If your favorite EUC brand offered a "safety focused" model with redundant electronics, how much more would you be willing to pay?

[Cloud]

4 hours ago, DS said:

@Cloud

Independent redundant battery that can be used as an emergency is good virtue.

The problem that I see is not technical, but with us, the humans. We are just unpredictable with our behaviors. Many times (when the chosen option looks more favorable), we tend to trust our feelings, guts. But the hardware does not care about our guts, if some failure is about to happen it will happen nevertheless guts and feelings.

Imagine the following situation. You (I mean whoever EUC rider) have two independent batteries and the planned trip is just a little less than the maximum range let's say 20 km. I doubt somebody will pay for full size additional battery and keep it non used, only for emergency. OK, this trip is round back to your car, but at the 15-iest km one of the battery is dead and you got the notification. No face-plant for now, because the second one is still good, keep the lovely EUC in balance. You are on a nice flat narrow asphalt path, no passing cars around, you know that you have only 5km left and you know that the second battery have enough energy to bring you back to the car,

Now, be honest, what you gonna do? Step off and start pushing (OMG carrying!) your EUC 5km? Or you gonna "trust your guts" thinking, no way, there is no way to happen again in such a short time and consecutive way TO ME!

A small little voice in your head is telling you that  this option might constitutes hazardous behavior, but you naturally suppress it. That little voice makes you feel uncomfortable for the next 5km, and you don't think how terrible you'd feel with broken bones. It is the human nature to seek comfort in difference with most animals.

Here again, if mechanical fault is about to happen, it does not choose the situation and how do we feel about it.

That's why my idea is to rule out the possibility the so called emergency battery to be able to do anything else but just to stop you safety.

WOW...it got long...

I hope my words make sense, if not...the discussion goes on, that's why we are here

Yes makes sense. But This will be a matter of perception. If the rider does not perceive the first battery cutout as an emergency situation they will continue riding, like you said. In your scenarion, the small additional 3rd battery is intended to be perceived by the rider as an emergency while the cut out of the 1st battery will only be perceived as loss of redundancy. You are right about what you are saying but this dangerous perception can be changed by adding perceived emergency-related actions. In order words - the wheel can be made to trigger the emergency set if actions upon 1st battery cut out.

for example - 1st battery cuts out - rider is notified with a distinct message which is impossible to misinterpret ( say a small siren and voice prompt - " wheel malfunction" ), wheel flashes lights, then say in 30 seconds the pedals tilt back fully making it impossible to ride. This will ensure sufficient perception of emergency and will virtually act the same way your small battery will while having enough safety margin in the battery.

[DS]

36 minutes ago, Cloud said:

for example - 1st battery cuts out - rider is notified with a distinct message which is impossible to misinterpret ( say a small siren and voice prompt - " wheel malfunction" ), wheel flashes lights, then say in 30 seconds the pedals tilt back fully making it impossible to ride. This will ensure sufficient perception of emergency and will virtually act the same way your small battery will while having enough safety margin in the battery.

I agree. Described set of steps are logical and effective.

Small capacity dedicated emergency battery could be seen as a waste of weight&space and giving the fact that battery failure is not so common maybe is better idea to have additional fully functional independent battery which is used as normal (or just the battery pack is divided on two independent interchangeable parts)  and serve as emergency when needed.

Your quote: "So, what i would do is provide a redundant control board but not necessarily the same exact board - just simple set of electronics with an emphasized overcurrent protection that allows the wheel to balance and continue going for at least another hundred feet or more."

About the additional control board, I completely agree with you.

We may need some other guys to have their say or elaborate these ideas from different angles and hopefully reach the common agreement what should be done for that real safety issue.

Next step after reaching common understanding... CRY OUT&LOUD to EUC producers to pay us attention! 

[OliverH]

42 minutes ago, Cloud said:

Yes makes sense. But This will be a matter of perception. If the rider does not perceive the first battery cutout as an emergency situation they will continue riding, like you said. In your scenarion, the small additional 3rd battery is intended to be perceived by the rider as an emergency while the cut out of the 1st battery will only be perceived as loss of redundancy. You are right about what you are saying but this dangerous perception can be changed by adding perceived emergency-related actions. In order words - the wheel can be made to trigger the emergency set if actions upon 1st battery cut out.

for example - 1st battery cuts out - rider is notified with a distinct message which is impossible to misinterpret ( say a small siren and voice prompt - " wheel malfunction" ), wheel flashes lights, then say in 30 seconds the pedals tilt back fully making it impossible to ride. This will ensure sufficient perception of emergency and will virtually act the same way your small battery will while having enough safety margin in the battery.

Think about failure states/ conditions and corresponding messages. Some kind of limp home mode or a forced stop immediately. We need to think different. Forget about the current models and setups. The future safety reliable EUs are more a revolution than an evolution.

[DS]

1 minute ago, OliverH said:

limp home mode

Do you mean something like "basic home mode" that control boards of all modern cars have?

[OliverH]

Current designs can maybe used in a redundancy setup as an interims solution. Firmware need to be reworked but could be a good base to start with.

[OliverH]

57 minutes ago, DS said:

Do you mean something like "basic home mode" that control boards of all modern cars have?

If your engine in your car has a failure it could be that you get a check engine light in the display:

- notice to the driver

- prevent damage of the engine, reduced performance

this are the not so difficult errors. 

[Cloud]

1 hour ago, OliverH said:

Current designs can maybe used in a redundancy setup as an interims solution. Firmware need to be reworked but could be a good base to start with.

Well yeah, i am sure there is some kind of out of future the box thinking or approach which we currently are not yes physchomogically  prepared to realize, but once the reliability of a system has been improved to a certain reasonable level, for systems that ensure life safety, the next step has always been to provide redundancy. 

Certain applications are not so critically dependent on redundancy, like, say, cars. If a motor fails in the car, or if transmission fails the riders will still live as they still have 4 wheels to roll on. However if brakes fail - riders may die - this is why there are several sets of brakes in a car. Why di airplanes have more than one engine?

With eucs, there is only one wheel to roll on, and the rider doesnt have the luxury of surving a failing subsystem. This is why the redundancy will need to be provided on the subsystem level. Think about it this way ,ma perfect example - when people sky dive, they alwys have 2 parachutes on them. The probability of a oarachute not opening is one is a thousand 1/1000 . But the probability of both parachutes failing during the same jump is one in a million 1/1000 *1/1000= 1/1000, 000

same story with the wheel and this is why redundancy will be impirtant for a truly safe euc vehicle.

[OliverH]

21 minutes ago, Cloud said:

Well yeah, i am sure there is some kind of out of future the box thinking or approach which we currently are not yes physchomogically  prepared to realize, but once the reliability of a system has been improved to a certain reasonable level, for systems that ensure life safety, the next step has always been to provide redundancy. 

Certain applications are not so critically dependent on redundancy, like, say, cars. If a motor fails in the car, or if transmission fails the riders will still live as they still have 4 wheels to roll on. However if brakes fail - riders may die - this is why there are several sets of brakes in a car. Why di airplanes have more than one engine?

With eucs, there is only one wheel to roll on, and the rider doesnt have the luxury of surving a failing subsystem. This is why the redundancy will need to be provided on the subsystem level. Think about it this way ,ma perfect example - when people sky dive, they alwys have 2 parachutes on them. The probability of a oarachute not opening is one is a thousand 1/1000 . But the probability of both parachutes failing during the same jump is one in a million 1/1000 *1/1000= 1/1000, 000

same story with the wheel and this is why redundancy will be impirtant for a truly safe euc vehicle.

That's the point. I've in mind doing a hazard and risk analysis with a given system. It will show if we need redundancy. This will be discussed with government. Than we know if we're "safe to ride to not harm the driver or third party in an exzessive manner". I'm getting help by a professional safety expert.

Otherwise it's proven that we need redundancy. Redundancy is currently the statement by government over here to fulfil the sentence in law mentioned before. If we can show up that we do 't need redundancy with a safety reliable system it's nice. If the analysis shows we need redundancy than we've clarified situation and we've several ways to do it. 

[Cloud]

1 minute ago, OliverH said:

That's the point. I've in mind doing a hazard and risk analysis with a given system. It will show if we need redundancy. This will be discussed with government. Than we know if we're "safe to ride to not harm the driver or third party in an exzessive manner". I'm getting help by a professional safety expert.

Otherwise it's proven that we need redundancy. Redundancy is currently the statement by government over here to fulfil the sentence in law mentioned before. If we can show up that we do 't need redundancy with a safety reliable system it's nice. If the analysis shows we need redundancy than we've clarified situation and we've several ways to do it. 

Yes i think you are exaclty correct from the standpoint of legality for euc use and in terms of the factors the authorities will look at to determine this application,

i also believe that even if the auorities become satisfied with the small amount of risk and deem the redundancy unnecessary, such redundancy and /or perceived added safety can still be demanded by the customer or dictated by the market. 

A comsumer may be willing to shell out more for a wheel that has advertized redundant safety mechanisms. For some it coukd be a deal maker.

[OliverH]

20 minutes ago, Cloud said:

Yes i think you are exaclty correct from the standpoint of legality for euc use and in terms of the factors the authorities will look at to determine this application,

i also believe that even if the auorities become satisfied with the small amount of risk and deem the redundancy unnecessary, such redundancy and /or perceived added safety can still be demanded by the customer or dictated by the market. 

A comsumer may be willing to shell out more for a wheel that has advertized redundant safety mechanisms. For some it coukd be a deal maker.

I like to stop all discussions what we need or maybe not need by using and following standards for vehicles and their safety systems. So that it will be accepted by government and approval agencies.

I currently finish a workpackage to give manufacturers a base setup to let them be prepared to go this route. If the current manufacturers don't like to follow that's OK. New hungry companies and community projects are waiting for a chance. There's a real business case behind. After finishing this workpackage I've some time to address the safety reliability analysis as a workpackage. I just started with some preparations/ screenings in parallel. All the ideas/ workpackages set together will show up in the end as some kind of framework. But it needs time to do it.

Some kind of categorisation:

• Fail safe system – A fail is categorized as a minor problem; doesn’t really affect the safety or driving abilities of a vehicle

• Fail controlled system – A fail makes the vehicle to go into a failsafe state. Maybe the maximum allowed speed of a vehicle is reduced.

• Fault tolerant system – A system where a failure should cause a big safety risk, which means that it has to work all the time, like the steering in a car. => redundancy yes or no? 

[Guest]

A fail-safe construction with redundancy and special electronics is mandatory for the security of us drivers and others and for electric unicycles to be allowed by legislators in all the countries. If that is not undertaken by the industry, electric unicycles remain a risk for everybody, only giving the illusion of being safe on them. As for now, they are half-baked toys. 

[SlowMo]

12 hours ago, OliverH said:

I like to stop all discussions what we need or maybe not need by using and following standards for vehicles and their safety systems. So that it will be accepted by government and approval agencies.

I currently finish a workpackage to give manufacturers a base setup to let them be prepared to go this route. If the current manufacturers don't like to follow that's OK. New hungry companies and community projects are waiting for a chance. There's a real business case behind. After finishing this workpackage I've some time to address the safety reliability analysis as a workpackage. I just started with some preparations/ screenings in parallel. All the ideas/ workpackages set together will show up in the end as some kind of framework. But it needs time to do it.

Some kind of categorisation:

• Fail safe system – A fail is categorized as a minor problem; doesn’t really affect the safety or driving abilities of a vehicle

• Fail controlled system – A fail makes the vehicle to go into a failsafe state. Maybe the maximum allowed speed of a vehicle is reduced.

• Fault tolerant system – A system where a failure should cause a big safety risk, which means that it has to work all the time, like the steering in a car. => redundancy yes or no? 

These ideas are good. The problem is the reliability of some products themselves. Take for example the Ninebot One. Let's give a ratio of say 2-5% failure caused by bad mainboard/motor performance. Even if all the necessary failsafe measures are implemented. The hardware themselves fail big time.

[OliverH]

1 hour ago, ScooterB said:

A fail-safe construction with redundancy and special electronics is mandatory for the security of us drivers and others and for electric unicycles to be allowed by legislators in all the countries. If that is not undertaken by the industry, electric unicycles remain a risk for everybody, only giving the illusion of being safe on them. As for now, they are half-baked toys. 

We'll show with a standardized way of risk ahnalysis/ calculation what is neccessary. The german gov, like the swiss gov, have been derived that from the sentence "safe to ride the Driver and third parties". If we find redundancy is mnandatory, see bulets of my last post than we still follow this path.

[OliverH]

16 minutes ago, SlowMo said:

These ideas are good. The problem is the reliability of some products themselves. Take for example the Ninebot One. Let's give a ratio of say 2-5% failure caused by bad mainboard/motor performance. Even if all the necessary failsafe measures are implemented. The hardware themselves fail big time.

OK. The analysis is done in two ways:

- generic classification of risk. In the end you've 4 different values. The higher the value so more you need to do

- then you've on component view. There we'll find failures/ rejects for most of the PCBs.

Easy way:
Don't do anything with analysis and manufacturers deliver redundancy. If you've no failure whild doing the homologation all is fine. If a Distributor/ manufacturer of a non perfect tested/ engineered redundant EU Fails at homologation all will have bad Reputation and tests will be refined.

The right way:
Developing a well engineered PCB with new/ better parts. A software/ firmware designed and tested by state of the art processes with real world tests.

Our EUs will need to undergo a revolution

[SlowMo]

But it seem that EU's are being prohibited from the the streets because in reality any one wheeled vehicle will never safe in traffic amongst 4 wheeled vehicles whatever failsafe is implemented.

[OliverH]

12 minutes ago, SlowMo said:

But it seem that EU's are being prohibited from the the streets because in reality any one wheeled vehicle will never safe in traffic amongst 4 wheeled vehicles whatever failsafe is implemented.

In Germany and Switzerland there's a Regulation for self balanced stand up rollers (e.g.Segway). You can drive them street legal with insurance licence plate. They've type approval. Because of the high Price and size they never was successful in sales volume. If we've a safety reliable redundant EU wen drive them street legal in Switzerland also with the insurance plate. With such kind we can get a special permission like Segway did in the beginning.

[SlowMo]

But what protection would you implement if you get run over by a 4 wheeler or if your EU hits a 4 wheeler in high traffic?

[OliverH]

1 hour ago, SlowMo said:

But what protection would you implement if you get run over by a 4 wheeler or if your EU hits a 4 wheeler in high traffic?

Hmm. You're living in a strange area.

With homologfation/ type approval you're rated obver here like a bicycle rider. You're not allowed to use pedestrian trottoirs/ side walk/ pavement.

You've the same risk as a bicycle rider. And you Need to drive carefull and have to Keep in enough distance to others.

[SlowMo]

1 hour ago, OliverH said:

Hmm. You're living in a strange area.

With homologfation/ type approval you're rated obver here like a bicycle rider. You're not allowed to use pedestrian trottoirs/ side walk/ pavement.

You've the same risk as a bicycle rider. And you Need to drive carefull and have to Keep in enough distance to others.

Yes. The area where we stay at the moment prohibits electric toys of any kind from rolling in the streets for safety reasons. We donot have any problem riding along bicycle lanes and parks as long as we respect pedestrians.

[Jurgen]

Currently riding an EUC is like wingsuit flying at low altitude.
 

So how much am I willing to pay for (some, which?) rendundancy? 0%.
 

Cars are maybe easier for an analogy.

The basic Dacia costs €7k, and the BMW3 series €28k (+300%).

How is it possible that product A that does basically the same (get you from FA2FB) can be sold for 300% more than product B?

The marketing boys make you believe that product A is really the A product you cannot live without, let’s say that this marketing hot air costs you a 100% extra.
On the other hand this A car has better tech, and it took quite a lot of R&D to get there, let’s say 100% each.

Moving an EUC from Dacia level to BMW level is not without risk: the lower the volume the higher % the cost for R&D, too low volume and it becomes prohibitive. The EUC also has to look/feel the part, as perception is reality. Occupying that market segment comes at a high cost, and the return on investment has be as high (or even higher) than selling cheap stuff that takes a low investment (=low risk).

A Dacia equivalent generic EUC costs only about €500, which is an interesting price point until you start to realise that if something bad happens you have a high probability of ending as roadkill.

Get me the VW version of an EUC, and I’ll pay up to €1500. (IPS, KS, GW can all get there with little effort).

However get me the design icon, bank vault built, safety tweaked (incl. redundancy), high speed (with enough torque to keep 100kg stable) EUC that only the upper middle class can afford, and I’ll be willing to pay easily €2000 for the base model.
Uniwheel is probably trying to target this low volume niche. Quite risky, if they fail it could take some time before anyone dares try it again.

Or BMW could decide to put’s 2 EUC’s, always charged and checked by the car’s on-board systems, in the trunk of each i3 (at 10% of the cost of the car):
“Traveling in Eco-style, up to the very last mile.”©