Author Topic: Problem with VEC200 controller  (Read 1107 times)

Offline Black.ghost.off

  • Confirmed
  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Problem with VEC200 controller
« on: October 09, 2023, 01:45:42 PM »
Problem with the VEC200 driver. Voltage 48 (on battery 53 at maximum charge),
motor BLDC-108 48V1500W (from golden motor also),
current limited by starting (15A),
maximum phase current(30A, maximum duration 0),
rated phase current 30A,
battery drawn current limit 80A,
temputature settings are off,
linear throttle,
acceleration and deceleration 50rpm/s and 100rpm/s respectively,
regeneration is completely disabled,
cruise mode is completely disabled,
FWD-Speed-Loop 85%,
BWD-Speed-Loop 100% and 100%,
3 Gears Funs setting is off,
Boost is disabled,
Speed trhrottle - potentiometer (10K).

Hall sensors are connected without a temperature sensor.

When the following wires are connected - the usual switch to E-Lock, the usual switch to Break and the potentiometer, when you turn on E-Lock to close and turn off Break and return the potentiometer above 1.1V (at the middle contact), the engine abruptly starts to run at its maximum speed and there is no smooth acceleration and you cannot adjust the speed with this potentiometer, only ON and OFF. Can you tell me what settings I may have missed to avoid these problems?

Offline Bikemad

  • Global Moderator
  • Professor
  • PhD. Magic
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,499
Re: Problem with VEC200 controller
« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2023, 07:24:46 PM »
Hi andto the forum.

Unfortunately this is not a "settings" problem.

I think the problem you are experiencing is because you are using the VEC200 controller (which is "Best Tuned" for use with the HPM3000 motor) and this controller uses "Direct torque control" to regulate the motors power rather than "Speed control" to regulate its rpm:



I'm pretty sure that the reason why this motor is running at full speed (even at minimum throttle) is because there is no load being placed upon the motor's shaft.
Without a load on the motor shaft it will not be producing any torque whatsoever when the motor is running at full speed, therefore the current being drawn by the unloaded motor is probably too low to allow the controller to directly control the motor's power.

The BAC-0501 2000W controller is the one recommended for use with the BLDC-108 1.5kW motor:



And I suspect that the BAC-0501 controller will use "speed control" instead of "torque control" which would simply regulate the motor's rpm rather than its torque.
Had you used the controller that is recommended for the 1.5kW motor, then you would probably have seen the motor's rpm increase proportionally in relation to the throttle position, even without any load being placed upon the motor.

Unfortunately, you will only be able to properly evaluate the throttle action of your particular motor/controller combination after the motor has been properly installed so that it can produce sufficient torque (and draw sufficient current) for the controller to regulate the power.

Alan
 

Offline Black.ghost.off

  • Confirmed
  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Problem with VEC200 controller
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2023, 06:52:06 AM »

The BAC-0501 2000W controller is the one recommended for use with the BLDC-108 1.5kW motor:



And I suspect that the BAC-0501 controller will use "speed control" instead of "torque control" which would simply regulate the motor's rpm rather than its torque.
Had you used the controller that is recommended for the 1.5kW motor, then you would probably have seen the motor's rpm increase proportionally in relation to the throttle position, even without any load being placed upon the motor.

Unfortunately, you will only be able to properly evaluate the throttle action of your particular motor/controller combination after the motor has been properly installed so that it can produce sufficient torque (and draw sufficient current) for the controller to regulate the power.

Alan

This driver is not suitable because of its low power (we have already worked with it before), VEC 200 is better for our purposes now. Thanks)