Kingsong S20/S22 (Confirmed)

[Paul A]

 

[buffs]

some speed...

https://youtu.be/GYUyevWyenA

Edited February 24, 2022 by buffs

[techyiam]

Now that the pre-production model of the S20 has been shipped out all over the world, it would be wonderful to see someone showcase the novel, and simpler way of removing the motor-wheel assembly from the bottom of the S20. By this, I mean to pull out the assembly after only having disconnected one suspension link on each side, and the motor wires from the bottom of the controller module.

Edited February 24, 2022 by techyiam

[techyiam]

S20 suspension action in slow-motion. Notice how the suspension energy is damped out within one cycle per actuation. No pogoing here.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by techyiam

[Rawnei]

10 hours ago, Tawpie said:

TBH, I’m starting to get worried. Far too many effusive reviewers.

8 hours ago, Tawpie said:

I fully expected KS to have more than one big wart uncovered in this pre-production run but YT reviewers seem to be falling in love with this. And KS appears to be engaged and taking steps to deal with the issues that have been surfaced, which is totally welcomed, but still, it's unusual.

Well they can only base their impressions on things they can see and experience, right? Nobody keeping known issues a secret like for example the fragile bumper, also not everyone is loving it some people gave it negative impressions saying it feels too top heavy and fragile. I get the fear of greater problems being discovered later down the road since it is so common with new wheels but I don't think content creators are to be blamed for any of that, they just report what they see and feel and I think everyone from manufacturer to content creator and riders wants problem-free wheels really.

If nobody did the video impressions and reviews lots of people would be upset and demand the videos.

[Paul A]

 

[Freeforester]

Concerning the cutoff safety handle mode of function and the problem of the unsupported rear part of the seat, which makes seated riding not too safe (braking becomes difficult, especially for taller riders, owing to inability to sit farther rearward), and the exposed nature of the shock reservoir…

Something of an idea came to me late yesterday (pre invasion…): a 3-4 function seated rider accessory (plug and play)…

A number of comments have been made about the design and function of the cutoff wheel switch, and at the moment I’m not clear whether it relies solely on there being a magnetic catch encased in the current red (resin/plastic?) cutoff handle, which hinges back and forth according to whether it is in use or not (the current magnet not being too strong, something KS are already looking to modify on their coming batches). As it is,  it seems to be quite an over engineered item, and one which seems to be prone to damage from the sharp edges of the black hinge bosses it is attached to.

My idea is to make a metal mini bike rack which serves as 

1) A replacement to the original cutout handle, having a grab handle at the rear, serving also as

2) An extended spatial ‘bumper’ above the oil reservoir and light,  hopefully able to deflect or take the impact of any tumble and prevent damage to these vulnerable parts, and

3) Affords an extension to the rear of the seating area where at the moment there is insufficient support at the rear ‘duck tail’ portion of the seat;

4) Providing a potential small rear storage or saddle bag fixing point for a small item -  though probably not the weekly groceries, or fish and chips!

Picture of area of rear of wheel where Ian’s fingers are placed where I envisage the fixing point would be for any Butt-rack:

As Ian has observed in his opening introduction S20 Speedy Feet video (47.40 and onwards, link below), it is currently very difficult to brake effectively whilst seated, especially if you are a taller rider, principally owing to the fact that the seat is not rigid, and so bends down if sat on where a taller rider might comfortably sit in order to operate the wheel safely from a seated position. This is a significant compromise in/to rider safety, and must be addressed for safe seated riding. 
https://youtu.be/9TGz7QmODF0

Adding a rear ‘Butt-rack’ (- ‘Crack-rack’? - descriptive, sure - attractive mental image? - Not so much!) to support the already designed seat (a longer, after-market seat could also be a ‘thing’ of course) which can replace the single function cutoff handle could be advantageous in these scenarios. I would envisage a simple hinged, swivelling or rotating fixing of the magnet (in its simplest form, a short piece of string attached to both magnet and underside of the extension would suffice to perform the cutoff function)  under the butt rack (also protected by the sitting area plate above it) , which the rider simply turns or moves from its switch-functioning  ‘on’ position, before lifting by the grab handle on the rear of the rack. Per my ‘back-of-the-cornflake-packet’ illustration below, hopefully you’ll get the idea, this item could readily be swapped into place instead of the current cutoff handle, simply by removing the boss fixings and rexaffixing the butt-rack in the same place. I’ve shown a rubber or baby bumper type cushion pad on the area where the rack sits atop the wheel upper surface behind the screen, which would offer a bit of cushioning to both the machine and the rider’s butt on the rack. The whole will easily be sufficiently situated higher above the oil reservoir so as not to pose a risk to the reservoir from above, the suspension will max out well within the space below the rear and grab handle.  The seat can simply be affixed by means of a strip of Velcro on the underside rear portion, mating to the woolen side Velcro on the upper part of the rack.

 

 

As the triangle shape fits well with the engineering principles and aesthetic of the current design, I thought the butt-rack concept should adopt a similar form, looking to afford both strength and functionality with minimal material (simple enough to make too) to effect these possible improvements for anyone considering riding seated. 

 

Disclaimer: Apologies for the non-CAD nature of the illustration, I’m no computer whizz or 3D master - and - I’m only trying to help!

Edited February 24, 2022 by Freeforester
Formatting

[Freeforester]

8 hours ago, supercurio said:

Mike Leahy fell with the S20 in a fountain yesterday: https://www.instagram.com/reel/CaSjLClp7fD/

 

 

Here's the description:

I rode this sketchy fountain line just fine in the other direction. Went back for another shot and got my foot snagged by the bush. Both myself and the s20 were then fully submerged in over a foot of water.
I tried to turn the wheel off after pulling it out of the fountain, but was not able to. I brought the wheel to @nate.pust and @dougs_eucventure who quickly pulled out the controller and batteries. The demo packs that were not sealed were both damaged by water but did not catch fire. RevRides will know more about the specifics. As I am not a technical expert.

 

I imagined that the transparent plastic boxes of the packs would be sealed and waterproof, given humidity or water can get in the mainboard section via the motor wires then go down with the battery wires.
Although it's not the first time that water can get in and destroy battery packs, and wheels unfortunately rarely survive being immersed in any capacity, I was hoping for something a little better here.
I read somewhere that the next iterations were supposed to be shrink-wrapped as well but can't find the source anymore.

What do you guys think?

What do I think?    Well, getting ‘snagged by the bush’  has been the downfall of many a good man (although it is apparently becoming a little rarer an occurrence nowadays owing to ‘fashion trends’ I’m led to believe, er, by a friend), take comfort in knowing he’s by no means the first, lol!

[Rolzi]

3 hours ago, Freeforester said:

It is currently impossible to brake effectively whilst seated,

PS. Pointing arrow says "handsome eyes"

Edited February 24, 2022 by Rolzi

[supercurio]

47 minutes ago, Rolzi said:

PS. Pointing arrow says "handome eyes"

Now that explains why this famous tester was riding seated with the trolley handle up!

6 hours ago, buffs said:

some speed...

https://youtu.be/GYUyevWyenA

Nice night right with a skilled rider!
It highlights the tail light is complete rubbish tho, that'll need something extra.

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by supercurio

[Freeforester]

3 hours ago, Rolzi said:

PS. Pointing arrow says "handsome eyes"

Apologies, my choice of wording there was poor (now amended), I am however still of the opinion expressed in my introductory remarks, viz: …”the problem of the unsupported rear part of the seat, which makes seated riding not too safe (braking becomes difficult, especially for taller riders, owing to inability to sit farther rearward…”

Gotta ask. How hai is a test pilot??

Edited February 24, 2022 by Freeforester

[Rollin-on-1]

14 hours ago, Freeforester said:

One example I’ve been pondering is whether there might be a way to both protect the very vulnerable looking damper reservoir and also offer an extended area for the seat   !

I have been thinking along these same lines as well.  If KS doesn't, I am sure it is only a matter of time until someone does.

[Rawnei]

If we are talking about panic/hard breaking sitting will never be as effective as rapidly standing up to break, other than that I think one can get used to all ride characteristics by experience and planning accordingly, for example V11 with official seat has the same characteristics where you sit pretty much in the center of the wheel, it's comfortable but makes hard breaking more difficult. This is not a deal breaker for my seated riding, just my 2 cents.

[mrelwood]

On 2/23/2022 at 2:57 PM, UniVehje said:

I will cancel my preorder if I don't get 40 % more range than my old 18XL.

The S20 is about 46% heavier though… 

 

On 2/23/2022 at 3:09 PM, supercurio said:

@enaon Both packs seemed well balanced enough balanced however, at least for now.

I don’t feel as confident as you do. The difference is about 0.1V with an empty battery, on a new wheel. That doesn’t sound right. My V11 had a difference of less than 0.02V after something like 4000km of riding.

 

23 hours ago, Planemo said:

The single, only reason for using coil is total elimination of stiction, although zero service requirements is also a bonus.

Air springs have at least 4 big O rings, all of which need to remain lubricated and serviced. These O rings contribute to more stiction than you realise, they have to run a tight fit because of the pressures used within the can. Stiction is the No1 cause of lack of small bump compliance.

On EUCs though, we don’t have the sophisticated (and functional) bearing swivels of modern bicycles. All suspension EUCs introduce a lot of drag from the guiding mechanism alone, which is simply dragging the rider’s weight on common plastics against metal. I haven’t checked enough tear down videos of the S20 yet, but it seems to have the same basic principle of dragging plastic on metal.

 Point being, the air spring on an EUC seems to be a far second biggest source of friction.

 

23 hours ago, Rolzi said:

Speedyfeet is using a bit over 50 wh/km if we calculate the whole pack (2200wh) from full charge to tiltback.

A calculation like that won’t work for a few reasons: The usable Wh is far less than the announced Wh, due to the announced Wh being the whole usable capacity of the cell down to 2.5V. EUCs stop at 3.0-3.3V. Also, Ian clearly had a lot of the top end missing from the test.

 The apps calculate the consumption directly and correctly from the energy being used. Comparing with user made calculations takes far more parameters than that. That’s one factor in making the differences so big.

 But we definitely need better range tests for the S20!

[supercurio]

Same thoughts as @Rawnei: on Sherman I already stand-up or squat every time I need to brake, emergency or not, probably because I'm neither tall nor heavy.
The only exception where I stay seated (stock Sherman seat) is to reduce speed.

In a way, maybe the S20 seat will suit me better because on the Sherman one I often end up leaning forward when seated just to maintain speed. Thanks to the suspension, a more upwards seated position on the S20 might be more relaxing, when you need to rest your feet and legs or in long straight sections.

 

  

1 minute ago, mrelwood said:

I don’t feel as confident as you do. The difference is about 0.1V with an empty battery, on a new wheel. That doesn’t sound right. My V11 had a difference of less than 0.02V after something like 4000km of riding.

On the S20, both BMS report their own voltages separately whereas on the V11 I'm guessing that it's the mainboard which measures and report each pack voltage.

I meant that the cell group themselves are well enough balanced within a pack (at least for now, and taking into account that the current charger likely doesn't allow balancing)

Both packs have to be a the same voltage since they're drained at the same time but this difference you see between their voltage values is probably explained by so-so calibration of their BMS volt-meter.

Edited February 24, 2022 by supercurio

[Planemo]

23 minutes ago, mrelwood said:

On EUCs though, we don’t have the sophisticated (and functional) bearing swivels of modern bicycles.

Well there is that I guess. I cant see how they have got it so wrong previously tbh - all it takes is some machined collars that sit against the inner race. Its not difficult.

And as you say, having plastic bushes sliding within guided rails in an open system isnt great either. All sliding suspension parts on a bike are sealed from the elements and continually fed with either oil of grease. I can however see the challenges of trying to take the bike system into a single wheel and maybe they will get there one day but I agree with you, theres an awful lot of friction going on with eucs

[Rolzi]

1 hour ago, mrelwood said:

A calculation like that won’t work for a few reasons: The usable Wh is far less than the announced Wh, due to the announced Wh being the whole usable capacity of the cell down to 2.5V. EUCs stop at 3.0-3.3V. Also, Ian clearly had a lot of the top end missing from the test.

The point here is to prove that there is no unexplainable 30 - 60% loss of energy. Thats why I gave the examples of how it looks when you use about the same Wh/km and using way more Wh/km. 

1 hour ago, mrelwood said:

 The apps calculate the consumption directly and correctly from the energy being used. Comparing with user made calculations takes far more parameters than that. That’s one factor in making the differences so big.

The used energy has to go somewhere on the given timeframe and avg riding speed. Sure it might not be the most accurate but I wouldn't call anywhere near 30% wrong either.

1 hour ago, mrelwood said:

 But we definitely need better range tests for the S20!

Agreed. EUC world log or similar for every test being it climbing, speed or range.

 

Edit: Think about his too about the tests: You as a rider use 20% less energy on average for whatever reason while you ride and you look at test where they use 20% more than average. Boom, you got your 40% difference right there.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Rolzi

[mrelwood]

24 minutes ago, Planemo said:

Well there is that I guess. I cant see how they have got it so wrong previously tbh - all it takes is some machined collars that sit against the inner race. Its not difficult.

Even if KS would’ve gotten the linkage mechanism done right with the S18, it still has the sliding element as well. Which from what I’ve seen is just metal on metal behind the non-load-bearing dust cover.

 While both elements are simple in their own right (with the S18 severely lacking on both of them), what is not easy is aligning them with the required precision. It’s not a surprise to me at all that getting them to run smoothly together is not happening on a mass produced first gen suspension wheel.

24 minutes ago, Planemo said:

All sliding suspension parts on a bike are sealed from the elements and continually fed with either oil of grease.

… which I’ll keep on dreaming about on an EUC for who knows how long.

 

24 minutes ago, Planemo said:

I agree with you, theres an awful lot of friction going on with eucs

Somehow that phrase stuck with me. 

[mrelwood]

1 minute ago, Rolzi said:

The used energy has to go somewhere on the given timeframe and avg riding speed. Sure it might not be the most accurate but I wouldn't call anywhere near 30% wrong either.

That’s just it, the amount of “used energy” is nowhere near 2200Wh. My only real life data comes from the 84V MSX charged up via the Charge Doctor 2: The largest amount of energy I was able to get in on one charge was about 1300Wh. And this was after riding a fully charged (+ 2-4 hours extra) 1600Wh battery pack all the way down to tilt-back at stationary. Normal charging after a tilt-back at around 30km/h (15-20% of battery left) was able to put in about 1100Wh.

 These numbers are about 19% and 31% less than the announced capacity.

1 minute ago, Rolzi said:

Agreed. EUC world log or similar for every test being it climbing, speed or range.

That would be great. But I’d be happy with just having a wheel with a proper SoftTuner BMS firmware upgrade and a pack fully balanced with a 126V charger.

[Rolzi]

4 hours ago, mrelwood said:

That’s just it, the amount of “used energy” is nowhere near 2200Wh. My only real life data comes from the 84V MSX charged up via the Charge Doctor 2: The largest amount of energy I was able to get in on one charge was about 1300Wh. And this was after riding a fully charged (+ 2-4 hours extra) 1600Wh battery pack all the way down to tilt-back at stationary. Normal charging after a tilt-back at around 30km/h (15-20% of battery left) was able to put in about 1100Wh.

 These numbers are about 19% and 31% less than the announced capacity.

I will agree this matters if you can prove that the amount of energy going to the cells and used from the cells on different wheels is widely different when we calculate the energy capacity straight from the tested capacity of the cell and the series/parellel it is used in.

Wh/km would fluctuate when we add these parameters to the tests but it should't fluctuate when compared between tests with different wheels (again enough to make for the 30%-60% energy loss).

Am I thinking wrong about this? Would love to be educated.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Rolzi

[supercurio]

Rev Rides was kind enough to publish the EUC World tour recording on their low-speed long-range range test

Let's look at it !
https://euc.world/tour/606859355653342

Edited February 24, 2022 by supercurio

[supercurio]

Answering to myself on the Rev Rides test data after chatting with @Rawnei about it. Some observations:

• The wheel travelled without being ridden approximately 10.5km near the beginning. Maybe in a car, tram or bus.
• It is confirmed by voltage recovering form sag, and temperature going back down to ambient
• Starting voltage was ~124V like others instead of 126V
• Real range measured is about 80km / 50 miles, not the 59 miles mentioned

Overall, Rev Rides tried to do something, but the execution is very poor and ends up being just misleading.
Not worthy of the "King Song S20 Official Range Test" title.

Edit: this theory might actually be all wrong, as discussed later thanks @RagingGrandpa and @Tawpie for pointing this out.

Range is not particularly impressive (again if you compare to a 18XL in similar speeds?) but there was a bit of elevation.
Looking forward to more range tests, maybe from Adam / Wrong Way next.

Note: total and average Energy Consumption values are off, and likely need calibration to the S20 specs.

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by supercurio

[Rawnei]

23 minutes ago, supercurio said:

Rev Rides was kind enough to publish the EUC World tour recording on their low-speed long-range range test

Let's look at it !
https://euc.world/tour/606859355653342

Cool! But it seems that part of the journey is in a car or bus, only GPS data for about 10km in the beginning, that's also where top speed was recorded so statistics of that tour is not correct. Discounting that it looks more like about 80km distance riding mostly around speeds of 20-35kmh.

[Paradox]

2 minutes ago, supercurio said:

Overall, Rev Rides tried to do something, but the execution is very poor and ends up being just misleading.

Totally agree.  The statement they tried to average 25mph is very misleading.  It rarely ever hit 25mph and averaged much slower speeds.

[Tawpie]

it could be they were in a car, but the car was going at a rate quite consistent with the rest of the tour. I wouldn't be quite so quick to point that finger. And "trying to maintain" is always something that's interesting. One can try and not succeed—it was a relatively urban environment and one tends to ride accordingly, speed target aside.

What is always interesting is they, like all of us, feel like they were going faster than they really were! Remember how surprising it was when @Seba shared our actual average riding speeds according to the data accumulated by EUCWorld? It turns out that my personal feeling that I ride quite slowly is not true when compared to a large sample set. Sure, the fast and furious night crew around here goes a LOT faster, but maintaining an average 25 mph for an entire tour is really moving along. Especially a tour that includes two and a half hours of "not riding" (frequent stops for traffic lights? photo ops? beer?)

Edited February 24, 2022 by Tawpie