To All,

This is a perfect subject for the Bulletin Board so I am posting it there. Why not save me the trouble next time and do it yourselves?

The electronic method is already being tested by those individuals who decided to do it, with mixed results. Some like it, some don’t.

As a certifier I’m reluctant to bar any legitimate method of measurement. If the electronic counter proves to be unreliable, we should see this when two measurements are compared. The data won’t agree. If there is a problem in calibration this should alert the user that something is wrong. The electronic cyclocomputer is more vulnerable to setup errors than is the Jones/Oerth.

As things presently stand, if I receive data from someone who uses an electronic counter I’m prepared to treat it the same as if they had used a Jones/Oerth counter. If their data is crazy, I’ll make them fix things. If it’s solid and consistent, why should I assume there are errors?

Pete Riegel

Kevin Lucas writes:

Hello RRTC Friends,

It is my strong feeling that it may be time to push Neville’s method into a rigorous test period to forward its acceptance. Couldn’t we establish a systematic test with a limited time frame to truly evaluate the Electronic Counter? Some of the advantages of the Electronic Counter are too good to pass up. We all know the disadvantages of the Jones Counter – don’t most of us wear glasses?

With a standardized testing established, it could later be applied to Neville’s Tire Pressure Monitoring. Who knows what other innovations Neville or others might come up with in the future? Let’s be ready for them and have a thoughtful approach to evaluating and acceptance. I can see a new GPS assisted electronic counter in our futures.

Most us can agree that the Course Measurement Manual can use some editing, which all good teaching manuals go through from time to time. Despite us each wanting things to stay the same, things really do change over time. The acceptance of Neville’s Electronic Counter could be included in such a revision of the manual. What a wonderful thought to have two accepted tools for measuring.

When do we get started?

Kevin P. Lucas

________________________________________
From: Gene Newman [mailto:newmangc@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:18 AM
To: Riegelpete@aol.com; wick3666@yahoo.com; nfwood@hotmail.com
Cc: zgerweck@optonline.net; k_p_lucas@frontiernet.net; hronjak@simflex.com
Subject: RE: Electronic counters

Nev,

I will defer this to Pete and Mike about listing this as method for measuring. I need to gain some experience with it and plan to try it this spring.

Gene


From: Riegelpete@aol.com [mailto:Riegelpete@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:46 AM
To: wick3666@yahoo.com; nfwood@hotmail.com; newmangc@cox.net
Cc: zgerweck@optonline.net; k_p_lucas@frontiernet.net; hronjak@simflex.com
Subject: Re: Electronic counters

Nev,

Unlike Mike, my experience with the electronic odometers has been positive. I have two now, and they maintain agreement. One has a single magnet, one has four magnets. I use them now in preference to the Jones counter.

Pete

In a message dated 1/11/2006 7:41:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, wick3666@yahoo.com writes:

Nev,
I used the bike odometer you recommended and it worked
fine when I installed it. When I went to calibrate
with the electronic odometer for a validation this
spring it was extremely erratic. After several
attempts to calibrate I gave up and used my original
Jones counter. This MAY be wonderful for some but my
original fears of poor reliability were realized. It
may be that rain and the temperature extremes of Ohio
contributed to this problem. It may be that I leave
the electronic unit mounted on the bike when stored
for winter, but I cannot comfortably rely on the
electronic method.
Mike Wickiser

--- Neville Wood <nfwood@hotmail.com wrote:

Gene:
The electronic counter I am
recommending is the Protege. Last I heard from Pete
about it was that he was using it to certify courses
in preference to the Jones. Mike as far as I know
has never tested it or any other electronic counter
himself, so it would be more appropriate for you to
poll Jim or Paul.

Mike mentioned the contact problem to me nearly
three years ago, and I would guess he was dealing
with a computer that was designed about ten years
ago. Since then, there has been a tremendous
improvement in the design of contacts, and he would
not have this bad experience with today's models.
More pertinently I have used the Protege for nearly
four years through thousands of miles and the
certification of 45 courses without detecting any
contact problem.

When you say you have had problems with movement of
the sensor you probably mean the impulse magnet.
Without details of your computer model I cannot make
much of a comment, but your experience is probably
not relevant to the Protege. With the latter there
is a wide range of adjustment for the magnet to
sensor, but more importantly the adjustment works
100% or fails 100%. There is no insidious
intermediate point at which impulses are missed
without the measurer's knowledge, as Pete has shown
can happened with the Jones.

There is a reference to the Protege on the USATF
website, but it is buried so deep that, even if you
know it is there, it is extremely difficult to find.
Paul, Kevin, and I feel that it should be listed
under measuring equipment along with the Jones and
the Lacroix.



Nev


----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Newman
To: 'Neville Wood'
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:16 AM
Subject: RE: Contact information

Neville,

To respond to your points below. I have talked
with Mike W and Pete R about their experiences with
the counters and feel it is an an alternative
method, but the Jones/Orthe are still best. Mike
has fears that weather can play a role in the
electronic counter. Contacts getting wet did cause
him some poor readings. I always have seen with my
bike computer some unreliable results,because of
movement of sensor. There is also the reteaching
the old folks some new tricks. People don't like
change especially when the old way is working well.
I don't know what you are saying in reference to #2.
I wait your report on #3. As far as #4 is concern
this starting to take place(see Bob's minutes from
our annual meeting.

Take care,


Gene

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Neville Wood [mailto:nfwood@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:09 AM
To: Gene Newman
Subject: Contact information


Gene

After talking with Tom last night I believe we may
not have to issue a new cert for the R&R half.

I can now pause after my hectic last few days to
congratulate you on your assuming the chairmanship.
When you have settled into the job, I hope to gain
your support in my quest to improve the accuracy and
efficiency of measurement through the following :

1. Electronic revolution counters.

2. Elimination of naive procedures
in the online manual.

3. Tire-pressure monitoring. (I
expect to have a detailed report out within a few
days.)

4. Fully digitization of
certificate processing.

Nev

I have total confidence in the electronic measuring system as outlined by Neville. I continue to have concern about someone who does not use it as intended, i.e. as a revolution counter. I fear that there are those who will NOT follow the instructions and just try to use it as a regular cyclometer, thinking that it is acceptable. Perhaps this will not happen ... but I worry about it.

I have used the system and have found it to be trouble free but it is important to make sure you have a good battery. I have noticed that I do not see any readout when it is cold out but Nev assures me that a fresh battery will solve this problem.

My suggestion is that anyone who tries it uses it in tandem with the Jones/Oerth counter until the measurer is completely comfortable with the new system. In fact, I continue to use the JO counter for the total measurement and use the Protege for mile marks. With my bike I usually get about 817 revolutions per mile.

I take a reading from the JO counter at the start of the measurement and zero the Protege. When I reach 817 counts, I put a dot of paint down for the mile mark, re-zero the Protege, and proceed to the next mile mark. I never take a reading from the JO counter until I reach the end of the course.

This system eliminates my only objection to the JO counter, i.e. the difficulty in reading the counter when in motion, but still gives me the comfort that I am using "old reliable" for the total course distance.

Paul:
I am pleased you find the Protege useful. However I regret that you are apprarantly passing up some excellent opportunities for validating its use. I would suggest that you locate each split by its distance from the start and not rezero. The Protege would alert you to the finish and you could read both counters at the finish. Multiplying the Protege reading by 23.6363 (20 for old Jones gearing)will give the reading seen on the Jones verifying the equivalency of the two counters.
The battery you have is over three years old, so is passed its expected life. In my recent marathon of course measuring in the NE with temperatures around 30 degrees, my Protege continued to work but the display was of low contrast and was pulsing slightly. A new battery fixed both problems. The Proteges are so cheap and small that it probably makes sense to carry a spare.

Neville,

I feel the electronic counter should be tested as Jim Gerweck suggests. We should have the measurer use the JO counter along with the electronic for a period of time. At some point this measurer will be approved by the Certifier for use of this device. I plan on doing just this when I return from my trip this Feb.

Gene

Gene:
I am not aware of Jim's suggestion but I have always advocated that measurers use the Jones with an electronic counter until they feel comfortable retiring the Jones. The Protege could be listed with the Jones as a measuring device with the note that as is usual it is subject to the approval of the state certifier. This approval might possibly be obtained without ever having owned a Jones, if the measurer can satisfy the state certifier as to his competency with an electronic counter by say attending a training clinic or successful remeasurement of a certified course.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Neville,