From a posting in another thread, and "modest" review of AIM's web site I hypothesize that you can get fully rendered video with all of your input channels from the following combo:

MXS Strada, Appropriate GPS, SmartyCam, appropriate inputs from sensors or CAN.

But no "logged" data." Soley rendered video.

But if you have an MXS or MXG you of course also get the squiggly lines to monkey around with in addition to the rendered video.

Is that correct?

 

You are correct. I would not recommend a Strada though. If you are doing all the work to put in sensors and wiring, you should record the data.

 

Without logged data (not possible from the Strada), there can be no .csv export of channel data to import into RaceRender to "marry" data with the video.

 

Sorry, I guess you guys are busy and did not understand my question.

It is my understanding that the data is rendered in real time on the SmartyCam video. So you don't need a product like Race Render-- it would be redundant.

With the Strada/GPS/SmartyCam set up, the data would not be "logged" but it would be recorded... on the video.

So if you have absolutely no desire to look at squiggly lines or export data from AIM to other formats/analysis tools, but rather only want rendered video with whatever parameters you choose, you can save some money over a configuration that includes a dash that logs the raw data.

In my case, I will never, ever use squiggly lines. But I will use video, and the richness of rendered video with the parameters I choose (e.g., throttle position, RMP, brake on/off-- whatever I have via ECU and/or sensors) is appealing.

My engineering background makes me curious about the squiggly lines, but the video is what I I use to go faster. As you know, I have been an advocate of having tools in an on-board camera FOV to add quantitative information to the visual reference. Things like throttle position, brake on/off and some indication of speed (e.g., rpm or mph) are high priorities for the way I learn and teach. Old school, I know.

Of course you can get part way there with a SOLO product, but you are limited in terms of inputs with that configuration, unless you have a rich CAN or OBD capability. It seems to me that with Strada, you can get everything you can with products like MXS/MXG except the raw data/squiggly lines.

I know that this makes the product sales mix less rich, but as a consumer I find this intriguing.

I wonder if AIM (or anyone else in the market) does surveys to understand what percentage of their logging dash+ SmartyCam customers actually spend time with the squiggly lines. And if so, how those customers are stratified in terms of their level of participation in the sport.

 

You are correct, you could use the Strada with a SCHD. Why would you change from the Evo4 and G Dash you have now?

 

I do not ask for myself, but rather, like you and Peter and others, I ask so that others may have some additional food for thought as they consider adding these kinds of tools to their car.

If the old Strada worked the same way with GPS and SmartyCam, and I knew that it did, I would have bought a used Strada and a SmartyCam instead of a G-Dash/Evo 4.

I will never, ever use the squiggly lines. I got away from squiggly lines when I left engineering graduate school and became a business person/marketing professional many moons ago, lol.

As an aside, I wonder how many PH.D. dissertations exist that examine compare/contrast the process of driver's learning to go faster based primarily or soley on video as opposed to squiggly lines. And I wonder just how many DAQ customers and coaches spend what % of time using the squiggly lines as opposed to just video.

 

That last question is certainly worthy of a whole thread!

But I would say that while the data gives us both good insight and validation (or not), video is key.

The synergy of BOTH is best, however. Which is why I always add a VBOX Video to any client's car, regardless of their equipment (MoTeC, RD2, Bosch, Cosworth, AiM, Traqmate, Race Technology or Race-Keeper).

EVERYONE learns and assimilates information in different ways. The video itself tells you only what you did, while the data often offers finer resolution. Important when working with already fast people (like for my work at IMSA VIR this week/weekend).

You agree that by placing the measures on the video, you assimilate the min, max and delta of those measures, and their relationship to where you were on track and what you were doing at that point, much more easily. The squiggly lines interface (along with scatter plots, colored maps and other ways of displaying the SAME information) is just another way.

For most, I emphasize what a good SHAPE looks like, so the values are not the focus, how a driver arrives at them is the focus.

Fascinating stuff, but I would certainly not consider trading what you have for an MXL Strada or MXS Strada. That would be a huge step back, even if it is capable of "passing though the measures" to the SmartyCam.

 

So for the value conscious, what's the best setup to pair with the Vbox Video?

 

That's it. The VBOX Video. I was shocked to check the latest price list and see that the OLED is now included in the two-camera VBOX Lite for $1800 (used to be $2100) and that a 2-camera without the OLED is only $1500 (used to be $1750) new!

The only reason I would add anything else is if you needed a dash replacement (G-Dash, MXL2, MXS, MXG, all loggers) or were focused on sensors and measures FROM THE CAR.

I think we're getting a little confused here in terms of the pros and cons of each system.

The reason why AiM is so good is because of the completeness of the modern car ECU protocols. If you have a post 2006 (mostly if you have a post 2009 and absolutely if you have a post 2012) car, you can get all the info you could possibly need with two wires to the car. Ne need for additional sensors or analog additions of any kind, for MANY cars. This allows the loggers to display engine health and vehicle health measures along with programmable alarms and can serve as a reliable dash and instrument cluster replacement, for a LOT of later model cars. Plus, the loggers can send this info to be recorded real-time on top of the 720P video with the smartycam, a completely automated solution. But the driver analysis is still reliant on simple speed, lat/long g measures, lap timing, track mapping and the like. It's a very powerful tool, more powerful in many ways than the VBOX could ever be. But few use even a fraction of that power...

While the VBOX might get a little car stuff from their limited protocols (RPM and throttle are generally available post 2003), the main value is NOT measuring car health or functioning as an alarm or shift lights, but in the driver analysis WITH synced video, automatically. Side by side video comparisons, GPS position justified, is incredibly valuable for identifying opportunities for improvement.

So, you pay your money and you make your choice. I think for your 2000 model car, with the AiM and added sensors, you can get everything you need. With the VBOX Video (either in Standard definition 640 x 480, or HD, 2 x 1080P), you get basic info written on the video (g's, speed, lap times) but not throttle position or brake pressure easily, even with added sensors, but it is easier to use.

For the value conscious pre-2003 car owner, I recommend two systems, a used EVO4/G-Dash or MXL Pista with sensors and a smartycam or a Video VBOX Lite 2-camera system, new or used.

These are the only two that make video ready-made with information ON the video, ready to play.

This is the quickest way to go faster. For most.

 

The things I think would be important are +/- predictive lap time by sector and by lap, lap number, and shift light is a "nice to have." But I could be missing the boat.

I know the Vbox and Aim can give you +/- predictive times pretty easily but I don't think you can get real time sector from Vbox and I've heard aim is very difficult to customize sectors with. I don't know how Traqmate stack up in these categories.

So that's the piece I'm using HLT for right now. But I'm still interested in a solution that would allow me to do the above and add in critical warning lights for vehicle health.

 

I disagree with Peter somewhat on video being more. Important, but can't right much from my phone now. I'll try to expand tonight.

I find very quickly you can examine many laps and areas for improvement from the data. Then you can also quantify what is going on and find ways to improve.

BUT, for certain people the video is easier to digest. They end up doing almost the same thing with the video, just in a different way.

 

Thanks for confirming.

I will never, ever use the squiggly line data in my application. So I don't see it as a step backward.

I decided to move forward with DAQ last year because I wanted a GPS-based timing system, with predictive capabilities viewable in the car, and a way to log AFR vs. RPM vs. throttle position. For the latter, I could have just added a second tach which could be viewed in the video FOV along with my WOT and brake on/off lights, and bought a SOLO for the former. But I decided to adventure more deeply into the newish world of DAQ.

Since my ECU does not have OBD or CAN, the SOLO/SmartyCam combo did not make sense to get where I wanted to go.

The AIM display (e.g., STRADA), GPS, SmartyCam combo would have given me what I want, but it would have been quite a bit more expensive than the used EVO4/Gdash set up I purchased.

But it is less expensive than going with a logging dash, everything else being equal.

I hypothesize that the people on the fat part of the current curve in the amateur/hobby ranks in this sport vastly prefer video over squiggly lines. I also thlnk that when its all said and done, video will be shown as the best tool for most, partially because of the way humans learn, and that its use is a natural extension of DE methods used for decades.

I think everyone should be more open-minded about this combination, and more carefully consider what they will really get with the ~$1k additional cost of the logging dash versus those that log.

But again, this is not applicable for folks with cars where the SOLO/SmartyCam combo provides a similar feature set.

 

And by the way, I fully realize that there is "time" in the squiggly lines. My hypothesis is that for most in the fattest part of the curve:

1) the time is very small compared to what can be gained by video (with parameters in the FOV)

2) the cost-benefit equation for this time is not compelling. For example, I can envision that for quite a few folks, trying to get this time requires the adoption of greater risk. In my experience, focused and engaged amateur drivers factor this in both subconsciously and consciously as they pursue the goal of going faster.

 

Specifically with the Strada, it is not $1k delta for logging when you factor in the GPS unit. As someone that just shopped both, my findings are more like $400-$500 or so difference which to me is an easy decision in favor of the Pista. Video doesn't show what the data does and probably is best for broad adjustments and watching fun moments again. Hoping AiM releases a higher res SmartyCam HD in the future. I like mine, but for the money i feel the video/audio quality is lacking severely.