Made the changes based on Max and GoldOxide's posts. [url=https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ap1u16zFXQ1_jTXt0k6M00DHa0iF]Uploaded v1.03 here. Again, ideas and comments are welcome!
Also, had a set of four housings (left to right: display unit, central unit, angled support) printed in black. The next set will be silver. Then comes the rather painful job of sanding, filling, sanding, painting. They'll look a lot better after that
[attachment=10090]
Updated the Manual to version 1.04. It is now a GoogleDocs document, shared for viewing. You can read it [url=https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LPGptCbYIsAv6-C50elb9t9W9Ldl5MX_CCLPMAmSZnI/edit?usp=sharing]here. I plan no more versions, except for adding a "what's inside the box" picture. Hope this new format will make it more accessible
The GoogleDoc version appears editable. Is that what you wish so viewers can suggest mark-up changes? Otherwise, I would consider making it read-only, or if possible, suggest only.
In any case, I reckon you would be notified when there are changes.
Was a bit surprised
to learn that most of you (who sent me a PM showing interest in the final device) would prefer to have it pre-attached to the angled mount. This brings me to the following idea: will check if I could cram the electronics of the center module into the angled mount itself. That would make it a "single module" device. Will be back with the result soon. This will not require re-designing electronics (it is already as small as it could be), just a new angled mount to be printed if dimensions seem to be ok.
(08-30-2019, 10:34 PM)Csory_imp Wrote: [ -> ]Was a bit surprised to learn that most of you (who sent me a PM showing interest in the final device) would prefer to have it pre-attached to the angled mount. This brings me to the following idea: will check if I could cram the electronics of the center module into the angled mount itself. That would make it a "single module" device. Will be back with the result soon. This will not require re-designing electronics (it is already as small as it could be), just a new angled mount to be printed if dimensions seem to be ok.
If you consider this optimization, then please consider not permanently affixing the Display Module (DM) to the Central Module (CM). This will allow the option to affixing the DM at "normal" or upsidedown on the angled mount so it can be placed elsewhere, instead of on a hydraulic reservoir.
That said, maybe consider a second choice (or an additional BOM item) "non-angled" mount (basically a rectangular matchbox) to affix the DM. The advantage of this is the electrical connection between the DM and CM won't have to be concerned about orientation to each other.
In short, across various riders and machines, the flexibility for mount should be maintained for universal application and wider deployment acceptance.
(08-30-2019, 11:15 PM)GoldOxide_imp Wrote: [ -> ] (08-30-2019, 10:34 PM)Csory_imp Wrote: [ -> ]Was a bit surprised to learn that most of you (who sent me a PM showing interest in the final device) would prefer to have it pre-attached to the angled mount. This brings me to the following idea: will check if I could cram the electronics of the center module into the angled mount itself. That would make it a "single module" device. Will be back with the result soon. This will not require re-designing electronics (it is already as small as it could be), just a new angled mount to be printed if dimensions seem to be ok.
If you consider this optimization, then please consider not permanently affixing the Display Module (DM) to the Central Module (CM). This will allow the option to affixing the DM at "normal" or upsidedown on the angled mount so it can be placed elsewhere, instead of on a hydraulic reservoir.
That said, maybe consider a second choice (or an additional BOM item) "non-angled" mount (basically a rectangular matchbox) to affix the DM. The advantage of this is the electrical connection between the DM and CM won't have to be concerned about orientation to each other.
In short, across various riders and machines, the flexibility for mount should be maintained for universal application and wider deployment acceptance.
Not sure that I get this "matchbox" thingy right: the DM is already a flat square box. You mean to add another one underneath to make it sit higher?
(The "all-in-one" would be non-separable, since there would be no connecting cable between the CM and DM. If someone would like to alternate between mounting options, that means separate CM and DM.)
(08-31-2019, 12:39 AM)Csory_imp Wrote: [ -> ] (08-30-2019, 11:15 PM)GoldOxide_imp Wrote: [ -> ] (08-30-2019, 10:34 PM)Csory_imp Wrote: [ -> ]Was a bit surprised to learn that most of you (who sent me a PM showing interest in the final device) would prefer to have it pre-attached to the angled mount. This brings me to the following idea: will check if I could cram the electronics of the center module into the angled mount itself. That would make it a "single module" device. Will be back with the result soon. This will not require re-designing electronics (it is already as small as it could be), just a new angled mount to be printed if dimensions seem to be ok.
If you consider this optimization, then please consider not permanently affixing the Display Module (DM) to the Central Module (CM). This will allow the option to affixing the DM at "normal" or upsidedown on the angled mount so it can be placed elsewhere, instead of on a hydraulic reservoir.
That said, maybe consider a second choice (or an additional BOM item) "non-angled" mount (basically a rectangular matchbox) to affix the DM. The advantage of this is the electrical connection between the DM and CM won't have to be concerned about orientation to each other.
In short, across various riders and machines, the flexibility for mount should be maintained for universal application and wider deployment acceptance.
Not sure that I get this "matchbox" thingy right: the DM is already a flat square box. You mean to add another one underneath to make it sit higher?
(The "all-in-one" would be non-separable, since there would be no connecting cable between the CM and DM. If someone would like to alternate between mounting options, that means separate CM and DM.)
Not sure that I get this "matchbox" thingy right: the DM is already a flat square box. You mean to add another one underneath to make it sit higher?
(The "all-in-one" would be non-separable, since there would be no connecting cable between the CM and DM. If someone would like to alternate between mounting options, that means separate CM and DM.)
Yes, the "matchbox" would be essentially the CM.
By integrating only the angled piece basically reverts the premise of a common CM for all current and future configurations and untold products (but really, this is your baby to determine). The angled piece also limits end user orientation choice. I may use the angled bracket in some application, but not others. It depends on what and where it will be ultimately mounted.
If you choose not to have the current CM integrated with the DM, but only have the angled bracket as the housing of the CM, then the only other recommendation I wish to share is have the option in the DM to digitally invert the display 180 degrees.
Does this make sense?
(08-31-2019, 02:36 AM)GoldOxide_imp Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2019, 12:39 AM)Csory_imp Wrote: [ -> ] (08-30-2019, 11:15 PM)GoldOxide_imp Wrote: [ -> ] (08-30-2019, 10:34 PM)Csory_imp Wrote: [ -> ]Was a bit surprised to learn that most of you (who sent me a PM showing interest in the final device) would prefer to have it pre-attached to the angled mount. This brings me to the following idea: will check if I could cram the electronics of the center module into the angled mount itself. That would make it a "single module" device. Will be back with the result soon. This will not require re-designing electronics (it is already as small as it could be), just a new angled mount to be printed if dimensions seem to be ok.
If you consider this optimization, then please consider not permanently affixing the Display Module (DM) to the Central Module (CM). This will allow the option to affixing the DM at "normal" or upsidedown on the angled mount so it can be placed elsewhere, instead of on a hydraulic reservoir.
That said, maybe consider a second choice (or an additional BOM item) "non-angled" mount (basically a rectangular matchbox) to affix the DM. The advantage of this is the electrical connection between the DM and CM won't have to be concerned about orientation to each other.
In short, across various riders and machines, the flexibility for mount should be maintained for universal application and wider deployment acceptance.
Not sure that I get this "matchbox" thingy right: the DM is already a flat square box. You mean to add another one underneath to make it sit higher?
(The "all-in-one" would be non-separable, since there would be no connecting cable between the CM and DM. If someone would like to alternate between mounting options, that means separate CM and DM.)
Not sure that I get this "matchbox" thingy right: the DM is already a flat square box. You mean to add another one underneath to make it sit higher?
(The "all-in-one" would be non-separable, since there would be no connecting cable between the CM and DM. If someone would like to alternate between mounting options, that means separate CM and DM.)
Yes, the "matchbox" would be essentially the CM.
By integrating only the angled piece basically reverts the premise of a common CM for all current and future configurations and untold products (but really, this is your baby to determine). The angled piece also limits end user orientation choice. I may use the angled bracket in some application, but not others. It depends on what and where it will be ultimately mounted.
If you choose not to have the current CM integrated with the DM, but only have the angled bracket as the housing of the CM, then the only other recommendation I wish to share is have the option in the DM to digitally invert the display 180 degrees.
Does this make sense?
The 180 degree display rotation is already implemented (see "Setup" section in the Manual).
Putting the CM and DM in the same housing (adding the "matchbox" beneath) would make the entire unit about 8mm taller - contrary to my original design goal of being as flat as possible for center mounting. The connecting cable between the CM and DM is cut-to-size and can not be changed later (at least, not without some soldering), so there is no true "universal" mounting option for every possible scenario. Maybe if I move the step-down converter from the electronics panel that would make it a bit flatter... will check.
A question to all the others who showed interest: would you rather go with the current version, or prefer a slightly taller "all-in-one", where the central module and display module are in the same housing?
Another wild idea that probably won't make it past scrutiny, but a one piece unit for both positions;
The "hinge point" could be 36 wide ribbon cable of which only 6 or however many cores are used for electrical connections or two flat cables and the unit has to be supported in an angle on top of the brake cover.
And the rotary switch can be anywhere on the cable to the bike ( more cores required ).
( edit )
But shuffling through all the iterations is it not more practical to just mount the whole thing on the brake cover on an appropriate angle ( does it need an angle? ) and mounting the display on the back of the cm pcb with just one cable?
I.e. one universal unit?