Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Inland paddling
Post Reply
SimonMW
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:39 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by SimonMW » Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:33 am

For those who wear a helmet camera...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motors ... uries.html

Teaman
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:01 pm

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by Teaman » Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:09 pm

Experts have conducted tests to see weather the presence of a solid object between his helmet and the rock would have caused the helmet to break.. the camera was undamaged btw.
Now I'm no scientist but I'm guessing a rock is a fairly solid object and twatting one of them at 20+ miles an hour with a helmet with the added weight of one person (and a possible tonne of ego)is gonna cause damage.

SimonMW
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:39 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by SimonMW » Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:32 pm

Yes, the camera was undamaged. GoPro's usually aren't damaged since the case takes the impact! Notice that they didn't say that the case was undamaged...

They are testing this for the possibility so your no scientist comment is rather a moot point until the tests are complete. However I will say that it is fairly logical that a camera mount if hit would focus the impact into one small area. It is something I have always wondered about when people have cameras on their helmets and it is interesting that those experts have asked the same question.

I think I'll wait for their conclusions over your advice thanks.

User avatar
Poke
Posts: 4861
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 4:35 pm
Location: Wigan
Been thanked: 13 times
Contact:

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by Poke » Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:30 pm

Now I can imagine that if you’re really unlucky, catching the go-pro on a tree/rock/similar as you skied/kayaked/fell past could result in whiplash (or worse) if the mount didn’t break. Possibly even that the adhesives may have weakened the helmet?

However, I can’t imagine they’re going to find anything of concern when it comes to the effect of the presence of a camera on the impact to a helmet.
The go-pro mounts are at least 6cm² in area. At worst case, a rock could be a point force. The rock hitting the camera mount could spread the load if anything.

Certainly be interested to see the results, but think that it’s a non story – something that a journo heard that is being considered, and picked up on, than anything with any substance. I’m with Teaman on this. The rock will have caused way more damage than the camera.
Uniyaker - Uni expeditions
Team Pyranha - My adventures

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 13889
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 2:14 pm
Location: Dumbarton
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by Jim » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:00 pm

Know know anything about ski helmets, some types of helmet though are designed to dissipate an impact by breaking - cycle helmets for example. Motorcyclists and builders are supposed to renew their head protection after every impact even if it doesn't appear broken because it can suffer internal cracks and stresses that mean it won't perform if hit again.

Kayak helmets used to be an exception, designed for taking multiple low impact hits , but I'm not sure if this really is the case with modern composite helmets.

Where do ski helmets fit in? Has the helmet done exactly what it was supposed to do?

I have great respect for Michael, and I'm quite sure he knows a lot more about helmet design than any of us.....

Teaman
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:01 pm

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by Teaman » Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:16 pm

Many moons ago and back int day When some riders in the tour were still wearing the soft helmets I wore a hard one as I was doing a lot of down hilling. 1995 I slipped on the road on ice and smacked my helmet on the curb and wrote the helmet off. cue bad head ache and stiff neck but that's it.
recently I snagged my helmet cam on a low bush. cue looking in a different direction from which I wanted to and a worrying moment as the kayak was still trying to go down stream. no serious worry though but would have been if the branches were thicker.
still.
I'm guessing a camera mount is either on the side just above the ear, directly on top or more to the front depending on which you have. mine being the polaroid xs100 perfect for kayaking as bomb proof and waterproof and same def as a go pro yet only 114 pounds but i'm not advertising here. My point is for an impact like they're stating to have the mounts break the helmet it has to be direct force on the point of the most strength.
this is in the centre of the base I guess on top of the sheet of 1mm thick 3m tape. now if you hit directly on that I guess the point of impact would be focused. A bit like hitting it with a ball pain hammer but then you need to take the dissipation of the blow through the plastic base then into the tape.
stick a movable joint then a camera on to that and you have multi points of dissipation and deflection. the camera although possibly damaged would have moved somewhat and put a lot of strain on the 3m tape whilst good I doubt its that good which is why we all use lanyards.
add that to the possibility that shoemaker would have chosen the best helmet going due the the old, money no object business and its looking suspect.
I'm honestly thinking that the're desperately looking for something to point the blame on other than him making a wrong choice and huge mistake.
hope he gets well though.
As I've tried to work all this out mainly though the claim in the telegraph and the fact that I use a helmet camera.

User avatar
geyrfugl
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Barnard Castle

Post by geyrfugl » Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:32 pm

I've got a GoPro mounted both front and back of my ancient AP2000 helmet, and I've whacked the front camera on rocks a number of times. Both mounts are NOT the self adhesive ones which come off at relatively low impact forces (my one venture into self-adhesive lasted part way through one single river, though that was on the boat, not the helmet - and it only hit water, not rock). Mine are fixed through the helmet with a single M6 bolt on each mount, to a wooden block, on which is fixed the plastic mount that comes with the camera.

The bolt into the helmet allows the camera (with enough force) to rotate around an axis forward-back, and the standard GoPro mount allows the camera to be knocked backwards (ie. rotate around a left-right axis). Mostly in underwater impacts, _nothing_ has broken, but the camera has been moved way off position. Twice, the lugs on the bottom of the housing have broken, leaving the housing still water proof. Somewhat to my surprise, the bolt hasn't ripped out of the helmet... Thought the AP2000 is a somewhat flexible shell which absorbs impact by distortion, rather than by shattering... I've not had the nerve to drill a hole in one of my more modern, rigid-shell (ie. expensive) helmets as I'm not happy about the effect that would have on their strength. But as I don't trust the self-adhesive mounts, I tend not to use the good helmets on GoPro-ing trips (ie. all trips, pretty much...)

As I now have aSweet Trooper full-face, at some time I'm intending to remove the drop-down visor and replace it with something of my own construction (as it contributes very little if anything to the protective power of the helmet against impact) to which I can mount a GoPro by a similar arrangement, the visor pivot providing one of the degrees of freedom for the camera to move in an impact. I'm not sure I can devise a mount for the aft-facing camera, so might risk a self-adhesive for that...

I tend to feel that the front-mounted GoPro provides an additional level of protection on the helmet, as it hits the rocks before the helmet does, warning me to get tucked up better, waiting for a chance to roll. The injuries I do suffer tend to be mostly to the knuckles...

BTW, for boat mounts, I prefer suckers. On boat-mounted cameras I've broken one set of lugs on a housing, one complete mount assembly on a GoPro official sucker mount (which they do say are not suitable for impact sports) and one set of the arms/handle on a big glass-lifting sucker. In the latter case, the sucker was still firmly attached to the boat. A disadvantage of the suckers is that you do need a decent, fairly flat, and smooth area to attach - my H2 has now got too scratched and other boats seem to have awful "textured" finishes to which a sucker won't remotely adhere. A major factor in my next boat choice will be finding a boat with a lot of good smooth surfaces to attach these mounts ! Suckers are really useful in that you can rapidly take them off the boat and put them on a paddle blade, and equally quickly take them off without leaving a sticky mount on your paddle.

Obviously, all these camera housings have also been tied on ! I use a thin cord round the thin stainless steel of the hinge. I reckon if that breaks, then the housing is probably compromised and the camera dead anyway.

Andy

User avatar
Randy Fandango
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 5:10 pm
Location: London/Kent/Somewhere flat and dry

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by Randy Fandango » Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:43 pm

I have to ask Andy -- don't you ever worry about taking a wack straight on the camera mount and therefore straight on the end of your M6 bolt..... straight through to your head?
Unless I'm misunderstanding your setup surely your bolts act virtually as contact points straight to your head, essentially bypassing your helmet?
Giles

User avatar
geyrfugl
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Barnard Castle

Post by geyrfugl » Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:44 pm

I did worry about it when I had a longer bolt during the first experiments. Now I reckon that even if an impact were hard enough to sheer off the threads on the wingnut and push the bolt through the wood block, it still wouldn't reach my head as the bolt is only just long enough to engage the threads of the nut. The wood block probably spreads any load over a bigger area than a rock sharp enough to do damage would have, so I reckon it's no more risky than having just the helmet - possibly even less so.

Whether regularly paddling rocky grade 4 in a 20-year-old plastic AP2000 helmet is entirely sensible is another question ;-) That's why I've bought two newer helmets. But one, despite going well beyond what was provided in the "universal fitting kit" does *not* fit well and feels a lot less safe than the old one, and the Trooper, which does fit well, hasn't yet been adapted to carry the GoPros. It's on my list...

Image

That pic was taken at the point where I'd got rid of the long bolt at the front and temporarily used it aft when the idea of an aft-facing camera was first tried. Now the aft bolt is also cut to the right length. What you can't see is that the wingnuts rest on very large washers, so there's no chance no the bolt being pushed through without stripping the threads, and the force on the nut that would strip the threads would not be the same force that could push the bolt through. When the bolt was over-length, it would have been, of course... I can conceive that a side impact to sheer the nut, remove the wood block, and then a separate dead-ahead impact on the end of the bolt could be bad, but my feeling is that such a side impact would actually leave the nut on the bolt and tear the latter through the helmet, leaving the bolt nowhere it could be used as a penetrating weapon by the river gods :-)

The string is now positioned so that a loose camera will not dangle right in front of my eyes as it did the first time I smashed it off the helmet (by the housing lugs breaking). Trying to stay upright after rolling to find a camera blocking your view is not so easy... so I didn't :-(

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 13889
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 2:14 pm
Location: Dumbarton
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by Jim » Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:32 pm

The polycarbonate motocross helmet I use for kite buggying (and really ought to replace soon) came with a visor bolted on using inserts built into the helmet during manufacture. (I removed it as it has a habit of snagging on kite lines)

I wonder how long it will take for varous kinds of helmet manufacturers to start building in some kind of provision for mounting cameras directly to the helmets - most housings can take a standard tripod mount, so the helmet just needs something that can screw or clip into it with the tripod thread on the other end (is 1/4UNC or M6?).
The manufacturere then has full control over dissipating impacts on the mount into the rest of the shell - for example for a composite shell they might include a strip or 2 of unidirectional carbon tape to stiffen that area and ensure the stresses are spread along the tape to a bigger area....

User avatar
waverley610
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:54 am
Location: The Copthorne hundred

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by waverley610 » Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:06 pm

Randy Fandango wrote:I have to ask Andy -- don't you ever worry about taking a wack straight on the camera mount and therefore straight on the end of your M6 bolt..... straight through to your head?
Giles
Brings a whole new meaning to 'Nailed that!'

Teaman
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:01 pm

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by Teaman » Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:11 pm

geyrfugl..
you're nuts lol.
and you're right.. a grade 4 in a 20 year old helmet?
bit like me when I rode my motorbike at 70+ wearing a german helmet... (What could possibly go wrong)
I think you answered the question the scientists are trying to ask themselves. I'm pretty sure they haven't thought of less normal methods on how to fix a camera.
Email them with your ideas :D

icklepaddler
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 2:08 pm

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by icklepaddler » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:03 pm

Jim wrote: I wonder how long it will take for varous kinds of helmet manufacturers to start building in some kind of provision for mounting cameras directly to the helmets
Some already are, the Giro Edit ski helmet already does.

http://www.goprofanatics.com/mounts-acc ... mount.html

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 13889
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 2:14 pm
Location: Dumbarton
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by Jim » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:46 pm

icklepaddler wrote:
Jim wrote: I wonder how long it will take for varous kinds of helmet manufacturers to start building in some kind of provision for mounting cameras directly to the helmets
Some already are, the Giro Edit ski helmet already does.

http://www.goprofanatics.com/mounts-acc ... mount.html
Not long at all then!

As for 20 year old polythene helmets, if they haven't become brittle I don't see any reason they shouldn't be as effective as the day they were made.

User avatar
Big Henry
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:31 am
Location: North East

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by Big Henry » Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:42 pm

Schumacher's son has stated that it was the Go-Pro mounted on his helmet that caused the injuries.

User avatar
Poke
Posts: 4861
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 4:35 pm
Location: Wigan
Been thanked: 13 times
Contact:

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by Poke » Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:54 am

Poke wrote:Certainly be interested to see the results, but think that it’s a non story
Very interesting reading. They've actually commissioned some proper tests on this very subject.
Nice to see I was (pretty much) right ;-)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/safety/resources/s ... elmet-cams
Uniyaker - Uni expeditions
Team Pyranha - My adventures

User avatar
morsey
Posts: 6275
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:36 pm
Location: West Country :-)
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by morsey » Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:15 pm

Two words: Buoyo Cam.

User avatar
DaveBland
Posts: 3657
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:01 pm
Location: Calgary Canada
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by DaveBland » Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:28 pm

Morsey, we don't all have a Welsh mate to lash to the front of our boats.

[You'll note my restraint in going for that option rather than the helmet related option]
dave

User avatar
Poke
Posts: 4861
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 4:35 pm
Location: Wigan
Been thanked: 13 times
Contact:

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by Poke » Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:41 pm

morsey wrote:
Poke wrote:
Poke wrote:Certainly be interested to see the results, but think that it’s a non story
Very interesting reading. They've actually commissioned some proper tests on this very subject.
Nice to see I was (pretty much) right ;-)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/safety/resources/s ... elmet-cams
Two words: Buoyo Cam.
Think the point was, you don't need to resort to Buoyo Cam...
Uniyaker - Uni expeditions
Team Pyranha - My adventures

User avatar
morsey
Posts: 6275
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:36 pm
Location: West Country :-)
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by morsey » Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:17 pm

A few more words for Buoyo Cam:
Stops you looking like a teletubbie.
Stops the bank based cameras picking you up as filming.
Most important, people don't notice you filming so you get real reactions and subtle capture.
Has the button and screen where you can see it.
Pulls out instantly for hand held filming.
It's not as high so gives less overview.
Is still mostly pov.


Four words:
Paddle Cam for Selfies.

tobym
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 9:25 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by tobym » Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:57 pm

I had to Google buoyo cam, to find out that it wasn't a purchasable product!

Have you got any pics of your set up, Morsey?

User avatar
morsey
Posts: 6275
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:36 pm
Location: West Country :-)
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by morsey » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:39 pm

tobym wrote:I had to Google buoyo cam
You probably just made the day for the boys n girls in Google Analytics. About once a year they have a true 'zero findings' response from the engine. That probably came through just as they were having the company Christmas do, Stateside.


Toby, have a floating hand grip, stuffed down the front of a Palm Extreme Buoyo (the velco section is perfect shape) and clipped in.

tobym
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 9:25 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by tobym » Sat Dec 19, 2015 11:33 pm

morsey wrote:
tobym wrote:I had to Google buoyo cam
You probably just made the day for the boys n girls in Google Analytics. About once a year they have a true 'zero findings' response from the engine. That probably came through just as they were having the company Christmas do.
You may think so , Morsey, but you used the term, on here back in May!

User avatar
morsey
Posts: 6275
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2003 12:36 pm
Location: West Country :-)
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by morsey » Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:12 pm

The term has been around for ages, at least ten years! Have buoyo cam footage from Hurley in 2003.

chriscw
Posts: 905
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:35 am
Location: Basingstoke
Contact:

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by chriscw » Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:49 pm

I agree with others it is bound to depend on helmet type. The more expensive the helmet the more like it is to be affected by a helmet mount concentrating an impact. On the other hand if you are doing really silly things like jumping of waterfalls an expensive helmet that needs replacing after impacts and will not cope with a helmet mount focussing the impact is what you might need. Of course in any event the cheaper plastic type helmets may well cope better with point impacts.

No kind of helmet will give 100% protection, any kind is better than none.

Comfort matters more than looks because a helmet you are not able to wear all the time because it gives you headaches is less likely to be on your head if you need it.
Chris Clarke-Williams
Location Basingstoke

Paddling Interests:
Touring, Coaching Beginners (I am an L2K), Surf White water trips, Weir Play (I'm not good enough to put freestyle!)

User avatar
scottdog007
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:34 pm
Location: Hertfordshire.
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by scottdog007 » Mon Dec 21, 2015 8:41 pm

Only a day or so ago I saw another report studying action cams on helmets and they surprisingly stated that although the cameras were strong and some did not break, they deflected enough to dampen the force and actually enhance security. Where the hell did I read this?

User avatar
Poke
Posts: 4861
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 4:35 pm
Location: Wigan
Been thanked: 13 times
Contact:

Re: Food for thought for GoPro helmet users

Post by Poke » Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:39 pm

scottdog007 wrote:Only a day or so ago I saw another report studying action cams on helmets and they surprisingly stated that although the cameras were strong and some did not break, they deflected enough to dampen the force and actually enhance security. Where the hell did I read this?
Here, perhaps: http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/foru ... 53#p778353 ;-)
Uniyaker - Uni expeditions
Team Pyranha - My adventures

Post Reply

Return to “Whitewater and Touring”