38 posts in this topic

Can you create a new brand for this product?

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have looked at videos of the dualtrons but the weight of 80 pounds and the cost of greater than $1500 has excluded it from buying it.

Otherwise, I think they are a much safer alternative to boosted boards as the small skateboard wheels invariably get caught in pavement cracks. However, I strongly suspect it'd be very hard indeed to get free of the machine should, for whatever reason, the front wheel get stuck.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

However, I strongly suspect it'd be very hard indeed to get free of the machine should, for whatever reason, the front wheel get stuck.

 

Not really.

Stock Dualtron Man footpad holes are huge, and nothing binds your feet.

They do sell actual closer strap-install bindings for advanced/trick riders, but I don't know how tight those are as I am still starting out on my DTM.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

Otherwise, I think they are a much safer alternative to boosted boards as the small skateboard wheels invariably get caught in pavement cracks.

I am not convinced. To be able to easily run off without the feet getting caught in an 80 pound device (when choosing the "wrong" direction to jump) seems quite of some safety value to me. Additionally, the low weight of the boards makes them much less likely to brake bones or something.

Edited by Mono
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, houseofjob said:

Stock Dualtron Man footpad holes are huge, and nothing binds your feet.

Right, but there is also only one direction in which you can move the feet (freely) away from the device, in all other directions a nice stumbling block is in the way.

Edited by Mono
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want backflips off motocross jumps from these DualTron riders. Is that too much to ask? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mono said:

I am not convinced. To be able to easily run off without the feet getting caught in an 80 pound device (when choosing the "wrong" direction to jump) seems quite of some safety value to me. Additionally, the low weight of the boards makes them much less likely to brake bones or something.

 

Tell that to this guy:

 

 

5 minutes ago, Mono said:

Right, but there is also only one direction in which you can move the feet (freely) away from the device, in all other directions a nice stumbling block is in the way.

 

Having never ridden a DTM, you are simply just guessing ;)

 

At speed, you cannot run anything off, EUC or any PEV. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, houseofjob said:

Having never ridden a DTM, you are simply just guessing

Everybody is just guessing as nobody knows the injury or fatality comparison between these two modes of transportation. And I wouldn't know any better if I only would have ridden the device.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, Mono said:

Everybody is just guessing as nobody knows the injury or fatality comparison between these two modes of transportation. And I wouldn't know any better if I only would have ridden the device.

That reply wasn't regarding injury or fatality, it was regarding your assumptions about the physics of withdrawing from the vehicle, you should pay more attention ;)

Edited by houseofjob
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, houseofjob said:

That reply wasn't regarding injury or fatality, it was regarding your assumptions about the physics of withdrawing from the vehicle.

As has been often said, one doesn't need to jump from a skyscraper to know and understand the effects and consequences determined by the underlying physics. Actually, one even should not

Edited by Mono
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, houseofjob said:

That reply wasn't regarding injury or fatality, it was regarding your assumptions about the physics of withdrawing from the vehicle, you should pay more attention ;)

If the reply was not about injury, why did you post that picture/vid of an injured man (for which I gave you my negative reputation which you couldn't help but retaliate)?

BTW, IIRC (I don't care to watch the vid again), this guy did a speed test on a running track and lost control over his board and got severely injured. To suggest this could not happen with a DTM is, well...

Edited by Mono
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 minutes ago, Mono said:

If it was not about injury, why did you post that picture of an injured man (for which I gave you my negative reputation)?

 

48 minutes ago, Mono said:

Additionally, the low weight of the boards makes them much less likely to brake bones or something.

 

Point, counterpoint, solely based on e-boards, ie. precedent. (BTW, negative reputation goes both ways ;))

Also, you're not paying attention to the order/sequence of my comments.

 

17 minutes ago, Mono said:

As has been often said, one doesn't need to jump from a skyscraper to know and understand the effects and consequences determined by the underlying physics. Actually, one even should not. 

Ummmm.. yeah.

Edited by houseofjob
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be mistaken, but to all I remember the guy was not injured because he was hit by the board (he was actually doing a test on a running track, IIRC). So the vid does not counter the point that the lower weight of the board is less likely to brake bones. In any case, any single event tells us (almost) nothing about likelihoods, so it cannot counterpoint a risk assessment.

I actually find pasting this picture/vid on this thread offensive. Of course, this my problem, not yours. I don't intent to restrict your right to offend. 

1 hour ago, houseofjob said:

(BTW, negative reputation goes both ways ;))

I do not retaliate negative reputations, never will.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12 minutes ago, Mono said:

So the vid does not counter the point that the lower weight of the board is less likely to brake bones.

Sure it does. It's an e-board, it had your lower weight, he was on it, the accident happened, regardless how you justify it.

 

12 minutes ago, Mono said:

I actually find pasting this picture/vid on this thread offensive. Of course, this my problem, not yours. I don't intent to restrict your right to offend. 

It's a documentary of the risks of speed + e-boards. It's been posted elsewhere in the forums before. The video itself is not offensive, but your sensitivity is your sensitivity.

 

12 minutes ago, Mono said:

I do not retaliate negative reputations, never will.

Good for you. ;)

Edited by houseofjob
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, houseofjob said:

Sure it does. It's an e-board, it had your lower weight, he was on it, the accident happened, regardless how you justify it.

I have the feeling you missed my point. I didn't justify this accident. I don't even think it is relevant at all. It is a single event and as such doesn't tell as anything about comparative risks. 

6 minutes ago, houseofjob said:

The video itself is not offensive, but your sensitivity is your sensitivity.

I entirely agree, the video in itself is not offensive. That is why I wrote that I find pasting this picture/vid on this thread offensive.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mono said:

I have the feeling you missed my point. I didn't justify this accident. I don't even think it is relevant at all. It is a single event and as such doesn't tell as anything about comparative risks. 

I entirely agree, the video in itself is not offensive. That is why I wrote that I find pasting this picture/vid on this thread offensive.

We'll agree to disagree, basically on everything.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly we could agree that having a picture of a severely injured man like this

injured.png.42789bb2238ec3e5a650978e92167116.png

on a thread about the DUALTRON MAN isn't a very nice thing to have?

No worries, I am just trolling.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mono said:

Possibly we could agree that having a picture of a severely injured man like this

injured.png.42789bb2238ec3e5a650978e92167116.png

on a thread about the DUALTRON MAN isn't a very nice thing to have?

No worries, I am just trolling.

I didn't pick the thumbnail, they did ;), but I kinda see what you're saying now, although was not my intent. I was simply posting counter-evidence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He seems fine at the end. That means helmets are dumb, right? :D

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kasenutty said:

He seems fine at the end.

Fine is relative. I don't think it is the same "fine" as before the accident. 

3 minutes ago, kasenutty said:

That means helmets are dumb, right? :D

Not if you try to push the limits.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just funnin, man. I wore my helmet today :D

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, houseofjob said:

I didn't pick the thumbnail, they did

I fault the hospital, they should have shaved his head to inspect for damage.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

22 minutes ago, kasenutty said:

That means helmets are dumb, right? :D

Yes if you try to popularise a means of transportation of which the risk for head injuries is in the same order of magnitude as the risk of pedestrians, like

head-injuries.png.7bb7b4b73d1cb221d7c648500a52e9b9.png

 

 

Edited by Mono
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pedestrian figure does not surprise me at all, as pedestrians must share the road (crosswalk) with cars on roads designed for cars.

I don't know what to say, as I've been hit my a pickup once this week, and dumped my unicycle twice, from vehicles refusing to yield to me on the crosswalk, on stop signs and stoplights no less.

I suspect without evidence the biggest danger to us is vehicles. You cannot survive an auto hitting you at 35mph.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

I suspect without evidence the biggest danger to us is vehicles.

Right, I think in any of the first three categories the main cause of head injury is...a car, either way.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now