Cycle Analyst V3 preview and first beta release
- Thread starter justin_le
- Start date
There are newer firmwares, some with newer features/etc. (might be beta versions though; you'd have to check).
Only place I know they put them is in the ...CA_Setup_Utility\documentation\ folder when you download new firmware in the setup program, but they dont' always have any.
If they aren't in the ebikes.ca blog or the CAv3 info page there, and not in that folder, then there probably aren't any release notes (like if it's a beta, there might not be any because it isn't "released"). You could email info@ebikes.ca to see if they have other info.
If they aren't in the ebikes.ca blog or the CAv3 info page there, and not in that folder, then there probably aren't any release notes (like if it's a beta, there might not be any because it isn't "released"). You could email info@ebikes.ca to see if they have other info.
I updated firmware from 3.14 to 3.2b1. How do get speedo meter working? I tried 3.15b3 when it came and speedo didn't work, so I went back to 3.14. And yes, I know all settings and how those need to be, as I have using CA since 2013.
I assume this change cause it? So how I get speepo working now?
(4) 7345 - Measured speed shows glitches
The calculated speed shows transient erroneous values for certain motors
under particular circumstance (e.g. GMAC drawing over 1200W).
Processing for the SPEED signal has been modified to ignore aspects of the
signal that were previously being erroneously included in Calculations.
This is an internal change with no consequences for CA setup or existing
setup files.
I assume this change cause it? So how I get speepo working now?
(4) 7345 - Measured speed shows glitches
The calculated speed shows transient erroneous values for certain motors
under particular circumstance (e.g. GMAC drawing over 1200W).
Processing for the SPEED signal has been modified to ignore aspects of the
signal that were previously being erroneously included in Calculations.
This is an internal change with no consequences for CA setup or existing
setup files.
If all your settings are correct for the speedo hardware and wiring you've got, and it still wont' read speed, then something is wrong with the firmware itself (bug) and you'd need to report that to ebikes.ca to get it fixed in a future version, and revert to a working version to keep using the speedo.
One thing Grin has sometimes suggested to fix "glitches" like this is to make sure to completely reset the CA's settings to "factory" after doing a firmware update. *Then* either manually reset each setting, or use the setup program to do it, from a fresh file that is built from the default template for the firmware version in use on the CA.
One thing Grin has sometimes suggested to fix "glitches" like this is to make sure to completely reset the CA's settings to "factory" after doing a firmware update. *Then* either manually reset each setting, or use the setup program to do it, from a fresh file that is built from the default template for the firmware version in use on the CA.
Agreed that too long with the stop threshold is terrible...I have mine down to 0.06...any lower and it stutters on and off at low pedal rpms and any longer and the over run is too dangerous...be careful.
I have maybe a small snag or just a misunderstanding of how the setting works (beta 3.2b1 firmware) but the pedal threshold seems to do nothing to change behaviour...I assumed it meant that once pedalling started and the measured torque was below this threshold level would mean no motor input but even if I set it to 40 nm I still get assist when the CA readout shows as little as 10nm or torque...
Have I misunderstood the function of this setting or is this an issue with beta version?
I have maybe a small snag or just a misunderstanding of how the setting works (beta 3.2b1 firmware) but the pedal threshold seems to do nothing to change behaviour...I assumed it meant that once pedalling started and the measured torque was below this threshold level would mean no motor input but even if I set it to 40 nm I still get assist when the CA readout shows as little as 10nm or torque...
Have I misunderstood the function of this setting or is this an issue with beta version?
Ham said:
If you want torque assist from dead start (without crank rotation):
This setting uses two parameters to control behavior.
PAS->Start Trq is the threshold torque that must be applied to the cranks in
order to have torque assist from a dead start when the vehicle is stopped.
PAS->Thrsh Trq is the minimum crank torque that must be maintained on the
pedals for torque based PAS assist to continue providing power after the
vehicle is in motion.
If you prefer cranks rotation before torque assist kicks in:
This change can be effectively disabled by setting the Start Trq to a high value
such as 99 Nm.
What I like to know... Justin or or someone else!
(8) 8235 - (New) Wheel Torque Sensor PAS Option
This change affects the eeprom configuration with the addition of new
parameters and removal of the 'Absolute Max Current Limit' OEM setting. Firmware
updates will set these parameters to defaults.
How much is default Absolute Max Current Limit???
(8) 8235 - (New) Wheel Torque Sensor PAS Option
This change affects the eeprom configuration with the addition of new
parameters and removal of the 'Absolute Max Current Limit' OEM setting. Firmware
updates will set these parameters to defaults.
How much is default Absolute Max Current Limit???
Dartman said:
Ok so it does work how I think by the looks of it. Zero start from above specific crank torque (40nm in my case) works perfectly...however once I am pedalling I assumed that if the crank torque drops below threshold torque then PAs would cease but mine carries on no matter what I set torque threshold to...I have tried up to 50nm which seems to be the max and down to 10nm...it stays adding pas no matter it is set to even with the lightest of pressure well below the threshold value...albeit less but it does mean I basically have to stop crank movement to change gear without crunching the cassette...any ideas?
I have start thresh to 40nm so i can rest my foot gently without activating PAS and as above have tried threshold torque at varying levels with no change.
Ham said:
Ah ok, I see your issue. Those Start Trq and Thrsh Trq settings are for starting thresholds, but I assume when torque Nm goes under Thrsh Trq assist should stop, if not I see issue there which need attention. I haven't tried that or notice it as I drive hub motor.
You should definitely get gear sensor for mid drive motor, it cut assist / throttle when you shift gear and in CA is 0-2 sec shift delay setting for that. You find BBS HD gear sensors from AliExpress and you can use those with CA, but it's not plug & pray. You need to figured pinout, I think someone can help with that if you do not have the know-how.
Also fast down ramp time like 10V/sec could help. If you have slow down ramp, motor not stop immediately which may cause your issue.
Dartman said:
OK so it does appear to be a glitch, not the end of the world but perhaps a future update will resolve it...
downrate has always been at 14.0 but noticing the threshold issue I upped it to 99.0 just to see if it made a difference, nada.
It's not a massive issue as I just stop pedalling momentarily to shift and restart slowly but it would be nice to have the ability to pedal gently below a threshold for when passing horses for example.
Thanks for your help!
If you set the Max Current to all 9's as far as it will go, then the value that changes to when you enter it will necessarily be the absolute max current limit. (previously settable in the OEM parameters).Dartman said:
I'm having the issue of the MaxS recording erroneous values. All other speed related functions work, and the normal speed readout closely matches my GPS. When the problem occurs, the MaxS value is very high, 655 from yesterdays ride, for instance. Average speed looks normal. My CA is connected through the CA plug, with no external speed sensor (uses motor halls).
Searching on this thread, it looks like in most cases where this is mentioned, it's while using an external speed sensor, and possibly noise related. Not sure if it's the CA, something with the input signal, or maybe even a hall sensor issue. Any ideas? I don't look at the readout often, but it seems like it works correctly most of the time.
Searching on this thread, it looks like in most cases where this is mentioned, it's while using an external speed sensor, and possibly noise related. Not sure if it's the CA, something with the input signal, or maybe even a hall sensor issue. Any ideas? I don't look at the readout often, but it seems like it works correctly most of the time.
Dartman said:
If you can manually enter 200A, and that is the most you can put in that will "stay" in the slot, then that is the Absolute Max Current Limit.
It doesn't matter what is already in the Max Current slot. To test for the max allowable limit: Put in all 9s, no decimal point, and then press Enter, or otherwise set that as the value, the slot will then change to the absolute max current allowable.
Since there is no longer a way to change that max limit, then that is now the default Absolute Max Current limit. It can't be anything else, because it can't be changed.
Also note that if you are using High Range mode for the shunt, vs Low Range mode, it's a different limit, increased by one decimal place.
E-HP said:
The motor hall signal is often actually very noisy, with induced signals from the motor phases. Depends on the specific motor design, as well as the cabling setup from inside the motor up to your controller, as well as the controller's pullup design and component choice, and where the hall signal is tapped from for the CA connector (right off the signal input, or post-pullup/amplifier/buffer/etc, if any).
A separate speedo sensor, using a unipolar or bipolar latching hall (like motors usually do) rather than a physical switch (like a reed, etc), and using a shielded cable, can be a lot less noisy than a motor hall, but to be as sensitive to speed changes, especially at low speed, you then have to put more magnets on the wheel for it to sense (I use three spoke magnets, and it's "good enough", but it would be more sensitive with more of them).
The reed sensors are physical switches, and can have contact-bounce, sometimes pretty badly, especially if the angle of the magnet passing them relative to the angle of the reed inside the switch is "just right", and the magnet is just far enough away. I actually completely destroyed a Grin reed-style speedo sensor, misusing it for an ebrake handle switch (to be fair, at much higher current than it was designed for), because of contact bounce and arcing. But the bounce is what causes the unreasonably high glitch numbers in the Max Speed readout. The CA should be doing good filtering on this; I'd guess there is a bug in the filtering software. Iv'e seen this reported off and on over the years, and seen it myself now and then but never reproducibly unless I had a wiring issue or a magnet/sensor alignment problem.
The info below probably won't help you fix the issue, but it might help see where it could come from:
The higher the pullup voltage of the hall signal itself, the cleaner the signal-to-noise ratio can be (because the difference between an "on" and and "off" is greater, and the higher the current flow on the hall signal when "on" (low voltage, near zero), the cleaner the signal can be (because induced currents from phases make less difference).
Many controllers use only 4.1-4.3v for hall supply power, running the 5v output thru a diode to prevent possible everything-destruction in the event of a short from that 5v supply line to a phase in the case of motor cable damage, but the pullups are usually still right at the 5v source. If they use high resistances, the current flow thru them when halls are "on" (grounding the signal) is low, and higher noise results. Most halls can only sink 10-20mA, so they don't usually use very low resistances (which would create better noise immunity against induced currents).
Some controllers use 12v (or even 15v) on the signal pullups (even if the halls are still powered by 4.1-5v), so there is a lot higher signal-to-noise ratio, even if the current flow is kept the same. I don't know if the CA's speedo input can handle that higher voltage or not; it might have to have the CA connector on the controller wired to take the speed hall signal from the pin at the MCU itself (or somewhere on the MCU side of the signal buffering) rather than where the pullups are.
amberwolf said:
Hmm, not sure I want to mess with the pullup voltages since it's not a big issue, but where is the noise introduced? Between the motor and controller, or controller and CA? I'm wondering if shortening the cables would help, or some way of filtering out the noise.
E-HP said:
The noise introduction depends on the signal source. Some examples are given in the previous post.
Another description:
If it's a motor hall:
induced currents from phase wires, which can happen anywhere from inside the motor all the way along the motor wire cables up to isnide the cotnroller. These can sometimes be mitigated by separating the hall and phase wires into separate cables, as far away from each other as physically possible, along the bike frame and at motor/controller. At the controller they can be passed in using separate holes at opposite ends, and at the motor they can be passed out opposite axle ends, if one is willing to go that far.
Adding a metal foil or braided shield around the hall sensor wires, shield connected ot ground only at teh controller end and otherwise insulated both inside and outside from everything else, may also help. magnetic noise from the stator fields, which happens right at the hall sensors. Can't do much about that witout a completely different hall sensor setup inside the motor. Much simpler to just use an external speedo sensor on the wheel.
RF noise induced from other electronics (at any point that wires or components or pcb traces come near such sources). Shielding can help, but can take some doing and figuring out and doesn't always fix things or even change them much.
If it's an external speed sensor like a reed switch, then RF noise induced (as above), or just switching noise / bouncing of the contacts in the reed switch, etc. Uisng a hall siwtch fixes the bounce problem.
Sometimes a tiny nonpolarized ceramic capacitor, usually 0.1uf or less (depends on the frequency of the noise and circuit impedance), from the signal wire to ground, right at the controller input pad, or at the cotnroller/motor connector, can help. Too much capacitance distorts the signal and may make either the speed reading or the motor controller operate incorrectly or unpredictably, when using a motor hall for speed readings.
If you have an oscilloscope you can look at the signal and see what kind of noise it is; sometimes that can help locate the source so it's eaiser to eliminate specifically rather than shotgunning fixes at it.
E-HP said:
Ok thx...i thought that i would have to physically run the throttle dirrectly to the controller if I ever wanted to bypass the CA settings.
At the moment its at Pass Thru. Seems to allow the CA settings and function to work
Just downloaded and trying out CA3-2b2 firmware, was keen to make use of the 'off the line trq threshold' with my setup.
Great to add this option however when I reach the trq threshold, but then decide not to pull away (car coming etc.), the trq request does not cancel until you make a complete rotation of the crank, backing off the trq alone appears not stop the motor pushing.
Am I missing something in the settings or is this a possible glitch with the beta firmware?
Also as mentioned by others, the option for an assist scale factor based on human trq (not power) would be very much appreciated and much more aligned to the needs of a single speed bike.
Great to add this option however when I reach the trq threshold, but then decide not to pull away (car coming etc.), the trq request does not cancel until you make a complete rotation of the crank, backing off the trq alone appears not stop the motor pushing.
Am I missing something in the settings or is this a possible glitch with the beta firmware?
Also as mentioned by others, the option for an assist scale factor based on human trq (not power) would be very much appreciated and much more aligned to the needs of a single speed bike.
Similar threads
- Question
