Future Motion, the maker of the Onewheel electric skateboard, is recalling every one of them, including 300,000 Onewheel self-balancing vehicles in the US. Alongside the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the company now seeks to remedy the products after four known death cases — three without a helmet — between 2019 and 2021.
The recall comes a year after Future Motion took issue with the CPSC’s calls for recall and claimed that it tested and found nothing wrong with the Onewheels. At the time, the company issued a press release in objection to the CPSC and called the agency’s statements “unjustified and alarmist.”
Now Future Motion is moving forward with a voluntary recall it chose not to do almost a year earlier. The company is asking owners to stop using their Onewheels until they take appropriate action. For the newer Onewheel GT, Onewheel Pint X, Onewheel Pint, and Onewheel Plus XR, a software update with a new warning system is the remedy.
For early adopters, however, the CPSC and Future Motion are telling owners to stop using and discard the original Onewheel and Onewheel Plus. We asked Onewheel chief evangelist Jack Mudd in an email how many of the original units are affected, but Mudd refused to answer. Mudd also wouldn’t tell us why the company claimed there were no issues and publicly resisted issuing a recall back in 2022.
Mudd did say that the software update for the other models is rolling out worldwide, not just in the US.
Some crashes occurred due to Onewheel skateboards malfunctioning after being pushed to certain limits. The Onewheel GT, Onewheel Pint X, Onewheel Pint, and Onewheel Plus XR will receive a firmware update that will add a new warning “Haptic Buzz” feedback that riders can feel and hear when the vehicle enters an error state, is low on battery, or is nearing its limits and needs to slow down.
“This update is the culmination of months of work with the CPSC,” reads the company’s recall website. Last November, it called the CPSC’s warning about Onewheels “misleading” but stated it would “work to enhance the CPSC’s understanding of self-balancing vehicle technology and seek to collaborate with the agency to enhance rider safety.”
To install the update, owners must connect their Onewheels to the accompanying app and run a firmware update — the process is fully explained in a new video.
For early adopters, however, owners can receive a “pro-rated credit of $100 to the purchase of a new board,” according to Mudd. The credit will only be issued after owners confirm that they have disposed of the old model.
Alongside Future Motion’s blink on the decision to recall Onewheel, the company shared a new video on YouTube highlighting the new Haptic Buzz feature as well as best practices when riding. “We’ve been working closely with the CPSC for over a year in order to develop this new safety feature,” Mudd says in the video. He adds that ignoring pushback or Haptic Buzz “can result in serious injury or death.” It took engineers a while to whip up Haptic Buzz; perhaps it’s something that would not have been ready in a timely fashion after CPSC’s first whistle last year.
Four deaths per 300,000 boards? Hoo-boy! Wait until the CPSC hears about cars!
Cars and bikes would be banned if they were invented today.
We are incredibly tolerant of dangers that we are already familiar with.
There's a lot of things that wouldn't fly if they were invented today. Like could imagine how controversial libraries would be?
It would be shunned as socialism, and major publishers of books and DVDs would sue whoever came up with the concept into oblivion.
I mean shit look with how much contempt IP holders have against archive.org for trying to make sure nothing becomes lost media
What about motorcycles? Surely they would be okay.
Alcohol comes to mind.
We did ban that, and it didn't really do much. It just created a black market, much like weed today.
I'm here for the Onewheel black market.
Alcohol, bringing society down since forever.
It's really only one death since 3 idiots weren't wearing helmets.
No, its like paragliding without a helmet, which a lot of people do btw.
Not sure how not wearing a helmet makes it okay to be killed by a faulty product.
Because if you die from not wearing proper PPE, that's on you.
No its not and I cant believe I even have to say this lol. If I shoot you with a gun its on you for not wearing kevlar right? If your car explodes out of nowhere thats also on you for not wearing a seatbelt I suppose?
Correct, you don't recall the windshield of a car for being faulty if they're breaking because people not wearing seat belts keep flying through them. Deaths from not utilizing required protection should be considered differently.
If it was suddenly a TikTok fad to not wear bicycle helmets while riding in traffic and bicycle-related deaths went up, would you suddenly consider bicycles themselves more dangerous?
No.
These were "recalled" because people were pushing them beyond their designed and stipulated limits leading to fatal accidents, especially for people not wearing helmets.
All they were required to do was add haptic feedback indicating "you're doing what you're not supposed to," which, if you ride one, you would know that was already pretty clear.
The fact that they weren't required to change anything about the design or function of the OneWheel itself should tell you something.
You wouldnt recall the windshield because thats not the part malfunctioning. If a car keeps braking randomly while going 120 on the highway, it doesnt matter if you use a seatbelt or not, the car is faulty and thats what would get recalled.
I reread the text passage, it says pretty clearly 'the Onewheel was malfunctioning'.
Just because you didnt follow the instructions to wear a seatbelt doesnt make it okay to be killed. Thats like saying running over pedestrians is alright if they are jaywalking, they dont count as traffic casualties. If the only deaths counted are those where every party involved perfectly obeyed all rules and acted 100% correctly, there wouldnt be many left. Cars would be considered completely safe.
And you just kind of proved their point. You wouldn't recall the board because that's not the part that's malfunctioning if the user isn't wearing their PPE.
Onewheels are a board sport. Board sports come with inherent unavoidable risk. They also have limits which these users chose to push through, three of which did so without mitigating said risk by wearing PPE.
It IS the part malfunctioning though, it says so pretty clearly. Boards come with risks but the board malfunctioning is neither inherent nor unavoidable. Thats the whole point.
You clearly do not understand how the boards work. The "malfunction" is when the user overcomes the torque available to the motor for self balancing to take place. The user's center of gravity goes too far forward while moving at too high of a rate of speed and the motor cannot physically produce enough torque to keep itself under the rider and the result is a nose dive.
It's just physics. There is absolutely zero way to prevent this via engineering. It is inherent and unavoidable. The only thing you can do is not surpass the maximum operating speed at which the motor is no longer able to safely keep the board under the rider. Hence the latest update which adds a physical vibration the user can feel when approaching this limit.
Youre joking right? Install a speed threshold, problem solved. It is no witchcraft, but they probably dont want to invest the research needed or dont see the need.
What you propose is actually witchcraft lol. It's not nearly that simple. Stick with me here and think about it for a sec. The board is essentially an inverted pendulum. When the user wants to go faster, they shift their center of gravity over the front of the board. The board then must accelerate in order to balance the user. If it doesn't, the nose dips, hits the ground, and the user falls off.
With that knowledge, think about the mechanics of the board enforcing a speed threshold. If the user is near max capacity of the board and wants to go faster, they lean forward to move their center of gravity over the front. The board, with it's suggested speed threshold, refuses to go faster. Since it cannot move itself faster to compensate for the center of gravity of the user being in front of the board, the nose will fall and cause a nose dive, the exact problem you're trying to avoid.
It is quite literally 100% completely impossible to avoid this from happening, whether the motor has a set software speed limit or the user just overcomes the motor's maximum output. It is physics.
The solution, instead, is to have a warning system to let the user know they are approaching this limit, hence the haptic buzzing feedback in the latest update.
Nosedives happen all the time. The deadly cases are those where it happens at very high speeds or unexpectedly. When you feel the board stops accelerating you have to rebalance, Im not talking about a full stop at X km/h. Of course some buzzing or whatever would assist that, but not letting the user reach dangerously high speedy in the first place would have higher benefit imo. Idiots who want to push the limits will still do if they know they can, with or without haptic feedback.
Again, for the millionth time, there is absolutely no physically possible way to stop a user from going faster.
I dont know how you cant understand the physics behind this, doesnt seem so hard, especially since you seem to think you understood it pretty well. Maybe you just havent even read my comment, its not even worth answering then but here I go in case you just misunderstood. There is a motor accelerating for balance, that same motor can brake. If you stop the wheel from going faster than 15 km/h then it wont. What I think you actually mean is 'you cant stop the user from trying to go faster by leaning forward'. You cant, but they will know they cant push the limits after a few failed attempts and as long as the limit is low enough the risk of serious injury until then is minimal. Im not trying to avoid stopping the board by nosediving, which I said multiple times but you seem to ignore. What Im suggesting is stopping the board from nosediving at ridiculously high speeds, which is the problem at hand.
Okay.
Okay, fair enough.
So you are suggesting you stop the board by nosediving, but at a low speed? I honestly don't understand, you're directly contradicting yourself. If this is indeed what you're suggesting, then that's pretty dumb.
Except this "car" was advertised from the start to only go a maximum speed of 120. If you buy a car knowing the max speed is 120, don't bitch when it only goes 120 safely.
If the maximum speed is 120, the car wont go over 120. You cant advertise a car with 'only go 120 or the car will kill you'.
It's got one damn wheel. It technically goes faster because that's the only mechanism it has to try to keep balance. This is where your already poor analogy gets worse.
K
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?
Maybe not but logic isnt yours either
I'm pretty sure it is. There's that pesky reading comprehension failing you again.
Maybe pick up a book and improve yourself.
The difference as far as I could tell from the text would be that car accidents are usually the users fault while this is attributed to the products failure or bad usability.
Funny that you should mention that myth.
Thanks for that link, very interesting. I didnt cite the 94% though, I didnt even know about that statistic. Also, even if it isnt 94%, its probably close to that. Even if its just half of that, you cant blame the other half directly on the cars malfunction, those accidents are probably caused by many factors. So like I was saying, in this case the fault seems to lie entirely with the product.
Yup, I'm not here to argue with you, but just share that information. The fact that other countries have different safety standards for vehicles and better road designs, and have decreased fatalities dramatically, points to design as a stronger factor than driver error. (And I'd argue that driver error should be mitigated by design, not just waved off as a personal, moral failure.) What's really odd to me is the very different societal response, and different approach by different regulatory agencies, to design flaws that have killed a handful of people versus design flaws that kill tens of thousands annually.
Thanks for that, really interesting data
That's a false equivalence if I've ever seen one.
It's definitely not a false equivalency. The death rate per capita is one way you compare how deadly a mode of transportation is.
I don't deny that, but there's different reasons why they are deadly, and not all of those reasons are CPSC's oversight.