Pinkbike Poll: Should On-Board Cameras Be a Requirement for All World Cup DH Racers?
I would have loved to have been on-board while Mick Hannah cleared the rock garden at Cairns.
Before on-board cameras and real-time telemetry brought the television audience into the thick of the action, most motorsports coverage was pretty boring, unless you were a fan. If you need an example: the NHRA – an early adopter of real-time POV - managed to make drag racing popular among mainstream viewers by inviting them along for the ride - including POV action of the mechanics tearing down engines in the pits. Closer to home: although POV footage is not yet a part of the Red Bull Rampage's live broadcast, I am sure that the subsequent POV edits have matched or out paced their mainstream coverage. My mother sends me the links.
It’s no secret that much of the drama of technical sport is lost when the cameras simply follow competitors from trackside vantage points. As riders, we can pick up on stylistic differences, nuances between setups, component choices, and bike brands, and we can identify with challenges on the courses. While that may sound basic, those critical details are lost to most viewers, and we are going to need a lot of those people to watch downhill to bring it to the next level.
DH racing is a venue where only one run determines the winner and the losers. Even the best fixed camera operators often miss key moments like an unanticipated line-choice, a crash, or a mechanical failure, which leave both commentators and the audience to speculation. (How often do we hear the likes of: "Oh, something must have happened for him/her to have lost so much time...?") Being able to toggle from trackside to onboard cameras in real time could eliminate the gaping holes in the present live coverage and offer rank-and-file viewers more drama and a greater understanding of our sport.
To make that happen, however, would mean mandating that all competitors who made the final event would be fitted with identical equipment, so weight and placement would be consistent for everyone. To begin with, a handful of racers would have conflicting POV contacts, but all that could be worked out. The technology is readily available and proven. The need should be obvious, and the results should be nothing less than spectacular.
Not a World Cup DH, but still one of the best crash photos of this season. On-board footage would have shown us how Brook MacDonald got himself in this fix.
Imagine being onboard while Bruni was three minutes up at Lourdes, Flying with Rachael, or on the bike after an off while it was flipping end over end downthe Cairns rock garden? Imagine the possibility of replaying turning-point moments lost when the fixed cameras were not watching. Or, maybe on-board cameras are not such a good idea. Today, it's up to you to decide. The question is:
Should On-board Cameras Be a Requirement for All World Cup DH Racers?
Multiple answers are allowed
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
a - fried
b - over-easy
c - hard boiled
d - meh, eggs are for roadies, give me the sausage link ya dingus
e - what's wrong with a little wake n bake?
f - that's not a kashima coated stanchion in my pocket
A) the content of the poll
B) the way it was presented
C) the fact that you have no control over which route the media coverage would go
a - call it a day and go home
b - make a lil manpon and keep on chooglin'
c - call up skippy and ask 'em to bring ya a second pair
d - ay yo i'm down wit da brown, man. keep it gutter / keep it grimey
e - nah dawg, i just don't poop
a) agree it is research for RedBull
b) random lines put on poll
c) disagree, I want another topic.
a + it's a public opinion gauge
also, zdrasti!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
a - "This"
b - Cosigned
c - +1
d - off top
e - shit was funny
A) Sram brakes
B) Boost
C) E-Bikes
D) Red Bull and insurance
E) Troll negging Sam Hill
F) Too much masterbation
Too much? masterbation
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO7xwCFZLUE
Watch at 00:42.
Who am I kidding, watch the whole run, Stevie's a legend
I'd also like realtime timing to go with it, so you can get a proper insight on who's fastest where
Outside of current networks throwing a shitfit about losing money, I think this is probably the way of the future for both drone coverage and POV cameras -- you can broadcast to anyone in the world with an Internet connection for dirt cheap (as long as your phone/GoPro have a signal). It's absolutely genius.
It's gonna be a big deal soon.
www.pinkbike.com/video/444945
some day I might fiddle with the dog mounted GoPro again -- try to figure out how to limit the shakes. maybe it's just the way that my dog runs or something.
maybe I can just glue the Fetch to her to her back or even better, staple it to her head
The only way I see it being a benefit is to fill in the gaps that regular coverage misses. Other than that the footage to me is inferior to that of the trackside camera's. I'd much rather they just add in extra cameras along the track than try to add POV footage.
mandatory?
yuck.
Incidentally, that interest (make the public at large aware of the awesomeness of the sport) is shared by the industry (wanting to expand the sport at the grassroots participation level - and thus grow the industry) and riders (who want to be become marketable outside of Pinkbike videos so they can get big endorsements outside of the industry).
The goal, then, is to showcase awesomeness - and POV doesn't cut it for that. Drones are good, but limited (obstacle avoidance in the woods and all that). The Cairns course was apparently just under 2km long - that's too much to cover with live camera operators all the way. But you can semi-automate/remote control some of it. A few cables for long straight steep sections (like rock gardens); stationary cameras near the ground at sections where that makes sense (awesome turns, big features); bit of overall drone footage from above.
Now you take all that footage, and you combine it with data from GPS carried by each rider. And then you produce, in the day or two after the event (doing it live would require a huge amount of production effort similar to the TV operations at events like the Olympics or Football/Soccer World Cup - too much for this industry until we've reached world domination). The result would be a ready-made media package - full feature length, showing the most compelling runs, playing up the drama, adding a bunch of behind the scenes and after the fact analysis and interviews with riders (telling you exactly what happened to make them take that line, or how they came back from bobbling that feature, etc.). And that media package can then be made available to sports channels all over the world, and packaged online.
This wouldn't be reporting on the event results so much (anyone who cares about those gets them real-time online) - it would produce a package of media content that showcases the sport, the athletes, the lifestyle. All for the price of a bit of equipment and some production smarts.
For those asking WTF is a gimbal, it's the small motorized stabilized attachment on a drone that makes the footage not suck.
How about getting more trackside cameras?
I'm sure there's a tech geek on here who can critique the possibilities of my thoughts.
Line the track with transponders.
All linked to the drone.
Now fly the drone manually down the track so it has a path free of tree contact from top to bottom.
Each rider can wear a beacon that the drone, or drones, will follow or lead down the track.
Drone cameras fixed on the rider while the drone triangulates its position and follows the same path to the bottom at the riders speed.
Bang, perfect real time footage of the whole race.
How long would it take to strap a couple hundred transponders to some trees? Sounds pretty simple to me. From my couch.
You heard it here first.
Unless you've heard it before
I'd say that the event pick a couple of people and see if they're willing to wear set ups that feed live. Most of these people where cameras anyways. It helps them train AND many of them are sponsored by one brand or another. So they get paid. And that brand gets first release rights to video or whatever they put in the contract. By forcing them to use a certain camera you start to take that money out of their pockets. So unless UCI wants to pay them all for it...
Seriously.... Just get out there a couple weeks early and set up zip lines in key areas. Get a few people to wear set ups. Get a few guys out there on the course with cameras. That should be plenty. If you're so hard up to watch areas they can't get cameras in to... sack up and walk the course. But then again... I can't afford to fly all over the world to walk courses.... soooooo..
1. it compromises their safety (either helmet or chest)
2. it adds weight
3. they don't want to give away their lines
4. they don't want to be disqualified because helmet cams were banned by UCI (weren't they?)
2) The UCI has banned helmet and body-mount cameras, I believe because of injury concerns. Helmets aren't tested with a camera on top, and a camera between rider and ground could do real damage in a crash.
Not sure how to reconcile these two issues.
Whilst a chest/bike/helmet mount for dh could be interesting I think a drone piloted by an experienced operator could yield brilliant results.
A few WCDH tracks have used the zipline mounted cameras to great effect, it really shows just how fast they are going and how big the features of those trails are.
Not sure if I'm more surprised or disappointed that the likes of Red bull haven't employed more of this technology in their coverage. The past few years it just seems to be the same amount of cameras in the same locations.
If Redbull come back with "yeah but it costs too much", heck, I'll buy a slab of the swill they peddle every week to help fund it (note: i just said buy, not drink, they'd have to pay me to drink that stuff).
If wearing a camera doesn't affect or impede a rider's performance, and if they don't mind wearing one then fine.
If OTOH, a rider finds wearing one awkward, or that it interferes with him(or her) operating his vehicle to 100% of his(or her)
ability, or he(or she) just doesn't want to wear it for any reason, then they shouldn't have to.
UH....no you couldn't have. POV shots never show good footage of a wreck. All you notice is the rider going "f*ck" under his breath.
having them so viewers can see the action up close, that's cool... I'm old enough to remember the days that off road racing (of any type) sucked --- you didn't see anything until it was broadcast weeks, months later --- things like the TDF was pure shit, you often had to deal with shitty images that would break up when they were in the mountain stages. races like the Dakar Rally where shown by one or two helicopters and hardly ever live.
having POV's for the racers to study what they are doing for future races is a huge advantage
2. Why have identical equipment? Do they race the same bikes? no, then why should we limit the equipment let there be a free market so that pov cameras get better
After all, it's free to watch the best event on the planet. How many other events are like that! (Cheers Red Bull)
- that's not a kashima coated stanchion in my pocket
or
- nah dawg, i just don't poop
... tough call ...
A) yes
B) yeah brah
C) negative ghost rider
Also, have you paid any pesos to watch it? Exactly.