ProCoach

And of course, read in Excel...

Matt Romanowski

I know, but the emissivity for tires is different from rotors from track surfaces. What is this set for or is it user defined?

I'm not an EE like you - I buy the logger and use their software! It's cool that you have the ability to make stuff. Maybe we can make a cheap TPMS setup.


Or Matlab!

rbahr

and plotted, or MATLAB or Octave or... Not for everyone, but the FASE folks have limited budgets and lots of 'free' time :-)

Ray

rbahr

Hi Matt,

It is user defined... I have actually worked out a design, started mocking it up, got software running, then ran out of time...

Ray

Warimono

Our program is somewhat unique in that every year has a new team. We only have 3 semesters to learn, design, build, and test and then we graduate. Other programs are operated more as clubs so some people get immersion for 4 or more years. Side research projects can start earlier etc. Main reason why we haven't jumped on the monocoque wagon.

Everything we do is based around cost, schedule, and performance, and schedule is a pretty serious constraint. Buying some Izzy racing sensors isn't going to kill us and we get 16 channels in a purdy image.


Speaking of spending some moolah, Peter I sent you a PM about getting some Motec prices but not sure if you got it. Would e-mail be better for that?

ProCoach

Email is always better! Thanks!

FVC

Hi:

This is a bit of an old thread, though I am interested in the comparison between Texense and Izze's devices. And possibly comments from people who might have used either, or even better, both. The remarks below are based on a review of the advertised specifications for each device. I have never used or seen any of these devices in... the silicium.

I am going to speculate that both devices are based on the same sensor, they are not that many thermopile arrays around, and they are based on the same technology anyways. Apart from the price difference, something that was not mentioned is the way the sensors are possibly used differently, by Texense and Izze. I am interested what people value for each device, price set aside.

Texense advertises 8 horizontal zones, Izze up to 16 horizontally and 4 vertically (the latest usage taking full advantage of the sensor's capabilities).
Based on the tire width covered for a device located at a given distance, I am assuming Texense is averaging zones, possibly to reduce the amount of data sent over CAN, while Izze is providing straight data (provided you buy the option for more channels). The accuracy of the sensor degrades as you move away from the centreline and so possibly Texense could be averaging zones to improve accuracy. One could argue this could be done outside of the sensor with software. And so what do you value the most, 8 or 16 zones? I guess more zones would allow tracking a front tire as it is turned, even with a fixed device? Or have allow buffer zones for tire deflection?

Texense and Izze seem to use different versions of the same sensor, more precisely different FOV (Field Of View). Texense is narrower I believe, based on the width covered. This means that for the same tire width, the Texense device has to be located twice as far as the Izze (about 300mm vs 180mm). The Izze comes in 2 FOV actually, one that matches Texense FOV. By the way the Izze graph used to display tire coverage is rather confusing, or I should say, the vertical axis name is ambiguous.
What would you consider a better location for the sensor with regards to the tire, closer or farther? Is this only limited to clearance around the wheels?

This leads to noticing the size and form factor difference between the 2 devices. Depending on the model chosen (0 or 90 degree), the Texense is almost twice as small as the Izze version.
It seems one would benefit from a smaller form factor, particularly for front wheels if the devices are going to be mounted on the actual spindle (via an arm going around the tire), to follow the wheel as its orientation changes. The small form factor of the Texense seems like it would help clearing the wheel well and/or offer less aero distrubance on an open wheel car.

How are these sensors typically mounted? Would anybody have pictures of either sensor mount on front and rear wheels? I could see advantages of pointing the sensor towards the tire, from the front (less projections for instance, but also based on the geometry of the suspension). But there might also be benefits of pointing the device from the rear (to reduce aero perturbances for instance, and/or to get a reading as early as possible after the tire has been in contact with the road, though is might be lesser of a priority as temperatures typically change slowly).

Thanks,
FVC