Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 21 replies
  • Subscribers 2560 subscribers
  • Views 3304 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Would you like to roadtest a wider variety of products?

rscasny

Roadtests have historically been conducted on single board computers, development/evaluation boards, and electronic/electrical test equipment.

We have not roadtested other products, such as connectors and adapters, etc., because there aren't too many things you can test out with them.

What do you think?

Parents

  • I think this is a hard question to get a blanket answer for - I think members may be happy to RoadTest almost anything, but at the same time, the requirements to do a meaningful RoadTest can be quite tricky with seemingly simple components and it may require experience or equipment not widely available. The low value of some of the items versus the time investment may make them unattractive and the niche applications of some items may make them unappealing. Perhaps bundling different products together is a good way around this, but will the RoadTester use all of them, or only some? Will the companies involved be happy to test only with their own series of products, or against competitors as well?

    For example - testing a connector may involve several tests such as checking dimensions, mating force, mating durability, contact resistance, retention force, impedance/VSWR, waterproofness, interchangeability (with other connectors). To adequately use such a connector could require crimping tools, or designing a PCB to mount them to. If the RoadTester doesn't have the right gear (not even I can test all of these key parameters), then is an "application-based" RoadTest that says "I built this, it works" valuable when a connector of a different make may have served just as well? The amount of time it may take to get the supporting infrastructure (e.g. PCBs made) may not be insignificant - and its cost (if borne by the RoadTester) can make it very unattractive. Adapters may be useful, but again, to properly test them requires some very specific set-ups. Another thing to consider is that some of these tests may also involve test to destruction (or at the least, could put the connection itself at danger), so perhaps having multiple components of the same type is a requirement to make a successful RoadTest.

    As for breadboards - I think one could easily subjectively evaluate them based on building a circuit. There are some shockingly poor breadboards out there now - I've encountered a few. But could that really be a full 2-month RoadTest? Not too sure. Hand tools and supplies are probably in a similar category, although they may have some more elements that can be tested.

    One risk is that these varied RoadTests may come at the cost of more serious RoadTests - if a "big ticket" RoadTest review is swimming in a pool of "small fish" RoadTests ... I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing and could affect the image of the program. After all, the audience has limited time to absorb the content ... so I think the priority should still remain on meatier RoadTests that truly justify the name.

    - Gough

  • in reply to Gough Lui
    Gough Lui said:
    For example - testing a connector may involve several tests such as checking dimensions, mating force, mating durability, contact resistance, retention force, impedance/VSWR, waterproofness, interchangeability (with other connectors).

    That would define a road test as "checking against the specifications". I don't think that's the goal. Should we test that a 500 Watt supply can deliver 530 Watt for 30 seconds?

    I've always seen it as: "experience when really using something, as a user,  within the limitations it was designed for". Our road testers aren't certification labs.

  • in reply to Jan Cumps
    Jan Cumps said:
    Our road testers aren't certification labs.

    True, but sometimes the selling features of a product are "extreme" capabilities which are what differentiate them from other products. Not testing these features would make a review perhaps less interesting to potential readers.

    It's not that I'm saying it's not worth having an "application" RoadTest, but one has to consider what is being tested in that instance and what the value being delivered is ...

    - Gough

Reply
  • in reply to Jan Cumps
    Jan Cumps said:
    Our road testers aren't certification labs.

    True, but sometimes the selling features of a product are "extreme" capabilities which are what differentiate them from other products. Not testing these features would make a review perhaps less interesting to potential readers.

    It's not that I'm saying it's not worth having an "application" RoadTest, but one has to consider what is being tested in that instance and what the value being delivered is ...

    - Gough

Children
  • in reply to Gough Lui

    I see Roadtests as a manufacturer's opportunity to showcase their products.  The bottom line is they would like to see something that makes the rest of us go "I really MUST have one of those!"  Knowing that a product lives up to its published specifications is all well and good, but I want to know how do I use it.  Even for your roadtests,  , I'm more intrigued with how you found what you found than what you actually found.

    Simple products can offer the opportunity of simple brilliance.  I cite the humble 555.  Who'd a thunk?

    As far as the "big ticket" roadtest in a pool of "small fish" roadtests... some of those "big ticket" items are so far from my wheelhouse that they get zero attention.  Another IoT SBC with a custom IDE... yeah... probably not.  Unless you show me a compelling application.  THEN, I may understand the value of the specifications.  Otherwise, I would rather read/learn about the adhesive - and may even buy some.