Which is pretty stupid argument. The aim of safety features is to lower the risk. Under this logic you don't need any safety features at all if you die anyway. Safety features lower the risk step by step. Adding additional risk factor is simply negating the effort spent on the safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
Fixation joint for sure, accumulator, lens likely. It's not the camera alone what brakes the helmet, it's the impact of the head+helmet+camera into something but since the camera may happen to be placed in between the solid obstacle (rollcage) and the helmet it means that the parts of the camera will be pushed into the helmet. And it's absolutely clear that having nothing there is far better situation than having anything what can get inside there.Quote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
Pretty ignorant statement. The initial and the heaviest impact does not develop forces in all sorts of directions. It's pretty straight. The head keeps moving in the same vector as the vehicle prior the crash. Since the bodyshell is the the first one to be hit by the obstacle, the body/head albeit partially restricted keeps moving in the same original vector until it is stopped by secondary impact into the vehicle body or by seat belts/seat/HANS.Quote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
This "almost at the same time" statement shows that You have no understanding of the crash mechanics. There is nothing like almost same time.
