Personal Light Electric Vehicle regulations (PLEV)

[cloudust]

On 17/08/2017 at 5:20 PM, ir_fuel said:

I don't think that this wheel {Moderator note as this topic has been split off - "this wheel" is the new Ninebot Z10 } is meant for commuters tbh.

That's true.

It doesn't comply with the future PLEV directive so you won't be able to ride it on public roads in EU. It can only be considered as 'sport equipment'.

[Christoph Zens]

30 minutes ago, cloudust said:

It doesn't comply with the future PLEV directive so you won't be able to ride it on public roads in EU. It can only be considered as 'sport equipment'.

We don't know what, if anything, PLEV will contain in the end, and it will certainly not be mandatory for any EU member to adopt it. So as of now, that's a pretty bold statement. My guess is that not a single EUC will be able to comply with whatever the electric scooter lobby tries to push into PLEV, so it may turn out to be pretty useless for us anyways.

[ir_fuel]

1 hour ago, Christoph Zens said:

My guess is that not a single EUC will be able to comply with whatever the electric scooter lobby tries to push into PLEV, so it may turn out to be pretty useless for us anyways.

In and excluded

Regarding the use, the voluntary standard will exclude vehicles having a maximum speed above 25 km/h

 

 

I liked this one too:

 

 In public spaces, they are already permitted on cycle tracks and sidewalks at a maximum speed of 6 km/h. “Due to the permitted tolerance, members of the working group have anticipated a possible future regulation with the addition of a specific button to switch to pedestrian mode,”

 

Why would anyone want to ride at 6km/h. That's walking pace. And why would you want to do that on a cycle track?? Better leave the thing home and go on foot. At least on foot you won't run out of batteries, and at 6km/h I guess your average Inmotion V8 would do 100km on one charge, equating to 16h of riding  

 

[ir_fuel]

This is getting funnier by the minute

http://www.ewheels.org/news/656/personal-light-electric-vehicle-plev-standard

 

Unautorized Use
The PLEV must be protected against unautorized use by third party (kids,..).

Bell
There must be measures that a bell is carried with the rider and the PLEV can only be started when the bell is connected via cable or radio.

[Christoph Zens]

Yes. That's what I mean. Did you see the requirement for redundant power and control systems if there is no manual brake? Not a single current wheel and I predict also no future (single) wheel will be able to do this. As I understand this initiative, it was started by companies selling electric scooters and their only interest is to get their devices certified and street-legal so they can sell them more easily. I am not sure the EUC industry is represented in this working group at all, so no one will care about what makes sense in the context of our wheels. The self balancing thing is related to hover boards, I guess. There will be a lot of nonsense in this 'standard' and it may turn out to be of no use in helping us to get our devices accepted (in countries where they are basically illegal right now, like in Germany or Israel).

[Mono]

But it is also pretty clear that Germany will make sooner or later a move when EUCs are in effect or literally legal in many if not most other European countries and the market keeps growing.

[Mono]

51 minutes ago, Christoph Zens said:

As I understand this initiative, it was started by companies selling electric scooters and their only interest is to get their devices certified and street-legal so they can sell them more easily. I am not sure the EUC industry is represented in this working group at all, so no one will care about what makes sense in the context of our wheels. The self balancing thing is related to hover boards, I guess. There will be a lot of nonsense in this 'standard' and it may turn out to be of no use in helping us to get our devices accepted

I also sense some lobbyism going on there. But make no mistake, the redundancy- or bell-nonsense gets also quite some support from the EUC community.

[US69]

1 hour ago, Christoph Zens said:

That's going a little off-topic here, but yes. That's what I mean. Did you see the requirement for redundant power and control systems if there is no manual brake? Not a single current wheel and I predict also no future (single) wheel will be able to do this. As I understand this initiative, it was started by companies selling electric scooters and their only interest is to get their devices certified and street-legal so they can sell them more easily. I am not sure the EUC industry is represented in this working group at all, so no one will care about what makes sense in the context of our wheels. The self balancing thing is related to hover boards, I guess. There will be a lot of nonsense in this 'standard' and it may turn out to be of no use in helping us to get our devices accepted (in countries where they are basically illegal right now, like in Germany or Israel).

Make no mistake...

To my knowledge the author of the linked article IS in the PLEV Group and things like redundancy and some of the protections are not brought in by the Lobbyist of electric scooters!

They are the "wish" of the guys coming from the EUC part.

This was discussed here in the Forum quiet often, the author of the article is a member here also.

 

WHEN this PLEV Comes to law in several states it will or can be the death for our beloved EUC's...now we are more or less in a Grey Zone. When this PLEV Comes to Standard and gets law only vehicles/Euc's are allowed that go conform with the Plev rules and THEN the Police will look for that!. I dont see redundancy for Euc's as our current producer's have not get redundancy to run until now, not even in a prototype...and i doubt they are able to do this without bringing the costs up to an amount where it's game over for EUC's.....

The new Ninebots Z6-10 are rumoured to have a (Kind of ) redundance...but thats just a rumour someone has read out of a Segway-Marketing speach,("segway redundancy safety") and i doubt that until i saw it on an EUC....

 

So my wish is that this PLEV takes a Long Long time, doesn't come into law ...or gets at least a lot less restrictive

[Christoph Zens]

1 minute ago, KingSong69 said:

To my knowledge the author of the linked article IS in the PLEV Group and things like redundancy and some of the protections are not brought in by the Lobbyist of electric scooters!

Interesting! Thank's for the background info. Maybe we should be pro-active and start a thread discussing what "redundancy" for an EUC really means, where it would help, and how it could be done. This may turn up some new points of view from other people and help in arguing why this is nonsense or why we should really push EUC companies to do it.

I see that this phrase is used quite often in the forum but it is very diffuse. No one really has a picture of what it actually is or would be. Certainly much more than the Segway Z may have (back on topic, yeah). Many seem to dream of something that would be able to prevent their next faceplant, but I think what PLEV has in mind is that the vehicle must be stoppable by the rider under any circumstances. I guess they still think that a 17kg EUC which is not stoppable (rider fell off already, wheel continues to drive on its own for some distance), is as dangerous as a 1500kg car which is unstoppable because its brake suddenly died, running over and killing 10 people on the sidewalk...

It's clear why cars and trucks need to have redundancy there, maybe even a heavy Segway, but an EUC? And what if the rider looses balance and falls off on his own? No redundancy whatsoever will prevent this, or stop the wheel afterwards. Although I had the idea of pressure sensors on the pedals, causing the wheel to stop when no rider is present. But talk about all those faceplants caused by firmware stopping the wheel because of non-working sensors, or software bugs. 

 

[LanghamP]

11 minutes ago, Christoph Zens said:

Interesting! Thank's for the background info. Maybe we should be pro-active and start a thread discussing what "redundancy" for an EUC really means, where it would help, and how it could be done. This may turn up some new points of view from other people and help in arguing why this is nonsense or why we should really push EUC companies to do it.

 

I've seen old videos put out by Segway talking about how redundant and safe they are, but other than having triple computers they don't seem to be particularly redundant in the sense that they wouldn't fail if power was lost.

If the battery fails, what then? If any of the lines between the battery and the final push of power to the magnets fails, what then?

My guess is two entirely separate systems, perhaps one in miniature, so if one fails the other is good to go. If you put a bullet through the 1st system at any place, would the wheel still continue to function (assuming the bullet doesn't touch any part of the 2nd system)?

At this point, to me the logical action to take is to avoid manufacturers with obvious defects, to ride rather slow in order to minimize the inevitable cutout, to wear at least a helmet at the faster speeds, to actually ride the wheel aggressively in the beginning so things would be jarred loose when you're prepared for it, and finally to spend more on powerful wheels (that you would ride like it's a weak wheel).

[Mono]

2 hours ago, Christoph Zens said:

It's clear why cars and trucks need to have redundancy there, maybe even a heavy Segway, but an EUC?

According to German law, AFAIK, brake redundancy is required even for bicycles. So with this line of argumentation you probably won't get away.

One really must keep in mind that laws should also take into account feasibility. They should make the world a better place and preventing all shit that could possibly happen isn't the way to go about this.

I also think it is a mistake to equate redundancy with reliability. We really only care about reliability and redundancy could be one possible means to the end. 

In contrast to most other vehicles, the situation where an EUC cannot brake anymore is in effect not so much different from any other accident: the rider will fall and the EUC will move separated from the rider. Or in other words, while cars and bikes and bicycles can be operated and accelerated without brakes in the first place, an EUC cannot. Maybe that helps as line of argumentation. 

Anyway, with the suggested requirements I rather think the PLEV will be obsolete and irrelevant right from the start and legislation will find other ways to go about EUCs, as it has already in Finland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium,... It might be even better if it remains as absurd as it is such that no law maker would even be tempted.

 

[Christoph Zens]

2 minutes ago, Mono said:

According to German law, AFAIK, brake redundancy is required even for bicycles. So with this line of argumentation you probably won't get away..

That's true and it is the same here in Austria. But I still see a difference why this would make sense: Imagine a bicyclist coming down a hill at 40+ kph and his one and only brake fails. Now he can't stop and collides with somebody else. But he does this while still sitting on his bicycle trying to stop, so there is probably 100kg coming down at high speed, which I assume would be dangerous. However, if the one and only control board of the EUC fails, the wheel either locks up or runs freely. In both cases, there is no way for the rider to stay on his wheel, so by the time the wheel hits someone else, if it even get's that far (not with a locked motor, probably), it's just the wheel.

[US69]

2 hours ago, Christoph Zens said:

really push EUC companies to do it.

I see that this phrase is used quite often in the forum but it is very diffuse. No one really has a picture of what it actually is or would be. Certainly much more than the Segway Z may have (back on topic, yeah). Many seem to dream of something that would be able to prevent their next faceplant, but I think what PLEV has in mind is that the vehicle must be stoppable by the rider under any circumstances. I guess they still think that a 17kg EUC which is not stoppable (rider fell off already, wheel continues to drive on its own for some distance), is as dangerous as a 1500kg car which is unstoppable because its brake suddenly died, running over and killing 10 people on the sidewalk...

It's clear why cars and trucks need to have redundancy there, maybe even a heavy Segway, but an EUC? And what if the rider looses balance and falls off on his own? No redundancy whatsoever will prevent this, or stop the wheel afterwards. Although I had the idea of pressure sensors on the pedals, causing the wheel to stop when no rider is present. But talk about all those faceplants caused by firmware stopping the wheel because of

What PLEV means with redundancy (and me also) is at least redundance Batterie and board, so that in a case of a board or Batterie failure, you dont faceplant...

I would like to see that, as it is my main concern with EUC's...burning boards and mosfets and failing batteries make our devices quite dangerous.

Sure this dont help against driving fault's...but this is not impossible to secure...

1 hour ago, LanghamP said:

Segway talking about how redundant and safe they are, but other than having triple computers they don't seem to be particularly redundant in the sense that they wouldn't fail if power was lost.

If the battery fails, what then? If any of the lines between the battery and the final push of power to the magnets fails, what then?

Real Segway's have redundant boards, redundant batteries and seperate driven Motors on each side.

So Yes, in a case of a failure a Segway is able to stop, without hurting the Driver.....

[US69]

9 minutes ago, Mono said:

According to German law, AFAIK, brake redundancy is required even for bicycles. So with this line of argumentation you probably won't get away.

Yes, thats true for all "vehicles"...also they Need a seat :-)

but: Segway got away without These restrictions and have a own section in the so called MobHv-Law...

So if PLEV gets into law...we dont Need the Brakes, also....

[Christoph Zens]

1 minute ago, KingSong69 said:

What PLEV means with redundancy (and me also) is at least redundance Batterie and board, so that in a case of a board or Batterie failure, you dont faceplant...

Unfortunately that's not going to help. A redundant board needs a second motor to drive, and since we only want one wheel, we would need to switch from the current direct-drive system to something where two motors are mechanically coupled and can be decoupled individually from driving the outer rim of our one and only wheel. Otherwise a failing MOSFET on one board will short out one of the motors and lock up the rim anyways, so even a separate line of actuator coils driven by a separate controller would not help. This is getting far too complicated to envision for anything released within the next 10 years (famous last words)...

[LanghamP]

4 minutes ago, Christoph Zens said:

That's true and it is the same here in Austria. But I still see a difference why this would make sense: Imagine a bicyclist coming down a hill at 40+ kph and his one and only brake fails. Now he can't stop and collides with somebody else. But he does this while still sitting on his bicycle trying to stop, so there is probably 100kg coming down at high speed, which I assume would be dangerous. However, if the one and only control board of the EUC fails, the wheel either locks up or runs freely. In both cases, there is no way for the rider to stay on his wheel, so by the time the wheel hits someone else, if it even get's that far (not with a locked motor, probably), it's just the wheel.

Wheels are pretty dangerous on their own, say when a rider falls but the wheel keeps going...and going...and going...until it hits something. While my little wheels are, well, little, my MSuper feels massive and it getting loose, accelerating downhill, and hitting a car at some insane speed (what's it cutout speed with no rider?) is something I do think at least every ride on it.

[Mono]

1 minute ago, Christoph Zens said:

Unfortunately that's not going to help. A redundant board needs a second motor to drive, and since we only want one wheel, we would need to switch from the current direct-drive system to something where two motors are mechanically coupled and can be decoupled individually from driving the outer rim of our one and only wheel. Otherwise a failing MOSFET on one board will short out one of the motors and lock up the rim anyways, so even a separate line of actuator coils driven by a separate controller would not help. This is getting far too complicated to envision for anything released within the next 10 years (famous last words)...

Good point. 

And on the battery side, if we have more than one pack in parallel, I guess that redundancy should be not at all difficult to achieve or already be there, am I wrong?

[meepmeepmayer]

@LanghamP What if the wheel launches into space and hits a satellite? Same likelihood...

How in the world is a one-tire wheel (so not the V3) supposed to keep rolling without falling over, especially after the rider has fallen off which means the wheel isn't exactly going to be absolutely perfectly upright with no sideways momentum when that happens? If you wanted to do this intentionally, you'd have problems, let alone in an accident.

[Mono]

8 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

Wheels are pretty dangerous on their own, say when a rider falls but the wheel keeps going...and going...and going...until it hits something. While my little wheels are, well, little, my MSuper feels massive and it getting loose, accelerating downhill, and hitting a car at some insane speed (what's it cutout speed with no rider?) is something I do think at least every ride on it.

Indeed, and I would be in favour legislation that a wheel needs to stop when running alone without a rider. That is technically feasible and improves safety.

[US69]

1 minute ago, Christoph Zens said:

Unfortunately that's not going to help. A redundant board needs a second motor to drive, and since we only want one wheel, we would need to switch from the current direct-drive system to something where two motors are mechanically coupled and can be decoupled individually from driving the outer rim of our one and only wheel. Otherwise a failing MOSFET on one board will short out one of the motors and lock up the rim anyways, so even a separate line of actuator coils driven by a separate controller would not help. This is getting far too complicated to envision for anything released within the next 10 years (famous last words)...

 

You can have both boards on the one Motor, or connected the board's in a way that in case of a mosfet failure the failing board  is taken out of the circle and the other one take's over..

I am pretty sure that is possible, thats just electronics and just nobody did that until now.

However it is done...it for sure can be handled better than today, without any fail-safe Technology at all....

 

[Mono]

1 hour ago, meepmeepmayer said:

How in the world is a one-tire wheel (so not the V3) supposed to keep rolling without falling over, especially after the rider has fallen off which means the wheel isn't going to be absolutely perfectly upright with no sideways momentum when that happens?

I am absolutely sure I am not the only one who has experienced this. There are vids on youtube as well. So it happens actually quite frequently, even if you have never observed it or can't comprehend how that could possibly happen. 

[kasenutty]

If a wheel rides through the woods by itself and no on is there to be killed by it, did it really ever ride by istelf at all? 

[LanghamP]

1 minute ago, meepmeepmayer said:

@LanghamP What if the wheel launches into space and hits a satellite? Same likelihood...

How in the world is a one-tire wheel (so not the V3) supposed to keep rolling without falling over, especially after the rider has fallen off which means the wheel isn't going to be absolutely perfectly upright when that happens? If you wanted to do this intentionally, you'd have problems, let alone in an accident.

I didn't know wheels would just continue onward without me, well I kinda knew after seeing that Berliner Alex guy pushing them and letting go, but I didn't actually think wheels could go off by themselves until I had a top speed overlean fall on my V5F. The wheel continued onward forever it seemed. Over a hill, across the park, uphill, it just kept going until it hit some bushes. It took me a few minutes to find the wheel. I never saw the wheel actually roll away; it just magically teleported itself away from me.

Without actually having any proof, my suspicion is wheels have a pretty good chance of being runaways in any of the higher speed crashes if after tumbling they end up with their tire side down.

I do use a tether if I know I'm going off-road down a hill but otherwise rarely.

 

[meepmeepmayer]

@kasenutty Only if it makes a sound

@Mono With what wheel did this happen, and in which situation? Nobody can expect the wheel to stop instantly, so a few meters of tumbling can be expected, like any moving mass. But rolling on like there's someone on it? I can't see how this would work...

5 minutes ago, Mono said:

Indeed, and I would be in favour legislation that a wheel needs to stop when running alone without a rider. That is technically feasible and improves safety.

This means either the wheel cutting off when jumping (or whenever) due to this "safety" feature (any "safety" feature that disrupts the self-balancing principle in any way is a huge no-no in my book), or you have to use an outboard-motor like disruptor cord that also creates a problem where the slightest loss of contact from some electrical error crashes you. No thank you! I don't need to endanger myself as an answer to a (in my view) nonexistent problem.

@LanghamP I'm not going to argue if you say this happened, but I really have problems imagining how this can happen

One possible solution would be wheels being imbalanced so they tip to the side when going by themselves. Still would not want that on my wheels...

[Roland]

@meepmeepmayer
[...] One possible solution would be wheels being imbalanced so they tip to the side when going by themselves. Still would not want that on my wheels... [...]

You could just use something that stays folded until your legs or your weight do not keep it in place... Then It would automaticly unfold and stop/imbalance the wheel ... Several possibilities come to mind ... but they will look clumsy and inelegant on any wheel ... also if you use weight ... jumping could become an issue ...