Hello guys…
After a year using the well known maytech remote i finally finalized (almost) my own Mantafoils remote control.
It is vesc compatible, has GPS, accelerometer, sd card for log and is wireless charging and last but not least it floats.
It will soon be available with it’s compatible receiver.
I still have to implement lots of functions and will list them down at some point in time 
That the remote we will be selling with our volt efoils.
Great, what will be the approximate price please?
Price is 270 USD.
I hope to release it in the coming 2 weeks.
I have stock. Just need to complete the programming
looks really nice…
Finally a well thought out good looking remote
Looks great! But 385$+vat incl reciever is to steep at least for europe. You need to sweeten that deal if you want to sell many. For most people we use the phones for logging anyway. We need 433mhz with good trigger modulation and complete water proof.
actually the remote is sold with receiver and wireless charger. I added that in the description as it was actually missing. to be honest did not spent time on the product page since not ready.
also price might be slightly adjusted based on final cost.
phone for logging is good yes but it is just so much more convenient to have the remote to do that.
the trigger modulation is actually the part I am working on as we speak, fine tuning the throttle feel and response.
regarding 433mhz, I indeed tried it and works super nice and I even seriously considered it as an option but then I saw several drawbacks:
Thanks Manta for the quick response, your development sofar looks premium and I am eagerly awaiting the final product and price.
Still 2 reservations:
Phone is needed anyway for safety reason by everyone foiling alone oceans or larger lakes.
During more challenging riding there is very little time to check more than battery anyway on remote.
Nevertheless it’s nice to have the optional logging, but the interfaces Metr etc has perfected over 3Y to program/alter vescs is really tought to compete with.
Using waterblock as safety is not that good. Reception with slightly submerged board is usually needed. Loke at Flite and how they solved it on series 2. If they are still on 2.4Ghz then they are using massive power. With such intelligent remote please use angle/acc sensor combined with arming button at restart.
yes phone is good when riding away from shore. but at times when there is too much water around the vesc, the ble for datalog will cut.
I don’t mean using the water block as the only safety but on the contrary not having that waterblock is in my point of view not good. I already have a click to go button and a safety lock after throttle is back to zero for 1s.
accelerometer is yet to be programmed.
Flite must be using 2.4 ghz as far as I know but I could be wrong…
I have also some test foil running under 2.4ghz submerged (check my instagram profile there is a picture of the mast head… I posted it the day flite launched V2 as I found funny that I was having similar setup already under testing. also I guess waydoo had similar approach on flyer one.
I am testing out different options for antenna systems and will decide which I go for soon, just waiting few more items to arrive so I can finish all my tests.
If I get some time in the next days I will post a video of the remote in operation.
The Fliteboard remote uses Bluetooth connectivity, not 2.4ghz
I think they mean any protocol using 2.4GHz (e.g. bluetooth or proprietary) when they say “2.4GHz”.
I would not use bluetooth (low energy, BLE) on the link between the remote and the board. If the connection is bad and it starts loosing packets, the remote will try to resend the lost packets, but you dont want to send old data containing the trigger position one second ago. You can compare it with how tcp works (compared to udp). If you loose the connection completely (after a timeout), then the devices must go through a hole sequence in establishing a connection again.
With other 2.4GHz links (e.g. proprietary), the remote will just send radio packets without resending if they are not received at the other end. This way the receiver in the board will always get the latest data and you dont have to use time on setting up a “connection”.
They are very good points that you have made.
Interesting though, why both lift and Fliteboard have chosen to use Bluetooth.
hmm, maybe it is because it is easier to implement pairing and such. Maybe the points I made doesn’t matter that much if you set the send interval (“connection interval”) quite low (minimum 20ms) and the timeout so high that it basically doesn’t happen ever.
We don’t know if they actually use bluetooth while riding, don’t we?
Remember… Many people call bluetooth or wifi a 2.4 connection… Without necessarily being actual protocols… Should be but…
I am.using udp protocol to connect my receiver and actual ble for connecting the battery (which is the less critical element).
Running the 2 tasks in parallel on a 2 core processor.
Cheap to get by the FCC in US by using a pre-certificated bluetooth module and easy to setup.
I think a 2.4ghz could work well (vs 900/868 or 433 which penetrate more easily) but you need to design it for the conditions and not slap on a cheap radio chip with no amplifier like maytech/flipsky did.
Still still series 2 now has reciever antenna on top of mastplate. The ultra is like 50liter and people start sitting on it more than a feet submerged.
Was definately not possible with series 1 with its separate nose reciever.
Bluetooth protocol or not if its 2,4GHz it needs serious power for rx/tx with more than a foot submerged.
Lift and fliteboard use both 2.4ghz and Bluetooth for various things. I’d imagine the 2.4ghz is used for board control and then the Bluetooth for other communication like updates, logging and telemetry.
Hi Jeremy, you are probably right, but I’m suspecting that these companys are not fully following legal restrictions then at least for europe. On the 2,4 Band EC has limit on 25mW and US 1200mW. It’s a massive difference.
With 25mW, there is no chance to get more than 10cm water-penetration.
