News Monorail Red in motion with guests on board and doors open

[MisterPenguin]

The maximum force that even the torquiest motor could apply to the door would be limited by the coefficient of static friction of the rear driving wheels. At some point, they would start skidding.

So if we know the weight of the ECV + rider + child as 500 pounds and using 0.79 as the coefficient of friction of synthetic rubber on cut pile carpet*, we can estimate that the maximum torque that could be applied by the motor onto the door as 400 pounds of force or 1800 newtons. As per the estimate in the other thread, the impact of the ECV going from 5 mph to a full stop in 100 milliseconds is about 5000 newtons.

It's not insignificant, but I'd still go with the impact force as being the primary cause of the shearing force on the door hinge.

Also note that this motor would need about 360 Nm of torque to achieve 1800 newtons of force on the door. This is about double the torque of a 3000 watt motor I found referenced in a 50 mph racing scooter being discussed over in the electric scooter forums. 110 Nm was a more reasonable figure for a 2000 watt motor quoted which would give us 550 newtons of force on the door. OTOH, I'm not an expert in ECV design so ECVs may use gearing to increase available torque while reducing top speed, which would make sense. That would take us back up to 1800 newtons.

* This coefficient of friction is off of some paper I found on the slipping force of shoes on carpet. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jte2000/47/2/47_2_53/_pdf

African or European ECV?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The maximum force that even the torquiest motor could apply to the door would be limited by the coefficient of static friction of the rear driving wheels. At some point, they would start skidding.

So if we know the weight of the ECV + rider + child as 500 pounds and using 0.79 as the coefficient of friction of synthetic rubber on cut pile carpet*, we can estimate that the maximum torque that could be applied by the motor onto the door as 400 pounds of force or 1800 newtons. As per the estimate in the other thread, the impact of the ECV going from 5 mph to a full stop in 100 milliseconds is about 5000 newtons.

It's not insignificant, but I'd still go with the impact force as being the primary cause of the shearing force on the door hinge.

Also note that this motor would need about 360 Nm of torque to achieve 1800 newtons of force on the door. This is about double the torque of a 3000 watt motor I found referenced in a 50 mph racing scooter being discussed over in the electric scooter forums. 110 Nm was a more reasonable figure for a 2000 watt motor quoted which would give us 550 newtons of force on the door. OTOH, I'm not an expert in ECV design so ECVs may use gearing to increase available torque while reducing top speed, which would make sense. That would take us back up to 1800 newtons.

* This coefficient of friction is off of some paper I found on the slipping force of shoes on carpet. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jte2000/47/2/47_2_53/_pdf

...oh dear...I’ve gone cross eyed

 

[Missing20K]

I'm pretty sure they're not allowed to do that. Not to mention these things aren't even specifically intended for for people with disabilities. That's why Disney calls them ECV's (Electric Convenience Vehicles).

Did you read the link I provided in the post they attempted to quote? ECVs fall under the "other power-driven mobility device" section.

Here is the relevant passage:

These devices are called "other power-driven mobility device" (OPDMD) in the rule. OPDMD is defined in the new rules as "any mobility device powered by batteries, fuel, or other engines… that is used by individuals with mobility disabilities for the purpose of locomotion, including golf cars, electronic personal assistance mobility devices… such as the Segway® PT, or any mobility device designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes, but that is not a wheelchair". When an OPDMD is being used by a person with a mobility disability, different rules apply under the ADA than when it is being used by a person without a disability.

And folks with disabilities have the right to choose any device which best suits their needs.

People with disabilities have the right to choose whatever mobility device best suits their needs. For example, someone may choose to use a manual wheelchair rather than a power wheelchair because it enables her to maintain her upper body strength. Similarly, someone who is able to stand may choose to use a Segway® rather than a manual wheelchair because of the health benefits gained by standing. A facility may be required to allow a type of device that is generally prohibited when being used by someone without a disability when it is being used by a person who needs it because of a mobility disability. For example, if golf cars are generally prohibited in a park, the park may be required to allow a golf car when it is being used because of a person's mobility disability, unless there is a legitimate safety reason that it cannot be accommodated.

And as far as asking for documentation, here is that relevant passage from the link I provided:

An entity that determines it can accommodate one or more types of OPDMDs in its facility is allowed to ask the person using the device to provide credible assurance that the device is used because of a disability. If the person presents a valid, State-issued disability parking placard or card or a State-issued proof of disability, that must be accepted as credible assurance on its face. If the person does not have this documentation, but states verbally that the OPDMD is being used because of a mobility disability, that also must be accepted as credible assurance, unless the person is observed doing something that contradicts the assurance. For example, if a person is observed running and jumping, that may be evidence that contradicts the person's assertion of a mobility disability. However, it is very important for covered entities and their staff to understand that the fact that a person with a disability is able to walk for a short distance does not necessarily contradict a verbal assurance -- many people with mobility disabilities can walk, but need their mobility device for longer distances or uneven terrain. This is particularly true for people who lack stamina, have poor balance, or use mobility devices because of respiratory, cardiac, or neurological disabilities. A covered entity cannot ask people about their disabilities.

I deal with disabilities and design on a daily basis, so apologies for being so thorough.

I also fall under the camp of doing my best to not judge anyone I see in these vehicles. Myself and my brother, in separate incidents, were a razor's edge from being confined to such a device and I wouldn't wish it on my worst.

They can run into my ankles as long as I am lucky enough to continue using my ankles.

Sorry for the drift.

 

[s8film40]

Did you read the link I provided in the post they attempted to quote? ECVs fall under the "other power-driven mobility device" section.

Technically I don't think ECV's fall under that since they're not necessarily a mobility device and in many cases are a "convenience" device as the name implies. ECV's aren't just for people who are disabled, but also for people who just have a hard time walking or standing for long distances/time.

This part of what you posted pretty much makes it useless to ask assuming they legally can:

If the person does not have this documentation, but states verbally that the OPDMD is being used because of a mobility disability, that also must be accepted as credible assurance,

I think there's probably some other legal aspect that aren't being addressed. I say that because Disney and other companies doing business in the area are very adamant in their training that you cannot ask if someone is disabled or ask them to show proof. Again though it's all kind of irrelevant when they're marketing these devices as a convenience and allowing anyone who wants to to rent them for any reason.

 

[Missing20K]

Technically I don't think ECV's fall under that since they're not necessarily a mobility device and in many cases are a "convenience" device as the name implies. ECV's aren't just for people who are disabled, but also for people who just have a hard time walking or standing for long distances/time.

This part of what you posted pretty much makes it useless to ask assuming they legally can:

I think there's probably some other legal aspect that aren't being addressed. I say that because Disney and other companies doing business in the area are very adamant in their training that you cannot ask if someone is disabled or ask them to show proof. Again though it's all kind of irrelevant when they're marketing these devices as a convenience and allowing anyone who wants to to rent them for any reason.

Believe whatever you like. I generally believe the US Dept of Justice, Civil Rights Division, to be a credible source.

"any mobility device powered by batteries, fuel, or other engines… that is used by individuals with mobility disabilities for the purpose of locomotion, including golf cars, electronic personal assistance mobility devices… such as the Segway® PT, or any mobility device designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes, but that is not a wheelchair"

They could ask. They are choosing to not ask. For reasons I can only assume. Which I won't.

 

[s8film40]

Believe whatever you like. I generally believe the US Dept of Justice, Civil Rights Division, to be a credible source.

Are you aware of local state laws? Are you sure there isn't something else that prohibits asking?

They could ask. They are choosing to not ask. For reasons I can only assume. Which I won't.

What would be the purpose of asking? The very passage you quoted said that they don't have to provide proof and their verbal assurances have to be taken at face value. So if as you say they can ask but no proof is required what would be the point?

 

[fngoofy]

The maximum force that even the torquiest motor could apply to the door would be limited by the coefficient of static friction of the rear driving wheels. At some point, they would start skidding.

So if we know the weight of the ECV + rider + child as 500 pounds and using 0.79 as the coefficient of friction of synthetic rubber on cut pile carpet*, we can estimate that the maximum torque that could be applied by the motor onto the door as 400 pounds of force or 1800 newtons. As per the estimate in the other thread, the impact of the ECV going from 5 mph to a full stop in 100 milliseconds is about 5000 newtons.

It's not insignificant, but I'd still go with the impact force as being the primary cause of the shearing force on the door hinge.

Also note that this motor would need about 360 Nm of torque to achieve 1800 newtons of force on the door. This is about double the torque of a 3000 watt motor I found referenced in a 50 mph racing scooter being discussed over in the electric scooter forums. 110 Nm was a more reasonable figure for a 2000 watt motor quoted which would give us 550 newtons of force on the door. OTOH, I'm not an expert in ECV design so ECVs may use gearing to increase available torque while reducing top speed, which would make sense. That would take us back up to 1800 newtons.

* This coefficient of friction is off of some paper I found on the slipping force of shoes on carpet. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jte2000/47/2/47_2_53/_pdf

Look at the big brain on Lensman!
Nice.

 

[fngoofy]

Hmmm...
Electric motors are indeed torquey things, aren't they?

Not to be confused with Torquay.

 

[flynnibus]

They could ask. They are choosing to not ask. For reasons I can only assume. Which I won't.

You're both right... ECVs at Disney are both for accessibility AND convenience. And Disney simply chooses to not differentiate between the uses, hence all ECV usage is handled as if it were accessibility.... even if the particular user is doing it solely for convenience.

This 'lazy' approach insulates Disney the most.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The problem is that if it is not necessary physically, there is nothing convenient about them. If not thought out it might seem that way initially, but, it does not work out to be that at all. Can we let this year old thread die and just use the more recent imaginary bloodshed one about the Monorail and the Missing Freaking Door.

 

[Missing20K]

Are you aware of local state laws? Are you sure there isn't something else that prohibits asking?

What would be the purpose of asking? The very passage you quoted said that they don't have to provide proof and their verbal assurances have to be taken at face value. So if as you say they can ask but no proof is required what would be the point?

No. I'm also not a Florida Civil Rights Attorney. Are you aware of any laws that expressly prohibit them asking? I've linked to the US DOJ ADA, which expressly states they are allowed to ask. Unless you're able find a Florida or RCID statute that forbids Disney from asking, I will stand by original post.

There is no purpose in asking, per se. A common refrain among active Disneyphiles (not all but a vocal portion) is that Disney should be allowed to ask for "proof." I was merely stating that Disney could, in fact, ask for "proof." Yes, merely stating that one has a disability that requires the use of a mobility device is valid. So asking would be a bit of a fruitless endeavor; see my comment below.

You're both right... ECVs at Disney are both for accessibility AND convenience. And Disney simply chooses to not differentiate between the uses, hence all ECV usage is handled as if it were accessibility.... even if the particular user is doing it solely for convenience.

This 'lazy' approach insulates Disney the most.

This. No worries about lawsuits from denying a disabled Guest proper accommodation or a Guest feeling uncomfortable describing the nature of their disability and why they need the device to a CM.

Last I'll say on this topic drift.

 

[s8film40]

No. I'm also not a Florida Civil Rights Attorney. Are you aware of any laws that expressly prohibit them asking? I've linked to the US DOJ ADA, which expressly states they are allowed to ask. Unless you're able find a Florida or RCID statute that forbids Disney from asking, I will stand by original post.

There is no purpose in asking, per se. A common refrain among active Disneyphiles (not all but a vocal portion) is that Disney should be allowed to ask for "proof." I was merely stating that Disney could, in fact, ask for "proof." Yes, merely stating that one has a disability that requires the use of a mobility device is valid. So asking would be a bit of a fruitless endeavor; see my comment below.

My point was Disney and other companies are very adamant in their training to tell employees they cannot ask for proof of a disability. I'm not saying I know if they are allowed to or not and you haven't ruled out the possibility that there is a restriction against it. It seems reasonable to me that with their legal staff they've probably at the very least determined this to be the best course of action if not being aware of a law that states they can't or perhaps a law that gives a guest some sort of legal advantage if they feel discriminated against. This is all completely irrelevant though because asking without a requirement for proof is just plain silly and a disastrous way to handle the situation from a customer service perspective. The only reason to ask would be if they wanted to limit scooters to just those who are disabled and that clearly isn't their intention anyway. It also wouldn't really offer any benefit.

 

[yaksplat]

@Lensman you civil or mechanical? I'm a ME and software.

 

[Movielover]

@Lensman you civil or mechanical?

It's like Pre-Law and Pre-Med... What's the difference?

 

[IanDLBZF]

Speaking of "vintage" Miami-Dade Transit still operates older Budd Metro Cars that are 34 years old, however these are being retired in favor of newer Hitachi Railcars (did I mention that Hitachi has a factory in South Florida?).

Since then, MDT has retired ALL their Budd Cars in favor of the Hitachi Cars.

 

[Touchdown]

Great google moogly, this is quite an impressive thread necromancy! This thread is 5 years old.

 

[JoeCamel]

Great google moogly, this is quite an impressive thread necromancy! This thread is 5 years old.

But see, other jurisdictions replace rolling stock so the monorails must go or something like that....