Cycle Analyst - still solid choice?

[TDB]

This week I got forums controller "FTP" code working. A kInd of proportional assist.
The code uses input from direct force power meter (human power), road speed, air data (altitude and air speed) and incline and uses values for desired CdA, Crr and weight to adjust assist. I can set the human power multiplier at 1:1 and it will faithfully emulate my non assisted performance (ie CdA 0.3, Crr 0.0022, 83kg total weight) regardless of my real weight and drag with trailer (CdA 0.55, 120kg). At the moment it is difficult to pick the difference between light aero rides and heavy draggy rides with the trailer. I am still putting in the same effort, the assist is cancelling the additional weight and drag. Keeping it real...
I can also set a multiplier (aux input) for wind or use something like 1.35 to do a believable impersonation of Pogacar on Mont Ventoux.
There is still a little work needed to smooth the rough edges,


I won't rush to publish the code though. The world is full of losers and wannabes. For example Strava eBike cheats. The flaw with simple power multiplication or throttle operation is that it doesn't take weight, aerodynamics, incline acceleration into consideration. It is this flaw that exposes the fraud and I am not about to supply the tools to evade detection.

 

[ferret]

The flaw with simple power multiplication or throttle operation is that it doesn't take weight, aerodynamics, incline acceleration into consideration.

Have to disagree regarding throttle operation :wink:, at least for off road riding.
When used skillfully, weight, aerodynamics, incline, acceleration are taken into consideration as well as other factors that change in real time, such as available traction and body position (weight distribution).
It also allows the rider to apply power in places where pedaling is undesirable, like narrow and rocky trail sections that cause risk of pedal strikes.
It may not be as intuitive to use as pedal assist, but it is much more versatile.

Avner.

 

[TDB]

Context...

 

[DoobieD]

Sounds as if you are using velocomp device… have you been able to adapt BLE TO analog output or ttl ?

 

[TDB]

Yes, Powerpod, but I use Ant+ serial.

I did write a longer reply, but lost it.

 

[john61ct]

Yes, Powerpod, but I use Ant+ serial.

I did write a longer reply, but lost it.

Best to compose in a local notepad app, not dependent on internet, web site etc

Then copy/paste into the website editor

 

[onitubai]

Hardware-wise that processor architecture is obsolete and a dead-end and is probably why they haven't upgraded the hardware. They would need to, basically, rewrite all the software from scratch.

I've been curious as to what the CA's brain is after discovering how easy it is to DDOS it with normal inputs, seeing comments from Grin staff that they've been pushing it to its absolute limits for years, etc.

I finally cracked it open and got a look: They're using a Microchip Technology microcontroller, a 28-pin member of the PIC 16F line. Mine is marked 'I/SO', which narrows it down to something like this: https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/microchip-technology/PIC16F570T-I-SO/4080019

Updated versions of the same controller, in the same package, with the same pinout, using the same programming and compiler, have become available which are several times more powerful, for less than $1 more. No need at all to rewrite the software from scratch. Although not with zero work; there are process resource grants to raise, and the inevitable workarounds meant to squeeze every last bit out of memory and processor speed should be removed.

 

[john61ct]

If people outside Grin decide to do this, I hope it becomes a FOSS project.

 

[TDB]

FOSS project already exists. Ready to contribute?

My Arduino controller project has progressed to the point I am 99% satisfied... there is always 1%.

Most people just want to plug it in and go.

 

[miro13car]

Eggrider?
this thing is really small to read.
tiny characters on display

 

[TDB]

Nope. Forumscontroller. Too bad most people only see the F in FOSS.

A couple of months work. I have iPhone app for the controller mostly working. Basic stats overlay on mapping and rear view pages. Control is limited to speed, power, assist level and a preset. Getting the preset and extended limits to work was a challenge. They are loaded from the phone, held in RAM and lost on a power cycle by design. Only defaults are loaded from the controller.
I only need basics on the electrical side. I am more interested in the human pages. Something like RideWithGPS sans spyware (nearly every app is spyware btw) and login to their server. Phone needs to replace CA and my Garmin head unit. One sensor and feature at a time.

 

[markz]

OK I will bite, what is FOSS?

FOSS project already exists.

 

[john61ct]

GIYF

Free Open Source Software

 

[amberwolf]

Looking for something like this and the CA device has been around for some time without any updated models. With tech, stuff changes so quick, do you feel it is still a solid choice for the functions it offers? If other products are out there sure love to hear. thanks

By now you've probably already made your choice, but for future readers:

The Cycle Analyst v3 is the only commercially-available device that does what it does, so unless you're willing to DIY something (including the various open-source projects, complete and incomplete), it's the only option for that combination of functions.

There are controllers out there with some of it's functions built in, to varying degrees.

The same is true of displays.

Unfortunately there's no other single commercially-available device that does it all, if you happen to need multiple functions it does, at once.

So...the only way to make a decision about it is to have a complete list of requirements for whatever system a CA is being considered for, to determine if the functions you need are A) something it can do and B) something that a different device can also do. Then the devices can be compared to see which one is better for your needs.

Let me add a couple requirements in my specific case which makes a strong case that the CA is the best choice. 1) generic Chinese hub motor" 2) function over looks (DIY conversion hauls ass but looks a mess) 3) no time to mess with a DIY solution 4) low drama - just install and it works.

What I gather here is most agree it is aging out but still a good performer and a good fit for a basic hub motor.

Unfortunatley you don't actually state any of the things you need it to do for you, so there isn't really any device recommendations possible.

Assuming you haven't already made your decision, what is the specific list of functions you need the CA (or other device) to do for you that the motor/controller/battery you are getting (or have) does not do?

Typically, V3 follows a V2 but it seems the version for CA appears more signifies a different product rather than the typical upgrade to an existing product.

My opinion: The V3 is a different version because it is an upgrade (many more functions) than the more basic V2, which itself has more functions than the original V1). It's not a completely different product, in that it still is all (AFAIK) that the V2 was, just adding more functions.

 

[Warekiwi]

I'm not an electronics expert but would love to find some way of taking the torque output from a Garmin 3S pedal sensor and providing an analogue torque input to the Cycle Analyst 3? I use a Schlumpf MountainDrive so that rules out using any type of bottom bracket sensor. I guess that would need a programmable board such as Arduino or Raspberry Pi with a receiver capable of taking the BTE or ANT+ signal then outputting via wire to the CA3. Any suggestions? (I'm happy to pay for a working example as it would make my current throttle controlled setup "more UK legal")

 

[mintycrayon]

I guess that would need a programmable board such as Arduino or Raspberry Pi with a receiver capable of taking the BTE or ANT+ signal then outputting via wire to the CA3. Any suggestions? (I'm happy to pay for a working example as it would make my current throttle controlled setup "more UK legal")

I'd recommend you look at Microtype Engineering as an example company that produces prototypes. I like watching their youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/c/MicroTypeEngineering. A professional engineer with PCB, embedded software, and required tools likely has a daily loaded rate of, what, $1500 per day plus expenses? Just a guess.

 

[Comrade]

a receiver capable of taking the BTE or ANT+ signal then outputting via wire to the CA3.

I would guess that your pedal pushes out a signal say every few seconds. It might sample much faster internally, and output an average value every say 5 seconds. I would guess that by design there is no way to pull samples, and you'd probably need 5hz sampling externally at the minimum to make this work.

 

[amberwolf]

I'm not an electronics expert but would love to find some way of taking the torque output from a Garmin 3S pedal sensor and providing an analogue torque input to the Cycle Analyst 3? I use a Schlumpf MountainDrive so that rules out using any type of bottom bracket sensor. I guess that would need a programmable board such as Arduino or Raspberry Pi with a receiver capable of taking the BTE or ANT+ signal then outputting via wire to the CA3. Any suggestions? (I'm happy to pay for a working example as it would make my current throttle controlled setup "more UK legal")

Is that the project you'd started over here?
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=105419&p=1541901#p1541901

If so...my (little) advice there still stands.

The two primary problems are decoding the Garmin comm protocol and converting the data it creates into voltage for the CA, and doing anything necessary to "wake up" the pedal if it doesn't do this on it's own (which may mean figuring out what the Garmin head unit sends to it, if it does, and repeating that as needed independently).

Another potential problem is that which Comrade brings up--if the data rate is too low, you can't reliably/safely use it to control assist power, as it will have too much delay.

 

[Warekiwi]

Yes- this was a second attempt to see if someone had considered utilising torque data from the Garmin Vector system and converting it to provide analogue torque data for the CA3.
As regards "waking up" the Vector pedal(s) this is triggered by slight rotation of the unit(s) and not by the "head unit" as far as I am aware. Since my earlier posting on the subject Garmin have allowed many other companies to design and sell compatible software and devices that work with the Vector system.
https://www.thisisant.com/directory/vector-3/
As you rightly point out, the update frequency of torque data could be an issue as regards usable inputs to the CA3.
Anyway- I have recently corresponded with a clever electronics engineer and programmer who is researching the issue. If he is successful in creating some sort of interface then he probably post here.

 

[mintycrayon]

Anyway- I have recently corresponded with a clever electronics engineer and programmer who is researching the issue. If he is successful in creating some sort of interface then he probably post here.

Good job getting an electronics engineer and programmer interested in the project. To me this seems like that dog won't hunt. Hope to be proven wrong.

BTW, here is a project that integrates a RaspberryPi with Ant+ so the interface and low level stack is not completely unknown.
https://bin.re/blog/track-your-heartrate-on-raspberry-pi-with-ant/

Garmin has a developer program. The profile data for the device may be available here.
https://developer.garmin.com/connect-iq/api-docs/Toybox/AntPlus.html

Garmin developer program suggests that device control is within their wheelhouse but because the info is transmitted over 2.4G wireless your application does not feel right. It might come down to expectations.

 

[Comrade]

BTW, here is a project that integrates a RaspberryPi with Ant+ so the interface and low level stack is not completely unknown.
https://bin.re/blog/track-your-heartrate-on-raspberry-pi-with-ant/

Looking at the code, it does look like the RaspberryPi is the client that listens to events coming from ant+ devices. So there is a high probability that it is the same case with the force sensing pedal. Whatever frequency of events it sends would be what you can work with.

Many have complained about drive-by-wire in cars, I can't imagine what drive by ant+ would be like.

I'd rate this as a dead end endeavor.

 

[ZeroEm]

I'm not complaining about my car. Going to try it on a trike.

 

[mintycrayon]

Going to try it on a trike.

I assume we're discussing how to influence CA motor control by spoofing various inputs. This is cool because it extends the life of CA without changes to the base product.

Maybe experiment with how few samples per second are acceptable and how this affects the behavior of CA in a way that you find preferable. Would throttle input be another way to test the same thing?

There is no need for the Garmin product at the outset. Why not just attach a pressure sensor to the Raspberry Pi to do the proof of concept?
https://acaird.github.io/computers/2015/01/07/raspberry-pi-fsr
https://www.adafruit.com/product/166

My interest is how this could be used as a basis for traction control in snow and ice.

EDIT: Changed example to Force-Sensitive Resistor

 

[Ghozt]

Hello everyone! Just want to inform you that I already developed a wattmeter, that could be an alternative to CA. My wattmeter is something between CA2 and CA3 in functionality. It has more monitoring features like clock, buzzer with adjustable critical alarms, 4 thermomonitoring channels and some more. But it lacks all throttle control, and I dont want to add it right now. Now I work on case - internal and external design. I want to sell it to other countries someday, but when it will starts I cannot say right now

 

[E-HP]

Hello everyone! Just want to inform you that I already developed a wattmeter, that could be an alternative to CA. My wattmeter is something between CA2 and CA3 in functionality. It has more monitoring features like clock, buzzer with adjustable critical alarms, 4 thermomonitoring channels and some more. But it lacks all throttle control, and I dont want to add it right now. Now I work on case - internal and external design. I want to sell it to other countries someday, but when it will starts I cannot say right now

Interested to hear more once you develop the throttle control part :thumb: