Flagtronic in car warning light system

I probably missed it in the previous 800 posts, but upon reading the most current rev of the GCR, FT appears to only be mandated for the Runoffs in 2025...and "may be required at select U.S. Majors Tour events." I just don't want to spend $1100 and what appears to be some a$$-pain to install in both my cars if I don't need to. I also don't want to read the Supps for the race I just registered for and see that it's required and I have to scramble to order and install. I would appreciate SCCA providing clearer notice of their intentions, unless I've missed where this has been publicized.

Best regards,
Eric

FT, comments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Iverson

Although Necessity is the Mother of Invention, I most certainly hope someone from Flagtronics is monitoring this thread. Responding to “potential customer feedback” is how you stay in business. If you are out there:

• Provide an option of removing the mounting feet from the aluminum extrusions for formula cars;
• Tapped 8-32 or 10-32 holes on all sides;
• Watertight all electrical connectors. We race in the rain, open cockpit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Iverson

FT, comments?

---

I'll go one further.

By the SCCA moving to mandate this system (and we know it will, followed by everyone else), why should the open wheel community suffer higher costs? FT has been given a favorable market position - once this is done, there's no competition, just like those *******s from AMB. They should make the cost of all these units the same. There's no reason that sedans can't use the formula car unit, so just produce that. Or, FT could simply charge all the sedan people a few bucks more, and reduce the cost of the formula car unit to the same.

IMHO, that should be the tit-for-tat required to be granted this favorable position. Of course, that takes someone from FT to be benevolent to some degree, or someone in club management to have half a brain (I won't hold my breath).

Nailed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

I'll go one further.

By the SCCA moving to mandate this system (and we know it will, followed by everyone else), why should the open wheel community suffer higher costs? FT has been given a favorable market position - once this is done, there's no competition, just like those *******s from AMB. They should make the cost of all these units the same. There's no reason that sedans can't use the formula car unit, so just produce that. Or, FT could simply charge all the sedan people a few bucks more, and reduce the cost of the formula car unit to the same.

IMHO, that should be the tit-for-tat required to be granted this favorable position. Of course, that takes someone from FT to be benevolent to some degree, or someone in club management to have half a brain (I won't hold my breath).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

I'll go one further.

By the SCCA moving to mandate this system (and we know it will, followed by everyone else), why should the open wheel community suffer higher costs? FT has been given a favorable market position - once this is done, there's no competition, just like those *******s from AMB. They should make the cost of all these units the same. There's no reason that sedans can't use the formula car unit, so just produce that. Or, FT could simply charge all the sedan people a few bucks more, and reduce the cost of the formula car unit to the same.

IMHO, that should be the tit-for-tat required to be granted this favorable position. Of course, that takes someone from FT to be benevolent to some degree, or someone in club management to have half a brain (I won't hold my breath).

---

I see your point, and that would be ideal, but I can't in good conscience fault FT for charging more for a much more complex unit that fits properly in cramped formula cars. They are not doing this just to be nice. It's a business, they are manufacturing the FT-RD unit at our request, and I'm glad they are.

Having said that, $550 is a lot of $, but in my and others' opinions, we believe it will improve safety and help compensate for the dwindling availability of corner workers. No flagging either by workers or by something like FT means no racing .

Oh I agree with you, like drivers, the flaggers are dwindling. I'd still like to see some info on system setup for tracks as I asked above. I think this will have some unintended consequences of replacing judgement with software, good or bad, who knows, and will it unify the way yellows are done across clubs, maybe....

But more than twice as much? And I was an electronics manufacturing engineer in a past life. I understand parts count, hand touches, etc. But like I said, why not converge on the formula car design as the default and let quantity sort out the cost?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

...But more than twice as much? And I was an electronics manufacturing engineer in a past life. I understand parts count, hand touches, etc. But like I said, why not converge on the formula car design as the default and let quantity sort out the cost?

---

IMO, that would cause a revolt from drivers who would use the stand-alone 1-piece unit and had to buy it after a large price increase. They would be justifiably pissed that they were covering part of the FT-RD cost when previously it was not that expensive. Formula cars are a small % of the market so even if FT's costs were similar for the 2 types, payout on investment would require some price difference.

Revolts aren't necessarily a bad thing. The sedan side of the market certainly has more clout.

I had a long call with collie of FT a while back. He told me that the individual corner warnings on the FT system are called and actuated by the corner workers.

Not sure how it would work without at least some folks manning corner stations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Demeter

I had a long call with collie of FT a while back. He told me that the individual corner warnings on the FT system are called and actuated by the corner workers.

Not sure how it would work without at least some folks manning corner stations

---

There are tracks with light systems instead of flags running their own sessions already doing it from Race Control with one, maybe two people looking at a bank of video monitors. Ideal? Of course not, but the steady reduction in corner workers for SCCA Road Racing events may, eventually, force it.

Peter and all,

IMHO this will have a serious impact on the safety of all.

If it is decided to leave certain corners unmanned, who is going to assist a driver in need. And video cameras can be deceiving.

We should not accept this, even if it means reducing the number of races or other measures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Demeter

Peter and all,

IMHO this will have a serious impact on the safety of all.

If it is decided to leave certain corners unmanned, who is going to assist a driver in need. And video cameras can be deceiving.

We should not accept this, even if it means reducing the number of races or other measures.

---

One weekend when my car was broken, I volunteered to be a corner worker. I asked the senior corner workers under what situation were we allowed to go on course to assist a driver in need. I was told that corner workers cannot do that anymore under any circumstances, and all we could do was to hand the driver a fire extinguisher if needed, and wait for the track emergency crew to show up.

I agree that having a live person in place is better than a camera, but otherwise it seems to be the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by douglap1

I was told that corner workers cannot do that anymore under any circumstances...

---

And, in fact, if you do it at Watkins Glen (among others) then you will be escorted off the property.

Times have changed.

GA, who sat in his car for 2-1/2 minutes at VIR T14 before someone was at my driver's window...or so it seems on my video 'cause I was pretty much unconscious...

Doug,

I have had quite the opposite experience on 2 occasions at Mid-Ohio. Both times corner workers were at my side way before any other help arrived and neither one was a serious accident by any means. Just saying...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Demeter

Doug,

I have had quite the opposite experience on 2 occasions at Mid-Ohio. Both times corner workers were at my side way before any other help arrived and neither one was a serious accident by any means. Just saying...

---

It varies track to track. Watkins Glen has long had a policy of "no corner workers over the wall under any circumstances."

Other tracks only allow them over the wall when there's a red flag or an FCY with the field fully under the control of the pace car.

It's increasingly rare or them to roll EV on a "hot" track, or allow workers to go over the wall under local yellow.

Thank the combination of ambulance chasers, increasingly risk averse track management, and bonehead drivers who can't seem to notice waving flags, flashing lights, or even the presence of EV on the track, let alone anything in the cockpit.

Can anyone tell me who was the person who came up with this (and the latest FIA light for a select few also)? Don't tell me it was by some committee, it's always one person (or company) who starts the conversation.
While we're at it, the on-board camera too, it you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kea

Can anyone tell me who was the person who came up with this (and the latest FIA light for a select few also)? Don't tell me it was by some committee, it's always one person (or company) who starts the conversation.
While we're at it, the on-board camera too, it you know.

---

Why, you looking to hang someone from the yardarm?

I wanted to see if anyone would take credit for the increases to go racing, that's all.
If these were really good ideas, why wouldn't someone take credit.
If they were based on reasons only SCCA insiders feel should be know, then I wonder the real reasons and their merits (Honda in F/Ford comes to mind).
The more stuff like this is kept hidden (and has been going on for decades), the more I wonder why I stay a SCCA member..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kea

I wanted to see if anyone would take credit for the increases to go racing, that's all.
If these were really good ideas, why wouldn't someone take credit.
If they were based on reasons only SCCA insiders feel should be know, then I wonder the real reasons and their merits (Honda in F/Ford comes to mind).
The more stuff like this is kept hidden (and has been going on for decades), the more I wonder why I stay a SCCA member..

---

Good questions. To me the originator of changes along with their reason for making the suggestion should always be disclosed. If someone doesn't want to be known, is the suggestion really a good one? Is it fact based?

The originator of all regs changes is posted in the Fastrack announcement, along with the letter number. If you reeeeally want to know this info, just pay attention.

From there you can lead them to the yardarm. - GA

Keith has the right questions.....

Installation question which may be answered in the previous 800+ posts…I received my flagtronics and trying to determine where to mount the antenna box. I have the remote display but this is that little antenna box. Ultimately the question is…does the little antenna stub need to be out in the open or will it work under the bodywork like GPS sensors. I know the instructions say out in the open, but most GPS sensors say that and work fine under the bodywork. Piper was not designed with this in mind. Thanks in advance.

I would expect the antenna to be OK under fiberglass, and not OK under carbon fiber.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Ferguson

I would expect the antenna to be OK under fiberglass, and not OK under carbon fiber.

---

I installed the FT-RD version last fall underneath the fiberglass and it worked fine

great
thank you!

I remember seeing that the Flagtronics would be mandatory at Super Tour events and the Run Offs. Well unless you are planning on the Run Offs, I don't see the point of the expense or work............makes the sting of having to spend that money for now one event a year seem more painful.

Brian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Graham

I remember seeing that the Flagtronics would be mandatory at Super Tour events and the Run Offs. Well unless you are planning on the Run Offs, I don't see the point of the expense or work............makes the sting of having to spend that money for now one event a year seem more painful.

Brian.

---

Could be a cause of low turnouts?

I suspect that won't be the end of the requirement. Just the requirement now.

While a PITA now, I see this as an eventual savior to the skeleton crews we see at regionals now.
They need help and giving them this tool is our way of helping.

We need to look at it as helping corner workers rather than a burden on us.

Well said!

Lieutenant Dave Spradling: Kaffee!
Kaffee: Dave, you seem distraught.
Lieutenant Spradling: We were supposed to meet in your office fifteen minutes ago to talk about the McDermont case. You're stalling on this thing. We get this done right now, or I mean it, Kaffee, I'm going to hang your boy from a ****in' yardarm!
Kaffee: Yardarm? Sherby, does the Navy still hang people from Yardarms?
Lieutenant Sherby: I don't think so.
Kaffee: Dave, Sherby doesn't think the Navy hang people from yardarms anymore.

Peter, I just couldn’t resist. Seemed like a great time to defuse this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Olivola

Why, you looking to hang someone from the yardarm?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Iverson

Lieutenant Dave Spradling: Kaffee!
Kaffee: Dave, you seem distraught.
Lieutenant Spradling: We were supposed to meet in your office fifteen minutes ago to talk about the McDermont case. You're stalling on this thing. We get this done right now, or I mean it, Kaffee, I'm going to hang your boy from a ****in' yardarm!
Kaffee: Yardarm? Sherby, does the Navy still hang people from Yardarms?
Lieutenant Sherby: I don't think so.
Kaffee: Dave, Sherby doesn't think the Navy hang people from yardarms anymore.

Peter, I just couldn’t resist. Seemed like a great time to defuse this

---

No worries, mate. :)

https://www.scca.com/announcements/8...price-increase

Now mandated at all Super Tours starting with Road Atlanta. Also look how nice they are giving everyone a 2 week notice that the price will increase. I'm sure they're patting themselves on the back for that.

“The price of the remote display FT-RD will not increase from its current $549.99. This is the first price increase for the FT200 since its introduction in 2021.”

The first price increase coincides with the increased mandated races………

glad I don’t run in SCCA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FE2Racer9

https://www.scca.com/announcements/8...price-increase

Now mandated at all Super Tours starting with Road Atlanta. Also look how nice they are giving everyone a 2 week notice that the price will increase. I'm sure they're patting themselves on the back for that.

---

[QUOTE=scorp997;671145] The first price increase coincides with the increased mandated races……… [/QUOTE]

This point absolutely cannot be understated. The manufacturer could easily be accused of leveraging its mandated monopoly. It's also a way to increase sales in December, again leveraging its mandated monopoly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scorp997

The first price increase coincides with the increased mandated races………

---

This point absolutely cannot be understated. The manufacturer could easily be accused of leveraging its mandated monopoly. It's also a way to increase sales in December, again leveraging its mandated monopoly.

---

I think they understand the limited captive market. Since there are no subscriptions there is no recurring revenue.

Unless they come up with a future upgrade all sales are one and done.

I suspect the next revision will be subscription based like MyLaps.

Gents:

I was thinking about this: the early AMB xponders required “no annual fees”. Make the initial investment, and that is it (I have one).

Can I presume that same notion applies to the FT? That is, we buy the hardware, and we use it free of any future financial encumbrances.

Or are we potentially liable to pay annual fees, at their whim, when there is no communicated proposals that I am aware of (written or spoken).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Iverson

Gents:

I was thinking about this: the early AMB xponders required “no annual fees”. Make the initial investment, and that is it (I have one).

Can I presume that same notion applies to the FT? That is, we buy the hardware, and we use it free of any future financial encumbrances.

Or are we potentially liable to pay annual fees, at their whim, when there is no communicated proposals that I am aware of (written or spoken).

---

Those that got AMB units at the start - have paid no annual fees to date, so long as their original transponders continue to work. Those that came later have had to deal with the subscription issues. Suspect the same thing will happen with Flagtronics.

Individual purchases to a limited clientele is not the way to configure a continuing business.

AMB transponders that are ‘no subscription’ still provide basic timing to the race organization.. it does not provide the “additional” data that MyLaps offered..

I will not be surprised at all if, when the FT becomes a subscription they will force older models to follow. The current FTs are software updatable AND currently only work with FT provided base station/track hardware (unlike the older AMB stuff). When the track hardware is updated, it would be easy to exclude older transponders..

Only my opinion
(black helicopters now flying!):heli::heli:

"(black helicopters now flying!):heli::heli:"

My spiny sense is telling me there is no reason to have both devices...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLS

"(black helicopters now flying!):heli::heli:"

My spiny sense is telling me there is no reason to have both devices...

---

Possibly - does FT have a Timing Function to produce practice/qualifying/race results for each session?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmi16

Possibly - does FT have a Timing Function to produce practice/qualifying/race results for each session?

---

I don't know the answer other than to say no reason it couldn't. I guess it lacks the actual start/finish line pickup.

Quote:

---

https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/ima...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by mmi16 https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/ima...post-right.png

Possibly - does FT have a Timing Function to produce practice/qualifying/race results for each session?

---

Although their lit says it can provide 'millisecond' timing info, I'm pretty sure that it would NOT be possible to provide an accurate lap time. It might provide information "to the millisecond", but the inherent latency delays would most likely be able to only provide something in the neighborhood of 1 second accuracy, if that. Probably more like 2 or 3 seconds. With some additional work/design they might be able to do better than that by timing internally using the GPS info, but it would still seem a bit far fetched to think that they could get accurate results down to even a tenth of a second. The entire concept of design and use depends on that latency to be able to make it "INexpensive". To reach 'lap time' accuracy would require at least some sort of external 'trigger' tied to the timing line. Like the old light beams or the more recent trigger wires.

IMHO...
Steve, FV80

"To reach 'lap time' accuracy would require at least some sort of external 'trigger' tied to the timing line."

Are close races still decided by "photo" or by the timing system?

The addition of a start/finish line trigger combined with the already in place smarts and communication system is all that is required, plus a few lines of code.

EDIT: Maybe I'm wrong about the communications, haven't been following this closely enough. I'm assuming there is two way comms...

Edit2: Their website lists "Timing and Scoring", but I find no explanation. I'd guess the ability is built in for future expansion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Davis

Although their lit says it can provide 'millisecond' timing info, I'm pretty sure that it would NOT be possible to provide an accurate lap time. It might provide information "to the millisecond", but the inherent latency delays would most likely be able to only provide something in the neighborhood of 1 second accuracy, if that. Probably more like 2 or 3 seconds. With some additional work/design they might be able to do better than that by timing internally using the GPS info, but it would still seem a bit far fetched to think that they could get accurate results down to even a tenth of a second. The entire concept of design and use depends on that latency to be able to make it "INexpensive". To reach 'lap time' accuracy would require at least some sort of external 'trigger' tied to the timing line. Like the old light beams or the more recent trigger wires.

IMHO...
Steve, FV80

---

I'd love to know how you're coming up with these numbers. Latency has nothing to do with accuracy. I helped develop an optical missile tracking system that was accurate within inches - with a 3/4 second latency because of all the processing required to get the accuracy and find the needle in a haystack.

The "trigger' is a GPS defined line. The question is, how much does that line move? The longer the system is on the more accurate it becomes, especially if differential is used. If you use differential to establish the line then the accuracy question becomes one of how accurate the car measurement is. If you are doing this properly, every measurement is time-tagged and then Position data can be extrapolated between two tags. Not as precise as a specific line-crossing trigger, but its possible to create a method that functionally is the same.

I am aware of a 10-year contract between SCCA and FT stating no subscriptions will happen. After that...? I guess we'll see.

FT could easily do timing for us*. Of course that would mean it has to be mandatory for all cars, at all races, like AMB is now. But there's a lot that has to happen before these can become mandatory for all racing, such as getting the infrastructure installed at all race tracks; regions cannot easily manage purchase of these systems in addition to setup and breakdown for every race weekend (it's time consuming). Topeka owns their own system and has staff for setup/breakdown at each Super Tour (Road America already has a full system installed for the Runoffs).

At which point, of course, our $500 AMB transponders will be worth nothing...but I have gotten some 20 years use out of my two, for which I paid $150 each, so I can't complain.

*Any of us that have GPS-based data acq systems, even the cheapest ones, knows that lap times between data acq and AMB loop timing are pretty insignificant, especially if you set your S/F accurately. And we'll never "score" by those systems anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

I'd love to know how you're coming up with these numbers. Latency has nothing to do with accuracy. I helped develop an optical missile tracking system that was accurate within inches - with a 3/4 second latency because of all the processing required to get the accuracy and find the needle in a haystack.

The "trigger' is a GPS defined line. The question is, how much does that line move? The longer the system is on the more accurate it becomes, especially if differential is used. If you use differential to establish the line then the accuracy question becomes one of how accurate the car measurement is. If you are doing this properly, every measurement is time-tagged and then Position data can be extrapolated between two tags. Not as precise as a specific line-crossing trigger, but its possible to create a method that functionally is the same.

---

It's more involved than that. You have GPS receiver mounting issues, EMI from the car, atmospheric issues, and more that throw can cause GPS problems. Remember the GPS satellite only transmits at 5 watts, so tree cover, bridges, and troposphere effects are real.

I believe an important point is missed in this discussion.

The accuracy of "commercially available" GPS with 10-12 satellites is advised at about 10 meters(33 feet), so about 2-1/2 car lengths. Unfortunately our beloved government won't share the "Good Stuff Signal" with us, which is thought to be about 1 meter(39"). Nobody's talking but it might even be better than that. That's why there is such variance between our GPS based in car dataloggers and the wire buried in the track triggered by our Xponders when you look at the clubs lap sheets and your GPS data.

The Mylaps Xponder emits a 90degree cone downward from 6-24" within the car. The baud rate is 1mbit/second. Timing resolution is 2ms. That's far more accurate and consistent than GPS.

This simple device is inherently more accurate than a handful of obsolete satellites orbiting at 22,000 above us.

Racehero is gone, but Race Monitor is still with us, via subscription.@ $6.99/year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanW

Racehero is gone, but Race Monitor is still with us, via subscription.@ $6.99/year.

---

Has anyone discussed taking over Racehero ?

IIRC the USG started giving everybody the "good stuff" years ago (no more SA code required), and it can be "tuned' to higher than advertised accuracy in a given geographic area. Your cell phone is better than 33 ft. It that was the accuracy you'd never be able to accurately see your lines. 10 years ago in the middle east we were getting under 3ft.

https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

Total system performance is more about base station receiver configuration... For instance - you have a good receiver on an aircraft, less so on a weapon, but in many cases you do a "transfer alignment" between the two which gives the weapon more accuracy than it could receive on its own.

There are also systems that use GPS, Galileo, and Glonass. More satellites, more accuracy - its just a chip and striplines on a circuit board for each group.

GPS is on the road to integrating with Galileo and the next gen of satellites - Block IIIF will start launching in 2026 - but Block IIIs are still being produced and launched at about 2/yr. That integration will likely not only increase accuracy but reliability.

You only need good signal at S/F for timing and scoring - but if things get totally automated, what level of accuracy is needed to determine a pass under yellow?

AMD hasn't done anything really new with the system since its inception (for our use at least). The. Flagtronics system is good for F&C. Seems like someone would have come up with a GPS/transponder based system that does the whole thing - might be pricey but does more, especially if it integrates with data systems (instead of the data systems doing the GPS work).

In the end, its all about standards (or lack thereof) and incentives for companies to work together (or lack thereof).

If you really want to blow your mind consider this visualization: Your GPS position is best thought of as an oblate spheroid stood on end (a football) - GPS is less accurate in the Z plane than in x and y. This football is constantly changing shape - but your actual position is a spot constantly moving about on the surface of the football. Now, the place you are going to is also an oblate spheroid standing on end, constantly changing shape, and its actual position is a spot constantly moving about on its surface. What your navigation algorithm is trying to do is drive your spot on the surface through the destination's spot on its surface....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

If you really want to blow your mind consider this visualization: Your GPS position is best thought of as an oblate spheroid stood on end (a football) - GPS is less accurate in the Z plane than in x and y. This football is constantly changing shape - but your actual position is a spot constantly moving about on the surface of the football. Now, the place you are going to is also an oblate spheroid standing on end, constantly changing shape, and its actual position is a spot constantly moving about on its surface. What your navigation algorithm is trying to do is drive your spot on the surface through the destination's spot on its surface....

---

I'm not an expert but have been involved in this a little. It really depends on what map reference system is being used. Tracks like NOLA provide interesting results as they move a lot and vary from year to year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLS

I don't know the answer other than to say no reason it couldn't. I guess it lacks the actual start/finish line pickup.

---

ChampCar has been the leader in Flagtronics use. I know they are talking about doing away with the transponder and only doing Flagtronics. I think ChampCar will likely work out the bugs