Popular Post Jason McNeil Posted October 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2021 There is quite a lot of buzz surronding the 126V battery pack on the S20, but I haven't been able to find much in the way of dissenting voices of whether this ambitious specification is necessary, desired & what trade-offs would be the consequence of this 30s4p pack configuration. We all know that the current generation of these motors have KV values can easily achieve the limited 70KPH max speed (KS are not likely going to increase this) well within the 84V-100V operating envelope, with margin to spare. While there might be a slight improvement in acceleration, this will come at the expense of fewer parallels, increased series internal resistance—leading to higher pack operating temperatures—uncharted (for KS) territory in PCB/electronics designs, step-up chargers, etc. The historical track record of S18 battery packs has not been great, experiencing a >15% defect rate (unable to charge...); though KS says that they've addressed this on the most recent batches. My concern is that the S20 is already a high-stakes Wheel, adding an unnecessary complex requirement of 126V, while 100V would serve just as well, or better, could very well result in production delays, cost overruns & other unknowns. Of course I've raised these topics with KS, but as of right now, they're commited to 126V. Regardless of what the outcome is, we're going to try to get the final board & pack design externally validated. 30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post OldFartRides Posted October 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2021 Thanks for this Mr. Jason. There’s an old saying: More is not always better. I’m not a rocket scientist, but I did stay at a better than average motel recently…. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Afeez Kay Posted October 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2021 (edited) Umm 🤔 I am also watching how this develops. Pulling off the s20 could be a monumental technical leap and achievement in the EUC industry. I know even their competitions are watching from the sidelines with anticipation(and possibly jealousy). I wish Kingsong luck for sure. Hope they pull it off. Edited October 13, 2021 by Afeez Kay 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 While I find the use of 126V promising for combining torque with speed, i could do without it as I rarely ride faster than 50Km/h. The 30S configuration also had me a bit worried but if the smart BMS was smart enough it might be doable(?) Just my 2c here, experimental and fast is nice but I’d go with the safer version given the choice. My main grief if it went down to 100.8V would be charging speed (Compensating for the smaller battery compared to the Sherman) not top speed. Tl/dr: If I bought the S20 it would be for riding far with the added comfort from the suspensions, hence 100.8V wouldn’t be a deal breaker. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chriull Posted October 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jason McNeil said: We all know that the current generation of these motors have KV values can easily achieve the limited 70KPH max speed (KS are not likely going to increase this) well within the 84V-100V operating envelope, with margin to spare. While there might be a slight improvement in acceleration, this will come at the expense of fewer parallels, increased series internal resistance—leading to higher pack operating temperatures If the motor has more windings (lower kv) so it runs at 126V with the same speed as another with 100V (84V), it uses at the same speed and torque less current compared to such an 100V (84V) motor. All with the factor 126/100 (84) (and reverse). As disspated power is I * I * R the lower current will "outperform" the higher internal resistance of the pack - Just did the math Power delivery, acceleration, limits, etc should all be the same for a design with 30s4p, 24s5p or 20s6p. The lowered current and the increased internal resistance keep the dissipated power P=I*I*R exactly the same. The real advantage of higher volts is the lower possible current - so Mosfets (as all other burdens with constant resistance) dissipate with the square of the current! Valid for the same speed and torque with three motors having the same no load speed (lift cut off speed) at maximum battery voltage # of cells Voltage R internal battery I P internal battery P Mosfet V [arbitrary units] 30 s 4 p 120 126 7,5 1,00 7,5 1,00 24 s 5 p 120 100,8 4,8 1,25 7,5 1,56 20 s 6 p 120 84 3,3 1,50 7,5 2,25 But the S20 could have great cooling possibilities anyhow - with the open design and ?metal surfaces usable as heatsink?" Quote —uncharted (for KS) territory in PCB/electronics designs, step-up chargers, etc. The historical track record of S18 battery packs has not been great, experiencing a >15% defect rate (unable to charge...); though KS says that they've addressed this on the most recent batches. One should design new wheels only with BMS which support single cell group monitoring anyhow ... But yes - afair batteryuniversity.com stated imho that the more cells in serie, the harder it is to keep the cells balanced. And new technologies are always a big unkown - for KS it would be a leap from 84V to 126V... Edited October 13, 2021 by Chriull 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post supercurio Posted October 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2021 (edited) I have not the slightest doubt that it's a required move for one main reason: it is a necessary step to improve safety and durability. Full size electric motorcycles or electric cars have higher voltage packs (up to 800V) This is what allows them to get to the speeds expected from them, with the torque required to accelerate their hefty mass quickly. Increasing voltage is the key element that will allow to provide higher amounts of torque through the whole speed range, using in a better way the finite amount of power a battery pack of 120 cells can provide, to satisfy the self-balancing algorithms demands of today's riders. Lower current into a more torque-oriented motor (lower Kv), and higher voltage to fight the back EMF at higher rotation speeds. Simple as that. On my Sherman, the original motherboard failed while trying power pads on an incline and I was able to over-power it during braking, although it was not intended to be a stress test of the wheel. Beside the burned components, the battery wires started to de-solder from the board, with estimated current over 70A for several seconds. I like Sherman speed, but accelerations for a motor of this Kv at 100.8V end up in unreasonable amount of current drawn from the packs. On reliability, we saw that Jack @Electric Dreamsss burn the motherboards of all the recent high speed wheels on his test incline: Sherman, EX.N and V12. Looking at the logs, I find the limits of 100.8V every ride on my Sherman with a rider weight of 70kg, with peaks beyond 100A and sustained around 60A for several seconds. Let's go up! It's already overdue IMO. It's not because there will be challenges that manufacturers shouldn't try to make it happen. I expect that in a few years we'll go beyond 126V: Regarding top speed, on flat straight roads, 70 kph on an EUC feels kind of slow. Edited October 13, 2021 by supercurio 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duanew Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 I was messing around with my car charger I am making for my 16X at 84V and laid my arm across the back of the connector and got a pretty good tingle. This will be much worse at 126V and could cause a safety concern. They say dont touch the 350V yellow wires in a tesla electric car or it will be the last thing you do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post The Brahan Seer Posted October 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2021 1 hour ago, Jason McNeil said: There is quite a lot of buzz surronding the 126V battery pack on the S20, but I haven't been able to find much in the way of dissenting voices of whether this ambitious specification is necessary, desired & what trade-offs would be the consequence of this 30s4p pack configuration. Is it really an ambitious specification? or just a natural progression? 1 hour ago, Jason McNeil said: increased series internal resistance—leading to higher pack operating temperatures—uncharted (for KS) territory in PCB/electronics designs, step-up chargers, etc. I thought the higher the voltages the lower the resistances and better efficiency, thinner wiring required etc. Lower heat. But I am not an electrical engineer. So should we not try to improve and innovate? Just because it might not work? 1 hour ago, Jason McNeil said: The historical track record of S18 battery packs has not been great, experiencing a >15% defect rate (unable to charge...); though KS says that they've addressed this on the most recent batches. My concern is that the S20 is already a high-stakes Wheel, adding an unnecessary complex requirement of 126V, while 100V would serve just as well, or better, could very well result in production delays, cost overruns & other unknowns. Is adding 126V really a much more complex requirement or really just the same only different? You have already stated that KingSong has been able to address problems in the past. It could result in production delays, cost overruns and other unknowns. Or it might do the opposite and increase production, lower costs and offer other great benefits. Sounds like to me you are worried that the S20 won't meet the specification and launch date. Which is a valid point. But I wouldn't suggest holding back innovation. All good things come to those who wait. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercurio Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 2 minutes ago, The Brahan Seer said: I thought the higher the voltages the lower the resistances and better efficiency, thinner wiring required etc. Lower heat. But I am not an electrical engineer. Higher voltage will draw less current from the packs, however for the given power output used by the controller, each cell will be drawn the same current regardless of the pack configuration. I would be happy to learn from an explanation about what @Jason McNeil describes regarding internal cells resistance adding in a series configuration vs a parallel one. To output 360W with cells at 3.6V, I guess that: 1s10p pack would have each cell running at 10A for 3.6V 10A total. 10s1p pack would have each cell in series running at 10A for for 36V 10A total, however each cell resistance is adding up in the series so you might get only 34V instead of 36V: a less efficient configuration Is that correct? 2 minutes ago, The Brahan Seer said: It could result in production delays, cost overruns and other unknowns. Or it might do the opposite and increase production, lower costs and offer other great benefits. Sounds like to me you are worried that the S20 won't meet the specification and launch date. Which is a valid point. But I wouldn't suggest holding back innovation. All good things come to those who wait. I think that part of that is more a dealer's perspective, which makes sense in @Jason McNeil's position. It's a higher risk product, which is bound to make a dealer uncomfortable for all sort of reasons. I decided to vote with my money with a pre-order, to confirm that it is the right direction. However I have no doubt that the S20 will be very late and have plenty of issues, launching with an immature technology that won't be thoroughly tested. At the same time, I have a first-batch 16X (bought second hand) that's awesome, so maybe it won't be that bad. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post yoos Posted October 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2021 (edited) 33 minutes ago, supercurio said: To output 360W with cells at 3.6V, I guess that: 1s10p pack would have each cell running at 10A for 3.6V 10A total. 10s1p pack would have each cell in series running at 10A for for 36V 10A total, however each cell resistance is adding up in the series so you might get only 34V instead of 36V: a less efficient configuration Is that correct? That is correct except about the configuration efficiency. Suppose internal resistance of 0.1 Ohm per pack (I don't know the actual value), then the 1s10p would have a voltage sag of 10 times 10A x 0.1 Ohm = 10V, while the 10s1p would sag 10A x .1 Ohm = 1V. In either case the voltage sag would be 1/3.6 = 10/36 = 27% of nominal voltage of the EUC, which effectively drops your top speed by 27% in either case. More important is imho the safety of having higher voltages (shorts are easier, and possible electrocution becomes more severe) and the difficulty of manufacturing and balancing larger packs. If you have many small packs instead of few large ones, it also becomes cheaper to replace dead ones, and you can reasonably safely ride a wheel with one pack out of 6 missing. However, missing one out of 4 is more significant. I still support the move to higher voltages, that's where mature PEV technology ends up. Kingsong seems mature enough to manage this leap. We just need to make sure the overall quality is appropriate. Since battery packs are a most expensive and dangerous part of a wheel, I salute Jasons move to supply custom batteries for begode wheels. And since there is nothing EUC-specific about batteries, sourcing, installing, refurbishing batteries could be fully delegated to EUC distributors or even end customers. At some point ecodrift used to sell "empty" gotway wheels, where you had to buy/build and install a battery separately. Edited October 13, 2021 by yoos 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercurio Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 17 minutes ago, yoos said: That is correct except about the configuration efficiency. Suppose internal resistance of 0.1 Ohm per pack (I don't know the actual value), then the 1s10p would have a voltage sag of 10 times 10A x 0.1 Ohm = 10V, while the 10s1p would sag 010A x .1 Ohm = 1V. In either case the voltage sag would be 1/3.6 = 10/36 = 27% of nominal voltage of the EUC, which effectively drops your top speed by 27% in either case. Thanks! So a 120 cells pack in 30s4p would be the same as 24s5p in terms of loss, efficiency and operating temperatures, addressing @Jason McNeil's concern following. 2 hours ago, Jason McNeil said: increased series internal resistance—leading to higher pack operating temperatures Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoos Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 (edited) 11 minutes ago, supercurio said: So a 120 cells pack in 30s4p would be the same as 24s5p in terms of loss, efficiency and operating temperatures, addressing @Jason McNeil's concern following. Again, not that simple indeed, the voltage sag, dissipative energy losses (ohmic heating) within the battery pack would be the same, but there are other elements -- wires, mosfets, the controller etc which might react differently. In one case you have 10A @ 3.6V and in the other 1A @ 36V. If the current is then passing through a single cable the voltage sag of that cable is I R (Ohm's law, R being resistance), so lower current is preferable. And the heating would be I^2 R so again, lower current is better. Ultimately, you can afford to use wires with higher R (thinner wires) in a higher-voltage EUC. At the same time you need better insulation to protect from shorts. And then there is the controller which is a complicated piece of electronics. Edited October 13, 2021 by yoos 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brahan Seer Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 1 hour ago, supercurio said: I think that part of that is more a dealer's perspective, which makes sense in @Jason McNeil's position. It's a higher risk product, which is bound to make a dealer uncomfortable for all sort of reasons. I didn't realise he is a Supplier and so his viewpoint makes total sense to me now. This is a very tough product to sell without any on-going issues. I appreciate 'the risk' these guys take on and the potential rework too. A big thanks to the suppliers for all the hard work they do. Respect. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whalesmash Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 I would have been satisfied with a 100V wheel, assuming they could pull similar performance metrics as an RS torque. Heating and battery pack concerns aside, it's annoying to be forced into yet another proprietary charger, but we'll need to wait until the wheel is out in the hands of some actual users and testers before we can tell if proposed bump in performance is worth all these unknowns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Tawpie Posted October 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2021 (edited) The options available to the system designer are large partly because there are so many variables at play. The motor itself, the wiring, the MOSFETs, the physical envelope for the batteries, the cooling, and so on. It is a fact that lowering the current required to deliver a specified amount of power to the load is in general a good thing—mostly because you reduce how much of your power is lost in heat (square of the current) and equally importantly you reduce the stuff you have to add to get rid of that heat. But an additional wrinkle is that at 70A current levels you should begin to consider the inductive effects (di-dt, speed at which the current in the wire is changing). Turning on a 70A current flow in milliseconds puts energy into a magnetic field around the wires which causes the voltage at the load to rise more slowly, and when you suddenly shut that current off the field collapses and you have to deal with shunting the resulting current. All of this is inefficient and it complicates the EMI signature (remember that the changing magnetic field generates current in all conductors that cross the field, so the entire assembly has to deal with its effects). Lower current is just easier to deal with so it's very tempting. 126V isn't particularly "high" from a component standpoint. Don't get across the wires (126V can def kill you, 60VDC is the general "exercise caution" voltage) or short them together, but this advice applies to 67V systems as well. The engineer MUST choose parts with sufficient design margin for the operating parameters, but those parts are not rocket surgery and have been around for a while. If they do their math properly, and choose to maintain design margin, it's not a difficult problem to deal with—and the benefits are real and large. Of course in a price sensitive world, these choices will always tend to have narrow margin so there is that! As to the 30s configuration, I am really really hoping that KS's roots in BMS design is brought to bear. They started as a BMS design/build company—if this experience remains within KS's engineering group they should be able to manage the additional cells. It is my belief/hope that touting a "smart BMS" does indeed mean that they are managing charging in a more sophisticated manner than the current industry standard... it might just be marketing fluff, but I can hope. My deposit is betting that they can pull this off. The object is to deliver xxx newton meters of thrust to the tire/riding surface with as little loss as you can manage. 126V helps, and while it sounds like a big risk I don't think it's as big a technological step as the marketing hullabaloo would lead us to believe. To me, it's a bit like gigahertz on PC CPUs... easily understood by the unwashed but not a true measure. Edited October 13, 2021 by Tawpie 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post RagingGrandpa Posted October 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Chriull said: Valid for the same speed and torque with three motors having the same no load speed (lift cut off speed) at maximum battery voltage # of cells Voltage R internal battery I P internal battery P Mosfet V [arbitrary units] 30 s 4 p 120 126 7,5 1,00 7,5 1,00 24 s 5 p 120 100,8 4,8 1,25 7,5 1,56 20 s 6 p 120 84 3,3 1,50 7,5 2,25 Great example! It drives home the point that for the same output power, and the same number of cells, the pack's dissipation is practically independent of cell configuration. And higher pack voltages (with the corresponding higher-Kt motor) let the control board run cooler. (All presuming that motors are sized to match the pack voltage: 3 physically different motors are implied in the 3 example configurations above. Which seems appropriate, since 126V S20 is expected to have a lower-Kv motor than 84V S18.) 3 hours ago, div said: 126V promising for combining torque with speed Yes! Sherman speed with RS:T torque! Yes! 4 hours ago, Jason McNeil said: we're going to try to get the final board & pack design externally validated. Excellent! (I presume the first batch S20's will have a smattering of controller and/or charging issues, which KS will eventually iron out during the first year of production... if ewheels can get ahead of the problems and decline shipment of lemon-wheels, customers will whine in the short-term, but it's certainly better in the long-term.) Edited October 13, 2021 by RagingGrandpa motors matter! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtlasP Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 (edited) When I first heard the 126v announcement coupled with otherwise 100v speeds, my first thought was: why? As this won't be used to achieve some new top speed (as we all know Begode or Veteran would have done), and any slight improvement to acceleration and/or "power efficiency" are likely to be merely theoretical while the reality is somewhere between negligible to completely undetectable, it just sounds like a lot of extra risk (everything from electrical/hardware failure to fire) with no tangible benefits--and therefore likely screams more of a marketing ploy than a product feature. (Particularly for the last active EUC manufacturer to have never even made a single 100v wheel.) And now based on the pre-order info currently listed on eWheels, it's also looking like of all the new wheels announced, the S20 will be the very last one released--which seems to reinforce the King Song premature rushed announcement/launch pattern I've written about elsewhere. Edited October 13, 2021 by AtlasP 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tawpie Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 6 minutes ago, AtlasP said: reality is somewhere between negligible to completely undetectable This may turn out to be true given KS's aversion to top speed, but a similar argument could have been made about the jump from 84V to 100V. Perhaps they just want to accelerate a 20" wheel like they do their 16"? Maybe they don't want to end up in flames on @Jack ex-KS's burnout hill... he promised he'd do a video even before he left. Might not have wanted @Marty Backe to note that it "runs hot" on his 5k hill climb... KS has proven to have pretty good margin on heat buildup under sustained power demand. We won't know how 126V plays out until it's been in the field for a while. 7 minutes ago, AtlasP said: King Song premature rushed announcement/launch pattern Keen obversation... but it saved you a kilobuck on the Hero. And you can bet LeaperKim and Gotway are both scrambling, distracted from other pursuits chasing what might be a squirrel. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtlasP Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tawpie said: This may turn out to be true given KS's aversion to top speed, but a similar argument could have been made about the jump from 84V to 100V. Quite the contrary, the 100v wheels have a clear and obvious and unquestionable benefit over 84v wheels in top speed and safety headroom. I suppose King Song could argue that their 126v wheel will have better safety headroom when staying within 100v speeds than merely a 100v wheel, which may be theoretically true--although this potential benefit is offset at least initially by the risks inherent to an entirely new set of electrical components and platform for King Song which needs developed and tested and refined. But maybe that's the true long-term potential value proposition. Quote Keen obversation... but it saved you a kilobuck on the Hero. And you can bet LeaperKim and Gotway are both scrambling, distracted from other pursuits chasing what might be a squirrel. Can't/didn't save me anything on a wheel (the Hero) I was never going to buy in the first place. ;-) Edited October 13, 2021 by AtlasP 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post fbhb Posted October 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, yoos said: I still support the move to higher voltages, that's where mature PEV technology ends up. Kingsong seems mature enough to manage this leap. If King Song are Not pressured into releasing the S20 to dealers/customers before it is Truly ready, they are the most capable company able to pull off the move to 126V IMHO! 6 hours ago, Tawpie said: As to the 30s configuration, I am really really hoping that KS's roots in BMS design is brought to bear. They started as a BMS design/build company—if this experience remains within KS's engineering group they should be able to manage the additional cells. It is my belief/hope that touting a "smart BMS" does indeed mean that they are managing charging in a more sophisticated manner than the current industry standard... it might just be marketing fluff, but I can hope. King Song is Also the EUC company that actually designs and builds it's own motherboards, rather than having them outsourced as most others do, which again helps in the S20's chances of successfully making the step up to 126V! Very obviously, the S20 will be late (very late) to market but that is to be expected given the step up in tech involved and the resultant hurdles it is creating during the current development phase! I personally can live with the inevitably LONG wait for it to become a viable 126V proposition. Edited October 13, 2021 by fbhb 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Guy Posted October 13, 2021 Share Posted October 13, 2021 126V is clearly much better for EUC performance and durability of internal parts that might be damaged by heat (less heat from the same power output). Would be very exciting to see this breakthrough. We will all benefit in the long term if KingSong can pull it. ...But... (Battery aspects aside) Does higher motor voltage mean much greater building quality requirements (wiring insulation, motherboard size, overall weather tightness)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul A Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 (edited) https://evannex.com/blogs/news/tesla-s-4680-cell-is-a-stroke-of-genius-sandy-munro https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/just-how-much-breakthrough-teslas-tabless-battery-cell/ Tesla tabless 4680 battery. (Still in development, yet to be mass produced) Simpler and cheaper to produce. 5x energy density. 6x power. Larger battery rather than many smaller batteries, 30-40% less steel casing required. Less resistance, less power loss, less heat generated. Less likelihood of manufacturing defect of welding burrs causing internal short circuit, causing fires and explosions. Tabs can affect battery reliability and performance. Welding tabs, an additional manufacturing step and cost. Non uniform distribution of current, and non uniform utilization of active materials that coat the electrodes. Maximum distance that electrons should travel is the height of the electrode rather than its length as in the case of a conventional tabbed electrode. Current distribution will be uniform across the tabless electrode. In this way, local hotspots with large overpotentials that can cause unwanted chemical reactions are avoided and the battery's lifetime is improved. With the tabless design, the whole edge of the electrode is responsible for current (and heat) transfer. Heat transfer occurs through an area as large as the base of the battery cylinder. When the anode and cathode sheets of the new battery are rolled up, it forms a rose-like gathering at the ends. _____________________________________________________ Maybe in a few years, EUCs will be using Tesla's 4680 batteries. Edited October 14, 2021 by Paul A 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miko.cz Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 a lot of promising battery prototypes... even Czech project HE3DA seems to be big unknow now (its extremely hard to ignite it, even with bullets or crashtests - no Jack, please leave it alone, dont touch! But is that enough?...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UniVehje Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 17 hours ago, Tawpie said: To me, it's a bit like gigahertz on PC CPUs... easily understood by the unwashed but not a true measure. Or more pixels = better camera. I hope this is not what is happening with the 126V thing. By reading the discussions around the topic on this forum I get the feeling that very few truly understand the topic and the rest just see higher number as better. I don't mind more voltage as long as there are no big negative side effects. I also understand the want for progress. But personally I see many other features as more important developments. For example lights, suspension, comfort, range, reliability, ease of tire change. I'm personally very likely to purchase S20 next spring. But voltage has nothing to do with my purchase decision. On the other hand increase to 126V is the main reason I will not pre-order and will wait to see how reliable it is. I would be perfectly happy with 100 or even 84 volt S20. I'm already content with current speeds so I just don't want to have any costs (monetary or otherwise) with the unused potential. I appreciate Jason's concern of negative side effects of increased voltage for very little benefit for most riders. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asphalt Posted October 14, 2021 Share Posted October 14, 2021 23 hours ago, Jason McNeil said: There is quite a lot of buzz surronding the 126V battery pack on the S20, but I haven't been able to find much in the way of dissenting voices of whether this ambitious specification is necessary, desired & what trade-offs would be the consequence of this 30s4p pack configuration. TLDR: "It sounds like a you problem...until it's not" We are in the honeymoon hype phase, post-product launch, pre-reality. I'm sure there are a lot of dissenting voices from the people that have to design, engineer, manufacture, QA, retail, and warranty this new 126V tech. From a rider/consumer POV, it's sounds like it might give us that low-speed, rocket-boost torque that feels so exhilarating, while also providing more safety headroom at high speeds. eWheels' great warranty service, for better or worse, allows riders not to care about things like "is this a good idea" and just enjoy the ride. Once the wheel becomes reality and starts shipping, I'm sure you will find the much sought after community dissent, in spades. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.