SuperHarness or Cycle Analyst ?

[sorg]

Hi!

I am considering electrifying my Hase Pino Tandem.

I don't need superfast bike. I will not ride beyond 35km/h on flat. I just want smooth assistance with enough power to climb hills even when fully loaded and regeneration.

I want to achieve something similar to Bike swift :

Motor : Grin All-Axle Front Wheel Std Winding
Controller : Phaserunner or baserunner ? Baserunner should be more than enough for my needs as i don't need high voltage.
Battery: For the time beeing i will use my 48V-14Ah battery from my other ebike. I may switch to 52V in the future.
Torque sensor: Erider T17 or chinese clone.

The big question that is still pending is the control system: CA3 or SuperHarness.

I love the vintage look of the CA3.
I love the geeky datas it gives access to : Human watts and so on...
I hate the mess of cables at the back of the CA3.
I hate the non waterproof JST connectors of the CA3
I hate that the torque sensor located at the Bottom bracket has to be connected to the cycle analyst while the controller would be a much more convenient location to connect it of the CA3.
I hate the fact that with CA3, your settings are spread between the CA3 and the phase/baserunner.

On the opposite side, the SuperHarness has its own advantage and disadvantages:
I love the sleek design (depending on the chosen display)
I love the higo connectors.
I love the fact that all the settings are in the controller.
I hate the fact that all the geeky datas we love are not (easily) accessible during the ride.
I hate the fact that the tripwire brake sensors are not compatible with superharness.
I would have expect the price for Superharness + display to be cheaper than the CA3.

I think that the CA3 is a relic from the past. From the old days were the controllers had limited capabilities .
Now, with advanced controller such as the phaserunner allowing full tweaking of your setup, the Cycle Analyst makes less sense, and superharness is more than enough.
I wish there would exist a special display to be connected to the superharness allowing the access to all the data the cycle analyst provides.

 

[E-HP]

Just doing the math, you have 2 things you love and 4 things you hate about the CA, and you have 3 things you love and 2 thing you hate about the superharness. I think it’s best to minimize the things you hate about your ebike, so recommend you go with no display. Then you will only hate not having a display, which beats your next best option by 2 to 1.

 

[slaphappygamer]

I typically go with the cheaper option. You can get a handlebar/frame bag to stuff the wires in. For the JST connectors, I usually see some type of epoxy where the wires are inserted into the connector. You can go one step further and spray some water-retardant-type liquid on the inside of the connector as well.

 

[neptronix]

I just don't like piggyback controllers. Now you have two things to tune. I'd rather tune one thing. Piggyback controllers can also introduce latency/artifacts to throttle response, which bugs the hell out of me.

I like the CAV2. One wire hanging out of it, big display, just the basics. I don't need niche features and doing 100% of the programming over USB is fine to me. I would readily pay for a more modern looking version of it, but haven't seen anything surface yet.

 

[offGridDownUnder]

I am considering electrifying

You may net yet have purchased, and you don't mention, but the image shows the motor on the front wheel. I would put it on the rear wheel, if that isn't already dedicated to an internal gear hub, and you are using a cassette and derailleur (or a single speed).

I have put an All-Axle on a front wheel, and on a rear wheel, and on the front the tire lost traction going up hills and on the rear I never had problems with the regen not working or losing traction up or down.

The All-Axle motor cable and torque arm detach and re-attach quickly so there is minimal added concern about fixing flat tires.

 

[neptronix]

Yeah.. front wheel drive on this bike is a problem due to the weight balance..
No problem if you have a rider on front.. very slippy wheel if you don't.
Looks like the bike dictates that you always have a rider in the back.

 

[amberwolf]

So, use the CA just to monitor things, and not do any limiting.

Use the controller directly to the torque sensor, or the superharness to do that part if you prefer. Keep in mind that with the SH you *also* have settings spread between it and the PR.

You can change the cabling from the CA to whatever you want it to be--if you want a single cable out of it you can do that, with whatever type of waterproof plug you want on it (or no plug at all and direct-wire it).

I don't know if they still sell them but one of the (german?) companies, ebikesolutions.de or something like that, had made a custom rear plate for the CA that has panelmount higos built into it. There's a post around here about them, somewhere, from (at least) several years ago.

Alternately, there are a few projects to take the serial out from the CA and convert it to bluetooth so you can display teh data on an app on a phone or whatever. I don't remember how complete any of them are, but there are several threads around here for them. The forum search is terrible so I don't ahve any links; you'd have to poke around for them. Using the ca via BT eliminates the worry about waterproofing sinc eyou can stick the CA itself somewhere safe on the bike, and let it send to your display wirelessly, and use a waterproofed display.

There may even be wired-display projects for this purpose if you don't want wireless.


Depending on exactly what you need the system to do, you can probably get the PRv6+ to do everything you need it to (it does support PAS/torque sensors directly, AFAICR). There's a thread here somewhere recently that was troubleshooting thsoe settings, IIRC.

I hate the mess of cables at the back of the CA3.
I hate the non waterproof JST connectors of the CA3
I hate that the torque sensor located at the Bottom bracket has to be connected to the cycle analyst while the controller would be a much more convenient location to connect it of the CA3.
I hate the fact that with CA3, your settings are spread between the CA3 and the phase/baserunner.

On the opposite side, the SuperHarness has its own advantage and disadvantages:I love the sleek design (depending on the chosen display)

I love the higo connectors.
I love the fact that all the settings are in the controller.
I hate the fact that all the geeky datas we love are not (easily) accessible during the ride.
I hate the fact that the tripwire brake sensors are not compatible with superharness.
I would have expect the price for Superharness + display to be cheaper than the CA3.

I think that the CA3 is a relic from the past. From the old days were the controllers had limited capabilities .
Now, with advanced controller such as the phaserunner allowing full tweaking of your setup, the Cycle Analyst makes less sense, and superharness is more than enough.
I wish there would exist a special display to be connected to the superharness allowing the access to all the data the cycle analyst provides.

 

[sorg]

You may net yet have purchased, and you don't mention, but the image shows the motor on the front wheel. I would put it on the rear wheel, if that isn't already dedicated to an internal gear hub, and you are using a cassette and derailleur (or a single speed).

I have put an All-Axle on a front wheel, and on a rear wheel, and on the front the tire lost traction going up hills and on the rear I never had problems with the regen not working or losing traction up or down.

The All-Axle motor cable and torque arm detach and re-attach quickly so there is minimal added concern about fixing flat tires.

That's one decision still pending.
I think that the motor at the front is not an issue when you have a passenger.
When riding alone, it is probably more prone to slip.
I am not sure why bike swift has not chosen a front motor, maybe a question of overall balance of the bike.
A back motor is obviously also doable, one nice example here : Guillaume Devot sur Instagram: "montage du nouveau grinhub ar sur un pino 2022 (axe 12x148mm ) fabrication d’un support spécifique pour le cycle analyst #grintechnologies #locapino"

 

[sorg]

I am giving more thought to rear of front motor question.

I am comparing motor on the rear and front wheel.
With my tandem fully loaded in cyclotour configuration , i will have to move 220kg.
My current battery is limited to 20Amps, so i am limiting my max current to this value.

Comparison of front wheel motor (A) and rear wheel (B) at full speed on flat:

Top speed is of course better with a rear motor, but the rear motor is already fast enough.
No big differences here.

Comparison of front wheel motor (A) and rear wheel (B) in a 10% slope.

The rear motor is very close from stalling with this slope, and the efficiency is so crappy that the power consumption is higher than the front wheel despite the lower speed.

This makes me wondering if i should try a slow wind for the rear motor. Let's give it a try:


Comparison of front wheel motor standard wind (A) and rear wheel slow wind (B) at full speed on flat:

Very similar results. The slow rear motor provides a slightly lower top speed, but this does not matter to me.

Comparison of front wheel motor standard wind (A) and rear wheel slow wind (B) at full speed on a 10% slope

Strangely enough, the slow wind rear motor does not provide better climbing capabilities.
I guess the current limits at 20 Amps prevent the use of the full torque of the motor.

These reasons tends to make me choose a front wheel motor.

 

[E-HP]

So by front and rear, you just mean 20” vs 26”, correct? Bit confusing at first.
You may want to put in realistic values for the controller. The phase amps are ficticiously high. Maybe use 40A. I’d be surprised if you could find a 20A controller that could even do 60A, and 90A is fantasy.

 

[neptronix]

Yeah, the 26" wheel runs at a slower RPM so this kinda dictates you have a bigger motor on the rear.

Also you're starving this motor for amps at 20a while climbing and awful efficiency is to be expected,
You should be using the 'grade' setting instead of manually setting the load line. If you just set the load line, what you're measuring is the motor getting started from a stop.. which is different than hill climbing.

This particular motor likes to be a in 20" wheel or smaller. Try a RH212 ( taller motor with more poles = much higher low end torque = more suitable for a large wheel )

 

[E-HP]

I don’t like using the grade% option for the black curve in the simulator. Depending on the other inputs, it sometimes shifts the other curves around rather than just changing what the curve represents. I leave it on load, and manually change the grades instead. On the OPs examples, switching it to represent load oddly increases the top speed on flat ground, and shifts the other curves. I know it’s a convenient feature, but I stay away from it when doing simulations and comparisons.
I’ve read the directions a few times over the years and don’t see anything that explains that weird behavior.

 

[sorg]

So by front and rear, you just mean 20” vs 26”, correct? Bit confusing at first.
You may want to put in realistic values for the controller. The phase amps are ficticiously high. Maybe use 40A. I’d be surprised if you could find a 20A controller that could even do 60A, and 90A is fantasy.

Yes, On my tandem the front wheel is 20'' and the rear wheel is 26''.
The controller characteristics is a phase runner that i have limited to 20A as this is my existing battery BMS limit.
I will change my battery in a year or two for a more powerful one.

 

[sorg]

Yeah, the 26" wheel runs at a slower RPM so this kinda dictates you have a bigger motor on the rear.

Also you're starving this motor for amps at 20a while climbing and awful efficiency is to be expected,
You should be using the 'grade' setting instead of manually setting the load line. If you just set the load line, what you're measuring is the motor getting started from a stop.. which is different than hill climbing.

This particular motor likes to be a in 20" wheel or smaller. Try a RH212 ( taller motor with more poles = much higher low end torque = more suitable for a large wheel )

RH212 is not an option. My bike frame is thru axle.

 

[sorg]

I don’t like using the grade% option for the black curve in the simulator. Depending on the other inputs, it sometimes shifts the other curves around rather than just changing what the curve represents. I leave it on load, and manually change the grades instead. On the OPs examples, switching it to represent load oddly increases the top speed on flat ground, and shifts the other curves. I know it’s a convenient feature, but I stay away from it when doing simulations and comparisons.
I’ve read the directions a few times over the years and don’t see anything that explains that weird behavior.

Good to know. I'll do more test with the simulator.

 

[E-HP]

Yes, On my tandem the front wheel is 20'' and the rear wheel is 26''.
The controller characteristics is a phase runner that i have limited to 20A as this is my existing battery BMS limit.
I will change my battery in a year or two for a more powerful one.

You should rerun your simulations using realistic values. The fictitious 90A phase current assumption completely changes the results.

 

[neptronix]

RH212 is not an option. My bike frame is thru axle.

Bummer, that's very limiting.. i hate this about new bikes.

What i wouldn't do is put a lot of power on the front if the bike is ridden by a single person often, i really think your front traction is going to be trash with 1 person.

2 people is hard to move in the first place, especially if you only have 20 amps of power.

The optimal path for this bike is expensive. It involves a 500w front geared motor plus a mid drive. And a really big battery, or two batteries. This way, you don't have the traction problem.
You'll have to replace the front fork if it's a thru axle though.