Segway to U3-X

The year: 2001. The product: Dean Kamen’s Segway® Personal Transporter. I was instantly intrigued, and to this day I still do a double-take, then gawk, when I see someone cruising around on their Segway. I’m secretly envious of anyone who gets to ride one, so much so that riding, if not outright owning one, is on my bucket list. To me, the Segway is the ultimate in personal A to B transportation. No gas. No oil. Just a quick battery charge and you’re on your way. Run your errands. Go out to lunch. Park it in your cubicle. What could be better? Well, it turns out that Honda’s engineers have developed an equally impressive aid to personal mobility. Enter the U3-X Personal Mobility Concept.

Both the Segway and U3-X are great examples of mechatronic engineering. Despite their relatively small size when compared with other self-propelled transportation options (think motorcycle or automobile), neither is a simple machine. Both rely on complex interactions between hardware and software to safely move passengers from one point to another. Like the Segway, the U3-X is self-balancing – which is a surreal sight when you see either machine free-standing. The Segway looks a little like a glorified hand truck, with two wheels separated by a platform and a tall vertical handle. To make the Segway move, passengers stand on the platform, grasp the handle, and lean in any direction. The U3-X, on the other hand, balances on a single wheel-within-a-wheel that enables forward, backward, lateral, and diagonal motion. Picture a sort-of high-tech unicycle without pedals. Passengers simply sit on the foldable seat, rest their feet on the retractable foot pegs, and lean slightly in the direction they want to move.

So what makes either machine tick? At a high level, each is a tightly integrated combination of several different technologies including motors, batteries, control algorithms, electronics, sensors, and actuators. Precisely the type of components you find in any self-respecting mechatronic system. Common components integrated in unique ways to solve real problems – the classic, and sometimes rare, product realm where form and function meet genuine usability. Segway and Honda engineers simply needed to figure out how to get all of the components to play nicely together – the engineering challenge of mechatronic system design. And as systems get more complex, the challenge of EDA software vendors to provide design tools that accurately model and analyze often disparate technology interactions. A perfect segue (sorry…couldn’t resist) to today’s sponsor…SystemVision, Mentor Graphics’ solution for mechatronics system design and analysis.

The Segway and U3-X are clearly focused on different segments of the personal transport market. If you need to get from one building to another, or one part of town to another, the Segway is clearly the winner. It’s even suitable for travelling short distances, say from your desk to the printer in Room 213, provided your office hallways and doorways are wide enough. But it is a bit bulky for close quarters. The U3-X, on the other hand, is designed for close quarters maneuverability – precisely the type of environments you find in an office or crowded public setting. The more I think about it, the more it seems these two machines really compliment one another. Use the Segway for Point A to Point B long distance travel with the U3-X carefully stowed either in a backpack or one of several commercially available Segway storage options. Once you get to where you’re going, park the Segway (in free-standing mode, of course), then unpack the U3-X and hop on for close-quarters, short distance mobility at more liesurely speeds. Perfect. Add another must-ride item to be bucket list. Now someone needs to convince Honda to move the U3-X from its concept / prototype phase to full production.

Post Author

Posted May 13th, 2010, by

Post Tags

, , , ,

Post Comments

1 Comment

About Mike Jensen's Blog

Views, insights, and commentary on mechatronic system design and analysis. Mike Jensen's Blog


One comment on this post | ↓ Add Your Own

Commented on September 17, 2012 at 10:58 am
By Do We Overdesign? « Mike Jensen's Blog

[…] homebrew design-and-builds. In fact, I think a lot about electric transportation – Segways, bicycles, motorcycles, cars. The system components of an electric car are not much more […]

Add Your Comment


April 2015
  • Simulation for Test
  • December 2014
  • Motor Down
  • October 2014
  • Reliability vs Robustness
  • June 2014
  • Wow Factor
  • May 2014
  • SystemVision 5.10.3
  • March 2014
  • IESF 2014: Military & Aerospace
  • Engineering Oops!
  • Big Engineering
  • January 2014
  • SystemVision Model Wizard
  • December 2013
  • SystemVision 5.10.2
  • Modeling: An Engineer’s Dilemma
  • October 2013
  • What is Your Legacy?
  • September 2013
  • Automotive IESF 2013
  • July 2013
  • Simple Design Solutions
  • June 2013
  • SystemVision 5.10
  • May 2013
  • Engineering Muscle Memory
  • EDA vs. Windows 8
  • March 2013
  • VHDL-AMS Stress Modeling – Part 3
  • January 2013
  • VHDL-AMS Stress Modeling – Part 2
  • VHDL-AMS Stress Modeling – Part 1
  • December 2012
  • Practice! Practice!
  • November 2012
  • Sharing Tool Expertise
  • October 2012
  • Preserving Expertise
  • Virtual Prototyping — Really?
  • Innovations in Motion Control Design
  • September 2012
  • Game Changers
  • Do We Overdesign?
  • August 2012
  • Tsunami Remnants
  • July 2012
  • A New Look at Device Modeling
  • SystemVision 5.9
  • June 2012
  • Veyron Physics
  • May 2012
  • Rooster Tail Engineering
  • April 2012
  • Automotive IESF 2012
  • Teaching and Learning CAN Bus
  • March 2012
  • Analog Modeling – Part 6
  • Analog Modeling – Part 5
  • Analog Modeling – Part 4
  • February 2012
  • Analog Modeling – Part 3
  • Analog Modeling – Part 2
  • January 2012
  • Analog Modeling – Part 1
  • Connecting Tools and Processes
  • December 2011
  • Turning-Off and Tuning-In
  • Use vs. Experience
  • Analyzing the Big Picture
  • November 2011
  • Simulating for Reliability
  • October 2011
  • SystemVision 5.8
  • VHDL-AMS Model Portability — Fact or Fiction?
  • September 2011
  • IESF 2011 Moves to Frankfurt
  • Simulation Troubleshooting
  • August 2011
  • Qualities of VHDL-AMS Quantities
  • Military & Aerospace IESF 2011
  • Touring Johnson Space Center
  • July 2011
  • Engineering versus Science
  • June 2011
  • System Reengineering
  • May 2011
  • Integrating Hardware and Software Design
  • Engine Remote Start
  • Integrated System Design
  • Simulation Experiments (Part 3)
  • April 2011
  • Automotive IESF 2011
  • Pushbutton Cars
  • System Simulation with FEA-Base Motor Models
  • March 2011
  • Simulation Experiments (Part 2)
  • Simulation Experiments (Part 1)
  • Japan: Patience and Grace Amid Disaster
  • Top Gear = Driving Fun
  • February 2011
  • Buoyancy
  • Ideas in Motion
  • January 2011
  • The Mechanical Half of Mechatronics
  • Detroit Auto Show
  • Signal-flow vs Conserved System Modeling
  • SystemVision 5.7…Ready, Set, Go!
  • December 2010
  • SystemVision and Windows 7
  • Friction Vacation
  • Simulation Beyond Volts and Amps (Part 4)
  • November 2010
  • Simulation Beyond Volts and Amps (Part 3)
  • Simulation Beyond Volts and Amps (Part 2)
  • Simulation Beyond Volts and Amps (Part 1)
  • October 2010
  • SAE Convergence Recap (and an Unexpected Surprise)
  • VHDL-AMS Black Belt
  • Converging on SAE Convergence
  • System Design vs System Repair
  • September 2010
  • What’s the “AMS” in VHDL-AMS?
  • How Sensitive is Your System?
  • Do You Trust Your Simulator?
  • August 2010
  • What’s in a SPICE Model?
  • Cycling + Gravity = Pain
  • NI Week: Fun for Engineers
  • June 2010
  • Are You a Flexible Thinker?
  • VHDL-AMS and Switch Hysteresis
  • May 2010
  • VHDL-AMS Revisited
  • Segway to U3-X
  • Atomic Glue
  • March 2010
  • IESF Recap
  • February 2010
  • IESF is Coming…
  • System Level HDL-topia
  • January 2010
  • Mastering Design Abstraction
  • The Joy of Disassembly