GOTWAY Tesla: Double Redundancy [VIDEO]

[em1barns]

4 minutes ago, OliverH said:

We had a really great discussion last Sep in Paris and added quite a lot stuff. In the prEN 17128 all this content disappeared. We’ll have a nice discussion in one and a half week in Brussels on the CEN meeting.

Sounds great, the versions I read was the one for public feedback, so probably before your meeting.

So you added a lot of stuff, and it was scrapped from the standard? Or was it incorporated into it?

Any hint on who is representing EUC manufacturers on the process?

[OliverH]

25 minutes ago, em1barns said:

Sounds great, the versions I read was the one for public feedback, so probably before your meeting.

So you added a lot of stuff, and it was scrapped from the standard? Or was it incorporated into it?

Any hint on who is representing EUC manufacturers on the process?

Self balanced: Segway and me. Most stuff is for eTrottis/ eKickscooter. 

I think you saw the prEN 17128 and not the draft before.

[Scatcat]

It sounds like the PLEV is yet another of those regulations, where those drafting the regulation has no idea of what they're regulating...

[RenaissanceMan]

On 17.7.2016 at 11:20 PM, OliverH said:

IPS (my old one), not poserful enough, battery to small, motor blocking when hot. Good for plain roads, pedals scratching the floor on urban roads,

Ninebot e (my wife's old one), nice to watch, work in progress (firmware), difficult to choose the best/ less worth firmware. I would never buy again a Ninebot,

MSuper (my one), after the internal charger plug issue was fixed, a good touring EUC. 

KS16 (my wife's one), pedal problem, nervous riding, very good trolley handle, but bought to ride it. It was not my choice, it's definetly not my favour.

 

The MSuper is currently the best fit to me. No one is perfect or more than good. A good intermediate EUC.

 

3 hours ago, OliverH said:

Defined is a Speed limit on a flat surface. Tilt back is defined as signalisation. PLEV should be a general regulation and the manufacturer should be allowed to take action he thinks to fulfil the requirement. Current design/ architecture will not be suitable to pass certification. It's not just a software/ config modification.

 

1 hour ago, OliverH said:

Self balanced: Segway and me. Most stuff is for eTrottis/ eKickscooter. 

I think you saw the prEN 17128 and not the draft before.

Does not sound as if there are any real advocates of EUC in that CEN/TC 354 committee . So yes, let's hope they will continue negotiationg for a long, long time ... At least that's what these committees are known to be good at !

By the way, their "business plan" (found at https://standards.cen.eu/BP/616722.pdf on https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p=204:7:0::::FSP_ORG_ID:616722&cs=196AD34039D496159F550E47311C9FC49) dates from 2013 and - surprise - does not at all reflect the current 2017 state of technology. - I vote for disbanding that committee ...

[OliverH]

1 minute ago, RenaissanceMan said:

 

 

Does not sound as if there are any real advocates of EUC in that CEN/TC 354 committee . So yes, let's hope they will continue negotiationg for a long, long time ... At least that's what these committees are known to be good at !

By the way, their "business plan" (found at https://standards.cen.eu/BP/616722.pdf on https://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p=204:7:0::::FSP_ORG_ID:616722&cs=196AD34039D496159F550E47311C9FC49) dates from 2013 and - surprise - does not at all reflect the current 2017 state of technology. - I vote for disbanding that committee ...

Not sure what you like to show with your collection of comments. Let's pick on e sentence: Sentence regarding current design/ architecture is true (no inherent safety design, look at pictures of accidents and reports of problems inside the forum here). Have you read the Safety of machinery (2006/42/ EC, and the corresponding harmonised standards (Typ A (e.g. ISO 12100) and B (e.g. ISO 13849-1/-2) standards)? The PLEV will be a Typ C standard and should reflect and should go more specific in detail to the upper standards/ regulations.

The problem is currently each party looks itself for their own products. Segway send an EMC specialist from the US in the last meeting in Paris to discuss on the this matter last year in Paris. The CEN consultant had advised to use a strong requirement.
PLEV is lead by CEN, the main job/ coordination is done by AFNOR in france. The international board is set up with Honda, Toyota, Micro, Decathlon, ..

Than you've national boards like in Germany with DIN which have a mirror board. The target of the members is to lower the requirements as much as possible and not follow the target of the standard. Only Norway and Germany rejected the prEN 17128. With this strategy prEN 17128 or fprEN 17128 (next step) will be rejected again. The reviews are down now also by lobbyists and gov departments and PLEV needs some "tweaking" to fit requirements of a harmonized standard.

We're in the phase people getting aware that the EUCs have no valid CE which is necessary for the import and sales in the European Union.
Most EUCs are supplied with a CE sticker by today. If you read the "certification" it deals with EMC. It doensn't deal with inherent safety, there's no risk analysis, of the product itself no fatigue tests and so on. Only a product went through the whole process is allowed to get the CE sticker/ sign beside the product/ company name (there's a different of a machinery vs partly completed machinery inside safety of machinery (2006/42/EC)). Customs can reject/ destroy EUCs or ask for missing documentation/ certification (not available) by today.

I'm just sitting in front of a drawing showing what will be in scope for certification and from what regulation they're derived from. There're facts we can't push away. We'll reach the target, no question. But we need a manufacturer to follow this guidelines, can do the job on the required level and use parts with the right certification, can supply the necessary documentation and has a quality management system in place.

[em1barns]

13 hours ago, OliverH said:

Not sure what you like to show with your collection of comments. Let's pick on e sentence: Sentence regarding current design/ architecture is true (no inherent safety design, look at pictures of accidents and reports of problems inside the forum here). Have you read the Safety of machinery (2006/42/ EC, and the corresponding harmonised standards (Typ A (e.g. ISO 12100) and B (e.g. ISO 13849-1/-2) standards)? The PLEV will be a Typ C standard and should reflect and should go more specific in detail to the upper standards/ regulations.

The problem is currently each party looks itself for their own products. Segway send an EMC specialist from the US in the last meeting in Paris to discuss on the this matter last year in Paris. The CEN consultant had advised to use a strong requirement.
PLEV is lead by CEN, the main job/ coordination is done by AFNOR in france. The international board is set up with Honda, Toyota, Micro, Decathlon, ..

Than you've national boards like in Germany with DIN which have a mirror board. The target of the members is to lower the requirements as much as possible and not follow the target of the standard. Only Norway and Germany rejected the prEN 17128. With this strategy prEN 17128 or fprEN 17128 (next step) will be rejected again. The reviews are down now also by lobbyists and gov departments and PLEV needs some "tweaking" to fit requirements of a harmonized standard.

We're in the phase people getting aware that the EUCs have no valid CE which is necessary for the import and sales in the European Union.
Most EUCs are supplied with a CE sticker by today. If you read the "certification" it deals with EMC. It doensn't deal with inherent safety, there's no risk analysis, of the product itself no fatigue tests and so on. Only a product went through the whole process is allowed to get the CE sticker/ sign beside the product/ company name (there's a different of a machinery vs partly completed machinery inside safety of machinery (2006/42/EC)). Customs can reject/ destroy EUCs or ask for missing documentation/ certification (not available) by today.

I'm just sitting in front of a drawing showing what will be in scope for certification and from what regulation they're derived from. There're facts we can't push away. We'll reach the target, no question. But we need a manufacturer to follow this guidelines, can do the job on the required level and use parts with the right certification, can supply the necessary documentation and has a quality management system in place.

Walking on a fine line with EUCs, indeed. The new standard should raise the bar, while not putting it too high. The risk is to dissuade existing EUC makers, as well as potential new ones due to high standard while the market is still a niche one. Just like car standards for security and pollution get higher and higher over time.

Gotway apart, failure stats from US, Russia and France suggest Inmotion, Ninebot and Kingsong have regularly raised their bar in terms reliability, so best practices are spreading, even if we all wish it was going faster. The manufacturing process and QC still need to be improved though.

I did catch you were going to come over in Brussels in the coming weeks :). If you want to meet local wheelers, I could provide you with a contact with a EUC enthousiast promoting EUC in Belgium and working in the national transport committee for next version of the Belgian law that already makes EUC street-legal (he is also at the head of a EUC academy). I would also be happy to take you on a city ride, have some EUC spare ;).

 

[OliverH]

On 30.10.2017 at 10:07 AM, em1barns said:

Walking on a fine line with EUCs, indeed. The new standard should raise the bar, while not putting it too high. The risk is to dissuade existing EUC makers, as well as potential new ones due to high standard while the market is still a niche one. Just like car standards for security and pollution get higher and higher over time.

Gotway apart, failure stats from US, Russia and France suggest Inmotion, Ninebot and Kingsong have regularly raised their bar in terms reliability, so best practices are spreading, even if we all wish it was going faster. The manufacturing process and QC still need to be improved though.

I did catch you were going to come over in Brussels in the coming weeks :). If you want to meet local wheelers, I could provide you with a contact with a EUC enthousiast promoting EUC in Belgium and working in the national transport committee for next version of the Belgian law that already makes EUC street-legal (he is also at the head of a EUC academy). I would also be happy to take you on a city ride, have some EUC spare ;).

 

Not sure if I come with the EUC. Need to look for a  proper train connection without to much changing trains. But it would be nice to meet some EUC freaks. 

Regarding the right level of requirements. The bar will be high. European Union defined Safety of machinery (2006/42/EC) as the standard for product safety laws which should be implemented in national law in Belgium. If we enter next layer up to PLEV (EN 17128) we talk about harmonised standards:

Type A: ISO 12100 Safety of Machinery 

Type B1: ISO 13489-1 and -2  Safety-related parts of control system (risk analysis, defining performance level)

Type B1: IEC 62061 Safety of machinery: Functional safety of electrical, electronic and programmable electronic control systems (riskanykis part only (optional))

Typ C: PLEV (EN 17128) which is in the work right now.

We need to play with the sentence limiting risk to keep the requirements on an acceptable level. But the electronic control system will need SIL or PL ratings (HW/ SW). The current electronics will not get this ratings.