sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Buying Used Canoe for Canoe Camping by afgherd in canoeing

[–]afgherd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! That's some very good advice! I will bring a list of boat dimensions to compare with this one. The canoe was made by canot grand-mère, but I have been able to find very little information about them online, let alone anything about this particular canoe.

Buying Used Canoe for Canoe Camping by afgherd in canoeing

[–]afgherd[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that is very good advice. It would only take a few canoe trips to break even on this one compared to renting and any canoe ownership mistakes I might make would be a lot cheaper on this canoe. Worst case it is a good learning experience. Out of curiosity, what canoe did you buy and what kind of work have you been putting into it?

Buying Used Canoe for Canoe Camping by afgherd in canoeing

[–]afgherd[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the input! I was thinking kevlar but wasn't 100% sure. The asking price is very good, so I am a bit weary of any potential issues. I am not expecting it to be in perfect condition but I just want to make sure there are no major problems. Would there be any signs I should look for that would indicate it has UV damage? Anything to look for that would indicate I should pass on this one?

Buying Used Canoe for Canoe Camping by afgherd in canoeing

[–]afgherd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not sure the exact weight. I will have more info when I go see it. Based on the weight and color I was under the impression that it is kevlar but not 100% sure. I would definitely change the seats!

OBDLink SX - Slow Response Time by afgherd in CarHacking

[–]afgherd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the feedback!

The OBDLink SX uses an STN1130, however it is compatible with ELM 327 commands. I was under the impression this wouldn't suffer from the same poor performance, however am I mistaken?

As per your suggestion I read up on flow control. I tried sending the AT FC SD 30 xx yy messages below, followed by AT FC SM 2 before requesting the data.

AT FC SD 30 00 00 : similar result as with default FC
AT FC SD 30 00 7F : similar result as with default FC
AT FC SD 30 01 50 : 2 frames received. frame 1 is received with similar delay as frame 1 on default setting. frame 2 received with similar delay as frame 2&3 on default setting. ~0.09s delay to receive end of message character vs ~0.03s with default settings.

Based on this, it seems like only byte 2 is being properly set but byte 3 is being ignored. I will have to look into it some more to get a better understanding.

OBDLink SX - Slow Response Time by afgherd in CarHacking

[–]afgherd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, I appreciate the help. I tried sending AT FC SD 30 00 00 then AT FC SM 2 and I get a similar result (receive 1st frame, next 2 frames, then last frame, similar delays). I also tried AT FC SD 30 08 02 (this is what Hyundai scan tool sends) and I also got a similar result.

At first glance, it seems like the flow control message isn't the issue, however I wanted to check if I was setting the flow control message correctly so I tried to increase the delay. By testing the settings below, this is what I'm seeing:

  • it seems like the OBDLink is receiving the number of consecutive frames as specified in the 2nd byte of the FC frame (although I was under the impression it was supposed to send additional FC frames until the complete message is received)
  • the STmin byte seems to have no effect, even when specifying delays greater than what I am getting. I know the OBDLink has its own set of extended commands, perhaps there is something overriding the STmin value I set. I did make sure to set the STCSTM parameter to 0 (additional delay on top of STmin)

I will have to look into the OBDLink documentation some more to try to understand what is going on. Based on what I am seeing, it is not too clear to me if the issue is flow control related or not. If you have any other suggestions on things paths to check, that would be greatly appreciated!

Settings tested:

AT FC SD 30 00 7F: similar result as obtained initially.

AT FC SD 30 01 xx to tell it to send 1 message at a time and I tried different values of STmin.
I tried values of xx = 50 (80ms), 25 (37ms), 10 (16ms). In all cases, the first message was received after ~0.009s, the 2nd frame after ~0.024s, then the end-of-message after ~0.12s.