i180 to e167 Conversion

[hsvendsen]

Originally Posted by KSagal

JohnG's perspective is his own. He worked at Segway for some time. And the mechanics of his last post are not dis-similar to mine.

There are a few differences regarding perspectives. The E program was laid out and used in the early Post Office trials. There were some problems of acceptance that were blamed on, rightly or wrongly, on the e-parking portion...

Also, as any corporate or employer purchased item, designed to get more production from an employee, that employee/glider is going to have a different mindset than an enthusiast plunking down their own money on a product. I was told, and believed, that injuries and complaints that came from this program was a far higher percentage than from the rest of the segway population in general.

Lastly, in 2006, there was a recall of all segways. The i2 was just out, and there were i series machines, e series machines, and p series machines. The i2s were upgraded with new software that did not change their operation, but did resolve the potential problem that initiated the recall. Same with gen 1 i versions, and p versions. But while I did have my e software upgraded, and retained my e parking features, (so the software did exist) the vast majority of e series machines were converted to i series machines.

There was a bit of pushback from current e series owners, who did not want to loose their e parking feature to have this recall/upgrade, and the company policy was to take in an e, and return that machine as an i.

This indicates to me, (as well as having been told this by persons in the decision process) that the decision to remove e and add i came from management, not engineering. And it was not from training nor sales, but from management just the same. The software was done at that time for e to continue, but the company chose another path.

This does not entirely contradict JohnG's point. In fact, it closely parallels it, but there is a different perspective, on a pretty similar path...

So, back to the original comment, No, the lean steer feature had nothing to do with the loss of e parking. That decision was made before the lean steer was introduced. (but not before the lean steer was engineered)

The reason I mentioned the possible problem with self balancing on the gen 2 Segways is that, in my experience, when the i2/X2 is stopped on a side slope, and you let go of the control column, it will start spinning by itself because gravity pulls on the control column. This would obviously not work too well when the driver stepped off the Segway.

I have owned three e167s, two i167s, two i180s, and one X2. I do not understand JohnG's comment about the extra training required with the e167. The only operating difference I have noticed is that the e167 need to lean backwards a bit more on startup, and you have to hold on to it for a second or two when stepping off before the self balancing kicks in.

I was not aware of the poor (relative) safety record of the e167. If that is true, it explains the discontinuance of the E Stand. Thank you for the info.

[KSagal]

Hans,

In my opinion, the e did not have a safety record issue, but simply the application...

If more Porsche owners get more speeding tickets than Ford owners, per capita, it does not mean that Porsches have a speed problem.

It might mean however, that a company that buys a fleet of cars for their employees will think the Ford is a better fit.

Sales from Segway's perspective might be the same, regardless as to how anyone says it, and as you have said, gliding on an E is not harder than an I, just a bit different at times.

So, if you phrase it as a training requirement as John did, or as an employee issue of not using it right as I did, (and therefore more complaints) or as a use is a bit different as you phrased it, the result is about the same. Less sales, or more conflict for the company, and not enough sales to justify the extra effort from the company.

The e stand it gone not because of the difficulty in making it work technically, but because of the difficulty it making it work financially and otherwise. That is all I was trying to express.

And for the record, newer i2s have the steering dampened already on first mount. For e parking, the steering can be dampened even more, or eliminated. And if you check out my pictures on the galleries above (in the blue margin) you will see I often flew a flag on my e. That, with the wind, would often have my e, on e balance parking, walk a bit here and there while parked. A segway that moves a bit while on e stand is nothing new...

Have fun. Glide more. Smile...

[Gihgehls]

If anyone is interested, here is a video of Steve, bystander, and myself replicating the bug which triggered the recall\software version that removed e-stand. The upgrade to lithiums isn't the one that wiped the feature.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Gihgehls

If anyone is interested, here is a video of Steve, bystander, and myself replicating the bug which triggered the recall\software version that removed e-stand. The upgrade to lithiums isn't the one that wiped the feature.

good video.

That is the cause of the recall. It is not the cause of the removal of the e-stand. That was a decision that occurred before this time. And at this time, I had my e, and it was upgraded to the new software, and it retained it's e parking feature.

The two are not the same thing.

[Gihgehls]

Never said they were. Shall we discuss other things that aren't the same? A horse isn't the same as a zebra.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Gihgehls

If anyone is interested, here is a video of Steve, bystander, and myself replicating the bug which triggered the recall\software version that removed e-stand. ...

Originally Posted by Gihgehls

Never said they were. Shall we discuss other things that aren't the same? A horse isn't the same as a zebra.

in the first quote, you said that the bug triggered the recall that removed the e-stand.

I said the recall and the removal of e-stand were not the same event.

in the second quote, you said you did not say that they were.

Clearly you did say that the recall software fix is what removed the e-stand, but it was not. So...

I had my e-stand after the recall software was installed. Many e machines that arrived for repair before and after the recall had the e-stand software removed.

What is it that we are not clear about?

[dale@thecoys.net]

Originally Posted by Gihgehls

.... bug which triggered the recall\software version that removed e-stand.

Karl, I can interpret that statement two different ways - it's ambiguous.

A. The bug triggered the recall. The recall normally installed a software version that fixed the bug, but also removed e-stand.

B. How you are reading it.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by dale@thecoys.net

Karl, I can interpret that statement two different ways - it's ambiguous.

A. The bug triggered the recall. The recall normally installed a software version that fixed the bug, but also removed e-stand.

B. How you are reading it.

As I recall, there is no particular software that removes the e-stand. When e units came in for repair, they went out with i software. This started long before the recall. I believe there was a cashe of post office machines that were found, and the factory refurbished them, or something of that sort, but over wrote the e software with i software before they were sold. That happened long before the recall. Also, I believe there were threads on this site, decrying the fact that the factory was overwriting the e software with i software.

At the time of the recall, unless you were forceful, the factory took it upon themselves to over right the e software with i software as well, as it had already established was factory policy. However, if you were adamant that you wanted your e software to remain, then they did the recall, upgraded the software, and you could retain your e.

So, they made upgraded i software that complied with the recall, and they made upgraded e software that complied with the recall.

Regardless of how you want to read or interpret any statements about it, the factory policy to overwrite i software on all e machines it could do it to predated, and was a totally separate and distinct issue that was not related to the recall at all. The only thing they have in relation to each other is that it allowed the factory to overwrite some e machines with i software that it would not have likely had the opportunity to do, as they were not broken or coming into the factory for repair.

[dale@thecoys.net]

Yes, I already understood that.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by dale@thecoys.net

Karl, I can interpret that statement two different ways - it's ambiguous.

A. The bug triggered the recall. The recall normally installed a software version that fixed the bug, but also removed e-stand.

B. How you are reading it.

Regarding 'A' above. There is no single software version that fixed the bug, and also removed the e-stand. That is two different things.

A person may walk to work. A person may carry their lunch. If a person walks to work and carries their lunch on the same day, it is still two different things. One cannot say that because he walked to work, he has carried his lunch.

If the factory overwrites the e software with i software, the e-stand will be gone.

If the factory overwrites the old software with new software that complies with the recall, then they have updated that software.

Anyway you slice this, it is still two separate issues. It is still two different objectives and directives from the factory, for two different reasons.