Talk:Segway

battery software

The article says: "In September 2003 the Segway HT was recalled to patch its software to version 12.0, which negated the risk that a rider may completely drain the battery." Perhaps I'm being dense, but how is this possible, excepting an infinite battery? Some clarification is probably in order. Mycroft7 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Good catch! It's not possible. The software patch negated the risk that a rider would completely drain the battery while riding, leading to a dangerous situation where the gyroscopes suddenly lost power and stopped balancing the rider. With the patch, the Segway automatically slows down and allows a user to dismount safely. I'll update it.  :-) Ztrawhcs 18:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

After a string of edits (sorry about that) I have tried to further clarify the low battery power (vs energy) nature of the problem and the software patch to fix it.JDHeinzmann 18:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this isn't related, but I believe that in the case of rechargable batteries, if they become completely drained, they can't be recharged again, and that devices that use rechargable batteries usually stop functioning before the battery gets down to this point, both to prevent this from happening, and because at such low levels the device can't do what was intended anyway. For example, your cellphone will eventually turn itself off when it's battery gets too low, and yet you can turn it on again (it will turn off once again as soon as it reads the battery's meter). If you keep doing this the battery will get down to the point where the phone can't even turn on, but unless you do something like hold the power button continuously, you won't completely drain it. Perhaps this is what is referred to in the Segway? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"I believe that in the case of rechargable batteries, if they become completely drained, they can't be recharged again ..." I don't think that's true. --80.99.1.94 (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

introduction

The quote "...walking is a remnant of the Dark Ages, an unpleasant time-waster that technology needs to eradicate" looks as if it were uttered by the inventor himself when it is actually a direct quote from the Salon article's editorializing. I doubt Kaymen has ever said anything around those lines, POV etc etc

Kamen definitely said that -- it was one of his traditionally exuberant off-the-cuff remarks made to the press -- one of many which helped build the hype (and subsequent letdown) to unheard of levels. Ztrawhcs 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Amazon tie-up

I recall Amazon announcing with much ballyhoo that they had an exclusive distribution deal on the segway in 2002. Amazon appears not to sell the Segway at all now. It would be interesting and germane to know the circumstances in which the distribution deal was signed and then terminated, if anyone knows? ElectricRay 22:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Early on Amazon.com was the only way to buy a Segway, but today it seems you can only get them through authorized local dealers. Perhaps I (or some other enterprising individual) can find some articles explaining this... Ztrawhcs 18:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No pre-release publicity mention?

One of the most notable things about the Segway is all the hype, or, to be more NPOV about it, pre-release publicity about it, and its relatively slow adoption relative to projections. In fact, there's a good chance that's what will be most notable about it years down the line. I'm sure there's some way to work an NPOV discussion of that into the article? -- ToastyKen 21:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of your statement -- there was a lot of pre-release publicity, and slow adoption since. The second part of your statement -- that the rampant hype will be its most notable legacy -- is pure speculation. But yes, there is likely a way to add the first part in an NPOV manner. Go for it! Ztrawhcs 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is purely speculation but what I personally remember segway for is the massive hype and how overblown it was. For me, and many other people, that will always be part of the identity of the segway. I think that this article definitely needs a section on how hyped segway was prior to its revelation.

Segway monorail

Segway scooters stay upright by intermittent momentary actuation of electric motors fixed to flywheels, the divergence from vertical being detected by gyroscopes. It is possible to use such reaction wheels to build a monorail vehicle, the reaction wheels having their axes in line with the roll axis of the vehicle, to keep the vehicle upright.

Reaction wheels have long been used to change the orientation of satellites, but Segway has introduced the idea to transport on Earth.

Monorails are cheaper to build than conventional railways. A monorail need weigh no more than a conventional rail vehicle, because the bogeys have only one wheel. This reduction in weight offsets the weight of the reaction wheels and electric motors.

David Erskine

58.168.40.76 06:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are saying. Why would anyone want an upright, self-balancing train? 71.37.51.215 (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gyro monorail. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Segway Incorporated

there is no article on the company, which in my opinion is pretty remiss. while the company is largely notable for the segway pt device, there is notable information surrounding the company that does not fall properly under either the inventor or the device.

Deaths and Injuries Due to the Device

While there are citations in the "bans and restrictions" section made by organizations that do not support segway use in walking areas that mention injuries and deaths, there is no information in the entire article either confirming or denying the existence of any injuries or deaths.

It just says people could get injured, not people did get injured. 71.37.51.215 (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What with the poor sales and the fact its illegal to use it practically anywhere I wouldnt expect there to be that many accidents.62.232.4.58 (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a similar less expensive product?

I thought of buying this for my sister who have some problem in walking but it seems so expensive just becuase it uses computer to keep balance instead of a simple 3rd weel! If any one knows about other more reasonable models which suit for disable people it would be nice to mention them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.61.183 (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why no criticism?

This article is more or less an advertisement for the product. I took part in a tour of Barcelona by Segway in March 2007, lasting several hours. The Segway seems to me to be an overengineered less good version of the bicycle. Unlike the bicycle it is very expensive, can't cope with kerbs (US English: curbs) and doesn't provide a seat, making it very tiring if ridden for long periods. It's also a flop, having completely failed to take off as a product. APW

I agree with you on the need for some cited criticism. I also find this quote from the article a little odd: "The Segway generally does not fall into the category of exempt devices such as powered wheelchairs, but is more of a vehicle somewhere between a bicycle and motor scooter." It is considerably less versatile than a bicycle and definitely slower (20 km/h is nowhere near the speed a reasonably fit cyclist can achieve over moderate distances). This wording suggests that it is "more" of a vehicle than the bicycle. Tomasrojo 15:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I recall an article that the Segway has done very poorly compared to what the manufacturers expected. It wasn't exactly the revolution they wanted. I'll see if I can dig it out.. --86.151.65.166 (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well, I remember that when the Segway came out there were News articles claiming that it would be revolutionizing, the Army would use it, sales would enormous, walking would become obsolete and so on. Now after 3 years only 25,000 have been sold. I mean, we need a criticism section. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The army would use it? I'd love to have seen some promotional material with a group of soldiers speeding through the streets of Iraq on their Segways, machine guns blasting. Now thats what I call marketing.62.232.4.58 (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

12 mph is hardly considered speeding... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.89.189 (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment was sarcastic. --70.142.54.69 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism" or "Controversy" section(s) be merged into other sections

I wouldn't mind the merger for as long as no information was lost in the process. The information is unbiased, sourced from CNN, Forbes and USAToday and no adjectives are used. Therefore I see no reason for removig any information. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

References In Pop Culture

I wonder why the South Park episode "The Entity" is not listed here as that ep was in part a parody of the Segway. Look it up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entity_%28South_Park%29

Can we add this under pop culture references??? 76.211.96.9 (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Television Appearances

I have added the fact that Adam Savage has been seen with a Segway on Mythbusters but it needs a little clean-up and referencing.

The other off the top of my head reference I can remember is an episode of Family Guy where Peter sells his daughter to Mort Goldman because of a pharmacy debt. When Peter was concocting a plan to get Mort's son to break the contract they drew up, Peter advertises an X-Men convention, at which Mort's son rides up on a Segway and comments "there is usually Segway parking at these conventions". Please research this and add.

BH - March 09, '08

I would like to remove it - in fact, the whole references in pop culture section. I don't think the Segway is obscure enough to document each time it shows up in some TV show. (I'm often a fan of pop-cutlure sections, but I think this one is unnecessary) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, DavidWBrooks. IMO that section should be removed. It's a pointless exercise to list every single TV appearance of the Segway. It's a pointless exercise because it doesn't increase the understanding of the readers about the Segway.

"Peter of Family Guy used a Segway"??!!! So? Why was that mentioned?

Such a reference should have no place in an Encyclopedia, it could have a place at a Segway fan-site, but not here. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think there are times when such sections are legitimate (even in an Encyclopedia with a capital E!) - when they are needed to demonstrate the extent that a concept has pervaded society, which might not be obvious otherwise. I just don't think that's necessary for the Segway. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly a show like Family Guy DOES house public opinions of events people and items, albeit extremely biased it does go to explain that the Segway is a reference to the overeducated(who am I trying to convince in a PC fashion here? They're referencing nerds, plainly put). Though the view provided by the show Family Guy making a Segway sound like an infamous nerd cult obsession isn't entirely public opinion or true, it does actually provide their perception on the product that it is only and truly their own.

Speaking of public view and gaining understanding, even the television show of "Stroker and Hoop" had a Christmas episode where in the beginning the mall cop rode up on a Segway. I thought to add that seeing so many police officer on Segway pictures.

My point is that what inspires them to research Segways, and seeing how rare they are, ways of even seeing them could include the media and fashion in which they are used and viewed, police or nerd reference alike. Statement having been made, I never was aware of a Segway until I saw Adam Savage of Mythbusters using his and then thereafter, prompting me to research the device.

BH - March 11, '08, 5:34 AM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.255.178 (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I took it out. Any complaints? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A Third Wheel

I noticed a controvertial point coming up: that a cheaper Segway could be made by using a third wheel.

For example, some recent edits:

"The Segway has also come under criticism due to the fact that its electronics and balancing mechanisms could be made obsolete simply by adding a third wheel in front. Some critics have suggested that this is the primary reason for its lower-than-expected sales."

"it seems so expensive just becuase it uses computer to keep balance instead of a simple 3rd weel!"

I know there is joke page on the Maddox website about this. I also remember a knockoff segway with a third wheel at a trade show. I don't think a third wheel would help though. Imagine standing up on a tricycle. You can easily knock yourself over by putting your center of mass over one of the sides of the triangle, which can happen easily when accelerating around. Therefore, you would still need an advanced control system computer for balance. But if you have that system, what is the point of the third wheel now?

I can't find any citatable sources, just a lot of forum arguments about it. But if theres arguments, a definitive answer on Wikipedia would sure be appreciated by them no? Anyone know some resources? 71.37.51.215 (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Segway Home Page?

Does Segway have an Internet web site? I read the article and don't see it listed, only links to "Segway Today" - is that it? 96.231.161.184 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. A vandal removed the section in January. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Police use.

How come there is nothing on its use by police? The Chinese Armed Police are going to use them for the olympics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.117.128 (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.117.128 (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Segway HT

Wait, "PT"? What happened to "HT"? Different model? --70.142.54.69 (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Image:Segway in Gazebo.png

I removed Image:Segway in Gazebo.png because it is crap and not relevant. It does not improve the article, if anything, it detracts. However, the mention that there is a segway in the player project is alright, perhaps the image could be added to THAT page instead? --TIB (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's still pretty trivial. I wouldn't worry about it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This article has some serious lack of neutrality. To whit:

The Segway PT is designed to "enable" pedestrians to both reduce the time it takes to get to their destinations, and to increase their range. Having experienced these benefits, Segway PT owners typically prefer the Segway PT over both walking and driving for shorter-distance trips which are both too far or inappropriate for walking (for lack of time, environmental/weather factors such as extreme heat, etc., lack of physical stamina for having to both walk and carry packages or groceries, etc.), and arguably too short for driving. Because of these benefits some owners have replaced at least one of their vehicles with a Segway PT.

• "enable pedestrians" is ad speak.
• "Segway owners typically prefer the Segway over walking and driving" is a bizarre assertion without citation.
• "Because of these benefits some owners have replaced at least one of their vehicles with a Segway PT." Relevance???

I propose that the vast majority of the "uses" section be removed until it can be re-written for relevance and a neutral point of view.

I also think that a

is warranted. Amanda bee (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than dumping in a big ugly box, go ahead and edit it! That's how wikipedia works, after all - you're right that much of that stuff can just be tossed. Trimming ad-speak is common problem in articles about commercial products. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. However, I haven't been able to edit it in full, so I'm adding the boxes. It seems like there is a community here that has been trying to work on this article and I don't want to step on toes, either. 66.114.77.228 (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that the problematic content was all added in one go, wouldn't it have been easier just to undo that edit? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Chris. I hadn't caught that. Amanda bee (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Critic" section

Aside from being written in pidgin English, not properly sourced and evidently written in a non-neutral fashion, we should avoid sections titled "criticism". As this appears just to be an anon pushing a point, this should be removed again until such point as someone can rewrite it and incorporate it properly (assuming that the source says what it's purported to). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)