Paul g Posted December 28, 2021 Share Posted December 28, 2021 Of course this is not a light subject, but the difficulty should not be a reason for not working on it. Since this is, as far as I know, the biggest EUC online forum it will also be able to attract the attention of both riders and producers. What I mean by us to make a Safety Standard for EUCs is to formulate those conditions that an EUC should meet to achieve different ratings of safety as we will agree to define. For example, for the Ingress Protection rating the IEC uses numbers to show different levels of protection against solid and water ingress. In the same manner we can establish different levels of safety for EUCs. We can also establish categories for our ratings just as for IP we have two categories of protection. In the case of EUCs I see two major directions: 1. Construction one- having to do with the construction of the EUC, and 2. Behavioural one - having to do with the riding behaviour of the EUC. The construction protection should concern major components like : battery fire safety, BMSs and temperature sensors, speed and warning display, lighting and lighting control, light signalling and light signalling control, sound warning, sound signalling and signalling control, suspension, suspension type and travel, and suspension control. The behavioural protection should concern anything that has to do with the way the EUC is programmed to respond to riders input : cut outs and warning for cut outs, angle of cut outs, tilt backs and safety of tilt backs, visual-sound warning for tilt backs, horizontal stability of pedals, BMSs control of charging and discharging. Just like with the IP rating or the star safety standard for cars, the higher the protection offered the higher the rating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul g Posted December 28, 2021 Author Share Posted December 28, 2021 The description above should not be regarded as exhaustive, is only meant as a starting point for our discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eucner Posted December 28, 2021 Share Posted December 28, 2021 A good starting point would be the EN 17128 standard. It would be difficult to get the EUC manufacturers to follow voluntary standards when they don't even follow mandatory standards. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercurio Posted December 28, 2021 Share Posted December 28, 2021 I'm on board and plan to kick off the vehicle & safety data wireless protocol and formats standardization effort next year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul g Posted December 28, 2021 Author Share Posted December 28, 2021 5 hours ago, Eucner said: A good starting point would be the EN 17128 standard. It would be difficult to get the EUC manufacturers to follow voluntary standards when they don't even follow mandatory standards. The standard is limited to 25km/h for EUCs. But the rest seems well made. Thanks for the info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtlasP Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 Several things would need to happen to do this: You'd need an independent organization/committee of individuals trusted to draft and maintain such a standard. They'd need the resources/facilities/etc to test and certify wheels. Ideally you'd want to get at least one or two manufacturers on board (if you got one or two you could potentially eventually get the rest, but getting the first one or two would be the primary challenge) whose cooperation could bring down the cost of certification. Ideally you'd want to get major resellers on board both to clearly communicate these certifications and also as a potential resource whose cooperation could perhaps bring down the cost of certification. Each/all of these are no small task, and the full set of them seems prohibitively challenging especially financially. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul g Posted December 30, 2021 Author Share Posted December 30, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, AtlasP said: Several things would need to happen to do this: You'd need an independent organization/committee of individuals trusted to draft and maintain such a standard. They'd need the resources/facilities/etc to test and certify wheels. Ideally you'd want to get at least one or two manufacturers on board (if you got one or two you could potentially eventually get the rest, but getting the first one or two would be the primary challenge) whose cooperation could bring down the cost of certification. Ideally you'd want to get major resellers on board both to clearly communicate these certifications and also as a potential resource whose cooperation could perhaps bring down the cost of certification. Each/all of these are no small task, and the full set of them seems prohibitively challenging especially financially. My idea of it is that us, the riding community should be the ones that make it, not some formal regulator body(EU org., etc). The formal regulator is always behind when regulating stuff and also tends to be rather prohibiting instead of open ended, or leaving space for improvement. Edited December 30, 2021 by Paul g 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul g Posted December 30, 2021 Author Share Posted December 30, 2021 The idea for starting this thread came to me thanks to a video made by isthereanyfood’ Mike and Sergei https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8daU5PfBg0A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul g Posted December 30, 2021 Author Share Posted December 30, 2021 In this video, and others released before, they’ve tested different types of wrappings to see which one could contain a battery fire. Thanks to their work we know now that even a 0.8 mm steel sheet container would be able to stop the spread of a fire. The container would need some release valves, as they noted in the video, for letting the pressure escape. All the credit for this should go to them, I want to be clear, they’ve done a great job for us all. This is what I’m talking about when I say that is us that should create a standard and not expect one from statal authorities. We are the ones that know best, and the first to find out, what is needed for our protection. The protection proposed by them would be further enhanced if this type of container with release valves would be used in combination with steel wool filters, like those used around methane gas pipes. A fine and dense steel wool filter would stop the spread of sparks from container, increasing even more the fire protection. The protection would not be complete, because there is still the issue regarding the gases released by the battery, which are very toxic (which could kill you in the sleep, or put your small children at risk), but this can be solved by adding a fire alarm sensor near the place where the EUC is stored/recharged, ideally in a dedicated cupboard or its own storage box. In my opinion a fire protection should be mandatory on all EUCs as long as flammable battery technology is still in use, which I don’t think the official EU standard mentions-but don’t know for sure, since I do not have access to, for the moment. I would like to hear your opinion about this, and if you have some new ideas. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul g Posted December 30, 2021 Author Share Posted December 30, 2021 Aluminium cases are also a possibility, but not sure, since aluminium has a lower melting temperature, so I don’t know if would resist to a fire, but for the moment, we can agree that a thick aluminium case (that also has structural role like in S20) is for sure better than plastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercurio Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 I also share the same viewpoint on establishing some kind of community-driven organization in order to define standards with users in mind. Regarding wireless protocols, the strategy I'm thinking about is to develop and donate protocol specification, reference implementation and testing suite. This will include: standardized vehicle data formats with support of vendor extensions definition of protocol and UX for safety accessories in order to develop an open ecosystem Hopefully, we will bring OEMs on board with various incentives, including matching the rider newfound expectations in terms of interoperability and safety. The cost of implementation for them should be minimal, and if they like it they could sponsor the development financially. However the org. should be structured so no single manufacturer or entity can take over, alienating all the other participants. I am ready to spend resources next year to make this happen. It means donating time to discuss, define, write specs at the same time as writing code to test them and provide a reference implementation as mobile apps. It's what I do professionally although in the automotive industry at the moment. I started to lean micro-controller development as well with the hope of having an implementation on the accessory side, that would likely be used for prototyping. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul g Posted January 1, 2022 Author Share Posted January 1, 2022 (edited) Designing and testing to eliminate wobbles. Wobbles are dangerous behaviour of an EUC, which can lead to loss of control and crash. More rigidity should be considered for the structure of the EUC so that wobbles are reduced to an intensity where they can’t lead to loss of control, in normal conditions, of the machine. Edited January 1, 2022 by Paul g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul g Posted January 1, 2022 Author Share Posted January 1, 2022 (edited) - An other important condition for all EUC battery packs is that they should all have a case that is sealed and IPx7 rated (no water ingress allowed!). - All exposed (that could come in contact with water) plugs that are involved in maintaining the core safety features of the EUC (power, Hal sensors, etc.) should be IPx7 rated. Edited January 1, 2022 by Paul g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul g Posted January 1, 2022 Author Share Posted January 1, 2022 (edited) On 12/30/2021 at 4:07 AM, AtlasP said: Several things would need to happen to do this: You'd need an independent organization/committee of individuals trusted to draft and maintain such a standard. They'd need the resources/facilities/etc to test and certify wheels. Ideally you'd want to get at least one or two manufacturers on board (if you got one or two you could potentially eventually get the rest, but getting the first one or two would be the primary challenge) whose cooperation could bring down the cost of certification. Ideally you'd want to get major resellers on board both to clearly communicate these certifications and also as a potential resource whose cooperation could perhaps bring down the cost of certification. Each/all of these are no small task, and the full set of them seems prohibitively challenging especially financially. Our proposals can act more like a Code of Manufacturing than a Standard. The important thing is to guide the producers towards higher quality and safety. A code of manufacturing is not a law, but acts as guidance. Funding can be obtained through merchandise. Edited January 1, 2022 by Paul g Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goatman Posted January 1, 2022 Share Posted January 1, 2022 when you start sealing everything up, you trap water, as things condense water gets sucked through the wires and starts making things worse hub motors fill with water because they cant breathe, statorade helps with hub motors and also cools the motor batteries, i "pot" my batteries with plasti dip on the cell ends, its waterproof, electrically insulates and peels off clean im still not sure why the obsession with high voltage, why not stay at 20s/72v or what i think this community calls 84volt and just run slightly higher amps with better batteries and use field weakening, a fully potted control board with thermal rollback that self learns so you can swap out different motors 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eucner Posted January 1, 2022 Share Posted January 1, 2022 4 hours ago, Paul g said: Designing and testing to eliminate wobbles. Wobbles are dangerous behaviour of an EUC, which can lead to loss of control and crash. More rigidity should be considered for the structure of the EUC so that wobbles are reduced to an intensity where they can’t lead to loss of control, in normal conditions, of the machine. This wouldn't affect to wobbling issues. Every part and their combinations have harmonic frequencies based on their rigidity, mass and damping. The biggest mass and lowest rigidity in EUC system has the rider. This puts the harmonic frequencies to driving speeds, no matter how rigid the wheel itself would be. The starting impulse to wobbles comes most often from road irregularities or riders action. Only the rider can do anything for it. For a better riding experience it would be enough to balance the wheel. 3 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.