Ok losing my board again is poorly phrased. I got mine confiscated but in the end got it back because the communication between the police and the Public prosecutor was so poor. Next time i could face a fine up to 2700ā¬ .
Ebikes have certain requirements here. They only can ride up to 6km/h on their own. Everything faster is illegal if you donāt have insurance/license. Push assist is allowed up to 20/25km/h.
i want a bike that does the Legal 6km/h if it needs to but obviously more on its own when i want to
Wowā¦ That really fucking sucksā¦
I think itās crazy how strict the police in Germany is. Itās understandable if youāre riding unresponsible and without protect, but if youāre doing the complete opposite, then I think itās ridiculous in some wayā¦
On the other hand, rules are rulesā¦
But then I think youāll probably need a vesc with an ebike hub motor. Then you might be able to make different speed modes with the vesc? At least with metr
yeah the police is hit or miss. I mean iāve been riding since december 2016 and this year was the first time something happened. But its mostly miss ever since the scooters got legal. That made the situation a dozen times worse.
That was the plan, build a vesc based ebike with metr integration. The good part is that the police doesnāt care about ebike that look normal and not like this
iām in contact with a guy who got his board confiscated too (the second time) he still hasnāt got his board back. Heās been waiting to get it back since Mid January
In the āPPMā app, Control Type: Current Hyst Reverse With Brake
and if you set the erpm limits to something like
In the motor section,
max 50000 erpm (34.5mph)
min -5555 erpm (-3.8mph)
erpm limit start 70%
That works except you lose brakes by exceeding your minimum erpm in reverse. Thatās an outstanding bug that probably will be short-lived. It sounds more serious than it is. Donāt roll down a hill in reverse.
How do you check to see if the hall sensors in your motors work?
Alternatively, how do you get the vesc tool to display out the hall values when a bad hall detection session happen? Iām trying to debug what exactly it might be.
Also does this sound like a bug? When running FOC detection via can where all the motors spin up, it passes hall detection but individual programming of the side results in failing detection
Apply 5v across the red and black wires, then use a multimeter set to volts to measure between the 5v rail (red wire) and each of the three hall wires while slowly rotating the motor. Each wire should toggle between near-5v and near-ground.
If you have an oscilloscope with at least three channels you can hook each wire up to a different channel and make sure there isnāt some weird phasing bullshit going on.
Damn, makes me wish I still had access to my college lab. Okay so 5V (probably grab from a USB source) and then rotate and measure each sensor lead to test to see if I get a toggle.
What should the phase look like? 3 sine offset by 120?
Seems like the focbox filled an important spot in the market that still is empty. Iām glad people are working on stuff and I know TB is good. I am a bit grumpy with them right now after discovering that one of my AT wheel inner tubes has a hole after a total of 20 minutes of useā¦ but thatās irrational and probably doesnāt show their QC process on electronics.
I just got a set of four torqueboard 160mm tires and tubes. they sent me 5 tubes. one was DOA, the valve stem base was cracked. ( I was gentle. ) a second has a slow over 48h leak. I couldnāt find the leak submerging it in water and watching for 5 mins. ā¦
@annihil8ted The signal should be square waves with ~50% duty cycle (depends slightly on the sensor and magnetic configuration of the motor) toggling between 0 and 5v. One will be high and one will be low at any given position, with the third being either high or low depending on the position.
Oh, its easy to figure out which path any wheel will follow. Theyāre just going to be circles around the turning center.
The issue is theyāre all different lengths.
With the mathematics of it though is where it gets weird. In math you reach the extremes like having turning angles near 90 deg. And you also have weird conditions like what if you have higher turning angle in the back because youāre riding switch or youāre a psychopath or something? Should the turning radius of a setup be different just because you turn the board around?
Anyway, I did try visualizing it with Fusion360.
A and D are represented by the solid blue circles, and B is represented by the orange dotted circle.
I think B has to be the option because it not only represents the smallest possible radius, but is not direction dependent.
Or the average of A & D.
If its B than the theoretical minimum turning radius is 0.
If its the average the theoretical minimum turning radius is half the wheel base.
Iām not sure which gives me a better feeling or correctness.
