* * *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 24, 2024, 03:17:36 AM

Login with username, password and session length

36 Guests, 0 Users

Author Topic: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???  (Read 6948 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

MurrayPeterson

  • 2020 Member
  • I don't hit cones. I cone the hits.
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
    • View Profile
Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
« Reply #15 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.
2017 Miata (C Street)
Avatar photo courtesy of Ian Gulinao

MurrayPeterson

  • 2020 Member
  • I don't hit cones. I cone the hits.
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
    • View Profile
Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
« Reply #16 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
2017 Miata (C Street)
Avatar photo courtesy of Ian Gulinao

Sprockett

  • Global Moderator
  • That cone is still in the box!
  • *****
  • Posts: 137
  • My cars = For Sale
    • View Profile
Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
« Reply #17 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.

MurrayPeterson

  • 2020 Member
  • I don't hit cones. I cone the hits.
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
    • View Profile
Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
« Reply #18 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 :(

2017 Miata (C Street)
Avatar photo courtesy of Ian Gulinao

Midnightsky

  • :|
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
« Reply #19 on: August 31, 2017, 06:57:24 PM »
place the boxes inside some water wings?
2022 Subaru BRZ 2.4L WRB Betty
2017 Mazda 3 Hatch 2.5L SOLD

MurrayPeterson

  • 2020 Member
  • I don't hit cones. I cone the hits.
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
    • View Profile
Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
« Reply #20 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...
2017 Miata (C Street)
Avatar photo courtesy of Ian Gulinao

Reijo

  • Global Moderator
  • I don't hit cones. I cone the hits.
  • *****
  • Posts: 2721
  • I know Karate!
    • View Profile
Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
« Reply #21 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.

Midnightsky

  • :|
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
« Reply #22 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.
2022 Subaru BRZ 2.4L WRB Betty
2017 Mazda 3 Hatch 2.5L SOLD

MurrayPeterson

  • 2020 Member
  • I don't hit cones. I cone the hits.
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
    • View Profile
Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
« Reply #23 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.
2017 Miata (C Street)
Avatar photo courtesy of Ian Gulinao

NickST

  • :|
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Life is like a box of corners
    • View Profile
Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
« Reply #24 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.

Midnightsky

  • :|
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
« Reply #25 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.
2022 Subaru BRZ 2.4L WRB Betty
2017 Mazda 3 Hatch 2.5L SOLD

MurrayPeterson

  • 2020 Member
  • I don't hit cones. I cone the hits.
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
    • View Profile
Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
« Reply #26 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.
2017 Miata (C Street)
Avatar photo courtesy of Ian Gulinao

Midnightsky

  • :|
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
« Reply #27 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.
2022 Subaru BRZ 2.4L WRB Betty
2017 Mazda 3 Hatch 2.5L SOLD

MurrayPeterson

  • 2020 Member
  • I don't hit cones. I cone the hits.
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
    • View Profile
Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
« Reply #28 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.
2017 Miata (C Street)
Avatar photo courtesy of Ian Gulinao

NickST

  • :|
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Life is like a box of corners
    • View Profile
Re: Aug 27 Fort Macleod Scores???
« Reply #29 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.


 

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 11569
  • Total Topics: 1606
  • Online Today: 11
  • Online Ever: 419
  • (November 15, 2018, 01:04:55 PM)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 36
Total: 36