Datalogging

[ubrben]

Originally Posted by Denis Bassom

Which is exactly the point I was making, but clearly passed people by.

Not exactly, I think what Lukin and myself were referring to was this bit:

Good example though of how data logging can easily lead up up the wrong path.

In this case it might have been better to say "A good example of how misusing a data logger can lead you up the wrong path"

But I am a pedant of course :-)

On the subject of PI, I think they've made a mistake w.r.t Motec regarding software. I suspect you could find loads of highly intelligent uni students who'd do you logger setup and analysis for free who are incredibly profficient with Motec i2 because it's freely available. This isn't the case with PI.

Ben

[Lukin]

Originally Posted by Denis Bassom

Which is exactly the point I was making, but clearly passed people by.

Data logging on it's own is completely useless, it is the interpretation of the data that is the important bit.

The point didn't pass us by, I was alluding to what I'd said before; use it properly all the time or don't bother with it at all.

Most things on the car are useless on their own. Some people seem to think having a logger will give them a big gain but as with any theoretical gain, if you put rubbish in that's all you will get out.

Used properly the system can be a great gain in terms of the driver, the setup and just the general health of the car.

[Lukin]

Originally Posted by ubrben

On the subject of PI, I think they've made a mistake w.r.t Motec regarding software. I suspect you could find loads of highly intelligent uni students who'd do you logger setup and analysis for free who are incredibly profficient with Motec i2 because it's freely available. This isn't the case with PI.

I think that's true to a point. MoTeC is easy to get online and even a non-intelligent uni student can use it (well I managed it) but if you have used i2 even with demo data then Pi Toolbox is so easy to learn. Everything is where you would expect it to be and configuring it (in workshop) is so simple.

[greenamex2]

Originally Posted by ubrben

On the subject of PI, I think they've made a mistake w.r.t Motec regarding software. I suspect you could find loads of highly intelligent uni students who'd do you logger setup and analysis for free who are incredibly profficient with Motec i2 because it's freely available. This isn't the case with PI.

Any data logging system that doesn't have some form of 'error' checking is not very good. It would have taken a couple of lines of code to check that I was comparing two totally different length circuits (as derived from the wheel speed sensor) and pop up a dialogue saying "Are you sure?", likewise most of the other errors I mentioned. This will be a difference between a 'good' system and a 'not so good' system.

There is an old expression - To err is human, to really screw up you need a computer!

Given the price of a Motec setup, I suspect they are recouping the software costs with the hardware and can afford to give it away. The hardware is VERY expensive.

I've noticed that a few of the other manufacturers also allow you to download the software for free (AIM for example). Certainly a jolly good way of advertising your product and getting extra sales!

Pesumably PI get enough business not to have to bother.

[Lukin]

Originally Posted by Denis Bassom

Whilst the display itself is barely adequate (very minimal information).....

I assume you race? What info do you like in front of you?

We use a Pi dash with very little information and it seems to work fine. With some working you can have 1 dash display that shows data from different channels (i.e. it shows laptime for the first 5 seconds of the lap, the shows segment times or mid corner speeds from then on). I don't think you need a tacho like the MoTeC dash has though.

And with alarms you can remove a heap of information that you might otherwise want to look at (temperatures, pressures). If all is well there is no need to look at it.

[greenamex2]

Originally Posted by Lukin

Some people seem to think having a logger will give them a big gain but as with any theoretical gain, if you put rubbish in that's all you will get out.

Used properly the system can be a great gain in terms of the driver, the setup and just the general health of the car.

Totally agree. Although there is an awful lot that the system can do to protect you from entering rubbish and even more it can do to help you interpret what the system is telling you.

A good example is why I chose the Astratech system over the PI system.

This was about 10 years ago and Astratech advertised a feature that displayed the best possible lap time achievable from data available, and it could displayed your car driving round the track on two different laps, along with a 'dashboard display'.

This was unique at the time and meant that even though I didn't know how to use the mass of data available I could gain benefit from the system immediately.

Of course time progressed and all the systems do something similar now with the Stack one even telling you whilst you are driving round!

And as I have progressed I now spend far more time looking at graphs and numbers and correlate these with driver (ie my) input.

Unfortunately Astratech pretty much gave up and PI continued to progress and I am left with something that doesn't even under Windows with would cost load to replace

[greenamex2]

Originally Posted by Lukin

I assume you race? What info do you like in front of you?

We use a Pi dash with very little information and it seems to work fine. With some working you can have 1 dash display that shows data from different channels (i.e. it shows laptime for the first 5 seconds of the lap, the shows segment times or mid corner speeds from then on). I don't think you need a tacho like the MoTeC dash has though.

And with alarms you can remove a heap of information that you might otherwise want to look at (temperatures, pressures). If all is well there is no need to look at it.

As a driver, yes you are probably right.

I should just be looking at a big red light and, if it is on, look at what the problem is and make a decision whether to stop immediately or limp back to the pits. In fact there should just be three light, change gear, stop immediately and limp back to the pits immediately. That way I don't have to think at all!

Unfortunately I am also the race engineer for my own car which has a number of 'less than ideal' features. I often end up having to monitor things like oil pressure and temperature and adjust my driving accordingly rather than just getting on with the job. I really don't want to add pressing a button to scroll through the screens on the PI system to my list of distractions.

Hopefully a move to dry sumping, along with some extra head drains, will allow me to just rely on warning lights in future and then the PI system suddenly makes a lot of sense.

[ubrben]

Originally Posted by Denis Bassom

Any data logging system that doesn't have some form of 'error' checking is not very good. It would have taken a couple of lines of code to check that I was comparing two totally different length circuits (as derived from the wheel speed sensor) and pop up a dialogue saying "Are you sure?", likewise most of the other errors I mentioned. This will be a difference between a 'good' system and a 'not so good' system.

In my experience it's fairly obvious that if two laps don't line up it's either the beacon or a wheelspeed related issue. If you didn't check this I think it's unfair to blame the system.

The more the software does for you the more lazy you get.

Having said that the lapchecker wizard in 2D's Analyser software is cool. I still manually check the lap length as well though.

Ben

[greenamex2]

Originally Posted by ubrben

In my experience it's fairly obvious that if two laps don't line up it's either the beacon or a wheelspeed related issue. If you didn't check this I think it's unfair to blame the system.

We are talking about a system that will require a couple of minutes of key pressing just to check the circuit length.

I work in IT (including software development) and any company in my area that produced software that didn't perform even the most rudimentary of error checks and not at least produce an alert would be out of business real quick.

Why should I have to put up with it from a data logging system?

[ubrben]

Originally Posted by Denis Bassom

Why should I have to put up with it from a data logging system?

Because the circuit length isn’t a fixed value. It depends on the line the driver took, tyre slip, tyre growth and many other factors.

Personally I would be dubious about anything to do with physical position on the track unless that position was derived from a good GPS. Like I said the only time the distance really matters is when I’m overlaying laps and in this case any error is so obvious that any competent data analyst will check the rolling radius number.

I don’t want to live in a Windoze world of data logging software that asks me if “I’m sure” all the time. I want all the functionality I can get – and if it’s not there I write it myself in Matlab, but I don’t need or want babysitting.

Ben

[youngoldy]

On two of our three cars we use Pi X-Sport, and what we get is so useful. Alot of calls have been made through what the data is telling us. But the only snatch with data logging is you never qquite know exactly how accurate the speeds are. Because you mau use a sensor and trigger type or GPS. I would say a more expensive one of the two would be more accurate, but for say you wanted to see visually if gears you are trying are right, you would usually compare the RPM at the speeds you should be pulling. This is where it gets odd. We may try GPS sensors, but we use sensor and trigger type at the moment. Pi have a list of tracks they have a beacon at here: http://www.piresearch.com/assets/29F-071358.pdf . But I would deffinatly recommend it, if you can splash out on it, its not the cheapest.

On our other car we use Race Technology DL1, but we dont have a display just yet. I have only had I'd say about 4 or 5 days experience with that data logging system so I can't say too much just yet. But this system picks up speeds via GPS and can work your line through a corner on any lap or segment, which is pretty hand bit of inof, and would be good to see that on Pi X-Sport. But both are very good.

[greenamex2]

Originally Posted by ubrben

I don’t want to live in a Windoze world of data logging software that asks me if “I’m sure” all the time. I want all the functionality I can get – and if it’s not there I write it myself in Matlab, but I don’t need or want babysitting.

Ben

I spend my days working on bloody computers, looking at disk performance graphs, running IOmeter tests, looking at their graphs, configuring SAN disk arrays etc etc etc.

The last thing I want to do is look at some more at the weekend!

I want something that I press a button and it comes back with the answer "you need to do xyz to go faster, and by the way you need to change your oil".

I don't even want to configure anything.

Of course that isn't reality at the moment but based on all the other technologies I work on I know it is easily possible.

In the meantime I'll trudge on using my two decades of capacity planning/data analysis experience and training, and one decade of data logging experience that I have used to win four championships, doing it the hard way and continue to develop my own data logging system (once I have productionised the ultra budget dash display system and gear position indicator that are currently in beta stage) along the lines of what I believe people actually need.

[ubrben]

Originally Posted by Denis Bassom

I spend my days working on bloody computers, looking at disk performance graphs, running IOmeter tests, looking at their graphs, configuring SAN disk arrays etc etc etc.

The last thing I want to do is look at some more at the weekend!

I want something that I press a button and it comes back with the answer "you need to do xyz to go faster, and by the way you need to change your oil".

I don't even want to configure anything.

Of course that isn't reality at the moment but based on all the other technologies I work on I know it is easily possible.

In the meantime I'll trudge on using my two decades of capacity planning/data analysis experience and training, and one decade of data logging experience that I have used to win four championships, doing it the hard way and continue to develop my own data logging system (once I have productionised the ultra budget dash display system and gear position indicator that are currently in beta stage) along the lines of what I believe people actually need.

Fair enough, I guess we're talking about the difference between professional data acquistion in race teams and the weekend warrior for whom it is a much smaller part of their miriade of tasks.

Ben

[greenamex2]

Originally Posted by youngoldy

On two of our three cars we use Pi X-Sport, and what we get is so useful. Alot of calls have been made through what the data is telling us. But the only snatch with data logging is you never qquite know exactly how accurate the speeds are. Because you mau use a sensor and trigger type or GPS. I would say a more expensive one of the two would be more accurate, but for say you wanted to see visually if gears you are trying are right, you would usually compare the RPM at the speeds you should be pulling. This is where it gets odd. We may try GPS sensors, but we use sensor and trigger type at the moment. Pi have a list of tracks they have a beacon at here: http://www.piresearch.com/assets/29F-071358.pdf . But I would deffinatly recommend it, if you can splash out on it, its not the cheapest.
.

I find the X-Sport display a bit 'tacky'. How do your drivers get on with it?

[Triple J Motorsport]

I agree it looks cheap

Pi System2 does everything easy to use and install.

Display is perfect

Only thing I'd like is a perform bar think it's called think stack have it so you can see if you are up on your best lap. Help with learning circuits different lines gears etc Also you can back of save the tyres in qualifying if the lap is already down alot.

[greenamex2]

Originally Posted by RayFF

I agree it looks cheap

Pi System2 does everything easy to use and install.

Display is perfect

Only thing I'd like is a perform bar think it's called think stack have it so you can see if you are up on your best lap. Help with learning circuits different lines gears etc Also you can back of save the tyres in qualifying if the lap is already down alot.

Shame they are discontinuing it!

Hopefully the replacement won't be LED based.

[Triple J Motorsport]

Originally Posted by Denis Bassom

Shame they are discontinuing it!

Hopefully the replacement won't be LED based.

Or in/for a steering wheel

[sykes705]

Has anyone got any experience of the Farringdon data logging

I currently have the lap timer with the Stack licensed predictive lapping and wondered if it was worth £150 to upgrade it to the full dater logger?

[NigelJ]

My experience of datalogging started with an Astratech system in a Prosport LM 3000. I found that the main benefit, apart from knowing that I had not (or maybe had!!!) buzzed the motor, was in knowing exacly what I was doing at each point on the circuit. I logged RPM, Throttle, Steering and Brake pressure and the system did the normal track map and lap times. The point was that I could look at what happened when I changed the way I drove a particular corner and I could see the difference.

I was once told by a wise man that the purpose of "simple" datalogging was to train the driver. The more sophisticated systems were to tune the car. The former was usually the more effective (RIP Caroll Smith).

Which system to choose is really down to the number of ££££ you have available versus the amount of aggrovation you can tollerate with indifferent software. At the starter level they all really do the same things.

Cheers

NigelJ

[Chucky]

For basic stuff, Pi is pretty good and easy enough to setup but it's still kinda pricey for what you get and doesn't scale up very easily. They're also getting left behind in their networking abilities. Do they even have CAN support?

[youngoldy]

Originally Posted by Denis Bassom

I find the X-Sport display a bit 'tacky'. How do your drivers get on with it?

When we upgraded to the updated version of the system, the drivers didn't really take too long to get used to it. We usually use dash C. Because we get lap times, min corner speed, RPM lights, lap number and gear. If they want to see any oil pressure of batt voltage they use the red to change the page. From lack of experience with other systems, I can't really say if I find it tacky, or if our drivers find it 'tacky'. I have never been told it is tacky, but uptill now, seen anyone say it looks tacky. I guess if you work with it all year round, you get used to what you are working with. Over time, the buttons get abit oily and dirty, and go black. Just a bit of brake cleaner sprayed into a tissue easily cleans it up. Wiping the dash as soon as the car comes back to the paddock from a wet track usually helps keep it operating, but in terms build quality, it seems pretty good. OK, its not the most robust bit of kit around, but treat it with care and it will work fine.

I believe we have a good working example of the system. A system will only work 100% week in week out if the guy who is working on it knows the system inside out. From now to this time last year, I have learned so much, and I hope I can keep our system working prestinely. Do you use a steering sensor and/or throttle sesnors? If so, what are they like to work with?

Good contacts for help are Pi themselves, Team JLR and Kevin Mills Racing, as they use the Xsport. As for Kent FF1600, I have only seen ourselves, KDR and someone at the 06 WHT use Xsport.

[greenamex2]

The Dash C is a lot prettier.

Unfortunately it is also discontinued.

Or are you talking about a setting on the XSport?

[JohnMiller]

The C-Dash is poor compared to the X-Dash, both can connect to pretty much the same loggers.

This thread is supposed to be about loggers, not dashes...

[youngoldy]

Originally Posted by JohnMiller

The C-Dash is poor compared to the X-Dash, both can connect to pretty much the same loggers.

This thread is supposed to be about loggers, not dashes...

Yes Den, about the Xsport. When I say 'C Dash', I mean mode 'C' of modes 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E'. Each page, gievn its own letter, display different readings, for your preferation. they could hav been numbered, instead they were given letters.

And the Xsport needs a dash for you to get data out of the logger. The Xsport process' all the data, and displays it through the dash, and then send the data to the logger, where it is stored. Hence, a data logging system John.

the only bad thing about the Xsport, is you can't put what you want from all of the readings to be put on one page. Eg, speed, rpm, oil pressure, coolant temp and lap times, but on mode 'C', we get most of this.

Apparantly, Pi have stopped making the 'C Dash' now...

[greenamex2]

I think I'll add PI to my list of visits at the Autosport show and try and see through the Space 1999 styling.