Test Equipment Anonymous (TEA) group therapy thread

[vk6zgo]

So how many more are we going to add to this list of cars that had a really, really bad design? Showing more examples of a bad idea does not make it a good idea; it just shows there were more than one person who had that bad idea. 

Like that giant-scale UAV built from hobbyist-grade quadcopter parts and being flown over spectators with firmware that clearly didn't have any failsafe programmed.

That said... obviously I was wrong in that nobody ever did it. I stand (well, sit) corrected.

I guess this proves what my grand-dad used to say... "There is no idea so bad that someone hasn't tried to make a buck off it."

mnem
 

Actually it wasn't a shit idea, it really worked very well and was well known in racing circles and there was a race version produced, Mini Cooper S which I believe won lots of races, it was a good rally car and none of the cars that used the gearbox in the sump approach, driving the front wheels had a bad reputation.

No, it really is a bad idea, for the reasons I stated. The tolerances in an automatic transmission are an order of magnitude finer than a manual transmission, or even most of the engine for that matter. Just because a few manufacturers did it does not make it a good idea. It just means they tried a bad idea and it didn't destroy the brand.

Also, people do a lot of stuff on race cars that simply will not hold up long term in a daily driver.

mnem

All I can tell you is that the idea was around for a long time with that series of cars, and they did chalk up a lot of racing wins and rally wins and were used in many parts of the globe. In New Zealand where the 1800 series of cars, commonly called land crab because of their appearance, were known as Kimberley's and were fitted with a specially designed 6-cylinder engine.

The body shape was more squared off in the Kimberleys & Tasmans, though.
Leyland Oz tacked two extra cylinders on the second generation 4 cyl "East -West" engine (the one with the OHC).
Leyland in its home country never took to that idea, & stuck a normal "North-South" 6 cyl drive train into the 1800 body, making a monstrosity which completely invalidated the reason for the 1800 planform existing.

I would never have bought one new, but I had a Tasman years later.
It was a nice car to drive, but had the odd problem or five, all of which became worse with age, till it finally burnt up on the side of the road one morning.

The biggest blunder with the design was that the exhaust manifold faced the firewall, so if there was a long standing oil leak, soaking the sound insulation on it, combined with, as in my case, running with too rich a mixture to keep the thing alive for a little longer, the probability of fire was there, & became a reality in my case.

In fairness, though, during their envisaged lifetime for the Tasman, that problem wouldn't have arisen.

The synchro on the gearbox was good, as when the clutch failed, I managed to drive home, just judging the revs.

[SilverSolder]

Minis weren't too bad unless you had to work on one. 
My ma had a 1275cc GT Clubman and that thing went like stink happily doing the ton which seems mighty fast when your arse is just inches above the road. 
The wife before we married had one, just a plain old 1000cc which were pretty cheap to run but love makes you do dumb things so I had to work on that bloody thing and as they were quite narrow dropped a front wheel in the pit in my garage one day while trying to line it up for some work that I now don't recall. 
Young, dumb, strong and full of cum and a good heave got it back on terra firma while pop unhitched the handbrake and at least he was there for a 2nd attempt to line it up with the pit.

Where did all our energy go...   I recall routinely pushing my old Saab up a small hill, let it begin to roll down, jump in the driver's seat, and finally dumping the clutch in 2nd gear to start it...   it seemed better than getting a new battery, at the time, and probably cheaper than going to a gym too! 

[mnementh]

*raises a paw*

Did that too... Also fixed a rad with JB weld, and had one Ford I started for months with a horn button wired through the door jamb cuz I couldn't be arsed to replace the switch on the trans until the wet & cold of winter was gone. 

mnem
...and let's not forget percussive maintenance on countless starters, fans and alternators...

[beanflying]

Choices Choices

1 Go to the Beach
2 Drink Beer
3 Drink Beer on the Beach

  36C outside so the shack will head toward 40 later I guess 

[cyclin_al]

In July 2019 a large (3m long 95kg) UAV took off from Goodwood in the UK, lost control, climbed to 8000' into Gatwick's air space and then crashed.
The accident report was published today. The design and construction of the control system on this thing is truly shocking! Hardly fit for a toy RC car
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/602bb22f8fa8f50388f9f000/Alauda_Airspeeder_Mk_II_UAS_reg_na_03-21.pdf

Thanks for sharing that.  A good read so far, but only a few pages in.  It seems apparent to me after only a few pages that a number of themes are common with the report shared about the Nimrod; that report was also linked earlier here.  That is just my personal thought ... definitely worth further thought.

[mansaxel]

And software wranglers wonder how the hell it ever worked while watching it fail 

The hardest problem in software engineering is failing well.

Anyone can be monkey see, monkey do -trained to do things that work in nice conditions, but add a printer, a user or some packet loss, ie. reality and things start to get quite hairy.

[cyclin_al]

Difference between *maker* and *engineer* obvious in that one...

Difference between a Marketing driven Company built on BS Hype and an Engineering based approach.

Adafruit vs Boston dynamics 

Hoo boy... there are so many examples of wrong in that UAV I really don't know where to begin. A lot of the hardware I can see is clearly hobbyist-grade parts intended for use on mini & micro racing quadcopters, with no consideration of the exponential increase of the dangers involved in "super-sizing it".

The failsafe as described is almost a "failure guarantee". At one point they stated the relay would kill power to the FC, resulting in no signal to the ESCs which is a huge no-no...   in the event of loss of radio signal, failsafe loops should either attempt to level the craft and slowly descend, or at least kill the craft completely by pulling the ESC signal pins LO and holding them there as long as there is power to the ESCs, which clearly was not implemented in their "custom firmware".

This is why all the popular hobbyist-grade firmwares, while admittedly open-source and written by volunteers, still have multiple avenues of failsafe implementation in the firmware depending on the primary purpose of the copter.  To not take advantage of that as seen here is, IMO, criminally negligent.

The nature of these things makes a relay in the main power nearly impossible to implement, for the same reason a fuse doesn't work. The only viable emergency kill switch is going to be either something that cuts the main battery wire physically, or something that forces the main power connector apart. The latter has been tried, and unfortunately does not always work due to the connectors' tendency to weld shut when moved under high current load.

The problem here, I think... is that the builder was trying to bring the high-angle-of-attack fast-forward-flight performance and responsiveness of our tiny racing quadcopters to this experimental prototype of something almost human-sized. This is pretty much the exact opposite design scope as multirotor craft which are actually designed for flight around people; ie cinematography rigs, inspection drones and firefighting drones. Those are designed for maximum level-flight stability and redundant flight control such that operator control is never lost, or if it is, the UAV lands itself autonomously in a controlled fashion.

I could write aboot what I can see wrong with this thing for hours... but the fact is, most of what is wrong with it is also what is wrong with the mini & micro quadcopter hobby as a whole; only they applied that wrongness to a craft that is exponentially more dangerous due to its size.

Even the little acro ones I like to fly are capable of seriously hurting a person if it comes into contact with soft fleshy bits; they are little flying blenders with four 0.5-1.5HP motors spinning knife blades at 20k-120K RPM. This does not even address the kinetic energy that a 500-800 gram craft can impart if it were to fall uncontrolled from a great height, which any of them can reach if the ESCs just ramp up and stay at WOT.

There's a reason I drifted away from the hobby in general after the FAA jumped all up our butts due to the epidemic of DJI Phantom-flying bozos who kept flying over people and posting videos of their stupidity on boobToob... It's because I realized that with very few exceptions, these things... all of them... planks, helis, quadcopters and drones... are fucking dangerous as all hell, and they're only going to get more dangerous the more crowded this planet becomes and the more people want to play with them and show off their skillzz and shiny new toyyzz.

mnem
 

All good points about how bad the design was and mis-application of technology.  Now, sit back for a moment and think about the decision-making that led to this mess.  That should make it another order of magnitude (or two) scarier...

[psykok]

Finally after some selector rewiring the beast is alive:



Only DC, Ohm mode are working.
I have not tested the current mode yet.

It looks  like the DC-AC conversion is somehow not happening or something in this area.

[Zucca]

Now you need to invest a month of time and at least 1K€ to calibrate it. :-)

[psykok]

Now you need to invest a month of time and at least 1K€ to calibrate it. :-)

no that will  not happened.

First I have to fixe one of the rotary switch (1 pole is missing) and the AC mode

[Zucca]

I am just pulling your leg, a DC standard is in my list since a long time.. I envy you.
Well done bro, I would love to help you to resurrect that bad boy.

[psykok]

I am just pulling your leg, a DC standard is in my list since a long time.. I envy you.
Well done bro, I would love to help you to resurrect that bad boy.

yes this one is just for fun, I have an other DC standard :a  very nice Fluke 335D.
The interesting thing  is that 670a is also AC

[BU508A]

I am just pulling your leg, a DC standard is in my list since a long time.. I envy you.
Well done bro, I would love to help you to resurrect that bad boy.

yes this one is just for fun, I have an other DC standard :a  very nice Fluke 335D.
The interesting thing  is that 670a is also AC

And a Fluke 731B if I'm not mistaken 

[Zucca]

is also AC

which reminds me I have a HP 3245A with high volt options to service.... and replace the internal Vref with LTZ1000... This would be sort of poor man AC standard..

So many project, help....

[psykok]

I am just pulling your leg, a DC standard is in my list since a long time.. I envy you.
Well done bro, I would love to help you to resurrect that bad boy.

yes this one is just for fun, I have an other DC standard :a  very nice Fluke 335D.
The interesting thing  is that 670a is also AC

And a Fluke 731B if I'm not mistaken 

jaja :D

the 731B is just a toy, the 335D is the real deal

[psykok]

is also AC

which reminds me I have a HP 3245A with high volt options to service.... and replace the internal Vref with LTZ1000... This would be sort of poor man AC standard..

So many project, help....

if you want we can do an exchange 

[med6753]

I also lack a decent AC reference/standard other than a 1.00VAC/60Hz reference of questionable accuracy.   

[bd139]

And software wranglers wonder how the hell it ever worked while watching it fail 

The hardest problem in software engineering is failing well.

Anyone can be monkey see, monkey do -trained to do things that work in nice conditions, but add a printer, a user or some packet loss, ie. reality and things start to get quite hairy.

Well that was interesting timing. I was awoken at 2AM by an alert where a piece of software had failed and decided to tell everyone about that by throwing 180 megabits at the logger from all runtime threads in a tight loop until someone poked it 

[BU508A]

I am just pulling your leg, a DC standard is in my list since a long time.. I envy you.
Well done bro, I would love to help you to resurrect that bad boy.

yes this one is just for fun, I have an other DC standard :a  very nice Fluke 335D.
The interesting thing  is that 670a is also AC

And a Fluke 731B if I'm not mistaken 

jaja :D

the 731B is just a toy, the 335D is the real deal

I have two Fluke 3330B, one is a parts mule.   

[psykok]

never saw the  3330B but looks great.

[Robert763]

Difference between *maker* and *engineer* obvious in that one...

Difference between a Marketing driven Company built on BS Hype and an Engineering based approach.

The regulator (CAA) did not do their job either. The UAS group who approved the flight was a ex copper who had introduced UAVs into their police force and then joined the CAA and some university graduates. They didn't even look at the thing. Mind you a recent graduate would probaly think velcroing a couple of development boards into a fight control system would be OK 

[beanflying]

I also lack a decent AC reference/standard other than a 1.00VAC/60Hz reference of questionable accuracy.

Last time I found you a nearby Fluke Anchor for peanuts such as PsyKok's you woosed out and made silly excuses

[beanflying]

Difference between *maker* and *engineer* obvious in that one...

Difference between a Marketing driven Company built on BS Hype and an Engineering based approach.

The regulator (CAA) did not do their job either. The UAS group who approved the flight was a ex copper who had introduced UAVs into their police force and then joined the CAA and some university graduates. They didn't even look at the thing. Mind you a recent graduate would probaly think velcroing a couple of development boards into a fight control system would be OK 

It would be interesting to know if the Airframe that crashed was the same as they got approved by out Local CASA for flight testing here? It should have had a full inspection this end if it was 

I have been involved with and had one of my own sub 15 and sub 25kg approvals done in the past and they used to be very rubbery and done by 'heavy model inspectors' within our National Moddel Aircraft body. Some of those 'Inspectors' used the 'mates' approval process among them selves and some should never have been given a ticket let alone allowed to fly heavy models. When you went over 25kg it was a CASA inspection and from memory also daily permits to fly.

[Robert763]

So how many more are we going to add to this list of cars that had a really, really bad design? Showing more examples of a bad idea does not make it a good idea; it just shows there were more than one person who had that bad idea. 

Like that giant-scale UAV built from hobbyist-grade quadcopter parts and being flown over spectators with firmware that clearly didn't have any failsafe programmed.

That said... obviously I was wrong in that nobody ever did it. I stand (well, sit) corrected. Just because i have trouble believing anyone would make such a poor design, does not necessarily make it so.

I guess this proves what my grand-dad used to say... "There is no idea so bad that someone hasn't tried to make a buck off it."

mnem
 

So what design would you propose to put an automatic gearbox into a compact car with front wheel drive and transverse engine?
Just because you don't like it does not meant it is a "bad" design.  It worked an was in production in many models of car for over 40 years so not that bad.
So it needed more frequent oil changes, but no ATF or smelly ggearbox oil and not as frequent as the 3000 mile changes the americans seem to like,  believing the marketing hype from Jiffy lube, Midas and the like 

[Robert763]

Difference between *maker* and *engineer* obvious in that one...

Difference between a Marketing driven Company built on BS Hype and an Engineering based approach.

The regulator (CAA) did not do their job either. The UAS group who approved the flight was a ex copper who had introduced UAVs into their police force and then joined the CAA and some university graduates. They didn't even look at the thing. Mind you a recent graduate would probaly think velcroing a couple of development boards into a fight control system would be OK 

It would be interesting to know if the Airframe that crashed was the same as they got approved by out Local CASA for flight testing here? It should have had a full inspection this end if it was 

I have been involved with and had one of my own sub 15 and sub 25kg approvals done in the past and they used to be very rubbery and done by 'heavy model inspectors' within our National Moddel Aircraft body. Some of those 'Inspectors' used the 'mates' approval process among them selves and some should never have been given a ticket let alone allowed to fly heavy models. When you went over 25kg it was a CASA inspection and from memory also daily permits to fly.

The two airframes they brought to the UK were built for the Goodwood demonstration. The "control system" box was shared between several airframes. From the report:

"CASA advised the AAIB that:
‘The aircraft was not subject to any specific assessment by CASA.’
and:
‘There were no RPA21 certification requirements identified to the applicant. In
Australia, the RPA is considered a medium category RPA which does not have
to be certified. "

The operator told the CAA that CASA had approved the aircraft