Dumb question, but the connectors are soldered directly together, right? Meaning that even if the iLogger goes smoke, CAN transmission between vescs still happens?
It’s the one thing that scares me with CAN connected devices. I don’t want anything accidentally DOSing the communication line that could cause my board to stop
I was wondering this too because I thought if one vesc on CAN died, the other one would die as a result. Would hate to think that it would work this way with this module. I imagine maybe since it’s only receiving that it wouldn’t act the same way, but who knows.
If he adds two connectors that are in parallel and for some reason the logger dies (without shorting the CAN lines) then yes the vescs should still continue working.
Could always wire it all parallel and not leave it up to the pcb traces 
CAN bus is very reliable, that’s why it is the standard in the automative industry. iLogger acts as a node on the bus, so it sits parallel. The two connectors are a passthrough, so if one node is shut, the bus would still continue to operate regardless, and all other nodes would still work as expected.
The CAN transceiver i’m using is this one https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/data-sheet/TJA1051.pdf. It has several hardware protections on top of that.
In this case it really doesn’t matter where the connection happens. The parallel connection can be made in your own wiring loom, or on the logger pcb, as CAN is a by design a parallel network. But if the logger has to CAN plugs then the wiring could be done neater and easier
So just to confirm for the cavemen like me, there is an unbroken electrical path between the two VESCs? So even if the logger dies, the traces still connect the two VESCs?
Yes, the main bus should still connect the two vescs and any other node on the network, assuming nothing horribly happened like the module catching fire or something 
I already added that to the design, checkout the new photos I posted earlier in the thread.
Yes, that’s why I’m only limiting the first batch to 20. There are many moving parts and new features that needs to be field tested. To name a few, CAN on different Vesc hardware and firmware, iOS/Android app (I’m only testing on a physical iPhone X right now, I’m pretty sure all sort of bugs and glitches are going to show up when running on different devices), stressing the online API with real users data, I have developed the backend myself, so it still needs to be thoroughly tested and improved over time, and last but not least the iLogger FW itself.
My plan is to introduce the base features first, like logging Vesc stats, app control and streaming, share and view through the API.
After the basics are ironed out, BMS testing and GPS support comes next. I don’t have access to all the different BMSs out there so it’s going to be tough to support all of them initially.
So yes, most of the development and testing phase is going to be community supported.
Love it, sorry just had to ask 
I have a flexi and davega if you wanted to test those!
That’s a cool feature for sure, but I don’t think I can possibly have that initially implemented, it would take a lot of time., not to mention space constraints. But maybe a Pro version in the distant future 
I think your first post should make it a little more clear that these first 20 are going to be beta testers. Either way, you sold me lol. Ordering beta unit now 
I would say that should be an add-on module and probably placed somewhat low on the list of add-ons (no offense of course )
Perhaps a “Lite” version of “Find my board” before the Pro model comes out could be something like this:
iLogger constantly searches and connects to unsecured wifi (coffee shops, etc) and reports its location to the cloud.
User logs onto iLogger website to check where the board has been.
Of course this would only work if your lost/stolen board was within range of an unsecured internet connection and on, but its still something. And It sounds (to my untrained ear) like something that could be accomplished with only software and no changes to the current hardware.
Could you add a solder joint (unsoldered by default) for isolating ground between CAN port (I guess it’s already the case for 5V).
VESCs are sensitive to ground loop).
Anyway, the way you listen to comments is really great !
Hope you the best for this project !
Thanks!
Regarding your request, i’m not sure I get it. There are no ground loops in the design. When using CAN, iLogger uses 5V and GND coming from Vesc #1 to power up .
If the next device in the chain is Vesc #2, then you use a cable that only has CANH, and CANL pins connected.
if the next device is another node, and it needs power, then use a cable with all 4 pins.
The ports on the iLogger are parallel to make this easy.
You’re completely right.
I don’t know why I got this “idea”. 
Nevermind.
Very nice tool 
Hope it gets going soon!
One thing I noticed tho, is related to the terminating resistor used in the Vesc, I looked at HW4 and 6 design, and they both use 220 ohm
I’m not sure why Benjamin decided to use 220ohm, to me it seems too high, especially when we aren’t using significantly long bus wires. The terminating resistor should match the characteristic impedance of the transmission line, and this to avoid reflection issues. The impedance of a short cable similar to what everyone is using should be much less than that for 500kbps frequency.
