How about an esk8 enclosure with an integrated heatsink that has fins that stick out a bit? One would couple the controller to the heatsink from the inside. Enclosure is still sealed and weatherproof. (maybe this had been done already idk)
Eboosted dose that with his enclosure.
I did a ghetto one.
3 Likes
So another weird thought. Would having a long threaded motor shaft that acted as shoulder bolts on a precision truck work? Btw, It’s nice having a place where smart people answer all my stupid questions. 
Could work (basic direct drive) but you’d need to thread one of the motor shafts backwards to keep it from wanting to undo itself on torquey starts. Are you assuming the motor pulley would screw on too?
Source: https://www.vesc-project.com/node/628
"I may be a little bit late to the game but this is of great interest to me.
I represent an undergraduate team (duke-ev.org) who builds ultra-efficient vehicles and we’ve been considering picking apart the vesc firmware to borrow some useful algorithms. I had made some edits to the firmware for a different project and I’ve gotten familiar enough with the firmware that I could probably get this implemented without too much difficulty. Benjamin has made it such a breeze to edit and flash firmware; I am very grateful.
Aside from the wildly unrealistic operating conditions our vehicle competes in, I do completely understand the appeal of this technique partly because I think about efficiency pretty much every waking moment. I think the big selling point is what you said earlier about how someone riding at partial throttle could theoretically match the acceleration proposed by your algorithm, but a human guessing what acceleration curve will make the optimal efficiency is never going to be as good as an algorithms forming a closed loop control to hit exactly the optimal efficiency. When we run our vehicle for record attempts, for example, we have 2-3 buttons which just apply the exact acceleration curves for optimal efficiency rather than using a thumb throttle.
I don’t want to make it sound like our ridiculous use case is the only reason you would use devin’s control, though. It’s definitely extremely valuable to just make the board run efficiently on its own without the user needing to tweak their thumb at just the right amount. Maybe you could make the argument that you’re splitting hairs on efficiency, but I could also make the argument that if you sell 1000 boards and each one runs 10 miles a day and saves 1% efficiency, over the course of a year that amounts to a lot of CO2 and $$$!
I’ll do some more research and further consider implementing this into the firmware. In the mean time, devin I may DM you for more theoretical details and I hope more people can see the value that this offers.
Gerry Chen"
^I hope if he doesn’t implement it someone else will… the easiest way to think of it is having a different motor current limit at each rpm, for constant efficiency during full throttle acceleration. When you “turn down” the efficiency setting you get more power and greater acceleration, and when you “turn up” the efficiency setting, you automatically get more range in start and stop riding, sacrificing some acceleration but not top speed, because more motor current becomes available the faster the motor turns. While accelerating through very low motor rpms, low efficiency is basically inevitable…
so is this basically what i suggested
before?
It’s similar in that available watts would be based on your present speed with more watts available at higher speeds. Rather than a targeted watt hour per mile it is a targeted % of electrical watts converted to mechanical watts and the % value is chosen through a setting by the user… A lower efficiency setting gives more acceleration while a higher efficiency setting gives more range but less acceleration.
Technically though, even standard current control mode gives you increasing watts with increasing speed, because it takes more battery amps to maintain the same # of motor amps as the motor turns faster. The difference with efficiency control is the user gets to choose an efficiency setting value, and when they accelerate at full throttle the controller will allocate the exact # of watts that achieves that targeted % efficiency during acceleration.
Has anyone ever tried to use the pos and negative from the top of an 18650 cell to do something? Anything?
2 Likes
What about using a regular dual motor board that works as normal, but the front wheels have 2 small motors on them functioning as brakes only.
You could use a ppm splitter or a second receiver and the cheapest vesc you can find. It would be nice to have additional braking force and not skid on sandy concrete. The whole thing could be done with the price list below
3d printed motor mount clamp $0
Motor mount plate scrap aluminum/steel $1
Belts $8
Motors x2 $40-$60
Dual vescs $120 from aliexpress
Misc hardware $10
Total of about $200 for 4wd braking abilities and massive performance and safety increase
1 Like
3 Likes
I’d rather go 4wd or stay 2wd and figure out how to have zero rolling resistance, no brakes via motors and use mechanical brakes.
3 Likes
Has anyone here ever tried to make an thumb adaptor to use a trigger remote ? Like a sort of lever system?
What’s your idea with it? I don’t see it helping a lot in building packs for boards, for mountain boards maybe, but you have to design a buss bar that doesn’t allow shorts
The Model 3 pack is built like that
1 Like
No specific. It just crossed my mind. We always use the top and bottom…why not top and anywhere else?
1 Like
I would only say that it’s not a good idea to spot weld to the side is the cell, the wall is thinner and in direct contact with the jelly roll, ultrasonic weld or some heat less bonding is preferred
Would it be possible to mount some wireless induction LEDs close to your motor cans so when it spins it would induce enough of a current?
5 Likes
I like this idea, also with a hall sensor you could work out speed and have automatic break lights.
1 Like