Would you like to roadtest a wider variety of products?

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.

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

there is a lot of good points in the comments section. I'm torn. but I voted yes

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, Gough Lui , 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.

People love free stuff.  Companies love to showcase their products .  If one can add both, it's awesome.

But, companies like their stuff to be tested and showed in a meaningful manner and really really test the product.  A great review takes time, effort and a great deal of imagination . Of course that certain products require more imagination than others.

I voted yes for all kinds of products. Let's see what products come to test  !

I'd be happy to see a wider range of things but like others have reservations about some of the items suggested.

It might be necessary to invent a different kind of roadtest for some of the simpler devices like connectors or adapters.

The economics of Road testing don't work with very low cost items - so maybe you would get better results by including them in challenge kits, as in "Play with these thermistors ( the main thing) and use this adhesive ( the extra thing) if appropriate".

MK

The consensus seems to be yes, and with good reason.

Does a wider range of road tests benefit the members? Yes, they have more technical content available from more road testers and more members get more free stuff. More members would get to participate in, and benefit from, road tests. That is a win.

Does it benefit manufacturers? Yes more manufacturers and products are introduced to a more extensive targeted audience that has a concentration of people who are interested in technology, influence, control or actually buy or use technology. That is a win.

Does it benefit element14? Yes, more people are attracted to become members, more members are engaged in creating content, more interesting content is created and discussed. It grows the forum and forum activity. That is a win.

Does it detract from heavy duty, high end road test activity? No that audience doesn't diminish, it grows as more members learn and graduate from simple products to become a more informed audience for higher end products and a larger group capable of tackling higher end road tests. That is a win.

It would seem to be pretty much win-win-win all the way around, and if not, it is easy to back off a bit. There is a question of whether there is enough of a win to justify the cost of administration and incentivisation, but that is just a challenge of where to draw the line and how to push the line down.

Incentivising low cost road tests will require thought, creativity and experimentation, but everybody (which is a lot of smart people) is motivated to make it work and it will be interesting to see how it evolves.

Hi Randall,

I always look at items offered for road test to see if I still have the skills necessary to test them.

So a wider range of items might allow me to participate more.

Interesting idea!

It would be nice to see even a few paragraphs and photos or 30-second videos of products, just to help answer basic questions about products, because store photos and product descriptions don't address everything that users would want to know. It's also nice that people can ask things in blogs, so that the reviewer focusses on the things that people really want to know, i.e. it's an interactive real-time review!

It may be a huge overhead though, to arrange so many of such smaller RoadTests, and to ship so much stuff and deal with all the country-specific issues. 

Just as an idea, if (say) it was possible to bundle a dozen small products together (even if they are unrelated products) then people could write short blogs, one every few days if it suits them, so that after a month or two, all the bits are reviewed. 

I voted yes and I’d take a view of not over thinking this.  Definitely not interested in ‘creative’ ways of using lower cost, lower complexity products: if the tin it comes in says ‘it does X”, I want to know it does X well and how complex or otherwise it is to achieve that.  Simple, quick testing and demos.  

In some ways, it would be useful to pose a common or typical problem and ask for an application that says how you would solve it and with what, and the roadtest shows that.  For example, in the thermistor roadtest recently I posed a question about the best way of attaching a bead thermistor to a heatsink or TO-220 part: there’s the problem and roadtest applications could range from a ring mounted thermistor, to glue, tape; comparison of approaches, longevity, re usability and so on.  Useful answers with specific products.  Each problem could come with a maximum parts cost that applicants could ‘spend’.  Clearly, if manufacturers need to be involved, as for a typical roadtest, for it to work then I suspect this idea isn’t really viable sadly.

Note: I did vote yes and the first time, the button turned blue but nothing happened.  Pressed it again and nothing happened.  Refreshed the page and the whole poll disappeared!  Refreshed it again, and again, and again, and it then actually properly reloaded showing results.  It’s a roundabout way of saying I may have voted more than once!