Need camera mount advice

kishg · Post by **kishg** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:11 pm

I've driven with NASA NE and PCA at NJMP, Summit Pt, Pocono and WGI and have seen cars with externally mounted cameras.

jont · Post by **jont** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:01 pm

I thought the issue with externally mounted cameras was due to the mounting, aka suction cups bad, hard mounts good.

Larry, definitely get the cruisecam if your M3 has metal posts for the headrest. It's what I have for my M5.

Other things to consider - external microphone because you might pick up wind noise. Also consider getting a remote. Starting and stopping the camera while belted in can be a little awkward.

pm335 · Post by **pm335** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:44 am

kishg wrote:I've driven with NASA NE and PCA at NJMP, Summit Pt, Pocono and WGI and have seen cars with externally mounted cameras.

I've seen external cams with Patroon and PCA Sch as well

pm335 · Post by **pm335** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:57 am

jont wrote:

Larry, definitely get the cruisecam if your M3 has metal posts for the headrest. It's what I have for my M5.

A note about the cruisecam and field of vision.

- If you're driving any recent BMW with a Nav screen and you have a standard videocam (not the upright-handheld models such as Flip, Xacti etc), you'll lose significant forward visibility unless you mount the cruisecam higher up (not at the top of the seat), which in turn increases vibration. I've been using hard rubber "wrappers" around the seat metal posts and the cruisecam clamps to absorb vibration and raise the mount higher up, with success.

jnscaldwell · Post by **jnscaldwell** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:59 am

pm335 wrote:
kishg wrote:I've driven with NASA NE and PCA at NJMP, Summit Pt, Pocono and WGI and have seen cars with externally mounted cameras.
I've seen external cams with Patroon and PCA Sch as well

Depends on who is at pit out with Patroon. I've seen the suction cup mounted ones removed before.

I think the bigger issue here is liability. It's a "what if" scenario. What if the camera got loose and impacted another car and caused an incident? Sounds less than likely, but it's still a risk that some clubs are not willing to take. Unfortunately this is the type of litigious environment we are all forced to operate in these days. I would be very interested to know the BMWCCA national position on externally mounted cameras for DEs. I think a lot depends on how the insurance riders are worded. Just guessing at this stuff, but my $0.02

PS - You could externally mount a machine gun and Schat PCA would let you run

mmarv · Post by **mmarv** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:00 am

All cameras, inside or out, should have a secondary tether* to restrict motion if the mount fails. Even the best suction cup mounts can fail and turn the camera into a projectile/debris.

*IIRC, SCCA requires this for autox.

kishg · Post by **kishg** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:08 am

hey, we let the red wreck run with externally mounted machine guns

mmarv · Post by **mmarv** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:12 am

pm335 wrote:
jont wrote:

Larry, definitely get the cruisecam if your M3 has metal posts for the headrest. It's what I have for my M5.
A note about the cruisecam and field of vision.

- If you're driving any recent BMW with a Nav screen and you have a standard videocam (not the upright-handheld models such as Flip, Xacti etc), you'll lose significant forward visibility unless you mount the cruisecam higher up (not at the top of the seat), which in turn increases vibration. I've been using hard rubber "wrappers" around the seat metal posts and the cruisecam clamps to absorb vibration and raise the mount higher up, with success.

A lot of video vibration can also be found in the camera's chassis itself. It's surprising how much it can flex. I made an entire camera body mount for my Aiptek. Without, the vibration was very evident. And this was bolted direct to the roll cage!

Unfortunately headrests are barely more then sticks in holes. LOTS of unrestricted motion there. Small, low mass, and short cantilever are best.

mmarv · Post by **mmarv** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:15 am

kishg wrote:hey, we let the red wreck run with externally mounted machine guns

Don't think the guns were on for it's NJBMWCCA debut. But LeMon's sure didn't care!

victory1auto · Post by **victory1auto** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:30 pm

At present, externally mounted cameras are not allowed at NJ Chapter driver schools. Depending upon the robustness of the mount and the quality of the installation, the camera could become detached during normal driver-school operation and pose at best a distraction on the track. This is why we require, at present, all cameras to be rigidly mounted inside the car.

For 2011, the DSC is considering requiring that passenger-compartment-mounted cameras be tethered in addition to being rigidly mounted. I hope a decision on this will be reached soon.

The fact that some tracks/orgainzations may or may not permit externally mounted cameras is their business. The NJ Chapter has many requirements that exceed the requirements of individual tracks. A good example of this is open cars; another is glass tinting. I could go on but I think you get the point. We always try to err on the side of safety - your safety.

Note that the Lemons E30 did not have its machine guns mounted when it ran with the NJ Chapter. I was afraid that the expended-shell casings littering the track would get us in trouble. If Ed goes with belt-mounted ammo that does not eject casings he is good to go..............

Vic
NJ Chief of Tech

larryengel328 · Post by **larryengel328** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:02 pm

I didn't expect my original post to start such a far-reaching discussion. I'm sure the Driver School Committee will take all factors into consideration and reach a decision they feel is in the best interest of safety.

By the way, we must buy insurance for our DE events and must name the track as an additional insured entity. Assuming that a track's rules are comprehensive or that they cover all potential risks could be a serious mistake.

By the way Brent, I'm interested in your mount. I'll email you.

kishg · Post by **kishg** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:14 pm

vic,

re internally mounted cams requiring additional tethering, would this apply to a bullet cam type camera? Those are typically attached to a rollcage with band clamps. I have such a setup in my car, most of them have no good place for an additional tether to attach to. link to pic attached.

-kish

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ro ... directlink

mmarv · Post by **mmarv** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:31 pm

kishg wrote:vic,

re internally mounted cams requiring additional tethering, would this apply to a bullet cam type camera? Those are typically attached to a rollcage with band clamps. I have such a setup in my car, most of them have no good place for an additional tether to attach to. link to pic attached.

-kish

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ro ... directlink

Bullet cams are such light weight that the cord itself could be considered a tether. Zip tie it independently to the roll bar.

kishg · Post by **kishg** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:53 pm

mmarv wrote:
kishg wrote:vic,

re internally mounted cams requiring additional tethering, would this apply to a bullet cam type camera? Those are typically attached to a rollcage with band clamps. I have such a setup in my car, most of them have no good place for an additional tether to attach to. link to pic attached.

-kish

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ro ... directlink
Bullet cams are such light weight that the cord itself could be considered a tether. Zip tie it independently to the roll bar.

brilliant!

victory1auto · Post by **victory1auto** » Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:10 pm

Kish, Mike:

If we go with requiring that cameras be tethered, I don't want to have exceptions to the rule. It will be either all or none.

Regarding using the camera cord as a tether, I think that would depend if the cord was hard-wired [with strain relief] to the camera or plugged in.

Remember [especially Kish, who is a Tech worker] that whatever rule we adopt has to be something compatible with a quick-glance-check at Tech.

And thanks to all who have made constructive suggestions.

Vic