Sensitive throttle vs the sensation of power

[speedyebikenoob]

I have been fairly busy for the past couple weeks, but yesterday I finally had a chance to ride my bike with the Magura throttle I installed, and wow, the throttle is so much easier to control than the cheap half twist throttle that came with the stock cyclone motor controller. It's a lot smoother, but the bike does feel a bit slower acceleration wise? I think it's because I'm used to the cheap ultra sensitive throttle that I used to use, I have to twist the magura throttle a lot more to get power. I don't feel like there is too much of a difference, and I can't decide whether it's actually slower in reality or it just feels that way, it climbs hills with the same speed and stuff as it did with the old throttle. Has anyone else experienced this? Is the magura limiting my power or is it just in my head?

 

[flat tire]

It's a cyclone, the bike will only ever be slow. Get a motor that does 10+kw and a decent controller with torque-request throttle (not speed request which is what you're using now) and you can enjoy ultra-precise acceleration that will make questions like "is my bike slightly slower today" seem silly and unnecessary.

Also you bought the wrong throttle, everyone knows Domino is vastly superior to Magura.

 

[speedyebikenoob]

It's a cyclone, the bike will only ever be slow. Get a motor that does 10+kw and a decent controller with torque-request throttle (not speed request which is what you're using now) and you can enjoy ultra-precise acceleration that will make questions like "is my bike slightly slower today" seem silly and unnecessary.

Also you bought the wrong throttle, everyone knows Domino is vastly superior to Magura.

Haha I wish, just didn't have the budget, plus I like the feeling of going through the gears like a manual car. It's anyways a lot more powerful than my 500 watt e-scooter, ofc I would want more power, but eh whatever it has more than enough to get me up the hills here. I've heard about the domino throttle, but I heard that the rotation amount is only 60 degrees, where the magura is 75 degrees, and I guess I'm one of those weird people who prefers a throttle with more travel lol.

 

[speedyebikenoob]

Wow has seriously no one had this experience ? yikes guess I should recheck everything

 

[Chalo]

Was the original throttle a potentiometer as well? If it was a Hall throttle, then it makes sense that the pot throttle would have a more progressive feel.

If you're going to take dingdong's advice and use 10+ kW, please get a plate and insurance on your whatever it is. If you're using moped power, please do whatever it is that your location requires for mopeds. Cyclists have enough trouble without ****bags treading on their hard-won right-of-way.

 

[speedyebikenoob]

Was the original throttle a potentiometer as well? If it was a Hall throttle, then it makes sense that the pot throttle would have a more progressive feel.

If you're going to take dingdong's advice and use 10+ kW, please get a plate and insurance on your whatever it is. If you're using moped power, please do whatever it is that your location requires for mopeds. Cyclists have enough trouble without ****bags treading on their hard-won right-of-way.

No the original throttle is a hall throttle, but should there really be that much of a difference? It's a PWM based controller still after all. I just want to make sure I'm not actually losing power with the magura and it's just because the throttle just feels more progressive. Yeah don't worry, I'm not planning on running 10+ kw anytime soon, I would probably just build a motorbike if I truly wanted that much and of course it would be registered and have insurance and stuff, my bike works for me for now.

 

[Chalo]

Hall sensors react to magnetic field strength, so they'll naturally come on rather suddenly as the gradient of the magnetic field increases rapidly. Pot throttles use a 0-5k (or higher) variable resistor, and the taper of that resistor dictates the throttle response. In most cases it will be a more gradual onset than a Hall throttle.

 

[TommyCat]

Example of a plotted hall throttle's voltage output...

 

[speedyebikenoob]

Hall sensors react to magnetic field strength, so they'll naturally come on rather suddenly as the gradient of the magnetic field increases rapidly. Pot throttles use a 0-5k (or higher) variable resistor, and the taper of that resistor dictates the throttle response. In most cases it will be a more gradual onset than a Hall throttle.

Oh okay, I'm stupid haha. I went on the assumption that they all increase linearly.

 

[speedyebikenoob]

Example of a plotted hall throttle's voltage output...

So a pot throttle will be more gradual then?

 

[Chalo]

Example of a plotted hall throttle's voltage output...

So a pot throttle will be more gradual then?

That plot doesn't reflect my experience of Hall throttles (though they're not all the same). It's typical for them to have a large inactive portion of their movement, followed by sudden strong onset-- like almost all the action is between 50% and 100% throttle.

Pot throttles almost always have good sensitivity all the way down to zero. But they exhibit mechanical wear and resulting inconsistency, just like the volume knobs on old stereo equipment.

 

[donn]

It's typical for them to have a large inactive portion of their movement, followed by sudden strong onset-- like almost all the action is between 50% and 100% throttle.

I would expect a throttle control to be set up something like that. There'd be a dead spot between at-rest and the ramp, maybe not half way up, but significant travel in the mechanism, just to avoid accidental firing. Independent of the response curve of the electric control itself.

 

[TommyCat]

I don't have, or use a pot throttle on which to test. But I would expect both throttles to output voltage in the same relatively linear way.
Perhaps the difference your noticing is that a hall sensor throttle, due to it's electronics, will output .8vdc to ~ 4.25vdc with a 5vdc input. And a pot throttle will output 0vdc to 5vdc. Both full off to wide open throttle. As your controller is probably expecting a hall throttle output, it wouldn't start actuating the motor till about 1.25vdc output. (see my chart) Therefore with your new pot throttle, it would give you a pretty large dead band between full off (pot's 0vdc) and motor actuation (~1.25vdc)...

For a blank chart, how to profile, test and verify throttle operation output see my thread on it here...

https://electricbike.com/forum/foru...r-throttle-operation-testing-and-modification

 

[Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh]

the tip IS the most sensitive part

 

[Grantmac]

Is there no way to program in exponential control such as is commonly used for RC controls?

 

[Chalo]

Is there no way to program in exponential control such as is commonly used for RC controls?

There are programmable controllers. I have never messed with them, so I don't know what parameters are configurable.

 

[speedyebikenoob]

Example of a plotted hall throttle's voltage output...

So a pot throttle will be more gradual then?

That plot doesn't reflect my experience of Hall throttles (though they're not all the same). It's typical for them to have a large inactive portion of their movement, followed by sudden strong onset-- like almost all the action is between 50% and 100% throttle.

Pot throttles almost always have good sensitivity all the way down to zero. But they exhibit mechanical wear and resulting inconsistency, just like the volume knobs on old stereo equipment.

Why is there a huge deadzone anyways? I mean it's obvious as to why deadzones exist, but they can be minimized, is there any reason as to why there should be any deadzone in the these throttles, like have manufacturers of production e bikes left them there intentionally? I have mine set up through a potentiometer to minimize the deadzone as much as possible, right now there's basically none. It actually doesn't have the strong onset characteristic that you describe, it feels actually kind of like a torque throttle, but my previous throttle was definitely much more aggressive and I hated it.

 

[speedyebikenoob]

I don't have, or use a pot throttle on which to test. But I would expect both throttles to output voltage in the same relatively linear way.
Perhaps the difference your noticing is that a hall sensor throttle, due to it's electronics, will output .8vdc to ~ 4.25vdc with a 5vdc input. And a pot throttle will output 0vdc to 5vdc. Both full off to wide open throttle. As your controller is probably expecting a hall throttle output, it wouldn't start actuating the motor till about 1.25vdc output. (see my chart) Therefore with your new pot throttle, it would give you a pretty large dead band between full off (pot's 0vdc) and motor actuation (~1.25vdc)...

For a blank chart, how to profile, test and verify throttle operation output see my thread on it here...

https://electricbike.com/forum/foru...r-throttle-operation-testing-and-modification

Actually I reduced the deadzone to nearly none using resistors and a potentiometer, it still does feel much better than my old hall throttle though, although on first impressions the bike does feel a bit slower. I suspect it's because of the much less aggressive throttle.

 

[speedyebikenoob]

Is there no way to program in exponential control such as is commonly used for RC controls?

I think the CycleAnalyst computer has this feature. It has a ramp up function or something like that. I've never used it but I've heard about it and people seem to say it helps.

 

[amberwolf]

Why is there a huge deadzone anyways?

Cuz many (most) ebike-parts manufacturers are cheap, making cheap stuff that is (often poor) copies of other cheap stuff.

Developing a throttle with no deadzone would take some time and thought to design and build, whcih means money, and a market would be required to pay for that.

Since crappy throttles have sold just fine for a really long time, there's "obviously" no need to spend any money to improve them, since "no one" is going to spend more money on the improved versions than they would on the cheap existing ones, and thus no one would be paying for the changeover. So it's not worht doing, to the marketers and accountants.


The same applies to just about any product--if' it's already "good enough" for the market, then it's not going to get changed, until a better product is made by someone that takes enough market share to force others to change theirs too.


Cottage industries do exist for certain improved versions of things like this, or stuff that helps make them work better (like ZombieSS's Throttle Tamer that helped high power bikes be more controllable with cheap crappy throttles...but nowadays high power controllers themselves more and more often let you fix this in their own software, eliminating the need for the TT).


A really good throttle would be:

--metal (durability, size can be smaller for better strength, can fit closer to other handlebar equipment, etc)

--dual sensor with inverse outputs (safety feature--either one doesn't match the other's output, then controller doesn't do anything--but requires the controller support this, and few do as of yet) (also allows to be used as left or righthand throttle, or to roll on/off throttle in whichever direction is desired)

--adjustable "throw" (to fit the ergonomics of different riders and different mounting options); set screws (or something) could be used to limit rotation, and magnets (if a hall type) could have adjustable positions inside it to allow deadband/etc response. *or* a bit of electronics could be built into the throttle with a serial programming connector to connect to a PC/etc, that lets you adjust the scale of the rotation to the scale the controller requires to match each controller to each throttle.

--roll-on switch to that engages only once throttle is manually turned (can be safety feature or used as brake switch, etc), dual output both NC and NO

--either comes in thumb, full grip and half grip versions, or has interchangeable "grip" on it, positionable in whatever rotation (vs the base) the rider needs for ergonomics. (allows more uses than a fixed-grip single type grip would)

--has a model with "detent" in center of throttle range to use half rotation in one direction for braking and half in the other for throttle, like the Vectrix scooters did. (would be difficult to have an option to put this into every unit; easier to have a separate version).

But it'd probably cost $100-200 each for such a throttle, as demand would be very low.


All that said, more and more controllers have programmable options that let the rider adjust throttle response to match their actual throttle and/or needs. So there's less and less reason to require no-deadband throttles.

 

[TommyCat]

Actually I reduced the deadzone to nearly none using resistors and a potentiometer, it still does feel much better than my old hall throttle though, although on first impressions the bike does feel a bit slower. I suspect it's because of the much less aggressive throttle.

If you would be kind enough to post your circuit diagram on how you did this with your potentiometer type throttle, I'm very interested. :thumb: Are you satisfied with the way it acts now? Have you ever taken a milli-amp reading of the output in operation?

Can you expand on what feels slower? Reaction to twist, off the line, build up of speed, top end...ETC.
No ASI controller by chance?

That plot doesn't reflect my experience of Hall throttles (though they're not all the same). It's typical for them to have a large inactive portion of their movement, followed by sudden strong onset-- like almost all the action is between 50% and 100% throttle.

Is this opinion derived from taking output readings from the defective throttles themselves. Or from the results given from the controller's operation with hall sensor throttles?

 

[Grantmac]

Is there no way to program in exponential control such as is commonly used for RC controls?

I think the CycleAnalyst computer has this feature. It has a ramp up function or something like that. I've never used it but I've heard about it and people seem to say it helps.

I believe that just controls how quickly the motor responds. I'm looking to change the proportion by which it responds without effecting the speed.
If I ask for 100% throttle I want it immediately.
But if the first 25% of throttle movement only changed power by 10%, then the next 25% brought it to say 25%, the next 25% to 50% and last 25% to 100% that would be what I'm describing.

It makes lower throttle movements more precise without limiting response speed or maximum power.

 

[Chalo]

That plot doesn't reflect my experience of Hall throttles (though they're not all the same). It's typical for them to have a large inactive portion of their movement, followed by sudden strong onset-- like almost all the action is between 50% and 100% throttle.

Is this opinion derived from taking output readings from the defective throttles themselves. Or from the results given from the controller's operation with hall sensor throttles?

It's from observation of system behavior and not from measurements. It could be a characteristic of the controllers, for all I know. But it is certain that magnetic field strength doesn't vary linearly with distance, and Hall throttles use magnet proximity to generate a signal.

I was reflecting on this discussion while riding my e-bike, recently refitted with a 15 year old motor system that has a Hall throttle. That controller corresponds the throttle signal to a motor speed, rather than a current. And it does a good job of working right down to very low speed, but it has the same quality of a sudden lurch into action partway through the throttle stroke that I have come to associate with other Hall throttles.

I suspect that manufacturers of Chinese commodity controllers may set a throttle signal threshold rather high to make the controllers more safely compatible with whatever random throttle they might be paired with. But that fails to explain the abrupt jump from zero to a significant fraction of power that I've observed time and again.

 

[speedyebikenoob]

Actually I reduced the deadzone to nearly none using resistors and a potentiometer, it still does feel much better than my old hall throttle though, although on first impressions the bike does feel a bit slower. I suspect it's because of the much less aggressive throttle.

If you would be kind enough to post your circuit diagram on how you did this with your potentiometer type throttle, I'm very interested. :thumb: Are you satisfied with the way it acts now? Have you ever taken a milli-amp reading of the output in operation?

Can you expand on what feels slower? Reaction to twist, off the line, build up of speed, top end...ETC.
No ASI controller by chance?

That plot doesn't reflect my experience of Hall throttles (though they're not all the same). It's typical for them to have a large inactive portion of their movement, followed by sudden strong onset-- like almost all the action is between 50% and 100% throttle.

Is this opinion derived from taking output readings from the defective throttles themselves. Or from the results given from the controller's operation with hall sensor throttles?

Yes of course! Unfortunately I don't have a wiring diagram, but I can tell you what I did. I'm not at home so I can't confirm which pair but I put a 1.5k ohm resistor between the brown and green wires or the red and blue ones, it was one of those two. I then ran a potentiometer between the black wire on my controller and the black wire on my throttle and turned it until the deadzone was gone. It was a 5k pot. I didn't actually take a milli-amp reading of it though, atleast not yet. Yes I'm very satisfied with it, it almost feels like the throttle in my car, and nope, no ASI. I wanted it but it's $170 more and I'm kind of stingy lol. It just feels slower as in it just feels less responsive. The top speed is the same, the amount of torque seems the same because it can climb the same hills at the same speed as it did with the old throttle, but, I guess for example, with the old throttle, I could twist it to 35% and the bike would wheelie. On the magura, I have to twist it all the way to about 75% before it will actually wheelie. I like this better because it gives me power only when I want it, and no where else. At first it did feel slower in general, like torque wise, but I'm 95% sure that's only because I was used to the old crappy hall sensor throttle I had.

 

[speedyebikenoob]

Why is there a huge deadzone anyways?

Cuz many (most) ebike-parts manufacturers are cheap, making cheap stuff that is (often poor) copies of other cheap stuff.

Developing a throttle with no deadzone would take some time and thought to design and build, whcih means money, and a market would be required to pay for that.

Since crappy throttles have sold just fine for a really long time, there's "obviously" no need to spend any money to improve them, since "no one" is going to spend more money on the improved versions than they would on the cheap existing ones, and thus no one would be paying for the changeover. So it's not worht doing, to the marketers and accountants.


The same applies to just about any product--if' it's already "good enough" for the market, then it's not going to get changed, until a better product is made by someone that takes enough market share to force others to change theirs too.


Cottage industries do exist for certain improved versions of things like this, or stuff that helps make them work better (like ZombieSS's Throttle Tamer that helped high power bikes be more controllable with cheap crappy throttles...but nowadays high power controllers themselves more and more often let you fix this in their own software, eliminating the need for the TT).


A really good throttle would be:

--metal (durability, size can be smaller for better strength, can fit closer to other handlebar equipment, etc)

--dual sensor with inverse outputs (safety feature--either one doesn't match the other's output, then controller doesn't do anything--but requires the controller support this, and few do as of yet) (also allows to be used as left or righthand throttle, or to roll on/off throttle in whichever direction is desired)

--adjustable "throw" (to fit the ergonomics of different riders and different mounting options); set screws (or something) could be used to limit rotation, and magnets (if a hall type) could have adjustable positions inside it to allow deadband/etc response. *or* a bit of electronics could be built into the throttle with a serial programming connector to connect to a PC/etc, that lets you adjust the scale of the rotation to the scale the controller requires to match each controller to each throttle.

--roll-on switch to that engages only once throttle is manually turned (can be safety feature or used as brake switch, etc), dual output both NC and NO

--either comes in thumb, full grip and half grip versions, or has interchangeable "grip" on it, positionable in whatever rotation (vs the base) the rider needs for ergonomics. (allows more uses than a fixed-grip single type grip would)

--has a model with "detent" in center of throttle range to use half rotation in one direction for braking and half in the other for throttle, like the Vectrix scooters did. (would be difficult to have an option to put this into every unit; easier to have a separate version).

But it'd probably cost $100-200 each for such a throttle, as demand would be very low.


All that said, more and more controllers have programmable options that let the rider adjust throttle response to match their actual throttle and/or needs. So there's less and less reason to require no-deadband throttles.

Oh I see. I was assuming it might have been there because the resistance values in the throttle could change depending on the temperature, and you obviously don't want your bike to run off (although probably very slowly) as soon as you turn the power on.