Which of the current big manufacturer will survive?

[OliverH]

55 minutes ago, HEC said:

Redundancy doesn't mean that the whole units or parts needs to be present twice / duplicated. It simply requires to avoid any "single point of failure" so if the controller board would have duplicate electronic parts for motor driving and circuit designed the way that it will still allow EUC to continue to drive (albeit for a limit period of time or at slower speed) and stop safely after one of the redundant parts (MOSFETs etc.) has failed it will fulfil the requirement. The same goes for batteries - as long as you'll have two or more separate battery packs each with own BMS and UC would be (again for a limit period of time or at slower speed) to continue to work with one of the packs down to allow safe stop it's all good. As most current EUCs already have multiply battery packs it would require only minor modifications to "isolate" the faulty pack while rest will still supply power. Redesigning of the controller board might incur some initial R&D cost but production price would not be that much higher than current CBs. Frankly I'd happily pay 30 - 50% more (even 100%) for fully tested and certified EUC. My health and life as well as those around me is worth that!

Fully agree. Redundancy has different implementations depending on the safety standard used. We're safety of machinery and this the best of the worth can happen;) Automotive safety (ISO 26262) would be harder.

[US69]

21 minutes ago, OliverH said:

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.

Yip-your opinion :-)

Mine is, that for EUC's it is way to much ...i have nothing against tests and quality improving! docUmented tests! for sure not! but redundancy batterie and boards/motor?

@HEC And yes, i know that this does not  mean physically 2 boards or 2 batteries....but a complete new development!

But what for and how? you got a flat tire and are still faceplanting...or a magnet hull sensor defect, or a winding...

Aaah-for sure the PLEV will prompt to have a "2wheeled Euc" with 2 motors? like inmotion v3?

no, now without ironic: How will you ever get a "redundancy" over a ONE wheel vehicle? And with this overshot i can see only two companies surviving or being able to "serve" the PLEV. regulation......ninebot and inmotion!

 

for me this is absolut typical european regulation, way way overshot the target! And so to make me fear, that is doing more market destroyment than development! (just talking over EUC's!, not scooters and that others e-vehicles)..would not be the first time in the EU...and if this stays as written here, we will see exactly that! Any bets on it?

but like i said: My exclusive opinion or:

My 2 cents :-)

 

[OliverH]

7 minutes ago, KingSong69 said:

Yip-your opinion :-)

Mine is, that for EUC's it is way to much ...i have nothing against tests and quality improving! docUmented tests! for sure not! but redundancy batterie and boards/motor?

@HEC And yes, i know that this does not  mean physically 2 boards or 2 batteries....but a complete new development!

But what for and how? you got a flat tire and are still faceplanting...or a magnet hull sensor defect, or a winding...

Aaah-for sure the PLEV will prompt to have a "2wheeled Euc" with 2 motors? like inmotion v3?

no, now without ironic: How will you ever get a "redundancy" over a ONE wheel vehicle? And with this overshot i can see only two companies surviving or being able to "serve" the PLEV. regulation......ninebot and inmotion!

 

for me this is absolut typical european regulation, way way overshot the target! And so to make me fear, that is doing more market destroyment than development! (just talking over EUC's!, not scooters and that others e-vehicles)..would not be the first time in the EU...and if this stays as written here, we will see exactly that! Any bets on it?

but like i said: My exclusive opinion or:

My 2 cents :-)

 

Segway are covered by PLEV also. 

[EricGhost]

My 2 cents, PLEV is better than nothing and legalize the EUC use enforcing it's safety.

Volumes will tell the price story, not cheap unsafe technical solutions  

[Mono]

1 hour ago, KingSong69 said:

But what for and how? you got a flat tire and are still faceplanting...

...exactly what I was thinking, even if in principle a flat tire could be recoverable without a faceplant...

[Mono]

1 hour ago, KingSong69 said:

Any bets on it?

My bet would be against this being implemented in all European countries where EUCs are in effect legal as of now (or soon), like, out of my head (i.e. prone to errors), Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Luxembourg,...

[US69]

34 minutes ago, MoNo said:

My bet would be against this being implemented in all European countries where EUCs are in effect legal as of now (or soon), like, out of my head (i.e. prone to errors), Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Luxembourg,...

what i mean is:

if this regulation goes into craft...even in some countries of europe

from the day on we will have to wait a year (or much longer) then, if at all, to see a wheel that will be conform or fullfill this regulation! also small manufacters like KS or GW will not even have the money to engineer a complete new "redundant" board and powermanagement!

 

[HEC]

7 hours ago, MoNo said:

And that loosing the bell means to push or carry the EUC home isn't in my list of (even remotely) relevant safety priorities either

I'm sorry but I disagree with this point. Do you lock your bike? Car? House? Office? How often do you loose the keys? The "locking" / authentication could be done in many different ways. BT (dongle, mobile app or both), RFID (could be attached to your keychain as a spare to the "main" one built into bell), fingerprint scanner, keypad or rotary input (like on the locker's padlocks) and so on. Yes there is always a possibility to lose or break the key / bell or forget the code etc. but it's well manageable risk and benefits of locking the wheel and prevent injuries to others are much more beneficial for sure.

[HEC]

I must say that I'm highly disturbed by such negative attitude towards PLEV (or any other certification / regulation process of EUCs) ...

One think is "informed" EUC enthusiast purchasing the "unsafe" / uncertified wheel and well (or at east more or less) aware of it's shortcomings and dangers to later on brake his / her own neck due to ignoring the risks / known possible risks. And completely different thing is a normal "consumer" purchasing the EUC in a good faith it's safe (within the reason) and due to lack of the knowledge (be it fundamental basics of how EUCs work in general or being unaware of specific issue of the wheel in his / her possession) or even basic documentation he / she will crash and harm or kill himself / herself or other innocent bystanders!

I'd like to see how quickly your opinion would change if such person would harm you or one of your close ones ...

Regulations (as much as unpopular they might be) are needed otherwise we'd be surrounded by exploding electronic devices, unsafe cars, busses, trains, building ... everything.

Also the manufacturers can (and SHOULD) actively participate in all on-going preparations and discussions for PLEV (or any other certifications) thus be ready instead of surprised once it's in place and enforced giving  them plenty of time to prepare and develop their products ahead of the time. And those who don't give a f**k - I'm sorry - but good riddance!

Is there a chance that regulation will become to strict? Yes indeed but that's why the knowledgeable people needs to participate in preparation of the PLEV including the leading manufacturers to avoid "overshooting". Would it push some manufactures out of (EUC) business? Most certainly. But those responsible and prepared will survive - to benefit of all of us. Will the prices of EUCs go up drastically? Maybe but maybe not that much (considering the benefits) or maybe not at all. Once the certification is in place more resellers can get into "game" including big existing store chains until now avoiding such product exactly for the reason of missing or non-existent certifications.

While there is still lot of uncertainty surrounding the PLEV one thing is for sure - it's coming and it will sort out the playing field. I personally would not be sorry to see any of the "incompetent" / "irresponsible" manufacturers to go including GW or KS. I don't think this will lead to any monopoly or cartel on the EUC market. It's still niche and at it's early stages so any such attempts to control such young market would most likely fail and turn against the company/-ies attempting to do so instead.

[Marty Backe]

I'm pretty much down on regulations. I think they had their place in history, but now, with instant worldwide communications and communities such as this one, manufacturers who produce inferior products won't stay in business. Regulations didn't force Samsung to stop selling their latest phone, the marketplace did.

Meanwhile regulations stifle innovation, increase costs for the small manufacturer (to the benefit of the behemoths), and are in general products of liberty sucking bureaucracies.

I better stop now 

[OliverH]

9 hours ago, Marty Backe said:

I'm pretty much down on regulations. I think they had their place in history, but now, with instant worldwide communications and communities such as this one, manufacturers who produce inferior products won't stay in business. Regulations didn't force Samsung to stop selling their latest phone, the marketplace did.

Meanwhile regulations stifle innovation, increase costs for the small manufacturer (to the benefit of the behemoths), and are in general products of liberty sucking bureaucracies.

I better stop now 

You're telling a different story. We don't talk about overregulation. There're some kind of tests being strong and hard to get the target. Some parts needs a redesign/ improvement. But we get better tested EUCs. All tests have to been conducted with the maximum design weight.

PLEV is the lowest kind of certification we can deal with. PLEV is a self declaration not intended to become a type approval process.

Target is to get the EUC legal to the public road all over Europe/ countries accepting the regulations of the European Commission.

The PLEV EUC has gone to defined testing at the manufacturer or has been tested/ verified by consumer protection

[Mono]

6 hours ago, HEC said:

I'm sorry but I disagree with this point. Do you lock your bike? Car? House? Office? How often do you loose the keys? The "locking" / authentication could be done in many different ways. BT (dongle, mobile app or both), RFID (could be attached to your keychain as a spare to the "main" one built into bell), fingerprint scanner, keypad or rotary input (like on the locker's padlocks) and so on. Yes there is always a possibility to lose or break the key / bell or forget the code etc. but it's well manageable risk and benefits of locking the wheel and prevent injuries to others are much more beneficial for sure.

to my understanding the obligatory bell and the obligatory authentication are separate prescriptions and I was only talking about the former. The possibility to lock the wheel with the phone is a no-brainer, but that it needs to become legislation "to prevent injuries" feels to me like over-regulation as well. Man, it's not a weapon and it doesn't weigh 2 tons yet you still can throw it at someone even if it hasn't been turned on.

On the other hand, I would like to see legislation which prohibits the possibility of runaways without a driver. 

[OliverH]

11 hours ago, KingSong69 said:

what i mean is:

if this regulation goes into craft...even in some countries of europe

from the day on we will have to wait a year (or much longer) then, if at all, to see a wheel that will be conform or fullfill this regulation! also small manufacters like KS or GW will not even have the money to engineer a complete new "redundant" board and powermanagement!

 

That's why we push this since some time. Development have to start right now. Companies starting to late and not being familiar with the requirements to do the self declaration will see the others growing fast.

These companies have not enough money because they sell not enough EUCs. PLEV will rise sales. So the problem is only to finance the development and help build up the documentation and tests, find labs to do the fatigue tests. 

I force no company to follow this path. If a company likes to follow we can help if the potential is with the company. PLEV it's a mind change and will show much more maturity in the end.

[OliverH]

8 hours ago, MoNo said:

to my understanding the obligatory bell and the obligatory authentication are separate prescriptions and I was only talking about the former. The possibility to lock the wheel with the phone is a no-brainer, but that it needs to become legislation "to prevent injuries" feels to me like over-regulation as well. Man, it's not a weapon and it doesn't weigh 2 tons yet you still can throw it at someone even if it hasn't been turned on.

On the other hand, I would like to see legislation which prohibits the possibility of runaways without a driver. 

The authorisation device is possible in different forms as described before. The key point is "unauthorised use". The standup eScooters can only be used  if two things are made: Push the device and reaching 3 km/h push a button and the device is powered. This is accepted as authorisation. It should not be powered on by e.g. kids unintentionally and injure them that's the key (foreseeable risk).

[cloudust]

@OliverH When is the written guideline going to be published? or when is the first draft going to be available? Could you advise?

[OliverH]

2 hours ago, cloudust said:

@OliverH When is the written guideline going to be published? or when is the first draft going to be available? Could you advise?

Public enquiry with the member bodies start next year. What are you looking for?

[Berus]

On 11/10/2016 at 6:15 AM, 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

 

Actually, as we all know, in some EU countries EUC are tollerate/authorized in bike lane (20-25km/h) and sidewalk(5-6km/h)

 I don't like the prospective that EUC will be authorized to run on the road.

I would have preferred that the unicycles were officially authorized to run on the bikelane/sidewalk with some of this safety requirements for this new vehicle type  Self Balanced PLEV

Redundant power management ,redundant control system,fatigue and endurance tests of core components,battery safety , pedestrian mode  and 25km/h speed limit are good things for sure.

'Authorisation device' and the 'bell' are stupid thing as safety requirements, good as optionals. I have already seen some cheap generic EUC that have a bell with remote control.

[EricGhost]

23 hours ago, Marty Backe said:

I'm pretty much down on regulations. I think they had their place in history, but now, with instant worldwide communications and communities such as this one, manufacturers who produce inferior products won't stay in business. Regulations didn't force Samsung to stop selling their latest phone, the marketplace did.

Meanwhile regulations stifle innovation, increase costs for the small manufacturer (to the benefit of the behemoths), and are in general products of liberty sucking bureaucracies.

I better stop now 

Sorry but I barely can believe such statement, which sound more or less: let's throw a product out in the global market and if we get some accidents, injuries or worse dead ones then the product is no good do not buy it; wonder if you're the one testing the failing product and the consequences of it's failures

Good regulations try to block bad companies before they get into the market, and they are not written in stone, if something good and new appears it will be take into consideration, it will slow down the innovation process But safety increases 

[Marty Backe]

No problem. We just have different perspectives.

[Snurre]

I agree with @Marty Backe that too much regulation will harm and stifle any activity. To me there is also a distinction between regulation and certification:
- Certification should be a specification of standards (as indication to the user)
- Regulation should be a requirement of standards (to protect the user's surroundings)

When it comes to the PLEV list of standards, things like the Authorization device and Bell should perhaps be subject to regulation whereas the other items could very well be specified in a certificate. The latter does of course have marketing bonuses and would serve as a matchmaking between consumers and producers.

[OliverH]

1 hour ago, Snurre said:

I agree with @Marty Backe that too much regulation will harm and stifle any activity. To me there is also a distinction between regulation and certification:
- Certification should be a specification of standards (as indication to the user)
- Regulation should be a requirement of standards (to protect the user's surroundings)

When it comes to the PLEV list of standards, things like the Authorization device and Bell should perhaps be subject to regulation whereas the other items could very well be specified in a certificate. The latter does of course have marketing bonuses and would serve as a matchmaking between consumers and producers.

Hej

PLEV is a self declaration based on tests needs to be conducted and documented. 

Look on your laws in sweden. If this are tested it looks different:

https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/TSFS/TSFS 2009_31k.pdf

http://www.notisum.se/rnp/sls/lag/20010559.htm

With PLEV we get the main pain of faceplanting because of Motor driver failures sorted out. We're getting more maturity. We can enjoy our hobby all over Europe.

Again PLEV is based on safety of machinery, a type A standard. PLEV will become a Typ C standard. Safety of machinery principles drilled down to our devices. The bell and the authorisation device comes from safety of machinery, it's no point of discussion. This features are no brainers - easy to realise.

[Mono]

16 hours ago, OliverH said:

The authorisation device is possible in different forms as described before. The key point is "unauthorised use". The standup eScooters can only be used  if two things are made: Push the device and reaching 3 km/h push a button and the device is powered. This is accepted as authorisation. It should not be powered on by e.g. kids unintentionally and injure them that's the key (foreseeable risk).

OK, I see, this sounds indeed reasonable and sufficiently easy to realize.

[EricGhost]

Mobile phone industry is pin code based, I do not see any suffering because of This.

Today if I see a KS16 not mine I can connect and change the tiltback to 10km, the owner if nearby or on the wheel will just hear a beep-beep and only later realized I tricked his wheel, not a clever situation.

6 hours ago, Marty Backe said:

No problem. We just have different perspectives.

No problem too  

[EricGhost]

Just another consideration, aircraft industry is one with the most of regulations but it's still an innovative high tech industry with the safest stats

 

[OliverH]

2 hours ago, EricGhost said:

Just another consideration, aircraft industry is one with the most of regulations but it's still an innovative high tech industry with the safest stats

 

Regulation will boost EUC business => going mainstream