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.
Concur with your (findings? Hypotheses?). The poor design of the first image in comparison to the second implies a value judgment about the relative worth of the users.
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.
Also, what's the load-bearing capacity of the first device? There are some mighty heavy laptops on the market these days. If the wobbly wheelie workstation can only hold a MacBook Air like you'd find in the hands of some caffeine-addicted heroin-chic-thin hipster, then that just won't do.
There is, however, a two-seat model, which looks to be just two of the singles bolted together. And the price would seem to support this supposition, as the the two-seater is an even $1000 compared to the single's $500.
(But for $500 a seat, I'd want leather, not cheesy vinyl.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-28 05:00 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-28 05:15 pm (UTC)The poor design of the first image in comparison to the second implies a value judgment about the relative worth of the users.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-28 05:38 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-28 05:36 pm (UTC)Not to mention racking your wedding tackle.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-28 05:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-28 05:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-28 05:54 pm (UTC)There is, however, a two-seat model, which looks to be just two of the singles bolted together. And the price would seem to support this supposition, as the the two-seater is an even $1000 compared to the single's $500.
(But for $500 a seat, I'd want leather, not cheesy vinyl.)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-28 08:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-28 08:29 pm (UTC)