Jump to content
Pingouin

New Inmotion V10 (V8 Fast)

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, UniVehje said:

Something weird just happened. I was riding and enjoying my silent wheel. I have played with sound customization and tried to record my own sound over the standard horrible fire alarm. It feels very buggy and it became silent. I think it’s a bug but hope it’s a feature. 

Now in the middle of my ride I got this new weird sound. Probably some kind of a bug. I did not change anything and I have not updated the app or firmware for a while. This is on 2.2.6. Next I’m going to play with sound customization again. 

 

that's a sound i've NEVER heard before!

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, RichieV said:

Aren't they one in the same?  Isn't propulsion merely the effect of the rider throwing the wheel off balance and the motor applying more power to try to keep up?

Yes, but not exactly, think about a bike as having two wheel, as a stable X axis, with an unstable Y axis due to the frame connecting the two tires. A unicycle has an unstable X and Y axis. The electric unicycle’s motor applies a force similar to the force received by the Bike frame to keep the X axis stable. If you have ever seen a bike frame split at the sprocket weld, you can see the forces applied to the frame keeping you upright across all terrain.

It is applied through one propulsion system and that is the confusing part, but the power consumption for balance is a real drag on the system with regards to power.

Edited by Stan Onymous
Less of a knee jerk intro
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maltocs said:

that's a sound i've NEVER heard before!

yeah, that would scare the sh*t outta me. sounds like an air raid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, novazeus said:

yeah, that would scare the sh*t outta me. sounds like an air raid.

Idk, it kinda sounds like the machine is trying to whistle while it works. I’m quite tickled by the effort. 😗😙

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Stan Onymous said:

Yes, but not exactly, think about a bike as having two wheel, as a stable X axis, with an unstable Y axis due to the frame connecting the two tires. A unicycle has an unstable X and Y axis. The electric unicycle’s motor applies a force similar to the force received by the Bike frame to keep the X axis stable. If you have ever seen a bike frame split at the sprocket weld, you can see the forces applied to the frame keeping you upright across all terrain.

It is applied through one propulsion system and that is the confusing part, but the power consumption for balance is a real drag on the system with regards to power.

So my understanding of it is that there are three rotational axes that apply to a body in three dimensional space, in this case an EUC:  yaw, roll, and pitch.  We riders care about yaw because that determines which direction we're pointing, but it doesn't figure into the wheel's software.  Roll is used to determine if the wheel is lying on it's side, and if it is switch off. 

It is this last one, pitch, that is important to balance and propulsion.  At its core, an EUC has only one job: maintain neutral pitch (i.e. stay balanced).  When a wheel is at neutral pitch (or what we have calibrated as neutral pitch), no power is applied to the motor.  Since gravity is always trying to pitch the wheel forward or backward, power is pretty much constantly applied to maintain neutrality/balance.  We riders purposely pitch the wheel forward with our lean, causing it to apply power to the motor to correct the imbalance.

So it is with this line of thought that I say balance and propulsion are the same, with propulsion essentially being an effect of the wheel trying to seek balance.  Is this not the case?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, RichieV said:

So it is with this line of thought that I say balance and propulsion are the same, with propulsion essentially being an effect of the wheel trying to seek balance.  Is this not the case?

In theory you are correct in application it is different, or vice versa or both. In application the motor has sensors as well . Lets say its a 3 sensor setup. In a bike those sensors are really only concerned with direction and timing and determined by throttle attenuation. With the throttle off, but the motor on, the bike uses no power. The EUC however consumes more power to keep the sensors at rest without the weight of the wheel falling forward or aft. That is why the electric bike can be ridden home with a dead battery. You can’t coast an electric unicycle home.

Just turn on your EUC and lean it up against a wall and see the power consumption with no one on it and it going no where. Those are the same forces that a bike frame supports at rest. They are amplified while traveling, going over bumps and uphills and so are the power demands on the EUC to mimic the stability of a bike frame.

Edited by Stan Onymous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Harold Farrenkopf said:

More likely the size of the heat sink increased because of the requirement of more space for mounting the MOSFETS.

That's my suspicion, although having more transistors would also reduce the instantaneous max temps on each transistor by splitting the current between them. The total heat would stay (approximately) the same, but each transistor's peak temperature would be lower.

Based on the evidence presented so far, we seem to have a case where peak heat flux through the heatsink is good, but insufficient for peak thermal load from the inverter. Heat capacity on the heatsink is woefully inadequate, causing even a brief thermal load greater than heat flux to cause the heatsink to get hot very rapidly, causing a thermal overload.

In this situation, adding more transistors to the same heatsink, without increasing the heatsink's capacity or flux, is unlikely to resolve the problem, since you're still dumping the same amount of heat into the sink. I think a better solution would be to increase either the heat capacity (for peak performance, like burst acceleration) or flux (for sustained performance, like hill climbing) of the heatsink is more likely to be effective. Increasing the size of a heatsink often increases both.

This is all dependent on the assumption that the overloads are triggered by heatsink temperature, which I would like to confirm before trying to mill a new sink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, soulson said:

That's my suspicion, although having more transistors would also reduce the instantaneous max temps on each transistor by splitting the current between them. The total heat would stay (approximately) the same, but each transistor's peak temperature would be lower.

Based on the evidence presented so far, we seem to have a case where peak heat flux through the heatsink is good, but insufficient for peak thermal load from the inverter. Heat capacity on the heatsink is woefully inadequate, causing even a brief thermal load greater than heat flux to cause the heatsink to get hot very rapidly, causing a thermal overload.

In this situation, adding more transistors to the same heatsink, without increasing the heatsink's capacity or flux, is unlikely to resolve the problem, since you're still dumping the same amount of heat into the sink. I think a better solution would be to increase either the heat capacity (for peak performance, like burst acceleration) or flux (for sustained performance, like hill climbing) of the heatsink is more likely to be effective. Increasing the size of a heatsink often increases both.

This is all dependent on the assumption that the overloads are triggered by heatsink temperature, which I would like to confirm before trying to mill a new sink.

Milling a new larger heatsink with fins beside the wheel would likely compromise the weather integrity of the electronics inside. Getting more air flow over the fins is the same effect as getting a bigger heat sink. Too bad they didn't use a heat pipe connected to that heat sink to connect to another heat sink where a fan with an air filter could have actually been used and that would then have been properly called real active cooling! A place where it could actually be serviced/cleaned easily.

 

Edited by Harold Farrenkopf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, soulson said:

this situation, adding more transistors to the same heatsink, without increasing the heatsink's capacity or flux, is unlikely to resolve the problem, since you're still dumping the same amount of heat into the sink. I think a better solution would be to increase either the heat capacity (for peak performance, like burst acceleration) or flux (for sustained performance, like hill climbing) of the heatsink is more likely to be effective. Increasing the size of a heatsink often increases both.

In the Tests that @maltocs and I did, the Overload happened over a range of temperatures from 54C - 62C. The transistor spread may be enough to ameliorate the 54°C and the 56°C Overload warnings we got, but not the 62°C warning and that would be enough for me since we were riding in 95°F heat at night. I believe that would help the 100kg weight riders over hills in normal heat situations with regards to the Overload situations. This may require a control board upgrade if the firmware is unable to solve this Overload condition. 

That is if we are correct in the assumption of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Stan Onymous said:

In the Tests that @maltocs and I did, the Overload happened over a range of temperatures from 54C - 62C. The transistor spread may be enough to ameliorate the 54°C and the 56°C Overload warnings we got, but not the 62°C warning and that would be enough for me since we were riding in 95°F heat at night. I believe that would help the 100kg weight riders over hills in normal heat situations with regards to the Overload situations. This may require a control board upgrade if the firmware is unable to solve this Overload condition. 

That is if we are correct in the assumption of the problem.

The temperature readings are for the CPU and not the MOSFETs unfortunately as I understand currently. 62C doesn't damage electronics.

 

Edited by Harold Farrenkopf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Harold Farrenkopf said:

The temperature readings are for the CPU and not the MOSFETs unfortunately as I understand currently. 62C doesn't damage electronics.

 

That may be true, but my KS14C would quit on me at right around 58°C and do the tiltback whether I going uphill or downhill.

I was amazed that the V10 was good enough at 58°C in our test to go 3/4ths the way up that dirt 23° angle hill and stop at 62°C. His vehicle would overload at 54° on the same path that mine was registering 58° and I had no overload issues on that same hill.

I know the CPU is where the temp is read, but I thought it was reading data from the control board. It is still anomalous that his had an overload on the same path but with a lower temperature. Was it predicting a result or reacting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Harold Farrenkopf said:

Getting more air flow over the fins is the same effect as getting a bigger heat sink.

Getting more air flow increases heat flux, but not heat capacity. That's probably the correct solution for the mountain climbers in this thread, but I get the overloads just by accelerating rapidly. I need some heat capacity. 😉

You're right about the weather thing though. And the pebble-stuck-in-my-wheel problem will be worse with a bigger sink, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Stan Onymous said:

That may be true, but my KS14C would quit on me at right around 58°C and do the tiltback whether I going uphill or downhill.

I was amazed that the V10 was good enough at 58°C in our test to go 3/4ths the way up that dirt 23° angle hill and stop at 62°C. His vehicle would overload at 54° on the same path that mine was registering 58° and I had no overload issues on that same hill.

I know the CPU is where the temp is read, but I thought it was reading data from the control board. It is still anomalous that his had an overload on the same path but with a lower temperature. Was it predicting a result or reacting?

The older KingSong wheels did overheat at 58-59 degrees. But the S-Series wheels and all the Gotway's now overheat ~80-degrees. Wouldn't surprise me if the same is true for Inmotion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Harold Farrenkopf said:

Milling a new larger heatsink with fins beside the wheel would likely compromise the weather integrity of the electronics inside. Getting more air flow over the fins is the same effect as getting a bigger heat sink. Too bad they didn't use a heat pipe connected to that heat sink to connect to another heat sink where a fan with an air filter could have actually been used and that would then have been properly called real active cooling! A place where it could actually be serviced/cleaned easily.

 

To add to that, looking at the pictures, the other side of the wheel (opposite to where the mainboard is located) has an empty area  the same size of the board 'box', that can easily hosts a big heatsink and fan if needed.

Edited by Fastmike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fastmike said:

To add to that, looking at the pictures, the other side of the wheel (opposite to where the mainboard is located) has an empty area  the same size of the board 'box', that can easily hosts a big heatsink and fan if needed.

That would be a long way to have to transport the heat. Water cooling would be the only reasonable way I would think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WARPed1701D said:

That would be a long way to have to transport the heat. Water cooling would be the only reasonable way I would think. 

Another way to do it might be, since the mainboard is in two pieces, to host one piece on each side of the wheel, with each cooled by its own heatsink. That way, only electric cables will be required between the two sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Fastmike said:

Another way to do it might be, since the mainboard is in two pieces, to host one piece on each side of the wheel, with each cooled by its own heatsink. That way, only electric cables will be required between the two sides.

Going from one side to the other is not a great idea. I wouldn't even separate the electronics because of the extra wires and connections required. The use of a heat pipe could be used to transport heat to a larger heat sink that could be actively cooled with a fan and outside air with an air filter. The heat pipe is a tube filled with a fluid that changes state and is very effective in transferring heat away from an area that can't have a large heat sink installed. It is used often in high end electronics and computers and is more effective than any metal of the same size is. 

Installing a liquid type radiator system like a car has but smaller could also be done in a closed system. 

Or just use more aluminum heat sink material.

BUT we still need to know that the problem is the MOSFET temperature that is triggering the problem condition and not the CPU temperature readings we can see.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harold Farrenkopf said:

 I wouldn't even separate the electronics because of the extra wires and connections required. 

The electronics is already separated on two different boards. So the cables just need to be longer. Having the 2 boards in two different boxes will immediately reduces the heat drastically.

And I believe a heatpipe that long will be more fragile and not costly effective.

Just my 2 cent

Edited by Fastmike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i did my first little ride off the ranch a little while ago.

i had lunch with my 29 year gf, who is a few days away from 30 and her older sister.

Bob was a very good boy and even got complimented on how well behaved he was by some restaurant patrons, hopefully they weren’t being sarcastic.

so after lunch i excused myself early so i could start my touareg and ac and walk Bob. i brought an s1 and my V10F and started riding around the restaurant in their parking lot. it generated a lot of interest.

it felt so weird riding on such smooth pavement. felt like my tire was flat but it wasn’t. plus i don’t have any little grade changes like near storm drains and such. felt nice. 

with having more than 12’ of pavement width, it was fun practicing slow turns. 

i got my little gf up on the s1 with her hanging on me. she did well for a couple of feet.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 12:13 AM, Demargon said:

Yesterday I discovered a deformation in the rim. I suppose has to be in a drop on a skate-park pit weeks ago, was the biggest drop I did in that v10f. Didn´t notice until I see it, is only in one side and my riding is not affected by it.

Some advise for prevent or fix that issue?

photo_2018-07-11.jpg

Do you have a metal C clamp?  I wonder if placing a wooden board / leather protective layer with smaller additional shims as needed to brace against the bottom surface and a small shim / leather on top where the round footing is might allow you to bend it back into place.  I would let some air out first, but the idea is to have a larger bracing surface area underneath against which the screw part can press against a small area bending the rim back into place.  Or so I theorize in my mind.  :efefd0f676:

14284_main_1.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hunka Hunka Burning Love said:

Do you have a metal C clamp?  I wonder if placing a wooden board / leather protective layer with smaller additional shims as needed to brace against the bottom surface and a small shim / leather on top where the round footing is might allow you to bend it back into place.  I would let some air out first, but the idea is to have a larger bracing surface area underneath against which the screw part can press against a small area bending the rim back into place.  Or so I theorize in my mind.  :efefd0f676:

14284_main_1.jpg

I afraid of breaking it definitely if I try repair it. Now is only a stetic think. But i appreciate the advice, if the rim takes more of those I will need something to fix it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hunka Hunka Burning Love said:

@UniVehje - did you try contacting @Bobwheel concerning the strange sound?  It looks related to the mild braking you're doing.  Is it doing it every time you brake?

It’s the tiltback you are seeing, not related to breaking. And the sound is gone now. It was just a temporary glitch. Probably tried to play out my own recording. But it’s strange that it happened in the middle of a ride. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×