I updated my 16X to FW 1.07

[Aneta]

34 minutes ago, Mike Sacristan said:

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

Strange, indeed. Only 1mm difference. (not much in the same context as "Just imagine what some additional 1.5” would let you achieve!", either)

Then I don't understand what's wrong with this calculation. Intuitively, it does seem that the difference between heavy and light rider in positioning of their feet on the pedals when going up a steep slope should be substantial. Paging our Scientific Response Team: @Chriull, @zeke, @mrelwood, @Mono, @meepmeepmayer

[mrelwood]

 

5 hours ago, Mike Sacristan said:

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.

 

4 hours ago, Aneta said:

Then I don't understand what's wrong with this calculation. Intuitively, it does seem that the difference between heavy and light rider in positioning of their feet on the pedals when going up a steep slope should be substantial. Paging our Scientific Response Team: @Chriull, @zeke, @mrelwood, @Mono, @meepmeepmayer

Big thanks to The Team to include me as a board member!

I don’t see an issue in the calculation for what it calculates: foot positioning / amount of lean in a smooth incline with limitless grip. What the test with Petra and Simon would fail to do is cut down two major variables, so the actual results could be very different. Variables being grip and brains.

In the entertaining Mike & Simon & MSX & 18XL video a primary concern turned out to be the lack of grip on a bumpy grass hillock for both Mike and Simon. How does the rider’s weight weigh the scales regarding grip?

For a more precise test, Petra and Simon should share the same brain. Otherwise the result could reflect anything in their differing riding styles. I suggest we load Petra up with 40kg of additional weight attached tightly and evenly at the front and back of her body. 2 backpacks, 20 liters of milk/water/glögg in each would do nicely!

I could also make the same tests, but as I’d be losing quite a lot of weight in between, it might take enough time for my riding style / wheel model / laws of physics / me being alive to significantly change...

[Chriull]

@Mike SacristanS @Aneta - we had the discussion about what determines the forward thrust ("zippiness") in regard to riders weight and wheel geometry:

But afair no real idea how different riding modes/firmwares influece this basic geometry considerations.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Chriull

[Aneta]

@Mike Sacristan, I wonder if it would be helpful for Petra when climbing supersteep slopes to recalibrate the pedals to upward tilt, i.e front of pedals higher than back. This will create additional leverage, since there will be already some torque arm to start with. I don't know if recalibration on 16X is tedious or not and if it requires the app? On my GT16 it's as simple and quick as continuing to hold the power button for like 3-4 seconds longer when powering on, done. Could be a working solution if it works. I'll test it, too, when I have a chance.

@Chriull, @Mono, thanks for that thread, it looks like the Mariana Trench of juicy EUC Science, will dive in!

[Mono]

15 hours ago, Mike Sacristan said:

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.

Why? And what else would you expect? It seems you can only expect either a much larger, like 30% difference or a much smaller, like 5% difference? Picking from these three I don't find 12% particularly hard to believe.

My thought (AKA I am not so sure the calculations are that simple):

When the weight is moved forward, I think that the angle between the tangential to the axle (the direction where the torque applies, black arrows) and the direction of the weight force increases (gets closer to 180º) and hence becomes more favorable/efficient, which introduces a non-linear effect in favor of the lighter rider (as long as they don't run out of pedal length).

This should make the displacement somewhat smaller than the computed 12%.

[mrelwood]

7 hours ago, Aneta said:

@Mike Sacristan, I wonder if it would be helpful for Petra when climbing supersteep slopes to recalibrate the pedals to upward tilt, i.e front of pedals higher than back. This will create additional leverage, since there will be already some torque arm to start with.

How come? Torque arm in relation to what exactly? The pedals will just stay in a position that requires more ankle flex, and hence give the feeling of less available pedal grip. Even a steady tilt-back works for reducing acceleration and speed, since it makes it harder to push for more. A fixed position of any angle doesn’t give an additional torque arm, the wheel will react to user input just the same.

If anything, a very slight tilt forward might be beneficial instead, unless riding with a softer mode since it makes it easier to fall off the front.

Edited December 10, 2019 by mrelwood

[Aneta]

1 hour ago, mrelwood said:

How come? Torque arm in relation to what exactly? The pedals will just stay in a position that requires more ankle flex, and hence give the feeling of less available pedal grip. Even a steady tilt-back works for reducing acceleration and speed, since it makes it harder to push for more. A fixed position of any angle doesn’t give an additional torque arm, the wheel will react to user input just the same.

If anything, a very slight tilt forward might be beneficial instead, unless riding with a softer mode since it makes it easier to fall off the front.

Imagine the extreme situation (not possible in reality, but it's a thought experiment) when you calibrated the wheel so that its shell is rotated 90 degrees backwards and the pedals are in front of the wheel and are vertical. Imagine you're still able to somehow stand on their edges and put all your weight on them. This will create huge torque relative to the axle (your weight times the distance between the pedal and axle) and will easily rotate them and give huge "throttle input" to the gyro. To apply full throttle, we only need perhaps just single-digit rotation of the pedals, in this situation you will easily rotate them by 90 degrees. So, coming back to earth from our thought experiment, we just calibrate the wheel so that the pedals are tilted up perhaps some 5 degrees - it'll still create some torque just by the virtue of your weight applied at some forward point of the axle. I'll test it tomorrow.

[mrelwood]

58 minutes ago, Aneta said:

Imagine the extreme situation (not possible in reality, but it's a thought experiment) when you calibrated the wheel so that its shell is rotated 90 degrees backwards and the pedals are in front of the wheel and are vertical. ...

So the additional leverage comes only from the pedals swinging slightly forward relative to the axle when the wheel is tilted backwards? The phrase ”Already some torque arm” confused me.

This was an idea worthy of a few measurements. On the 16S, tilting the wheel 5 degrees back moves the front edge of the pedals 8mm closer to the tire front. On the MSX it moves 6mm.

For comparison, my extended pedals surpass the front of the original pedals by 30mm on the 16S and 60mm on the MSX.

I don’t think the small gain from the backwards calibration would counteract the cons.

58 minutes ago, Aneta said:

Imagine you're still able to somehow stand on their edges and put all your weight on them. This will create huge torque relative to the axle (your weight times the distance between the pedal and axle)

The original pedals on both of my wheels reach further forward from the axle when the wheel is horizontal vs vertical. Roughly 1cm on the 16S, and roughly 7-8cm on the MSX. The most forward position is somewhere in between, quickly guessing 40 degrees on the 16S and 30 degrees on the MSX. Maybe try those angles for a calibration? 

[Mono]

7 hours ago, Aneta said:

Imagine the extreme situation (not possible in reality, but it's a thought experiment) when you calibrated the wheel so that its shell is rotated 90 degrees backwards and the pedals are in front of the wheel and are vertical. Imagine you're still able to somehow stand on their edges and put all your weight on them. This will create huge torque relative to the axle (your weight times the distance between the pedal and axle)

Imagine rotating the shell even further such that the pedals tips are exactly above the axle, then the torque will be zero, right?

I believe there is a loss due to the angle between the vertical axis and the tangent to the wheel radius that you didn't account for. This loss is only zero if the force is applied at the horizontal level of the axle, i.e. when the "angle of attack" is 90º to the vertical line. In other words, what counts as leverage is the horizontal distance to the axle, or the projection of the distance between applied force and axle on the ground. If I got this geometrically right, the loss computes as sin(angle of attack).

 

 

[Mike Sacristan]

16 hours ago, mrelwood said:

How come? Torque arm in relation to what exactly? The pedals will just stay in a position that requires more ankle flex, and hence give the feeling of less available pedal grip. Even a steady tilt-back works for reducing acceleration and speed, since it makes it harder to push for more. A fixed position of any angle doesn’t give an additional torque arm, the wheel will react to user input just the same.

If anything, a very slight tilt forward might be beneficial instead, unless riding with a softer mode since it makes it easier to fall off the front.

I agree with this. And tested this ages ago.
It just made it harder to climb. In my mind I though that it would make it easier to accelerate but after trying it in practice and thinking about what I had just done it made sense as to why. It simply makes it harder to distribute my weight forward. I felt pretty stupid afterwards.

Indeed a slight forward tilt is beneficial.

[Aneta]

I fail to see how tilting pedals up as the new calibrated "horizon" won't be helpful when needing very high torque. Suppose, 10-degree rotation of pedals back relative to calibrated position commands 100% throttle to the motor, and I calibrated the zero to be with 20 degree tilt up. If I stand on these pedals, surely the torque from my weight will be sufficient to push the pedals 10 degrees down from 20 degree neutral point? And then another 10 degrees remain as equilibrium position due to countertorque from the motor. Wrong?

Unfortunately, didn't have a steep hill nearby my route today, will try tomorrow. For now and for me, it remains purely theoretical question, and I'm confused why tilt up won't make climbing hills easier.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Aneta

[Mono]

On 12/10/2019 at 6:25 AM, mrelwood said:

How come? Torque arm in relation to what exactly? The pedals will just stay in a position that requires more ankle flex, and hence give the feeling of less available pedal grip. Even a steady tilt-back works for reducing acceleration and speed, since it makes it harder to push for more. A fixed position of any angle doesn’t give an additional torque arm, the wheel will react to user input just the same.

On 12/10/2019 at 10:42 PM, Mike Sacristan said:

Indeed a slight forward tilt is beneficial.

In order to get maximum torque for any given weight, the optimal attack point for weight is far away from the motor axle and at the same horizontal level as the axle (this changes slightly depending on acceleration and speed, because the combined push weight force doesn't apply exactly vertically anymore). This means, optimal would be an extreme backwards tilt (pedal up to axle height), much too strong to be comfortable or practical or even feasible. That means however that any comfortable backwards tilt should increase the ability to produce torque. Whether the effect is large enough to be even perceivable is difficult to say. The uncomfortable foot positioning is probably more notable. I don't think that contradicts tiltback. What happens if I get more torque for the same push and don't change my body position? The wheel will accelerate in front of me. That is how tiltback works.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Mono

[Chriull]

20 minutes ago, Mono said:

In order to get maximum torque for any given weight, the optimal attack point for weight is far away from the motor axle and at the same horizontal level as the axle

+1 - as torque is the vector product of the "line" bewteen attack point and axle with a given force (weight force going straight down) the maximum torque can be achieved with having 90° (pedal dips the rider is standing on at the height of the axle)

23 minutes ago, Mono said:

this changes slightly depending on acceleration and speed, because the weight force doesn't apply exactly vertically anymore

No. The weight force stays independend of the forward acceleration with the same amount straight down - earth and riders gravity center do not really change relative position. Just as the rider has to counter the forward acceleration/(inertia, lean & grip) to stay on the wheel he has a second force impacting him. So the resulting force (weight force + acceleration/inertia force) is changing direction and amountwise.

In case the "attack point"/pedal tip is horicontal on axel height this acceleration/inertia force has torquewise no impact (0°)

33 minutes ago, Mono said:

What happens if I get more torque for the same push and don't change my body position? The wheel will accelerate in front of me. That is how tiltback works.

Exactly! The motor "produces" more torque as needed to counter the rider induced torque changing the relative pedal position (increases tilt) and by the higher torqe also creates more acceleration (against the surface). As there is no "body position change" the rider "does not take" this additional acceleration and so the wheel gets in front of the rider.

But the rider has the chance to increase the torque, too. In "normal" pedal positions the acceleration countered by the riders forward lean (inertia force against the pedals) changes the resulting force of the rider on the pedal (weight + inertia) to change the angle closer to the 90° and an increase in value.

So a tiltback could be countered until the pedal tip is on the height of the axle. If the rider reacts fast enough he could "keep the pedals straight" until the resulting force on the pedal tip reaches 90°, then the motor could tilt the pedal tips up...

Just in real life the wheel limits the tilt or one has already overleaned the wheel...

Could be ab explanation of how riders can accelerate directly into an overlean with no tiltback happening...

 

[DjPanJan]

746/5000

 

     I would like to return this thread from polemizing over the essence of the universe.Back to I updated my 16X to FW 1.07

It was a hysteria of some members here on the forum and a few videos ,where things fell like firmware 1.07 It's not ks16x anymore . That it is like KS 16S / on 1.07 not worth $ 1000 more than others etc.

It was caused by the fact that these people are unjust and need only be interesting or it has a deeper meaning?
Was it because 1.07 changed the behavior of the pedals and therefore felt that the performance is gone?
 

Or really firmware 1.07 is so much worse than version 1.05.
 

I ask therefore that some sellers offer the possibility to change the FW to be 1.05
And is it safe on the machine which was at 1.07 from the manufacturer and has "maybe" changed hardware stuffing into it the older firmware 1.05 is it safe?

 

In other words, drama 1.05 vs 1.07 was mainly about adjusting the sensitivity of the pedals after the update to calibrate and everything is as before or even better with 1.07? Or I'm wrong and all reviews are no longer valid because KS16X with firmware 1.07 is not behaving and is not the same model KS16x you reviewed just after the release?

All these questions I ask that I understand what 1.07 in the kernel did and to adjust the performance dependency or speed on the rest of the battery with a priority on safety.

(I do not want to quote anyone to offend because I appreciate that people here share their experiences and advice just interested me how it seems after some time)

 

[Mono]

FW 1.07? What is this, sounds boring to me 

Edited December 11, 2019 by Mono

[Mike Sacristan]

18 minutes ago, DjPanJan said:

746/5000

 

     I would like to return this thread from polemizing over the essence of the universe.Back to I updated my 16X to FW 1.07

It was a hysteria of some members here on the forum and a few videos ,where things fell like firmware 1.07 It's not ks16x anymore . That it is like KS 16S / on 1.07 not worth $ 1000 more than others etc.

It was caused by the fact that these people are unjust and need only be interesting or it has a deeper meaning?
Was it because 1.07 changed the behavior of the pedals and therefore felt that the performance is gone?
 

Or really firmware 1.07 is so much worse than version 1.05.
 

I ask therefore that some sellers offer the possibility to change the FW to be 1.05
And is it safe on the machine which was at 1.07 from the manufacturer and has "maybe" changed hardware stuffing into it the older firmware 1.05 is it safe?

 

In other words, drama 1.05 vs 1.07 was mainly about adjusting the sensitivity of the pedals after the update to calibrate and everything is as before or even better with 1.07? Or I'm wrong and all reviews are no longer valid because KS16X with firmware 1.07 is not behaving and is not the same model KS16x you reviewed just after the release?

All these questions I ask that I understand what 1.07 in the kernel did and to adjust the performance dependency or speed on the rest of the battery with a priority on safety.

(I do not want to quote anyone to offend because I appreciate that people here share their experiences and advice just interested me how it seems after some time)

 

Well said. As many riders here were unsure regarding updating from 1.05 to 1.07 I did the update, did extensive testing, recording the process and made 3 clips of the process for those who really want to know. In the description of the videos I also linked to this forum so that people don't have to watch one hour of footage to get a 5 minutes summary.

Usually when people give feedback they do so by giving feedback on the thing but no criticism to themselves. This is the base of most reviews.
"The wheel is now not as responsive"
vs
"The harder pedal mode requires more input from me"
Then discuss productively the advantages vs disadvantages of pedal modes instead of complaining that the wheel doesn't do all the work for us.

On FW 1.05 the 16X always throttled for me.
On FW 1.07 it continues to throttle but it does so 2-3 kmh earlier.
The hard pedal mode on FW 1.05 is equal to the medium pedal mode on FW 1.07. If you leave the 16X on FW 1.07 hard pedal mode then you will have to work more / lean more to move the wheel. This is not an issue and we can quickly get accustomed to it or simply change pedal mode to medium or move your feet forward 2cm.
I really like the 88% alarm. I have sometimes pressed soft tiltback and gotten this warning.

Denis Hagov in particular complained about the 16X feeling like 16S. He also commented that it could be different for me because I am a lighter rider. This is opposite to my understanding of how wheels work though as heavier riders should have an easier time manipulating the wheel as long as we are equally fit. Otherwise the medium mode is there and so is the easy mode.

The hard mode is still too soft for me and I would prefer it a bit harder (MSX style). This is apparent off-road when hitting obstacles as the wheel yields.

Remember that it is Kingsong who advised to update to FW 1.07 and Jason from eWheels even started a thread regarding this advisory.

The 16X is not a 50kmh wheel just as the V10F is not a 40kmh wheel.
I bought it thinking that it would be a 50kmh down to 25% battery just as the 18XL is announced.
At 50% battery I am stuck at 42-44kmh.
It took months for the community to realise this.
Enough people overleaned the wheel at FW 1.05 for Kingsong to do quickly release an overly conservative 1.06.
Enough people complained about 1.06 for Kingsong to release 1.07.
Please see my first post and let me know if there is any more information you need.

After 3 weeks of FW 1.07 I now understand the hard mode better. It limits the range of motion of the pedals compared to the FW 1.05 hard mode which could tilt further forwards and backwards.

[Tazarinho]

11 minutes ago, Mike Sacristan said:

The 16X is not a 50kmh wheel just as the V10F is not a 40kmh wheel.
I bought it thinking that it would be a 50kmh down to 25% battery just as the 18XL is announced.
At 50% battery I am stuck at 42-44kmh.
It took months for the community to realise this.
Enough people overleaned the wheel at FW 1.05 for Kingsong to do quickly release an overly conservative 1.06.
Enough people complained about 1.06 for Kingsong to release 1.07.
Please see my first post and let me know if there is any more information you need.

Well summarized!

[stephen]

I'm also on 1.07 it's the best firmware in my findings👍 and i cant go back ,but i chose to update it  after testing 105/1.06/1.07

[Mike Sacristan]

7 minutes ago, stephen said:

I'm also on 1.07 it's the best firmware in my findings👍 and i cant go back ,but i chose to update it  after testing 105/1.06/1.07

Yes and it's thanks to you that I felt that I could update with no big losses.
You put quite a bit of work in testing, reviewing and filming. And you were a tester for Kingsong there for a while right? And had the chance to roll back and stay there.. but for +2kmh and a greater possibility of overlean it's not worth it. The wheel can only do what it can do and no firmware will turn it into something it is not.

[skautas2003]

I have different opinion 1.05  has better acceleration. I tried 1.06 and 1.07 and then rollback to 1.05.

As i understand if you need to lean harder to achieve same acceleration it means whell is slower. Speed maybe same but acceleration slower.

For me it is day and night because i prefer better acceleration versus speed I do not drive 50km/h but i can achieve 47km/h and it is totaly ok with 1.05 and 83 kg weight.

My experience 200 km 1.06 400km 1.06 and now 600 km with 1.05

About accidents after one accident with 1.05 KS released 1.06 now we have accident with 1.07 with no indications. So problem not with 1.05

 

 

[Mike Sacristan]

3 minutes ago, skautas2003 said:

I have different opinion 1.05  has better acceleration. I tried 1.06 and 1.07 and then rollback to 1.05.

As i understand if you need to lean harder to achieve same acceleration it means whell is slower. Speed maybe same but acceleration slower.

For me it is day and night because i prefer better acceleration versus speed I do not drive 50km/h but i can achieve 47km/h and it is totaly ok with 1.05 and 83 kg weight.

My experience 200 km 1.06 400km 1.06 and now 600 km with 1.05

About accidents after one accident with 1.05 KS released 1.06 now we have accident with 1.07 with no indications. So problem not with 1.05

 

 

Which pedal modes did you try and compare?

With 1.05 I did acceleration tests vs MSX and 18XL and they were all the same so to me the acceleration limiting factor is my ability and courage as a rider.
I have over 5000km on my MSX so leaning a bit is not an issue for me and feels more realistic and dynamic.

If I want to work less and fall asleep on the wheel I switch to medium mode. 

[stephen]

2 hours ago, Mike Sacristan said:

Yes and it's thanks to you that I felt that I could update with no big losses.
You put quite a bit of work in testing, reviewing and filming. And you were a tester for Kingsong there for a while right? And had the chance to roll back and stay there.. but for +2kmh and a greater possibility of overlean it's not worth it. The wheel can only do what it can do and no firmware will turn it into something it is not.

Thanks mike ,, yes i tested the firmwares  for a while and 1.07 is so nice to ride , i rolled back and forth but still went to 1.07 , acceleration is good on 1.07 for my leverage and weight but the overall ride just seems better👍

[skautas2003]

On 12/11/2019 at 7:13 PM, Mike Sacristan said:

Which pedal modes did you try and compare?

With 1.05 I did acceleration tests vs MSX and 18XL and they were all the same so to me the acceleration limiting factor is my ability and courage as a rider.
I have over 5000km on my MSX so leaning a bit is not an issue for me and feels more realistic and dynamic.

If I want to work less and fall asleep on the wheel I switch to medium mode. 

Experient mode on 1.05 best performing one IMO. Tried both on 1.07 but as mentioned before reaction time (need to lean more) is slower with any mode with 1.07.

IMO everything depends on riding style i am not "slow cooker" i like "lightning strike" so for that style better is 1.05.

If you are "slow cooker" 1.07 is better because after 42km/h it accelerate faster IMO. Do not know why but it feels like that probably different power management.