This is IT?

Dave (picked at random) and 8000 other slashdot readers wrote in to tell us that they too had been overcome by the relentless hype machine that is IT, Ginger, Segway, whatever. Read about IT in your favorite hype-dispensing media outlet, each of which thinks that it has an exclusive on the story of IT. Flash diagram of IT. Time. NY Times. Reuters. And don't forget to watch the advertisement, errr, "demonstration" of IT on Good Morning Consumers tomorrow. Update: 12/03 13:37 GMT by T : Segway's webmaster John Grohol points out the segway website as well.

Southpark

The southpark version was hilarious
"Well atleast its better than dealing with the airlines"

Arrogance more powerful than its technology?

"Nothing has happened at the level of the pedestrian to improve transportation since we invented the sneaker..." Really. Firstly, once on wheels, can the driver be considered a "pedestrian?" Secondly, what about bicycles, scooters, and the like. I'm sure there is some incredible technology going on there, but the arrogance seems much more powerful.

Re:Traffic Safety Statistics

Although, as a motorcycle rider, myself, what you don't get from those stats are the fact that there are significant, controllable risk factors in that "18 times" number. Large percentages of motorcycle fatalaties (over 50% in recent years) involve alchohol use. Other "high risk," rider-controllable items include excessive speed and actually having a valid license. I'm also of the opinion (based on some statistical and some anectdotal evidence) that the quality and quantity of your safety gear matters a ton. While there are studies showing that, for example, wearing a DOT-approved helmet is better than not, I haven't seen a study that takes that further and looks at full-face vs. three quarters, wearing leathers, eye protection, gloves, boots, etc...

It seems very clear to me that at least 50% of the motorcycle fatalaties and perhaps as many as 75% - 80% could be completely eliminated by intelligent analysis of the risks and making rational choices about how and when to ride. I do not get on my bike without leather jackets, boots and gloves; a full-face Snell-approved helmet and (at the very least) kevlar reinforced jeans. I've ridden across the Arizona desert in August like that, during the day (although I can't say it was pleasant - or, frankly, a rational choice about when to ride ;).

So, anyway, yes, motorcycles are statistically much more dangerous than cars. But much of that risk is entirely within your control. It's much like the situation we have now - the highest risk cause of death for American women of all ages is cancer of one form or another. Many women hear that and think "breast cancer!" But, in fact, the issue is lung cancer, since something like half of American women alive now smoked at some time in their lives. If you control for smoking (a "lifestyle choice") your main risk is heart disease, not cancer.

Motorcycles are definitely more dangerous than cars (especially when you apply my same "lifestyle" choices to your car driving - eschew driving drunk, for example). But it's my belief that, given the smaller margin for error, the same poor decision in a car (driving while drunk, for example) is much more likely to result in your death than the same poor decision on a motorcycle.

What is important in technology?

It may be hyped but it could be a breakthrough. At any rate it is something that interests us as geeks. Stories about this broke on friday or maybe before and you have been getting thousands of submissions on the subject. It took you until tonight to actually post it. Hi, I don't know if you know tons of people think things are neat that you may not, but it is true. So if you get lots of posts on something then maybe it is worth posting.

South Park

Wasn't there a thing named IT in an episode of South Park? Mr. Garrison was pissed at airline companies and invented his own form of transportation involing a gyroscope and an anal probe.

*shrug*

Re:It's a damn scooter

I must say I'm rather disappointed with the /. community on this one. If the claims Kamen makes are true, this is a truly impressive piece of technology, and at a *minimum* it will be very useful in a number of niche markets.

I think whether it penetrates the consumer market and is able to compete with scooters, bicycles, and cars for short-haul trips is an unsolved question. But it clearly has a niche. It's a fraction of the weight and cost of a car, it's smaller (albeit a bit heavier) than a bike, and it's a *lot* faster than walking. Most of us can walk comfortably at 3-4 MPH. This thing goes 8-12 MPH. So it's definitely useful.

I'm a college student, and until last year I lived about a 15 minute walk away from campus. That meant I spent half an hour to an hour every day walking between class and home. This thing would have therefore saved me 10-20 minutes per day of walking time-- not a huge savings, but non-trivial. In addition, I make short trips around campus that take 5-10 minutes of walking. This thing could cut those times in half at least.

Could a bicycle do the same thing? Yes, but not nearly as well. First, bicycles are not as stable as this thing apperantly is. Secondly, if it works as described, bicycles don't deal with crowded sidewalks as well as this thing does. This is because a bicycle has to be moving to be stable. So if you have to stop to deal with traffic, you have to get off the seat and stand, which isn't very comfortable or convenient. Bicycles also don't deal well with sandy or slippery terrain, and you're farther off the ground, so falls will hurt a lot more. With this thing, at worse it starts to tip forward or backwards and you can just step off.

Also, because it's not as big or bulky as a bicycle, most people will probably be able to just bring the thing in with them when they arrive at their destinations. In my case, I work on campus, so I could just bring the thing into my office and leave it there until its needed. And it apperantly has an access key, so if you stole it you'd have to rip out the electronics and replace them in order to use it again.

The big concerns as I see them are threefold. First is the cost. This is *not* going to replace a car, so it has to be a lot cheaper than a car. I think $3000 is too high for 90% of consumers. If they can get it down to about $2000, there are going to be plenty of yuppies who will be willing to shell out for them. If they get it down to $1000, they'll be able to easily sell millions of them. I imagine that most of the cost is in the custom electronics and precision hardware-- stuff that should come down in price as it's mass-produced. Going after corporate and government markets should give them time to perfect their technique and bring costs down before invading the consumer space.

The second concern is weight. 65 lbs is more than most people can carry for any distance, and it's more than some people can even pick up at all. If I were to get one, one thing that I'd want to be able to do is take it on the bus with me, and it sounds like it's a little too heavy for that. I'd imagine that the battery and motors are most of the weight-- hopefully they can make a lightweight version soon.

The third factor that I think will impact its success is the extent to which different form factors can be made. For example, I can imagine an enclosed version for use in cold places in the winter. Or a slightly larger version with a small cargo bin for hauling stuff around. If the technology is flexible enough to accomodate these sorts of adjustments to the form factor, then I can see them making different model to meet different niches. If they made one big enough to let me carry a couple of bags of groceries on the back, that would eliminate one of the major reasons I'd need a car.

Re:I think it's dumb.

"It looks gay."

Frankly, I don't see how this is possible. As an 'IT', it is neither male nor female and is thus not capable of homosexual activity.

It's world-changing!

Steve Jobs has seen it and he said it would change the world. Remember the last time he said that? He was introducing the iMac.

Re:No Engine?

It doesn't have an engine but it has two electric motors per wheel (4 total). Each wheel is independent so it can turn on a dime (no axel). Also, if one motor goes out the thing can still work with just the other one. It also has redundant "sisterboards". Also, the gyroscopes/accelerometers (5) are redundant in that their results are checked against each other.
http://www.time.com/time/2001/segway/index.html [time.com]

Re:No Engine?

I used to be a Rocket Scientist (for real.... well, actually a Guidance, Navigation, and Control Flight Software Engineer for rockets) and this confused me a bit too.

If you look at the flash diagram, it actually has two small electric motors. (these aren't "engines"?).

The gyroscopes are used to provide torques to help the rider balance. The accelerometers detect the command motions (leaning forward or back or straight up). The small motors propel the Segway forward. (or backwards).

The fancy trick here is getting the control system software to tell the difference between a rider falling forward and 'commanding' forward by leaning forward. (amoung other fancy tricks). Overall the concept is simple, but the implentation is not as easy as it looks.

Can't help thinking about Transmeta

When I look at the hype surrounding this thing, it reminds me of Transmeta. Transmeta had some of the world's brightest computer geeks working on a s3kr1t pr0j3k+ that would change the world, and it turned out to be yet another x86 clone (whoo hoo.) Now there is another company with bright scientists working on a s3kr1t pr0j3k+ that would change the world, and it turns out to be a motorscooter. (whoo hoo.)

Moral of the story: Don't believe the hype.

IT's not for you!

This thing is not for rich suburban white guys who hang out on internet all day. Its for postmen and chinamen. Ev