Tilmann

Top Members
  • Content count

    529
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Tilmann last won the day on May 12 2016

Tilmann had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

993 Excellent

6 Followers

About Tilmann

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Regensburg, Germany
  • Interests
    EUC Group Rides, 3D Printing, CNC/Robotics

Recent Profile Visitors

1,360 profile views
  1. Ach herrje! Ich drück die Daumen, dass Du das Schätzken wieder kriegst! Nur am Rande - bevor jemand mit 'nem Knüppel auf einen lieben Ex-Kollegen in Berlin von mir losgeht: Ich hatte bei meinem NB1E auch den schwachbrüstigen Griff abgeruppt und durch einen schwarzen Gurt ersetzt. Das Rad hatte ich dem Kollegen verkauft und der oder seine Kiddos fahren m.W. heut noch so damit rum
  2. @Rehab1: great!!! @Chriull and others, who seem to have a solid understanding of the math and physics behind this: I am fairly sure, such a treadmill-based test rig will allow reproducible load stress tests (for the "melting wires" issue). But is such a setup promising for the "oscillation bug" testing? After all, in reality, that's a system composed from a fixed ground, an EUC, a free standing (and moving) human, the latter two moving anywhere at a speed between 10mph and 30mph. Here, some erratic controller behavior initiates the "oscillation". If, for example, the controller causes an erratic short acceleration, the wheel shoots forward a few inches (or maybe much less), the human rider does not, so he consequently tilts back the pedals somewhat. Apparently, this leads the controller to overcompensate by a sudden braking impulse. Again, the inertia of the rider prevents the 75kg standing on the wheel to reduce speed that fast and accordingly now the rider tilts the pedals forward - and so on with increasing amplitude until the riders feet and the pedals loose contact (as Marty so elegantly demonstrated). Now, would a test setup composed from a moving ground (treadmill belt), the same EUC and a stationary rider holding on to the treadmill handle for dear life (or 75kg of concrete simulating the rider's weight) react nearly in the same way? Or would we need huge flywheels on the treadmill belt to arrive at a similar inertia to get that resonance effect close to reality???
  3. Dunno, whether that's doable with little effort: is it possible to preserve a positively faulty FW? Reason for asking: if we ever manage to refine a test stand to run a programmed sequence of standard tests, that would be a good check to see if it reliably uncovers this fault. We don't have a committed plan or schedule for that yet - so it doesn't warrant much effort or expense to save a copy. The vage idea: - construction of a test rig based on a treadmill, - adding a contraption allowing for automated control of the wheels lean angle to control speed (likely with a separate speed/rpm meter), - adding a processor controlled break to simulate inclines, - adding a reproducible way to simulate bumps (like the rolled newspaper suggested by @Hatchet, probably more sturdy), - adding a cheapo high-speed camera (like one of those CASIO Exilim point-n-shoots with 1000fps at lousy resolution), - adding an infrared thermometer, ideally with data out. It shouldn't be such a big deal to tinker such a setup and the two PID controllers to manage constant speed and constant load probably need little else but arduinos.
  4. Du willst doch nicht etwa ein Parkraumüberwachungsvollzugsfachkraft als Politesse verunglimpfen, oder?
  5. How can GW demonstrate QM improvements? Just as an example, I would love to see a video showing a test rig, allowing the wheel to spin under load at any selected speed and then induce a "bump" to simulate riding over a curb, tree root, etc. I am not pretending, that's the ultimate proof of a successful fix, but I would feel much better seeing such an effort. I run large automation projects in the industry for a living. With a recent multi-million project, it was part of my job to convince a smaller supplier to trade his "it's on my laptop, would you have a USB stick for me to deliver it to you?" to adherence to the most fundamental disciplines of release management and delivery discipline...
  6. @Marty Backe Oh boy, that hurts! I'm really sorry for how the GotWay Gods are treating you lately! Hope your wrist will heal soon! (...diligently digging through my drawers in search of my wrist guards...). Building upon other's assumptions regarding the (non existing) use of version control systems for the firmware development and my personal knowledge and trust in @Linnea Lin Gotway, I got my own theory, of how this could happen: when the trouble reports startet pouring in after the May 1 FW update, the GW boss called the FW developer to "fix it". I am ready to bet a case of fine Bavarian beer, the FW sources "live" on the C: drive of that developers laptop and the Release Notes (if any) say little more than "changed something". So, the poor guy has no idea, which of the files on his drive actually contains the last stable release. Consequently, he starts fooling around with the troubled release, tries to revert his changes or fix what he assumes might be broken. At the end of his work (or his nerves - whatever came first) he presents the result to GotWay with a desperate "it's fixed!". The now following "test" for some reason did not uncover, that the problem still exists (for example, because the FW changes to correct it just moved it up to a higher speed range). GW flashes the boards with the "repaired" FW and resumes shipping... While this explanation sounds somewhat "harmless" and like an excuse for GotWay, It's not meant to be - I am just not willing to believe, that Linnea outright and knowingly lied to poor @Jason McNeil. I am convinced, that issues like this will persist as long as quality management is left to goodwill and luck instead of a systematic methodology. The software industry has developed release management processes ages ago and even some back room distributors have startet setting up test beds for EUCs - just none of that ever occurred to GotWay. And I don't even know, whether the FW is developed by a GotWay employee or some freelancer with a laptop. Even though none of my GW wheels has harmed me so far, I know now, that this was a good portion of plain luck. While I am not ready to disown GotWay just yet, I will not buy or recommend an EUC from them until they demonstrate an honest effort to improve QM.
  7. Jepp, differences between V1 and V2 were minimal. V1 is about 1cm wider, but you would not be able to tell from videos. I only found a German review: Not sure, if I recall correctly: I think, the V1 maxed out at 680Wh battery, the V2 had a 8xxWh option. Both featured 3 versions: HT (high torque, 28km/h max.), MS (middle speed, 34km/h max.) and HS (high speed, something around 38km/h max.).
  8. Oh @Marty Backe, if it wasn't for so many lovely people like yourself, American friends on this forum and beyond, we (as in: "the rest of this planet as we know it") should build that wall around the US, make it high enough and put a lid on it to confine this attitude. While we're at it: may we pleeease send Volkswagen and Bosch management over, too?
  9. Beyond any reasonable doubt: the Russians hacked it! The party? At the Kremlin, where else?
  10. Ohhh, wonderful! It works! Shipping such appliances to the world is part of the "German Initiative for Global Garage Learning Experience (GIGGLE)"! You know, "Give a man a fish..."
  11. This kept me wondering for a while, why it looked so strangely familiar. Then I found out: Never mind the apparently erratic back and forth movements. When you observe the vertical carriages, their hight is a direct mechanical representation of the currents driving our motors, isn't it?
  12. @Spark: Great suggestion - I'll make sure we include that when we hopefully get far enough with this to collect a list of design principles! I really like the fact, that it promises more accurate warnings while being pretty easy to implement. What could be a bit more challenging is making it safe for the casual change of riders (you know, that "wanna try mine"-situation at group rides). One idea to solve that: store individual settings on an RFID chip for example in an ankle strap. That could also solve the issue, that any "beginners speed restrictions" for the first 100 km or custom settings to turn off alarm and tilt back should really be dependent on the rider, not the wheel. Letting a beginner ride such an "unlocked" beast, is a bad idea. So, the wheel defaults to the safes possible setting. Only the presence of the RFID switches to the customized settings, incl. riders weight. Geez, now you got me to troll my own thread off topic ....
  13. Da hab ich in 2015 eine gegenteilige Erfahrung gemacht. Fahrradcop hatte mich angehalten und angezeigt. Hatte damals aus Unkenntnis keine Versicherung und meinen Führerschein nicht dabei. Bin der Vorladung der Polizei (diesmal mit Führerschein und zwischenzeitlich abgeschlossener Versicherung) gefolgt und auf einen richtig netten Polizisten gestoßen. Der war mit seiner Einschätzung über den Diensteifer seines beradelten Kollegen nicht grad zurückhaltend ("...die sollen nachschaun, ob die Klingeln klingeln...") und ein für mich sehr vorteilhaftes Protokoll verfasst. Ergebnis: Einstellung des Strafverfahrens.
  14. Hi @Greengo, konfliktscheu und feige, wie ich bin, lass ich mein geliebtes, altes Msuper in der Berliner Asservatenkammer verrotten - seit einem Jahr. Der Herr Staatsanwalt meldet sich nicht und das Bequemste wär's wenn das so bleibt (eine Vorstrafe hätte gravierende berufliche Folgen für mich). Ich hab mich dem "Crowdfunding" für @One's mutigen Schritt mit 100 Eu angeschlossen, falls er mit einem Schaden aus der Sache rausgeht. Ich mache Dir gern das gleiche Angebot, falls Du das Risiko auf dich nehmen willst. (Bitte nicht beliebig verallgemeinern ... sonst ich pleite ...)