Jump to content

OliverH

Full Members
  • Posts

    1,484
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

OliverH last won the day on May 11 2016

OliverH had the most liked content!

5 Followers

Profile Information

  • Location
    Switzerland

Recent Profile Visitors

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

OliverH's Achievements

Proficient

Proficient (10/14)

  • Reacting Well
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

825

Reputation

  1. Dampers would be better
  2. Just a guess: There's no version/ release/ configuration control system in place. Second guess: There's no test concept in place. This is a problem we see at all EUC companies.
  3. Speaking in general: If we say a manufacturer we think about a company like an automotive company. This comparison is not true to the EUCs. Some so called EUC manufacturer made the move from assembling on the floor up to mounting the parts on the table. They produce the EUC in small batches. Each batch could be different (configuration management) to the other batch. There's no real quality testing/ testing again defined requirements/ a test book. If they state an EUC is specified to 120/ 150 kg than is that because of market needs and not that it's really specified for. They never made real stress tests with that weight. Searching the web you can find funny videos when they ride an EUC with two people to simulate this weights for a short time. Safe to ride: This wheels having a "safe" feeling today. "Safe" that it don't wobble at higher speeds and it takes curves today much more better than 2 years ago. But this EUCs having no safety features (dealing with thresholds and off threshold situations) by today. If a relevant component fails like reported here the EUC just fail. This is the basics to get a type approval or a certification for PLEV to be street legal in Europe 2018 and beyond. This manufacturers have to make such a big move: - having a product meeting the safety requirements from standards/ laws producing a type: Each batch is similar to the certified type. - parts from supplier are tested/ checked to meet requirements - The products are going through a defined quality process. A couple of a batch are tested against a test book. Not this kind of tests we see today. - the manufacturer knows (10 years records) what is produced in which batch. If a customer/ dealer needs parts he can supply a serial number (not the motor number) and the manufacturer knows about all parts (serial number of the motor (supplier, batch number), the pcb revision, initial firmware revision at production, batteries used (supplier, batch number),..)
  4. That was my fist thought on this problem reports. kv factor changed because of the wiring (turns). This is all speculation. We need to wait that Lin looks in to the problem and that they can reproduce the problem. Hopefully they learn from this issue and change the way to drive QA. There mst be a change in this business. GotWay receives the motor as a unit from the supplier. By proper QA they would have testing of a defined number of each batch rgarding specification and required test results..
  5. War firmwareabhängig. Könnte in den ersten Versionen auch beim normalen Fahren passieren. Hatte unseres damals um ein paar Grad nach hinten gestellt kalibriert.
  6. full ack. This products are not designed as we understand designing something. This products just happens from our point of view.
  7. If a manufacturer is not sure if it's firmware than he has no documentation of the assets and the corresponding configuration. If there was a firmware change they should know which items are in scope and they can conduct tests to all configurations. No maturity for doing a batch production of a type.
  8. Hehe.. Nur eine kleine Korrektur. Wir sind Micro eMobility. eMobility sind die eAutos und Co. Die Kommunikation zu PLEV/ Micro eMobility muss jetzt starten. Wir sind mit ein Teil die nächsten Stufen des Kyoto Protokolls zu unterstützen.
  9. Das BMVI erarbeitet etwas im Auftrag des Bundesrats, lässt sich aber nicht in die Karten schauen. Keine Ahnung ob das auf den kommenden Standard der europäischen Kommission (Personal Light Electric Vehicle (PLEV)) hinausläuft. Europaweit gleich wäre schon schön...
  10. As mentioned before the app is not working with MSuperV2 (includes V1 and all Gotway EUC using Seriial Port Protocol (SPP)) with iOS Devices using BT LE only (e.g iPhone 4s and newer). I wonder if Apple would let pass an App wich doesn't fulfil the dev requirements.
  11. Why does the app likes to access health data? How can the app support MSuper v2 on a iPhone with BT LE (SPP problem?). Anyway, I'll try it
  12. Ich hatte vor weit über einem Jahr hier in der Schweiz das Vergnügen die Möglichkeiten einer Typengenehmigung auf Basis der VTS abzuklären. Das Prüfkonzept war vom Segway abgeleitet und es hat Sinn gemacht was sie sehen wollten (Use Cases wie ich sie selbst erlebt habe) und wie sie Praxistauglichkeit im Alltagsbetrieb mit verschiedenen Altersklasse und Konstitutionen testen wollten. Damals war die Technik noch nicht so weit..
  13. Dann setzt einen neuen Standard auf, der mehr darf. Du bist dann nur auf Kleinkraftrad Niveau unterwegs. Wenn man höhere Geschwindigkeit mag, dann ist PLEV uncool. PLEV ist realisierbar. PLEV ist quasi MobHV ohne Typengenehmigung. Wie heisst es aber so schön: Lieber den Spatz in der Hand, als die Taube auf dem Dach. Die Grundstruktur der europäischen Gesetzgebung ist halt gegeben und nachvollziehbar von der Herleitung.
  14. Wichtig ist der Satz: Einheitliche verbindliche Regelungen zum Betrieb dieser Kraftfahrzeuge sind daher nicht nur aus Gründen der Verkehrssicherheit, sondern auch unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Förderung der Elektromobilität und der Nutzung innovativer Mobilitätskonzepte erforderlich. Mit der Verkehrssicherheit ist letztendlich funktionale Sicherheit (Safety) gemeint. Damit wären wir wieder beim Thema Redundanz, Prüfkonzept,..
×
×
  • Create New...