Just a thought but if one receiver/remote combo is dropping out and you add a 2nd one in connection wouldn’t it just increase the radios broadcasting.
So if your using a remote /receiver that’s already dropping out you’ve just doubled it’s issues?
Keeping things simple is the path for success IMO
So the issue with this entire concept is that it’s premise and benefit are both built upon compounding assumptions. There’s an undeniable increase in complexity & potential for critical failure by not recognizing these assumptions for what they are.
Let’s break it down:
Assumption 1) Only one receiver will lose connection at a time.
This is the core assumption the entire idea is based upon, and given that radio dropouts tend to occur from environmental EMF/noise, a pair of receivers placed in close proximity to each other are going to more or less be subject to the same environment and thus have a close to equal chance of failure.
Assumption 2) Only one receiver will drop out when you need it to. ie: braking, but not acceleration.
What happens the rest of the time you’re riding? If we’re accepting assumption #1 is true, then we can say we have a nearly equal chance of losing connection to one receiver during acceleration as we tend to divide our time on boards pretty evenly between going and stopping. Losing one side of a board that can output 3000w per motor, in traffic, is an unpredictable risk.
And that’s the core issue here- you’re making a permanent change to a control system by adding a secondary volatile wireless link, under the assumption that it will help you in one very specific circumstance, if the stars align. Is that assumed positive benefit worth permanently adding additional critical points of failure to your board, 24/7?
Using a diverse, dual-radio setup with the antennas as far as physically apart as possible + potentially having each radio at a different side of the spectrum. You’d still only have one control signal coming from radios to ESC; there would need to be a controller that acted as a link budget watchdog and could mux the signal from each radio and provide a stabilized redundant signal from there.
Boosted actually did this on their later models.
Bingo- this lands on the point I’m making above about the assumptions being made here. If you are already experiencing dropouts that means your radio’s link budget is getting hammered by the environment. Adding a second, identical radio just means you’re going to get 2 radios that drop out.
What if one receiver signal drops giving you that split second time to balance before full signal loss on both receivers. (I honestly do it because it’s much easier to set up AWD this way.)
What if the same thing causes you to overcompensate and street face? What if both don’t drop out, and instead you just experienced one side dropping out when you wouldn’t have been able to have that happen prior?
We’re making big sweeping assumptions about what we think will happen, which is how this idea came to be in the first place.
Adding a second, unmanaged wireless control link into the mix is 100% guaranteed to increase your risk of unpredictable behavior from your board, at some point in your riding experience. Are the above assumptions of conditional safety benefit worth the guaranteed added risk?
quick, someone use the shittiest remote there is with 15 receivers and see if it ever cuts out!
I’ve had too many dropouts to count unfortunately, none led to street face luckily. I’m usually able to catch myself. If this is due to the having that cushion of signal loss probably not, who knows. The the front and rear are independent fyi… Still wishing there was a trigger remote that never lost signal
Ahh, yeah on 4WD that’s much less of a concern as you could have a full ESC dropout and it likely wouldn’t be enough to throw you. The extra weight & drivetrain resistance makes a big difference- noticed it when I’ve had DRV fault related cutouts on my 30kg Big Chungus build. I still think using a traditional canbus link & a single reliable remote is a better solution even for 4WD setups, but my safety concerns are alleviated with that kind of setup. On a 2WD high-torque setup, having one side of your board drop out could actually be worse than just having both sides drop.
I sure see a LOT of drop-outs reported with the Mini remotes. I’m not sure why folks have decided to keep using them if they are this problematic.
If anything the core takeaway here is that if you are experiencing dropouts, adding a secondary identical receiver isn’t going to solve your dropout problem, it will increase your chances of experiencing them though.
So your saying adding a back up receiver that different makes more sense
It’s still not that simple because you’d need a true diversity scheme implemented.
Ideally your receiver (and transmitter) would be an MCU + 2 radios that would maintain spectrum staggered, simultaneous links that have link budget/RSSI actively monitored by the MCU.
If one drops out, the receiver can still provide a control signal from the auxiliary radio- the signal to the ESC is maintained while the MCU director the first radio to hop to another channel and re-establish its link. Rinse, repeat.
Z.Mote
I remember a time when shit was real simple around here. Buy a bunch of parts, take a photograph of them with some tools nearby, people think I build boards, drive over to @BigBen’s house and he builds the boards, ride the boards for 15 days until I’m bored of them, put them in a closet, buy a bunch of parts, take a photograph of them…
Oof shut up. It me.
FWIW: I haven’t had to go that far because I use a non-shit remote.
It’s when you closet the board and then basically just build the same setup again but this time the deck has a little lip on one side where the old one had a slightly smaller lip. Totally different.
the solution is infinite redundancy. Dont use a fucking wireless remote. just hold a throttle that’s wired into the board. Its not that deep.
Describing every PU streetboard I’ve ever built.
You guys know of some good solutions for keeping the motor phase wires away from the motors?
Inward mounted on a evo.
p clip
But what if… I use two (2) remotes on the same ESC? Checkmate Satanist. 
Overly complicated 3D printed clip holder thingy. That’s how I would do it.