But why?
I'm no biker, but I thought half the fun of it was 'getting your knee down', so you don't need it at speed, and when you're stationery, you either use your foot or the kick stand.
Seems like an awful lot of clever technology that just replaces a small folding piece of metal that has worked fine for 100 years.
Not whingeing - genuinely want to know the answer...
(
HoratioFellatio Taking the the out of psychotherapist, Tue 10 Jan 2017, 8:51,
Share,
Reply)
As soon as I posted this, I realised that the important thing is that it's self-DRIVING
rather than self-balancing. Which would make more sense.
Although again, at speed, bikes need to lean. Presumably to make this work properly, they'd need some massive rotating counter-weight to simulate the driver shifting his weight around?
(
HoratioFellatio Taking the the out of psychotherapist, Tue 10 Jan 2017, 8:54,
Share,
Reply)
That sucks the fun out of it
I thought people bought automatic tin-tops if they wanted boring transport.
A bike should be simply an engine strapped to a minimum number of wheels.
Should also be quick. Didn't look like much of an engine there.
(, Tue 10 Jan 2017, 20:17, Share, Reply)
The minimum number of wheels would be one
if you had self balancing technology like that.
Maybe they've missed a trick there?
(
HoratioFellatio Taking the the out of psychotherapist, Fri 13 Jan 2017, 22:53,
Share,
Reply)