One Response to “Cool Rider”

  1. Dan Sullivan says:

    The price is high, but the initial production is limited. That’s normal.

    However, the back wheels are too small. They needn’t be as large as the front wheel, but they should be at least 7″ (20cm), and probably larger. After all, the jarring to the rider is through the back wheels, and most of the weight is on the back wheels. The front wheel need only be large to hold the motor. Trike riders can confirm that two wheels beside each other are actually more jarring than a single wheel, because the jarring is not in line with the rider’s balance line. That is, the rider is jarred from side to side as well as up and down.

    Also, there will be constant lateral stress between the frame tube from the front wheel and the frame between the back wheels, and this stress is much greater because the rod is not centered in the middle of the platform. While the offset design might be more comfortable or convenient (although I can’t imagine why), it is structurally unsound.

    I would expect the two long tubes to be made so the user could make the thing small enough to tuck into a corner of the office or stuff into a shopping cart. After all, portability is the main advantage of a scooter over an otherwise superior bicycle. Allthough the handlebar tube appears to adjust, it does not appear to collapse, and the slightly curved tube from the front wheel to the platform does not seem to adjust at all. Why that tube is curved is a mystery, as a straight tube would have been stronger, and would have had more clearance.

    The platform is corrugated, which is good, but the bar that traps the shoes creates a hazard. In a sudden stop, whether due to brakes locking, a crash, or a wheel catching something it can’t hop over, the rider would be safer if he could jump forward and run. Instead his feet are held while his upper torso is thrown forward and downward.

    All in all, I think the designer was more clever than sensible.

Leave a Reply