Oh of course, you even lead with stating that you would like to make some points as devils advocate and I agree with that approach. It's like when you're doing prompt engineering for an LLM. i.e. need to make sure we loud all context into our shared memory so our neural networks can properly evaluate the scenario and make informed statements. It's a collaborative effort. :)
Regarding discharge protection and BMS safety I completely agree with a hybrid approach of discharge protection with a grace period to alert the user if the device is armed. The main issue with battery safety is when the device is left unattended charging, but I do agree that ideally it should be shutoff completely while unattended. However, when riding, I would rather my board start smoking and catch on fire than ditch me going 25mph. Obviously there needs to be a hybrid approach as you describe as the current situation is not optimal.
Yes, the EUC market is a prime example. There aren't actually that many VESC EUC builds because there is so much competition it is not needed.
Regarding "drinking the kool-aid" and "the pioneer of a technology not is not often the one that sees it through to maturity", I feel like a prime example was the Boosted boards.
Thank you for your detailed response. I completely agree that certain standards for a safety critical system should be met for when these devices go out of the factory!
Regarding BMS safety, the reason for removing control of the discharge path is that the device should always prioritize the safety of the user while riding. Instead of dropping the user to the pavement, pushback and audio alerts should be done to alert the user that one of the cells is having a voltage issue, or the pack is getting too hot. Bypassing the BMS's discharge does not effect charge protection, which is the main scenario of what would cause the battery to catch on fire and burn your house down.
In fact, Future Motion DISABLED BEING ABLE TO READ INDIVIDUAL CELL VOLTAGES TO MONITOR THE SAFETY OF THE PACK in an effort to restrict 3rd parties from building batteries. Another anti-consumer decision was the GT having 6.5" non-standard rims in an effort to corner the tire after market. Larger rim size is actually bad for riding characteristics and the right move from an engineering perspective would have been to go smaller actually (the float life is working on 5" hubs)
Yes, I get that having a OneWheel catch on fire impacts their brand, but there's multiple other issues with these devices and quite a number of anti-R2R which is not acting in good faith for users safety, and again, the actual dangerous scenarios are when a cell gets over-charged which the BMS is still there for to enforce. :)
Regarding R2R there's people all around the world who ride these devices, and sending the board into their only location in Cali just isn't an appropriate solution. Unfortunately FM has been very strict on enforcing patents (even though they didn't technically invent the self balancing skateboard as there is prior art) and they have created a anti-competitive, anti-consumer market.
I would absolutely love a safer device that meets the safety standards and certifications you mention, and I hope there can be a path forward where I don't have to build these myself. I'm lazy. I don't exactly enjoy this type of work on my board (I'd rather be riding). I do it out of necessity.
First of all, fuck Future Motion on the C&D for REWheel. Also why haven't they still haven't patched the security vulnerability of hardcoded AES key in their devices? REWheel was specifically architected so that it did not share any IP, and they came in and bullied Nish under an archaic clause in the DMCA that's being hotly contested in R2R. The VESC implementation was Whitebox reverse engineered and none of the coders (Mitch, Dado, Nico) ever even looked at any FM binary. All REWheel was trying to do was let users repair their BMS's and re level their boards for aftermarket rails as well as provide safety features so that boards didn't drop users.
Besides this recall, here are all the other issues with their boards:
1) BMS discharge protection shutting off board instead of pushback/buzzer.
2) Wires breaking in cable harness leading to BMS communication drop shutting off board during mid ride (my friends have broken bones on the XR because of this).
3) Pint X Balance cable pinching
4) GT motor connector coming loose during midride leading to board cut off.
5) Lack of locktite in controller box screws and nuts (common for power button nut to come loose and short controller in Pint)
6) Lack of proper waterproofing in controller and battery box (should put silicone sealant around connector ports internally and externally)
7) Water getting into Pint motor connector causing short (should put dielectric grease on all connectors)
8) Underspeced charging connector on Pint PCB for hypercharger leading to arcing and damage.
9) Unknown reproducible GT shutoff over certain bridges on later hardware revisions. My theory is that you swapped out IMU because of chip shortage and didn't validate high pass filters properly. Either that or GT motor connector looseness issue. I can go ride one of my friends GT and make it shutoff right now if I wanted to by riding over certain bridges! It's insane!
10) Underspeced mosfets on controller leading to lack of torque and recovery in nosedive situations. My VESC Pint beats the GT on hill climbs.
11) GT axel weakness leading to breakage.
12) Powder coating on GT rails leading to overheating
13) Lack of proper coolant (like statoraid) in GT Hypercore hub leading to overheating.
14) Reverse polarity on XT-60 connections (this is just evil)
The above design flaws have lead to multiple injuries and broken bones in Future Motion devices that I have mitigated in all of my VESC boards I have built for myself and the people I love and don't want to see get hurt.
OneWheels are great devices. I myself have close to 10K miles on them. I have felt infinitely safer after I started converting my own to VESC boards, removing the discharge path on the BMS (so it couldn't power off the board unexpectedly) and disabling moving faults (so it couldn't drop the user due to a failed footpad). This has been achieved by swapping out both the BMS and ESC to open source, aftermarket solutions.
You can observe for the presence of psilocybin by blue bruising of the mushroom flesh. If you make a tea, the water will turn blue as psilocybin converts into psilocin through hydrolysis. You can squeeze some lemon juice in to stop the reaction before it turns from blue to dark (i.e. adjust the pH to stop the reaction before the psilocin breaks down into non-active compounds).
Or you can just get some 4-Aco-DMT to convert to psilocin which is way easier to microdose.
Regarding discharge protection and BMS safety I completely agree with a hybrid approach of discharge protection with a grace period to alert the user if the device is armed. The main issue with battery safety is when the device is left unattended charging, but I do agree that ideally it should be shutoff completely while unattended. However, when riding, I would rather my board start smoking and catch on fire than ditch me going 25mph. Obviously there needs to be a hybrid approach as you describe as the current situation is not optimal.
Yes, the EUC market is a prime example. There aren't actually that many VESC EUC builds because there is so much competition it is not needed.
Regarding "drinking the kool-aid" and "the pioneer of a technology not is not often the one that sees it through to maturity", I feel like a prime example was the Boosted boards.