IPS ZERO

[Dimacus]

15 hours ago, KingSong69 said:

A tipp:

Try the so called "lift off" cut out Speed-test....and do that on different Batterie states....

What does the Zero get as "lift off cut out"????

 

dont really get it. you mean to turn on the wheel and push it to air or what? dont know anything about "lift off" cut out Speed-test. plz explain

Inmotion V5f are much heavier ~12kg. i used to wear wheel in the backpack a lot so this is imortant for me...

i wonder, the warning beep signal, that beeping on high speeds before cut off is variable or static? i mean in good battery conditions it could be on higher speed, or its just fixed for example to 25kmh?

and what speed limit you can suggest to set on zero to be safe?

Edited November 9, 2016 by Dimacus

[THA]

On 09/11/2016 at 11:20 AM, Dimacus said:

dont really get it. you mean to turn on the wheel and push it to air or what? dont know anything about "lift off" cut out Speed-test. plz explain

Inmotion V5f are much heavier ~12kg. i used to wear wheel in the backpack a lot so this is imortant for me...

...

and what speed limit you can suggest to set on zero to be safe?

I've Lhotz w/340 wh and with full battery, power on, lifted up from the ground the app showed somewhere around 42-43 km/h just before cut off (shuts down). In summer conditions I run 28 km 22km/h average. After about 22 km I had to slow down to steeper uphills, 15 km/h or so. I was able to speed up (I really had to try hard due to the huge tilt back) to a downhill up to 32 km/h according to GPS, didn't have the app on. But I think You'll get about same results with zero, if You're about same size, I'm only less than 60 kg (130 lbs).

[Dimacus]

yes with full battery and temperature 25C it shows 35-40kmh when you put the wheel in the air.

i bought this wheel in autumn time, and have no chance to try it in summer time.

but in winter time it become really dangerous, yesterday i run only 8km after full charge, and on the low speed maybe 18kmh under the temperature -10C it cuts off again.

[US69]

1 hour ago, Dimacus said:

yes with full battery and temperature 25C it shows 35-40kmh when you put the wheel in the air.

i bought this wheel in autumn time, and have no chance to try it in summer time.

but in winter time it become really dangerous, yesterday i run only 8km after full charge, and on the low speed maybe 18kmh under the temperature -10C it cuts off again.

So: And 35kmh on a "lift Speed" cut out is much, much to low!!! For a 30kmh wheel!

This means your wheel is -without any load at all- only able to go 35kmh....with load - that means with Driver- it has to work much harder!

 

To go 30kmh....i would exspect the lift cutout Speed AT LEAST to be a bit over 40kmh.....5kmh( 5 over 30kmh) is just not enough reserves...

 

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by KingSong69

[Chris Westland]

On 11/8/2016 at 11:30 AM, KingSong69 said:

But there is a reason......the ZERO has only a 500Watt(or550) nominal max 1000Watt Motor...and only max 32 Batterie cells...

Alone the Batterie on a 64cells design (520wh or more)  will be about 2 kg plus....and also set the Price higher!

Wheels capable of running 30kmh normally have at least a 800 Watt nominal and/or up to 2700Watt max....

 

All of the documents I have for my IPS Zero/340Wh indicate the motor is the standard 800W nominal / 1000 max motor that seems to be used on most of the modern wheels.  And 340Wh is not unusual, with Sony batteries which have a good reputation.   I tend to think that the problems that are mentioned here by a few owners derive from pushing the batteries too hard (especially with the smaller battery packs) when the IPS Zero is unlocked to 30km/h.  This is likely the reason for the "grinding" or "chugging" sound before stopping ... it's regenerative breaking when the battery pack is temporarily unable to provide more current.   My inclination is to set the Zero's max  speed to 20km/h.  I'm skeptical, anyway, about cruising at the higher speeds (faster than I can run), and really just want the latitude for acceleration which I should get with a lower maximum speed.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Chris Westland

[Chris Westland]

In addition to an 800/1000W motor, I believe, from reading IPS' site, that they are using various off the shelf chips mounted on a single board; and these seem like they would deliver excellent behavior.   Their website states or alludes to:

1.  STM32F3/4 PMSM (STMicroelectronics) single/dual field-oriented vector motor controller with Cortex®-M4 and SDK implementing Park and Clarke mathematical transformation library
2. LM5576/-Q1 SIMPLE SWITCHER® 75 V, 3 A Step-Down Switching Regulator for power management
3. Maxim Integrated's "Battery Fuel Gauge" chip for battery monitoring (these supposedly give life cycle information too).

I haven't taken my Zero apart (and I don't plan to in the near future ... too much trouble, with the sealed motherboard case) but I would be interested if anyone has, whether they can read the chip numbers on the board.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Chris Westland
wrong CPU

[US69]

On 24.11.2016 at 4:40 PM, Chris Westland said:

All of the documents I have for my IPS Zero/340Wh indicate the motor is the standard 800W nominal / 1000 max motor that seems to be used on most of the modern wheels.  And 340Wh is not unusual, with Sony batteries which have a good reputation.   I tend to think that the problems that are mentioned here by a few owners derive from pushing the batteries too hard (especially with the smaller battery packs) when the IPS Zero is unlocked to 30km/h.  This is likely the reason for the "grinding" or "chugging" sound before stopping ... it's regenerative breaking when the battery pack is temporarily unable to provide more current.   My inclination is to set the Zero's max  speed to 20km/h.  I'm skeptical, anyway, about cruising at the higher speeds (faster than I can run), and really just want the latitude for acceleration which I should get with a lower maximum speed.

nope!

the Zero has only 800 or 1000 watt maximal...

nominal is not known ......but the zero came out to the market at a time, where there was no 800watt nominal motor! Until today, IPS has no 800W nominal power motor...also Ips never states their "nominal" motor power!

Whats also funny...for the 132wh/260wh version they state a 800w max motor and for the 340wh version they state a 1000w max motor...???

then for 340 wh and "sony" batteries....there are no existing Sony batteries in that mah range, or better lets: say they are none, which provide a decent amount of amperage draw! sony batteries are only used to a max of 260wh...after that you can only use LG, panasonic or samsung...

So you should not believe all IPS is writing....

It is nothing against you or your Zero!!

But the Zero can not be called "modern" anymore....it was at its time when it came out...but that was 2 years ago!

IPS at all is ....i would say...is nearly out of the game. Since the Zero they have not been coming out with a new wheel, there is no news, there is nothing new announced, they nevr have been able to provide something with a bigger capacity then 340wh......

they also have been very quiet the last one and a half year...only the last 3-4 weeks they try to sell their "old" stuff again in some facebook activities....but still did not anounce any new

Edited November 29, 2016 by KingSong69

[Chris Westland]

 

@KingSong69 I trust you know much more about the market and offerings than I do and I value your insights on the technology.  It would be a shame if IPS is out of the business (perhaps @王月月 can respond to this).   No one else has been able to hit 10kg with these specs and the price is right... 1/2 that of the Inmotion V8 or the KingSong14 (which might have been my alternatives).   If they are pushing their specs (or fudging them) a bit too hard with a 30km/h top speed, all the more reason for me to keep the max at 20km/h (which is fine for me).  

"Whats also funny...for the 132wh/260wh version they state a 800w max motor and for the 340wh version they state a 1000w max motor"

I noticed that too (hmm) ... two years old doesn't seem that old, but a 800/1000w motor is used by KingSong14, IPS 121, IPS Lhotz, etc, and must be a 3rd party vendor component (I doubt any of these guys wind their own motors).    But it apparently was financed through a crowdsharing platform, indicating a small firm or cashflow issues.   They also are not shipping directly to the US (can't figure this out).

 

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Chris Westland

[rayna903]

On 2015/8/10 at 0:21 AM, vag72 said:

Design is very good. But... Max speed 30 km/h is quite dangerous with this kind of body. All is tight, even small stone can block the wheel on the run. Like this:

And now imagine your flight....

 

For that sppeed I'd prefer old school design:

Also no front/back lights to drive in the dark, no retractable handle, no USB port, low height pedals and finally, for 14" price is around Ninebot E.

No good for me, sorry. 

yes, it is very dangerous when the speeding is 30km/h. it need high ride-skill when you ride. please be careful when you do it.

[Chris Westland]

From Ninebot's own site the Ninebot One E+ Specifications are:

Net Weight (lbs) About 30.5 lbs (150% of IPS Zero)
Battery Set    320Wh (same as IPS Zero)
Mileage    About 22 miles (less than IPS Zero)
Rated Power (Watt)    500 (half of IPS Zero)
Max Power (Watt)    150 (is this right?)
Max Speed (Mph)    About 11.5 to 13.6 Mph  ( around 20 km/h tops or 70% of IPS Zero)

The IPS Zero was made to compete with the E+, and I think does so very well ...

 

[Mono]

On 11/30/2016 at 4:31 AM, Chris Westland said:

Rated Power (Watt)    500 (half of IPS Zero)

Highly unlikely that the IPS Zero has 1000 Watt rated power motor.

On 11/30/2016 at 4:31 AM, Chris Westland said:

Max Power (Watt)    150 (is this right?)

Even more unlikely, as Max Power should be larger than Rated Power, I guess a "0" is missing. I don't think there is much of a meaning in the Max Power measure anyway.

[Chris Westland]

 

14 hours ago, Chriull said:

- the IPS Zero shows some strange behaviour: The power output halves for speeds about 16 km/h! Also with a max power of 1.1kW it is one of the weakest of the tested models...

- bigger batteries (capacity) give more power! ( how to translate "Na no na ned" to english? ) - nicely to be seen in the comparison between the KS16 340Wh and 840Wh model.

- a nice statement regarding Airwheel (not included in the summary charts): "Test shatters all hope that this device can drive" 

14 inch wheels:

 

Thank you @Chriull for posting and translating this.  I have owned both an Airwheel X3 and currently an IPS Zero, and a lot of the feedback on this forum for the IPS Zero has been disparaging concerning power output and predictability (notably recommending KS, Gotway and Inmotion as better choices).  I love the Zero for its lightness (10kg) and its singular and dramatic improvement over the Airwheel (which was basically an annoying EUC).  This definitely suggests that there are problems with the IPS Zero at its higher speeds, and in particular that it should not be driven over 20km/h (where it is locked when they send it to you).  

 

"Crossout, forget and never even look in the direction of Airwheel"... agree, an this is even an X8, not an X3 like I had!

Edited 2 hours ago by Chris Westland

I thought it would be very useful to this thread to bring over some of the graphs and discussion (my posts) from the "dynamometer" thread, as they relate directly to what @KingSong69 @MoNo and others have been saying about the potential shortcomings in the IPS Zero performance.  In particular, I'm beginning to doubt IPS' claimed 800W/1000W motor, as this doesn't show up in the dynamometer readings; e.g., the V5F has a stated 550W sustained power, yet power is 40-50% higher than the IPS Zero below 16km/h and 3 times the power at >17km/h.  Very suspicious!  And a thanks to @Chriull and @Raptor as well for the posts and translations.   I am used to reading motorcycle dynamometer output (in cycle mags; I haven't actually used one).  The output power of the motor is the product of the torque that the motor generates and the angular velocity of its output shaft (which is represented as "speed" on the x-axis).   What that represents is a sudden torque drop at ~16km/h in the forward direction (which I assume is due to the power supplied dropping dramatically at this level of draw).    In practice, inertia would keep you going and you might not notice this on acceleration; and the motor breaking (or regeneration) would still work at those speeds, so you would not notice a comparable drop in decelerating.   But the balancing of the IPS above ~16km/h would be "wonky" because you would not have enough forward torque to quickly stabilize a pitch forward, and there would be an abrupt change in the regenerative braking force to the forward force.  This may account for some of the "Face-plant" reports we have heard about.   The power drop at ~16km/h is an abrupt 1.1HP --> .45HP in a very short velocity change of 1km/h between 16-17km/h... pretty significant.   For the torque drop @  ~16km/h I compute 230rpm (for a 14"diameter/44"circumference wheel) which means an abrupt reduction of forward torque from 25 ft-lbs to 10 ft-lbs after you hit ~16km/h.          

Discuss!?

Edited December 4, 2016 by Chris Westland

[steve454]

23 minutes ago, Chris Westland said:

The power drop at ~16km/h is an abrupt 1.1HP --> .45HP in a very short velocity change of 1km/h between 16-17km/h... pretty significant.

@Chris Westland so what you are saying is that if you keep the speed below 12kmh there should be a 25% safety reserve of power to account for bumps or inclines, right?  That seems fairly slow, but like you said, might be negligible if riding on smooth ground at steady speed or accelerating slowly so as not to draw too much power from the batteries.

It's good to know there is a power drop off at a certain speed, has Ninebot one E+ been tested on the dyno?

[Chris Westland]

15 minutes ago, steve454 said:

@Chris Westland so what you are saying is that if you keep the speed below 12kmh there should be a 25% safety reserve of power to account for bumps or inclines, right?  That seems fairly slow, but like you said, might be negligible if riding on smooth ground at steady speed or accelerating slowly so as not to draw too much power from the batteries.

It's good to know there is a power drop off at a certain speed, has Ninebot one E+ been tested on the dyno?

@steve454, I think the S2 is more or less equivalent to the E+, so you can get an idea from the purple line on the first chart.  There are no surprises, but the E+ will probably underperform.  The V5F appears to be the best performer by quite a margin. 

 

[steve454]

1 hour ago, Chris Westland said:

The power drop at ~16km/h is an abrupt 1.1HP --> .45HP in a very short velocity change of 1km/h between 16-17km/h... pretty significant.

@Chris Westland so what you are saying is that if you keep the speed below 12kmh there should be a 25% safety reserve of power to account for bumps or inclines, right?  That seems fairly slow, but like you said, might be negligible if riding on smooth ground at steady speed or accelerating slowly so as not to draw too much power from the batteries.

It's good to know there is a power drop off at a certain speed, has Ninebot one E+ been tested on the dyno?

Thanks for the info, it looks like ninebot is in the middle, not too bad but not the best.  I always suspected that

[Chris Westland]

17 hours ago, steve454 said:

@Chris Westland so what you are saying is that if you keep the speed below 12kmh there should be a 25% safety reserve of power to account for bumps or inclines, right?  That seems fairly slow, but like you said, might be negligible if riding on smooth ground at steady speed or accelerating slowly so as not to draw too much power from the batteries.

It's good to know there is a power drop off at a certain speed, has Ninebot one E+ been tested on the dyno?

Thanks for the info, it looks like ninebot is in the middle, not too bad but not the best.  I always suspected that

I'm guessing that the IPS Zero is not as bad as this dynamometer reading indicates (since it is a machine designed for 500kg/150HP machines not a 15kg/1HP EUC).  But I'm guessing too that these are standard EUC motors, and the problems arise on the battery side ... I will probably never open the IPS Zero up above 20km/h, and, yes, for hilly areas it may be a good idea to max it at 12km/h.  

[Mono]

10 minutes ago, Chris Westland said:

But I'm guessing too that these are standard EUC motors, and the problems arise on the battery side

Problems from the battery side should rather appear on the low speed (left) side of the graphs. The current at the right end (high speed side) is diminishing. That means that the battery shouldn't be at all stressed or a limiting factor at high speeds.

[Chris Westland]

7 minutes ago, MoNo said:

Problems from the battery side should rather appear on the low speed (left) side of the graphs. The current at the right end (high speed side) is diminishing. That means that the battery shouldn't be at all stressed or a limiting factor at high speeds.

At the high-end side, don't you lose the batteries ability to dump current into the circuit fast enough to accelerate the motor?   I'm sure battery problems might appear anywhere, but with the sort of batteries used in EUCs, I would think that not having enough current would be a critical factor.

[Mono]

Somewhat right, but it is not the problem of the battery, it is "the problem" of the motor. The battery provides the specified voltage as it should. Then it is the motor that refuses to eat the "available" current when spinning at high speed (due to the so-called back-EMF). The reason is not that the battery could not provide more current or that the battery is suffering a voltage drop. In other words, even using an arbitrary large battery which delivered always the specified (constant) voltage and arbitrary large currents wouldn't solve the problem of power loss at high speed. 

[Chris Westland]

2 hours ago, MoNo said:

Somewhat right, but it is not the problem of the battery, it is "the problem" of the motor. The battery provides the specified voltage as it should. Then it is the motor that refuses to eat the "available" current when spinning at high speed (due to the so-called back-EMF). The reason is not that the battery could not provide more current or that the battery is suffering a voltage drop. In other words, even using an arbitrary large battery which delivered always the specified (constant) voltage and arbitrary large currents wouldn't solve the problem of power loss at high speed. 

I didn't think about this, but true, all the current usage is on the low end.  Don't you think the power electronics should account for back-EMF, and counter it to provide a smooth torque and acceleration?

Edited December 4, 2016 by Chris Westland

[Mono]

21 hours ago, Chris Westland said:

I didn't think about this, but true, all the current usage is on the low end.  Don't you think the power electronics should account for back-EMF, and counter it to provide a smooth torque and acceleration?

It is not immediately clear to me how accounting for rpm or back-EMF would make a better controller. The problem of back-EMF is that it physically limits the maximally available torque, so I am not sure how you could in principle account for this from the controller side other than creating user warnings like beeps, tilt-back, softening.

[Chris Westland]

1 hour ago, MoNo said:

It is not immediately clear to me how accounting for rpm or back-EMF would make a better controller. The problem of back-EMF is that it physically limits the maximally available torque, so I am not sure how you could in principle account for this from the controller side other than creating user warnings like beeps, tilt-back, softening.

Just thinking out loud about how to handle this.  What you would like is a 'predictable' interface between you and the wheel (part of that would be no unexpected face plants).  I don't think you can prevent back-EMF, but you can correct the power factor (which changes with speed) so that battery power isn't wasted; and you can artificially smooth the response (at the expense of a little less power in some parts of the performance curve) in order to have 'predictable' performance. 

One other thing that comes to mind is an earlier post by @John Eucist that conjectured that IPS may have custom built the Zero motor with fewer poles to save weight.  It may be that the overall performance of the new design is still not well understood, or maybe it has inherent weaknesses.  I'd be interested to know more. 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Chris Westland

[John Eucist]

7 hours ago, Chris Westland said:

One other thing that comes to mind is an earlier post by @John Eucist that conjectured that IPS may have custom built the Zero motor with fewer poles to save weight.  It may be that the overall performance of the new design is still not well understood, or maybe it has inherent weaknesses.  I'd be interested to know more. 

Um... not me.  Unless I have amnesia.  

[Chris Westland]

1 hour ago, John Eucist said:

Um... not me.  Unless I have amnesia.  

Sorry for the false attribution @John Eucist.  I recalled reading it someplace in the posts, but can't remember where. It was just a conjecture, but I would like to know if IPS is designing their own motors.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Chris Westland

[Mono]

Quote

but you can correct the power factor (which changes with speed) so that battery power isn't wasted

What makes you think that battery power is wasted? AFAIK the most energy efficient point of the motor (under nominal load) is pretty close to max speed. I wouldn't be surprised at all if all available speeds of an EUC are below this point where the motor reaches optimal efficiency.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Mono