New Veteran "Abrams" 22-inch Wheel

[yoos]

Ecodrift just opened early-bird preorder on the Abrams at 193k₽ = 2640$ (no warranty) or 213k₽ = 2920$ (with warranty). The rather low price is due to this being a half-blind decision  since some key specs are still unknown. According to ecodrift, Veteran plans to launch a first batch of 200 wheels and ecodrift wants to get in on the first 30. Full specs will be announced in a week (ecodrift doesn't know them either, so I guess it is still undecided perhaps). The wheel is being tested currently (by veteran). Wheels are supposed to be ready to ship in a month. Since specs are not fully known yet Veteran allows to withdraw the pre-order if finalized specs happen to be unsatisfactory.

[null]

6 hours ago, mrelwood said:

if you ride in the same manner.

A wheel with more torque would allow you to ride more aggressively though.

[Planemo]

27 minutes ago, null said:

A wheel with more torque would allow you to ride more aggressively though.

Not if you werent anywhere near to overleaning it to start with 

Sorry just thought I'd drop that in.

I'll stop now

[Ben Hatfield]

On 7/31/2021 at 9:04 PM, RockyTop said:

I like it!! And it looks great.
Am I the only one that is not in favor of the 21700 batteries? It seems that the 21700 batteries have not been a good thing. Am I wrong? Are they going to use used Tesla batteries? I hope not! 

I'm no expert, but I think you want these 21700 for improved power delivery (potential) over the 18650s used in the Sherm. 

 

I haven't gotten satisfactory explanation for my observations, but on EUC world app my Sherman has far more battery sag than my EX.N.  Sherm will sag up to 25% at higher speeds, meaning at 90% battery at rest, I'll see 65% when going 35mph+.  On my EX.N?  there is very little battery sag at high speed, between 5-10%.  I fully admit this may have to do with firmware or how the app is receiving data (maybe battery/motor combination also plays a role?). 

But I have a feeling for the new higher voltage, one will want these 21700s

[Rawnei]

36 minutes ago, Ben Hatfield said:

I'm no expert, but I think you want these 21700 for improved power delivery (potential) over the 18650s used in the Sherm. 

 

I haven't gotten satisfactory explanation for my observations, but on EUC world app my Sherman has far more battery sag than my EX.N.  Sherm will sag up to 25% at higher speeds, meaning at 90% battery at rest, I'll see 65% when going 35mph+.  On my EX.N?  there is very little battery sag at high speed, between 5-10%.  I fully admit this may have to do with firmware or how the app is receiving data (maybe battery/motor combination also plays a role?). 

But I have a feeling for the new higher voltage, one will want these 21700s

I don't see this sag on my Sherman, it has less sag than my MSP HT.

[GothamMike]

So what size artillery can we mount on it? 125 MM? Will the ricochet affect the gyros?

[Ben Kim]

On 7/31/2021 at 12:26 PM, Asphalt said:

Look at the lack of spokes. This suggests a much larger motor than anything before.

The Gotway Monster series had essentially the same motor as the MSX, but with larger spokes.

The Veteran Abrams could be a wheel with incredible torque if the magnets are actually further from the axle and the coils are wound for torque. This would bode well for an off-road wheel. The larger wheel diameter should also eat up bumps without the need for suspension.

Benefits of having magnets further from the axle:

• greater moment arm (torque)
• fit more magnets around the circumference
• more centripetal force = stability at high speed
• lack of spokes should strengthen rims

Drawbacks:

• more magnets and coils = more weight
• more rotating mass = more gyroscopic effect (hard to turn at high speed)
• additional mass means more stress on rims

 

This is a render not an actual unit. I’d wait til more details come out before jumping for joy. 

 

One potential rumor has me interested though, 28S battery. but the capacity spec doesn’t appear to match up with any viable configuration. We will see; if it’s simply a high torque 22 incher with less battery I’ll pass. 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Ben Kim

[wheelyboy]

What if the battery is modular? Like you can fit an extra pack on each side to upgrade from 2700Wh->3200Wh?

[Unbihexium]

2 hours ago, wheelyboy said:

What if the battery is modular? Like you can fit an extra pack on each side to upgrade from 2700Wh->3200Wh?

Would be a unique gimmick but probably not all too practical. The shell of an EUC usually doesn't have that much unused usable space, and if it does it almost always makes sense to either fill it with more batteries/speakers/other hardware to begin with, keep it empty to protect the electronics from impact, or to make the wheel more compact. This half-measure of leaving empty space just so that you can add more battery yourself doesn't make sense to me. 

[xiiijojjo]

On 8/2/2021 at 11:03 PM, meepmeepmayer said:

For me it's not about overleaning, it's about effortless braking. I hate that you have to lean in to really brake. Ideally, it could be done with a flick of the ankle. Same for accelerating strongly at low speeds. I (personally) want a wheel that can be fine controlled at (very) low speeds extremely easily. For mountains. I want to feel in total control on a 45° hill, whether is up or down.

Maybe the braking is also an ergonomics question, or firmware...

THIS right here is the only reason i even entertained the idea of 100 km/h+ wheels not for the top speed so much as for the potential for increased responsiveness but i did not put it as well as you have and was misunderstood, but this is the reason i won't stop advocating for more powerful wheels in the next few years.

Being able to accelerate fast without Michael Jackson leaning or breaking without sitting down would be a dream come true. 

edit: But i very much think this is firmware related. As i can imagine that a constant(number) in the algorithm could be changed to require less lean very much in the same way soft or medium mode aids in braking/accelerating by allowing some amount of gradual pedal dip to assist in getting the center of gravity farther ahead of the wheel. So essentially the difference between soft,medium and hard, in my understanding is just a variable in the algorithm, a single number (or maybe a few)

However the more i think about it the more i realize that you would need to redesign/ add something to the motor design to help achieve the effect of aided acceleration the way i imagine it. 

But until we figure all that out higher voltage and more powerful wheels will for the foreseeable future only be a good thing as they can keep providing a bigger and bigger safety margin to the point where only the old timers will know of "cut outs" .

Edited August 5, 2021 by xiiijojjo

[null]

6 hours ago, xiiijojjo said:

Being able to accelerate fast without Michael Jackson leaning or breaking without sitting down would be a dream come true. 

I’ve been wondering recently whether having a scale (as in measure weight) front and back of the pedals could give the EUC a second set of input other than the inclination. This might help compensate for the tire to foot size ratio that make large EUCs harder to tilt and accelerate.

An illustration of this could be: a large EUC with a curb in front: the EUC doesn’t “see” the curb, and you need to push harder on the pedals to compensate. If the pedals had a weight scale the EUC could register the continuous pressure where the tire tilting has been stopped by the curb. Thus rather than lowering motor input because it doesn’t tilt as much it would compensate because the pedals are indicating to go on.

There might be a logic flaw in this, but i can’t see it yet. (Pedal pressure would not have to override EUC tilt to the point of throwing you off obviously, matter of programming)

[conecones]

7 hours ago, null said:

I’ve been wondering recently whether having a scale (as in measure weight) front and back of the pedals could give the EUC a second set of input other than the inclination. This might help compensate for the tire to foot size ratio that make large EUCs harder to tilt and accelerate.

An illustration of this could be: a large EUC with a curb in front: the EUC doesn’t “see” the curb, and you need to push harder on the pedals to compensate. If the pedals had a weight scale the EUC could register the continuous pressure where the tire tilting has been stopped by the curb. Thus rather than lowering motor input because it doesn’t tilt as much it would compensate because the pedals are indicating to go on.

There might be a logic flaw in this, but i can’t see it yet. (Pedal pressure would not have to override EUC tilt to the point of throwing you off obviously, matter of programming)

The issue with implementing any sort of pedal sensor is that the wheel by design doesn't "move" in accordance with how hard you press on the pedals, it only moves as a result of trying to stay balanced, as Mrelwood has explained nicely many times previously. 

The only way we can get easier acceleration would be to increase our biomechanical leverage over the wheel. Lean pads are the easiest solution - it gives us greater leverage to rotate the body of the wheel which in turn makes it work harder to balance itself (resulting in faster acceleration). Also, smaller wheels have less rotating weight, so for the same moment (force applied from pedals), we are more easily able to overcome the wheel's balance and cause it to "accelerate" faster. 

I can think of two ways we can increase acceleration:
1) Using your pedal sensor idea but also adding sliding pedals (mounted on a track), so that when the front pedal sensor detects you wanting to accelerate, it will engage a small motor to shift your pedals forward (in relation to the axle) thus giving you more leverage. Even sliding 1" would make a big difference.
2) Adding a "cheater bar" connected to the body of the wheel. This can just be a simple pole that stick up between your legs that you can grab with one hand (like grabbing the seat on a manual uni) and use it in combination with your feet to add increased leverage in rotating the wheel forward/backwards and thus achieving the acceleration you want.

[RockyTop]

Physics

What happens when the wheel goes faster without you leaning forward? First the wheel will no longer be balanced second you fall off the back because you are not leaning forward. ..... and because the wheel is not balanced- the pedals are tilted back. It can’t go faster and be balanced unless you lean forward.

The pedal moving forward to put your weight forward is an interesting design. Yet, will you be leaning forward enough to stay on the wheel? 

What if on acceleration the wheel let you easily get ahead of the wheel. In other words, the wheel let you fall forward enough to get things off balance so the wheel has to take off quickly to catch you. Yep!, It is called soft mode. FYI .. I don’t like soft mode. Instead I let myself fall forward and let the pads catch me. I take off quickly without much effort. On hills I just rest forward with knees bent on the pads. 

[Planemo]

1 hour ago, conecones said:

I can think of two ways we can increase acceleration:
1) Using your pedal sensor idea but also adding sliding pedals (mounted on a track), so that when the front pedal sensor detects you wanting to accelerate, it will engage a small motor to shift your pedals forward (in relation to the axle) thus giving you more leverage. Even sliding 1" would make a big difference.
2) Adding a "cheater bar" connected to the body of the wheel. This can just be a simple pole that stick up between your legs that you can grab with one hand (like grabbing the seat on a manual uni) and use it in combination with your feet to add increased leverage in rotating the wheel forward/backwards and thus achieving the acceleration you want.

Yep. In reality theres nothing 'within the wheel' that you can do to increase acceleration/braking. No amount of torque, huge motor or massive battery will give you any more than you already have if you're not reaching the limits of the wheel (overleaning).

Good post 

[null]

3 hours ago, RockyTop said:

What happens when the wheel goes faster without you leaning forward?

Why would it go faster if you’re not leaning forward? The whole point would be to take in consideration front and back pressure on the pedals, ie leaning forward to accelerate. If you’re not leaning forward it won’t accelerate.

If the programming isn’t completely dumb I still don’t see any fundamental logic flaw in complementing the tilt of the EUC with pedal pressure. Power pads are also overriding the EUCs gravity based balance, you’re not thrown off for that.

As for handling larger wheels there are plenty of methods and preferences, that wasn’t the question.

Edit: this is probably getting too much off topic, I’ll start a dedicated thread somewhere.

Edited August 5, 2021 by null

[fbhb]

Leaperkim have confirmed via Facebook that they will continue production of the Sherman, once the 18650 battery shortage is finally over quashing rumours of it being discontinued!

Edited August 6, 2021 by fbhb

[meepmeepmayer]

This preorder page (thanks @euctherapy for posting it) says it's even a little heavier than the Sherman, and geared towards more torque (nice!). Plus better water resistance.

https://e-rides.com/product/veteran-abrams-electric-unicycle-22-inch-2700w-pre-order/

Quote

This beast of an EUC not only comes with a higher torque motor, bigger wheel diameter, and stylish design, it’s designed to cruise even the roughest surfaces. A bit heavier than the Sherman, the Abrams comes with improved water resistance.

Quote

• 2700WH battery capacity
• 22inch Wheel diameter (Torque based)
• 37/38KG

[meepmeepmayer]

Oh boy

Quote

Full price is £3399

= 4000 € = 4700USD

This battery crisis is not cool!

Edited August 9, 2021 by meepmeepmayer

[gon2fast]

I hope that the hard/strong setting actually makes the pedals stiff... and hard turning without pedal dip would be nice. 

[gon2fast]

I just noticed this quote on the e-rides site - 

"If the Veteran Sherman was bread, this here would be sliced bread, if you get me."

[conecones]

7 hours ago, meepmeepmayer said:

Oh boy

= 4000 € = 4700USD

This battery crisis is not cool!

Yikes that’s price tag can’t be due to just batteries. This price is equivalent to buying two RS19 locally or two EXN’s on AliExpress, either way significantly more batteries than one of these Abrams. Doesn’t look like it has any ground breaking new tech either, so seems like the price is what they think they can get away with by riding on the success of the Sherman.

[zege]

As a Sherman owner I was really excited and curious about this new wheel. But 4700$ is a deal breaker for me. It is not worth the "upgrade" with the specs I have seen so far and for that price it must be something really spectacular.

Maybe the new voltage will give it something we never seen before. But more speed is not really needed for me anyway, have never been able to go above 40 mph on the current Sherman, not beeped even once, and I usually like cruising under 25 mph for comfort, faster than that it is more of a adrenaline rushed exercise which I don't enjoy that often.

More torque for braking and fast acceleration if it really can be felt with normal usage might be interesting, but I think they are pricing themselves out of the current fan base. For that price we would need both suspension and a higher voltage in my opinion. But I am still on the fence if suspension is needed at all, haven't tried it though.

Would consider it for half the price, but that won't happen. On the other hand, maybe we need to pay more for the quality we get with Veteran, but comparing to Inmotion it is not better. More bang for the buck with the V12.

[Rawnei]

23 minutes ago, zege said:

As a Sherman owner I was really excited and curious about this new wheel. But 4700$ is a deal breaker for me. It is not worth the "upgrade" with the specs I have seen so far and for that price it must be something really spectacular.

Maybe the new voltage will give it something we never seen before. But more speed is not really needed for me anyway, have never been able to go above 40 mph on the current Sherman, not beeped even once, and I usually like cruising under 25 mph for comfort, faster than that it is more of a adrenaline rushed exercise which I don't enjoy that often.

More torque for braking and fast acceleration if it really can be felt with normal usage might be interesting, but I think they are pricing themselves out of the current fan base. For that price we would need both suspension and a higher voltage in my opinion. But I am still on the fence if suspension is needed at all, haven't tried it though.

Would consider it for half the price, but that won't happen. On the other hand, maybe we need to pay more for the quality we get with Veteran, but comparing to Inmotion it is not better. More bang for the buck with the V12.

There is no evidence of higher voltage or that it's an actual upgrade from the Sherman so at this point there is no point hyping it as "Sherman v2" rather it's better to see it as just a new model. Also it's not good to make purchasing decisions when there's literally no solid information so at this point the price doesn't matter all that much.

Question that remains is what sets this wheel apart which is what's most interesting, hopefully we will know soon.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Rawnei

[UniVehje]

I would consider a 4000 € wheel if it offered amazing quality and nice features. Just raw specs in the same package is not enough. I can already ride as fast and far as I like for my style of riding. This new Veteran offers improved water protection, but I expect that from 2000 € wheels already. The battery is nice but shouldn't cost that much once the shortage is over. The tire might be too big already, although I've never tested anything above the standard 18x3". I'm assuming Abrams will be 20x3" (16" rim). Everything else looks like polished and improved Sherman quality. Not even suspension on this one. 

[mrelwood]

21 minutes ago, UniVehje said:

I'm assuming Abrams will be 20x3" (16" rim).

I would think that the 22” on Abrams refers to the original Monster (22”) tire size, which was a motorcycle 2.75-17 (17” rim).

Monster Pro (24”) tire is 2.75-18 (18” rim).

I really don’t know how they come up with all these random announced tire sizes. At least it’s easy to remember that all announced 18” - 20” tire sizes are all the same 18”. But above that is still a bit of a mystery to me.