Re: gEDA-user: OT: Bike Alarms

[David SMITH <dave.smith@xxxxxx>]

On Sun, 2010-05-16 at 20:09 -0500, John Griessen wrote:
> Lojack gets results for cars.  There's bound to be some way to do
> something that fits in with what happens with bikes.  Why give up so easy?

It's easier to fit to cars because there are more places to hide a box
like this, and the car has a permanent power supply available so the
user doesn't have to take the unit out for recharging.

It's not necessarily "giving up easy".  If someone takes a product to
market without it being critiqued then it's likely to have fundamental
flaws because of issues that the original designer did not forsee.

I don't think that it's necessarily a bad idea, just that there are a
number of significant issues in making it work on a practical basis for
a wider market than just the enthusiast that designed it.

> Taking the headset off a bike is not too long or difficult on some kinds.
> That might be an access point for some RF transparent frames.

Restricting to non-metallic frames would seriously impact the available
market, and even on a carbon-fibre frame, is the headset tube
carbon-fibre as well?  I would have thought that that bit would be metal
anyway.

> A thief would not get results taking headsets off bikes he wanted to take...
> so it's not a dead end.

Also a bit of a PITA for the user having to take off the headset
frequently for recharging.



_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user