Warnings should depend from current, not from speed

[Cloud]

8 hours ago, John Eucist said:

I have four ks14 (800w) and two ks16

Based on what @KingSong69 said it appears that KS has the ability to have an extreme tilt-back when accelerating too fast.  And by that I do not mean "continue accelerating fast" but from no-tilt to a sudden extreme tilt.

Ok lol, then you already have the right wheel

@kingsong69 is correct, there is an ability to have extreme tiltback when accelerating fast at a speed where tiltback kicks in. So if the tiltback is set at 30kp and the rider accelerates from 29 through 35 real fast, then the tiltback will kick in fast, but this is unaboidable and tiltback is doing what it it supposed to do - it needs to make it i possibke for the rider to accelerate even more. 

If the rider accelerates at 29 and slowly goes up, to 30, 31,32,33,34,35, the tiktback will be very mild - in fact if the rider stays at 30 or stays at 31, the tiltback will nit go all the way up - it will be fixed at a small angle and no problem staying on the wheel. In fact i think the tiltback should be more extreme in this situation!

[John Eucist]

I guess the main difference between my opinion and some others is that I just want the "tilt-back" function to ONLY serve as a "reminder" instead of a "I will make it impossible for you to accelerate even if it means I might cause you to fall off" function.  I play music (external speakers) while riding to serve an audible warning to other people that I'm coming.  The disadvantage to this is that it will be harder to hear the warning beeps hence why I want the tilt-back function to serve as a physical reminder in case I miss the beeps.

[Mono]

@John Eucista high speed tilt-back functionality cannot be designed such that it makes the wheel unridable or "only" seriously unsafe to ride and it's a rather insane position to take that it should. I am quite convinced that it was a misunderstanding that anyone took this position, even if a post seemed to suggest this.

[John Eucist]

57 minutes ago, Niko said:

@John Eucista high speed tilt-back functionality cannot be designed such that it makes the wheel unridable or only seriously unsafe to ride and it's a rather insane position to take that it should. I am quite convinced that it was a misunderstanding that anyone took this position, even if a post seemed to suggest this.

I sure hope it's not by design (the intention).  I just think it's not coded properly.  Despite possible room for misunderstanding, it would be hard to interpret @KingSong69 's reply in any other way.  Hope he can clarify further regarding the angle of the pedals.

On 5/26/2016 at 1:31 PM, John Eucist said:

So the tilt-back was "too quick and extreme"?  Was it possible to continue standing on the pedals or was it so tilted that there was no way to continue to stand?  Do you think you could have prevented your fall (after the tilt-back set in) knowing what you know now?

 

On 5/26/2016 at 1:41 PM, KingSong69 said:

Yep! To quick and extreme!

i don't think i can prevent that in The SAME Situation at all....

The thing is it's not the first time I've heard of pedals tilting back to too extreme of an angle.  In fact, I've experienced it myself personally.  One time I was low on batteries on my KS14 (800w) and the tilt-back would angle back so much that my heels were scraping the floor.  Another time I was riding a GW14 MCM2S and it was overheating and it did the same thing.  Luckily both times I wasn't going all that fast (it wasn't a tilt-back due to over-speed) so I didn't faceplant but had to jump off.  However, it did cause my friend (Lucian Koh) to fall and injure (blood and all) himself that same day (the same MCM2S that was overheating).  I actually have the gopro footage of his fall on youtube on an "unlisted" link but I told Lucian I wouldn't post it publicly.

When I visited the Gotway factory last year and back when Gotway had no tilt-back function I asked the Gotway boss "Lin" why Gotways removed the tilt-back function which they had in their first models in early 2014.  His answer was (and he kept emphasizing this) that tilt-back at high speeds are extremely dangerous so it was safer to remove the function for over-speeding altogether.  I just feel that tilt-back code can be made smarter than current algorithms.  For one thing, limit how far of an angle it would tilt-back and no further.  I still feel the goal should not be to FORCE a slow down but to use it solely as a warning to the user to slow down himself.

[Mono]

14 minutes ago, John Eucist said:

I just feel that tilt-back code can be made smarter than current algorithms. 

I definitely agree. If there is one single surprising thing I learned over the months following this forum, it is that designing and implementing a wheel controller is far less trivial than I could have ever imagined. 

Quote

For one thing, limit how far of an angle it would tilt-back and no further.  I still feel the goal should not be to FORCE a slow down but to use it solely as a warning to the user to slow down himself.

Forcing a moderate slow down additionally to attention catching would be safer and for this reason it would be my preference. But this can certainly not mean that the ride gets intrinsically unsafe or that the wheel throws you off. Then the question remains whether and how it is possible to implement a max speed, if not with a sufficiently safe tilt-back functionality.

[John Eucist]

13 minutes ago, Niko said:

Then the question remains whether and how it is possible to implement a max speed, if not with a sufficiently safe tilt-back functionality.

In terms of "over-speed" just have a large safety buffer between the "tilt-back threshold" and the "failure speed".  For example, make a wheel that could technically sustain over 50 km/h but do not allow the user to set the tilt-back (due to over-speed) any higher than 30 km/h.  This way, even if the rider "cheats" by continuing to accelerate (after tilt-back kicks in) at least there's still lots of room before failure.  Do not allow the tilt-back angle to go so extreme (especially at high speeds) where it becomes impossible to continue to stand on it.

[Mono]

20 minutes ago, John Eucist said:

In terms of "over-speed" just have a large safety buffer between the "tilt-back threshold" and the "failure speed".  For example, make a wheel that could technically sustain over 50 km/h but do not allow the user to set the tilt-back (due to over-speed) any higher than 30 km/h.  This way, even if the rider "cheats" by continuing to accelerate (after tilt-back kicks in) at least there's still lots of room before failure.

IMHO this isn't a solution, because a rider should simply not be able to go 50 km/h at the limit of the wheels capabilities, because this seriously endangers innocent bystanders. And that's all in all much worse than struggling at 25 km/h with hard-to-control tilt back.

[John Eucist]

1 hour ago, Niko said:

IMHO this isn't a solution, because a rider should simply not be able to go 50 km/h at the limit of the wheels capabilities, because this seriously endangers innocent bystanders. And that's all in all much worse than struggling at 25 km/h with hard-to-control tilt back.

You are misunderstanding what I'm saying.  I'm saying that the wheel should be TECHNICALLY able to do at least 50 km/h (for safety sake) but LIMITED by tilt-back at 30 km/h max.

The most they can cheat is a few more km/h through a gradual tilt-back before the tilt-back becomes very uncomfortable to ride (but not so much or so quickly that it will cause them to faceplant).

[Mono]

4 minutes ago, John Eucist said:

You are misunderstanding what I'm saying.  I'm saying that the wheel should be TECHNICALLY able to do 50 (for safety) but LIMITED by tilt-back at 30 max.

I see, that's what I thought because you wrote "This way, even if the rider "cheats" by continuing to accelerate..." which seems to suggest that it is possible to accelerate despite the tilt back. 

[John Eucist]

40 minutes ago, Niko said:

I see, that's what I thought because you wrote "This way, even if the rider "cheats" by continuing to accelerate..." which seems to suggest that it is possible to accelerate despite the tilt back. 

I added another paragraph above (before you replied) that addressed this.  Please refresh. 

[John Eucist]

The main thing about eucs, as you already know, is that if the motor shuts down you lose the self-balancing mechanism and you're guaranteed to fall.  You can't glide or brake to a stop like you can most other traditional vehicles.  Therefore, for safety, there should always be a large buffer between the artificial speed cap (the gradual tilt-back) and when the motor actually cuts.  If the user decides to cheat a few more km/h off it (after tilt-back) then it's the fault of the user.  Cars, motorcycles, and even bicycles can go insane speeds but it's up to the user (driver/rider/cyclist) to control their speeds.

[Mono]

1 hour ago, John Eucist said:

Therefore, for safety, there should always be a large buffer between the artificial speed cap (the gradual tilt-back) and when the motor actually cuts.

I don't think we are on the same page here: the motor should never, never, ever cut, ever. AFAIK there is no technical reasons why the motor would ever need to cut. It might be necessary or useful to (gradually) limit power, for example depending on heat, but the motor should never ever, just cut off, ever. Never. Ever. 

1 hour ago, John Eucist said:

 If the user decides to cheat a few more km/h off it (after tilt-back) then it's the fault of the user. 

That's not a great relieve for the mother who's child will have been killed. 

1 hour ago, John Eucist said:

Cars, motorcycles, and even bicycles can go insane speeds but it's up to the user (driver/rider/cyclist) to control their speeds.

Cars and motorcycles need a drivers license and insurance. Cyclists rarely go beyond 30km/h, because they just can't for a long time. Electric power bicycles without license are limited to 25km/h, at least in Europe.

[Chriull]

17 minutes ago, Niko said:

I don't think we are on the same page here: the motor should never, never, ever cut, ever. AFAIK there is no technical reasons why the motor would ever need to cut. 

...

The motor does not really "cut out" - but the faster one drives the maximum available torque gets less and less until there is not enough torque left for the balancing -> overlean/faceplant.  Every motor has a maximum speed by just physical limits.

[Mono]

30 minutes ago, Chriull said:

Every motor has a maximum speed by just physical limits.

right, of course. Diminishing torque with increasing speed happens however gradually and (therefore) predictably. This predictability should be enhanced by the controller, that is, the wheel should feel weaker the closer it gets to its limits. This seem however separate from the question whether and how speed can be limited before reaching the physical limits.

[Cloud]

6 hours ago, John Eucist said:

The main thing about eucs, as you already know, is that if the motor shuts down you lose the self-balancing mechanism and you're guaranteed to fall.  You can't glide or brake to a stop like you can most other traditional vehicles.  Therefore, for safety, there should always be a large buffer between the artificial speed cap (the gradual tilt-back) and when the motor actually cuts.  If the user decides to cheat a few more km/h off it (after tilt-back) then it's the fault of the user.  Cars, motorcycles, and even bicycles can go insane speeds but it's up to the user (driver/rider/cyclist) to control their speeds.

Well this is a slightly different point. Yes there should be a large ( or sufficient) safety margin between the maxiumum rideable speed and the " cut out speed" . There is no argument about this. What we were discussing was how the tiltback kicks in. It can kick in at a low speed and still be extreme. I dont see a drastically different way to implement tikt back than to have it change the angle progressively over a large enough range of speeds so that it is not extreme if the acceleration is low. And this is how its i plemented in kingsong both for high speed and overheating.Maybe kimgsong should "spread " the tiltback over an even longer range of speeds if it feels extreme to riders. Personally id rather shorten the range and make it more rapid , in my opinion it is too mild. I still strongly believe that tiltback should force the rider to slow down and not just notify. Otherwise the beeps would be enough. I also believe that several levels of notifications is worse than just 1, as several levels can be confusing to the rider while one is simple and it means : Just Slow Down Now! In my opinion the. Ost effective system is 1 adjustabke beep speed and 1 adjustable tiltback ( but not to exceed a certain max speed). 

The rider has already ignored the beeps and will ignore the tiltback if it simply notifies. Rules and measures are ineffective unless enforced. This is why cops give out tickets for overspeeding and not just let the car drivers exceed the speed any way they like and crash. 

I dont understand the gotway boss who believed no tiltback is safer than a potentially extreme tilt back. Tilt back may not throw the rider off the wheel while a cut out most certainly will.  The only scenario i can imagine where tiktback would be less safe than no tiktback is when the rider is so scared of a cut out that he rides way slow, as opposed to not being scared and riding rela fast because he relies on the tilt back protection.

[Mono]

1 hour ago, Cloud said:

I still strongly believe that tiltback should force the rider to slow down and not just notify. Otherwise the beeps would be enough.

Not really, as the beeps might not be heard by the rider. I am very thankful to my wheel that it not only beeps but also changes its behavior when it gets close to its power limits.

[Cloud]

18 minutes ago, Niko said:

Not really, as the beeps might not be heard by the rider. I am very thankful to my wheel that it not only beeps but also changes its behavior when it gets close to its power limits.

Yes off course, and i was saying this before that it can notify in case the beeps are not heard in noisy environment, nothing wrong with doubling up as a notification measure as well, but not its primary function. 

[US69]

I tought over this a Little bit and i now agree with @John Eucist

even by hard accellaerating there should be only a slightly tiltback...so that The tiltback don't throw You Off The wheel....

my Fall irritated me As much that i asked @tinawong how to react really correct on "such" a tiltback....

 I think You can all try what i mean or what Happends to me:

if you have Wheel of Max 30kmh...Set The tiltback to 10 kmh and try As Fast As You can to accelerate it to 20kmh or above by maximum possible speeding....._perhaps better Do it on a Gras ground 

And than think about how that Feels at 30kmh :-) less Energie reserves for a hard brake...less balancing possibilities...less Time to react right

but again: i override it-overaccelerated to much...my fault

but yes: Tilt back can be Done better in specific situations...

[Addwyn]

I think that an electric-wheel sould never cut-off. Never ! Whatever the user do, it should automatically lower speed when it reaches its physical limits or any unsafe conditions (overheating) by simulating a drastic loss of power as if it was climbing a steep incline, until total stop if necessary ! But BEFORE reaching this ultimate maximum, the user should be notified that he SHOULD lower speed to stay in full safety situation. And the tilt-back should be that notification. The tilt-back should not 'force' the user to lower speed but notify that if he continue to rise speed, the wheel may reach its limits and slow down automatically...

In this view, the tilt-back could actually be optional with no safety consequence.

[Cloud]

15 minutes ago, Addwyn said:

I think that an electric-wheel sould never cut-off. Never ! Whatever the user do, it should automatically lower speed when it reaches its physical limits or any unsafe conditions (overheating) by simulating a drastic loss of power as if it was climbing a steep incline, until total stop if necessary ! But BEFORE reaching this ultimate maximum, the user should be notified that he SHOULD lower speed to stay in full safety situation. And the tilt-back should be that notification. The tilt-back should not 'force' the user to lower speed but notify that if he continue to rise speed, the wheel may reach its limits and slow down automatically...

In this view, the tilt-back could actually be optional with no safety consequence.

How can the wheel slow down irregardless of the rider's leaning? So it should stop functioning as a self balancing scooter at the unsafe high speed?

[Mono]

3 minutes ago, Addwyn said:

it should automatically lower speed

I don't think this is really possible. The wheel must slow down not only itself but also the rider. To do so it must make sure that the rider remains above the wheel while slowing down. Tilt back is the mechanism to do exactly that and AFAICS the only "automatic deceleration" mechanism available. 

[Cloud]

5 minutes ago, Niko said:

 it must make sure that the rider remains above the wheel while slowing down. Tilt back is the mechanism to do exactly that and AFAICS the only "automatic deceleration" mechanism available. 

Very well said

[Addwyn]

2 minutes ago, Niko said:

I don't think this is really possible. The wheel must slow down not only itself but also the rider. To do so it must make sure that the rider remains above the wheel while slowing down. Tilt back is the mechanism to do exactly that and AFAICS the only "automatic deceleration" mechanism available. 

Maybe something like a 'tilt forward' : The wheel become less and less sensitive to front lean. That is, the user must lean more and more to accelerate... ???

[Cloud]

3 minutes ago, Addwyn said:

Maybe something like a 'tilt forward' : The wheel become less and less sensitive to front lean. That is, the user must lean more and more to accelerate... ?

Making the wheel less responsive to the forward lean will make riding more unstable. Isnt it easier to just slowly tilt back?

[John Eucist]

7 hours ago, Niko said:

I don't think we are on the same page here: the motor should never, never, ever cut, ever. AFAIK there is no technical reasons why the motor would ever need to cut. It might be necessary or useful to (gradually) limit power, for example depending on heat, but the motor should never ever, just cut off, ever. Never. Ever.

I agree that would be ideal if somehow this could be made to work.  I think we are looking at "tilt-back" with different goals.  I am looking at it as a way to prevent faceplanting from a motor cut.

7 hours ago, Niko said:

That's not a great relieve for the mother who's child will have been killed. 

A flying projectile euc (and human body) hitting the same child caused by a "tilt-back faceplant" is just as lethal.  As I said before, the rider can cheat only a few more km/h before it becomes very difficult to ride.  The tilt-back just needs to be done gradually and in a safe manner where it doesn't become the CAUSE of the accident.

7 hours ago, Niko said:

Cyclists rarely go beyond 30km/h, because they just can't for a long time.

You forgot about gravity.