 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
This if true might make people think about helmet mounted camera`s in many sports .
Plucked from thin air on that one? Any hint of a source for that one? It was suggested that it may have been partly to do with some of the injuries, how much hasn't really been confirmed. Perhaps people should stop doing things that involve high speed, crashing and solid objects.
Eh? Thought he hit his head on a rock?
Explain further
well it's hardly true, is it?
Pretty low down on the list of factors. well behind rock 1, rock 2 and skiing.
stupid title, would be too lazy and misleading for the daily mail.
I do believe the 'low friction' part of skiing probably played much more of a part in his accident than a small plastic camera
They give you Ebola too.
True story.
It's hardly inconceivable that something attached to a helmet could affect the outcome of such an incident,
[i]Cause[/i] is probably unlikely, but [i]contributed to[/i] sounds perfectly plausible.
This if true might make people think about helmet mounted camera`s in many sports .
Stray apostrophes kill hundreds of people every year.
I think its from here:[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/michael-schumacher/10640839/Michael-Schumacher-skiing-crash-did-helmet-camera-cause-head-injuries.html ]telegraph [/url]
Schumacher, an experienced skier, was travelling at a moderate speed when he fell and hit a rock. His skis were new; his bindings have been subsequently tested and were not at fault; he was fully in control of his movements as he left the marked pistes and traversed the patch of snow in-between two groomed runs in Meribel.
But now investigators believe that they may have found a reason for the seriousness of the crash. They think that his helmet camera could have actually worsened the blown, and caused the helmet to shatter into pieces.
Experts from ENSA, the world-renowned ski and climbing academy in the French ski resort of Chamonix, have conducted tests to determine whether the presence of a solid object between a helmet colliding with a rock would weaken the structure.
The helmet smashed – but the camera he had attached to it, in order to record him and his son skiing, was undamaged. The footage, audio and visual, has provided police with crucial information about the crash.
I'm going with 11 pages & closed.
and interestingly the Metro seem to be probably lifting directly from the Telegraph. Nowhere in the actual article does the conclusion that the injury was caused by the Go-Pro but there is thinking that it contributed to the injury - possibly
Well if 'Formula 1 commentator Jean-Louis Moncet' says its true, then who are we to argue?
I don't know if it was a factor in Schumacher's particular case but why is it not plausible? All helmets are designed in a dome shape, because as we all know from rudimentary high school structural engineering, and arch/dome is a very strong structure. You go and put a hard point load on that structure and it raises the stress levels locally and totally compromises how the dome structure works. If he struck a rock at the point his go-pro mount was attached then that could have raised the stresses in the helmet shell enough to pierce the helmet shell rather than direct the stresses around the outside of the shell of the helmet. I've seen a number of things where chicken eggs can hold a significant amount of weight if loaded carefully and correctly, yet you can pierce the shell of a chicken egg with a knife with little or no effort. Same principle. But then again so is cracking your helmeted head onto a sharp edged rock vs. a smooth domed rock - so ultimately its academic. Its best to avoid smashing your head against rocks even if you've got a helmet on.
Umbrellas make it rain don't you know.
Did he also have keys in his pocket? They potentially cause injury too.
Wobbliscott. It's the use of language like 'caused' that is the issue, when you are dealing with what is ultimately supposition.
My god people can be idiotic sometimes. Of course the Go-Pro didn't cause the accident but is it really that hard to comprehend that it could have affected the nature of the injury and potentially made it worse?
might be interesting to hear whether it hasd been screwed onto the helmet - I can see that might affect integrity. If it was velcro or something I'd be amazed if it contributed.
actually - whilst I have no knowledge of this specific accident, I've seen enough people riding and skiing like idiots filming that its not implausible that go-pro's* help idiots to have accidents, or encourage people to travel faster and thus have more serious accidents.Wobbliscott. It's the use of language like 'caused' that is the issue, when you are dealing with what is ultimately supposition.
*other brands exist.
If I am running will carrying scissors and slip on a banana skin resulting in me stabbing myself in the leg.
What would be the cause of my injury.
Me for running, the scissors, the banana skin or the monkey who left it there.
It's all balls, arguing about the cause, the question is would he be walking and talking now if he had not been wearing the go pro.
As the commentator has been speaking to the family before saying this I assatain that this is the view of the family based on information received from the doctors.
I have a torch strapped to my commuting helmet and I beleive if I fell on it in such a way it would cause more damage to my canister than if the torch was not there.
But it is on the very top where i would be unlucky to hit anything.
And not on the side of my helmet which I have whacked of the floor on crashing more than once.
actually - whilst I have no knowledge of this specific accident, I've seen enough people riding and skiing like idiots filming that its not implausible that go-pro's* help idiots to have accidents, or encourage people to travel faster and thus have more serious accidents.
Worth noting that idiots have existed a long way before go-pro etc came along, increased participation could also account for increased idiot content.
It's the go-pro mount that is the problem, not the camera itself.
A solid lump attached to the helmet will penetrate as the surrounding helmet crushes to absorb the impact. This will pass a peak load to the head.
All helmets are designed in a dome shape, because as we all know from rudimentary high school structural engineering, and arch/dome is a very strong structure.
Here's me thinking it was because heads were broadly dome shaped too.
Helmets need to slide on the ground, not getting caught, this has been shown properly before
http://www.helmets.org/hodgstud.htm
A camera that will easily come loose leaving the rest of the helmet to slide should be just fine, but from what I've seen people tend to zip tie cameras on in a pretty permanent manner.
This case seems different, the camera is implicated in creating a narrow point load that broke the helmet, sounds like a pretty freak incident to me. Bad luck for Shu-y.
Stick to chest mounts, video looks better anyway.
A camera that will easily come loose leaving the rest of the helmet to slide should be just fine, but from what I've seen people tend to zip tie cameras on in a pretty permanent manner.
Standard go pro mount for a flat helmet is a stick on pad, anything other than an absolute direct impact should come off. the mount for a vented lid is a velcro on strap that should also deflect under impact. I'm not sure which of the go pro mounts that you would zip tie on.
I'm sure the gopro lawyers are sharpening their pencils and pitchforks as we speak!
This "explanation" has been around for a while now.
go-pro's are notoriously dagerous and I'm speaking from personal experience. I saw one in a shop and for some reason misread the price with the decimal point in the wrong place. I was so amazed at this that I was distracted, walked into a wall and hurt myself.
They should be banned, that's all I'm saying.
Come to think it, the same goes for good looking women in short skirts.
I know people love their gro-pros and have spent a lot on them, so psychology says they will leap to their defense and make jokes to distract 😉
Like Strava you have to be careful, no one will admit to it, but you do go faster than you should at times, simply to try and keep up with the guy in front.
Opppps GoPro will sue ... or be sued.
Either way not a good publicity for GoPro ... now where are all those Chinese made cameras that disintegrate before using ...
or like all those other things like racing you mates in the flesh, training, sessioning stuff, riding with faster people or just showing off to impress a lady. It's all been round for years.Like Strava you have to be careful, no one will admit to it, but you do go faster than you should at times, simply to try and keep up with the guy in front.
There was a statistic a while back that most ozzy snake bite victims were men ages under 30 in the presence of alcohol and women.
Read this a few days ago...old news keep up!
First it was the ski resorts fault, now its Go Pro.
They don't help with broken necks. But neither do full face helmets.
Following this theory head lights should be banned because if you crash against a rock, a car or a tree the light will kill you
Standard go pro mount for a flat helmet is a stick on pad, anything other than an absolute direct impact should come off. the mount for a vented lid is a velcro on strap that should also deflect under impact.
I've long thought there is an increased risk of injuries from both helmet mounted cameras and lights. There has long been a theory (neither conclusively proven or disproven) that whilst helmets help with direct impacts they increase the chance of neck injuries. You wouldn't design a helmet with a lump sticking out of it so adding one in the form of a mount definitely isn't going to improve the performance and is likely to have a significant effect under the right conditions.
That said, so is a chest mounted camera - I cracked a few ribs ski-ing by landing flat on the chest strap of a Camelbak. Pretty sure a chest mounted camera would have been a lot worse - you're adding something that stops the impact being spread evenly. Then again, one of the worst injuries to my knees from cycling came from an OTB with an empty light bracket.
Think about where you mount sticky-out things, make your own risk assessments. Biggest crime of helmet mounted cameras (whether skiiing or cycling) is that the footage is so damn dull.
I think TJ speculated that things strapped to helemts massively increase the risk of rotational forces being imparted tot the head. Roatation is the most damaging form of brain accleration apparently
So I'm with the GOPRO won't have helped theory allegedly
(hello mister GOPRO lawyer I'm sure all that video evidence makes skiing safer)
I think TJ speculated that things strapped to helemts massively increase the risk of rotational forces being imparted tot the head. Roatation is the most damaging form of brain accleration apparently
this is why they banned hard peaks and bobbles on horse riding helmets, isn't it?
I too have often thought that the many cameras and lights that are clamped, zip tied and bolted to various helmets outdoors cannot add to the safety of the helmet. 😕
Its all speculation, butpto add to the things on helmets can add to the severity of injury camp. I have a mate who broke his neck as a result of a crash with a joystick mount on his helmet which dug in and caused him to over rotate his neck rather tham skid along shedding skin etc...
It's interesting as far as it goes.
I mean in terms of a gopro and it's mounting hardware presenting a increased risk of penetrative damage to the helmet's shell, well lumps of plastic are probably way down the scale when compared to other objects (Rocks for example) which a helmet could be reasonably expected to strike. If anything the adhesive fixed Base of a gopro mount would probably act as a load spreading device applying the impact force over a couple of square inches rather than a point loading.
As for the rotational injury theory, that may hold some merit, only Schumacher's injuries have consistently been reported as the result of a blunt impact trauma with a rock. Why after all these months would his doctors suddenly realise that they were dealing with a rotational injury not the results of direct impact?
"oh shite his brain was fine all along, why didn't we check his neck sooner?"
It's just some vague notional idea turned into a speculative article to give technophobes some shite to harp on about...
Gopro didn't smack his head in gravity an a rock did FFS!
This was a rumour weeks ago.
A go pro could with direct impact penetrate a helmet and cause a depressed fracture and brain injury. I've skied with a contour hd on the side of my lid and had at least one fall where I noticed the camera applying pressure.
And I'd be interested in what helmet manufacturers say about safety of helmet mount cameras.
But actually, in this case, we need facts not speculation. Nor denial of the possibility.
The source speaks.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Can't comment on Gopros or Schumacher's case, but I tried a helmet mounted light for the first time last week (Solarstorm mounted on a half section of plastic pipe over a bridge between two vents, secured with the standard elastic mount).
This creates a nice metal stress concentrator which could focus the impact in a localised spot if I hit the ground the wrong way (or I guess even punch through the helmet if I was really unlucky). I know I'm very unlikely to experience that sort of accident, but it does make me think about sticking to handlebar mounting.