The 6th Asia Pacific Congress on Sports Technology has come to a close last month. I think many (well, at least all 6 of you who emailed me) has agreed that it was a great conference. For some, it might be the Chinese Junkboat ride that was the highlight, where you enjoyed the beautiful view of the city, the night lights and even the full moon (credit goes to our HK organisers); for others, it could be the some of the presentations that sparked something in your minds; or for some others, simply being in Hong Kong, meeting new people in the industry and forming new collaborations might be the focal point.
The keynote talks all came from recognised experts in their own specialisations – sports aerodynamics, biomechanics & orthopaedics, sports medicine and even sports tech commercialisation. On top of the eye-opening video footage on baseball pitching, there were insights into the performance of prostheses, an interesting new invention that prevents ankle sprains, and a tell-all on how to commercialise new sports technologies.
For the parallel sessions, although I only had the chance to sit down in a couple of sessions, I still caught some really good paper presentations. One of them was by Steffen Willwacher who won the adidas Young Investigator’s Award. The committee all agreed that his paper contained novelty and innovation in engineering, which is really what the conference as well as our sponsor, adidas, hope to promote. Some of the other award contenders that were also quite novel included topics on climbing, road cycling and motocross. Seeing these and all the other papers are just evidence that there is so much more possibilities and so much more to explore in this growing field.
So where is APCST 2015 going to be? The location and exact date has not been confirmed, but it will likely be between Singapore and Abu Dhabi. Whichever the case, the organising committee’s decision on the venue will definitely be one that adds value to the conference as well as to the sports tech community. Keep a lookout for updates!
Shit Accidents happen. Nobody plans for them to happen. But they do. The thought of “what if…” can be quite frightening, especially for people with some form of anxiety disorder. So if you are going for an overseas holiday, you might take up a travel insurance; if you are a school teacher bringing kids out for an excursion, you might prepare a risk management plan before that; and if you are organising a football competition, you will want to ensure that you got first aiders or sports trainers during the game. For protection, athletes wear safety equipment such as helmets, mouth guards, body armour, braces, goggles, gloves etc to reduce the risk of injury and possibly death. But if one considers the theory of risk homeostasis, athletes may go harder or play with less caution because of the protective gear and thus negates the effect. Lately engineers/designers/innovators have resorted to using various sensor and wireless technologies to help manage or prevent serious injuries in sport. We will have a look at a couple of these technologies that have been developed.
Managing concussions
Riddell’s built-in sensors
Wearing helmets are only good for protecting against skull fractures but not brain concussions. The next best thing to do is to measure the amount of impact and deduce if that might cause a concussion. The first helmet with a comprehensive impact detection system was Riddell. The Riddell HITS technology helmet is embedded with multiple sensors that measure the magnitude and direction of impacts to a player’s head. The impact data is transmitted wirelessly to a computer at the bench where it is analysed to determine the likelihood that the player has a concussion. This helps coaches and medical staff decide whether or not to take a player out of a game or the next few games.
After Riddell, a couple other companies like Brain sentry and Shockbox came up with (cheaper and) more versatile solutions. Basically, they developed wireless sensor devices that can be mounted on your own sports helmet (whether it’s Gridiron, Hockey, Lacrosse, Snow sports etc). The Brain sentry sensor works by flashing a red light when an impact over a certain threshold is detected, and that is an indication that the player should get some medical attention – a simple and straightforward system. The Shockbox sensor sends out impact data directly to the coach’s smart phone via bluetooth and the smart phone app allows the coach to monitor all the athletes at once for dangerous hits. How do they decide what amount of ‘g’ is too much? Well research by Greenwald et al and Broglio et al showed that most concussions happen between 70-100g, so any impact above 70g => possible concussion. There are a few other head impact sensors that work on a similar concept but worn slightly differently (on/in the head). The i1 Biometrics Impact Intelligence System is a mouthguard with built-in sensors, while the Impact Indicator 2.0 is a chin strap also designed with sensors that measures high accelerations. One thing worthy to note about the i1 Biometrics mouthguard is their shock absorbing material Vistamaxx that is also customisable to every athlete’s mouth.
If you google “head concussion sensors”, you will find a few other similar products that is entering the market soon. The bottom line is, they all identify impacts that are over the “safe threshold” and athletes can be kept (safe) on the bench instead of getting a second hit which could be deadly. But to really know if an athlete had a concussion, they still need to have a CT scan or use this electromagnetic coil that is a cheap substitute.
Preventing drowning
There is a shocking number of people who die or become permanently disabled because of drowning. Even with lifeguards or in cases where children are playing in the water with adult supervision, drowning could still happen. That’s because it only takes 20 seconds for a child to drown underwater unnoticed and 1 minute for an adult. Which brings forth the need for drowning prevention technology.
Aqauatic Safety Concepts LLC patented an Electronic swimmer monitoring system that consist of wearable sensors (worn on swimmers) that measures time of submersion and a monitoring system at the pool or lake that detects drowning risks and alerts the lifeguards on duty.
The wearable sensor can be worn as a headband or attached to a swimmer’s goggles or swimming cap. The sensors send out a distress signal when submersion is past a safety limit, the signal is picked up by highly sensitive Hydrophone Receivers mounted in the lake or pool which then translates to an audio and visual alarm on land alerting lifeguards or pool supervisors. In lakes or ponds where the water is not clear, a mobile receiver or Swimmer Locator can be used by the lifeguard to quickly find the distressed swimmer. A Control Tablet can also be used by the lifeguard to monitor status of swimmers in the facility.
But for folks who have a small home pool and don’t need such an elaborate system, there are a couple of choices for small portable systems, like the Safety Turtle and the SEAL Swim Safe. Both work on a rather similar concept: swimmer wears a wearable sensor that detects submersion and is monitored by a portable base station that runs on batteries.They both also use names of sea animals! Apart from that, they are actually quite different with two main differences:
The Safety Turtle sensor is a wearable wrist band whereas the SEAL is a wearable neck band.
Safety Turtle developed separate systems/devices for adults and pets; while the SEAL designed four different safety levels on the band, starting from an immersion alarm for the non-swimmer to a more complex triggering mechanism/algorithm for safeguarding elite swimmers.
When asked why the neck band design was used for the SEAL (which on first glance appears to be an awkward swimming accessory), the CEO and Co-inventor, Dr Graham Snyder said the sensor/antenna had to be in close proximity of the nose and mouth for the detection to be accurate; and tests with swimmers confirmed that having it at their neck was not as noticeable as they thought nor did it restrict swimming.
In fact, because the SEAL was designed to be used by swimmers of different abilities, one of the biggest challenge the developers had was preventing false alarms in every safety level and making sure that drowning detection is highly accurate and timely. Going forward, the team that brought out SEAL is also planning to add other features including GPS, two way communication and monitoring physiological parameters.
Even with all these terrific wireless sensor technologies developed for keeping sports safe, the most critical component is still human intervention – coaches and medical staff to identify a possible concussion, and vigilant lifeguards and parents to note dangers and distress in swimmers. Without them those technology will just be another piece of accessory.
Swimming is one of the top priority sports in Australia and has been one of the most successful sports in the international arena. As such there’s a lot of attention put into improving the performance of athletes. In fact, for those who are new to this blog, research in swimming performance is one of the focus areas of Queensland Sports Technology Cluster (QSTC), and you will find some recent published work here and some related blog posts about them here. There has also been lots of work done in various research institutes in Australia and here are some notable ones in the last 4-5 years:
A team at Griffith Uni developed a portable training aid laden with sensors, is wearable on a swimmer, and monitors his/her technique, with the aim of making him/her the next ‘Ian Thorpe’.
In RMIT, home of Sportzedge, research was done in the last couple of years to analyse how the material and hydrodynamics of swimsuits affect a swimmer’s performance.
NICTA worked with the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) and developed an algorithm that could not only identify the turns of a swimmer, count laps and stroke, but also identify the different stroke types.
Mini-Traqua in action
The AIS itself has set up the Aquatic Testing, Training and Research Unit (ATTRU), where there has been even more research and testing done on swimming research, often working in tandem with research institutes mentioned earlier above. These and other similar type of research and innovation is what will give the Australian swimmers the edge to win on the international stage. Some of these research outcomes stay at the elite level of sport because they may not be relevant to the casual swimmers or do not have any commercial application or they are just ‘secret squirrel’ stuff. But some of the developed technology do get commercialized, though it may take a while before they get released into the public, but they do.
So what kind of technologies/gadgets are available to everyday swimmers today?
1. Lap and stroke counting. How many times have you swam in a pool and lost track of the number of laps you covered? It can be pretty annoying. That’s why engineers developed swimming specific wrist watches that counts strokes and laps. These watches have motion sensors that enable them to count strokes, laps, and even estimate speeds and distances. Some of these include: the FINIS Swimsense, the Swimovate Poolmate, the Speedo Aquacoach, and the Garmin swim. The Garmin Swim particularly could even identify the type of stroke (front crawl, butterfly or breast stroke).
2. Music while swimming. One way to do it is to blast music at the swimming pool (assuming its your own pool, or everyone else at the pool likes your taste of music). The other option is to use waterproofed mp3 players. Some companies have developed swimming specific mp3 players, some applied waterproofing technology on existing devices, some made waterproof cases. Most of them did not stray far from the original mp3 player designed for land dwellers, all except the FINIS SwimP3 which used Bone conduction technology for audio transmission instead of earphones. If anyone is keen on swimming with music, they should check out DCrainmaker’s post comparing all (most of) the swimming mp3 players.
DCRainmaker with the AquaPulse
3. Heart Rate monitoring. For the more serious athletes who want to monitor their heart rates to keep track of how hard they are training (or if they are training in the correct zone), there are two options available in the market right now – Heart rate belts and Heart rate ear clips. Heart rate chest belts are a pretty common training accessory for most athletes, but not all heart rate monitoring (HRM) belts will work in the water. For example, HRM sensors that transmits via bluetooth (or any higher frequencies) will not work in water. So if you want to use a HRM chest belt for swimming, make sure they transmit in water (i.e. lower frequencies). As a guide, Polar sensors and the PoolMate HRM sensors will work. The alternative to chest belts is ear clips, and the only product in the market is the FINIS AquaPulse which uses infrared sensors to monitor capillary blood flow at your earlobes. The advantage of using the ear clip (I believe) is it is more secure than the chest belt which tends to slip while swimming thus losing heart rate readings. Although I can’t imagine the ear clip sensor being very comfortable during swimming.
4. GPS. This is mainly for open water swimming. Tracking where you have swam in the open ocean/sea/lake/river/pond. Many sports watches (targeted at runners and triathletes) have a built-in GPS module. That’s your Garmin, Suunto, Timex, Polar, Magellan, Nike etc etc. But one GPS sports watch that stands out is the Leikr, because it actually puts the map on your wrist. Coloured maps! It’s not officially out in the market yet because it started as a Kickstarter project, but it has been successfully funded so it won’t be long. Would you really need the maps? It depends and I think it’s arguable.
5. Performance feedback. The traditional way of getting feedback is to have a coach scream at you. But with all these gadgets that count your stroke rate per lap, calculates how fast you swim and monitors how hard (heart rate) you are training, a swimmer can train without a coach yelling at him/her every session. These devices can tell you how you are performing. Since most of the mentioned devices are watches, the main feedback form is displaying all the calculated statistic on the screens. The one device that sets itself apart is the FINIS Aquapulse which used its Bone Conduction technology (what they used for their swimming mp3 player) to provide audio feedback of your heart rate. Saves you the trouble of trying to catch a glimpse of your watch face. Too bad it doesn’t work together with their swimsense watch to also give you audio feedback of how many laps you swam and how fast you are swimming. Although that might make it worse than having a coach yelling…
So just when you think: that should be pretty much what swimmers need to help them train; along comes Instabeat – a heart rate sensor that is mounted on your goggles (and any other goggles), measures the laps, turns, breathing pattern, and gives you heads-up visual feedback of your training. Other than music and GPS, it does most of the things mentioned above. But how is it different from the rest?
For one, it measures heart rate from your temporal artery using optical sensors (which is patent-pending).
Secondly, it becomes part of your goggles, so you are not wearing or clipping on an extra thing on your body.
Thirdly, it determines your breathing pattern. This is something new.
Lastly, it gives you real-time visual feedback of your heart rate training zone so you know if you are meeting your goals.
What led Hind Hobeika (Instabeat founder) to develop this was her deep dissatisfaction with existing heart rate monitors in the market. Utilising her swimming experience and engineering knowledge, she went through several designs, prototyping and testing them and the final result is this revolutionary heads-up display design.
Left: Initial designs of the Instabeat; Right: The final Instabeat design
Some of the challenges the Instabeat team faced included getting the right data from the sensors, coming up with a design that could fit all the different goggles, and not forgetting the challenge of making the sensor waterproof – the nemesis of all wearable technology. And now that they are past those product design challenges, they face the next challenge which is to bring it to market. They have decided to go through Indiegogo to crowdsource funds and you can support them here. The response looks positive so far and you know the Instabeat team is a bunch of forward thinkers because they have already planned a next version which includes wireless (bluetooth) data transfer and syncing with your smartphone. I even found out [Spoiler alert] that they would explore adding GPS for open water swimming and possibly make a version compatible with other eyewear, i.e. sunglasses. Sounds like the Sportiiiis could be having some competition in the near future.
In the meantime, I leave you with Instabeat’s pitch on Indiegogo:
Wireless power isn’t an entirely new concept. The first person who tried to do it was none other than Nikola Tesla, and that was back in 1890s. Today, more than 100 years later, it is a reality.
I first saw it work on this Ted Talk by Eric Giler back in August 2009. He demonstrated a version of it that was developed in MIT between 2005 to 2007 and led to a spin-off company, WiTricity. Other than WiTricity, there are a couple of companies or organisations that developed versions of wireless power including: WiPower, PowerbyProxi, Qi (pronounced “Chee”) and the Alliance for Wireless Power (A4WP). Their technology are all largely based on electromagnetic induction principles, although WiTricity and PowerbyProxi are a bit more distinct in their technology and both have Intellectual Property. WiTricity uses magnetically coupled resonance, it does not depend on line of sight, and it covers a distance up to several meters. On the other hand, PowerbyProxi developed something they call Dynamic Harmonization Control which they claim to be the most efficient wireless power transmission and they also developed a wirelessly rechargeable double-A battery!
Although the most common application in the market now is charging mobile electronic devices (smart phones, media players, tablets or laptops), the real potential for wireless power transfer is huge. Since this is a sports & health technology blog, let’s look in those areas:
Firstly in the medical field, implantable medical devices like artificial (permanent) pacemakers will no longer need to be replaced when the batteries lose power, which means less surgeries required, less time spent on post-op recover and rehabilitation and also brings new meaning to “permanent pacemakers”; and not just pacemakers, lots of other implantable medical devices could take advantage of wireless power – ventricular assist devices, swallowable endoscopes, deep brain neurostimulators, cochlear implants, foot drop implants, gastric stimulators etc. In case you were wondering about the risks of wirelessly powering devices in the human body, engineers in Stanford have already proven it is safe and effective.
In sports engineering, wearable inertia sensors tracks and measures movements of athletes in the field using GPS, accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers; with improved wireless tracking (indoor and outdoor) and increased data storage capabilities, the athletes can be monitored for as long as the devices’ battery has power. But if a stadium or a field or an indoor court can have wireless power, that limitation is gone, the sensors would be powered right in the field while being worn on the athletes. Also, this technology would enable sensors to be embedded into sports equipment permanently – solves the problem of designing an outlet for charging while keeping it water resistant. It could be balls, rackets, surfboards, snowboards, paddles, bicycle helmets, shoes, the list goes on. In fact, 94Fifty has already pushed this wireless power technology into their instrumented basketball using the Qi Specifications. You can read more in their Kickstarter funding page here.
Instrumented basketball with wireless charging
Personally, what I think will be perfect is if we could combine an electricity generating equipment like the Soccket with wireless power transfer. So imagine running shoes generating electricity as you run and that is transferred wirelessly to power your heart rate monitor and GPS watch and MP3 player. That would be awesome.
Anyway. For developers who would like to incorporate wireless power into their products, just check out any of the companies or organisations mentioned above to find out about their licensing options or standards for wireless transmitters and receivers; and may the force (wireless) power be with you!
adidas recently released a new pair of energy return running shoes called the Energy Boost. It promises to “change your run forever” by giving the runner high energy return and extremely soft cushioning. Based on this article, adidas is trying to grow their running market which is mainly dominated by ASICS, Brooks and New Balance; and a study done by RMIT not too long ago also revealed that Adidas shoes were not the top choices of most runners.
Adidas Bounce
But it’s not the first time that adidas has come up with a “energy return” shoe. There was the adidas bounce back in 2008/9 which has these ‘bounce’ tubes that goes horizontally across the sole. It would seem logical that those tubes can increase energy return and increase running performance but this study here showed that it would only work if the tubes were rotated by 18 degrees towards the rear thus transferring 34% of the vertical energy (from the foot landing) horizontally forward. Interestingly, the Adidas bounce shoes can no longer be found on the official Adidas website, and only on Ebay or Amazon.com.
Adidas Bounce Titan
Then adidas came up with a variation to their bounce design and called it the Bounce Titan and even had a Porsche Design version. However the same group that did the previous study also found in a subsequent study that this new design was still not optimum for running. Try and google adidas Bounce Titan and you will find that it suffered the same fate as the original bounce -> Ebay or Amazon.
Reebok Zigtech
Apart from adidas, Reebok developed the Zigtech while Mizuno has the Wave Prophecy. Both work on a slightly similar alternative to “bouncing”, that is “Waves”; and they basically promise to do the same thing – return energy or propel you forward and provide cushioning. Well, no tests (in the lab) has been done on them as far as I know, although if you google, you will find many wear reviews like this or this. Generally, they are positive.
Mizuno Wave Prophecy
Going back to the adidas Energy Boost shoes, their innovation is in the material of the sole that is developed by adidas partner, BASF. Based on this article and the video, the material likens to “thousands of small energy capsules“, that “stores and unleash energy” with every stride. Interesting. But I wonder how it really stacks up to other energy return shoes.
Maybe a showdown test should just be done with all these different “energy returning” shoes using a standard test like this one developed at RMIT, or the KMTtest developed with Newton running, both addressing short falls of the existing ASTM test. So if anyone from adidas is reading this, feel free to drop me a note if you would like a test organised. 🙂
On Running
In fact I would add another shoe to the test list – on running – a swiss performance running shoe. Although they don’t promote energy return in their shoe, the “cushioned landing” and “barefoot takeoff” still makes an interesting concept that just can’t be left out!
Lastly, for those who would like to find out more about energetics of human movement and sports shoes or biomechanical concepts, do check out this article and this article.
Just a few months back, Dan got himself the Fitbit Ultra, that tracked how many steps he did, and from I can see on the product website, it also tracks distance, sleep, calories burned, allows you to log your food intake, and since then they also added a new feature that tracks stairs climbing. Its like a supercharged pedometer.
Now other than Fitbit, many other sports, health and start-up companies have recently jumped onto the bandwagon of making Wearable Activity Trackers (WAT). Not just tracking sports activities like running or cycling where you use GPS to track your location, speed and altitude; but activity in general. Its almost like writing your diary or journal at the end of each day, and recording every single (physical) activity you did, minus the emotions; and the main motivation for using these devices: to lose weight, keep fit and stay healthy. Since I am not having any other projects on hand at the moment, I decided to do a bit of investigation, online. I’m sure the list is not exhaustive but these are the more popular ones that are in the market (or coming soon into the market):- Nike+ Fuel band, Jawbone Up, Lark, Basis, BodyMedia Fit, Sqord Powerband, Fitbit, & Misfit Shine.
So these WAT typically have three common features:
They are wearable (obviously),
They have sensor/s on them, and
They have processors with some smart algorithm that makes sense out of the sensor data.
Wearable/Design. In terms of being wearable, they can either be worn on your wrist, which seems to be the most common, or worn like an armband or clipped on your clothing or shoes or bike. Some of them display figures and stats while some just have little LED lights that show how you are progressing on your activities. But all of them are designed to look aesthetically pleasing since it has to been worn on people during most of the waking hours.
Sensors/Trackers. How do they track or measure activities? Although not all companies provide that information, but logically these devices would have accelerometers built in to capture movement data – walking, running, jumping or sleeping. They possibly have GPS modules and Altimeters that give you location and altitude data. BodyMedia and Basis also monitors your perspiration, skin temperature and heart rate (only Basis), because you could be doing Yoga and even though there isn’t too much movement involved, it still works up a sweat.
Algorithms/Insights. But having all that raw data mentioned above can be a bit of a pain if it doesn’t mean anything. So they need some form of algorithm (decision or machine learning) that deciphers the data. Using the acceleration data (either single axis or resultant of three axes), counting steps could be as straightforward as counting the number of peaks from the acceleration signal. Estimating your stride length could give you distance which could also be verified with positioning data from GPS. If combined with an altimeter, it would be able to tell if you are climbing stairs or going uphill. Then the physiological data coupled with movement data probably provides input for calculating calories burned. The ‘tricky’ bit is identifying different physical activities. Lark can differentiate between walking and running, which is quite straightforward in my opinion (see figure below). Shine on the other hand, seems to be able to differentiate bike pedaling, swimming and running. That is quite intriguing and I am curious how they do it. A ‘smart’ way of doing it is to simply track all different activities using an overall activity score. Nike uses the NikeFuel, which they say is the universal metric of activity. If you check their website, it mentions a ‘sports-tested accelerometer‘, true story. I think they probably mean the accelerometer is suitable for measuring movements in sports.
Records. Anyway all that processed information is then stored in their own database system where you can review your activities last week or month or year (on your smart phone or computer) and get an idea of how well or poorly you have progressed in your quest for good health. Then lastly, to spur you on, there is the whole connection with social media and gamification that allows you to compare your performance with your friends or even some sports celebrity.
Is this effective? Well a study showed that among a group of overweight people, half of the group that used a tracking system lost more weight than the other half that didn’t. A guy who found out he had diabetes turned to using these devices and a host of other health monitoring equipment, and actually managed to ‘save’ himself after 6 months of activity tracking. So it works. Although there are some who think constant tracking isn’t really necessarily the best, and some who think there is still room for improvement (maybe that’s why new gadgets keep appearing), such as making ALL the data interoperable and having a unified electronic health record.
So what next? For the sports nut or health conscious consumer, the bottom line is still: are you willing to pay around $150 – 200 to track your life? For the engineers or developers, if you see more opportunities in this area, some of these companies (like Shine) offer APIs for their devices, and Nike has even come up with a program to support companies who have interesting ideas on how to promote active living. Most importantly, you will get to work with the ‘sports-tested accelerometer‘! How cool is that? Maybe I should sign up for that…
The smart watch with an embedded accelerometer and wireless communication with iOS devices.
A couple of weeks back, the Australian Sports Technology Network had their inaugural conference and it was a huge success. Very well attended by people in the industry, there were very interesting talks and discussions with views from various perspectives. Anyway there’s a great summary of the event here. What was less known was the Sports
Technology Innovation Bootcamp that took place a day before the conference. It was the first ever bootcamp that was focused on sports technology innovation, commercialisation and entrepreneurship. I am not going into too much details about it, but at some point during the conversations, someone brought up ‘kickstarter‘, which is a rather popular online platform for sharing creative inventions with the community and asking for (financial) backing. In other words, crowd sourced funding. Put simply, if I have a great product idea and a working prototype, and I need more money to mass produce it, I then make a video telling everyone how awesome my product is, why they should ‘back’ it, and what (reward) they would get out if they do. The reward is usually the first batch of the mass manufactured product. Its a great concept and there has been many successful design and technology products that were launched from this platform. Quite a number of them being sports technology related projects.
There are however a couple of disadvantages to this method of getting funding. Firstly, your idea could get ‘stolen’ or copied, especially if no IP is involved. Did a quick search and I found a lot of ‘same-same but different’ ideas that were funded on kickstarter, like these: revolights, Fiks & Nori Lights. Secondly, other than getting money to take the product to market, you or your team are pretty much on your own to: first, deliver the reward (on time), then take the business to the next level, which can be a daunting task if you don’t have any prior business experience. That’s where angel investors (whose been there and done that and has the resources) do better. Not only do they provide the financial backing, they can provide the mentoring to make the venture and the entrepreneurs a success; that is assuming there was an innovative and commercially viable idea to begin with.
In saying that, crowdsource funding sites like kickstarter does have its appeals – it has lower barrier to entry, promotes use of social media, marketing by word of mouth, it reaches a global community, and there is a general sense of excitement that is shared by everyone involved. But if you are in Australia and you have a fantastic (and marketable) idea for a sports equipment or technology, you should definitely contact the guys at the ASTN or ASTV who basically have the capabilities of angel investors and they also have a strong network in the local and global sporting industry.
Its too bad that I don’t have any brilliant sports technology ideas (for now), so most of the time I am just checking out interesting projects on kickstarter, hoping to get inspired, but usually I only end up being tempted to back some of them. Fortunately I have managed to refrain myself most of the time, except the one time I backed this amazing sports watch. Still waiting for it to be delivered though. Hopefully it will arrive before Christmas. In the meantime, I leave you with these two great projects that are still open to more backers:
Decided to go check out Ausbike recently with my colleague Rob. I think it’s probably the first time I was at a bicycle trade show, but for Rob, he is quite the ‘veteran’ having been to international bike shows like Interbike, EuroBike, and I am sure many others. Not only is he a keen rider, and knows all things bikes, he also has a bike related patent, so he (obviously the guru) has kindly offered to give some input in this post.
Power pedals
The most interesting thing that we saw was the Power Pedals. It is a Western Australia company that developed a power meter system that measures left and right power separately using strain gauges in the pedals. They have a working prototype that is ANT+ compatible and a decent program for visual feedback during stationary riding; and currently they are looking for partners (pedal manufacturers) to further develop the instrumented pedals. Though I’m not an avid cyclist, I do know there’s already a couple of similar new power meters in the market (or coming up soon), like the Keo Power and the Garmin Vector; and more power meters coming up, just check out this blog. Which makes me wonder if there’s a big enough market for all of them. Nevertheless its good to see new bike technology developed locally in Australia and I hope they do make it into the market
Rob’s thoughts: I admire start up companies like Power Pedals and the enthusiasm of Tom and Scott. I attended the 2007 Interbike tradeshow where start ups Metrigear and Quarq were showing their bike power meter prototypes to the world for the first time. Both companies have since been bought out by a large corporation, Metrigear by Garmin and Quarq by SRAM.
The visual display that Julian mentioned is like a dynamic pie chart with each the segment showing the magnitude of the effective or ineffective torque, which is the best bio-feedback representation I’ve seen of this data and will be a useful tool for riders and coaches alike. However, if it is adapted for head units I think we’ll see a lot of pile-ups in the peleton as riders check out there pedalling technique on the move.
If Power Pedals manage to successfully commercialise their system and maintain a good relability and accuracy record, then there is no reason why they don’t find themselves in the same situation as Metrigear and Quarq…
eBikes
There were ebikes on steroids, a conversion kit system that you can retrofit onto most bikes, and then an ebike that looks just like a normal bike with the battery built into the frame. Generally, they either have a throttle like switch that gives you a boost on demand or they have some ‘smart’ system that detects how much torque you are putting in, and gives you the extra push based on your desired speed set on the control unit. I personally tried one at the Sports Engineering lab (when we had it for some experiments) and I thought it was a real breeze to ride and it made me seriously considered getting one. I mean, I think that’s exactly the whole point of making ebikes, to encourage more people to switch from driving to a more sustainable form of transport.
Rob’s thoughts: Two years ago Ausbike seemed to be jammed full of eBike manufacturers and distributors. This year surprised me how few stands there were for what is supposed to be a fast developing sector in the bike industry. I ride about 200 kms a week on the network of bike paths in Melbourne and very seldom do I see someone commuting on an eBike. Maybe there is a correlation there? I certainly hope in time that the price of these bikes and retro-fit kits comes down to get more people on them for their daily commute or to just enjoy a bit of exercise without the fear of lactic acid overdose.
Titanium frames
Most bike frames are either aluminum (light) or steel (strong) or carbon-fiber (light and strong) but few people make titanium frames which is also light and strong. I think we only came across one company that did Titanium frames. There’s been a lot of comparisons between the different types of frames and the bottom line is they all have their pros and cons and other than just focusing on the material itself, the overall design of the frame is just as important. But something less known and quite exciting about Titanium is that it can now be manufactured using additive technology and there is already a bike company doing that. This means whatever complicated bike part can now be made (printed) in Titanium, not that it has to be.
Rob’s thoughts: I always stop to admire Litespeed titanium bikes, there is a beauty in the shiny silver tubing and perfectionism in the welding… So it’s good to see Van Nicholas, which only makes titanium bikes, being sold in Australia. What I found interesting about this Dutch company is their frames carry a lifetime warranty and the warranty can be transferred to another owner after a re-certification procedure. I’m not sure whether this perk is offered by carbon frame manufacturers?
Anyway, that’s about it. I know it’s not as much compared to what can be seen or talked about at interbike or eurobike. But the truth is Ausbike only had 138 exhibitors while Eurobike had 1250 and Interbike had 1235, that’s close to 10 times more exhibitors; to be fair, Interbike started since 1982, Eurobike had been around since 1991 while Ausbike only had 3 preceding events. So given a bit of time, with the growing market and interest in cycling in the southern hemisphere, I’m sure Ausbike will become massive. In the meantime, what do you think will be the next big thing in bike technology or rather what do you think is worth developing?
The Advanced Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre (AMCRC) organised a workshop last week on additive manufacturing and its impact on medical technologies. Organised in conjunction with RMIT and Bio21 Cluster, the aim was to promote the new technologies and also educate the attendees on the network and resources available to help businesses adopt them.
The latest in laser additive technology includes Selective Laser Melting (SLM), Electron Beam Melting, Laser Metal Deposition, and Laser Sintering. Their main advantage is the ability to build complex shaped objects using biocompatible metals such as Cobalt-Chrome, Titanium, and 17-4 PH Steel. This then simplifies and quickens the process of customising orthopaedic and dental implants; and using additive manufacturing basically means less wastage of materials compared to traditional subtractive methods.
Anatomics, who had a rep presenting at the workshop, is one of the companies applying this technology in the medical field. They are a Melbourne based company, specialising in cranial and maxillofacial custom implants. They also produce BioModels based on CT scans or MRI, which allows surgeons to have a better visual and feel while diagnosing and subsequently help improve surgery planning.
The potential for laser additive manufacturing is huge, but currently most of the ‘action’ are still in the universities, research institutions, and hospitals. That is where government funding programs and organisations like the AMCRC come in to help bring additive technology into the industry or even to form startups. The challenge is that the size of the local market (Australia) is too small for this technology, so it must definitely go regional or even global for a commercial entity to be viable. Then even before that, to build up an environment that embraces entrepreneurship, innovation and collaborative efforts.
Looking at Kickstarter – the latest trend in global crowd-source funding, if you search “3D printer”, there are at least 10 projects trying to come up with their own machine for 3D printing (which is the more common name for additive manufacturing). They are typically motivated by three reasons:
Existing 3D printers in the market are too bloody expensive
They would like certain features or capabilities missing in existing printers
Read point 1 again.
Although currently these Kickstarter projects are only suitable for printing polymers and objects smaller in dimensions (around 100x100x150mm), but their low cost of entry (between USD$700 – 2500) is rapidly promoting the use of additive technology and they just might be the tipping point for design and additive manufacturing. Just check out this project that is already getting close to 20 times its original funding goal!
Finally I found this Ted talk that gave a very good overview of additive manufacturing from a designer’s point of view:
The Wheelchair Steelers (Australian Wheelchair Rugby team) recently won the much coveted gold medal at the London 2012 Paralympics. The Steelers have been aiming for this gold medal since the 2008 Beijing Paralympic games where they got silver. Over the past 4 years, the coach and team have been working hard to hone their skills, establish training centres and at the same time attract new talent. There has been year round trainings and competitions, international ones such as the 2010 WWRC, and locally, there’s the annual National League, and annual State League in Victoria. Organisations such as the Disability Sport & Recreation have also been promoting the sport through programs and social media to encourage more people to try out the game.
On the research side of things, there has been a couple of studies conducted at the RMIT Sportzedge program with support from some of the Australian wheelchair rugby athletes and coach:
1) Customisation of rugby wheelchairs for performance – The idea of performance based customisation is to maximise the athletes’ comfort and performance through adjusting a few key parameters of the wheelchair design and finding the optimum setup. The main experiments were designed after much research and field tests were done and this was of course coupled with feedback from the athletes and coach. In the end, a platform was developed that allows athletes of the various classifications to systematically customise their individual wheelchair that not only feels good but also helps the athletes perform. For a video on the wheelchair customisation research, check out Channel Ten’s program Scope where it was featured in an episode on Science in Sports.
Ergometer Tests with the Wheelchair Rig
2) Performance & match analysis of wheelchair rugby athletes using inertial sensors – Match analysis of wheelchair rugby was motivated by the fact that the only option available currently is video software analysis, and even though inertial sensors are so commonly used in other able-bodied team sports, it hasn’t been applied in wheelchair sports. The challenge however is to use the kinematic data for activity identification, and not just for measuring speeds and accelerations. The final outcome would be to use the likes of smart phones that are embedded with MEMS sensors and are programmable, mount them on the rugby wheelchairs during competition, and run apps that can determine and track the various activities and performance. Ultimately, this could assist the coach in monitoring the athletes’ performance or even be used for disability classification studies.
Below’s a list of publications that resulted from related work done in the past 3 years. Most of them were presented at the previous ISEA and APCST conferences as well:
User-centred design customisation of rugby wheelchairs based on the Taguchi method (submitted to the Journal of Mechanical Design)
Although most of these work were focused on wheelchair rugby, the concepts and platforms developed could potentially be applied to other wheelchair sports for user optimised wheelchair designs and for monitoring activity & performance.
Re-Engineering Labs 