Personal Light Electric Vehicle regulations (PLEV)

[US69]

16 minutes ago, ir_fuel said:

Hey @KingSong69, no offence, but since it is a word we use all the time on this forum and you write it wrong all the time: it's battery and not batterie  

 

when thats all problems you have? 

I guess you will find a lot more faults in my english....

[ir_fuel]

Ok, just continue making that error then.  Just wanted to help...

[Marty Backe]

8 hours ago, KingSong69 said:

And at @Marty Backe:

With the KS18L he is referring to the 18S in a case/shell, which will be Ks16/14d style.

We have seen the prototype fotos (which where quite ugly at that early point of stadium), and as far as i know, it has the same max batterie capacity of 1680wh... Thomas Hoon as Singapur distributer is relativly good informed. But:

Even in Beginn of Mai i was advised by my Thai friends (trough Thomas)not to buy the "old type" 18S....as the short version "will come out soon"...good that i didn't take the wait :-)

Soon is relative for Kingsong...Thinking about how many components like shell, lights, leds, all small plastic parts have to be mass produced...i doubt we will see it before end of the year or earliest october.

And btw. How did Kingsong get to that intuitive name of Ks18L? :-)

I just thought @The Fat Unicyclist might have had some additional info.

I haven't come across any picture of the 18L. This wheel certainly interests me for the short descriptions I've heard.

[Marty Backe]

49 minutes ago, KingSong69 said:

when thats all problems you have? 

I guess you will find a lot more faults in my english....

Considering that English is not your native language, I think you're great, and I never have to struggle in understanding you (except when I try and understand why you prefer KingSong )

[ir_fuel]

11 minutes ago, Marty Backe said:

I just thought @The Fat Unicyclist might have had some additional info.

I haven't come across any picture of the 18L. This wheel certainly interests me for the short descriptions I've heard.

I really don't like those rectangular euc's. But wouldn't make a different case reduce the room for batteries?

[steve454]

3 hours ago, KingSong69 said:

3 hours ago, ir_fuel said:

Hey @KingSong69, no offence, but since it is a word we use all the time on this forum and you write it wrong all the time: it's battery and not batterie  

 

when thats all problems you have? 

I guess you will find a lot more faults in my english....

Your english is pretty good, I have no problems understanding you.

[ir_fuel]

Me neither, but djeez guys ...

I also live in a region where I have to use a language on a daily basis that's different from my mother tongue (I am dutch speaking and live in the french part of Belgium), and I also kept on making the same mistakes over and over. I prefer to have someone tell me (which they did) what those mistakes were so I could keep it in mind and from then on I didn't make them anymore, making me better in a foreign language. It's not about giving a complete grammar course here, but just a "quick fix" for an easy to make mistake for a word that happens to be used a lot on this forum.

But ok, if you don't want to improve and are offended by a stupid remark like this, please do continue to write "batterie". Doesn't matter to me as I also write it like that in french  

[Roland]

I for one would like to call those "rechargeable" Batteries  

Accumulators

[Christoph Zens]

4 hours ago, ir_fuel said:

I prefer to have someone tell me (which they did) what those mistakes were so I could keep it in mind and from then on I didn't make them anymore, making me better in a foreign language.

Same here, please don't hesitate to point them out (not each single typo, but errors I am consistently making).

[Christoph Zens]

On 20.8.2017 at 10:15 PM, Marty Backe said:

I never have to struggle in understanding you (except when I try and understand why you prefer KingSong)

That's a good one  I guess personal preferences like these are often hard to understand, even for the person himself. You should try to comprehend instead. Maybe it makes a difference.  At least they are translated differently in Japanese: understand: wakaru (わかる), comprehend: rikai suru (理解する). OK, enough off-topic...

[ir_fuel]

17 minutes ago, Christoph Zens said:

That's a good one  I guess personal preferences like these are often hard to understand, even for the person himself. You should try to comprehend instead. Maybe it makes a difference.  At least they are translated differently in Japanese: understand: wakaru (わかる), comprehend: rikai suru (理解する). OK, enough off-topic...

Or why someone would take Gotway over KingSong after reading this:

 

https://www.electricunicycles.eu/gotway_acm16_2017_review_an_ugly_surprise-c__268

 

[EUCGUY]

8 minutes ago, ir_fuel said:

Or why someone would take Gotway over KingSong after reading this:

 

https://www.electricunicycles.eu/gotway_acm16_2017_review_an_ugly_surprise-c__268

 

From the acticle "adjusting the alarms and tilt-back, with an option to disable them completely. It is a unique feature, but also a very dangerous one, as when the alarms and tilt-back are off, nothing will remind us of reaching the maximum speed, which will eventually result in falling off the wheel badly" 

You cant turn off the last alarm.
Everything else with the silicone,glue,etcetc..yes O:) still outperforms everything else and is why they get away with it. hehe

 

[RenaissanceMan]

Sorry for the obscene multi-quotation list below, it could have even become much longer ...

My point is: a tether (of flexible yet durable fibre) one end around your waist the other firmly connected to the wheel resolves (a) technically and legally the problem of required brake redundancy, (b) accidental death of the wheel by drowning in a nearby river or lake and (c) greatly reduces the risk of your wheel hurting other people (or property) after you loose immediate control over the wheel for whatever reason.

I really think a tether should become mandatory for riding EUCs to protect our environment. Otherwise, what would your defense be if your 15kg wheel crippled an innocent child that happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time?

 

 

On 18.8.2017 at 3:56 PM, 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 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. 

 

 

On 18.8.2017 at 7:04 PM, Roland said:

@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 ... 

 

 

On 18.8.2017 at 6:31 PM, 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...

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...

 

On 18.8.2017 at 6:25 PM, LanghamP said:

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.

 

 

On 18.8.2017 at 6:17 PM, Mono said:

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. 

 

On 18.8.2017 at 6:15 PM, 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.

 

On 18.8.2017 at 5:54 PM, 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.

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.

 

 

On 18.8.2017 at 4:24 PM, LanghamP said:

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]

17 minutes ago, RenaissanceMan said:

Sorry for the obscene multi-quotation list below, it could have even become much longer ...

My point is: a tether (of flexible yet durable fibre) one end around your waist the other firmly connected to the wheel resolves (a) technically and legally the problem of required brake redundancy, (b) accidental death of the wheel by drowning in a nearby river or lake and (c) greatly reduces the risk of your wheel hurting other people (or property) after you loose immediate control over the wheel for whatever reason.

I really think a tether should become mandatory for riding EUCs to protect our environment. Otherwise, what would your defense be if your 15kg wheel crippled an innocent child that happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time?

I agree with the premise, though not with the conclusion. Yes, there should be made serious efforts to prevent EUCs running into innocent bystanders and I would not mind if this would be written into law. Yes, the current state of affairs is not good enough.

But, I don't think that a tether is the only or even the best solution. That is, the specific method of how EUCs prevent hitting bystanders should not be written into law. Lack of the understanding of alternative solutions shouldn't be a reason to prevent them to become reality.

[RenaissanceMan]

5 minutes ago, Mono said:

I agree with the premise, though not with the conclusion. Yes, there should be made serious efforts to prevent EUCs running into innocent bystanders and I would not mind if this would be written into law. Yes, the current state of affairs is not good enough.

But, I don't think that a tether is the only or even the best solution. That is, the specific method of how EUCs prevent hitting bystanders should not be written into law. Lack of the understanding of alternative solutions shouldn't be a reason to prevent them to become reality.

Agreed. - But what would be a better and for current wheels practicable solution? I'd really like to know!

[Mono]

23 hours ago, RenaissanceMan said:

Agreed. - But what would be a better and for current wheels practicable solution?

My point was kind-of that it doesn't matter, unless you are involved in decision processes at an EUC manufacturer.

Quote

I'd really like to know!

The obvious one has been mentioned in this thread or another  and had been, to my understanding, implemented in the Uniwheel. Sensors detect whether the rider is on the wheel (there are several ways to do this, I am pretty sure at least one with extremely low false negative detection rates). With no rider, the wheel just doesn't apply any torque, which will bring it down very quickly (or it could brake while staying upright). Again, to believe we can work out the best details in a forum isn't really justified, IMHO.

That doesn't prevent the wheel from falling (opposed to rolling) down a hill, but then a tether would not prevent wheel plus rider falling down a hill either.

[meepmeepmayer]

19 hours ago, RenaissanceMan said:

I really think a tether should become mandatory for riding EUCs to protect our environment.

No, thank you Runaway wheels hitting other people is still just a 99,9999999% (100%?) imaginary problem, and I don't want to have a simple no-problem run off turn into a serious fall just because a stupid, useless tether drags you down.

19 hours ago, RenaissanceMan said:

Otherwise, what would your defense be if your 15kg wheel crippled an innocent child that happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time?

That's exactly the kind of "But what if!!!" or here literally "Won't someone think of the children???!!!!" thinking where threats are essentially made up (just because they're theoretically possible) and hysteric preemptive regulation ruins things. Let's talk when and if that ever happens, as it's certainly no more than an idea now. The biggest danger from EUCs to others is certainly simply hitting people (and not even that ever happened as fair as I know.) just like a regular old bicycle would (I consider bikes more dangerous to others than EUCs - same strength but they hit higher than ankle height).

[RenaissanceMan]

5 hours ago, meepmeepmayer said:

No, thank you Runaway wheels hitting other people is still just a 99,9999999% (100%?) imaginary problem, and I don't want to have a simple no-problem run off turn into a serious fall just because a stupid, useless tether drags you down.

That's exactly the kind of "But what if!!!" or here literally "Won't someone think of the children???!!!!" thinking where threats are essentially made up (just because they're theoretically possible) and hysteric preemptive regulation ruins things. Let's talk when and if that ever happens, as it's certainly no more than an idea now. The biggest danger from EUCs to others is certainly simply hitting people (and not even that ever happened as fair as I know.) just like a regular old bicycle would (I consider bikes more dangerous to others than EUCs - same strength but they hit higher than ankle height).

It should never happen. - I have seen my KS16B running wild at full power (of course, during the one and only incident where I went riding on camera without a safety strap; talking about Murphy's law), as well as videos of other EUCs wheeling savagely out of control. It happens even to the most experienced riders given adversarial, unpredictable circumstances - and this forum is filled with dramatic accounts of many of those.

Provided with the ability to reason we can and IMHO therefore should (in analogy to Kant's categorical imperative - hey, Germans invented it!) proactively minimize the risk to ourselves AND others.

It's not unheard of. Just like with the many other accepted rules for the benefit of our (German) society (safety belts, traffic lights, gun control, you name it).

As a side note: have you ever considered the penalty and costs inflicted on you by your wheel inadvertedly scratching that parking new BMW or actually causing a full blown car accident by a runaway EUC (perhaps going downhill?!) - without being properly covered by liability insurance (which is currently not available at all for EUCs in Germany)? That could easily lead to personal bankruptcy. Talking about risk / benefit analysis ...

In summary, you don't seem to be a person afraid of taking risks while wheeling, also judging from the display of how you wore your helmet on your recent breathtaking, gorgeous moutain tour with @Tilmann in the Alps. - May the force / fortune be with you !

[Mono]

23 hours ago, meepmeepmayer said:

Runaway wheels hitting other people is still just a 99,9999999% (100%?) imaginary problem

LOL, 1e-9, 1 over 1 billion, maybe if you close your eyes in front of all the reports and videos and ignore (or are ignorant of) the physics, then maybe...or rather not. It seems you could use a refreshment on how to compute empirical risks, or maybe (probably) you just made this number up. FWIW, 1e-9 is two orders of magnitude lower than the probability to die in a single plane trip, the safest mode of transportation humanity ever invented.

[LanghamP]

Over the weekend my girlfriend bailed from my wheel which then circled back and struck her despite me yelling at her to try to catch the wheel.

If you're not going to use a leash then I'd say just yell at people to catch your wheel. Person who is trying to catch your wheel probably won't get hurt by it; they are in "predator mode".

[mrelwood]

I shrug when I think what would’ve happened if I had worn a tether when I fell down a few weeks ago. A sudden mud pond at a light curve, going perhaps 20km/h. I fell somewhat on my side and rolled a few rounds. Had I worn a tether, it would’ve wrapped around me (probably first going under the crotch) and pulled the EUC to hit me with the sharp pedal edges.

Horrible idea to have a mandatory fixed tether. And if it’s not fixed, fe. loosely in the pocket, the probability of the user to be fast enough to grab the tether while falling or right after falling...

I fail to see how a tether could be a good thing. Other than perhaps the first few hours of learning.

[Herbas]

I wonder if there is some kind of folding tethers just like those flexi-leashes for dog walking. I guess 2-3 meter tether would give enough space for your wheel not to hit you and at the same time not to run away.

[OliverH]

To give some light on this manner:

I'm not going deep in detail. We had just another PLEV meeting of the international group in Brussels. Next follow up in December.

PLEV fills the gap of the excluded devices in the EC 2, 3 and 4 wheel regulation of type approval regulation.

It's based on European/ national product safety law => declaration of conformity to the machine directive (2006/42/EC). The machine directive points to the harmonized standards:

Type A standard: ISO 12100 Safety of machinery

Type B standards: e.g 13849-1 Safety of machinery - control systems, and some others

Type C standard EN17128 Personal light electric vehicle (currently on a prEN level)

 

The EN17128 will be based on the underlying Type A & B standards and is a product specific standard.

 

With this a PLEV is not a type approved vehicle by notified body (TUEV,..) it's based on a self certification after declaration of conformity is proven. It's a full CE label in the end. Today's CE labels are not declaration of conformity regarding machine directive as they deal only with sub parts (emission/ noise).

PLEV will rise the level products needs to meet and there will be companies not meeting the requirement. I try to tell this story some Chinese manufacturers since more than 1 year that they get prepared. It's like talking against a wall. Keep in mind that current manufacturer create amazing products for the level of maturity they have. In many cases this will be not enough for the next step. But I'm sure there will be at least one manufacturer to deliver a range of PLEVs.

To sell PLEVs in Europe and use them legal on street from 2019 up the manufacturer need to show PLEV conformity/ declaration of conformity. Following this route manufacturers can participate from the potential of the European market and enter mass production.

[Marty Backe]

3 minutes ago, OliverH said:

To give some light on this manner:

I'm not going deep in detail. We had just another PLEV meeting of the international group in Brussels. Next follow up in December.

PLEV fills the gap of the excluded devices in the EC 2, 3 and 4 wheel regulation of type approval regulation.

It's based on European/ national product safety law => declaration of conformity to the machine directive (2006/42/EC). The machine directive points to the harmonized standards:

Type A standard: ISO 12100 Safety of machinery

Type B standards: e.g 13849-1 Safety of machinery - control systems, and some others

Type C standard EN17128 Personal light electric vehicle (currently on a prEN level)

 

The EN17128 will be based on the underlying Type A & B standards and is a product specific standard.

 

With this a PLEV is not a type approved vehicle by notified body (TUEV,..) it's based on a self certification after declaration of conformity is proven. It's a full CE label in the end. Today's CE labels are not declaration of conformity regarding machine directive as they deal only with sub parts (emission/ noise).

PLEV will rise the level products needs to meet and there will be companies not meeting the requirement. I try to tell this story some Chinese manufacturers since more than 1 year that they get prepared. It's like talking against a wall. Keep in mind that current manufacturer create amazing products for the level of maturity they have. In many cases this will be not enough for the next step. But I'm sure there will be at least one manufacturer to deliver a range of PLEVs.

To sell PLEVs in Europe and use them legal on street from 2019 up the manufacturer need to show PLEV conformity/ declaration of conformity. Following this route manufacturers can participate from the potential of the European market and enter mass production.

Looks like in a couple of years you guys in Europe won't be able to buy most popular EUCs made by KingSong and Gotway.

I'm certainly hoping nothing like PLEV ever shows up in the United States.

[LanghamP]

Why would Europe need safe PLEV regulations when they have socialized medical care?