Safety equipment for cameras

[the.Legend 54]

I think that you misunderstood my comments. After all we're talking about some of possible scenarios with smaller probability of occurrence than when other safety system work correctly. As you mentioned, in posts above people already pointed out the most obvious flaws. What I'm mere suggesting is the things I'd pay attention to if I were to design this product.

1) Let's assume that you have two-out for whatever reason. Also let's assume that one of main's line got wrapped around that piece where camera attaches to the plate (blue line in original attachment). Even if you cut away either camera or canopy or both you still have a line with two-sided hook tied to it. Because camera and hook plate are inseparable now. This situation is rather dangerous, don't you agree?

2) Ease of installation is quite a big factor. Imagine that you bought an iPhone and the charger that goes with it actually consists of two wire pieces and every customer must solder them together to make it work. Pretty simple operation if you ask me. But would it be convenient for you as a customer?
While it might not be an obstacle for some, it might be a deciding factor for others, so you're loosing customers.
Yes, there are many similar products on the market, which foresee drilling holes. And others don't. If I had to choose between this and GrellFAB Front Mount I'd choose the latter because it works right out the box.

3) Ok, I might be exaggerating about head injury by two bolts.

4) As you may already know in skydiving nothing "unlikely" is impossible. In this very thread there was a mentioning of line got caught under grommet. How "unlikely" is that? With these springs I assume the scenario when you cut away the camera, don't cut away main, spring catches the line and while canopy is stalled or simply other lines aren't stretched yet it snags another line. While I agree this is a border-line scenario, its possibility still above zero.

I genuinely wish people to design this product and stand out from their competitors.

[Matevz13 0]

the.Legend

I think that you misunderstood my comments. After all we're talking about some of possible scenarios with smaller probability of occurrence than when other safety system work correctly. As you mentioned, in posts above people already pointed out the most obvious flaws. What I'm mere suggesting is the things I'd pay attention to if I were to design this product.

1) Let's assume that you have two-out for whatever reason. Also let's assume that one of main's line got wrapped around that piece where camera attaches to the plate (blue line in original attachment). Even if you cut away either camera or canopy or both you still have a line with two-sided hook tied to it. Because camera and hook plate are inseparable now. This situation is rather dangerous, don't you agree?

2) Ease of installation is quite a big factor. Imagine that you bought an iPhone and the charger that goes with it actually consists of two wire pieces and every customer must solder them together to make it work. Pretty simple operation if you ask me. But would it be convenient for you as a customer?
While it might not be an obstacle for some, it might be a deciding factor for others, so you're loosing customers.
Yes, there are many similar products on the market, which foresee drilling holes. And others don't. If I had to choose between this and GrellFAB Front Mount I'd choose the latter because it works right out the box.

3) Ok, I might be exaggerating about head injury by two bolts.

4) As you may already know in skydiving nothing "unlikely" is impossible. In this very thread there was a mentioning of line got caught under grommet. How "unlikely" is that? With these springs I assume the scenario when you cut away the camera, don't cut away main, spring catches the line and while canopy is stalled or simply other lines aren't stretched yet it snags another line. While I agree this is a border-line scenario, its possibility still above zero.

I genuinely wish people to design this product and stand out from their competitors.

Hello,
at first I must say that cutaway works so that after pulling a cable nothing will be on helmet anymore.
When you will pull the cable springs will fly away from the force stored in them (they are also really small and light).

We also agree that ease of installation is big factor, but we supposed, that those who will buy our product and do something to be safer they will take this into consideration - we really think that after cutaway nothing should stay on the helmet and we didn't found a way to do that in any other way than to drill into the helmet.

I must just say, that after all the comments and all the constructive criticism we ''went back to the drawing board'' and made quite some changes to the shape of the mount. My college will write post about that shortly and then we can say something more about everything.

Greetings,
Matevž

[PeterLisica 0]

Hi

First of all, thank you for all the comments on the subject.

The updated pictures were not on the website yet because we haven't got a hold of the model yet and couldn't make any pictures. Although in hindsight it would be better to just post the renders though.

The pictures 1,2,3 in the attachment are the updated design with the mount reaching over the bottom of the gopro camera and has much less of a gap between the mount and the camera.

I would like to say a little about our thought process here to explain some of the design features. Firsty I think that nothing is 100% snag proof. You can minimise the event of a snaged line to a point, but in the end the lines or the bridle could wrap around in some weird way and not come loose. So a cutaway system on a camera mount is very so beneficial.

Secondly the pins are designed to break at a force of about 80 pounds. This is made for two reasons. First: in the event of an full opening of your parachute and still snaging a line on the camera the force on your neck would be tremendous and i don't think that you could be quick enough to cutaway in that scenario. Second: The force needed to pull away grows exponentially in regard to the force that is pulling on the mount. There is always going to be a point were the force will just be to big to pull. The 3-ring system sorts with this on your parachute cutaway and decreases the tension about 200 times. We have tested this a lot and i believe that the best way to avoid it is to break away the whole thing. (in that case you would cutaway anyway) I don't think that any other mounts have that considered.

Thirdly is the shape of the mount, on which most of the comments were addressed. And i agree this could have been done better. So i've tried updating it to make it more snag resistant. See attached pictures 4, 5, 6 and 7. The camera is attached as low as possible and the gap between the camera and the mount is as small as possible. The whole footprint at the base is wider than the camera and it curves inward to match the footprint of the camera. The front and back are left partially open to ensure that the tilt of the camera is still possible. Although I think there is really little possibility of a line snaging there.

Please feel free to comment.

As for the comment from the.legend. I think that Pobrause cleared that up and I would maybe just add that same helmets in skydiving make me feel a bit scared. When you compare them to a motorcycle helmet it feels like a plastic bag around your head. Now I know that the purpose of the two is very different, but most of the helmets i've seen even have a disclamer that state the helmet will not protect you against injury or death. I presume this is so they avoid certification? All in all the two small holes won't affect the integrity of the helmet that much.