Electronic punching

[awk]

The more functions, the more likely that something will break down, so am not interested in most of the add-ons that have been listed here. Indeed, I'd say they are very undesirable (but then my mobile phone is still a simple phone, and will stay that way for foreseeable future).

Desirables:

convenient size (emit too large and awkward, SI about right)
simple contact (I'm quite happy with the SI hole, and with emit contact as long as don't have to fit into slot which is a pain)
simple visual and audible acknowledgement (I prefer audible, but visual provides backup and caters for those with hearing difficulties: rolling bars are OK but not great, flashing light good). Have to completely disagree with distracted on this one: I hate the early version emit bricks that don't acknowledge.
On the whole, I've no desire for any visual 'display': when does one have any time to look at them in competition, and if after competition, can download data and look on computer.
Some sort of backup would be an advantage, but needs to be much more robust than emit one at present.
If there has to be a visual display (and don't particularly want to see one, especially if it means a battery being fitted), then simple number check for controls to double check registered. But not overly bothered, and certainly no more than that.
Last and most important of all:
Rock solid reliable.

This is as a competitor. I'm sure that there will be more from those who use as organisers/planners.

All in all, strongly want something that simply does the job, and does it well. Extra technology simply means more to go wrong. If want to keep track etc, use a different unit.

[RJ]

I can't see GPS tracking working. As organiser, I don't want to have to decide when someone has or hasn't gone close enough to the kite when they're trying to shave a few seconds.

The control marker could be a weak transmitter that the GPS receiver picks up and will confirm proximity to control, to whatever accuracy is needed.

[Adventure Racer]

In which case RJ, you're no longer talking about GPS, but some totally different technology - in fact something not too dissimilar to contact free Emit.

I thought you must be joking in your previous post, but not so sure now - so I'll say again very definitively, GPS won't work.

[SJC]

so I'll say again very definitively, GPS won't work.

Probably not as an alternative to punching, but if everyone's route was available it would certainly deter people from cheating by going through out of bounds areas or crossing uncrossable walls.

[EddieH]

The problem with a paper backup is that all it does is confirm that you have been to the controls. In the event of a failure, unless there is a manual timing backup your race is scuppered.

SIMan is right that ideally you need a passive/active dual system but I don't know how practical this is.

Obviously we want a failsafe system, but this is impossible. Therefore I think the unit without batteries (the weakest link) should be in the hand as a failure at a forest unit is not individually fatal.

The obvious improvement made to either system is a reliale way of assesing battery life.

[andy]

I've never actually been 'failed' by either system but have seen many more issues of Emit going wrong than SI. Emit just seems that bit more flaky and (as EddieH says) puts the single biggest point of failure on the thing being carried by the competitor, not good. I have just got the impression lately that Emit is a bit of a lottery as to whether it works properly or not.

As far as punching technique required SI is far more intuitive and user-friendly and provides the most comprehensive and robust feedback (beep and flash)

Contrary to my distrust of emit I do love the screen / button. Coming away from a control all you have to do is tap the button, glance at the screen and you get confirmation of the last control you visited. Don't know what the people are talking about scrolling bars and what - I've never looked at that, just a simple tap button/check screen works for me!

[andy]

The obvious improvement made to either system is a reliale way of assesing battery life.

There is a reliable way of assesing battery life with SI units assuming you have the newer units which the majority do (all Scottish units are the newer ones)

[Adventure Racer]

Obviously we want a failsafe system, but this is impossible.

Is it? Why?

[EddieH]

What hardware is ever failsafe? Maybe 99.99%. Add electronics and battery and the percentage inevitably decreases.

[graeme]

Obviously we want a failsafe system,

Not obvious to the rulemakers. Having backup systems hugely reduces the risk of failure .

So we're not allowed to use the backup system in SI (the record in the unit)

In my experience, SI has irreproducable electronic failure (usually solved by people punching the map) about 1 time in 100000.

[later edit] That's 1 in 100000 punches. But they're not uncorrelated: heavily used
units like spectator or radio controls seem to generate more errors.

The most common error I see is people arriving at the finish having punched the map when they claim the unit never beeped. Often it has registered on the e-card, so nobody cares about it. It's happened to me once, at a clear station, where I stood for about a minute while a queue formed behind me, let them through, tried and failed again, then cleared successfully at a different station. Certainly an irreproducable electronic failure, but doesn't affect the result so nobody cares.

The contentious errors where someone gets DQed are harder to assess because the competitor has an interest in lying, or gets bullied out of making an appeal. Ive taken a "flexible" approach to not interrogating the unit - often a partial record at the appropriate time is convincing evidence of too-fast punching, which most people will accept for a DQ.

[SJC]

In my experience, SI has irreproducable electronic failure (usually solved by people punching the map) about 1 time in 100000.

So at the Scottish 6 Day:
6 days, 3,000 people per day, average 20 controls per course = 360,000 punches.

So three or four irreproducable failures at just one event.
Doesn't sound a brilliant system to me.

[andy]

So at the Scottish 6 Day:
6 days, 3,000 people per day, average 20 controls per course = 360,000 punches.

So three or four irreproducable failures at just one event.
Doesn't sound a brilliant system to me.

hang on hang on... we didn't have any failures at the 6 days

at least not that I know about...

[mikey]

In my experience, SI has irreproducable electronic failure (usually solved by people punching the map) about 1 time in 100000.

So at the Scottish 6 Day:
6 days, 3,000 people per day, average 20 controls per course = 360,000 punches.

So three or four irreproducable failures at just one event.
Doesn't sound a brilliant system to me.

I interpret that as 1 time in 100000 runs (not punches). So, 6 days, 3000 people per day - so one failure in roughly every 33 '6 days'. That sounds quite good.

[Big Jon]

At BOC 2008 we are using a video camera on the finishline to record all finishers and the official time (large digital clock in frame). Interestingly enough IOF insists on 2 separate and independent timing systems at WOC - they obviously don't trust in the infallibility of electronics. As electronic timing kit (forest units and personal units) get older the chance of failures will increase. There are two approaches - only accept 100% reliability so throw everything out every 5-10 years or when the first part fails and buy again or develop a secondary system that can compensate for these failures and thus a reliability of less than 100% is acceptable.

[EddieH]

Excellent news. Now its failsafe, (assuming no video or clock failure!) It is now entirely my responsbility when my unit fails and I haven't bothered to get the back-up marks on the card - I'll take the risk.