EBMS - Electric Bike Manufacturer's Standard???

It has been a while when I was already thinking about it but not sure if to go ahead with the concept. The International Standard which could serve the electric bike industry. The industry in many cases is already sharing the same components, same throttles, controllers and motors but there is one thing missing and that's the most important bit - the battery!

By purchasing the bike the consumers are always locked in with one supplier. It's probably not the best thing for the consumers. I know that some batteries are more expensive than others but the difference in chemistry can normally justify the differences in price.

I do however believe that some customers would prefer to have a LifePo4, some would prefer Li-Po's. Maybe other will be happy to get just a basic Li-ion battery for lower price but with shorter life. For individual manufacturers it is quite tricky to maintain stocks of so many different types of batteries.

For us manufacturers already a large number is locating the battery behind the seat tube or on the rear rack. What I'm up to is to create a common International Standard for the battery case that could be interchangeable with those of other manufacturer's.

In terms of capacities I don't think that going far above 15Ah on the 36V drives makes sense so the size of the new standard could be easily agreed between manufacturers. If we keep one standard I really think it could be beneficial to both consumers because they get greater assurance of battery availability and for manufacturers this can make their brands also more attractive to consumers as the worries about availability of batteries will disappear.

It would be good to know your opinion guys on this?

If there are any interested manufacturers reading this who would like to discuss this option of EBMS then please send me the PM or email directly andrew@oxygenbicycles.com

Look forward to hear your thoughts guys

All the best

Andrew

Oxygen Bicycles

it already happened

anyway, the similar thing already took place in the bike industry. It was over 11 years ago in 1999 when 3 large companies Chris King, Truvativ and Race Face decided to create a new interchangeable system for bottom bracket spline. That was a time when the biggest monopolist Shimano decided to move from the square taper axle to Octalink. The new spline from Shimano was patented so none of the other manufacturer could adapt that system.

and it was a smart move as the ISIS Drive still exists and it is indeed very successful. In the first place there were only 3 companies who adopted that spline but now there are many more who got involved.

All the best

Andrew

Oxygen Bicycles

The sooner there is a standard battery fitting the better. Good luck with the idea.

Colin

not much

Hmm! how much will I save if I buy an Oxygen without the battery and get a cheap Chinese battery which will do the job once standardised casing are commonplace?

well, you would probably save something in the region of £150 if you get the cheapest import from China but the question is it worth getting the cheapest? You normally get what you pay for and I really doubt cheap Chinese battery will serve for a two year period.

The purpose of standardised case would be really to offer a greater alternative and choice of different capacities, chemistries and lastly price but to TBH price guys is the latest issue here. I've already learnt a lot about batteries, cells etc and frankly good cells really cost roughly the same everywhere. I'm sure many manufacturers could confirm that. The idea of it is also to have a safe chemistries. From EC point of view electromagnetic compatibility would be also an issue but as a one group I really reckon we could agree to certain standards.

all the best

Andrew

How many case designs have we got now?

- Rack

- Vertical behind the seat tube

- Plastic case attached to the seat tube

- Something in the middle triangle

Are you talking about 4 standards? I think you might be able to standardise the first two. But even with the rack mount there are at least 2 sizes. And the apparent standardisation has only really come about because there's only two manufacturers. There's one rack mount design where there's no top frame which does rather defeat the point of the rack but it does allow the battery to grow upwards while still having the same connectors and slide.

The vertical behind seat tube layout does look like it could be standardised. There's a lot of bikes out there designed like this and they all look very similar. But that's only superficial. They may actually be all very different.

IMHO, the weight of the battery should be in the middle triangle and as low as possible. Given the huge range of frame shapes, the chances of making that standard are pretty slim. It's a bit tricky making a design where the battery is easily removable in that position as well.

What I would like to see is a commercially finished pack made from A123 cells or pouches with an integrated BMS. The cells are high quality, low internal resistance, High C. But the current packs are designed for RC using an external BMS and lower voltages than we need.

How many case designs have we got now?

- Rack

- Vertical behind the seat tube

- Plastic case attached to the seat tube

- Something in the middle triangle

 

Are you talking about 4 standards? I think you might be able to standardise the first two. But even with the rack mount there are at least 2 sizes. And the apparent standardisation has only really come about because there's only two manufacturers. There's one rack mount design where there's no top frame which does rather defeat the point of the rack but it does allow the battery to grow upwards while still having the same connectors and slide.

 

/QUOTE]

 

well I think to start with the rack one and the vertical behind seat tube would be the good option. Obviously it might be tricky to standardise everything so these two types seem to be most suitable as most manufacturers is already placing battery over there,

 

all the best

Andrew

Hmm! how much will I save if I buy an Oxygen without the battery and get a cheap Chinese battery which will do the job once standardised casing are commonplace?

Bite your lip and try it. There would be no stopping you...

Such efforts would be in the minority. Standardization goes a long way -- definite thumbs up!

We have discussed this before and the majority have predictably been strongly in favour. In the past I've taken the view that it may be a little premature, though we may be getting closer to it being practical now. The worry is if it constrained future development as it so easily could.

If a standard case for Li-poly had existed not long ago, it would have impeded lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) adoption since those cells were both larger and heavier for given capacities. They've got a bit smaller since but still don't substitute readily.

We can't possibly know if there's a development around the corner that would bring a bulkier battery but which had so many other advantages it would still be desirable, so standardisation has some risk. And as jbond has pointed out there are positional and shape restraints on design inherent in standardisation.

Simplification into a reduced number of possibilities could be better than aiming for a narrow standardisation, say no more than a single figure number of designs. That way any battery manufacturer could viably offer a range of alternatives, rather like our standard consumer battery size range AAA, AA, C, D, F, PP9 which any maker can provide.

.

Wouldn't this lead to all bike design following the same line's?

Battery reliability and availability is a strong selling point for vendors and consumers. Could standardising be counter productive in that it would remove much of the risk from buying cheaper brands of ebike where spare's availability is unreliable?

Great for the consumer, not so for the vendor.

Edited December 13, 201015 yr by onmebike

It has been a while when I was already thinking about it but not sure if to go ahead with the concept. The International Standard which could serve the electric bike industry. The industry in many cases is already sharing the same components, same throttles, controllers and motors but there is one thing missing and that's the most important bit - the battery!

 

By purchasing the bike the consumers are always locked in with one supplier. It's probably not the best thing for the consumers. I know that some batteries are more expensive than others but the difference in chemistry can normally justify the differences in price.

 

I do however believe that some customers would prefer to have a LifePo4, some would prefer Li-Po's. Maybe other will be happy to get just a basic Li-ion battery for lower price but with shorter life. For individual manufacturers it is quite tricky to maintain stocks of so many different types of batteries.

 

For us manufacturers already a large number is locating the battery behind the seat tube or on the rear rack. What I'm up to is to create a common International Standard for the battery case that could be interchangeable with those of other manufacturer's.

 

In terms of capacities I don't think that going far above 15Ah on the 36V drives makes sense so the size of the new standard could be easily agreed between manufacturers. If we keep one standard I really think it could be beneficial to both consumers because they get greater assurance of battery availability and for manufacturers this can make their brands also more attractive to consumers as the worries about availability of batteries will disappear.

 

It would be good to know your opinion guys on this?

 

If there are any interested manufacturers reading this who would like to discuss this option of EBMS then please send me the PM or email directly andrew@oxygenbicycles.com

 

Look forward to hear your thoughts guys

 

All the best

 

Andrew

Oxygen Bicycles

I`m in full agreement with your views Andy.

(For others)

Earlier this year I needed a new more powerful battery for my Powertrek ( behind seatpost drop in type) and Andy provided me with a drop in 13Amp Li-Polymer battery that did just that! Dropped in. OK in this case the new battery was a bottom connector and I needed a Kettle plug connection which was no problem opening the case and soldering a lead into the system and bring it out through the side. at least I had a new battery that fitted just where I wanted it.

I`m in full agreement with your views Andy.

 

(For others)

Earlier this year I needed a new more powerful battery for my Powertrek ( behind seatpost drop in type) and Andy provided me with a drop in 13Amp Li-Polymer battery that did just that! Dropped in. OK in this case the new battery was a bottom connector and I needed a Kettle plug connection which was no problem opening the case and soldering a lead into the system and bring it out through the side. at least I had a new battery that fitted just where I wanted it.

This is actually a good example of what I said. Take a good mid priced ebike such as the Powertrek, similar in appearance to a Wisper with proven SB motor, Shimano gears, decent frame, brake's and wheels etc. Improve it no end by adding a much better battery from the selection of standardised one's which would be available and sale's of high end ebike's may suffer because standardising batteries just solved the problem of replacement battery availability for the competition.

Just think what a Wisper battery may do for Anne's Cyclamatic Power plus or your folder's Dave?

Edited December 13, 201015 yr by onmebike

The concept I like, but in reality I don't think it will work.

If you look at cars, some manufacturers may share the same engine, but you wouldn't catch a BMW with a Citroen engine in it. That's because the BMW customer has opted for something different and accepts there is a difference in cost for doing that.

Certainly for us with our A2B range the battery is part of the design and a standard battery box wouldn't work as our customers like to be different. Similarly with the Fast4ward range, mounted behind the seat tube with an unfamiliar battery mounting system (same as Urban Mover).

Interested to see if anyone picks up on this though....

I think that comparisons with the car market are a bit false as each major brand (model even) has a volume of sales to justify it becoming a standard in itself, with lots of compatible aftermarket, third party addons and parts being made.

Ebikes simply don't have anything like this commercial power, so maybe the BEBA should be pooling the collective experience of their membership in terms of what we, the consumers actually want, and so in effect gain more influence over what the component makers actually produce. This would have the benefit of increasing the production volume of standardised components, and so driving down cost. Individual brands could then decide what to do with the increased margins, either take them as profit, or increase their competitiveness by passing the savings on to the customer.

As stated by others, this would have the added benefit to all concerned of increasing a customer's confidence that even if a particular model or brand were to disappear from the market, they would still be able to find compatible replacements for the ebike specific parts of their machine, and not risk having to scrap their £1k+ purchase, or go through the uncertainty and inconvenience of the DIY route.

Edited December 14, 201015 yr by Straylight

 

you wouldn't catch a BMW with a Citroen engine in it.

But you would with an Austin engine!

That's because the first car ever produced by Bayerische Motoren Werke was the 1931 Austin Seven under licence and badged as theirs.

The compliment was returned after WW2 when we seized the design of the brilliant 1938 BMW 2 litre as war reparations and it was produced here as the Bristol 2 litre, the first venture into cars by the Bristol Aircraft Company, now BAE with Bristol Cars as a separately owned spin off.

.

I think that comparisons with the car market are a bit false as each major brand (model even) has a volume of sales to justify it becoming a standard in itself, with lots of compatible aftermarket, third party addons and parts being made.

 

Ebikes simply don't have anything like this commercial power, so maybe the BEBA should be pooling the collective experience of their membership in terms of what we, the consumers actually want, and so in effect gain more influence over what the component makers actually produce. This would have the benefit of increasing the production volume of standardised components, and so driving down cost. Individual brands could then decide what to do with the increased margins, either take them as profit, or increase their competitiveness by passing the savings on to the customer.

 

As stated by others, this would have the added benefit to all concerned of increasing a customer's confidence that even if a particular model or brand were to disappear from the market, they would still be able to find compatible replacements for the ebike specific parts of their machine, and not risk having to scrap their £1k+ purchase, or go through the uncertainty and inconvenience of the DIY route.

Colin

I think that comparisons with the car market are a bit false as each major brand (model even) has a volume of sales to justify it becoming a standard in itself, with lots of compatible aftermarket, third party addons and parts being made.

 

Ebikes simply don't have anything like this commercial power, so maybe the BEBA should be pooling the collective experience of their membership in terms of what we, the consumers actually want, and so in effect gain more influence over what the component makers actually produce. This would have the benefit of increasing the production volume of standardised components, and so driving down cost. Individual brands could then decide what to do with the increased margins, either take them as profit, or increase their competitiveness by passing the savings on to the customer.

 

As stated by others, this would have the added benefit to all concerned of increasing a customer's confidence that even if a particular model or brand were to disappear from the market, they would still be able to find compatible replacements for the ebike specific parts of their machine, and not risk having to scrap their £1k+ purchase, or go through the uncertainty and inconvenience of the DIY route.

Hi Straylight,

The biggest problem I see, is that all the bikes will end up looking the same....You already see many Wisper clones operating in the market. A key differential between some brands is the battery style and positioning, from Cytronex who try to hide, as do Powabyke with the X bike to our extreme of the large box which is part of the design.

I see how these proposals make sense for entry level bikes at sub £1000 but the typical customer (from our own research) who purchases a premium bike is very much motivated by design and being different. Either they want it discreet or pronounced.

I think this is the key part here, different price points have different consumer expectations. If consumers want the cheapest option, then it is there already with standard unbranded batteries etc. For those who want something different then there are the more expensive products that we and some of our competitors produce. This is the same in any market segment.

Thanks

Mark

How about standardization across just a few brands, or perhaps just cheaper brands. Where costs really matter, it makes a lot of sense.

I guess it's kind of like consumer electronics. Apple accessories aren't really compatible with much, Sony VAIO has some uncompatible stuff but there's a standard USB ports, headphone jacks and other extras.

How about standardization across just a few brands, or perhaps just cheaper brands. Where costs really matter, it makes a lot of sense.

 

I guess it's kind of like consumer electronics. Apple accessories aren't really compatible with much, Sony VAIO has some uncompatible stuff but there's a standard USB ports, headphone jacks and other extras.

Standardization across a few brands would work I feel.

Hi Straylight,

 

The biggest problem I see, is that all the bikes will end up looking the same....You already see many Wisper clones operating in the market. A key differential between some brands is the battery style and positioning, from Cytronex who try to hide, as do Powabyke with the X bike to our extreme of the large box which is part of the design.

 

I see how these proposals make sense for entry level bikes at sub £1000 but the typical customer (from our own research) who purchases a premium bike is very much motivated by design and being different. Either they want it discreet or pronounced.

 

I think this is the key part here, different price points have different consumer expectations. If consumers want the cheapest option, then it is there already with standard unbranded batteries etc. For those who want something different then there are the more expensive products that we and some of our competitors produce. This is the same in any market segment.

 

Thanks

Mark

Given your own designs, I can see why you would think that. And it's a problem the traditional bicycle industry has also struggled with. Everybody seems to want to differentiate their bikes via some more or less weird design. Personally, I hate this. Which is why I welcome the minimalist fixie approach even though I can't quite see the point. For me a bicycle should be about form follows function and not the other way round. I want the classic steel tube triangle design for a road bike and something very similar in an MTB (perhaps aluminium, gently sloping top tube). I want cables hidden as far as possible. I want everything to just work.

So when it gets to E-Bikes, I want exactly the same but with the e-bike bits integrated and hidden as far as possible. I don't want a heavy, weird shaped frame, sub-standard components or compromises like 6 gears instead of 21. So that means a completely conventional bike with either a rack mount battery or a battery mounted in the triangle mounted off the kind of mounts used for water bottles.

This kept me out of the market for a long time, because all the E-Bikes I could see were:-

- Too heavy

- Had very bottom-end of market cheap components on an expensive bike

- Were weirdly shaped in some way that didn't appear to me to help function.

Rightly or wrongly, this eliminates all the bikes with a vertical battery behind the top tube and anything with a very slabby top tube.

So now if we're talking about completely conventional bikes with a hub motor and a rack battery, there's really no reason why the current bicycle industry shouldn't get behind it. We shouldn't have to have a local dealer for our specific brand because the bits should be just as easy to obtain as a Shimano Deore rear mech. And if the battery fits on a rear rack, we only need to standardise on the connector. If everyone used mains kettle plugs and sockets, that would be easy. If the battery came with a rack mounting kit, the way that a typical basket does, we wouldn't even need any standardised mounting. And if I can buy an accessory battery like this from Evans, Wiggle, Chain Reaction and Halfords we'd all benefit as consumers from the inevitable price war/fixing.

What I appear to be saying here is that E-Bikes and Pedelecs are not special. They're just bicycles with an electric motor, controller, a few switches and a battery.

There's a bit in here I'm not sure about though, and that's security. If you paid 100 quid you can treat the bike as disposable and not worry too much. If you paid more than a grand you have to put effort into securing it. That's the same whether it's a classy fixie, a mid/high end MTB or a typical e-bike. If we're trying to persuade people that it's ok to pay a grand upwards, we also have to persuade them to try a lot harder to stop it being stolen. Or we'll just have a lot of pissed off customers who won't be back.

So far the discussion seems to be focused on battery placement, but what about other components that are common to most ebikes, such as controllers, handlebar control gear, and their interfaces? It strikes me that if all hub driven ebike brands were to use the same controller, then the simplification for the end user would be vast. The common control unit could integrate all the features widely used, and have redundant capacity for others such as regen, and the ability to re-program to the individual's needs.

This would also have the benefit of standardising things like brake cut-out and throttle terminations, as well as the very basic things like motor phase wiring colours, so allowing for off the shelf replacements for common parts.

For example with such a system, were I to decide that I wanted to switch to a thumb throttle, I could simply order one and plug it in to my existing bike rather than the present state where I'd have to buy one, after first finding out whether I have a hall or resistive setup, and then fiddle about working out which wire connects to which, ordering the right connector, and oh look my old unit has a power button...umm.

Edited December 15, 201015 yr by Straylight

come on guys - it's not that radical an idea - what do you think?

An agreed controller standard could still be developed by individual component manufacturers, but would just have to conform to a basic compatibility standard. In the same way that all intelligent theatrical lighting eqipment is DMX512 compatible, or that all PC cpu's conform to standards that mean that you can run windows on any of them.

Edited December 16, 201015 yr by Straylight

come on guys - it's not that radical an idea - what do you think?

 

An agreed controller standard could still be developed by individual component manufacturers, but would just have to conform to a basic compatibility standard. In the same way that all intelligent theatrical lighting eqipment is DMX512 compatible, or that all PC cpu's conform to standards that mean that you can run windows on any of them.

Hi Straylight,

No-one else seems to be responding, so thought I'd jump in

For our cheaper range then something like this would be feasible, however for the more expensive bikes where there tends to be patented technology and unique Digital controllers (most others use analogue) the compatibility wouldn't be an options as this gives us a competitive edge.

Thanks

Mark

It wouldn't be possible to Standardise for all battery chemistry's as many have found. Putting lifepo4 on an ebike designed for Li-ion or lipo would result in handlebar power indicator's giving inaccurate readings. The lower fully charged voltage of Lifepo4 would cause lights to drop out quicker initially and then the higher low voltage cutout would cause lights to show power still available after the bms low volt protection has cut.

Fully charged 36v lifepo4 approx 40.5volt[42.00v for Li-ion and Lipo]

Low voltage cutoff for a 36v lifepo4 approx 36v[31.5v for Li-ion and Lipo]

Also if you put Li-ion or Lipo on an ebike designed for lifepo4 the controller would cut the power around 36volt resulting in you not getting full capacity from your battery.

I suppose these minor issue's could be gotten over.