Y piece or canbus

I have a dual FOCBOX setup for about a good month now. No problems so far and i am using canbus. I have even mixed up the master and slave settings but it obviously did not harm the ESCs.

As I said, the VESC 4 is less prone to fry, when using Y-PPM. But it is still not recommended to do that. The real problem is the following: The new designs we will see soon, will not like the Y-cable. If the users get used to the Y-solution, they will simply apply that same setup to the new hardware and will fry their two new expensive ESCs in a second. @Nowind is a prime example… Two new STMs will solve the matter in this case, but its still a bit sad that it happened.

So better stay away from the Y.

Frank

He JUST said that wasn’t because of parallel ppm. I don’t see the logic at all in saying parallel ppm will fry your vesc, and you’ve said it twice now without providing an explanation

1 Like

Hmmmmm, now I’m even more confused :slight_smile:. I would like an explained as to how exactly it would fry the vescs.

I use the can bus and enable traction control.

I don’t care what anyone says. Traction control works and does exactly what the name implies. I love it.

6 Likes

That’s a good enough endorsement for me!

1 Like

Where I’m stuck is I like the settings I have now for my single vesc. I feel like the splitter is the simplest route to keeping my same settings. However, with the can bus you are able to have traction control which is nice, though it is more complicated to configure and if you do it wrong you could fry one or both of your vescs. I am still undecided at this point though leaning toward the splitter.

I never really found traction control useful. For me it actually caused some issues with acceleration. Without traction control, a wheel can free spin when it lifts, but I never found it problematic. I tend to not lift my wheels when I ride anyway.

My can connection also severed 3 times. First time the connection was loose and made one of my VESCs spaz out. The second time I tried Ollins can bus connector and the wire broke. The third time I soldered the wire to the win and the wire literally broke off.

2 Likes

Sorry, but this is hysterical. splitting the signal from one receiver can’t do the damage you’re claiming. In fact, it’s less complicated.

1 Like

you have to kill the 5v on one of the VESCs or you send too much juice to the receiver. @blasto just reminded me of this too.

We’ll have to settle this debate by paying two other people who have no stake in this at all to beat the crap out of each other. It’s the only civilized thing to do.

11 Likes

True, but it still won’t fry your vescs. They will just communicate in ways that are weird.

Sounds like the problem isn’t so much with the splitter, but with the new vesc.

3 Likes

We’ll play a game of chicken with 1 board on y-splitter, and the other on CAN. First one to back off is obviously wrong

3 Likes

5 Likes

Those are just fireworks brotha!

1 Like

I don’t know which way is more civilized but the American way of setting this is with a race :checkered_flag:

Ok but only if we can light our battery boxes on fire before we floor our boards directly at each other. You know, because that will help solve the debate.

3 Likes

Thanks @Namasaki for the reassurance. I’ve just sat down to delve into the world of vesc x. Gonna try the split ppm. Like rc stuff neither vesc should know the other is there. Since the vesc can function as a single drive I don’t see any issues. Both will benefit from the help of the other without having to know why. This was my original thinking. I take full responsibility regardless.

1 Like

I have a good idea. Forget the CAN and y-split.

One remote for each vesc, so you double fist remotes one in each hand.

Fixed.

9 Likes

Just make sure to cut the 5v on one side of the splitter. That way you only have a total of 5v going to your receiver.

2 Likes