TSDZ2 mid drive with 860C, 850C or SW102 displays only -- Flexible OpenSource firmware (Casainho code only)

[skestans]

Would you consider adding a configuration option to hide the clock altogether seeing how unreliable it can be and how much it can drift if you don’t use the bike every day? I’d personally much rather not see the clock at all than seeing it display the wrong time every time.

[mallesepp]

Would you consider adding a configuration option to hide the clock altogether seeing how unreliable it can be and how much it can drift if you don’t use the bike every day? I’d personally much rather not see the clock at all than seeing it display the wrong time every time.

Which Version you have installed? By me with 1.0.0 alpha 4 and 5 the time is exact!

[skestans]

Would you consider adding a configuration option to hide the clock altogether seeing how unreliable it can be and how much it can drift if you don’t use the bike every day? I’d personally much rather not see the clock at all than seeing it display the wrong time every time.

Which Version you have installed? By me with 1.0.0 alpha 4 and 5 the time is exact!

It starts drifting if you don’t use the bike at all for a few days. Apparently it’s a hardware problem with the display.

[casainho]

Would you consider adding a configuration option to hide the clock altogether seeing how unreliable it can be and how much it can drift if you don’t use the bike every day? I’d personally much rather not see the clock at all than seeing it display the wrong time every time.

I agree. My bicycle that I am probably using every 2 days at least, keeps the clock ok. Others from son or wife, that sometimes are only used once a week, have wrong clock.

I wish to maybe have on that field as option:
- clock
- trip time (maybe nice for users where clock does not work)
- battery SOC
- battery voltage
- battery used Wh

I will not have much time on next weeks for development, so, I think I will not implement this as I am developing other things. A contribution from other developers with a pull request, would be welcome.

[skestans]

I wish I had the skills to do it but I know nothing of C or C++

[plpetrov]

New firmware release v1.0.0-alpha.5
- added torque sensor filter with configuration (only works if torque sensor calibration is enable): find the filter configuration on the torque sensor configuration menu. I hadn't much time for testing but I think a high value like 80 is the best for me because if not, I feel a lot oscillation of motor assist power at high assist levels, I think this is due to erratic high torque sensor measurements when the cranks are not horizontal - this are limitations / issues on this torque sensor. As the filter measures only when the cranks are horizontal, then an high filter value will help on this issue. Also my torque sensor has really bad sensitivity after the 30 kgs (and this is a new torque sensor installed this week and have the same bad sensitivity as the old one) which probably makes worst this issue.

Hi Casainho,

I tested the new version with my coaster brake setup. All tests indoor with the rear wheel in the air. The torque sensor calibrated:

1. Tested different torque sensor filter weight from 10 to 100. Like in your case I felt some difference after 80. With 90 the oscillations I was getting in the past for Assist Level 10 now I got them at Assist Level 30. So there is improvement but still not what I was expecting.

2. I had a thought, that may be we need to introduce some hysteresis in the input of the system. In my opinion the hysteresis that we will need, is the difference between the maximum and the minimum torque sensor reading for each pedal side. For me the calibration value for 0 on the left side is 135 (minimum), while the maximum value I could measure was 140. For the right side the calibration value for 0 is 140 (minimum), with maximum value of 144. So I changed the correct torque sensor calibration values with the maximums. The result was that I was able to increase the Assist Level up to 20 and got very stable motor with almost no oscillations at all.

3. Trying further to improve the configuration, I did changes while monitoring in the Technical menu the ACD torque sensor values and Weight with offset and Weight without offset. What I noticed is that the calculated values shown for both weights is always calculated based on the calibration curve for the left pedal. Pedal sides left or right however is always shown correctly. Experiencing also a peak in the motor power, I have the feeling that the calculations for the motor power output will take also the calibration curve for the left pedal always, instead of switching between left and right ones.

And one question. When you are reading the torque sensor every 50 ms, do we have information for the angle position of the pedals? If yes, what is the resolution with which you can measure the angle? My idea is that in case we have linearity we may introduce simple correction coefficient in a function of the angle. If you think that this will make sense, I may try to perform further tests in order to collect information if this correction needs to be in function of the weight applied on the pedals.

[izeman]

Would you consider adding a configuration option to hide the clock altogether seeing how unreliable it can be and how much it can drift if you don’t use the bike every day? I’d personally much rather not see the clock at all than seeing it display the wrong time every time.

+1. Makes sense. If it can't be made reliable, NOT showing it may be the better approach.

[Aquakitty]

Hi, I just installed 1.0.0 alpha 5 on my bikes. During a test ride it seems the motor is cutting out all power when you drop under a certain cadence. My husband's bike has a 42 tooth ring so he really noticed it on the steep hills and was struggling to keep moving at points. I can't see anything about cadence setting anywhere in the wiki so this seems strange?

[HughF]

Hi, I just installed 1.0.0 alpha 5 on my bikes. During a test ride it seems the motor is cutting out all power when you drop under a certain cadence. My husband's bike has a 42 tooth ring so he really noticed it on the steep hills and was struggling to keep moving at points. I can't see anything about cadence setting anywhere in the wiki so this seems strange?

Which version did you upgrade from?

[HughF]

Casainho, I am trying to understand the "calibration :enabled /disabled" setting in the torque sensor menu.

Does this mean that it will use the calibrated values I entered when it is set to enabled, and revert to the factory curve when set to disabled?

I have calibrated my sensor with luggage scales and my weight, many weeks ago but I always had this setting set to disabled. Yesterday I set it to enabled and took it for a ride, a slight change in behaviour and feel of the power delivery.

[Aquakitty]

Hi, I just installed 1.0.0 alpha 5 on my bikes. During a test ride it seems the motor is cutting out all power when you drop under a certain cadence. My husband's bike has a 42 tooth ring so he really noticed it on the steep hills and was struggling to keep moving at points. I can't see anything about cadence setting anywhere in the wiki so this seems strange?

Which version did you upgrade from?

I think 0.19 to 0.20 to 0.57.2 now 1.0. Why would that matter? I did forget to mention I am using SW102's.

[casainho]

Hi, I just installed 1.0.0 alpha 5 on my bikes. During a test ride it seems the motor is cutting out all power when you drop under a certain cadence. My husband's bike has a 42 tooth ring so he really noticed it on the steep hills and was struggling to keep moving at points. I can't see anything about cadence setting anywhere in the wiki so this seems strange?

Maybe because is bicycle is a full suspension one?

Disable configurations menu, variousMenus, Cadence fast stop / Cadenc stp.

[casainho]

1. For me the calibration value for 0 on the left side is 135 (minimum), while the maximum value I could measure was 140. For the right side the calibration value for 0 is 140 (minimum), with maximum value of 144. So I changed the correct torque sensor calibration values with the maximums. The result was that I was able to increase the Assist Level up to 20 and got very stable motor with almost no oscillations at all.

Please share your torque sensor calibration graph!!

2. Trying further to improve the configuration, I did changes while monitoring in the Technical menu the ACD torque sensor values and Weight with offset and Weight without offset. What I noticed is that the calculated values shown for both weights is always calculated based on the calibration curve for the left pedal. Pedal sides left or right however is always shown correctly. Experiencing also a peak in the motor power, I have the feeling that the calculations for the motor power output will take also the calibration curve for the left pedal always, instead of switching between left and right ones.

Well, I need to check this. If this issue is really happening, it can be the real issue.

And one question. When you are reading the torque sensor every 50 ms, do we have information for the angle position of the pedals? If yes, what is the resolution with which you can measure the angle? My idea is that in case we have linearity we may introduce simple correction coefficient in a function of the angle. If you think that this will make sense, I may try to perform further tests in order to collect information if this correction needs to be in function of the weight applied on the pedals.

I would try to avoid this as torque sensor calibration is already somehow difficult. I want first to see the point 1. and 2. Please answer to 1.

[plpetrov]

1. For me the calibration value for 0 on the left side is 135 (minimum), while the maximum value I could measure was 140. For the right side the calibration value for 0 is 140 (minimum), with maximum value of 144. So I changed the correct torque sensor calibration values with the maximums. The result was that I was able to increase the Assist Level up to 20 and got very stable motor with almost no oscillations at all.

Please share your torque sensor calibration graph!!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=13huOX ... ruOGCaWL9T

These are my calibration values. If the link above is not visible, please use the one below:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=13huOX ... ruOGCaWL9T

[casainho]

These are my calibration values. If the link above is not visible, please use the one below:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=13huOX ... ruOGCaWL9T

As we can see, the values curve and scale on your left pedal are really different from the right pedal:



If you are correct that there is a bug on the firmware that does not distinguish left and right pedals on weight calculation, then this is probably the issue!!

[plpetrov]

These are my calibration values. If the link above is not visible, please use the one below:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=13huOX ... ruOGCaWL9T

As we can see, the values curve and scale on your left pedal are really different from the right pedal:



If you are correct that there is a bug on the firmware that does not distinguish left and right pedals on weight calculation, then this is probably the issue!!

If you have in mind specific test scenario(s) that can confirm or exclude the existence of a possible bug or eventually give you more information needed, I can do the tests ASAP.

[casainho]

These are my calibration values. If the link above is not visible, please use the one below:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=13huOX ... ruOGCaWL9T

As we can see, the values curve and scale on your left pedal are really different from the right pedal:



If you are correct that there is a bug on the firmware that does not distinguish left and right pedals on weight calculation, then this is probably the issue!!

If you have in mind specific test scenario(s) that can confirm or exclude the existence of a possible bug or eventually give you more information needed, I can do the tests ASAP.

Please do the tests, that will help a lot!!

(With assist level at 0 so motor will not run), maybe you can setup a curve that will output a very different value on left, like lower weight value of < 10 kgs for left pedal on all ADC values and the regular values on the right pedal - this way I think you can easily validate. Then do the inverse, change the curve for the right pedal and regular values on the left pedal.

[HughF]

Hi, I just installed 1.0.0 alpha 5 on my bikes. During a test ride it seems the motor is cutting out all power when you drop under a certain cadence. My husband's bike has a 42 tooth ring so he really noticed it on the steep hills and was struggling to keep moving at points. I can't see anything about cadence setting anywhere in the wiki so this seems strange?

Which version did you upgrade from?

I think 0.19 to 0.20 to 0.57.2 now 1.0. Why would that matter? I did forget to mention I am using SW102's.

If you are stuck with a low cadence, high torque scenario when hill climbing, because perhaps you are single speed or have a limited gear range, try the torque only fork that r0mko built. All details are in the thread I started about that code version.

The cadence sensor can only resolve above a certain rpm, below this value, motor current drops to zero. Not fun if you cannot get the cadence high enough because of drive train limitation.

0.19 and 0.20 have eMTB mode, torque only, and gave much better off the line performance compared to 0.57.2 for me.

[plpetrov]

(With assist level at 0 so motor will not run), maybe you can setup a curve that will output a very different value on left, like lower weight value of < 10 kgs for left pedal on all ADC values and the regular values on the right pedal - this way I think you can easily validate. Then do the inverse, change the curve for the right pedal and regular values on the left pedal.

I did a 4 tests and I am a bit confused with the results. Either I do not understand how it works or I have run into a corner case that is not covered in the logic.
I increased the value for the calibration point at 0 weight first for the right and then for the left pedal. My expectation was that I will get 0 for both Weight with offset and Weight w/o offset. I also decided to test with calibration enabled and calibration disabled, as still I was not sure what is the idea behind the enable and disable option.

1. Test
- calibration enabled, the calibration value for 0 for the right pedal was increased from 140 to 180;
- expected result - for the right pedal at calibration: weight with offset = 0 and weight w/o offset = 0;
- achieved result: left pedal: as expected;
right pedal horizontal: ADC torque sensor = 140; weight with offset = 31; weight w/o offset = 0;
right pedal rotated 30 degrees down from horizontal:: ADC torque sensor = 142; weight with offset = 33; weight w/o offset =3;

2. Test
- calibration disabled, the calibration value for 0 for the right pedal was increased from 140 to 180;
- expected result - for the right pedal at calibration point: weight with offset = 0 and weight w/o offset = 0;
- achieved result: left pedal: as expected;
right pedal horizontal: ADC torque sensor = 140; weight with offset = 32; weight w/o offset = 32;
right pedal rotated 30 degrees down from horizontal:: ADC torque sensor = 142; weight with offset = 33; weight w/o offset =33;

3. Test
- calibration enabled, the calibration value for 0 for the left pedal was increased from 135 to 180;
- expected result - for the left left at calibration: weight with offset = 0 and weight w/o offset = 0;
- achieved result: right pedal: as expected;
left pedal horizontal: ADC torque sensor = 135; weight with offset = 0; weight w/o offset =0
left pedal rotated 30 degrees down from horizontal:: ADC torque sensor = 139; weight with offset = 56; weight w/o offset =2

4. Test
- calibration disabled, the calibration value for 0 for the left pedal was increased from 135 to 180;
- expected result - for the left left at calibration: weight with offset = 0 and weight w/o offset = 0;
- achieved result: right pedal: as expected;
left pedal horizontal: ADC torque sensor = 135; weight with offset = 0; weight w/o offset =0
left pedal rotated 30 degrees down from horizontal: ADC torque sensor = 139; weight with offset = 56; weight w/o offset =56

Observations:
- There is no consistency in the behaviour for the left at right pedal while being horizontal at the calibration point at their side. Right pedal weight reading is very 32- to 33 while for the left we have 0;
- Calibration enabling - changes the value of weight w/o offset closer to the expected;
- very small changes of the ACD torque sensors values causes big jumps in the calculated weight;

After I completed the tests I saw that you ask to lower the values and not to increase them. Should I repeat the test with lower values? If yes how much lower?

[Aquakitty]

Hi, I just installed 1.0.0 alpha 5 on my bikes. During a test ride it seems the motor is cutting out all power when you drop under a certain cadence. My husband's bike has a 42 tooth ring so he really noticed it on the steep hills and was struggling to keep moving at points. I can't see anything about cadence setting anywhere in the wiki so this seems strange?

Which version did you upgrade from?

I think 0.19 to 0.20 to 0.57.2 now 1.0. Why would that matter? I did forget to mention I am using SW102's.

If you are stuck with a low cadence, high torque scenario when hill climbing, because perhaps you are single speed or have a limited gear range, try the torque only fork that r0mko built. All details are in the thread I started about that code version.

The cadence sensor can only resolve above a certain rpm, below this value, motor current drops to zero. Not fun if you cannot get the cadence high enough because of drive train limitation.

0.19 and 0.20 have eMTB mode, torque only, and gave much better off the line performance compared to 0.57.2 for me.

Oh, ok, that is weird, why did casainho change this? It was great before. All my TSDZ2 bikes are torque scenarios because I use a recumbent and climb a lot of hills and mountain bike.
The TSDZ2 is really an EMTB motor anyway in my opinion, that should be the main consideration. It's not an ideal motor for roads. At the same time I upgraded because I saw the RPM max "fix", I just didn't realise this would alter the bottom end.
I didn't actually try the motor past version .20 I immediately upgraded to the current version so that would indeed explain it.

Also 42x32 is not a crazy number to be riding on roads with, where I am there are many steep hills where you would run into this situation with such gearing if you only want a little bit of assist...

Edit: Just to add, after reflecting further, I think this change is really strange. Before, the cadence 90 was a bit annoying, but it also saved battery life because when I am up at those cadence levels I am easily holding my pace and don't need much assist. Plus it was keeping the motor from going too hard and overheating. And now, the one time I really need assist is when my cadence is very low on a hill. I am wondering how I will get started on hills with my recumbent if there is no assist aside from the throttle boost? But I have not tried this new version on my road bikes so we will see I guess.

[agphil]

Tested the latest version this weekend and same issue, no assist at lower cadence.

On road, if you are getting up to a nice speed on flat for example and decide to upshift to lower your cadence and accelerate, the motor power immediately drops and you lose speed instead of the desired acceleration. When you down shift, you get an immediate boost because you cadence goes up and you can feel an acceleration even if the human power stays the same.

Oh, ok, that is weird, why did casainho change this? It was great before. All my TSDZ2 bikes are torque scenarios because I use a recumbent and climb a lot of hills and mountain bike.
The TSDZ2 is really an EMTB motor anyway in my opinion, that should be the main consideration. It's not an ideal motor for roads. At the same time I upgraded because I saw the RPM max "fix", I just didn't realise this would alter the bottom end.
I didn't actually try the motor past version .20 I immediately upgraded to the current version so that would indeed explain it.

Also 42x32 is not a crazy number to be riding on roads with, where I am there are many steep hills where you would run into this situation with such gearing if you only want a little bit of assist...

Edit: Just to add, after reflecting further, I think this change is really strange. Before, the cadence 90 was a bit annoying, but it also saved battery life because when I am up at those cadence levels I am easily holding my pace and don't need much assist. Plus it was keeping the motor from going too hard and overheating. And now, the one time I really need assist is when my cadence is very low on a hill. I am wondering how I will get started on hills with my recumbent if there is no assist aside from the throttle boost? But I have not tried this new version on my road bikes so we will see I guess.

[Buster84]

Hi,
New to the forum and ebikes. I tried to find information if the 500w TSDZ2-motor with the 850C display can be restricted to a lower power level like 250w? In my country You will need a traffic license for motors over 250w. During my daily commutes more power probably won't be needed.

[plpetrov]

(With assist level at 0 so motor will not run), maybe you can setup a curve that will output a very different value on left, like lower weight value of < 10 kgs for left pedal on all ADC values and the regular values on the right pedal - this way I think you can easily validate. Then do the inverse, change the curve for the right pedal and regular values on the left pedal.

I did a 4 tests and I am a bit confused with the results. Either I do not understand how it works or I have run into a corner case that is not covered in the logic.

I did some more testing with decreasing the calibration values for 0 weight on both left and right pedals. 111 for the left pedal and 107 for the left. Testing with different wights in the first interval looked OK, more or less proportional.

Then by accident put some more wight on the right pedal and I noticed a big jump at the moment we should have transition to the second approximation interval. The issue was present only at the right pedal and not on the left.

To make the thinks easier I set all the correct configuration values and started repeating the tests.
- for left pedal, I tried the first 3 intervals and all went smooth;
- for the right pedal the things were different. The first interval was OK. At the moment I was increasing the weight to go to the second, I noticed a jump in the values. For ACD torque value 200, instead of receiving the calibrated value of 12 kg, I got 18 kg on the display reading. In the switch for third interval, instead of the calibrated value of 19 kg for ACD torque value of 226, the display was showing already 24 kg.

The change of the values was happening with a jump of the weight, e.g. from 19kg to 24 kg at the moment of switching the second approximation interval.

So finally we have two issues:
1. The weird weight reading, if the calibration value at 0 wight is increased. The results of the first set of tests.
2. The jumps of the calculated weight at the moment of switching between the approximation interval for the right pedal.

Hope fixing these two issues will resolve all the problems.

[Aquakitty]

Tested the latest version this weekend and same issue, no assist at lower cadence.

On road, if you are getting up to a nice speed on flat for example and decide to upshift to lower your cadence and accelerate, the motor power immediately drops and you lose speed instead of the desired acceleration. When you down shift, you get an immediate boost because you cadence goes up and you can feel an acceleration even if the human power stays the same.

Oh, ok, that is weird, why did casainho change this? It was great before. All my TSDZ2 bikes are torque scenarios because I use a recumbent and climb a lot of hills and mountain bike.
The TSDZ2 is really an EMTB motor anyway in my opinion, that should be the main consideration. It's not an ideal motor for roads. At the same time I upgraded because I saw the RPM max "fix", I just didn't realise this would alter the bottom end.
I didn't actually try the motor past version .20 I immediately upgraded to the current version so that would indeed explain it.

Also 42x32 is not a crazy number to be riding on roads with, where I am there are many steep hills where you would run into this situation with such gearing if you only want a little bit of assist...

Edit: Just to add, after reflecting further, I think this change is really strange. Before, the cadence 90 was a bit annoying, but it also saved battery life because when I am up at those cadence levels I am easily holding my pace and don't need much assist. Plus it was keeping the motor from going too hard and overheating. And now, the one time I really need assist is when my cadence is very low on a hill. I am wondering how I will get started on hills with my recumbent if there is no assist aside from the throttle boost? But I have not tried this new version on my road bikes so we will see I guess.

Yes, exactly, it is very strange, when did this change and why? I am going to give it another go today and see but this is basically the opposite of what I would think should be happening. Could it be a bug? I didn't want to bug report till I was sure it was or not.

I'm not sure why I would want to be boosted in assist when my cadence is high. Looking at the change logs I thought all that changed was now there was assistance past 90 not deleting all assistance at low cadence lol. I would think this will be a nightmare on my recumbent.

Basically I am wondering if there is a setting I can change to fix this.
Edit: What is this for? :added configuration for cadence fast stop mode, which is enabled by default. Enable for regular bicycles and disable for some full suspension bicycles

Ohh interesting, this could be the cause! Both my bikes are FS. That's really weird I swear that setting wasn't there yesterday. I think the wiki was just updated. Yay.

[HughF]

Which version did you upgrade from?

I think 0.19 to 0.20 to 0.57.2 now 1.0. Why would that matter? I did forget to mention I am using SW102's.

If you are stuck with a low cadence, high torque scenario when hill climbing, because perhaps you are single speed or have a limited gear range, try the torque only fork that r0mko built. All details are in the thread I started about that code version.

The cadence sensor can only resolve above a certain rpm, below this value, motor current drops to zero. Not fun if you cannot get the cadence high enough because of drive train limitation.

0.19 and 0.20 have eMTB mode, torque only, and gave much better off the line performance compared to 0.57.2 for me.

Oh, ok, that is weird, why did casainho change this? It was great before. All my TSDZ2 bikes are torque scenarios because I use a recumbent and climb a lot of hills and mountain bike.
The TSDZ2 is really an EMTB motor anyway in my opinion, that should be the main consideration. It's not an ideal motor for roads. At the same time I upgraded because I saw the RPM max "fix", I just didn't realise this would alter the bottom end.
I didn't actually try the motor past version .20 I immediately upgraded to the current version so that would indeed explain it.

Also 42x32 is not a crazy number to be riding on roads with, where I am there are many steep hills where you would run into this situation with such gearing if you only want a little bit of assist...

Edit: Just to add, after reflecting further, I think this change is really strange. Before, the cadence 90 was a bit annoying, but it also saved battery life because when I am up at those cadence levels I am easily holding my pace and don't need much assist. Plus it was keeping the motor from going too hard and overheating. And now, the one time I really need assist is when my cadence is very low on a hill. I am wondering how I will get started on hills with my recumbent if there is no assist aside from the throttle boost? But I have not tried this new version on my road bikes so we will see I guess.

Come on over to the other thread and we will discuss further, let's not clutter this thread with the discussion, at the request of Casainho.