Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Pneumatics (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=54)
-   -   1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152510)

Jeffrafa 02-12-2016 19:09
1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
I noticed AndyMark has come out with a new compressor as an alternate to the Viair 00090.

The primary claims about it seem to be that it has a higher 1.1 CFM output (legal limit per 2016 R79), and that it has a higher rated duty cycle (15% vs 9% on the Viair).

A quick glance at some of the specifications makes me doubt the value here though.

1.1 Pump:
  • 3.37 lbs
  • 15% Duty Cycle
  • 1.1 cfm @ 0 psi
  • 0.26 cfm @ 100psi
  • Dimensions: 3.27"x6.75"x5.25"
  • ~31 sec - Claimed time to fill (1) 574ml tank 0-110 psi

Viair 090:
  • 2.4 lbs
  • 9% Duty Cycle
  • 0.88 cfm @ 0 psi
  • 0.39 cfm @ 100psi
  • Dimensions: 2.11"x4.53"x5.94"
  • ~13 sec - Claimed time to fill (1) 574ml tank 0-120 psi

Based on the listed specifications, the new one has a little better duty cycle - which may make it a little more reliable. Otherwise it weighs nearly a pound more, takes up more space, and has ~30% less volume output at 100psi - where it matters for topping off during the match. Even the stated fill times for a tank are worse than the Viair.

I like the look of the larger heatsink, but between the weight penalty and the lower ouptut at pressure, I'm not seeing the advantage.

Am I missing something here?

Billfred 02-12-2016 19:28
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
I've had both in my hands--the difference in size isn't that significant (especially compared to the 100%-duty-cycle Viair pump 4901 used in 2015...), though obviously a pound is a pound.

We just got the 1.1 pump page up today, and it's entirely possible that we had a typo because that is a head-scratcher. I've got emails in to investigate the concerns you bring up (which are absolutely fair ones!).

s-neff 02-12-2016 19:28
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
I was excited about it, and then my student Ruben pointed out the same thing.

We charted the performance data for comparison, the cross-over point is at 30psi. I don't think our system pressure has ever been that low without leaks involved.
(Having trouble uploading the image...)

cscottm 02-12-2016 19:58
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
2502 used a 1.1 CFM pump this year (Stronghold) and without it we would not have been as functional as we were. We sucked through a lot of air with our robot, and the extra .22 cfm from the .88 cfm that we tried before saved us a lot of hassle, and a number of issues we were having were avoidable.

so IMO yes, they are that much better

But when they say they get hot, they get really $@#$@#$@#$@# hot. (we melted some pneumatic tubing)

Jeffrafa 02-12-2016 20:03
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billfred (Post 1618969)
I've had both in my hands--the difference in size isn't that significant (especially compared to the 100%-duty-cycle Viair pump 4901 used in 2015...), though obviously a pound is a pound.

We just got the 1.1 pump page up today, and it's entirely possible that we had a typo because that is a head-scratcher. I've got emails in to investigate the concerns you bring up (which are absolutely fair ones!).
Looking again I noticed the metric stats for the 1.1 Pump are copy-paste identical to the Viair 00090 specifications page.

I appreciate you following up via email to look into this. Hopefully all will be cleared up once the page is reviewed for accuracy.

I agree that the size difference is probably marginal - both are smaller (and lighter) than the Thomas compressors used in 2010 and earlier.

AdamHeard 02-12-2016 20:28
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billfred (Post 1618969)
I've had both in my hands--the difference in size isn't that significant (especially compared to the 100%-duty-cycle Viair pump 4901 used in 2015...), though obviously a pound is a pound.

We just got the 1.1 pump page up today, and it's entirely possible that we had a typo because that is a head-scratcher. I've got emails in to investigate the concerns you bring up (which are absolutely fair ones!).
What would be very helpful is if AndyMark tests the fill time for both and posts that information for a given volume.

cbale2000 02-12-2016 22:06
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
I'm partial to the 100% duty cycle compressors myself, those light-duty compressors heat up way too much.

BTW, this is a good place to compare and find different compressor options (as well as other parts):
http://findrobotparts.com/compressors/

AlexanderLuke 02-12-2016 22:33
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1619018)
What would be very helpful is if AndyMark tests the fill time for both and posts that information for a given volume.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbale2000 (Post 1619028)
BTW, this is a good place to compare and find different compressor options (as well as other parts):
http://findrobotparts.com/compressors/
How about a resource from two of the vendors we all use most?

motors.vex.com ..... The motor specifics that we use to design mechanisms.

and

pneumatics.andymark.com ..... People have trouble with spelling.
air.andymark.com ..... Sounds a bit too simple.
airmatics.andymark.com ..... Kinda catchy, but kinda strange.
(In short, I have not settled on a name.)

On this Andymark page, you can find specs and pricing on the most common FRC legal compressors out there. Teams can send in recommendations to Andymark about one that they use that is not featured on the site, and Andymark can add to the page or even sell it if they wish. There would be options to compare fill times for given sets of volumes across multiple compressors. Want more information? You can click on any compressor listed and see pricing, recommended vendors, and performance sheets. While we are at it, how about some nice looking performance graphs for visuals too.


Just an idea... :o

Tom Line 03-12-2016 00:29
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cscottm (Post 1619002)
2502 used a 1.1 CFM pump this year (Stronghold) and without it we would not have been as functional as we were. We sucked through a lot of air with our robot, and the extra .22 cfm from the .88 cfm that we tried before saved us a lot of hassle, and a number of issues we were having were avoidable.

so IMO yes, they are that much better

But when they say they get hot, they get really $@#$@#$@#$@# hot. (we melted some pneumatic tubing)
Which pump was it that you used? Did you quantify / test it in some manner to prove it was better than the Viair?

Nuttyman54 03-12-2016 02:11
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Curious also that AndyMark's specs for the Viair 90C don't match the specs posted on Viair's website, which pegs it as a 1.03 CFM at 0 psig.

Some clarity would be helpful, right now it looks like the AM 1.1 pump only beats the Viair 90C on duty cycle.

AllenGregoryIV 03-12-2016 02:17
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuttyman54 (Post 1619041)
Curious also that AndyMark's specs for the Viair 90C don't match the specs posted on Viair's website, which pegs it as a 1.03 CFM at 0 psig.

Some clarity would be helpful, right now it looks like the AM 1.1 pump only beats the Viair 90C on duty cycle.
Viair lists all their compressor stats at 13.8V now. It's a problem.

Gdeaver 03-12-2016 07:17
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
This year we strapped a 40 x 20 mm fan to the VAIR compressor head. Heat was no longer a problem.

jwfoss 03-12-2016 12:40
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV (Post 1619042)
Viair lists all their compressor stats at 13.8V now. It's a problem.
Agreed, we have a 98c in the shop and the sticker shows the 12v rating is legal, but the website data at 13.8v showing its over the 1.1. I would love to see FRC increase the cfm rating or at least give us a limit at 13.8v so we can look at the other Viairs.

Perhaps if AM did testing on the Viair product line at 12v we could site that to justify compressor selection?

JPBlacksmiths 03-12-2016 12:47
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdeaver (Post 1619053)
This year we strapped a 40 x 20 mm fan to the VAIR compressor head. Heat was no longer a problem.
How did you attach this fan being that the compressor doesn't have mounting holes for a fan? (Or at least i'm pretty sure it doesn't)

cbale2000 03-12-2016 14:13
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPBlacksmiths (Post 1619082)
How did you attach this fan being that the compressor doesn't have mounting holes for a fan? (Or at least i'm pretty sure it doesn't)
There's actually pictures of it here on CD I think if you browse the photos section a while. We did something similar to this on our 2011 bot, but we just mounted one of the 120mm fans next to the compressor so that air blew across it. The improvement in heat dissipation was actually pretty drastic: Test Results

That said, even if an external fan can help keep a compressor tolerably cool, if you're running a low duty cycle compressor almost constantly throughout a match, you're still using it beyond it's designed limits. I would also suspect that you will still loose efficiency over prolonged use this way due to internal heating that isn't adequately dissipated by external fans.

You can actually think about it a bit like how we think of motors. The 775pro motor is a great, strong little motor, but too much heat (generally generated from stalling the motor or extended use) will cause it too loose efficiency and burn out, and while blowing a fan across it might help, it won't stop the problem. Alternatively, a CIM motor can run continuously even after substantial heat build-up (even in stall condition) without a fan with little to no damage due to its increased thermal mass.
Essentially <15% duty cycle compressors are 775pros and ~100% duty cycle compressors are CIMs.

AustinSchuh 03-12-2016 23:51
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPBlacksmiths (Post 1619082)
How did you attach this fan being that the compressor doesn't have mounting holes for a fan? (Or at least i'm pretty sure it doesn't)
We zip-tied the little muffin fan on. It's stupid simple and worked great.

Gdeaver 04-12-2016 06:57
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
We just put 4 bolts and zip tied around them. Sounds like a kludge , but it works. Best to have the fan on top. That's the hottest part. This would be a good CAD - 3d printing project to make a clip on fan shroud. Post to thingiverse.

dradel 05-12-2016 10:34
Just got off the phone with andymark... they are testing the 1.1 and the older compressor today side by side type test @ 12v so teams will have better numbers to base their decision

JesseK 05-12-2016 10:45
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
The problem with the claims of flow rates is that they typically ignore the critical element of temperature. We do not always operate at ambient temp. Our robot compressors are usually too hot to touch for back-to-back matches, meaning it is tougher to compress air than they typical duty cycle compressor. I suspect that the AndyMark compressor, with a longer duty cycle, may do better in a typical FRC environment given its better duty cycle, but I'd like to see some numbers.

This how we do our final pneumatics tests to know if we need another tank, and it seems to work for that purpose. I don't know what it'll tell us about different compressors though:
Fill up 4 tanks -> 5 minute break -> run testbed for 2 minutes -> Record Pressure
-> 2 minute break -> fill up 4 tanks -> 2 minute break -> run testbed for 2 minutes -> Record Pressure
-> 2 minute break -> fill up 4 tanks -> 2 minute break -> run testbed for 2 minutes -> Record Pressure

Billfred 06-12-2016 09:26
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
All,

We've updated both the Viair and 1.1 Pump pages with our real-world testing.

This testing was done in our shop, with a regulated 12V power supply. Same tubing, same tanks, same gauge, same everything-as-much-as-we-can-humanly-measure.

Viair Pump:
Code:
Fill Rate for Number of Clippard tanks (574 ml) to fill from 0 to 110 psi:
1 Tank = 34 Seconds
2 Tanks = 64 Seconds
3 Tanks = 103 Seconds
4 Tanks = 140 Seconds
5 Tanks = 176 Seconds
1.1 Pump:
Code:
Fill Rate for Number of Clippard tanks (574 ml) to fill from 0 to 110 psi:
1 Tank = 25 seconds
2 Tanks = 45 seconds
3 Tanks = 72 seconds
4 Tanks = 95 seconds
5 Tanks = 122 seconds
We're working on converting to CFM for each 10-PSI breakpoint, but I timed both 5-tank tests and the 1.1 Pump was ahead on each one of them. Hopefully, this answers the sixty-four-dollar question. :)

billbo911 06-12-2016 09:49
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billfred (Post 1619671)
All,

We've updated both the Viair and 1.1 Pump pages with our real-world testing.

This testing was done in our shop, with a regulated 12V power supply. Same tubing, same tanks, same gauge, same everything-as-much-as-we-can-humanly-measure.

Viair Pump:
Code:
Fill Rate for Number of Clippard tanks (574 ml) to fill from 0 to 110 psi:
1 Tank = 34 Seconds
2 Tanks = 64 Seconds
3 Tanks = 103 Seconds
4 Tanks = 140 Seconds
5 Tanks = 176 Seconds
1.1 Pump:
Code:
Fill Rate for Number of Clippard tanks (574 ml) to fill from 0 to 110 psi:
1 Tank = 25 seconds
2 Tanks = 45 seconds
3 Tanks = 72 seconds
4 Tanks = 95 seconds
5 Tanks = 122 seconds
We're working on converting to CFM for each 10-PSI breakpoint, but I timed both 5-tank tests and the 1.1 Pump was ahead on each one of them. Hopefully, this answers the sixty-four-dollar question. :)
Got to LOVE quantitative results!
Now that extra pound has solid numbers to justify it.

Is there a chance you also captured the amount of current that was being drawn at each sample point?

jwfoss 06-12-2016 10:23
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Thank you for running this test, real data is the best data.

Any chance you can post the set up you used for other teams to recreate. Additionally it would be fantastic if you could compare with other legal compressor on the market such as:
- Viair 250C-IG
- Old KOP Thomas
- Thomas 215

Richard Wallace 06-12-2016 10:32
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billfred (Post 1619671)
Hopefully, this answers the sixty-four-dollar question. :)
When will these go on sale for sixty-four dollars? :rolleyes:

Nate Laverdure 06-12-2016 10:37
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by billbo911 (Post 1619673)
Is there a chance you also captured the amount of current that was being drawn at each sample point?
Thanks for doing this testing. I agree with the above that the current should also be considered in the testing in case it reveals any significant efficiency differences between these compressor options.

Michael Hill 06-12-2016 11:54
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Thanks for testing. I'll echo current measurement requests, but I'm super happy there are test results at all. Thanks AndyMark.

Jefferson 06-12-2016 11:59
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Is the inlet air filtered at all? The Viar has a filter built into the end cap, but this one seems to just be an open hole to the pump.

We had some failures from a different pump last year, and we believe it was because of our very dirty practice floor + unfiltered pump inlet.

Billfred 06-12-2016 12:05
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by billbo911 (Post 1619673)
Got to LOVE quantitative results!
Now that extra pound has solid numbers to justify it.

Is there a chance you also captured the amount of current that was being drawn at each sample point?
I have the numbers for the 1.1 Pump up to 100 PSI handy; I don't have them for the Viair.

Code:
10        10
20        11
30        11.3
40        11.8
50        12.5
60        12.8
70        13
80        13.1
90        13.1
100        13.7
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwfoss (Post 1619680)
Thank you for running this test, real data is the best data.

Any chance you can post the set up you used for other teams to recreate. Additionally it would be fantastic if you could compare with other legal compressor on the market such as:
- Viair 250C-IG
- Old KOP Thomas
- Thomas 215
I've attached a picture of our setup. (The tee at the bottom was connected to more Clippard tanks, as you can imagine.)

We don't have access to those other compressors, so someone would have to collect them.

marshall 06-12-2016 12:47
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billfred (Post 1619698)
We don't have access to those other compressors, so someone would have to collect them.
I got this:

Richard Wallace 06-12-2016 12:53
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
In a thread from 2015, my team posted some results comparing compressors based on initial charge time 0-120 PSI and on recharge time 100-120 PSI.

Our test set-up is shown schematically in an attachment to this old post.

Mr V 06-12-2016 14:12
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Personally I'd like to see a test similar to the one Richard posted in that other thread with a slight modification. https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/a...3&d=1423070065

I'd suggest taking some plugs sized to fit the dump valve outlet and drill holes of various sizes through their end. The goal would be to create an orifice that causes the compressor to cycle on say 15-30 sec after the valve is first opened, with that particular stored volume.

Then record the cycle times over the length of a match.

It would also be interesting to see what happens when the orifice is sized so that the system is unable to build enough pressure to shut off during a normal match length. I know I've seen robots the compressor continues to run for the duration of the match either due to leaks or high demand.

Note if there are no spikes lying around a standard automotive relay could be substituted, just grab Andy's or maybe Danny's keys and borrow one. Just make sure it is for something mission critical like the fuel pump or PCM and not one they can do without like the AC compressor. :rolleyes:

Andy Baker 06-12-2016 15:26
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Thank you all for the comments and interest in this new AndyMark product.

We have exhausted our efforts to get the right pump for the FIRST community, and now are experiencing the pressure to deliver. This work has been done during a compressed amount of time, over 4-5 months. ;)

When we first put out the CFM numbers, I calculated them incorrectly, so the numbers were off. Also, I didn't update the Viair performance numbers, so their comparative analysis was not right. The previous Viair numbers were during a 13.8 volt test from Viair.

I put up an example on how the flow rate was calculated on each page (Viair and the 1.1 Pump).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwfoss (Post 1619680)
Thank you for running this test, real data is the best data.

Any chance you can post the set up you used for other teams to recreate. Additionally it would be fantastic if you could compare with other legal compressor on the market such as:
- Viair 250C-IG
- Old KOP Thomas
- Thomas 215
As Billfred mentioned previously, we will test any reasonable pump on this same bench test. I *might* have an old KOP Thomas. I don't have the others. If you send them to me, I will test, post the results here, and then send them back. Put a note in the box saying "pump test" and give me your return address. Send to "AndyMark Pump Test, 2311 N. Washington St. Kokomo, IN 46901". Heck, we may even send the pump back with some surprises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefferson (Post 1619694)
Is the inlet air filtered at all? The Viar has a filter built into the end cap, but this one seems to just be an open hole to the pump.
Yeah, there is a plastic inlet filter included (in the box) with the pump. It's just not on the picture. I will ask Brett to take another pic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr V (Post 1619726)
Personally I'd like to see a test similar to the one Richard posted in that other thread with a slight modification. https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/a...3&d=1423070065

I'd suggest taking some plugs sized to fit the dump valve outlet and drill holes of various sizes through their end. The goal would be to create an orifice that causes the compressor to cycle on say 15-30 sec after the valve is first opened, with that particular stored volume.

Then record the cycle times over the length of a match.

It would also be interesting to see what happens when the orifice is sized so that the system is unable to build enough pressure to shut off during a normal match length. I know I've seen robots the compressor continues to run for the duration of the match either due to leaks or high demand.

Note if there are no spikes lying around a standard automotive relay could be substituted, just grab Andy's or maybe Danny's keys and borrow one. Just make sure it is for something mission critical like the fuel pump or PCM and not one they can do without like the AC compressor. :rolleyes:
Hmmm. I will investigate Richard's test and see what we can do. Since we have a few things going on around here these days, I may not get to this very soon.

Thanks,
Andy

Mr V 06-12-2016 15:44
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Baker (Post 1619743)
Thank you all for the comments and interest in this new AndyMark product.

We have exhausted our efforts to get the right pump for the FIRST community, and now are experiencing the pressure to deliver. This work has been done during a compressed amount of time, over 4-5 months. ;)

When we first put out the CFM numbers, I calculated them incorrectly, so the numbers were off. Also, I didn't update the Viair performance numbers, so their comparative analysis was not right. The previous Viair numbers were during a 13.8 volt test from Viair.

I put up an example on how the flow rate was calculated on each page (Viair and the 1.1 Pump).



As Billfred mentioned previously, we will test any reasonable pump on this same bench test. I *might* have an old KOP Thomas. I don't have the others. If you send them to me, I will test, post the results here, and then send them back. Put a note in the box saying "pump test" and give me your return address. Send to "AndyMark Pump Test, 2311 N. Washington St. Kokomo, IN 46901". Heck, we may even send the pump back with some surprises.



Yeah, there is a plastic inlet filter included (in the box) with the pump. It's just not on the picture. I will ask Brett to take another pic.



Hmmm. I will investigate Richard's test and see what we can do. Since we have a few things going on around here these days, I may not get to this very soon.

Thanks,
Andy
Thank you for your tireless work to make new and better products available to the community at reasonable prices.

Note I'm personally more interested with the cycle times than current draw but I'm sure others are very interested in current draw, both start up and average running.

Thanks again for all you do for us FIRST'ers.

cbale2000 06-12-2016 15:55
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Not sure if you have a thermal probe handy, but is there any chance you could test heat buildup over time as well as time to cool down to room temp with those compressors? We did some testing on the vlair compressor a few years back but I'd be curious to see the results from other compressors too.

It could be a handy way for teams to judge whether or not they should be using a compressor with a higher duty cycle (and larger thermal mass) based on how long during a match they expect their compressor to run.

Jeffrafa 06-12-2016 16:03
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Thanks Andy and Billfred for your quick work in testing these two compressors. It is great to have a representative comparison under the same controlled conditions.

Coming from a team that typically is pretty heavy on the use of pneumatics, the 1.1 Pump looks like a solid upgrade with ~30% faster fill times. It is great to have another cost-competitive option readily available for teams.

With the 1.1 pump being 0.97 lbs heavier than the Viair, there is a bit of a weight disadvantage. However I would expect in many scenarios it would be more optimal to upgrade to a 1.1 Pump, rather than add another air tank at 0.64 lbs (at least from a weight/performance perspective). Additional accumulators only get you so far, if your consumption rate is outstripping the ability of the compressor to keep up.

Tom Line 06-12-2016 16:20
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Baker (Post 1619743)
We have exhausted our efforts to get the right pump for the FIRST community, and now are experiencing the pressure to deliver. This work has been done during a compressed amount of time, over 4-5 months. ;)

.................................

Thanks,
Andy
Worst. Pneumatic. Puns. Ever.

GeeTwo 06-12-2016 16:35
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Line (Post 1619756)
Worst. Pneumatic. Puns. Ever.
Really? I thought they were a gas.

Seriously, the value of this upgrade becomes clearer when you calculate how much air you can compress in an hour. Assuming you have your pressure switch's range set so that your "average" pumping is at 100psi (and don't bleed your tanks between matches):
The 1.1: 0.31 cfm * 15% * 60 minutes = 2.79 cf/hr
Viair: 0.22cfm * 9% * 60 minutes = 1.19 cf/hr

That's about 2.3 times as much air, for $6 extra and less than a pound more!

Andrew_L 06-12-2016 16:55
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeTwo (Post 1619759)
Really? I thought they were a gas.

Seriously, the value of this upgrade becomes clearer when you calculate how much air you can compress in an hour. Assuming you have your pressure switch's range set so that your "average" pumping is at 100psi (and don't bleed your tanks between matches):
The 1.1: 0.31 cfm * 15% * 60 minutes = 2.79 cf/hr
Viair: 0.22cfm * 9% * 60 minutes = 1.19 cf/hr

That's about 2.3 times as much air, for $6 extra and less than a pound more!
Definitely useful for those hour-long FRC matches ;)

GeeTwo 06-12-2016 17:02
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_L (Post 1619763)
Definitely useful for those hour-long FRC matches ;)
During drive practice, we usually run for more than an hour at a clip except for some battery swaps.

While individual matches are not nearly that long, the duty cycle issue on the compressor is more important over the course of a day of competition than a match (at least in my experience). Running a compressor two minutes from a cold start isn't too bad, but if you are also doing any pit tests which need air or go over to the practice field or have matches close together, it matters. During the later rounds of playoffs, it could be critical.

AllenGregoryIV 06-12-2016 20:28
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Baker (Post 1619743)
Thank you all for the comments and interest in this new AndyMark product.

As Billfred mentioned previously, we will test any reasonable pump on this same bench test. I *might* have an old KOP Thomas. I don't have the others. If you send them to me, I will test, post the results here, and then send them back. Put a note in the box saying "pump test" and give me your return address. Send to "AndyMark Pump Test, 2311 N. Washington St. Kokomo, IN 46901". Heck, we may even send the pump back with some surprises.
Spectrum is sending you a Viair 98C should be in the mail tomorrow. This was ordered from Amazon on January 28, 2016 and is labeled 1.10CFM at 13.8V. I'm really curious what it will actually test at for 12V, seeing as now the Viair website lists this model at 1.53 CFM.

Richard Wallace 06-12-2016 20:48
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV (Post 1619789)
... the Viair website lists this model at 1.53 CFM.
That is an interesting performance curve. :rolleyes:

AllenGregoryIV 06-12-2016 21:04
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
It looks like the AndyMark 1.1 is similar to the Firestone 9284

Andy or Billfred have you tested the "THERMAL OVERLOAD PROTECTOR" that is described on the label? Is this something that might effect teams during matches?

GeeTwo 07-12-2016 00:33
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Wallace (Post 1619795)
That is an interesting performance curve. :rolleyes:
About 50% higher at 0 psi than 10 psi - just like the AM 1.1 and the Viair 90C.

It's the 250CG that's the anomaly of the group. Does it have a higher compression ratio than the others?

Munchskull 07-12-2016 00:55
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
I am going to be that person.

Is there a CAD anywhere for this part. As a CADer I am less likely to use a part if I don't have a CAD or any solid dimensions for a part.

TD78 07-12-2016 06:35
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV (Post 1619800)
It looks like the AndyMark 1.1 is similar to the Firestone 9284
Or the Viair 100C

jwfoss 07-12-2016 08:52
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Baker (Post 1619743)
As Billfred mentioned previously, we will test any reasonable pump on this same bench test. I *might* have an old KOP Thomas. I don't have the others. If you send them to me, I will test, post the results here, and then send them back. Put a note in the box saying "pump test" and give me your return address. Send to "AndyMark Pump Test, 2311 N. Washington St. Kokomo, IN 46901". Heck, we may even send the pump back with some surprises.
Andy, I just ordered a new Thomas 215 and had it delivered to AndyMark. We've been meaning to try one and this seems like the perfect time. Thanks for running these tests, I'll PM you a return address.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV (Post 1619789)
Spectrum is sending you a Viair 98C should be in the mail tomorrow. This was ordered from Amazon on January 28, 2016 and is labeled 1.10CFM at 13.8V. I'm really curious what it will actually test at for 12V, seeing as now the Viair website lists this model at 1.53 CFM.
We also have two of these compressors with the old label on the body. They are a nice compressor and we were disappointed when Viair changed the ratings on the website. It called into question if we should run them in the future given the difference in labeling. Happy to see this one will get bench marked as well.

Nick Lawrence 07-12-2016 09:42
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV (Post 1619800)
It looks like the AndyMark 1.1 is similar to the Firestone 9284

Andy or Billfred have you tested the "THERMAL OVERLOAD PROTECTOR" that is described on the label? Is this something that might effect teams during matches?
Hey Allen,

We actually have run a prototype of this compressor on a full-weight robot chassis for just over an hour with two battery changes. This chassis was equipped with a pneumatic system with two 35 CI Clippard tanks to run new prototype shifting transmissions, with a high frequency of shifting cycles. The compressor's thermal protection system never kicked in.

-Nick

FrankJ 07-12-2016 11:06
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Just for a bit of clarity, the thermal fuse protects the motor from over temp. Nothing to do with the air end getting hot. The air end heat has more to do with the physics of compressing air than compressor design. As others have mentioned using a KOP fan to blow air over the compressor head does wonders for this

AllenGregoryIV 07-12-2016 15:52
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence (Post 1619858)

Hey Allen,

We actually have run a prototype of this compressor on a full-weight robot chassis for just over an hour with two battery changes. This chassis was equipped with a pneumatic system with two 35 CI Clippard tanks to run new prototype shifting transmissions, with a high frequency of shifting cycles. The compressor's thermal protection system never kicked in.

-Nick
Thank You Nick I assumed it would be fine, just hadn't seen a warning label that big on a compressor before.

The compressor is with UPS should be to AndyMark on Friday or Monday.

Allen

DiehardCybercard 16-12-2016 09:16
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
 
For those interested, CAD is now up on the product page.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:24.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi