|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
Quote:
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:
We don't have access to those other compressors, so someone would have to collect them. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
Quote:
![]() |
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
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. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
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. ![]() |
|
#5
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Thanks, Andy Last edited by Andy Baker : 06-12-2016 at 15:28. |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
Quote:
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. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
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. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
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. Last edited by Jeffrafa : 06-12-2016 at 16:06. |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
Worst. Pneumatic. Puns. Ever.
|
|
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
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! |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
Quote:
![]() |
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
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. |
|
#13
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
Quote:
|
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 1.1 Pump (am-3227) Really an improvement?
That is an interesting performance curve.
![]() Last edited by Richard Wallace : 06-12-2016 at 22:39. Reason: added some comparison curves |
|
#15
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
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? ![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|