Michael Schumacher’s Ski Accident Brain Injury Said to Be Caused by his GoPro Helmet

http://petapixel.com …-caused-gopro-helmet-cam/

I'd place the blame on the rock his head hit...but then I doubt even a very creative lawyer can sue a rock.

+1 rock+lawyer.

So sad, bad press for Go Pro too. I was a huge fan of his amazing career. One of the very few Formula one drivers who could win a race with an inferior car. I hope he makes a full recovery

This isn't actually that farfetched. I'm not an engineer, so take this with a grain of salt, but helmets are designed to protect by spreading and absorbing the impact. I would think that if you have a small hard object between the helmet and the larger surface (ground, wall, large rock) that you collide with, this focuses the force from the impact onto one spot, reducing the helmet's ability to spread that force.

First thing this made me think of back in the day in racing when before everyone had on-board cameras it always seemed like the guy that had one crashed. People often thought it was due to them trying harder because of the on-board footage.


As for the theory in this case and this is purely speculation but I'd have to say the GoPro would likely help the helmet absorb shock being softer and possibly flatter than the rock. The mounting bracket on the other hand could have cause a stress/failure point and the helmet may have held up better without it. Without seeing the rock and the GoPro and helmet set up I really couldn't give a strong opinion and even if I did it would still just be speculation without know exactly how the impact happened.

rick_reno wrote in post #17214074
... I'd place the blame on the rock his head hit...but then I doubt even a very creative lawyer can sue a rock.

Don't underestimate the lawyers, there's a lode of money to be made from some rocks.

Note that his helmet split in two pieces during the accident, at the mounting point of the camera. Helmets don't split during heavy impacts - they're supposed to absorb the energy and not pass it along to the wearer. Something created an unusual pressure point which caused the helmet to split.

Note also that most of the helmet cam manufacturers specifically void their warranty if you attach something to the helmet. You think maybe their engineers know something about helmet design and safety that we don't? I sure hope they do.

rick_reno wrote in post #17214074
http://petapixel.com …-caused-gopro-helmet-cam/

I'd place the blame on the rock his head hit...but then I doubt even a very creative lawyer can sue a rock.

Mostly recanted as soon as it became viral.

Im not sure as to why this is coming into the news now. It's been a very long time since his horrific accident and the Go Pro was only just a rumour. Look at the date from the Telegraph article. Its been a very long time and nothing has been confirmed.

Sirrith wrote in post #17217133
This isn't actually that farfetched. I'm not an engineer, so take this with a grain of salt, but helmets are designed to protect by spreading and absorbing the impact. I would think that if you have a small hard object between the helmet and the larger surface (ground, wall, large rock) that you collide with, this focuses the force from the impact onto one spot, reducing the helmet's ability to spread that force.

Non-hardened helmets are really far more about providing a squishy delay action and less about spreading the force. The point is that the foam and such inside them can deform and slow the head down enough that your brain doesn't slosh around inside your skull, and so that the helmet is the thing deforming rather than your brainpan.

An improperly designed helmet cam could pose a problem in that the mounting point could catch and cause structural tearing of the outer shell if the linkage between the mount and the shell was too strong. However all of the GoPro mounts I've seen use a 3M double sided sacrificial adhesive which should force the tape line to shear rather than helmet shell. (And if that tape DOESN'T shear before the shell gives way, then you were using a really bad helmet and I would look to them to blame before 3M or GoPro.)

The GoPro itself, or a similar camera, between the ground and helmet isn't really an issue with regards to the helmet's ability to protect from impact, as that impact could have just as easily been against a small object that was on the ground.

From the sounds of it, his gear saved his life, and from an engineering and science perspective it is going to be exceptionally hard to prove it was made better or worse because of a helmet camera as there.

Sad story and even more sad if true. Everyone loves to attach a camera to their helmet though now and days. I don't know why. Well I mean I know why, but I don't know why they feel like they need to all the time. Helmets are not made to have decently heavy things attached on them.

One word;

Velcro.

DC Fan wrote in post #17218078
Mostly recanted as soon as it became viral.

"His public tweets clearly show that he kind of took his time to correct the record which was harmful, and the company is considering several options including the possibility of civil action against the reporter in France," a source inside GoPro told Reuters.
Read more: http://www.businessins​ider.com …era-2014-10#ixzz3HiU7B3fj

I think GoPro should go after the reporter, not only for actual damages, but include punitive AND exemplary. Let them know they are responsible for their reckless, irresponsible actions.

Another thing to remember is that protective helmets HAVE a shelf life, with motorcycle helmets that Shelf-life is 3 years...give or take. The specially engineered foam will degenerate and decay with time, sweat, hair oil and other factors will put the foam out-of-spec.

Also, motorcycle helmet manufacturers insist that if you drop your helmet on a hard surface, it should be replaced.

Jason