DEVELOPMENT & VALIDATION
TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT METHODS
Embedded Files
Before developing and fabricating our beta prototype, we conducted a number of technical analyses to understand how we could best iterate on our alpha prototype and develop a solution that resolved our key concept objectives, attributes, and design drivers. In addition to these factors used to inform our development, we also explored key considerations around variability to understand what additional use cases and tolerances we should be accounting for and conducted a conjoint analysis to evaluate how user preferences would also factor into engineering and business decisions.
Therefore, in this section, you'll find our considerations and detailed processes for:
Testing of Design Drivers
Designing for Variability
Empirical Testing
TESTING OF DESIGN DRIVERS
Because our design objective is to make bike helmets more conveniently accessible for bike riders, mainly by giving riders the affordance and sense of security to keep their helmet consistently with their bike, we defined a number of key design drivers related to the product's ability to stay fixed to the bike, its reliability in being able to keep the helmet secure, and its overall implementation to provide efficient ease of use to the end consumer. A summary table of our prioritized design drivers can be found below:
To provide further details on each design driver, we've broken down the methods we used to specifically test each design driver to ensure our product can meet our ideal functional specificiations.
ATTACHABILITY
For attachability, we needed to ensure our product had the material and measurement specifications that would allow it to attach to the center bike frame, also known as the top tube, with ease. In our alpha prototype, our original solution to this was bolting the base of our product onto the frame, but after gathering additional user feedback on the difficulty of this task, we instead focused on developing a different mechanism that could be easier to adjust and self-install.
To do this, we took the average circumference across multiple bike frames of different shapes and sizes and conducted research on the maximum weight bikes could hold as a proxy to understand the size and weight parameters of our attachment mechanism. While all bike frames are made of a standard steel material, they all take a different shape - some being cylindrical, some oblong, and some triangular. By conducting empirical testing on bikes we found, we identified that regardless of tube shape, grips that had contact with the highest and lowest points of the tube allowed optimized attachability, which was an average width of 33 mm. To further insulate gaps around the tube to prevent loose movement or damage to the steel frame, we also used empirical testing to determine which materials would protect the frame while also creating enough friction to hold our product in place.
RELIABLE HOLD
For reliable hold, we used empirical testing to investigate which components, materials, and mechanism would best grip the helmet in place to keep it stationary once installed on the bike. In addition to taking measurement of bike helmet sizes, we iteratively tested multiple methods for securing the helmet onto a base plate and conducted user testing to see if people were able to effortlessly remove the helmet from its position or remove the holding mechanism from its position - where failure on both tests would indicate that our solution would not be able to securely hold a helmet in a stationary position. We repeated this test turning the base plate for where the helmet would rest at different angles to account for differences in elevation, incline, and positioning on a bike when a rider is on their bicycle. We also considered whether or not the material and mechanism being used would damage the helmet.
While our alpha prototype focused on holding the helmet from its interior, we found through testing that this method increased the risk of damaging the inside of the helmet which consequently introduced an additional financial or safety cost to the user. Therefore, we focused a majority of our testing on ways to reliably hold the helmet from its exterior.
ADAPTABILITY
For adaptability, we conducted research to find the range of sizes and average sizes for both the inside and outer side of bike helmets. Recognizing that many helmets also have varying shapes, specifically different curvatures, we were able to use empirical testing to determine the need for a semi-flexible material to be used in order to ensure our product can accommodate a large array of different helmet types. This involved us conducing tests not only using different material components but also applying these experiments on different helmet shapes and sizes which we sourced from bike riders that we worked with.
SECURITY
For security, we wanted to ensure out product could secure the helmet to bikes in a way that would make sure it was unsusceptible to theft and was in line with existing security measures used on bikes today. Testing this involved further empirical studies of materials to understand which solutions were durable enough to withstand common theft tools and secondary research to understand existing lock types that were most suitable for the contexts of bike security. Materials and lock types that were proven to be easily broken, hacked, or removed with limited effort were depriortized in our development.
EASE OF USE
For ease of use, we aimed to design our product in a way that made it easy and convenient to operate, comparable to existing and alternative solutions currently used by bike riders. To do this, we conducted observational studies to time the average duration it took for bicyclists to lock up their bike helmets and used this as a benchmark for testing the time it took to use our solution. During this testing method, we deprioritized attachment and securing mechanisms that took the user much longer than average compared to our benchmark time of 10 seconds.
DESIGN FOR VARIABILITY
Recognizing that variability exists in how people may use our product, we explored physical, cognitive/perceptual, and social/cultural characteristics that may differ between our users and how that might influence their use of our product in order to understand what variations and tolerances we should incorporate into our development.
TASK ANALYSIS
Our design and development process takes into consideration how we believe people will interact with the product. In our case, the artifact is fixed to a location on the bicycle. It is positioned in a way that is easily accessible and visible. By placing it in a prominent location, it serves as a reminder to the user to use the helmet for its safety. The mechanism is always present in the location regardless of its usage.
On approaching the bicycle the user will unlock the mechanism. The location of the lock is effortlessly visible to a human vision and it can be spotted in low lighting as well. The locking mechanism will be either a combination lock or a mechanical lock. After unlocking, the user will put the flaps on the opposite side of the bike to place the helmet on the base plate. The flaps are attached to the baseplate via hinge joints. The flaps will open to an angle of 180 degrees. On placing the helmet, the user will get the flaps back to its stable position to lock it in.
HUMAN SENSORY AND EXPERIENCES
The product looks sturdy and foolproof to keep the helmet secure. This feeling is perceived by its metal body and robust build. The user will get feedback from the locking mechanism when it either locks or unlocks in the form of a sound of the snap. After securing the lock the user shall feel confident of its security. The location of the mechanism is at the lower abdomen level for an average American male and upper abdomen level for an average American female. The product is placed further away from the seat and closer to the bicycle frame at the front, to protect the rider from getting hurt while riding. It can provide security to varied helmet sizes ranging from kids to adult helmets.
HUMAN VARIABILITY
We fully understand the user's pain point of carrying a helmet and the user's urgent need for a helmet to bring safety. Our research shows that many users recognize the importance of helmets, but because of the pain point of carrying a helmet, users are more willing to take the risk of riding a bike. Based on this, our product makes the helmet attached to the bike, so that users can reduce the stress of not carrying a helmet and increase their confidence in using the bike. In the design of the product, we emphasize the free use of our product, so that the user experience in the product to the maximum. We have taken into account the multiple uses of the helmet, and on this basis, we have designed the accessories accordingly. Our products will not affect the user's cycling experience even when the helmet is attached; for this reason, we refer to the general human height and cycling habits, and apply them to the design of the product.
KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR ADDRESSING VARIABILITY
The variability mentioned above is basically covered by our product, because our product is human-centered. Before designing, we spent a lot of time doing surveys and questionnaires. In the early stage of product design, we seriously thought about the different scenarios of users using the helmet and the needs of different customers, including the user's gender, height, age, etc.; for this reason, we thought thoroughly about the attachment position.
We take the experience of using the product seriously. Most helmet locks on the market require more complicated steps. In order to solve this use pain point, we study and test the location of the lock and unlocking mechanism to ensure that the lock is in the best visual position to ensure that the user in different environments can lock or unlock the helmet smoothly. We have given a lot of thought to the product and user interaction. In the appearance of the product, on the accessories we used metal, so that users feel the quality of the product, so as to have confidence in the safety of the helmet. As well as using a simple unlocking method to interact with customers through sound when locking the helmet through the magnetic material.
EMPIRICAL TESTING
For every component and material solution we employed in our beta prototype, we designed low-fidelity experiments and tests to conceptually observe potential failure modes and design constraints across our design. These are discussed in further detail in our parameter analysis, but some representative examples and descriptions of this process can be found below.
TESTING OF GRIPPING SOLUTIONS
We experimented with different materials, using different sizes and approaches to assembly to see which would have the strongest hold but also easiest to assemble solution.
TESTING OF ATTACHMENT SOLUTIONS
We tested different clamp types and sizes to understand which were most conducive to attaching a base plate to the bike frame and investigated how to improve the traction and safety of the clamps.
TESTING OF BIKE SIZES
We tested many of our component materials and helmet placement on various bikes to account for size differences and spacing parameters. Specifically we focused on the top tube of the bike frame.
Report abuse