Jump to content

Which of the current big manufacturer will survive?


OliverH
 Share

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, flass said:

Cool, where did you get those requirements from? Last time I looked into this I learnt that the standard were not supposed to be finalized until some time around the end of 2016.

 

 

I was in Paris on the last PLEV meeting in september. PLEV is planned to be finalised by end of 2017. So as a manufacturer I shall now start with development. First comes first serves.

Edited by OliverH
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There're talks with manufacturers and distributors. But there're still manufacturers today not getting the story of regulation and break through if sales after all is established. These are still working on niche stuff with no real benefit to the business target.

There's one project ramping up and an other driven by a distributor sorting out possibilities with their suppliers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@OliverH Nice. This is such a great summary on the AFNOR meeting. So does it mean there is no separation of EUC from the two or three wheels? They will all follow the same standard.

Looking from the 4 classes, there will be no more faster machines (over 25km/h) allowed to be driven on the road in Europe anymore. 

I guess Segway plays a big role in this meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OliverH said:

I was in Paris on the last PLEV meeting in september. PLEV is planned to be finalised by end of 2017. So as a manufacturer I shall now start with development. First comes first serves.

I wish you good luck with that! However, I find it highly unlikely that there will be an EUC that meets these requirements available in any near future. The redundant systems will add a significant amount of both weight and space. And I guess the cost will be more than doubled. But in general I find the requirements very reasonable and I will definitely encourage any approach to create a EUC that will pass the criteria for the PLEV certification.

Edited by flass
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lizardmech said:

Do they have any examples of what they consider redundant control? The proposals are somewhat vague and not inline with other safety schemes covering things from medical respirators, automotive standards and aerospace.

Redundancy is a rather well-defined concept - to duplicate component(s) so that if one fails the other can take over completely. Segway for example has this for all critical subsystems (also clearly stated by the price tag).

Edited by flass
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OliverH said:
  • Authorisation device (to start the EUC)
  • a bell connected with the device, at least at start up to make sure it's carried with the rider

I was actually thinking about exactly this and that could be implemented very simply by having RFID / BT dongle (even wearable at your hand or fingers) with dual purpose:

1. To unlock / "start" your EUC

2. To be used as a bell during ride.

You can still indeed put it in your pocket or backpack and NOT use it during ride but you can as well not use bell mounted on your bicycle handle bars :P 

Cheapest version can consist of the purely mechanical "bicycle" bell with built in RFID (ID / IC) chip used to unlock and start / power up EUC.

I'm currently actually looking into adding RFID reader to all my wheels and use RFID chip card / dongle / ring (JAKCOM) to unlock those. Other thing I'd like to see is an "integrated" safety (training) belt. Basically auto roll-in belt with detachable hand / carbine at the end fitted inside of the shell and anchored to the strong inner part so you'd not need to use an auxiliary "luggage" belt looped through the EUC's handle.

I have big hopes for Inmotion to join early in this process so hopefully with a bit of push from @Jason McNeil and other respected resells they'll stay ahead of the pack.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, flass said:

Redundancy is a rather well-defined concept - to duplicate component(s) so that if one fails the other can take over completely. Segway for example has this for all critical subsystems (also clearly stated by the price tag).

Segway would fail these requirements as they only have one gyro assembly for both redundant sections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, HEC said:

I was actually thinking about exactly this and that could be implemented very simply by having RFID / BT dongle (even wearable at your hand or fingers) with dual purpose:

1. To unlock / "start" your EUC

2. To be used as a bell during ride.

You can still indeed put it in your pocket or backpack and NOT use it during ride but you can as well not use bell mounted on your bicycle handle bars :P 

Cheapest version can consist of the purely mechanical "bicycle" bell with built in RFID (ID / IC) chip used to unlock and start / power up EUC.

I'm currently actually looking into adding RFID reader to all my wheels and use RFID chip card / dongle / ring (JAKCOM) to unlock those. Other thing I'd like to see is an "integrated" safety (training) belt. Basically auto roll-in belt with detachable hand / carbine at the end fitted inside of the shell and anchored to the strong inner part so you'd not need to use an auxiliary "luggage" belt looped through the EUC's handle.

I have big hopes for Inmotion to join early in this process so hopefully with a bit of push from @Jason McNeil and other respected resells they'll stay ahead of the pack.

There're still people involved with the right connection in Germany. There're investors willing to spend money seeing the business case behind. The chance  for the underdogs.

Regarding the bell: That was a real issue. We came to the point, that:

  • it should be not operated (button on the EUC) on the device it self (no Focus on the road traffic)
  • no Radio connection to operate the bell because it can be interrupted (EMC stuff)
  • a skater bell with NFC/ BT device would be a good solution

As good as possible it shouild be made sure that the rider takes it with him. If you combine it with the authorisation device it's for sure.

1 hour ago, flass said:

Redundancy is a rather well-defined concept - to duplicate component(s) so that if one fails the other can take over completely. Segway for example has this for all critical subsystems (also clearly stated by the price tag).

Lizardmaech is right. Safety of machinery uses the less worth definition: Expanded availabilty to explain it in easy words. I've the pleasure to have a colleague which studies safety and we talked a lot on that.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cloudust said:

@OliverH Nice. This is such a great summary on the AFNOR meeting. So does it mean there is no separation of EUC from the two or three wheels? They will all follow the same standard.

Looking from the 4 classes, there will be no more faster machines (over 25km/h) allowed to be driven on the road in Europe anymore. 

I guess Segway plays a big role in this meeting.

I sat next to the guy from Segway. Segway is not as big as we think, but it's a well known brand and they did an awfull Job in the past. But there're players like Honda, Toyota, the French Sport super market comapany Decathlon which provide a lot of knowledge on testing. To become a supplier at them must be very hard. In the eScooter standup class we've micro, Egret.

Above 25 km/h is competition and not covered by PLEV.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, lizardmech said:

Segway would fail these requirements as they only have one gyro assembly for both redundant sections.

Not sure about. I think it's isolated in a good manner.

We could come to the point to use an project with sources available to be build on to have full control on the control system. All options are under inspection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OliverH said:

Not sure about. I think it's isolated in a good manner.

It only has one unit though, an electrical fault on the gyro unit board would cause a crash. I'm surprised how little they have updated it since the first model, no wonder they cost so much, they're built with parts from the 1990s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OliverH said:

I was in Paris on the last PLEV meeting in september. PLEV is planned to be finalised by end of 2017. So as a manufacturer I shall now start with development. First comes first serves.

Sounds great! It's maybe a bit over optimistic, but this could open the possibilities to drive legally throughout europe next summer! 

Just the license plate issue could be the last hurdle for drivers living in a country which allows riding without license plate and wanting to drive in Germany/switzerland...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it why some people try to outlaw all currently available EUCs, including all their natural future technological development and improvements. 

I don't see so much wrong with any and all of the EUCs that we can buy now. Of course, all EUCs can and should be improved and regulated (say a speed limit and a deceleration requirement), but I would rather prefer to see evolution than revolution. I have the vague suspicion that someone not yet in the market tries to overtake, monopolize and profit big time (as the thread title suggests).

I am all for measuring and certifying reliability, however dictating the technology how to achieve it (redundancy) seems to be the wrong approach. And that losing the bell means to push or carry the EUC home isn't in my list of (even remotely) relevant safety priorities either.

On the positive side, I have doubts that a legislation outlawing all currently operated and available EUCs is likely to succeed in those European countries where EUCs are currently regarded/treated as legal anyway.

Edited by Mono
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, lizardmech said:

It only has one unit though, an electrical fault on the gyro unit board would cause a crash. I'm surprised how little they have updated it since the first model, no wonder they cost so much, they're built with parts from the 1990s.

It has 3 Gyros inside

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chriull said:

Sounds great! It's maybe a bit over optimistic, but this could open the possibilities to drive legally throughout europe next summer! 

Just the license plate issue could be the last hurdle for drivers living in a country which allows riding without license plate and wanting to drive in Germany/switzerland...

If the PLEV standard is published (hopefully) by end of 2017 it needs to be incorporated in a new category of vehicle. The Scandinavians have shown how to realise that.

The plan is that PLEVs are non type approved vehicles without a licence plate.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MoNo said:

I don't get it why some people try to outlaw all currently available EUCs, including all their natural future technological development and improvements. 

I don't see so much wrong with any and all of the EUCs that we can buy now. Of course, all EUCs can and should be improved and regulated, but I would rather prefer to see evolution than revolution. I have the vague suspicion that someone not yet in the market tries to overtake, monopolize and profit big time (as the thread title suggests).

I am all for measuring and certifying reliability, however dictating the technological means how to achieve it (redundancy) seems to be the wrong approach. And loosing the bell to mean having to push or carry the EUC home isn't in my list of (even remotely) relevant safety priorities either.

On the positive side, I have doubts that a legislation outlawing all currently operated and available EUCs is likely to succeed in those European countries where EUCs are currently regarded/treated as legal anyway.

Looking on product safety laws/ street laws (still valid) there needs to be safety in mind:

German: betriebssicher, keine ausserordentliche Gefährdung für Fahrer/ Dritte

English: safe to operate no extraordinary risk for driver or third party.

So in most countries the EUCs are forbidden, only tolerated and in some cases allowed but most EUC are not fulfilling the requirements or there's no declaration to state conformity.

If someone likes to use an competition EUC he can still do it like today, depending on the national laws on private area.

The PLEV standard will test with fatigue/ endurance test that pedals, pedal arms and axle will last and that we don't see broken pedals like on on series of KS16/ 18. We force manufacturer to test what we discuss a lot of times here.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, OliverH said:

The upcoming regulation (PLEV) will give the manufacturer a new challenge to meet requirements. The Personal Light Electric Vehicle (PLEV) standard has some key requirements:

  • redundant power management (batteries and power supply at the components)
  • redundant control system (Control board and motor driver)
  • Authorisation device (to start the EUC)
  • a bell connected with the device, at least at start up to make sure it's carried with the rider
  • fatigue and endurance tests of core components
  • battery safety

Manufacturer willing to follow this path will see sales numbers in the end they've never seen before. 

Others not following this path will continue focusing on Asia/ America up to the moment where regulation will also hit them on this market.

In the next two years we'll see up and downs of manufacturer and it looks like we see a dramatic shift in sales ranking. It's time for the underdogs with engineering skills and a structured way to drive business. This companies are more open to market requirements and visit exhibitions in Europe and so on, visit distributors or conducting sales launches at the main markets up front.

under this conditons...i hope the "PLEV" will NEVER get reality for EUC's...

Just alone the first 2 points would make our wheels 3-4 times more expensive (if possible at all for a EUC, in my view a EUC can/will be never "redundant") and shut down small manufacters like KS or GW instantly...

sure my view is an exclusive sight/ opinion.....but i know what it cost Segway to get "redundancy" on their device...by today the only self balancing redundance device...and one of the main reasons why an Segway is 3 times more the price than an Ninebot elite...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KingSong69 said:

under this conditons...i hope the "PLEV" will NEVER get reality for EUC's...

Just alone the first 2 points would make our wheels 3-4 times more expensive (if possible at all for a EUC, in my view a EUC can/will be never "redundant") and shut down small manufacters like KS or GW instantly...

sure my view is an exclusive sight/ opinion.....but i know what it cost Segway to get "redundancy" on their device...by today the only self balancing redundance device...and one of the main reasons why an Segway is 3 times more the price than an Ninebot elite...

You can't compare Segway which is different as it is two wheeled. The electronic is not such expensive. 

As faster the EUC will become, the more accidents/ injuries happen it's likely that police size EUCs and Customs will block the EUcs. We're sticking in a one way. Whatever you can buy a PLEV complaint or a competition EUC. It's up to you. But there're many people like to commute with EUC, make tours on public street/ bike lanes. This people can use it legally. PLEV is the main stream market. PLEVs will have a bright future with the help of the Kyoto protocol. After 2020 looking forward to the target 2030 we'll see actions by gov to reduce CO2. EUCs can benefit from that when right positioned.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@OliverH you seem to suggest that all currently available EUCs are so dangerous that they should be (or become) illegal to operate on public grounds. I would like to see EUCs to be (or remain) legal if their maximal speed is limited to, say, 25km/h and if they can decelerate from 20km/h to zero within, say, 7m and, for future models, if they stop without a driver present. IIRC is the latter the Danish approach anyway.

Edited by MoNo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MoNo said:

@OliverH you seem to suggest that all currently available EUCs are so dangerous that they should be (or become) illegal to operate on public grounds. I would like to see EUCs to be (or remain) legal if their maximal speed is limited to, say, 25km/h and if they can decelerate from 20km/h to zero within, say, 7m. IIRC is the latter the Danish approach anyway.

Dangerous is a hard sentence. They're not specified well or speed is only tested for low weights. As time to market is an issue they're tested by customers. 

As there's no redundancy you'll do a faceplant in case of a fault in control system/ motor driver. Currently available EUC will not become illegal, they're still in some countries. And I'm not sure if the countries allowing the EUCs with a category or tolerate them don't have a product safety law which also links to safety of machinery where the redundancy comes from. But don't wake up a sleeping dog.

Norway (their standardisation agency) has contributed some work to PLEV. I think the pedestrian mode cones from the Scandinavian countries. Need to fill that up at the post above.

Edited by OliverH
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...