Really, can't say in something close to half a century of riding bikes with magnets on spokes (whether for speedo or motor control) I've ever had one move unless it has been physically contacted by something else e.g. loose branches / hedgerows when off road etc.
Quite, I meant if I had to make mounts or mounting ring for just the small flat magnets...
...which I initially assumed @Saneage was initially referring to.
Cool! Cheers, bookmarked. I had no idea they were so cheap. Are the magnets as strong as the Cateye supposedly are? I may order a few, after trying four (three Catyes ordered plus Bafang's kit speed magnet), and after I have deterimined the upper limit of magnet signal number allowed by firmware, if someone spurs me into action by posting proof rozzers are seizing bikes after doing no-load speed tests of pedal assist. Until then I probably can't be arsed. Dumb test - all it'd take is for the fuzz in question hopped up on cocaine, donuts and steroids to fit you up by turning the pedals too damn hard. I know all about what they get up to, my mate was with the Met, and that stuff is just the tip of the horrible iceberg. I daren't commit the other stuff to text. The Met turned him into a right **.28 for £14.86 inc. shipping
Universal Bike Speedometer Magnet | Universal Magnet Bike Wheel - Universal Wheel - Aliexpress
Smarter Shopping, Better Living! Aliexpress.comvi.aliexpress.com
If they're not strong enough, you can stick a plain disc magnet on top. The magnets are very cheap on their own.
I can try 2, 7, or 14, for 14 spokes on the speed sensor side. I've ordered 7 of the cheapos, I can use the remaining 3 as unusually effective fridge magnets - the same fate awaits all of them, if things don't pan out.
What maximum current does your Shimano controller draw?
Remember mine's the weakest motor, 40 Nm, the most I ever saw, momentarily, was 13A pulling away uphill before it settled back to normal 3 to 4A.
What voltage? That's a heady 468W @36v and a cop gut-busting 624W @48V! Stones, throws, glass houses etc. I recall you said you might be writing letters if DJI claimed a 250W rating for their new motor.
If they do, it's legal. Unless you write a million letters which appear to be from different people on the electoral register, possibly.
My general point is at that at some point change is likely because the nuttiness of the test for compliance will be rumbled by someone who can't look past it.
I doubt it, the man won't do anything to stymie commerce, particularly in the current worrying economaaaAAARRRRGGGHH: Amazon completely legal oil cooled pavement going cargo liner behemoth toe flattening pedelecs, for example. I fear your letter writing will be in vain, but if it stops your inkjet cartridge drying out, have at it. I use dot matrix, the same ribbon is usable for many years. Include mention of Shimano ebikes. Also, "Guerney says hi". They're used to hearing from me about space graffiti obscuring views of extinction level event asteroids.
You still have this weird idea in your head that there's some sort of power limit. there isn't. We already have weird dinner plate motors that can drag 500kg up a 14% hill, and they're perfectly legal and certified OK to use under EN15194.
So here's a new angle for you!
www.lynchmotors.co.uk
If a motor can only handle 200w before it overheats, it'll fail the 250w test. Any motor that can handle 250w without overheating will pass. It's pretty simple really.
But it is compliant with EN15194 because its rated power is 200W, which is less than 250W. So all motors that can't handle 250W pass.
Therefore all motors are compliant with EN15194.
Gawds you're not talking about the "Spirit" of the law are you? The law is not divinied, it's defined. What's intended is what's been defined.
It's not compliant if it overheats in the test. You're still letting the paradigm in your head control your thoughts. The paradigm is that low power is OK and high power isn't, but that's not what the law says. The law says it mustn't overheat and the motor can't be used if it's rated at more than 250w. The rule is perfectly functional and understandable. What makes you think that you know that something different to what was written was intended? That's your own head playing games with you.
The law is indeed as defined. However, that does not necessarily mean as intended.
If they intended to define as intended, why didn't they? They're not lacking resources.
