GotWay 2016 new 16 inch model ACM Specifications

[dalewalker]

12 hours ago, edwin_rm said:

Pioneers don't need precedents. 

We are all pioneers :-) some forget that its us thats shaping the future of euc.

[Matrod]

Just now, dalewalker said:

We are all pioneers :-) some forget that its us thats shaping the future of euc.

You got that right Dale! There does seem to be some people trying to hold us back but not exactly sure why they would do such a thing.

Oh btw rode my ACM16 for the first time last night. Yep it's fast!! As far as this thread goes the specs definitely hold up. Very happy my country hasn't outlawed ot restricted them in any way.

[Mono]

2 hours ago, OliverH said:

In Switzerland every EUC opts out at the first questions (e.g. redundancy (power, control board, gyro, motor (could be build being redundant))).

I would think that a useful type approval first and foremost checks that the intact wheel behaves reasonable, that is, by design never cuts off, restricts max speed, can break from 15km/h to 0km/h within 3m, doesn't overheat from 3 emergency breaks, stops (but doesn't shut down) without driver, ... Reliability should be IMHO secondary and I wouldn't make it dependent on full redundancy. There are many safety crucial parts on a car or a motorbike which are not redundant, for example tires, steering mechanics or the break pedal on cars. The question should not be redundancy in the first place but reliability, regardless whether it is achieved by redundancy. One could tweak on reliability by demanding a 2-year warranty, which seems to me desirable from any possible view point anyway.

[OliverH]

3 hours ago, Niko said:

I would think that a useful type approval first and foremost checks that the intact wheel behaves reasonable, that is, by design never cuts off, restricts max speed, can break from 15km/h to 0km/h within 3m, doesn't overheat from 3 emergency breaks, stops (but doesn't shut down) without driver, ... Reliability should be IMHO secondary and I wouldn't make it dependent on full redundancy. There are many safety crucial parts on a car or a motorbike which are not redundant, for example tires, steering mechanics or the break pedal on cars. The question should not be redundancy in the first place but reliability, regardless whether it is achieved by redundancy. One could tweak on reliability by demanding a 2-year warranty, which seems to me desirable from any possible view point anyway.

Machine directive and product safety addresses the redundancy issue/ problem. Road safety act says something like "participate to road traffic in a secure way" - this is product safety. Government doesn't take any risk and delegate the problem and risk analysis/ safety concept to the manufacturer/ distributor. EUCs/ manufacturers must practice not an evolution it needs a revolution and understanding of the problem. They can change the problem to their advantage.

[Mono]

49 minutes ago, OliverH said:

"participate to road traffic in a secure way"

Playing the devils advocate, you are saying that you participate in an insecure way to road traffic? 

All depends on the definition of secure and what error probability is acceptable. Any device crashes ones in a while, even airplanes which are supposed the most safe of all.

Making a system redundant doesn't necessarily mean to make it safer. At a given price, I can easily think of both scenarios, that an added backup increases safety or that it decreases safety, because the backup need to be payed for by a cheaper original component. At infinite price it is harder to see such an example, though I wouldn't be sure there isn't any.

In other words: if I am willing to spent, say, 500 bugs in safety enhancement, it might could well be better spent in using more reliable single components than in making the current components redundant.

[OliverH]

17 minutes ago, Niko said:

Playing the devils advocate, you are saying that you participate in an insecure way to road traffic? 

All depends on the definition of secure and what error probability is acceptable. Any device crashes ones in a while, even airplanes which are supposed the most safe of all.

Making a system redundant doesn't necessarily mean to make it safer. At a given price, I can easily think of both scenarios, that an added backup increases safety or that it decreases safety, because the backup need to be payed for by a cheaper original component. At infinite price it is harder to see such an example, though I wouldn't be sure there isn't any.

In other words: if I am willing to spent, say, 500 bugs in safety enhancement, it might could well be better spent in using more reliable single components than in making the current components redundant.

In short words: 

Redundancy is may be an outcome of a risk and hazard analysis. We talk about SIL3/ ASIL C or D area which reduces the risk to an acceptable base. Approval agency would like to see as safe as possible. They like to simulate a power loss, a motor driver mal function, a gyro misfuncution. The EUC should behave in a manner in this simulation to come from an unsafe to a safe state back, to limp home or break the EUC to standstill in the safest possible way - always in mind you have an acceptable risk to the rider and third party. That's all about. 

You can show this with a current EUC or with a rebuild, hardly modified next gen PLEV compliant control and power system. Only the last one would pass the tests.

[Linnea Veteran]

New APP tilt back speed setting. Fit to MCM4 and ACM.

[Cloud]

Awesome progress for the 14" fleet

[OliverH]

1 hour ago, Cloud said:

Awesome progress for the 14" fleet

I think there will be other speed scaling dependend on an ID ( @Linnea Lin Gotway)? Otherwise the new App will be a tuning app

[Jed]

Hi friends,what is the meaning of "continuous power output"in electric unicycle???my ks18A is now 'continuos power output!is' it mean that eventhough we exceed the limit its motor will not stop,and we will not face plant?