New 3 Wheeler Model - more details - Page 2

JohnM · 06-03-2013, 03:31 AM

Where's the catastrophe?

Segway Inc is expanding it's offerings to the security market by offering a new product based on a design that has proven market appeal. It isn't a replacement for the PT. Or police cruiser, horse, bike or foot patrol. Its just another offering from the self-proclaimed "leader in personal, green transportation". Maybe by expanding their offerings they may someday actually earn that title.

There seems to be some confusion here between Segway Inc and the Segway PT. The PT is not Segway Inc. Inc offers a line of RMPs that includes 2, 4 and 4 wheeled models. Is that a catastrophe? No, its offering customers a choice and expanding their market. Selling people what they want is not a catastrophe. Its the way to grow a business.

And regarding the Edsel analogy: Sales of the Ford Edsel and the Segway PT were disappointing because neither company ever test marketed their products with real potential buyers. The result was the wrong products at the wrong time. Building a better mousetrap will only result in a path beaten to your door if your customers have mice. And don't already own a cat.

gbrandwood · 06-03-2013, 07:05 AM

If the 3-wheeler is profitable for INC and it helps to sustain or even grow their business - I'm glad of that.

We've not seen it yet of course, and whose to say there isn't a lot of innovation in there - but I'm with everyone else who sees a T3 model as a disappointment - it almost seems like a step backwards.

But if it sells and funds more R&D for an i3 or i4, then lets be having it!

And to be honest - this sketch might be way off. They obviously left it in on purpose - perhaps its to throw us (or their competitors) off the scent?

Either way, we won't have to wait too long to see it.

rickb · 06-03-2013, 01:48 PM

JohnM is spot on. Inc. already offers RMPs and is simply developing a new Thee Wheeler Patoller product for an expanding Security Market. One of the advantages listed is that it will go thru doorways which means it's on a more narrow platform than the T-3.......unless they mean garage doors.

Although, it seems they should have specs, photos, and video of the concept by now since they plan to make this new three wheeler available 4th Quarter.

Isidore · 06-04-2013, 11:19 AM

While there is merit in the 'why not' argument, there is the issue of image and message. What if Tesla started making a coal burning steam car? Would that be good for their image? Maybe the analogy is a little extreme but you can see the point. (Actually, thinking about it, given how much electricity is produced by burning coal, the Tesla really is coal fired, as is the Segway!).

JohnM · 06-05-2013, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isidore

While there is merit in the 'why not' argument, there is the issue of image and message. What if Tesla started making a coal burning steam car? Would that be good for their image? Maybe the analogy is a little extreme but you can see the point. (Actually, thinking about it, given how much electricity is produced by burning coal, the Tesla really is coal fired, as is the Segway!).

And the "image and message" of Segway Inc, "leader in personal, green transportation"

, has served them well and made them tons of money? No.

Or is it the image of the current owners of PTs that is the point?

KSagal · 06-05-2013, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnM

And the "image and message" of Segway Inc, "leader in personal, green transportation"

, has served them well and made them tons of money? No.

Or is it the image of the current owners of PTs that is the point?

You have been very clear as to your image of the current owners of PTs over the years.

Perhaps that puts you in a clearly different position than most on this enthusiast's board, than those of us owners.

When a person speaks of an "image" of a company that makes a product, who's image is it really? Is it the image of the person who makes and sells the thing, or the person who buys is?

I would offer that there is no real difference. I would offer that the 'image' of any company MUST include the owners of the product.

Does the Mercedes company have its image because of the cars, the technology, or the owners and their expectations? I would say all three.

What about Bentley? How about Hundae? Aren't all these companies the holder of an image that has a great deal to do with their market share, and the expectations from it?

Some companies make mistakes. Some companies do go to places that their market and customers do not like, and it diminishes the company. I am sure that some of us can think of companies that made a product that we liked and thought had good value, and dependability. Then, over the years, the product was seen to be less dependable, and their image was tarnished. Some companies do not recover from this.

No, Segway did not make tons of money with its current image. It did however stay in business. How many other companies did not in the past 10 years? Are some of these other alternatives to conventional conveyances still around? I believe that a loyal market base of owners can decide a product no longer represents what they want as an image, and it can cause a barely getting along business to cease to be a business at all.

Of course, it may also bring in new markets and new customers as well. This is what the managers of Segway have to decide. And if we go along for the ride, is something we have to decide.

SegwayDan · 06-05-2013, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSagal

You have been very clear as to your image of the current owners of PTs over the years.

Perhaps that puts you in a clearly different position than most on this enthusiast's board, than those of us owners.

When a person speaks of an "image" of a company that makes a product, who's image is it really? Is it the image of the person who makes and sells the thing, or the person who buys is?

I would offer that there is no real difference. I would offer that the 'image' of any company MUST include the owners of the product.

Does the Mercedes company have its image because of the cars, the technology, or the owners and their expectations? I would say all three.

What about Bentley? How about Hundae? Aren't all these companies the holder of an image that has a great deal to do with their market share, and the expectations from it?

Some companies make mistakes. Some companies do go to places that their market and customers do not like, and it diminishes the company. I am sure that some of us can think of companies that made a product that we liked and thought had good value, and dependability. Then, over the years, the product was seen to be less dependable, and their image was tarnished. Some companies do not recover from this.

No, Segway did not make tons of money with its current image. It did however stay in business. How many other companies did not in the past 10 years? Are some of these other alternatives to conventional conveyances still around? I believe that a loyal market base of owners can decide a product no longer represents what they want as an image, and it can cause a barely getting along business to cease to be a business at all.

Of course, it may also bring in new markets and new customers as well. This is what the managers of Segway have to decide. And if we go along for the ride, is something we have to decide.

I'm with you, Karl, as usual.

To me, the spirit of Segway is "the glide." Whenever I'm gliding, I'm enjoying the freedom, exhilaration, and the dynamics of gliding. It requires skill and due diligence in observing the limitations of the machine and in observing common sense safety precautions.

A 3-wheel device would be TOTALLY different in its rider experience.

I can't help but think that it was born of the new management's caprice and avarice with a distinct disregard for the unique spirit of the Segway PT.

I don't want to be too hasty, though, in passing judgement on the new product. I hope that it somehow incorporates some characteristic Segway "magic" in some form or fashion.

JohnM · 06-05-2013, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SegwayDan

I can't help but think that it was born of the new management's caprice and avarice with a distinct disregard for the unique spirit of the Segway PT.

Total agreement.
And not a moment too soon.

Five-Flags · 06-10-2013, 01:42 AM

I guess that we all will have some strong opinions on this new "maverick", but it seems that they're marketing it to "Security" applications, not for common conveyance.

That is really a hard limit, as most (I believe) of the EPAMD laws that Inc. was very successful in implementing in many states, have the "two non-tandem wheels" statement as part of the law's definition.

This will preclude the use of this thing in any venue protected by those statutes. Amending them would be foolish, as opening the doors for our "trusted and reliable" legislators {/sarcasm} to meddle with what is (for most states) a "good thing" would be reckless

(IMNSHO).

As usual, we shall see....

Pablos64 · 08-20-2013, 05:46 PM

Did anyone else get the email about the three wheel model?

It looks just like the t3

06-03-2013, 03:31 AM	#11
JohnM Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: ManchVegas, NH Posts: 2,148	Where's the catastrophe? Segway Inc is expanding it's offerings to the security market by offering a new product based on a design that has proven market appeal. It isn't a replacement for the PT. Or police cruiser, horse, bike or foot patrol. Its just another offering from the self-proclaimed "leader in personal, green transportation". Maybe by expanding their offerings they may someday actually earn that title. There seems to be some confusion here between Segway Inc and the Segway PT. The PT is not Segway Inc. Inc offers a line of RMPs that includes 2, 4 and 4 wheeled models. Is that a catastrophe? No, its offering customers a choice and expanding their market. Selling people what they want is not a catastrophe. Its the way to grow a business. And regarding the Edsel analogy: Sales of the Ford Edsel and the Segway PT were disappointing because neither company ever test marketed their products with real potential buyers. The result was the wrong products at the wrong time. Building a better mousetrap will only result in a path beaten to your door if your customers have mice. And don't already own a cat. __________________ JohnM Anything worth doing for 2 hours is 10 times more worthwhile if done for 20 hours. RUSA #235 UMCA #3877 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

06-03-2013, 07:05 AM	#12
gbrandwood Advanced Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: North west England, UK. Posts: 3,043	If the 3-wheeler is profitable for INC and it helps to sustain or even grow their business - I'm glad of that. We've not seen it yet of course, and whose to say there isn't a lot of innovation in there - but I'm with everyone else who sees a T3 model as a disappointment - it almost seems like a step backwards. But if it sells and funds more R&D for an i3 or i4, then lets be having it! And to be honest - this sketch might be way off. They obviously left it in on purpose - perhaps its to throw us (or their competitors) off the scent? Either way, we won't have to wait too long to see it. __________________ Gareth Brandwood The comments posted are made by the fat figners of the individual and do not necessarily represent the views of the brain.

06-04-2013, 11:19 AM	#14
Isidore Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: London, United Kingdom. Posts: 931	While there is merit in the 'why not' argument, there is the issue of image and message. What if Tesla started making a coal burning steam car? Would that be good for their image? Maybe the analogy is a little extreme but you can see the point. (Actually, thinking about it, given how much electricity is produced by burning coal, the Tesla really is coal fired, as is the Segway!). __________________ Regards Isidore

06-10-2013, 01:42 AM	#19
Five-Flags Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Pensacola, FL Posts: 655	What occurs to me... I guess that we all will have some strong opinions on this new "maverick", but it seems that they're marketing it to "Security" applications, not for common conveyance. That is really a hard limit, as most (I believe) of the EPAMD laws that Inc. was very successful in implementing in many states, have the "two non-tandem wheels" statement as part of the law's definition. This will preclude the use of this thing in any venue protected by those statutes. Amending them would be foolish, as opening the doors for our "trusted and reliable" legislators {/sarcasm} to meddle with what is (for most states) a "good thing" would be reckless (IMNSHO). As usual, we shall see.... __________________ Longfellow said that in this world a man must be either anvil or hammer. But some are neither, they are merely bellows.

08-20-2013, 05:46 PM	#20
Pablos64 New Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Florida Posts: 9	Three wheel model Did anyone else get the email about the three wheel model? It looks just like the t3

06-03-2013, 01:48 PM	#13
rickb Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: South Dakota Posts: 327	JohnM is spot on. Inc. already offers RMPs and is simply developing a new Thee Wheeler Patoller product for an expanding Security Market. One of the advantages listed is that it will go thru doorways which means it's on a more narrow platform than the T-3.......unless they mean garage doors. Although, it seems they should have specs, photos, and video of the concept by now since they plan to make this new three wheeler available 4th Quarter.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)