Thinking of a new gadget...

[Charlie Bravo_imp]

I love to tinker with my boats and bikes. A few years ago, I had a sailboat with a diesel engine. The engine panel had only a temp gauge and idiot lights, and I installed a voltmeter and a oil pressure gauge at the helm station. I used PVC endcaps as housings, ran the wire, and added a T connection on the oil system alarm sender. One day the temp gauge became fluttery. It passed all the electrical tests to troubleshoot, but wouldn't work right. I sistered in a ground wire. That problem solved. Don't have a boat anymore, and I miss it.

 

[max]

Csory i had a read of the new pdf, what i would change ( not a complete list )

1 replace brain box by processor.
2 make an electrical representation of the control switch ( symbol ) and show what the positions are doing.
3 when you say Click to save..............click what?
4 i would look at a better place for the minus wire, the "instrument ground"is all to a common point on the frame under the tank but there may be a better place to find an earthing point on the chassis.
5 provide a circuit diagram for the wiring to the bike with wire colors etc.
6 unsure about the cold engine warning, this could be counter productive and the rev counter makes the rider aware that the engine is still not warmed up.
7 bottom of page 17 is confusing; what does the second line display and why are there two versions of it?
8 found what the rotary button does on page 19 but still would like to see a picture with direction arrows and text, maybe even installed on the bike.

So these are just some of the things i stumbled on and i don't want to be too critical but see if this list makes sense, cheers.

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

Csory:

V1.01 of the document is indeed an improvement over the first draft.
[ul] [li]I agree with max regarding the "brain module". Consider "Core Module" or similar for a more professional read.[/li] [li]There are still some cosmetic / document formatting changes that can improve readability, but this is probably best done maybe via a shared document (e.g. Google Docs, etc.) where suggested edits can be tracked and approved/declined.[/li] [li]Also as max indicated, cold engine ("Flowchart of operation") might be firmware event that could be unnecessary. Consider reviewing.[/li] [li]I know you are a very nice person. However, consider removing all instances of "please" from the documentation.[/li] [li]May as well make the first page an active Table of Content pointing to each sub-document and list only the start page, i.e. the page of the sub-document's Table of Contents. Remove the range of pages on the first page.
[/li][/ul]

 

[Csory_imp]

Max and GoldOxide: Thanks for your comments! Been on a vacation, sorry about the late reply hy:

1. totally agree, will replace "brain module" with something that is less cheesy. How about "central module"? "Processor" or "CPU" sounds a bit too serious, but maybe it's just me...

2. 3. and 8. inserted an annotated photo to show what rotation and clicking means.

4. minus wire is indeed connected to the battery negative terminal. I too try to avoid using the "instrument ground" since it is hard to access. Cleaned up the text a bit around measuring ECU resistor value where I was referring to "chassis ground".

5. yes, a wiring diagram is to be added...

6. cold engine warning now can be turned off in "settings". The mechanical engineer in me (buried deep, probably forever...) tells me to take good care of the bike and the most sure-fire way to kill any engine is to (over)load it without proper lubrication. I will leave the warning "on" for myself, just to be sure when the oil has reached its "hot enough to work" temperature

7. left image at the bottom of p17 shows a bike without coolant temperature sensor, right image is about a bike with coolant temp sensor. Tried to make this clear(er) in the text above.

Also, removed most of the "please"s from the text and turned first page TOC into a real TOC...

Now working on an extended description of the firmware update procedure. Will post a new version once that's completed.

 

[Csory_imp]

Uploaded a new (1.02) version. Contains changes as per Max and GoldOxide's comments, and also a revised Firmware Update Instruction. Let me know if there is anything you'd like to see added/removed/changed. hy: Thanks!
(Now working on a website to host downloads...)

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

Coolio. Will take a look at V1.02.

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

Csory: I like the evolution of the user's manual (now V1.02).

I will send lower-level feedback by way of a PM.

 

[max]

Csory this version is an improvement with the new diagram etc.

the adjustment section is actually overwhelming and i have to scroll back and forth between pages to find what to input into the display, i suggest putting it all on one clear page something like this;

To adjust the setpoint values in the menu the pushbutton switch needs to be plugged into the system and removed when finished.
The button is a combination of three switches conveniently combined in one unit; up (right turn) down (left turn) and enter (push)

( you did not explain HOW to step through the menu and enter values, if you enter a value do you select the value with "enter" and then "enter" again to step to the next item in the menu (guessing) and can you step back in the menu? )

The setpoint values are changed in the following order;
celsius or fahrenheit
backllevel 0 to 100 %
contrast 0 to 100%
display up or down
engine cold warning on or off
engine cold setpoint 20 to 100 deg c
oil overtemp setpoint 100 to 150 deg c

etc that way all info is on one page and also makes more sense to understand what to expect next on the list, how to get to it and how to adjust it.

The - decrease arrow is pointing in the wrong direction but the picture is good.

What's in the box could be just one picture with text inserted to show what the parts are called.

What happens if the 6 way header is connected the wrong way round and operated?, any damage?, is it protected from rain?

For such a simple device i would expect a simple but concise document, 40 pages seems a bit much, especially in pdf form, i think 6 pages should do it.

This was around three hours of reading, scrolling and thinking, see what you can do.

 

[Csory_imp]

Max: Thanks again for your comments!

I agree that the document is quite overwhelming. Will try and cut it down a bit. Should have stressed that the sensor "setup" section is optional, not required (or recommended) for "normal" users (except for the Celsius-Fahrenheit and display adjustments). Will consider moving these into a separate adjustment menu with ample warnings at the beginning .

The arrows were indeed wrong.

Values can be changed using the rotary function. Pushing the button (click) will save that value and jump to the next menu element. There is no "back" step on the menu tree - one will have to re-enter it from the beginning. (Tried to explain it in the doc but will go back and re-phrase.)

The 6-pin connector on the central module is water resistant (i.e. water can get into it, but will do no harm). However, the blind plug should be kept in place to prevent debris from clogging the socket.

Both the ISP programmer and the rotary encoder can be plugged in rotated 180 degrees. It just won't work, but will do no harm. (There are clear markings though to show which way is the right way...)

Meanwhile, started assembling four units. These are the central modules, before hot air soldering...

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

Sweet lookin' assembly.

 

[Csory_imp]

Made the changes based on Max and GoldOxide's posts. 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]

 

[TwoBrothersBusa_imp]

That's great.

 

[Csory_imp]

Updated the Manual to version 1.04. It is now a GoogleDocs document, shared for viewing. You can read it 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

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

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.

 

[Csory_imp]

Was a bit surprised :huh: 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.

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

Was a bit surprised :huh: 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.

 

[Csory_imp]

Was a bit surprised :huh: 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.)

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

Was a bit surprised :huh: 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?

 

[Csory_imp]

Was a bit surprised :huh: 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?

 

[max]

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?