• Hello ES! We could use some help to get us past the finish line on building the new knowledgebase for the forum.
    Can you donate? Please see our fundraising page. Thank you!

E-S Stealth Electric Bike Owners

It's a HEAP lighter than the bomber overall, and especially in the back wheel.
It's about 18kg / 40lb lighter than the bomber and a chunk of that saving is in the back wheel. What's the back wheel of a bomber weigh ? This would have to be 5kg lighter. Funnily enough this actually has the same battery capacity and peak power of the bomber!
Lighter duty obviously and doesn't have the same endurance for sustained abuse or riding off small cliffs but for the single track and aother general duties it's perfect.

This is only my demo build, the final kit/config will include USD-6 forks. They should be here soon. If you've got the cash every man needs both a bomber and a beta in his garage :mrgreen:

And yeah as Rix said, Flx is made by stealth but not a stealth as such. Stealth make turn key bikes, Flx are just the frames . If you've got the knowledge and experience they're a platform to build your own bike exactly how you want it. Or you can come see people like me :p
To build up a sweet high performance bike is harder and more expensive than most people realise though. Go check out the flx owners/builders thread and you'll see it takes most people weeks to months to get everything together and many many hours of labour to actually assemble and build up the bike.
 
Techy question.

So had the Bomber out now for several rides with the TC4080 conversion. One of things I had to do was change the pole count from 12 to 62. With the correct wheel set at 1925mm, I was hitting my CA V2.25 99MPH limit and shutting power at around 7MPH. So, with the help of my Garvin GPS, I set out to find the correct settings for speed readings. First I went to 23 wich is the correct pole count for this motor as it has 46 magnets. It helped a little, but I was still hitting 99MPH and shutting down, but I was going somewhere around 18MPH when that happened. So I started experimenting with increasing pole count settings. Well, with the pole count set at 62, everything is perfect. CA speed display is 42MPH and GPS is 42MPH. Also distance traveled measured accurately within 10 meters, and that difference could be the time it took the GPS display to update. I don't see any problems with running the pole count this high. I had posted earlier that the WOT speed of the TC4080 was 2600watts, about 900watts less than the 5404 under same conditions, but that was with only adjusting the CA wheel size setting to 500mm. Now with the wheel setting correct and pole count increased, I am seeing right about 3000watts now. This makes more sense as this amount of watts consumed is about the same, just slighlty higher, than my Fighter @ 41MPH after terminal velocity is achieved. So my question is: why does my CA V2.25 need the Pole Count set at 62 and not 23 to work properly with the TC4080?

///Edit 500mm not 5000mm for wheel size ///
 
Rix said:
Techy question.

So had the Bomber out now for several rides with the TC4080 conversion. One of things I had to do was change the pole count from 12 to 62. With the correct wheel set at 1925mm, I was hitting my CA V2.25 99MPH limit and shutting power at around 7MPH. So, with the help of my Garvin GPS, I set out to find the correct settings for speed readings. First I went to 23 wich is the correct pole count for this motor as it has 46 magnets. It helped a little, but I was still hitting 99MPH and shutting down, but I was going somewhere around 18MPH when that happened. So I started experimenting with increasing pole count settings. Well, with the pole count set at 62, everything is perfect. CA speed display is 42MPH and GPS is 42MPH. Also distance traveled measured accurately within 10 meters, and that difference could be the time it took the GPS display to update. I don't see any problems with running the pole count this high. I had posted earlier that the WOT speed of the TC4080 was 2600watts, about 900watts less than the 5404 under same conditions, but that was with only adjusting the CA wheel size setting to 5000mm. Now with the wheel setting correct and pole count increased, I am seeing right about 3000watts now. This makes more sense as this amount of watts consumed is about the same, just slighlty higher, than my Fighter @ 41MPH after terminal velocity is achieved. So my question is: why does my CA V2.25 need the Pole Count set at 62 and not 23 to work properly with the TC4080?
Interesting Rix.
I'm not super knowledgeable on it all, but it's not the CA that cares about pole count, it's your controller. Changing this setting on your CA is just telling your controller what to do. Is it possible your controller isn't 100% compatible with the TC motor's like many others?

Cheers
 
Cowardlyduck said:
Rix said:
Techy question.

So had the Bomber out now for several rides with the TC4080 conversion. One of things I had to do was change the pole count from 12 to 62. With the correct wheel set at 1925mm, I was hitting my CA V2.25 99MPH limit and shutting power at around 7MPH. So, with the help of my Garvin GPS, I set out to find the correct settings for speed readings. First I went to 23 wich is the correct pole count for this motor as it has 46 magnets. It helped a little, but I was still hitting 99MPH and shutting down, but I was going somewhere around 18MPH when that happened. So I started experimenting with increasing pole count settings. Well, with the pole count set at 62, everything is perfect. CA speed display is 42MPH and GPS is 42MPH. Also distance traveled measured accurately within 10 meters, and that difference could be the time it took the GPS display to update. I don't see any problems with running the pole count this high. I had posted earlier that the WOT speed of the TC4080 was 2600watts, about 900watts less than the 5404 under same conditions, but that was with only adjusting the CA wheel size setting to 5000mm. Now with the wheel setting correct and pole count increased, I am seeing right about 3000watts now. This makes more sense as this amount of watts consumed is about the same, just slighlty higher, than my Fighter @ 41MPH after terminal velocity is achieved. So my question is: why does my CA V2.25 need the Pole Count set at 62 and not 23 to work properly with the TC4080?
Interesting Rix.
I'm not super knowledgeable on it all, but it's not the CA that cares about pole count, it's your controller. Changing this setting on your CA is just telling your controller what to do. Is it possible your controller isn't 100% compatible with the TC motor's like many others?

Cheers

The controller is 4 years old, actually its probably older than that as Stealth probably stock piles parts like that for builds, so maybe 5 years old. The motor is the first generation of TC40xx which came out last year with the regular spoke flange unlike the TCXX which needed straight pull spokes. Possible that there could be a need for controller re-program upgrade. BTW, the hill climb my dad did yesterday, used right at 100wh less going up.
 
Well I am so stoked, this frame is amazing, might be the best bike I ever ridden!
Pulled 8kW and 90km/h on almost discharged battery oh boy what a toy this is, and so light that I can easily carry it! Perfect trail machine
file.php
 
Allex said:
Well I am so stoked, this frame is amazing, might be the best bike I ever ridden!
Pulled 8kW and 90km/h on almost discharged battery oh boy what a toy this is, and so light that I can easily carry it! Perfect trail machine
file.php

Very sweet build Allex.
 
Allex said:
Hah, thats the point :) it feels like it has twise the power compared to bomber, thats a sleeper!

Interesting! Can a dual crown fork be mounted on the Beta?
 
Sure, but Why would you want that? Single crowns are lighter and dont have steer limit like dual crown. Unless you do some serious air time with your bike there is no point on going with dual on a light bike.
 
looks sweet...
but, is this frame all time open on the side? :shock:

how long did you ride it?

i hate to ride without a chain.
 
Allex said:
was riding for an hour, it was my second test run. I did put the chain now, will modify the covers before I put them on.

What about carbon fiber covers? :mrgreen:
 
I have super high quality pre-preg carbon fiber sheets with thickness 2mm in the measure 400X400mm ready. In case >400mm is needed I have to ask the company to make some sheets but it takes time!
 
Allex said:
Well I am so stoked, this frame is amazing, might be the best bike I ever ridden!
Pulled 8kW and 90km/h on almost discharged battery oh boy what a toy this is, and so light that I can easily carry it! Perfect trail machine
file.php

Mate if that dont slip under the radar nothing will.
 
Back
Top