You seem to be bringing that up more frequently that I have recently. But now that you have, you seem to be the only one that believes the CA-3 shouldn't be part of ancient history. Further, I never bring it up out of nowhere. Generally, if/when I do, it's to mention it should be checked out thoroughly prior to purchase. What kind of experience does one need to see it's badly outdated? Do you think I need to own one prior to forming that opinion? Do I need to own a turd to know it will smell?Stale as CA3 size and function even though there’s no experience?
Who doesn’t have a pet peeve or product?
They'll just do multi-mode models that can go from non-compliant to compliant with the press of a button. Competitive forces will eventually push the big brand drive system producers to offer multi-mode as well.So basically what is available now and not giving anyone any reason to do things differently
You’re funny! The point wasn’t the CA3. It was your stubborn insistence and busting someone else’s chops while doing the same darned thing you accuse others of. Come in fella. This ain’t religion!
Ditto.... He busts my chops frequently. Tells me I'm implying to deny choice when I suggest that having a base model with a throttle and having PAS as a purchase upgrade when the big brands don't even offer a throttle. I just scratch my head....
Ken, I busted your chops as you were promoting the idea that conventional PAS (one using a PAS sensor) is/might be an expensive option. That's clearly just not the case. If you think I'm off base with that, tell me I am. Let's talk about it? One of us might learn something that way....
I think that cloth cuts both ways Al.....
My thought is that only torque-sensing PAS provides the bike-like feel that people like about PAS systems. I have owned 2 x cadence-based assist ebikes and both seemed very flawed. One literally was just an on/off switch for assist to the level selected. Correct me if I'm wrong but a good non-contact strain gage on the crank to provide torque-based PAS is not cheap. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought just this added a minimum of $100 to the price of the ebike.
Market driven. And for many of us PAS is very robust and suits our riding ability and meets our expectations. This starts to read like the throttle damning threads. I’m on the side of whatever floats your boat. I’m planning on torque sensing on my next build. But only as a curiosity and to have the experience.
All good. But hot button isn’t a good description. I’m in the whatever floats your boat crew. I’m REALLY impressed by my Grin RTR kit. I have an easier time with Grin components and MAC programming. Getting my online ebike parts “Rummage sale” organized I found a KT display I never messed with. You’re one up on me there. I enjoy our banter.
Ken, consider the average e-bike sold/operated today. Throttle only? Nope. Torque sensing? Nope.
I do just fail to understand how a cadence only PAS system is a viable solution. Cadence speed as I see it has little correlation to what assist a rider might want. I know I quickly found out that I didn't like my ebike that just used cadence as an on/off switch for the 5 different levels of assist wattage.
I guess you still haven't read (understood) my previous post... Or anyone else's for that matter.
Most don't use "5 different levels of assist wattage" (known as power based PAS). The vast majority use SPEED based PAS. Biggest downside with them, the thing that draws the most complaints, is they're too darn fast even when in PAS 1. As long as the pedals are turning, they'll accelerate the bike up to 12-13mph. If you want to go faster, you increase the PAS level. But what happens if you want to go slower? This will have you stopping and starting pedaling to control your speed, and a lot of ghost pedaling (pedaling without any effort).
That is exactly what I have my PAS 1 set to. Actually 5-7 deepening on gear, typically using the lower half.
But the programming has to make assumptions about how much assist is desired based on a sensor parameter that is not tied to rider effort in reality. I understand it can be done to provide a good assist sensation but I fail to see that this is even remotely as good as just giving the rider direct control of the assist via a throttle (have a cruse control if worried about wrist / thumb fatigue from throttle.
I understand what you are saying and yes... No programming, high resolution or not can read a riders mind and understand all resistance factors. But I know that it works well enough for me and find it far more enjoyable than using the throttle. Especially in an every changing environment it does a decent job of keeping me in the same narrow cadence range
Ken, you go for your throttle only preference. Nobody here saying you can't/aren't allowed. I'm pretty sure some will even follow/agree with you. Just don't expect it to be real popular/universal given the other options.
