rascalscooters.com · Domains

Re:New cyber baddies! by jimrob · 2008-01-19 03:14 · Score: 2, Informative · on CIA Claims Cyber Attackers Blacked Out Cities

I hope you realize that we didn't actually vote in Bush, ever. Period, end of story. Both elections were stolen. Thanks.

Gore and Kerry lost. Get over it. Typical Democrat whining - don't take fault for your shortcomings (i.e., poor choices in presidential candidates), but rather scream "UNFAIR!" and try to change the system to your advantage.

I'm not saying Bush is a great guy (I'm not fond of him at all), but he won. Get used to it. Quit making up excuses, and get over your egotistical Democrat mindset of "if we don't win, the other side cheated."

The people aren't even being allowed to know what they want. Freed of mandates (let's not forget Bush's tax cut of up to $100,000 for buying a SUV... if you're a qualifying business owner) the auto company is free to market whatever they like. People pretty much buy what they're sold, it's sad but true.

The whole reason the American auto industry is failing is because they CAN'T market what they want. They're forced to manufacture anemic go-karts with expensive technology out the tailpipe that total out in the most minor of accidents. Americans don't want cars like that, but environmentalists keep cramming them down our throats.

I know exactly what kind of car I want. Something simple, easy to work on, and devoid of computer control. I can't get that because of GOVERNMENT IMPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS enacted by DEMOCRATS that REQUIRE extremely complex (compared to prior technology) design and technology.

More Democrat egotism. "The people would agree with us and buy hybrids if only those damned Republicans and big businesses didn't get in their way! It's not at all possible that they don't want them. We know they do, it's what we want!"

So if you want to blame us for something, blame us for being placid and/or stupid. But honestly, Bush wasn't our fault (not Jr. anyway) and we want to buy vehicles which are more environmentally conscious. Some of us would even like to give them up entirely in favor of golf carts and public transportation, but I admit we're in the minority.

We, we, we. You guys just have your finger on the pulse of everything, don't you? Nobody disagrees with you, nobody has differing opinions.

I wouldn't give up my car for a golf cart. I wouldn't take a bus somewhere if you held a gun to my head. (Sit next to a bum soaked in urine while I wonder what that sticky stuff on the seat is? No thanks!) I don't want to fly down the interstate in a souped-up Rascal.

Bush was our fault. He won because of two reasons. First, people didn't like Al Gore. Second, people really didn't like John Kerry. But, being a Democrat, you can't believe your choices in candidates were inferior. Therefore, Bush cheated.

Re:Segway... hey, they laughed at bikers for YEARS by mjeffers · 2006-07-08 00:37 · Score: 5, Funny · on The Worst Tech of Q2 2006

I think, the Segway will be my relief when I get old and can't walk as good as now. It should be a nice replacement for those grandma walking aids that must be used these days.

Now it makes sense. The Segway's market is that large group of elderly people who can't walk long distances but are able to stand for long periods of time.

"Somewhere between mobility and the Rascal Scooter? Consider Segway!"

Rascal? by jarg0n · 2006-04-29 17:09 · Score: 1 · on Gadgets for the Lazy

How was the rascal overlooked??? http://www.rascalscooters.com/

Re:Failed brushes? by dougmc · 2006-03-18 18:56 · Score: 4, Informative · on Mars Rover Spirit Down a Wheel

Brushless motors are more complex

Actually, they're simpler, since there's no brushes. Generally the permanent magnets are on the shaft that rotates, and the electromagnets are on the part that doesn't, with three wires coming out (and possibly five more for a sensored model, but the sensorless models are more popular now.) Ignoring the older sensored models, the brushless motors are signifigantly simpler than brushed motors.

and require an array of active electronics inside them to produce the AC and modulating magnetic field they need to operate.

Actually, the electronics are generally outside the motor, in an ESC (electronic speed control), but I'll admit that it doesn't matter where they are. Brushed motors use an ESC as well to control the speed, so you've got some electronic parts either way. You're right that a brushless ESC is more complex than a brushed ESC, but the difference isn't really that signifigant.

Most brushless motors are lower torque than their brushed counterparts. (majority, I know there will be exceptions)

Torque is a function of motor design. It really has little to do with brushed or brushless, and you can certainly make high torque brushless motors if desired. If you need a motor with more torque but the same power (and less speed, since power = torque * speed) you either design an appropriate motor, or adjust your gear ratio so the amount of torque your motor does provide is appropriate for your use.

Brushed motors are more mechanical in nature and suffer from the usual mechanical issues, but they are less prone to failure than brushless.

And I disagree completely. Brushes wear out. (So do bearings and bushings, so it's a race to see which one wears out first, but in my experience, it's usually the brushes.) And for anything where you control the speed of the motor, you'll have an ESC (electronic bits) that can fail, but as a general rule of thumb, electronic bits are more reliable than mechanical bits.

Also, traveling through space and landing on a planet that may not have a protective magnetic field, active (transistor based) electronics must be carefully protected against emi that can disable or damage them.

Even the brushed motors will have ESCs on devices like the Mars Rovers (since the alternatives suck for a robot) and so either way you'll have active electronics to deal with. Also, the Mars rovers aren't operating in space -- the atmosphere (thin as it is) and magnetic field of Mars do provide considerable protection (compared to a satellite or something that is in space) against things like ionizing radiation.

This stuff isn't rocket science. Even things like scooters, Segways and electric cars use similar technology.

The technology of brushless was available when the rovers were designed, and I can't imagine NASA not seriously considering them.

I'm guessing that the AC who posted in this thread was right on -- that NASA used brushed motors because they've used them in the past and they worked fine then, so they'll work fine now -- when you're spending billions of dollars on things that can't be repaired in the field, you tend to stick with what's tried and true rather than what's 15% more efficient but not quite so well tested. I suspect that future rovers will have brushless motors, however.

Reinventing the wheels? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-15 05:05 · Score: 0 · on A Killer App For Segway

Why not just use a Rascal?

From the product description: by zombiestomper · 2004-10-12 09:01 · Score: 2, Funny · on Centaur - a Four-wheeled Segway

From time to time Segway's product development team devotes days, or even weeks, to creating new product concepts with the goal of finding a prince among frogs.

Actually, I think they're really looking for a fool and his money.

1. Intuitive user controls:

Thumbs forward: The Centaur's forward and backward propulsion is easily controlled by pushing a thumb throttle located on the underside of the right-hand handlebar.

Innovation, thy name is Segway. Kinda like a Rascal, eh? Genius!

2. Pop a wheelie: The Centaur uses dynamic stabilization technology...

Why? Who cares? Besides, the guy on the Rascal page seems to be having a blast keeping all 4 wheels on the ground. No broken hips there.

Lean forward, go forward...

Then why #1? See #2

3. Smart steering: The front two wheels turn left and right mechanically...

See #1. Looks like those wiley Rascal folks beat you to the punch.

4. No exhaust: Batteries power the Centaur, which means that there are no emissions...

Rascal Rascal Rascal Rascal Rascal

5. Quiet...

Hmmm...could the Rascal be quiet, too? See a pattern here?

Now, if the Rascal company borrows a page from the book of SCO, I think we'll litigious comedy gold.