BBS*** Settings for a Smoother Ride

Gionnirocket

Well-Known Member
Well I guess it comes down to how many different riding situations you encounter as far as wanting 5 or 9 PAS settings.
So a few questions then...
What has he gained by massaging the software/source code?
Is he able to access a larger range of settings?
And you seem very happy with your current setup... Are there no fat tire hub options?
 

AHicks

Well-Known Member
Well I guess it comes down to how many different riding situations you encounter as far as wanting 5 or 9 PAS settings.
So a few questions then...
What has he gained by massaging the software/source code?
Is he able to access a larger range of settings?
And you seem very happy with your current setup... Are there no fat tire hub options?

Regarding the questions,

What he's gained (other than "smoothed" PAS levels) is an unknown by the tier 2 support I've been communicating with. I've been forwarded to tier 3 for more information....

From what I've read, Roshan's source code changes deal with how the software settings (the one's we're discussing here) are processed.

Yes, I am happy with THIS hub drive. I was originally looking to upgrade to the GMAC setup which is pretty much the same drive with a beefed up torque arm, a solid rear axle (wires exit the side plate), and variable regen that's so effective, even at low speeds, it's pretty much able to replace the rear brake. There's a lot to it, all cutting edge stuff. A very nice setup in some of the hills I run frequently.

Anyway, as mentioned earlier, the Ultra mid drive has a very high bar to meet or exceed. It'll have the power for sure. The finesse required within the layers of software remains to be seen. -Al
 

AHicks

Well-Known Member
On a more positive note, now looking forward to the challenge of programming this bike from scratch. I KNOW I can improve it. How much I improve it will likely be be a result of how much time I feel like investing in it, and a LOT of test rides.... -Al
 

Gionnirocket

Well-Known Member
On a more positive note, now looking forward to the challenge of programming this bike from scratch. I KNOW I can improve it. How much I improve it will likely be be a result of how much time I feel like investing in it, and a LOT of test rides.... -Al

I don't necessarily think of it as making improvements.... it's more like setting it to your needs and style.
Once you do it once (as with most tasks in life) you realize it's not that hard or big of a deal.
You got this 👍
 

Gionnirocket

Well-Known Member
On a more positive note, now looking forward to the challenge of programming this bike from scratch. I KNOW I can improve it. How much I improve it will likely be be a result of how much time I feel like investing in it, and a LOT of test rides.... -Al

When does the new ride arrive?
 

AHicks

Well-Known Member
Funny you should ask. I just received an email indicating the shipping tag had been created. Shipping Fedex, estimate of delivery is Friday - but there's no chance of that. So it will likely be next week.

YES!
 

Verino

New Member
Nice chart Thomas!
Do you have the excel file?
The page breaks aren't set and the pdf printed all chopped up
Thank you Thomas, for the excellent comparison of controller settings. I took the liberty of reorganizing your chart to reunite the sections that were split between two pages. Here are several different configurations, all panels combined in two different ways, and each setting array in a single page with the setting key. I think the reorganization will make the info easier to use once I receive the kit I ordered yesterday and have a bike to try tweaking.
Steve
 

Attachments

  • BBSHD BBS02 program settings_18amp-smooth.pdf
    478.5 KB · Views: 35
  • BBSHD BBS02 program settings_BBSHD.pdf
    464.1 KB · Views: 24
  • BBSHD BBS02 program settings_BBSO2.pdf
    472.9 KB · Views: 23
  • BBSHD BBS02 program settings_em3evbb02.pdf
    463.8 KB · Views: 24
  • BBSHD BBS02 program settings_Karls Special.pdf
    462.4 KB · Views: 26
  • BBSHD BBS02 program settings_Kepler.pdf
    472.8 KB · Views: 19
  • BBSHD BBS02 program settings_kickpasbbshd.pdf
    467.3 KB · Views: 18
  • BBSHD BBS02 program settings_Luna-BBSHD.pdf
    466.7 KB · Views: 20
  • BBSHD BBS02 program settings_Penoff.pdf
    479.7 KB · Views: 25
  • BBSHD BBS02 program settings_Rix Ryds.pdf
    469.4 KB · Views: 21
  • BBSHD BBS02 program settings-combined.pdf
    4.6 MB · Views: 23
  • BBSHD BBS02 program settings-single sheet.pdf
    2.1 MB · Views: 27

AHicks

Well-Known Member
Musings-
After more research, putting about 75 miles on the new Ultra powered bike, and some preliminary messing with the programming (after a LOT of reading).

One thing first. Most know I've been running around on a MAC 12t powered bike using a cadence based KT controller. Love this bike. It uses some awesome software, and leaves speed out of the picture. In other words, you assign a fixed amount of power available to the motor, that does not change. For example, the 80 or so watts in PAS 1 that you start with at 6mph we'll say, does not change. PAS 1 will still be providing 80 watts of boost at 20mph. If you want/need more boost, just select a higher PAS. When you get to PAS 5 it will provide everything you've made available.

So there's that. Then, my radio control experience (which uses miniature versions of the 3 phase motors used in our e-bikes), has shown that the power provided by the motor is NOT linear when using linear amounts of power(voltage). If you try that, you'll find that trying to control the motor's power at lower rpm (say the first 25% available) using only voltage provided in a linear fashion, is very touchy. To correct, and provide more controllable power, you provide amounts of power on a curve. Instead of using evenly split amounts of say 10% (10, 20, 30, 40, etc to 100%) you should be using something like KT uses (13, 20, 33, 50, 100) for their 5 PAS levels. If you have 9 PAS levels, just split the difference and run something like 13, 16, 20, 26, etc on up to 100%.

Why all this? On Page 1 of the Bafang setup, labeled "Basic" you are asked for 9 levels of assist. If you limit current% using the KT formula (13, 20, 33, 50, and 100, splitting them as required, You'll have a nice, very linear progression up through the PAS levels. No big jumps up or down through the PAS levels. This vs. all sorts of numbers you'll see provided by various experts for these values. The logical 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, etc. though 100% sucks!

This same page requires you to input a corresponding speed limit value. Roshan uses a nice easy 100 here, with some decent logic behind choosing that number in his "Stock Ultra Settings and Programming Guide". So I like "easy first" and tried it. Works great with the KT based current limit%.

Previous to messing with this, I felt like I was "ghost pedaling" much (most?) of the time, even in PAS 1. Now, I feel like I'm contributing something - and my battery mileage has taken a VERY noticeable positive jump. Better feel, better battery life. I'm happy - for the moment anyway. To be continued...... -Al
 

Gionnirocket

Well-Known Member
"The logical 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, etc. though 100% sucks!"
Could not agree more!

Are you saying that you use a 100% speed for all PAS's?
 

AHicks

Well-Known Member
"The logical 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, etc. though 100% sucks!"
Could not agree more!

Are you saying that you use a 100% speed for all PAS's?
Yes, for my first run at this, and after a couple of test hops now, it seems to work fairly well. You can read the logic behind that call here:

"3. Limit Current(%) and Limit Spd(%): We like to set these to ramp from 0-100 in increments of 10 for Current% and leave all Spd% at 100. This means that lowest assist would have 10% of the current limit (3A) while highest assist would have 100% current limit. If you set a limit on spd, then each time you reach a particular speed, the motor would cut power. For example, if your top speed is set to 32kph, and if Assit1 spd% is set to 10, then if the bike reaches 3.2kph, then the motor would stop assisting in level 1. This is not desirable."

The 100% plan is not "universal" we'll say, among guys that have written about it, that know way more about it than I do! It was easy to do, and it did work fairly well. The ramping in increments of 10 plan for the "Limit Current%"was tried, but I didn't care for that at all - for reasons I already understood. I suspected (from experience using the little RC motors) those increments needed to be on a curve, and when I installed the increments used by the KT controllers, I was impressed. Very smooth even transition from one PAS level to the next, born out by watching the watt meter on the display. No big jumps in power going up or down. Better yet was the fact that I was able to contribute some effort in PAS 1 and there was no huge jump in available power when going to PAS 2 and 3. It was nice and even while supplying more and more power. Even PAS 2 pulled less power than the original PAS 1. It's not until you get to PAS 3 where you are pulling the same amount of power as the original OEM PAS 1! Win/Win scenario, more control, while using less power.

Bottom line, when starting out, an increase of 10% in power to the motor, will result in more than 10% of the available power (torque) from the motor. That voltage vs. torque ratio is not parallel. It's a curve! To get something resembling a linear response from the motor, the available power must go up in smaller increments in the early stages, then increase exponentially as the available power is maxed out. Clearly, I'm struggling to put the idea into words.

Study of the voltage percentages used by KT (BTW, I have no idea where I found these, but I did make note of it at the time!) may help illustrate the point more clearly -

PAS 1=13%, PAS 2=20%, PAS 3=33%, PAS 4=50%, and PAS 5=100%.

Those percentages illustrate the voltage curve used to get linear power from the motor, from the point it starts, to the point it's topped out. -Al
 

Gionnirocket

Well-Known Member
Yes, for my first run at this, and after a couple of test hops now, it seems to work fairly well. You can read the logic behind that call here:

"3. Limit Current(%) and Limit Spd(%): We like to set these to ramp from 0-100 in increments of 10 for Current% and leave all Spd% at 100. This means that lowest assist would have 10% of the current limit (3A) while highest assist would have 100% current limit. If you set a limit on spd, then each time you reach a particular speed, the motor would cut power. For example, if your top speed is set to 32kph, and if Assit1 spd% is set to 10, then if the bike reaches 3.2kph, then the motor would stop assisting in level 1. This is not desirable."

The 100% plan is not "universal" we'll say, among guys that have written about it, that know way more about it than I do! It was easy to do, and it did work fairly well. The ramping in increments of 10 plan for the "Limit Current%"was tried, but I didn't care for that at all - for reasons I already understood. I suspected (from experience using the little RC motors) those increments needed to be on a curve, and when I installed the increments used by the KT controllers, I was impressed. Very smooth even transition from one PAS level to the next, born out by watching the watt meter on the display. No big jumps in power going up or down. Better yet was the fact that I was able to contribute some effort in PAS 1 and there was no huge jump in available power when going to PAS 2 and 3. It was nice and even while supplying more and more power. Even PAS 2 pulled less power than the original PAS 1. It's not until you get to PAS 3 where you are pulling the same amount of power as the original OEM PAS 1! Win/Win scenario, more control, while using less power.

Bottom line, when starting out, an increase of 10% in power to the motor, will result in more than 10% of the available power (torque) from the motor. That voltage vs. torque ratio is not parallel. It's a curve! To get something resembling a linear response from the motor, the available power must go up in smaller increments in the early stages, then increase exponentially as the available power is maxed out. Clearly, I'm struggling to put the idea into words.

Study of the voltage percentages used by KT (BTW, I have no idea where I found these, but I did make note of it at the time!) may help illustrate the point more clearly -

PAS 1=13%, PAS 2=20%, PAS 3=33%, PAS 4=50%, and PAS 5=100%.

Those percentages illustrate the voltage curve used to get linear power from the motor, from the point it starts, to the point it's topped out. -Al

Very interesting Al
I agree on the current setting.. but as I like having 9 PAS setting I I end up with a somewhat more linear set of inputs. I like leaving 1 and 2 for very specific low speed situations like some off trail riding I did yesterday. Also having 9 makes the changes between each less and really makes for smooth transitions between.
He really doesn't say anything on why the 100 setting on all the speed inputs other than... "you don't want that" That coupled with his advice to do 10% increments on the current gives me pause as he couldn't be more wrong for my style of riding. I like that as I gain speed the motor assist less and I'm doing the pedaling. But perhaps if you are not riding to exercise it may make more sense. That said I am going to give it a try as perhaps my brain isn't seeing any potential advantages.

On a side note.. after some of our previous discussions I noticed a few situations where I wanted earlier motor engagement and I split the difference between my original setting and your point of view and found that a Pedal Assist /Start Degree setting of 6 gives me the best of both worlds.

Funny... Some of this I feel is what you get used to
 

AHicks

Well-Known Member
I used the 5 KT settings for PAS 1,3,5,7,and 9. For PAS 2, I split the difference between PAS 1(13) and PAS 3(20), using 16. Did the same for 4, 6, and 8, to maintain that curve the best I could.

Regarding his explanation for using 100 for a speed limit ("If you set a limit on spd, then each time you reach a particular speed, the motor would cut power. For example, if your top speed is set to 32kph, and if Assit1 spd% is set to 10, then if the bike reaches 3.2kph, then the motor would stop assisting in level 1. This is not desirable.")

I had to read that several times, but with the 100 settings, he's disabling the function where the motor stops assisting at a certain speed, which sounds logical to me, the way I'm reading it anyway. I'm not seeing that as something I need - but - it's early in my exploring here. There could be something subtle going on somewhere else that I'm not seeing yet.

As far as establishing lower "Limit Current" settings, to me, it's not about trying to get used to the OEM settings here. I rode the bike for 50 miles or so prior to hooking up the laptop - to get a clear picture of what was going on. For me, changing these "Limit Current" settings was necessary to actually provide some of the power required to move the bike myself. That's nearly impossible with the OEM settings. Bonus was the OEM settings just gobble up energy from the battery unnecessarily. These new settings are MUCH more conservative. Not just giving you a chance to contribute (rather than just ghost pedaling), but also extending the available range noticeably.

I will say that somebody riding a bike like this more aggressively, where the bike is seldom used in the lower PAS levels, or they are just using throttle alone, could probably care less about these settings - until they get tired of wiping the battery out in 15 miles or less anyway. My target is an easy 35 miles at least.

Will make a change to the "Pedal Assist" tab today. Going to turn down the "start current" now set at 30 to 10 or 12 and try that. This is another attempt at reducing wasted power without sacrificing much in the way of performance. Will see how that works... -Al
 
Last edited: