It would seem that the very legitimate concerns that many of us share about where to put this monstrosity are not registering with the CRB.
DaveW and Beer point out the same issues I have: No place to put the darn thing/
Printable View
It would seem that the very legitimate concerns that many of us share about where to put this monstrosity are not registering with the CRB.
DaveW and Beer point out the same issues I have: No place to put the darn thing/
It should be reiterated.... That early in this thread it was stated by a possible CRB member that this system was not proposed by the CRB. It is not clear what input the CRB has made at this point.
Yes, your concerns are legitimate, but that does not mean it will be practical or cost effective to resolve them.
What harm will you suffer if your concerns are not resolved to your satisfaction?
Brian
Brian,
Where do we take our concerns then?
Who came up with this idea?
Okay just how big is it? X,Y,Z??
The website does not say (shame on you-Flagtronics! Get with the program and add some drawings of unit.))
Runs off of a 12v power supply? So I have to add another switch and circuit breaker to my car now?
GPS antennae? That comes with the system? Are there ANY extra bits I need to buy to install it/make it work?
Is there anywhere in the SCCA proposed rules that says I have to mount the indicator where I can see it, while sitting in car? A bit joking here but if "I" can't see the unit is that a violation of these "new" rules?
I contacted FT a few weeks ago and they sent me a PDF of the FT dimensions. They say on the PDF that this is a "pre-production model." I saved it as a JPG, below:
Steve and I both worry that we may be excluded from some events if the FT is not mounted on our cars in a location visible by the driver, and neither of us think mounting on the exterior of the bodywork is practical for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
I filled out their contact message last and received a reply from Aleric Sanders one of their R&D Engineers.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
I asked:
Reponse:Quote:
On the 'inside the scca' broadcast there was an indication that there might be other packaging / display options to come.
I have an FC with little to no room for another display and an older data system.
What solution/format is in the works for my situation?
I furthered the conversation with this reply:Quote:
There are two solutions that are on the horizon within Flagtronics' product lineup. One product is a displayless unit that simply mounts at a location that the driver does not need to see and would tie into the dash system via CAN Bus. The other product that is further out would be one that hooks into the helmet and would be an in-helmet system.
In the meantime, VSCDA has a web page dedicated to some tricky Flagtronics FT200 installs here and might help near-term.
I do not particularly want a helmet product. More connections and hassle and there's even less room with my fat head.Quote:
I really appreciate the response.
I have been part of a long discussion on ApexSpeed.com regarding installing this system in open wheel formula and sport racer cars. I did see the install photos for Bob Wrights FC, but most of us do not have the room for such placement.
I’ve attached 4 photos. One is basically my view while in the car. One shows my hand on the wheel and another shows clearance behind the wheel and dash. As you can see there is very little visible room for placement of the current device.
That led me to writing you. I am encouraged to hear about the helmet but what would actually be better for me would be some sort of light strip that could be attached to the side or top of my current display or to one or both of my side mirrors. It would seem whatever you are planning for the helmet could be adapted for use on or near a dash or mirror. That would also eliminate additional helmet wiring and a distraction inside my helmet.
Attached a picture showing possible placement of lights on the type of mirror we use.
I do realize the CAN interface option is available, but my current system won’t support it. Only the newer systems would. And I’m not ready to spend $3000 to upgrade my data system just yet!
Anyway, appreciate the response and glad to see the product development moving forward.
If I can be of any help please reach out.
BUT, the helmet product IS an indicator that there will be some sort of smallish light output in the future - and maybe that can be adapted to attaching to my dash or mirrors.
Only time will tell. When they come up with a solution for me I'll buy then, but I've not heard about any tracks using it on the west coast as of yet so I have time.
Assume that a centered location is not possible, then your are going to have to accept that the a flag or signal board is going to be your first notification of an incident. The driver is going to have to move his eye focus from the track to view the display.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
There will never be a rule questioning the quality of the display view. Yes, you have lost some of the utility of this system but that is because of car's dimensions. No reason the rest of the competitors have to pay for more expensive solution that solves your problems. The $260 current unit is good for 90% of all SCCA competitors.
So that said, it is time for you guys with 'issues' to get creative. My car designs have even tighter cockpits than yours but I still see many possibilities.
1) A bracket mounted in the same location as the mirror arm this attaches to the upper cockpit rail. You would view it just like you view the mirror. Not aesthetically pleasing, but so be it. Seal the connectors with silicon for weather proofing.
2) I put a lot of control units and switches in the area about 8-9" aft of the steering wheel in my cars. Again, possible mounting to the upper frame member. Could stick out from the tube or be below it.
Once you give up on the ideal center location there are all kinds of possibilities.
Brian
Do not hang your hat on a CAN connection to your logger or dash. Yes, you can provide a signal to the logger/dash, but the logger/dash has to have programing to display the information provided. This is going to require firmware updates for the logger/dash. Only the newest units are going to still have firmware support.
Way in the future the Flagtronic system could become omnipresent and well supported by logger/dash firmware.... but not today.
Brian
Nice to see they're aware of the issue and taking steps to deal with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
This was already addressed ealier. Flagtronics works with any of the CAN-capable products Aim currently produces. Several models can also have two CAN inputs, which means those cars that stream ECU data to the system can also integrate Flagtronics. Flagtronics is one of the pull-down menu options on Race Studio 3. Flagtronics has instructions on what codes correspond to what flags correspond to which codes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
You're only correct in that they don't have that support for "legacy" products at Aim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmpdesigner
Is powered by a remote lithium battery (<4V?) that is changed by 12v IF hard wired. Comes with its own gps antenna. Nothing else is required for the $260 unit.
No rules regarding the system at this time.
Brian
Dave, Thanks for info.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
Unit is "okay" in size-still I can see it being hard to mount in a formula car. I have a Norma CN car, whichis a "2 seater" and I have very little space to mount it!
I wouldn't count on that. I've seen mandatory rules for data-logger mounts, transponder locations, even "spec" locations for go-pro cameras.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Thanks, because it's not like we have decades of experience prepping or driving race cars...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Oh yes, let's have a look at your "possibilities," oh Great One.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
So, that location on my car, which is typical for the types of cars under discussion, looks like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw...-no?authuser=0
And from the top:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw...-no?authuser=0
I guess this would work if I liked driving one-handed. Or maybe I'll go for the full white-trash look and cut the bodywork and mount the unit with the wire harness flapping in the airstream at 130+ mph. Riiiiight.
OK, so 6 to 8 " back, on the top frame rail....Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw...-no?authuser=0
Hey, this might work...
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw...-no?authuser=0
...until I turn the steering wheel.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw...-no?authuser=0
Assuming the driver is incorporeal, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Brian,Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
I already investigated the possibility of alternate locations in my Citation cockpit. Any place I could mount the stand-alone unit would be either not visible w/o contortions on my part, or interfere with ingress/egress of my cockpit. So unless they come up with a thinner unit that would fit in the one ideal location ahead of the cutout top of the steering wheel, I am either going to have to wait until they make one that will fit, or mount it somewhere that is not very visible, and so would not fulfill it's potential benefit. And I refuse to do a cobbled installation, which is what mounting it outside the bodywork would be.
You can argue all you want, but I am VERY experienced in making things fit in tight spaces, so again, you are not looking at MY choices, just theorizing what might work.
As someone who has also maximized their available cockpit space, I sympathize with everyone. 6'3" in a VanDiemen leaves very little room for anything around the steering wheel.
I believe the best approach at this point is to start lobbying the sanctioning bodies to phase in the implantation requirements over several years to allow more advancements in the units to accommodate the tight confinements. Otherwise, we'll all be buying a unit now, then be replacing it with another one when something more size applicable is available basically doubling the effective cost.
My understanding is the wiring harness on these units isn't exactly motorsports quality either, and is rather large, stiff, and bulky compounding the size issue for us.
I don't take the addition of items in the cockpit lightly. This really needs to be phased in and allow time for improvements.
I plan on looking closer at a unit while at the runoffs, hopefully they will have a unit I can borrow for a day to see what location options might work.
I still can't help but to feel there are some other influences at work here that is causing the rapid required use....we've gone without it 60+ years of road racing, and all of a sudden it's required with less then a years notice? hmmm....
Your guys act like this has to be some kind of aero and aesthetic solution. IT DOES NOT as far as the BRD/CRB is concerned. The utility of the system is too obvious for anything to stop its implementation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raceworks
I question your enthusiasm to find a creative solution. Maybe your prep skills are better than your creative skills.
Clearly the area between the head-surround and the mirror, above the body, is a good area to mount the display. A simple aluminum bracket 90deg bracket will do the job.
if you want something inside the cockpit, then your are going to have to accept some arm interference when making extreme steering input. The steering input demonstrated in the last photo is seldom seen on track and/or in very slow corners.
Brian
This unit @$260 works for 90%, maybe 95%, of all SCCA competitors. It is a clear benefit to the competitors, race control and tracks. A few formula car competitors are not going to slow the implementation. Accommodations can be made for how the system is used with formula car classes/groups, but you will still need the unit mounted on your car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Sport Engineering
What is the size of the market for a smaller modularized unit? Is it worth the investment in time and money to really come up with something better? If the logger/dash companies develop firmware for their new units, what happens to the market then?
Brian
I guess Brian hasn't had to catch a slide in a while...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Brian,Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Your statements in a word: Ridiculous
Sorry, but we are making efforts to resolve the issues and you keep suggesting we need to 'give up' and bolt it to the body work in front of us.
We are not objecting to the product.
Thanks for all the advice - I'll pass.
Paul
Between the head-surround and mirror, on top of the frame member, is not in your front view. What is wrong with this location?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Does anyone have something more substantial than aero or aesthetic reasons to preclude this location? I can not solve this location problem without knowing more about how you guys think.
Brian
Here are the parts of the FT200
The display with lens is about .300" thick. It is connected to the main board with 10 conductor connectors. You could use a 10 conductor cable to connect the display to the main board.
The connectors can be sourced but you would probably want to hand wire a cable exiting to the side of the display module.
Doable if you have the skill set.
Brian
Brian,
You never answered my question Who started this mess. You stated earlier that it was NOT the CRB.
I think that your responses to people who have to live with poor decisions made by others are plan and simple those of one who does not give a **** about what their uninformed decision making process does to others.
There have been many individuals with more experience than one can add up that have stated that it is simply impossible to fit this unit into a reasonable spot in their particular car.
I have suggested that a unit that only requires a light on the dash, not the monstrosity be developed prior to implementation, but you simply ignored that idea.
It seems that your attitude is that you are smarter than the collective knowledge on ApexSpeed!!!!1
This seems to be degenerating to the bad old days when people with poser simply did what they damned well pleased and piss on the people paying the bills.
That is the best suggestion you have offered so far ! Thank you for disassembling one so we could see what's in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
Sounds like a great business opportunity for someone familiar with electronic devices. I'd be willing to pay to have the FT modified so it would work in my car. I suggested to FT that I would buy a thinner stand-alone device, and your sort of modifications plus a thinner case (3D printing?) could help create it.
1) I have no idea, but I would assume the BRD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
2) Clearly it is not impossible from my last post. What is clear is that no one has volunteered what is wrong with this exterior location.
3) A light on the dash negates the use of a virtual pace car. So, how important a feature is that for our track time management? Do we give up on that because a few formula car competitor do not like exterior mounting locations?
4) I am not smarter, just acknowledging the tremendous advantages to everyone running a race/event. With 90% of competitors able to use the system as is, maybe it is the other 10% that are going to need to make a compromise.
Brian
Yes, there is always a better solution IF you are willing to pay. I am sure this could easily double the cost of the std FT200. The volume is just too low and sales to much of an unknown.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
My idea does require a second housing for the mainboard. At this point I am planning on cutting the housing in half. The display would probably end up <.400".
Brian
Less than 1/2" thick would fit in the prime location behind the cutout in the steering wheel. And if I could mount its antenna remotely it'd likely work. As I said - I want to use it IF I can fit it in. And 1 tire costs almost as much as the FT...so that's not an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
What would you do with the wiring harness? Just asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
So will I be penalized if the system thinks I am in a yellow flag zone, but in fact the GPS position is incorrect and I am in a green zone? To improve that signal I am going to have to put the antenna out in air flow. I have been avoiding that with my lap timer app, but I won't be able to now if a penalty is possible.
I don't have a steering wheel with speed sensor. Will these systems (at full implementation) require me to get an AIM wheel or something more updated to be able to perform a pit speed limiter or the virtual SC?
Meanwhile the runoff at the Kink is so narrow that crashing cars consistently bounce back onto the track, but this dash light thing will make it all better. I'd rather see money spent on track safety improvements rather than hastily required blinking light trinkets.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by toolo4sno
The Kink is the Kink and nothing can make it safer short of rerouting the railroad.
Meanwhile, separating the display from the rest of the unit makes a lot possible. Please, Flagtronics, make this happen.
Had not examined the harness before. The main cable can be stripped down to just two .060" wires that supply 12V. The GPS cable is .170", 4 conductor.Quote:
Originally Posted by J Leonard
This should not be hard to route. Yes, not very aesthetically pleasing.
Brian
This system uses GPS data to function. There will be no mistakes because of the GPS signal. It either knows your location or you fall out of the system until the data reapears.Quote:
Originally Posted by toolo4sno
I am trying to learn more about the antenna strength. All of the sedans will have the unit on their dashes. Half the signal through glass and half through steel bodywork. I would guess under fiberglass body work not be an issue. We know GPS antennas are fine under fiberglass.
Using GPS, the system always knows how fast you are going anywhere on the track. For the virtual SC situation the system will indicate to you, using the display, if you need to slow down to maintain the prescribed set speed.
Brian
So if i understand the pictures, the GPS unit is separate, and the helical antenna is for communications to/from the unit?
First thing i'd do is separate the display, make it linear, maybe two rows of leds on a flex substrate and molded over so that it could be mounted on top of a DAQ display. Back before i got an AIM system i had a shift light linear display like that. it looks like they mounted a couple of other components on the display board. That might complicate things depending on what they are. Plenty of flexible color changing led strips out there though
Those connectors are an abortion. Just a cheap, easy, mindless selection, lots of other options. Even weatherpaks would be smaller! i'd terminate the wires on he board and move the connectors outside of the case, which also removes the mate/demate forces from the board.
3d printed case, 3d printed mold for the display. The easy button for the OEM though, is to provide another connector for an external display. That preserves the generic design for the majority of users, and would allow formula car guys to mount a smaller remote display.
This is my lap timer's GPS map trace from one of the last times I went out. Can you tell me what track it is? It was mildly cloudy that day and the reception sucked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
https://i.ibb.co/tHLHKkC/GPS-reception.jpg
The reason I bring this up is don't be in too much of a hurry to rely on electronics to save us. They will introduce new wrinkles while possibly solving old ones and definitely costing me time and money to make it all work. I also don't want to be penalized because the system thought I was somewhere I wasn't. I design and build electronics for cars almost every day. The moment I start to get comfortable and actually rely on electronics is the moment they fail.
Thank you, Brian, for providing the tear-down photos of the unit. THAT was helpful.
While I'd love some thin LED strips that could mount to the edge of the cockpit, it sounds like that will remove some of the key information the display can show?
Even keeping the existing display, if a pigtail can be run from that board externally to the rest of the unit mounted elsewhere, then I could find room on my steering wheel, maybe below the main dash, on the hub, to run that. Yeah, it sucks a little to have yet another cable wrapped around my steering column, in addition to the dash and the radio button... but that is tolerable. Radio button COULD be moved, if needed.
This unit is clearly designed for the one-box implementation, which makes sense given the target market.
We just aren't that target market.
Brian.. maybe you know the answer to this .. what is the frequency and mode of the incoming commands to the unit. That would also lead to what sort of antenna(s) is/are required at the track to successfully provide 100% solid comms all the way around. Places like the bottom of t4/5 at Road Atlanta and out between T6 and 7. Quite similar problems at MOST tracks with any decent amount of elevation.
I have a hard time believing that comms can be maintained in those areas .. unless there is a distributed antenna farm that needs to be installed at every track to make it work. The only other option I can think of would be satellite phone comms.. and pretty sure they could not engineer THAT into a package that small and it would also be subject to dropouts when passing under trees...or BRIDGES!. Seems as a minimum we would be likely to see time delays of > 1 sec .. and some times SEVERAL seconds before the unit would respond ..and the unit would still have to ACQ the command to be sure it was received - AND the command packets would have to be a constant stream.
I also agree with Rick about terminating the wires on the display board (no 'connector') leaving pigtails to the remote electronics. The 2 buttons on the display COULD be remoted, but without making changes on the main board, that would be a lot more complex than just leaving them on the display board.. or maybe a short jumper separate from the display data. The GPS antenna .. well.. that would be attached to the remote box anyway, so a connector would be OK there. I had never seen the SIZE of those connectors on the rear of the unit. Wonder where they even found those big things.
Steve
I am placing the display on the steering wheel. With the other units needing connections I ended up with a 14 conductor coil cable. Very ungainly to say the least. If I become too frustrated I might have to spring for a built-in connector steer wheel hub.Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
Brian
With a closer inspection of the boards it can be see that they wear made by Lucidtron in China. You bring them your design idea and they create and manufacture the hardware for you. So if we want different packaging they will be the ones to do it based on what Flagtronic requests.
These design/fab companies are really helpful in getting low volume ideas/products out to the public.
Brian
Do we know what tracks are using this system?
Or which regions?
Go to their web site and view who they are actively selling kits to. This will give you an idea where it is being used.
Brian
if you track the FCC ID you can probably find the frequencies. i'm betting it works a bit like FRS.
The connectors are a standard Deutsch design for wet applications.
the other components on the display board are switches that go under the white buttons on the front of the unit
I did some research last night and found the info on the chip they are using. It's a packet chip transceiver that's pretty sophisticated and CHEAP and it operates in the 'free spectrum' frs area around 900 MHz. It still raises a question in my mind as to the latency of comms to/from the car. It's still going to take, either a distributed antenna system at the track, or a VERY HIGH transceive antenna (like HELICOPTER high) to reach dead spots on a lot of tracks. The data rate possible is also pretty low. I'd be really interested to know more details, but couldn't find ANY 'specs' on the Flagtronics website.. most info is 'call for more info'.
Makes me wonder if anyone has actually TESTED what can be expected from this system.. or just listened to the ads. I haven't seen any ad info that addresses the time frame of the comms.. or the hardware required to 'manage' the cars at Race Control. Even though race control is usually 'pretty high', it would not be nearly high ENOUGH (IMHO) to reach into places like the gap between flag stations(FS) 4 and 5 at Road Atlanta, or FS 9 - 11 at Mid Ohio.. or FS 8 - 12 at Road America. Although the cars should EVENTUALLY get flag info, it could take quite a few seconds for that flag display to show up in cars in those areas .. unless they have figured out a way around that issue. SO.. a RED FLAG at Elkhart issued when a car is in the carousel might not get displayed until the car comes out of the 'back side' up to around FS 13. Or a car at Atlanta going into T3 might not get 'the word' until he got to the top of the hill at T5, so if the incident is between those places (right at where the car is headed) he might not get notified before it's too late.
That also raises the issue about DETERMINING PUY via this system and KNOWING exactly WHEN 'the car' actually had a yellow displayed IN HIS CAR.
I'd like to hear some data about real world testing where the real world KNOWS exactly when a flag command is issued at Race Control vs exactly WHEN that command is received and acted on at various places around the track.
I'm betting there could be quite a few seconds before the car gets the info in some cases ..
A car traveling at 100 MPH is covering ~145 feet (or ~12 car lengths) per second. I doubt the data rate of the packet system can keep up with the GPS position of even ONE car at that speed.. much less 20 of them. SO.. 'verification' of lap time or PUY seems pretty suspect to me.
Of course.. I COULD BE WRONG, but when was the last time THAT happened ?? :D:D
Steve
I'll make some more guesses here. The reason I thought it was a FRS type system is that it needs comms to be channelized per car even thought there's not going to be enough bandwidth by conventional standards and the system has to be easily set up by race officials. So either you'll have a number that has to be presented to the officials like a transponder number and entered into the system before a session, or each in car system will have two "channels" - one code for an open broadcast and another coded for the individual transmitter. That way the track system can "ping" each car and get a response as to who is out there.
900 MHz can go a long way. It sits at the edge of a band with less atmospheric absorption and somewhat less natural noise levels. The track system can be high powered transmit, receive is somewhat less important. Each transmission is a small burst with high peak power/short duration. Using some very conservative and generalized estimates, if you consider the information bandwidth to be on the order of 100MHz, and you're sending sync and a hundred bits of info plus error correction, that gets done in 3uS. For green/black all/red/FCY, it's a single transmission to all parties. Boom.
Acknowledgement is a different matter, but they have repeaters that can be placed along the track and relay. They need LOS to each other and the main base, so you just put them on a pole somewhere. Even multiple repeater delays are only going to be in the range of tens of microseconds. Even if I'm off by two orders of magnitude, its still 50 times faster than you are in recognizing it.
Typical GPS update rates even for aircraft are on the order of a 10hz. You can get somewhat higher at great computational and power expense, so its simpler to couple with an IMU and extrapolate if you need more position accuracy above 10hz.
I think the more worrisome aspect is "cold start" on the vehicle units. Without a cellular/internet connection it takes a long time to download ephemeris data in order for the system to find the satellites and produce a solution, although once that's done it's usually good for hours, if not days. So you won't want to show up on grid without having "warmed" up the GPS first, unless it gets that data from the flagtronics ground station in a general broadcast message every so often.
I was surprised that the GPS aspect is an option, because if you don't have that all you get is green/black all, red, and FCY. Considering how rare those events are, its a lot of effort for not much gain, so I'd expect the requirement to be for the entire system.
It appears the main reason the display is so large is that they are displaying a character to indicate the flag color by not illuminating LEDs, R,G,Y etc. Probably to assist with a certain amount of color blindness. If they are displaying passing and course condition flags, a strip display would require alternating segments of red/yellow and blue/red, as well as something for the meatball. How are they implementing black? Some interesting human factors here (and I doubt if anyone is doing real human factors work, most likely just a collection of opinions like the basis behind the FIA rain light).
Tried to download the user manual but the link is broken.
Steve,
I don't have the answers to your questions, just another question: How are local yellows triggered?
It sure sounds like everything goes through Race Control. There's nothing to keep the local workers from throwing a flag while that process works through, but giving them access to the system probably complicates things A LOT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
I was just thinking that a different way to implement this would be a transmitter at each corner station with a coded signal for each one, and much lower power. The marshals would be in control of it, much like flags now, and due to the short range, it would only trigger when you came within sight of the station, and drop when you got the signal from the next station not displaying that color.
This would likely INCREASE the need for corner workers though.
There are a bunch of YouTube videos now. In one of them, the annotation makes notice of a local yellow thrown, and it's a few seconds before Flagtronics displays it - it was thrown when the car was just entering the braking zone but he's almost to the apex before it shows up on his display. So you can safely assume this is the communications delay between the workers reporting yellow, race control acknowledging it, and someone there operating the software.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimH
I don't think it would be all that difficult to give corner workers control of it - they already have a handheld tester that could probably be re-purposed into that role - but it would require another person to operate. I don't think you could watch, flag, and tap buttons at the same time.
And apparently you will need to report your "transponder" number prior to the event, vertical orientation of the antenna is critical, and they implement black via alternating panes of white with black text and off with white test. Checkers appear to be purple.
LOCAL yellows are triggered with FLAGS from the corner station by HUMAN communications visually... HOW does that get into the FT system?? Good question. I THINK FT is really ONLY for FULL COURSE situations, but I don't really have ANY IDEA how they might intend to implement it. THAT's the reason I asked the question about REAL WORLD TESTING. I KNOW it's 'been used' in a few events.. but the only comment I can recall is from Bob Wright and .. if you/he is IN THE CAR and 'sees a flag' on FT.. there's no way of knowing WHEN you/he saw it relative to WHEN it was initiated in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
I see that as a BIG HOLE in the entire MAGIC PROCESS that is going to solve ALL of our FLAG PROBLEMS.
OTOH, I can see that as CAUSING a WHOLE LOT MORE issues where the system 'initiates' a flag condition, but the car does NOT receive, recognize and DISPLAY that condition until much later.. yet RC would EXPECT the driver to have responded 'immediately'... when he was really not notified by FT until 15 seconds later.
Rick's comments about 'local interfaces' are well received, but THAT is the question I was asking about 'distributed' antennas for comms to the cars. When a corner worker SEES A CONDITION that calls for a flag... and then SHOWS that flag.. HOW does that 'trigger' the FT flag condition in the car?.. especially with FEWER F/C personnel which is at least PART of this problem .. not withstanding the 'overly aggressive idiocy' routinely exhibited by us 'inattentive drivers'.
And .. YES.. if you read the Runoffs Supps instructions for installing the system, they REQUIRE all drivers to NOTIFY .. someone (at tech?).. and supply them with THEIR specific numeric ID for the FT system.
Steve
So we can assume there is some latency with the system when an incident first starts, but when do the majority PUY really take place?
This system is not promoted as an instant responder. Some eyes will always need to be on the track: corner worker, race control tower, maybe video, or the Flagtronic noting the abnormal GPS location/speed.
This is racing, **** is always possible when you are an early arriver to an incident.
Brian
Actually, this system *IS* being promoted as an INSTANT RESPONDER. If RC intends to use this for PUY penalty application THAT is a major requirement. We are truly talking MILLISECONDS here .. between the INSTANT when a worker pulls out a flag and the TIME drivers are EXPECTED to Recognize it and STOP doing what he/they was/were doing <1 second ago. If the system latency is ... even 1 second (or more) in ANY case, then it CANNOT be used to JUDGE whether or not a driver properly responded to a given flag condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
How many bits does it take for FT to send each car's GPS POSITION (considering that basic GPS info is still only ~10 Hz? .. as Rick indicates).. then @ 100 mph, we are traveling a little over a CARLENGTH per GPS update. We can have FIVE+ cars in a passing condition between 2 GPS updates and we are truly talking MILLISECONDS. It's true that the DATA CAN TRAVEL between 2 locations in microseconds.. but if you include packet 'confirmation acks' then, that starts to move into MILLISECONDS pretty quickly.. and then throw in some 'dead spots' and delayed resends to complete that packet info before the system will acknowledge and ACT on it... then we get to SECONDS + how ever many seconds of 'dead area' the car happens to be in at the time of initiation of the new flag condition. Consider the T2 yellow at Road America that cost a driver a National Championship just a couple years ago.
I don't see ANY WAY this system can be accurate enough to issue penalties from like it seems that SCCA is expecting to be able to do.. of, course that does NOT mean that they won't DO IT, anyway. :(
This is not like the Tennis 'hawkeye' systems that can call balls in or out automatically.. RC does not have 10 cameras on all cars at any instant. Tennis balls only get a 100 feet or so away from the cameras.. RC can be MILES away from the cars... and the GPS data that tells where the car WAS a few milliseconds ago .. as well as the 'previous locations' of the cars around it.. and add to that, that the specific location of the GPS positioning antenna is NOT SPECIFIED (just like transponder locations except for spec cars).. but the transponder data has become the 'defacto' indicator of just HOW CLOSE the finish was...
Well... I digress :-(.
The word has come down..and eventually we'll SEE how it all works out... how ever many of us are left by that time.
I'm getting too worked up about 'these new things' suddenly coming down from 'ON HIGH'.
I'd still like to see some REAL WORLD DATA about the latency.
Steve