Cameras may not be mounted to competitors’ helmets.

Quote
EricW
Prediction:

You will see a media change where, like photography, RA owns all rights to use competitor footage for promotional purposes free of charge. When you pay for your license (shrink wrap!) you are agreeing to all of their terms.

You can debate whether the helmet cam angle is stupid or annoying... but I see much further down the road to where this is merely setting the stage for how they want the *perception* of all RA events to be - more uniform mounts and camera angles which is more *professional*.

And since I'm a guy who loves to see the development of rules (and myself, have helped explicitly rewrite rules due to lack of clarity) - what is the *specific* safety issue that has occurred that requires to future-proof the rule? My guess, as noted above, is that there is no safety issue - merely an image/PR issue. This ain't no Sandal Scandal (yet).

If you don't stop people from mounting cams to their helmet it can go further. To get the true "point of view" you need to put it at eye level. Which could very well mean covering up one eye. Now, seems common sense that you shouldn't cover one eye while driving, but if there's no rule against it, someone will eventually go there. I was going to take my GoPro out of the case and mount it right next to me temple for a POV view. People won't stop at just one cam and have 4 cameras mounted to their helmet or mount less elegant <8 ounce cameras to their helmet.

Helmet cam footage doesn't give a bad image/PR for the sport, so how is that an issue? And how is the "perception" idea to maybe go to a required camera angle a bad thing? All cam video that doesn't include intercom is just pure garbage most of the time anyway. Same thing when they used Contour cams on MaxAttack... "let's follow along with ____ on stage" *insert decent video but possibly shaky if externally mounted with lots of wind noise or just gravel noise in car* You lose the whole rally feel by taking away intercom chatter. Most cars just need 1 camera behind the driver/co-driver and intercom to catch both crew reactions and the road ahead.

I'm fine with giving up my footage to RA for free if it means they can put out a better report after an event and they work on a standard for footage requirements so I'm not looking at footage that Grant pointed out in the RA official video of L'estage.

Quote
BillyElliot
"let's follow along with ____ on stage" *insert decent video but possibly shaky if externally mounted with lots of wind noise or just gravel noise in car* You lose the whole rally feel by taking away intercom chatter. Most cars just need 1 camera behind the driver/co-driver and intercom to catch both crew reactions and the road ahead.

Nice Billy! I so totally agree! I was never happy with our in-car footage but we had the opportunity to get 5 Contours for cheap and Mark Malsom was willing to buy them all to have SOME in-car in the Max Attack! footage. I was okay with sub-par footage as we were a volunteer group doing what we could. Didn't mean I liked it and used way less in-car than I would have if we'd had some decent quality video AND audio.
Rally-America's new goal appears to focus on getting high quality media out there. MJ posted a pic of Bill Fogg Jr. with a new Red camera to film with. Why would you spend all that money and not invest in a few high quality systems to capture on-board video AND audio. They exist. See the 1995 WRC Review...

---

Grant Hughes

Quote
NoCoast
Why would you spend all that money and not invest in a few high quality systems to capture on-board video AND audio. They exist. See the 1995 WRC Review...

My onboard video and audio was captured via a GoPro Hero2 HD and an aux line going to the mic input from my Peltor intercom. Easiest setup ever, zero post-processing was needed, the GoPro autolevels the audio perfectly, whether we were talking normally on transit, or practically yelling on stage.

$300 for the Hero2, the cord cost $3 to make.

Suprised not many other people have jumped on this. The new Hero's make it incredibly easy to capture that high quality audio and video everyone is wanting.

So Gene, with all respect, your two examples support my original comment:

There is no data to support or indicate that a helmet mounted cam causes a significant safety risk. It is a perceived risk unless you can show me otherwise. (Reminder - I'm not debating how *silly* or *useless* a helmet mounted cam is...)

Example 1:
"resulted in numerous instances of blown up rotors that, in some cases, ejected parts into surrounding areas." - That sounds like there were measured, real issues. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable change to me to prevent shrapnel from injuring other people.

Example 2:
Using the risk matrix I outlined above, I can easily see (eg, high probabilty) that abrasions are quite likely when riding just 3/4" above the ground. This would probably be a severity=2, risk=2 (much like in-cabin fire as mentioned before). Making a rule to reduce the severity of injury (and again, not the risk that it will happen) sounds perfectly reasonable in the context that it's something that you are exposed to regularly.

To your note on not wanting to require boots...
okay - what about balaclavas? about $20-$40. what about nomex socks if you don't require nomex footwear? again, about $20-$40.

Those sound like reasonable expenses in the name of safety. Do I wear nomex socks? No. Balaclava, yes. Close face helmet? No. Gloves? yes.

I think most people, if they saw a we-now-require-nomex-socks-and-balaclava the community would probably agree that it's not a bad idea. But banning helmet cameras as a health and safety risk? Let's agree to disagree on whether the rule makes sense. I honestly think that banning helmet mounted cams makes perfect sense from the standpoint of improving the quality of footage, image of rally. I'm just calling shenanigans on the safety aspects when there are much bigger fish to fry in the name of safety.

Would I use a helmet mounted cam? No. The image quality stinks. But I wouldn't think twice of using a GoPro, Countour, or any other of the solid-state small form factor cameras on my helmet.

Quote
EricW

There is no data to support or indicate that a helmet mounted cam causes a significant safety risk. It is a perceived risk unless you can show me otherwise.

There is no need for data. It's pretty common sense I would think.

You do know that there is a large but growing smaller part of the community that thinks the requirement of fire suits is ridiculous. Growing smaller because of paradigm shift of competitor base of those of us that it has always been a requirement so we never think twice about it.

---

Grant Hughes

Quote
NoCoast

There is no need for data. It's pretty common sense I would think.

I would think the same thing about co-driving in flip-flops.

I find it hard to believe that actually happened, I mean, what if you had a flat and dropped the tire on your foot? I've DONE that before, I couldn't imagine what it'd be like on a bare foot. Or had to push the car out of a ditch/off the road?

It's kind of like welding/grinding in flip-flops. It's plain stupid. Sure, you can typically get away with it; I can also get away with standing on top of a pump casing in a plant up north with no fall-protection harness on while changing an autosampler out with my arms extended over my head, but I DON'T.



In fact Anders, to associate time as knowledge is ridiculous. I meet people everyday who have done a job for 20 years and can go "why are you doing this? It makes no sense". Equating time = knowledge is false.

OSHA exists because of past events (read: data) and all rules and regulations coming from it are driven by real risks.

Fire suits are another example - clearly there were issues in the past. The suit makes surviving a fire reasonable.

Okay - put it this way, I will gladly bow to the safety issue if someone can find me a *single* instance of an injury on the scale as noted in the bulletin. On harness stuff, hundreds of people fall from heights every year and harnesses save lives. There are any number of automobile race accidents where cockpits have been engulfed in flames. Karts flip over and people slide on the ground.

Just a risky as a camera, I can easily see a peltor-like boom mic breaking off and spearing a driver/codriver. It's *at least* on the same risk level as a camera. I won't even talk about the blunt force versus puncture issue as that's beyond the scope.

If people are aware of how ISO and OSAS stuff works, the time=knowledge stuff IS BS... since you are required to continually evaluate your operations using stuff like the risk matrix calculations I outlined below. People continually make changes and there is little that is done 'just because we've done it for 20 years'... all risks are continually evaluated and changes are made - for the stronger AND weaker.

Quote
EricW
Fire suits are another example - clearly there were issues in the past. The suit makes surviving a fire reasonable.

Find an example of a situation in which a fire suit saved someones life or reduced injury in a modern rally car?

This might be the only example I can think that a fire suit MAY have played a role in survival as the driver did survive, but this was a Group B car and thus not a modern rally car.




What is the probability of crashing on a stage?
What is the probability of exploding into a fireball?
What is the probability of anyone (medical, controls, etc) being anywhere near you with a fire extinguisher or close enough to you to have any hope of rescue if it does happen.
If fire suits make sense then a fire supression system SHOULD be mandatory, yet we still can carry little extinguishers that are only useful to stop a fire once you are out of the car (and probably not in passenger compartment since you were able to get to said extinguisher) or to provide assistance to the car that was 1 minute in front of you, who is already fucked if there was a fire of the magnitude that their fire suits would come into play AND you're two puny 10 ABC extinguishers aren't going to do fuck all.

---

Grant Hughes

Grant, you need to draw parallels where reasonable. In my searching, I can't find a single instance of an injury in a motorsport event caused by a helmet cam. I did find some rules associated with cameras being banned in equestrian competitions in UK or... get it, copyright reasons

However, there are numerous instances of fires in motorsports. The more interesting question should be - "if we are able to race all-electric vehicles, will I still need to wear a fire suit?" Are you saying that today's modern rally cars are dramatically safer from a fire safety perspective than GrpB rally cars? Cars crash all of the time and catch on fire. Cars have electrical fires and burn to the ground (especially those Italian supercars of late). The crash is often, but not the sole instigator of fires in cars.

If I owned an Italian supercar, I would probably wear my race suit every day to drive it just so I *didn't* burn to a crisp.

On the firebottle note - yes. I see the risk as being real. Driving a Subaru, they tend to catch on fire if put on their roof. So I took the extra expense on my part and bought a fire bottle. I agree, the existing systems could be improved in this area. I see the risk of fire as being quite real and probable. Now, JUST a firebottle doesn't make sense. A handheld extinguisher to help out someone else makes perfect sense in the operational world of rally.

Quote
HiTempguy
In fact Anders, to associate time as knowledge is ridiculous....

As I feel that it's not ridiculous, you and I disagree. That's ok.

I'm certain you're right that there are many people who have been doing something wrong for a long long time.

Quote

Equating time = knowledge is false.

I'll stand by the concept that lots of experience generates wisdom. I believe my previous post spoke more to wisdom than knowledge.

Cheers,
Anders

---

Grassroots rally. It's what I think about.

Quote
EricW
Fire suits are another example - clearly there were issues in the past. The suit makes surviving a fire reasonable.

Quote
NoCoast
Find an example of a situation in which a fire suit saved someones life or reduced injury in a modern rally car?

I think Grant is right on this one, at least in the States. I believe there are some old-timer stories about the original introduction of fire suits for rally. They were explicitly brought in to "make the series look more professional".

The first suit requirements were also so wide that one smart-alec, in protest wore a formal suit (or tuxedo?) at the first race where they were required. They were mostly "jumpers" or mechanics-style suits.

So, it wasn't a rally car fire that started the fire suits. While I do know of a few burned cars... I don't know of any burned suits in the last ten years or so.

Anders

---

Grassroots rally. It's what I think about.

The main cause of those Subaru fires I know of have been the location of power steering fluid reservoirs above the turbocharger.
Ever looked at how long the protection of a fire suit is? It's not a whole lot, measured in seconds. I think like 5-12. Definitely not long enough for the next competitor to make it to you 60 seconds later and get out of the car and come help. Now if you happen to be unconscious and the car catches fire they might be able to come and pull you out but I can't conceive of a situation in a rally car on a real rally stage where a fire suit will sustain life and not just prolong pain.

Whoa tangent.
I'm still not sure why people care about helmet mounted cameras. Is it that hard to imagine? Let's mount a camera to the right side of the driver's helmet. Now let's take a hard impact to the passenger side. Driver has Hans device and Racetech winged seats. The camera hits the wing. What happens? I wish I could draw a little picture here. You now have a new pivot point. Instead of your whole helmet meeting up to the winged seat you now have a point higher and this allows the lower part of your head and neck to pivot inward and voila, you're a quadrapeligic.

)|
vs.
)-|

---

Grant Hughes



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2012 03:36PM by NoCoast.

Quote
EricW


Fire suits are another example - clearly there were issues in the past. The suit makes surviving a fire reasonable.

You might imagine. However when the rule was introduced for US rally, there was lots of data that indicated no pressing need. In fact it was expressly stated the intention was to "increase the appearance of professionalism" and indeed at first event after the rule was in effect, many were strutting around all smiles saying "Wow, don't we look a lot more professional now".

This is America. Image is EVERYTHING.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

You don't need data to ban something that's probably not a smart thing to do. Like I said, people won't stop at 1 camera. Next they'll be mounting the 3D ones to their head. Sure, someone might not get killed by a GoPro but the camera could get loose an eye.

I still don't get your idea that this is some conspiracy for more professionalism. If they were banning it because they didn't want helmet cam POV views, than why do some F1 drivers now have helmet cams in races?

Quote
NoCoast
Ever looked at how long the protection of a fire suit is? It's not a whole lot, measured in seconds. I think like 5-12.

Depends on how many layers of course, I seem to recall that my 3-layer suit plus nomex undies was worth roughly 21 seconds before 2nd degree burns set in. Unless the suit is wet (steam burns).

But that said, I'd like to think that if it took me 10-12 seconds to unbelt and get the hell out of a wrecked car I'd be better off with a driving suit than without.

---

Opel is a 4-letter word...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10498579@N07/sets/