Jones Counter Redesign

EASY-READING COUNTER DESIGN CONCEPT



Tom stopped by for a visit last weekend and we had a chance to discuss the evolution of a new counter. We agreed that readability was important, and talked about various ways to achieve it. Tom’s original redesign is almost ready to go, but since initial tooling will be a significant cost Tom decided that it would be best to take some time to be sure that what is finally produced will be the best that he can do.

Here is a new concept for a counter design. It is pretty raw now, but Tom is working on a working prototype model.

The new design allows the counter to be read normally (text horizontal) instead of having the numbers appear rotated 90 degrees as in existing counters. You read the counter directly, from left to right.

The counter uses the same basic design as at present except for the following:

1) The outer rim of the large gear is removed, allowing the protruding stubs to act as driver pins for the delrin gear mounted to the counter shaft.

2) A driving tang is incorporated. It is seen at the bottom of the picture.

3) The counter is mounted on a bent tab incorporated in the present counter support chassis. In the picture the counter is seen looking at its non-driven end. A gear is mounted to the shaft on the driven end. The readout will be viewed looking at the top of the red square, and the numbers will read from left to right. The view of the readout will be the same as on my chain-driven prototype.

4) A gear ratio of 11/26 is used, giving 23.636363 counts per revolution, the same as with the original Jones/Oerth counter. This odd ratio provides a “hunting tooth” which distributes wear uniformly.

5) The 11 tooth delrin or nylon gear is mounted to the Veeder-Root counter with a small setscrew. Width of the delrin or nylon gear is ¼ inch, to accommodate a certain amount of back-and-forth wobble of the metal driver gear.

6) The counter is mounted in the same way as the original. It is all one assembly.

Tom is preparing a better rendering of the concept.

As Tom works, and I do not, you will see updates coming from me as well as Tom.

Comments on the design are welcome.

Pete, my only concern would be that by mounting the counter parallel to the hub, as opposed to perpendicular as it is now, it would protrude farther and might catch on something, either when riding or loading/unloading the bike. The current design is pretty tight to the bike fork; I've never had much of an issue reading the digits at 90 degrees.

Extra sideways projection is on the order of 1/2 inch or less. This extra may be more prone to catching on things, but not much. It does position the counter better for direct reading, moving the readout a tad farther out from the fork.

With regard to easy reading, I have been using my chain-driven counter for 300 miles now, and I find that it is significantly easier to read while riding. Whatever counter finally evolves, I will never go back to anything that reads sideways. The improvement in reading is enormous. Must be seen to be appreciated.

Here is Tom’s first try at the new design.



The two u-shaped tabs on the main gear will be bent toward the wheel to allow slip-on connectors to be used. These may be detached when it is desired to ride without wearing the counter.

This was suggested in Geoff Hook’s post. See:

Thread with Geoff's post

This looks good- but how easily will this translate into a counter that can be read at the handlebars?

I question whether my presbyopic eyes can adjust to reading the counter at the wheel again- even if I can avoid having to turn my head a quarter turn to read the numbers...

Is there any advantage in changing the gear ratios so that there are more counts per revolution- or, in your opinion, is the device at least as accurate as the method?

The initial goal is to produce a basic counter which is superior to the original. In the design it is intended that the gearbox be adaptable to some sort of cable-driven rig for handlebar mounting. But that is the secondary goal, not the primary.

The Veeder-Root counter has a stated limit of 500 rpm, which translates into 5000 counts per minute. The higher the gear ratio, the smaller is the measured length for one count - giving more precision. But also increasing the speed of the counter.

I haven't heard of anybody destroying a counter by overspeed yet, but from time to time, especially on downhills, we all exceed the design limit of the counter.

See Speed Limits for more on this.

The first generation of gears came in last weekend. I used the chassis from the old counter to test fit the ring rear, and to test gear engagement. Admittedly, it looks a bit klunky, but this will be rectified in the final design.
Several gear profiles were ordered, and tested to see the advantages/disadvantages of the various configurations.


Here are some of the prototype parts.

The gears mesh quite nicely, and run quietly up to about 1500 rpm.
As soon as the counter that's on order is received, I can give it a proper road test. Final production can probably begin in a few weeks.

Tom has a local supplier who can make one-off prototype parts. As the initial tooling cost is likely to be high, Tom has elected to make full-scale mockups, and test them, before contracting to buy the fabricated gears in quantity. Measure twice, cut once.

I will be visiting Tom this weekend. We expect to travel to see the fabricator, and hopefully to place an order for 500 gear drives.

Tom has done some protype work to be sure that the gearing runs smoothly. See below:


Raw Prototype Counter

The finished counter will not be the rough thing you see above. This posting is only to assure all that progress is being made.

If the main drive gear is to be made from aluminum (as it appears) you're likely to run into a durability issue with such a thin profile. Even though there's very little stress on the gear, the aluminum will wear down.

A steel gear, on the other hand, will tend to wear a groove into the nylon counter gear.

Making the drive gear wider will alleviate these potential issues, but the material costs go through the roof.

NEW COUNTER PROGRESS

This weekend I visited Tom in Virginia. We traveled to meet the fabricator who will be making the gear assembly. The shop was old and filled with old stamping and bending machines, and shelves full of dies used in previous jobs. We talked with the project estimator and were given a tour of the facility. Both Tom and I came away with a high degree of confidence that these people knew what they were doing. It was a worthwhile trip. We picked the brains of the people who knew more about this kind of metal fabrication then either of us do. As a result, we began work on what we hope will be the design that we will send to them. You can see it below.


AutoCad Assembled and Exploded Views

The design permits the counter to be read with the numbers from left to right, rather than the former sideways top to bottom. The drive gear is driven by a tang bent toward the spokes. It will be long enough for some bikes. A slide-on extension will be provided in case it is not long enough.

Construction will be either galvanized steel, as formerly used, or stainless steel. The metal gauge will be at least as thick as on the former metal gearboxes.

Tom and I have been working on this together, and the collaboration has been fruitful. Tom has expertise in AutoCad, which allows him to do detail drawings on the computer screen. This makes design changes easy, and also allows the fabricator to be sent an electronic AutoCad file, which most modern fabricators seem to like because their machines can be fed the data directly.

Tom also has access to a man who runs a waterjet cutting company, and he has cut out several prototype gears which Tom has been using in his development work. He used these gears to produce the working prototype shown below. A 24 hour run of the counter at 15 mph will be done to be sure there are no unexpected glitches. More as time goes by. We are very close to a final design and placing an order.


This is the Working Prototype.

We have obtained a domain name and will be setting up a web page once the counter drives have been ordered.

Nice work by the Riegel Clan. All that engineering talent put to a very good use and now to put a name to the end result. I'm thinking perhaps "RiegelX2" or maybe the "The Regal Riegel" Any other suggestions?

It's our intention to call the device a Jones Counter. This is OK with Alan.

The name is generic after so many years, and any additional naming isn't necessary.

Jones-n-Riegel Count-n-Thingel

How about the "JOR" (Jones-Oerth-Riegel) counter?

Or Jones Counter II.

Better yet, how about Jones-Riegel, or "J-R". We can just call it a "Junior".

Something to differentiate it from the original Jones Counter, as the configuration is different enough that one would want to do so.

What is your preference for a counter? Some like 5 digits, some like 6.

I prefer 5 because I make fewer recording mistakes when writing 5 digits instead of 6, and rollover isn't a problem for me.

How do you like it?

It's great to have this counter.

Tom could you bring one to the convention for others to see what we will be using in the future.
I'll contact Ron Pate and see if we could set up a mock certifcation for folks to try.

My preference is for 6 digits. I remember the JO counter was available with either 5 or 6 digits. Can both be offered, or would that make it a nuisance?

Both can be offered. The six digit will cost more because the Veeder-Root counters do. The rest of the assembly is the same for either option.

When I first started measuring, Pete recommended a 5-digit counter for easier reading and recording. In spite of that, I've still made some transposition errors over the years. I'm sold on 5 digits.

Tom does not plan to attend the USATF Annual Meeting. If a counter exists in time, he will send it to Stu, Course Registrar, who does plan to attend.

The testing rig is ready to go and we hope to have a video soon.

I have one more minor modification to incorporate into the final design before I order. I believe the 90 degree bend that forms the shelf the counter mounts to would benefit from a bit of reinforcement. A small crease at a right angle to the bend is all that's needed. I will be drafing this while I run some tests this weekend. More updates to come.
I am told the typical time for shop drawings is 6-8 weeks from the time of order, still a week or two off. This will be cutting it short for the USATF meeting, but I'm hoping to stuff some stockings this Christmas.

I have had considerable difficulty finding suppliers of speedometer cable pieces. I've contacted the primary suppliers, but the fittings are no longer in production thanks to modern electronics. Once the basic counter is in production, I am confident I can adapt it to a cable-driven rig if suitable hardware is found. I've yet to come up with a solution for less than $50 to rig the cable, and that's my break point. The counter reads very well with the proposed mount.

Thanks to all for your input.
Tom Riegel

Message from Tom Riegel - He has got his test rig built and is checking the running and wear on the gears.


The Test Rig

I'll do a writeup when it's over, but looking good so far. I'm running at 190 rpm at the wheel, and the cyclocomputer makes it right at 20 mph. 9 hours in. I should have caught up to your counter by morning, if I can get any sleep with the thing running. The aluminum plate I used to mount the motor is ringing like a bell. I attached the vice-grips to dampen it, but it isn't exactly 100% effective.

So far, the only sign of wear is very small "leaflets" that grew from the plastic gear teeth at about 5 hours in. They have since worn off, and all is smooth.

More from Tom 29 September
I'm at it again. 350 miles yesterday, I'm shooting for 500. I ended up turning it off at 12:30 AM to get some sleep. It's so noisy, I'm hesitant to even move it outside. If the test goes longer (and it may for the final rig) I'll move it into the cabana (Tom's backyard toolshed). Think of an electric drill running, that's about what I'm dealing with.

Only very minor wear on the plastic gear, still no additional wobble on the metal one. No lube at all. I'll dis-assemble it and re-measure the inner diameter at the end. It started at 24.75mm for the hole, 24.65+/- on the retainer cup.

I'm short on time at the moment to get the production docs together for the fabricator, but I think I can get something together by next (not this) Monday. The 3D rendering is fine, but I'll need orthogonal views that call-out the specifics, and where they can take liberties.

While I think I want to keep the name "Jones counter", "the totalizer" has a nice ring to it.

I gotta go outside, this thing is driving me mad.

quote:

Jones-n-Riegel Count-n-Thingel

A name with a flourish!

I much prefer the 6-digit, as I do longer courses regularly. I co-measure with someone handicapped with a 5-digit. When entering into my Excel spreadsheet, I have to make sure I keep the increments proper, as the 5-digit rolls-over. Not a huge issue, but automation is done for a reason.

I have not had an issue with transposing numbers while using the 6-digit. So, my vote (and my orders to Paul reflect) is for a 6-digit. I would be a screamin' mimi if a 6-digit is not offered. Simplicity is served by not having to remember to add digits when more than 100,000 counts are needed for a course.

My 2-cents worth,

Duane

So the tones of the Jones are ringing through your bones?

Have to admit I like the J-R idea, but Count-n-Thingel has a nice ring (so to speak) to it.

I finished a 500 mile test at 20 mph, and it went pretty much as I hoped. Minor wear on the plastic gear teeth, the metal ring gear, and the retainer cup were observed.
The retainer cup was seen to wear approximately 0.10 mm as the ring gear cut a groove into it, finishing at 24.55+/- 0.02mm.
Interesting enough to note, the ring gear grew by 0.03mm, finishing with an inside diameter of 24.72mm +/- 0.01 mm. The inner rim formed a sharp edge along the inside that can just be felt with the fingers. The root diameter remained a constant 24.75mm, measured opposite the sharp edge. Minor abrasion on the sides was barely able to remove the surface rust, and depth of wear is on the order of 0.02mm at the most.
The plastic gear held up very well, and a small, polished indent formed on the face of the teeth approximately 3mm wide, and 0.25mm deep. The width of wear is due to the slight wobble as the ring gear (made from 0.75mm, or 0.032" steel) rotates. The "leaflets" that grew were easily brushed off, and had the consistency of grease when rolled in the fingers.
No observable difference in the counter itself was noted before and after the test. Veeder-Root makes a fine counter.
The unit operated with little noise (aside from the drive motor) and no heat buildup during the test.
I've put the finishing touches on the 3D model, and have started the working documents for production.

Best,
Tom

Tom,

The RRTC thanks you for your time and expertise. I am looking forward to making my purchase as soon as you say it's ready.

Best regards,

Gene

P.S.

More Progress from Tom
Truly generated involute gears, 20 degree pressure angle, module of 2.5mm, the works. I got a little help on the CAD forum. These will mate nicely in the final assembly.
I finished the cross-section details last night, but left them at home.
More to come.

I am desperately trying to find counters for my measurement.
I tryed to contact Laurent Lacroix but he told me that he his waiting for some parts and suggested to contact Pete and Tom Riegel.
Does any of you guys the chance to send me over to Europe some counters.
Thanks

WORK REMAINING TO BE DONE

Tom has a design almost ready to be sent to the fabricator. It is slightly different from the design previously submitted. The tooling cost for the earlier design is OK. When the new design is submitted we will receive a new tooling proposal, and a cost for punching and assembling gear drives. We expect to submit the new design in a week or two.

If the costs are comparable to those previously received we will order a number of gear assemblies. It will take about two months for the assemblies to be fabricated and delivered.
We have obtained a domain name and are building a web page from which the counters can be ordered. While we are waiting for gears to be delivered we will finalize the web page design. Tom will also order a number of plastic gears (probably delrin), and a supply of Veeder-Root counters. When the gear drives are received the counters will be mounted to the drives by Tom.

Method of payment can be handled in two ways. A dollar check on a US bank, or a money order that will be accepted without a surcharge will be one method. A second method will be a valid credit card number. Payment must be received in advance. Sad experience has shown that this must be done. Some customers have been in a great hurry to receive their counters, but have lost their sense of urgency when it is time to pay.

If all goes well the name of the web page will be published in three months or so. This is not a promise – it is simply an estimate. The cost of tooling requires that we get it right the first time.

I am not sure whether Paul Oerth is still selling the counters with the plastic gearbox. Those who are desperate can try him.

You might consider signing up for PayPal and using that on the site. One advantage of PayPal is its automatic currency conversion, so foreign buyers don't have to muck about with getting a check made out in dollars.

PayPal takes 3-4% for their trouble, so you may want to build that into your costs. It's a great convenience for buyers and sellers. At least, for those with PayPal accounts.

I would like only to suggest you to take in conideration also the way the new counter will be mounted on the wheel spindel.
I say this because I had some trouble to find how to mount my actual JOL counter on a bike, I was able to do it only with the 3th bike I tried and after modifing a little the gear hole (enlarged).
The first 2 bikes was a Cannondale Road Bike and a Cannondale MTB, where it was impossible to mount.
Regards,
Fabio

Look at the JO counter shown at the heading of this page. The new counter (tentatively called "Jones Counter model JR") has the same mounting geometry.

Recent JO counters have a plastic gearbox. The geometry is different. It is not clear from your post which counter will not fit your bike.

Tom and I have not figured out how to make one counter fit every bike, so we elected to go with a geometry that fits most bikes.

Payment methods will likely include Paypal,

Some of the newer Cannondale mountain bikes use a really trick single-cylinder fork. Not really a fork, as it's only got one tube. This necessitates an unconventional wheel, but it also has a disc brake, which I'm sure interferes with the Jones.

http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/08/cusa/model-8VM3.html

Low-tech bikes are quite adequate for road-course measuring, but it's a shame to leave the good one in the garage.

After a bit of scrounging on the 'net, I find that the vast majority of axles I find as replacements will fit through the 10.5mm hole in the counter. There is one "Campy" axle that's bigger, but only one, and it's used on a Cannondale. Maybe others, but if so I didn't find them.

I have added a bit of extra "dish" to the assembly which will make the counter compatable with more of the big forks that are out there, but I don't think it is possible to make one that fits all possible configurations. It will fit the vast majority of road bikes, and I'd guess at least 70% of the mountain bikes I've looked at.

The counter may not fit some bikes with big, beefy forks, overly large hubs, disc brakes, etc. It may be that some bikes will allow it to mount on the rear dropouts as an alternate, but that isn't exactly ideal.
-------------
I've gotten to about 80% on the final shop drawings, but ran into a small snag I'll need to address before I order. Making slow, but good progress.

Fabio:
The obvious solution to your problems is to use an electronic counter.

Yes, the electronic counter does work, but it has it's problems also. What Tom is doing is great. We should encourage Tom!!!

The electronic counter is an alternate to the Jones Counter concept and that's good. Tom is working to find another solution for us all. The fact that it doesn't work on all types of bikes is not a real problem as far as I'm concerned. My reason is simple - Most people don't use these high tech bikes to measure!

As stated before - Tom thanks for your efforts and I thank you.

Hello to everybody, here some details about the problem I had to mount JOL (the one with metal gear).

The major problem is related to the assemply wheel's hub / fork.
The space to host the JOL is not enough, only 4.5 mm, if I insert the JOL I'v not anymore place for the fork.

And also to space between the JOL and the spoke is too large, no contact with the JOL gear.

I've try to enlarge the hole of the JOL in order to install it more closer to the spoke, but then the gear guide was disassemby, there was friction to the hub, and also contact to the fork.


This was with my road bike. Was worse with my MTB.

At the end I try with a low cost MTB of my sister and then, with some small modification, the JOL work fine.



As Stu Rigel say, low-tech bikes are quite adequate for road-course measuring, but it's a shame to leave the good one in the garage :-) or to buy a new bike (or only a new wheel) only because we can't mount the counter.

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.
(I've also a GPS Garmin EDGE 305 mounted, to combine with the JOL measure)

Nice solution could be the "hybrid" with electronic display (i.e.
Veeder-Root A103-001) and mechanical gear. But remain the problem of mounting in some bikes.

In any case, I think you are in the good direction to develop a new counter.

If my input can help you, I don't know, eventually we can furthermore develop a new version of the counter after the release of the next generation you are developping now.

Regards,
Fabio

Fabio,
Thanks for posting the well formatted pics of your problem. I'm not sure, but the modifications I've made to the geometry may allow it to mount to your road bike. I've increased the dish by 2mm, and increased the fork clearance from the JO model by 5mm. The conflict I see is with the cap on the hub. I may only need to increase the diameter of the cup a couple mm to solve the conflict.

I've never seen a cap like that on a hub before. Is it a rubber/plastic piece that can be easily removed? ie. a "beauty ring"? Does it seal in grease, or just add a streamlined look to the axle?
What is the diameter? I scaled it off the picture at 19mm, but this should clear the existing counter you have. Since it doesn't, I'll need some sort of direct measurement.

I'll see about going to a bike shop this weekend, they might have one I can look at.

Thanks again for posting the pics! I'll see what I can do.

Best,
Tom

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.

Jay:
You omitted to say that after a long overshoot correction with the Jones you have recalculate all future targets.
The only electronic counter you have tested is the $7 Bell -- the Protege and Totalizer are much easier to use.

I guess I'm so accustomed to having a unit that will not reset itself that it doesn't bother me to change a few digits if I make an error. That's why I will generally stop my errant path at a multiple of 500 counts- so I don't need to change the last three digits of what I've calculated.

A far more common occurrence, at least for me, than going off course, is overshooting my point by a couple hundred counts. I like being able to simply back up the bike for a few revolutions of the front wheel, and a counter that is capable of doing that will work better for me. Having to switch the counter to another mode to have it count backwards means you'd have to switch it again to make it count forward again, which is one more thing to have to remember to do.

I'd take a look at the Totalizer if I had a better idea of exactly how it worked. At this point, however, I'm not convinced that using a cyclocomputer of any kind is a superior method than using a mechanical counter like the Jones Counter.

I don't agree with Duane that there a just a few that don't like the idea of the electronic counter. I have seen first hand that a new measurer with the help of an experience measure did not set up the bike properly and got real bad results. The JO counter is a nobrainer and your least likely to make a mistake when doing the math. Again, I'm not saying this totalizer is a bad idea, but I believe you still have to set up the rim and it's easy for some but a lot of people just don't get how it's done.

I would suggest to Neville that sometime in the spring that we have a couple of workshops on the electronic counter. Neville if interested please contact me via email.

Jay:
With the superior display of the Protege and the Totalizer and the fact that unlike with the Jones you are always looking for the same standard numbers means that you are less likely to overshoot.

Gene:
I will post a simlified method for very accurately marking the rim in decimals that takes only 5 or 10 min.

I have used the JO from Day 1. I like it. It works fine, until it doesn't. I have owned 3. One was the newest version from Paul. While the new mount works on some bikes, it worked on neither of mine, even with modifications, so I returned it. Paul was kind enough to give me a full refund, in spite of my modifications.

While on a measurement, my co-measurer (marathon course) had his counter torque and freeze. Able to get it functional, but when will it torque again, and die? I loaned him my backup for some courses he measured.

My Unit #1 gave me nasty disparities on each leg of my calibration course, which seems to indicate internal gears shot, as it gave me approx 1000, plus and minus 200, additional counts for each leg. Unit is worthless.

My backup was loaned-out due to another JO malfunctioning. I have nothing, and my only source had a product I can't use. My business could fail, due to no counter. Fortunately, I was able to get my loaned-out counter back that day.

I have ordered a Totalizer, and will report to all how it works. Necessity is the mother of open-mindedness, to paraphrase.

When the new Super Duper Riegal Slooper is available, I will order at least one of them, also. I do over 30 courses a year, and can't afford to be without at least two counters. (I backup all my computer files, also)

Thank you, Neville, for offering an alternative product for our "profession".

Another alternative is the chain drive counter.

I recently dismounted and inspected mine. It had accumulated 586 km - 364 miles - and absolutely no wear was visible under high magnification. The delrin chain and gear looked brand new.

It's cheap, operates exactly as a Jones Counter should and is readable from left to right.

Neville,

While my example may have been farcical, I like to take examples to their extreme, because it is often easier to understand what's going on. It worked for me because I now understand how it works. I think it helped Duane understand as well.

My main issue with electronic counters is that I would always worry that the magnet missed a count, or that somewhere on the course I backed over the magnet to get an extra count. I would always want to use my Jones as a backup to make sure that didn't happen. But if I'm always going to use my Jones in addition to the electronic counter, what's the point of using the electronic counter?

But I can now see how I could use it to make life simpler. As I'm measuring the course I could completely rely on the electronic counter to take measurements, backtrack on the course, reset to zero when needed, etc. But as I'm doing all of this I would keep records of every Jones count along the way. I just wouldn't do any calculations with them or use them to make any decisions. When I get home I could go through the fairly complicated process of using the Jones count record that I took to make sure there were no issues with the electronic counter measurement. If there were, I would have to go back out to the course to make corrections, but I expect that's not going to happen often, if ever.

Mark:
I was not criticizing you for using a farcical example.
Like you I was cautious about accepting the electronic counter, and road many hundreds of miles and measured several courses using several of them with the Jones simultaneously. Your plan to use an electronic counter simultaneously with the Jones makes sense except that I would only read the Jones on one continuous ride of the course. Immediately afterwards, I would multiply the electronic reading by the gearing of your particular Jones (cts/rev) and check that this is identical to the net Jones count. In time you may acquire the confidence to dispense with this check.

NEW COUNTER UPDATE

Tom has completed 16 designs so far. Each time one gets done we find some problem we had not addressed. The biggest one is adequate clearance between fork, wheel and counter. The last one, #16, looked promising but we are thinking about going back to #12 and developing it further. While it is tempting to say “it will be just another week before we are ready” it’s too much like crying wolf.

Each time we decide to make a final change it seems to add a week, since Tom works full time, and the drafting of each new design takes up lots of his free time. The design will be done when it’s done.

Once we have a final design we will work with the fabricator to see whether they can make it as we have it designed. They will give us a quotation for fabrication, and a delivery time. We expect the tooling cost to be several thousand dollars, and the cost per drive unit to depend on how many we order. This is why it is taking longer than we would like. We must get it right the first time. While it only exists on paper we can change it – once we have 500 or a thousand on hand we are stuck with them, so they had better be right. Once we give the fabricator a check and the go-ahead it will be about two months before we will receive any drive units. Most of this time will be spent by the fabricator in design and construction of the stamping/punching tooling.

We’ll receive a few pre-production units and will check them out before approving delivery of the full order.

There has never been a counter which fits 100 percent of all bicycles. Ours will be no exception. We are striving for a design which will fit at least as many as did the original Jones, and the earlier JO’s.

Where do we stand? We’re working on it and, as usual, we think it will be a week or so before we contact the fabricator. Updates will appear from time to time.

Your plan to use an electronic counter simultaneously with the Jones makes sense except that I would only read the Jones on one continuous ride of the course.

Continuous rides are not what I'm concerned about. Stopping, starting, backtracking, etc. is where I'm afraid I'll mess something up and add/subtract an extra revolution. I wouldn't feel comfortable relying on the electronic counter without a Jones count record of the entire measuring process to confirm, at least the first few times.

quote:

Originally posted by Tom Riegel:
I'm working on a new counter based on the metal gear we've used for years, with a minor modification to aid in assembly. Cost should come in on-par with the old ones.

I've contacted a number of prototyping companies to see if they would be interested in producing the metal gear assembly. Most said they would not be interested because of the highly complex nature and low volume of the pieces.

One manufacurer has expressed an interest, and I sent him my counter to evaluate. I expect an estimate to produce 300 gears sometime in mid-August. Production time will be determined then.

The counter I'm proposing will have an identical ring gear (yellow) and retainer cup (magenta) and a modified baseplate (white).

The remaining gear (blue) should be easy to obtain in low volumes. I need to look into that. My hope is to have all the pieces available in a couple months if the price is right.

Tom,

I suggest you ask Justn, Jane or katz for their input as to who will try your new counter. The BB us not the best source for finding active measurers.

Regards,

Gene

Dear Paolo,

Take a look at www.jonescounter.com