# Speed Stack Timer Version 3 Real



## CubeLTD (Nov 6, 2011)

I found this while I was browsing the site. It wasn't there a few days ago. Not sure if anyone mention it yet.

Link: 

http://www.speedstacks.com/store3/retail/speed-stacks-stackmat-pro/ (out of stock though)

Features:

Accuracy to 0.001 seconds
Memory feature to save your best times
Data port to connect to external display
Gen3 Graphics

























*EDIT:* It seems what I posted above is actually the "Speed Stack timer PRO" and that there is another time called the "3rd generation" 
http://www.speedstacks.com/store3/retail/speed-stacks-stackmat/ (V3 Timer and Mat)
http://www.speedstacks.com/store3/retail/speed-stacks-mat-only/ (Mat)

From the description it seems that it's much more inferior. 
"Please Note: The Gen 3 Timers do not have data ports, do not have the memory feature and are not compatible with StackPods or Tournament Displays. "


----------



## cubernya (Nov 6, 2011)

Me gusta

Other than no data port


----------



## antoineccantin (Nov 6, 2011)

theZcuber said:


> Me gusta
> 
> Other than no data port


 
There is a data port...


----------



## Evan Liu (Nov 6, 2011)

Heh, I thought this might have been a surprise challenge...

It appears that the "Stackmat Pro", the timer for the "Bundle" link, is not the same as the "Gen 3 stackmat", the timer for the "Mat and Timer" link.
The former is accurate to 0.001 seconds and has a data port; the latter is accurate to 0.01 seconds and does not have a data port.


----------



## cubernya (Nov 6, 2011)

I was talking about the mat and timer, not the bundle


----------



## CubeLTD (Nov 6, 2011)

Yes. You are correct Evan. I didn't notice that. Updated OP.


----------



## JyH (Nov 6, 2011)

you are a photoshop master


----------



## cubernya (Nov 6, 2011)

...links


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Nov 6, 2011)

theZcuber said:


> ...links


 
Those were probably shopped as well!


----------



## CubeLTD (Nov 6, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> Those were probably shopped as well!


 
Of course. How you know? It's phish site. Just had to copy the page source to match the layout and then upload my Photoshopped images.


----------



## TheMachanga (Nov 6, 2011)

The 3rd gen has no date port (unless it's on the top, away from view), and the pro version has up to thousandths, instead of hundredths, like the current ones. If we use those for WCA comps, then results will have to be rounded or something.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Nov 6, 2011)

TheMachanga said:


> If we use those for WCA comps, then results will have to be rounded or something.


 
No they won't. The older results would just be changed to the thousandths. If the new timers are implemented, results like 5.66 will be changed to 5.660.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 6, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> No they won't. The older results would just be changed to the thousandths. If the new timers are implemented, results like 5.66 will be changed to 5.660.


 
Ah no, that's a kinda rounding error. You can't add detail that wasn't there. Who is to say which is faster between 5.66 and 5.664?


----------



## choza244 (Nov 6, 2011)

Taken from the website:

"Please Note: The Gen 3 Timers do not have data ports, do not have the memory feature and are not compatible with StackPods or Tournament Displays."

But the pro does have the data port


----------



## Owen (Nov 7, 2011)

But does it have an improved battery life?

Also, what is the exact difference between the gen 2 and gen 3? It just looks like it has some minor graphic changes.


----------



## CubeLTD (Nov 7, 2011)

Owen said:


> But does it have an improved battery life?
> 
> Also, what is the exact difference between the gen 2 and gen 3? It just looks like it has some minor graphic changes.


 
Oh, you know the usual.. just... no data port and memory features. Version 3 = downgrade, tbh.


----------



## JyH (Nov 7, 2011)

CubeLTD said:


> Oh, you know the usual.. just... no data port and memory features. Version 3 = downgrade, tbh.


 
Then get the Pro version.


----------



## CubeLTD (Nov 7, 2011)

JyH said:


> Then get the Pro version.


 

Will do, when it's in stock.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Nov 7, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Ah no, that's a kinda rounding error. You can't add detail that wasn't there. Who is to say which is faster between 5.66 and 5.664?


 
Umm, I am? If we go by that logic, the times will never become more accurate. 5.66 and 5.660 are the exact same thing.


----------



## Weston (Nov 7, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> Umm, I am? If we go by that logic, the times will never become more accurate. 5.66 and 5.660 are the exact same thing.


 You're missing the point.
What he was saying is that you would be unable to fairly compare old results to new results.

For example, if person A from long ago got a time of 5.66 when it was actually 5.664, then changed to 5.660, then person B used the new stackmats and got a time of 5.663, person A would be ranked above person B even though person B was faster.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Nov 7, 2011)

Weston said:


> You're missing the point.
> What he was saying is that you would be unable to fairly compare old results to new results.
> 
> For example, if person A from long ago got a time of 5.66 when it was actually 5.664, then changed to 5.660, then person B used the new stackmats and got a time of 5.663, person A would be ranked above person B even though person B was faster.


 
Don't worry, I do understand the point he's trying to make.

My point is, what other option would there be in order to implement times in the thousandths place? Even if there was a slight inaccuracy with older times, would it really be worth it to use better timers but still scale back to the hundredths due to older results?


----------



## Weston (Nov 7, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> Don't worry, I do understand the point he's trying to make.
> 
> My point is, what other option would there be in order to implement times in the thousandths place? Even if there was a slight inaccuracy with older times, would it really be worth it to use better timers but still scale back to the hundredths due to older results?


 
Oh, your "I am" comment made it seem like you didn't.

Who says we have to use the better timers?

And its not a "slight" inaccuracy. It's the same inaccuracy that you're trying to fix by using newer timers.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Nov 7, 2011)

Weston said:


> Who says we have to use the better timers?


 
No one is. The current timers have proved (from the tests of many people) to be inaccurate, and the new "pro" timers seem to fix these issues. All I'd like to see in future WCA competitions is more accurate results.


----------



## Weston (Nov 7, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> No one is. The current timers have proved (from the tests of many people) to be inaccurate, and the new "pro" timers seem to fix these issues. All I'd like to see in future WCA competitions is more accurate results.


You were saying that there would be a problem with the use of the new timers since the old results would not be compatible the new results since they would be rounded differently. The solution to that isn't to alter past results, like you were implying. The solution is to not use the new timers.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 7, 2011)

I was gonna join this debate.

Then I realised that WCA won't use the new timers anyway.

Saved me a bunch of time worrying about it.


----------



## garcijo (Nov 7, 2011)

O think these timers would be very useful in some categories such as Rubik's Magic...


----------



## Ranzha (Nov 7, 2011)

Weston said:


> You're missing the point.
> What he was saying is that you would be unable to fairly compare old results to new results.
> 
> For example, if person A from long ago got a time of 5.66 when it was actually 5.664, then changed to 5.660, then person B used the new stackmats and got a time of 5.663, person A would be ranked above person B even though person B was faster.


 
Because it makes a huuuuge difference. The only event in which it would make a moderately sized problem is magic.
Alternatively, the third decimal could be an 'x'.


----------



## aronpm (Nov 7, 2011)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Because it makes a huuuuge difference.


 
It does make a difference. The WCA promotes _more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun,* under fair conditions*._ This would be an unfair change to regulations because new results are incompatible with old results because of this resolution change (it's resolution, not accuracy or precision, guys.)



Spoiler



Accuracy is how far from the correct value your samples are. Inaccurate would be the timer saying, on average, 1.50 when the actual time average was 1.00.
Precision is the spread of the samples from the mean. Imprecise would be the timer returning a range of 0.50 to 1.50 when the average recorded time is 1.00.
Resolution is the smallest change that can be made to the measurement before a change is made. The new timers have 0.001 second resolution, the "old" ones have 0.01 seconds.

/lesson


----------



## Weston (Nov 7, 2011)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Because it makes a huuuuge difference. The only event in which it would make a moderately sized problem is magic.


If the thousandth decimal place doens't make a significant difference then why would we consider switching to a new timer?
The only reason that this is an issue right now is that it DOES make a difference.
Take 2x2 finals in Nats 2010 for example.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Nov 7, 2011)

There's not really a debate as it's well known that the gen2 timers were not very accurate at all. For those who don't know, certain times are not possible/very hard to get on gen2 timers.

As Kir said, the WCA will probably just keep the old ones. Upgrading to new timers costs lots of money for delegates/whoever keeps the timers that are used in competitions.

However, if an upgrade were to happen I think the fairest way to mix the old 0.01 resolution times with new 0.001 resolution times would be to count every 0.01 resolution time as 0.019, for example. Unless someone has some reason involving how the gen2 timer worked internally or whatever that would make this less fair than another method.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Nov 7, 2011)

Doesn't look anything special more than the 2nd Gen, other than a curved mat. Rounding to the thousandths second? If I ever felt super-spiffy about accuracy, then sure.


----------



## cubeflip (Nov 7, 2011)

theZcuber said:


> Me gusta



translation: me it pleases


Looks slick... hmm... I need a new timer anyway...


----------



## cubeflip (Nov 7, 2011)

not compatible with displays? what were they thinking?


----------



## aronpm (Nov 7, 2011)

cubeflip said:


> translation: me it pleases


 
No, it translates to "I like [it]"


----------



## cubeflip (Nov 7, 2011)

aronpm said:


> No, it translates to "I like [it]"



I was doing a direct translation...

EDIT: I meant a literal translation. Me = me, gusta = it pleases.


----------



## JyH (Nov 7, 2011)

cubeflip said:


> not compatible with displays? what were they thinking?


 
???


----------



## aronpm (Nov 7, 2011)

JyH said:


> ???


Existing displays...



cubeflip said:


> I was doing a direct translation...


That's not how translation works.


----------



## CubeLTD (Nov 7, 2011)

aronpm said:


> Existing displays...



Correct me if I'm wrong, but stack timers connect to displays via the data port?(never went to comp, so I wouldn't know). For V3 it's not "compatible" because it doesn't has a data port( assuming I was correct) But for the pro version I think it should work.


----------



## aronpm (Nov 7, 2011)

CubeLTD said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but stack timers connect to displays via the data port?(never went to comp, so I wouldn't know). For V3 it's not "compatible" because it doesn't has a data port( assuming I was correct) But for the pro version I think it should work.


----------



## wontolla (Nov 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Then I realised that WCA won't use the new timers anyway.


 
What about in a long term? It makes sense that the WCA would decide to stick with the 2nd Gen. But those timers will be no longer produced in the future.



aronpm said:


> (it's resolution, not accuracy or precision, guys.)



I encourage people to keep this in mind. Nothing suggests that these new 3rd Gen timers are more accurate.


----------



## antoineccantin (Dec 8, 2011)

They don't sell the Version 2 anymore


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Dec 8, 2011)

In what situation could we imagine that certain competitions areas with delegates (like Caltech or Berkeley) would have to switch over to the Pros?


----------



## jskyler91 (Dec 8, 2011)

I think the easiest way to mend this issue is to disregard the last number in the list i.e. do not consider the thousandth place at all, but I think a better solution is to add to all current times a .005. THis way it is fair to everyone and it is right in the middle so it doesn't penalize you very much if you were say .003 and it can actually help you a little if you were actually. .007. Seems to be the only real compromise that will be fair.


----------



## mrCage (Dec 8, 2011)

Or why not simply round the times with the new timers according to standard rounding off rule: 

12.504 => 12.50
12.505 => 12.51

Then we can preserve all the old times. The database can automatically do all the rounding off of new times. No need to do them at the competition venue 
Per

PS! Actually, the WCA database can record 3 (or 2) decimal places and display only 2 in official lists ... So we do not lose anything if we gonna change the rules later!!


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 8, 2011)

I think the consensus is that truncation is preffered to rounding.


----------



## TheMachanga (Dec 8, 2011)

I we round, then someone how got a 5.444 (rounded to 5.44) would be the same as a 5.441 solve (rounded to 5.44), and there will probably be some arguing because one was technically faster than the other.


----------



## mrCage (Dec 8, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I think the consensus is that truncation is preffered to rounding.



If we can get a way to store full 3-decimal times in db while displaying truncated times. I would be happy with that. As long as we keep all raw data. Just in case as they say ...

Per


----------



## mrCage (Dec 8, 2011)

TheMachanga said:


> I we round, then someone how got a 5.444 (rounded to 5.44) would be the same as a 5.441 solve (rounded to 5.44), and there will probably be some arguing because one was technically faster than the other.




Yes. My main point is that we keep all raw data. And then decide "later" how we will display those times. It can be rounding, truncating, a mix or whatever ...

Keeping all the raw data gives competition organizers one less thing to worry about. Just report back to WCA the times recorded, be it from 2-decimal or a 3-decimal timer ...

Per


----------



## asportking (Dec 8, 2011)

Does anyone know how the speedstacking people are dealing with the change? I mean, speedstacking isn't that different from cubing (as in, we use the same timers), and they'd have to make the change as well.


----------



## matotaos1 (Dec 13, 2011)

Does anyone know when the pro timer will be released into speedcubing stores that ship to Australia?


----------



## antoineccantin (Dec 14, 2011)

This is sooooooooooo annoying. I already have a mat and I want to get a timer, but I can no longer buy a v2 timer that is compatible with my mat.


----------



## Blake4512 (Dec 14, 2011)

asportking said:


> Does anyone know how the speedstacking people are dealing with the change? I mean, speedstacking isn't that different from cubing (as in, we use the same timers), and they'd have to make the change as well.


 
So far, the first time they are going to use the new timers is in April for the World Championships. Although the WSSA (World Sport Stacking Association) made the timers for a reason, right? So they most likely have an idea about how to deal with the different extra decimal place.


----------



## asportking (Dec 15, 2011)

Blake4512 said:


> So far, the first time they are going to use the new timers is in April for the World Championships. Although the WSSA (World Sport Stacking Association) made the timers for a reason, right? So they most likely have an idea about how to deal with the different extra decimal place.


Then why don't we deal with it the same way they're going to deal with it? Just like us, all their old records are measured in hundredth of seconds, so they'll have to do something about that.


----------



## mrpotatoman14 (Jul 10, 2012)

Massive bump but they're making gen 2's again. http://www.speedstacks.com/store3/retail/speed-stacks-stackademics-competitor/


----------



## MirzaCubing (Jul 10, 2012)

mrpotatoman14 said:


> Massive bump but they're making gen 2's again. http://www.speedstacks.com/store3/retail/speed-stacks-stackademics-competitor/



Are they for individual sale?


----------



## mrpotatoman14 (Jul 10, 2012)

MirzaCubing said:


> Are they for individual sale?


I believe so.


----------



## Gorrath (Jun 6, 2013)

I'd like to buy a speed stacks but no idea what I should look for when shopping for one.
There is a bunch of those on eBAY and they're cheap, but probably bad quality.

Would this be ok?
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/NEW-WHITE-GR.../120957449046?pt=Games_US&hash=item1c29a03356

It says "FOR COMPETITION" so I thought it might not be that bad...

Your thoughts?

Thanks


----------



## blackzabbathfan (Jun 6, 2013)

Gorrath said:


> I'd like to buy a speed stacks but no idea what I should look for when shopping for one.
> There is a bunch of those on eBAY and they're cheap, but probably bad quality.
> 
> Would this be ok?
> ...



QJ Timers are basically cheaper versions of Stackmat Timers. They are not very good quality and I would highly recommend against getting one.


----------



## CuberCat (Jun 6, 2013)

I own the original one that you could bu at the shops! It came with the Cups and the mat... I don't see the point of me buying another one...


----------

