Mini-xxxx redesign concept?

[Dashmellow]

One of the first things I noticed when I received the Mini 0906 for testing was the vastly beefier and improved mount that was much more secure and stable than older mini mount iterations, particularly the Mini o806 that I previously tested. That model had a nasty habit of sagging from the mount at an angle the longer the camera was in service and there wasn't much that could be done about it.

The other issue was that the camera had a tendency to vibrate on rough roads leading to a deterioration in image quality. For that camera I devised a foam block that I would insert between the top of the camera and the windshield to help stabilize it and keep it in place. That helped but offered only marginal improvement.

The Mini 0906 GPS mount doesn't seem so prone to sagging so far and is far more stable than before yet it still isn't quite stable enough in my view. While it seems fine on most typical tarmac roads and highways it shows evidence of vibration on the rural dirt and gravel roads in my area and I've seen some evidence of this elsewhere such as when I drive over expansion joints on certain bridges or simply come across a pothole or other road hazard. Living on a dirt and gravel road in a rural location has taught me a lot about camera vibration's effect on image quality and any dash cam purchasing decision now includes mounting stability as a major criteria. For this reason I now gravitate more towards direct to glass mounted designs like the SG665GC or the Viofo wedge models.

If you have a Mini-0906 installed in your vehicle just try pressing down on it gently and you'll notice that there is some give and the camera will move with the pressure of your finger. That will tell you everything you need to know about what I am trying to explain here.

I've never quite understood the engineering logic of creating a cantilevered camera design where the mounting point is on one corner of a tubular shaped camera as it places an enormous amount of stress on that single spot as the mounting bracket has to support the entire weight of the camera in an automotive environment subject to shocks and vibration. We see this design on the mini series and on various other tubular dash cams and I've come to consider it problematic.

So, I propose a hypothetical new mount design for a possible future Mini cam that would be inherently more stable, secure and vibration free and would provide other benefits such as the ability to place super-capacitors inside the mounting bracket which would allow for a good size heat sink within the camera housing to offer better cooling and better ventilation for the components. This design concept also offers the new feature of easy lateral camera aiming.

I proposed a similar design concept for the mini here on DCT quite some time ago but here I've developed more of a mock-up than the primitive sketch I came up with earlier.

 

[Viking]

@Dashmellow I like you come up with a possible good solution to your criticism. You still try to keep the mini cylinder look

I would like to add a little to you design. The food on the windshield could have a 4mm screw down to the swirl, in that way you move it to a standard suction cup with screw.
I think the arm could be more slim but not flimsy, so its more discreet.

 

[Dashmellow]

@Dashmellow I like you come up with a possible good solution to your criticism. You still try to keep the mini cylinder look

I would like to add a little to you design. The food on the windshield could have a 4mm screw down to the swirl, in that way you move it to a standard suction cup with screw.
I think the arm could be more slim but not flimsy, so its more discreet.

Thanks @Viking. Yeah, the mock-up is crude and far more bulky that I expect it would ever be in production. If you look closely, you'll see that the "arms" are really nothing more than a section of the original GPS mount copied and pasted into the image in Photoshop, hence their bulkiness. The idea was just to show the concept in a simple way, not necessarily to represent a polished finished product. I would likely need CAD software to do that and some skills I don't quite have. I imagine if a mount design like this ever were put into production it could be very minimal and elegant as long as it would be big enough to house the capacitors and GPS unit.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by, "The food on the windshield could have a 4mm screw down to the swirl"? I think you must mean "foot" on the windshield but I'm not sure what you mean by swirl. Are you saying it could have a 1/4-20 tripod mount that would allow it to be attached to a suction cup?

 

[Viking]

You caught one of my misspelling before I got time to edit my post.
or was it a chewing gum I meant, I'm not sure.

Are you saying it could have a 1/4-20 tripod mount .....?

Yes, you can turn camera and it make it more flexible in how you can mount it.
Your sketch might be primitive, but illustrate the concept well and that's the point.

 

[Dashmellow]

You caught one of my misspelling before I got time to edit my post.
or was it a chewing gum I meant, I'm not sure.


Yes, you can turn camera and it make it more flexible in how you can mount it.
Your sketch might be primitive, but illustrate the concept well and that's the point.

Thanks for your comments @Viking.

And don't worry about the misspellings. As a ham-fisted typist myself I know all about misspellings.

 

[Harsh]

The camera will need to be considerably smaller to accommodate the arms, adds to the visual bulk. The top swivel mechanism will increase the overall size.

GPS connector could be on one side and power on the other.

 

[jokiin]

The camera will need to be considerably smaller to accommodate the arms, adds to the visual bulk. The top swivel mechanism will increase the overall size.

GPS connector could be on one side and power on the other.

bracket would need a big hole in the middle also or half the bracket would end up in the field of view in the majority of installations

 

[Nigel]

bracket would need a big hole in the middle also or half the bracket would end up in the field of view in the majority of installations

I think it would need some arms to drop the lens down some distance too which would then move the lens further away from the glass.

One of the advantages of the mini design is that it takes up very little vertical space which makes it much easier to fit behind a rear view mirror in some vehicles where the vertical space is limited and you need the mount alongside instead of above the camera, for other vehicles a wedge shape may be more appropriate.

 

[jokiin]

I think it would need some arms to drop the lens down some distance too which would then move the lens further away from the glass.

cameras that use a bracket that attach either side are generally U shaped so that they can rotate and not have the bracket end up in the way of the lens, that generally works best with very thin low profile brackets that sit quite close around the lens housing, once you start putting things inside the bracket that get harder to do effectively, even as it is with the bracket facing away from the camera and at the opposite end to the lens it's already a challenge to keep it out of the field of view

 

[Dashmellow]

You guys are making assumptions based on a bulky looking concept mock-up and failing to use your imaginations.

The camera will need to be considerably smaller to accommodate the arms, adds to the visual bulk. The top swivel mechanism will increase the overall size.

I don't agree. One might argue that the swivel mechanism adds to the "visual" bulk but in fact what is happening is that the GPS module mount is merely being expanded horizontally and being placed on top of the camera instead of next to it. This reduces the amount of horizontal space required to install the camera over the current design and would actually allow it to be installed closer to the center post of the rear view mirror.

I think it would need some arms to drop the lens down some distance too which would then move the lens further away from the glass.

One of the advantages of the mini design is that it takes up very little vertical space which makes it much easier to fit behind a rear view mirror in some vehicles where the vertical space is limited and you need the mount alongside instead of above the camera, for other vehicles a wedge shape may be more appropriate.

As pointed out above it could take up less space.

The "arms" that attach to each end of the camera would be far thinner than in the graphic and they would be tapered and angled forward to position the camera at the optimal distance from the glass.

I do agree that a wedge shape may be appropriate. Unlike how things appear flat and two dimensional in my graphic the mount itself could be wedge shaped or a perhaps a wedge shaped mounting plate could be offered if needed for windscreens of a certain rake.

bracket would need a big hole in the middle also or half the bracket would end up in the field of view in the majority of installations

cameras that use a bracket that attach either side are generally U shaped so that they can rotate and not have the bracket end up in the way of the lens, that generally works best with very thin low profile brackets that sit quite close around the lens housing, once you start putting things inside the bracket that get harder to do effectively, even as it is with the bracket facing away from the camera and at the opposite end to the lens it's already a challenge to keep it out of the field of view

The bracket itself swivels horizontally in alignment with the lens. How would it get in the way ? As for vertical adjustment, proper positioning of the camera within the bracket, a properly tapered shape and length of the "arms"- projecting forward slightly, correct choice of lens focal length and a vertical adjustment limiter would prevent such problems. A bracket such as this would simply need to be engineered intelligently so the camera is in an optimal position to avoid what you are postulating. Vertical adjustment would be quite similar to the SG9665GC actually and horizontal adjustment would be similar to how the lens module in the Viofo A119 functions.

 

[Nigel]

You guys are making assumptions based on a bulky looking concept mock-up and failing to use your imaginations.

I don't agree...

I've been out to look at my car and for the mount to pass above the lens without getting in the view it would need to go around 2" further up the glass without moving the lens up, the result would look nothing like your image and worse, it can't go there because that is where the mirror is mounted to the glass so the lens would have to move about 2" down the glass and would then be visible to the driver and illegal in this country. Of course I could move it sideways and then up but then the lens would not line up with the centre line of my bonnet (hood) and since that has a ridge down the centre as a styling feature it becomes very obvious if my camera is off centre. This wont apply to all cars, most don't seem to have the mirror attached to the glass any more, but it is good to have some variety, the A119 wedge shape is not the ideal shape for everybody or every vehicle.

 

[Harsh]

You guys are making assumptions based on a bulky looking concept mock-up and failing to use your imaginations.



I don't agree. One might argue that the swivel mechanism adds to the "visual" bulk but in fact what is happening is that the GPS module mount is merely being expanded horizontally and being placed on top of the camera instead of next to it. This reduces the amount of horizontal space required to install the camera over the current design and would actually allow it to be installed closer to the center post of the rear view mirror.

View attachment 32259

Additional information in your latest post suggests a different design. The tapered end of the arms that'll attach to the camera and probably also house the connection contacts will need to be super sturdy.

The swivel mechanism will add a few mm to the top, the arms will add a few mm to both sides (at least where the arms begin). Don't see the unit retaining the same size without shrinking the main camera.

 

[kamkar]

The off center if you will design of the 0xxx cameras do bother me a little as their asymmetrical appearance on the windscreen do make them stand out more to me, even if they are pretty stealthy as is.
I think that's one of the reasons i like the wedge shaped cameras so much, they often come off as something that been there since the car left the factory.

 

[Harsh]

IMO something like this with a detachable unit would work better.

The main unit replaces the lens housing shown below, screen and controls at the back.

 

[kamkar]

It could also be that the 0xxx cameras i have tested have all been installed off to the center of my windscreen as that location are for my main camera.
And thats why their off center appearance have bothered me a little.

 

[kamkar]

something like this

Yes but i dont get it with that and other similar designs like the SG9665GC, those "buttons" on the sides meant for adjusting the lens up and down, why have them so large or have them at all, and why not just grab the lens cylinder to adjust the lens,,,, that's what i do with my GC.
And if you leave those out and just have the lens cylinder wedged in between 2 thin "arms" with a click function you could make a dashcam some 15 - 20 mm more narrow.

 

[Dashmellow]

I've been out to look at my car and for the mount to pass above the lens without getting in the view it would need to go around 2" further up the glass without moving the lens up, the result would look nothing like your image and worse, it can't go there because that is where the mirror is mounted to the glass so the lens would have to move about 2" down the glass and would then be visible to the driver and illegal in this country. Of course I could move it sideways and then up but then the lens would not line up with the centre line of my bonnet (hood) and since that has a ridge down the centre as a styling feature it becomes very obvious if my camera is off centre. This wont apply to all cars, most don't seem to have the mirror attached to the glass any more, but it is good to have some variety, the A119 wedge shape is not the ideal shape for everybody or every vehicle.

Well no. Not every camera design is ideal for every installation. In my vehicle a design like this would be a more stealthy, more stable improvement partly because of the way the rear view mirror is installed, partly because of the frit pattern and partly because of the tint strip across the top of the glass.

 

[Dashmellow]

Additional information in your latest post suggests a different design. The tapered end of the arms that'll attach to the camera and probably also house the connection contacts will need to be super sturdy.

The swivel mechanism will add a few mm to the top, the arms will add a few mm to both sides (at least where the arms begin). Don't see the unit retaining the same size without shrinking the main camera.

This is a concept idea not a polished design. Obviously, it would require refinements. Personally, I have no qualms about a slightly larger or smaller camera or footprint as long as it makes for a compact, vibration free installation. The current design with a cantilevered mount is inherently problematic if you drive rough roads.

 

[kamkar]

Similar with the 0xxx cameras, the end with the swivel click function actually add some to the overall width of the camera housing, and the one ON/OFF button there i think could be put in another location.

 

[Dashmellow]

IMO something like this with a detachable unit would work better.

The main unit replaces the lens housing shown below, screen and controls at the back.

View attachment 32263

That is actually not that far off of what it conceivably might be like except that it would have the added capability for lateral aiming. How is that so different than the concept I've proposed? Obviously, your example is a post mount which I would want to avoid but it would still be detachable from a mounting plate like on the GC or A119.