Inmotion V14 Adventure: a new trail wheel from Inmotion

[Nostris]

On 7/31/2023 at 3:48 PM, mrelwood said:

Most definitely. I’m sure they have had this wheel on the design table for at least a year by now, without knowing what others are cooking up. So it’s hard to call it a copy. And indeed there are only so many ways one can design  a wheel in this category.

This is very true. It’s fine to say…oh it looks like…or…it’s a copy of….But the fact is, if designing a wheel for trails riding, with a link suspension system…it’s going to look like all these wheels.more or less . The wheel has to have some sort of slider mechanism down the centre line, the battery packs have to be either side  of the sliders.. the linkage has to be at the back.etc.. There are certain engineering solutions that  will be very similar across all wheels of this type. The differences will be in geometry and weight distribution.

[meepmeepmayer]

Yep! It's hard to configure a suspension wheel any other way than what we see now. That does not mean the design is "a copy" of some other wheel.

My feeling is the Adventure is an older design, started before the Sherman-S and Patton showed you don't need a linkage to have a great suspension. Maybe Inmotion just wanted to try a linkage (after forgoing it with the V11 and V13), but I imagine it was the time before the V13 was released and when Begode came out with linkage wheels left and right that IM decided on this linkage.

[techyiam]

3 hours ago, meepmeepmayer said:

Yep! It's hard to configure a suspension wheel any other way than what we see now. That does not mean the design is "a copy" of some other wheel.

I disagree.

It only became obvious after the fact.

Should someone come out with a swingarm suspension system, and it proved to be even better, than people would say that design is how anyone would design a suspension electric wheel.

Kingsong did good with its S18. The basic concept and layout was sound.

Notice no other companies copied the Inmotion V11 suspension design, nor the Begode EX suspension design.

3 hours ago, meepmeepmayer said:

My feeling is the Adventure is an older design, started before the Sherman-S and Patton showed you don't need a linkage to have a great suspension. Maybe Inmotion just wanted to try a linkage (after forgoing it with the V11 and V13), but I imagine it was the time before the V13 was released and when Begode came out with linkage wheels left and right that IM decided on this linkage.

I surmised that the Adventure current suspension came after the V13. There is no way the V13 flagship wouldn't have gotten the most advanced suspension Inmotion knows how to build.

Bob said recently that Inmotion will no longer do toy-like suspension design in his last round of Internet interviews, and that for trail wheels, linkage suspension makes sense since owners can use of- the-shelf components for modding, and you use get rising rate leverage ratios curves.

Edited August 3, 2023 by techyiam

[meepmeepmayer]

17 minutes ago, techyiam said:

I disagree.

It only became obvious after the fact.

Should someone come out with a swingarm suspension system and it proved to be even better, than people would say that design would how anyone design a suspension electric wheel.

I meant the general layout of parts, like described in the post above mine.

Either a slider or a shock will sit right in the center of each side of the motor, with the pedals attached to it. It's the obvious way to start, where else would you put that (quite necessary) part? Then the batteries naturally go to each side of that. Then the board goes on top, where there's still space. Then any (optional) linkage has only one logical place to go. And that's pretty much the layout of all suspension wheels.

[techyiam]

42 minutes ago, meepmeepmayer said:

I meant the general layout of parts, like described in the post above mine.

Either a slider or a shock will sit right in the center of each side of the motor, with the pedals attached to it. It's the obvious way to start, where else would you put that (quite necessary) part? Then the batteries naturally go to each side of that. Then the board goes on top, where there's still space. Then any (optional) linkage has only one logical place to go. And that's pretty much the layout of all suspension wheels.

All that only became obvious after the fact.

To have only one slider on each side would meant the wheel would be wider. Also, with two sliders per side, the wheel could be less flexy. The S20 was kind of like that.

The board doesn't have to go on top. The shock could have gone there.

Like I said, once a superior suspension design is recognized, that would become the obvious suspension design.

 

[Rollin-on-1]

19 minutes ago, techyiam said:

Like I said, once a superior suspension design is recognized, that would become the obvious suspension design.

 

I agree...and I'm convinced that we have not yet seen the optimized suspension type.  The fork style LeaperKim uses is effective for everything except big air where greater suspension travel is a big advantage.  The S22 style handles big air better, but at the expense of suboptimal weight distribution.  I think there could be further innovation on EUC suspensions that deliver all of the above.  I look forward to seeing the future designs.

[techyiam]

23 minutes ago, Rollin-on-1 said:

I agree...and I'm convinced that we have not yet seen the optimized suspension type.  The fork style LeaperKim uses is effective for everything except big air where greater suspension travel is a big advantage.  The S22 style handles big air better, but at the expense of suboptimal weight distribution.  I think there could be further innovation on EUC suspensions that deliver all of the above.  I look forward to seeing the future designs.

If we look back at MTB's, for the first couple of decades, many suspension designs were borrowed from the motorcycle world. Good MTB specific suspension designs came to being probably more like within the last 15 years?

[Unventor]

5 hours ago, techyiam said:

Notice no other companies copied the Inmotion V11 suspension design, nor the Begode EX suspension design.

That is not entirely correct. Kingsong did copy it and got sued. Due to cought order the had to pay a fine and forced to build a different design for the S18. This was rushed to market and first customers felt that. 

Inmotion that tested this from a long time even back before V10f launch they were playing with a suspension concent that got initial canceled. 

Bring new functions takes much longer to develop and even iteration over several models. 

 

[zaft]

I feel like there should be a hybrid suspension, a piston like damper for short travel frequent bumps like road irregularities and long travel coil shock once the damper locks from full travel.

[Rollin-on-1]

2 hours ago, zaft said:

I feel like there should be a hybrid suspension, a piston like damper for short travel frequent bumps like road irregularities and long travel coil shock once the damper locks from full travel.

With the right components, a coil-over shock with a rising rate linkage like the S22 can do both.  The weight just won't be as well balanced as a fork style suspension.  I think a different geometry could be possible that would balance the weight better though. 

[techyiam]

6 hours ago, Unventor said:

That is not entirely correct. Kingsong did copy it and got sued. Due to cought (a court) order they had to pay a fine and forced to build a different design for the S18. This was rushed to market and first customers felt that. 

I didn't know, thanks for that. But copying something in the 2020 timeframe when suspension wheels were not a thing yet, and doing it in 2023 is whole different ball of wax. 

To think of it, perhaps it was a good thing on hindsight. Because of that, Kingsong was forced to do something original and came out with the S18. This is a better suspension for others to copy than that of the V11. Perhaps, there is a lesson to be learn here.

[InfiniteWheelie]

23 hours ago, Rollin-on-1 said:

I agree...and I'm convinced that we have not yet seen the optimized suspension type.  The fork style LeaperKim uses is effective for everything except big air where greater suspension travel is a big advantage.  The S22 style handles big air better, but at the expense of suboptimal weight distribution.  I think there could be further innovation on EUC suspensions that deliver all of the above.  I look forward to seeing the future designs.

I’m convinced that the fork style suspension seen in the Sherman S is the ultimate type. That said, there are still improvements to be made in implementation such as adding a metal bridge between the legs for rigidity, the way parts are connected, tuning etc.  

I don’t see why a fork type suspension can’t have long travel and/or progressive travel…

I haven’t ridden the Sherman S, is it tall enough that it starts encroaching into the thigh area too much? If not, they could simply add taller forks for more travel. However the taller a wheel is, the more you are forced to spread your feet (since your legs make an upside down “V”) and it’s made worse if the wheel is already wider due to using a thick fork suspension.

Even if the travel is towards its limit due to ergonomics, it can still be tuned using progressive travel. Coil springs can be wound progressively (tighter at one end), and air springs are naturally progressive. I think even with the current travel, if progressive springs were used, a wheel like the Sherman S could probably work very well on big drops. But I’m not an expert on this, these are just my best guesses.

Edited August 4, 2023 by InfiniteWheelie

[mrelwood]

 

On 8/3/2023 at 8:35 PM, techyiam said:

Like I said, once a superior suspension design is recognized, that would become the obvious suspension design.

And once it does, it too will have only a few ways that makes sense to put it together. If it’s a swing arm type and the arms require space that is occupied in current models, there will only be one or a few ways to put it together. Hence all swing arm suspension EUCs will seem as copies of one another.

On 8/3/2023 at 7:16 PM, techyiam said:

There is no way the V13 flagship wouldn't have gotten the most advanced suspension Inmotion knows how to build.

V13 was launched during the time when the V14 design was underway. The new suspension system wasn’t ready to be put in the V13, which in turn had also been on the design table before the V12 launch as well. I’m sure the ShermS suspension design was well underway when the SherMax was launched. Still their flagship wheel didn’t include the suspension.

 It’s been said that the consumer grade computer processors are 10 years behind the actual bleeding edge lab designs. Yet they don’t launch the bestest processors in the next flagship computers. That’s just how it goes in every market segment.

[Finn Bjerke]

Interesting comments from Chooch: 

 

[Finn Bjerke]

 

[techyiam]

1 hour ago, mrelwood said:

If it’s a swing arm type and the arms require space that is occupied in current models, there will only be one or a few ways to put it together. Hence all swing arm suspension EUCs will seem as copies of one another.

All full suspension MTB's use articulated links in the rear. Notice how the rear suspension designs differ.

1 hour ago, mrelwood said:

It’s been said that the consumer grade computer processors are 10 years behind the actual bleeding edge lab designs. Yet they don’t launch the bestest processors in the next flagship computers. That’s just how it goes in every market segment.

That has noting to do with what we are talking about. Cost is the reason why. The smallest cpu silicon process feature size cost the most when just released and drops with time. Here largely the feature size of the process of the silicon is primarily the limiting factor, and it is already on the smallest process size that makes economical sense for a particular fab. Yield baby. That takes time.

On the other hand, for electric wheels, the only limiting factor is the designers creativeness. Notice Leaper Kim did not put in a S18 copycat suspension. And they got rewarded for it. There was nothing stopping Inmotion from putting in a hydraulic suspension in the V13. If they did, and the V13 had the FastAce hydraulic suspension instead of the Sherman S, the V13 would have been perceived very differently.

Bob Yan said going forward, the Adventure line will have the linkage suspension and the Challenger line will have the hydraulic suspension. Both of these types of suspension designs have already been proven to be effective when he announced that.

[Punxatawneyjoe]

1 hour ago, Finn Bjerke said:

Interesting comments from Chooch: 

Indeed. The v13 doesn't have "magnesium side panels" but the batteries are super heavy because they are potted. I think the design is ugly and was really looking forward to Inmotion being the one to bridge the suspension gap and design a trailing arm style which will be the standard after someone actually does it. Suspension is the name of the game now, that's why the sherman s is so popular, however they missed the mark also so it's only a little better than the v13 IMO for they are both "hydraulic" dampening. The air argument doesn't hold water anymore because i haven't lost a single pound in my suspension in 1k miles so far and if air cushioning was so bad, long haul truckers wouldn't use it exclusively. Lastly they don't mount forks on motorcycles perfectly vertical for good reason. It's ugly, but not a hard no just yet.....

[mrelwood]

4 hours ago, techyiam said:

All full suspension MTB's use articulated links in the rear. Notice how the rear suspension designs differ.

There’s a lot of room in bicycles to make all kinds of linkage designs and position the shock wherever. There aren’t on EUCs.

4 hours ago, techyiam said:

On the other hand, for electric wheels, the only limiting factor is the designers creativeness.

And the measures. And the specs. And the community requirements. Etc.

4 hours ago, techyiam said:

There was nothing stopping Inmotion from putting in a hydraulic suspension in the V13.

I would imagine that the V11 suspension has cost the company a bit more than what’s comfortable as warranty replacements. It’s also been shown that it doesn’t last nearly as long as one would hope. If I had been choosing what to do after all that, I’d be going with safe and known designs as well. 

But I’m sure the V13 design process didn’t start all that far after the V11 was released. Possibly even before in some measure. It would be a huge hassle to scratch the existing design and start all over. I’m sure the companies try to avoid that as much as possible, since they are fighting to achieve a decent release schedule as is.

4 hours ago, techyiam said:

Bob Yan said going forward, the Adventure line will have the linkage suspension and the Challenger line will have the hydraulic suspension. Both of these types of suspension designs have already been proven to be effective when he announced that.

Exactly. They wanted to make safe choices going forward, to avoid another V11. That interview was a long time after the V13 had been launched, let alone designed.

[Planemo]

10 hours ago, Punxatawneyjoe said:

that's why the sherman s is so popular, however they missed the mark also so it's only a little better than the v13 IMO for they are both "hydraulic" dampening.

How else would you suggest damping is taken care of without using hydraulics (oil)?

10 hours ago, Punxatawneyjoe said:

 if air cushioning was so bad, long haul truckers wouldn't use it exclusively.

Trucks use air primarily because it allows simple and easy compensation for multiple axles to bear the same weight for an irregularly loaded trailer, or indeed perform as required whether the trailer is loaded or not. That and it's far lighter than the huge springs used previously.

10 hours ago, Punxatawneyjoe said:

Lastly they don't mount forks on motorcycles perfectly vertical for good reason. 

True, but I'm not sure where you are going with this - from a physics standpoint it's not possible for an EUC to have anything other than a vertical movement on the axle as the COG needs to remain constant throughout travel.

[Punxatawneyjoe]

2 hours ago, Planemo said:

How else would you suggest damping is taken care of without using hydraulics (oil)?

I think oil dampening works great, i wasn't suggesting a change in that regard.

2 hours ago, Planemo said:

Trucks use air primarily because it allows simple and easy compensation for multiple axles to bear the same weight for an irregularly loaded trailer, or indeed perform as required whether the trailer is loaded or not. That and it's far lighter than the huge springs used previously.

I agree, but also because a cushion of air works well for absorbing impacts the more it's compressed the firmer it gets like a progressive spring but better. Maybe i should have used a stunt mattress as an example?

2 hours ago, Planemo said:

True, but I'm not sure where you are going with this - from a physics standpoint it's not possible for an EUC to have anything other than a vertical movement on the axle as the COG needs to remain constant throughout travel.

This is not the case, any shift in the COG and the "self balancing wheel" compensates by speeding up or slowing down the wheel in order to remain upright. when you tilt the wheel forward and back it changes it's COG.

A trailing arm style suspension would work just fine as long as the compression curve remains consistent, here is an example of a self balancing robot using the same arc a trailing arm suspension would. It's  at time stamp :39 to :43 also at 1:29 the only thing i would change is the direction of the "trailing arm" in this case the lower leg to face backwards. As you can see the compression arc doesn't effect the robots stability.

 

Edited August 5, 2023 by Punxatawneyjoe

[Planemo]

33 minutes ago, Punxatawneyjoe said:

A trailing arm style suspension would work just fine

Oh it would work fine, but the robot wheel movement is still vertical. When you threw in the classic MC fork example I thought you did so to highlight the benefits of a head angle (rake) of more than 0 degrees.

Edit: I think I know where you're going with this now, in that the arc given by the leading/trailing link would be better than a totally vertical shock like the SS. I agree, but it's still far removed from the vector that the MC style fork would give, which is what I was concentrating on

 

Edited August 5, 2023 by Planemo

[Rollin-on-1]

17 hours ago, InfiniteWheelie said:

I’m convinced that the fork style suspension seen in the Sherman S is the ultimate type. That said, there are still improvements to be made in implementation such as adding a metal bridge between the legs for rigidity, the way parts are connected, tuning etc.  

I don’t see why a fork type suspension can’t have long travel and/or progressive travel…

I haven’t ridden the Sherman S, is it tall enough that it starts encroaching into the thigh area too much? If not, they could simply add taller forks for more travel. However the taller a wheel is, the more you are forced to spread your feet (since your legs make an upside down “V”) and it’s made worse if the wheel is already wider due to using a thick fork suspension.

Even if the travel is towards its limit due to ergonomics, it can still be tuned using progressive travel. Coil springs can be wound progressively (tighter at one end), and air springs are naturally progressive. I think even with the current travel, if progressive springs were used, a wheel like the Sherman S could probably work very well on big drops. But I’m not an expert on this, these are just my best guesses.

You aren't wrong.  A higher end fork suspension with multiple stages, progressive coils, and high quality parts could achieve everything we need for EUCs to handle the small bumps and the big drops.  It could likely be done without significantly increasing the ride height too.  

Longer travel gets challenging because it makes the wheel talller.  That's really the only disadvantage I see in trying to go bigger with fork style suspension. That said, if we look at motorcycles, particularly motorcross bikes, the rear suspension is a swingarm with a coil-over.  It is capable of taking much more loading than the front forks.  Front forks are the way they are because the front wheel needs to turn to steer.  We don't need to turn our tire independantly from the rest of the EUC, so the primary driving reason for front forks on a motorcycle or mtb doesn't apply to EUCs.  But fork style susoenson makes a lot of sense because it is compact and keeps the motions centered on the axis of rotation.  It works.

Some motorcycle companies have experimented with swingarm style front suspensions, but no modern motorcycle companies that I'm aware of have experimented with fork style rear suspension...and there is a reason for that.

I think with the battery tech we have, we are going to be limited in the potential suspension configurations that are feasible.  The batteries are big and heavy and need to be as close to the center of rotation as possible otherwise it begins to compromise handling and ride feel.  Once we get battery tech that is smaller and lighter, we could see further innovation in EUC specufic suspension, but only if the market grows significantly in size and sophistication.  I don't really see that happening in the next 20 years.  So, we are probably stuck with variations on the fork and linkage suspensions.

I will say that I am intrigued by the concept of making a swingarm style suspension work on an EUC.  The rotational movement creates some interesting engineering challenges to overcome on a self balancing single wheeled vehicle though.

Edited August 5, 2023 by Rollin-on-1
Fixed typo

[Punxatawneyjoe]

8 minutes ago, Planemo said:

Oh it would work fine, but the robot wheel movement is still vertical. When you threw in the classic MC fork example I thought you did so to highlight the benefits of a head angle (rake) of more than 0 degrees.

Yes the robot movement is still "mostly" vertical  however, it does have a slight arc. My idea on suspension would not use MC style forks. It would use a "scissor" or "trailing arm" style to achieve the same horizontal absorption as having raked forks . The problem with the current styles is that the initial horizontal impact is absorbed directly through the chassis before it's direction is changed to a vertical one to be absorbed. A "trailing arm" solves that problem by absorbing the impact both horizontally as well as vertically. Most every other suspension on the planet uses this concept in one way or another.

[techyiam]

13 minutes ago, Rollin-on-1 said:

So, we are probably stuck with variations on the fork and linkage suspensions.

But as for the latter, the linkage suspension, instead of using sliders, someone may come out with a swing-arm style linkage suspension.

[Rollin-on-1]

4 minutes ago, techyiam said:

But as for the latter, the linkage suspension, instead of using sliders, someone may come out with a swing-arm style linkage suspension.

I'm not sure I am visualizing the arrangement you are describing, but perhaps.