S.A.S.C.

Solo => SASC Events => Topic started by: Myz on August 28, 2017, 10:15:39 AM

Title: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Myz on August 28, 2017, 10:15:39 AM
Just wondering when the scoring will be up
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on August 28, 2017, 11:58:50 AM
When the timing system (And the computer) get delivered back to my place.  No idea who has it, or why the delay.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: 94boosted on August 28, 2017, 02:38:54 PM
I believe Bill R took the timing and scoring equipment back to Calgary?
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Terry Johns on August 28, 2017, 03:54:54 PM
Spoke to Bill he's dropping it at Murray's this evening. Good of Bill to bring it all back.  :)
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: xr7bill on August 28, 2017, 06:09:54 PM
Murray has all the bits and pieces that I had, as of this evening.

Bill.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on August 28, 2017, 06:11:15 PM
And I thank you for getting them over to my place!
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on August 28, 2017, 11:02:43 PM
The club was "lucky" with respect to the timing gear smash up.  The unit that was hit was an IR emitter, and contained no radio.  The radios in the existing system are now obsolete, and I have no more spares.  The next time a piece containing a radio quits working, I will have to replace all of the radios at once.  Unfortunately, that is going to be quite expensive :(


Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: E6Cueman on August 28, 2017, 11:29:48 PM
The club was "lucky" with respect to the timing gear smash up.  The unit that was hit was an IR emitter, and contained no radio.  The radios in the existing system are now obsolete, and I have no more spares.  The next time a piece containing a radio quits working, I will have to replace all of the radios at once.  Unfortunately, that is going to be quite expensive :(

Sucks for whoever hits the next box then! 😅
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on August 28, 2017, 11:36:38 PM
We only charge the driver $100, regardless of the repair cost.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Terry Johns on August 29, 2017, 07:46:15 AM
Keep up the good work Murray, it doesn't go unnoticed.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Reijo on August 29, 2017, 08:14:00 AM
The club was "lucky" with respect to the timing gear smash up.  The unit that was hit was an IR emitter, and contained no radio.  The radios in the existing system are now obsolete, and I have no more spares.  The next time a piece containing a radio quits working, I will have to replace all of the radios at once.  Unfortunately, that is going to be quite expensive :(

Maybe we need to look at some protective boxes for the timing?   e.g. like plastic or maybe styrofoam (?) crates/boxes?  The styrofoam degrades in sunlight (can paint them I guess) but would be a softer impact for cars ... sacrificial boxes therefore ... a cost item.

Reijo
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: 94boosted on August 29, 2017, 08:21:35 AM
Thanks Murray, if I understand it correctly then next time someone hits a box we're hooped? If so do you think you'd be able to put together a rough estimate to replace them all? Provided you have the time of course.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on August 29, 2017, 08:31:19 AM
I can "easily" design a box that lives through most collisions, but it would do significant damage to a car.  The same goes for any sort of protective box; one that works will end up damaging a car too much.  My argument is the opposite -- make the system lighter and even more fragile.  A few hundred bucks for replacement timing gear seems to be a better choice than paint/body/wheel damage.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on August 29, 2017, 08:37:44 AM
Thanks Murray, if I understand it correctly then next time someone hits a box we're hooped? If so do you think you'd be able to put together a rough estimate to replace them all? Provided you have the time of course.

Not hooped. just a bit pricier than the usual repair.  I charge $250 for a replacement start/stop box, but if the radio were to go, it would need 7 new radios instead of a single one, and enough extra labour to disassemble and rebuild every unit and every display.  Probably another $700 (my labour rate is cheap, cheap, cheap :) ).  Nothing to break the bank.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Reijo on August 29, 2017, 08:44:48 AM
Thanks Murray, if I understand it correctly then next time someone hits a box we're hooped? If so do you think you'd be able to put together a rough estimate to replace them all? Provided you have the time of course.

Not hooped. just a bit pricier than the usual repair.  I charge $250 for a replacement start/stop box, but if the radio were to go, it would need 7 new radios instead of a single one, and enough extra labour to disassemble and rebuild every unit and every display.  Probably another $700 (my labour rate is cheap, cheap, cheap :) ).  Nothing to break the bank.


From what I understand from this discussion is that we do not have any spares right now.  Is that correct?

If so then what Tom says is also correct in that we are hooped for the day once one gets hit.

And, unfortunately it will happen since we can't protect the boxes 100% ...

Not sure how we could design the "boxes" so they would survive a hit, say, 99% of the time ... a rubber ramp?  We can't have them too far apart either ... and even then someone would drive out there.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on August 29, 2017, 09:08:21 AM
From what I understand from this discussion is that we do not have any spares right now.  Is that correct?

If so then what Tom says is also correct in that we are hooped for the day once one gets hit.

Every part has a spare on hand, so the event can carry on no matter what gets hit.
I can easily order parts and rebuild everything before the next event (e.g. less than 5 days).

So, no, I don't believe that we are hooped.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on August 31, 2017, 11:50:06 AM
To give you an idea of the forces involved when a car hits timing gear:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByeFbiNdvLbGNS1uUzRza0cxUXM
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Sprockett on August 31, 2017, 04:51:24 PM
I still feel like there's a way to box these in foam or styrofoam that could give them a much better chance of survival without risk to cars.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on August 31, 2017, 06:30:15 PM
I don't disagree, but I am not sure it is cost effective.  I would need to reduce the mass of the units; otherwise it just becomes a missile that will go through a styrofoam box.  Basically, it needs to be light enough to withstand a few thousand G's without damage, and the box needs to be tough enough to not break apart when hit, as well as large enough to not get run over.

So, LIPO batteries and chargers, along with the lightest and smallest cases I can buy.  I would probably need to re-design the system to run on lower voltage as well (even smaller batteries), which means lower clock speeds and some extra software care to keep the accuracy up to snuff.

The Farmtek equipment is very light, but the need for Yagi antennae makes them unsuitable for "smashable" applications, as do the existing tripods.

Oh, and the units have to have enough mass to withstand Fort Macleod winds.  Which probably makes the entire effort moot :(

Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Midnightsky on August 31, 2017, 06:57:24 PM
place the boxes inside some water wings?
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on August 31, 2017, 07:00:46 PM
place the boxes inside some water wings?

Do you really want to hit 10 pounds of water wing at speed with your new car?  Assume it hits the center of your door panel...
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Reijo on August 31, 2017, 07:42:57 PM
perhaps a modified plastic chair could work to hang the lights ... maybe with styrofoam glued on to reduce impacts.  Cones could be used to keep it put in the wind....

Probably some other solutions out there as well ... have to think about it for a while.

And, we only need them for the finish I guess.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Midnightsky on August 31, 2017, 10:01:37 PM
place the boxes inside some water wings?

Do you really want to hit 10 pounds of water wing at speed with your new car?  Assume it hits the center of your door panel...

If the alternative is hitting the timing light/box as is, then I would assume the inflated water wing would provide some cushion against the impact, no?  As added protection, put a Styrofoam box on top and cut a strip out of the timing light side.  Inflatable water wing protects the light box itself better than leaving it completely exposed, and the Styrofoam box should minimize any vehicle paint damage.  I feel like Im onto something with this idea, I might bring a sample of what Im attempting to describe to the next club meeting if that's ok with the group.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on August 31, 2017, 10:20:24 PM
Feel free to try different things -- I am not trying to be a nay-sayer here.

The way I see it, we need:
-- very light equipment so that it goes flying when hit
-- something padded/spongy to keep car damage to a minimum
-- some way to keep this padded "thing" in place, even when Fort Macleod winds strike
-- in spite of it being kept in place, it needs to bounce away easily when struck

BTW -- the existing timing equipment just doesn't suit.  The 5Ah batteries are very heavy, and will cause significant damage if they hit body panels.  Right now, they are very low to the ground and just get crushed by wheels -- no car damage, but total equipment destruction.  BTW, this is how they were designed.  And, yes, the replacements are more than $100, but far, far cheaper than something like Race America hardware.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: NickST on August 31, 2017, 10:35:24 PM
Hey Murray, have you ever considered using a setup where the beam emitter and sensor are on the same side and just a reflector/mirror is on the opposite end? That could help minimize strikes on the equipment by putting the reflector on the more risky side.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Midnightsky on September 01, 2017, 12:21:43 AM
Feel free to try different things -- I am not trying to be a nay-sayer here.

The way I see it, we need:
-- very light equipment so that it goes flying when hit
-- something padded/spongy to keep car damage to a minimum
-- some way to keep this padded "thing" in place, even when Fort Macleod winds strike
-- in spite of it being kept in place, it needs to bounce away easily when struck

BTW -- the existing timing equipment just doesn't suit.  The 5Ah batteries are very heavy, and will cause significant damage if they hit body panels.  Right now, they are very low to the ground and just get crushed by wheels -- no car damage, but total equipment destruction.  BTW, this is how they were designed.  And, yes, the replacements are more than $100, but far, far cheaper than something like Race America hardware.

Wrap it in carpet underlay? Far simpler than my original idea.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on September 01, 2017, 04:39:39 AM
Hey Murray, have you ever considered using a setup where the beam emitter and sensor are on the same side and just a reflector/mirror is on the opposite end? That could help minimize strikes on the equipment by putting the reflector on the more risky side.

That was one of the things I tried back when I was designing prototypes.  I never was able to achieve a satisfactory range.  And, of course, you just know that a car is going to defy your expectations and hit both emitter and sensor.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Midnightsky on September 01, 2017, 10:05:41 AM
I like Murray's idea to go smaller, that would definitely help.  What about going to a smaller box, the rolling it up in some type of packaging bubble wrap? Keeps it light and small, should help prevent most paint damage while still protecting the box a bit more than leaving it wide open to impact.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on September 01, 2017, 12:41:12 PM
Um, how do you align the units when wrapped in bubble wrap?  The IR emitter is easy -- it sprays a very wide pattern, but the receiver need some precision.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: NickST on September 01, 2017, 03:37:44 PM
Hey Murray, have you ever considered using a setup where the beam emitter and sensor are on the same side and just a reflector/mirror is on the opposite end? That could help minimize strikes on the equipment by putting the reflector on the more risky side.

That was one of the things I tried back when I was designing prototypes.  I never was able to achieve a satisfactory range.  And, of course, you just know that a car is going to defy your expectations and hit both emitter and sensor.

haha this is true, I guess if we knew where the car was going to spin out we wouldn't have an issue with people hitting them in the first place!

I was wondering if that would be an issue actually. I know your beam has a pretty wide spread, makes it easy to line up, but I suppose when you are doubling the travel distance with something like a reflector it just becomes too weak. Is there a more focused beam emitter that might work for that application? I guess the follow up is; does it cost more? Yes, haha.

Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Midnightsky on September 01, 2017, 09:05:06 PM
Um, how do you align the units when wrapped in bubble wrap?  The IR emitter is easy -- it sprays a very wide pattern, but the receiver need some precision.

Trial and Error? It won't be perfect, but should provide better protection than current setup for both car and timing equipment.  There must be a way to figure out some sort of compromise that works to improve the situation.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on September 01, 2017, 10:53:11 PM
I may personally hate building new timing gear, but to be very honest, I consider the current situation to be pretty good.  We get no car damage at all, and the replacement cost is reasonable.

It may be possible (via styrofoam or bubble wrap) to make something that bounces away and doesn't get destroyed when hit.  Not a guarantee though -- cars hit things pretty hard and fast.

And, really, does the club really want to pay for a complete redesign to lighten the equipment?  I can't give you a firm dollar figure right now, but I can't see it coming in much cheaper than 5 to 10 thousand.  And once the development and testing is done, the actual units are going to be much more expensive.  I don't see a payoff here.



Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Jackal on September 05, 2017, 01:56:07 PM
I just read this thread and am assuming there was a timing related incident on August 27. 

I'm just going to do a bit of spit balling here as I've never really looked at the radios themselves.  Just thinking of this in a way that may sprout some ideas as I actually break things professionally for my living. Realistically we can't prevent it from ever breaking,  but maybe we can increase the ability of it to survive.

If interested,  I'd love to take on a project like this.  I also mentor at a Junior Engineering Lab,  and have access to much of what's needed,  and a group of youth that need projects to keep them entertained. Smashing cones in testing situations could work off some of their energy before they settle into anything else.  lol Besides...  the Milk carton egg drop is sooooo 1986.

Driving forces, and considerations.
-If the unit gets hit and the whole device is together,  we have some major repairs on the line. 
-Units require three main components. Radio transmission,  battery, and some sort of IR sensor correct? Missing anything?
-The heavier the equipment is,  the more damage there is to the cars in an incident.
-The circuit boards have extremely limited survivability without some sort of housing.
-To minimize the cost,  using the current electronics is best.



Spitballing

Separate the components, minimize the repair?
-do the radio, battery and sensor all absolutely need to be co-located? What if the battery and the radio are in a separate safer place,  and the sensor is the only susceptible item?  It may reduce the cost when a repair is needed?

-The sensor would need a remote line,  and a very small housing (Or cone... See below).  The remaining equipment can be as far as the tether physically/electrically can be.

Hitting Cones anyway.
-What about using a cone as a vessel?  Some soft foam and a small flexible structure inside the cone may work.  Cut a hole in the cone for the sensor to shoot out of.  A couch foam could be cut to a cone shape and little cutouts in that foam could house the battery radio and sensor. Using strips of foam glued together gives a bit more structure to the whole foam piece,  that could be cut to fit in a cone. 
The cone withstands the brunt of it,  and the foam disperses as much of the force as it can.

This idea would be basically placing the circuit boards and the battery somewhere in the middle of the foam that would fill the cone.  A sensor pocket could be made and just needs to line up with the hole cut in the cone. Leave the foam as a separate piece for ease of removal from the cone. Maybe as two separate halves with the weight in the middle.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4431/36243580663_1bdbd1cc3c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XdHPPM)Pilon (https://flic.kr/p/XdHPPM) by Duane Jacka (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jackal414/), on Flickr

Both
-Maybe putting a remotely tethered sensor in a cone is best,  and the remaining hardware is elsewhere.

Maybe this post will spur on the best solution through further discussion....  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on September 05, 2017, 05:32:06 PM

Driving forces, and considerations.
-If the unit gets hit and the whole device is together,  we have some major repairs on the line. 
-Units require three main components. Radio transmission,  battery, and some sort of IR sensor correct? Missing anything?
-The heavier the equipment is,  the more damage there is to the cars in an incident.
-The circuit boards have extremely limited survivability without some sort of housing.
-To minimize the cost,  using the current electronics is best.


Major components are:
1. Circuit board with a small CPU (Atmel) and support components
2. Radio transceiver
3. Antenna
4. IR sensor
5. Battery

Right now, the radio and IR sensor are attached directly to the circuit board.  The entire package is about 5cm x 10cm, and uses the radio antenna socket to attach to the case containing it and the battery.  The IR emitter has no radio, so it uses the 6 IR LEDs to attach to the case.  If you want exact details (and pictures), this file contains a do it yourself manual on building an entire system:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByeFbiNdvLbGdHB4VnBKWVFhSEk

I think the problem of survivability comes with several problems:

1. Crushing.
Without a solid steel case and some sort of "break-away" antenna connection, the system won't survive being run over by a wildly spinning tire backed up by the entire weight of the car.  I do know that 1/16" thick steel cases just get crushed (Race America hardware).

2. G-forces from a strike and bounce instead of being crushed
To prevent being run over, the unit's case would need to be too large (and stiff) to go under the car.  Body damage is now a likely outcome unless we are really careful with materials and weight.
Here is where your foam might help, but I am not sure about the g-forces.  I do know that they are enough to shatter the case and gell cell, as well as rip any socketed components out of their sockets (or just destroy the socket).

3. Antenna connection
The antenna is attached to the radio (directly or via a cable), and any strike will (usually) rip the antenna socket right out of the radio circuit board, thus destroying it.  We would probably need to use different antenna attachment methods (different model of radio) that are more likely to separate under strain.

4. Must withstand wind up to Fort Macleod levels (100 kph?) as well as torrential rain.  No spikes allowed in the surface of the runway :)
We have a Farmtek system that uses light tripods to mount the equipment.  In Fort Macleod, I need to tie a brick to the tripod to keep it upright.

5. IR sensor must be at least 3-4 inches above the ground and protected from direct sunlight.


Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Pat S on September 06, 2017, 10:31:23 AM
As it stands right now, are the units generally a total loss once they have been struck or can they be rebuilt? With the large impulse experience by the unit in a collision, it seems like it might be a losing battle to protect it and it might be more effective to just minimize rebuild cost.

I like the idea some people were working towards with of making the units have a remote sensor which could be "sacrificial" and put the bulk of the equipment in a safer spot (seeing as the stop box it straight, a few cones up would probably be sufficient for a lot of situations). If an incident occurs, plug in an new emitter/receiver and you're back racing.

On the "Egg drop" topic, I've seen some electronics filled with epoxy or basically hot glue when it is expected they will experience vibration (such as tire pressure monitors). That may help keep the components in place in an impact, but at the cost of serviceability and mass. The photo Murray posted looked like they shifted quite a bit in an impact.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Reijo on September 06, 2017, 10:44:47 AM
Make it thinner (e.g. not as tall) if possible?  And then strengthen the sides so a car can run over it directly without damage.  A sideways tire would still send it flying though ... and that might be another story.   Could also put foam or styrofoam around it to minimize damage to car bodywork.
Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: MurrayPeterson on September 06, 2017, 10:58:03 AM
They are almost always a total loss, with the odd low speed "bump" that just cracks the case.  The cost of replacement is fairly low for something that is hand-built (I only charge $20/hour for my labour).  I really can't afford to get into large volume production, where the costs can drop dramatically.

Don't forget that adding connectors and cabling can boost the cost, sometimes significantly.  For the IR emitter, those items would probably be too expensive to result in money savings.  I always place the emitter in the place most likely to get hit, since it is much cheaper (no radio or antenna).  I also use the cheapest batteries I can get (about $14 each).  LIPOs run about $70 for the same voltage and capacity.

Title: Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
Post by: Pat S on September 06, 2017, 11:41:12 AM
Another way to go is to be mindful of the timing equipment in course design, similar to a clutch saver start, a equipment saver finish. Such as a gate ahead of the finish line that forces you to finish on a mini straight. The course designers may already take this into account, the work they do is beyond me  ;)