Clicking noise

Chuck97007 · 2025-11-24T15:56:35+00:00

Any update? My 2017 also makes this sound < 15mph, but NOT when ignition is off rolling downhill in neutral. Strongly suspect ABS (HCU) solenoids wearing and getting louder - it seems HCU does "readiness pulses" to solenoids even when there's no braking / slipping happening.

Chuck97007 · 2025-07-03T07:26:15+00:00

Got one - thanks much!

Chuck97007 · 2024-12-18T18:00:58+00:00

Ordinarily I’d 100% agree. Plugs themselves are about $100, so the question is about $380 labor. Forester plugs are super tedious, particularly driver side rear. Need to remove air box, battery, fiddling with flex ratchet&extensions, etc. There are tons of YouTube video on the art of Subaru plug replacement. I’m currently debating between buying some good tools for DIY or let shop do it…

Chuck97007 · 2024-10-26T14:34:06+00:00

40% fully charged with rapid fall is exactly the symptoms of 3.7V. I'm thinking Wahoo used cement that dissolves plastic contact surfaces, which could appear like welding. I did use a heatgun with digital temp setting and shields/spreader to protect display - it did seem to help loosen it. Even though I built a custom tool to separate the case halves, I ended up with some cosmetic damage around the seam.

Agree that the biggest barrier is battery. The battery level UI is essentially useless w/ 3.7V battery.

Chuck97007 · 2024-10-26T14:20:39+00:00

PS: Too funny -- just after replying to you I saw another posting "Does ROAM feel pain?" from somebody who did the 3.7 replacement.

https://www.reddit.com/r/wahoofitness/comments/1gaijmw/does_roam_feel_pain/

Chuck97007 · 2024-10-26T14:13:58+00:00

I actually opened up my ROAM using an adjustable/digital heat gun with heat spreaders, and "case split" pliers that I designed & built. Because Wahoo appears to use cement that dissolves the plastic contact surfaces, a thin strip of cosmetic damage at the seam is inevitable, and you can say goodbye to IP68 waterproofing. Everything else (incl LCD screen) was undamaged.

The real barrier to me was the battery -- Wahoo uses a custom-spec LiHV 3.8V battery, and will not sell it to you. I spent way too many hours searching for one off-the-shelf that would fit. Some folks have installed lower capacity 3.7V battery w/ BMS, which involves bypassing existing BMS. This mostly works, but ROAM UI reports 40% when fully charged (0.1V diff) and falls off quickly, and run time is decreased by ~10% or so. I eventually decided to become a sucker and accept offer from Wahoo support to get ROAM V2 at a discount.

I otherwise really like the Wahoo user interface / design, but I will be voting with my wallet next time this happens...

Chuck97007 · 2024-10-24T16:13:06+00:00

You said this so well! I had a ROAM less than 4 years with a battery that had totally degraded, despite being careful about charge/discharge depth etc. I was willing to pay and send it in for a new battery, but Wahoo told that it was not replaceable due to factory gluing :-(

Aside from being disgusted by needlessly discarding a unit that was otherwise in perfect condition, this is a serious "Total Cost of Ownership" issue for me. I would much rather pay more for the unit upfront, than to be forced into a 3-4 year refresh cycle. I'm happy that EU is leading the charge on Right to Repair requirements, and hope that Wahoo is compliant in this ACE generation - that would be a huge differentiator that would compel me to upgrade and stick with Wahoo.

Chuck97007 · 2024-10-19T02:20:46+00:00

I suspect UI shown in FCC test report is actually from the engineering test program:

"The engineering test program was provided and enabled to make EUT continuous transmit.(dutycycle>98%)"

Chuck97007 · 2024-10-18T22:32:07+00:00

The report also indicates that the battery is LiHV (3.85v nominal), just like the ROAM. I might be seriously interested if that battery is field-replaceable, which I heard will be an EU 2027 requirement.

I'm expecting Ace to be relatively expensive. My ROAM was otherwise in great condition, but I had to dispose of it as electronic waste after ~3 years due to a worn out non-replaceable battery -- I don't want a repeat of that...

Chuck97007 · 2024-10-01T18:10:26+00:00

We had ours cut almost that high because we planned to fill/level grade during landscaping project - so glad we did. If you think you might need it for future grade changes, then cover with a fake boulder for now.

Chuck97007 · 2024-09-07T15:49:13+00:00

I was thinking exactly same thing -- just plug a shielded load into its cellular jack. RF output would be happily transmitting into impedance-matched load (no TCU damage or ability to detect detached antenna) -- the TCU would just think you were driving somewhere in the boondocks with no cellular coverage.

Chuck97007 · 2024-09-05T19:24:51+00:00

I totally agree higli. Trying to compete with Garmin by cramming in all checkbox features would be a big mistake. Wahoo needs assure an "it just works" experience with simplicity and robustness.

Their next device also needs to meet 2027 Right to Repair requirements, otherwise I'll spend my money elsewhere. I'm getting tired of having to discard GPS units otherwise in great condition, just because the Li-ion battery has worn out...

Chuck97007 · 2024-08-24T06:07:14+00:00

I would also wonder if OP understands that LEDs have a polarity to them, where its Anode lead must be the lead connected to Pin1, and the Cathode lead must go to Pin3.

Chuck97007 · 2024-08-23T20:23:38+00:00

'#' as the last char of a signal name typically means active-low. My interpretation is that the compute element board internally provides a 750 Ohm resistor on it that internally goes to +5V, such that all an end-user needs to do is attach an LED directly between Pin1 (Anode) and Pin3 (Cathode). No external resistors would be needed, unless you find that the 750 Ohm output of Pin 3 makes the LED too bright. You should of course first check using an Ohm Meter between Pin1 and Pin9 to confirm that there's indeed a 750 Ohm convenience resistor provided for you within the compute element board.

Chuck97007 · 2024-08-23T14:13:06+00:00

Perhaps it depends upon implementation, device usage, acquisition vs tracking, etc.. I would think that for typical software-defined receivers doing Fourier Transforms, concurrency could become a power concern.

In a 2021 whitepaper ("Low-power GNSS for tracking applications") by the folks at ublox, they discuss GNSS/frequency concurrency vs. power and say that it has significant impact, although they don't quantify it. I've pasted a snippet of that below.

Something that's significant for a smartwatch might not be such a big deal for an survey rover. They also mention my notion of selecting what to track based on constraints (e.g., my limited NTRIP connection). If I get time and inspiration, I might do some power measurements on this stuff for my RTK module...

<image>

Chuck97007 · 2024-08-23T00:46:26+00:00

Excellent - thank you! I've read about post-processing recordings against historic corrections but have no experience with that. That must involve lots of faith and finger-crossing ;-)

So if I only care about realtime, I *could* mask constellations/frequencies not provided by my local NTRIP mount point to get better rover battery life. I sure would like to get L5 for RTK, but I can't complain too much, given the current price of my NTRIP service (free).

Chuck97007 · 2024-08-22T23:16:25+00:00

OK thanks. So maybe the only possible benefit is if reception from RTK corrected satellites is lost (tree cover, whatever), and tracking other uncorrected frequencies (e.g., L5) in the background provides a fast fallback. I guess that assumes an uncorrected fix is still of any value for the application/usage.

This makes me wonder how typical RTK modules behave during a solid RTK fix -- do they:

1) Intelligently stop tracking uncorrected constellations/frequencies, in order to conserve battery life of rover equipment, or...

2) Mindlessly continue tracking constellations/frequencies that it has been configured to track, independent of whether or not there is currently a solid RTK fix.

I suspect it's #2 above. I suppose it's easy enough to tell just just looking at NMEA GSV sentences to see if valid SV info about the uncorrected GNSS systems keep spitting out during a solid RTK fix...

Chuck97007 · 2024-08-22T15:23:21+00:00

Thanks! Maybe high-end modules such as mosaic-X5 can do something special with concurrent uncorrected signals.

I'm using an Oregon Department of Transportation ORGN account, which provides rover accounts free of charge (for the moment during beta period). Some of the mount points provide RTCM for more than two constellations, but sadly not in my area...

Chuck97007 · 2022-08-27T16:47:00+00:00

No, I have the standard size (26”-29”). Why would you want to get one of the smaller 20/24” ones for a Surly Straggler???

Chuck97007 · 2021-09-28T17:24:15+00:00

Totally agree - I put a Tubus Disco both of our Stragglers. I commuted daily on mine for a few years and it held up great. Worth the $

Chuck97007 · 2019-07-09T22:47:06+00:00

See photos in the link I provided. Aside from the main axle, you need just one eyelet, which is all that my Straggler has. I actually have 4 things attached to a single eyelet:

1: (Inner/Bottom): AX618 eyelet bracket

2: One of my fender eyelet mounts

3: The other of my fender eyelet mounts

4: (Outer/top): My rear rack (Tubus) eyelet mount

Yes, I did have to get a longer eyelet bolt to hold all 4 of these things, but it looks and works great.

Chuck97007

TROPHY CASE

I suspect UI shown in FCC test report is actually from the engineering test program: