Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Schumacher's nuts
41 views
Skip to first unread message
Sir Tim
Apr 16, 2012, 2:53:36 PM4/16/12
to
Wheel nuts that is :)
On the BBC coverage it was suggested, IIRC, that the wheel guns are
connected to the lollipop in such a way that it doesn't show a green light
until all the nuts are fully on. Could it be that it was the lollipop man
not the wheel man who was at fault?
It was also said that Mercedes were under investigation for an "unsafe
release".
--
Henry Birkin, Bt.
On the BBC coverage it was suggested, IIRC, that the wheel guns are
connected to the lollipop in such a way that it doesn't show a green light
until all the nuts are fully on. Could it be that it was the lollipop man
not the wheel man who was at fault?
It was also said that Mercedes were under investigation for an "unsafe
release".
--
Henry Birkin, Bt.
Mark
Apr 16, 2012, 3:28:10 PM4/16/12
to
its limit), but that the particular gun wasn't generating enough torque
and, hence, wasn't tightening. The suggestion was that there was a
problem of supply of compressed air to that gun.
So, suppose it works by detecting when, with the button depressed and a
fully open valve, the gun stops turning... The gun would have stopped,
but the nut would be loose. The pit guy drops the gun to try to grab
the standby...and the lollypop says "go".
Given that guns fail on a semi-regular basis (hence the presence of a
standby gun), that would seem boneheaded as a system. Far simpler to
assume the person in charge of the release saw the gun go down and
misinterpreted the gesture - which was a bit wild - as the wheel being
on. Screw-ups are very easy when under that kind of pressure and with
the speed involved.
Richard
Apr 16, 2012, 3:37:58 PM4/16/12
to
way, if he was on the loose in the garage, you would want to make sure
your back was against the wall.
John Briggs
Apr 16, 2012, 3:41:55 PM4/16/12
to
also unwise to mntion "pressure"...)
--
John Briggs
Mark
Apr 16, 2012, 3:58:29 PM4/16/12
to
deliberately...
Dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Bobster
Apr 16, 2012, 4:29:09 PM4/16/12
to
On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, Sir Tim <bent...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
> Wheel nuts that is :)
> On the BBC coverage it was suggested, IIRC, that the wheel guns are
> connected to the lollipop in such a way that it doesn't show a green light
> until all the nuts are fully on. Could it be that it was the lollipop man
> not the wheel man who was at fault?
If there's an automated system and it gave the "go" signal then it's
> Wheel nuts that is :)
> On the BBC coverage it was suggested, IIRC, that the wheel guns are
> connected to the lollipop in such a way that it doesn't show a green light
> until all the nuts are fully on. Could it be that it was the lollipop man
> not the wheel man who was at fault?
not the lollipop man's fault. Remember that the car would have to be
down from the jacks as well, so a number of people would have to think
the stop was completed.
See http://www.thef1times.com/news/display/05465
Several teams have some kind of smart pit stop indicator system - and
had them last year. The system shown here is McLaren's and you could
see the lights in some shots of McLaren pit stops.
> It was also said that Mercedes were under investigation for an "unsafe
> release".
of the car.
Mower Man
Apr 16, 2012, 4:31:44 PM4/16/12
to
--
Chris
'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it
every six months.'
(Oscar Wilde.)
Mower Man
Apr 16, 2012, 4:49:56 PM4/16/12
to
John Briggs
Apr 16, 2012, 4:51:26 PM4/16/12
to
--
John Briggs
Mower Man
Apr 16, 2012, 5:06:06 PM4/16/12
to
to summon up the Euro symbol. Wish we were in it, though.
brafield
Apr 16, 2012, 10:44:42 PM4/16/12
to
On Apr 16, 11:53 am, Sir Tim <bent...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
How many thought it was an apostrophe denoting the possessive case of
the proper noun?
How many thought it was an apostrophe denoting the possessive case of
the proper noun?
Frank Adam
Apr 17, 2012, 12:11:12 AM4/17/12
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:44:42 -0700 (PDT), brafield <braf...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Apr 16, 11:53 am, Sir Tim <bent...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
>
>How many thought it was an apostrophe denoting the possessive case of
>the proper noun?
>
Pah ! I saw it as a binary sequence. ;-)
--
Regards, Frank
wrote:
>On Apr 16, 11:53 am, Sir Tim <bent...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
>
>How many thought it was an apostrophe denoting the possessive case of
>the proper noun?
>
--
Regards, Frank
Alan LeHun
Apr 17, 2012, 1:58:08 AM4/17/12
to
In article <jmhrsa$1qo$2...@dont-email.me>, mpc...@gmail.com says...
gun had sensors to say that the nut was still in the guns's socket.
> The point with the wheel gun wasn't that it hadn't "fully" tightened (to
> its limit), but that the particular gun wasn't generating enough torque
> and, hence, wasn't tightening. The suggestion was that there was a
> problem of supply of compressed air to that gun.
It is possible that when the trigger was pressed the nut was turned a
partial revolution. The mechanic pulls off the gun in order to get the
spare head but of course, a quarter turn would be enough to leave the
nut on the wheel and the gun did what it was supposed to do, and
signaled that it had separated from the nut.
>
> So, suppose it works by detecting when, with the button depressed and a
> fully open valve, the gun stops turning... The gun would have stopped,
> but the nut would be loose.
Technically, this would mean that the driver could get a go signal
whilst the gun head was still wrapped around the nut. A dangerous
scenario.
[...]
>
> Given that guns fail on a semi-regular basis (hence the presence of a
> standby gun), that would seem boneheaded as a system. Far simpler to
> assume the person in charge of the release saw the gun go down and
> misinterpreted the gesture - which was a bit wild - as the wheel being
> on. Screw-ups are very easy when under that kind of pressure and with
> the speed involved.
I'm not blaming Mr lollipop, but if you watch it again, his full focus
is taken up by the automatic signal. He never sees the frantic waving of
the mechanic closest to him. If is going to blindly follow the automatic
system, then it is obvious that he will never over-ride it.
--
Alan LeHun
>
> Sir Tim <ben...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Wheel nuts that is :)
> > On the BBC coverage it was suggested, IIRC, that the wheel guns are
> > connected to the lollipop in such a way that it doesn't show a green light
> > until all the nuts are fully on.
>
I was of the understanding that the Mercedes system was such that the
> Sir Tim <ben...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Wheel nuts that is :)
> > On the BBC coverage it was suggested, IIRC, that the wheel guns are
> > connected to the lollipop in such a way that it doesn't show a green light
> > until all the nuts are fully on.
>
gun had sensors to say that the nut was still in the guns's socket.
> The point with the wheel gun wasn't that it hadn't "fully" tightened (to
> its limit), but that the particular gun wasn't generating enough torque
> and, hence, wasn't tightening. The suggestion was that there was a
> problem of supply of compressed air to that gun.
partial revolution. The mechanic pulls off the gun in order to get the
spare head but of course, a quarter turn would be enough to leave the
nut on the wheel and the gun did what it was supposed to do, and
signaled that it had separated from the nut.
>
> So, suppose it works by detecting when, with the button depressed and a
> fully open valve, the gun stops turning... The gun would have stopped,
> but the nut would be loose.
whilst the gun head was still wrapped around the nut. A dangerous
scenario.
[...]
>
> Given that guns fail on a semi-regular basis (hence the presence of a
> standby gun), that would seem boneheaded as a system. Far simpler to
> assume the person in charge of the release saw the gun go down and
> misinterpreted the gesture - which was a bit wild - as the wheel being
> on. Screw-ups are very easy when under that kind of pressure and with
> the speed involved.
is taken up by the automatic signal. He never sees the frantic waving of
the mechanic closest to him. If is going to blindly follow the automatic
system, then it is obvious that he will never over-ride it.
--
Alan LeHun
Message has been deleted
Bigbird
Apr 17, 2012, 5:59:01 AM4/17/12
to
Terry Fields wrote:
> I'm fairly sure that when the BBC TV team discussed this, they said
> that a) the nut remains part of the wheel (so each wheel comes with
> its own nut) and b) when the gun is released it is sensed for the
> green light release indicator system.
>
> If this is so ISTM that the overall release system isn't fail-safe, in
> that a faulty gun or nut would trigger the green light when the gun
> was released in order to pick up the spare.
>
> IPlayer clearly shows there was no lollipop man, so the release scheme
> must be all electronic - but not fail-safe.
I understood that there should be a "lollipop man" acting as manual
override on the system, that is to say the system is not entirely
automatic.
> that a) the nut remains part of the wheel (so each wheel comes with
> its own nut) and b) when the gun is released it is sensed for the
> green light release indicator system.
>
> If this is so ISTM that the overall release system isn't fail-safe, in
> that a faulty gun or nut would trigger the green light when the gun
> was released in order to pick up the spare.
>
> IPlayer clearly shows there was no lollipop man, so the release scheme
> must be all electronic - but not fail-safe.
I understood that there should be a "lollipop man" acting as manual
override on the system, that is to say the system is not entirely
automatic.
Percy Flage
Apr 17, 2012, 6:07:56 AM4/17/12
to
(McLaren's?) was *entirely* automatic to eliminate the human reaction
time. That's why they were changing wheels in sub-3-second stops.
--
Percy Flage
"Life is too short to have to explain everyday."
Sir Tim
Apr 17, 2012, 6:33:11 AM4/17/12
to
On 17/04/2012 09:12, Terry Fields wrote:
> IPlayer clearly shows there was no lollipop man, so the release scheme
> must be all electronic - but not fail-safe.
Yet in his post Alan Le Hun states that there was a lollipop man but
> IPlayer clearly shows there was no lollipop man, so the release scheme
> must be all electronic - but not fail-safe.
that his attention was entirely taken up with the automatic system (I've
wiped the tape so can't check).
Incidentally, didn't Ferrari have to abandon a fully-automatic system a
couple of years ago after there was a cock-up?
--
Henry Birkin, Bt.
Mower Man
Apr 17, 2012, 7:55:19 AM4/17/12
to
301. I'll record it.
build
Apr 17, 2012, 8:09:27 AM4/17/12
to
I dunno if this is relevant but I presume you know they have banned
the automatic guns, so now they are all manual. That is not to say
they can't have sensors etc.
beers,
the automatic guns, so now they are all manual. That is not to say
they can't have sensors etc.
beers,
shazzbat
Apr 17, 2012, 8:39:30 AM4/17/12
to
"build" <bui...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c0c437b-5790-425e...@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>I dunno if this is relevant but I presume you know they have banned
> the automatic guns, so now they are all manual. That is not to say
> they can't have sensors etc.
>
Since each wheel comes with it's own nut, surely it's time that the gun was
> the automatic guns, so now they are all manual. That is not to say
> they can't have sensors etc.
>
used merely to remove the old one, and the new one locked into place when
slammed on, simultaneously engaging the locking device and activating the
green light. It ought not to be beyond the wit of the engineers to achieve
this.
Steve
brafield
Apr 17, 2012, 10:14:05 AM4/17/12
to
On Apr 17, 5:39 am, "shazzbat" <shazz...@spamlessness.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:
Who can remember a 1965 showing of BBC's "Tomorrow's World", hosted by
Raymond Baxter, that featured Graham Hill's BRM in the studio? The
mechanics demonstrated a wheel-change pit stop (no, the BRM wasn't
running!) with Baxter running the stop watch.
The poor guys made a co mplete hash and cross-threaded a nut on the
left rear, on live TV. I cannot remember whether Graham Hill was
present.
wrote:
Who can remember a 1965 showing of BBC's "Tomorrow's World", hosted by
Raymond Baxter, that featured Graham Hill's BRM in the studio? The
mechanics demonstrated a wheel-change pit stop (no, the BRM wasn't
running!) with Baxter running the stop watch.
The poor guys made a co mplete hash and cross-threaded a nut on the
left rear, on live TV. I cannot remember whether Graham Hill was
present.
Message has been deleted
Timmy
Apr 17, 2012, 11:57:26 AM4/17/12
to
Sir Tim wrote...
This might be a case for an "all cars" system, that everyone uses after it's
been tried and tested. They did it with the refuelling systems, so it wouldn't
a first for F1.
been tried and tested. They did it with the refuelling systems, so it wouldn't
a first for F1.
John Briggs
Apr 17, 2012, 7:15:41 PM4/17/12
to
that got them :-)
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
Apr 17, 2012, 7:16:51 PM4/17/12
to
On 17/04/2012 10:59, Bigbird wrote:
--
John Briggs
News
Apr 17, 2012, 7:22:28 PM4/17/12
to
Bobster
Apr 18, 2012, 2:06:55 AM4/18/12
to
On Apr 16, 10:49 pm, Mower Man <chrislov...@nospamf2s.com> wrote:
> On 16/04/2012 9:29 PM, Bobster wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, Sir Tim<bent...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16/04/2012 9:29 PM, Bobster wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, Sir Tim<bent...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
> >> It was also said that Mercedes were under investigation for an "unsafe
> >> release".
> > Wheel wasn't properly secured. Dangerous to more than just the driver
> > of the car.
>
> And the team were fined £4,100 for it. Terrible. :-)
A slap on the wrist, but it does send a message that the stewards hold
> >> release".
> > Wheel wasn't properly secured. Dangerous to more than just the driver
> > of the car.
>
> And the team were fined £4,100 for it. Terrible. :-)
the team ultimately responsible for the way in which the car leaves
the pits and it's condition. If it happens again then Merc are repeat
offenders and the price of doing a sloppy job should go up.
Bigbird
Apr 18, 2012, 4:48:43 AM4/18/12
to
Bobster wrote:
> On Apr 16, 10:49 pm, Mower Man <chrislov...@nospamf2s.com> wrote:
> > On 16/04/2012 9:29 PM, Bobster wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, Sir Tim<bent...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> It was also said that Mercedes were under investigation for an
> > "unsafe >> release".
> > > Wheel wasn't properly secured. Dangerous to more than just the
> > > driver of the car.
> >
> > And the team were fined Ł4,100 for it. Terrible. :-)
> On Apr 16, 10:49 pm, Mower Man <chrislov...@nospamf2s.com> wrote:
> > On 16/04/2012 9:29 PM, Bobster wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, Sir Tim<bent...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> It was also said that Mercedes were under investigation for an
> > "unsafe >> release".
> > > Wheel wasn't properly secured. Dangerous to more than just the
> > > driver of the car.
> >
>
> A slap on the wrist, but it does send a message that the stewards hold
> the team ultimately responsible for the way in which the car leaves
> the pits and it's condition. If it happens again then Merc are repeat
> offenders and the price of doing a sloppy job should go up.
They got off easy because Mickey acted responsibly.
> A slap on the wrist, but it does send a message that the stewards hold
> the team ultimately responsible for the way in which the car leaves
> the pits and it's condition. If it happens again then Merc are repeat
> offenders and the price of doing a sloppy job should go up.
alister
Apr 18, 2012, 1:56:49 PM4/18/12
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:17:08 +0100, Terry Fields wrote:
> Sir Tim wrote:
>
> Sir Tim wrote:
>
> sans lollipop) whose job was to monitor the green lights coming up, and
> when they had done so engage the master green light for the driver.
> However, there appears to be no-one visible around the car with this
> function (and certainly no-one with a physical lollipop).
>
> However, the idea of this system is to avoid the human reaction time,
> which could save three-tenths while the car is stationary, so having a
> man with a virtual lollipop doesn't quite gel with this.
>
> Terry Fields
I think the idea for the manual override is to hold off the green light
if necessary, such as another car in the pit lane.
not to manually activate the green light when all is complete.
--
Your files are now being encrypted and thrown into the bit bucket.
EOF
Mower Man
Apr 18, 2012, 2:56:08 PM4/18/12
to
a human in case of "unsafe release".
Is it possible that in order to shave a tenth the guy with that button
no longer spends time watching the crew - and just clicks go if there
are no cars coming down the pit lane?
John Briggs
Apr 18, 2012, 2:57:29 PM4/18/12
to
On 18/04/2012 09:48, Bigbird wrote:
> Bobster wrote:
>
>> On Apr 16, 10:49 pm, Mower Man<chrislov...@nospamf2s.com> wrote:
>>> On 16/04/2012 9:29 PM, Bobster wrote:
>>
>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, Sir Tim<bent...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>> It was also said that Mercedes were under investigation for an
>>> "unsafe>> release".
>>>> Wheel wasn't properly secured. Dangerous to more than just the
>>>> driver of the car.
>>>
>>> And the team were fined £4,100 for it. Terrible. :-)
> Bobster wrote:
>
>> On Apr 16, 10:49 pm, Mower Man<chrislov...@nospamf2s.com> wrote:
>>> On 16/04/2012 9:29 PM, Bobster wrote:
>>
>>>> On Apr 16, 8:53 pm, Sir Tim<bent...@brooklands.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>> It was also said that Mercedes were under investigation for an
>>> "unsafe>> release".
>>>> Wheel wasn't properly secured. Dangerous to more than just the
>>>> driver of the car.
>>>
>>
>> A slap on the wrist, but it does send a message that the stewards hold
>> the team ultimately responsible for the way in which the car leaves
>> the pits and it's condition. If it happens again then Merc are repeat
>> offenders and the price of doing a sloppy job should go up.
>
> They got off easy because Mickey acted responsibly.
They got off easy because the wheel didn't fall off.
>> A slap on the wrist, but it does send a message that the stewards hold
>> the team ultimately responsible for the way in which the car leaves
>> the pits and it's condition. If it happens again then Merc are repeat
>> offenders and the price of doing a sloppy job should go up.
>
> They got off easy because Mickey acted responsibly.
--
John Briggs
Bigbird
Apr 18, 2012, 3:20:13 PM4/18/12
to
Message has been deleted
Mower Man
Apr 19, 2012, 7:12:42 AM4/19/12
to
On 19/04/2012 9:12 AM, Terry Fields wrote:
> The better way to run that scheme is for the green light operator to
> push the button when a release might interfere with other traffic in
> the pit lane, and so keep the green light from operating. Otherwise
> the button stays unpressed and the rest is automatic based on the gun
> sensors.
>
> AFAICR there was no other traffic in the pit lane at the time of
> Schumacher's release, so the 'light man' had nothing to do and no
> human interaction time would have been involved.
>
> Terry Fields
And that, as I see it, was the problem. Or led to the problem.
> push the button when a release might interfere with other traffic in
> the pit lane, and so keep the green light from operating. Otherwise
> the button stays unpressed and the rest is automatic based on the gun
> sensors.
>
> AFAICR there was no other traffic in the pit lane at the time of
> Schumacher's release, so the 'light man' had nothing to do and no
> human interaction time would have been involved.
>
> Terry Fields
And that, as I see it, was the problem. Or led to the problem.
Michael Press
Apr 19, 2012, 3:43:10 PM4/19/12
to
In article <2vhvo7dnb0q7vda9j...@4ax.com>,
Terry Fields <no.spa...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
> Mower Man wrote:
>
> >On 18/04/2012 6:56 PM, alister wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:17:08 +0100, Terry Fields wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sir Tim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 17/04/2012 09:12, Terry Fields wrote:
> >>>>> IPlayer clearly shows there was no lollipop man, so the release scheme
> >>>>> must be all electronic - but not fail-safe.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yet in his post Alan Le Hun states that there was a lollipop man but
> >>>> that his attention was entirely taken up with the automatic system (I've
> >>>> wiped the tape so can't check).
> >>>>
> >>>> Incidentally, didn't Ferrari have to abandon a fully-automatic system a
> >>>> couple of years ago after there was a cock-up?
> >>>
> >>> Just thinking about this, there could have been a 'lollipop man' (but
> >>> sans lollipop) whose job was to monitor the green lights coming up, and
> >>> when they had done so engage the master green light for the driver.
> >>> However, there appears to be no-one visible around the car with this
> >>> function (and certainly no-one with a physical lollipop).
> >>>
> >>> However, the idea of this system is to avoid the human reaction time,
> >>> which could save three-tenths while the car is stationary, so having a
> >>> man with a virtual lollipop doesn't quite gel with this.
> >>
--
Michael Press
Terry Fields <no.spa...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
> Mower Man wrote:
>
> >On 18/04/2012 6:56 PM, alister wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:17:08 +0100, Terry Fields wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sir Tim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 17/04/2012 09:12, Terry Fields wrote:
> >>>>> IPlayer clearly shows there was no lollipop man, so the release scheme
> >>>>> must be all electronic - but not fail-safe.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yet in his post Alan Le Hun states that there was a lollipop man but
> >>>> that his attention was entirely taken up with the automatic system (I've
> >>>> wiped the tape so can't check).
> >>>>
> >>>> Incidentally, didn't Ferrari have to abandon a fully-automatic system a
> >>>> couple of years ago after there was a cock-up?
> >>>
> >>> Just thinking about this, there could have been a 'lollipop man' (but
> >>> sans lollipop) whose job was to monitor the green lights coming up, and
> >>> when they had done so engage the master green light for the driver.
> >>> However, there appears to be no-one visible around the car with this
> >>> function (and certainly no-one with a physical lollipop).
> >>>
> >>> However, the idea of this system is to avoid the human reaction time,
> >>> which could save three-tenths while the car is stationary, so having a
> >>> man with a virtual lollipop doesn't quite gel with this.
> >>
> >> I think the idea for the manual override is to hold off the green light
> >> if necessary, such as another car in the pit lane.
> >> not to manually activate the green light when all is complete.
> >>
> >
> >Thanks for that reminder - of course, there must be a final approval by
> >a human in case of "unsafe release".
> >
> >Is it possible that in order to shave a tenth the guy with that button
> >no longer spends time watching the crew - and just clicks go if there
> >are no cars coming down the pit lane?
>
> >> if necessary, such as another car in the pit lane.
> >> not to manually activate the green light when all is complete.
> >>
> >
> >Thanks for that reminder - of course, there must be a final approval by
> >a human in case of "unsafe release".
> >
> >Is it possible that in order to shave a tenth the guy with that button
> >no longer spends time watching the crew - and just clicks go if there
> >are no cars coming down the pit lane?
>
> The better way to run that scheme is for the green light operator to
> push the button when a release might interfere with other traffic in
> the pit lane, and so keep the green light from operating. Otherwise
> the button stays unpressed and the rest is automatic based on the gun
> sensors.
>
> AFAICR there was no other traffic in the pit lane at the time of
> Schumacher's release, so the 'light man' had nothing to do and no
> human interaction time would have been involved.
That proposal does introduce lag time from human reaction time.
> push the button when a release might interfere with other traffic in
> the pit lane, and so keep the green light from operating. Otherwise
> the button stays unpressed and the rest is automatic based on the gun
> sensors.
>
> AFAICR there was no other traffic in the pit lane at the time of
> Schumacher's release, so the 'light man' had nothing to do and no
> human interaction time would have been involved.
--
Michael Press
Mower Man
Apr 19, 2012, 4:59:58 PM4/19/12
to
will recognise, understand, compile and produce a result from all the
sensory input the "human" can see?
We may often be guilty of "finger trouble" - but computers have no
concept of that. Not even if we tried to design them to do so - not
safely, anyway IMO, not in the pit lane.
Bigbird
Apr 19, 2012, 6:10:25 PM4/19/12
to
Message has been deleted
larkim
Apr 20, 2012, 11:17:02 AM4/20/12
to
On Friday, 20 April 2012 12:45:25 UTC+1, Terry Fields wrote:
> In the scheme I have in mind, the green light system is automatic and
> depends for its information on the gun sensors. However, the system
> needs an 'unsafe release over-ride', and I suggest this is a human who
> watches the pit lane. If there is no car approaching, the 'green light
> man' has nothing to activate, no human reaction time is involved, and
> the pit-stop is as short as can be managed, the signal from the guns
> going to activate the green light.
>
> If, however, another car approaches to make its own pit stop elsewhere
> in the pit lane, the 'green light' man can press a button to over-ride
> the automatic system while that second car is in the 'release safety
> zone' of the pitted car. This human action will involve no extra time
> lost as that is caused by the other car's presence in the appropriate
> safety zone. The 'green light' man, anticipating the safety zone being
> cleared, releases his button as the appropriate time, and the
> automatic system, having already sensed the 'go' signals from the
> guns, activates the green light. Again, this doesn't involve human
> reaction time to an unexpected event, and the pit stop is again as
> short as can be managed although delayed by the second car.
>
> Terry Fields
I would slightly alter your suggestion - have the greenlight man sitting with a "safe to release" button permanently pressed during the pitstop, and then release it only if it is unsafe. That would mean he was more permanently ready to intervene for safety, but still work on the presumption that a release is safe without requiring human intervention. Its a subtle difference, having a button to press in the event of danger vs a button already pressed and ready to release in the event of danger, but I think mildly better.
Matt
> depends for its information on the gun sensors. However, the system
> needs an 'unsafe release over-ride', and I suggest this is a human who
> watches the pit lane. If there is no car approaching, the 'green light
> man' has nothing to activate, no human reaction time is involved, and
> the pit-stop is as short as can be managed, the signal from the guns
> going to activate the green light.
>
> If, however, another car approaches to make its own pit stop elsewhere
> in the pit lane, the 'green light' man can press a button to over-ride
> the automatic system while that second car is in the 'release safety
> zone' of the pitted car. This human action will involve no extra time
> lost as that is caused by the other car's presence in the appropriate
> safety zone. The 'green light' man, anticipating the safety zone being
> cleared, releases his button as the appropriate time, and the
> automatic system, having already sensed the 'go' signals from the
> guns, activates the green light. Again, this doesn't involve human
> reaction time to an unexpected event, and the pit stop is again as
> short as can be managed although delayed by the second car.
>
> Terry Fields
I would slightly alter your suggestion - have the greenlight man sitting with a "safe to release" button permanently pressed during the pitstop, and then release it only if it is unsafe. That would mean he was more permanently ready to intervene for safety, but still work on the presumption that a release is safe without requiring human intervention. Its a subtle difference, having a button to press in the event of danger vs a button already pressed and ready to release in the event of danger, but I think mildly better.
Matt
John Briggs
Apr 20, 2012, 11:18:49 AM4/20/12
to
On 20/04/2012 12:45, Terry Fields wrote:
>
> Michael Press wrote:
>
>
> Michael Press wrote:
>
> In the scheme I have in mind, the green light system is automatic and
> depends for its information on the gun sensors. However, the system
> needs an 'unsafe release over-ride', and I suggest this is a human who
> watches the pit lane. If there is no car approaching, the 'green light
> man' has nothing to activate, no human reaction time is involved, and
> the pit-stop is as short as can be managed, the signal from the guns
> going to activate the green light.
>
> If, however, another car approaches to make its own pit stop elsewhere
> in the pit lane, the 'green light' man can press a button to over-ride
> the automatic system while that second car is in the 'release safety
> zone' of the pitted car. This human action will involve no extra time
> lost as that is caused by the other car's presence in the appropriate
> safety zone. The 'green light' man, anticipating the safety zone being
> cleared, releases his button as the appropriate time, and the
> automatic system, having already sensed the 'go' signals from the
> guns, activates the green light. Again, this doesn't involve human
> reaction time to an unexpected event, and the pit stop is again as
> short as can be managed although delayed by the second car.
Which would do nothing to help the present case, because it was the
> depends for its information on the gun sensors. However, the system
> needs an 'unsafe release over-ride', and I suggest this is a human who
> watches the pit lane. If there is no car approaching, the 'green light
> man' has nothing to activate, no human reaction time is involved, and
> the pit-stop is as short as can be managed, the signal from the guns
> going to activate the green light.
>
> If, however, another car approaches to make its own pit stop elsewhere
> in the pit lane, the 'green light' man can press a button to over-ride
> the automatic system while that second car is in the 'release safety
> zone' of the pitted car. This human action will involve no extra time
> lost as that is caused by the other car's presence in the appropriate
> safety zone. The 'green light' man, anticipating the safety zone being
> cleared, releases his button as the appropriate time, and the
> automatic system, having already sensed the 'go' signals from the
> guns, activates the green light. Again, this doesn't involve human
> reaction time to an unexpected event, and the pit stop is again as
> short as can be managed although delayed by the second car.
automatic part that failed, and the man was watching the pitlane rather
than the mechanics.
--
John Briggs
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Michael Press
Apr 21, 2012, 6:41:38 PM4/21/12
to
In article <9vbgqh...@mid.individual.net>,
The lag between what the button pusher sees and pushing the button.
--
Michael Press
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Apr 21, 2012, 6:43:53 PM4/21/12
to
In article <80i2p7598u56j88hu...@4ax.com>,
Terry Fields <no.spa...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
when to push the button, there is lag time
that depends on human reaction time.
--
Michael Press
Terry Fields <no.spa...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
> In the scheme I have in mind, the green light system is automatic and
> depends for its information on the gun sensors. However, the system
> needs an 'unsafe release over-ride', and I suggest this is a human who
> watches the pit lane. If there is no car approaching, the 'green light
> man' has nothing to activate, no human reaction time is involved, and
> the pit-stop is as short as can be managed, the signal from the guns
> going to activate the green light.
If a human is analyzing data and deciding
> depends for its information on the gun sensors. However, the system
> needs an 'unsafe release over-ride', and I suggest this is a human who
> watches the pit lane. If there is no car approaching, the 'green light
> man' has nothing to activate, no human reaction time is involved, and
> the pit-stop is as short as can be managed, the signal from the guns
> going to activate the green light.
when to push the button, there is lag time
that depends on human reaction time.
--
Michael Press
Alan LeHun
Apr 21, 2012, 9:29:57 PM4/21/12
to
In article <rubrum-337B66....@news.albasani.net>,
rub...@pacbell.net says...
> If a human is analyzing data and deciding
> when to push the button, there is lag time
> that depends on human reaction time.
>
Only if the release would be unsafe would any buttons be pushed.
If the human does not see anything that would interfere with a safe
release he does nothing, and lets the automagics do it all! No human
involvement, no human lag.
The only human lag that would be introduced is when said human decides
that a release 'at this time' would be unsafe. Then he does something
and pushes the button. When release is safe he then unpushes the button
and because he can predict that at small timescales, I doubt even then
there would be any discernible lag.
--
Alan LeHun
rub...@pacbell.net says...
> If a human is analyzing data and deciding
> when to push the button, there is lag time
> that depends on human reaction time.
>
If the human does not see anything that would interfere with a safe
release he does nothing, and lets the automagics do it all! No human
involvement, no human lag.
The only human lag that would be introduced is when said human decides
that a release 'at this time' would be unsafe. Then he does something
and pushes the button. When release is safe he then unpushes the button
and because he can predict that at small timescales, I doubt even then
there would be any discernible lag.
--
Alan LeHun
Bigbird
Apr 22, 2012, 2:18:59 AM4/22/12
to
the car then there is no lag...far less than that to raise or lower a
lollipop as previously employed.
Michael Press
Apr 22, 2012, 3:07:05 AM4/22/12
to
In article <MPG.29fd6f667...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
He decides to push the button.
In the biological lag between formed intention
and action, something happens that makes it unsafe.
--
Michael Press
Alan LeHun <t...@reply.to> wrote:
> In article <rubrum-337B66....@news.albasani.net>,
> rub...@pacbell.net says...
>
> > If a human is analyzing data and deciding
> > when to push the button, there is lag time
> > that depends on human reaction time.
> >
>
> Only if the release would be unsafe would any buttons be pushed.
>
> If the human does not see anything that would interfere with a safe
> release he does nothing, and lets the automagics do it all! No human
> involvement, no human lag.
He decides everything is okay.
> In article <rubrum-337B66....@news.albasani.net>,
> rub...@pacbell.net says...
>
> > If a human is analyzing data and deciding
> > when to push the button, there is lag time
> > that depends on human reaction time.
> >
>
> Only if the release would be unsafe would any buttons be pushed.
>
> If the human does not see anything that would interfere with a safe
> release he does nothing, and lets the automagics do it all! No human
> involvement, no human lag.
He decides to push the button.
In the biological lag between formed intention
and action, something happens that makes it unsafe.
--
Michael Press
Bigbird
Apr 22, 2012, 5:00:14 AM4/22/12
to
Alan LeHun
Apr 22, 2012, 6:26:06 AM4/22/12
to
In article <9vhvku...@mid.individual.net>,
Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com says...
For failing to understand even the simplest of tasks. The button is only
to be used when everything is /not/ okay.
He decides everything is okay.
He decides to do nothing. Zilch. Nana. Nowt. He consciously decides to
not push the button that is already not pushed. I don't know how else to
say it. He. does. nothing. The unpushed button remains unpushed without
passing through any sort of pushed or otherwise altered or different
state. Nothing happens. He leaves it alone. Ignores it. Doesn't touch
it. Does not use the force on it. Does not interfere with it by means of
a third party object such as a stick, pencil or fire extinguisher. He
does nothing.
<sigh>
> In the biological lag between formed intention
> and action, something happens that makes it unsafe.
There is /no/ action. Zilch. Nana. Nowt......
--
Alan LeHun
Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com says...
>
> > He decides everything is okay.
> > He decides to push the button.
>
>
He is sacked.
> > He decides everything is okay.
> > He decides to push the button.
>
>
For failing to understand even the simplest of tasks. The button is only
to be used when everything is /not/ okay.
He decides everything is okay.
not push the button that is already not pushed. I don't know how else to
say it. He. does. nothing. The unpushed button remains unpushed without
passing through any sort of pushed or otherwise altered or different
state. Nothing happens. He leaves it alone. Ignores it. Doesn't touch
it. Does not use the force on it. Does not interfere with it by means of
a third party object such as a stick, pencil or fire extinguisher. He
does nothing.
<sigh>
> In the biological lag between formed intention
> and action, something happens that makes it unsafe.
--
Alan LeHun
Sir Tim
Apr 22, 2012, 7:07:21 AM4/22/12
to
coil! This is an ex-parrot!!"
--
Henry Birkin, Bt.
Timmy
Apr 22, 2012, 7:18:27 AM4/22/12
to
Sir Tim wrote...
Teach 'em to employ a Norweigian engineer.
Michael Press
Apr 23, 2012, 3:35:39 PM4/23/12
to
In article <MPG.29fded04...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
He must _decide_. If he decides that not everything
is okay he must initiate a physical action. That
entails an irreducible lag on the order of tenths
of a second.
--
Michael Press
is okay he must initiate a physical action. That
entails an irreducible lag on the order of tenths
of a second.
--
Michael Press
Kerry Montgomery
Apr 23, 2012, 4:11:32 PM4/23/12
to
"Michael Press" <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rubrum-B1C2A1....@news.albasani.net...
Yes, if he decides everything is not OK he must take action.
If he decides everything is OK, he does not any take any action.
Perhaps you will understand better if it is put in electrical terms.
When the car stops in the pits, the system is armed. Perhaps by the
grounding strips. Perhaps by a person. It doesn't matter, as long as it
takes less than 1 second.
Each human that has responsibility for declaring the car OK to leave has a
normally closed switch. You can do a web search for how a normally closed
switch operates.
Each electronic device that has responsibility for declaring the car OK to
leave has a normally open switch. You can do another web search for how a
normally open switch operates.
All the switches that have responsibility for declaring the car OK to leave
are wired in series. You can do yet another web search for how a series
circuit operates.
After the system is armed, as soon as all the switches are closed at the
same time, the lollipop light goes green.
This method has NO human-operated switch delay if there are no human
detected problems with the car. Not tenths of a second, not millionths of a
second. None.
Kerry
Alan LeHun
Apr 23, 2012, 4:38:19 PM4/23/12
to
In article <rubrum-B1C2A1....@news.albasani.net>,
rub...@pacbell.net says...
of there being no other cars in the pit lane.
Under the circumstances where action is required there is also, I
believe, no discernible lag.
If the mechanic takes the conscious decision to press the button, then
the car has not yet been released by the auto-magic system and the car
remains unreleased. IOW the action occurs between the car being
stationary and the car being stationary. No change of state for the car
means there could have been no discernible lag at that point.
At the point of the mechanic then releasing the button, (we can assume
the auto-magic system is now in release mode) he can predict when the
moment for safe release will arrive as he watches the oncoming car
approaching down the pit straight. It therefor ceases to be a case of
making a decision and becomes a case of speed, distance and timing.
Something which the brain is extremely good at and would be just as
likely to introduce a fractional negative lag, as it would a positive
one.
--
Alan LeHun
rub...@pacbell.net says...
> He must _decide_. If he decides that not everything
> is okay he must initiate a physical action. That
> entails an irreducible lag on the order of tenths
> of a second.
>
Yes. But that is not what initiated this thread, which was the condition
> is okay he must initiate a physical action. That
> entails an irreducible lag on the order of tenths
> of a second.
>
of there being no other cars in the pit lane.
Under the circumstances where action is required there is also, I
believe, no discernible lag.
If the mechanic takes the conscious decision to press the button, then
the car has not yet been released by the auto-magic system and the car
remains unreleased. IOW the action occurs between the car being
stationary and the car being stationary. No change of state for the car
means there could have been no discernible lag at that point.
At the point of the mechanic then releasing the button, (we can assume
the auto-magic system is now in release mode) he can predict when the
moment for safe release will arrive as he watches the oncoming car
approaching down the pit straight. It therefor ceases to be a case of
making a decision and becomes a case of speed, distance and timing.
Something which the brain is extremely good at and would be just as
likely to introduce a fractional negative lag, as it would a positive
one.
--
Alan LeHun
Michael Press
Apr 23, 2012, 9:13:36 PM4/23/12
to
In article <Y9KdnSoRhYflKgjS...@earthlink.com>,
--
Michael Press
> Yes, if he decides everything is not OK he must take action.
Then those who say there is no lag have not thought this through.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Apr 23, 2012, 9:14:41 PM4/23/12
to
In article <MPG.29ffce192...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
I address the assertion that human input has
no associated lag.
--
Michael Press
Alan LeHun <t...@reply.to> wrote:
> In article <rubrum-B1C2A1....@news.albasani.net>,
> rub...@pacbell.net says...
> > He must _decide_. If he decides that not everything
> > is okay he must initiate a physical action. That
> > entails an irreducible lag on the order of tenths
> > of a second.
> >
>
> Yes. But that is not what initiated this thread, which was the condition
> of there being no other cars in the pit lane.
I never addressed what started this thread.
> In article <rubrum-B1C2A1....@news.albasani.net>,
> rub...@pacbell.net says...
> > He must _decide_. If he decides that not everything
> > is okay he must initiate a physical action. That
> > entails an irreducible lag on the order of tenths
> > of a second.
> >
>
> Yes. But that is not what initiated this thread, which was the condition
> of there being no other cars in the pit lane.
I address the assertion that human input has
no associated lag.
--
Michael Press
Bigbird
Apr 24, 2012, 12:59:19 PM4/24/12
to
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <MPG.29ffce192...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> Alan LeHun <t...@reply.to> wrote:
>
> > In article <rubrum-B1C2A1....@news.albasani.net>,
> > rub...@pacbell.net says...
> > > He must decide. If he decides that not everything
> In article <MPG.29ffce192...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> Alan LeHun <t...@reply.to> wrote:
>
> > In article <rubrum-B1C2A1....@news.albasani.net>,
> > rub...@pacbell.net says...
> > > is okay he must initiate a physical action. That
> > > entails an irreducible lag on the order of tenths
> > > of a second.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. But that is not what initiated this thread, which was the
> > condition of there being no other cars in the pit lane.
>
> I never addressed what started this thread.
> I address the assertion that human input has
> no associated lag.
You created a straw man.
> > > entails an irreducible lag on the order of tenths
> > > of a second.
> > >
> >
> > Yes. But that is not what initiated this thread, which was the
> > condition of there being no other cars in the pit lane.
>
> I never addressed what started this thread.
> I address the assertion that human input has
> no associated lag.
Michael Press
Apr 30, 2012, 1:17:41 AM4/30/12
to
In article <9vhm6j...@mid.individual.net>,
You talk as if you are entirely ignorant of human physiology.
--
Michael Press
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Apr 30, 2012, 1:18:22 AM4/30/12
to
Bigbird
Apr 30, 2012, 2:46:34 AM4/30/12
to
Bigbird
Apr 30, 2012, 2:50:22 AM4/30/12
to
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <9vo4f7...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> >
> > > In article <MPG.29ffce192...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> > > Alan LeHun <t...@reply.to> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <rubrum-B1C2A1....@news.albasani.net>,
> > > > rub...@pacbell.net says...
> > > > > He must decide. If he decides that not everything
> > > > > is okay he must initiate a physical action. That
> > > > > entails an irreducible lag on the order of tenths
> > > > > of a second.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes. But that is not what initiated this thread, which was the
> > > > condition of there being no other cars in the pit lane.
> > >
> > > I never addressed what started this thread.
> > > I address the assertion that human input has
> > > no associated lag.
> >
> > You created a straw man.
>
> Incorrect.
No, it's correct. That you failed to realise it makes no difference. If
> In article <9vo4f7...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Bigbird" <Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> >
> > > In article <MPG.29ffce192...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> > > Alan LeHun <t...@reply.to> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <rubrum-B1C2A1....@news.albasani.net>,
> > > > rub...@pacbell.net says...
> > > > > He must decide. If he decides that not everything
> > > > > is okay he must initiate a physical action. That
> > > > > entails an irreducible lag on the order of tenths
> > > > > of a second.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes. But that is not what initiated this thread, which was the
> > > > condition of there being no other cars in the pit lane.
> > >
> > > I never addressed what started this thread.
> > > I address the assertion that human input has
> > > no associated lag.
> >
> > You created a straw man.
>
> Incorrect.
you have the intelligence to re-read the earlier threads you responded
to you will not only spot it but then a little light may come on and
suddenly everyone else's responses will make more sense.
0 new messages