This is IT? 1787
Dave (picked at random) and 8000 other slashdot readers wrote in to tell us that they too had been overcome by the relentless hype machine that is IT, Ginger, Segway, whatever. Read about IT in your favorite hype-dispensing media outlet, each of which thinks that it has an exclusive on the story of IT. Flash diagram of IT. Time. NY Times. Reuters. And don't forget to watch the advertisement, errr, "demonstration" of IT on Good Morning Consumers tomorrow. Update: 12/03 13:37 GMT by T : Segway's webmaster John Grohol points out the segway website as well.
Southpark (Score:3, Funny)
"Well atleast its better than dealing with the airlines"
Arrogance more powerful than its technology? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why 2 wheels? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sure that they did not want a size increase to limit the use of this device on sidewalks. if it was bulkier than a person then they may not hit their sidewalk use goal. Two wheels side by side gave them this base where two wheels front and back would not have. Two wheels front and back would have increased the length to achieve balance and increased the scooter comparison.
Re:Traffic Safety Statistics (Score:4, Offtopic)
It seems very clear to me that at least 50% of the motorcycle fatalaties and perhaps as many as 75% - 80% could be completely eliminated by intelligent analysis of the risks and making rational choices about how and when to ride. I do not get on my bike without leather jackets, boots and gloves; a full-face Snell-approved helmet and (at the very least) kevlar reinforced jeans. I've ridden across the Arizona desert in August like that, during the day (although I can't say it was pleasant - or, frankly, a rational choice about when to ride
So, anyway, yes, motorcycles are statistically much more dangerous than cars. But much of that risk is entirely within your control. It's much like the situation we have now - the highest risk cause of death for American women of all ages is cancer of one form or another. Many women hear that and think "breast cancer!" But, in fact, the issue is lung cancer, since something like half of American women alive now smoked at some time in their lives. If you control for smoking (a "lifestyle choice") your main risk is heart disease, not cancer.
Motorcycles are definitely more dangerous than cars (especially when you apply my same "lifestyle" choices to your car driving - eschew driving drunk, for example). But it's my belief that, given the smaller margin for error, the same poor decision in a car (driving while drunk, for example) is much more likely to result in your death than the same poor decision on a motorcycle.
Re:This is the sneaker of small vehicals...chill. (Score:3, Insightful)
65lbs is _bloody_ _heavy_ - think typical all-up weight of gear carried by a soldier in one of those large rucksacks. You can't carry it in both hands for more distance than a quick stagger. Certainly carrying it up stairs is a non-starter.
Batteries won't last - it'll need an order of magnitude improvement in battery technology to crack that problem. This scooter will run out of power on the first hill. 17 miles on a level, smooth surface is no big deal - let's wait and see how much they get on a real surface, or on anything with an incline.
Battery-assist bikes are a cool idea - they can give you some help up the hill whilst you still pedal, so you're still supplying over 50% of the energy, and even if the battery dies then you can still carry on under your own power. And if it really goes wrong, you've got 30lb of bike and batteries to push home, on large wheels designed to naturally cope with obstacles. But once this scooter runs out of batteries, you're screwed, stuck, dead-in-the-water, etc. And you have to push 65lb of scooter home up that hill, with little piddling wheels in a configuration which makes it naturally unstable.
In other words, this is a less-good version of existing battery-powered bikes. Innovation, schminnovation.
Grab.
What is important in technology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is important in technology? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes; a valuable target. Today, it's not worth it to develop a missile that can target those individual troopers, because they're worth less than the missile in cold, harsh, absolute financial terms.
Powered armor would change that.
Furthermore, with enhanced strength you have the ability to carry a whole lot more firepower than a regular joe.
Which just increases how much you're worth, and how worthwhile it is to take you out with a missile.
In fact if this wasn't a desired technology, why is DARPA and several other DoD agencies spending tons of your tax dollars in researching this?
The military already has classified patents on powered armor. But they don't equip the troops with it. Why? Because even if the missile costs $20,000 or $200,000, it's cheaper than the powered armor and the specialized training to use it, so it's more cost effective to equip the troops with those to take out the enemy powered armor.
Besides, military is not the only useful application for Mech Armors. Think factories. Right now you need one of those expensive lifters (or whatever you call them) that lift heavy boxes, but can only operate in very standard environments (right box sizes, righ shelf sizes, right distance between shelves, etc.). If the cost of one of these armors is at least equal to those lifters, you have a winner since you save money elsewhere (Think the armor from the end of Alien 2).
If you've got the technology to make a mecha, you've got the technology to make the fork lift more accurate, and for the fork lift you don't need gyroscopic stabilization and sophisticated "fly-by-wire" controls. So you still don't build a mecha, because it gains you nothing toward fixing the problem that can't be fixed better and cheaper without one.
Again you're just showing a lack of vision similar to other posts that don't see value for some technology for them or their immedate surroundings, and automatically assume it's not valuable for anybody else.
No, I'm showing the vision to be able to look BEYOND the gee-wiz technology into the actual solving of actual problems.
Mecha are visually appealing, and I cheered like everybody else when they showed up on Andromeda, but it's fiction. We could build practical mecha now. We don't, because any technology you can build that lets you put more armor on a walker lets you put even MORE armor on a tank. Any technology you can build that lets you give an exosuit powerloader arms lets you give a forklift articulation. Any technology that lets you put powered armor on a Mobile Infantry trooper lets me build a guided missile to take him out, and I don't have to put my guy through six months of training to drive the thing; I can give him a cartoon explaining how to shoot you.
South Park (Score:3, Offtopic)
*shrug*
Yep... (Score:3, Informative)
The most important... (Score:2, Redundant)
While I predict this will be at BEST a fad, we can now finally take the core technology and start building robotic war mecha.
What a big yawn (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmm... If the Segway is allowed on sidewalks, there would be instant competition in the form of conventional electric scooters. They wouldn't be anywhere near as cool, but they also wouldn't cost $3000 or more. And, they'd run longer since they would not need to expend juice to feed the gyros and microcontrollers.
IT -- the new darling of injury lawyers everywhere (Score:3, Funny)
You said:
Actually, if the Segway IT were allowed on sidewalks, there would be instant lawsuits, courtesy of conventional injury lawyers. Forget about skateboarders running into old ladies -- IT is gonna be great! "Call 1-800-ITHURTS!" :->
Just what we need (Score:2, Funny)
Another thing to make Americans more lazy. I mean come on if you cant bring yourself to walk the 25 feet between your living room and bathroom to take a leak, you should be shot. 7 deadly sins - sloth.
Positive:
Necessity breeds innovention. If your 500lbs boss cant seem to walk the distance between his/her limo and office then use Ginger!!!! Think of all the pain on his/her knee joints.
My sig (if i could remember my login): Je m'en fiche!
cities eh (Score:2, Insightful)
It's world-changing! (Score:3, Redundant)
No Engine? (Score:2)
Anyone got a better idea what this is about?
No Engine?
Why do I suddenly feel like Homer?
Re:No Engine? (Score:4, Redundant)
http://www.time.com/time/2001/segway/index.html [time.com]
Re:No Engine? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the flash diagram, it actually has two small electric motors. (these aren't "engines"?).
The gyroscopes are used to provide torques to help the rider balance. The accelerometers detect the command motions (leaning forward or back or straight up). The small motors propel the Segway forward. (or backwards).
The fancy trick here is getting the control system software to tell the difference between a rider falling forward and 'commanding' forward by leaning forward. (amoung other fancy tricks). Overall the concept is simple, but the implentation is not as easy as it looks.
IT -- successor of the banana peel (Score:2, Funny)
Apparently, balance is attained with the help of sensors and logic boards and powerful electric motors. I think it'll be fun to watch an IT malfunction (perhaps as a result of a bug in the firmware) or run out of juice while someone is riding it. Will she fall forwards or backwards? In any case, I am sure it will be a very characteristic and, after a while, instantly recognizable motion. IT will be the high-tech version of the banana peel -- instant laugh for everybody who's watching at that fateful moment.
Can't help thinking about Transmeta (Score:3, Funny)
Moral of the story: Don't believe the hype.
It doesn't look like much but... (Score:2, Insightful)
IT's not for you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IT's not for you! (Score:3, Troll)
Of course! How silly of me!! Of course the average citizen in a chinese city could afford an *electric* scooter with a $3k USD price tag!
Tell me, do you, Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs smoke crack together or alone in your biodomes?
Re:IT's not for you! (Score:3, Informative)
So, what have we learned? People in Idaho can afford to buy cars, people in rural China cannot. People in Idaho can afford to have a quality of life as good as those in New York, those in rural China cannot. And for that matter, most people in urban china can't afford to buy a car, to say nothing of a $3k motor scooter. That would be like average Joe in New York city making $25k/year buying a $75k car.
$3000 is the INITIAL mass produced version. (Score:4, Informative)
It took more than a decade for VCR's to drop from over $1000 to less than $100.
-----
Re:IT's not for you! (Score:3, Insightful)
And walking is so bad beeeeecause? Does it make a lot of sense to have to lug a 30kg lump of metal up and down stairs and rough paths, or leave the same $3000 trinket standing around while you go and deliver items?
So, it is going to shove pedestrians off the sidewalks to be mown down by bicycles and motor vehicles, or do you see people doing the honourable thing and taking to the roads themselves to be mown down by bikes and motor vehicles?
This thing does 8mph, is less manouverable than a pedestrian but less predictable than a bicycle in where it's going, costs a lot (technology and raw materials, not just inflated US retail price), has *ongoing* costs in replacing the NiCd / NiMH cells and requires about a jillion power outlets everywhere. Maybe you're right, but the bicycle seems to be doing a fair job as it is, and I'm not seeing a huge incentive to switch.
Re:[OT] Slurs (Score:3, Funny)
so what? (Score:2, Redundant)
COULD be exceedingly useful (Score:2, Insightful)
We Americans have never really been very much interested in public transportation. Trains, busses, subways...they all take second place to our cars. Our nice, inefficient, polluting cars. Now then, could you imagine if these things genuinely cought on? Imagine having our cities interconnected with high-speed railways, not highways. Imagine replacing all the roads in our cities with smaller pedestrian walkways, populated with people on Segways. Imagine how much less polution there would be, how much less noise would be generated, and how much less space would be wasted.
Yeah, I know...I'm still waiting for my flying cars and giant robots...but this could actually be useful technology.
yrs,
Ephemeriis
Re:COULD be exceedingly useful (Score:3, Interesting)
Why can't anyone see the implications of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why can't anyone see the implications of this? (Score:4, Funny)
;)
Re:Why can't anyone see the implications of this? (Score:3, Funny)
What it'll do for me (Score:5, Funny)
of course it pollutes. (Score:5, Insightful)
And that electricity is coming from where, fairies?
Uh, if you're in Boston, your electricity is probably coming from a 40-year-old natural-gas or coal-fired plant. You might well produce less pollution in some of the new SLEV Hondas than on an electric scooter.
Re:of course it pollutes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What it'll do for me (Score:4, Offtopic)
I am a treehugger, of the highest order. This is pretty OT, but I want to explain something to you. Most "Greens" would probably be reasonable enough to see the problem on a whole. The earth is capable of sustaining only so much pollution. What that level is is debatable... lets just assume, on a long term, we are at/near/close/exceeding that limit. We cannot pollute at this level indefinitely. We will choke and kill everything (including ourselves) off the planet. This is a reasonable assumption.
Now, seeing as this is the case, we have two choices: A) Continue to our deaths. B) Curb pollution (consumption).
I would be happy to leave ALL coal power plants AS THEY ARE on the ENTIRE PLANET if we can make up for a equal reduction somewhere else... let me suggest children's happy meal toys. If we made the choice to NOT manufacture/burn/landfill 12312 million small-plastic-brick-a-brack trash every year could we reduce pollution significantly enough to accept the coal plants? maybe, maybe not... if not, lets stop producing.... single-voltage wall-wart transformers.. make them all multi-voltage, and stop supplying them with every electronic device.... or paper-boxes on toothpaste tubes.... or hard-plastic packaging on paper-clips... will these decisions be sufficient? I doubt it, but the point is, it would be EXTREMELY easy to make a group of small choices that would make our *problem* disappear... look around you - how much of that WASTE could you easily do without knowing we weren't headed to a toxic future? I bet there are an awful lot of simple small choices you'd (and I) would be happy to make... the alternative is not an option... we have to eventually make a choice here.
The point? We must choose where we are going to pollute. The "market" is a vehicle for death - plain and simple, citizens with conscience (greens like myself) can not be burdened to live in mud huts because their neighbours are not willing to stop consuming 'Limited Edition Hand Made Soap-Opera Actor Themed Plastic Dolls.' That kind of mindless waste costs us all.
I say keep the coal plants, but use the energy they create WISELY!
Sorry for the OT, but alot of "not a tree-hugger" types miss this minor point and try and brand Greens as being unrealistic and unreasonable.
BTW, Id prefer Nuclear to coal.. its a risk vs. gain thing... CANDU!
Re:What it'll do for me (Score:3, Insightful)
Less cool at $3000 (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, I dislocated my shoulder last week on my bicycle while avoiding traffic. Maybe I can ride it again tomorrow, maybe not, but it has been quite painful and made it much harder to run errands around town (take the time to run an errand on a bike and double it; you've just arrived at the time to complete it, driving, if it's in downtown DC and you have to park). This device would make such injuries irrelevant. I'm sure it would be wonderful for elderly or infirm people who can't drive. So perhaps I am an "able-ist" in that I am biased to think about things as if I'll always be hale and healthy.
If the product is made affordable, it would be a lot nicer and less intrusive than a Lark or a Rascal for sure. But I don't see it as being quite as revolutionary as the car, simply because it does not radically increase carrying capacity, doesn't really offer commercially compelling advantages over a regular scooter, pair of feet, or a bicycle to balance out the cost... I don't see how this device would change the world for the average mope, but for some people it sounds like a godsend.
Attenuate your expectations, as this Dean Kamen seems to be telling us, and in context it is pretty neat. Not earth-shattering, but pretty neat, alright.
Re:Less cool at $3000 (Score:3, Funny)
The revolutionary aspect of this thing is that yeah it has gyroscopes and all that shtuff, but in reality, it is "walking for the lazy man" and is related to this product [theonion.com]. The implecations of this aren't fantastic, and its not gonna change the world, but anything that makes a lazy man's life less mobile is worth.... something..... i dunno, you finish my post for me...
~z
Re:Why can't anyone see the implications of this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really, it just seems like a way to waste money. If this was some kind of research project to develop stable gryos for other applications (which it may prove useful for afterall), then we would all applaud it. But so WHAT if it can stand up on its own? So WHAT if it has a turning radius of zero?
Its three thousand dollars. It probably goes much slower than an electric bike (~20 mph) and probably has heavy batteries, just like an electric bike. It will be stolen within a weeks time if you leave it anywhere but locked in your garage (no matter what spiffy lock you use in public).
This is not revolutionary, although it seems to be quite a feat of engineering. What will be great are things like fuel cells instead of batteries. Weight is a real problem with any bike/scooter/moped powered by batteries. It will be revolutionary when you can buy something with this much electronics for a few hundred dollars. For now, I'm only slightly impressed.
Re:Why can't anyone see the implications of this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Think of college campuses where cars are hard to manage - shove up to 40,000 students away from the campus (parking and housing) and reclaim the space for classrooms. 75% of the US high-school population will go to college, and half of these will attend a university with a population of 10,000 or more - each a small planned city. These already employ fleets of electric and natural gas cars and carts. I bet every major university in the US will be discussing the feasibility of banning autos from their campuses tomorrow.
Think of new cities. There are roughly 2 billion people in India and China, both nations struggling with transportation and at least some of that tied to limited access to oil and refineries.
The US is not the killer market for this. NY could do solve some huge problems with widespread adoption of this. Vegas could benefit. Theme parks are designed around how far people are willing to walk. This can change all of that. Disney loans you a Segway when you enter their new theme park. So what if it's 15,000 acres? Who cares about the monorail?
>But so WHAT if it can stand up on its own?
Well, there are a lot of people that don't trust themselves on a bike. Bikes are hard in a suit, with heels, in a skirt. They generally go too fast. Bikes are banned in many places because they are too dangerous. Twice walking speed isn't too scary for a mall or airport, especially if there's no way in hell you can fall over. Just not having to worry about falling over will win a ton of people over.
>Weight is a real problem with any bike/scooter/moped powered by batteries.
True, but this has a follow feature that basically makes it a self-propelled pull behind, even on stairs. I imagine it'll be like pulling a broom behind you. No sweat.
It'll get lighter, go farther, get cheaper. There will be more people willing to pay $3,000 than they can accommodate, I guarantee.
Re:Why can't anyone see the implications of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in a university city (Cambridge (UK, not Ma.)) where students aren't generally allowed to keep cars, and staff permits for most car pars are extremely limited.
Most students have bikes. Very very few (if any) of them have $3000 bikes. Few of them have $300 bikes. And a bike is lighter, faster, easier to carry loads on, simpler to maintain, and there are lots of existing bike racks (with no power for recharging batteries).
Re:Why can't anyone see the implications of this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Change is scary stuff That's why nobody like this idea. It COULD change the lives of everyone, everyday. The internet still doesn't affect everyone's daily lives (just ours) but transportation is something everyone needs and uses and we all have to share the same roads.
Innovation? Yes. Better than a scooter? No. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think so. The Segway and scooter serve the same purpose, and get the job done with negligible difference in method and results from a users perspective. A carriage, on the other hand, lacks a mile-long list of features that a car has.
It's just the closest concept you have to fit.
Yes, and beyond technology, which is irrelevant from a users point of view, how is this any different from a scooter?
Can't you see that a vehicle which uses Dynamic Stability to be driven as an extension of your own body movements is a great innovation?
Yes, its an innovation, but is it an advancement or just a cool hack thats too costly to be commercially viable? Most seem to think the latter.
Re:Innovation? Yes. Better than a scooter? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, there are. This is not actually news; stories about IT's true nature were available a week or so after the hype began. (I submitted, but apparently /. is none too interested in getting news out before its generally available.) Kamen is best known for his medical inventions: for example, he came up with the first wearable infusion pump, a Godsend to a certain type of diabetic who must have a steady influx of insulin to function well. In the earlier stories, IT was discussed as a mobility device for the handicapped, and although that's not the focus of the recent announcements its pretty clear that you could adjust the thing for a person with limited mobility by tweaking some of the control parameters.
The disabled, such as my 5-year-old son who suffers from Cerebral Palsy, are most often not retarded, but due to their limitations are indeed unable to operate a scooter or a car. IT may be just the thing for them. (And let me tell you, at $3000 it is priced very competitively with ordinary motorized wheelchairs.)
Speaking of retards. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know what's more depressing: that you actually thought you were being insightful by posting this, or that our ever-vigilent moderators voted you up for it.
At the risk of responding to your knee-jerk, brainless dribblings with an actual answer instead of the back-handed slap upside the face that they so richly deserve, allow me to call your attention to:
- the elderly
- the handicapped
- people too young for a driver's license
- people who live in communities with noise-abatement laws
...and that's just off the top of my head, and not even speculating on possible uses in industrial applications. The question isn't whether people can drive a car or a scooter, although there are plenty who cannot for reasons having nothing to do with being "retards". The question is whether there are applications for which the Segway might be more appropriate than a car or a scooter.The problem with the Segway isn't that it lacks a market. The problem is that it's at least $2300 too expensive for most of them, and probably about twice as heavy as it should be.
How is IT as safe as a car? You're totally unprotected on an IT, just like on a scooter or a bike.
With a top speed of under 10mph, comparing a Segway's safety to a car is, well, about as stupid as the rest of your post. I suspect that its safety is about comparable to a bicycle, but the Segway has the advantage of not putting the rider in a hunched-over position -- jumping clear of an accident will be much easier.
In passing, let me just say that I am astounded and overwhelmed by your level of compassion and understanding for your fellow human beings. Here's hoping that you contract a degenerative neural disease, so you can taste some of the same.
Re:Innovation? Yes. Better than a scooter? No. (Score:3, Insightful)
I live about 25 miles away from my work, not a bad deal because I take the local light rail in. Problem is the nearest stop is a little under a mile away. So, often times I drive my car there and park and ride. Switching to Segway for this would be awesome. Gas costs alone over the course of three years for my vehicle would overcome the expenses of buying a Segway.
Also, 3 nights a week I go to kung fu. The school is about a mile away from a different light rail stop - and for effiency and time sake i have to drive an additional 3 miles to go to a light rail stop past the traffic congestion so I can make it to kung fu on time. Now, I take my time hit in the morning when often times it will take me about 30 minutes to go 3 miles - that isn't good gas mileage. Having a segway would enable me to ride to the close light rail stop, take it to work, take the light rail after work to the stop near my kung fu school ride there and back, then back home. Easy, efficient, and very practical considering I never carry anything more than my laptop bag/backpack combo.
I know I'm not the only one who has transportation patterns similar; in fact 2 other people I work with are very excited about it for nearly the same reasons. The rest of your arguments (in this parent and your other) are just idiotic and irrational. Many people would like this. I'll probably be buying one when they come available - another perk is I don't have to leave my car at the light rail stop where it can be broken into or damaged.
Re:Innovation? Yes. Better than a scooter? No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, have you ever tried to balance on a Segway? This thing is marketing, I tell you.
"dynamic stability" (Score:3, Funny)
What, you mean like... a bicycle? Or roller skates?
Hell, I drive my car via an extension of my own body movements. I call this miraculous technology "the steering wheel."
Stillborn (Score:5, Funny)
It is awkward, expensive, makes you look like a dork, and isn't really more useful than something you already had.
Mind you, I'm never wrong about these things. When the CD-ROM was invented, I accurately predicted we would never hear from such a useless invention again. After all, it was more expensive than the PC you plug it in, and all of that for half a GB of read only data, while no one could have any conceivable use for read only data.
I also accurately predicted that Java would be just a fad. After all, who would need a slow interpreted platform independant language while only one platform would exist a few years on.
this time I'm right tho.
I couldnt use it daily, but I would like one. (Score:3, Redundant)
Really, the only thing I could use it for is short trips to the store, but where would I carry my groceries?
Before I could use it daily, need the roads to have bike lanes, and I need to carry a payload.
Wanna see something completely fscked? (Score:3, Offtopic)
Which is all well and good, except I am using Omniweb. Damn that freaked me out.
Let the conspiracy theories begin!
Re:Wanna see something completely fscked? (Score:3, Informative)
"The site www.segway.com is running Apache/1.3.9 (Unix) mod_perl/1.21 on Linux." (Quote Netcraft)
So, um. Something's fishy. (I saw the same IE5-ish error in Moz 0.9.6)
Scary Picture (Score:3, Funny)
Now that's a scary picture
This is IT? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I'm really surprised.
I would have expected a lot more acceptance from the other readers of Slashdot. Or maybe it is simply a case of the "Slashdot Syndrome". (that would be not reading the entire article before you post.)
This is amazing technology!
From the Time article:
"Lean forward, go forward; lean back, go back; turn by twisting your wrist. The experience is the same going uphill, downhill or across any kind of terrain--even ice. It is nothing like riding a bike or a motorcycle. Instead, in the words of Vern Loucks, the former chairman of Baxter International and a Segway board member, "it's like skiing without the snow."
I don't know how many of you have ever been snow skiing, but it is amazing! There is a reason it's so popular.
Also from the article:
"Cars are great for going long distances," Kamen says, "but it makes no sense at all for people in cities to use a 4,000-lb. piece of metal to haul their 150-lb. asses around town."
This is so true! We are so wasteful as a nation in this way. It makes absolutely no sense!
Again, from the article:
"...Dean Kamen...The 50-year-old son of a comic-book artist, he is a college dropout, a self-taught physicist and mechanical engineer with a handful of honorary doctorates, a multimillionaire who wears the same outfit for every occasion: blue jeans, a blue work shirt and a pair of Timberland boots." and "But if Kamen's personality is half Willy Wonka, the other half is closer to Thomas Edison. While he was still struggling in college, Kamen invented the first drug-infusion pump, which enabled doctors to deliver steady, reliable doses to patients. In the years that followed, he invented the first portable insulin pump, the first portable dialysis machine and an array of heart stents, one of which now resides inside Vice President Dick Cheney."
This guy is a hackers hacker! Give the guy a break. I'll be the first to say it (on Slashdot anyway) I think it's going to be a huge hit!
Going in circles (Score:3, Funny)
"Two of them drive each wheel independently. Fully redundant. If one fails, the other takes over."
I would like to see this.
Also claims to have 5 Gyro's that "operate by commitee, voting among themselves to eliminate errent readings"
Would this device work in Florida?
Does this make sense??? (Score:5, Funny)
IT = 8MPH, Bike = 15MPH
IT = no excersize, Bike = 300+ Cal/hr
IT = No beer, Bike 2400 micro brew or 4800 Bud/MGD
IT = requires power, Bike = burn off beer gut (see above)
Re:Does this make sense??? (Score:4, Insightful)
IT=$3000, Used Bike=$100
IT top speed=12mph, Bike top speed=30+mph
IT weight=60+lbs, Bike weight=20-25 lbs
IT parts=specialized, only 1 manufacturer, unavailable overseas
Bike parts=available everywhere(even Afghanistan), mass-produced, ridiculously cheap
IT repair=send it back to the factory
Bike repair=send it down the block or do it yourself (even Afghanistan)
IT infrastructure=requires significant restructuring of sidewalk laws for motor vehicles, new "etiquette" to avoid collisions with pedestrians, too slow even for a bike lane
Bike infrastructure=all states and nations already have laws pertaining to bikes, most civilized countries have bike lanes in place in major cities (except for most of the US), significant lobbying groups already exist throughout the world dedicated to increasing the use of bicycles
Most importantly, bicycles are not dangerous. Bicycles are considered dangerous because of the proliferation of automobiles who make biking conditions unsafe. With proper bike lanes(shielded from traffic by planters and no parking on the curb) and increased usage, bike usage could be much more safe and common (see Amsterdam or China).
Problems of balance for the elderly and inexperienced are easily solved by tricycles (yes!) and low-to-the-ground recumbent vehicles. Problems of hills are easily solved by low cost electric motors like those on Lee Iacocca's ebike.
If Dean Kamen really wanted to solve the transportation crisis, he would have spent $100 million on lobbying to increase legislation to make cities more bike friendly. Cities need bike lanes, bike paths, bike parking, bike rooms at work, showers at work, and a multitude of other things. Thousands of people have been working on this problem for the past 150 years, only to have their work ignored by lazy, ignorant consumers, rich, powerful oil and auto industries, incompetent politicians, and over-hyped entrepreneurs.
/. needs a "Hype" topic with a picture of segway (Score:3, Redundant)
More a proof of concept than a finished product (Score:5, Insightful)
But this is just the first model. It's more sort of a proof of concept--a demonstration that the scooter can work, and looks as neat as all get-out in motion. As time goes on, the performance will improve and the price will fall.
Look at the Palm (Pilot). The first model was, what, 128K? With no backlight, no infra-red, or anything? And how high was the price tag? And now the Visor Deluxe, which was at one time the wet dream of anybody who even looked at a Palm, is only $130 brand new.
Look at the DVD player. The original models were expensive enough, the first bunch of discs were glitchy enough, that a lot of people scoffed and made snide remarks. But the DVD went on to become the fastest-adopted new consumer technology ever.
So here we have a relatively slow, electric-powered self-stabilizing scooter, for $3,000. Are very many of us going to buy it? Do very many of us have the money to sink into that sort of gee-gaw? No and no. I know I'm not going to be spending three grand on something like that myself, either. Nor would I be likely to spend two grand, or even one grand.
But by the time it gets to about $500, sign me up.
what will be improved by finished product... (Score:4, Interesting)
Lets take a look at the the two real complaints -cost and weight- for a moment. Both will obviously come down drastically over the years.
Three things- electronics, gyroscopes, and the batteries make the Segway expensive. The electronics will be a tenth the price within a month of even a single Segway sisterboard making it to Taipie, no matter how poorly the Segway's sales might do. Barring any hereforeto unforeseen aviation boom, I imagine that the gyroscopes will probably only drop in price in proportion with the volume of Segways produced. The batteries should far slightly better (but not as good as the electronics), steadily, albeit slowly, dropping in price over time, a trend that will also take place whether or not Segway is successful.
As I see it, only one thing really adds significant weight to Segway, and that is the batteries. They mention both NiCd and NiMH batteries can be used. IANABE (battery expert?), but I would bet that they are using those older battery technologies because of their power-to-weight ratios, or perhaps even their power-to-volume ratios. Many other power solutions are available, each with drawbacks. Batteries where probably chosen for efficiency, simplicity, and safety concerns. Better battery tech, or fuel cells, or Stirling engines, or even gasoline engines (probably requiring some lightweight, high-velocity flywheels for energy storage) could potentially help reduce the current weight of the Segway. Heck, if these things do become popular in cities, run them right off of overhead wires, like bumper cars! Or maybe even through substreet power lines via inductance. No need for much of a battery at all then.
um.. what hype? (Score:5, Informative)
Every once in a while for the past couple of months, I'd come across some tiny blurb about "the much-hyped (IT|Ginger)". But these blurbs, which seemed to be few and far between, primarily dealt with the "hype" surrounding this thing. They would have been a sort of meta-hype, except that there weren't even enough of those articles to constitute anything more than a sort of collective raised eyebrow.
There wasn't even a concerted effort to be mysterious about it, as far as I can tell. Nobody was saying much, and nobody much cared when it did come up.
So now I'm supposed to believe that this scooter thing was made out to be the next Sliced Bread, that everyone was quivering in anticipation, and that rumours have been swirling for months about its mysterious nature? Bullshit, we've barely heard of it. This is a strange sort of revisionist history indeed.
Or maybe I just don't go to the same parties that Time reporters do.
Hackable? (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine programming one of these things to spin you around, then accelerate to breakneck speed (perhaps literally) This could be quite fun!
Re:Hackable? (Score:3, Funny)
Recognize when a user wants to stop and accelerate them to 90 MPH.
We'll have assassins running around with ROM flashers. Yeesh.
Segway is irrelevant to American cities (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Segway is irrelevant to American cities (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens when this thing gets lighter, more durable, and cheaper?
I know that I could use it right now (Boston). I walk to work everyday about 1.5 miles, and it would be cool to be able to ride on one of these. In fact, I would move futher if I could pipe along at 17 miles an hour.
I'm suprised at all the negative comments in this forum. Who wouldn't want one of these? What if it got down to $500? I mean, it's not as cool as a personal helicopter, but it's cool allright.
Think industrial, not just cites. Would this we useful getting around a large factory? (yes) How about delivering mail, fedex, or pizza door to door? (yes)
We all realize that it's not going to instantly change the world, but neither did the automobile or the airplane. It was a long process before things changed. Given time these things might get adopted all over the place. We'll see how it goes.
I like to think of it as an alternative to the bike, not competition. Both can easily coexist.
The concept (Score:3, Insightful)
A rework of traffic rules will be required. This is a "motor vehicle" in some states, but doesn't meet the requirements for one. It might come under the definition of "motorized bicycle" in California (electric, 1KW max), but you'll need to wear a helmet.
The real problem is that it's too fast to mix with heavy pedestrian traffic, but too slow to mix with motor vehicles. It self-balances, but doesn't do automatic collision avoidance.
I'd rather be in an area full of skateboarders than one full of Ginger riders. Skaters have good reflexes.
USA No, London Maybe (Score:5, Informative)
Here in London, it's pretty pointless to own a car, unless you use it to get out of the city. The city is flat, space is at a premium, and walking is actually a viable option, if you've got the time. 3 million people endure the horrors of the London Underground (hot, smelly, crowded, frequently broken) every day, simply because there aren't any alternatives. Segway might just work here, since Londoners are typically businesspeople, and won't do that nasty physically active stuff, like riding bikes.
As an example, I walked to work once or twice during Tube strikes this year, and it took about an hour. If I could Segway it in 20 mins, this would be *faster* than the tube, and hugely more enjoyable. All I'd need is covered pathways to keep the rain off and I'd be set.
Hmph. (Score:3, Funny)
I had my heart set on it being a twin-turbine personal helicopter :) funny thing is, I had this all worked out to the point where you could damned near build one, all on the basis that Steve Jobs et al wouldn't be fools enough to go ga-ga over a powered scooter.
I'll give 'em this much though: yes, designing cities without cars WILL eventually be necessary. Yes, that will be interesting and challenging and different. But I thought it had to be a lot more exciting, and pulled together loads of detail such as recent developments in titanium production, the capacity of (highly efficient) jet turbines to route their intake and exhaust in very counterintuitive ways, the geometry of a twin-ducted-fan standing platform and how this would be essentially stable and would require hard leaning to get it to move quickly- and even then, wind resistance on the high-mounted fans would mean that the machine would be trying to slow itself at all times, its CG located very low because a human would be standing on the base and their CG would be irrelevant, the orientation of the device would follow the centering effect of the human's weight delivered through the feet...
The only thing even vaguely like this would be the SoloTrek, and just think for a second of how much heavier _that_ monster is than a person- it's really just a mini helicopter, not even the balance issues would apply. As such, so much of its awful power and noise etc. is required simply to lift its own weight, and how much better it would be to use titanium and minimal, balance-oriented controls to make something so feather-light that it's barely heavier than a person, far more capable of urban use...
To top it all off, turbines are ideally suited for just _one_ speed, which is an ideal match for a heli-type device as it would be devoting pretty much every bit of its energy just to hovering, with no engines whatsoever for lateral motion- that would be strictly a matter of leaning in the desired direction like you were in a hang-glider. All this is just _waiting_ to be done, and Kamen has the resources to do it _and_ a background not only in aviation but in helicopters. It seemed so obvious.
Oh well...
more obesity (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also not clear where you are supposed to use these things. Using them in traffic seems more unsafe than a bicycle (since you are even less visible and have even less protection in front of you), but riding anything motorized at 15mph on the sidewalk seems both rude and dangerous. And these things are too slow for bicycle lanes.
A cynic might say that this is simply an attempt to boost sales of one of Kamen's other technologies: automatic insulin pumps, since obesity is the leading cause of diabetes.
No learning curve (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I'm wondering if we can apply the technology to bicycles, windsurfers, skates, etc. Now that would be awesome: In-line skates that act like Segway.
TIME's article is best (Score:3, Interesting)
Amongst the great quotes:
Great for a real city (NY) Lousy for post WW2 city (Score:3, Funny)
Places like LA, Phoenix, suburban Long Island where there are no pedestrians anyway would not be suitable for this.
The TIME article said that speeds of 3-4 times walking speed would be normal.
In NYC bike messengers already get around the city faster than cars. I see doctors and 60 year old women go through the Village on those Razor scooters. Parking spaces cost more to rent per month than whole houses do in other parts of the country. I go weeks without driving now and didn't own a car until I moved out of NYC temporarily for a few years. Cars in NYC are evil and most people avoid them. A reliable, speedy machine that takes up about the same space as a person would be very welcome.
As for price, Give it 5 or 10 years and it will be down around a few hundred dollars. In the expensive bike range. Not to mention the used market.
Of course by then GM or Ford will get into the market and we will have SUV Gingers that weigh 10 tons, run on gasoline and have ostrich skin leather heated bucket seats.
IT Patent Invalidated By Prior Art (Score:3, Funny)
IT was already invented by Johnny Hart, author of the comic strip BC. The prior art is plainly visible in the upper right hand corner of this picture [wghsuccess.com], has been available for quite some time, and appears regularly in newspapers and online.
A Dissapointment (Score:3, Funny)
How cool is this guy? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't care what "IT" is, Kamen owns an island with a monetary denomination of pi!
Re:How cool is this guy? (Score:3, Interesting)
for all the shortsighted.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Initial implications for this device begin at the private sector. Imagine a mail carrier being able to strap on a pack and make a run in half as much time, going across sidewalks, dirt, grass, gravel, etc. Mail carriers at large corporations would be able to use this to get across larger buildings. Security guards could quickly and efficiently make their rounds, making it easier to put more rounds in a night. Park rangers could more easily get from point to point in a park. There are implications for airports, and any long walk areas that have the need for getting a certain percentage of people from point a to b quickly. Think about areas normally patrolled by officers on horseback or rollerblade or bicycle and just introduce segway/IT. Replace every oversized golfcart on a factory line that the management uses to shuffle from place to place inside.
For the public, there are schools/colleges where you might have classes on oposite ends of the campus, making it difficult to get books and then get to class on time making you carry a double load most of the day. For the infirm/elderly/disabled it would allow them to once again go for a "walk" in the park with their family/friends. It would allow people who are temporary disabled (casts, sprained ankles, etc.) to not need to slowly hobble everywhere they go. It will help the asthmatic who doesn't have the endurance to go on a hike with his friends to finally enjoy the outdoors like others. It would allow those already so damned lazy they can't walk two blocks to the store to not have to get in their car to go get something.
Notice any key theme in the above? Outdoors? Not just some punk ass kid (which we all were/are at some time) on a "scooter" bumping into you making you spill your latte, or noisily flying down the street on his gas powered scooter interrupting your nightly viewing of "Friends". Look at the design of this machine, large tires, self-balancing, automatic shutoff and speed control safety features, this is a standup ATV. Even if it has say only 30 minutes of battery life that's 4 miles at top speed (I'm assuming). Many people with asthma or cardio/pulminary problems can barely walk a block or two, imagine being able to say you went out for 4 miles. I could almost make it to work on a segway in the same amount of time as it takes me to drive through the traffic, as I'm sure many other people could. Training! Bah! Step on lean forward and go, easy as falling. Safety! Bah! Step off and the device stops dead. Redundancy in computing and drive mechanism means little chance of failure, catostrophic or otherwise. Price! Bah! $8,000 for the "industrial" version $3000 for the commercial version, early adoptors will easily pay. The early adoptors and an increase in chip speed/decrease in chip costs will drive the price down by half within the first year. By Christmas 2003 Korean companies will be selling knockoffs for $250 with fold up chasis and backpack straps. By 2004 they'll come in 15 different colorful shades and be as lame as the jellies, pagers, cell phones, and the backstreet boys.
Or the same people who drove the hype machine to it's heights can sit around an be dissapointed about how this won't change their miserable lives and bad mouth it and destroy yet another perfectly usable worthwhile product. How anyone could sit and bad mouth a man who educated himself, owns his own country (island), and works to do nothing but make the majority of peoples lives better, is just beyond me.
The new Super Cub. (Score:3, Insightful)
If "it" can handle travel on a crappy dirt road, and sells cheap, this thing has the potential to be huge in areas with electricity. It could make a company, and in the long-run, be a pretty big deal.
Of course, I personally think that Kamen works for Microsoft and is going to show off the new
How long before... (Score:3, Insightful)
* IT gets a spot in a Holywood movie?
* they teach an ape to use one?
* the black market of stolen Gingers forces Kamen to license the technology?
* people complain it's a city-street safety hazard?
* people complain it makes them lazy and we should all go back to walking? (I say it was ofcourse a mistake coming down from the trees in the first place)
* we get a weatherproof one?
* someone will model a battle-bot after IT?
really nice, but I'm not waiting at the edge of my seat to get one
How does this thing move the operator's mass? (Score:3, Interesting)
The batteries are for balancing -- five cents of electricity per day. Where does this beast get the energy to move a few hundred pounds at speeds up to 12 MPH and sustain it "all day"?
Can the technology scale? Why not build a roofed two-wheel rickshaw for two riders? Imagine commuting at 30 MPH through a city on a few small rechargable batteries. Make it bigger, give it a fluid reservoir for load balancing, and have a two-wheeled four seated family sedan that cruises the highways safely for pennies per lengthy trip.
I dunno, I will wait until the real world product is in the hands of some real world reviewers before I believe it to be the best thing since sliced bread. Right now I come down on the skeptical side of opinion.
THE BRAKES! THE BRAKES! (Score:3, Funny)
Copenhagen airport has push scooters, you see people whizzing up and down the the airport. Very weird.
[1] Grannies are 50 points you know.
Its been done before - and failed before. (Score:4, Insightful)
You may or may not be aware that this 'personal electric vehicle' idea has been carried out before. It caused the loss of a great computer company in the UK (Sinclair , remember them, the Spectrum, QL etc). This was back in 1985
Sir Clive came up with an invention way ahead of its time, called the C5.
See here [sinclairc5.co.uk] for details and pictures!
It was an outstanding failure, mainly due to safety concerns on busy roads. It caused the downfall of Sinclair and massive personal debts to Sir Clive (brilliant man)
Prepare to be underwhelmed. Strange how these things go in cycles.
Re:Its been done before - and failed before. (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The footprint of Segway is probably less than 20% of a C5 on the road.
2. Unlike the C5, the Segway has an effective turning radius of ZERO. That makes the scooter far easier to manuever in very tight spaces.
3. The Segway--as technology improves--could be designed so the whole thing folds down to probably less space taken than most folding bicycles. That means it can be schlepped through public transit systems without the major hassles you get of trying to get a regular bicycle through public transit systems (you can't carry them on buses unless the bus has bike racks, you have prohibition of carrying bikes on subway and commuter trains at certain hours and stations, etc.).
Re:Its been done before - and failed before. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that I've seen some footage of the device in action I can say that it looks very promising. It's going to struggle because of the way the car has affected the lay of the land, but there will be many people just the right distance from work (or whatever) that could use this. The main advantage: no effort means you can wear a suit. A bike is great, if you don't mind showering and getting changed once you're at work.
Finally, those worried about the cost -- try doing some figures on how much your car costs you to run -- it'll probably pay for itself in 2 years. And for those worried about putting it somewhere -- how much does your car cost you to park all day? Sure, we'd need some locker-like infrastructure, but propertly prices are such that car bays are just becoming too expensive for what they are.
They just demoed it on ABC / Good Morning America (Score:5, Informative)
It's fucking cool, OK?
So, all you naysayers out there asking questions like "how does this replace a bicycle?" or "how does it corner?" Maybe you should have waited to see!
First, these things look fucking MANUVERABLE. They turn on a dime. If you're stationary, and you turn the handlebars, you can do a stationary 360 if you want. Try THAT on a bike. While Dean Kamen was being interviewed, he was standing there idling, kind of casually rolling back and forth.
Several times, Kamen took his hands completely off the handlebars and continued along. The platform kept perfect balance and kept going straight.
Gibson picked it up faster than Sawyer, and Sawyer almost fell off hers once (she forgot what she was doing and panicked, I think, half-leaping from the platform as it rolled towards the crowd). But by the end of the first commercial break, they had both mastered it, and were zipping all around the plaza with speed and aplomb.
They put speed-limits on the newscasters' units, but Kamen's unit was fully unregulated and looked like it could really move fast. (Imagine the disaster if either of those newscasters had suffered an injury on live television on the very first demonstration!)
Some other demonstrators ran an obstacle course, including ramps, rocks, shallow steps (nothing like a staircase, but at least 2 inches high), and yes indeed, water. One of the demonstrators even did a stationary 360 while stopped on the middle of the ramp. It was freaky looking. He rotated around, became diagonal, then straightened out and the thing didn't budge.
Guys, this thing looks really cool. It is time for you to give this thing the props it deserves. If you still want to knock it, fine, but remember: the "hype" attached with this thing came from totally unrealistic expectations and wild speculation, fueled in part by Slashdot reader comments.
they have it streaming, but right nows it's chunky (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They just demoed it on ABC / Good Morning Ameri (Score:3, Interesting)
I can go 15 miles or more on my bike, try that on this.
A can zip between cars on a bike.
this thing is more dangerous in a collision. If I get hit by a car on my bike, I go on top of the car, you get hit on this and you'll go under the car.
My bike is pratical on the street, this is not(too wide) that means you'll be on the sidewalk, with pedestrians, that means a) you'll be travelling the same speed as the walker, b)bigger foor print.c)laibility when you injure some one by running over their foot.
2 inch step? haha, geet the thing to go over a standard curb, or it immediatly become more of a hassle for the user.
I can not stress this enough, crowds. it is too big for crowds.
If he made it skate board shaped, it would be far more practical.
Re:Age old technology gets a facelift.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I think it's dumb. (Score:4, Funny)
Frankly, I don't see how this is possible. As an 'IT', it is neither male nor female and is thus not capable of homosexual activity.
Re:Why waste all the time developing "gyros"... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Begging Questions and Urban Planning (Score:5, Funny)
As for weather, here in the Midwest we occasionally use outerware to mitigate the effects of the elements on our epidermis. That comes highly recommended. And your mom told me you should wear a hat, too.
I believe (but haven't seen for myself) that most businesses today are currently wired for "electricity" available at convenient locations we call "outlets". And a space the size of one car-parking spot can probably hold one or maybe up to two of the Segway behemoths.
I really get disappointed when people who are smart in one area
Re:Begging Questions and Urban Planning (Score:5, Insightful)
I too, am in Austin, so hello!
1. How many people live close enough to work that they can afford the time to communte on a device that moves at walking speed? (no one I know)
Did you read the articles? It can move up to three or four times walking speed. Otherwise it would be pointless. Plus I am currently going to UT, and live about 15 minutes away, by walking. This would be a GREAT thing for me, as it would shorten the time down to 5 minutes or less. And it would help MANY people get around in this area, as in many other college campuses or downtowns. You think this wouldn't be of use to people living in downtown high rise apartments all over the world? I'm sure some live on one side of a cities business district, but work on the other. Too far to walk, yet not far enough to warrant the price you pay for gas to drive through traffic.
2. How many people live in places where the weather is neither too warm or too cold to spend the time outside?
With the recent cold spell here in Austin, I had to still walk to class, due to the lack of parking. Same thing applies in many other places. A lot of people are not forced to walk, but do so because it is more efficient. Well, when it gets cold, they are forced to either freeze their tails off or waste gas and time by riving a few miles through traffic. With this thing shortening your time my almost a third, if not more, it would be an excellent alternative. I know I can stand riding around on something for 5 minutes in freezing weather. Just early this week I was walking for 15 minutes in 40 degree weather with a 20 mph wind! And too hot? Thats when a nice 15 mph breeze from you moving on this thing comes in handy!
3. How many businesses have the infrastructure to handle storing and charging these things?
They run on NiCD or NiMH batteries. Again, if you read at least the Times article, you would know it takes $0.05 worth of electricity to completely charge one. And storage? Did you even check out that flash graphic of it? How hard is it to store something that takes up about the same amount of floor space of a persons two feet? Yeah it takes more, but this can easily fit into the corner of a cubicle or office no problem.
4. Is it really going to share the sidewalk with pedestrians? Where are they going to go now?
Again, read the damned article. It says being bumped into by one of these is like being bumped into by a person. And since they can be slowed down, they can move with pedestrians.
5. What about security? Riding around on a $3000 device that can't move faster than walking speed is a huge crime oppurtunity.
Again, read the article. Moves faster. Of course, same thing applies, if you're out at night with one of these, and you get muggged, its your own fault. Be smart.
If his device really is good enought to get rid of cars, it won't be because he SAID so, it will be because he made something that has the same (or better) combination of convinience, speed, economy (both $$ and time), and security as the car. And, unfortunately, this cool device is not "IT".
He didn't say it would get rid of cars. He said it would eventually, if they become as popular as he says, get cities to ban cars from downtowns so these could be taken advantage of. Already many places in many cities you have to walk because cars are off limits.
This is meant to compliment the car, not replace it. Read the article before posting please.
Moderators should too, so they realize that this post is not "insightful" or whatever it was modded up for.
Blake
Re:Neat idea but.... (Score:3, Insightful)
They hope to sell them at $8000, but make no production promises -- and won't even offer it to the public for a couple years.
Re:It's a damn scooter (Score:5, Insightful)
I think whether it penetrates the consumer market and is able to compete with scooters, bicycles, and cars for short-haul trips is an unsolved question. But it clearly has a niche. It's a fraction of the weight and cost of a car, it's smaller (albeit a bit heavier) than a bike, and it's a *lot* faster than walking. Most of us can walk comfortably at 3-4 MPH. This thing goes 8-12 MPH. So it's definitely useful.
I'm a college student, and until last year I lived about a 15 minute walk away from campus. That meant I spent half an hour to an hour every day walking between class and home. This thing would have therefore saved me 10-20 minutes per day of walking time-- not a huge savings, but non-trivial. In addition, I make short trips around campus that take 5-10 minutes of walking. This thing could cut those times in half at least.
Could a bicycle do the same thing? Yes, but not nearly as well. First, bicycles are not as stable as this thing apperantly is. Secondly, if it works as described, bicycles don't deal with crowded sidewalks as well as this thing does. This is because a bicycle has to be moving to be stable. So if you have to stop to deal with traffic, you have to get off the seat and stand, which isn't very comfortable or convenient. Bicycles also don't deal well with sandy or slippery terrain, and you're farther off the ground, so falls will hurt a lot more. With this thing, at worse it starts to tip forward or backwards and you can just step off.
Also, because it's not as big or bulky as a bicycle, most people will probably be able to just bring the thing in with them when they arrive at their destinations. In my case, I work on campus, so I could just bring the thing into my office and leave it there until its needed. And it apperantly has an access key, so if you stole it you'd have to rip out the electronics and replace them in order to use it again.
The big concerns as I see them are threefold. First is the cost. This is *not* going to replace a car, so it has to be a lot cheaper than a car. I think $3000 is too high for 90% of consumers. If they can get it down to about $2000, there are going to be plenty of yuppies who will be willing to shell out for them. If they get it down to $1000, they'll be able to easily sell millions of them. I imagine that most of the cost is in the custom electronics and precision hardware-- stuff that should come down in price as it's mass-produced. Going after corporate and government markets should give them time to perfect their technique and bring costs down before invading the consumer space.
The second concern is weight. 65 lbs is more than most people can carry for any distance, and it's more than some people can even pick up at all. If I were to get one, one thing that I'd want to be able to do is take it on the bus with me, and it sounds like it's a little too heavy for that. I'd imagine that the battery and motors are most of the weight-- hopefully they can make a lightweight version soon.
The third factor that I think will impact its success is the extent to which different form factors can be made. For example, I can imagine an enclosed version for use in cold places in the winter. Or a slightly larger version with a small cargo bin for hauling stuff around. If the technology is flexible enough to accomodate these sorts of adjustments to the form factor, then I can see them making different model to meet different niches. If they made one big enough to let me carry a couple of bags of groceries on the back, that would eliminate one of the major reasons I'd need a car.
Re:It's a damn scooter (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The on-board computing power will get more powerful and get quite a bit smaller in a few years--imagine all the control electronics fitting in the space of two standard-sized deck of playing cards or less.
2. The use of improved metal alloys and/or composite materials plus better battery design could lower the weight to under 30 pounds, which will allow people to carry it around like we do now with folding bicycles.
I foresee Segway-like scooters with a top speed of 22-25 mph and a range of 35-40 miles by 2005. In that case the scooter does become a very useful urban transportation device.
Re:It's a damn scooter [No it's not] (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, the hype sucked. No, it's not Cochrane's warp drive.
But it is a new mode of transportation. It is a motorized, stand-on, auto-balancing, fly-by-wire, two-wheeled unicycle.
I use "two-wheeled unicycle", because the unicycle is the only single-axle vehicle that is familiar to everyone. (Or think of a non-bouncing pogo stick with wheels if you prefer.)
The single axle is the most significant distinguishing feature of this invention.
This is a very cool ride because it's a motorized unicycle that anyone can walk up to, stand on, and go zipping around. If it works well, that's gotta feel really amazing.
This is a very cool hack because you can't build a single axle vehicle that everyone can use without sensors, computing power, and software to do the balancing. $3,000 for this is pretty fscking cool. $200 in 7 years will be really significant.
This is also a novel UI. This is the first throttle/brake on a motorized vehicle that I've heard of that is coupled to corresponding body motion rather than being hand or foot actuated. One UI thing I question is that it sounds like you twist your wrist to turn. Since you lean forward or backward to throttle or brake, why don't you turn your body to turn (pivoting your torso and the handlebars with respect to the platform)?
On a more practical note, a single-axle vehicle can have advantages in size and maneuverability, and probably efficiency, over two-axle vehicles. Standing humans, after all, are single-axle and two-wheeled (horses are two-axle and four-wheeled), so this is the vehicle configuration that most closely matches our bodies.
It hasn't been practical before, because it requires cheap and reliable "AB" (Artificial Balance :-), which Kamen's team seems to have built. Once the required AB software and hardware are cheap and small (fist-sized and $5), this will be the most cost-effective single person vehicle.
It's not nearly as significant as the automobile or the bicycle/moped/motorcycle, but mankind's first practical single-axle vehicle is sure not a fscking scooter!
=LavaTrollUm... it sounds like the decoder glitched
Re:Available on Amazon ...... sort of......... (Score:3, Funny)
Customers who shopped for this item also shopped for these items:
* Playboy (1994) VHS ~ Ginger Lynn Allen
* Girls Gone Crazy DVD
* Invincible, Michael Jackson
* Corporate Cults by Dave Arnott