How robust are these sensors, I am looking at a potential motorsport application where they would experience potentially high vibration levels and shock loads.

[IPrin.1]

..

[John E KVAM]

That is a hard one to answer. We did run some tests where we mounted the PCBs on a sled, lifted the sled to a couple of meters off the ground and dropped them. We were trying to simulate someone dropping their phone onto concrete. (We have sold billions of these devices into the cellphone industry.)

The trouble is I'm sure one can translate shock test into a vibration spec.

The sensor has most of it weight along the botton, which I'm sure is robust. But there are optical elements that are glued on, and the cap is glued to the substrate. But these are very light, and there is lots of gluing surface. (Hence the drop test survivability.)

Note that all the datasheets contain the statement:

8.5.1 Shock precaution

Proximity sensor modules house numerous internal components that are susceptible to shock damage. If a unit is subject to excessive shock, is dropped onto the floor, or a tray/reel of units is dropped onto the floor, it must be rejected, even if no apparent damage is visible.

But I have no way of telling if that is just boilerplate datasheet stuff.

The VL53L0X, VL53L3CX, VL53L4CD and VL53L4CX parts have fewer optical elements and a 1mm high profile. If I were going to test any of the ToF sensors for shock and vibration robustness, I'd stick to these.

• john

[Tesla DeLorean]

It's a bit niche, and the billion piece customer doesn't need it to be tested to destruction on a continuously run vibration table.

Expect you're going to have to self-qualify COTS parts to your application / use case.