Micro-wizard or champ?

[BlewBYu]

I am ordering my timer today. Hopefully some of you can shed light on which timer will serve my purpose better: Micro-wizard K-3 or Champ timer.

Micro-wizard- $265
Champ- $459

It looks like to me that the MW has larger numbers than the champ. (Good for my old eyes)

I will be using the timer to test, tune, experiment, and dial in my cars. Are there any reasons that I should get the Champ timer over the Micro-Wizard? Am I over-looking anything?

BBU

 

[cygnus]

I've owned both and prefer the Microwizard K3. Times are more important to me than finish order, the MW times are displayed much larger than the Champ. Also, when the start gate drops the MW will display times right away starting at 0.000 and will go up incrementally 0.001, 0.002, etc until the car crosses the finish line. The Champ displays nothing until the car crosses the finish line. You can add the double vision option to the MWK3 which will add times/finish order display to the backside of the timer.

 

[5KidsRacing]

I vote MW.... easy kit, large numbers, never had an issue...

 

[Rocket car]

K 3

 

[TRE]

k 3

 

[tinman racing]

The K-3 works great.

 

[quadad]

I have never seen an advantage in the Champ timer and I think it's way overpriced. Never go wrong with either MicroWizard or NewDirections (The Judge).

 

[BlewBYu]

Thanks, guys! I just ordered my Best Track and I will have them punch the holes for the K-3.

 

[Quicktimederby]

I have a Champ timer on the track I use for Scout races and I've never had any issues with it. I also have a MW on my test track, and it works fine as well.

 

[BulldogRacing]

I have a champ timer I'm curious to the price difference, I'll look it up. I like my timer but I wish the display was larger, I just have to go pick up my car to see the time.

 

[BulldogRacing]

2 lane champ timer $459 2 lane MW $265. Wish I would have done better research.

 

[HurriCrane Racing]

I have both and prefer the MW because of the larger display... It's costs much less too.

 

[microbrush]

Both timers display readings that go to the thousandths? Is it the software that gets to the .0001?

 

[cygnus]

Both timers display readings that go to the thousandths? Is it the software that gets to the .0001?

The timers record down to .0001 but can only display (on the timer) down to .001. The software receives and displays the times sent from the timer.

 

[Doc Jobe]

Hi all

Anybody but microwizard have a 0.00001 timer ?

Doc Jobe

 

[BlewBYu]

I may be wrong, but I don't believe any timer has down to one hundred thousandths. But they do have timers set to ten thousandths if you go through your computer.

 

[quadad]

I don't know of any current timers that are timing to 10's of microseconds (5 digits to the right of the decimal), but I believe that several are able to time to 100's of microseconds (4 digits to the right of the decimal). I suspect, and I think I remember a conversation with some designer, where some older (original ?) timers - which were more hardware based than microcontroller based, had the highest resolution. Size, weight, cost, and ease of incorporating features, including the ability to update, all favor the microcontroller approach.

As mentioned earlier though, what you see displayed can be a different resolution that what is available inside the box. I don't know of any displaying 100's of microseconds, but as stated earlier, they can send this extra digit digitally through the computer interface. The displays and their drivers have to be a cost driver, so each digit is a big deal. Obviously the timer manufactures are in the best position to comment, I am just guessing here.

The 4 digits seem to support league racing quite well. What do you think we are missing doc ?

 

[Vitamin K]

The Arduino-based timer build here stores the finish time in microseconds. However, since there's got to be some kind of time lag in terms of the amount of time it takes to update the loop that's reading the status of the finish line phototransistors, I don't know what the actual resolution is in "real world" terms.

 

[quadad]

Vitamin K - The user documentation for that timer lists Precision as 0.0001 seconds (100 microseconds), which is the same as the current commercially available timers where one microcontroller must service all lane sensors. I am very impressed with this class of microcontrollers in general, but they are produced and made available to make usage inexpensive and easy, not to set speed records.

There should be users on this forum though - what minimum difference in times are you seeing ?

 

[Vitamin K]

Vitamin K - The user documentation for that timer lists Precision as 0.0001 seconds (100 microseconds), which is the same as the current commercially available timers where one microcontroller must service all lane sensors. I am very impressed with this class of microcontrollers in general, but they are produced and made available to make usage inexpensive and easy, not to set speed records.

There should be users on this forum though - what minimum difference in times are you seeing ?

The specs on the page assume that you're using the Arduino Uno, which has a clock frequency of 16Mhz. If you used the same schematic (adjusted for voltage) and code, but substituted something like the Arduino Due, which has a frequency of 84 MHz, would this presumably yield a better resolution, or would you be limited by other factors?

This is purely hypothetical, mind you. In my mind, when you start worrying about things like tenth-milliseconds, you're getting in the territory of 'car was staged 1/100" off center' or 'the A/C vent came on as the car was running down the track'.