Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

On a non related electronic device, I had to downgrade the firmware... and part of the process was putting the device in the freezer for 30 minutes. I am not suggesting that this is what the cycliq devices require... but tech is not always as straight forward as you want it to be.

Still waiting on Cycliq support

Has anyone had the Fly12CE stop running as if the battery is disconnected?

Plug in to USB and it runs, will record as per app status, shows as if battery is charged by LED. Remove USB power and no power at all.

Part of me wonders if the vibration has broken a solder or wire of power output of the battery, but not the input to BMS for it to indicate full charge and also run on USB power. It feels like over a year old, early 2018 I may have got it.

Fly6CE generally OK, except not as scratch resistant lens cover as the Fly12 CE that was an impressive improvement.

With modern GoPro features I am interested in something fancier in video tech that can last 2hrs and be recharged as enough for each way commute.

I've got a Fly12 gen1 that still runs but is a bit flakey, and old Fly6 that is OK but not used much with the Fly6 CE around. Also a couple Drift Stealth 2 that may be time to dust off for a front rack mount.

jaseyjase wrote:GoPro's new saddle rail mount works perfectly with the cyclic adapter because of the design compared to the kedge ones



$50 aint cheap though.

So i picked up a china copy for $10




Then filed it down to suit, added a lick of paint



The cyclic adapter now dosnt foul the mount, and i can angle it correctly.

do you have any photos of the complete setup?
this was the only reason i haven't gotten a Fly6 as i wanted it under the saddle and there was no mounts available

tomee wrote: do you have any photos of the complete setup?
this was the only reason i haven't gotten a Fly6 as i wanted it under the saddle and there was no mounts available

on the commuter

A couple of weeks gone by with no satisfaction from Cyliq.
They did contact me early last week and aske me to reset and video what it did.
Have done that and have no answer on that. A reminder email on Friday, went unanswered.
I will give them a few more days and if no result looks like I will be chasing Pushys for a repalcement or refund.

jaseyjase wrote:

tomee wrote: do you have any photos of the complete setup?
this was the only reason i haven't gotten a Fly6 as i wanted it under the saddle and there was no mounts available

on the commuter

I would advise against this type of placement. I originally had a lot of arguments with my local cop when submitting footage for close passes because he stated he needed to see the rear wheel to be sure where the centreline of my image was. I subsequently moved my Fly6 down as low as possible on the seat post and now have the rear tyre clearly visible in all footage. No more arguments and three tickets issued since.

solmanic wrote:

jaseyjase wrote:

tomee wrote: do you have any photos of the complete setup?
this was the only reason i haven't gotten a Fly6 as i wanted it under the saddle and there was no mounts available

on the commuter

I would advise against this type of placement. I originally had a lot of arguments with my local cop when submitting footage for close passes because he stated he needed to see the rear wheel to be sure where the centreline of my image was. I subsequently moved my Fly6 down as low as possible on the seat post and now have the rear tyre clearly visible in all footage. No more arguments and three tickets issued since.

Seems like a ridiculous requirement from the police given the limited locations to attach a rear camera on a bicycle, and the fact they can always see where the camera is mounted on the bike. In my case, my camera is mounted above my rear rack on the commuter bike, and you can see my pannier bag (but not the rear wheel). ON my road bike, it is mounted as low as it can go, and you still can't see the rear wheel. I'd have to point the camera at the ground, which reduces the effecticeness of the rear light, and potentially means not capturing images of the driver of the vehicle behind me because it's mounted too low. I think the best position is where the rear light is in the line of sight of following vehicles.

queequeg wrote: Seems like a ridiculous requirement from the police given the limited locations to attach a rear camera on a bicycle, and the fact they can always see where the camera is mounted on the bike. In my case, my camera is mounted above my rear rack on the commuter bike, and you can see my pannier bag (but not the rear wheel). ON my road bike, it is mounted as low as it can go, and you still can't see the rear wheel. I'd have to point the camera at the ground, which reduces the effecticeness of the rear light, and potentially means not capturing images of the driver of the vehicle behind me because it's mounted too low. I think the best position is where the rear light is in the line of sight of following vehicles.

It didn't seem like a ridiculous request to me. The cop was making a fair point that without some visual reference point on the bike (ie. the rear tyre) you can't be sure that the light isn't skewed slightly off-centre and possibly distorting the position of the car behind. The Fly6 standard mount is intended for the seat post anyway and with the camera lower down you get a clearer picture of vehicle number plates. It has a pretty wide angle field of view so I never have any issues getting my rear tyre and the vehicle windscreen in shot. Finally, if you look at the height of most cars' rear lights, even on the seat post of most road bikes with 700C wheels, the Fly6 is around the same height or higher. To get a tail light any decent amount higher up you'd need another light on your helmet, but that in itself presents problems.

solmanic wrote:

queequeg wrote: Seems like a ridiculous requirement from the police given the limited locations to attach a rear camera on a bicycle, and the fact they can always see where the camera is mounted on the bike. In my case, my camera is mounted above my rear rack on the commuter bike, and you can see my pannier bag (but not the rear wheel). ON my road bike, it is mounted as low as it can go, and you still can't see the rear wheel. I'd have to point the camera at the ground, which reduces the effecticeness of the rear light, and potentially means not capturing images of the driver of the vehicle behind me because it's mounted too low. I think the best position is where the rear light is in the line of sight of following vehicles.

It didn't seem like a ridiculous request to me. The cop was making a fair point that without some visual reference point on the bike (ie. the rear tyre) you can't be sure that the light isn't skewed slightly off-centre and possibly distorting the position of the car behind. The Fly6 standard mount is intended for the seat post anyway and with the camera lower down you get a clearer picture of vehicle number plates. It has a pretty wide angle field of view so I never have any issues getting my rear tyre and the vehicle windscreen in shot. Finally, if you look at the height of most cars' rear lights, even on the seat post of most road bikes with 700C wheels, the Fly6 is around the same height or higher. To get a tail light any decent amount higher up you'd need another light on your helmet, but that in itself presents problems.

What's the total width of a bicycle though? It's not like car where the horizonal mounting position could be anywhere within a 2.5m wide area. The rear of a bicycle is widest at the rear dropouts, which for most bikes is a maximum of 14.2cm, which is only 7.1cm off centre. If the polce are arguing that this makes a difference to a close pass violation (which is actually measured from the width of the rider, not the bike) then it sounds like they are just looking for excuses to not register a complaint.
It's pretty easy to see where the bike is within the lane without needing to have the rear tyre visible. Also, with the running of both a front and a rear camera, you get a view of any close passes as the car comes around, or is the copy suggesting that the front camera also needs to include the front tyre in the view?

jaseyjase wrote:

tomee wrote: do you have any photos of the complete setup?
this was the only reason i haven't gotten a Fly6 as i wanted it under the saddle and there was no mounts available

on the commuter

do you have a link to the part that the fly6 mounts to and screws onto the saddle rail?

queequeg wrote: What's the total width of a bicycle though? It's not like car where the horizonal mounting position could be anywhere within a 2.5m wide area. The rear of a bicycle is widest at the rear dropouts, which for most bikes is a maximum of 14.2cm, which is only 7.1cm off centre. If the polce are arguing that this makes a difference to a close pass violation (which is actually measured from the width of the rider, not the bike) then it sounds like they are just looking for excuses to not register a complaint.
It's pretty easy to see where the bike is within the lane without needing to have the rear tyre visible. Also, with the running of both a front and a rear camera, you get a view of any close passes as the car comes around, or is the copy suggesting that the front camera also needs to include the front tyre in the view?

Of course the cops are looking for excuses not to register a complaint - tell us something we don't already know! That's why we need to do all the leg work for them and present idiot-proof evidence of close passes.

I agree if you are looking at the video footage the tyre isn't needed to confirm the centreline, but having the tyre visible helps a LOT when submitting a still image on one of the on-line reporting facilities like we have in Qld. I regularly use the tyre as the centreline of any stills I submit with linework overlaid. Cycliq's editing app only seems to have tramline overlay for front facing Fly12 video footage. I've never been able to get anything close to accurate tramline overlay for the Fly6 using this. Consequently I have to resort to measured tramlines drawn in a CAD package over a still image. The other upside to overlaying measured linework on a still image is that you can put a lot more information on to confirm things like the width of any other known features like white side-lines etc. The end result is an indisuputible measured image and no wiggle room for the cops to opt out of writing a ticket.

tomee wrote:do you have a link to the part that the fly6 mounts to and screws onto the saddle rail?

its actually two parts.

You need the universal adapter

https://cycliq.com/product/universal-adaptor/

And then a gopro saddle mount (you have a few choices, ie gopro, kedge, ebay specials)

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... mount.html

jaseyjase wrote:

tomee wrote:do you have a link to the part that the fly6 mounts to and screws onto the saddle rail?

its actually two parts.

You need the universal adapter

https://cycliq.com/product/universal-adaptor/

thanks for that.
i thought you could use a generic ebay one for that like the saddle mount. guess not

might invest in a 3d printer

tomee wrote: i thought you could use a generic ebay one for that like the saddle mount. guess not

oh you can!

Thats what i did, however you need to modify it a bit.

The Cycliq universal adapter sort of fouls against the generic saddle mount, so your angle becomes a little bit limited.

You just need to file it down a bit.

Heres the pic from my earlier post

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4863/456 ... 2703_b.jpg

jaseyjase wrote:

tomee wrote: i thought you could use a generic ebay one for that like the saddle mount. guess not

oh you can!

Thats what i did, however you need to modify it a bit.

The Cycliq universal adapter sort of fouls against the generic saddle mount, so your angle becomes a little bit limited.

You just need to file it down a bit.

Heres the pic from my earlier post

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4863/456 ... 2703_b.jpg

yeah i understand that. im talking about the actual universal mount you posted https://cycliq.com/product/universal-adaptor/

tomee wrote:yeah i understand that. im talking about the actual universal mount you posted https://cycliq.com/product/universal-adaptor/

ahh gotcha.

finally did this.

Close up photos
put some locktite on the threads so they dont come loose.


might look at shaving down the mount as did Jase, but so far i think this might work. will check out the footage to see if its angled right.

Looks good. You could also use a tether, would be fairly simple looping through the saddle rail and then through itself and in the unusual case that the screw came out and it fell, then it would dangle.

My issue with tethers is the annoying extra slack... especially for the handlebars,

solmanic wrote:

queequeg wrote: What's the total width of a bicycle though? It's not like car where the horizonal mounting position could be anywhere within a 2.5m wide area. The rear of a bicycle is widest at the rear dropouts, which for most bikes is a maximum of 14.2cm, which is only 7.1cm off centre. If the polce are arguing that this makes a difference to a close pass violation (which is actually measured from the width of the rider, not the bike) then it sounds like they are just looking for excuses to not register a complaint.
It's pretty easy to see where the bike is within the lane without needing to have the rear tyre visible. Also, with the running of both a front and a rear camera, you get a view of any close passes as the car comes around, or is the copy suggesting that the front camera also needs to include the front tyre in the view?

Of course the cops are looking for excuses not to register a complaint - tell us something we don't already know! That's why we need to do all the leg work for them and present idiot-proof evidence of close passes.

I agree if you are looking at the video footage the tyre isn't needed to confirm the centreline, but having the tyre visible helps a LOT when submitting a still image on one of the on-line reporting facilities like we have in Qld. I regularly use the tyre as the centreline of any stills I submit with linework overlaid. Cycliq's editing app only seems to have tramline overlay for front facing Fly12 video footage. I've never been able to get anything close to accurate tramline overlay for the Fly6 using this. Consequently I have to resort to measured tramlines drawn in a CAD package over a still image. The other upside to overlaying measured linework on a still image is that you can put a lot more information on to confirm things like the width of any other known features like white side-lines etc. The end result is an indisuputible measured image and no wiggle room for the cops to opt out of writing a ticket.

My experience with QPS has been it's not so important how good the footage is and how much groundwork you do. If you get a cop who isn't interested you've wasted your time.

You could change the mount, and get the tyre in and measure the lane etc and get a different cop who says "my advice is it's not enforcable", or "the driver couldn't remember who was driving", or "you should have been riding in the door zone, or my favourite "I've looked and the driver is a good person with a good record". It doesn't matter what reason they come up with - if they don't want to do it they won't and there is not a cracker that can be done.

On the other hand I've heard of drivers being unfortunate enough to close pass cycling cops who had tickets within 6 hours.

I'm trying to get Strava overlay working with my fly12 and the Cycliq plus app.

It says I'm logged in and authorised and all - but when I try and get the overlay for a video clip it says "No Strava Data Available for this video". I have mobile and wifi connections.

Any ideas gratefully accepted.

I did a video a while back on the process... wonder if this helps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFCE04TMF1o

the cycliq universal mounts are weak!
i dont even remove the lights that much or use much force and this happened this morning after commuting to work

Best of luck getting that warrantied. I've been dealing with the cycliq warranty team since October, jumping through their hoops trying to get my broken fly6ce replaced ...

march83 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:05 am

Best of luck getting that warrantied. I've been dealing with the cycliq warranty team since October, jumping through their hoops trying to get my broken fly6ce replaced ...

they emailed and said they will send out another one.

They come in packs of 2, so i went home last night and used the second one i had and that broke this morning!
next one i am just going to liquid nails the thing together