daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
This is what - in my little head - I've had in mind for wiring up the KM. The idea being wire the bike so the components could be interchanged without having to completely re-wire or re-solder the bike.
If you who are more familiar with these things (Denny, Alex, Mike, Lee, Todd, etc) wanted to volunteer feedback on my clumsy efforts, I'd certainly welcome it. Anything from circuit design to suggestions on low profile or flush mount plugs would be greatly welcome. Fred and I have been wandering around on the internet and have some decent guesses, but wanted to get the peanut gallery feedback.
Thanks gang
Last edited by tehschkott on Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:26 pm; edited 1 time in total _________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
The trailtech ones are available with inline waterproof switches too, not that they're necessary for most things you'd wire in.
henry
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:46 pm
somewhat piggishJoined: 05 Aug 2005Posts: 5415Location: on porch with shotgun
Scott, you do know that even with all this shit you're not going to come close to setting the record for most expensive bike to sit unused on the back of a BMW right?
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
well not with that attitude!
_________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
caustic meatloaf
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:04 pm
Joined: 06 Dec 2010Posts: 1235537Location: a hammy melange...
Hmmm. Topically, I don't see anything obviously an issue with that wiring; it's pretty straightforward.
Are you running single or two conductor wire? I think it would be a bit simpler wiring if you tried to run just single conductor for the V+ supply, and then had each device ground locally, which that probably already can do if they're metal exterior.
_________________ HIS NAME IS EDMUND
tehschkott
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:44 pm
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
I plan to run dual rail all the way back. Some components don't handle the single rail config; QED better to have and not need?
_________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
dennyt
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:17 pm
rocket mechanicJoined: 02 Aug 2005Posts: 2708
Looks good. I don't think you need shielding if it's just 6V DC power. You could go either way with the grounding, but single strand won't save you anything really, and it might just cause more problems with grounding across the headset, etc.
I'm not familiar with dynohubs, but I think they provide 6V 3W, so 0.5A. That's like a mosquito named Sketchito farting in the wind.
Last edited by tehschkott on Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:27 pm; edited 1 time in total _________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
tehschkott
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:57 pm
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
...
Last edited by tehschkott on Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:27 pm; edited 1 time in total _________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
langston
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:13 pm
Joined: 25 Jul 2005Posts: 5547Location: Columbia City
dimes to dollars your USB connector will leak and kill the whole thing. Otherwise, looks kosher.
_________________ riders wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success.
tehschkott
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:30 pm
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
You might be right but it's a commercial product - I'm sort of assuming they have that part buckled down. That said, since I'm running it up the steerer I can drop an in-line fuse in it without issue. Won't save the charger but it'd prevent it from nuking the whole thing.
_________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
Alex
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:16 am
Joined: 18 May 2006Posts: 3128Location: Roosevelt
Why do you have so many connectors?
Drain
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:43 am
Joined: 22 Feb 2010Posts: 902Location: Seattle
Looks good to me, should be pretty clean when it's all together.
_________________ - Ian
jimmythefly
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:50 am
Joined: 10 Jan 2007Posts: 1491
I like the idea of modularity.
If I am understanding things, this way your could unmount the rack and rear light without having to undo any wiring. Then you could plug in a rear light only that's mounted on the seatstays or whatever. Or you could unmount the front rack and light and plug in a light only.
I'm not sure about the plug between the fork crown and the frame. are you really planning on separating the fork from the frame that often?
Eric_s
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:29 am
Joined: 07 Mar 2007Posts: 1691Location: the dirty south
jimmythefly wrote:
I'm not sure about the plug between the fork crown and the frame. are you really planning on separating the fork from the frame that often?
woah bro, what if he's gonna go shred the gnar and he needs his sweet sus fork.
Andrew_Squirrel
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:30 am
Joined: 01 Mar 2010Posts: 2098Location: Greenwood
I'm interested in reading the specs on that USB charger, anyone have a linky or namey?
Alex
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:56 am
Joined: 18 May 2006Posts: 3128Location: Roosevelt
I think you've gotten too complicated with all of the connections. Your taillight and headlight already have connectors on them, adding more to the system will just give you decreased reliability.
If you want to be able to remove the rear rack and fender I'd recommend mounting your taillight under the left chainstay instead on the rack or fender. It also makes the wiring easier and more reliable. It is pretty easy to figure out a mount there using one of the disk caliper or rear fender mounts.
I wouldn't add additional switches beyond the ones that are already built into your components. If you turn off the headlight and wire the taillight into the headlight then your taillight will turn off when your headlight is off. You'll want your USB charger in parallel to all of that, not connected to the taillight wires.
The less components (including connectors) the better from a reliability point of view. Just run one long wire through your downtube and out the chainstay.
There are probably more out there. Also there are homebuilt solutions.
whoreratiocane
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:03 am
Joined: 12 Aug 2010Posts: 190Location: Florida
Here are my thoughts:
1. 2 amp fuse is too large, what is the draw on the USB charger? Could you post the specs on the charger so that we can see what you are using. The fuse needs to be a fast acting type not a normal fuse as the short circuit from water will over amp the system very fast. That being said, expensive IC devices always seem to protect the fast acting fuses by failing first.
2. Waterproof connectors are a good idea, but I would be looking at a DIN or Mil Spec style connector. Allied Electronics has a large assortment of connectors.
I also would like to point out that waterproof is a term that never seems to hold water. Since the idea is to wire up the bike and then very rarely take it apart, I would probably put shrink wrap over the connectors as a an added protection.
3. eliminate the switch infront of the front light. If you are using a BM light, the switch should be built into the light, making the swtich duplicate.
4. Locate the switch for the rear ligh on the fork of the bike so that you can eliminate any special connectors at the back wheel. This will allow you to wire from the light to the connector at the top of the down tube.
_________________ YEAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!
tehschkott
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:31 am
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
@Alex
1. Jimmy nailed it - modularity.
2. I don't intend to add switches if the devices already have them.
3. I can still mount it low on the chainstay like you suggest, but I'm not limited to doing so. Like this, I can run rear light off a rack or (heaven fucking forbid) a trailer.
4. I like your feedback re: simplicity/less moving parts/reliability. I mean, I knew it but I'm glad you said something. Will go back through and eval.
@Jimmy - I think the thought here was, it's a great big flex point. I want it to break away before I want it to rip out. Also, theoretically there are some reconfiguration options - if say I want to bypass or disconnect the rear lights entirely and do something else. I'd concede the point that it may be unnecessary.
@Todd -
1. I sorta wondered if that fuse was going to be too big. And you're right, the device will fail before the fuse goes off. I think the thought was to protect the rest of the system.
2. You make a good point about waterproof connectors. I should have said connections, not connectors. I won't heat shrink them because - have you met me? I can't not disassemble a bike every 4 bloody months apparently. But your point is well made nonetheless. I haven't followed your links yet but I think Mil-spec connectors are pretty bulky which would rule them out. But I agree some kind of shielding/covering would not be a terrible idea.
About USB chargers - I sorta want to save the specifics of that for a different thread. I'm undecided which direction I intend to go, only that I like the idea of provisioning space for one in the future - and doing so now seems like a smarter idea then trying to retroactively go back and add it.
Last edited by tehschkott on Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:36 am; edited 2 times in total _________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
whoreratiocane
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:33 am
Joined: 12 Aug 2010Posts: 190Location: Florida
Here is a simpler diagram.
_________________ YEAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!
dennyt
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:33 am
rocket mechanicJoined: 02 Aug 2005Posts: 2708
Heatshrink is disposable, just do it!
Alex
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:37 am
Joined: 18 May 2006Posts: 3128Location: Roosevelt
I'm going to suggest simplifying your goals to get a more reliable system.
Pick one taillight location and stick with it. If you use a trailer just put a battery light on it instead of a dynamo powered one.
The taillight won't have a switch, but when would you want to run your headlight and not your taillight? Just run the taillight off of the headlight's taillight wires (eDelux and all IQ lights have these terminals) and share the switch.
Don't put any additional connectors. The taillight comes with a wire that goes through the frame and has connectors for both the headlight and taillight end. Having two connectors less than a foot apart (one at the headlight and one at the downtube) just doubles your chances of failures without making any rewiring easier.
You don't need to plan for the USB charger now. If you add one later the only rewiring would adding in additional stuff between the front hub and the headlight. That is a short section of wiring to redo and none of the complicated wiring.
With my suggested system you don't need to solder or heatshrink or buy anything that doesn't already come with the headlight and taillight. This setup is well proven and modular. The only downside is that your taillight wire would be the right length for having a taillight in a specific location. Should you want to change this later you could make an extension using the same 2mm spade connectors that the German's already include with their lights.
saccade
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:54 am
Joined: 19 May 2009Posts: 323Location: monkey lab
Alex wrote:
I wouldn't add additional switches beyond the ones that are already built into your components. If you turn off the headlight and wire the taillight into the headlight then your taillight will turn off when your headlight is off. You'll want your USB charger in parallel to all of that, not connected to the taillight wires.
If he's running a USB charger he's gonna want to do things like run the charger and taillight but not the headlight. That's my experience anyway, with the headlight on gets you barely enough juice to keep a running phone alive but not actually charge it. All in parallel is the way I'd go.
The danger of all in parallel is that most dynamo taillights can't handle the full power of the dynamo without a headlight taking up some of the juice. They don't have a good enough regulator in them. Having 3 individual switches makes it too easy to turn off the headlight and USB charger and leave the taillight on, and then destroying it.
If I were building this system I think I'd have a DPDT switch that either sent power to the USB charger or to the lighting system, but not both at the same time. There are very limited times when having a taillight on but a headlight off makes sense. If anything I'd usually prefer the opposite.
I personally don't get the desire for the USB charger unless you are using the bike for regular long distance touring. Otherwise it is complication and expense with minor benefit. For point83 style 1-3 night tours it is cheaper and easier to carry along an external li-ion battery pack (or just don't leave your phone on all the time). For regular 5+ day tours I totally get it, but I've known Scott for a long time and he hasn't done such a tour during that time.
Finally, just to be overly anal, running the taillight off of the headlight still has everything in parallel. Those taillight leads coming off of the headlight are in parallel with the headlight itself, but share a common switch (DPST or similar electronics) with the headlight.
alex
the dreaded ben
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:31 am
Grumpy GreebJoined: 20 Aug 2005Posts: 5329Location: flavor country
nerds.
whoreratiocane
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:37 am
Joined: 12 Aug 2010Posts: 190Location: Florida
Alex wrote:
If I were building this system I think I'd have a DPDT switch that either sent power to the USB charger or to the lighting system, but not both at the same time. There are very limited times when having a taillight on but a headlight off makes sense. If anything I'd usually prefer the opposite.
+1
I like the idea of switching between USB charger and lighting system. This allows the use of the headlight switch to control both the front and rear lights. And if you do not install the USB charger immediately the switch selecting charging or lighting could be used as a lights on off switch. You could also use a three position toggle, all off, lights on or Charger on.
_________________ YEAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!
tehschkott
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:02 pm
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
whoreratiocane wrote:
Alex wrote:
If I were building this system I think I'd have a DPDT switch that either sent power to the USB charger or to the lighting system, but not both at the same time. There are very limited times when having a taillight on but a headlight off makes sense. If anything I'd usually prefer the opposite.
+1
I like the idea of switching between USB charger and lighting system. This allows the use of the headlight switch to control both the front and rear lights. And if you do not install the USB charger immediately the switch selecting charging or lighting could be used as a lights on off switch. You could also use a three position toggle, all off, lights on or Charger on.
Some kind of multi-position toggle switch was my original plan. Scrapped it for a couple reasons. I didn't like the selection of switches I found, and I didn't like the wire routing the whole thing would have to take to make it work. Switching off at the device seemed to be a simpler implementation of the same thing.
Rear lights - I don't actually care about them. I'm only doing it because it seemed silly to go through the effort to do this but exclude them. That said, I didn't know about the rear light limitations. Is it prohibitive to simply wire in an in-line regulator? Do the battery backed lights have the same problem? I've considered making my own rear light - apparently they're not terribly difficult to do.
Regarding the USB charger. I go broke trying to stay in batteries and chargers. If there's a better solution, I'm interested. Frankly I'm more interested in rigging up the charger before I am the headlight since it appears to work on both my phone and my existing MiNewt.
updated:
Last edited by tehschkott on Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:39 pm; edited 1 time in total _________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
Andrew_Squirrel
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:27 pm
Joined: 01 Mar 2010Posts: 2098Location: Greenwood
Regarding killing the rear light (if it happens on rare occasions), can't you just add a TVS Diode to the rear light circuit? I don't really know much about the typical rear light circuitry but i'm surprised they wouldn't be robustly designed to deal with all sorts of overvoltage spikes (and sustained high voltage)
whoreratiocane
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:27 pm
Joined: 12 Aug 2010Posts: 190Location: Florida
FTFY
_________________ YEAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!
tehschkott
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:49 pm
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
whoreratiocane wrote:
FTFY
We might be arguing over proper notation, but I think that's incorrect.
The model I posted slaves the rear light to the front light. Sever power to the headlight and you sever power to the tail light at the same time.
The model you posted puts the rear light back in parallel which according to Alex can cause problems unless Andrew's solution below applies.
Andrew_Squirrel wrote:
Regarding killing the rear light (if it happens on rare occasions), can't you just add a TVS Diode to the rear light circuit? I don't really know much about the typical rear light circuitry but i'm surprised they wouldn't be robustly designed to deal with all sorts of overvoltage spikes (and sustained high voltage)
I was wondering the same. Seems like a simple thing to do if you suspect it's going to be an issue.
_________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
Alex
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:36 pm
Joined: 18 May 2006Posts: 3128Location: Roosevelt
Andrew_Squirrel wrote:
Regarding killing the rear light (if it happens on rare occasions), can't you just add a TVS Diode to the rear light circuit? I don't really know much about the typical rear light circuitry but i'm surprised they wouldn't be robustly designed to deal with all sorts of overvoltage spikes (and sustained high voltage)
The TVS looks like it is meant for short bursts. You are an electronics guy, so I'm sure I'll get the rest of this wrong, feel free to correct me. I was a EE for one semester before deciding that I really didn't like analog circuits and switching to CS.
The dynamo is trying to supply 500ma at a voltage that varies with speed (nominally at least 6 volts at riding speeds). The headlights are designed to use 400ma of that, and leave 100ma for the taillight.
My understanding (and I haven't measured this) is that if the devices don't use all of the available 500ma that the voltage will spike in response. The taillight doesn't need to just deal with a temporary spike, it needs to deal with a sustained one.
The electronics in these things keep getting more advanced, but early LED headlights (DLumotec, first gen IQ Fly, Inoled) were very simple and could even fail if there wasn't a taillight attached to them (because now the headlight had to deal with 500ma instead of 400ma). The newer ones do a better job of keeping up with unbalanced loads, but I don't think that the taillights are designed to handle the full current.
Scott: Taillights are pretty easy to make, but the Seculite is so cheap that I have a hard time bothering. Once you add in a supercap (for a standlight) you are looking at $10 worth of components and you don't have an enclosure yet. I do think that dyno taillights are worth using, I just don't think it is worth overthinking a modular system to make it so that you can move the light between a bike and a trailer.
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
Beeeeecause I need another device that I can forget to plug in?
Didn't we already discuss the part where I'm a retard who can't seem to remember to plug his phone or his lights in? I'm hoping the dynamo will, in one move, fix both issues.
2 down - 29342343 to go.
_________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
Alex
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:56 pm
Joined: 18 May 2006Posts: 3128Location: Roosevelt
Sorry, I thought the issue was that your batteries didn't last long enough, not that you forgot to charge them.
USB dyno charger it is, I'd just suggest KISS for the system integration.
tehschkott
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:32 pm
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
Well, both are at issue to be sure. The battery doesn't last long enough and I don't remember to plug it in as often as it wants to be plugged in - which is almost every second of the day. I'm a fan of the KISS principle, I'm just... on phase 2 of it.
Hopefully my next phone has better battery life.
_________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
fatasian
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:44 pm
dick wang's fatherJoined: 26 Aug 2008Posts: 1707Location: devenshire
tehschkott wrote:
whoreratiocane wrote:
FTFY
We might be arguing over proper notation, but I think that's incorrect.
FWIW Todd was an engineer full time, prior to practicing law. He's a Fucking Brainiac.
caustic meatloaf
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:50 pm
Joined: 06 Dec 2010Posts: 1235537Location: a hammy melange...
Alex - not necessarily. Most electric circuits will pull only the current that is allowed due to the total resistence of the circuit. It could be that with that particular headlight ,the iresistance was dropped significantly when the taillight was pulled off, and there was likely little in the way of current protection to keep the LEDs from burning out. That's more of a cheap design than a poor LED, since most good LED circuits have a current limiting resistor in series with the LED to keep that from happening - i.e. too much current flowing through an LED causing it to burn out.
A cheap way to get around current limiting resistors was to just connect all the LEDs in series, and have their forward voltage values combine to the supply voltage. That wouldn't be a problem if you have a single circuit, and you'd have a great light. But, like the one you mentioned, the likely situation was that the 2nd light pulled power in parallel. So, when BOTH were connected, the current split proportionally (probably different Vf on the rear light LEDs), but when it was disconnected, there was no way to limit the current going through the other LED circuit.
These days, I'd be highly surprised that an LED light didn't have some sort of current limiting resistor to keep it from burning out. The nice thing about that is that if there IS a voltage bump, the resistor will take up the large portion of that over-voltage (yay voltage divider!), and there will be a very slight voltage bump across the LED, and thus a total slight increase in the current. If the lights are operating within a comfortable margin between max luminosity and max current before failure, the issue is largely unnoticed.
_________________ HIS NAME IS EDMUND
tehschkott
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:58 pm
daywalkerJoined: 09 Nov 2007Posts: 6108Location: Hatertown
fatasian wrote:
tehschkott wrote: whoreratiocane wrote:
FTFY
We might be arguing over proper notation, but I think that's incorrect.
FWIW Todd was an engineer full time, prior to practicing law. He's a Fucking Brainiac.
I know what Todd does. That's why I prefaced my response. Unless the proper method of annotation differs, his edit here (and the one before) appears to be incorrect, or at least confusing given the input from others.
No big deal, but looking for clarification.
_________________ GREAT UNITER / ORACLE / ELDER
MOOAAR DONGS
Alex
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:11 pm
Joined: 18 May 2006Posts: 3128Location: Roosevelt
A current limiting resistor works if you know the source voltage and current. You don't know either with a dynamo unless you model the whole circuit and aim for 500ma current draw.
Here is an easy to build taillight standlight circuit that won't handle the headlight blowing up. I'm not saying that they are often or normally built this way, but some are close. It is so easy that I'm not going to draw a schematic.
hub -> rectifier -> ( 80ma/2.3v LED -> 80ma/2.3v LED ) | 5.5 volt 1F supercap
That gets you two LEDs and a standlight. The rectifier drops about 1v, the two LEDs in series drop about 5 volts (for a total of 6) and the LEDs are slightly overdriven by seeing 100ma of current.
However if you disconnect the headlight the overall circuit (including the headlight) won't use enough current and the voltage will go up.
If you put a 5.6ohm resistor in there it will act as a current limiting resistor for the normal 6V input. However if the headlight is disconnected the voltage will again go up. It'll probably go up to around 8 volts, where the current limiting resistor will now allow about 500ma to the LEDs and they'll die quickly.
This is about the limit of my circuit design skills. I'm sure Andrew can suggest a much better design that will properly limit current and allow the taillight to work if it is connected to a headlight or running on it's own. Then it is up to hoping that the tail light designers also used a decent circuit.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 11, 2023 6:48 pm
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
daywalker
Joined: 09 Nov 2007
Posts: 6108
Location: Hatertown
BAD NAVIGATOR
Joined: 01 Mar 2010
Posts: 1505
Joined: 06 Dec 2010
Posts: 1235537
Location: a hammy melange...
rocket mechanic
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2708
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 5547
Location: Columbia City
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 3128
Location: Roosevelt
Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 902
Location: Seattle
Joined: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 1491
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 1691
Location: the dirty south
Joined: 01 Mar 2010
Posts: 2098
Location: Greenwood
Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 190
Location: Florida
Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 323
Location: monkey lab
Grumpy Greeb
Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 5329
Location: flavor country
dick wang's father
Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 1707
Location: devenshire
