The "best feeling" wheel (wheel zippiness and controlability)

[Panzer04]

So I was trying to work out what I cared about in an EUC, in aid of figuring out what my ideal EUC would look like. I came across the following topic here. This is a bit of rehash, but it seems to have been some time since this was last discussed.

while also doing my own calculations. To summarise, the overall conclusions I came into were:

- Forward acceleration per lean angle/CoG shift is proportional to wheel size. Ie. a 10% larger wheel will accelerate 10% slower for the same input force/lean.

- Hillclimbing performance is heavily affected by wheel size, as bigger wheels move your center of gravity further back with respect to the wheel contact point. Smaller wheels will climb more easily

- Wheel weight affects everything, but has lesser impacts on overall acceleration/braking performance, as it is diluted somewhat by Rider weight. However, "static"/low speed situations (eg. Pendulums) where the wheel is moving much more than the rider are going to be proportionally impacted by wheel weight, as opposed to a limited reduction due to rider weight for "full" acceleration/braking into motion.

Does this all sound about right? Most of it falls out of the idea that the torque a rider applies to the pedals is divided by the wheel radius, so bigger wheels apply less torque and hence less force.

I'm not entirely convinced this is all there is to it, because wheels like the S22 feel disproportionately easier  to control, and this sort of makes wheel weight feel less meaningful than I've generally thought it would be.

[Mono]

The geometry of the pedal position relative to the wheel axle plays a role for sure too.

I suspect that pendulums are still more affected by the effective torque created per (rider weight) displacement than by the wheel weight. On larger wheels one needs to make much larger displacements to created the torque which makes pendulums more difficult. The wheel weight may also play a role for twisting movements which are necessary to keep the pendulum going and for which the out-of-vertical-axis mass of the wheel has to be accelerated quickly.

Edited March 3 by Mono

[alcatraz]

Here's an idea. Connect the gyro to the pedals/arms and have the arms float a bit rotationally in relation to the motor. Just a few degrees difference. (With a dampener of course or there would be vibration)

It could allow people to set their preferred zippyness regardless of wheel size.

I understand that suspension riders find this harder to grasp because of the intricate design, but if you imagine this on a non-suspension design then there isn't much between the pedals and the motor to prevent the idea.

Edited March 4 by alcatraz

[Rider1]

1 hour ago, alcatraz said:

Here's an idea. Connect the gyro to the pedals/arms and have the arms float a bit rotationally in relation to the motor. Just a few degrees difference. (With a dampener of course or there would be vibration)

It could allow people to set their preferred zippyness regardless of wheel size.

I understand that suspension riders find this harder to grasp because of the intricate design, but if you imagine this on a non-suspension design then there isn't much between the pedals and the motor to prevent the idea.

So you mean sort of having a "gas pedal"? I doubt that would work, since you'd be falling off the wheel at the slightest movement of your toes - just imagine standing on an electric skateboard like on an EUC and trying not to fall off while accelerating (for most people who try it it is even hard when having one foot 50cm or more in front of the other).

Even if you managed to not fall off, the wheel would first need to tilt forward in order to be able to accelerate, otherwise it would simply roll over backwards (except if you put enough force on the front of the wheel - exactly the amount needed in order to accelerate the same way on a regular EUC nowadays).

 

 

(At least I think that's the case - please correct me if I'm wrong)

[Mono]

8 hours ago, alcatraz said:

Connect the gyro to the pedals/arms

Hard to understand what that means.

8 hours ago, alcatraz said:

and have the arms float a bit rotationally in relation to the motor.

That looks like the so-called soft riding mode.

Zippiness is to a large extend determined by geometry. The electronics can not do that much to change it, namely they can set the pedal (forward/backward tilt) angle as a function of the riding situation, but that's about it.

Geometry is the reason why most people seem to agree that the Mten is the zippiest.

Edited March 4 by Mono

[Hellkitten]

My m10 is a humming bird, my Sherman S is an albatross. 

[Panzer04]

On 3/4/2024 at 12:42 AM, Mono said:

The geometry of the pedal position relative to the wheel axle plays a role for sure too.

I suspect that pendulums are still more affected by the effective torque created per (rider weight) displacement than by the wheel weight. On larger wheels one needs to make much larger displacements to created the torque which makes pendulums more difficult. The wheel weight may also play a role for twisting movements which are necessary to keep the pendulum going and for which the out-of-vertical-axis mass of the wheel has to be accelerated quickly.

My reasoning for low weight mattering particularly in pendulums is because the riders body often doesn't move much, compared to the wheel - so wheel weight proportionally contributes much more to the feeling in a pendulum instead (as the rider weight is largely taken out of the equation.

I can definitely notice lighter wheels, more so than I would expect based purely on the mathematical expectation (ie. Wheel radius matters most), but then again it may simply be that a 5-10% difference is extremely noticeable after one gets familiar with a particular wheel.

[Mono]

9 hours ago, Panzer04 said:

My reasoning for low weight mattering particularly in pendulums is because the riders body often doesn't move much, compared to the wheel - so wheel weight proportionally contributes much more to the feeling in a pendulum instead (as the rider weight is largely taken out of the equation.

You do have a point, when accelerating only the wheel, to make the wheel deliver the necessary power, the rider displacement must be proportional to the wheel weight, whereas to accelerate wheel and rider it depends much less on the wheel weight (proportional to overall weight divided by rider weight IIRC).

Edited March 5 by Mono

[Robse]

my most zippy wheel ever is my Ninebot One.  It's also the wheel that has zipped away from under me the most times, and caused most damages to me and my gear... 🫣 That little tire size, low pedals, and low weight gives a stunning 0 - 15 kmph acceleration, and it takes no effort to piruet the wheel on a dime.

[Rawnei]

And then you get on a 40kg Lynx or Patton and all those calculations and assumptions flew out the window. 😅

[Funky]

The smaller the wheel - the more zippiness one gets.

Can't say much about controllability. As more zipping/twitchy is the wheel - the less controllability you get. Compared to something like 18", 20", 22" that is meant more or less for straight road cruising. They are more or less like sloths. More input needed from rider at leans and what not.. Riding that bull.

Edited March 5 by Funky

[Mono]

46 minutes ago, Rawnei said:

And then you get on a 40kg Lynx or Patton and all those calculations and assumptions flew out the window. 😅

Even a Lynx or a Patton won't change the truth of the underlying physics, the calculations are either wrong or the aren't 

[Panzer04]

3 hours ago, Rawnei said:

And then you get on a 40kg Lynx or Patton and all those calculations and assumptions flew out the window. 😅

I'll grant the Patton, but the Lynx did not feel much different to a Master for me. I much preferred the feel of an S22, personally, for 20" wheels. I do think the 18" Patton felt better still, but not by much - my guess being that the benefits from the smaller tyre were somewhat counteracted by being 5kg heavier than the S22.

The Lynx is a nice wheel, but I find its benefits somewhat exaggerated. It's not much different to a Master, just a little better in most ways (20mm more suspension, 2-3kg less, 300wh more battery). To be clear, I do think it rides better - but if that was what people cared about there'd be more praise for the S22 IMO.

In all honesty, having worked things out this way I am tempted by the 16/18" wheels - though I still believe the current offerings are either a bit heavy for what they are (Patton/Extreme), or underpowered (S16/T4). Having run the numbers I would be interested in trying out a T4 or S16, but I suspect their lower top speeds would be limiting, and I'm unsure of their maximal torques either.

Edited March 5 by Panzer04

[daniel1234]

From all wheels I tried I still like most s18 - if I don't need to travel fast and long. Getting wheel up to 35 km/h feels effortless compared to lynx. I can ride it on one leg, it is low enough to get on and it is still manageable onehanded. Then right second and third are v10f and 16s - but  lightweight 18inch feels better. 

I would buy s18v5 with 50s and better top speed.

[OldSolo]

On 3/5/2024 at 10:49 PM, Panzer04 said:

I'll grant the Patton, but the Lynx did not feel much different to a Master for me. I much preferred the feel of an S22, personally, for 20" wheels. I do think the 18" Patton felt better still, but not by much - my guess being that the benefits from the smaller tyre were somewhat counteracted by being 5kg heavier than the S22.

The Lynx is a nice wheel, but I find its benefits somewhat exaggerated. It's not much different to a Master, just a little better in most ways (20mm more suspension, 2-3kg less, 300wh more battery). To be clear, I do think it rides better - but if that was what people cared about there'd be more praise for the S22 IMO.

In all honesty, having worked things out this way I am tempted by the 16/18" wheels - though I still believe the current offerings are either a bit heavy for what they are (Patton/Extreme), or underpowered (S16/T4). Having run the numbers I would be interested in trying out a T4 or S16, but I suspect their lower top speeds would be limiting, and I'm unsure of their maximal torques either.

Just considering the physics & dynamics of these little beasties, I agree with what you have said.  However, as I have dismantled my Commander Mini completely before even riding it, I would say that the weight produces a really sturdy wheel.  As I have been studying & documenting the suspension (see my video, and please be patient as I have several more to post SOON!) an engineer with experience in structural design & manufacturing could lighten this up a bit.  I am so new to this sport, and clearly the older, lighter wheels had nowhere near the durability or capability, I don't know where the balance should be.  Liam (EUC Underground) had listed a preorder for something called the 'Blitz' that was to be a 134v C38 14" rim, 150mm travel, 2400wh, SEVENTY-EIGHT POUNDS (IIRC)!  Apparently E-Wheels took over as an exclusive (and the preorder price was a BARGAIN if delivered as promised), so it remains to be seen if this can actually be built.  But it would amazing if functional & durable at that weight.  It seems possible BUT I doubt Begode has enough engineering expertise to make it happen without MULTIPLE iterations w/ failures along the way.  E-Wheels seems to be capable of supporting such an endeavor, so we shall see.

[alcatraz]

On 3/6/2024 at 6:50 PM, daniel1234 said:

From all wheels I tried I still like most s18 - if I don't need to travel fast and long. Getting wheel up to 35 km/h feels effortless compared to lynx. I can ride it on one leg, it is low enough to get on and it is still manageable onehanded. Then right second and third are v10f and 16s - but  lightweight 18inch feels better. 

I would buy s18v5 with 50s and better top speed.

Have you had any issues?

[rcgldr]

On 3/4/2024 at 4:17 AM, alcatraz said:

preferred zippyness regardless of wheel size.

This isn't possible. When accelerating, the motor exerts a forwards torque onto the wheel+tire, coexistent with an equal in magnitude backwards torque onto the EUC frame, which the rider much match by exerting an equal in magnitude forwards torque onto the EUC frame as otherwise the EUC frame would rotate forwards or backwards. In short, motor torque equals rider torque. A larger radius wheel requires more torque to produce the same acceleration as a smaller radius wheel given the same total weight, so a rider has to compensate by exerting more torque onto the EUC to get the same acceleration on a larger radius wheel. A rider has to lean forwards or backwards to compensate for the acceleration or deceleration, plus to compensate for the backwards torque exerted by the motor onto the EUC frame. For example to accelerate at 1/4 g, a rider has to lean forwards about 14° for the 1/4 g acceleration component plus a few more degrees to counter the backwards torque exerted by EUC frame onto rider. This is why power pads are used on high torque EUCs, to increase the leverage from half the length of the pedals to the distance between pedals and power pads.

As for a soft pedal setting, reactions to a rider's inputs are just delayed during the time the EUC tilts forwards or backwards, and then matches the rider's inputs.

Edited March 7 by rcgldr

[daniel1234]

17 hours ago, alcatraz said:

Have you had any issues?

Default air shock is trash.  I did just pedal drop and shock replacment.

Just by having low pedals, you can make any EUC make feel better. s18 v4 and V11Y seems like nice refreshs but I doubt they will be comercional succsess.

I dont get s16 and s19 - they both seems too cluncky and tall for about of power they gave you. I would not buy again T4 from factor for same reason. 

For me sweet spot is under 25 kg 18 incher 1kwh 100v for commuting. I would like to see more lightweight wheels. Riding lynx is sooo fun, but it is far from practical daily driver. 

[alcatraz]

16 hours ago, rcgldr said:

This isn't possible. When accelerating, the motor exerts a forwards torque onto the wheel+tire, coexistent with an equal in magnitude backwards torque onto the EUC frame, which the rider much match by exerting an equal in magnitude forwards torque onto the EUC frame as otherwise the EUC frame would rotate forwards or backwards. In short, motor torque equals rider torque. A larger radius wheel requires more torque to produce the same acceleration as a smaller radius wheel given the same total weight, so a rider has to compensate by exerting more torque onto the EUC to get the same acceleration on a larger radius wheel. A rider has to lean forwards or backwards to compensate for the acceleration or deceleration, plus to compensate for the backwards torque exerted by the motor onto the EUC frame. For example to accelerate at 1/4 g, a rider has to lean forwards about 14° for the 1/4 g acceleration component plus a few more degrees to counter the backwards torque exerted by EUC frame onto rider. This is why power pads are used on high torque EUCs, to increase the leverage from half the length of the pedals to the distance between pedals and power pads.

As for a soft pedal setting, reactions to a rider's inputs are just delayed during the time the EUC tilts forwards or backwards, and then matches the rider's inputs.

Have you thought of ways to reduce the amount of rider input needed on larger diameter wheels?

Power pads seem like a crude solution. Like version alpha. I'm curious about what the greatest minds could come up with? Like let's say Begode was the size of Tesla Motors with an army of engineers and Elon Musk.

Today it's very easy to fall off in front/behind the wheel. 

I'm interested in ideas with some impact. Not 5mm dropped pedals. That hardly makes a dent in the problem.

[Panzer04]

3 hours ago, daniel1234 said:

Default air shock is trash.  I did just pedal drop and shock replacment.

Just by having low pedals, you can make any EUC make feel better. s18 v4 and V11Y seems like nice refreshs but I doubt they will be comercional succsess.

I dont get s16 and s19 - they both seems too cluncky and tall for about of power they gave you. I would not buy again T4 from factor for same reason. 

For me sweet spot is under 25 kg 18 incher 1kwh 100v for commuting. I would like to see more lightweight wheels. Riding lynx is sooo fun, but it is far from practical daily driver. 

It depends. Part of the reason the heavyweight wheels are popular is because they are easy to use as actual commuters in place of a motorbike or car. High speeds and battery allow you to just ride everywhere.

The lighter-weight, more fun, slower wheels are great for bike paths and the like, but less comfortable for the road and longer distances. That being said, plenty of people buy these big heavy wheels but don't actually use the performance they grant you, and I agree that's a bit pointless (though it does mean those people will never overlean a wheel). The fact of the matter is there aren't that many places you can't take a heavy EUC but you can take a light EUC - so from that perspective the heavy, fast, long-range EUC is actually the practical choice, oddly enough.

If anything, I think the smaller, zippier wheels are more fun, but the limited top speeds and power restricts what you can do with them. Lower pedals are nice, but if you ever go off road are a big liability (just a tradeoff for that though, off vs onroad).

Edited March 8 by Panzer04

[Panzer04]

10 minutes ago, alcatraz said:

Have you thought of ways to reduce the amount of rider input needed on larger diameter wheels?

Power pads seem like a crude solution. Like version alpha. I'm curious about what the greatest minds could come up with? Like let's say Begode was the size of Tesla Motors with an army of engineers and Elon Musk.

Today it's very easy to fall off in front/behind the wheel. 

I'm interested in ideas with some impact. Not 5mm dropped pedals. That hardly makes a dent in the problem.

Practically speaking options are limited. You have to get weight forward or backwards to get acceleration. Pedal/wheel tilt is one way to do it, but that has some drawbacks in terms of how the wheel feels to ride - but it's by far the simplest and easiest method. It also allows people to lean further because most don't have great ankle mobility that lets you lean harder forward.

In theory you could move weight independent of the rider (eg. separate the frame and pedals), but that adds a ton of complexity for little benefit.

Perhaps a weight-sensing moveable pedal? ie. it moves forwards as you shift weight forward, backwards as you shift weight back? Again, a complicated moving mechanism, though, and it would affect rider balance etc...

Another option is to float the wheel on a linkage with the ability to shift the wheel forwards/backward relative to the rest of the frame... I feel like that concept could have promise, actually - although again, a bunch of complexity, and a changed ride feel. You'd have to consider how it affects cornering and all of that, because the rider will no longer have a reliable point of reference with which to act on and control the wheel.

Edited March 8 by Panzer04

[alcatraz]

Good brainstorming.

I'd like to add that if this ever gets solved it can help a lot with ascending and descending stability. You know when the contact patch moves it becomes very hard to accelerate in the direction the patch is offcenter.

[Rawnei]

1 hour ago, alcatraz said:

Have you thought of ways to reduce the amount of rider input needed on larger diameter wheels?

Power pads seem like a crude solution. Like version alpha. I'm curious about what the greatest minds could come up with? Like let's say Begode was the size of Tesla Motors with an army of engineers and Elon Musk.

Today it's very easy to fall off in front/behind the wheel. 

I'm interested in ideas with some impact. Not 5mm dropped pedals. That hardly makes a dent in the problem.

Why does power pads seem like a crude solution to you? I think it's a simple elegant and proven solution that unlocks more than just acceleration.

[alcatraz]

37 minutes ago, Rawnei said:

Why does power pads seem like a crude solution to you? I think it's a simple elegant and proven solution that unlocks more than just acceleration.

I just feel like we haven't explored all options.

Kind of like saying "what's wrong with horses?" when motorvehicles are about to be invented. "Be happy with what you have."

Pads are the best solution _so far_. What's next up on the horizon?

Edited March 8 by alcatraz

[Rawnei]

1 hour ago, alcatraz said:

I just feel like we haven't explored all options.

Kind of like saying "what's wrong with horses?" when motorvehicles are about to be invented. "Be happy with what you have."

Pads are the best solution _so far_. What's next up on the horizon?

I see it more as problem solving, you have to define the problem you want to solve. What problem do you want to solve that power pads doesn't solve?