And here I thought the reason the Segway never caught on was because it was prohibitively expensive to own and didn't fulfill any real need.
The problem with Segway, IMHO, is that the initial hype was completely misdirected and Dean Kamen drinks far too much of his own Kool-Aid.
Segway has made a good inroads in the police and security market, as well as the tourism markets.
For what it does best, it's really not that prohibitive, but for consumer transportation, there is less ROI in most cases.
Given that the hyped promise of the Segway was literally to revolutionize public transportation as we know it, I'd say the statement is accurate.
This would be worth the extra money and not be uncool.
As for this bit - "imagine something that worked like the Segway, but that you rode with one foot in front of the other, like a skateboard. That wouldn't seem nearly as uncool." - have you seen the Scarpar? It's only 35mph, but definitely, definitely cool.
This similar idea, though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm_2PnSkWck
... maybe. Looks a bit wobblier, but look at it in context - they are on a cycle path and they fit in perfectly well. Someone on a Segway would stand out quite a lot.
I had to laugh at the thought of a Segway doing 70mph. I'm all for taking risks, but have you ever done 50mph+ on just a moped?
The general public bias against Segways is kind of understandable. Most people aren't capable of thinking outside the box. I'm always a little surprised when the hacker/entrepreneur community seems to jump on that bandwagon though. Even moreso today when so many people claim to be "green" advocates and will proclaim that we need to explore other modes of transportation, yet bash anything that doesn't have 4 tires and a steering wheel.
Sure, the Segway has advantages too - but when people suggest that it should go at 25mph in city streets, it's worth considering whether the Segway's unique properties actually contribute anything. Different tools are better for different jobs.
I'm all in favor of thinking outside the box, but things like cargo bicycles are more practical and interesting (though less sexy and high-tech) for my own city transportation needs: http://www.xtracycle.com/cargo-utility-bicycles.html
A closer comparison is a scooter or moped type of device. Those will fit through some doorways, but being gas-powered they are generally excluded from use or storage in most indoor areas. Cost is comparable, although the scooter would win out on distance and top speed. Most scooters are also too heavy for a single operator to pick up and move, and they also don't generally break down to fit easily in the trunk of a vehicle.
Segway's, even the non off-road models do quite well on dirt/trails, so that isn't an advantage for the bike. They could go in the streets as well, the only limitation there is erratic legislation, so it's hard to make a direct comparison.
(The "dork factor" is what prevents me from doing the smart thing and wearing a skate helmet. Instead I only wear a pair of wraparound shades. Stupid peer pressure...)
I've never ridden a segway, but I have crashed my bike at this speed. I imagined that it would be really bad, but having done it a few times, it is really not that bad. You are moving parallel to the ground, so most of the energy is absorbed by the pavement slowly grinding the top layer of your skin off. Somewhat painful, and very bloody, but not life threatening.
I imagine that riding into a wall at 20mph would be pretty bad, though. All that energy instantly acting to crush your bones and internal organs. I haven't actually tried it, so this is just speculation. (Please report back if you try it ;)
(Oh, and as for the helment; I always wear one, but I have never landed on it while crashing. Let your arms and legs do the work :) I think you have to do something weird to land on your head.)
EDIT: Although I was very dazed at the time, my ankle was actually injured worse than my head.
Hey, I even have a picture: http://rants.jrock.us/post/55729583/good-idea-riding-your-bi...
Not weird, just reckless. Like tolerating faulty rear breaks for a little while. What was I thinking :)... Anyway, the helmet took it and the dog that prompted the full stop got away unscratched...
Also, did you use your front brake? I tend to see my rear brakes as a backup; I use it if the front brake fails, if the front wheel has poor traction, or if I'm descending and just want to slow the acceleration. The front brake can develop about 5x more stopping force, since the front wheel can't skid. And, if you are used to using it, you won't go over the handlebars in an emergency. http://sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html
I used both but only the front worked. So I landed on my helmet, bike on top. Quite the other way than you, I tend to use mostly the rear break. Not being used to rely on the front, not in a "to the floor" way anyway is what got me. That and the lack of proper adjustment tolerated to the rear one.
Also, nice link. Thanks.
The high price instantly relegated the product into a niche. At that price, the Segway is only viable for businesses (consumers can't afford it) that can really justify the need for the product.
Imagine for a second that the first Segway came out at a price of $1000, and that the price gradually dropped to $400 - $500. I think a good number of early adopters would have bought the first dorky-looking version. These people would have used the Segway, and some would have complained about the look. Some people would have started customizing it and making it look cooler, go faster, attach jets to it, etc. Gradually, the manufacturer would have listened to the customers, and would have started making many versions of the product, some for kids, others for teens, adults, etc. They would have created off-road extreme versions of it and one-wheel versions of it.
Basically, I believe that there is a healthy demand for getting around town quickly, and that if the price of the Segway was right, the mass market would adopt it. Mass market adoption would then quickly iron out the dorkyness of the Segway though many iterations of the product.
"There are several reasons why, but one is that people don't want to be seen riding them."
instead of
"The reason is that people don't want to be seen riding them."
In all honesty, for how many people do you think "how I look while riding it" is the single factor stopping them from buying a Segway? Your statement implies that this is not the vanishingly small number of people I would expect it to be.
"capture more of the market Segway hoped to reach"
instead of
"capture the market Segway hoped to reach"
I know firsthand that Segways aren't that useful, because for a couple years I could ride the Segwell whenever I wanted, and all I ever did with it was tool around on the street in front of YC. That is why I qualified these passages the way I did. And that's enough; I'm not going to start cluttering essays with clauses to head off every misinterpretation someone might post on a forum.
I suppose I could create a separate page for each essay, answering in advance all the mistaken objections I knew people would raise about it. ("Note that I did not claim that this is the main problem with the Segway, just one of many" etc, etc.) It seems like a waste of time, but it would take less than this discussion has.
I think the title of the essay (The Trouble with the Segway) kinda does imply that this is the main problem. The title suggests that the essay will explain the Segway's lack of success. Perhaps a different title would have prepared the reader for what was actually in the essay. How about "The Segway's other problem". Personally, I'm starting to think that the real problem is this: it lacks dignity.
- I can't ride it up an 80 degree slope covered in ice with unreasonably intense instrumental metal playing in the background.
- It cannot carry the enormous frozen mammal I just picked up at Sam's Club, let alone the metric ton of salsa that was on offer.
- People would laugh and call me Mall Cop, and I'd feel like a twat.
- I would be broke after buying this, and being broke, mocked, hungry, and unable to go off-road is just too frustrating.
.. on the other hand, it's really neat.
Hip urban web 2.0 Ruby rockstar ninjas are not the only market for tech.
However, there seems to be little gain from owning one because they have the same downsides of a bike. Plus, you need to charge them, and you need to more concerned with them getting stolen.
So, the consumer Segway market is basically an expensive vanity item. But, few people actually want to be seen on them due to look and feel issues.
It also makes a lot of sense in that it allows you to cover significantly more territory than you'd otherwise be able to on foot and you're not trapped in the same kind of bubble as you would be on a tour bus.
Of course I wouldn't even consider a segway, because the range and cargo capacity are not sufficient for a motor vehicle; and I prefer a bike for local motion.
Many people, especially those in the market for a new form of walking (people with serious dough), will spend money on impulse, not based on practical utility. Image is a huge selling point for most consumers, though they may not acknowledge it.
Agreed. I mean, look at Macs. Granted, Macs have technical merit, but how many people who use Macs actually bought them for technical superiority and how many others bought them because Apple makes them look cool?
I think there is a select group of people for whom the Segway has a legitimate use--I'm thinking along the lines of people who have trouble walking long distances (say, more than 5-10 minutes). I've seen a lot of people using the Segway for this purpose.
But as a normal means of transportation? No. Price, need, rules for usage etc. are pretty big hindrances for purchase.
Those who say, "Well, you could use a bike, wheelchair, etc." don't understand the use case. A person who can't walk long distances might use it in the mall to go from store to store. Then, when he sees something he wanted to look at, he could get off and browse around for a few minutes. It's the walk from the parking lot to the shoe section at WalMart that gets them -- it's not the few minutes spent perusing the boots.
Americans in the middle class and above aren't strangers to spending substantial amounts of money on stuff that they don't need. Segways are useful enough that I could imagine them gaining a substantial market share if it were fashionable to use one.
Now, that doesn't mean that they would catch on if they weren't dorky. But even at the outrageous price that they were marketed at, I think it's conceivable that they could -- I think they'd have similar chances to other potential fashions. So I actually think I agree with PG more than you. Price and insubstantial benefit are both major problems with the Segway (and frankly I'm being a little devil's advocate here, the price was ridiculous -- but cut it in half or so and I think it stops being prohibitive), but the aspect of Segway that made it impossible for the thing to succeed was its dorkiness.