This is very complex thema . Lot of things can be done. Unfortunately more lightweight parts mostly mean most expensive.On the other side heavy mean more robust design and also inertia effect which save Your battery.
But at first:
I mean that actually companies are very less using CAE tools to calculate effective design regarding required loads. Next point is , what is required loads? To decide value mean limit for some riders or limit of usage for board.
Next what will dramatically help is new batteries, more capacity in the same package. But question is safety. Actual level for safety of battery boxes we are using is āzeroā. So probably safety increasing will in future add some grams to boards.
Unification is nex point. Board should be made way that You will need minimum equipment for maintenance or solving issues on your trip.So Your back will have less grams.
And last is that You should focus also in to helmet , protectors, clothing and all other things you are taking with You.
So basically all this mean that for weight reduction ,we need designed single purpose used boards , with weights limits:)
Yeah i tend to go for about 30km range just cruising. This bit me in the arse yesterday on a high speed track tho. Got about 15km in before i was sagging to soft cutoff
This was a rarity tho. There arenāt many occasions that i would drain a pack that quick and tbh, the 30km range is enough for the vast majority of my rides.
Extended parallel packs or charge and ride packs are the way to go. On the rare occasion that i know im gonna need more, i just need to remember to take an XR pack. Iād much rather keep the boards lighter for everyday riding.
I wonder it the hanger for a PKP truck could be made from forged carbon fiber since it has no pivot? As long as the axle is placed properly to avoid galvanic corrosion, it could be incredibly strong and light.
CF deck, GF enclosure, full titanium truck and motor mount, titanium hardware, no internal connector all direct soldered wires, forged carbon wheel hub, smol tire, pump helium into tube instead of air
what else? use multi-pin connector instead of putting bms in the board
thatās all i can think of, motor is the only thing that is kinda not possible to have weight reduction? or maybe change the motor can to even lighter metal
I think the deck and enclosure could be a great place to start when it comes to weight reduction.
For the trucks and motor mounts in titanium, I think this is going to be cost prohibitive. Also, titanium is not always the lightest material for every application. Forged aluminum parts could be lighter and stronger but expensive to produce too. Cranksets in cycling are forged.
Not sure how hard it would be to make a wheel hub out of forged carbon fiber but it has the potential to be pretty light.
Hardware like screws could save a little weight but could also be really expensive to do.
Not worth it. Esk8s are ludicrously expensive as it is.
Rolling resistance is ridiculous compared to a bicycle and unlike a bicycle you can just add a few more cells to increase range/power.
As already stated batteries and motors constitute the majority of the weight and not much can be done about them.
Could you build a 2-3kg lighter esk8 that cost 10.000 euro? Sure you could, the question is would it be any quicker/have longer range compared to one that cost 1/5th of that price?
Iāve thought about a combined deck/enclosure thatās a long flat tube, perhaps made by wrapping carbon fiber around a mandrel or something. Itād have two end cap kind of things that the trucks mount on, these would need to be removed to slide in the battery pack/bms/esc/etc. Itād be stiff though, so youād probably need some kind of suspension setup, and by then youād probably end up with something like Radium is building.
Would save a bit of weight by having no flanges, screws, or gaskets to mount the enclosure. The deck could be thinner as youāre making the enclosure a structural component.
That would be made better with a 2 part negative mold and inverted vacuum bag (placed inside the tube and squeezing outwards). Forged carbon endcaps, and a couple wire frame footholders in the psycoframe style.
You can make the tube wider than it is tall to keep the structural stability while getting vertical flex.
Would there be any weight savings going with tubeless tires? Genuine question, I feel like getting rid of the tube would save weight, but idk if the tire itself would need to be thicker to compensate. Obviously theyād need to exist in the first place.
Buell Motorcycleās chassis also serves as fuel tank. Also Tesla will integrate the battery to the chassis.
Maybe we can create an integration between the battery and the deck. The deck becomes the battery itself. I dun mean a cleaver deck/enclosure design. I mean build a battery that is shaped and functions as deck.
I think this is important.
We shouldnāt have to add range (battery pack energy) to compensate for voltage sag. The additional cells needed for this increase the packās weight and the packās larger size needs a larger and heavier enclosure.
Is this an opportunity?
Increasing pack efficiency and performance means less voltage sag which means more range. But this means a lot more attention paid to cell choice, pack construction, connections, wiring, and the other electronics in the board.
I suspect almost everyone will say itās just a lot easier to use a larger pack. But if weāre talking about weight reduction then we should spend the most time where there is the most weight to be lost. The battery pack is certainly one of those places IMO. A few grams lost here and there on expensive (but admittedly cool) solutions doesnāt add up to much when we need to be losing kilograms. A smaller pack can cost less too.
Very few are talking about this, Iām amazedā¦too boring?
. Please inform me about feedback 
