Talk:Segway PT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
WikiProject Disability (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Segway PT is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


logo placement[edit]

I'm not sure the logo fits where it is right now, does the logo even need to be in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


The word pavement is used a couple of times in this articles. In America (my home), this means the hard surface that forms a road and, in reference to a road, would suggest the driving lanes. I have had British friends tell me that it means the space reserved for pedestrians, which I would call a sidewalk. Merriam Webster's dictionary confirms the difference in meaning. This word is used twice to distinguish between the automobile space and pedestrian space of the road in this article, which will suggest exactly the opposite meaning to British and American readers. I suggest that we eliminate the word in favor of some other phrasing. Any suggestions?? -- Bdentremont (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point but would Americans really not understand what is meant? Brits would understand whether pavement or sidewalk were used but I suppose sidewalk doesn't have a different kind of meaning in Britain whereas pavement does in American English. One might say that sidewalk should be used as it's understood by all but maybe there is a term that is neautral to both sides - how about pedestrian area (but that again could mean a large area only for pedestrians and not necessarily one beside a road). Any other suggestions?-- (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hm, might an American be confused by a word used to mean the exact opposite of its usual meaning? A good question, if you are an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

battery software[edit]

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. -- (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


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[edit]

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 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?[edit]

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.
We need someone to get on this right away, chop chop! (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Segway monorail[edit]

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 06:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are saying. Why would anyone want an upright, self-balancing train? (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Gyro monorail. (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The segway technology is completely different to the flywheel or reaction wheel scheme that satellites use. The motors drive the wheels you can see on the ground. There is no flywheel involved.Eregli bob (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Deaths and Injuries Due to the Device[edit]

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. (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. (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Not only the Owner of the Segway died riding it [1] but also George W. Bush fell on his nose with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a similar less expensive product?[edit]

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 (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not expensive because of the computer, but because of the fact that they want to get in all the giant marketing costs and exploit the patent they bought. -- (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC).
Roughly how much does one of these things cost? I came to the main Segway page to find out and there is nothing. I think I might have seen that it costs something like $4,000 (of course, you can get a scooter or motorcycle for that price). Can somebody put in the RRP in the article? Thanks in advance to anybody that knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Why no criticism?[edit]

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.. -- (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. (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
12 mph is hardly considered speeding... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The comment was sarcastic. -- (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is one of the fakest articles on Wikipedia. Total ad. (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so. This might relate to the fact that the product is: dangerous, bad for health (ways you would have walked ....), quite useless (Policemen "running" after thief in crowded streets?) and 'modern' (modern marketing knows about the importance of creating a hype on things - and ... has not been Apple/Steve Jobs involved in this .... at an earlier stage?- Yes!). No more questions. No more attempts to try to get the article into less an advertisement article from my side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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[edit]

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

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

Television Appearances[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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? (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Segway Home Page?[edit]

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? (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.[edit]

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 (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Segway HT[edit]

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

Removal of Image:Segway in Gazebo.png[edit]

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[edit]

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. (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[edit]

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)


Probably need to say something about the use of Segway as the paradigm example of an uncool thing. Arrested Development and Weird Al in White and Nerdy and many others have used the Segway in this way.

oh and I just noticed the South Park ref above too. Segway is probably better known as a joke than in any other context and you should probably mention that in the article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a source for that? I tend to agree; I've seen someone on a Segway trying to pick up girls, unsuccessfully. But that's OR. --John Nagle (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This is definitely a good idea, and is very useful to this article. The fact that the Segway had so much pre-release publicity from scientific and news media, but is now referenced almost exclusively in pop culture in a satirical manner, is very interesting and noteworthy indeed. In addition to the examples above, the movie Paul_Blart:_Mall_Cop heavily used the Segway in a satirical manner. Although the article definitely should not list every pop culture reference to the Segway, a few major examples would be useful in illustrating this aspect of the product. As the article currently stands, it reads as if it were a manufacturer's advertisement for the product. -- (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this, since it's highly relevant to the article! Hopefully someone can tactfully touch on this a bit in the article, without turning it into an exhaustive list. The impact of the Segway on pop culture is just as noteworthy as any other aspect of this product. --Dulcimerist (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Comparison with Clive Sinclair's C5; bad for health[edit]

How about a link to the C5? And from a european perspective, its sweet that the Americans invent a device so that the steroetypically obese Americans get even less exercise than before. (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to be snide and superior, you should learn to spell. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

General Motors section[edit]

This edit, aside from having an unnecessary subheader, deals with a future product which hasn't even been unveiled yet. It's sourced exclusively to a press release on the future presentation of this future product. This is inappropriate, and should be reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It got a ton of publicity today - in the NY Times blog [3] among other places. I think it's fine. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Not only that - it is NOT a press release. It is an article in The Detroit News. It may read a little like a press release, but that is to be expected from a friendly home town newspaper at times, just like hometown newspapers are sometimes overcritical about local political events. There are plenty of full articles on future products, and this one has enough information in the article and the quick search I did on google to more than justify a paragraph in this article. --Trödel 02:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
see also this google news results --Trödel 02:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Segway Incorporated[edit]

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.

The page for Segway currently redirects to this page (Segway PT). The page Segway should be built for the company, while this page can continue to reflect one of the individual products of the company. Flyguy33 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You can easily go that - just edit the redirect page, removing the redirect code and putting in an article. Before you/we do that, thought, we need to figure out what else it would say other than "this is the company that makes the Segway". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


Can the [ElektorWheelie be mentioned in the see also section ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Power restrictions?[edit]

Hi, is there a heavy-duty-model for carrying an average american (i.e., over 250 kg)? -- (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're trying to be witty, you should have realised that Americans use pounds.--DreamsReign (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

250 Kilograms (Mass) is equivalent (not quite the same thing) to approximately 551 Pounds (Weight). (Technically *km* is a unit of "mass" and *Lb* is "weight". A man standing on the Moon would weigh fewer pounds than he would on the Earth, but he remains exactly the same mass measured in grams/kilograms, because a balance scale is properly used for mass.) Picky details aside, a man that is 250 *pounds* (not *km* )is bordering on obese, no matter what country he lives in, unless he is far above average height. And I am not trying to be witty---just adding some information.

The question remains: is there a heavy duty model (I doubt it), but more importantly: what are the weight restrictions for a regular Segway? I think that information would improve the article. -r (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Three wheeled segway[edit]

On a superbowl ad there were these three wheeled used by the "Green police". Does anyone knoW what these are called? username 1 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ball segway (one wheel) of the future?[edit]

Watch this and tell me what you think about it: Im wondering if it violates any segway patents. B4Ctom1 (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

conservatives and lib dems no longer opposition party[edit]

someone should update the section about the cons and lib dems in the UK (who are now in power in coalition). they are no longer the leading opposition parties. Its mentioned that they were pushing to have segways allowed to travel cycle lanes - I dont know if they acheived that or if it is still an issue they are aware of but its certainlly out of date info.

Segways "allowed" by new Americans With Disabilities Act rule[edit]

Notes for future additions to the article when I get a chance to wordsmith...

Recently published changes (effective March 15, 2011) to the Americans With Disabilities Act will mandate allowance of "other power-driven mobility devices" in pedestrian areas, although this requirement can we waived for various reasons [28 C.F.R. Part 36.311(b)1]. Segways are specifically mentioned as devices in this category [28 C.F.R. Part 36.104]. [4]Eoghanacht talk 19:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Segway not controlled by "Leaning"[edit]

The article says in a number of places that the user of a Segway controls its motion by leaning forward or back. This is not at all the case. The user of a segway controls forward and backward movement by inclining the segway platform by pulling the handlebar toward his body or pushing it away from his body. The Segway is dynamically maintaining balance by moving itself (and the user's feet) forward or back under the center of mass, so the rider is not controlling own balance, the Segway is.

The way it works is this: 1) The segway 'wants' to balance you by getting directly underneath you. 2) If the Segway detects that at the balance point, the segway is at its 'neutral' reference angle with respect to the ground, then it wants to balance you at a standstill. 3) if it detects that when balancing you it is at some non-zero angular offset from its 'neutral' reference angle, then it takes that offset as an indication of the speed you are commanding, and will balance you at that speed (forward or backward).

So when you are standing on a Segway, you basically pull the bar to a position closer to your belly to go forward, and farther away to go backward. And the speed forward or backward is proportionate (not necessarily linear) to the offset from 'center', which for me was around 10 inches from my belly.

Interestingly when I took a Segway tour the instructors taught it as leaning forward or back, so that apparently is a good metaphor for an operator to use who is not so interested in delving into what's really happening  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't completely true. The PT's balance response is only to the pitch of the platform (or speed when speed limiting), not to where the rider's CG is. But the rider affects this pitch angle by moving their CG fore or aft and can do this a couple of ways, the most common being by using the handlebar to move their weight forward or backward relative to the platform. But, if they let go of the handlebar, they can also cause this weight shift using their ankles. Once their weight is shifted, the platform will lean in response. The PT does not "want to get under you", it only "wants" to keep its platform level. It "knows" nothing about you (other than that you are on the platform). As a result, it does end up balancing (keeping itself under) you as an intended by-product of keeping the platform level.
I do agree that the article is not as clear as it could be about how balancing works so I have started to clarify this with some major re-wording to the introduction. I realize that balancing is also discussed later in the article and those places should be adjusted to align better with this changed introduction, but I don't want to take that on right now. If others want to make those adjustments, I suggest following the approach I have just taken in the introduction. Perhaps the introduction goes into too much detail now and needs to be paired down some leaving those details to be addressed in other parts of the article. But many of those details were already attempted in the intro so I adjusted/elaborated as needed to make it more accurate and complete.JDHeinzmann (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Segway Inc.[edit]

NOTE: A new page Segway Inc. has been created with content about this company (history, different models, profitability, etc.) moved from this page Segway PT to the new page Segway Inc. if it relates to the company, rather than specifically to the Segway PT. This includes: company history, model line-up, other sectors (such as robotics), financial performance etc. Any help and assistance in improving these two pages is appreciated!
Enquire (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Recall and safety issues[edit]

I came to Wikipedia looking for information about the recall, referenced in passing in a column that I was reading, but there isn't any information here. There is at Segway Inc.. There is also a safety section there, which might fit nicely with the restrictions section. Should we add a "safety and recall" section, maybe merged with the restrictions section. I don't know enough to edit. I agree that this is too positive an article. It needs a bit more information about controversies and why the Segway hasn't lived up to its promise (hype?).--Bruce Hall (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new category: "Self-balancing personal vehicles" ?[edit]

There appear to be at least four articles about vehicles of a similar type; I think it would be handy to have a category to place them in. Any reason why not, and does the name seem reasonable? Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

RE: [5]

All criticism was removed in 2008 but it can still be integrated into the article. It is a real shame how much has been needlessly deleted in this article over time. All the sales information, etc.

When it was launched in December 2001 the annual sales target was 40,000 units, [1] the company also expected to have sold between 50,000 to 100,000 units in the first 13 months[2]. Optimism was also found among Segway Inc's investors, inventor Dean Kamen predicted that the Segway "will be to the car what the car was to the horse and buggy"[3] and John Doerr, a venture capitalist who invested in the company,[4] predicted that Segway Inc would be the fastest company to reach $1 billion in sales.[5] Despite those targets and predictions only about 30,000 Segways were sold from 2001 to 2007.[6]
Critics point to Segway Inc's silence over its financial performance as an indication that the company is still not profitable, a fact which is possible given that around $100 million were spent developing the Segway.[7]

Other information removed: [6]

Errectstapler (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That sales information is definitely beneficial to the article! The line about critics pointing to Segway Inc's silence over its financial performance is probably objectionable, since it implies something that may or may not be true.
This article does seem to have a history of having any criticism or embarrassing facts about the Segway removed, even if presented from a neutral point of view. It's almost as if people with a vested interest in the Segway keep editing the article to exclusively show the Segway in a positive light, thereby violating the neutrality of this article. --Dulcimerist (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

two relevant news stories[edit]

  • wrongful termination suit over electricity theft
  • segway ceo falls to death over cliff. Heyzeuss (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why Segway Failed[edit]

I saw that someone added this section last night. Although the information is of value to the article, it's plagiarism from this site: 4 Things You Can Learn From Segway's Notorious Product Fail It might be better to include this as an external link. Another option would be to rewrite the section using less-judgmental language, since this is what Wikipedia's guidelines tell us to do. This section's information is relevant to the article, just as the Edsel article appropriately lists the shortcomings of the Edsel. This Segway article does have a notorious history of having all criticism and controversies surrounding the Segway being censored. This results in the article appearing as if it were a manufacturer's advertisement for the product, which is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policies. Any thoughts on this subject? --Dulcimerist (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed it - it's a long, unsourced "thumb-sucker" of opinion, exactly the wrong way to include this kind of information. Lots and lots of legitimate sites have written about the Segway results and can be used as good sourcing. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Jimi Heselden[edit]

Why no mention of Jimi Heselden? You'd think the death of the owner of the company, while riding the product of said company, would at least merit a mention? LHM 05:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

He is in the Segway Inc. article, which seems appropriate, as compared to this article, which is about a particular model. I don't know that he was riding a PT at the time. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
There are several different Segway articles, and it appears I confused this one with the main article. My apologies. LHM 06:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to move Restrictions on use to Segway Inc.[edit]

The section Restrictions on use seems to be general to all Segway models and not specific to the Segway PT. I therefore propose that it be moved to Segway Inc.. Please comment on agreement or disagreement with this proposal. Enquire (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

How often does it need to be recharged?[edit]

And how much time to recharge? Seems to me that's important info. (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Where is cost of the device, sales and criticism[edit]

Considering the cost to develop the Segway, this product is a major bust and yet there is little criticism in this article. The device cost about $5,000 and sales have been very disappointing. Info on the disappointing sales has been in this article previously and been deleted. The article now consists mainly of where and under what conditions the Segway is permitted in various countries.TL36 (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It really feels as thogh someone from the Segway manufacturer watches this article and eliminates anything that reflects poorly on the product, even if the criticism creates a fair and balanced point of view to the article. As the article stands now, it's essentially a product information brochure. This article could take a few pointers from the structure found in the Edsel article. Good points to include in the Segway article would be the pre-release hype, high unit cost, poor sales, and the fact that most references to Segway in pop culture have been comedic in nature. Should someone place a tag on this article, questioning its lack of a neutral point of view? --Dulcimerist (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
If there's no disagreement on these points, I propose that someone just go ahead and create an unbiased criticism section encompassing what's been discussed here. --Dulcimerist (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I included an excellent external link to the article, which covers some of the points discussed in the talk page. It's from the Wall Street Journal, and does a good job summarizing from a neutral point of view. It also links to other good, neutral point of view articles from the WSJ about Segway. Perhaps someone could use this resource to create the section discussed in the talk page. The link should remain in the external links section, due to its excellent coverage and summary of Segway through related WSJ articles. For reference here, the link is Segway's Timeline --Dulcimerist (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Balanced Point of View[edit]

The external link providing a token amount of balance was removed. It provided some mild criticism and history surrounding Segway's somewhat difficult beginnings, compiled by the Wall Street Journal: Segway's Timeline If there are no objections, or if nobody wishes to create a small section to highlight useful information from the article, I'll add it back to the external links. It would probably be best if a new section to the Segway article was made, as mentioned on this talk page. Thanks. --Dulcimerist (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

When looking at the external link you've provided, I noticed that the article mentions the pre-release hype but neglects the disappointing sales and famous Segway-related accidents. I also found the article too technical and slightly biased. While including a "Criticism" section might make the article imbalanced, stating the critical responses of Segway (views of advocates of Segway and opponents to Segway) should make the article more objective. The external link given may be a good start, but more is needed. (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I also see that the article I linked to no longer has valid links to its source articles, which were key to it being useful. Would using it as an external link still be useful? I like your suggestion of stating critical responses in the existing sections, rather than creating a specific section for all criticisms. I wouldn't consider the differing views of to be described as advocates and opponents of Segway, but rather as the successes and shortcomings of Segway. It would be good to see a section with sales information over the years, even if it's just the sales figures with no additional comment. This article might be able to borrow some ideas from the Edsel article. --Dulcimerist (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikicensored, Promotional Article[edit]

Nothing about the company's bankruptcy, sale, and the death of the guy who bought it. He ran his Segway off a cliff on his estate. But Wikipedia mentions none of it, because Wikipedia is censored, especially when corporate promotion is involved. (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the vehicle itself, nothing at all to do with the company. If you want to read and learn about the company, see Segway Inc.. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Similar to Segway PT but smaller and lighter and without its pole and its accompanying handle bars[edit]

Does anyone know what is the general term for this item that is similar to Segway PT but smaller and lighter and without its pole and its accompanying handle bars? Should that be called self-balancing portable eletric dicycle? If yes, is it possible to have an article about that item in Wikipedia?

Here is a picture of it. [7]

Luigi.a.cruz (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is at Self-balancing two-wheeled board, but is currently a stub in need of expansion. --LiveRail 16:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Segway PT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Segway PT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Max speed typo/error fix maybe mistaken[edit]

I just found that the max speed conversion template had been messed up; it read "conver20.205. I assume it had said "convert|20.205" before and someone had accidentally deleted two characters, but I'm not positive. I changed it back, assuming that "20.205mph" was correct, but I have no idea if it actually is, or why they felt they had to add the ".205", since the speed really varies a great deal based on passenger weight and battery charge, etc.AnnaGoFast (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

AnnaGoFast, I fixed the speed issue. Thanks for notifying! Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)