

An ejecto seato type of concoction with a parachute would be crazy.

I want. As soon as deformation is detected (like the front wheel being pushed back into the bike by a hard object), the rider is ejected straight up and the parachute lets him/her down easy, genius!

[Ghostt]

This guy did already, I just want J.A.R.V.I.S.

[eddiekay]

Agreed on all points.
So if the mechanical properties of a helmet are perfect what other things might be improved......does it call 911, does it change shape, does it beep when you';re going too fast, or above the limit. I mean...I read about this armor that's pliable but solidifies instantly when it get hot from sliding along the road.
I mean....safety gear is mostly reactive...it's made to do something good after you've done something bad. What might a helmet do to prevent you from doing something bad?
I dunno...ice on the road, driveway not clear...I gotta do something with my sunday afternoon

[Ghostt]

I'm looking forward to the SMART HELMET. There's a number of them in development, so it's just a matter of time, and given more time the price points should be more affordable for the common person.

I love the 21st century

[Brother Michigan]

Originally Posted by Ghostt

I'm looking forward to the SMART HELMET. There's a number of them in development, so it's just a matter of time, and given more time the price points should be more affordable for the common person.

I love the 21st century

I'm kind of looking forward to these, too. I'd love a helmet with a HUD that ties into my cell phone to show GPS, etc. Of course, that does mean one more thing I'd need to charge...

[MrAtom]

http://www.6dhelmets.com/

[Ninja Rob]

Originally Posted by Ghostt

I'm looking forward to the SMART HELMET. There's a number of them in development, so it's just a matter of time, and given more time the price points should be more affordable for the common person.

I love the 21st century

Doesnt mention if its DOT approved buy its along the lines of SMART helmet. Article is a year old though.

http://www.cnet.com/videos/skully-mo...-of-your-head/

Post up the video if you can. I don't know how to yet.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by Ninja Rob

Doesnt mention if its DOT approved buy its along the lines of SMART helmet. Article is a year old though.

http://www.cnet.com/videos/skully-mo...-of-your-head/

Post up the video if you can. I don't know how to yet.

https://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=170037

not the same vid but is the same helmet

Link to original page on YouTube.

[alex.s]

they have helmets and suits with airbags in them now.

[eddiekay]

they have helmets and suits with airbags in them now......where to see pic, description ??

[eddiekay]

alex....that APC product ????

[Motofool]

Originally Posted by eddiekay

Agreed on all points.
So if the mechanical properties of a helmet are perfect what other things might be improved......does it call 911, does it change shape, does it beep when you';re going too fast, or above the limit. ...........
I mean....safety gear is mostly reactive...it's made to do something good after you've done something bad. What might a helmet do to prevent you from doing something bad? ..........

The organs that,within its limitations, the helmet is supposed to protect (brains, eyes, ears) are capable of doing all that (except calling 911) if we only let them focus on the task at hand.

Helmets are only good for a fall at moderate speed.
Even the best helmet will not save your life in a collision at relatively high speed.

Link to original page on YouTube.

Affordable neck bracing, inflatable or not, should be the next natural step in protection of the weakest link between thorax and head: the cervical spine.

With specific direction of forces, it takes less energy to compress, flex, rotate and shear the neck than to damage the brain.

Hence, an easy to use, practical and affordable neck protector will be the helmet's complement and its best improvement, IMHO.

Link to original page on YouTube.

[adouglas]

So the 6D helmet, which I'm sure you're aware of, is interesting.

http://www.6dhelmets.com

Instead of thick EPS it uses little elastomer (rubber, for you old-school geezers) bobbins, that suspend an inner EPS liner from an outer hard shell. The EPS is thinner than we're used to, so the outer shell remains the same size.

Link to original page on YouTube.

They were just awarded a patent on the technology.

What makes this interesting isn't that it absorbs energy any more effectively (although it might), but that it allows the helmet to do something a conventional one cannot. Namely, the shell can move laterally relative to the liner, in any direction.

So an impact that applies a twisting force to your neck (like having your face slide along the pavement) will transmit less of that force to your spine. The outer helmet will rotate but the inner one won't (as much).

Link to original page on YouTube.

As of right now, they only have a motocross and MX bike helmet. Will be interesting to see what they come up with for the rest of us... and also interesting to see what happens when SNELL, ECE and SHARP get their hands on it.

[corksil]

I have been through this in my mind several times.

The main weak point in my opinion is that a helmet obscures the senses.

The easiest way to solve a problem is to be proactive and avoid the situation in which the problem arises before the problem occurs.

Obstruction of the senses is the weakest link in protecting a rider. If you cannot hear a car pulling out rapidly to "shoot a gap" -- if you cannot see a car crossing your path of travel due to glare of the sun -- if you cannot smell the oil leaking off of the vehicle ahead of you in traffic, you cannot avoid the potential situation in which the problem may arise.

Augmenting the senses would be the logical key to improving a rider's awareness of the environment -- therefore enabling them to avoid a situation in which the problem (head impact) arises.

I don't know how science-fiction we are looking to get in this thread --- but hear me out.

For years, military special forces have been using "smart" hearing protection. Consumer available technology manifests this in "smart" hearing protection commonly found at a firing range. Microprocessor controlled microphones which "allow" sounds determined to be "safe" -- such as voice communication, to pass through the hearing protection and to the human ear -- yet "dangerous" sounds -- those which are above the "safe" threshold in terms of hearing damage -- are blocked out and never reach the eardrum where damage can take place due to the high sound-pressure level.

Back to the high tech special forces military contractor type stuff... Hearing "protection" which blocks the sound of artillery fire, yet AMPLIFIES incoming sounds with directional microphones that help the end-user to determine the direction of incoming fire.

In a nutshell -- The sound of incoming fire is amplified to some degree along with triangulation which helps the end-user determine which direction it is coming from, yet on the other hand -- the sound of "return fire" is masked and almost non-existent.

Imagine if the same tech could be applied to all senses in the spirit of augmentation. Super-human vision, super-human hearing, super-human smell -- not much could be gained from augmenting the other of our "five" senses (touch/taste) -- but an increase in situational awareness could be attained by simply improving the "see/hear/smell" components.

Increase situational awareness, decrease the probability of crash. It's not rocket surgery.

[corksil]

As a species, we keep trying to build machines that can be controlled -- robots that think for themselves. Mechanical ingenuity that can be put to use.

Turning machines into people.

Maybe it is more important to concern ourselves with turning people more-so into machines.

Humans are input/output machines. Not unlike calculators. Once people can be taught to manage "fear" and the unconscious reactions associated with it, all that remains is the input level. A calculator cannot think for itself -- all it can do is interpret the data that it is given.

I like to try and have hope for humanity in saying that people "can" think for themselves, so by improving the data of which they have access to, one can improve the potential upon which they can react correctly and accurately.

IF you give a computer a complex equation, it will solve it if a discernible answer exists.

IF you give a computer a complex yet unsolvable equation, it will eventually come to the conclusion that no solution exists.

IF you give a human a complex equation, it will react based on instinct and previous experience with similar situations, and come up with the best possible answer in the time given to solve the problem.

IF you give a human a complex yet unsolvable equation, it will still try as hard as it is able to find a way to beat the odds and survive.

Machines cannot think for themselves -- in this case, the helmet is the machine. The most sophisticated helmets in the world will eventually throw in the towel and deploy airbags declaring "****'s ****ed, plan B.. PLAN B!!!" -- but the human element will continue to exist -- which is why the brain is still incased in the machine.

We as a species will continue to attempt to find a way to deny our own mortality -- and in doing so, we are trying to do that from a mechanical perspective --- I propose a shift in thinking. Instead of building machines that make our lives safer to take up the slack for our mental imperfections, we should more-so focus on closely mimicing the tried and tested machines that have kept us alive for so long.

Augment the senses.

There are two ways to solve any problem. The obvious, or the unexpected.

[liberpolly]

Interesting solution would be helmet that inflates into a big cubic airbag surrounding the rider when separated from the bike at speed. Perhaps with anchor, to avoid rolling down on the incline. This would make all other gear obsolete.

And I like this^ sound enhancing idea. Add a radar to the helmet, and make it convert positions of the cars around into a surround sound, so you hear cars crystal clear and at exact position.

A man can dream...

[Redgeneral]

One of the parts of the helmet that allows the most movement (and room for error) is the neck opening.

Saw this a while ago: http://voztec.com/

Not too sure how far they've come along send then. But it seems like a pretty good idea.

[FreelancerMG]

Originally Posted by corksil

As a species, we keep trying to build machines that can be controlled -- robots that think for themselves. Mechanical ingenuity that can be put to use.

Turning machines into people.

Maybe it is more important to concern ourselves with turning people more-so into machines.

Humans are input/output machines. Not unlike calculators. Once people can be taught to manage "fear" and the unconscious reactions associated with it, all that remains is the input level. A calculator cannot think for itself -- all it can do is interpret the data that it is given.

I like to try and have hope for humanity in saying that people "can" think for themselves, so by improving the data of which they have access to, one can improve the potential upon which they can react correctly and accurately.

IF you give a computer a complex equation, it will solve it if a discernible answer exists.

IF you give a computer a complex yet unsolvable equation, it will eventually come to the conclusion that no solution exists.

IF you give a human a complex equation, it will react based on instinct and previous experience with similar situations, and come up with the best possible answer in the time given to solve the problem.

IF you give a human a complex yet unsolvable equation, it will still try as hard as it is able to find a way to beat the odds and survive.

Machines cannot think for themselves -- in this case, the helmet is the machine. The most sophisticated helmets in the world will eventually throw in the towel and deploy airbags declaring "****'s ****ed, plan B.. PLAN B!!!" -- but the human element will continue to exist -- which is why the brain is still incased in the machine.

We as a species will continue to attempt to find a way to deny our own mortality -- and in doing so, we are trying to do that from a mechanical perspective --- I propose a shift in thinking. Instead of building machines that make our lives safer to take up the slack for our mental imperfections, we should more-so focus on closely mimicing the tried and tested machines that have kept us alive for so long.

Augment the senses.

There are two ways to solve any problem. The obvious, or the unexpected.

There are a few huge limitations in this premise that sinks the ship before it floats. First, noise filtering and enhancing tech is very limited and doesn't work for differentiating sounds that overlap with sound waves that it's designed to cancel. Having a car that's a little further away than another but has a louder exhaust or engine, may find itself either being blocked or depicted much closer than it actually is, creating confusion to it's true position until you use another sense (usually vision,) to ascertain it's true position. When you use active audio filter technology, you lose a lot of potential audio cues which all help to paint the big picture. It works fine on a battlefield where you can see the loud source of out going fire and where sources of the exact same type don't have drastically different sound profiles. They have had issues with this tech in the battlefield though with near ambushes. Where the enemy engages so close, the audio processor thinks it's outgoing friendly fire from someone in the fire team and greatly suppresses the gunfire you really need to be hearing at that moment. In a CQB environment where the window just above your position or a rooftop just above your head can end up having someone trying to ambush you, your hearing tech has now become a liability. They're still trying to tune this tech a bit.

Your other issue comes as a limitation of the brain itself. The brain is designed to handle sensory inputs to a certain degree. Anything beyond that cutoff point and the brain has to work harder to "fill in the gaps." One of the most common problems with enhanced sensory tech so far has been hitting that brain limiter in sensory processing relatively early. You quickly get mental approximations that quickly degrade in accuracy with a side effect of a huge mental effort to maintain focus to process the information. This can lead to confusion, nausea, vertigo, temporary impairment/loss of cognitive functions and even loss of consciousness. Sensory overload is the biggest limitation for such a technology to be implemented on our motorways. Trying to add this tech to helmets would just end up overwhelming riders and pulling focus from the task at hand in order to process the extra artificial sensory input that helmet would be feeding the rider.

While it's a fun Sci-fi dream, it's practical applications thus far are limited in deployment.

[corksil]

Okay fine. Pick apart my idea instead of coming up with your own. Welcome to the internet.

If you're going to stick around this forum for longer than 36 posts, please try to be more friendly and supportive of the other members on this forum.

Does anyone remember that old video game... "Halo?" --- The original one... It was a first-person-shooter and in the bottom right corner of the screen was a motion tracker. Anything within a certain radius that was moving became a red dot. When stationary, it disappeared. Anything that was considered "friendly" was a yellow dot. The size of the dot depicted the size of the moving object.

A motion tracker built into a helmet would be a nice feature.

[Roark]

Originally Posted by Ralgha

I want. As soon as deformation is detected (like the front wheel being pushed back into the bike by a hard object), the rider is ejected straight up and the parachute lets him/her down easy, genius!

unless you're in a tunnel or underneath a light.. Then the ejector seat would serve as the cannon o death

[Roark]

Originally Posted by corksil

Okay fine. Pick apart my idea instead of coming up with your own. Welcome to the internet.

If you're going to stick around this forum for longer than 36 posts, please try to be more friendly and supportive of the other members on this forum.

Does anyone remember that old video game... "Halo?" --- The original one... It was a first-person-shooter and in the bottom right corner of the screen was a motion tracker. Anything within a certain radius that was moving became a red dot. When stationary, it disappeared. Anything that was considered "friendly" was a yellow dot. The size of the dot depicted the size of the moving object.

A motion tracker built into a helmet would be a nice feature.

Not sure folks would take kindly to tracking devices on their vehicles..lol Something like a radio signal that transmits to and from vehicle would be cool. A vehicle moving past a motorcycle emits a signal transmitted into the helmet of the rider, emitting a beep to alert for proper avoidance. And vice versa

It could serve as a stepping stone to the "Halo" idea

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by Roark

Not sure folks would take kindly to tracking devices on their vehicles..

You mean, like GPS-equipped smart phones?

Face it. At this point, if someone wants to track you, you're being tracked.

And your personal info has been compromised. That's the working assumption in today's world.

[FreelancerMG]

Originally Posted by corksil

Okay fine. Pick apart my idea instead of coming up with your own. Welcome to the internet.

If you're going to stick around this forum for longer than 36 posts, please try to be more friendly and supportive of the other members on this forum.

Does anyone remember that old video game... "Halo?" --- The original one... It was a first-person-shooter and in the bottom right corner of the screen was a motion tracker. Anything within a certain radius that was moving became a red dot. When stationary, it disappeared. Anything that was considered "friendly" was a yellow dot. The size of the dot depicted the size of the moving object.

A motion tracker built into a helmet would be a nice feature.

Whoa whoa there, I wasn't intending that post as some ill-spirited low blow at your expense. I typed it out with the intention of the post being of the nearly insurmountable barriers against such tech and why it hasn't really been aggressively tackled. I felt my response was good natured, constructive and informative criticism based on my own observation and opinion. I do believe that any idea should be feasible to some extent and keep in mind some hard boundaries like physical limitations of the user and basic laws and theories of physics and the like. Thinking up something that only a super human or modified/altered human can accomplish with said helmet isn't viable for the rest of us. I took the spirit of the OPs post to be a semi-realistic approach to improve a helmet beyond the base functions of what we have now.

I also don't know why post count should have any relevance to what I have to say. What anyone says should meet the same level of scrutiny and standards at post 1 as at post 10,000. Now if what you're saying is that because I'm "new" and I need to know that the etiquette around these forums is that a newer poster can't disagree with a poster who has been around longer quantified by "post count" then I never got that memo or seen it listed in the ToA. If that's the case and the mods agree, then maybe I wont get much further along?

----------------------------------------------------------

To respond in kind to the OPs inquiry, I believe that if we're going to go along the route of incorporating computer tech with helmets, I think we're pretty close to some interesting developments that I see a lot of the current tech coming out is very close to achieving.

First would be an efficiency based overlay of a route for track riding. Seeing that the new R1 has the ability to integrate a computer that gives computational data from the ECU and sensors and overlay them onto a GPS derived course to give riding data that will let the riders focus and adjust for maximum efficiency. This tech has actually been around for quite a while and used exclusively by racing teams during tests and practice to tune the machine and rider for racing and is now available to the common man as an OEM option. Awesome.

I believe using a HUD interface that uses the visor as the screen, having a computer wirelessly connected to the ECU and sensor suite along with a built in camera loaded with spatial mapping software. After a couple of configuration runs on a course, the computer can compute nearly every inch of the course and give the rider the perfect line as well as entry speed and braking points in real time on the course. It would be like the overlay you see in racing games but for the track and given in real time. it could also tell you if the turn is decreasing radius, small changes in in altitude or pitch. A simplified overlay interface like what you see in games with a couple extra markers would also help prevent the aspiring racer from getting overwhelmed by input from the overlay. You could also customize the output to more or less data "integrated" with the overlay. For example the fully integrated function of the overlay would be a color coded pathway with an X to mark the begging braking point. The colors would change as you meet he proper speed and braking pressure. For a more complex overlay, you could set the program to pull the speed function out of the overlay to give you a numerical output of speed or a numerical indication of the degree of turn or change in pitch and elevation of the road. Combined with input from the ECU and sensors throughout the bike with environmental sensors as well, it could be a powerful tool to help racers easily inch up their performance by giving them a much easier to understand graphical output that can potentially be proactive instead of just purely reactive.

For general road use, a camera/hud system as suggested above but would just instead be used to calculate and warn riders of people suddenly slamming on the brakes and the like. It would measure and look for rapid deceleration and then paint a red silhouette around the vehicle that is decelerating at a very high rate. As it stands now, you only know when someone hits the brakes but you don't know how hard until you get the visual cues and process them and react. A computer with the right software and algorithms can do the calculations and detection much quicker and flag that vehicle before your mind can process the information.

Another nifty feature could be to add in the ability for the computer to describe and layout the type of turn that's ahead by using the camera. There is a way to tell visually with high relative accuracy on the type of turn and having a computer that can do it and then relay it would be a nice feature to have when you're out and about on unfamiliar roads and may miss the visual cues that can help depict what type of turn you're facing ahead.

These are just some of my fantastical ideas which seem to kinda already be trickling in a bit in some way or other and I feel that they could be potential technologies in the near future with what I see as developing through. Sorry about the long post and all.

[Roark]

Originally Posted by adouglas

You mean, like GPS-equipped smart phones?

Face it. At this point, if someone wants to track you, you're being tracked.

And your personal info has been compromised. That's the working assumption in today's world.

Let me rephrase that. People wouldn't take kindly to KNOWING there are tracking devices on their cars. Haha

[liberpolly]

Originally Posted by Roark

Not sure folks would take kindly to tracking devices on their vehicles..lol Something like a radio signal that transmits to and from vehicle would be cool. A vehicle moving past a motorcycle emits a signal transmitted into the helmet of the rider, emitting a beep to alert for proper avoidance. And vice versa

It could serve as a stepping stone to the "Halo" idea

It doesn't have to track *who* you are, just that somebody is there, within few hundred feet.

We may just end up with a personal drone flying over every motorcyclist and showing the bird eye view.

[Ninjinsky]

I think Corksil is right about the sensory deprivation problem.
The eye opening should enable you to move your eyes full circle without running into the helmet body as a blinker necessitating more neck articulation for the same view angle.
The sound damping of helmets is also a problem because the joy of hearing is that it is omnidirectional. Even if you fitted phones/ speakers to bring sound in it would only be stereo. I am sure an ear opening grille of an inch or so is engineerable without loss of strength. You could then use musicians earplugs which attenuate without muffling sound. I use these with the guitar, they are not expensive or complex.
It would be great to ride with sight and sound senses fresh in the environment but the safety shell still there

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by Ninjinsky

I think Corksil is right about the sensory deprivation problem.
The eye opening should enable you to move your eyes full circle without running into the helmet body as a blinker necessitating more neck articulation for the same view angle.
The sound damping of helmets is also a problem because the joy of hearing is that it is omnidirectional. Even if you fitted phones/ speakers to bring sound in it would only be stereo. I am sure an ear opening grille of an inch or so is engineerable without loss of strength. You could then use musicians earplugs which attenuate without muffling sound. I use these with the guitar, they are not expensive or complex.
It would be great to ride with sight and sound senses fresh in the environment but the safety shell still there

If you have left and right microphones out side of your in helmet speakers it would work. The difference in time and decibels between the ears is how the brain gets direction. Depth presentation is just stereoscopic eyes. The eyesight system on my Subaru works the same way. Why would it not work with sound?

[adouglas]

The Schuberth SR1 race helmet has grilles exactly as you describe.

[csmith12]

Originally Posted by Roark

Let me rephrase that. People wouldn't take kindly to KNOWING there are tracking devices on their cars. Haha

Think in reverse, no need to put anything on other vehicles. The popo points a laser at you and instantly knows your speed. A 360 laser on top/integrated into your lid could put a map of line of sight objects on a HUD. Sound waves could do the same thing, like sonar.

[Ninjinsky]

Originally Posted by allanoue

If you have left and right microphones out side of your in helmet speakers it would work. The difference in time and decibels between the ears is how the brain gets direction. Depth presentation is just stereoscopic eyes. The eyesight system on my Subaru works the same way. Why would it not work with sound?

With stereo you only get left and right not front and rear. A quadrophonic system would do it I think
I think I read once that it is the shape of the shell of your ear that creates some subtle phasing difference between front and rear sound to give you full directionality.

[liberpolly]

Originally Posted by csmith12

Think in reverse, no need to put anything on other vehicles. The popo points a laser at you and instantly knows your speed. A 360 laser on top/integrated into your lid could put a map of line of sight objects on a HUD. Sound waves could do the same thing, like sonar.

lasers are directional, so it'll need to rotate quickly.

a better option would be to detect position of cellphones in the cars around, which can be done quite reliably. but what to do about few remaining drivers without cell phones?

[corksil]

Take it for what it's worth..

Anti-theft systems for products sold in store work like so as per my understanding. There are stanchions on either sides of the entrance, exits -- and merchandise is tagged with..



The stanchions on either side of building entrances -- emit a specific high frequency radio signal, imperceivable to the human spectrum of hearing. When the tags get within range, they begin to oscillate in reaction to the radio frequency, which happens most violently as they pass between the stanchions -- which in turn causes them to generate their own radio frequency, which the stanchions pick up and then sound an alarm.

My further understanding is that when merchandise is checked out at a register, it passes by a magnet with a certain degree of strength that renders the magnetic field around the tiny tag as null [for lack of a better word] -- that is why the merchandise that is paid for has it's tag disabled therefore no alarm sound when exiting the store.

Anyone who has taken apart a power tool in the past 10 years has probably found a tag INSIDE the tool. The technology is so commonplace that manufacturers build the tags right into their merchandise during production.

Perhaps a variation of this could be used as a proximity collision alarm for a motorcycle. If you add triangulation to the mix, a rudimentary motion tracker could be made cheaply with existing technology.





You know it has been said for good reason that there is more technology in the cellphone in your pocket than there was in the first space shuttle which made it to the moon.

It'd be a simple project for the right person -- all one has to do is connect the dots and piece it together.

Let's add a bone conduction microphone to the helmet while we are at it. For the unaware, it's a vibration sensor placed at the base of the jaw bone, which picks up the vibration of the vocal chords through the lower mandible (even a whisper) -- and then converts the vibration signal into sound. The main advantage to this tech is that it works in environments with any amount of background noise.

Picture this. Having a perfectly clear conversation with your wife or child -- speaking at normal conversation level, meanwhile operating a 50cal machine gun or running an electric jackhammer.

For the curious, I found these interesting.

Military contracting, people. This tech already exists and that is where it can be found and adapted for our use.

www.teaheadsets.com

Also google "dash headset" ---- I'm not sure if they have been released yet but those mofcukers were claiming a sensor capable of detecting blood oxygen content in realtime -- and they do 500 other things and still fit wirelessly -- inside the ear canal, flush enough with the cranium that a helmet could be worn over them.

By the way -- those RF tags can be disabled with a magnet carried in your pocket. You can also stop an alarm from sounding if you pinch them tightly right in the middle as you near the entrance/exit stanchions which look like this and I am sure you have seen them before...

[b.miller123]

Cars already have blind spot monitors, no need to put something in the other vehicles or even realize that they are vehicles. Other than packaging concerns, I see no reason why it couldn't be on a bike. No need to put it on a helmet.

We don't need "smart helmets". All of the stuff about having gps and maps and cell phones and music players in our helmets is stupidity at it's finest. Concentrate on the road in front of you and cut out the distractions. You already have to worry about everyone else having a screen in front of their face, now you want one in yours? Put away the gadgets and pay attention to what you are doing.


All of the "sense enhancing" stuff sounds great, but I don't think it adds much in the way of safety. Assuming your head is facing forward, you can see anything that you are going to hit. Anything outside of *most* helmet viewing areas is 99.99% useless information while in motion. The only exception might be the rear-view stuff, but anything that you are going to "see" with the current camera/blind spot tech isn't going to be much other than a novelty since you can see all the same stuff with your standard mirrors.

Hearing? I've been riding for a long time now and I've never had an issue with hearing, and I've never had a close call where I thought "man, if only I was able to hear that car coming". Wear earplugs, protect what hearing you have. I actually think it is much easier to hear with them on.

Smell? I don't need to smell the oil dripping from the car in front of me.

You also have to consider that adding all this stuff to a helmet adds weight. Heavy helmets suck and will fatigue you faster than light ones, which will likely outweigh any benefit gained by being able to hear better and everything.

[corksil]

All of this man's points are valid.

[Roark]

Originally Posted by liberpolly

It doesn't have to track *who* you are, just that somebody is there, within few hundred feet.

We may just end up with a personal drone flying over every motorcyclist and showing the bird eye view.

Instead of a personal drone flying above us, we are all flying IN our personal drones. Get rid of the motorcycle, and no motorcycle crashes happen

[adouglas]

Originally Posted by corksil

emit a specific high frequency radio signal, imperceivable to the human spectrum of hearing.

You're..... kidding, right?

[corksil]

Hey, spock is dead. Anything can happen now in this world.

It has been a commonly known statistic that the human ear can perceive sounds as high as 22khz, and as low as 20hz.

Me personally; I can hear the dogs whistling. It defies known scientific fact.

As far as seeing infrared light emanated in the UV spectrum -- strange things happen as light passes through the cornea. Infrared light is theoretically imperceivable to the human eye.

We are all just trained apes. Who trained you?

If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room.

And I think that there comes a point in time in which we find ourselves playing hackey-sack with a bone. Before too long, someone is going to pick that bone up and start nibbling on it once everyone else has wandered off to find a better meal.