Tethering your wheel to your leg

[RayRay]

Maybe some kind of load sensor that could detect when a rider is no longer standing on the pedals... 

IMHO, we're a looong ways off from any workable solution. (Any trigger that can cut off power instantly seems like more trouble than it's worth.)

Edited December 3, 2018 by RayRay
Tethering is more practical

[Mono]

9 hours ago, RayRay said:

Maybe some kind of load sensor that could detect when a rider is no longer standing on the pedals... 

IMHO, we're a looong ways off from any workable solution. (Any trigger that can cut off power instantly seems like more trouble than it's worth.)

IIRC the Uniwheel did have sensors.

[meepmeepmayer]

The solution is, no solution is needed.

Any extra electronics part that can cause a faceplant is a big no-no. Kill switch, pedal sensor, whatever. NO! By default you can't deactivate such devices at speed, unlike the power button. NO THANKS!

Any tether has a high risk of needlessly injuring the rider, even badly, in an otherwise harmless situation. Tripping, ripping at the leg, preventing a "normal" fall or run-off. And no third party ever was hit by a EUC, a tether never prevented anyone being hit by a EUC. It's a bad solution for a purely theoretical problem.

These are exactly the kind of nonsense ideas that sounds good to people without experience and may end up in dumb regulation. Kill switch, tether, NO! Unsafe, unneeded.

[meepmeepmayer]

1 hour ago, Mono said:

IIRC the Uniwheel did have sensors.

Did anyone ever buy one? I would, just out of curiosity, if I had more money.

[travsformation]

54 minutes ago, meepmeepmayer said:

The solution is, no solution is needed.

Any extra electronics part that can cause a faceplant is a big no-no. Kill switch, pedal sensor, whatever. NO! By default you can't deactivate such devices at speed, unlike the power button. NO THANKS!

Any tether has a high risk of needlessly injuring the rider, even badly, in an otherwise harmless situation. Tripping, ripping at the leg, preventing a "normal" fall or run-off. And no third party ever was hit by a EUC, a tether never prevented anyone being hit by a EUC. It's a bad solution for a purely theoretical problem.

These are exactly the kind of nonsense ideas that sounds good to people without experience and may end up in dumb regulation. Kill switch, tether, NO! Unsafe, unneeded.

And in hilly areas? I dunno....but elderly pedestrians and mothers taking their 3 year-old to school shouldn't be at any risk of having a loose 30 lb wheel hit them at speed.

I'm trying to figure out a leash system that works well for me, and will post when I find a workable solution. But in terms of manufacturers, I do think they should consider this issues. Weight and pedal sensors could be dangerous, as could cord based "disconnect switches" that could easily get caught on something. My ideal solution would be some form of proximity sensor, either connected to one's phone or to an ankle-belt receiver, for example. If the wheel goes 1 or 2 meters away from the rider, it initiates a gradual slow-down.

Maybe I'll ask around, I have some friends with good knowledge of arduino. As a DIY solution, maybe a "grappling device" of some sort could be installed on the V8's handle (wouldn't work with wheels that have sensors though) that presses the kill switch in the event you strive x meters from the wheel...

In any case, it's a security measure manufacturers should definitely explore; accidents cause tougher regulations, which cause people to hesitate, which might reduce sales; it's in their best interest after all...

[Guga]

On 12/3/2018 at 1:17 PM, meepmeepmayer said:

The solution is, no solution is needed.
....

These are exactly the kind of nonsense ideas that sounds good to people without experience and may end up in dumb regulation. Kill switch, tether, NO! Unsafe, unneeded.

I respectfully disagree. A lot of crashes that i read about or saw myself are ending up with a runaway wheel. The wheels are becoming heavier and they are able to maintain their speed and upright position for longer time without the rider. If there is no concern for you i'd challenge you to let your wheel go into your own car, see how that would feel. My wheel InMotion v10F ran away for about 50 feet on a slight downhill and i got lucky that it swerved onto a lawn and hit a border stone. The impact was pretty bad as the handle got dented and bent against its own curvature. During the fall it tumbled in such a way that the handle got undone from the cradle.

On 12/3/2018 at 2:21 PM, travsformation said:

.. My ideal solution would be some form of proximity sensor, either connected to one's phone or to an ankle-belt receiver, for example. If the wheel goes 1 or 2 meters away from the rider, it initiates a gradual slow-down....

I tend to lean towards that as well - car-like immobilizer would be best. You can ride and you can walk with it, but two meters away from you it would turn off. The cord solutions is poor man's immobilizer;)

[Scubadragonsan]

Let's consider the possibility of anything like a tether may get sucked into the wheel or wrap around someone... like the neck? Or worse, whip someone's eyes?

[Guga]

Yeah, it's suboptimal at best - i'm not advocating for a loosely hanging cord though, not at all. Retractable one is the only thing that makes at least some sense, and I wouldn't want it to be tied to my leg without safety disconnect, like the hoses on gas stations - they allow for driver to drive away with only a part of the hose in the car, not with the whole pump.

like this: https://www.amazon.com/T-REIGN-Retractable-Retraction-Polycarbonate-Attachment/dp/B00BF6QRM8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1544114525&sr=8-2&keywords=T-Reign+Small+Retractable+Gear+Tether

 

But yet again proximity sensor based immobilizer seems to be the best option. Might also serve as additional security feature.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Eugene Sazhin

[meepmeepmayer]

4 hours ago, scubadragosan said:

Let's consider the possibility of anything like a tether may get sucked into the wheel or wrap around someone... like the neck? Or worse, whip someone's eyes?

4 hours ago, Eugene Sazhin said:

But yet again proximity sensor based immobilizer seems to be the best option. Might also serve as additional security feature.

That's another electronics part that will cause a faceplant if it malfunctions. Even though it has nothing to do with balancing the wheel.

The safest for riders is if the wheel works unless the board breaks (or motor cabling, and maybe all the battery packs at the same time). Not if the wheel works unless one of two or more parts break. The number of safety-critical parts must be kept to a minimum.

Also, that's another "key" you can lose and a totally unnecessary complication to a EUC which is nice because it's hands free and without a handheld "controller" like an eboard. And what if the key falls out of your pocket, your wheels switches off mid-ride each time?

EM interference or a lost signal for any reason (even if it's just an empty battery in the key) causes a faceplant each time? Can you imagine a plane crashing every time some electronic part unrelated to flying doesn't work? Everybody would rightly say that's insane and planes shouldn't be built this way.

A proximity sensor just doesn't make any sense to me.

Might I add, cars don't have seat sensors that switch off the motor and brake automatically if nobody sits in the driver's seat. Cars in gear (manual) or drive (automatic) will drive without a driver! Cars will automatically roll down a hill if you forget the brakes or the brakes get loose. And they weigh 1+tons, not 20kg. And they don't fall over, unlike a EUC. Yet nobody is complaining about them and suggesting any measures.

And the solution to a downhill runaway wheels is to drive downhill slower. Always drive so that if you crash, nothing bad happens. And for the unlucky remainder of situations, we simply need good insurances.

[RayRay]

If the sensor or trigger (whatever) made a high pitched warning sound instead of cutting off power, then maybe fewer people might get hurt...

Runaway wheels may always be a possibility, but so are runaway drones falling out of the sky (these hurt).

[travsformation]

 

19 hours ago, Eugene Sazhin said:

Yeah, it's suboptimal at best - i'm not advocating for a loosely hanging cord though, not at all. Retractable one is the only thing that makes at least some sense, and I wouldn't want it to be tied to my leg without safety disconnect, like the hoses on gas stations - they allow for driver to drive away with only a part of the hose in the car, not with the whole pump.

like this: https://www.amazon.com/T-REIGN-Retractable-Retraction-Polycarbonate-Attachment/dp/B00BF6QRM8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1544114525&sr=8-2&keywords=T-Reign+Small+Retractable+Gear+Tether

 

But yet again proximity sensor based immobilizer seems to be the best option. Might also serve as additional security feature.

I agree, some form of built-in proximity sensor would be the way to go. To those who say that would be an extra electronic component that could simply fail and lead to a faceplant, I'd respond that your arguments lack imagination. There are a million ways such safety measures could be implemented so they don't pose a risk to the rider, and those measures aren't limited to switching off the wheel and/or gyroscope; they could range from gradual slowdowns, to pre-activation warning (tiltback, high-pitched warnings), combinations of proximity & weight sensors + time triggers & algorithms that detect riderless, runaway wheels, etc.?

None of us here would be capable of building our own wheel from scratch, yet we enjoy and marvel at the technology others have invented for us to use; likewise, if we put enough pressure on manufacturers (Kingsong's larger pedals come to mind), perhaps we'd be equally surprised by the inventive and effective solutions manufacturers could come up with. If in doubt, ask any early adopter about the overlean faceplants they had on earlier wheels or overcurrent issues that have since been corrected, improving security. I find it ironic (don't mean to be petulant) that society is having trouble accepting EUCs because they represent novelty and change, while at the same time, within the forward-thinking EUC community, there are people who also oppose (potentially constructive) changes ("my wheel is fine the way it is, don't implement new safety measures that might endanger me"). At which, again, I'd like to circle back to the first wheels, that didn't have half the user-oriented safety measures that wheels have today...

On the other hand, and I apologise for being so vocal about this, why isn't there more focus on the safety of innocent bystanders? Yes, leashes and other DIY power-off devices might pose an extra risk to riders (I've discovered that the hard way), but where's our sense of civility? Just as I see despotic and self-centred attitudes (sorry for the harsh language) among car, motorcycle and bicycle users (and pedestrians), I'm somewhat concerned about the prevalence of such attitudes among EUC-riders too. What about all the pedestrians who haven't chosen to accept the risk of hopping on a 15-25 kg self-balancing wheel capable of doing 50 km/h (or the risk of having one hit them when minding their own business?)

Even among proponents of safety tethers and disconnect cords, the prevalent concern seems to be damage to property (parked cars, etc.). "If you're unconcerned about your wheel hitting a parked car, try letting go of your wheel and hitting your own car". Once again, the argument is reduced to material objects. What about people?

A runaway 20-kg wheel at 15 km/h involves a force of around 230J....taking a 60cm-high 16" wheel as a reference, that force could cave in a 3-year-old's sternum, hit a 2-year-old straight in the fact or break an elderly person's kneecap, causing, in any of these scenarios, temporarily incapacitating injuries in the best case, and serious and potentially lethal ones in the worst case scenario. My suggestion, thus, would be to have a friend ride your wheel at 15-20 km/h and jump off, while you wait, unprotected, for the wheel to hit you in the shin. If you're not willing to try that, you might be ore selfish than you think. If you don't think that risk is based in reality, perhaps you're being overconfident. I've lost track of how many times I've read in this forum "it's not a matter of whether you'll fall, but when you'll fall". The same applies to where your wheel heads when that happens, who's nearby when it does, etc.

It's like where I live: drivers take mountain-road curves way too fast, invading the other lane, more often than not, because since there's little traffic, it's rare to find another car coming in the opposite direction; so people let the odds of their personal experience turn into over-confidence and keep doing the same thing, care-free. But it take only once for things to go horribly, horribly wrong. It might be a 1 in 100 chance, and those other 99 times built up a false sense of security, but the day it happens, it happens...

If you drive like a dick and you're in a car crash, you're IN the car you crash and will have to deal with the consequences; if you fall on you motorcycles or bicycle, you're going down with the bike, whether you like it or not; with no other vehicle can you just jump off (and deal with the physics of nothing but your own body), while you let the vehicle run off and become someone else's problem (yeah, there are a million nuances, from bikes sliding away from you, cars flipping over into the other lane...but you get my point).

Yesterday an old lady screamed at me for riding along a deserted, well-lit, 4m-wide pedestrian seafront promenade (at about 10-15 km/h). I stopped to talk to her and it turned out that her husband broke his hip because a bicycle hit him. I was being cautious and had no reason to feel guilty about what I was doing, but all the same, it's worthwhile to listen to other people's point of view to better understand where they're coming from. Consideration for others (and their safety) should be an innate quality (and the main reason to use some form of safety tether), but in addition to that, how we conduct ourselves and the safety measures we employ to prevent harm to other people can also have a considerable effect on public opinion and regulations that affect the entire EUC community. One unfortunate runaway wheel (even if it's one out of 10.000) that leaves a kid paraplegic or in a comma could be enough to create a pubic outcry that leads to EUCs being banned altogether...

It's just a though, but one worth considering: if it's not out of civility, self-interest is another factor worth taking into account. And if one doesn't feel like assuming the risk himself...why not join forces and put pressure on manufacturers? (They have the resources and technology to implement safety measures that us simple folk lack). Then again, just a thought.

Sorry if I sound like a self-righteous, moralistic dick, but anyone who's had their wheel spin around and hit them in the shin (which tends to happen at walking speed or less), knows how painful it can be...imagine if instead of walking speed it were 30 km/h, and instead of your shin it were your nose...I've averted a few potentially dangerous wheel-crashes against others in detriment of my own safety, and am glad I averted harm to them, even if it involved a higher risk of injuring myself. Of course, everyone's free to feel and do as they please, but I see no harm in considering unforeseen harm to others and the consequences that might bring (to them, personally, and to all of as, as a community).

I rest my case.  

Signed,

                 The League of Justice

 

 

[RayRay]

We're just spit-balling ideas here, but this all ties into a larger discussion of what's possible with technology these days and how it will impact us (down the road). 

I was watching PBS last night, the segment was about driverless vehicles and the trucking industry...

Possible?

Practical?

Should we?...

I think debate is healthy (especially when people have strong feelings one way or the other).

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by RayRay
Any point of view welcome

[LanghamP]

5 hours ago, travsformation said:

A runaway 20-kg wheel at 15 km/h involves a force of around 230J....taking a 60cm-high 16" wheel as a reference, that force could cave in a 3-year-old's sternum, hit a 2-year-old straight in the fact or break an elderly person's kneecap, causing, in any of these scenarios, temporarily incapacitating injuries in the best case, and serious and potentially lethal ones in the worst case scenario. My suggestion, thus, would be to have a friend ride your wheel at 15-20 km/h and jump off, while you wait, unprotected, for the wheel to hit you in the shin. If you're not willing to try that, you might be ore selfish than you think. 

Have you actually tried to hit an adult or a toddler with a runaway wheel? I've done both successfully as well as been hit myself and the results might surprise you.

Some wheels I don't concern myself with hitting other people because there's no energy in them, while other wheels actually increase their energy during an impact.

Can you guess which ones and why?

Examples of harmless runaway wheels:

KS16s

MCM5

All Inmotions

Examples of very dangerous runaway wheels:

Gotway MSuper series

Monster

Again, take one of your wheels and roll it toward someone quite fast, and see what happens. The results are not at all what one would expect from, say, a bowling ball with the same mass.

 

[meepmeepmayer]

6 hours ago, travsformation said:

To those who say that would be an extra electronic component that could simply fail and lead to a faceplant, I'd respond that your arguments lack imagination. There are a million ways such safety measures could be implemented so they don't pose a risk to the rider, and those measures aren't limited to switching off the wheel and/or gyroscope; they could range from gradual slowdowns, to pre-activation warning (tiltback, high-pitched warnings), combinations of proximity & weight sensors + time triggers & algorithms that detect riderless, runaway wheels, etc.?

I don't think you (and others) realize what impossible requirements some kind of switch-off sensor that does anything worthwhile would have to fulfill.

• First of all, it would have to act instantly.
  30kph is 8m/s, 50kph is 14m/s. How far does it take for a riderless wheel to fall over and come to a stop on its own? And let's not forget, riderless wheels don't happen because the rider vanishes suddenly and the wheel goes merrily on on its own, straight and upright. They happen because something throws the rider off and the wheel off track in the first place, and the wheel tumbles to a stop.
  So: How far does a wheel go on its own after a crash? (This is not a rethorical question) How many seconds of ride time is that? That translates to how many meters?
  So: If the mechanism doesn't work pretty much instantly, it doesn't do squat. Tiltback, warnings? In what time?
  Trigger = instant faceplant. Malfunction = instand faceplant. Otherwise it wouldn't do anything in the first place.
• Combinations of triggers? So how does it work? It activates only when all triggers are triggered? Because if it doesn't, you just multiply the risk of a hardware failure faceplanting you. Will the wheel stop and warn you everytime just one or not all of the triggers have a hardware failure? You can't ride your wheel because one of X things doesn't work? Despite not needed for balancing?
• Please explain how a EUC distinguises between a jump and a fall-off.
• Please explain how a EUC distinguishes between any possible trick and a fall-off?
• You want Gotway and KingSong to write "intelligent" algorithms that will faceplant you on every malfunction?

We actually do have a very effective and absolutely unproblematic switch-off behavior in our wheels. If it falls over and is geometrically unable to keep going (because the tire is off the ground and won't come back), the motor switches off instantly. What else dcould one even want? What specific kind of behavior would be prevented by improved mechanisms? These mythical runaway wheels that would be prevented if only the motor was off? Wheels tumble on from their momentum or tumble down hills when they're off, too. What problems ever happened because the motor wasn't off fast enough?

It's nice that you think about how EUCs can be improved, but let's be a bit more concrete and not talk about perfect future EUCs.

In the end, it's a huge safety and injury risk for the rider and engineering effort and cost (for the end user and possibly prohibitive for the manufacturer)... for what benefit, exactly? Which concrete situations would be prevented? Did anyone ever get hit by a EUC? No.

Do motorcycles have motor-off mechanisms? How many people have been hit by "runaway" motorcycles?

I'm not saying safety mechanisms protecting others are bad, but they need to be reasonable. I have yet to hear an even remotely reasonable concrete proposal for technical measures.

And as far as risk for others is concerned, there's a simple solution: drive slower. As with all the other vehicles, speeding is the top reason for accidents. If you drive in a way that a crash wouldn't hit anyone or anything, problem solved. It's the first rule of any road rules, drive so you can stop in time if something unexpected but realistically possible would happen. For us, stopping includes the wheel.

So you know where I'm coming from, I'm not against discussing any possible measures. But ideas like a boat-like runoff tether sound good at first if you (meaning: legislators) hear them and don't think about them or have no idea how EUCs work. But the more you think about them, the less sense they make and the more idiotic and dangerous it becomes. That's what I'm worried about, not theoretical crash situations when at the same time cars hit people every few seconds.

[LanghamP]

@meepmeepmayer

In most if not every case of my runaway wheel, I got spooked and jumped off. Asymmetrical falls result in the wheel tumbling.

However, simply having the pedal tilt angle upward towards the front results in the wheel slowing down and eventually stopping, while a negative angle results in the wheel speeding up.

You can confirm this by taking an Inmotion with the handle on and pushing it; it slows down. Reverse the wheel, and it speeds up. Remove the handle and change the pedal angle, and you'll see the same simple behavior.

It does care of there's a hill, but I don't know what happens of you push a wheel downhill as I've never attempted it. Seems dangerous.

In my opinion, all stock wheels should have a significant backwards pressure. This would function as an extremely simple dead man's switch, and render all runaway wheels harmless.

Leashes in my opinion are very important around bodies of water, but in every other situation I can think of are not needed.

[meepmeepmayer]

1 minute ago, LanghamP said:

In most if not every case of my runaway wheel, I got spooked and jumped off.

No complicated and possibly dangerous technical solution necessary then, just better riding

Just now, LanghamP said:

In my opinion, all stock wheels should have a significant backwards pressure.

What if the wheel comes to a stop and then runs off backwards?

One could think about making the wheel asymmetric sideways so it falls over more easily. But that would probably always impact how it rides.

-

Do infinite run-offs happen to everyone but me or what? Never been remotely close. Is that really a problem? I'm struggling to understand where the notion comes from in the first place.

[RockyTop]

    @travsformation said something that got me thinking. “The wheel could slow down” At first I thought, The wheel does not work that way!!!! But it kinda could. Some of the two wheeled Segway devices can be programmed to follow you around or can be controlled by remote like the owl video. To do this the wheel would have to tilt back using it’s own weight to slow down. I am not sure how effective this would end up being.

    But then I thought if you were still on the wheel at the time you would be fighting it. I think the algorithm of a riderless wheel and a passenger wheel would be completely different. You could use the power algorithm to detect a riderless wheel. ( but ONLY after the pin is pulled)

  1) pin tether switch gets pulled. 

  2) LOUD alarm sounds and wheel starts to tilt to slow down.

  3) rider response is obvious   

  4) wheel gives rider control until rider feedback is not present. 

  5) rider stops and puts pin back in

OR

  1) pin is pulled 

  2) LOUD alarm sounds and wheel starts to tilt to slow down 

  2) algorithm shows low amps and no rider feedback. Wheel tilts and turns off ( or slows down depending on how effective self slowing is.)

 3) after wheel stops tumbling for 5 seconds alarm stops.

 

  @meepmeepmayer I agree that the solution is not a home project and can add the possibility of other problems. 

As far as being a common problem? I watched it happen to my wife. I chased the wheel for 50 meters on my wheel as it sped up thinking I could kick it over but I had to give up the chase to keep from running into a car. 

A week later I was riding up and down a steep crowded road in a campsite with people lined up in tents on both sides of the road. Every time I traveled ( to the bathroom) down the steep bumpy road at night I thought,” If I fall off now and the wheel kept going it would hit 20 people as the slept.”

[Guga]

9 hours ago, travsformation said:

Even among proponents of safety tethers and disconnect cords, the prevalent concern seems to be damage to property (parked cars, etc.). "If you're unconcerned about your wheel hitting a parked car, try letting go of your wheel and hitting your own car". Once again, the argument is reduced to material objects. What about people?...

 

In my defense - i suggested to use the car as a test object because it seemed to me compelling enough as a test scenario, without asking anyone to put newborn babies, toddlers and elderly family members in front of runaway wheels to check how harmless they are;) ...Wheels, not family members...


@meepmeepmayer The runaway wheels happen and i think by now this is an established fact. The reason doesn't matter (noob rider, slow reaction, bad fall, whatever). The thinking is simple: the faster you can bring the wheel to stop after the fall the better. 1 meter proximity sensor with a key fob in your pants pocket,  that turns off the wheel should do the trick. 1 meter is enough for you to ride on the wheel as well as to walk beside it. And you can have your option of turning this feature off. There is no need IMHO to add any other detection or sensors. You're either with the wheel or you're not. What's not to like?

[travsformation]

@meepmeepmayer you're missing the point. WE aren't the ones who need to come up with a solution, the manufacturers are. For Christ's sake, if I'd been an early adopter and had broken my nose because the manufacturer hadn't taken overcurrent into account and implemented safety measures,  (but had charged me for the wheel all the same), believe me, skulls would have been cracked. Riders who (currently) don't end up faceplanting because of overlean do so because they learn that information here in the forum, not because it's in the user manual. If we were talking about any other product, the angles for potential lawsuit would we uncountable. I understand that we all fall instantly in love with wheeling after the first few seconds of riding in a straight line, but to be honest, the manufacturers are taking our money while they use us as guinea pigs, and we're still dumb enough to take their side. Buy a toaster that electrocutes you when you try to remove the toast; an electric heater that catches on fire if you don't get the thermostat setting just right, even it there's no mention in the user's manual; a car whose braking power might decide to go on vacation because you chose to brake on a hill or over a bump? I'm as passionate about EUCs as the next guy or I wouldn't have pre-ordered a KS18XL, but I can't think of a single type of product where safety standards are as low as with EUCs. Just imagine if the VW scandal hadn't been about emissions but about runaway cars...

IM, GW, KS, etc. are earning big bucks at our expense, yet WE are the ones left to deal with the risks that their products pose. There's a difference between being passionate and being gullible (the free market don't care about us....).

And moreover...where's people's humanity gone? Give me all the technical justifications you like (which is a discussion we SHOULDN'T have to have); give me stats, give me geometry, but can you assure me, 100%, that there will never ever be a scenario where you fall and your wheel hits an innocent bystander or runs straight into an intersection and causes an accident? And that's the point I'm tying to make; I don't care what the manufacturers took or didn't take into account; I don't care about my skill level or the odds of my wheel's fall geometry neutralising a potential threat; even if there's a one in a million chance of injuring someone else, I'd rather break an arm than harm my neighbour's daughter...

Honestly, I'm shocked that anyone in this forum is self-serving enough to counter that argument. Otherwise, we're no better than the car drivers we complain about so much; we're just doing what they do: looking out for our own self interest and disregarding anything that interferes with our own care-free enjoyment...

Where's the difference between a car wanting to speed up on a right-hand turn, unintentionally failing to take pedestrians into account, and an EUC-rider not seeing a pothole and having his wheel hit a 3-yearold in the face? I'm just saying...inattention can happen in both cases, but prioritising one's own safety while disregarding that of others isn't an attitude one feels comfortable seeing so prevalently in EUC forums...

Safe riding to all of you, but to those who put the safety of others before your own, I take my hat off. To the others...well, ....I'm glad I'm not a pedestrian who has the misfortune to cross your path. As an EUC-rider who would rather suffer an injury himself than inflict one on someone else, if a stray wheel ever hits me, believe me...I think I'd better bite my tongue....

Just feel a bit disappointed... I thought we were better than that...

[travsformation]

42 minutes ago, Guga said:

In my defense - i suggested to use the car as a test object because it seemed to me compelling enough as a test scenario, without asking anyone to put newborn babies, toddlers and elderly family members in front of runaway wheels to check how harmless they are;) ...Wheels, not family members...
 

It was just a general example whose purpose was to drive a point through, I wasn't pointing fingers. 

[travsformation]

P.S. My rant wasn't directed at anyone in particular, @meepmeepmayer. My neighbour's daughter was hit by a car a few days ago and I'm a bit emotional. I just...don't want us riders to be like the dickhead drivers that don't give a crap about the safety of others. I apologise if my tone was rather harsh....It's just that she's  a sweet kid and I don't care if it was a car of a stray wheel....that shit shouldn't happen, whether it's a car, motorcycle or EUC, especially if it can be prevented with simple, DIY solutions (even if they involve a greater danger to the rider).

Edited December 8, 2018 by travsformation

[meepmeepmayer]

46 minutes ago, travsformation said:

@meepmeepmayer you're missing the point. WE aren't the ones who need to come up with a solution, the manufacturers are.

That's arguing like an idiotic legislator who wants a magic solution, never mind the facts. "Just come up with something, it's your problem, not mine!" when "something" is virtually (or downright) impossible or highly dumb for some other reason, if only for the conceptual difficulties, let alone technical, safety, and cost difficulties (in this case, of a run-off prevention thing).

Why not argue that a wheel should always be able to force a rider to slow down. Common sense, right? Wait, that's contrary to the entire principle of how a EUC works, it always has to follow what the rider does and can only entice (tiltback), but not force a slow-down (tiltback can be overleaned)? Never mind, the manufacturers "just need to find a solution". Doesn't work like this.

By the way, for the no-more-rider-problem, they already did find a solution. It is "The motor switches off if the wheel falls over, which it does eventually.". It may not be perfect, and if you want to improve on that, get concrete. No magic wishes please

46 minutes ago, travsformation said:

but can you assure me, 100%, that there will never ever be a scenario where you fall and your wheel hits an innocent bystander or runs straight into an intersection and causes an accident?

It's a fallacy to expect 100% certainty on anything. If you want a guarantee of not hitting people, don't ride a EUC.

And the runaway wheel danger to others is so small (if imagined, I can only repeat there was not a single report of a runaway wheel hitting someone), no justification to introduce immense safety problems, costs, and limitations to us EUC riders.

46 minutes ago, travsformation said:

Honestly, I'm shocked that anyone in this forum is self-serving enough to counter that argument.

Or they have more experience and know which concerns are more or less or not important

--

Sorry, but in this post you sound like some old person who has no idea of what he is talking about but gives "common sense" advice. "It would be so easy if you just did X or Y...". No, it isn't easy at all.

If you want to convince me, describe just conceptually (never mind any technical details or costs) how a run-off-wheel solution should work, ideally one that doesn't introduce a massive risk to the rider (any malfunction is a guaranteed faceplant of the worst kind) for at best questionable gain. What exactly triggers it? How does it solve (or not solve) all the mentioned problems. Etc.

1 minute ago, travsformation said:

P.S. My rant wasn't directed at anyone in particular, @meepmeepmayer. Me neighbour's daughter was hit by a car a few days ago and...

I don't care if you have a different opinion than me. Also I don't feel in any way attacked or anything, don't worry

What irks me reading this kind of argument is that (as I already said) is how an incompetent legislator would argue, effectively banning EUCs by making highly unreasonably or (virtually) impossible demands. See the "2 independent brakes" thing in Germany that sound reasonable (if you know nothing) and that I guarantee will be used as an excuse against EUCs in the future. I guess I should argue that "falling over when left on its own" is the second independent braking mechanism So my problem isn't with you if you know what I mean, never mind your opinion.

Hoping the kid isn't hurt badly. Sounds horrible, but this is actually good for EUCs (and other ridables), we can always point to cars and how much worse they are. Not a good argument (or actually much of an argument), but an effective one.

[meepmeepmayer]

I'd like to quickly summarize why I'm against any kind of tether or tether-like thing on EUCs:

• I think it's pretty much pointless.
• I think it can be very dangerous for the rider, which is especially bad when it's so pointless.
• Someone could see it and think "Hey, that's a good idea." Leading to all kinds of problems. From wrong impressions about the danger of EUCs or unnecessary injury to legislative requirement (of pointless danger to the rider).

If you want to use a tether, do it. Every rider should do what (s)he thinks is best. I'll just complain about tethers

Also doesn't mean we can't discuss any new safety mechanisms, tether-related or not. For example, making wheel shapes that quickly stop on their own instead of happily tumbling on forever or down a hill. More angular instead of rounded. Maybe some kind of memory-foam in specific places. Might also double as a shell protector.

Edited December 8, 2018 by meepmeepmayer

[Werner]

Roll, roll, roll S2, down the fucking hill, 
why you don't lay on your side, why you don't stand still? ...........
😲😮🤨
Today I tried to go up a steep meadow, but my S2 could not make it. When I had to jump off,  it didn't fall to a side - yes you are right - it began to run down the hill like a tire you just throwed away. I get faster and faster and I was running after and trying to kick it onto its side to make it fall but I couldn't reach it. It rolled and rolled and turned over and over and did some extreme  jumps, so I thought "that was it, no it will brake and damaged. Then, fortunately there where shrubbery and little trees and my S2 ran into and was captured after about 20 meters inside. 😅
I took a while until I could find and after all I could reach and get out my S2. 
There's only it's stand broken I mounted just a few days before and one side panel a little bit opend, that's all! Can't believe it!  Nearly unbreakable! 😛😛

Now I own a Z10 and bought a strap to prevent of catched by such a situation another time. 

The strap I ordered from Amazon is elastic and I think in worst case it's not strong enough to hurt me a lot before it get damaged. But it will prevent me too loose the wheel in situations I don't want. 

[Heyzeus]

On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 5:33 PM, meepmeepmayer said:

By the way, for the no-more-rider-problem, they already did find a solution. It is "The motor switches off if the wheel falls over, which it does eventually.". It may not be perfect, and if you want to improve on that, get concrete. No magic wishes please

In the few times I've unexpectedly dismounted and my gotway mcm4 has fallen over....

I've noticed that my gotway mcm4 will tend to flop around a bit like a coin that's nearly stopped spinning quite a bit longer than when I've had a similar scenario on my ninebot c+.

On my ninebot c+ when it falls on it's side the wheel shuts off very quickly and the wheel beeps repeatedly to let everyone around know if they didn't already see it "HEY THIS DUDE DONE FUCKED UP"

On my mcm4, when it falls on it's side or is in the process of falling to it's side, like you are no longer on the wheel, the wheel is past the angle on which you could possibly stay on when riding on flat ground but it's shell side hasn't quite touched the ground yet, the wheel will start to spin up really fast, then when the pedals/shell finally contact the ground they provide a sticking point which causes the wheel to flip up a bit and then repeat the process a few times in a matter of a couple seconds flopping around like a fish out of water.  It's probably over faster than it feels but in the process i'm running over to my wheel to try and pick the damned thing up so it will stop freaking the fuck out before it scratches itself up more or worse damages itself in some other way.

it's almost like this but instead imagine it acting like a coin or top that was spinning but is losing energy and so is no longer spinning so much as wobbly flopping around like a fish

it will eventually stop on it's own but for the life of me I don't know why their algorithm to detect the wheel has tipped was designed the way it was and causes the wheel to act the way it does.

I would think with the hall sensor and accelerometers and the rapid changes of direction along multiple axis (changing positition from being rightside up, to on it's side, to upside down (yes upside down and still running) to back to rightside up, to back on it's side to then bouncing to the other side to then finally shutting off) the wheel would be able to detect it's in flip the fuck out mode and shut the hell off, but no, it prolongs it for an unbearingly long time (bullettime effect perhaps) damaging the wheel.

Edit: Better video example (starts at 23:54)

 

Like why, the only scenario I can think of where your wheel shell could be parallel to flat ground and you wouldn't want it to shut off is if you were doing tricks in a pool and trying to ride along the wall.  But I can't think of any other scenario where your wheel would be parallel to the ground instead of perpendicular to it and you would want the wheel to still be operating.

If it's on it's side enough that the wheel is no longer touching the ground, the wheel should shut off right then, not continue speeding up for two-three more seconds.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Heyzeus