Idea for the next App update
Hi, Future Motion -
I think a valuable update to the next iteration of the app would be to allow the user to set the max speed, a la Inmotion's Unicycle app, which has a slider to adjust the max speed.
That way, people could set the max a few mph below the actual in order to automatically save reserve power for balancing, and not for increased speed. This would allow the responsiveness of a mode like Delirium, but with a max speed set by the user of say 16mph - a healthy safety margin vs. the 19mph top speed.
I understand the pushback can happen before that, but it would be nice to be able to limit the board's speed in exchange for more balancing power. Possible?
@hoovdini - I had brought up something similar in another thread, but it more properly belongs under this topic and I think is related to your suggestion.
If possible, perhaps limiting not just max speed, but acceleration rate, to minimize nosedives caused by overacceleration from dead stop (which remains my working theory for why I currently have a frozen shoulder after a nosedive arm-breakage, 256 miles in).*
In other words, I don't want to just have the option to change the board from a "19mph" board to a "16mph" board - I want the option to set the board so that "0-19mph" takes me 4 seconds, instead of 2. (Times made up for illustration purposes only).
But as in your suggestion, I would want the "power savings" from reduced performance, to be directed towards stability.
If the XR has increased torque, depending on how that shakes out regarding nosedive possibility, this kind of fine-tuning could be really valuable: adjustable according to rider skill, rider style, and preferred terrain.
- and I reiterate again, this was my first experience of a serious, unexpected nosedive, and I do know what pushback feels like because I encounter it at cruising speed and heed it and do not try to push through it. IF I got pushback on this nosedive, I never felt it, which leads me to believe the board simply didn't have enough power in reserve to meaningfully pushback, and that seems dumb, ESPECIALLY when you consider I was nowhere near maxing the motor out with speed. I'd happily trade a little pep off the starting line, to not bust an arm again.
@glyph If you limit acceleration, and lean in hard to accelerate, you're still gonna nosedive; if anything, you'll likely nosedive sooner! The acceleration of the board helps keep the board under your feet and off the ground. It's the most natural counter to the force that you're exerting (and expecting) resulting in the most natural ride. Limiting top speed for more reserve power for stability is a good idea, but even in this scenario the rider will still have the possibility of nosediving. Unless they design a motor with the potential to hold up 100+ lbs of downward force (likely more if your front foot is further away from the wheel as you're exerting MORE LEVERAGE) nosedives will ALWAYS be a danger of riding this board.
@glyph I agree with Ventoriffic - limiting acceleration is not a good idea to prevent nose-dives.
It does have it's uses however - a slower response curve (acceleration per amount of tilt of board) makes the board feel like you're on powder, it's 'squishy' a bit - whereas a harder curve gives you that delirium flat feeling. And a slower acceleration curve eats less battery, so it equals out to better range.
Really, I think they have done good work setting the acceleration curve options, but I do like the idea of adjustable pushback thresholds - that would be nice to be able to have the delirium acceleration curve, but a 15mph pushback.
@ventoriffic I understand that nosedives are always a danger. But I don't believe that I received any perceptible pushback whatsoever (nor do I believe I was leaning in particularly "hard", though of course it appears it was probably hard ENOUGH), and this behavior is consistent with the "overacceleration from dead stop" nosedive (not the "cruising too fast, pushed through pushback and then overbalanced to the front of board" nosedive), and the theory i've seen in the forums is that there simply was not sufficient power available for a perceptible pushback, because all available power was being devoted to acceleration.
That suggests to me that there is, at least in theory, a reallocation of some power that COULD be effected from " acceleration", to "pushback".
Am I missing something?
@glyph - You absolutely are missing one very important thing - there is no diversion of power to 'pushback' from acceleration. It's all acceleration. Nosedives are just a lack of acceleration.
Literally, the board has to always be accelerating to keep the nose up, always. So to think of these as two different functions is totally incorrect - they are one and the same.
Pushback and elevated mode work exactly the same way - effectively the board has a adjustable 'level' in it that determines how it responds to input - pushback or elevated mode just changes the zero-point on that 'level' so that the board considers nose up to be level in terms of input response.
Fairly straight forward to understand the dynamics of the system once you understand that point.
@ow-miami OK, I get that - but then why did I not perceive any pushback at all, when the board was in danger of leaving "level"? I suppose it's possible I stomped straight through it, but this surprises me, as it's not my style, and I'm not a TOTAL amateur (256 miles on, I know what pushback feels like at cruising speed and heed it, I do not push through it). At some point shouldn't the board have tried to warn me? If it didn't (or not enough to save my ass), why not?
@glyph Here's a good physics exercise. Take two things of the same weight and balance them across a ruler on top of a focal point. To achieve balance you would place those items at the same distance away from the balance point. Now, move one of those objects closer to the focal point and keep the other at the same distance. The object further away will now "weigh more" and the balance will be off. Further away from the focal point means more leverage and more downward force. Taking that same example to OW, the further away your front foot is from the wheel, the more power your OW will have to exert to give you that noticeable pushback. If you were anywhere near the threshold there's obviously even less power to give you pushback. Not saying you should ride with your front foot against the wheel, but foot position, how tall you ride, whether you're top heavy or not, etc. GREATLY affect weight distribution and inertia, or in other words, nose-dive potentiality.
@ventoriffic I really do try to ride with my front foot essentially next to the wheel. I was coming off a pretty fast run, so it's possible I had shifted foot positions without noticing, or that I just was tired/inattentive, or cocky/overconfident. But man, it seemed to hit out of nowhere and I haven't been able to ride since (it happened 12/2) because I'm still in physical therapy to get motion and strength back in that shoulder. So you can see why I'm so interested in the topic.
@glyph For sure, I think the takeaway I'm getting at is we as full grown adults really have a smaller threshold than we'd like to think we have. Perhaps a higher HP motor will eventually make these things "safer" (more power for stability), but at the heart of it we as riders have to be the responsible ones. I'm not sure how tall you are (or how heavy), but even something like a quick adjustment of your shoulders over your knee could exert quite a bit of downward force (think longer wrench with same force = more torque).
@ventoriffic I'm 5'9", 180# (though I'm hoping to lose some weight). I will definitely be paying real close attention to my stance when I get back on (I'm also going to switch to Delerium from Mission on pavement, at least until I get my confidence back.)
@glyph I'm 6', 230, Delerium and Cruz are the only modes that had enough torque for me to ride comfortably in. Mission feels too loose for me. Delerium sounds crazy, but you can cut apartment complex paths all day at 1mph with lots of control.