A lot of us, including the manufacturers will be the downfall of EUC market.

[RockyTop]

9 minutes ago, mike_bike_kite said:

either that or you just have very small lungs.

LOL …I’m Scottish! … I have Highland lungs.  
 
People are more different than most think. 
My wife says that my Dad and I feel like bags of sand. She said she has never known anyone else like that. 
 

 

[Surfling]

4 hours ago, RockyTop said:

People are more different than most think. 

Yup and a good answer to most topic arguments.

I'm like you. Deemed a "sinker" on a float test in swim class. Has to do with BMI (Body mass index). Less fat, less buoyancy.

I'd bet you're a mesomorph.

[RockyTop]

1 hour ago, Surfling said:

I'd bet you're a mesomorph

I had to look that up. I thought it was something out of DC comics.  

I was bitten by a nuclear cobra. Now I am a Mesomorph!! 

Sounds right. … And it is rough on the shoulders when you sleep.  (As an old man) 

Edit: My wife says, I don’t float cuz I got rocks for brains hence the name RockTop. 

Edited October 7, 2021 by RockyTop

[LoveAll]

I absolutely enjoy  reading everyone replies regarding this topic. To me it seems like, we all have our own preference but overall I'm sure most of us want the wheels to become more affordable. Speed isn't everything, I think we should pump the brakes on asking manufacturers to create faster wheels. I think most people would love an EUC, that travels 70 miles with average speed of 45 mph (20 inch). around $2100- $2500. I have to say, I absolutely hate people that will pay some ridiculous price for an euc just to validate their needs. It's annoying because if some of you would actually just think for one second, you would realize the reason  why EUC are getting so expensive, its because you're wiling to pay for it.  Majority of these wheels can't even survive a crash without some major damage being done to it and I see some people trying to validate 3000 to 5000 for an EUC. I'm sorry that's just ridiculous. But once again, That's just my opinion.

[Menace]

The thing is, there seems to be more money in the big fast wheels. The people who only want 20mph will buy a 16s and then probably not buy anymore wheels. There is no reason for them to innovate on a wheel that works fine for that. The speed junkie is constantly buying the newest fastest wheel. Plus there is way more hype surrounding the fast wheels. How much hype was there surrounding the V8s? none. How about the s20? or the v12? alot.

[Rawnei]

1 hour ago, LoveAll said:

I absolutely enjoy  reading everyone replies regarding this topic. To me it seems like, we all have our own preference but overall I'm sure most of us want the wheels to become more affordable. Speed isn't everything, I think we should pump the brakes on asking manufacturers to create faster wheels. I think most people would love an EUC, that travels 70 miles with average speed of 45 mph (20 inch). around $2100- $2500. I have to say, I absolutely hate people that will pay some ridiculous price for an euc just to validate their needs. It's annoying because if some of you would actually just think for one second, you would realize the reason  why EUC are getting so expensive, its because you're wiling to pay for it.  Majority of these wheels can't even survive a crash without some major damage being done to it and I see some people trying to validate 3000 to 5000 for an EUC. I'm sorry that's just ridiculous. But once again, That's just my opinion.

They are getting expensive because there is a battery and electronics shortage plus a shipping crisis...

[Lex Smith]

1 hour ago, LoveAll said:

I absolutely enjoy  reading everyone replies regarding this topic. To me it seems like, we all have our own preference but overall I'm sure most of us want the wheels to become more affordable. Speed isn't everything, I think we should pump the brakes on asking manufacturers to create faster wheels. I think most people would love an EUC, that travels 70 miles with average speed of 45 mph (20 inch). around $2100- $2500. I have to say, I absolutely hate people that will pay some ridiculous price for an euc just to validate their needs. It's annoying because if some of you would actually just think for one second, you would realize the reason  why EUC are getting so expensive, its because you're wiling to pay for it.  Majority of these wheels can't even survive a crash without some major damage being done to it and I see some people trying to validate 3000 to 5000 for an EUC. I'm sorry that's just ridiculous. But once again, That's just my opinion.

Research and development costs money and the early adopters and people willing to pay a premium to have the highest performing iteration of a technology device are doing us all a favor by their spending habits.  And that's fact not an opinion.  It's true for cars, computers,  cellphones etc etc. 

I  don't hate anyone based on their spending habits but people's unwillingness to pay a fair price is why we have child labor,  environmental destruction and a market place dominated by cheap Chinese crap that ends up in the landfill a lot sooner than it should. 

 

[LoveAll]

On 10/7/2021 at 6:03 PM, Lex Smith said:

Research and development costs money and the early adopters and people willing to pay a premium to have the highest performing iteration of a technology device are doing us all a favor by their spending habits.  And that's fact not an opinion.  It's true for cars, computers,  cellphones etc etc. 

I  don't hate anyone based on their spending habits but people's unwillingness to pay a fair price is why we have child labor,  environmental destruction and a market place dominated by cheap Chinese crap that ends up in the landfill a lot sooner than it should. 

 

I have to say I disagree with the last part, one of the primary reason that a market might get dominate by a cheap copy version of the original is because the original was overpriced. Some might say, how does one put a price on a product, truth be told, we're the one that decide how much a product actually sells for. 

Let say Inmotion release a V13 wheel and priced it at $4500, that price is what the company wants for it but that doesn't necessarily mean it's worth that. And that is one of the primary reason, businesses start doing pre order. But here's the marketing tricks, you only need a fraction of that amount to pre order the wheel, maybe something around like $100- $500 dollars. To most of us $100-$500 is really nothing but $4500 is a large chunk, so we ignore the bigger picture and rush to pre order, and based on how many pre order device Inmotion receive, that number get to dictate if the price going to remain at $4500. Consumers control the market and if wanting a fair price is asking a company to take advantage of underage children just doesn't sound right to unfortunately 

 

[.....]

On 10/7/2021 at 5:09 PM, Menace said:

The thing is, there seems to be more money in the big fast wheels. The people who only want 20mph will buy a 16s and then probably not buy anymore wheels. There is no reason for them to innovate on a wheel that works fine for that. The speed junkie is constantly buying the newest fastest wheel. Plus there is way more hype surrounding the fast wheels. How much hype was there surrounding the V8s? none. How about the s20? or the v12? alot.

catch 22 tho. Do you make your money of the smaller populace but charge more, or do you make your money off the masses and charge less? Its sad, but I do think the majority of business' end up striving on pure volume rather than quality. For a bizz to excel because of quality, it needs be obvious quality and the marketing needs differ. $4k is a far cry from what I think the masses can and/or are willing to pay. Add in the lack of service centers and the current/impedending legalities. The people and opinions we see here are lopsided. Enthusiasts bother to join forums. If i stood in front of the local grocer and showed people an euc and asked if they thought it was worth $3k and if theyd buy it...  Harder to do than offering one up on the forum and getting any takers.

Edited October 9, 2021 by ShanesPlanet

[mrelwood]

2 hours ago, LoveAll said:

we're the one that decide how much a product actually sells for. 

Let say Inmotion release a V13 wheel and priced it at $4500, that price is what the company wants for it but that doesn't necessarily mean it's worth that.

“Worth” can be the value that a single product costs to manufacture. Or it can be the practical value of the product to the end user. Or it can be the manufacturing, designing, logistics, and marketing costs combined, added with a profit that the manufacturer deems necessary or hopeful.

 In the end a product can be seen possibly overpriced if it doesn’t sell as planned. Supply vs demand is always a balance, not a 1:1 process. But since all mentioned costs are cheaper in China, a cheaper knock off doesn’t make the original one overpriced.

 The hunt for the cheapest one happens in every segment of business. People will choose the cheaper beef from the grocery store, no matter how unethically the price has been cut. Etc.

 Look how much anything cost 100 years ago. A pair of shoes could cost the salary of a few months. We’re the shoes overpriced? I don’t think so. We’re now just so used to having everything available for way too cheap. That’s why the word “shopping” even came to be. Products are underpriced.

[Lex Smith]

7 hours ago, LoveAll said:

I have to say I disagree with the last part, one of the primary reason that a market might get dominate by a cheap copy version of the original is because the original was overpriced. Some might say, how does one put a price on a product, truth be told, we're the one that decide how much a product actually sells for. 

Let say Inmotion release a V13 wheel and priced it at $4500, that price is what the company wants for it but that doesn't necessarily mean it's worth that. And that is one of the primary reason, businesses start doing pre order. But here's the marketing tricks, you only need a fraction of that amount to pre order the wheel, maybe something around like $100- $500 dollars. To most of us $100-$500 is really nothing but $4500 is a large chunk, so we ignore the bigger picture and rush to pre order, and based on how many pre order device Inmotion receive, that number get to dictate if the price going to remain at $4500. Consumers control the market and if wanting a fair price is asking a company to take advantage of underage children just doesn't sound right to unfortunately 

 

How is saying 'we're the one that decide how much a product actually sells for' disagreeing with 'people's unwillingness to pay a fair price'?  Seems much the same to me.

If we demand super cheap products someone will find a way to deliver by whatever means possible.  I think the worst thing is where super expensive products (like Apple products for example) still use child labor when with their profit margin they really don't need to.

A real world example I have experienced is if you want to buy a 60 ton capacity weighbridge from a Chinese scale manufacturer.  They will ask you how much you want to spend.  If you low ball the price you will end up with a weighing instrument that flexes and is impossible to calibrate because the steel frame is made from low grade steel.  If however you give a reasonable price the majority of companies will actually deliver a quality product. I guess they want the business either way whereas a typical German manufacturer as an example would refuse to compromise on quality to meet unrealistic price expectations.

[mrelwood]

1 hour ago, Lex Smith said:

I think the worst thing is where super expensive products (like Apple products for example) still use child labor when with their profit margin they really don't need to.

1) I really hope you are not saying that it’s somehow more tolerable for providers of cheaper products to “use child labor”.

2) Quickly checked the phone prices at the manufacturers own sites. Apple: $400 - $1000. Samsung: $50 - $1800.

3) Practically all manufacturers of electronic devices buy parts from other Chinese companies. Apple and Samsung are both pretty public about their ethics requirements for the suppliers’ work conditions. When the conditions are broken, Apple (and I assume Samsung and others as well) gives them a warning of seizing business unless the conditions change for the better. In the first case that came up when searching “Apple child labor”, the warning was ineffective, yet it took 3 years for Apple to fully cut all ties with the company.

I think twisting incidents like this into “uses child labor” does not give a very precise picture of what is really going on.

4) Search terms such as “Samsung child labor” etc give a lot of results just as well.

5) Li-ion batteries use cobalt. 50% of the world’s cobalt is mined in Congo, where 40’000 of the miners are children. ( https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/06/drc-cobalt-child-labour/ )

Begode lowered the price for it’s new Hero (with a large number of batteries that have cobalt in them) from ~$4000 to ~$3000 after KS announced the S20 at ~$3000, so Begode clearly had a lot of air in the price until a direct competitor came along. Does Begode then match the same description of “using child labor when with their profit margin they really don't need to.“

6) Several years ago headlines all over told the breaking news of alarming suicide rates at an Apple factory. A quick fact check revealed that A.) the same component provider was used by Samsung and other phone manufacturers as well, and B.) the “alarming suicide rate” was still lower than the whole US average per capita.

For some reason it was found more rewarding to point the finger only at Apple.

7) Who is responsible for removing child labor and other bad work ethics and environments, a customer of such a company (ie. Apple, Samsung etc.) or perhaps the government and unions of the country they operate in?

 

 The point of this post is not to defend anyone. Apple should’ve been more active when they found out about the child labor, as I’m sure Samsung and others should’ve just as well. The point was to try looking at the issue with a larger perspective than twisting the issue by pointing a finger towards a single company, that seemingly doesn’t even deserve the attention any more than the rest.

Edited October 10, 2021 by mrelwood

[Richardo]

We need a more organized format than this thread to properly discuss all ethical implications of electric unicycles  

[Lex Smith]

1 hour ago, mrelwood said:

1) I really hope you are not saying that it’s somehow more tolerable for providers of cheaper products to “use child labor”.

2) Quickly checked the phone prices at the manufacturers own sites. Apple: $400 - $1000. Samsung: $50 - $1800.

3) Practically all manufacturers of electronic devices buy parts from other Chinese companies. Apple and Samsung are both pretty public about their ethics requirements for the suppliers’ work conditions. When the conditions are broken, Apple (and I assume Samsung and others as well) gives them a warning of seizing business unless the conditions change for the better. In the first case that came up when searching “Apple child labor”, the warning was ineffective, yet it took 3 years for Apple to fully cut all ties with the company.

I think twisting incidents like this into “uses child labor” does not give a very precise picture of what is really going on.

4) Search terms such as “Samsung child labor” etc give a lot of results just as well.

5) Li-ion batteries use cobalt. 50% of the world’s cobalt is mined in Congo, where 40’000 of the miners are children. ( https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/06/drc-cobalt-child-labour/ )

Begode lowered the price for it’s new Hero (with a large number of batteries that have cobalt in them) from ~$4000 to ~$3000 after KS announced the S20 at ~$3000, so Begode clearly had a lot of air in the price until a direct competitor came along. Does Begode then match the same description of “using child labor when with their profit margin they really don't need to.“

6) Several years ago headlines all over told the breaking news of alarming suicide rates at an Apple factory. A quick fact check revealed that A.) the same component provider was used by Samsung and other phone manufacturers as well, and B.) the “alarming suicide rate” was still lower than the whole US average per capita.

For some reason it was found more rewarding to point the finger only at Apple.

7) Who is responsible for removing child labor and other bad work ethics and environments, a customer of such a company (ie. Apple, Samsung etc.) or perhaps the government and unions of the country they operate in?

 

 The point of this post is not to defend anyone. Apple should’ve been more active when they found out about the child labor, as I’m sure Samsung and others should’ve just as well. The point was to try looking at the issue with a larger perspective than twisting the issue by pointing a finger towards a single company, that seemingly doesn’t even deserve the attention any more than the rest.

 

Never suggested Apple was the only one but Apple fans are always the easiest to trigger  :-)

Re point 1 - I wouldn't call it more tolerable but less defendable maybe?  I mean I don't thinks its defendable at all but if a company has a super slim margin in a highly competitive market place then I can see how this could happen but when the company is posting record multibillion dollar profits year after year I feel they could let some of that filter down to their suppliers so that they're not resorting to those measures - but people being people I'm guessing it's always going to be an issue.

Re point 6 - yep it is always more rewarding to point the finger at Apple, at least for me.  I've used Apple products when I've had to (provided by employers) and I think they're over hyped but say that to an Apple 'lifetime' user and they react as if you've just taken a shit on the altar (I'm messing with you :-) ).

Re point 7 - I think customers have to take some of the blame - countries like China with totalitarian governments can't be relied upon to protect their citizens.  I used to lose sleep over it but when you realize the enormity of the corruption and hypocrisy throughout every government, every organization, in fact anything where humans interact with each other I realized my conscience is only making me unhappy.  I still try and do the right thing when I can i.e. if presented with options I'll go for the least harmful one but it doesn't define my life.  Maybe Apple owners are more plagued by their consciences than non-Apple owners which is why they are singled out?

[Paul A]

There are people being killed for their organs.

There are people willing to pay for organ transplants.

That is disturbing.

[Tawpie]

9 hours ago, Lex Smith said:

I used to lose sleep over it but when you realize the enormity of the corruption and hypocrisy throughout every government, every organization, in fact anything where humans interact with each other I realized my conscience is only making me unhappy.  I still try and do the right thing when I can i.e. if presented with options I'll go for the least harmful one but it doesn't define my life

Well stated. Bravo. And kudos.

[mrelwood]

12 hours ago, Lex Smith said:

Never suggested Apple was the only one but Apple fans are always the easiest to trigger  :-)

Seems that most people think the same, since I’ve never seen Samsung or others being singled out whenever talking about the cost of smartphones and laptops, or their manufacturing ethics.

 Truth be told, my yearly avg costs for computers and phones dropped to about half after switching to Apple.

Quote

if a company has a super slim margin in a highly competitive market place then I can see how this could happen

I don’t really see the difference. If I’m the owner of a hugely famous company (be it A, S, G or whatever) and I was told about our component provider’s unethical labor situation, I don’t think it would make any difference to me how much my company was worth or how much/little profit we were making. To me an ethics decision like that is a separate one.

 Then again, I’m sure I couldn’t keep a large firm afloat if my life depended on it, so I’m probably too naive a hippie for the business world…

 

Quote

I've used Apple products when I've had to (provided by employers) and I think they're over hyped

I’m sure it depends on the sector of business or usage. Ask any musician in the world and I already know which one they prefer at 99% probability.  Video and image a bit less probable, but still way past 50%.

 But if all you do is Excel and server side management or such, the scales may tip the other way. Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if the upcoming Windows 66.6 is even buggier than the previous one… 

 My parents stopped requiring my help with phones and laptops after going all Apple. And that’s not a small difference!

 

Quote

Re point 7 - I think customers have to take some of the blame - countries like China with totalitarian governments can't be relied upon to protect their citizens.

Sounds like a tall order for international end customers of another company to feel motivated or even be able to do anything. So many products are China sourced, the whole world depends on them like on no other, so it’s not like we can boycott China anymore. Or can we?

Quote

I used to lose sleep over it but when you realize the enormity of the corruption and hypocrisy throughout every government, every organization, in fact anything where humans interact with each other I realized my conscience is only making me unhappy.

That actually sounds a lot like me around 10 years ago!

Quote

Maybe Apple owners are more plagued by their consciences than non-Apple owners which is why they are singled out?

Not so sure about that. Being able to calculate beyond the initial cost of a purchase is a rare skill, which makes a lot of people call Apples overpriced, and naturally people who buy overpriced items must have been brainwashed!

 

 Anyway, to round back (a huge round I know, but still a round!) to EUCs; When will it be the time to be real about the environmental and humanitarian cost of EUCs? Once they are no longer as much fun as they are now? (Right, like that could ever happen…) Once there is as fun an alternative? (Unlikely.) Once li-ion tech as a whole will be condemned? (Hmm.) Or will humanitarian negligence be one of the aspects bringing the whole industry down, along other Chinese products?

[Lex Smith]

7 hours ago, mrelwood said:

 Anyway, to round back (a huge round I know, but still a round!) to EUCs; When will it be the time to be real about the environmental and humanitarian cost of EUCs? Once they are no longer as much fun as they are now? (Right, like that could ever happen…) Once there is as fun an alternative? (Unlikely.) Once li-ion tech as a whole will be condemned? (Hmm.) Or will humanitarian negligence be one of the aspects bringing the whole industry down, along other Chinese products?

I get back to the lesser evil argument - comparing an electric car to an EUC and we're ecowarriors!  True we don't quite hit the moral high ground of cyclists but whatever :-)

Since getting my EUC my fuel bill for my petrol powered van is about 10% of what it was so that's got to be a win.

The humanitarian cost issue is an interesting one.  We have a holier than thou socialist leader running our country but she is strangely silent on humanitarian issues that will affect NZ's economy.  We're the last OECD country buying phosphates from Morocco - everyone else has stopped because of the humanitarian cost associated with it's extraction.  This means all of our farming products (milk, meat, vegetables, fruit) are tainted.  How do you avoid that?

[Duf]

On 10/5/2021 at 10:51 AM, RockyTop said:

I am guessing that most riders cruise at an average speed between 15 and 25mph. When you average EVERYTHING it ends up at 10MPH. Even @Duf hits 27mph when cruising to DD on certain wheels. 

If it's the Sherman I am closer to 30+ most of the time.

[winterwheel]

I ride around 40-45kmh most of the time, across a variety of wheels. The only times I really feel a need to go faster are when I'm mingling on a road with automobiles, and there it goes up to around 50kmh. But that's real life riding speed, so I'd be nervous riding on the roads if the wheel didn't have the headroom to carry my relatively heavy carcass at 60kmh, and accelerate hard at lower speeds when needed.

[Nostris]

On 10/7/2021 at 11:09 PM, Menace said:

The thing is, there seems to be more money in the big fast wheels. The people who only want 20mph will buy a 16s and then probably not buy anymore wheels. There is no reason for them to innovate on a wheel that works fine for that. The speed junkie is constantly buying the newest fastest wheel. Plus there is way more hype surrounding the fast wheels. How much hype was there surrounding the V8s? none. How about the s20? or the v12? alot.

That is very true….I guess the profit margin is much better on a big, heavy and fast wheel…….For example…Does it really cost three times as much to build a Sherman than a V8?…I’d guess not TBH!  And yes, there is way more hype around the latest, fastest , longest range / heaviest wheel than the V8 because that is what the hard core enthusiast likes..and posts with great frequency on the Tube and craps on endlessly on all the forums..  But… it was the V8 that outsold all other EUCs.Why?…Because it obviously works for an awful lot of people. So obviously there is a market for the mid-range, mid- performance wheels, and a pretty big market, all be it, one that doesn’t have a big presence on the Tube or Forums.. If the manufacturers ignore the more affordable, mid range market, they do so at their peril. 

[RockyTop]

6 minutes ago, Nostris said:

…Does it really cost three times as much to build a Sherman than a V8?

Maybe…. The Sherman has 4 to 5 times more batteries, Twice the motor and bigger components on the control board. If you figure profit per battery the V8 is way more profitable. 

[Paul A]

The Model T, Volkswagen Beetle, Russian Lada, were very high selling cars.

If manufacturing/sales volume is the measure, then they were extremely popular.

Price and affordability might have been the main reason.

[VikB]

27 minutes ago, RockyTop said:

Maybe…. The Sherman has 4 to 5 times more batteries, Twice the motor and bigger components on the control board. If you figure profit per battery the V8 is way more profitable. 

The costs to design, build tooling, find vendors, build prototypes, setup production lines, develop training materials, etc... for the V8/V8F have long been paid off so every new V8 model EUC is cheaper to build now than they were initially. 

[AtlasP]

3 hours ago, RockyTop said:

Maybe…. The Sherman has 4 to 5 times more batteries, Twice the motor and bigger components on the control board. If you figure profit per battery the V8 is way more profitable. 

That's.. not how any of this works. Component costs do not scale linearly with their performance--"twice the motor" does not and should not be assumed to maintain a ratio of twice the cost. The margins on the V8 line are almost certainly much, much lower than the Sherman, but which are made up for by how many more of them are sold.

Edit: to clarify, li-on batteries are the obvious exception, since our larger packs really are just more of the same cells stuck together, so capacity versus cost would scale more linearly. But my point was that pretty much none of the other major components work that way, nor do development or assembly/QA costs, etc.

Edited November 4, 2021 by AtlasP