The wheels in the second picture look like they are considerably sturdier relative to the loadbearing requirements.
Center of mass in the second image is also clearly inside the hemisphere defined by the wheel support points, so stability is going to be markedly better. The device in the first image is going to invert catastrophically the first time it hits a discontinuity in the travel surface.
I'd call them observations; I didn't express any conclusions or propose any experiments. :)
I'd say the design differences reflect less a value judgment about users than a cost/benefit analysis about the relative likelihood of number of lawsuits, unfavorable outcomes, and damage awards. Juries are far more likely to be sympathetic to a poor widdle baby wif a big, bad owie than to some dork who fell over while raiding Zul'Gurub from his parents' basement.
Comments 7
Center of mass in the second image is also clearly inside the hemisphere defined by the wheel support points, so stability is going to be markedly better. The device in the first image is going to invert catastrophically the first time it hits a discontinuity in the travel surface.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I'd say the design differences reflect less a value judgment about users than a cost/benefit analysis about the relative likelihood of number of lawsuits, unfavorable outcomes, and damage awards. Juries are far more likely to be sympathetic to a poor widdle baby wif a big, bad owie than to some dork who fell over while raiding Zul'Gurub from his parents' basement.
Reply
Not to mention racking your wedding tackle.
Reply
Leave a comment