Keeps leaning back on me!

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I am not going to get into another situation where I say something and you dismantle it...

I said that in a hard turn, if you lift the outside foot, the machine will stop turning.

You said that in a hard turn, if you lift the outside foot, the machine will stop turning...

You have your reasons for this, and I have mine. I did not write the software, and neither did you.

My thinking is that if you have all your weight on the inside foot, and you do not have weight on the outside foot, you leave the machine with the opportunity for a traction loss on the outside tire. We all know this is a serious problem on a seg, when one wheel looses traction.

I think of segging kind of like skiing in its motions... On a hard slolom, in a turn, you have more weight on the outside leg, and more so lift the inside leg, during that turn... I do something similar on the seg. I have my outside leg pretty straight, and the inside leg pretty bent, with less weight on the inside leg, as the momentum is driving straight down my body thru my straight leg, onto the segway platform.

If you feel there is another reason why they wrote the software the way they did, that is fine. (and you may even be right, it is just not the way the engineers that I spoke to explained it to me)

So, that is why I wrote what I wrote...

I find the whole idea of having all your weight on the inside foot weirdly implausible. But I've never been able to fully work out why. Until now, that is.

It's actually concerned me somewhat, because on a hard turn, the weight is being directed awfully far to the outside. I worry about a possible loss of traction on the inside tire. I haven't seen a sign of it yet, though.

Of course, I'm not one to get really nuts, but I don't exactly waste time, either.

But putting much weight on the inside leg seems like an implausible action.

Yet skating, I could quite comfortably be on either foot.

I think we do it the way we do it because we have to, somehow. If I look at the torques, the only thing I can think of is the need to counter the leansteer. I perhaps think we shift weight to the outside to pull the leansteer over into the turn.

Now, in theory, if we were to let our body move beyond the leansteer toward the inside, we could balance a bit beyond our inside foot, to counter the leansteer.

But to do that, and keep the other foot on the mat, we'd have to bend our inside knee even more, AND lean inside the leansteer, and neither one is natural.

It's much simpler to just plant that outer foot, bend the inside knee, and PUSH.

In skating, when you're on your inside leg, normally your outside leg is off the ice -- typically crossing over to the inside of your inside leg for another push, in fact.

[KSagal]

But this is not skating. This is a segway with sensors in the floor. And I was simply stating the fact that that if you remove pressure from the floor sensors on the outboard side of a turn, the segway will react with reduced performance...

That's the fact, Jack!

The post you responded to was my response to a comment that what I said was exactly opposite of what happens...

Regardless of your support for the efforts that the segway engineers have programmed into the segway, that same programming requires you to maintain weight on both feet during turns...

Now, some of us can easily make turns in other situations with weight on either foot. Some of us can only make hard turns with weight on this foot or that. Neither is my point. The segway i2 will only allow turns with weight on both feet.

What I did on my first post was say that you need both feet down, and if you lift one, the seg will force you to put it back down (force you to rebalance or it will remove the option to turn) I was not clear enough.

On my next post, I reinforced the fact that the segway will not let you turn with one foot up, and then offered a way you can do this.

On this post, I attempted to put it all in perspective...

Of course, you can do anything you like. Personally, I would rather use the segway the way it was designed instead of a way that is a recipe for disaster...

I also do not think that the machine is designed to respond to your sideways shift in weight, and it will try to get back under you, in the same way that it will respond to your forward shift in weight, and it will try to get back under you. While this is how the machine takes responsibility for changing its speed, it is not how the steering works. The steering is done by operator interface alone. The interface is designed to be easy to use, but it is not automatic in the way that speed and forward and reverse movements are automatic.

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by KSagal

But this is not skating. This is a segway with sensors in the floor. And I was simply stating the fact that that if you remove pressure from the floor sensors on the outboard side of a turn, the segway will react with reduced performance...

That's the fact, Jack!

The post you responded to was my response to a comment that what I said was exactly opposite of what happens...

Regardless of your support for the efforts that the segway engineers have programmed into the segway, that same programming requires you to maintain weight on both feet during turns...

Now, some of us can easily make turns in other situations with weight on either foot. Some of us can only make hard turns with weight on this foot or that. Neither is my point. The segway i2 will only allow turns with weight on both feet.

What I did on my first post was say that you need both feet down, and if you lift one, the seg will force you to put it back down (force you to rebalance or it will remove the option to turn) I was not clear enough.

On my next post, I reinforced the fact that the segway will not let you turn with one foot up, and then offered a way you can do this.

On this post, I attempted to put it all in perspective...

Of course, you can do anything you like. Personally, I would rather use the segway the way it was designed instead of a way that is a recipe for disaster...

I also do not think that the machine is designed to respond to your sideways shift in weight, and it will try to get back under you, in the same way that it will respond to your forward shift in weight, and it will try to get back under you. While this is how the machine takes responsibility for changing its speed, it is not how the steering works. The steering is done by operator interface alone. The interface is designed to be easy to use, but it is not automatic in the way that speed and forward and reverse movements are automatic.

Hold on, you're responding to a non-existent argument. I wasn't joining into the existing debate! (This might have been more clear if I'd edited your reply down to emphasize this).

You observed that when you glide, like in skiing (it's not skiing, either!), you have most of your weight on the outside.

I've been pondering about why that is. Your comment lead me to a bit more insight on the matter; hence my response, my comparison with skating, and analysis of the forces.

I was NOT addressing what happens when you lift your foot. After 2000 miles, I honestly still have no idea! It's perhaps interesting that I've never tried even at very low speed. I don't know why -- perhaps just because I know that's not how it's supposed to be used, that there are sensors under the mats...

Your last paragraph poses a somewhat difficult dilemma. It's true, but not true, on different levels. How to be clear...

Definitely true that the mechanisms are different.

But when you shift your weight, it is still depending on a certain degree of operator input. You and the Segway still have to remain coupled, not just with your weight on the mats.

If you lean back so your weight is beyond your feet, you can still fall off. If you hang onto the handlebars, this won't happen, because the torque you apply to the Segway, it will detect and counter, keeping you from continuing to rotate off the Segway.

So that part is not entirely without operator input, around the lateral axis. It's detected via rate gyros and accelerometers, and the effect on the rotation of the entire platform, but it's definitely an operator input.

Laterally, it does have the *behavior*, that if you maintain the LSF in your personal apparent vertical, it will move to get back under you. It's saved me from quite a number of spills, actually.

Clearly, the operator has a greater role in maintaining this input. It's pretty similar, though. You can't decouple yourself from the Segway and not rotate off. This is still a rotational input from the user, this time around a longitudinal axis.

Your point, I think, boils down to, with forward/backward control, a shift of weight between heel and toe provides input; laterally, there is no corresponding response, and that weight shift has to match the input from the LSF (or from the handle).

But the behavior of the Segway in response to rotation of the LSF is to maintain a rate-of-turn that places that in the apparent vertical. And if you are operating it properly -- that means the Segway is, in fact, turning to keep it under your weight.

In both axis, the response is automatic, to my way of thinking about it, but conditional on the proper operator behavior, i.e. hanging on enough to not allow yourself to rotate off the Segway. But there's that subtle degree of difference.

To really understand what makes a Segway a Segway, you have to consider not just the Segway's motion, but the entire Segway/operator kinematic system.

My observation in my previous post centered around the fact that the spring response of the LSF is involved in the weight shift between inner and outer that we both observe. It, of course, has to be -- physics, and all that.

[Gihgehls]

I think you'd have to be very familiar with gen1 machines to understand how one might want to lift their outside foot during a turn. On gen1, there was no leansteer, there was a knob that you twist. Twisting this knob full lock does not have the same effect as suddenly moving the lsf full lock. There is a severely damped response on gen1. As a result, lots of gen1 users (realizing it or not) tended to pre-lean into their turns, then use the knob to steer the machine back underneath them. This works because the rider got used to how fast the machine would turn. I personally would actually "countersteer." That is, for a left turn, I would first turn a bit to the right (without leaning) steering the platform out from under my COM, then to the left, bringing it back underneath me.

I think a few gen1 users carried this habit of pre-leaning over to gen2. Where on gen1, it was acceptable (for a left turn) to first shift your weight over to the left (perhaps disengaging the sensors on the right side,) on gen2, lifting your outside foot precludes you from turning, which is quite dangerous if you have already committed your weight.

For what it is worth, I don't see much of a difference between how the seg turns and how it balances. The platform pivots at the wheels, and the software attempts to keep it level. The LSF pivots at the console, and the software attempts to keep it pointed straight up. The response is different due to a set of variables collectively called the "gains," but this is the gist of it. For more info, see the actual segway patents (don't just talk to an engineer at a bar, they will dumb things down for you.) A full explanation is beyond the scope of a small, easy to read forum post.

EDIT: I want to assume that the engineers designed all the "inconveniences" with safety in mind, so I cannot believe that the reason gen2 machines stop turning is to encourage you to plant your feet, because there is no inherent danger is having one foot up (its just awkward, not dangerous). I believe it is for unplanned, low speed dismounts where you fall to the side and bring the LSF with you. It is much easier to trap your inside foot than your outside foot due to the geometry involved (try it!) When your inside foot is trapped and you are still holding on to the LSF, it would quickly torque your ankle around if it didn't stop turning.

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by Gihgehls

EDIT: I want to assume that the engineers designed all the "inconveniences" with safety in mind, so I cannot believe that the reason gen2 machines stop turning is to encourage you to plant your feet, because there is no inherent danger is having one foot up (its just awkward, not dangerous). I believe it is for unplanned, low speed dismounts where you fall to the side and bring the LSF with you. It is much easier to trap your inside foot than your outside foot due to the geometry involved (try it!) When your inside foot is trapped and you are still holding on to the LSF, it would quickly torque your ankle around if it didn't stop turning.

Well, if we're going to reverse-engineer the engineer's intent here -- I don't think we can.

I think all we can do is observe the effects of their decisions. Declaring this or that to be the intent only makes sense if we've had a chance to ask them, or have other evidence.

I find a lot of good things that happen with the Segway just come as beneficial side-effects of how it works -- often, as how it HAS to work due to physics.

Just as I think it's good to not get too caught up in deciding we know what other poster's intents are, in engineering, it's better to focus on the existential, rather than intensional. Double-plus ungood to get caught up in ARGUING about the intent. (That's what theology was invented for!)

Safety is a major goal -- we do know that much about the engineering intent. But we don't know if decision X was made because safety -- or was made for some other reason, and found to be safe.

[wwhopper]

As they were only useless bickering between a couple of members and not pertaining to the thread.

Stay on topic, and leave the bickering, fighting, posturing and bullying off SegwayChat.

[nassau98]

ok kids(!) enough bickering

Im still having problems with this machine.

THe machine keeps rearing up for no reason, and 9 times of out of 10, "growling", glowing red, and then shutting off.

I turn it back on, it works fine for a few more secs, then same issue.
Then I leave it alone for the day, take it out the next day, and all is well. For a while!

Then when I turn, the infokey`s smiley face becomes a "straight line smile", (not a smile, not a frown) but the warning "!" symbol flashes, until I straighten up.

When the machine growls off, its error code E407 or E406.

Any ideas before I sell my kids off to slavery to pay for manufacturer returns and repairs?

And, where can I purchase the plastic boards underneath the floormats?

pretty please for an easy solution

from Berlin,
feelin`dank,
vielen dank

N

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by nassau98

ok kids(!) enough bickering

Im still having problems with this machine.

THe machine keeps rearing up for no reason, and 9 times of out of 10, "growling", glowing red, and then shutting off.

I turn it back on, it works fine for a few more secs, then same issue.
Then I leave it alone for the day, take it out the next day, and all is well. For a while!

Then when I turn, the infokey`s smiley face becomes a "straight line smile", (not a smile, not a frown) but the warning "!" symbol flashes, until I straighten up.

When the machine growls off, its error code E407 or E406.

Any ideas before I sell my kids off to slavery to pay for manufacturer returns and repairs?

And, where can I purchase the plastic boards underneath the floormats?

pretty please for an easy solution

from Berlin,
feelin`dank,
vielen dank

N

The known error codes are here:
http://social.segway.com/wiki/Error_Codes

If you find out what E406 is, let us know it can be added.

It looks like it needs service.

I don't think there's any parts available separately besides the mats themselves. I suggest getting a set of comfort mats. Your feet will thank you, and that particular problem will be solved.

I might actually do that before sending it back for service, in case the poor operation of the weight sensors is behind the error codes. It doesn't sound like it is, but you could save yourself some money and hassle if it turns out to be related.

[wwhopper]

Originally Posted by Bob.Kerns

If you find out what E406 is, let us know it can be added.

Error code: E406

The Rear CU Board reports: Power base fault

Recommended Action: If the same error code is persistent replace the power base or return to factory for service

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by wwhopper

Error code: E406

The Rear CU Board reports: Power base fault

Recommended Action: If the same error code is persistent replace the power base or return to factory for service

In other words, about the same as E407. I've updated the wiki.

It would be nice if INC would just publish the nice table you got this from!