I'm trying to mount a cheap camera on my bicycle so I can tape pictures of how my commute in the city goes about (and for my own memory as well). I've looked through the Internet and found that there are solutions for motorcycles, and even bicycles. But they all aren't that suitable for me, due to the prices and other factors. So I decided to make my own.
This "device" is made entirely out of wood. The sponge is there to absorb the shock and the windscreen is to protect the lens. Bolts on the suspension is stuck to the upper (blue) portion, so it moves freely through the green part.
Do you think this is a viable solution?
Y2kGoofball
09-22-2004, 02:02 PM
as long as it wont interfear with you if you fall off, which does happen :eek:
FIATLOVE
09-22-2004, 03:06 PM
Nice idea Wei, and good job!
1st thing first; Doing the "prototype" in wood is just nice, I just have to say thank you for sharing this idea, because I have now the aluminum version on my drawing board (I use rubbersheats to protect the frame-paint) ;)
From earlier I have a car-bracket ready for construction (I'm sorry I have no PC-illustration like you have), but it's similar in many ways;
it's drawed for usage of digital stillcamera (your was a video-version), but the scale (thickness of bracket body size) of the bracket will not change much between these two systems if made in alu (weight of camera isn't that big difference).
My car version looks similar, but it uses "plastic sucket cup brackets" as mounting system to attach it to the top of the dashboard (I have no idea what you call these devices in english, but they are used to attach on glass mainly, you have to lick them to make them attach..) :p
What kind of material are you using for shock-absorbing???
Wei, it was a good idea to mount the bracket onto the top tube instead of the steering bars (keeps the gravity forces to work lower, tho GOOFBALL has a point regarding "need of free space to move the knees over the the top-tube whe cycling difficult mountain terrains), tho that would be the "easy solution" regarding to easily make a steel bracket for the bar (there is alot of 22.2mm bar brackets that are easy to use as "base" for a selfmade bracket system), making a bracket for mounting on toptube demands some more "customizing" to fit different bike frames. (I am thinking in a "production-line" way here..)
Another idea;
To make a body-bracket (upper arm strap or like) to sell to mass-marked, and of course offer different mounting brackets to fit for several kind of camera-brands.
By using a body bracket system you don't need any absorbing stuff because the body will work as a natural absorber (and in addition the cam will see "hard impacts", e.g if downhill bicycling in hi speeds on wasboard gravel (with bodymount camera this will "feel" just as gasping for the spectators of the movie as incar cam from WRC cars, disregarding of the speed difference..
, but also the camera will follow the movement in body during curves and so on, this effect can maybe give more sence of realism when looking at the movie afterwords..)
Another good thing about a body.strapper is that users don't have to dismount the camera from the bike when leaving (parking the bike).
I never park my bike anywhere but in my appartment, but all my neighbours parks in the "bikehut" in our backyard.. ;)
I have done some few short movies during car driving, and I have noticed (IMO) that when I do hold the camera in my left hand while recording, holding it on top of the wheel (using right hand for steering except when changing gears), that way of recording makes the movie much more real compared to if a passenger holds the camera (tha faster it goes the more nervous will the passenger feel, LOL)
:D
Take best care, good to see you :)
Mads
NFSracer
09-22-2004, 05:03 PM
If i were to do one of these, i'd put it far forward so it's out of your way, and also nothing on the bike in view of the camera. When i'm riding my bike near it's max speed across a flat road i like to hang over the handle bars so i can't see any of the bike, even though i know i'm on a bike, i just find it awhole lot more exciting. I dunno if the same effect would exsist when your watching it through a tv though. :confused: Like maybe have it mounted on the front of the frame over the tire? Then it's out of your way and has a clear view of everything.
Just my 2cents...
FIATLOVE
09-22-2004, 05:22 PM
Well, the cam has to be placed in a height that allows rider to lay flat over steer in downhills and so (a must to lay down at downhill to reduce wind drag), in addition there has to be room to move the knees freely over the toptube at technical sections of offroad biking..
But on a modern mtn bike the top tube use to that long it ain't no problem for mounting, still, if the camera is low weight it may be a issue to move it onto the bars.
Still I like the body mount style best.
When riding off road, the front of the bike is rarely pointing the direction the track goes ;-)
When I'm biking in darkness at gravelroads, I use a headlamp that's mounted on my helmet (very lightweight, Xenon lamp), battery I have in my backpack, a "bodystyle wear"
This makes the light points where I look ;-)
And (regarding headlamp), if I meet a car who does not let of his hi-beam lights "because I am only a biker", I can set my Xenon lamp straight into his face by just looking at him, MUAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA HAH
Guess who blends of hibeams ASAP
:Peace: :D
way124
09-22-2004, 05:39 PM
If I fall off, I'd probably be kicking the camera out of its mount :D But if I fall, it's a bad enough situation. I don't think the camera will make a situation worse. Even if I taped myself falling, which has happened before, it's quite entertaining :D
Ah, thanks for a few pointers, Mads. Mounting on the top tube is indeed better because the force from the shock of riding is neutral around the top tube (it being a pivot between the two wheels). Having more weight on one side of the handlebar can hinder handling, too. Shock absorbing material is some high quality, high density dish washing sponge :D sandwiched between green and blue segments of the mount and also between the camera and the mount.
I'm not sure how the body strap is going to work. The video camera weighs about 1 kg, and can be a problem having it attached anywhere on my body. I don't want to carry a backpack because I don't like having a sticky back. Mounting on the bike seems to be the best, it seems.
Oh, the whole thing is made entirely out of wood. I don't know how you work with aluminum &( Don't know butting or casting. Wish I did. But the whole thing can be made out of a plank of wood... I just need to stack flat planks together to form shapes. Kinda like a 3D jigsaw puzzle.
I hope it works... I just realized that I do have hobbies. I make junk :D
FIATLOVE
09-22-2004, 05:59 PM
Ahh there you are maty :)
Well if mounted on bike (regarding crashes), if mounted on toptube it will mostly be protected by the steeringbars width.
(thank's alot for this detail reminder, a really good day in the woods will cause at least one huge "fall-of/ escape from bike but do not head for that rock") :D
To not be shy, I am really good in "rolling" (my body along the ground after ascaping the bike) ^_^
!Kg cam is too much to wear on body (at least on head/helmet) over time, in addition to battery.
But, wearing the "luggage" (weight) on the body is much less energy demanding than if you carry it onto the bike (each time you pedal a stroke, you have to force the weight of the bike, and you do pedal 60-80 strokes pr minute.....)
Carry weight on the bike is very good for strenght building (legs), for competition and skill biking, do wear the weight onto your body.
I am not using a full backpack when biking, I use a 5 Litre pack, I wear it as a "belt", my personal pack is of the brand "LOWE" (mtn climber equipements), this way I avoid sticky back :)
EDIT;
here is picture of the 5 Ltr LOWE beltpack, this is my first one (look at the Klein, it has a stiff, CHROME front fork), this is OOOOLLLLDDDDD DAY's of mountainbiking, the pic is from 1990 fall in the woods of Oslo (my backyard) :)
http://no-clan.nett.org/pics/head/PINACLE_hr.jpg
FIATLOVE
09-22-2004, 06:16 PM
If looking at that picture, you can see that the body can't lay more flat versa the bike, only the head angle can be steeper.
The picture is snapped in a "next to worst" type of downhill section ( combined with pretty technical "windys" down there. (that was the reason the photographer was lying and waiting for us, he wanted to see who managed the steep technobiking without giving up (or falling of), and if you look at pic you see that I flat out and plan ahead.
Yea I am very proud of that picture, it's the best bike pic taken of me :)
And there is alot of room for a camera mounted on that toptube, don't you agree? (no matter how much the driver bend his neck down to decrease wind)
way124
09-22-2004, 06:16 PM
Hmm, I didn't think of the handlebar hitting the camera when I fall. That will be another cause for concern. I don't do much offroad cycling though, and virtually 0 technical ones. A 30° dive, as shown in your pic, is non-existant :(
I don't agree with carrying weight on the body reduces the need for energy to push the vehicle forward. The energy required should be the weight of the bike and the rider + mechanical friction + air drag. In fact, I think if you want better training, add some weights to your calves :P
Edit: Oh, NFSRacer, I think having part of the bike visible is more exciting actually. In car racing videos, isn't it nice to see how the feet work with teh pedals, how the hands shift the gears, how the driver handles a corner on a steering, and how everything works synchronously? But in my case, the bike isn't visible to the camera.
FIATLOVE
09-22-2004, 06:36 PM
Energy usage;
If weight is carried on bike, body has to pedal that weight for every stroke.
I the added weight is carried on body, when in speed (and when G-forces not struggle against you), the weight that you carry at body will more work as a momentum to your pedal stroke (will act like your body has nore mass), instead of your body has to push the added mass of the bike (and wind drag caused by the mounting)
So, if you legs& condition are just ok shape, there can be alot to gain to carry mass on body (given that it's not very many Kg's of mass) versa carry it on the bike.
Wind drag is most important, when driving downhill and laying over the bars, the speed will differ if you hold arms out from body (do keep the into body), but also the way you shape your hands..
Try hold arms into body, and hold hands so they shape as a arrow (do NOT fold your hands).
Just this tiny difference will do alot of diff in topspeed downhill.
Weight;
The worst thing is a heavy bike (just unless it's dowhills all the time)
"take a given bike trip at 10 Kilometers.
Disregarding of how much your body weighs, for every stroke on one pedal, your body has to carry the weight of the bike.
If you stroke 65-70 times each minute, just think about how much energy 2 Kg mass extra on the frame will cause you to use (everytime your in a downhill the added bodymass will gain you speed too, esp. if weight does not impact airdrag too much)
This may be no point to you, but I live in a very hilly land, hehe
FIATLOVE
09-22-2004, 06:58 PM
And I wont give up :D
Here is a pic that illusterates how I used to "warm up" before long endurance races;
The bike on the picture weights about 35 Kg's, and the air drag makes it go as slow as Max 40-50 Kmh downhills.
Stripped the bike is 8.8 Kg with knobbed tyres and it can go upto 90 kmh downhill if wind is not against us.
Just imagine how it feels to ride this bike stripped after a week with that load on it.
In springtime I use to have 2 of the waterbottles filled with lead, makes the bike weight 3.5 Kh more witout causing to much air drag
I agree wind drag is the bad. Heavy bike is very very bad. What we don't seem to agree is that carrying weight on your body reduces the energy required to cycle. Sure, it reduces the energy required to propel the bicycle alone - but that's not what we're (or just me) interested. It's the total that matters.
If you have a bicycle on a conveyor belt, and your legs propel the belt, then sure, by all means put everything on your body, because your legs are not propelling the extra weight. However, when you ride a bike, you are attached to the bike, so whatever you put on yourself and your own self is part of the bike, and compoundedly is what your legs are propelling.
Having more mass on the body does not reduce the energy required to cycle. In fact, it can be worse. Try putting 20 bricks in a backpack and try to cycle. You'll be losing unnecessary energy to keep your body in fixed position (by keeping pressure on the legs and arms, whilst keeping the torso arched and reducing pressure on the saddle [very important]), than, say, putting it on the rear rack of the bike. The only drawback for the rear rack solution is extra wind drag, but that is not as serious as the "fixed position" problem.
We may be talking the same thing, but I just want to clarify my position :D
Wazza
09-23-2004, 12:04 AM
Sounds like a fun idea to do... Just don't let the difficulty in getting it perfect deter you.
Hope that bracket mount over the frame, won't interfere with the rear brake cable. Making a groove down the centre? Also, the longer the connection is to the frame, such as a 5" shoe would make it stay on better than say a 3" holder.
A small sponge sounds like a good idea.. Just something very small, to dampen, but not too excessive, or you will have no firm/steadiness.
The tyres will do half the work anyway.
Movements on the bike, like the constant shocks up and down from bumps could also really make some blurred shots. Just don't go too fast! :p
The worst is when you're travelling 50km/h, on semi plastic wheels on a cart, down a concrete track ==> http://wazza.nfscity.com/videos/luge.wmv
Just strapped my camera on the front of the cart.. no shock. At least I didn't crash, or rattle the CCD off. :?
way124
09-23-2004, 08:43 PM
Yeah, I'll cut a groove to accomodate the cable. In fact, I'm using the part where the cable housing ends and the exposed cable begins, which is soldered to the frame, to prevent the mount from sliding sideways.
Camera shake is a problem and I don't think sponges will rectify it. They're there to protect the camera and the mount itself from excessive tension from the riding.
No, they should work in the normal manner.. Do you see this image:
http://www.totalnfs.net/cpd/jfr_956_2.jpg
Edit: Hmm, it seems they are not displaying. Doesn't matter anyhow, it will probably mean faster loading times I think. It's easy to just click on a link. ;)
Wazza
09-23-2004, 10:43 PM
I was trying to display a pic, just a small reasonable file size, but wasn't able. Seems some admin has disabled it?
Good way of making a plan of exactly the shapes.. I know some hobbyists, just go cut, and realise they made some mistake when they're trying to guess an appropriate shape of some object. :D
Hope it works out as you intended. You will have to share some images/videos in action, to see how smooth they come out! :)
FIATLOVE
09-30-2004, 06:03 PM
Wei,
your last post regarding "weight on body versa frame", I do agree fully with you.
There is as you say indeed a factor of amount of weight/time of travel, etc, so it's abit "confusing" discussion.
Thank you for clearifying our "disagree", I am totally agree with you :D , you are perfectly right.
Mads
way124
10-04-2004, 11:45 AM
Yay, we're agreeing :D
Thanks Waz. I will make a complete documentary from start to finish. But I don't have the time... I'd probably do it during Christmas, when I have the monopoly of the roads ;)
But here (http://irqnine.com/resources/downloaddisplay.aspx?downloadid=39)'s a video for now.
Wazza
10-06-2004, 02:42 AM
Wow, nice looking video. I would nominate you for an Oscar if there was a category for amateurs. :D
:HB:
Ayce
10-06-2004, 09:10 AM
Nice Video Way. I played it in winamp and the Media library reports the vid as.... Artist : Various Artists, Track : Camera Mount, Album : Now Thats What I Call Music! Vol.9 ^_^ @ Winamp