Personal Light Electric Vehicle regulations (PLEV)

[Marty Backe]

3 hours ago, KingSong69 said:

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

I'm with you. Regulation scares the hell out of me. I suspect that we'll never have to worry about it in the United States. But I feel for you European riders with all the controls over how you live your life. Hopefully you're still find a way to ride even when they all become illegal 

[Mono]

1 hour ago, meepmeepmayer said:

I can't see how this would work...

I understand, but runaways do work with various wheels (all the ones I have as well). I even doubt there is any wheel with which it doesn't work. Just push yours forward to >10km/h and let it go, it's likely to work like charm. 

1 hour ago, meepmeepmayer said:

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.

It doesn't mean either this or that. It means the wheel implements some sort of speed-dependent tilt-back if the rider is not near. It doesn't have to take effect when jumping, but it would probably even be an advantage for jumping, as it would prevent the wheel spinning out to max speed during the jump, which is what the wheels do now and which is certainly not at all desirable, as this is what truly leads to a cut off.

[Hunka Hunka Burning Love]

1 hour 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 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.

I usually reference this video when that question is asked.  We talked about the use of tethers for people riding around hills, and although some people use them others feel they pose more danger than benefits.  Although Toby was riding two wheels, one can imagine a rider losing control and the wheel continuing down a hill.  Surprisingly it made it all the way down a hill and across a bridge.    Imagine if there were a group of school children on the bridge at the time...

There was also a Hot Rideables review on Wired.com with a guy wearing a Mad Max mask that showed his EUC rolling out of control down a hill towards a parking lot.  I can't seem to find the video any more, and it's not on Wired.com any more.

EDIT:  Found it.  Jump to 7:20.

https://www.wired.com/video/2015/07/out-of-office-with-brent-rose-rideables-are-so-hot-right-now-we-put-them-to-the-test/

@Jonathan Tolhurst also has several videos showing these wheels can continue rolling on their own...

 

[meepmeepmayer]

Nice video collection, thanks. But I'm still not convinced (as in: any special measures are necessary to deal with this). These wheels tumbled down a hill after running for maybe a few meters until they lost balance. This is more due to their circular/ball-like shape and the fact that they had the pre-crash momentum than anything else. The same behavior would have happened if the rider had crashed and the wheel had started tumbling instantly. I guess you could make EUC's less "rollable" to prevent such things.

And unless you do it on purpose like Jonathan, I can't ever see this happening on flat ground. Crash and at the same time have the wheel undisturbed enough to keep going? You could probably find videos of regular bicycles going sans rider (mostly downhills, like EUCs), but nobody has yet seen this as a problem people need to be protected from.

Could you care more about EUC crash behaviors? Certainly. Are runaway EUCs a special problem other people need to be protected from? No. Certainly not at the cost of rider safety.

52 minutes ago, Mono said:

It means the wheel implements some sort of speed-dependent tilt-back if the rider is not near. It doesn't have to take effect when jumping, but it would probably even be an advantage for jumping, as it would prevent the wheel spinning out to max speed during the jump, which is what the wheels do now and which is certainly not at all desirable, as this is what truly leads to a cut off.

What's a tiltback going to do if it's going but nobody is on the wheel? Nothing, it shifts no weight back and encourages no rider to shift weight back. You could argue, if a wheel tilts back and slows down, it knows the rider must still be on it, and it should not have done it in the first place

I guess you could do something with acceleration sensors to detect jumps, but tiltback isn't going to do anything with jumps.

Also "rider not near" = some wireless dongle (or a disruption cord?) = yet another unnecessary source of possible errors. Will people be able to sabotage riders by interfering with the bluetooth spectrum? (it has to be precise after all, to kick in at like 2-3 meters but not at 1-2) Will a small electric error with connection detection from rattling interfere with riding?

--

I'm just saying, some tiny, mostly theoretical possibility isn't worth the effort or potential downsides imho. If you guys are so worried about runaways, use a leash for good conscience, and don't push questionable stuff on other riders

Maybe we can agree that cars should be banned before runaway EUCs should be considered a potential danger (ok, that is whataboutism, but.. yea)

[meepmeepmayer]

@esaj @KingSong69 I admit my part of the blame, and maybe you want to split this off to keep this thread about the Z

"Runaway EUCs - danger or not?"

[Mono]

17 minutes ago, meepmeepmayer said:

What's a tiltback going to do if it's going but nobody is on the wheel?

A wheel can accelerate or brake with or without a rider. It's basically nothing else than pole balancing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pendulum

and the lack of a rider doesn't make it more complicated.

[LanghamP]

1 hour ago, meepmeepmayer said:

@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...

 

Just take your wheel and roll it at above walking pace. It goes on like a torpedo, forever. Worryingly, my V5F even accelerates, probably because there is the stock slight tilt-back, which causes pushes the wheel's front down, which then tries to rebalance by going faster, and so on.

Wheels run on their own. This is beyond argument, easily provable, and easily repeatable.

I will be highly amused that when you give your wheel a push to prove this is false, your wheel ends up going into a car five blocks away.

[Marty Backe]

1 hour ago, Hunka Hunka Burning Love said:

I usually reference this video when that question is asked.  We talked about the use of tethers for people riding around hills, and although some people use them others feel they pose more danger than benefits.  Although Toby was riding two wheels, one can imagine a rider losing control and the wheel continuing down a hill.  Surprisingly it made it all the way down a hill and across a bridge.    Imagine if there were a group of school children on the bridge at the time...

There was also a Hot Rideables review on Wired.com with a guy wearing a Mad Max mask that showed his EUC rolling out of control down a hill towards a parking lot.  I can't seem to find the video any more, and it's not on Wired.com any more.

EDIT:  Found it.  Jump to 7:20.

https://www.wired.com/video/2015/07/out-of-office-with-brent-rose-rideables-are-so-hot-right-now-we-put-them-to-the-test/

@Jonathan Tolhurst also has several videos showing these wheels can continue rolling on their own...

 

I think if Yoshi had a tether on his ACM it wouldn't have ended up on the bottom of the river bed, in flames 

 

[Hunka Hunka Burning Love]

I'm outta reps, but Chuck Norris give this two...

Even though I haven't experienced a wheel runaway, I've read it happen to several people on the forums.  It's usually those people who doubt it's a problem that need to experience it themselves before they change their minds.  Plus it's funny how karma works.    

I guess I figure since these wheels are purely controlled by shifting weight and have no definite cut offs other than exceeding the lateral tilt sensor in the event of rider loss, we have to consider the possibilities of a free wheeling EUC especially around hills, pedestrians, and other potentially hazardous areas.

[meepmeepmayer]

25 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

Wheels run on their own. This is beyond argument, easily provable, and easily repeatable.

But unintentionally, like after a crash? What are the chances? What are the chances there is a difference between the result if it instantly falls over vs. it falls over after a few meters or running on its own?

I can throw my ACM into the next baby stroller if I want, does not mean wheels are in danger of flying into strollers any time

21 minutes ago, Marty Backe said:

I think if Yoshi had a tether on his ACM it wouldn't have ended up on the bottom of the river bed, in flames 

I'm arguing about a wheel continuing like normal but without rider, not what happens after it has fallen over sideways. Any big mass with a lot of momentum isn't going to stop instantly, that has nothing to do with wheels (other than their shape may make them tumble farther).

Also, technicality, it wasn't on flames on the bottom of the river Also, how would the crash have ended with a tether - better, or worse?

edit: oh, wow, didn't realize there is a video of the tragedy. Hard to watch

[meepmeepmayer]

25 minutes ago, Mono said:

A wheel can accelerate or brake with or without a rider.

WUT? How? Which weight shifts to make this possible? (Unless the wheel on its own is imbalanced forwards or backwards by construction, permanently.)

This is the same discussion as "Why won't the wheel just brake if you go too fast?" - well, it can't. (Again, unless it is imbalanced in advance.)

[Mono]

One of my favorite robot vids (re: a self-balancing devices can't accelerate or brake).

 

[Mono]

49 minutes ago, meepmeepmayer said:

I'm arguing about a wheel continuing like normal but without rider,

Right, and you have a few choices:

• believe what other people have been observing
• try it yourself
• look for evidence that it is possible otherwise, e.g. on Youtube or above
• believe your intuition that it is not possible and ignore the above vid of the returning boomerang

It's entirely up to you 

[Keith]

2 minutes ago, meepmeepmayer said:

This is the same discussion as "Why won't the wheel just brake if you go too fast?" - well, it can't. (Again, unless it is imbalanced in advance.)

Rubbish, your arguing clear physics as an argument against clear physics. 

Stand absolutely still on your powered up stationary wheel and maintain balance. 

Now do the same with the wheel rolling - is it just as hard to do with the wheel rolling as it is stopped? OF COURSE IT IS NOT.

The wheel is a spinning mechanical gyroscope just as it is on a bike. Whether or not there is a rider on the EUC if it is rolling it will try to balance, only as (and if) it slows down will it topple - just like a gyroscope. More then one rider has fallen off his EUC and then been run over by it as it turns in a circle. Whether or not it continues in a circle or more less straight on depends only on what angle, if any, it was at when the rider left it. BY NO MEANS will every fallen rider necessarily take the wheel down onto its side as well and it doesn't matter a hoot if it is going downhill or not. 

And why should it brake - there is no rider to tilt back on it.

[meepmeepmayer]

@Mono Yes, and it must use its body weight to balance it (just like a EUC rider does). A wheel is essentially a fixed body with no moving weight. You could not build a remote-controlled (accelerating and braking) wheel (let's ignore the falling-to-the-side part) without a "rider" weight that does something.

[meepmeepmayer]

@Keith I'm just arguing it isn't going to stay upright (sideways) and therefore going straight for very long or at all (no hills allowed, anything goes down a hill). Not after a crash. With 99.999999% chance. Not enough to count.

But if you guys like, we can assume you're right and you tell me a rule by which a wheel decides it should shut off (or whatever) and how the rule could realistically be implemented (no details, just in principle). Then I'm going to find a regular riding situation to which the rule applies and where the wheel should not switch off. Which really is the only thing I do NOT want from my wheel: switch off due to a stupid "safety" feature that is counterproductive because the real situation is absurdly unlikely.

[Mono]

@meepmeepmayer , for a start please consider, just consider to understand how an inverted pendulum works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pendulum

What actively moves is the contact point to the ground. Another nice vid to adjust your beliefs that "You could not build a remote-controlled (accelerating and braking) wheel (let's ignore the falling-to-the-side part) without a "rider" weight that does something" a little bit:

BTW, the Segways can also stand upright without a rider. It's all down to the inverted pendulum principle, and BTW, even with the rider on 

[LanghamP]

17 minutes ago, Keith said:

Rubbish, your arguing clear physics as an argument against clear physics. 

Stand absolutely still on your powered up stationary wheel and maintain balance. 

Now do the same with the wheel rolling - is it just as hard to do with the wheel rolling as it is stopped? OF COURSE IT IS NOT.

The wheel is a spinning mechanical gyroscope just as it is on a bike. Whether or not there is a rider on the EUC if it is rolling it will try to balance, only as (and if) it slows down will it topple - just like a gyroscope. More then one rider has fallen off his EUC and then been run over by it as it turns in a circle. Whether or not it continues in a circle or more less straight on depends only on what angle, if any, it was at when the rider left it. BY NO MEANS will every fallen rider necessarily take the wheel down onto its side as well and it doesn't matter a hoot if it is going downhill or not. 

And why should it brake - there is no rider to tilt back on it.

Heh; that gives me an idea.

Suppose I wanted to make a remote control wheel. Could I just put some micro-controlled platform on top, with a weight on top of it that scurries around depending on where you would want the wheel to go?

How freaky would that look, seeing a wheel entirely on its own doing loops, figure eights, and so on...?

[Mono]

13 hours ago, LanghamP said:

Suppose I wanted to make a remote control wheel. Could I just put some micro-controlled platform on top, with a weight on top of it that scurries around depending on where you would want the wheel to go?

We agree that EUCs cannot stand still upright, right? EDIT: it turns out they can in principle with lots of arm waving or body bending, that is, using the principle of a balance pole, see below. 

For a remote controlled EUC you need a rotating mass to twist the unicycle for side-to-side balance and turns. Backward-forward balance is like in the above shown segway-like vids. It's feasible, I am pretty sure, but it looks like a bit of a challenge. A very good undergrad student might be able to do it though.

OK, this one can already balance, I am not sure how feasible this technique is to go controlled paths though: 

I had in mind a different rotating mass 

[meepmeepmayer]

Ok I guess you're right, if a wheel had a significant (but fixed) weight on the center top, it could use titlback to create imbalances and move forth and back (without the weight having to be movable relative to the wheel) just like tiltback for a real rider, in a way.

But wheels still don't have this

What was the question again? Oh right, which anti-runaway measure would not be more hassle (and dangerous) than it's worth?

11 minutes ago, em1barns said:

Could this discussion move to another thread?

Sorry. I asked for this already. You expect hot new Z info from every new post, and then this @Keith Can you move posts to a new thread? @John Eucist Help!

[LanghamP]

1 minute ago, Mono said:

We agree that EUCs cannot stand still upright, right?

For a remote controlled EUC you need a rotating mass to twist the unicycle for side-to-side balance. Backward-forward balance is like in the above shown segway-like vids. It's feasible, I am pretty sure, but it looks like a bit of a challenge. A very good undergrad student should be able to do it though.

A tipped EUC can also turn in that direction so my guess is no swiveling is needed.

I'm pretty sure @Hunka Hunka Burning Love will find something in that sentence.

Whoever knew simple wheels are so complicated? They look really simply but they are very sophisticated despite @Marty Backe's assertion of, "oy, these wheels are so simple, just a wheel, mofo, and battery, here just open 'er up no problem (Mit meinen großen Kanonen), solder solder, there, good to go!"

[Mono]

12 minutes ago, meepmeepmayer said:

But wheels still don't have this

LOL, mine are always falling over (either forward or backward) if I lean them upright against a wall lightly.

[Mono]

5 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

A tipped EUC can also turn in that direction so my guess is no swiveling is needed.

The runaway is not stable enough to be reliable all the time.

Quote

I'm pretty sure @Hunka Hunka Burning Love will find something in that sentence.

I added a link above. 

https://youtu.be/t4sakACzcew?t=15s

Quote

Whoever knew simple wheels are so complicated? They look really simply but they are very sophisticated despite @Marty Backe's assertion of, "oy, these wheels are so simple, just a wheel, mofo, and battery, here just open 'er up no problem (Mit meinen großen Kanonen), solder solder, there, good to go!"

True, as so often the devil is in the detail. 

[Keith]

31 minutes ago, em1barns said:

Could this discussion move to another thread?

Done! I THINK this discussion had turned into the pros and cons of the PLEV regulations so I've created that as a topic.

I might, of course by wrong - but I'm damn sure it had nothing to do with the new Ninebot!

[ir_fuel]

18 minutes ago, meepmeepmayer said:

Ok I guess you're right, if a wheel had a significant (but fixed) weight on the center top, it could use titlback to create imbalances and move forth and back (without the weight having to be movable relative to the wheel) just like tiltback for a real rider, in a way.

But wheels still don't have this

ORLY?