Simboard
Morgan Weinberg
mweinberg@namiresearch.com
Burt Miller
bmiller@namiresearch.com
July 7, 2022
imboard is a motion platform that features a
S table that pivots in two degrees of rotational
freedom (2DOF), providing for the simula-
tion of board sports such as skateboarding, surfing,
and snowboarding, and other activities and exer-
cise routines yet to be invented that entail balance,
agility, and footwork. Medical therapy is also an
important use case. Simboard is extensible where
an additional apparatus such as a racing rig or ski-
ing rig may be attached and integrated with the
platform controller. Simboard, which is not lim-
ited to motion simulation, can handle high-torque
loads and is capable of large deflection angles in
backlash-free, precise motion. Simboard is patent
pending.
1 Background
The idea of simulating motion dates at least back to
1904 with the introduction of The Antoinette, which
was an airplane simulator comprised of two half barrels
mounted together via flexible joint. A student pilot
would operate the controls to correct pitch and roll
deflections made by the instructor. Other examples
of early aircraft simulators include the The Sanders
"Teacher", which was a model aircraft with working
control surfaces, affixed to the ground that a student
could pilot in light winds. The Wright Brothers built a
simulator for their Type B airplane called the Kiwi Bird
that a student could learn to fly on the ground before
taking to the sky. Motion was produced by an electric
motor driving a cam producing lateral movement that
the student had to correct using the plane’s controls.
In the modern era, flight simulation with motion is
considered a critical part of flight training, especially
for advanced aircraft where mistakes can be costly and
deadly. A University of Victoria study in the 1980s
showed that pilots strongly preferred the inclusion of
motion in simulated flight [4]. Typically, large com-
mercial flight simulators use a Stewart-Gough arrange-
ment with six actuators providing six degrees of free-
dom (6DOF). These machines typically sit high off the
ground and require a large open space within which
to operate.
Other smaller, less expensive, two-degree-of-
freedom (2DOF) and three-degree-of-freedom (3DOF)
motion platforms have become popular for both com-
mercial and home use. There are numerous companies
that produce 2DOF, 3DOF, as well as 6DOF platforms
that range in price from $3,000 to over $100,000. The
predominant application for these platforms is driving
with an emphasis on motorsport, however simulators
exist for commercial vehicles, construction equipment,
emergency vehicles, military vehicles and others.
High-end simulators are generally actuated via servo-
driven ball screws, which have largely supplanted hy-
draulic systems; and at the low end, actuation is pro-
vided by lower-cost gearmotors. The global driving
simulator market is projected to grow at a compound
annual rate of 7.2% from $1.5 billion in 2020 to $2.1
billion by 2025 [2].
Further down in price are static simulators that typi-
cally cost less than $1,000. A static driving simulator,
for example, may include a wheel, pedals, shift knob,
and seat all attached to lightweight frame that sits
on the floor. Some 2DOF and 3DOF platforms allow
the attachment of such a frame to a movable table,
whereas others have the frame and actuating means
tightly integrated into one functional unit.
1.1 Board Simulation
While flying and driving simulations are well served
by the state of the art, there is an opportunity in the
market for the simulation of board activities such as
 Simboard
surfing and other related activities that entail balance,
agility, and footwork.
This is not a trivial problem, as the forces placed on
such a platform can be significantly higher than those
required to articulate a racing rig where the center of
gravity is roughly in line vertically with the center of
pivot. The other challenge is compactness, where the
platform must be at a comfortable height for a rider
to stand on and interact with in a space with the stan-
dard ceiling height of 8 ft. Realistic control where foot
pressure drives articulation is a further complication.
Power is also a concern for operation in residential and
to a certain extent, commercial spaces.
To our knowledge, the only motorized board simula-
tor that ever made it to market was the iJoy® Board,
which sold for about $500 in 2006. The board, which
is no longer produced, was not a true simulator but
more of a vibrating exercise platform - producing a
seemingly random rocking-rolling motion, challenging
the rider to maintain balance while providing a modest
workout.
1.2 Passive Boards
A passive board, the Wii Fit Balance Board, on the
other hand, has achieved notable success in market,
having shipped over 40 million units, and continues to
be manufactured.
Passive balance boards - defined as boards without
actuators - go back to the era of the Atari 2600. In
1982, Amiga introduced the "Joyboard", which looked
like a bathroom scale. Riders would stand on the board
and lean in certain directions to control a particular
game. A slalom skiing game, also developed by Amiga,
was sold along with the board. A surfing game was
developed as well but not released.
The Wii Fit Balance Board, introduced in 2007, is
reminiscent of the Joyboard. The board has four load
cells that sense rider movement. Typically, the board
is purchased in a bundle with "Wii Fit" - an application
designed to make fitness entertaining, which highlights
a growing trend in exercise gamification. Traditional
board sports have also been adapted to the peripheral
such as "Shaun White Snowboarding" and "Skate It".
In 2009, Activision relesed "Tony Hawk: Ride" for
PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii that included a pe-
ripheral board to simulate the riding of an actual skate-
board in the game. The board is flat with the ends
angled up like a typical skateboard and the bottom
slightly curved, allowing it be rolled side to side. The
board is designed to be operated on a carpet with
"grippy" tape to keep it in place. Activision’s marketing
at the time stated that players would "put down the
controller, step on the board, and feel the sensation
of going big... Shift your weight to turn and balance
grinds, kick back on the tail of the board to ollie, and
lean into airs to pull off huge spins". Reviews of the
game and specifically the passive board were decidedly
negative. GameTrailers named "Tony Hawk: Ride" the
"Most Disappointing Game of 2009". GameSpot gave
the system a 3.5/10, with the most positive comment
being that the peripheral was "sturdy". Both G4TV and
Giant Bomb rated the game a 1/5.
Also released in 2009 was the "Rob Dyrdek Skate-
board for Wii", which is a skateboard-shaped board
mounted on a pedestal that is meant to be attached to
a Wii Fit Balance Board. Ratings for the device were
mediocre, and the item seems to have been discontin-
ued.
The patent record is replete with examples of pas-
sive balance boards and training apparatuses for
skateboarding, surfing, and snowboarding. Patent
US5509871A disloses a surfboard mounted on springs.
US6168551B1 filed by Nokia of America Corp. dis-
closes a surfboard mounted to inflatable bladders al-
lowing articulation with foot pressure, and similar to
this is US20130296147A1 for Sk8fit that discloses a
balance board comprising a skateboard deck that rides
atop a compressible ball.
Of the many balance boards conceived of or exe-
cuted as a product, only the Wii Fit Balance Board has
achieved notable commercial success. The board in
bundle with the Wii Fit application can be found for
less than $100, which is a good value proposition con-
sidering its novelty in comparison to sedentary gaming
and ability to make exercise more interesting with in-
novative software.
It’s possible that a more capable passive board with
articulation and position encoders could find a niche
market with hardcore boarders, but the price point,
which would likely approach that of a gaming system -
$600 and up - would preclude wide adoption.
1.3 Active Boards
Ultimately, lower-cost passive boards are incapable of
providing fully-immersive and engaging experiences.
Passive boards are boring, and like the rowing machine
in the basement, gathering dust is the likely fate. Active
boards - defined as boards with actuators - in concert
with virtual reality have the promise of creating next-
level experiences, albeit at a significantly higher price
point.
Imagine being ported to Waikiki Beach, riding a
longboard on an endless wave; to Heavenly Ski Resort
carving through the Gunbarrel mogul field; to Venice
on a paddle board; to the edge of Niagra Falls in kayak;
and finally, for the Star Wars fans, to a Segway tour of
the Deathstar.
Furthermore, active boards could potentially revo-
lutionize physical therapy, allowing a whole new class
of therapeutic regimens. The device could measure,
in real time, a patient’s balancing ability, for example,
and then challenge the patient, in a measured and
interesting way, to develop that ability while having
fun in the process. Fun is key, as this will keep the
patient engaged in the process and looking forward to
Page 2 of 7
 Simboard
treatment, which should translate to improved health
outcomes on faster timelines.
Some people, because of a disability or affliction (or
a healthy sense of fear!) may never get to experience
an activity such as snowboarding. Board simulation
could be a great way to have an otherwise impossible
experience, practice in preparation for the real thing,
or just snowboard in July.
Fun will also keep healthy users engaged in their
workouts and looking forward to the next session.
When we were kids playing on the playground, we
never thought about all the exercise we were getting;
we were just having fun. The experience can only be
magnified when users play together online. Network-
ing will allow users to compete head to head, receive
instruction, attend a virtual class, or simply have a
communal experience. As is the case with driving sim-
ulation, online leagues could add organization and
structure to competitions.
1.4 Challenges and Constraints
Creating an experience on a platform that realistically
responds to weight transfer and foot pressure - imag-
ing shifting your weight on a paddle board and the
bobbing that would ensue - is easier said than done.
This is on top of the engineering challenges outlined
above in terms of table forces, power requirements,
and compactness.
To illustrate the potential load on a board simulator
with an articulating table, a 200 kg rider standing at a
cantilever of 45 cm will yield 844 N-m of table torque.
A high-torque 400-watt servo may be able to output on
the order of 2 N-m of continuous torque, which in turn
means that a table-articulating mechanism using this
servo must have a mechanical advantage over 400:1
just to support this static load. As the rider interacts
with the table, adding inertial forces on top of the static
load, table torques can increase substantially.
Compatibility with domiciles and business locations
- essentially any space that’s non-industrial - limits the
power draw that may be demanded by the platform.
Standard household power circuits, worldwide, range
between 10-20 amps at 120-240 volts, with maximum
power outputs of 1800 watts at the bottom end of the
range for large markets such as North America. Peak-
power consumption for the platform, therefore, should
not exceed on the order of 1500 watts to avoid tripping
a breaker. A platform fitted with two servos rated at
400 continuous watts and 1100 peak watts - with the
idea that the combined power of both servos would
also be limited to 1100 watts - would operate within
this envelope with some room for add-ons that require
power.
A platform with a rider standing upon it is con-
strained in height. About 91% of the US population
is 73 inches in height or less. Using 73 inches as a
target rider-height and assuming 8 ft (96 in) ceilings,
leaves a 23-inch gap between the rider and the ceiling.
Figure 1
Subtracting a 6-inch margin of safety from this gap
leaves 17 inches of operating window. A platform with
6 inches of table travel in one direction would thus be
limited to 11 inches in height.
A further challenge in simulating board activities
relates to control of the servos. Typically, servos are
programmed to move a specific distance at a specific
velocity. They consume as much power as necessary,
up to a limit, to satisfy the velocity command.
To simulate a rider on a paddle board, for example,
standard positional control doesn’t suffice because ta-
ble deflection must account for torque inputs from the
rider in real time. If the rider puts pressure on the left
foot, the table should lean left but only to the point
where the increasing buoyancy of the virtual paddle
board is in balance with the tipping force.
The accurate response would entail some oscillation
as an actual paddle board would bob a number of cycles
before settling down. Virtual waves further complicate
the scenario where the buoyancy force increases on
one side of the table and then the other as the wave
travels under the board. To handle these scenarios, the
control system must know, in real time, the forces on
the table and incorporate these data into an algorithm
modeling the virtual environment to properly drive the
servos.
Examining this further, the control system must
mathematically replace the actual moments of inertia
of the table and connected moving parts, going back
to the servo rotors, with virtual moments of whatever
board or craft is being simulated. Imagine simulating a
light-weight balance board. A table with considerably
higher inertia must be precisely driven by the servos
to appear to the rider as having lost most of its mass!
To make this possible, table and mechanism moments
need be kept to a minimum, as it’s considerably easier
to add virtual mass than to take it away.
2 Simboard
Simboard as shown in FIGs. 1 and 2, has an innovative
design that meets the challenges outlined above, allow-
Page 3 of 7
 Simboard

Figure 2

Figure 3: MOTION FOR SIMULATORS SPRL

Figure 4: AllController
ing the simulation of board activities, exercise routines
entailing footwork, or any application requiring high
force and at least two degrees of rotational freedom.
The platform comprises a 2DOF pivotable table at-
tached to a base with two toothed belts attached at
quadrants of the table, with the belts attached to a pair
of servo-driven ball screws mounted within orthogonal
base arms. Pulleys mounted in the quadrants of the
base redirect the belts so that they travel parallel to
the ball screws. Cams maintain proper tension in the
belts as the table pivots.

2.1 Other Platforms

This approach is a significant departure from that of
competing 2DOF platforms that typically employ the
same design pattern - two gearmotors straddling a pivot
point that articulate pitman arms that are attached to
a pivotable table via connecting rods. An example of
this design from MOTION FOR SIMULATORS SPRL in
Belgium is shown in FIG. 3.
Higher-end 6DOF platforms are mostly ball-screw
actuated, however, at the lower end of the price range,
some 6DOF platforms do employ gearmotors. As shown
if FIG. 4, 6DOF-articulated tables, with the actuators
typically mounted at high angles to horizontal, sit too
high off the floor to be used for board simulation. Car
simulators, as shown in FIG. 5, generally have the seat
below the points of actuator attachment, so height is
less of a concern in this case. Cost is also an issue as Figure 5: Evolve Motosport
the actuator is a significant contributor to the overall
price, and 6DOF requires six actuators. 6DOF platforms
typically cost in the tens of thousands USD.
Simboard takes an incremental approach where the

Page 4 of 7

dTheta/dL vs. theta
2 0.3
Simboard
1.6
dTheta/dL (deg/cm)
1.2
0.8
gearmotor platform
0.4
0 0
-17 -11.33 -5.67 0 5.67
theta (deg)
Figure 6
initial investment is kept to a minimum, allowing fur-
ther degrees of freedom to be added down the road.
Simboard also solves the packaging problem: how to
deliver high-force ball-screw actuation in a low-profile
unit at a low-enough height for board simulation; low
height also being useful for the mounting of additional
apparatuses such as driving rigs. The perimeter around
Simboard is also clean with no protrusions that could
be a safety hazard for the rider. Padding can easily be
placed around the machine as a further safety measure.
Gearmotors also allow a low-profile geometry, but
gearmotor platforms are not well adapted to handling
large dynamic loads with frequent reversals. With the
aforementioned limit on servo size, a substantial gear
train is necessary to develop the necessary mechanical
advantage. For example, DOF Reality Motion Simula-
tors makes a gearmotor-based 2DOF simulator with
an advertised torque of 25 N-m, which is sufficient to
articulate a driving rig with a rider where the center of
gravity is largely in line vertically with the pivot point,
but falls short of the torque necessary to handle board
simulations.
Additional gear sets may be added to increase me-
chanical advantage and output torque, but this will
reduce output speed and add more backlash to the sys-
tem. Increased backlash reduces simulation resolution
where it becomes impossible to quickly reverse direc-
tion or transmit vibration, impairing the experience.
Gearmotor platforms suffer from other trade-offs.
Typical 2DOF machines on the market limit table pivot
angle to +/- 10 degrees, which is not sufficient for
board simulations where larger deflections are needed
for a full experience, keeping in mind that a minimum
of 2 degrees at both ends of the range are needed for
deceleration.
Maximum travel can be achieved by rotating the
pitman arms from -90 degrees to +90 degrees, but as
the pitman arms approach these sinusoidal minimum
and maximum, table angular speed goes to zero and
the ratio of servo speed to table speed goes to zero,
which translates to sluggish and unresponsive table
action near the ends of travel.
Simboard
This is illustrated in FIG. 6, which shows plots of
table responsiveness as a function of table angle theta
for both Simboard and gearmotor platforms. Respon-
0.24
siveness is defined as the change in theta with respect
dTheta/dPsi (deg/deg)
to the change in servo angle. Ideally, the plot should
0.18
be flat, which would indicate that the servo would
spin the same amount to deflect the table a certain
0.12
angle, regardless of the starting angle. In contrast, for
a given table deflection and deflection speed, gearmo-
0.06
tor platforms require rapidly increasing servo speed as
the table approaches its end of travel. As servos are
11.33 17
speed limited, the rider would experience increased
sluggishness at increased table deflections.
To counter this, the pitman arms could be limited
to -45 degrees to +45 of angular travel while at the
same time increasing their length, or conversely, the
attachment points to the table brought closer to the
pivot point, or both, but any of those options would
place a larger torque on the gearmotor, all else being
equal. Adding gear sets to handle the increased torque
demand would increase friction losses and backlash.
The difficulty in delivering high-fidelity motion with
gearmotors was highlighted in an article in Machine
Design titled "NASCAR simulators keep it real" [3]:
Like any engineered product, the SMS
NASCAR simulator is a series of compromises.
But one uncompromising aspect underpin-
ning the design was to keep the driving expe-
rience as real as possible.
A big problem with automotive simulation
is how to produce relatively smooth motion
reversals along a single axis. Real auto-
mobiles generally impart to their occupants
smooth accelerations coincident with direc-
tion changes. This ruled out low-cost, arcade-
type motion technology that relies on electric-
motordriven gear trains. Motion reversals in
such systems are unnaturally abrupt.
To achieve the desired motion characteristics and
dynamic range, the SMS NASCAR simulator used hy-
draulic actuators in concert with a novel valving ar-
rangement.
The hydraulic system/sled mechanicals re-
spond to control inputs in about 50 msec (20
Hz), considered slow by some measures. "Pro-
fessional race-car drivers are able to sense the
delay. They know it’s not there," says Mon-
crief. "For the average person, however, the
experience is overwhelming."
But even professional race drivers agree, the
SMS simulator is miles ahead of video games
in its realism.
Hydraulically-based simulators, however, are expen-
sive and complicated, and are a waning technology.
SMS NASCAR retailed for $95,000 per copy in 2006.
Page 5 of 7
 Simboard
2.2 Simboard Mechanism
Servo-driven ball screws deliver precise motion, high
forces, and smooth reversals under load without the
complexity and maintenance requirements demanded
by hydraulic systems. Depending on surface finish, ball
screws, achieve mechanical efficiencies up to 98% for
both forward and reverse operation, the latter where
linear force on the ball nut imparts torque on the ball
screw and the servo. As will be discussed, this is im-
portant for board simulation.
Ball screws offer tremendous mechanical advantage.
Simboard uses 20 mm ball screws with a mechan-
ical advantage of 628 N linear force per 1 N-m of
torque. A gear train with a 10-cm pitman arm would
need 2 stages at an 8:1 gear ratio each or 3 stages at
4:1 to achieve the same leverage. Further, the gear
train would have backlash, whereas ball screws have
minimal backlash and essentially no backlash when
preloaded. Some gearmotor-platform manufacturers
attach encoders to the gear-train output shafts to ac-
count for and correct backlash, which is an added com-
plexity.
Simboard yields additional leverage by placing the
belt-attachment points as far out as possible - at the
table edges. Moving the attachment points inward
to the midpoint between the table edge and center
of pivot, for example, would double the load on the
actuator for a given table load. A gearmotor approach
would necessitate inward attachment points to give
the table edges room to angle down.
Maximal leverage comes at the cost of longer ball
screws. To solve the packaging problem, as shown in
FIG. 2, one base arm with a ball screw mounted therein
bridges the other. To minimize platform height, the
belts are run underneath the ball screws allowing the
table to deflect at a maximum angle of 18 degrees
while staying within the 11-inch height constraint as
discussed above.
A consequence of belt-driven articulation is that, as
the table pivots, the expanding length of belt grows
faster than the shrinking side shrinks. Essentially, the
belt perimeter increases slightly with increasing table
deflection. To give and take up slack as necessary,
each belt circuit includes a set of cams sandwiching a
toothed pulley on a swing arm, with the cam assembly
driven by the toothed belt. As the belt translates, the
cam, riding on a roller, urges the swing arm up or down
as necessary to maintain constant tension in the belt.
The cam mechanism in combination with an ex-
tremely rigid base allows large belt tensions - up to
3 kN. Rapid swings in belt tension as would be expe-
rienced with a rider shifting weight on the table and
precise motion is also possible. Large swings in tension
preclude the use of a traditional spring-based tensioner
that would experience oscillations resulting in erratic
table movement.
To minimize moments of inertia, Simboard uses
a lightweight table with a welded aluminum frame
bonded to a fiberglass-wrapped foam-core top, the
bonded structure being extremely stiff in bending.
2.3 Simboard Control
To respond to foot pressure, the table must sense force.
Actually, because the table pivots, applied torque is
really what needs to be determined. One approach
would be to affix an array of force sensors on the table
similar to the Wii Fit Board. The drawback here is that
the force data feed would arrive at the controller sep-
arately from servo position and velocity, which could
have synchronization issues that could lead to jitter.
More interestingly, the servos themselves, via the
servo amps and controller, can be used to measure
applied torques. This is unconventional, as most servo-
controller systems are designed for CNC (computer-
numerical control), which is positional control - the
servo is commanded to turn so many encoder counts
at a certain velocity, with the servo drawing as much
current as needed, up to a maximum, working against
external forces to satisfy the command. This, however,
is opposite of what is needed for board simulation
where external forces do factor in the position and
velocity of the moving element.
With a CNC setup, take, for example, a milling ma-
chine; pushing with all of your might against the XY
table will not cause it to budge even a fraction of a mil-
limeter. The servo will sit frozen at its last programmed
position, working through a ball screw with its massive
leverage, using ever more current to resist rotation as
you apply ever more force.
On a board simulator, simulating, for example, a
paddle board, shifting your weight slightly results in
a torque increase on the servo, and the controller, un-
derstanding that the board is on water, must allow the
servo to rotate a certain amount in the direction of
torque; and then if it’s clever, reverse rotation a smaller
amount, repeating the cycle with decreasing amplitude
to mimic the bobbing that would occur on water.
Similarly, to simulate a wave traveling under the
paddle board, one side of the table is lifted and then
the other, with some rocking back and forth occurring
after the wave passes. Changes in foot pressure as the
wave travels under the board further complicates the
motion. Clearly, a more advanced controller is required
for board simulation. Combining measured torque
synchronously with position and velocity, allows the
controller, with these inputs, to execute a mathematical
model of the environment being simulated.
Mechanically, for the servos to accurately measure
torques applied to the table, the drivetrain therebe-
tween needs to be highly efficient. As noted above, ball
screws are up to 98% efficient in reverse operation -
where the screw drives the servo. Other elements in
the drivetrain - belt pulleys and spherical bearings -
are of sufficiently low friction that table torques are
substantially propagated to the servos.
Page 6 of 7
 Simboard
Not relying on a force-sensor array to measure ap-
plied torques also has safety implications. Imagine
straddling the table. Sensors on the left and right would
read roughly identical forces. If, for example, a sensor
on the left were to fail, the controller might read this as
the rider having shifted weight, deflecting the table ac-
cordingly. The unexpected movement could catch the
rider off guard, possibly causing injury. A redundant
sensor array alongside the main array could minimize
the probability of such a scenario, but this would add
complexity and cost.
Using servos to measure torque is inherently safer.
Here, there are only two sensors - the servos them-
selves, and if any parameter of either servo is found by
the controller to be off-spec, the table is gently moved
to the home position - horizontal, and the system is
placed in fault. In the worst case, the system fails safe
with both table servos and any peripheral servos all
de-powered together.
2.4 Extensibility
Fundamental to the Simboard architecture is extensi-
bility, with board simulation being one of many use
cases. A rich open API allows application developers
to develop a new class of applications for gaming, ex-
ercise, and physical therapy. The gamification of exer-
cise will get users off the couch (and boring stationary
bikes) into immersive experiences where they forget
that they’re burning calories.
Driving simulation alone is already a massive market
- $1.5 billion in 2020 - that is expected to grow from
by nearly 50% over the next 5 years. Simboard pro-
vides a large table on which to mount a racing rig, and
highly-realistic simulation is possible with Simboard
at a fraction of cost of competing ball-screw actuated
machines. Realistic flight simulation is possible in the
same way. The physics engine is different, but the
hardware stays the same.
With the table able to react to external forces, motor-
cycle simulation is also possible, allowing the rider to
lean into turns. An advanced simulator could respond
to countersteering, which is critical for novice riders
to get the hang of. Such a simulator would give deal-
erships the ability to offer realistic virtual test drives
or students the ability to safely practice evasive ma-
neuvers without putting themselves and others at risk.
Full disclosure: the author of this paper crashed a mo-
torcycle during a test drive! Thankfully, minor scrapes
were the only injuries.
Ski and snowboard tourism is a multi-billion dollar
international market that attracts 350 million annual
visits [1]. Clearly, a seasonal activity, and when in
season, an activity that requires travel for most partic-
ipants and often significant travel, there would be a
strong interest in skiing and snowboarding at home, at
the local ski shop, or health club. A dynamic yaw table
would add another dimension to snowboard simula-
tion as well as surfing and skateboarding simulation. A
skiing rig would be another unique add-on combining
vigorous exercise with entertainment.
Simboard could add a new dimension to martial-
arts workouts with the attachment of a combat torso
that, with the aid of a tracking system, could actively
evade strikes with varying levels of difficulty, again,
gamifying the workout.
A simple handlebar attachment would allow virtual
Segway tours. A surfboard section could be attached
to feel the curve and texture of an actual board below
the feet. The possibilities are extensive.
2.5 Conclusions
Simboard is hard to compare to competing platforms
because it sits in its own category - offering high-fidelity
motion in a low-profile package with a specialized con-
trol system that can respond to external forces and sim-
ulate fluid environments. The potential applications go
far beyond the current industry focus on driving and
flying simulation into board sports and other activities
entailing balance, agility, and footwork. Extensibility
keeps the core investment from becoming obsolete.
Exercise gamification is a primary focus, as well as
physical therapy. It’s an open platform with a rich API
with capabilities that eclipse traditional CNC control.
While gearmotor-based platforms are considered
consumer/arcade-grade, they do offer 2DOF at rea-
sonably low profiles. A comparison of basic parameters
is instructive.
Simboard Gearmotor 2DOF
Price $6-10K $3-15K
Pitch Range ±18 deg ±10 deg
Pitch Speed ±40 deg/s ±20 deg/s
Roll Range ±18 deg ±10 deg
Roll Speed ±40 deg/s ±20 deg/s
Height 11 inches 10-19 inches
Bibliography
[1] Robert Steiger et al. “A critical review of climate
change risk for ski tourism”. In: Current Issues in
Tourism 22.11 (2017), 1343–1379.
[2] Driving Simulator Market. MarketsandMarkets
Research Private Ltd. 2021. url: https://www.
marketsandmarkets . com / Market - Reports /
driving-simulator-market-171814690.html
(visited on 08/31/2021).
[3] Stephen Mraz. “NASCAR simulators keep it real”.
In: Machine Design (2006).
[4] Lloyd D Reid; Meyer A. Nahon. “Response of air-
line pilots to variations in flight simulator motion
algorithms”. In: Journal of Aircraft 25.12 (1988),
639–646.
Page 7 of 7