Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Solowheel

solowheel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 54 posts

Re: Solowheel

#11

Post by freehunter »

ars wrote: post #9
jstanley wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the wheel doesn't roll side to side, I imagine it's much the same as balancing a bicycle. Also, since the wheel doesn't roll in that axis, it would also (I think) be impossible to auto-stabilise, since there is no steering capability. Perhaps it could have weights slide around to try to balance it, but I can't see that being particularly effective.

> Since the wheel doesn't roll side to side, I imagine it's much the same as balancing a bicycle. A bicycle moves. A stationary bicycle is impossible to balance (for most people anyway). I don't see how this would be any different. As soon as you stop you fall off? If it were me I'd add two small wheels (training wheels? :) on springs + shocks on either side. (Make them fold in to maintain portability.) You'd have to…

When a bike stops, the rider puts their foot down to balance side to side. I don't see how that's different here. Training wheels on bikes are meant to help kids learn the proper speed and when to put their foot down, an adult who already knows how to ride a bike shouldn't have that issue.

Re: Solowheel

#12

Post by freehunter »

ars wrote: post #4

The segway was also supposed to change the world - and then it was too expensive. I'm disappointed to see that this too is far far too expensive. It needs to be under $250 to even have a chance, but they are asking for $1,795!!

Under $250?! I'd say around $500. I don't know if I'd trust it if it were under $250, not with the manufacturing technology I know of today.

Re: Solowheel

#13

Post by shubb »

ars wrote: post #4

The segway was also supposed to change the world - and then it was too expensive. I'm disappointed to see that this too is far far too expensive. It needs to be under $250 to even have a chance, but they are asking for $1,795!!

This is basically a Segway, which is essentially an electric wheelchair with higher spec motors and battery.

All of the above sell for more than $1000 dollars, probably because that's just what the hardware costs :-(

Likely, the problem is over engineering. Segways and electric wheelchairs will often run for several years without needing new parts, and are expensively engineered to not catch fire.

In reality, Segways and the OneWheel are toys for most people. You can buy a toy remote control car for much less than a bomb disposal robot, because it's far lower quality. I think a toy quality device for toy grade use would have a bigger market.

Re: Solowheel

#14

Post by tirant »

Why are people wearing a helmet? It only gets up to 16km/h (10mph), and it just adds like 10cm to your height. Humans can run up to 44 km/h and Ive never seen them wearing a helmet.

It really makes the product look dangerous.

Re: Solowheel

#15

Post by davidw »

jgrahamc wrote: post #5

According to the documentation it balances front-to-back and not side-to-side and the rider is responsible for maintaining that balance. I wonder how easy that is (especially with any load like a backpack). I think I'd rather spend the $1,800 on a really good bike. But I bet this is fun to mess around on.

> I think I'd rather spend the $1,800 on a really good bike.

For city transportation purposes, a solid, but crappy bike is much better: it's far less likely to be stolen, and a lot less stressful.

Re: Solowheel

#16

Post by ars »

freehunter wrote: post #11
ars wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since the wheel doesn't roll side to side, I imagine it's much the same as balancing a bicycle. A bicycle moves. A stationary bicycle is impossible to balance (for most people anyway). I don't see how this would be any different. As soon as you stop you fall off? If it were me I'd add two small wheels (training wheels? :) on springs + shocks on either side. (Make them fold in to maintain portability.) You'd have to…

When a bike stops, the rider puts their foot down to balance side to side. I don't see how that's different here. Training wheels on bikes are meant to help kids learn the proper speed and when to put their foot down, an adult who already knows how to ride a bike shouldn't have that issue.

You can put your foot down with a bike because you are holding the handlebars, and your weight is on the seat.

How would you do that here? You are standing on it - if you took one foot off you'd fall. You'd have to hop off every time you stop.

If you are athletic with good balance you could probably stand on one foot, but I doubt most people could.

Re: Solowheel

#17

Post by stcredzero »

It's very compact. It's more compact than a folding bike. It also has a much faster transition time. I wonder how the cost benefit compares with a folding scooter? Hill climbing would be an advantage over a folding scooter. How much of a benefit would that be in a city?

Re: Solowheel

#19

Post by benvd »

ars wrote: post #16
freehunter wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a bike stops, the rider puts their foot down to balance side to side. I don't see how that's different here. Training wheels on bikes are meant to help kids learn the proper speed and when to put their foot down, an adult who already knows how to ride a bike shouldn't have that issue.

You can put your foot down with a bike because you are holding the handlebars, and your weight is on the seat. How would you do that here? You are standing on it - if you took one foot off you'd fall. You'd have to hop off every time you stop. If you are athletic with good balance you could probably stand on one foot, but I doubt most people could.

Most people couldn't stand on one foot? Really? Am I that out of touch with reality?

Not even being snarky.

Post reply on HN