Inmotion V14 Adventure: a new trail wheel from Inmotion

[Paul g]

“

I discussed how the InMotion V14 Adventure EUC just got its batteries upgraded, and how eWheels made it happen. This electric unicycle is now expected to be the first truly IP certified EUC by IEC 60529 standards, and also possibly UL2859 certified. The latter portion is entirely dependent on whether eWheels ultimately decides to pay incredible amounts of money to make it happen - but if they do, then we ought to be eternally grateful to them. Also, we don't know for sure exactly which vendors will get the 50S batteries that eWheels made happen - but we do know that eWheels will have it. Get the best price possible on your V14 by locking in the early bird price on the first batch! “

[Rawnei]

Can we put disclaimer for that channel? I'm not a fan of all those clickbait videos.

[OldSolo]

23 hours ago, okvp said:

Actually Patton/SS has a 1:1 linear rate and s22 has a pretty much 1:2 linear suspension rate.

Dont know about Extreme rate but Adventure is probaply linear with progressive spring

All the air springs are progressive in nature.There is much more going on with damping that just distance/ rate. Dampers are actually hydraulically somewhat complex and hard to tune and good dampers are expensive to manufacture. Damper/spring system basic function is to keep optimum pressure between tyre and ground.

 

Absolutely!  I have shuffled shim stacks on my Husky dirt bike (advised by Racetech) and it is fun tweeking things.  For that matter, my road bike (Yamaha FJ09) had the forks revalved & new rear shock.  As I noted before, these EUCs are similar to what I saw in the earlier days of full suspension mountain bikes.  Just realize that increasing travel of necessity means higher ride height, unless specifically designing with a significant amount of sag.

[Paul g]

“@MyEWheel

6 hours ago (edited)

Very good video! According to the information we had from InMotion. The first batch ( November ) will be with 50GB battery cells and only after that they will switch to 50S and the price of the wheel will increase. So we at MyEWheel will skip batch 1 and go directly for Batch 2.“

[Paul g]

7 minutes ago, Rawnei said:

Can we put disclaimer for that channel? I'm not a fan of all those clickbait videos.

  He previously brought forth some good interviews with InMotion CEO and some key info, so I would not reduce this channel to clickbait only.

[OldSolo]

22 hours ago, stizl said:

Yes, this is in agreement with what I said, just with a different term.  The spring has a fixed (constant) value of force per travel, or F=ks, where k is constant and s is travel. 

I would be very surprised to see a linear leverage rate on the S22 or Adventure linkage system though, as those leverage curves for linkage systems are nearly all falling rate, which produces a progressive-like performance from a constant/linear rate spring, by design.

Yes, this is also exactly what I said above about air springs.  However, when you combine a progressive spring with a progressive linkage the effect multiplies, which I called exponential for the sake of sorting the different effective spring rates into three categories for the sake of simplicity, with the key word being effective. 

Also, for sure a quality shock/damper from a reputable manufacturer can make a huge improvement in performance.  I have/had many Fox, RockShox, and Ohlins forks/shocks on my motorcycles and MTBs over the years, and they were worth every penny, especially if you are more than just a casual rider.

Indeed!  You sound quite like me!  Raced a lot in NC back in the day (MTB - '93-2004 or so), while my MX days were 20 years earlier!  We tried crazy things, and honestly I was fairly impressed with putting an airshock on a ProFlex.  But for years, my Ellsworth Truth had the best suspension I ever saw.  I could stand up & hammer without the shock moving, yet sit down & see compressions simply from the weight change.  The difference in it compared to earlier bikes was dramatic.

However: I would comment that for XC racing, when I tried a 29er I found I was fine without FS.  The larger wheel made so much difference, yet for EUCs, the preference seems to be 16" OD tires.  Still learning in my advanced years!

[Rawnei]

9 minutes ago, Paul g said:

  He previously brought forth some good interviews with InMotion CEO and some key info, so I would not reduce this channel to clickbait only.

Sensationalist titles with clickbait thumbnails, mostly information snapped up from facebook or here on the forums, starting rumors about 168v wheels, I get he wants viewers and he wants to grow his youtube channel but it gives off such bad vibes for me, feels like something out of Linus Techtips playbook.

[Paul g]

10 minutes ago, Rawnei said:

Sensationalist titles with clickbait thumbnails, mostly information snapped up from facebook or here on the forums, starting rumors about 168v wheels, I get he wants viewers and he wants to grow his youtube channel but it gives off such bad vibes for me, feels like something out of Linus Techtips playbook.

    People are so diverse, and yes, even outright deceitful 🤥 ,😖 . I don’t know if all the new info he comes with is true. Some might be fiction. And people have the right of doubt as well. But he doesn’t live in a parallel universe and sooner or later others that are involved will respond to he’s claims if they are untrue 😉

[Unventor]

2 hours ago, Rawnei said:

Sensationalist titles with clickbait thumbnails, mostly information snapped up from facebook or here on the forums, starting rumors about 168v wheels, I get he wants viewers and he wants to grow his youtube channel but it gives off such bad vibes for me, feels like something out of Linus Techtips playbook.

I fully agree with you on this. It just gives me maddog and evx bad vibes all over again. 

I rather see a group rides testing the wheel and som factual detailed video of taking it apart and in-house technical (this why we chose this design or what it can do). 

[mrelwood]

On 10/4/2023 at 3:42 AM, Planemo said:

I very much doubt they are stainless, likely plain steel, but chrome plated. But there are various cut-outs and other machined areas to fit with the pedal hangers etc. So although not a precision piece by any means, they are not just a plain tube either.

Oh no!!! 
 

On 10/4/2023 at 8:32 AM, onkeldanuel said:

more then 100mm travel would be nescessary to be able to compete with them ,

no matter what

Let’s see. V11: announced 80mm, measured 88mm. S18: announced 100mm, measured 90mm. Extreme: announced 130mm, measured 100-105mm. Adventure: announced 85(?)mm, measured ?? mm.

Staring at the announced suspension travel figures ain’t getting you very far. The measured travel on the Adventure could just as well be around 95mm, right up there next to the Extreme. And even if it were exactly the announced 85mm, it still isn’t exactly very far from the measured Extreme travel.

 Besides, like was said, the importance of just the travel distance pales next to the actual implementation and performance of the whole suspension system.

 Although, the announced figures is what many people base their purchase decisions on, so from the sales point of view, you are correct.

 

On 10/4/2023 at 5:24 PM, stizl said:

I'd expect the Adventure and Extreme (with air shock) to be the least comfortable over small roots and rocks but be the best for big jumps.

Isn’t the whole point of the progressive (and exponential) suspension systems to have the small bump compliance to be softer and more responsive near the static sag area?

On 10/4/2023 at 5:24 PM, stizl said:

can usually avoid harsh bottom-outs by simply bending my knees...you know, how we used to land jumps before suspension wheels?

It indeed seems like this is what people have forgotten!

 

On 10/4/2023 at 11:17 PM, okvp said:

Dont know about Extreme rate but Adventure is probaply linear with progressive spring

In the launch video the linkage was described to be progressive, as was the spring of course which is clearly visible.

On 10/4/2023 at 11:17 PM, okvp said:

There is much more going on with damping that just distance/ rate.

This!

[Ro.man]

On 10/5/2023 at 2:42 AM, okvp said:

Extreme ratio can be fixed with aftermarket linkages but Adventure short travel is much much harder and expensive to make longer.

The suspension doesn't necessary have to be long travel to feel right. Most importantly it shouldn't bottom out easily, causing instability. Adventure, as a name suggests, is positioned as an adventure wheel, not extreme or offroad-specific wheel. Something that I would describe as good enough to ride many miles on road and off road. To achieve that engineers need to compromise.

There are pros and cons of having long travel suspension. Imagine a typical enduro bike. Long soft suspension is amazing asset on technical trails but it becomes a liability on the street. It feels bouncy, dives a lot when accelerating or braking, cornering becomes less precise and high center of mass doesn't make it feel better. That's why manufacturers make much less travel on street bike suspension. Adventure bikes are somewhere between.

I think for EUC somewhere in a range of 80-100mm should be a pretty good compromise between offroad performance, pedal height, and planted ride feel on the street. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Ro.man

[GPSchile]

I agree with @Ro.man and others on this. On MTB and motorbikes we often associate more travel = better, almost as a Manthra. Perhaps oversimplifying the issue, just like the industry uses Megapixels on cameras as a proxy of image quality without taking into account the optics (lens quality). I receive all EUC brands and models on my workshop and have checked the travel by adding o'rings to see the max travel that is used between services, as well as measuring the marks on the metals to assess the most common travel vs the max travel. Clearly most riders are just fine with up to 45mm, despite our Offroad trips. Just like about speed, we see some riders speeding a lot  but most riders do not drive like that. Social media tend to highlight just the extreme of the normal distribution curve. On my own V11, I could easily extend its travel length (just enlarging the central hole for the stopper with a Drill or Dremel) but I never had the need to do it. However, it is common to find suspensions not properly set and stanchions almost stuck with dirt. I agree, a properly set and maintained suspension (and the legs technique of the pilot) are more relevant than just the potential suspension travel length.

A significant detail I have not seen taken into account or debated is that contrary to MTB, motorbikes and other two wheels vehicles, EUC cannot have an angle of attack on their suspension travel. The vector force compressing the forks on a dirt bike tend to go in the same direction as the forks. Awesome and I may be totally wrong but it seems to me that we cannot have this luxury on an EUC. It would displace back and forth our balance as the suspension is compressed and extended. Precisely what we use to control the vehicle. We are limited to a vertical travel regardless of the suspension type and this may set significant performance limits. At minimum, with each impact on the lower front of the wheel, we can identify two main components of the forces: one vertical resulting in compressing the suspension (what we want and need), but also another horizontal component resulting in just torsion of the vehicle. Faster we go, we may expect more being transferred as torsion rather than compression rendering our suspension less effective. Taking this into account (the lack of attach angle), I believe that EUCs should not aspire to the same standards and applied criteria as two wheels vehicles, having such a different geometry. Instead I would expect to have a limit for our suspension travel, that when exceeded it may compromise the control of the vehicle. Not to mention the exposure of pedals to hit rocks etc.

Rather than travel length, I focus in the performance of the overall system, the service period/difficulties, and into have a well balanced vehicle.
Some EUC are produced with batteries in just one side, front and also very rear-heavy, despite of their nature of being self-balancing vehicles. Would somebody purchase a motorcycle that tend to fall more to one side than the other? No serious video-producer would accept a gimbal (stabilizer) on which the camera cannot be properly balanced. But our community still accepts very poorly balanced EUCs. IMO, we have not even covered the most basics.

My attention was first about the stanchions. I do not want another EUC that becomes a nightmare to maintain and requires often services. I never had this problem with my dirt bikes and I do aspire to this standard on EUCs. So far, Adventure looks promising on this subject and I value this, higher than travel length (that we are still not even certain what will this be). 
Progressive suspension, even not being from a big name company, does improves the standard as well. I may prefer a functional and cheaper to replace item, than a fancy piece that I fear to scratch in the mountains due its price value.
Now, what I need to know, is how well balanced is the weight on Adventure   I left my 20s long time ago and a well balanced EUC makes a difference for me when dealing between obstacles. Regardless, I am already missing an USB-C port... perhaps silly, but I use them a lot  

[Punxatawneyjoe]

26 minutes ago, GPSchile said:

We are limited to a vertical travel regardless of the suspension type

I disagree, Several have said this and  there are many examples of self balancing vehicles with the wheel having an arc  travel. Here is one.

Time stamp :39

A much better suspension type will emerge as soon as a company incorporates a trailing army style suspension.

[Vince.Fab]

On 10/4/2023 at 1:20 PM, stizl said:

According to @Vince.Fab's post on the Extreme thread (pg 22), it is progressive.  I suspect that the "stiction" (static friction) that needs to be overcome to initiate any sort of suspension movement on that wheel as-shipped is quite high, which would make the suspension less effective on small bumps.  Also, a slider/linkage system will inherently have more stiction and friction than a fork type system, as there are less moving parts in a fork-type and all of the motion is up and down instead of getting redirected through linkages to shocks that sit more horizontally.  On that note, coil forks/shocks inherently have less stiction than air, so are also better for small bump compliance. 

Actually the stock Extreme linkage is not progressive but the airshock makes up for that.   Also why you see huge springrates needed when using a coil.  The sliders are pretty friction free imo, was pleasantly surprised.

The upgraded linkage I design however is progressive with nice start and end rates.  

 

[OldSolo]

2 hours ago, GPSchile said:

A significant detail I have not seen taken into account or debated is that contrary to MTB, motorbikes and other two wheels vehicles, EUC cannot have an angle of attack on their suspension travel. The vector force compressing the forks on a dirt bike tend to go in the same direction as the forks. Awesome and I may be totally wrong but it seems to me that we cannot have this luxury on an EUC. It would displace back and forth our balance as the suspension is compressed and extended. Precisely what we use to control the vehicle. We are limited to a vertical travel regardless of the suspension type and this may set significant performance limits. At minimum, with each impact on the lower front of the wheel, we can identify two main components of the forces: one vertical resulting in compressing the suspension (what we want and need), but also another horizontal component resulting in just torsion of the vehicle. Faster we go, we may expect more being transferred as torsion rather than compression rendering our suspension less effective. Taking this into account (the lack of attach angle), I believe that EUCs should not aspire to the same standards and applied criteria as two wheels vehicles, having such a different geometry. Instead I would expect to have a limit for our suspension travel, that when exceeded it may compromise the control of the vehicle. Not to mention the exposure of pedals to hit rocks etc.

This relates to my question about outer diameter of wheels for offroad use.  Being VERY new to EUCs (first stumbled across a video online a few weeks ago and was instantly fascinated) I do not grasp all that is involved in offroad performance.  But the 29er MTB made quite a difference in rollover for me, and being tall w/ long legs, it fit better anyway.  In my youth, and even my current Husky, 21" front wheels were best offroad but NEVER onroad.  So why is this NOT the case for EUCs?  Is it simply weight?  Height?  Something else? 

Playing in my front yard with my A2, I am surprised at how even an uneven lawn (with a slope) makes riding a lot more tricky.  Granted I am VERY early on the learning curve, and the wheel isn't powerful, but larger diameter = lower angle of attack on surface irregularities.  So this impacts suspension design BUT ALSO decisions of wheel size.

[OldSolo]

13 minutes ago, Vince.Fab said:

Actually the stock Extreme linkage is not progressive but the airshock makes up for that.   Also why you see huge springrates needed when using a coil.  The sliders are pretty friction free imo, was pleasantly surprised.

The upgraded linkage I design however is progressive with nice start and end rates.  

 

I am following your work with GREAT interest!  I am strongly considering the Extreme or V14 as my next wheel, and what you are doing makes the Extreme a lot more compelling choice.  KEEP AT IT!

[OldSolo]

1 hour ago, Punxatawneyjoe said:

I disagree, Several have said this and  there are many examples of self balancing vehicles with the wheel having an arc  travel. Here is one.

Time stamp :39

A much better suspension type will emerge as soon as a company incorporates a trailing army style suspension.

Totally cool video, thanks for sharing.  It really does great bunny hops!  I want one!

[techyiam]

1 hour ago, Vince.Fab said:

The sliders are pretty friction free imo, was pleasantly surprised.

That's really good news.

I was hoping that this was part of the improvement I felt after I got on it for quick hop. It felt better than Begode wheels before it. The suspension didn't feel Patton cushy or butter smooth. But I thought it was good enough for my preference and use case.

Did you managed to examine the sliders up closely? If yes, did they improve the stanchion quality, in particular, tight tolerances, and the solid-lubricant impregnated bushing? How was the play?

[onkeldanuel]

17 hours ago, mrelwood said:

Extreme: announced 130mm, measured 100-105mm

It has 115mm max in softhole (only usable with stock airshock and soon with 1300lbs coil) , its exactly 102mm till bottomout on 51mm stroke damper in hard hole..., so usable near 100mm because you dont want to bottomout the damper....i printed bumpers which Limits at 98mm for the stanchions to be safe....another workaround could be an 57mm stroke shock for the full 114mm travel in hardhole i guess? (1:2 ratio shockstroke to wheeltravel...) 

Edited October 6, 2023 by onkeldanuel

[onkeldanuel]

2 hours ago, Vince.Fab said:

Actually the stock Extreme linkage is not progressive but the airshock makes up for that.   Also why you see huge springrates needed when using a coil.  The sliders are pretty friction free imo, was pleasantly surprised.

The upgraded linkage I design however is progressive with nice start and end rates.  

 

Thats what i thought, i think stock soft hole is linear or even degressive, only their ramped up airshock safed them because instead of fixing the linkage they reduced volume in their airshock to ridicoulous low volume it seems....no other airshock works, not even the very smallest volume one from fox at 350psi , its ridicoulus 

Edited October 6, 2023 by onkeldanuel

[GPSchile]

9 hours ago, Punxatawneyjoe said:

I disagree, Several have said this and  there are many examples of self balancing vehicles with the wheel having an arc  travel. Here is one.

Time stamp :39

A much better suspension type will emerge as soon as a company incorporates a trailing army style suspension.

I was considering the actual "state of the art" among EUC manufacturers. I totally agree with you if other physics were applied we may overcome the actual limits, but then we would be limited by the selling price overlapping with other vehicles as it is already happening.
However, the problem remains on the shown example (video). No angle of attack, the suspension travel is not in line with the forces when hitting an obstacle. As it tends to be with the forks of a dirt bike. Even an Arc style suspension, if receiving an impact from the lower front, it would result in "torsion" effects if still being a single wheel. 
Perhaps something like "loopwheels"?   I do not know. When adding the already crazy speed of our EUCs to the picture, It makes me wonder.
These are the challenges that make EUC related technology so attractive.
Perhaps in the future we will just glide with no wheels. So no angle of attack needed 

Edited October 6, 2023 by GPSchile
clarity

[GPSchile]

4 hours ago, OldSolo said:

This relates to my question about outer diameter of wheels for offroad use.  Being VERY new to EUCs (first stumbled across a video online a few weeks ago and was instantly fascinated) I do not grasp all that is involved in offroad performance.  But the 29er MTB made quite a difference in rollover for me, and being tall w/ long legs, it fit better anyway.  In my youth, and even my current Husky, 21" front wheels were best offroad but NEVER onroad.  So why is this NOT the case for EUCs?  Is it simply weight?  Height?  Something else? 

Playing in my front yard with my A2, I am surprised at how even an uneven lawn (with a slope) makes riding a lot more tricky.  Granted I am VERY early on the learning curve, and the wheel isn't powerful, but larger diameter = lower angle of attack on surface irregularities.  So this impacts suspension design BUT ALSO decisions of wheel size.

exactly, a larger diameter of the wheel is a simple way to change that angle of forces and may help.
Just look at the geometry of a dirt bike. The front wheel has a large diameter and also a suspension travel that tends to be in line with the impacts forces, due to the angle of attack that we do not have on EUCs, transferring that energy more towards "compression" rather than "torsion". The rear wheel, of a lower diameter, provides better torque.
However, there are problems with just increasing the diameter of the wheel on a EUC. Just to name a few, the center of mass may become higher (less stable), produce lesser torque (risking cutouts when accelerating aggressively), induce higher amplitudes on the transient energy demands when just changing slightly the position at high speed, increasing cutouts risks unless having a pile of capacitors, needing bigger motors, bigger batteries, more weight, compromising agility etc.
In general I see more variability in mileage between riders (of the same model of course) as larger is the wheel's diameter. Just the use of energy when accelerating can drive very different results between riders (weight, height, style) and it seems to me that the variance is higher as larger is the wheel's diameter. In contrary, the physics of a lower diameter help with torque without having to upscale everything else, better masking these rider's differences to some extent. Just my guts (ca. speculating). 
When maximizing a parameter on an EUC, we can expect several others being compromised. I prefer solutions that avoid these tradeoff by having an integral design, "good enough" for everything rather than maximizing a single feature. They may look simple but there is a lot going on our EUCs 

Edited October 6, 2023 by GPSchile
clarity

[OldSolo]

One thing I am having to consider is the 'direct drive' nature of these devices.  With the 29er there was more inertial mass to overcome when accelerating, but this also helped 'rollover' as does the angle of attack.  Changing to lower gearing solved the torque issue, but this doesn't work for EUCs.  In my ANCIENT dirtbike days as a kid, there were some bikes running 'leading-link' forks.  I still remember the name "Roehr-VanTech" as producing a fork that really worked well in desert racing ...

HA!  The internet strikes again!  Here is a flyer:

 

[OldSolo]

22 hours ago, onkeldanuel said:

Thats what i thought, i think stock soft hole is linear or even degressive, only their ramped up airshock safed them because instead of fixing the linkage they reduced volume in their airshock to ridicoulous low volume it seems....no other airshock works, not even the very smallest volume one from fox at 350psi , its ridicoulus 

This really is like the early days of FS MTBs.  There were designs that ended up w/ regressive (falling) rates & they start out stiff & then blow through travel.  The airshock volume issue is suprising, that is crazy!  The good news is that this will get sorted out, it just sucks for the early adopters.

 

BTW: sent you a private message regarding a separate question

[onkeldanuel]

54 minutes ago, OldSolo said:

This really is like the early days of FS MTBs.  There were designs that ended up w/ regressive (falling) rates & they start out stiff & then blow through travel.  The airshock volume issue is suprising, that is crazy!  The good news is that this will get sorted out, it just sucks for the early adopters.

 

BTW: sent you a private message regarding a separate question

But not sorted out by begode....an 1300lb spring to mask the degressive linkage is unacceptable for some reasons in terms of suspension performance imo