Another new TQ motor: hpr40

[stompandgo]

Chris, I’m not sure the communication protocol is really the issue here, unless you’re saying that the variety of transports is what has been responsible for improper standardization. What I’m saying (badly, I guess ) is that the industry should have already recognized the value of an ebike-oriented protocol that contains all the important electrical data. I mean current battery voltage, current power draw (wattage), various temperatures, maybe "state of charge,”… All the things that anyone who needs to know the state of their electric bike can reference. That seems to be missing in ANT, etc. If that’s all not there, then what you have is an industry that’s short-sighted and needs a wake-up call (in my opinion). Again, I’m not sure I’m understanding everything here.

Do you guys have a reference to the spec(s)? I’d like to learn more. Maybe I can help.

The protocol is the issue, though, because changes to them require submissions, evaluations, approvals, and releases. This is true for both ANT+ and BTLE. If the e-bike industry got together and agreed that they needed a robust dataset that the protocol needed to support, it could probably happen. That's how ANT+ started in the first place, as a consortium. The first part is the obstacle. Bicycle manufacturers relish in their innovations and proprietary developments. They are all guilty of this. It's what they believe sets their product apart from all the others. The bicycle industry has always been its own worst enemy.

This is ANT has historical information about the protocol. As @mschwett says, Garmin bought it and controls everything surrounding it.

 

[Chazmo]

The bicycle industry has always been its own worst enemy.

I think we’re in violent agreement.

Thanks for the historical background. I’ll digest that and get back to you guys. This kind of stuff used to be my bag back in my working days. A retired old fart like me could be patient enough to work with the right committees to get the right data into the protocols and then you could help me build hardware around it, Chris.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

That seems to be missing in ANT, etc. If that’s all not there, then what you have is an industry that’s short-sighted and needs a wake-up call (in my opinion).

You have all necessary information on the display or in the App of a proprietary system such as Bosch, Specialized or TQ. The point is, there is no standard. LEV ANT+ gives me all the information I need during the ride, especially on my Vado SL that even doesn't have a proper display.

By comparison, what information you ask for is available on your e-bike?

 

[Chazmo]

. . .of a proprietary system such as Bosch, Specialized or TQ ...

That’s the problem, Stefan. That’s what I’m saying. This information should be in a standardized packaged format that can be utilized and visualized by (non-proprietary) devices. The fact that this data is not available outside the (proprietary) manufacturer’s hardware/software ecosystem means that innovation is limited.

… LEV ANT+ gives me all the information I need during the ride ...

Well, clearly we have different needs/wants, Stefan. Nothing wrong with that. if I’m not seeing basic power utilization information when I ride, then I’m not happy with the equipment.

 

[Base]

most systems run on CAN-bus, so in theory wireless CAN-bus would the most logical step. I2C and UART needs to be solved in a different way... and most e-bike systems are single-line CAN

 

[Chazmo]

most systems run on CAN-bus, so in theory wireless CAN-bus would the most logical step. I2C and UART needs to be solved in a different way... and most e-bike systems are single-line CAN

I think I’d be inclined to look toward bluetooth or ultra-wideband (UWB) as wireless transports for ebikes. Both are short-range and seem appropriate to the task. Maybe there are others, but I don’t know.

Base, I see that there’s already problems with standardization in the existing ebike (wired) world and if I were to focus on the future I think I’d abandon all of that (or at least not work on that first) in favor of wireless controls/displays/data.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Charlie, nobody in the industry gives a s*it on standardisation. Does your own e-bike provide the information you need?

 

[stompandgo]

The right way to do this is to use a standard programmable chip, open source software, with proprietary vendor branches. It will never happen.

 

[mschwett]

most systems run on CAN-bus, so in theory wireless CAN-bus would the most logical step. I2C and UART needs to be solved in a different way... and most e-bike systems are single-line CAN

but the bike already has BLE. it’s really just a need for / use of a standard profile for BLE. this already exists for many bluetooth fitness devices - like cycling power meters.

phones have bluetooth. smartwatches have bluetooth. bikes have bluetooth. cycling computers have bluetooth. other than the safety issue around actually controlling the bike, this is really just a matter of defining the profile and agreeing to use it. i believe there are implementations now which comply with EU RED.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

phones have bluetooth. smartwatches have bluetooth. bikes have bluetooth. cycling computers have bluetooth. other than the safety issue around actually controlling the bike, this is really just a matter of defining the profile and agreeing to use it. i believe there are implementations now which comply with EU RED.

What if the BT channel is encrypted for the compliance with EU RED?

 

[stompandgo]

You use an encryption capable BTLE chip that does the key handshake.