Ahem...may I recommend Fortnine's video on smart helmet to shed light on why they aren't a thing.
https://youtu.be/IiACV0Ly4j4?si=Zrg1_5Uhdevy-Lna
Have fun
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2024
128 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
59373 readers
8352 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Tl:dr he has no real point.
He just lists two failed smart helmet startups, then talks about a successful smart helmet that doesn't use a full HUD but uses an LED light bar. The only actual point he makes is that it's hard to make a display that's visible in the sun.
Fair reasoning but I still think Ryan is in the right path.
He is right that shoving a holographic display and the computer bits in the helmet either makes it bulky, heavy, and useless or you'd be paying up the wazoo for what is an engineering exercise.
A simpler interface that solves current problems in my opinion would be much better than trying to make an Ironman helmet.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/IiACV0Ly4j4?si=Zrg1_5Uhdevy-Lna
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
To me a hud would be useful for two things, in this order of importance:
-
A rear view mirror right at the top middle of my field of vision, so I could check what is behind without losing track of my front;
-
A GPS.
Gimme those and I will be throwing money at you faster than my wallet can hold it.
It’s very dangerous to focus your vision four inches in front of your face while driving. It also takes a second to switch from distance vision to being focused so close, which undermines the whole “at a glance” value of a HUD. Race cars have instrument panels pushed as far away from the driver’s face as possible to make the focal length changes inside your eye easier and faster to switch between. A helmet HUD is the extreme opposite of that.
That is not an issue with anything that is supposed to act as a HUD, as they project the image in such a way that it looks to be further away. They have to, because humans are terrible at looking at something that close to their eyes anyway.
Google Glass for example projected it so that the image looked like it was 2.5 meters away from your face.
I'm really curious what the Google Glass concept would be like with modern technology. I feel like the form factor was poisoned from the backlash at the time, but it seems so much more viable than the stupid bulky headsets.
Lensing. BMW HUDs bounce off a few curved mirrors before reflecting off the windshield so some key details appear 30ft in front of the car. Meanwhile, VR goggles have the screen unfocusably close but due to lenses inside, objects can appear any distance away (and it's not just parallax, there's near and far focus)
My Cadillac has a video display as a rear view mirror and it has that issue. With a traditional rear view mirror your focal length doesn't change much, but in my car your focus has to shift to the mirror 2 feet away.
It has upsides though, as passengers or objects in the rear seat don't affect your mirror view.
Whenever I change vehicles it takes a few minutes to readjust.
What if the helmet had a camera that projected it's view along with the hud? You might lose some depth perception but at least you could see the road while looking at the HUD.
Now you’re talking about mix reality VR. Like driving with an Apple Vision Pro on. The technology isn’t good enough for this yet. Maybe someday.
Development costs, lack a research into it, and a lack of companies willing to take on that financial risk for a (mostly) untested market
Not to mention the costs of such a device with any kind of feature set other than just a glorified screen
Undeniably there's been some tech developments that could lead in such a direction but there's still some substantial hurdles to clear first
Like a motorcycle helmet? I'd love one, show my speed, maybe a gps overlay, rearview, etc. That'd be great.
I'm pretty sure there are a couple motorcycle helmets out there with a built in HUD. There are after market ones that you can add to your existing helmet that seem pretty cool to.
There's also the Cross Helmet but I'm super skeptical. Not only are helmets limited-time use, so after a few years it's trash anyway. But that seems like it would be super distracting for something that requires your utmost attention.
If I start seeing racers (or some other riding professional) wear them, I might consider it.
As with all things, it really is a matter of implementation. Putting telemetry data and such in a place where you only have to flick your eyes at it for a second instead of looking down is a good thing.
I mean, maybe? I like the idea. I've been following Cross for a while (that's why I linked it). I want it to work. But this is one case where I don't want to be the early adopter.
That's cool as hell but $500 is about what I'm willing to spend on an entire helmet not just an attachment. I suppose I'll keep dreaming. Thank you for showing me that though.
When was the last time you ever saw a cool new tech product and thought "wow that's actually cheap"
Personally I would expect a product like this without favourable economies of scale to be $500.
Chromecast?
that's because you are the product.
What really gets me about these expensive gadget helmets is that helmets are fundamentally a consumable good. They can only take so many bangs and bumps, so much sweat, so much all that before they start to wear out. The miscellaneous wear and tear on them. Getting dropped on the ground, banged against things, taken apart and washed and put back together. And for most helmets, once the foam wears out, that's it. They no longer are fit to purpose as a helmet and should be replaced.
Back when I rode a motorcycle -- which was commuting to work for the better part of 2 decades -- I always got the most affordable, comfortable DOT-labeled helmet I could find. Any extra gadgets had to be aftermarket addons that could be portable. Because things like headphones, for me, always lasted 2-3 times as long as the helmet.
MAYBE a really high-end helmet has a longer service life. But I am skeptical even a really fancy one worn by a commuter using it near-daily would last more than maybe 4 or 5 years. They're going to have lifetimes like smartphones, for sure. Which means these gadget helms sure do have a high subscription fee to use.
Wouldn’t that make the aftermarket kit much more attractive? Since you could just install it into the new helmet
Control music with my tongue
Everything reminds me of her
I'd rather see a HUD on a car windscreen before I'd want a helmet HUD
Um. Those have existed for years.
- Contrast. You can't use light to make something dark.
- In the HUDs that we do have (Hololens, Google Glass), you typically use something like DLP or waveguides. Both are pretty expensive.
There are fewer barriers with helmets because they are usually tinted.
I'm a fan of anything that keeps eyes more forwards/on the road.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of safety rule about looking at a screen.