UCI Announce Further Rulings Regarding On-board Helmet Cams

Jun 5, 2015
by Pinkbike Staff  
In a statement received by us from the governing body, the UCI said:

"After in-depth examination, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) announced today that onboard cameras on helmets shall be mounted solely on detachable visors/peaks that have been provided by the helmet manufacturer for use with the helmet in question.

This provisional authorisation will stand until tests currently being carried out by helmet manufacturers satisfy them that the onboard cameras in no way interfere with the functionality of the helmets.

The provisional authorisation applies to competitions and training sessions for the mountain bike and BMX disciplines at UCI-registered events. With regards to the UCI World Cups, it will enter into force at Fort William, (Great Britain) for the UCI Mountain Bike World Cup presented by Shimano and at Angelholm (Sweden) for the UCI BMX Supercross World Cup."

Alex Marin Trillo was in some fine form for the qualies flying into 3rd place in the juniors.

This application of camera mounting will continue to be banned at UCI Downhill and BMX events.


www.uci.ch


138 Comments

  • + 195
 Yessssss shaky helmet cam footage is the best.
  • + 36
 im not too sure about what other companies are doing it but bell has an awesome break away mounting system for go pros and whatever else that you wanna use, also making it so you don't have to stick stupid looking go pro mounts onto your 500 dollar helmet.
  • - 40
flag HutchJR (Jun 5, 2015 at 9:03) (Below Threshold)
 no way anybody will ride fort william with a camera that far forward!! your neck will be killing after 2 minutes!!
  • + 21
 This is fair tho. A gopro mounted upside-down on the bottom of the visor provides a really nice angle,and having a camera on the shell of the helmet does do quite a bit to nullify its protection
  • - 32
flag HutchJR (Jun 5, 2015 at 9:26) (Below Threshold)
 yea but on longer tracks it will really start making your neck sore haha... still better than nothing tho
  • + 14
 ...and the Bell gopro mount makes a handy light mount with a slight bit of modification. Which brings me to my point, this could be a window to standardize light and camera mounts. This applies to cameras: I've not really found a helmet that really excepts a light mount very well, and most light mounts suck for most helmets.
  • + 24
 nullifies its protection?

Helmets can't handle landing on a flimsy piece of plastic and yet can be rammed into pointy rocks at high speed? lol

This whole camera idiocy was caused by one reporter making a random guess about shumacher's death. He never spoke to any experts or anyone with knowledge of the crash. It was one random statement and he later recanted his speculation. And yet it got repeated in the media so much that the UCI fell victim to the nonsense.

Seriously, it is complete bullshit. Helmets are designed to withstand crashing into rocks and can absolutely handle crashing into a gopro.
  • + 117
 To be clear shumacher isn't dead
  • + 14
 The Gopro or anything else added to the helmet will change the angle of the crash before the mount itself breaks, because the side/top of the helmet is not a predetermined breaking point unlike the visor.
It's safer for the rider and therefor a fair call by the UCI. We all know how influential sponsors are, if UCI allowed it to be used at own risk, sponsors could force it on riders.
  • + 5
 Honestly who cares, the upside down mounting of the gopro under the visor is a great pov. I always mount mine there and don't even notice it. The only downside I can see is nowhere to put sponsor logos so they're in the frame but I'm sure there's a way to work around that.
  • + 1
 Post processing with downsampling and cropping view angle helps a lot.
  • + 2
 Whoa @Rentaric someone who actually understands the biomechanics of the situation? Nah @dfiler doesn't want any of that, he heard that "one journalist made a guess and the stupid UCI believed it and there couldn't be any other possible reasons they acted because I think they're dumb".
  • + 1
 @mnorris122 The way I read the rule it prohibits mounting under the visor unless the helmet manufacturer has made provisions for or provided the mount. I don't know of any helmet manufacturers that have an under visor mount

"shall be mounted solely on detachable visors/peaks that have been provided by the helmet manufacturer for use with the helmet in question."
  • + 1
 I just saw Rachy's helmet cam on instagram and I do like that lower POV compared to on top of the helmet!
  • + 76
 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"
  • + 10
 Everything is about money. I'm pretty sure Feld motorsports (Supercross) and Lucas Pro Motocross (Outdoors) already has this type of rule. I believe they have a deal with GoPro and they rent out cameras for testing so they can keep the footage rights. Chad Reed just threatened to quit the outdoor nationals because he isn't allowed to run his new camera sponsor that is not a gopro.
  • + 12
 I doubt this has anything to do with video ownership lol. They didn't completely initially ban cameras, they just banned them from being attached to humans, and now they just relaxed a bit on that rule. I fail to see the connection to video ownership.
  • + 4
 You can lol all you want, but it's about money.
  • + 1
 Brian Cookson said it's purely about safety. He hasn't been corrupted by his power yet so I believe him. If he was in his third term as president I wouldn't though.
  • + 1
 Well once GoPro's live device (that can allow TV companies to use live footage from a GoPro) makes it into MTB I can guarantee that this rule will be amended, because even if Cookson has the right stuff in mind I imagine other bigshots at the UCI want $$.
  • + 36
 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.
  • + 22
 The whole "hemet cameras are dangerous" thing came from the Schumacher crash, where a helmet camera was blamed for the injuries without any actual evidence of that being the case. There is no evidence saying that they are dangerous.
  • + 8
 There is no evidence that they are not dangerous either :/
  • + 10
 @src248 I don't think there is much evidence yet saying they are safe either. The UCI is just taking the conservative approach and putting the burden of proof on the helmet manufacturers to prove that their helmets are safe with a mounted camera.
  • + 3
 But there is no evidence that they won't compromise the helmet either. Basic knowledge of physics would suggest that in certain circumstances a camera mounted on the helmet could be dangerous.
  • + 3
 there's no compromise to the helmet structure if u use one of those 3M mounts.. there are no bolts, if hit hard enough it comes of.. this issue I am pretty sure it's more about video rights than anything else..
  • + 31
 Its the clash of two worlds here:

American Way: Allow everything until something happens and than sue the s**t out of the first best person you can find.

Euro Way: officially ban everything if there is the slightest doubt but do it anyway and if something goes wrong consider yourself an unlucky idiot.

I like the Euo way...
  • + 4
 You could also argue that helmet cameras provide a degree of safety - allowing riders to study the course in detail (at speed which is different to a course walk) prior to a race run.
  • + 3
 @VZLNMTB What if you land directly on the camera instead of a glancing blow which I will admit will just cause the camera to fall off.

It's a fairly easy thing to test for and I don't see any reason why they should allow it without some data saying it's safe.
  • + 0
 I doubt it's about money. Also I wouldn't ever "assume" something is safe vs. making sure it actually is, that's basically all the UCI is doing.
  • + 17
 claudio is risking his life every world cup so we can have his amazing track previews. He should ask for a salary rise
  • + 5
 Helmets are crashed into gopro sized rocks all the time. While there's no evidence that a gopro mount is not dangerous. There is also no evidence that riding a bike in Utah on Tuesday in the rain is not dangerous.
  • + 4
 Why not both? Allow everything, if it goes wrong the end user assumed the risks
  • + 2
 Next thing you know, theyre gunna start banning the use of mounting gopros to trail dogs...
  • + 9
 All of you that are waiting for proof that helmet mounts are safe, should never cross the road again. Crossing the road has been proven to be unsafe millions of times.
  • + 5
 Not allowing helmet cams because they might penetrate the helmet or cause rotational injuries is sort of like saying- Nope you can't have handlebars because you might stab yourself with them in a crash. Get real UCI, it's RACING and racing is dangerous, you accept the risk when you take that first pedal stroke out of the gate.
  • + 2
 Yeah I think it's fair to say at this level of liability the UCI simply don't want to get the shit sued outta them. Dh is dangerous and bad shit happens, but if it's all underwritten then the event goes ahead anyway right? The problem here is the UCI have the fear and rightly so. If it went tits up and the family sued, it'd be the UCI in the hot seat I imagine, not GoPro. Or have I missed the role of the UCI as the liable governing body?
  • + 0
 If you think about it, if you manage to hit the camera on the top it is going to isolate that force to one point on the helmet vs having it more spread out sans camera. Think whether it would hurt more to be stepped on by a running shoe or high heel.
  • + 3
 I can understand the liability point but I think it's a bit silly since we are riding bikes down a boulder field as fast as we can. I think it's ok of they are just trying to protect themselves legally, and in practice everyone is just left to do as they please w.r.t. cameras. That would seem more reasonable to me.
  • + 1
 That's the point! They should stop camera use 100% if thereis a possibility that they are dangerous! Sense a bit of hypocrisy on this one!
  • + 1
 We are talking about a global governing body, people should take hypocrisy as a given.
  • + 2
 I'd say that thousands of riders, every day. Out in the world all ready using helmet-cams, crashing and NOT dying........ Is evidence enough.......
  • + 1
 thousands of riders who wish they would be charging (and crashing at times) nearly as hard as these guys do...
  • + 10
 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
  • + 6
 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.
  • + 5
 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?
  • + 2
 A super solid peak would surely change the safety test results that helmet manufacturers work so hard to achieve, and also add weight to their wares that are too important to mess with. Also, will uci rules really stop the majority of riders sticking a mount on their helmet? Probably not, so where's the incentive to helmet manufacturers to suddenly change all their designs?
  • - 4
flag bigburd (Jun 5, 2015 at 10:05) (Below Threshold)
 Mounting on the peak actually makes for a more stable image than on the helmet
  • + 3
 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.
  • + 3
 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?
  • + 5
 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.
  • + 1
 Nope, I love them too!
  • + 2
 Chest mount gives a better impression of what it's actually like to ride a course. helmet mount stabilizes the perspective and gives a better view of what the trail and terrain looks like. I like having a mix of both in POV footage.
  • + 7
 Are the riders awolled to use chest mounted cameras during the trainig?
  • + 3
 According to this statement, an on-board/rider camera is only permitted when mounted on a detachable visor, and no where else on the rider. One can only assume that the ruling allowing for cameras to be mounted on the rider's bike is still valid.
  • + 2
 I love chest mount footage but if a DH rider were to crash in a race with chest mount and landed on the camera, I couldn't imagine that to be good.
  • + 3
 @geebeebee you said it yourself... "an onboard/rider camera" what do you think onboard means? the ONLY place you can mount a camera is to a detachable visor that was made for that particular helmet.
  • - 9
flag kudos100 (Jun 5, 2015 at 8:51) (Below Threshold)
 f*cking dumb that they throw the baby out with the bathwater. They could have said "you can no longer mount cameras on helmets, but cameras mounted on the riders chest or bike are allowed"

I cannot see that a chest mount camera is going to compromise the safety of a helmet.

As per usual the UCI are making black and white changes which don't help the sport.
  • + 3
 Quite a few people have broken ribs crashing in chesty, I like the view it gives a lot but for high speed trails I stick to helmet cam and save chesty for jump trails and steep stuff
  • + 4
 quite a few people have broken their ribs crashing without a chest mounted go pro as well. until its proven the gopro is the definitive reason, im not sold. hitting your chest into a rock will break your ribs as well is all im sayin. and same goes for the helmet, the uci is trying to say a gopro is harder than rocks? get real.
  • + 5
 Yeah but usually if you crash on a smooth section you'll sort of slide but wearing a chesty is like having a rock strapped to your chest so when you crash on smooth sections your more likely to break your ribs with a camera than with out
  • + 6
 Why not mount the camera under the visor? No need to look like a Teletubby! and will break away with the visor in a crash...

images.singletracks.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/0jpg-750x500.jpg
  • + 5
 Yeah that's my favourite mount, I love under visor mount especially when in superview
  • + 6
 The under visor mount is great for pro riders. But there isn't enough room for the gopro case so it has to be run naked. Gopros are expensive enough i'm not going to run it naked and get the lens scratched within just few runs. This rules out running it under the visor.
  • + 1
 Thanks! didn't know that existed
  • + 2
 People have broken ribs, backs, arms and all sorts of things as a result of riding downhill. It is a dangerous sport.

Perhaps helmet cameras can lead to serious head injuries, but really? Banning cameras, because of a freak, life threatening injury in a different sport? Are tens of people getting brain damaged because of helmet cameras?

Why not just ban downhill, freeride and dangerous mountain biking all together? The top riders are are consistently getting injured and although this is a harsh thing to say, it is only a matter of time until someone dies as the sport progresses. This is not a nice thing to think about, but is likely to happen go pro or not, with the fest series, bigger slopestyle courses, rebull rampage and the speed the WC DH guys go.
  • + 5
 Sweet, Under the visor footage looks all good, tons of footage you see is from there
  • + 5
 They just noticed that helmet cam footages contribute alot to the top people's pocket.
  • + 2
 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.
  • + 1
 Legalities. Common sense left the building at the point it came down to insurance, liability and legalities.
  • + 2
 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.
  • + 2
 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.
  • + 6
 Won't the bell breakaway mounts work for this?
  • + 2
 I came here to post the same thing. My interpretation of the rule is that they want a point of break away. Bell already has this solved with their camera mounts and the footage is just as stable as a normal sticky mount. I see no downside here.
  • + 4
 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)
  • + 1
 Good idea. I wonder if European policy on flying drones is as uptight as it is here in the states. Damn FAA.
  • + 2
 I believe the faa (powers that be) are mandated by congress to have regs by '16.
I'm glad they're taking their time as there's been a ton of close calls reported by pilots of passenger planes...especially around airports. Gna be great for jobs tho(robotics et al)!
Companies like 'next vr' have already proven live 3d works. Gopro has a 3d drone soon
  • + 5
 Are helmet cam mounts designed to break away during a crash? That seems like it could be a simple solution.
  • + 8
 I thought about that, every time I've seen somebody crash with a Gopro on the Gopro mount always falls off
  • + 4
 In 99% of crashes where there is an angular force then yes, the camera will harmlessly ping off. If however you have a direct impact onto the camera which is pushed into the helmet then there are some lovely angular corners and protrusions which will do a great job of penetrating the helmet. Remember, helmets are mostly pretty soft foam and designed to dissipate a blunt force though compression, not prevent penetrative injuries.
  • + 4
 Have you seen the curb anvil used in CPSC certification? No way gopro is worse than that...
  • + 1
 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?
  • + 1
 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.
  • + 1
 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.
  • + 1
 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.
  • + 6
 GO FUCK YOURSELF UCI!
  • + 1
 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
  • + 1
 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.
  • + 2
 Because we want to watch the POV footage and a lot of riders want to share the POV footage or study it themselves.
  • + 1
 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.
  • + 1
 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.
  • + 0
 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.
  • + 2
 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.
  • + 3
 This would have been awesome if we had this to Gwin's lines on his Lourdes domination.
  • + 1
 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.
  • + 1
 i don't blame either side of that fight, as on the one hand, he's basically a vegetable, never to regain true consciousness again, but on the other hand, the reasons for blaming the go-pro seem to boil down to "eh, this doesn't make any sense, maybe it was the camera?"
  • + 3
 There are no "reports". A single reporter speculated and later recanted that speculation. All other news sites just repeated that guess.
  • + 5
 UCI=fun police.
  • + 3
 I'm surprised Go-Pro is listed as an official partner of the UCI on the UCI homepage..
  • + 2
 Giro Cypher sales will now skyrocket. Built-in mount for GoPro and Contour. Stoked on mine!
  • + 1
 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
  • + 3
 Did Claudio and Manon get the memo?
  • + 1
 that was before official training i guess
  • + 4
 That footage was shot before the event was under official UCI control. No marshals or first aid on course.
  • + 11
 They were too busy being cool as f*ck.
  • - 4
flag arnoldtm2 (Jun 5, 2015 at 8:48) (Below Threshold)
 Claudio doesn't use a helmet cam anymore. Chest cam.
  • + 6
 Did you watch the ft bill preview? Switches between chest and helmet cams...
  • + 4
 Claudio is that good that he's actually only got the one camera that he moves between the chest mount and the helmet mount but you don't even notice.
  • + 1
 my bad
  • + 1
 Mount camera on underside of visor, use double sided sticky foam between helmet and camera hanging from visor. No shaky footage. Yay.
  • + 1
 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.
  • - 1
 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
  • + 1
 I reckon you're on to something you know
  • - 1
 , 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
  • + 1
 Does this effect chest mounts at all? Or are those already banned?
  • + 1
 Claudio still uses it though hahaha Try and stop him
  • + 1
 just mount it on the fork or handle bars?
  • + 1
 So whats wrong with a chest mount??
  • + 1
 What a bunch of interfering dumb arses
  • + 11
 Yeah, how dare they not want brain injured riders vegetabling in hospital. It's not like they have any good examples of well known sports personalties who have had such injuries.
  • + 0
 Sadly there is a good case for them getting involved. Helmets were not originally designed to have the cameras mounted so can, and do, create weak points. They also have added torque effects on the riders neck. If the UCI can demand people wear gloves then they can sure as hell ask people to not wear cameras on their heads
  • + 1
 The UCI has NEVER been necessary at all. And never will be. When all riders get together and say fuck you and form their own group that's when you'll see real change.
  • + 4
 @bikebike69 4x Pro Tour! UCI dropped 4x from the world cups and now there is a new 4x world series which is doing absolutely fine on its own! UCI come up with rules that are just ridiculous!
  • + 2
 Exactly
  • + 3
 bigtim - There is no proof what so ever that Schumis cam had anything to do with the severity oh his injury. it is the simple plain dumb fallacy of retarded news reporters (all major news reporters are retarded douchebags and people working for them are low lives). They put themselves into position of masterminds able to solve the mystery how could a man who survived countless F1 races turn into a cabbage by falling onto the snow on mellow slope. Perfect food for low lives who eat that pulp every evening. That includes parents of mine and my wife. Fascination with someone's misfortune, bravo! how moral of you!
  • + 1
 All the freestyle guys have already figured this out. You need a self proclaimed sanctioning body to have your events and get noticed. Promote yourself,crew,sport your own way and send a message that you don't need "governing".
  • + 1
 sorry spell check go pro
  • + 1
 This is some bullshit..
  • + 0
 is it possible UCI talked to the riders about this?
  • + 0
 So are you allowed cameras mounted to the underside of your visor?
  • + 4
 The underside of your visor is still your visor!
  • + 2
 I wonder if you could get away with a sticker that says "peel this off & mount sticky go-pro mount here." Just say you designed it to work with the sticky mount for break away in a crash, & that the spot you chose was tested for safety.
  • + 1
 Bullseye!
  • + 0
 UCI is lame, but cameras on the top look gooftarded.
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.069716
Mobile Version of Website