[KSagal]

My understanding of redundancy is different than yours. I will defer to your definition within your post and say that I believe there is a possibility that the level of redundancy is stronger than you have defined.

Of course, it may just be that I am using that term for a different function or capacity... I have used the wrong term often, and my communicatory skills are not great...

I believe that it is possible that the primary circuitry can fail or stall for very brief periods of time, and under many circumstances, this would mean very little... We have all had computer processors get stuck in a loop, or have a need to over sample something several times before they work... Most often this does not require any interaction on our parts, as the computer or computer device starts to function again as we expected within moments, often before we could have started corrective action anyway...

Surely, there are many things going on at the same time (or nearly so) in any complex system, so to call every momentary delay in our expected observation of actions to be a fault is not appropriate, as many are reasonably within operating standards. A hard drive that does not find a file on the first pass is not necessarily broken, and if the second pass or search finds the data, we all go merrily along...

But if a momentary blip were to happen with our segways, while gliding, and hitting the far side of a pot hole after just having a momentary bit of air time, then we are in for a real problem... I believe there is a possibility that the redundant nature of their electronics reduces this capacity for a problem, as each segway is essentially two machines at the same time. Each control board can control each motor, because each motor has a dual set of windings.

Circuit wise, this means two processors, 4 motors, and an online duality that would not exist without redundancy...

With all that said, if one of those systems fails, and does not come on line within its specified operating allowances, you will get a shutdown, but if you did not have redundancy, and the one and only system shut down for 80% of the allowable time for it to be off line, or hung up for 80% of the time it takes before you be notified of a fault, or even if it hangs up for 100% of the time it takes to self diagnose a failure, but the system is sufficiently out to no longer be able to communicate the failure to you, I believe it is possible to experience a face plant...

All too often, when a something that works fast does not work, the results of that missing operation occur at the same time or even before the fault indicators can alarm...

I am happy when a person tells me that their redundant systems have never engaged, but I still remain skeptical if you would know this or not... I guess I will have to respectfully disagree.

I also will say, that my machines have never indicated to me, via code or action, that one of my primary systems has failed and I was depending on an alternate system.