• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

'GoPro caused Schumacher injury'- report

legalskier

New member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
3,052
Points
0
"Formula 1 driver Michael Schumacher's traumatic brain injuries...were caused by a helmet-mounted GoPro camera, a French journalist in contact with the family said this week....'The problem for Michael was not the hit, but the mounting of the Go-Pro camera that he had on his helmet that injured his brain,' Moncet said"

Full story:
http://gawker.com/michael-schumacher-brain-injury-reportedly-caused-by-he-1645544653?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
 

Rikka

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
143
Points
18
Location
NH
Wow.... Never thought of that....


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app
 

Nick

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
13,176
Points
48
Location
Bradenton, FL
Website
www.alpinezone.com
Wait, so the actual mount impacted the helmet some way? That's not good news for gopro or other camera makers. I never even considered that being an issue, although it does make sense.
 

SIKSKIER

New member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
3,667
Points
0
Location
Bedford and Franconia NH
Really?
The claim was made by French journalist Jean-Louis Moncet who, after speaking to Schumacher’s son (who was on that skiing trip), went on a radio show and stated that, “The problem for Michael was not the hit, but the mounting of the GoPro camera that he had on his helmet that injured his brain.”

Thats real convincing evidence.

But why did it explode on impact? Here the camera comes into question. The laboratory has been testing to see if the camera weakened the structure.”

Again,pure speculation from what I've read.

Experts from ENSA, the world-renowned ski and climbing academy in the French ski resort of Chamonix, have conducted tests to determine whether the presence of a solid object between a helmet colliding with a rock would weaken the structure. [...]
“The helmet completely broke. It was in at least two parts. ENSA analysed the piece of the helmet to check the material, and all was OK,” said a source close to the investigation. “But why did it explode on impact? Here the camera comes into question. The laboratory has been testing to see if the camera weakened the structure.”

This story is totally loaded with "ifs".
 

Smellytele

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
9,917
Points
113
Location
Right where I want to be
Really?
The claim was made by French journalist Jean-Louis Moncet who, after speaking to Schumacher’s son (who was on that skiing trip), went on a radio show and stated that, “The problem for Michael was not the hit, but the mounting of the GoPro camera that he had on his helmet that injured his brain.”

Thats real convincing evidence.

But why did it explode on impact? Here the camera comes into question. The laboratory has been testing to see if the camera weakened the structure.”

Again,pure speculation from what I've read.
Experts from ENSA, the world-renowned ski and climbing academy in the French ski resort of Chamonix, have conducted tests to determine whether the presence of a solid object between a helmet colliding with a rock would weaken the structure. [...]
“The helmet completely broke. It was in at least two parts. ENSA analysed the piece of the helmet to check the material, and all was OK,” said a source close to the investigation. “But why did it explode on impact? Here the camera comes into question. The laboratory has been testing to see if the camera weakened the structure.”

This story is totally loaded with "ifs".

Not just ifs but also from someone who has something gain from it. Obvious heading toward lawsuit against gopro. ENSA seems to have said the helmet was constructed properly so who can we blame next? AHH - GoPro.
 

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,681
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
I could see the camera may be concentrating the impact more. This could be tested fairly easily.


Mythbusters!!!
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
The French journalists need to find work somewhere now that the Lance Armstrong doping scandal has been laid to rest.
 

JimG.

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
11,989
Points
113
Location
Hopewell Jct., NY
Of course it was the camera mount, not because he hit a rock with his head.

This is why the general population has no regard for personal responsibility.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
12,130
Points
113
Location
Wasatch Back
I could see the camera may be concentrating the impact more. This could be tested fairly easily.

If you took a direct impact to the camera, that's definitely the case, no need for a study.

That said, I'm filing this one under, "whoever or whatever entity has the most money to go after" shall be predetermined to be "at fault" until proven otherwise.
 

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,681
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
If you took a direct impact to the camera, that's definitely the case, no need for a study.

That said, I'm filing this one under, "whoever or whatever entity has the most money to go after" shall be predetermined to be "at fault" until proven otherwise.

I agree.
 

Abubob

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
3,532
Points
63
Location
Alexandria, NH
Website
tee.pub
Really?
The claim was made by French journalist Jean-Louis Moncet who, after speaking to Schumacher’s son (who was on that skiing trip), went on a radio show and stated that, “The problem for Michael was not the hit, but the mounting of the GoPro camera that he had on his helmet that injured his brain.”

Thats real convincing evidence.

But why did it explode on impact? Here the camera comes into question. The laboratory has been testing to see if the camera weakened the structure.”

Again,pure speculation from what I've read.
Experts from ENSA, the world-renowned ski and climbing academy in the French ski resort of Chamonix, have conducted tests to determine whether the presence of a solid object between a helmet colliding with a rock would weaken the structure. [...]
“The helmet completely broke. It was in at least two parts. ENSA analysed the piece of the helmet to check the material, and all was OK,” said a source close to the investigation. “But why did it explode on impact? Here the camera comes into question. The laboratory has been testing to see if the camera weakened the structure.”

This story is totally loaded with "ifs".

Agreed - they are totally guessing. Although I could see it happening. This is my guess: Those camera cases have been dropped from airplanes and the camera still functions. So if the camera was between a rock and a helmet - the rock isn't going to fail - and the camera case isn't going to fail either - that only leaves the camera one place to go - through the helmet and into his skull.
 

MadMadWorld

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
4,082
Points
38
Location
Leominster, MA
They are grasping at straws. I hate suits that go after things like this. It's a camera....no one expects them to do crash testing to make sure it's "safe"
 

Savemeasammy

New member
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
2,538
Points
0
Location
S. NH
They are grasping at straws. I hate suits that go after things like this. It's a camera....no one expects them to do crash testing to make sure it's "safe"

But, but... but SOMEONE must be to blame! Surely it couldn't be the SKIER'S fault!


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app
 

twinplanx

Active member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
1,748
Points
36
Location
lawnguyland
Maybe, somehow mounting the camera compromised the helmet?

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,921
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
I would assume the theory is the camera took all the force of the fall. That amount of force on a small hard object could push it straight through the helmet and potentially into the skull.
 

kartski

New member
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
97
Points
0
Location
Newburgh, NY.
If the Camera Mount is ridged, I could see it developing enough torque to compromise the Helmet Shell just before the Shell hits the rock, if the mount hits first. Given the shape of the Helmet, it is always going to strike an object at a single point, whether the object is a rock or a camera. I used to be more familiar with SNELL Standards for Motor Sports which included Face Shields that could stop a .22 Short round. Years ago I seem to remember Ski Helmets aiming to protect you from a 14 MPH glancing side blow. Most of the damage is the Brain crashing into the Skull.
 
Top