"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
eonecommunications...
wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:50 am, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 06:35:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


I imagine it gently drops the front onto the casters, then brakes
hard, wasted time and then limited braking force from the rear wheels.

What rear wheels?
--
Cliff


If it were on the main/drive wheels and the front casters, for the
purpose of describing vehicle dynamics it becomes appropriate to
describe the main/drive wheels as the 'rear' wheels.

Overall the vehicle has one (or two?) wheels in the back to prevent it
rolling over backwards, the main drive wheels, and two (looks like 2)
casters in the front.

Dave

Sure makes me wonder how it'd handle the snow and ice we get here in Red
Sox Nation. (And it gets even WORSE elsewhere in the nation.)

And how would it handle steep San Francico style hills?

Anyone know how the Segway responds to icy sidewalks and steep hills?

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.

Actually Segways handle SF hills ok. There is at least one tour company
that uses Segways.

On Apr 7, 6:56*pm, Jeff Wisnia wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
[push a cart on a Segway]

I'm having trouble visualizing that grocery cart thing. Where are each
of your hands when you're pushing or pulling it? Is any other apparatus
involved which hooks onto the cart?

Maybe I could do it easily with an empty cart, but a full week's load of
groceries takes me more than one hand to comfortably push (and steer).

Jeff (Who's probably missing something here.....)
Jeffry Wisnia

I had to see it done first, too, with the overloaded trash hopper from
the lab:
http://www.yankeesupply.com/catalog/...ction/view.htm

The Segway they loaned me was the older model with twist-grip
steering. One hand on the steering grip, the other pushing the hopper.
It took some practice but not as much as opening and maneuvering
through the heavy, self-closing fire doors.

It helps that in the Army I learned how to control the heavy floor
buffers with one hand.

Jim Wilkins

On Apr 7, 7:01*pm, Tim Wescott wrote:

If the US wants inexpensive urban transportation, all it needs to do is
ease up on the safety requirements for cars that make them heavy and
expensive, while at the same time changing out the brains of all those
folks buying Ford Leviathans.

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Serviceshttp://www.wescottdesign.com

And also crack down harder on the reckless and antisocial behavior
that triggered those requirements.

On Apr 7, 10:22*pm, Gerald Miller wrote:
...
Which was it, Honda or Toyota came up with a more elaborate version of
this that was shown on TV a few months back. IIRC it had three wheels
and only carried one person. Looked somewhat like Granny's rocking
chair!
Gerry :-)}

Like these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isetta

The Germans switched to larger cars as soon as they could afford them.
When I was there in the early 1970's the various tiny cars were
already curiosities and museum pieces.

Personally I need a vehicle that will carry wheelchairs, 10' pipe,
lumber, corrugated roofing, machinery, etc. Even if it were free an
extra tiny vehicle that doesn't carry cargo would cost me more in
insurance than it would save in gas, the CRV does all of the above, in
any weather, and gets over 25 MPG. I've tried using a motorcycle with
saddlebags for everything, including long camping trips.

The real irony is that emissions and safety regulations eliminated
vehicles such as the 1978 Accord I had, which would also hold 10' pipe
internally and delivered 36 - 38 MPG in normal driving and well over
40 on a trip. I still have a 1980 one in round tuit status, the
mandated changes dropped its mileage to barely 30. It was roomy and
comfortable enough to hold my parents and me on a long trip around
eastern Canada

Jim Wilkins

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 07:06:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 7, 9:50*am, Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 06:35:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I imagine it gently drops the front onto the casters, then brakes
hard, wasted time and then limited braking force from the rear wheels.

* What rear wheels?
--
Cliff

If it were on the main/drive wheels and the front casters, for the
purpose of describing vehicle dynamics it becomes appropriate to
describe the main/drive wheels as the 'rear' wheels.

Overall the vehicle has one (or two?) wheels in the back to prevent it
rolling over backwards, the main drive wheels, and two (looks like 2)
casters in the front.

Dave

I expect those firont & back casters in the prototype are
to keep it upright with the power off & not otherwise functional,
much less as a brake.

Any self-respecting pothole might eat it though .. with
a small dainty burp.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:48:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 8, 2:37*am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message

eonecommunications...





wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:50 am, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 06:35:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I imagine it gently drops the front onto the casters, then brakes
hard, wasted time and then limited braking force from the rear wheels.

*What rear wheels?
--
Cliff

If it were on the main/drive wheels and the front casters, for the
purpose of describing vehicle dynamics it becomes appropriate to
describe the main/drive wheels as the 'rear' wheels.

Overall the vehicle has one (or two?) wheels in the back to prevent it
rolling over backwards, the main drive wheels, and two (looks like 2)
casters in the front.

Dave

Sure makes me wonder how it'd handle the snow and ice we get here in Red
Sox Nation. (And it gets even WORSE elsewhere in the nation.)

And how would it handle steep San Francico style hills?

Anyone know how the Segway responds to icy sidewalks and steep hills?

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.

Actually Segways handle SF hills ok. *There is at least one tour company
that uses Segways.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There's a lot less mass to get up the hill. Think of one of the simple
machines, the inclined plane. As the mass of the object increases, the
force (work being done) increases.

Plus you get much of the energy back going down I think ...
--
Cliff

On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 07:39:18 -0700, dave a wrote:

Cliff wrote:
On 7 Apr 2009 16:15:40 +0800, adchin wrote:

I think it's called a motorbike

The P.U.M.A. prototype
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=15888

I notice that it is operating on a sidewalk or some sort of cordoned off
area. Are they proposing that all urban streets get rebuilt to
accommodate these?

Why would they need to be?
But I'd bet the sensors & control systems (in part) get
added to cars & trucks.
Might even make sense to retrofit current vehicles
if it saves enough in insurance & collision damages.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:42:48 -0700 (PDT), Jim Wilkins wrote:

Any small vehicle has the same issue, that the US roads weren't built
for them

Small & lightweight do less damage to roads too IIRC.
Hence roads might be cheaper to maintain ...
--
Cliff

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:59:07 -0400, "P" wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 06:47:56 -0700, BottleBob
wrote:

You missed the guidance systems I expect.
But it could be hit ....
--
Cliff

Ahhh! Take evasive action! Yup. That oughta work great.

Bikes & motorcycles & pedestrians can be hit too.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:55:27 -0700 (PDT), RobertH wrote:

The only potential advantage over in-line two wheelers is that,
supposedly, it won't fall over.

Bush fell off .....
--
Cliff