No mention of a built in camera makes this a total non starter for me. If I'm going all in on an AI helmet it better be able to record front and back so my next of kin can get a payout from whatever pavement princess flattened me in the unprotected bike lane.
Its part of a whole prototype system, the cameras would be on the bike, it also mentions radar and all kinds of things. Basically just building a whole sensor suite into a bike platform. Idk how serious they are about it. https://media-centre.canyon.com/en-INT/266864-futuristic-pro...
So I started biking recently and was hunting for helmets.
And turns out Virgina Tech does a bunch of helmet impact testing and maintains a ranking list https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/. The latest helmets have a releasable layer that absorbs (converts rotational energy?) more impact.
This HUD is pretty slick. In a way, it's more preventative (avoiding accidents) vs. reactive (absorbing impact in an accident) safety which sounds nice.
I'm pretty convinced mips is just marketing. Hair will do the same thing. That's why in rock climbing world, petzl hasn't even bothered with it when they're usually very forward thinking about their designs (first company to do side impact testing).
Exactly. Hair and scalp. Evolution already made a MIPS system. The thing lacking it was the test dummies that Virginia Tech uses, so now they recommend we put it in helmets too.
If ruling out risks by a priori is a solution, why wear a helmet at all? Maybe you won't hit your head when you fall. Maybe you'll land in water or on a satin pillow (low friction).
MIPS is great but every layer is a tradeoff with venting. without MIPS the vents allow air onto your scalp. with MIPS you effectively have a plastic shower cap over your head, beneath the EVA foam insulator.
Last I knew, several years ago, Virginia Tech tested for concussion prevention and the layer that 'slips' on impact was called the MIPS layer. (Please correct me if that's changed.)
That is important and useful, and is best used in combination with other testing: Bicycling also has many other and more serious risks to cyclist head, including skull fractures, brain damage, and death.
Consumer Reports is another great source (better one IMHO); in their labs they do empirical testing for other outcomes of ~150 helmets, and provide a comprehensive guide to buying helmets:
In Consumer Reports’ tests, we strap helmets onto “head forms” that simulate the size of a human head, then drop them 14 mph onto a flat anvil to find out how well they withstand impact. An electronic sensor inside the head form monitors the force that would be transmitted to a rider’s skull in an accident.
To ensure the helmet will stay in place during an accident, we test the strength of the chinstraps, attachment points, and buckles by dropping a weight that’s 8¾ pounds and 2 feet so that it yanks on the straps to simulate the force of a crash.
Our testers also evaluate each helmet for ventilation, fit adjustments, ease of use, and other features.
I'm sure I'm just being a crotchety old graybeard but I ride my bikes to get away from this crap. I do use Strava to track my rides on my watch but I don't even look at it until the ride is over.
Kind of surprising this stuff still is little more than a concept. 12 years after google launched and scrapped it's glasses there are still no well established alternatives for cycling, which is such an obvious market. Everyone is wearing glasses, everyone has a computer mounted to their handlebar, let's integrate them together already.
It might make more sense to put this in the glasses than attached to the helmet, which is ultimately a consumable. But I basically agree with sibling comment that no one really wants this. (I race bikes and know a lot of other racers.)
With UCI ruling on bike computer sizes in the name of reducing rider distractions, I bet that HUD glasses would be outlawed with post hast if they became a thing in the pro peloton.
That's a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. This would, at best, be useful for someone doing a time trial. I don't see road racers using it in any other context.
The title is a bit confusing imho, it seems it fits more for time trialing rather than general road riding? I can't see no vents whatsoever, my incredibly sweaty noggin would soak tons of sweat into that thing
I use a Garmin edge bike computer and a Garmin tail light with lidar that shows cars as they come up from behind on you on the computer screen and give audio alert as well.
That works well enough for most road riding. I wonder if having a reverse view mapped onto my glasses would be an improvement or take away from my focus.
So about the lidar: what does that actually do for you? Or I should say, what do you do in response to it? Do you yield more road space if it tells you a car is approaching? I've been trying to understand what good such an alert actually does for an otherwise attentive rider.
As someone who commutes in traffic daily, this is not what I need or want. First up, it looks heavy and badly-ventilated, and then there's the potential for distracting info blocking my view of the actual road in front of me. Even if it was really good info (which would take really good sensors, plus a lot of compute to cram onboard), I am skeptical it'd be better than, you know, paying attention to your surroundings. I like ADAS functionality in modern cars just fine, but it seems like a stretch to try and bring it to bikes. What we all could use is some kind of ad hoc network between all road users, so the car that was thinking about turning in front of me could ping my helmet / bike and understand that it should wait and turn behind me instead.
This really seems like a solution in search of a problem. Maybe it would be useful for pro tour riders, but I would guess it'll be banned as not in the spirit of cycle racing. Recumbents would really change the game in the pro tour for speed but the UCI doesn't allow them for the same reason.
The target market is more likely to be affluent amateurs rather that pros. The pros will typically have a team car or radio for navigation, and aren't as dependent on metrics like power or heart rate for training.
Recumbent bikes might be fun to watch in time trial races but would be ridiculously dangerous in a peloton. Visibility is bad enough on a regular bike when you're at the back of a group, and the lower perspective on a recumbent would make mass crashes even more likely. Yikes.
I didn't see anything in the press release about notifying riders that they're not a quantum superposition of vehicle and pedestrian that can collapse into whatever legal domain they feel is most convenient.
What will protect is taking bicycles off motor vehicle roadways, and laying down new, much narrower bicycle-exclusive roads all over instead. It doesn't make sense to mix the slower and vulnerable bicycle traffic with the faster and safer motor vehicles!
There have been a few attempts at devices like this before such the Everysight Raptor and Garmin Varia Vision but none of them ever found mainstream adoption. In principle a HUD with navigation cues and key cycling metrics would be nice to have. But the devices have always had problems such as poor integration with bike computers or discomfort on long rides or incompatibility with prescription lenses or just looking goofy. Road cyclists aren't necessarily shy about wearing stupid looking kit but there are limits, and this new Canyon helmet looks like you're cosplaying as a stormtrooper.