(03-Nov-2017, 06:05 PM)E.L.K. Wrote: That would be definitely interesting, but I don't think that quad alone can do a lot of damage to car. What can is that driver potentially be shocked by something dropped on windshield and do a mistake because of that, like losing control of car. Which, in turn, can have serious consequences.

"......but I don't think that quad alone can do a lot of damage to car".  I respectively disagree.  If a quad traveling at a high rate of speed....say 50 mph...which would easily be attained in one of those dives we saw hit a car traveling in the oppisite direction at say an equivalent rate of speed would be comparable to shooting a half pound brick at  car at 100 mph.  I am pretty sure that would destroy the windshield and continue inside the passenger compartment very possibly injuring or killing someone inside.

Granted.....that exact situation may be unlikely and perhaps the damage to the car would not be catastrophic, but the danger to life and limb is not worth it.  IMHO.

(02-Nov-2017, 11:06 AM)Oscar Wrote: RR sees themselves as the ambassador of the hobby, and they should act like one. 

Spot on, though I think it actually goes a bit further than this. The scrutiny that the hobby is under at the moment makes us all ambassadors to a certain degree. We may not feel like we are, but as soon as the    hits the props and you have to apologize for the trim you gave your neighbours dog, what we say will reflect on the hobby as a whole.

Some people may not register craft over 250g (in those places where it is required) and honestly I am not strictly against them failing / refusing to do so, as long as they fly at a safe distance from the general public. I was going to say 'fly safely' but that's not really the aim of the game here is it?!

I am however in disagreement with some of the comments here - I think that because the dive is such an exhilarating ride, and also because it has been shown in a negative light by the press, that it will appeal in the same way as early surfing and skateboarding culture. Just look at the impact that Fast and Furious had in the sales of aftermarket car parts and illegal street racing, and furthermore the introduction of more places to race legally.

I do hope that this video brings more people into our subsection of the RC the hobby, I only hope that those people have some understanding and respect for the damage that these craft can inflict. The more people who get intoFPV the more money there is for technology to develop, despite the impact that this particular incident (or lack thereof) may have on how strictly local legislation is enforced.

(03-Nov-2017, 07:12 PM)sirdude Wrote: "...... would be comparable to shooting a half pound brick at  car at 100 mph."

Consider that, on top of all the physical damage, you may quite easily puncture a LiPo in a situation like this which could leave people stuck in the car with a fire and toxic smoke.

Here in Canada, our bridges are in such a state of disrepair that you are 1000 times more likely to be hit by falling concrete than a quadcopter hahaha

Here in South Africa, the municipal water staff are illegally striking and have turned the water off and gone on to sabotage the supply system destroying valves, so service cannot be resumed, said to remain dry for up to 9 days! 

Our bridges are gridlocked due to drivers bathing in the river below!

To quote my favorite hitler reacts meme video: "Those who fly within the legal altitude limits, not near buildings, and with a spotter, please leave now"



Here is the thing... is the flying in the news clip (I cant seem to find the RR video) very likely to have actually caused any harm in the hands of a pilot like MattyStuntz? Based on where they were flying and how much actual distance they had from the vehicles... if we're being realistic... no. There is almost no chance even in a failsafe condition that there would have been any cars that would have been hit. Now is this a bad influence on pilots with a skill level like mine: Just enough to possibly pull off a dive but not skilled enough to reliably say that no cars would be hurt in the making of the video... absolutely! If you took one of my builds and flew it there, or put a perfect build and gave it to a pilot with my skill level there or had both risk factors together then yes it would have been dangerous.

Is seeing something flying around near a bridge distracting to drivers? yes... absolutely... so are the millions of other things including text messages. Drivers should already know how to tune out distractions. If they want to tell their passengers to explain what the heck the flying thing is then fine but I don't see the distraction piece being that big of a deal either...

Where this stuff pisses me off... is in the image that Rotor Riot is trying to shift to. When the whole Mr Steele thing went down Chad kept saying that he wanted to be supportive of the hobby... he wanted the channel to show how the hobby can do good things... etc etc... First off, I wouldn't care to watch a channel like that TBH. When I watch rotor riot videos its for ones like this, or the one in the mall with the balloons, or the guns vs drones video. It's the stuff that I don't have access to because I don't have those resources or skills. I watch rotor riot videos because they do the stupid stuff that I cant do... but that doesn't seem to be the direction they're trying to actually go in.

So if they're going to go in this other play-nice direction, they ought to not do stupid stuff that's going to be a bad influence on mid-rate pilots. Because it's confusing. You cant be the good guy and the bad guy at the same time. PICK ONE!...

Personally... I'd prefer that they be the bad guy... I can't stand Casey Neistat... he doesn't make for a good enough badguy if you ask me.

In fact I think fftunes has the right idea...

(03-Nov-2017, 04:23 PM)fftunes Wrote: What i'd like rotor riot to do for a future episode: test what amount of damage a 500g quad can actually do to a car windshield, in a worst case scenario. Think i should suggest that on their channel.

That's the kind of Rotor Riot videos that I'd like to see... however I doubt they're going to do that sort of thing because they'll be too worried about getting a bunch of people upset like this situation has.

anyway that's my thoughts...

(03-Nov-2017, 07:12 PM)sirdude Wrote: I am pretty sure that would destroy the windshield and continue inside the passenger compartment very possibly injuring or killing someone inside.

destroy the windshield and make the road unviewable almost certainly.... manage to penetrate the windshield to a point of fully passing it, almost certainly not. Laminated safety glass is almost impossible to penetrate with a blunt object. The only sharp parts to the quad are the props (too soft) and the arms (probably too blunt)... it's very likely that a single arm could penetrate the glass but I doubt that the entire quad would go all the way through the windshield even at a combined velocity of 100 mph (which would require 50mph in opposite directions)

More likely the person who was hit would be unable to see, would react harshly, lose control of their vehicle and as a result cause cascading accidents as they hit others who had collisions with others still....

Not to say that a collision wouldn't cause incredible amounts of damage... just pointing out that the damage probably wouldn't be from the quad making it's way into the vehicle.

(03-Nov-2017, 07:12 PM)sirdude Wrote: "......but I don't think that quad alone can do a lot of damage to car".  I respectively disagree.  If a quad traveling at a high rate of speed....say 50 mph...which would easily be attained in one of those dives we saw hit a car traveling in the oppisite direction at say an equivalent rate of speed would be comparable to shooting a half pound brick at  car at 100 mph.  I am pretty sure that would destroy the windshield and continue inside the passenger compartment very possibly injuring or killing someone inside.

Heah. You are right. The situation I imagined somewhy is the quad free falling down to windshield of staying car. Definitely not worst-case scenario.

(04-Nov-2017, 12:41 PM)Carl.Vegas Wrote: To quote my favorite hitler reacts meme video: "Those who fly within the legal altitude limits, not near buildings, and with a spotter, please leave now"



Here is the thing... is the flying in the news clip (I cant seem to find the RR video) very likely to have actually caused any harm in the hands of a pilot like MattyStuntz? Based on where they were flying and how much actual distance they had from the vehicles... if we're being realistic... no. There is almost no chance even in a failsafe condition that there would have been any cars that would have been hit. Now is this a bad influence on pilots with a skill level like mine: Just enough to possibly pull off a dive but not skilled enough to reliably say that no cars would be hurt in the making of the video... absolutely! If you took one of my builds and flew it there, or put a perfect build and gave it to a pilot with my skill level there or  had both risk factors together then yes it would have been dangerous.

Is seeing something flying around near a bridge distracting to drivers? yes... absolutely... so are the millions of other things including text messages. Drivers should already know how to tune out distractions. If they want to tell their passengers to explain what the heck the flying thing is then fine but I don't see the distraction piece being that big of a deal either...

Where this stuff pisses me off... is in the image that Rotor Riot is trying to shift to. When the whole Mr Steele thing went down Chad kept saying that he wanted to be supportive of the hobby... he wanted the channel to show how the hobby can do good things... etc etc... First off, I wouldn't care to watch a channel like that TBH. When I watch rotor riot videos its for ones like this, or the one in the mall with the balloons, or the guns vs drones video. It's the stuff that I don't have access to because I don't have those resources or skills. I watch rotor riot videos because they do the stupid stuff that I cant do... but that doesn't seem to be the direction they're trying to actually go in.

So if they're going to go in this other play-nice direction, they ought to not do stupid stuff that's going to be a bad influence on mid-rate pilots. Because it's confusing. You cant be the good guy and the bad guy at the same time. PICK ONE!...

Personally... I'd prefer that they be the bad guy... I can't stand Casey Neistat... he doesn't make for a good enough badguy if you ask me.

In fact I think fftunes has the right idea...

That's the kind of Rotor Riot videos that I'd like to see... however I doubt they're going to do that sort of thing because they'll be too worried about getting a bunch of people upset like this situation has.

anyway that's my thoughts...


destroy the windshield and make the road unviewable almost certainly.... manage to penetrate the windshield to a point of fully passing it, almost certainly not. Laminated safety glass is almost impossible to penetrate with a blunt object. The only sharp parts to the quad are the props (too soft) and the arms (probably too blunt)... it's very likely that a single arm could penetrate the glass but I doubt that the entire quad would go all the way through the windshield even at a combined velocity of 100 mph (which would require 50mph in opposite directions)

More likely the person who was hit would be unable to see, would react harshly, lose control of their vehicle and as a result cause cascading accidents as they hit others who had collisions with others still....

Not to say that a collision wouldn't cause incredible amounts of damage... just pointing out that the damage probably wouldn't be from the quad making it's way into the vehicle.

"......destroy the windshield and make the road unviewable almost certainly.... manage to penetrate the windshield to a point of fully passing it, almost certainly not"  Carl, for the sake of argument, lets say you're right and I am wrong.  That said, my point is what is the point in taking the chance?  You're right, these guys are expert pilots and as such, they tend to push the envelope in terms of their flying ability and the capabilities of the machine........which is why they crash, just like the rest of us.  Again, continuing with the theory that you're correct, you admit that if a collision happened, ...."the person who was hit would be unable to see, would react harshly, lose control of their vehicle and as a result cause cascading accidents as they hit others who had collisions with others......".  If that is indeed the case, what difference does it make if the quad penetrates the passenger compartment of not.....the end result is the same.

My whole point is that it just wasn't necessary.  I think that most people would agree that by them flying alongside that bridge they way they did increases the potential of an accident on the bridge whether if be from distraction, or an actual collision.  Even if that increase is only a half a percent, what right does that pilot have to increase risk to other people performing a  totally optional activity?  I suspect the whole reason it was done (IMHO) was BECAUSE of the danger element and adrenaline rush it provides. To me, anyway you look at it, it was an irresponsible thing to do.

Anyway, thats my take on it, but of course  everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Prop breaks and the quad flips onto the bridge and bounces off a windshield. It does not have to go through the windshield, just throw the driver into confusion.

I drive for a living and have seen accidents caused by road debris (truck tire tread) startling a driver when it is kicked up on to their hood. Having a drone would be the same.

Carl, your point is valid...in a perfect world with no chance of equipment based failure you are correct. Very skilled pilot with A LOT of stick time. Not likely anything on his part will be the issue. What about the quad failing? A motor winding heated one too many times? A prop that should not have passed through QC? A military plane flying by disrupting the signal? As unlikely as these things are, I have had each incident happen and all resulted in a crash. None really within my control, other than I was flying and that is a choice.

Not picking on you Carl...really, I am not! LOL. I can see your point and acknowledge that it is valid. Just seems that in a time where governmental agencies are looking for any reason to increase their controls over our hobby, this seems unnecessary.

Well, they must be feeling the heat. I watched the full video a couple of days ago, but it's now been (quietly?) removed from the RR channel. Too bad they can't remove the bad press as well...

I take it back.  It is still on Youtube, it is just "unlisted" (I found it in my history - and it appears to still be there).  So here ya go Carl!  (250 grams my a** - that makes them liars too.)

I should clarify about my rant above... I am kind of in the same spot as FF...

Was it stupid? yep... does it make sense that it seems to be the biggest controversy since hammergate? nope... that's probably the summary of my feelings on it

oh that and rotor riot isn't as cool as they were before... that's the other point lol.

Also I think Bruce has some interesting perspective on it as always. It's kind of got me thinking a little more about my position on it.



also also, thanks Scotty for posting the video, watching it next.

hehehe...

The way I see it, is that the craft we fly are designed and tuned to be as fast and agile as possible. If you look at the added strain that an engine goes through due to fitting an aftermarket turbo, free-flow exhaust and NOS, every time that vehicle does a quarter mile there is a good chance that something will fail because the rest of the vehicle is not designed to be put under such strain.

The craft we fly are under similar strain, every single component is often pushed to its limits. Due to these conditions we get props disintegrating, ESC failures, motors overheating, batteries puffing and even bursting into flames. Formula 1 cars have tethers that keep the wheels attached to the vehicle even when a catastrophic failure of the suspension means that, on a normal vehicle, the wheel would be bouncing off down the track. Our craft are incapable of being fitted with such safety measures, which means that for flying to remain safe, pilots must fly safely.

Yes it is an amazing dive, realistically though I would think that diving a waterfall would have been much more intense, imagine a little flip that shows the craft and water falling at the same speed, this would show exactly the same skill set displayed here, but surrounded by a far more interesting environment, and without the possibility of component failure leading to a catastrophe involving the uninformed public.

Flying safely is not so much about skill but location, location, location!

I've watched the movie... and i don't understand all the hustle.

1. RR is as they state entertainment team <- they do entertain
2. they often fly in spots that are faaaaaar from what i consider "safe spots" - yet everyone is now "omg they are so baaaad" (they play this game from the beginning)
3. they are famous for pulling nice stunts in epic locations (ergo not "safe spots" cause they need to be epic) <- just to be clear i do envy their skills
4. only risk i can see in this specific flight are:
A) drowning a quad and not recovering it
B) smashing into a concrete wall and look at point A

they haven't flown over the cars... they haven't dragged their tail on the asphalt ... it all depends on the purpose, Bruce nicely summed it up "good marketing campaign" and "no bad marketing as nothing failed", it was a risk they took it and got away with it.

having said so... i still prefer to fly in "woods/fields/beaches" where only people i can harm potentially are either folks i know (im looking at you Konrad) or my family (especially kids who chase the quads and try to catch them). Would i fly in such place and do the same ? No as this is far from what i consider to be safe place to fly and i only fly in such spaces.

i don't believe this was a sub 250 g quad but i might be proven wrong

do i consider this as a bad thing for the hobby and more idiots providing more regulations... YES