I like the idea of this helmet and the direction in which James Dart is going with his inventions. Replacing materials that are traditionally bad for the environment with more sustainable and eco-friendly materials is certainly the way forward for textile design and it's good to see young minds like Dart's thinking like this. Although this helmet may not be ready for commercial mass production yet, it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that this or something similar could be the helmet of choice for people in the not-so-distant future.
I agree with you, Ann, it is a natural fit. Perhaps a bike helmet was a bit ambitious, as there are safety concerns with it that will need a lot of testing and trial and error to ensure it can offer the protection people need. Other products that are less about safety and more about pure sports use (perhaps soccer balls or something like that) might be easier to tackle as initial commercial products.
Yes, for sure, Rob, I totally agree. I think Dart's helmet could really work, but the truth will be in the testing, which he couldn't manage on his own. The backing of a manufacturer will certainly help with this, as you point out, and proof whether this type of helmet is viable for commercial distribution.
I'm curious as well, Chuck! I actually think one problem might be degradation over time. I am not speaking from expertise, but it just seems that bioresin may not be as durable. But that is something that wouldn't be known until these products were out there being used. Perhaps someone who is a materials expert could weigh in on this?
I won't say "it will never work". An engineer should "never" use that word. ;^D
I have raced bikes on and off-road, commuted in city traffic in all weather (try winter in Fargo, ND, was I nuts?). Frankly a non-vented, heavier helmet is a no go. Might be able to do something for the skate park/freestyle crowd.
This is a loooooooooooooooooooong way from viable.
When we are talking safety equipment for myself or my family eco-friendliness will not even get a consideration. The product has to perform.
On the other hand if he wants to put the effort into development and can bring it to the point where it does not compromise safety or function we can talk.
Thanks for your comment, Bunter. I can totally see your point, and I would say that definitely yes, this product will not work as it is now. But maybe with some tweaks in the future, it could be a viable option. And the fact that someone is working with bioresin to replace something that was traditionally made from plastic is a good step forward for the use of more sustainable materials.
Bioplastics are getting stronger all the time, and some are even used in under-hood vehicle applications as we've reported: http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1392&doc_id=243857 But few of them are strong enough to sustain really high impacts, such as for sports equipment like balls or golf club. Golf clubs are one application where carbon fiber, which is an extremely strong material, got its start. Helmets, of course, also have to be impact proof. But there are other types of sports-related equipment that don't have to sustain such high impacts, like shoes: http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1392&doc_id=239645&image_number=2
That's really good to know, Ann. I'll check out your article. So the strength isn't the issue here. It seems like, at least in this first iteration, that the issue is the weight of the helmet. So I guess the trick is to find a way to make it strong without a lot of weight. I'm sure it can be done.
It's also helpful to keep in mind that these university projects are often proof of concept experiments/student learning experiences. I did wonder why a food-related crop was being used, and also why a totally new resin was being investigated, when there are so many already out there, already commercialized in volume. Not every innovative material or process we report on that starts in a lab ends up being used in actual products.
Well that's true, Chuck (and Bunter). No matter what material is used for something, if the thing itself doesn't serve its ultimate purpose then it really doesn't matter. Although in this case, I would disagree a bit and say even if using this material doesn't achieve a workable bike helmet, the exploration of new materials is still valid (if not for the object itself, than for the science of creating the object).
Sometimes I feel that the folks working on sustainable or eco-friendly ideas shoot themselves in the foot at the start by forgetting the end product objective.
Sure, we all wish that everyone shared our concerns and priorities and will flock to our product because of that. That can work with a small volume niche product.
However, if the eco-friendly designer really wants to make an impact (rather than just a "statement") in the areas they feel are important they will need to make a product that delivers excellence in the metrics that are important to the consumer while acheiving their personal enviromental goals. Is that a high bar? Sure, innovation always is. When somebody whines that we "should" be doing something their way for whatever personal reasons they find "morally compelling" it seems to be a signal flag saying "my product can't cut it on it's merits". My opinion anyway. Rant mode off. ;^D
These are good points, Dennis, thanks for bringing them up. I can see both sides of this issue and think experimentation with sustainable and eco-friendly materials, even if the finished product doesn't meet design standards already set for products, is a good thing. But I also see how it would probably do more for the mission of eco-friendly materials if the products invented were viable for commercial use in the end.
Was on vacation last week so I missed your comment.
Looks like our views are not that far apart on this. In any group the their are unrealistic zealots that do their pet cause more harm than good. Mr. Dart's comments clearly indicate that he is not one of the "problem children".
Hello all, thank you for your comments. I agree strongly that this is not yet a viable product. The aim of my investigation was to take a fascinating new material, try to understand it and really demonstrate that with the power of making, it can be put to good use. The Dragonkraft material is the star here
My course was a Bachelors in 3D Design, there was a large emphasis on Craft and making. Unfortunately this was not a sole preoccupation, and as has been correctly suggested, full and proper testing is where this project reaches it's limitations.
I feel that what I have achieved over a few short months was to help to move a material forward in a new direction. In doing so, I have the seeds of a concept that is not unfeasible. In fact, while attending the JEC International Composites show in Paris this year, it was the material possibilities that captured some imagination and interest.
Furthermore, I have gathered interest from a leading European helmet manufacturer. I will be continuing the process of research and development from here in Switzerland. It is thanks to people like you who do take notice and help to push this along [and further away from a simple, or unproven, design showpiece]. It is very important that people continue to cut through the eco BS and say 'yes this has a future' or 'this lacks in some capacity'
Please do leave more of your thoughts and feedback. Thank you
Thanks for weighing in, James. It's good to hear from the inventor about his work directly. This is the best way to foster a live discussion about this type of work and research and ultimately achieve the goals of what you're trying to do. Good luck with your future and keep us informed of other projects.
Last year at Hannover Fair, lots of people were talking about Industry 4.0. This is a concept that seems to have a different name in every region. I’ve been referring to it as the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), not to be confused with the plain old Internet of Things (IoT). Others refer to it as the Connected Industry, the smart factory concept, M2M, data extraction, and so on.
Some of the biggest self-assembled building blocks and structures made from engineered DNA have been developed by researchers at Harvard's Wyss Institute. The largest, a hexagonal prism, is one-tenth the size of an average bacterium.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.