Jones Counter Redesign

Tom,

the cap is a rubber piece, that can be removed.
It seal in grease and protect to rotating parts.
The shape is conical, diameter from 22 to 25 mm.
The covered nut has 19mm diameter.


Image without cap.


Image with cap.


Sketch of the sectioned hub.

Fabio

Fabio -

Your hub and mine appear to be nearly identical, except for the seal. My hub has a flat face seal, and the JO counter (and the new one) fit OK. The only remaining problem would be forks that are fat.

Fabio,
Great info you posted, nicely presented too I might add. I need a computer to do any presentable drafting.
The original JC is 22.5mm on the inside of the cup, and can grow 5mm or so to accept the grease cap you have. It will never fit all of them, but, more is certainly better.
I'll be re-drafting the rig this weekend, and will keep posting as things develop in the future.

Tom

quote:

Electronic counter could be a nice solution when it will be accepted as measuring device, this means that must be solved also the back and forward counting.

Fabio:
From your statement above I believe you must be a hard man to please! In the Veeder-Root A103-001 totalizer you have easy installation to all bicycles, instant zeroing, 12-mm high digits, crisp back-lighting, the best correction for overshoot, and direct display of meters or feet down to small fractions. Still you want a redesign so that you can thoughtlessly roll the wheel back through the zero on the rim!

"...thoughtlessly roll the wheel back...". I think the ability to roll a counter back when point has been over-shot is a great value.

As a measurer, when I am doing my measurement paperwork, I record what the counts should be at every mile point. If I go too far, I simply roll back to that point. My paperwork remains clean.

On the other hand, if I have to change the expected count on every point beyond where I just missed, that is erasing and re-entering, creating the possiblity for numeral transposition and other errors. Do that twice (or more) in a marathon course, and you have more potential for error. Even one or two clicks too far can cause issues.

I think Fabio is right on the money with his desire to do roll-backs in the case of over-shoots.

As a Certifier, I wouldn't want paperwork that had been adjusted due to overshoots. Very messy, and much harder to verify counts. Do Certifiers have any comments on receiving paperwork that has been "fixed" due to overshoots? I think my certifier would tell me to use a Jones, not electronic, if I had more than one over-shoot in every 5 courses, and I couldn't argue the point.

Duane:
Unfortunately, you misunderstood my response to Fabio and do not yet appreciate the capabilities of the Totalizer in overshoot correction. If you like the Jones in the latter regard, you will be ecstatic over the Totalizer.

If an unalert and thoughtless measurer with an electronic counter were to stop his bicycle and roll his wheel back without realizing what he had done, with bad luck the wheel might go through zero and a spurious count might be recorded. In a similar situation with the Jones there would be no problem, because the Jones goes into reverse automatically. It is this useful feature in the Jones that I guessed Fabio was calling for in the Totalizer.(I assumed he knew about the superior overshoot correction of the Totalizer.)

Many measurers like to correct for overshoot with the Jones by simply backing up the bicycle. (Note though this is disapprove of in the official manual.) However this is only practical for about 25 feet. If say the measurer has taken a wrong turning, he may be say 2500 feet off course. In the latter case the bicycle must be ridden back and to salvage the ride, additional readings and calculations must be done. The record is not clean.

Like the Jones, the Totalizer can be put in reverse and the bicycle backed up with no readings or calculations required. More importantly though and unlike the Jones, it can be ridden back in reverse mode indefinitely to any visually selected point. No readings or calculations are necessary and it is as if the overshoot or the turn off-course never happened. The measurer does not have to bother the certifier about it.

As a certifier I am not bothered by enroute minor mistakes by a measurer. As long as the measurer gives me a count at every point I can figure it out.

I consider this better than the measurer using enroute magic and then presenting me with a set of seemingly perfect data.

Pete:
Operating the Totalizer in reverse mode is no more magical than doing the same with the Jones by backing up the bicycle.

I beg to differ.

If my totalizer reads 272 and my wheel reads 0.37 revs, turning around is somewhat more complicated than simply turning the bike around.

Pete:
I am not clear as to why you are differing, but a perhaps a detailed example of the overshoot correction will clarify matters.

A measurer finds that he has taken a wrong turning and needs to go back several hundred feet to get back on course, but he is not sure exactly how far. He does not need to take a reading from his Totalizer, but he does needs to select a rim reading. Say he selects 0.1 because it is easy to remember. He then adjusts the wheel to this reading and turns the bike 180 degrees about this point. He selects decrement mode on the Totalizer, rides back until he is comfortably on course again, and stops at any point with a rim reading of 0.1. He again turns the bike 180 degrees about this point. Finally, he selects increment mode and rides off along the correct course without reading the Totalizer. His future readings will be exactly the same as if he never went off course.

Some measurers will find the above hard to believe, so I should have liked to have given a demonstration at the Honolulu Meeting. Regretably, I will not now be attending.

Neville,

I'm confused how this would work. Let's say a rider leaves the correct course at point A, where the rim reading was 0, and for simplicity's sake let's say he rides off course for only .1 revolutions. If he turns his bike around at this point, won't his rim reading be .2 when he gets back to point A? It needs to be back to 0 at point A, right?

As I was writing a reply to Neville, the methodology became clearer, but not crystal-clear.

I find I am off-course and stop. My wheel has gone .75 of a revolution beyond the Totalizer incrementing. I should turn around without allowing my tire to spin, so when I have the Totalizer in decrement, I have .75 of a revolution before Totalizer begins counting down. That way, in my mind, I could ride back to anywhere on the course FOLLOWING THE EXACT ROUTE I RODE TO THAT POINT, and turn around to continue. That makes sense, but differs from the "select a rim reading".

If I select a rim reading, I am revolving my tire to an arbitrary location, which is different than actual revolutions. This creates inaccuracy, I believe.

What am I missing?

I see a bit more clearly, I think.

I would have to spin my tire to give myself .75 of a revolution before decrimentation, not keep it locked.

Still don't see how I can select an "easy to remember" rim reading.

Mark:
Your example is rather farcical since the normal correction would be to roll the wheel back to zero disconnecting the Totalizer first if the reading needs to be preserved.
Your confusion with the procedure described in my last post is because you were tempted to cut it short because of your farcical example.
To begin his correction the measurer must first choose a rim reading. He can use any, but suppose that as in your example he chooses 0.1. He sets the wheel on 0.1, turns the bicycle 180 degrees about this point, goes into decrement mode, and heads for A. As he passes A the Totalizer reading decrements by one and the rim reading as you correctly state is 0.2. However he cannot stop at this point but must continue 0.9 rev to his chosen rim reading of 0.1. Again he turns the bike, goes into increment mode, and returns to A. As he passes A the meter reading increments by one back to what it was when he first passed A, and the rim reading is again 0.0.

Duane:
The measurer rotates his wheel along the course route to his selected rim reading for the correction before he turns his bike for the first time.

Okay, now it makes sense. I no longer see it as a convoluted method, manageable by only the most dedicated measurers.

Now, where do I get a Totalizer?

This all sounds good, but I feel it would be confusing to the average measurer. When one who understands this process well and others have a hard time following - it may be time to see the old way is best.


I'm not saying this is not good, but what's wrong with the JO counter.

I don't see that this is much different than riding a nice round number of counts beyond where I should have stopped, freezing the front wheel, turning around, riding the same nice round number of counts in the opposite direction, then setting the point I should have set in the first place, then freezing the wheel, turning around, and continuing along my way.

Of course in doing so I don't have to worry about whether I stopped the wheel in the right part of the revolution so that it didn't record a spurious revolution or fraction thereof.

I appreciate the effort that has gone into developing alternative course measurement methods, but having tried at least one of them a number of times, I think the good old mechanical counter is hard to beat.

I would love to only use the Jones, but as everyone is aware, at the moment, a 6-digit with the old mounting hardware is unavailable. A horse was easy to care for, and people learned how to ride a horse early in life. Now, however, that once "new-fangled contraption" is accepted by all but a few.

No one said the JO was not good. But, so we don't get caught without our supply (one never knows for certain that a single supplier will always supply our parts) readily available, an alternative should be available, and we should be familiar with it, even if we don't want to use it as our primary tool.

I think Neville explained it sufficiently for me. Now that I understand it, it is not rocket science, and I will get one to use, either primary or backup. But, I am down to one JO. I always want a backup avaliable to me, so I have to go with the Totalizer, as soon as I find out where to get one.

Duane:
The A103-001 Totalizer costs $107.96 including shipping (unidirectional models cost much less)and can be ordered from:

http://www.veeder-rootcounters.com/content.aspx?id=66

If you do not have a magnet and sensor, one can be ordered for $14 shipping free from:

http://ecom1.planetbike.com/8000_1.html

The Totalizer can be used immediately as a reliable revolution counter by simply conecting the leads from the sensor to terminals 1 and 3.