R-M-R

@EdSawyer: What are some of your observations, having spent some time on it? ... and I'm going to take your opinions with a grain or two of salt, given that you've compromised the bike's intended purpose by going all-out for weight savings! :lol:

The control arms (horizontal) could've been about half the length with similar kinematics, and the steering links (scissor links out front) could've been nearly vertical. Would've looked considerably less jarring.

Needs two axes: cool vs. function. Cool and not very good: popular and probably expensive. Ugly and works well: nerds love it. Ugly and not very good: deserving of mockery.

@chrismac70: Be nice, that describes most of us here.

@ratedgg13: It's the manufacturing. Molds are so expensive that it's nearly impossible for a small builder to recoup the costs - even midsize companies struggle with it. It's good that riders are willing to view machined, 7075 aluminum clamshell construction as premium, as that's viable. The real Holy Grail is additive manufacturing with continuous-filament carbon. I actually pursued the latter. Two amusing anecdotes: 1. When Arevo announced their advanced, "2.5 D" printed carbon, I phoned them a few hours after the press release ... and was told I was the seventh bike designer to call them that morning. 2. There's a company in the UK that essentially puts a spider the size of a small car on the end of a gigantic robotic arm, except the spider spins a carbon filament. I asked them if there was even the slightest chance I could afford their services. The told me that's for me to decide, but the unit cost would be well into the six figures.

Great points. When doing the marketing for one of the bikes featured here, I had three ways to frame it for customers: 1. Aesthetics change over time. Fashionable bikes from decades past look awkward now, just as currently fashionable bikes would've looked absurd back then. 2. There are different ways to look good. A Ferrari 250 GTO looks good because of beautiful proportions and graceful curves. An F1 car looks good not because it's beautiful, but because it looks fast. Even someone who knows nothing about cars will immediately know it's dripping with technology that leads to superior performance. 3. If you still can't accept the former arguments, how about this: Is it more embarrassing to be seen riding this bike to to be outridden by someone on one? :lol: Some people had no hesitation to admit they would never be seen on the bike, even if it turned out to be superior in every performance parameter. That's fine; we all enjoy this sport in different ways. Middle-of-the-bell-curve designs are popular for good reason and some people don't want to be an outlier.

Cheers to open-minded riders! There was so much that could've been done differently. Would love to do another front linkage, fully on my own terms.

Fair point, but maybe this helmet should be evaluated as a potential upgrade over an open-face, rather than an alternative to a traditional full-face.

@Will-narayan: I get what you're saying and yes, that's possible, just as some people are injured by seat belts and airbags. It's unreasonable to demand only benefits with zero risk; it's a question of net benefit to a population over time. Impossible to say at this time, but I suspect this would offer a net benefit over open-face helmets. Maybe a more traditional, minimalist full-face would offer greater net benefit - or maybe not. Maybe the biggest net benefit will come from a higher conversion rate of open-face users due to the ventilation and weight. Time will tell, and I'm glad someone is trying something new.

@pbuser2299: And it gets a gram lighter every few rides!