Jump to content


Top Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mono last won the day on June 10

Mono had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,471 Excellent


About Mono

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Western Europe
  • EUC
    InMotion V8, retired: Gotway MCM2s, IPS 132

Recent Profile Visitors

3,185 profile views
  1. I assume you mean horizontal left over instead of vertical here? Do you mean that the acceleration determines what is the stationary lean angle? (As I would still insist that accelerating the rider is not the decisive mechanism to change the lean angle.)
  2. The rider is heavily bounded by the physics in how they can "choose" (rather: influence) the lean angle. There is no easy way to displace a mass by choice, am I wrong? So the usual idea that we have in mind when saying "leaning" is more or less physically impossible. The by far easiest way to influence the lean angle is, AFAICS, using the ankle joint as actuator (and thereby moving the wheel in a different place relative to the rider). The same is true when standing on the ground (the ground doesn't move but the contact point still does), unless one has a wall to push against to move ones CoG.
  3. True. I commented on the decomposition somewhere. If I am not mistaken zero sum only applies if nothing is accelerating or kept on moving. I think the decomposition in horizontal, vertical, and tangential force makes quite some sense, but I didn't give it a deep thought (yet). The more interesting part of the model to me was indeed to realize that the contact/support point can and does change/shift (which sets the model apart from the inverted pendulum). I couldn't do the animation I am not sure what you mean with "determines the lean angle by himself". To me it seems reasonable to assume that the rider can only(!) do two things: shift the contact point on the pedal without changing the CoG (via push or release the forefoot using the ankle), thereby introducing a lean and shift its CoG vertically (bent or stretch the knees or the hip, the latter could also introduce a rotation and move the wheel forward, but that's maybe a too advanced question), thereby reducing or increasing the weight force for a short period of time. Of course riders can also weave or rotation their arms and do other movements that may have some effect, but to me it makes more sense to try to understand how the system works without those (for the time being). Do you see any other first-order-relevant input from the rider?
  4. I think so. Though in the US it may have a GX12-4 connector, everywhere else it is GX12-3, to all I know.
  5. I do know control theory and I don't see that the setting/adjustment of the neutral angle (AKA tilt-back) would make a difference. Obviously, the wheel doesn't reposition the feet and conversation of energy laws remain intact The riders reaction to tilt-back may or may not demand energy from the wheel. Of course I don't know whether the software also changes the controller characteristic under tilt-back. If it does, it seems advisable that it makes the characteristic less power demanding
  6. I don't know the specifics of this wheel, but with all likelihood the tiltback does not change how hard you can push at 20km/h (and it doesn't change how hard you can push at 30km/h either). I suspect that if you "push very hard" at 20km/h you can still outlean the ks14 either way.
  7. Weird that it is possible to make the controller so sensitive to essentially prevent fast acceleration. I think I also saw weird braking behavior on a V10 video and started to wonder about the physical limitations due to pedal height and lean angle. The above depiction however seems to suggest that this should not be a physical limitation. Thanks for the compliment, it's indeed very nice to discuss and getting this opportunity to deepen our understanding (slowly but steadily).
  8. Though that's only true if we consider the rider body to be static. Bending the knees and thereby stop countering the torque that pushes the rider forward will instantaneously reduce the current demand and still move the wheel in front of the rider (in particular at higher speed the rider may also fall quickly behind simply from the air resistance). I am pretty sure that one can reduce the current demand and at the exact same time speed up the wheel (without rider) , unless being already at a (very) low speed and at (very) low acceleration. That also works in practice, I have saved a few overlean situations this way. Kind of relevant to realize , bending the knees is the invariable life saver.
  9. Here are my three four question on the technical specs: Added weight = ? Suspension travel = ? Weight of the unsprung mass = ? Change if wheel width = ? If the answers are <=1.5kg, >=5cm, <=3kg, and <=1cm, I will change the camp and become a pro-suspenser eh, suspensioner?
  10. I assume you haven't seen this yet. It certainly doesn't look like to have market maturity as of yet, in particular lacking damping, but even without damping it doesn't seem to kick the rider off for some magical reasons:
  11. OK, so... ehmm, that is pretty impressive
  12. The idea that one would need to be strapped to a vehicle because it has suspension doesn't make any sense to me. It seems, we have a totally different conceptions of what suspension means and implies. Maybe a good summary is that I believe suspension reduces the (vertical) motion of the sprung mass, while you seem to suggest that suspension increases the (vertical) motion of the sprung mass. I am even pretty certain though that one of the main reasons to introduce suspension is to reduce vertical motion of the sprung mass. So be it, I guess that's not going to change any time soon Just FTR, I am a fierce proponent of bent and soft knees, I believe it is one of the major safety measures we have when riding an EUC.
  13. Yes. True, it is just one point in time. The point of attack where the colored force hits the pedal may be (and is) constantly changing, as part of the rider controlling the wheel. Do you agree that the only degree of freedom of the firmware response can be captured in the (temporary) change of the pedal tilt angle, and everything else is directly tied to this variable? Is there another independent additional variable I am missing? After all, as you wrote elsewhere, the only thing the wheel can do is either produce more torque or less torque which should be directly tied to a changing tilt angle (everything else being equal). I don't see that an immediate reaction of the wheel can prevent the rider from "leaning". Here is why: a simple but useful alternative conception/description of (forward) leaning is lifting/releasing the forefoot for a short period of time. This moves the point of attack on the pedal behind the axle and consequently drives the wheel behind the rider and hence the rider gets into a leaning position. If the wheel responds "instantaneously", I can achieve any lean angle "instantaneously" (well, as quickly as masses can move around). Many beginners feel that they cannot accelerate uphill even though they try to push hard. This is however due to a mistaken feedback loop on the rider side rather than on the wheel side, as most of us find out with time. It feels quite counterintuitive to lift the forefoot to induce acceleration, when acceleration indeed only happens finally by pushing into the forefoot.
  • Create New...