I tried to bow out, but since you’re clearly trying to call me out, I’ll respond.
- Nobody I know that rides OW seriously, leans like a noob on a segway, they control it via foot pressure. In fact, the best way to trick the OW into climbing steep inclines that it’d normally inch up until you hit a rock or mild swell, is to pump your rear foot like on a skate pump track, quickly bouncing your rear foot up and down a tiny amount which quickly lowers the nose and back. If you do this with a low stance and bounce your weight with it, you can pop over large terrain changes while pushing the wheel to max acceleration up inclines that are much larger than it’s normal capacity at max elevation profile. Especially if you tune settings correctly, as it accels proportionally to fast dips of the nose.
In fact many of the “pro” OW riders I know (sponsered guys with TFL or FF etc) hug their feet as close to the wheel as possible since it mitigates the amount of articulation you need to move your feet to control the board, at the cost of leverage of course, and this method is more appropriate for flat land.
There’s nothing happenstance about the way the controls work, it’s not an analog system either, I’m not claiming to be an expert on ESC design but I’ve been building industrial motion control systems for much of my adult life. Various motors work through different particular schemas but control systems are responding to input from some type of sensing. As you admit now it can be done, but you’d just can resist the urge to ridicule something you don’t understand. I admitted above it may not be practical, or even safe, but your assumptions about leaning hold no water, as I don’t need to lean to control it. Simply apply more foot pressure to one or the other foot, and lean the opposite way if I want. It’s pretty basic skating.
You seem pretty content to just accept the limitation of the format exactly as it is, while ignoring the fact that a large amount of improvement has already been made by tweaking variables to that format. I agree that with everything, there are limitations, but apparently you take exception to someone trying to toss around ideas on how to overcome the limitations that affect them personally. Not sure why frankly, maybe it’s just that you see yourself as some sort of defacto authority now. So I presume you’ve tried every possible change and ruled them out since you’re seemingly declaring them all non-starters, and the current iteration the penultimate form?
The current stock OW config is the equivalent of an early 80s skateboard. Everyone talked shit anytime someone suggested a variation on that theme as well, and look where that’s gone. The Tail Rails are one of the first, but pretty obvious incremental changes that doesn’t screw up any of the factors you mention as limitations, but I’d argue as well, that you’re over-stating the importance of weight, and making some pretty large assumptions about where the rest of us find value in the OW. Clearly we ride in very different situations and environments, that’s fine, to each their own, but maybe you can’t respect that?
Everyone I know with a OW rushed out to buy a concave footpad as soon as they could, many are using extreme versions now, and wishing for more. It’s natural to see a double angled or even curved rail setup as a big iterative progression, like elevated tail and nose street boards that have dominated much of the skateboarding scene for over 3 decades since they were regarded as stupid ideas when first introduced. In fact they’re now the format for olympic sports. See any cruisers, freestyle boards, etc in there? Is there even Olympic longboarding?
Have you tried a larger diameter wheel with a bit more gap for instance? Have you tried slightly taller rails on the standard XR wheel size for which a tiny amount of extra height will add a ton more battery capacity?
The weight difference between the XR and the Pint is not huge, but they ride completely different, yes, because of shape, wheel specifics, and completely different tuning. FM themselves has stated this.
They also, clearly regard the OW as a “performance machine”, the nearly $2k price for XR out the door supports this in my view. By what criteria then are you making this blanket statement? Also, they have been promoting the machine as an off-road vehicle for as long as I can remember. They feature numerous videos on thier channel of off-road only rides (admittedly showcasing downhill performance as I called out), and sponsoring off-road events. So I’m sorry if I have high hopes for improvement and refuse to just accept that it’s all it’s gonna be, because you are content with it as is.
My point re EUCs you seem to glom over is that they weren’t off-road monsters in the first iterations by any means, yes they have some over form factor advantages, but the first EUCs were weak as hell compared to whats out there now, many having less speed or range than a OW did. They’ve benefited from an open and competitive environment with lots of companies working on innovation and improvement, and they’ve progressed hugely, and obviously if you care to pay attention, at a much higher pace than OWs. Maybe you’re right and OWs wouldn’t advance as well, but how can you be so certain when there’s been the complete opposite environment? I’m sure anybody you asked 20 years ago would have laughed at the idea of all these electric rideables, yet practically none of the tech used in them is new or advancing at any sort of breakneck pace. It’s been people unwilling to just accept the limitations of say, the previous iteration of a push board, that have made esk8 happen.
Anyway, not really sure who pissed in your cornflakes today that you’re taking exception to me wanting more out of the platform, or the authority sent by god to define the platform and how it’s used by everyone.
This is my response to your insistence. Not interested in discussing it further with you, since you clearly have no respect for me, though we don’t know each other. Fortunately for me, I don’t really give a shit. Peace out.