Jump to content
Mike Sacristan

I updated my 16X to FW 1.07

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, redfoxdude said:

Well, considering I take it up and down actual San Francisco slopes, daily, with no issues, I would say the 16X is indeed capable. :rolleyes::P:thumbup:

Silliness aside, I have also really been appreciating the beep alarms when I'm ripping up the hills, but I agree, they should be documented!

v1.07 has been great for me! I find this wheel so much more fun and comfortable than my Nikola.

Yeah I imagine it quite does well on the slopes. It would be fun if we had slopes like those here. That are actually asphalt and not dirt.

So you get beeps sometimes going up? 3 beeps? 4 beeps? Ever checked the stats to see what triggered them?

Thanks for sharing! I like the Nikola+ and am tempted to get one customised with 2600Wh and 21700 cells but i'm afraid it would steer like a truck. On the other hand it would solve my range/speed. But on the other hand it's winter now... I just came back from a 40km ride and still had over half battery left lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, redfoxdude said:

Well, considering I take it up and down actual San Francisco slopes, daily, with no issues, I would say the 16X is indeed capable. :rolleyes::P:thumbup:

Silliness aside, I have also really been appreciating the beep alarms when I'm ripping up the hills, but I agree, they should be documented!

v1.07 has been great for me! I find this wheel so much more fun and comfortable than my Nikola.

What's the steepest one you've riden? (name of the intersection) And total weight. This will allow us to calculate the bottom estimate of 16X's maximum torque at 0 RPM. And what was the current as reported by KS app or/and Wheellog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I charged my wheel turned off with a smartplug set to x hours timer to stop charging between 80-90% and I haven't heard the dreaded 4 beep. The wheel turns off after the power is cut. On 1.07

Edited by Dubardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lylesgold said:

Took the plunge and the update worked just like it should - I'm now riding with 1.07 and loving it!

Agree with you that it's smoother, definitely feels better than 1.06. The >5A beeps occurred initially but have not persisted, I'm using the eWheels charger.

I feel like my wheel is now ideal, it's everything I could want and totally dependable. The fastest I have gone so far is ~28 mph, so not yet familiar with tilt backs and lots of beeps, but I'm having so much fun. :thumbup:

Awesome! Great to hear!
Life is so simple when we have non-updateable wheels haha. And now here we are given "choice" but with no turning back.

I agree that it now feels ideal in 1.07.
28 mph is fast enough and 31 mph feels just about the same except we are hanging on for our lives lol.

The tilt back and beeps will come with lower battery (and safer speeds) so just run the battery to zero and see.
The cutoff is at 3.15V so it's not like we are doing a crazy deep discharge down to 2.5V. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mike Sacristan said:

Awesome! Great to hear!
Life is so simple when we have non-updateable wheels haha. And now here we are given "choice" but with no turning back.

I agree that it now feels ideal in 1.07.
28 mph is fast enough and 31 mph feels just about the same except we are hanging on for our lives lol.

The tilt back and beeps will come with lower battery (and safer speeds) so just run the battery to zero and see.
The cutoff is at 3.15V so it's not like we are doing a crazy deep discharge down to 2.5V. 

Thanks Mike, I'm back to riding for the sheer pleasure. As a downhill skier I relish cruising and carving without having to stop to take (or pay for) a lift back up, and I enjoy the all-season unlimited terrain.

Thanks to your investigative effort I now know what to expect re the tilt/beeps and don't plan on pushing the envelope, just keep on having fun and feeling lucky!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2019 at 12:44 AM, Mike Sacristan said:

After doing the 22 degree ramp which is only 3 meters the wheel showed 63.07v.
The wheel pulled around 14A on the ramp which coincides quite well with 30kmh on flats I believe.
Then I rode the remaining 500 meters home.
I didn't let it get to resting voltage as it didn't seem relevant.

 

On 11/17/2019 at 2:32 AM, Aneta said:

Something is terribly wrong with the numbers in their app. 37 watts going up 40% grade?

Even 14 amps is unrealistic, on this slope it should be 40-50 amps even for a light rider. At 22 degrees, even if total weight is only 80kg, it must produce 30kg of thrust!

With 14*63=882W - KS (are supposed to) show battery current. So with some reduction for losses still enough for slow climbing.

5 km/h at 22° should need about 500W.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Chriull said:

 

With 14*63=882W - KS (are supposed to) show battery current. So with some reduction for losses still enough for slow climbing.

5 km/h at 22° should need about 500W.

 

That's mechanical power, not electrical. At low RPM, BLDC motors are terribly inefficient. Here's an illustration showing 80kg climbing 40.4% grade at 6kph using 500W of motor power and 1400W of battery power:

https://www.ebikes.ca/tools/simulator.html?batt=cust_68_0.2_20&cont=cust_100_200_0.03_V&wheel=17i&frame=cust_1_0.01&hp=0&blue=Lbs&motor=M3540&cont_b=cust_100_200_0.03_V&batt_b=cust_84_0.2_20&wheel_b=17i&frame_b=cust_1_0.01&hp_b=0&grade_b=40.4&eff_b=97&gear_b=2&mass=80&mass_b=80&autothrot=true&autothrot_b=true&throt_b=26&grade=40.4&throt=32.8

(battery amps: 22.1A)

The question whether KS telemetry (or its interpretation by Wheellog) is valid is still up in the air... (it surely was not valid when it was showing the battery always at 100%)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 12:51 AM, Mike Sacristan said:

 

 

@2:02 >> "They make soup out of this, it's shit man"  :roflmao:

Edited by travsformation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm coming from an 18XL and will be receiving my 16X in about 3 weeks. I understand the increased torque means I can expect much better hill climbing capabilities, right? :D

And how about braking and control when going DOWN steep hills? Any better than an 18"?

Edited by travsformation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, travsformation said:

@2:02 >> "They make soup out of this, it's shit man"  :roflmao:

Haha. Nypon = rose hip. Some funky tasting soup lol. It's has to much grainy / flour texture. Sweet and bitter but just weird to me.

17 hours ago, travsformation said:

I'm coming from an 18XL and will be receiving my 16X in about 3 weeks. I understand the increased torque means I can expect much better hill climbing capabilities, right? :D

And his about braking and control when going DOWN steep hills? Any better than an 18"?

I think the hill climbing power comes from the geometry/diameter of the wheel itself and also because of the Kingsong algorithm in pedal assist.
It will be interesting to try in FW 1.07 hard mode and compare it with the medium mode which was like FW 1.05 hard mode.
I filmed Petra (Tesla) and Simon (18XL) trying to climb the hill and they both failed.

Of course a lot is in the hands of the rider but you can't make something out of nothing.
There are plenty of hills I have climbed where I have not been able to climb with the MSX and where Simon hasn't been able to climb with the 18XL.

Even if I would have an MCM5 I would get stuck on rocks, roots, terrain, etc so for me the 16X is a big win and it unlocks new areas for me.
The Tesla has great geometry and a bit higher pedals than the MCM5 but still gets stuck on way too much stuff.

I have way too many clips of me climbing stuff haha.

When it comes to going down... I suck. And my feeling when riding the 16X is that it runs away from me. So maybe if I moved my feet back a bit.
I am going to practice more though... it's inevitable after all. I can't go up forever.

 

Edited by Mike Sacristan
commented down hill riding as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's look at this ski slope in Flottsbro and dissect it a little.

https://goo.gl/maps/TyQ1gECiAc9xK2e18

If we move the points around and look at the elevation and the distance we get variations from 22% to 26% grade.
If we remove the last part of the climb it is a 26% grade.

Inclines around 25% become a different story especially if there is an issue with traction and uneven terrain as well as obstacles.
Then we need clearance. This eliminates the Tesla and MCM5. The 18XL can live on but the MSX and 16X will be ahead in terms of clearance and pedal height.

Here is Simon on the 18XL failing the climb which starts at 16:46. He made it half way.
I struggled and was close to quitting but I pushed on.

 

Here is another time when we were at that hill.
Petra didn't quite make it to the half way mark. The climbing starts at 2:14.
Obstacles like small rocks vs the smaller tyre cause quick angle increases which are hard to torque through when we are already at our physical limits.

Here I am on the MSX.
Failed halfway.

The slope is similar to the hardest part of dream hill which is 40 meters long.
The hard part of Flottsbro ski slope is 200 meters.

Will be fun to try on FW 1.07.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting tests, and determination to push and study the limits of our wheels deserves nothing but applause. Bravo, @Mike Sacristan!

There's a lot of variability, though - rider's weight is the major (direct proportionality) factor in gravity pull tests, but also the unevenness of terrain - some divot or bump with some 30 degrees angle relative to slope can instantly increase the motor load from 24% of total weight (for 25% grade, or 14 degrees) to a unsurmountable 70% of weight (97% grade, 14+30=44 degrees). (% grade is the tangent of the angle; g-pull as % of weight is sine of the angle) As a result, rider who doesn't see this divot, will inevitably fall, while the rider that goes around it will have no problem.

I wonder if anyone had thought of doing more scientific measurements/comparison by simply making a variable-angle ramp for testing the near-zero speed thrust. It can be as simple as a piece of thick plywood 1m by 2m with sand paper on it for better traction. Angle can easily be varied by leaning it against some support (like wall) and securing the bottom edge with something like tent pegs into the ground. Then the same rider can test different wheels and find the angle for each that it can no longer start moving from standstill. Then we'll have very reliable and scientific data about each wheel. Something like this:

(but variable angle)

Edited by Aneta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Mike Sacristan said:

I think the hill climbing power comes from the geometry/diameter of the wheel itself and also because of the Kingsong algorithm in pedal assist.
It will be interesting to try in FW 1.07 hard mode and compare it with the medium mode which was like FW 1.05 hard mode.
I filmed Petra (Tesla) and Simon (18XL) trying to climb the hill and they both failed.

Of course a lot is in the hands of the rider but you can't make something out of nothing.

Looks like the 16X is definitely a good climber! Indeed, I'm sure some of it's down to the rider (it would be interesting if you'd switched wheels with Petra & Simon to see if you could climb it with the Tesla and 18XL), but regardless, those are some steep-ass hills! I've climbed some pretty steep stuff on the 18XL, but it's HARD work---all your weight forward, your toes trying to wrap around the pedal for grip, praying the wheel won't cut-out on you....I'm sure the 16X would have made easy work out of the toughest climbs I've managed, and saved me the walk the times I've had to dismount ! :D

Thanks for posting all of those videos! (I won't include them in the quote so it's not 1/2 page long) :efee612b4b:  Great material!!!

23 hours ago, Mike Sacristan said:

Obstacles like small rocks vs the smaller tyre cause quick angle increases which are hard to torque through when we are already at our physical limits.

I find that on steep climbs, turning to avoid obstacles can sometimes be too much when you're leaning forward so much; you're already at the very limit of your balance with weight distributed equally on both feet, so even a slight weight increase on one foot can be enough to tip the scale and cause the wheel to whip around and throw you off. In my experience, the best approach is to either avoid weight shifting and turn by twisting the wheel on the vertical axis (easier said than done), to turn & counter-turn aggressively enough to re-balance weight before it gets out of whack, or to approach obstacles as if they were small curbs and power over them. On steep climbs it's more challenging than on flat terrain, but the same principle applies. The main difference is that you have less inertia to work with so you need more knee-springing-action (flex - push down - flex - push down), and have to resist the intuitive reflex of backing off after impact, and instead keep leaning forward and hope the wheel will be able to keep you upright :efee612b4b:

Then again, that last approach might not be applicable with the Tesla... 

And perhaps there are better ways and I'm just stuck in 18", plow-over-shit mode... :efee612b4b:

23 hours ago, Mike Sacristan said:

When it comes to going down... I suck. And my feeling when riding the 16X is that it runs away from me. So maybe if I moved my feet back a bit.

I learned to ride on some pretty steep terrain, and soon found myself re-adjusting my feet (placing them further backwards) before steep downhills. The other day I went down some seriously steep stuff (Pic 1 / Pic 2) on the 18XL and even with my feet as far back on the pedal as I could possibly get them, I still had trouble. If the surface is asphalt or not-too-rugged dirt, I can manage by zig-zagging my way down with sharp turns, but when it's too rutted for that and your wheel's trying to run away from you...that's scary business...

Edited by travsformation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW @Mike Sacristan, I couldn't help but notice what you mention about the 18XL vs 16X braking at 2:22.

 

Where do you reckon the braking wobbles come from? Tire size? Pedal height (and higher relative center of gravity)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, travsformation said:

BTW @Mike Sacristan, I couldn't help but notice what you mention about the 18XL vs 16X braking at 2:22.

 

Where do you reckon the braking wobbles come from? Tire size? Pedal height (and higher relative center of gravity)?

I think it comes from how high the pedals are in relation the size of the wheel. So basically how close the pedals are to the center of the wheel and also the fact that the 16X encourage not touching the sides. Braking is much better in FW 1.07 though and now I am relearning to break without such a dramatic posture change. I also have to get my feet to a more neutral pedal position as I tend to have my feet to far forward. So a very little posture change forward gets me to 45 kmh but braking becomes a challenge. I'm sure you will do just fine on it though coming from an 18XL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Aneta said:

Very interesting tests, and determination to push and study the limits of our wheels deserves nothing but applause. Bravo, @Mike Sacristan!

There's a lot of variability, though - rider's weight is the major (direct proportionality) factor in gravity pull tests, but also the unevenness of terrain - some divot or bump with some 30 degrees angle relative to slope can instantly increase the motor load from 24% of total weight (for 25% grade, or 14 degrees) to a unsurmountable 70% of weight (97% grade, 14+30=44 degrees). (% grade is the tangent of the angle; g-pull as % of weight is sine of the angle) As a result, rider who doesn't see this divot, will inevitably fall, while the rider that goes around it will have no problem.

I wonder if anyone had thought of doing more scientific measurements/comparison by simply making a variable-angle ramp for testing the near-zero speed thrust. It can be as simple as a piece of thick plywood 1m by 2m with sand paper on it for better traction. Angle can easily be varied by leaning it against some support (like wall) and securing the bottom edge with something like tent pegs into the ground. Then the same rider can test different wheels and find the angle for each that it can no longer start moving from standstill. Then we'll have very reliable and scientific data about each wheel. Something like this:

(but variable angle)

I have been thinking a lot about rider weight.

Let's take Petra. She weighs 55kg. Does this giver her an advantage or a disadvantage vs me at 64kg.
Lighter weight on the wheel but less amount of mass that can be put over the front of the wheel.
How about me vs a 84kg rider?
How about when we start stressing the wheel with a 100kg+ rider?

Divots and bumps are a big issue like you say and can quickly change the grade in a second.
Sometimes we can go over and sometimes we can't. Larger wheels will roll over these uneven surfaces better and higher pedals will clear them.
So the superior geometry of a wheel like the MCM5 will not be enough because of low pedals, low shell, etc.
 

6 hours ago, travsformation said:

Looks like the 16X is definitely a good climber! Indeed, I'm sure some of it's down to the rider (it would be interesting if you'd switched wheels with Petra & Simon to see if you could climb it with the Tesla and 18XL), but regardless, those are some steep-ass hills! I've climbed some pretty steep stuff on the 18XL, but it's HARD work---all your weight forward, your toes trying to wrap around the pedal for grip, praying the wheel won't cut-out on you....I'm sure the 16X would have made easy work out of the toughest climbs I've managed, and saved me the walk the times I've had to dismount ! :D

Thanks for posting all of those videos! (I won't include them in the quote so it's not 1/2 page long) :efee612b4b:  Great material!!!

I find that on steep climbs, turning to avoid obstacles can sometimes be too much when you're leaning forward so much; you're already at the very limit of your balance with weight distributed equally on both feet, so even a slight weight increase on one foot can be enough to tip the scale and cause the wheel to whip around and throw you off. In my experience, the best approach is to either avoid weight shifting and turn by twisting the wheel on the vertical axis (easier said than done), to turn & counter-turn aggressively enough to re-balance weight before it gets out of whack, or to approach obstacles as if they were small curbs and power over them. On steep climbs it's more challenging than on flat terrain, but the same principle applies. The main difference is that you have less inertia to work with so you need more knee-springing-action (flex - push down - flex - push down), and have to resist the intuitive reflex of backing off after impact, and instead keep leaning forward and hope the wheel will be able to keep you upright :efee612b4b:

Then again, that last approach might not be applicable with the Tesla... 

And perhaps there are better ways and I'm just stuck in 18", plow-over-shit mode... :efee612b4b:

I learned to ride on some pretty steep terrain, and soon found myself re-adjusting my feet (placing them further backwards) before steep downhills. The other day I went down some seriously steep stuff (Pic 1 / Pic 2) on the 18XL and even with my feet as far back on the pedal as I could possibly get them, I still had trouble. If the surface is asphalt or not-too-rugged dirt, I can manage by zig-zagging my way down with sharp turns, but when it's too rutted for that and your wheel's trying to run away from you...that's scary business...

I'm sure that you will instantly find the advantages of the 16X considering how much riding you've been doing on the 18XL.
The higher pedals on the 16X actually do let us turn while climbing which is a blessing. With the Tesla we will hit the pedals most of the time and sometimes with the 18XL too. And like you say we are already at the limit of our effort on the larger wheels so no extra ability for turning or twisting. Just squeezing and grinding.

Here is some more climbing with the Tesla vs 16X.

Aaaand later Simon and I did the same with the MSX and 18XL. Which resulted in quite a shit show. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, travsformation said:

I've climbed some pretty steep stuff on the 18XL, but it's HARD work---all your weight forward, your toes trying to wrap around the pedal for grip, praying the wheel won't cut-out on you...

I ride very steep inclines and declines regularly on the MSX, and I’m certain I wouldn’t manage them without my DIY extended pedals and/or power pads. The control and stability is increased by a huge amount. The 16X is surely a different animal than the MSX, but for the few short tests I was able to accelerate uphill better on my MSX. If I was to get familiar on the 16X... I don’t know.

6 hours ago, travsformation said:

I find that on steep climbs, turning to avoid obstacles can sometimes be too much when you're leaning forward so much; you're already at the very limit of your balance with weight distributed equally on both feet, so even a slight weight increase on one foot can be enough to tip the scale and cause the wheel to whip around and throw you off. In my experience, the best approach is to either avoid weight shifting and turn by twisting the wheel on the vertical axis (easier said than done)

Reading this made me think how do I do it on steep inclines with roots and rocks to slalom through. Indeed, I have my hands horizontally to the sides to give me counterweight for twisting. My knees are taking support from the power pads, which also makes tilting impractical. I never actually analyzed how I do it!

6 hours ago, travsformation said:

And perhaps there are better ways and I'm just stuck in 18", plow-over-shit mode... :efee612b4b:

A local rider liked the feel of my MSX enough to install actual shoe-sized pedal plates on his 18XL as well. It felt absolutely fantastic! Something to consider if you like to ride steeps.

6 hours ago, travsformation said:

I learned to ride on some pretty steep terrain, and soon found myself re-adjusting my feet (placing them further backwards) before steep downhills.

Just imagine what some additional 1.5” would let you achieve!

:roflmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mike Sacristan said:

Let's take Petra. She weighs 55kg. Does this giver her an advantage or a disadvantage vs me at 64kg.
Lighter weight on the wheel but less amount of mass that can be put over the front of the wheel.

To produce the amount of torque on the pedals to give the motor "throttle signal" sufficient to go up the given grade, the lighter rider just needs to stand a bit more forward on the pedals than the heavier one.

Let's assume that at your weight of 64kg the torque arm of your center of pressure (COP) on the pedals relative to axle is 1cm. Your total riding weight is 90kg (~26kg wheel). Petra's riding weight will be 81kg, so the thrust needed will be 81/90 = 90% of yours. So, the countertorque of motor (which tries to swing the pedals forward) will be 90% of yours, she needs to counteract it with 55/64 = 86% of weight of yours, so her center of pressure torque arm needs to be 1cm * 0.9 / 0.86 = 1.05cm - almost negligible difference!

Edited by Aneta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, Aneta said:

To produce the amount of torque on the pedals to give the motor "throttle signal" sufficient to go up the given grade, the lighter rider just needs to stand a bit more forward on the pedals than the heavier one.

Let's assume that at your weight of 64kg the torque arm of your center of pressure (COP) on the pedals relative to axle is 1cm. Your total riding weight is 90kg (~26kg wheel). Petra's riding weight will be 81kg, so the thrust needed will be 81/90 = 90% of yours. So, the countertorque of motor (which tries to swing the pedals forward) will be 90% of yours, she needs to counteract it with 55/64 = 86% of weight of yours, so her center of pressure torque arm needs to be 1cm * 0.9 / 0.86 = 1.05cm - almost negligible difference!

Nice calculation. And that was pretty much my point when I asked the question.

 

As a response to this.

On 12/8/2019 at 2:30 AM, Aneta said:

rider's weight is the major (direct proportionality) factor in gravity pull tests,

While it is a factor it has to be quantifiable and meaningful.
Is it advantageous or not and at which point is it no longer advantageous?
On a 16X or on a Ninebot One E+?

If we redo it with Petra and Simon.
Petra 55kg. + ~26kg wheel = 81kg (16X is 24.5 but for the sake of the previous calculation) 
Simon 84kg. + ~26kg wheel = 110kg

81/110 = 73% countertorque counteracted with 55/84  = 65%.
1cm * 0.73 / 0.65 = 1.12cm for a 55kg rider to equal a 84kg rider?

12% forward difference? I find that hard to be believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... assuming some response curve response from the euc firmware ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, mrelwood said:

 

Just imagine what some additional 1.5” would let you achieve!

:roflmao:

:efee612b4b:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...