Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums banner

No HUD helmets

5K views 60 replies 17 participants last post by  MileHighScottie 
#1 · (Edited)
Skully has quit. No head's up helmets for us.

All I wanted was to not have to look down to see my GPS. Hitler is disappointed :(

 
#10 ·
At least they didn't waste the money!

·A weekend Lamborghini rental.

·A Dodge Viper.

·A second Dodge Viper, after the first one was in an accident.

·Four motorcycles
·$2,000 on limos in Florida

·$2,000 at a strip club called “De Ja Vu”

·$2,345 on paintings

·A first-class last-minute flight to Hawaii

Biggsy
 
#4 ·
  • Like
Reactions: DriftlessRider
#15 · (Edited)
I think somebody is going to either buy their patent(s), when the time comes, or we'll see another company pop up with real business motives/with real life understandings of how to handle their finances and build a (potentially) cool and useful product.

Edit: I had not seen the jalopnik article. Pretty cool of Fusar and Ruroc to offer up something to the people who are getting screwed over. Sure, it's not what they thought they were paid for, but it's something.
 
#17 ·
I've yet to see any follow up from them....is what I had started to post, but then I realized I hadn't checked their site since Skully's goof.

Apparently, "The new design is physically and technically different than the original concept helmet." I'd like some more detail on this. They claim they are coming, "in the next few weeks."

The pre-order was extended, which is tempting, but I would like to see the changes they've made from the concept. Personally, I love tech stuff and think this (these) could be really cool.
 
#27 ·
The projection onto the shield is a good idea, as there are cars and other things already employing similar technology. The viewer inside of the helmet, however, allows for use with the shield up.

I do wonder if DOT would change their rules, if helmets with internal viewing screens became more commonplace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#34 ·
I do wonder if DOT would change their rules, if helmets with internal viewing screens became more commonplace.
That's a bit of a Catch 22. The internal viewing screens wouldn't be an option to developers until the DOT changed their rules. I really don't see that happening. For myself, I don't want anything in my helmet that might be easily pushed into my eyes or face or skull should I have an accident.
 
#28 ·
Like you guys, I could typically give a rats arse if my helmet is Snell certified. The only reason why I specially got a DOT and Snell Arai this time is because I use the same helmet for Autocross.

Other than convenience for people to interact with their phones or GPS, I don't see how any of these helmets make riders safer. Being able to see you behind you is really not that important. Less than 2% of accidents happen from back there, and can be usually be avoided by checking your mirrors while stopped and leaving enough room to have an escape path.

I think these HUDs are more of a distraction than an aide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#29 ·
I think these HUDs are more of a distraction than an aide.
I tend to agree with this. They are all well and good in fighter jets, but fighter jets don't fly around where there are trees and curbs and all sorts of other vehicles whose pilots have vastly varying levels of interest in safely operating their vehicles. I don't see how having GPS info, or your speed, or a projection of you latest texts in your line of sight is any safer than having a clear field of view and a clear head concentrating solely on the task at hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cuchulainn
#30 ·
And I don't see how having in your line of sight all the time is somehow worse than having to look down/around for it. And we aren't talking about texts. Straw Man argument. A HUD is intended to give you information you need while NOT taking your eyes off of the road.
 
#31 ·
The thing I might find useful in a HUD are warnings like TPMS if there is a sudden drop in air pressure. But even that I think would be a distraction. I ride my bike to see the sites and enjoy the world around me. I don't need to a constant flow of info to obscure that view. Sometimes simpler is better.

It doesn't appeal to me in a car and less so in my helmet


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
#32 ·
Because you can pick your opportunities to look at whatever information you think you need, it's not always virtually in your line of sight potentially blocking or at least partially masking the actual threats which you really need to see.

Also, I don't see how texts are a Straw Man argument. Texting is one of the most used facilities of mobile phones, and as we all know is an all to common distraction of drivers. There's absolutely no reason to think that, giving the opportunity, a certain percentage of riders with the ability to send and receive texts while riding would do so.
 
#35 ·
You're assuming they would have the capability to views texts. And having a small portion of the view partially obscured (you can see right through the display) is better than not seeing it at all as you check speed, tac, mirrors, etc.

You are also assuming that any rider with a HUD will act like an idiot, while any rider without one will always be perfect.
 
#36 ·
What you seem unable, or unwilling to wrap your head around is that I don't HAVE to look at my speed, tach, mirrors, etc all the time. I can pick and chose my opportunities based on the current threat level. When I see a car looking to pull onto the road on which I'm traveling, I'm certainly not going to be checking my gauges before or while I look to see their eyes, and check their wheels to see if they start turning, and I sure as hell do not want to have completely worthless information - at that critical moment - like my engine revs partially obscuring the vital information I need to see.

I only said a certain percentage of riders would distract themselves with texting while riding. That in no way implies "any rider with a HUD will act like an idiot, while any rider without one will always be perfect."

That appears to be very close to reductio ad absurdum. Be careful. Logical fallacies go both ways.
 
#37 ·
Nor do you need to keep looking at the display, that's kind of the point. I don't really care if you don't want one. You're still arguing about a feature that not one unit proposed or on the market has, and harping on that.
 
#40 · (Edited)
It doesn't matter if I'm not looking at it. If you look at the picture from the livemap website, you will see that the display is outside of primary vision, but still well within the area of distinct vision. So, unless you turn the display off, it still has the potential of obscuring vital information.

I'm not harping on it, I'm just countering your argument that no motorcycle rider would use texting if it were available. Do you also believe that no motorcyclists drive drunk?
 
#38 ·
Recognising some folk feel they can watch tv whilst driving a car, I am just now realizing there are motorcyclist who believe bringing other visual stimulation inside their helmets whilst riding amongst cagers is a healthy new tech to experience. Just a personal belief but I don't believe an ordinary bike rider, non fighter pilot, with out years of training to be able to sort and instantly act upon the extra stimulation exists. For those who believe they can I would hope never to ride with you and be the one who finds out you can't.

Texting whilst driving a car is stupid, believing your self capable of reading or writing a text whilst riding is idiotic in the least. IMHO of course.
 
#39 ·
Not on unit proposed or in use allows text reading! That's a Red Herring.

This adds NO information, it simply changes where it is displayed and makes it easier to read it without taking eyes off the road. Please do not call us idiots.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top