UCI Announce Further Rulings Regarding On-board Helmet Cams

 Yessssss shaky helmet cam footage is the best.

 The optimist in me says the UCI is truly concerned about rider safety. Having a camera and/or mount pierce a helmet is not out of the realm of possibility.

The pessimist in me sees this as a way for UCI to control the video content of their events. Eventually it will turn into something like, "you have to use OUR cameras on OUR mounts. . . .and we own the footage"

 I really don't see why everyone gets so worked up about this. The way I see it is that the UCI requires full face helmets that meet a certain protection standard correct? And most all would agree they have good reason to do so right? Everyone agrees that the helmets are a necessary form or protection no one complains about it?

So now you have helmet cams, which can potentially compromise the safety that said helmets provide. Doesn't it make sense to not allow them if they compromise the safety of the helmets which everyone agrees and necessary? I know for most people anything the UCI does is evil and bad, but there is an issue of safety here it would seem.

And for the record I wear a camera mounted to my helmet all the time.

 What a load of shit , this shows everything that's wrong with the world these days , next step remove all rocks and sharp edges from dh tracks , full bubblewrap suits ..... The difference a helmet cam will make to a helmets safety will be far less than the rift of safety provided between say a troy Lee d2 and say a fox rampage pro.. Totally pointless

 What a bunch of political dorks. You can put anything under the umberella of: we must test X thing due to safety concerns, riders safety is the priority. For instance, Why visor itself isn't a safety concern? why baggy shorts that can get caught by branches are not considered dangerous? You can demand research into dumbest concern you can come up with. Someone at UCI is obviously given a vacancy of working with safety, and he got a bit to little to work on. I tell you what mate, demand from all roadies entering any major event, mountain stages in particular to take a course at cornering and braking. Our administrator at the office is a 50yr old lady riding 5 times a year and she can corner better than 90% of Tour De France contenders. no2 how about you fix this insanity with nr of cars and motorcycles on major road races first, then work on helmet cameras on dh bikes which you picked up on because you, or someone putting political pressure on you, heard some retarded journalist douche mention helmet cam in relation to Michael Schumachers accident. this is pathetic.

 Are helmet manufacturers not just going to figure out a way to make the visors super solid now otherwise the camera is going to be shaking madly?

& if they do that doesn't it negate the whole point that the uci are aiming for?

 Are the riders awolled to use chest mounted cameras during the trainig?

 Ot it just me or do chest cameras give much better points of view. They make the footage look far faster and they show the insane steepness of DH.

 www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0YOMBkB6p8

Contour camera on a Bell Super helmet. I can still spell words and make complete sentences. DH helmets are a bit more burly than my enduro-esque helmet, too.

As much as I'd like to believe the UCI is concerned for rider's safety, I can't help but think there's underlying control issues at work. It should be up to that rider to wear at their own risk...have them sign waivers.

Considering how little track-time they got at Lourdes, for example, the helmet-cams are essential for riders to better understand the track with the limited time they got to spend on it.

 I have 2 or 3 helmets that have camera mounts on top of 'em, that CAME WITH THE HELMET(S).
I could understand wanting to 'investigate' if the camera mounts were made by 3-party companies, but when you buy the helmet and it COMES with the fricken mount(s), doesn't that mean that the helmet manufacturer has already 'Certified' its use with said helmet?

 Sweet, Under the visor footage looks all good, tons of footage you see is from there

 Are helmet cam mounts designed to break away during a crash? That seems like it could be a simple solution.

 Well, at least near-future rides with Claudio(and maybe actual racing) will be in 3D via drones following nearby (until a jump causes rider to crash into one..lol)

 Won't the bell breakaway mounts work for this?

 They just noticed that helmet cam footages contribute alot to the top people's pocket.

 What's the difference between a helmet cam and a rock that hits you where the helmet cam was positioned? I get that it's fixed there and increases the likelihood of the impact being isolated in that one spot, but it's not like the rider isn't accepting the inherent risks involved in mountain biking.

I fail to see how removing a helmet cam/mount is going to significantly improve/reduce risk of injury. Meanwhile, putting it on the breakaway visor just made the helmet more front heavy and makes the visor more dangerous.

 Trying to understand how the halfwits in the UCI can allow a road bike to carry a camera, when ridden mm's from over a 100 other riders, on skinny tyres dressed in nothing more than lycra to protect them from the tarmac. Yet ban them from Mountain Bikers dressed in protective gear & full face helmets and on a course on their own.
This is nothing to do with safety but all to do with commercial rights to the footage. UCI & National bodies don't give a shit about Mountain Biking, we should go it alone as EWS have and let the UCI & National bodies carry on blowing sunshine up their road & track cyclists and stick to their anal velominati rules.

 I don't know why this is an issue! Most helmets are now coming with mounts for GoPros like the the Bell Super and Bell Super 2R. The GoPro or helmet mounted camera has the same effect as if you hit your head on a small rock which is very likely to happen. So are there not supposed to be rocks on the trail because it would probably cause more damage to the rider than a helmet mounted camera.

 GO FUCK YOURSELF UCI!

 I think what I see as dangerous from a top-helmet mounted camera is the rotation force applied from the ground onto the camera or mount and into the spine. It will grab into the dirt harder than the smooth shell would and could cause a more severe neck injury. The under the visor mount is my preferred location for video anyways. You get a better perspective without the visor in your video.

 so when your helmet cam detaches, and still still hit a small rock that will roll your head... it totally matters... let people take their own risks. inform them and let them make the decision. its obviously not a big problem... someone gets hurt and everyone freaks out. the chances are so slim.

 One basic question I have is why do people really give a shit about this in the first place? Why exactly should I or any other person who is not racing care if WC riders can mount their cameras on their helmets?

Why do people get so worked up about something that literally has zero effect on them personally.

 Sad times, health and safety gone mad. How long before rocks get dug out or get pointy bits get chipped off. More chance of you doing yourself damage comming off going over wet slidy roots. In fact why not limit bar width just in case they catch a tree.

 i been doing just this for years with my onboard action cam under the Visor had some funny comments at race sceen and on the Hill but never had a problem had always decent vids with that crappy cam i use to use under trying to figure out a good angle on my new Polaroid HD to set up like this old cam with the adaptors it has not so under the helmet friendly this new cam i got vs the crappy one i used previously www.pinkbike.com/photo/8418957

 Downhill Mountain biking was never designed to be a safe sport. Crashes are going to happen either way. If you crash with so much force you are going to implode a top pro into your head then what would happen if you hit a rock in the ground.

 this isn't a purely DH issue. some might say POV filming of xc/am riding is boring, however a lot of people do that (likely outside UCI jurisdiction). I do not. But....I do have a headlamp mount on my helmet for the times I need it. When I ride (xc,CX and am) I usually find that the trails have trees and shrubs that impede on the trail (who didn't trim them!!!!!). Even when I don't have my headlamp on, I find that some overgrowth tends to get hooked on the low profile mount, resulting in some head/neck extension/sublixation that could be damaging under the right (or wrong) circumstances.

So DH racing and smashing your head on rocks is only one side of the story. There are other disciplines that have equal risk that I haven't heard in any of the current arguments.

Thoughts?

 For those who are saying that the mounting device not compromise the structure of the helmet clearly doesn't know what a stress concentrator is (a local increase in the intensity of a stress field).

The main problem isn't with the camera. The main problem is with the mounting device which normally, if not all the time, is made from a material/polymer harder than the helmet.

As consequence you get a stress concentrator on the interface between the helmet and the mounting device. So, the energy/force to crack the helmet on that point will be lower.

 For those who are unaware, this rule change stems directly from reports of the effect the gopro attached to Michael Schumacher's helmet during his ski accident that left him in a coma. Obviously heavy litigation follows.

 This would have been awesome if we had this to Gwin's lines on his Lourdes domination.

 I'm surprised Go-Pro is listed as an official partner of the UCI on the UCI homepage..

 UCI=fun police.

 Because mounting a camera on a visor to have smashed into your face is much safer than having it break off the top of the helmet.

 Fo guck yourselves. If someone wants to put a camera on the top of helmet body or side (say on goggle strap) then that should be fine. The last good discision they made was no Lycra.

 Your tripping if you think I'm sticking any sort of mount on my brand new £400 sexy rampage pro carbon anyway so this isn't a problem for me! Different for the pros though.

 Did Claudio and Manon get the memo?

 , If it were me i'd be more concerned with what is happening to my neck when i hit a solid object square on, with the top of my head i.e "javelin style", for sure the helmet will be compromised by the camera, but am fairly certain that if the camera were not there my injuries would be just as bad in a javelin style impact. any other impact i.e side on / oblique / rotational then unless the camera has been put into a bombproof case with a bomproof attachment then it will just rip off...........50-90kg+ rider, @ 15-30mph vs a 200g plastic camera stuck on with sticky back plastic.......c'mon use yer commonsense UCI

 Just mount cameras on the bikes, you can get really cool views showing how much the suspension works. This can give a far better impression of the terrain and jumps than helmet camera views which are too remote and isolated from what's really happening under the wheels

 Giro Cypher sales will now skyrocket. Built-in mount for GoPro and Contour. Stoked on mine!

 as smart as this : www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxPBu_vX9Q0&spfreload=10

 So now I'm confused. How is there footage from Ratboy's run today (with a gnarly crash)? www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdlJQzHVIog&feature=youtu.be

 Mount camera on underside of visor, use double sided sticky foam between helmet and camera hanging from visor. No shaky footage. Yay.

 Claudio still uses it though hahaha Try and stop him

 What a bunch of interfering dumb arses

 Does this effect chest mounts at all? Or are those already banned?

 So whats wrong with a chest mount??

 just mount it on the fork or handle bars?

 So are you allowed cameras mounted to the underside of your visor?

 This is some bullshit..

 is it possible UCI talked to the riders about this?

 UCI is lame, but cameras on the top look gooftarded.

 sorry spell check go pro