izeman
1 GW
Not? So what are you calling those? That comment ain't make any sense to me Are you saying that they are too weak for Ebikes?John in CR said:That's not ebikes I see in your signature ...
Not? So what are you calling those? That comment ain't make any sense to me Are you saying that they are too weak for Ebikes?John in CR said:That's not ebikes I see in your signature ...
As a last consequence that would mean that doing wheelies with any bike would lead to bad consequences for those bikes. I think it should be up to the users responsibility to use any features appropriately.2handy said:In my opinion the possibility of an anti-wheelie CA3 ability looks like a great way to attract attention.
Which in the end could very likely cause the imposition of more stringent policing of ebikes here in Oz & elsewhere else.
I guess it could even be used to learn how to wheelie a regular bike (once you know how it feels to ride in this weird position). A boy's dream would come true - can't remember how many trousers I ruined to try it, and how many bleeding knees.Kepler said:The wheelie control would be so cool. I could pretend I was a skilled rider then.
izeman said:As a last consequence that would mean that doing wheelies with any bike would lead to bad consequences for those bikes. I think it should be up to the users responsibility to use any features appropriately.2handy said:In my opinion the possibility of an anti-wheelie CA3 ability looks like a great way to attract attention.
Which in the end could very likely cause the imposition of more stringent policing of ebikes here in Oz & elsewhere else.
I don't think that there will be any impact from a few hundred Ebikes using a CA and from those few hundred there will be some percent that may wheelie.
This is why I love tha ca and its aux switch power mode. i set it for sensable pwer for comuting and then high power mode for wheelies in the park etc.2handy said:. Relying on the self control of ebike riders is an uncontrollable variable, if we can do something, why won't we do it.
rp3 said:The fun police are here! :lol:
How bout we get back to talking about this awesome little device. :wink:
izeman said:Not? So what are you calling those? That comment ain't make any sense to me Are you saying that they are too weak for Ebikes?John in CR said:That's not ebikes I see in your signature ...
MattyCiii said:ut a range from 5.00 to 0.05 Sec/Vlt is about 1/10th the range of values allowed by the old, unitless setting of 0-999. While that in itself is meaningless, riding yesterday afternoon and this morning at 5.00 Sec/Vlt was at the edge of my comfort zone. Is there any to get a little more top end out of that range of settings?
Personally from a programmer perspective I would have done the same. However taking into account the type of end user, mostly not being technologicaly uneducated. I think making it more stable would be preferable and with the comprehensive setup notes you guys have created there shouldn't be an issue. IMHOjustin_le said:.
Internally, this setting is stored inside the CA as Volts/Sec, rather than Sec/Volt, and it would be easier and less glitchy to display it as a rate (V/sec) instead of a time period (sec/volt). As an end user, do you find one more obvious or less confusing than the other
justin_le said:MattyCiii said:ut a range from 5.00 to 0.05 Sec/Vlt is about 1/10th the range of values allowed by the old, unitless setting of 0-999. While that in itself is meaningless, riding yesterday afternoon and this morning at 5.00 Sec/Vlt was at the edge of my comfort zone. Is there any to get a little more top end out of that range of settings?
I forgot to mention, the CA3 prelim5 firmware I uploaded a bit earlier increase this slow up rate limit to 9.00 sec/volt, and on the fast end it is now clamped at 0.03 sec/volt, rather than 0.05 sec/volt. So hopefully that extra bit on either end makes the difference in your and other setups needing either extreme.
Internally, this setting is stored inside the CA as Volts/Sec, rather than Sec/Volt, and it would be easier and less glitchy to display it as a rate (V/sec) instead of a time period (sec/volt). As an end user, do you find one more obvious or less confusing than the other?
-Justin
teklektik said:It will be just a bit before the updated Guide is released, but for the PAS folks, here's an excerpt with some details to help get the Start/Stop RPM settings squared away. This should be the last noteworthy bit of information about the v3.0P5 release missing from the existing Guide and not already discussed in this thread.
OK so that's a definate v/s and s/vJohn in CR said:Volts/sec is fine, but please don't talk in sec/volt like in your previous post. Consistency and stability are key.
Ignore Pendragon's comment about the end users. Things should be "dumbed down", just not to the preschool level of Apple products.
Basically, the V3 is looking at PAS interrupts (which come fairly infrequently) and must decide fairly quickly (less than a revolution) whether you have started to pedal or are stopping. The RPM specification is used to determine the time delays between magnet pulses to detect these start/stop events and the table above yields (start,stop) pulse delay thresholds of about (0.75,0.50) seconds respectively. If pulses arrive consistently between these times, the V3 will alternately turn the assist on and off (dropouts). So - the idea is to make this range as small as possible so you transition through it fairly quickly when you start and stop pedaling.Kepler said:I dont quite understand the note and would appreciate a litte further explanation.
Kepler said:A suggestion to anyone who wants to install an RPM PAS with the CA3. Get the one that Justin sells. I have tried a couple of the cheap $5.00 ones. They work but Justin's unit works significantly better with the CA3.
However, I still am yet to get the torque PAS setup on my Super Commuter to my liking. Ironically I had it working perfectly on the previous version of firmware. The problem I have is that I cant eliminate the power dropouts while pedalling. Just going back over all the notes before declaring a bug with this post covering the problem I am trying to solve.
justin_le said:Actually we don't have any left to sell at this point (more ~ 2-3 weeks away). However, there as been a trend towards higher and higher pole count PAS sensors from most suppliers, and it should be that any PAS sensor with like 10-12 magnets will have a snappy and nice response, while those with 5 or 6 magnets will seem a bit laggy. So if you are shopping for a suitable PAS device, more poles = better. Otherwise they're all pretty much the same so it shouldn't matter where you get it from.
justin_le said:Can you tell me what your start and stop RPM thresholds are and whether you see the human power bar drop off when the power cuts? With the 8 pole sensor on the THUN BB, you can set both the start and stop thresholds to like 12RPM or therabouts. If you disable the quadrature mode, the THUN BB will still work to detect pedaling but it won't be as sensitive to stopping from slight reverse pedal rotation. I've had now a week of riding around with the torq PAS mode and haven't had any periodic cutout issues. However, like you I've also found that the AutoPAS mode with a 3 speed switch is almost as good as proportional torque assist for the way I like to ride.