Jump to content

null

Moderators
  • Content Count

    1,548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

null last won the day on April 22

null had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,740 Excellent

About null

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Paris
  • EUC
    Sherman - 18XL - 16S - S2 - E+

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @xiiijojjo maybe if the moving pedals where on a curved rail (or equivalent) they could slide front / back with the foot pressure. (Just thinking out loud). There are a lot of smart mechanisms to transform a motion into an other.
  2. I’m not saying the EUC should solely base on pedal pressure for balancing, but that measuring that input as a complement to EUC tilt would allow the algorithm to have user intention as an additional set of data. @mrelwood I generally value your input but considering how you seem to think I don’t realise a EUC is a self balancing vehicle I find it fairly insulting to my intelligence. You take every point I make as if I where totally retarded and have no understanding of how a EUC or basic physics work. I won’t waste time replying further, think of it what you will. (edit: seeing how y
  3. Currently only angle of the EUC is considered: when you ride on a flat terrain you push forward a certain amount and the EUC accelerated accordingly. If you meet a (larger) bump and keep the same pressure you will fall off, because you need more force to push the EUC to the same angle. So you put more pressure to compensate for the bump. The EUC knows nothing if this, only that it’s angle dictates it’s acceleration. if you had the pressure on the pedals as a separate input, you could theoretically meet the bump without having to push harder: the EUC measuring that your input is the same,
  4. No more reason it would leave without you than when using only angle to accelerate: the moment it passes in front you are no longer putting pressure on the front of the pedals. edit: here is weight pressure used to accelerate / descellerate a PEV, without it riding out in front without the user.
  5. To split of the off topic from the Veteran Abrams thread: Larger tyre EUCs feel more sluggish due to the foot to tyre diameter ratio needing more force to tilt the wheel. The EUC also doesn’t know anything of the terrain, thus more effort is required for uphill or bumps. What if the input wasn’t only the EUC tilt, but also how much pressure was exerted on the front or back of the pedals? That would allow to separate the EUCs actual angle and the effort input of the rider. We’d need a good programming to dose the two inputs, but as I see it it might allow larger EUCs to accelerat
  6. Why would it go faster if you’re not leaning forward? The whole point would be to take in consideration front and back pressure on the pedals, ie leaning forward to accelerate. If you’re not leaning forward it won’t accelerate. If the programming isn’t completely dumb I still don’t see any fundamental logic flaw in complementing the tilt of the EUC with pedal pressure. Power pads are also overriding the EUCs gravity based balance, you’re not thrown off for that. As for handling larger wheels there are plenty of methods and preferences, that wasn’t the question. Edit: this is pro
  7. I’ve been wondering recently whether having a scale (as in measure weight) front and back of the pedals could give the EUC a second set of input other than the inclination. This might help compensate for the tire to foot size ratio that make large EUCs harder to tilt and accelerate. An illustration of this could be: a large EUC with a curb in front: the EUC doesn’t “see” the curb, and you need to push harder on the pedals to compensate. If the pedals had a weight scale the EUC could register the continuous pressure where the tire tilting has been stopped by the curb. Thus rather than lowe
  8. A wheel with more torque would allow you to ride more aggressively though.
  9. There is a KS battery drain bug or feature ( @Jack King Song didn’t seem to provide an answer) where basically the controller board stays on after the charge. It should resolve by power cycling it on and off.
  10. You need to participate a little more to get the credentials to send PMs, you’ll be there soon.
  11. Good observation indeed, don’t know where he got it from. Might be misinformation from the chaos, I suppose we’ll get some more solid specs soon. edit: Vet rounded the Sherman’s 3110Wh to 3200Wh so never know.. (like @Planemo says)
  12. Heh. 1: many EUC and charger manuals say not to charge outdoors. I suppose because of rain, dew etc. Do Begode products fare well the rain? 5: WTF, in their dreams. As for fast charging none of their EUCs permit it, so not happening anyway. 7: If you have any hope at all to extinguish the battery fire, yes. Else powder will help extinguishing the plastic and surroundings. (A few of these points (especially #5) make it sound like they have no clue what they are doing..)
  13. @king size over at the French forum says it should be 116V, don’t know where this is from but would be interesting for high speed.
  14. I find it ugly, all the utilitarian look is gone in favor of hormone deranged teenager decoration. Sad. All I can hope for is this not being the styling of future Veteran products. Also: I planed to get a Sherman (as in 3000+Wh) next year, I hope the situation changes by then. edit: an improved Monster v3 ? Abrams tank wiki
  15. I’m generally not for deleting anything, but considering this thread exists only for @d0n to sling shit at e-wheels for no good reason I’d vote for doing so. Edit: Slander.
×
×
  • Create New...