As it happens, I personally would.
I’d actually rather have a dedicated anti spark with a single switch between my battery and my two seperate vesc/esc (purely because I’m a tinkerer, and things break, and I’d rather replace one esc, or one fuse etc etc)
However, if I was going to design a dual esc, or be tempted into buying a dual module, I would rather it had on board ‘soft start’ switching to power the dual aspects of the unit on as a whole, as - in this instance, it isn’t an “anti spark” switch as such, it’s just a button that activates a low amp switch that powers on the high amp circuit.
We only call the anti spark switch an anti spark switch because of the sparks that are inherent with an unswitched esc; with onboard soft start switch, the spark is a moot point.
(If that makes any sense)
Regards ESC6.6 before, so much feedback from customers, they thought the anti spark is useless and will much smaller without antispark, so we produce this dual ESC4.12 not integrated anti spark, but dual ESC6.6 still keep this design.
Everyone has different tastes, FSESC product line will be completed gradually to try our best to maximum extent satisfy the different users need.
Dual ESC4.12(50a)+Dual ESC6.6(90a)+ESC6.6(150a)
BTW, we have a wonder if we need design case for dual ESC series? need waterproof or just a simple heatsink case is ok, Anybody has suggestions here?
There are two types of builds typically, both requiring their own solution. One where a heatsink cover can be easily integrated into an enclosure (esk8 longboard and similar) and the other is a waterproof case for mountainboards.
Typically, MTB builders are interested in high amp escs. I would consider offering a dual waterproof enclosure for the 150A only. Personally, I would never purchase an esc for which a waterproof enclosure (or close to it) is not available.
I agree with @telnoi
What for me is still an issue with all the waterproof dual cover, there is usually no space for a receiver and Bluetooth module.
For me it would be great if the waterproof heatsink is big enough to place this two things inside too
Thanks for suggestions, really good idea: grinning:
I info incorrect size before: pray,
Dual ESC4.12 available now, any advice or opinion are welcomed, thank you all!
1, Strong power----------reach 100amp
2, High-cost performance—$159+free shipping till 31st August
3, Super size&Super light – 79.66518.8mm(LWH), weight: 147g
Linking for more spec,
The free shipping, and the $5 voucher code (nice!) More or kess pays for the antispark, yup im in
dual 4.12 + anti spark (complete) came to almost exactly £150 shipped
New arrivals from Flip Sky,
Mini ESC4.20/50a continue, can be ordered now, more compact& Higher cost-effective than ever ESC base on VESC.
Could u take a photo of this next to the regular 4.12 ESC?
jesus christ. the prices on these vescs are dropping faaaaaast
Cut input capacitor capacitance in half I see… don’t know how well it behave but I would be concerned 660uF vs 1360uF
Regular 4.12 ESC and mini ESC4.20 comparison diagram.
Don’t worry about the capacitor of mini ESC4.20, all works fine after testing.
In test lab conditions? It works even without them but there is reason why there is such capacitance in there…
Actually, we test it in the road, we circuit optimization for the mini ESC4.20, that the reason we can use his short capacitor.
like I said u can connect no capacitor it will work but not good enough… Plus it pointless to argue with PR agent…
EDIT: those capacitors will not have enough capacitance to clear out current ripples and absorb voltage spikes and will probably end up blowing DRV… I would be careful with braking on these ones.
Why is the flipsky VESC build with MOSFETs that have significantly worse cooling specs that the original 4.12 VESC ?
The Rds(on) is twice larger with the FESC 6.6 than with the 4.12 VESC. The Rjunction-case is three times better with the 4.12 MOSFET. Both indicates that the flipsky 6.6 MOSFET (which are the same than the 4.20 ones) cooling specs are well behind the the specs of the original 4.12 VESC.
What was the reason for this choice (except for the price which is half for these new MOSFETs) ?
Furthermore if you compare it with the reference VESC6 with directFET, the differences will be even larger !
(This is a better place to ask these questions than in the groupbuy thread. I removed the other message).
Price I’m sure is a large part of it. I haven’t looked at the gate charge difference on these, but an important point that a lot of people forget is that losses are not only dependent on the Rds_on. Switching losses can in some cases be much larger than Ohmic losses. I’m not sure if they’ve done their homework on this, but I have a pair of FSESC6.6’s sitting in my mailbox waiting for me and I plan to do some testing to see how bad it is, or hopefully how good it is.
Price optimization of a product, from personal experience, is surprisingly difficult.
Edit: so having looked over the datasheets of the IRFS7530 (4.12), IRF7749 (VESC6) and the NTFMS5C628NL (FSESC6.6) I have limited conclusions.
The original 4.12 MOSFET has low Rds_on, but a fairly large gate charge meaning switching losses may be high. But they also have the lowest output capacitance… The VESC6 MOSFET has surprisingly high gate charge and output capacitance, but excellent thermal properties. Switching losses will be very high, but it can handle the heat. Finally, the FSESC MOSFETs have the lowest gate charge of the three and an output capacitance a bit lower than the VESC6 FETs. Switching losses will be lower.
I seem to remember someone doing the math on switching losses and came to some conclusion, might be earlier in this thread.
Man you just edited that as soon as I was reading the last paragraph
I was just adding a thought, nothing was deleted.
There’s confusion about our MOSFETs from many people, according to the datasheet. Yes, it may not as good as directfet or the original 4.12 VESC mos, but according to our real test, the MOS we used now it’s good. Facts speak louder than words, later we will have a test video to prove the MOS performance.