[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Gihgehls

Karl, I didn't think the "build light, fix broken stuff" method implied that it would be tested on consumers. I took it to mean "build light and test, then make it so things don't break, then sell it." It would be obtuse (I'm being kind) to assume it means to make a piece of crap product then give it to the market...

With a minimum payload of 100 lb and a maximum of 260, you are definitely near the max safe working load of the machine. However, Segway states that the platform is built to take several tons of stress. Perhaps it is a bit overbuilt?

I'm not really sure about your theories of the center of mass being higher causing the segway to require more torque. The segway is an inverted pendulum, and the lower the mass is (that is, the closer the mass is to the platform) the more it has to work to move. If I wore 80lb boots the segway would be working harder than if I work an 80lb helmet. I'm a bit fuzzy on the math, so I'm willing to be wrong here.

I agree that the segway is indeed overbuilt, but for a purpose. And I don't think that the cost in weight is anything that will be substantially be recovered with lighter weight and power in the base, as I said, the machine being the much smaller part of the mass that is being moved is the key here…

My initial response to your 80 pound boots vs helmet argument was to agree with your premise, but upon consideration, I am not so sure… Perhaps I miss used my terms when calling the power outlay torque, as many other factors are involved…

I believe that the effort for a given platform to move a fixed weight, lets call it 80 pounds is a finite number. 80 pounds moved 3 feet takes a fixed amount of energy…

But, the reality of moving a dense and low to the platform (like boots) does ultimately require different power than 80 pounds high and on an arm farther away from the work… There are momentum arms, and weights in balance and other forces at work that need to be dealt with because of the inverted pendulum, that do not exist or are reduced with a shorter pendulum.

The more I consider this, the more I go back and forth… I just don’t know. I hope, as you do, that someone comes up with the math… This much I do know, the inverted pendulum gets far more complex than the simple low dense weight…

But my primary thought of the ratio of machine to payload was not addressed… The machine is already only a 30% or less in total weight of machine and payload, as opposed to a car, where it is more like 90%.

Lastly, you telling me that my curb weight and the fashion accessories I carry are close to pushing the max weight tells you that your presumptions for designing a consumer device are way too light… A machine that stress fractures itself at 25%(?), 50%(?), 100% (?) 200% (?) above stated maximums may seem well and good for you, but are not realistic in the world of consumer goods…

The stress in a fall, or accident on the frame of the segway, or on the wheels is exponentially higher than any number based on static weight alone, so the light and used as directed with will work in a controlled environment like professional drivers in closed courses is very different than something sold to the public at large…

Tolerably weak because it saves a couple ounces of aluminum and pennies may be okay in some environments, but will turn out to not be acceptable to the buying public, nor their attorneys… In my opinion, of course…