Some Reporting Issues with Vesc Wand (Under investigation)

#282

You’re right Mike I don’t owe you an apology, you’re also right that that post which spured this response was petty.

I’ve been know to change my mind and apologise when reflecting my position, pride doesn’t come into it.

Have a think about perspective and self-awareness without snipping a discussion into bite sized pieces.

I don’t owe Trampa anything, they have maybe had maybe €700 off me which equates to 8% of parts accumulated.

I don’t agree with everything @Trampa says but have admired Frank’s ability to take the high road under challenging circumstances, keep bashing him though he’s starting to fray

V is for Vendetta

Ps. I want going to bother replying, you win there too bro

3 Likes
#283

I just think it’s a bad idea to sell hardware that had a demonstrated lack of ability to be reliable. It’s not about winning, it’s about being responsible. There are many if you that don’t have the same concerts regarding quality and responsibility, all of which are happy to make unfounded accusations at me. As I said earlier, c whatever, I’m done, it’s your problem now.

#284

Maybe someone who got a Wand could measure this part & make a 3D model which could be in PETG or something strong, it’s quite thick and would maybe help for anyone who feels they are affected by dropouts while actually riding due to a 2 x faraday cage effect

image
097A1F75-97CB-48FB-9E7D-7D6ED2409DDE.jpeg3024×4032 2.34 MB

2 Likes
#285

At the moment the wand is not open source , unless I missed the code release.

1 Like
#286

BV is supposed to be releasing it soon. Frank said he was cleaning/polishing/commenting it before pushing it out

2 Likes
#287

Right, but till the point where source is released its not open source.

As it stands right now there is no way for anyone else to verify the code, look for bugs, make changes, submit pull requests for new features or try to develop their own compatable hardware.

And also until the code or designs are released under an open licence there is no obligation to release code. It would be a dick move but Frank or Ben could decide to keep the code closed and they would be well within their right to do so.

2 Likes
#288

This part is completely radio transparent. It’s GF.
The Wand has the BLE module sitting right behind this transparent part.

1 Like
#289

It’s no good businesses practice in general and, depending on country, the legal boundaries are set tight. In most countries where competitive marketing is allowed, you can point out advantages of your product (is better than x), but you can’t bash competitors products.
For example EU law only allows to point out advantages of your product, not disadvantages of competitors products (their product is bad).
However, it’s not considered good business practice to tear down competitors products and present that on the internet, regardless of the legal framework, quality of product etc. You do your own stuff and present the product you designed yourself. Your work, your presentation.

I can remember a video interview (Paris) where Ben was asked about the Unity and his answer was: I don’t know so much about it… Which was probably not a correct answer, but a wise one.

1 Like
#290

If I was interested in bashing your product I’d do a lot better job at it than what you’re seeing here. This is me attempting to get through to you that your design has flaws that are easy to fix and you should address. It’s not slander but clearly this is a waste of time, I give up.

16 Likes
#291

quote="Trampa,

VESC 6 has three phase shunts with shunt amplifiers and adjustable filters for ultra accurate current readings. Unity, Focbox, VESC 4.12 etc have two battery side shunts and can’t sample the currents far away from the switching cycle. The consequence is noisy current and voltage readings and for FOC operation that can be a killer.

What about this?
A mentioning that the VESC6 has three phase shunts would have been enough. Why did you need to mention your competitors products?
Maybe it’s because you are not a native English speaker, but your replies to suggestions and constructive criticism is mostly lacking in friendliness. There were some points where I thought that you have changed, but especially your “zero complaints” and the “non issue for us Trampa team riders” are close to being cynical. Those comments remind me on Jason Potter who insisted that his motors run “cool as fuck” and anyone having an issue with it “is too fat”.
I think and hope that you can and will do better than this.

7 Likes
#292

The article Benjamin wrote on his Forum is pretty old and in reaction on a request from a user. I think it is Pre-Unity age. It debates the differences in VESC designs and what the upsides and downsides are.
Sorry for digging that out in a debate about differences in VESC-Designs.

People debate design differences but a lot of them don’t know what the core differences in the different VESC designs are. For the original HW you can find schematics and they point that out.
A 4.xx is designed fundamentally differently to a 6.xx. This documentation allows a proper debate.
Such and other debates are found on the VESC-Project website.
If you like you can create your own HW, based on these files and pick an appropriate electronic design, based on such info.

For the Unity, schematics are not available. Users have no chance to dig into the electronic design itself.
Using the VESC-Tool or clone software you needed to pick a certain FW and this way you knew at least what you are dealing with. A Four or a SIX or … It was transparent not covered with a blanket.

When we talk about ESC designs, we need to consider the differences in design, otherwise the debate is sort of silly and only about personal bias. It’s like a debate about motors and comparing them without considering that one is a four stroke, the other one a 2 stroke or a Wankel or Diesel or 4 or 6 or 8 cylinder. All of them designs have their ups and downs.

All I did was actually pointing out the technological differences in the core electronic design and the upsides and downsides of each design.

Design A
Positive: more linear, less noisy
Negative: a lot more expensive

Design B
Less linear more noisy
Cheaper to produce

Some users do not need best linearity and want to save some bucks, which is fair enough.
Some want max smoothness and linearity and pay more. And for some very speedy motors you need a specific design.

However, without the information what the core differences in tech are and what you have to expect it is hard to make a decision. The VESC-Project therefore lays the schematics and code open.

However, I would not go so far to make videos about a competitors product and open it up and show things on the internet while teasing my own new HW in the background.

4 Likes
#293

I understand now on the disparity of results bench vs riding

1 Like
#294

Since we are “In this Corner”, that statement is a bit rich coming from you. Not sure you have any room for condescension on people’s “hate threads”.

2 Likes
#295

:kissing_heart: love it

#296

Ah, yes. Just making the rounds on yours and @Kellag’s comments :+1:t3:

#297

Happy stalking, when you’re finished come back here for talking about the Wand remote

1 Like
#298

Not sure it’s stalking… I came to see what was happening in here and you were (of course) playing high and mighty, so I figured I’d shoot you a reply

3 Likes
#299

In case you did not know - this software offers a feature called “private message” - give it a try!

1 Like
#300

The point was for it to be a very public message…

3 Likes
#301

I don’t think Jeff had any malicious intent with the video.

There’s been a ton of noise in this thread, and really the only valid questions I can see that have been asked on this topic are:

  • Does the metal Wand enclosure have an impact on link budget?

  • Does this have a tangible, real world impact on connectivity in standard use applications?

I think it’s fair to say the answer the first is yes. The answer to the second is more important, and the only real thing up for debate/testing.

Frank and others have stated they have had zero connectivity issues, and the few issues reported involved other factors such as CF.

The video was simply adding testing towards the first question. I don’t personally see any problem with it.

Based on my own testing with the Wand so far, the link performance seems perfectly solid. I would have no strong reason to believe there is any real problem here, so far. I’ll chime in over the next day or two with some actual date & numbers access a couple different remotes.

19 Likes