Been tinkering with this quite a bit lately as I never hard braked before until recently and the crunch was loud! The setting that worked for me that greatly reduced the crunch was adjusting motor resistance up to 100 and also raised Ki to 100 to match. Was trying to find what impact this has but the “help” didn’t give too much information other than something about wires? Does anyone know what the impact is to motor on this setting? Does it run hotter? Etc? On an XR Hypercore, Thor 300
XRV with a CBXR and N48 MTE:
I previously had not ridden it aggressively. Grabbed it today for a quick trip and noticed motor crunch under heavy breaking. Went through #1-7 in this list and it was still present down hill braking. Following #8 and setting saturation compensation to 10% with the mode of “Factor” makes it smooth even in aggressive braking. You asked for people trying it out to report back, here it is.
1 Like
To start: this was done on my 18S ME4T Pack XRV with a stock XR hypercore. These tests used a small lip between a parking lot and a sidewalk as a climbing test; consistent height and easy to experiment with motor currents and FOC values.
Base hypercore readings:
Motor Resistance: 95.9
Motor Inductance: 232.99
Inductance Difference: 49.2
Motor Flux Linkage: 28.265
Current KP: 0.2330
Current KI: 95.9 (mirroring MR)
Observer Gain: 0.8
First set of currents: 120, -120, 180
Stock FOC readings:
Ortega Original (OO) w/no saturation comp: Hard crunch
Ortega Lambda Comp (OLC) w/no saturation comp: Hard crunch
Better climbing results on OO compared to OLC but both still had crunch regardless.
OO w/ 15% factor saturation comp: Less occurring hard crunch with slight hit on climbing consistency
OO w/ 15% lambda saturation comp: Consistent but much softer crunch with slight hit on climbing consistency
OLC w/ 15% factor saturation comp: Less occurring hard crunch with slight hit on climbing consistency (same as OO)
OLC w/ 15% lambda saturation comp: Consistent but much softer crunch with slight hit on climbing consistency (same as OO)
None of the above setups with saturation compensation came were clearly better than all of the others
Changing motor values: MR and KI to 110 yielded less crunch on factor, ZERO crunch on lambda, and lesser climbing results compared to my stock FOC readings. changing motor inductance made no noticeable changes on all of the above
Second set of currents: 150, -150, 225 (spicy)
Ortega Original (OO) w/no saturation comp: Harder crunch
Ortega Lambda Comp (OLC) w/no saturation comp: Harder crunch
Better climbing results on OO compared to OLC but both still had crunch regardless.
OO w/ 15% factor saturation comp: Less occurring hard crunch with BETTER climbing than 120s
OO w/ 15% lambda saturation comp: Consistent but much softer crunch with BETTER climbing than 120s
OLC w/ 15% factor saturation comp: Less occurring hard crunch with BETTER climbing than 120s (same as OO)
OLC w/ 15% lambda saturation comp: Consistent but much softer crunch with BETTER climbing than 120s (same as OO)
Again, none of the above setups with saturation compensation were clearly better than all of the others, but they were noticeably better than using 120s
Changing MR and KI to 110 further reduced crunch on factor, ELIMINATED it on lambda (basically straight butter), with equivalent or BETTER climbing results than stock FOC readings. again, Motor Inductance made no differences the interesting part here though is that raising the motor currents to 150, -150, 225 yielded noticeable torque improvements in this testing. now, i never saw motor amps over 135 but i guarantee results will very
TLDR: my best results for both torque output and ZERO crunch were stock FOC readings with both Motor Resistance and KI at 110. used 150, -150, and 225 on OLC with 15% Lambda compensation. Using 120, -120, and 180 is most definitely safer but 150s and 225 noticeably bring back extra torque
1 Like
@nexinity I merged your post into our Motor Crunch tutorial for better visibility
1 Like