Mess with the Seg
And you'll get the... horns?
Just when you thought that the Segway "self-balancing personal transportation device" concept had finally had a stake driven firmly through its überdorky heart, it's baaaack. But now you have a place to sit, and not be forced to stand up as must a Segway-mounted policeman, paramedic, or polo player. Taurus concept vehicle …
Human-power transit burns (a few) calories, and food calories are also not free. Best case is eating plants, but the effective mpg is still somewhere between 300 and 1000 miles per "gallon". Worst case (using steak for fuel) is about as bad as an SUV, or so I understand.
Electric-powered gadgets can do pretty well, if supplied with green-sourced electricity.
Any sources for your understanding? A few rough calculations with the Harris-Benedict equation gives me over 400"mpg" for waling assuming a Basal Metabolic Rate of 2200kcal/day and fuel containing 31,548 kcal/gallon. It gets even better if you calculate the mpg based on the increase in metabolic rate due to exercise - after all, you don't kill the human when you replace the walker with a segway or car.
Of course, other factors some into play - how fast do you want to get there? what are the greenhouse gas emissions from the "fuel" production? (that's where using steak for fuel looks bad - months of cows farting to produce your meal) and so on...
Icon - environmentally-friendly SUV driver.
Depends what your source of energy is: coal and nuclear stations can't ramp-up and ramp-down overnight when there is less demand (if they heat up or cool down too fast pipes will buckle and bend) so overnight when there is much less demand, they are still spinning away at full power. Use some of this unused power to charge your electric car/bike and I think you can safely say you're zero emissions.
That'd be BRAKING.
Breaking is what you do when you fail to brake!
And stability is easier with wheels side by side - a bike is naturally unstable - in motion you can make continuous corrections which keep you upright, but if you watch carefully you'll never go in a straight line (the back wheel never rolls along the front wheel track).
At least this has instability in the direction it can control (forwards & backwards)
Not quite. In-line wheels offers gyroscopic vertical stability and, as suggested by a different poster, a stable center of gravity that aids in absorbing forward momentum during brea^H^H^H^Hbraking.
I suspect that the amount of force required to maintain a vertical attitude while braking on the Taurus is going to be substantial, unless it has a trivial maximum speed like the Segway. And then, you must trust absolutely that the computer will compensate accurately during such event.
In the Segway at least you are standing up, giving you a chance to position yourself for a fall, were the device to fail to respond appropriately--good luck hitting the pavement with anything but your face if ever your Taurus fails similarly!
"and everyone can do it."
You sure about that?
The Segway looks fun 'n all and the self-balancing tech is definitely cool. I can (maybe) see a use in warehouse etc, if it is more efficient than a buggy...but everywhere else? Don't see it. For those who can walk...get a good pair of shoes/boots and walk!
What is this Segbike like under hard braking? Think I stick to wheels front 'n rear ta muchly. Might interest the NABD though!
If you mean this thing, I don't see much need for protective clothing given its maximum speed, almost matching that of the lowest class of mopeds here (which don't require a helmet).
If you mean dressing up for a motorbike ride, that time is more than compensated for by the time gained over your caged lemming cow-orkers, who feel the need to use motorways as parking places.
"everyone can do it?" Oh rly? What about those of us who have a disability and can't, or find it very difficult? Are we not part of 'everyone' - or do you exclude us from the human race? In the same way that certain people (Jews, handicapped people, Gipsys to name a few) were classed as not people by a famous regime in the 1930s and 1940s.
Golly. Think you may have over-reacted there a little? Okay, the previous poster made a bit of a rash generalisation. Insensitive, perhaps. By all means join the swelling ranks of people telling him off for that. But comparing the situation to the extermination of millions of innocent people in the early 20th century is (a) a bit silly and (b) a LOT insulting to the innocent people who were exterminated in the early 20th century.
Unless there was an extermination subtext in the original post that I missed, in which case fair do's. Flame on.
(or were you joking? If you were, then kudos to you. You came across as so sincere in your outrage, and you sure fooled me...)
You might be amazed how many (millions) of people out here just don't have shank's pony available as a means of transport. A mile to the shops means a car - assuming white van man isn't in the disabled parking space when we get there. Yes there are electric buggies, but they don't suit everyone, don't suit every kind of journey, and they're not that cheap either.
I don't see this particular device as any answer for those with mobility problems, but at least such developments are an encouraging vision of a possibility of 'real' transport that doesn't involve a car for short journeys. But every time a promising light vehicle appears, it's either ludicrously expensive, hugely impractical or it's a concept vehicle that never appears in production.
But we all live in hope...
> Interestingly, although the Taurus - and, for that matter, its ancestral Segway - are being touted as zero-emissions vehicles, no electrically motivated people-mover will ever be truly "zero-emissions" until power plants stop burning coal, oil, or natural gas.
Not at all a biased point of view then? Does this 'vehicle', or more to the point, any electric vehicle have any emissions? No, they do not. I don't know how else you'd describe 'Zero-emissions', as by your definition nothing can possibly be, as everything will have a emission cost when it comes to manufacture.
When it comes to electric vehicles, what is wrong with moving the power generation away from the populace and in a way which can use a multitude of sources? Plug your car in over night and make use of cheep electricity. It also means our streets are less polluted with fumes and noise. Might not be best suited for everyone, but for a good percentage it would!
"When it comes to electric vehicles, what is wrong with moving the power generation away from the populace and in a way which can use a multitude of sources?"
I'm sorry to see that NIMBYism is still alive and well. So you think pollution is fine as long as you don't see or smell it? No wonder you're anonymous, you selfish bastard.
> I'm sorry to see that NIMBYism is still alive and well. So you think pollution is fine as long as you don't see or smell it? No wonder you're anonymous, you selfish bastard.
So you're saying you like all the traffic pollution then? So you'd rather the fumes and noise than using a gas\nuclear\random 'renewable' power station? Hell how much would extra would our coal stations have to work for an overnight charge of EV vehicles?
Personally I'd like to see more 'local' generation, like the Danes, so NIMBYism this isn't. Its all about having a nicer place to live.
As for a significant percentage, how many people just drive to their office and back every day? Or to school, the shops and back. I'd wager a great deal that the majority of people in the UK do not drive more than 50miles per day, so apart from cost or purchase, why not have a 'leaf' or whatever as 1 car in your 2 car garage?? (Just because YOU drive more, doesn't mean the majority do not!!)
can have their waste heat harnessed and used, significantly improving their efficiency, something you'll find spectacularly difficult with a moving vehicle. Even capturing the CO2 itself is being considered, with pilot tests being run. And I'd rather have a a single power plant being maintained by its team of engineers and technicians (and you can build it right in my neighbourhood, if you feel the need), instead of the multitude of cars it's equivalent to, being kept at whatever maintenance level their owners feel necessary.
I have done 175,000 miles on a motorcycle, and plenty on bicycles. I am having to re-do my license here in Germany, and in the courses that I am forced to endure they pointed this tidbit out. I honestly never even thought about it. The handlebars are just something I hold onto for stability, and don't exert any directional pressure except at very low speeds. Now unfortunately on my cycle rides, I am paying attention trying to notice it, but cannot. Just seems to me like something I did not ever need to know.
The wheels move out from underneath the center of gravity, making the bike want to fall inward into the curve. So you DO steer a bike by leaning, it's just that you usually don't initiate it by flopping your arse around.
Pay attention to what happens, especially on a motorbike.
You don't steer a motorcycle by leaning off it. A motorcycle is steered by rider pressure on the handlebars (known as countering steering) causes the bike to lean due to the precessional forces at work on the front wheel.
After the Segway it was only a matter of time before some genius decided that even standing up was too much effort. Good name though. Taurus, bull...apt.
"You can steer the vehicle by leaning much as you do when steering a motorcycle"
Did they mean *YOU* leaning off the motorbike, or leaning the motorbike? Because the latter is definitely how you tend to go around corners at speed (except offroad or with a sidecar rig).
"You don't steer a motorcycle by leaning off it"
...except you do, most of the time. The centre of gravity of the rider's body is what controls the bike. That, and the tyre profile. Counter steering is an optional, supplemental technique that exagerates the shift in COG by forcing the tyre profile into a sharper lean. So there. :p
The Ford Taurus. Bloated, slow, badly-engineered, too heavy for its underperforming engine, ineffective brakes caused by crap suspension design, and needed refuelling every hour. Oh, and designed for Yanks.
So pretty much what we've got here, except for the top speed and the number of passengers.
At 15mph, every pot hole you hit will tip you sideways, unless you are lucky enough to live where roads are flat, or pot holes are wide with nicely ramped sides.
On a push bike, you need just a inch of flat to work with and on a motorbike, two/three inches will do. On both these, you do have to take into account where the rear wheel will go, but that's pretty easy to get spot-on or at least close enough and anyway, dropping the rear wheel in a hole is not the end on the world on inline wheels.
However, with this beast...how'd you like to be tipped sideways, into the path of that vehicle that just couldn't find the room to give you some fall over space?
if you look theres a couple of pistons and a front leg, after maximun power is absorbed though braking the central column starts to lean forward the seat stays horozontal sending momentum though the pistons the the leg on the floor.
I guess it doesnt reach a speed where max braking would result in either the pistons collepsing fully(knee grinding fun)
As long as they make it really f-ing expensive all of the pretentious people with no personalities will buy one. Even more will long for it if they somehow work the price into the name of it. LOOK HOW MUCH I PAID FOR THIS BROKEN TRICYCLE!!! Doesn't it make me cool????
Then they can fashion some smug group around the "trike$20k" where they can all get together and congratulate each other on how cool they may be.
If you've seen the stability equations for suspension-equipped motorcycles alone, you would be stunned. The thing has derivative equations on 4th degree to determine its stabilty (in short, it is a scary math even to describe it), including suspension's lunge forward effects when you brake and so forth. It is so bad, that no self-driven motorcycle exists, because the computing power required to solve it in real-time can´t be carried in it (yet). But, every human that ever learned how to ride a bike can solve these equations with their hips, hands, knees, and back, quite literally. No, really, people design different motorcycles for racing every year, because no one ever found the perfect and ultimate solution for those. Ducati and Honda every now and then (and some independent racers/builders too) have a glimpse of the solution, but no.
Now take off one wheel and redo all the equations. It is bound to cause severe injury to the untrained ass (pun intended) that tries to ride it. I bet you can´t park that thing in San Francisco and turn the gyros off., without laying it flat on the ground.
Even a regular bike would have a hard time parking on a street like those found in SF, I guess.
Feel free to correct me if the equations part is wrong, for my memory is loose and lost the front wheel (exactly what this thing looks like near a real bike).
FFS, What's wrong with the god damn pushbike? If I wanted an electric way to travel around I would buy a YIKEBIKE (http://www.yikebike.com/), not this pile of crap. At least the Yike looks a bit like a bike.
But since I can't justify spending $5K on an electric bicycle, I'll pedal away on my $300 Kmart special :)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022