Ninebot One Z : Z6-Z8-Z10

[jojo33]

7 hours ago, Cranium said:

horrible customer service

i agree with you and it's everywhere in the world 

[Cranium]

3 hours ago, meepmeepmayer said:

Though, solid cabling + solid board (not to small mosfets etc.) that can withhold constant, long stresses should be enough. Redundancy would be nice, but isn't really needed if the non-redundant electronics are good enough. KS "S- level" (14D, 14S, 16S, 18S) or better should be good enough.

Good components and design should be the bare minimum of safety standards that EUC manufacturers should be using.  But it isn't really enough because things will still break.  If it were on an electric bike or skateboard at high speeds, you coast to a stop so redundancy is less important.  Not so with EUC.  I want and am willing to pay for more safety.  I hope the manufacturers are willing to provide it.  Ninebot is in a unique position in that they own the patents on proven technology with redundancy so should be able to bring this to the market much cheaper and quicker than other companies...if they choose to do so. 

Without better safety, I personally feel EUCs will always be considered a fringe sport for risk takers and can never really go mainstream.

Edited January 6, 2018 by Cranium

[Mono]

8 hours ago, Cranium said:

I have recently disregarded Ninebot as a company to consider for an EUC due to my personal experiences with multiple failures and horrible customer service with my Ninebot One E+ and P (six months to get the P repaired).  And I'm still healing from the most recent failure a month ago (which I'm still troubleshooting what went wrong).

However, finding this thread tonight may change my mind.  This is the EUC design that has really been needed.  This is where Ninebot actually takes the technology they purchased with Segway and integrate it into the EUC.  This can be the turning point of having EUCs that are actually safe to ride.  Redundancy is the key.  Segway has multiple redundancies from the batteries to the control boards for the motors.  An entire control board can stop functioning and the rider will just be notified and can bring the Segway to a safe stop.  It does this by having each of the two control boards power 1/2 of the windings in a motor.  I really hope this is what they are doing with the Z.  

If it is all i hope it is, I'll buy it even at $2500 because it's still cheaper and less painful than hospital bills, recovery, physical therapy, etc from a bad crash due to a MOSFET or hall effect sensor giving out.  I don't really need the extreme speed but I want the reliability and safety that redundancy has to offer.  And now that I've ready all 20 pages of this thread, Ninebot has me watching and waiting again.  

To me, the wheel and its advertisement doesn't quite look like Ninebot has put particular emphasis on reliability and riders safety. Just my 2 cents.

[Mono]

15 minutes ago, Cranium said:

Without better safety, I personally feel EUCs will always be considered a fringe sport for risk takers and can never really go mainstream.

I agree, though it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of wheel-related safety problems we have seen as of today could be addressed without any "redundancy" considerations at all. Most wheel failures are due to pretty obvious design weaknesses. After all, redundancy is just one means to reduce failure rates and it is not necessarily the most effective or efficient means.

[jojo33]

CES 2018 SEGWAY NINEBOT INVITATION

http://www.ninebot.cn/wxservice/weixinkaifazhe/?s=/Invite/index&from=singlemessage

http://bbs.ninebot.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=107381

if someone goes to the Segway CES2018 booth, please, I have a little job for you with Mini PLUS .... contact me pm

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by jojo33

[WaveCut]

Ninebot is moving from slick design directly into shit with this glance piece of... plastic.

Disappointment.

[Vik's]

40 minutes ago, WaveCut said:

Ninebot is moving from slick design directly into shit with this glance piece of... plastic.

Disappointment.

There are always a possibility that a final version will not be glossy... or do you refer to overall design of it?

Feeling they are going in the right direction even if it's not totally my cup of tea... Would like to see a 16"/lighter version of it...

[Kael]

It could be a protective plastic covering that makes it look glossy? Can’t say I’m a fan either, the matte black was much more menacing. This looks more Tim Burton batman than anything else!

[meepmeepmayer]

It's a unique, futuristic design that can stand on its own. But the glossy black really ruins the look. Needs mate black or some carbon pattern or such a thing, but not old-msuper style glossy black.

[Scatcat]

Gloss is OUT, no more gloss, please no gloss. Did I forget to tell you I don't want no gloss?

[cloudust]

it's T0 sample in the picture so most likely it will not look like that in the final production.

Redundancy is in BMS and hall sensors. 

Hope people at CES can answer more questions.

[Cranium]

10 minutes ago, cloudust said:

Redundancy is in BMS and hall sensors. 

WOOT!

 

[Scatcat]

19 minutes ago, cloudust said:

it's T0 sample in the picture so most likely it will not look like that in the final production.

Redundancy is in BMS and hall sensors. 

Hope people at CES can answer more questions.

I hope so too.

I've held off the temptations to go for a Monster, KS18L or Tesla, waiting to see what comes out of this. If it is as good as it can be, it seems the ideal machine for me, but I stay carefully sceptical... I actually expect them to work out the kinks from the videos, with stupid cut-offs in pot-holes. But you never know...

The biggest downer as far as the stated specs, is the limited battery capacity. I really would like to see 1300Wh+

[Zeno74]

On 30/8/2017 at 5:59 PM, Ilya Shkolnik said:

What the app version ?

Today there are several norms in the automotive business that are more or less all derivation of the ISO13849, at least regarding the base principles

https://www.iso.org/standard/69883.html

starting with a risk analysis an EUC that goes over 30 km/h requires a performance level D in my opinion

In the business a PLD is achieved with a good reliability of components (nothing too high to be honest but it has to be calculated) a decent diagnostic coverage (so the ability of the system to diagnose and find out failures) and an architecture in category 3, so redundant!

On top of it it would be required to avoid causes of common failure etc... 

Nothing of it is rocket science, but you need some engineers that are aware of all this, in my business (tractors, cranes, forklifts and any special vehicle) all this is a standard way of building machines, an EUC with a decent speed should definitely be built with the same concepts.

I'd love if Ninebot would like to share their opinion on this 

[WaveCut]

I just thought maybe its not glossy but covered with protective film...

Any CES news?

Edited January 10, 2018 by WaveCut

[jojo33]

On 10/01/2018 at 2:24 PM, WaveCut said:

Any CES news?

I did not see anything about ONE Z, yet it was announced.

They talk about the Loomo and a rolling suitcase in follow me mode

***

We'll have to take a precaution with the ONE Z
The first factory outing will be bad, like every time with Ninebot 
for example: the Mini PLUS, the first series have defects (material quality, poorly fitting parts)
It was the same for the Mini in 2015/2016, the steering shaft broke, the following series had a better quality of materials for the steering shaft

exemple: (my mini xiaomi had the new steering shaft version, not this below)

Add software errors.
The first series with their defects help the manufacturer to improve his product
it's a risk you take if you are eager to have the Z-One

*****

p.s:

Those who are interested to buy the ONE Z chinese version, not bridled/restrained, please read this topic

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by jojo33

[Vik's]

On ‎10‎.‎01‎.‎2018 at 2:24 PM, WaveCut said:

I just thought maybe its not glossy but covered with protective film...

Any CES news?

 

On ‎08‎.‎01‎.‎2018 at 3:30 PM, Scatcat said:

Gloss is OUT, no more gloss, please no gloss. Did I forget to tell you I don't want no gloss?

False alarm, guys! - no gloss!

 

[Nevin@Tec-toyz.com]

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 11:48 PM, Cranium said:

I have recently disregarded Ninebot as a company to consider for an EUC due to my personal experiences with multiple failures and horrible customer service with my Ninebot One E+ and P (six months to get the P repaired).  And I'm still healing from the most recent failure a month ago (which I'm still troubleshooting what went wrong).

However, finding this thread tonight may change my mind.  This is the EUC design that has really been needed.  This is where Ninebot actually takes the technology they purchased with Segway and integrate it into the EUC.  This can be the turning point of having EUCs that are actually safe to ride.  Redundancy is the key.  Segway has multiple redundancies from the batteries to the control boards for the motors.  An entire control board can stop functioning and the rider will just be notified and can bring the Segway to a safe stop.  It does this by having each of the two control boards power 1/2 of the windings in a motor.  I really hope this is what they are doing with the Z.  

If it is all i hope it is, I'll buy it even at $2500 because it's still cheaper and less painful than hospital bills, recovery, physical therapy, etc from a bad crash due to a MOSFET or hall effect sensor giving out.  I don't really need the extreme speed but I want the reliability and safety that redundancy has to offer.  And now that I've ready all 20 pages of this thread, Ninebot has me watching and waiting again.  

The New One Z will have double hall sensors for redundancy. The Looks alone got me interested in the One Z. But now that Segway-Ninebot added redundancy to their One line shows that they listened to many riders like myself which have been asking the redundancy for a long time. This is icing on the cake as to why I'm so interested in the New One Z.  It should be a safer wheel over all. I hoping other manufacturer will finally take note of this and start to implement the double hall sensor as a start to double redundancy in EUCs! 

[Zeno74]

6 hours ago, Nevin@Tec-toyz.com said:

The New One Z will have double hall sensors for redundancy. The Looks alone got me interested in the One Z. But now that Segway-Ninebot added redundancy to their One line shows that they listened to many riders like myself which have been asking the redundancy for a long time. This is icing on the cake as to why I'm so interested in the New One Z.  It should be a safer wheel over all. I hoping other manufacturer will finally take note of this and start to implement the double hall sensor as a start to double redundancy in EUCs! 

Redundant hall sensor is only a first step, if both sensors are managed by the same single core chip for example the bottleneck is immediately there! Real redundancy is a long journey...

[Mono]

4 hours ago, Zeno74 said:

Redundant hall sensor is only a first step, if both sensors are managed by the same single core chip for example the bottleneck is immediately there! Real redundancy is a long journey...

And I am really curious how you would make the tyre redundant. After all, flats have been the by far most common point of "wheel"-failure in my experience, which I also would expect to be the case for any reasonably build non-redundant EUC.

Edited January 13, 2018 by Mono

[meepmeepmayer]

A tire flat is not an instant faceplant like a electronics cut-out, fried cables, or whatever. Which really is the thing that we need redundancy against- these dreaded insta death scenarios.

[duaner]

> After all, flats have been the by far most common point of "wheel"-failure in my experience ...
Really?  I think of flats as pretty rare.  I've around 2500 miles and not yet had my first flat.  But I've overpowered wheels numerous times (not shutoff, but where pedal dips steeply because it can't keep up) + 3 KS16 shutdowns (two of them going down a 5" curb at low speed).

[Mono]

2 hours ago, duaner said:

> After all, flats have been the by far most common point of "wheel"-failure in my experience ...
Really?

Yes.

2 hours ago, duaner said:

I've around 2500 miles and not yet had my first flat.

That is still perfectly within the tyre failure rate that I expect and that I have experienced.

Edited January 13, 2018 by Mono

[BA-B8]

5 hours ago, Mono said:

And I am really curious how you would make the tyre redundant. After all, flats have been the by far most common point of "wheel"-failure in my experience, which I also would expect to be the case for any reasonably build non-redundant EUC.

I think once they go with airless tires or solid foam core inner tubes we won't have to worry about flats anymore

[Mono]

4 hours ago, meepmeepmayer said:

A tire flat is not an instant faceplant like a electronics cut-out, fried cables, or whatever. Which really is the thing that we need redundancy against- these dreaded insta death scenarios. 

Neither of these failures is a guaranteed death scenario, not even a guaranteed faceplant, but both can lead to instantaneous death in the worst case.