It’s particularly galling for Peloton, because their gear is already overpriced. Shouldn’t some of that cost go into making sure that it doesn’t rattle itself apart?
Maybe the designers decided all the safety junk was too ugly?
lol, no
https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/05/peloton-bug-account-data-l...
Excuse the pedantry, but I think this is the incorrect physical explanation. Larger rollers mean that the linear speed at the rim is larger, and the roller impart in fact less force (e.g. conservation of energy).
Does not mean it is less dangerous. It's just dangerous for different reasons than you state.
My thought is the larger roller surface area just made it better at grabbing stuff and sucking it under the unusually high deck height. Dunno if torque is the correct term.
A treadmill design using large rollers would have a chosen motor and gearing combination to accomodate the large rollers, likewise for one with small rollers. They would likely be able to impart the same force at the roller (or at least which one would be stronger is unknown and a function of other design variables).
I just watched a video that matches this description, and holy shit. The thing that unsettled me the most was the first moment, before the treadmill reversed direction for a second only to suck the kid back in. In that initial capture, the treadmill wedged itself against that kid's throat. Hard to tell for sure from the video, but if not for that momentary spin reversal, the kid would likely suffocate.
As a father of a similarly-aged kid, I can't stop shaking after seeing this.
Fortunately the child was able to escape in this case, but it's pretty easy to see how people, and children in particular, could be injured or worse by these treadmills.
No jail, no meaningful fines.
I think the issue is not that they're old technology, but that gym equipment should not be shared in household rooms with children or pets. Really the entire category is just heavy as hell by design. Peloton’s whole shtick is normalizing gym equipment at home and they're doing it via silicon valley "move fast and break things" strategy, and here we are.
Same way that kids shouldn't be playing on a stove or dishwasher but it's still required to mount them so that if they DO it doesn't tip and crush them. Especially since the hazard isn't necessary for the operation of the device (such as spinning blades are necessary for table saws, etc).
That sounds completely impractical - good luck keeping a child out of a room. Perhaps the devices should be safer, rather than passing the buck from the company to the individuals?
It can be made safe. Lots of treadmills are relatively safe, barring slight pinch injuries. Peloton just made it this way for aesthetics and economics.
The push to the bottom impacts every single product/process, doesn't matter if the technology is well understood, there's always another penny to shave off the cost so manufacturer can make more profit.
It also takes money. But why bother protecting the consumer or even the company if you're not legally or financially liable yourself?
There's little incentive to do things right. And when there is, most people will only ever learn the hard way.
Sorry no. This implies that reviewing the negligent faults in this Design was a difficult task.
A basic Hazard and Risk analysis would have flagged this.
Even if we ignore the lack of safety guards, I struggle to believe that it is legal to release a consumer product with this much torque without some form of overcurrent/stall/speed detection and safety cut-off.
I agree that a hazard analysis should have identified it. But whether it did or didn't, there are still many possible reasons why it wasn't addressed effectively. Hence, a systemic failure.
I have no idea if it's legal, but any punishment would probably be on the company rather than the individuals.
Edit: main safety issue doesn't seem to be the touchscreens actually