New Inmotion V10 / V10F

[Master Blaster]

1 hour ago, em1barns said:

48h with his V10F, and still no news of @Jason McNeil, am I the only one to worry? ?

He is under the restraint of a Non-Diclosure Agreement, don’t believe he is allowed to spill the beans until the official launch date in early April......something like the 10th I think.

[WaveCut]

Starting to hate Inmotion marketing policy...

[that0n3guy]

1 hour ago, WaveCut said:

Starting to hate Inmotion marketing policy...

I think it's fantastic It fun to see a slow rollout campaign done and see everyones reactions on how it builds (but I do that stuff for a living).

[WARPed1701D]

34 minutes ago, that0n3guy said:

I think it's fantastic It fun to see a slow rollout campaign done and see everyones reactions on how it builds (but I do that stuff for a living).

I think it is cool but I wish it had been done in advance of the pre-order opening up. While the amount is refundable if you decide you don't like the eventual specs that is just hassle yet waiting to see the full details means you are way down the pre-order list if you do decide to go for it.

[EUCMania]

I keep my expectation low. In fact, the info released so far is not very impressive.

[US69]

15 hours ago, mezzanine said:

disappointed that the V10 is looking more like a well-repackaged V8.  I'm not hating on it; the changes are nice, but they're refinements on a prior design.  My dream was that it would have a 3" wide tubeless design, but that was wishful thinking.  

We talk about redundancy in electronics for better safety, but that's irrelevant compared to the potential safety benefit of having twice the surface area of tire contacting the pavement at a lower pressure. 

When Rehab went down with accident and was saying he was done, my suggestion was to wait for the Z10 because I really believe it will be a jump forward in safety and will eventually be implemented by all the major manufacturers.  I'm kinda surprised that Gotway hasn't responded with something designed to siphon some of those customers. 

Neither  the V10 or the Z10 have any kind of redundancy....so would be interested to know what the jump forward in safety is?

[Jason McNeil]

On 30/03/2018 at 12:49 AM, KingSong69 said:

In case of an Mosfet failure, the wheel will block!! That means that a PCB had to change to second motor, before the defect switch message of the blown Mosfet reaches the wheel at all.

Yes, I put that very question to the Engineer. Do any of the EE wizards @esaj, @Cranium,@Churhill know if it's relevant if the MOSFET fails in the open or closed position? Is it only in the open position that the motor will offer resistance, because the motor pairs are crossed? During our meeting, I asked if they could create a simulation video with a bypass switch to simulate a MOSFET failure. Surely it ought to be possible to design a board to bypass the defective motor channel, diverting power to the remaining functioning one?   

9 hours ago, em1barns said:

48h with his V10F, and still no news of @Jason McNeil, am I the only one to worry? ?

Come on, more like 24hrs when you posted... 

I think they've got a winner with the V10F. You can imagine the styling & quality of the V8—actually quite a big step up in quality over the V8—with the performance of the Tesla , I don't actually know what the official motor power is rated at, but it's that same sort of effortless movement that the Tesla has. The 2.5" wide tire and super high pedals make it fell like you're riding a 18". 

Edited March 31, 2018 by Jason McNeil

[Esash]

2 hours ago, Jason McNeil said:

Yes, I put that very question to the Engineer. Do any of the EE wizards @esaj, @Cranium,@Churhill know if it's relevant if the MOSFET fails in the open or closed position? Is it only in the open position that the motor will offer resistance, because the motor pairs are crossed? During our meeting, I asked if they could create a simulation video with a bypass switch to simulate a MOSFET failure. Surely it ought to be possible to design a board to bypass the defective motor channel, diverting power to the remaining functioning one?   

Come on, more like 24hrs when you posted... 

I think they've got a winner with the V10F. You can imagine the styling & quality of the V8—actually quite a big step up in quality over the V8—with the performance of the Tesla , I don't actually know what the official motor power is rated at, but it's that same sort of effortless movement that the Tesla has. The 2.5" wide tire and super high pedals make it fell like you're riding a 18". 

Sweet. My prediction was that its overall quality, performance, reliability, features, and aesthetics would make it the ultimate all around wheel for 2018-2019. 16" wheel size with 18" ride feel? That's major versatility. Like a smaller MSuper V3s with better design, more safety features, and better build quality (in all likelihood).

Maybe the ACM2 will still be viewed as the better wheel if its safety and reliability surprise, I don't know. But I'd guess the V10F will come out on top overall.

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2018 by Scouts Honor

[Unventor]

9 hours ago, em1barns said:

48h with his V10F, and still no news of @Jason McNeil, am I the only one to worry? ?

It is called NDA

[em1barns]

11 hours ago, Unventor said:

It is called NDA

I was only checking his health, you never know when unboxing a new wheel ?... glad he turned out to survive his first ride.

[esaj]

On 3/31/2018 at 11:16 PM, Jason McNeil said:

Yes, I put that very question to the Engineer. Do any of the EE wizards @esaj, @Cranium,@Churhill know if it's relevant if the MOSFET fails in the open or closed position? Is it only in the open position that the motor will offer resistance, because the motor pairs are crossed?

Yes, it's relevant, a mosfet that has failed in "open" (non-conducting) position won't cause any rotating resistance on the motor, whereas "closed" (conducting) position will cause the resistance when two phases get short circuited together. The terms "open" and "closed" refer to the circuit loop here, and only closed loops conduct current, probably you termed it the other way around. But even then if only one phase is closed (conducting) and the other ones are open (non-conducting), it wouldn't cause any resistance, it has to be two (or all three) phases shorted together, so that the motor windings create a loop "between themselves".

However, this will likely happen as the controller tries to keep driving the motor when a mosfet fails, since one of the phases is continuously shorted to either the negative or positive rail, once the controller switches the conduction of one of the remaining phases to that same rail, the phases get shorted together. There's a bunch of alternative scenarios that could happen there (like a shoot-through when the opposite mosfet in the same half-bridge starts to conduct, strong braking current and/or back-EMF voltage spike when two phases short together in full conduction), but likely when one mosfet fails, the chain reaction following in the next split second destroys more of them, leaving two or more phases shorted to the same or both power rails, at which point you'll notice the motor is braking even when the wheel's otherwise turned off.

 

On 3/31/2018 at 11:16 PM, Jason McNeil said:

During our meeting, I asked if they could create a simulation video with a bypass switch to simulate a MOSFET failure. Surely it ought to be possible to design a board to bypass the defective motor channel, diverting power to the remaining functioning one?   

The problem is that there's nothing except those mosfets that prevent the two phases of the motor from being connected together, and once the mosfets have failed in conducting state, removing power from their gates has no effect (as you've likely noticed, the motors resist turning even if you turn off the wheel or remove the battery, it's the physical connection between the motor phases). If there are two boards and one of them fails shorting the phases, cutting power to that board won't do anything, it would have to be able to cut the short circuit from the motor phases, otherwise the failed board will keep the motor braking while the other one tries to drive it. There would have to be more complicated and elaborate bridge and board design, allowing the failed board to cut the the shorted motor phase loop (actually, disconnect all the motor phases from the failed board) and give the control over to the secondary one.

I don't think fuses or relays or such would work, fuses would likely be too slow, by the time it would blow the motor would already be braking hard and you'd loose your balance, and/or using fast fuses, too sensitive, blowing under normal driving circumstances due to a high power spike, like fast acceleration from standstill or accelerating up steep hill. Normal mechanical relays would cause faceplants just on their own, as the contactors would bounce around during normal vibration and knocks on the wheel, cutting the power by themselves. A simplest one I could come up with a moments notice that even has some theoretical chance of working was to use secondary high- and low-side mosfets, that are normally kept conducting, but in case of failure, they would be used to cut the failed mosfets from the loop.

"Normal" half-bridge with single high- and low-side mosfets on the left, secondary mosfets in series on the right (the high-side secondary might be P-channel to ease gate drive voltage requirements). Still, this is far more complicated to actually implement in real life than shown here, there needs to be a fool-proof way of detecting the failure of either low- or high-side mosfet, so it won't shutdown just because there's a sudden "normal" current spike there, and it needs to shutdown the failed half-bridge fast. Secondary bridges (or entire secondary board) would then have to take over in a split second to prevent faceplant without any sudden braking/acceleration/coasting of the motor. The secondary mosfets could also fail at the same time if it's a shoot-through or similar, the parts cost goes up since the mosfet count is again doubled (and they're the most expensive part of the board, maybe not singly, but since you'd need 12 instead of 6 or 24 instead of 12 them), the software becomes much more complicated because it needs to monitor and make "smart" decisions what is actually a failure and what is just normal spike, how to turn over the control to the secondary board etc.

 

[WARPed1701D]

On 3/31/2018 at 4:16 PM, Jason McNeil said:

I think they've got a winner with the V10F. You can imagine the styling & quality of the V8—actually quite a big step up in quality over the V8—with the performance of the Tesla , I don't actually know what the official motor power is rated at, but it's that same sort of effortless movement that the Tesla has. The 2.5" wide tire and super high pedals make it fell like you're riding a 18". 

So you can't tell us the quality improvements on the V10... But maybe you could tell us where the V8 falls short? 

I was thinking of an 18"wheel for my next upgrade for its ability to absorb bad road surfaces. I'm guessing that despite the feel of the V10 being like an 18" it is still going to have the pothole absorbing ability of a 16" wheel right? Aren't most 18" wheels 2.5" too? So it's not like you are gaining anything from any extra width over a regular 18" model. 

[Scatcat]

The V10 suddenly started to sound interesting... It would be very interesting to hear the specs.

AND...

Maybe I should have read the first post before posting

So it looks interesting, but I would like to have an option for even more battery juice.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Scatcat

[Unventor]

@Bobwheel  a Few questions about the V10/V10f...

1)     Can you disclose if the wheel/tyre is easier to access in case of a puncture or a need of tyre/tube change? I mean if you compare V8 to V10/V10f.

         Would be cool to have like a bike speed wheel unlock, like you see on racing bikes in Tour de France or similar races.

2)     And the 2nd question.... can you disclose any water/dust proof rating on it?

         I really wish I could ride the wheel despite a shower or rain as weather here can be rainy and a little unpredictable. (this is far from San Diego's sunshine days/year).

 

 

[WaveCut]

@Unventor what a question. v8 is, honestly, ever most comfortable wheel to change tyre on.  You just need to remove side covers, unplug motor, and loose screws to get motor out. That takes about 5 minutes of work if you’re not rushing things. 

[Unventor]

27 minutes ago, WaveCut said:

@Unventor what a question. v8 is, honestly, ever most comfortable wheel to change tyre on.  You just need to remove side covers, unplug motor, and loose screws to get motor out. That takes about 5 minutes of work if you’re not rushing things. 

Well I have yet to do this. But compared to bike this looks much more complicated. Let's just say it isn't Formula 1 tire change exactly.

[Scott Henley]

7 hours ago, Unventor said:

@Bobwheel  a Few questions about the V10/V10f...

 

         Would be cool to have like a bike speed wheel unlock, like you see on racing bikes in Tour de France or similar races.

2)     And the 2nd question.... can you disclose any water/dust proof rating on it?

         

 

 

Though I do not speak for inmotion here are my thought on 2 of these questions. 

1) Having any type of quick release on the axle to allow easier and faster service of the tire is just an awful idea for an EUC because it could also lead to easier and faster face plants . There are just far too many variables at play here . The axle bolts to the pedal brackets safely and securely attaching the motor to the brackets which the shell then attaches to. Pretty much any rim brake bike worth it’s salt on the market today uses a quick release over the old school bolt so it’s not just in professional bike races that you see this . But no dirt bike , motorcycle or ATV will ever use this . 

2) I again , don’t know of any EUC manufacturers that have any type of IP (international protection marking) ratings on their wheels . Again , it’s my opinion there are far too many variables at play to be able to get such a certification on an EUC . It is the IEC ( international elections commission) that sets the IP standards and I’m not even sure that EUCs are evaluated by them at all. But IP requirements are very stringent . Most manufacturers including inmotion state in user manuals to avoid water and sand . Not that the EUC can’t handle a little of both , but it’s just not rated to. Therefore they tell you to avoid such things . 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Scott Henley
Add

[em1barns]

21 minutes ago, Scott Henley said:

 

2) I again , don’t know of any EUC manufacturers that have any type of IP (international protection marking) ratings on their wheels . Again , it’s my opinion there are far too many variables at play to be able to get such a certification on an EUC . It is the IEC ( international elections commission) that sets the IP standards and I’m not even sure that EUCs are evaluated by them at all. But IP requirements are very stringent . Most manufacturers including inmotion state in user manuals to avoid water and sand . Not that the EUC can’t handle a little of both , but it’s just not rated to. Therefore they tell you to avoid such things . 

Wrong you are on this one, both INMOTION and ninebot always have certified their EUCs, at least IP54.

[Chriull]

20 minutes ago, em1barns said:

Wrong you are on this one, both INMOTION and ninebot always have certified their EUCs, at least IP54.

They state the certification - for the ninebot one e+ in the beginning even ip65, which the e+ definitively could never accomplish. Also ip54 is not fullfilled by the e+.

[Scott Henley]

1 hour ago, em1barns said:

Wrong you are on this one, both INMOTION and ninebot always have certified their EUCs, at least IP54.

IP54 doesn’t really mean anything 5-meaning you couldn’t fit a small tool or pry bar into the casing when closed 4- basically saying it’s can safely be misted by water  . But okay . If you read the inmotion website (pertaining to the v8) it does (you’re correct) state an IP rating of 54 but then in that same sentence they say “so it is waterproof “.  IP54 in no way means waterproof . KS and GW don’t mention ip ratings at all. As for ninebot , they are a huge company with all sorts of certifications on their products  and up until the Z series haven’t really been “in the game “ as far as I’m concerned. So I wasn’t really including them when referencing EUC manufacturers to me they just aren’t that relevant right now.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Scott Henley
Add

[Chriull]

On 31.3.2018 at 10:16 PM, Jason McNeil said:

Yes, I put that very question to the Engineer. Do any of the EE wizards @esaj, @Cranium,@Churhill know if it's relevant if the MOSFET fails in the open or closed position? Is it only in the open position that the motor will offer resistance, because the motor pairs are crossed? During our meeting, I asked if they could create a simulation video with a bypass switch to simulate a MOSFET failure. Surely it ought to be possible to design a board to bypass the defective motor channel, diverting power to the remaining functioning one?   

I could not follow where this quote from @Scouts Honor originated from:

"

• Single Wheel but with two completely independent motors
• Dual battery pack (consisting of 32x (total) 21700 cells) with separate inputs to the board
• A board that is fault-tolerant & can take a single MOSFET failure, because the two motors are working independently of each other
• Magnesium alloy shell that's built like a tank, 3.5mm thick, vs. 1.5 on the i5
• Probably the best App of any Wheel manufacturer, no social non-sense just what you need for configuration the Wheel & viewing vital stats
• What's particularly cool about the S5 interface, is that because the redundant systems run completely independent of each other, the power, battery, range stats are shown on two columns, you get a complete insight on what's going on inside
• I think it's quite an attractive Wheel, think of the I5, but thicker with tastefully furnished LED strips running vertically on each corner
• There's supposed to be other advantages to having a dual-motor, increased torque over a  range of RPMs (presumably because the combined stators are wider) & a greater efficiency
• Weight is around 15kg, considering all the built-in redundancy, this is quite an achievement
• Then there's the BMS: this thing has temperature sensors, each of the cells voltage is monitored separately in the App, also incorporates a lot of scenario protections for reducing the risk of fire or other mishaps "

but i assume this are the points/statements of discussion, or are this just "gueswork/hopes" from somewhere?

@esajalready wrote about the extra mosfets needed to accomplish a "failsafe(?r?)" system.

With this above points:

- a single mosfet failure could maybe really be handled? The failed mosfet case with the stuck motor was imho never discussed in detail here. If there are (1) two failed mosfets (always connecting) necessary or if just (2) one failed (connecting) mosfet is sufficient (with another mosfets body diode shortening the motor phase)?(*) Anyhow - if for the "mosfet failure with stuck motor" two mosfets are "needed dead" this "failsave restriction" would by this not cover this failure and still lead to faceplants . If case (2) is right, they'd need to implement something like @esajwrote to disconnect the failed board from all of the three motor wires. (but just "doubling" the mosfets in this case would not be sufficient, since the body diodes can not be "turned off")

- a smart "battery usage system" would also be nice/needed - what if motor/controller 1 fails and battery 2 . So some "cross switching" would be needed, giving the additional advantage that as long as both battery packs are "alive" the full capacitiy could be used...

(*) Or in reality always two mosfets burn at once? Since for a commutation phase always two mosfets are "open" (conducting) they always die together? Or one is always the weak link, saving the second mosfet by its death? ... or it's just some random/statistic distribution...?

[Esash]

4 hours ago, Chriull said:

I could not follow where this quote from @Scouts Honor originated from:

"

• Single Wheel but with two completely independent motors
• Dual battery pack (consisting of 32x (total) 21700 cells) with separate inputs to the board
• A board that is fault-tolerant & can take a single MOSFET failure, because the two motors are working independently of each other
• Magnesium alloy shell that's built like a tank, 3.5mm thick, vs. 1.5 on the i5
• Probably the best App of any Wheel manufacturer, no social non-sense just what you need for configuration the Wheel & viewing vital stats
• What's particularly cool about the S5 interface, is that because the redundant systems run completely independent of each other, the power, battery, range stats are shown on two columns, you get a complete insight on what's going on inside
• I think it's quite an attractive Wheel, think of the I5, but thicker with tastefully furnished LED strips running vertically on each corner
• There's supposed to be other advantages to having a dual-motor, increased torque over a  range of RPMs (presumably because the combined stators are wider) & a greater efficiency
• Weight is around 15kg, considering all the built-in redundancy, this is quite an achievement
• Then there's the BMS: this thing has temperature sensors, each of the cells voltage is monitored separately in the App, also incorporates a lot of scenario protections for reducing the risk of fire or other mishaps "

but i assume this are the points/statements of discussion, or are this just "gueswork/hopes" from somewhere?

@esajalready wrote about the extra mosfets needed to accomplish a "failsafe(?r?)" system.

With this above points:

- a single mosfet failure could maybe really be handled? The failed mosfet case with the stuck motor was imho never discussed in detail here. If there are (1) two failed mosfets (always connecting) necessary or if just (2) one failed (connecting) mosfet is sufficient (with another mosfets body diode shortening the motor phase)?(*) Anyhow - if for the "mosfet failure with stuck motor" two mosfets are "needed dead" this "failsave restriction" would by this not cover this failure and still lead to faceplants . If case (2) is right, they'd need to implement something like @esajwrote to disconnect the failed board from all of the three motor wires. (but just "doubling" the mosfets in this case would not be sufficient, since the body diodes can not be "turned off")

- a smart "battery usage system" would also be nice/needed - what if motor/controller 1 fails and battery 2 . So some "cross switching" would be needed, giving the additional advantage that as long as both battery packs are "alive" the full capacitiy could be used...

(*) Or in reality always two mosfets burn at once? Since for a commutation phase always two mosfets are "open" (conducting) they always die together? Or one is always the weak link, saving the second mosfet by its death? ... or it's just some random/statistic distribution...?

That quote is about the new IPS wheel, not the InMotion. Click this link and you should see the quote and discussion about it:

 

[em1barns]

8 hours ago, Scott Henley said:

IP54 doesn’t really mean anything 5-meaning you couldn’t fit a small tool or pry bar into the casing when closed 4- basically saying it’s can safely be misted by water  . But okay . If you read the inmotion website (pertaining to the v8) it does (you’re correct) state an IP rating of 54 but then in that same sentence they say “so it is waterproof “.  IP54 in no way means waterproof . KS and GW don’t mention ip ratings at all. As for ninebot , they are a huge company with all sorts of certifications on their products  and up until the Z series haven’t really been “in the game “ as far as I’m concerned. So I wasn’t really including them when referencing EUC manufacturers to me they just aren’t that relevant right now.

I think you should read the IP rating again.

The first 5 means dust protected, so you are quite off the mark :).

The second 4 means: « Water splashing against the enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effect, utilizing either: a) an oscillating fixture, or a spray nozzle with no shield. »

So essentially, rain, shallow puddles, and any normal riding condition should be ok. 

Just like cars, it is not entirely waterproof, you cannot drop it in a lake. And yet, cars handle most weather conditions.

Edited April 3, 2018 by em1barns

[WARPed1701D]

If you immerse the V8 it will get water on the board. For light or even heavy rain I think it would be harder. I just took the shell of the cpu side of my V8 after 700 miles and apart from a little dirt on the inside of the bottom of the shell there was zero sign of water in the body of the wheel. The CPU is enclosed in its own internal shell  which has a seal around the opening edge except where the wires enter and exit which is near the top of each side and the bottom for the motor wires. I think you would really have to be pushing it to experience a failure as a result of rain on an Inmotion if they continue this design. It's not impossible to get water on the board and certainly not water proof from immersion but in my mind it is water resistant sufficient for all but the worst rain. I've no idea if the board has any kind of water resistant coating like KingSong has. 

[lizardmech]

On 4/1/2018 at 6:16 AM, Jason McNeil said:

Yes, I put that very question to the Engineer. Do any of the EE wizards @esaj, @Cranium,@Churhill know if it's relevant if the MOSFET fails in the open or closed position? Is it only in the open position that the motor will offer resistance, because the motor pairs are crossed? During our meeting, I asked if they could create a simulation video with a bypass switch to simulate a MOSFET failure. Surely it ought to be possible to design a board to bypass the defective motor channel, diverting power to the remaining functioning one?   

On 3/31/2018 at 9:44 PM, em1barns said:

I'm guessing they have a 7th mosfet acting as a on off switch for each motor inverter since mosfets fail open. As I said a few times in discussions about EU proposed regulations, I'm uncertain if it actually works, aerospace, defense, automotive and medical systems have trended towards having one highly reliable system rather than multiples.  If it can actually prevent a faceplant due to a fet failure while moving it's a good idea if it can't and only means you can still ride home after the faceplant it's a bad idea as you have effectively doubled the probability of a failure with no increase in safety. I was never able to find any sort of demonstration of the dual motor windings on the segway working during a hardware failure. Did inmotion say if they had tested if it works in the event of a failure while in use?