new amb system

[DCM]

The only option really, is for a club who has an RC4 do a comprehensive test as to what works and what doesn't. I know BBK have said that they have, but I take that as a biased test, nothing against BBK, but in saying that upgrading to RC4 they will have to sell you all shinny new PT's to replace your MRT ones is a good business ploy.

[Jim Spencer]

Originally Posted by jimmy

May I express my doubts about this.

Yes of course - just didn't pick up any vibes when it was mentioned by about half a dozen people to the myLaps folk. They'd heard of them of course but given the size of the PT market (Just think how many they use in a BIG Marathon) it seemed that the name just met with a shrug.

[Jim Spencer]

Originally Posted by DCM

The only option really, is for a club who has an RC4 do a comprehensive test as to what works and what doesn't. I know BBK have said that they have, but I take that as a biased test, nothing against BBK, but in saying that upgrading to RC4 they will have to sell you all shinny new PT's to replace your MRT ones is a good business ploy.

Not seen it first hand but i'm lead to believe (not by BBK) that the clones were registered by the RC4 on around 1/4 to a 1/3 of the passes.
Byt different loops, loop positions, operators etc etc would alter this one suspects.

[rhino20]

I,ve emailed MRT,asking if it,ll be possible to have the ptx,s upgraded to work with rc4, and await a reply.
Will post the reply here, asap.

[DCM]

Originally Posted by Jim Spencer

Not seen it first hand but i'm lead to believe (not by BBK) that the clones were registered by the RC4 on around 1/4 to a 1/3 of the passes.
Byt different loops, loop positions, operators etc etc would alter this one suspects.

Worth a try, isn't it, as no matter which way a club goes, at some point, someone won't be happy!!

[skiv]

Originally Posted by Jim Spencer

Hi

MyLaps I don't think have even considered MRT in this process, their concern is for their equipment to be backwards compatible and in that they have succeded in that ANY AMB/MyLaps PT will work with any of their systems - Job Done.

Just a shame the Purcy isn't backward compatible though, it would be great if the purcy could have the clone id function which works with the RC4 system, but still counted on the older systems (didn't recognise the extra digit but still counted the rest of the id), then they wouldn't need the harry. We could all have multiple purcys with the same main number and individual extra id's and on the old system they would all count as our car, but on the new system they would count as our car A and our car B etc.

[skiv]

That way, clubs could have upgraded if they want, and if the Part X deal was the same as now, they probably all would have to get a new box and warranty.

And drivers could all buy purcys if they wanted to have clones, or the other added functionality which might be available at some clubs.

[Coastal]

JUst a few points.

Get real everyone - look at the cost of a pt compared to everything else you use and buy to race.

It isn't up to mylaps to ensure their system works with anyone else's pt's, that is up to the manufacturers of said pt's.

AS a club we put it to our membership should we upgrade from a RC2 decoder to the RC4 - the result the vast majority of members said it was a no brainer and we should upgrade.

The members have taken advantage of the upgrade offered by BBK and invested in new Harry's at £38 each.

On the point that YOU HAVE TO UPGRADE - sorry but you don't - our club has two sets of handouts that are available at all our meetings - IF your club doesn't offer this perhaps you should ask them why they haven't got any handouts as it is YOUR CLUB that is then insisting that you purchase a PT not Mylaps.

[Jim Spencer]

Originally Posted by skiv

Just a shame the Purcy isn't backward compatible though, it would be great if the purcy could have the clone id function which works with the RC4 system, but still counted on the older systems (didn't recognise the extra digit but still counted the rest of the id), then they wouldn't need the harry. We could all have multiple purcys with the same main number and individual extra id's and on the old system they would all count as our car, but on the new system they would count as our car A and our car B etc.

Yes, see what you mean - but I'm guessing here that's exactly why the Purcy's will only work with an RC4 - the decoder needed to be changed to be able to recognise the 'cloneable' (if that's a word!) Purcy PT.

Where I was coming from with 'backwards compatibility' is that the RC4 will happily read any MyLaps PT, so if you have any of the digital PT's in your car you know they'll work whatever system the club you turn up at has - as long as they're running AMB / MyLaps decoders that is - there are others out there..

There are clubs running Infra red, old anologue and all sorts of other weird and wonderful stuff, it's amazing what you come across

[bigred5765]

whats so hard about having different numbers any way,

[MattW]

Originally Posted by mark christopher

one thing is correct, the mrt is the same as an original amb, so if mrt are able to retune thiers to suit the problem will be gone

As I keep saying to people - clearly it isn't "the same" or there would be no issue. It's clearly similar, and produces largely the same result but must do it in a different way.

I haven't had any discussions with MYLAPS as Jim has - but I'd happily accept his view that they hadn't considered MRT. I'd expect that all of their range of transponders work on the same technology, and so any improvements that they introduced into one market, they'd want to introduce across the board. If that happened to have the happy (for mylaps) co-incidence of removing a competitor, then so be it. As I've said, if it were me, I'd have done it deliberately years ago!!!

[Coastal]

Originally Posted by bigred5765

whats so hard about having different numbers any way,

Totally agree.

Our race software can allocate different transponder numbers to different cars all under the same driver

[DCM]

If the MRT was the SAME as a AMB PT, then that would be breach of patent wouldn't it?? Hence something got to of been left out to make it only 99% the same??

As for cost, right, 5 of us race in my house, I have two PT's (OK, one is an older red PT) but the rest are all MRT's. Racing doesn't cost 'much' but adding 5 new PT's would be a huge bill to swollow.

[adam_u]

I have a couple of MRTs, and although I really don't want to, I would change to a couple of mylaps if it were absolutely necessary - but what I now find more annoying is that if I buy a Harry to ensure it will work wherever I am likely to race, I am effectively buying an already outdated product that will be superseded by the Purcy in a couple of years - so I'm having to buy twice - great.

It's all very well people saying 'well Amb are the original, you should have bought them first etc.' (which does sometimes come across as a bit smug ) But I didn't actually know anything about pt's when I came back to the hobby (it was all handouts when I left) and saw the MRT and thought, okay, it's a bit cheaper and it actually looks better/smaller/lighter than the Amb one - great!

Also worth mentioning as this may affect some, but I know of someone who recently tried to use their red Amb (pre-harry model) in a 1S setup and the voltage was not enough for it to operate (no such problems with the MRT btw)

I have heard of MRTs giving low(er) signal strength at races than the mylaps, but mine have never missed a lap, so does that really matter?

Purcy can also tell you the ambient temperature under your bodyshell, can anyone tell me what use this will be?

I am starting to think that some of the new features are more applicable to other users of the system and RC is getting it just off the back of that, which I can understand, but they shouldn't be touted as some amazing new features, because really, they aren't!

I personally struggle to see the benefit of having an additional number to recognise a different car - some may find it 'handy' I accept, but who would be willing to pay fifty or sixty quid for the privilege!?

[MikePimlott]

Everything so far is scare mongering sale tactics.
"Were the good guys, just give us £40 instead of £80" for a £2 piece of equipment.

There has been no hard evidence provided yet just rumours and fancy wording.
It will be interesting to actually see the results of the testings as screenshots detailing the different signals received from loop positions/locations

[knighthawk]

Originally Posted by adam_u

I am effectively buying an already outdated product that will be superseded by the Purcy in a couple of years - so I'm having to buy twice - great.

This is really a club by club issue, if clubs upgraded to the RC4 update then the Purcy would be the better buy !
But Clubs are respecting their MRT members and not upgrading so at this time the Harry is the better buy !

Originally Posted by adam_u

Also worth mentioning as this may affect some, but I know of someone who recently tried to use their red Amb (pre-harry model) in a 1S setup and the voltage was not enough for it to operate (no such problems with the MRT btw)

With 1S shouldn't you use either a bec booster or a compatible ESC with a 6v bec output, this would remove the voltage problem

Originally Posted by adam_u

I personally struggle to see the benefit of having an additional number to recognise a different car - some may find it 'handy' I accept, but who would be willing to pay fifty or sixty quid for the privilege!?

Not really the point, Racers asked for a Clone type Mylaps PT
Mylaps now offer this but to stop racers using two PT's in the same race, or two cars using the same PT, Mylaps use the extra digit to identify which PT is being used !!

[bigred5765]

Originally Posted by MikePimlott

Everything so far is scare mongering sale tactics.
"Were the good guys, just give us £40 instead of £80" for a £2 piece of equipment.

There has been no hard evidence provided yet just rumours and fancy wording.
It will be interesting to actually see the results of the testings as screenshots detailing the different signals received from loop positions/locations

didnt rob nelson do back to back testing useing two systems one running rc3 one running rc4 to test that out,im sure he mentioned it on here somewere it was run and 2 3 meetings and the mrt's were hit and miss when they worked on the rc4 software, cant see what he would have to gaine buy saying anything other than the results he got,?? all this moaning and yet never heard anyone moan about having to use brca legal cells or lipos, or even motors,whys that

[adam_u]

Originally Posted by knighthawk

This is really a club by club issue, if clubs upgraded to the RC4 update then the Purcy would be the better buy !
But Clubs are respecting their MRT members and not upgrading so at this time the Harry is the better buy !


With 1S shouldn't you use either a bec booster or a compatible ESC with a 6v bec output, this would remove the voltage problem


Not really the point, Racers asked for a Clone type Mylaps PT
Mylaps now offer this but to stop racers using two PT's in the same race, or two cars using the same PT, Mylaps use the extra digit to identify which PT is being used !!

Where in the real world of rc racing could someone get away with running two cars at the same time? It might happen at the odd light-hearted charity endurance race, but seriously, where else?

It was a 1s speedo, the fault may have lay elsewhere to be fair but just wanted to point out a potential issue

I agree the Harry is the better buy of the two and really the only choice for people who don't want to buy both, but the situation is less than ideal.

[adam_u]

Originally Posted by bigred5765

all this moaning and yet never heard anyone moan about having to use brca legal cells or lipos, or even motors,whys that

Because they must conform to a set of rules and regulations to ensure some degree of fairness as well as meeting certain safety criteria? Sorry, but it's not even close to being the same thing...

And people moan about it all the time!

[bigred5765]

Originally Posted by adam_u

Where in the real world of rc racing could someone get away with running two cars at the same time? It might happen at the odd light-hearted charity endurance race, but seriously, where else?


It was a 1s speedo, the fault may have lay elsewhere to be fair but just wanted to point out a potential issue

I agree the Harry is the better buy of the two and really the only choice for people who don't want to buy both, but the situation is less than ideal.Because they must conform to a set of rules and regulations to ensure some degree of fairness as well as meeting certain safety criteria? Sorry, but it's not even close to being the same thing...

not two cars one person but two people using mrt bugs using same numbers happens allot

some clubs run to brca rules and have no need to but then you would have to buy legal lipo motor etc whether you wanted to or not, if you go to a club running rc4 and expect them to accommodate you using a mrt same rules apply ,