Possible error with new FIE foil timing specifications

[Gav]

This has just been posted on the UK board.

[DHCJr]

I would like to clear up some of the things I said. As Oiuyt indicated, it could be interpretated in a different way. I was trying to find the best way of showing what was in the appendix. Dan said that the appendix stated the off-target would be left at 2 - 10ms. The trouble is I can not show it.

What Mike Harm stated and the report from Barry Paul, I know there is one individual that is trying to get rid of the white light, by fiat if he can't do it through the Congress.

[EricS]

Originally Posted by MTD

Last I knew (it's hard to keep up), the behavior of Eigertek Eclipse boxes with "Leipzig" chips was still not generally known. Lacking a post from the horse's mouth, or a laboratory test, I offer a tentative report. The Eclipse "Leipzig" firmware uses the old off target timing.

You are correct. The off target timing is roughly 3ms, and the on target timing is 15ms. It various slightly from machine to machine, but not by much.

And yes, I'm the horse.

[DHCJr]

It looks like the change to the off-targets is final, at least until they change it again. I would like to discuss the question that the FIE was unclear with the timing, since they didn’t mention what was to be done with the off-target.

Let us look at the other rules that were change and how the FIE reported those changes. No one here has questioned what we should do about T.1 – T.85, since they were not mentioned. What about the other rules that was not mentioned. Since they did make a change in the requirements for the blades in the fatigue resistance test, what about the blade rule M.7? Can the manufacturers ignore the maximum length because the FIE did not make it clear that they were not changing the maximum length.

Let me show a logic problem that should be easy for anyone who has had a logic class.

1. The only timing change for Foil for a single touch is changing the timing from 1 – 5ms to 13 – 15ms.
2. Off-target timing was 2 – 10ms.

I will leave the conclusion to you and give you another. Consider that both the SEMI and Medical Commissions rejected the use of visor mask and Rene Roch wanted it and consider what Barry Paul reported on the faxes he received I will give another logic problem.

1. The FIE Congress votes on something.
2. Rene Roch doesn’t like it..

[DieterS]

Now that you've heard from the horse's mouth at Eigertek, it may be time to hear from the other end of the horse.

Eigertek strictly follows what the FIE officially announces. In the FIE Information Letter 19, the FIE specifically stated that the 1-5 ms foil (debounce) timing is required to be increased to 13-15 ms. The 2-10 ms foil off-target debounce specified in the rules is not mentioned. If the FIE had intended to change the off-target debounce time as well, they would have specified it in Letter 19. They did not do so.

So, until the FIE makes an announcement that has gone through the legitimate approval process, and the USFA adopts those changes officially, Eigertek will continue shipping Eclipses and upgrades with the officially specified timings. We will not drag our customers through a series of timing changes based on opinion, and we are not responsible for the screwups of one or two European manufacturers.

Frankly, I expect that in serious competition, a 13-15 ms off-target debounce will prove frustrating and unworkable. In any case, we will stand by our customers, and continue to provide them with fast and reliable support in whatever the FIE decides to do in the future.

Dieter Schlaepfer
President, Eigertek

[JEC]

OK. Let's summarize:

Upgrade Chip Vendor ------- Non-valid hit timing

Favero ------------------- 12-15 msec
Allstar/Uhlmann ----------- 12-15 msec

Eigertek ------------------ around 3 msec
LP ----------------------- around 5 msec (deduced by BP's proposal for 5-15 msec)

SG's --------------------- unknown

[TheArmourer]

As previously mentioned, in the last few days I invited both Allstar and Favero to comment on the alleged faults with their implementation of the new timing rules.

Thanks to Gav for posting Allstars official reply.
Gino Favero has given me permission to report our conversation, the salient points of which are bellow.




=====================
TheArmourer
-----------
> Understandably, Bary has defended the Leon Paul implimentation of the new rule, and has passed comment on the alleged problems with both the new Favero and Allstar boxes.
>
> In the interest of a fair and competitive market place, would you be interested in making a public comment about the "alleged" problems with your boxes.
> I understand you have been in conversation with Bary about non-valid timings, but I think many people would be interested in your comments on the current circuits / software.
>

=====================
Gino Favero
-----------
We make electronic products for many sports.
I am not a fencer, so I am not able to comment regarding the right times.
My job and passion is to make reliable electronic products for a low price. We have 26 years of experience that help us.
Regarding the fencing recording machines, it is not a problem to set the times and rules the FIE decides. The important thing is to know what they want. Fencing specialists decide these rules and we add our "electronic" experience to solve others electric problems that usually fencers do not know.

I agree if the FIE accepts a non valid time from 5 to 15msec, but it does not depend by me.
====================
TheArmourer
-----------
> ... it seems to me that ambiguity in the FIE's specifications have
lead to different manufacturers using slightly different timings in their
circuits ...
>
> Unfortunately I am a little unclear from your reply [above] as to whether you are
confident that your circuits do comply fully with the FIE rules. I assume
they do, but I am confident a public comment would be both healthy for the
discussion and for the reputation of Favero in relation to it's competitors.

=====================
Gino Favero
-----------
This is not an electronic problem. It is a problem of rules which are
decided by the FIE.
I suggest someone ask to the FIE to clear up the matter.
======================

[oso97]

Originally Posted by TheArmourer

This is not an electronic problem. It is a problem of rules which are
decided by the FIE.
I suggest someone ask to the FIE to clear up the matter.

Oh yea, because they are always SO clear and helpful...

[DHCJr]

I believe they were very clear. I have below the link to the List of decisions 2003 Congress, Leipzig, page 29, b) Sensitivity and regularity, 3. A non-valid hit must be signalled for a break of contact of 2-10 milliseconds when the exterior resistance is between 0 and 200 ohms.

This is the English version, there is also the equivalent French and Spanish.

http://www.fie.ch/download/letters/2...res%202003.pdf

For those who say the FIE was unclear, they probably expected the manufacturers knew what the current specifications their own boxes were set to and they wanted to make it easier in just telling them what to change, not giving them all the specifications. Maybe their expectations were too high.

[MTD]

Lest anyone without familiarity with the relevant FIE documents arrive at an incorrect conclusion, I should emphasize that where the document DHC cites says that off target should be 2 - 10 ms was one small part of where the FIE was neatening up what we now call the "old timings". To find where "new timings" (intended at the Leipzig Congress to apply to experimenting with the junior competitions and only recently extended to senior) are discussed, find the text string "Increase of the impact time at foil to 15 milliseconds".

In other words, the FIE was quite clear that for the "old timings" the off target time is 2 - 10 ms.

But, this still leaves that the FIE has been quite unclear in the aggregate sum of recent public documents about whether "new timings" is supposed to maintain off target as 2 - 10 or whether the distinction between off target and on target times should disappear.

Were appendix M from the Leipzig Congress to fall into public hands, it has been suggested to us that we would all know without ambiguity that the Congress voted to have 2 - 10 ms for off target. But, without that document, the legal truth seems to be less relevant to real life than the declarations recently coming from the FIE, declarations which have not been mutually consistent, and which most recently have said 13 - 15 ms for off target.

[DHCJr]

I disagree. In the document that was sent to the manufacturers that ONLY the timing that was 1 - 5 ms (i.e. Valid) was to be changed to 13 - 15 ms.

As I stated before, do they need to send everything to the manufacturers, including the items that were not changed?

[DieterS]

Don is absolutely right. There are many time and resistance values specified in Annex B of the official FIE rulebook and the foil debounce timings are very specific in their application.

In the rulebook, you'll notice that the former 1-5 ms foil debounce time for valid hits was applicable only when the total circuit resistance is 250 ohms or less. If the circuit resistance is greater than 250 ohms, the debounce timing increases to 500 ms. The circuit resistance "cutover" for non-valid hits is 200 ohms.

So, as Don pointed out, should manufacturers assume that the timings for resistances over 250 ohms (and/or 200 ohms) are to be reduced from 500 ms to 13-15 ms as well?

No, of course not. The document issued by the SEMI Commission on August 2nd makes the FIE decisions crystal clear. Only the foil debounce value that was previously specified as 1-5 ms is to be increased to 13-15 ms. That does not leave any wiggle room to include the 500 ms or the 2-10 ms debounce times unless you want argue what the definition of "is" is.

The National Federations voted to give the FIE Executive Committee the authority to make adjustments to these rules if needed. If the FIE Executive Committee wants to officially change the 2-10 ms non-valid foil timings to 13-15 ms, they can do so at any time and, after making an official announcement through the SEMI Commission and when the USFA approves the changes, Eigertek can update the Eclipse firmware in a few minutes and make it available the following day.

Dieter Schlaepfer
Eigertek

[JEC]

As I have indicated before in another thread, the public communication from the FIE is the INFORMATION LETTER #19 (08/30/04) which includes the final dictamen from the SEMI dated (08/20/04) and entitled:

NEW RULES FOR THE CONVENTION WEAPONS : FOIL AND SABRE

The document is available in english at the link below:
http://www.fie.ch/download/letters/2...nd%20sabre.pdf

The document is the final agreement and notice that indicates the procedures to follow for manufacturers, armourers and referees (for the latter in FIE check for T2005 sticker) to assess whether the scoring machine is the following the new timings.

The table for the new contact times and blocking for foil and sabre shows the characteristics to be modified for foil and sabre.

The wording reads: Sensitivity of the apparatus

Interpretation: This is a broad term that includes both "on" and "off" hits. For electronics, it requires further definition if it only relates to one type of hits.

The former rule reads: 1 to 5 ms

Interpretation: This set of timing limits for sensitivity suggests that they were referring to "on" hits only, as "off" hits had former timings of 2-10 msec. The former "off" hit timing overlapped 1-5msec.

The new rule reads: 13 to 15 msec

However, then it goes on to say in page 2:

The manufacturers will have:
• to implement all the modifications necessary for the correct functioning
of the scoring devices the new standards, even if these modifications are
not explicitly described.

Clearly, the required modifications were not explicily described.

[DHCJr]

Dieter, I think you and me are alone in thinking there is inteligence out there. I think in the future, the FIE should put out EVERY specification whenever they make a change, no matter how minor, so there is no confusion. They should put down the type of connector, placement of the lights, run on batteries. In fact whenever they make any change to any rule, send out the whole rulebook.

They should just do it like many schools are going, you need to teach to the lowest common demoninator. I think it was in the 6th grade, when I learned enough logic to be able to answer the logic problem below.

1. The only timing change for Foil for a single touch is changing the timing from 1 – 5ms to 13 – 15ms.
2. Off-target timing was 2 – 10ms.

Maybe, noone else learned logic.

[mrbiggs]

So.....are all the boxes, including the Leon Paul ones, updated with off-target timings correctly?

(I'm really confused.)

[DieterS]

You wrote: "Clearly, the required modifications were not explicily described."

If the SEMI Commission truly wanted to include either the 2-10 ms debounce or the 500 ms debounce in the changes, why wouldn't they have simply included them in the table of changes?

The SEMI Commission wrote: ". . . manufacturers will have to implement all of the modifications necessary for the correct functioning of the scoring devices <to> the new standards, even if these modifications are not explicitly described."

I think you're confusing the "standards" with the "modifications." The new standards are in the table. The modifications are whatever manufacturers have to do to comply with the new standards.

Again, if the FIE Executive Committee wants to change the new standards, they will make an official announcement. And a new table will be published with new timings and undoubtably someone will argue that there were other changes not explicitly described.

Dieter

[Insipiens]

I am with Dieter, Don and I think Barry Paul on this point. The instructions say to change a setting from one measurement to another, and that can only apply to the on-target.

However the document with the congress decisions at page 11 (which is clearly not the final say on the matter as it includes mangiarotti points) states MERELY "increase of the impact time at foil to 15ms".

This is undoubtedly not a statement which clearly refers only to on-target hits: it would make more sense to read this statement alone as refering to both on and off target hits.

Two questions arise - firstly is the detail on pages 28/9 what was decided/approved by congress or the interpretation of the decision on page 11. The implication from the title of the document is that the former is the case. And secondly - does it say anywhere this is a trial? (I have not seen this but I have not read through the whole thing).

[Barry Paul]

It is not the responsibility of manufactures to read every bit of minutes, terms of voting polls or interpret the meaning of communications or look into the mind of congress. All the manufactures can do is follow the official communications from the S.E.M.I. regarding the settings of apparatus.

The only question that should be asked is who interpreted the instructions Athens August 20 2004 correctly. There is no doubt in my mind that Leon Paul and Eigertex did.

[TheArmourer]

Originally Posted by Barry Paul

The only question that should be asked is who interpreted the instructions Athens August 20 2004 correctly. There is no doubt in my mind that Leon Paul and Eigertex did.

I'm afraid I have to dissagree Barry.
I think the only question that needs to be asked is whether it the implimentations are correct and all the same, and if not how is the problem going to get resolved. If the question is just about who got it right it all turns into a bit of a playground slagging match which doesn't do the sport any good at all. I know business is all about competition, but if all the manufacturers were to work togeather to get the problems sorted, they would save themselves time and money trying to sort things out after they went wrong.

Just my opinion and not meant as an attack on anyone.

[Insipiens]

I think it whichever manufacturers have to incur the costs of changing their boxes yet again will blame the FIE and SEMI for the lack of clarity in their pronouncements.

The question of "who got it right" is relevant if you are considering upgrading your box or buying a new one.

Of course now we have identified the problem the question really becomes what will happen now - how is it to be sorted out - so that (whoever got it "right") someone buying a new box can know they will have the correct off-target timing.

Obviously this is going to be a cost to some manufacturers if Barry's compromise (as appears to be the case) has not been accepted.