# IMBA now OK with Class 1 e-bikes



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Read all about it:

imba-updates-emtb-position-statement

It's interesting they make no mention of the amount of wattage permissible for a Class 1 e-bike.

And they refer to their shaky Impact Study


----------



## fatso (Jul 27, 2005)

IMBA is confused about a lot of things.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

I saw this. I haven't seen the study yet. Thanks for that link. I recently had a chance to play with an E-MTB at my LBS. After promptly trying to do a wheelie and discovering there's some sort of torque management system, I set out to figure out where the actual application peaked. In the alley behind the shop, I was able to accelerate hard enough to displace the grave/dirt mixture that had settled in the alley from runoff up the hill. Conclusion? It took me less than 5 minutes to figure out how to cause enough damage to equate, roughly, to a skid 3 feet long coming out of every turn if you really wanted to stand up and hammer on it. It may not have a twist throttle, but it can cause a heck of a lot more damage than a bike you JUST have to pedal.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Cotharyus said:


> I saw this. I haven't seen the study yet. Thanks for that link. I recently had a chance to play with an E-MTB at my LBS. After promptly trying to do a wheelie and discovering there's some sort of torque management system, I set out to figure out where the actual application peaked. In the alley behind the shop, I was able to accelerate hard enough to displace the grave/dirt mixture that had settled in the alley from runoff up the hill. Conclusion? It took me less than 5 minutes to figure out how to cause enough damage to equate, roughly, to a skid 3 feet long coming out of every turn if you really wanted to stand up and hammer on it. It may not have a twist throttle, but it can cause a heck of a lot more damage than a bike you JUST have to pedal.


Their impact study is probably worthy of another thread; at first glance it seems to be comprehensive enough but there are several clues that it was set up to favor Class 1 and everything else are the bad guys.

My main gripes:

There is no disclosure on mfg/model/config of tested e-bikes other than stating "350 watt".

No mention that an e-bike can likely double the amount of riding done by an average rider. The testing is based on the comparison of an equal number of laps.

The addendum study to discredit Class 2 e-bikes presents results I know to be false.​
I'm glad my money's not going to IMBA anymore!


----------



## tbmaddux (May 22, 2012)

The thing I noticed from the press release was they were going to accept them based on land manager decisions, kind of like the STC bill for bikes in Wilderness areas.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Our Coastal Sector Superintendent for CA State Parks just clarified this at our last Trails Committee Meeting last week. Here is a snip from the confirmation email:



> Class 1 and Class 2 ebikes ARE allowed on State Park trails that already allow bikes. Here's an excerpt regarding the change in law "Since a bill passed the legislature last year, Class 1 and 2 e-bikes are now considered bicycles and are permitted to use any recreational trails."
> 
> The Supervising Ranger are now briefed on this issue.


Here is the bill text for those who can wade through it without going cross eyed.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1096

And an easier to comprehend version:
California governor signs law modernizing electric bike regulations | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News


> Class 1 and 2 bikes will be allowed to go wherever regular bikes are permitted.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I wish they would have forced their sponsors to acknowledge that class 1 ebikes are not bicycles and that they should not be referred to as bicycles at any time, otherwise no go. The ebike industry trying to brainwash the public that ebikes are bicycles may sell more ebikes but it will be detrimental to real bicycles and those that ride them.


----------



## mtndude23 (Apr 18, 2012)

umm, I can get my normal bike to kick loose/gravel dirt out when I stand and pedal hard too. In my opinion, there's a whole lot of fear mongering going on.

For the record, I don't own or have desire to own an ebike. Just highly doubt there is as much evil in them as a lot of people on here I guess.


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

I have noticed that a very major distinction between mountain bike use and dirt bike use on a trail is that dirt bikes can ride on very wet soft trail surfaces. Mountain bikers tend to choose not to ride on wet and muddy surfaces. A lot of our trail damage is from motorized vehicles during or immediately after rain fall or snow melt. Large amounts of soft trail tread are moved around when motorized vehicles climb muddy trails. I wonder if E-biking will allow riders to access wet trails in the same way other motorized vehicles can access them.


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

wow! thanks to the posters above for providing such helpful feedback and review.

2 years ago I got my first smartphone. prior to that flip-phone.

i am going to take the same approach to mountain biking. i have about 15-18 years until I retire and then I’ll consider eBikes.

my son, now 9, may get an ebike long before me, and that’s okay, too.

I really appreciate some of the observations above on the study, e.g., equivalent laps, setup...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

mtndude23 said:


> umm, I can get my normal bike to kick loose/gravel dirt out when I stand and pedal hard too. In my opinion, there's a whole lot of fear mongering going on.
> 
> For the record, I don't own or have desire to own an ebike. Just highly doubt there is as much evil in them as a lot of people on here I guess.


Ok, standing up and pedaling hard? For what, 6 inches? I was sitting down. Three feet. I didn't even think about standing up and leaning forward, like you would to skid a fixie. Maybe I'll go back and try that. See if I can do a doughnut.


----------



## JAGI410 (Apr 19, 2008)

This whole shift in policy (IMBA, People for Bikes, Trek, etc) reeks of lobbying, not users requesting change. I think we will be powerless before long and we'll have to give in. Today's culture of inclusion makes it tough to fight against. I get it. I want equal rights and access as well, but sometimes some things are not possible or don't belong together. 

Now to go lobby Strava into making eKOMs and ePRs and eSegments. But first, I'll be training to run the NY Marathon on a Segway.


----------



## CycleKrieg (Dec 19, 2013)

I'm so mad at IMBA right now...

When Dave Wiens (yep, Prez of IMBA) was at Cuyuna I had a discussion with him and he basically swore on a stack of bibles that IMBA would never equate e-MTBs and human powered ones. Then along comes this.


----------



## JAGI410 (Apr 19, 2008)

Dave's palms got greased.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Moe Ped said:


> Their impact study is probably worthy of another thread; at first glance it seems to be comprehensive enough but there are several clues that it was set up to favor Class 1 and everything else are the bad guys.
> 
> My main gripes:
> 
> ...


Agreed, the IMBA study was a start, but by not using what's fully allowed by law, it's not worth much. We're in the early stages of working with a local engineering university on a legit new study using current 250w emtbs and 750w. Stay tuned.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

CycleKrieg said:


> I'm so mad at IMBA right now...
> 
> When Dave Wiens (yep, Prez of IMBA) was at Cuyuna I had a discussion with him and he basically swore on a stack of bibles that IMBA would never equate e-MTBs and human powered ones. Then along comes this.


This is from the IMBA positing statement

"IMBA recognizes eMTBs as motorized. Defining eMTBs as a new and distinct category of recreation will minimize impacts on access for mountain bikes and protect against an increase of motorized use on non-motorized trails."

So IMBA is clearly stating e-bikes are motorized.

They also stated

"First and foremost, we advocate for access for traditional, non-motorized mountain bikes. IMBA does not advocate for access for eMTBs."

So I seems like they said exactly what you wanted. I am confused on how anyone could read the statement and take away that IMBA is going to advocate for ebikes.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

^^^ The start of a very slippery slope.


----------



## CycleKrieg (Dec 19, 2013)

indytrekracer said:


> So I seems like they said exactly what you wanted. I am confused on how anyone could read the statement and take away that IMBA is going to advocate for ebikes.


Yes, they say that. Right after they say this: "IMBA is supportive of Class 1 eMTB access to non-motorized trails when the responsible land management agency, in consultation with local mountain bikers, deem such eMTB access is appropriate and will not cause any loss of access to non-motorized bikes."

That paragraph is the problem. More specifically its the first part of that sentence that is the problem. For a lot of land managers, especially in MN and IN, non-motorized means just that. Look, when I visit my parents near Bargersville, IN and I ride Southwestway or Brown County, I don't and can't know all the land manager requirements for those properties. If I was riding an e-MTB, how would I know if it was OK on either of those properties? And even if I got there and there was 'no e-MTB' sign, how tempted would I be to poach? And that is real problem with IMBA's statements, even if they throw in a world salad of "yeah buts": they are advocating for a motorized use on properties that are defined as non-motorized.

I do advocacy for urban mountain biking trails and let me tell you, the e-MTB issue is creating a mess for new and existing trails. Many cities have strict non-motorized rules on their parks. Anti-MTB people are seizing on e-MTBs as THE way to stop MTB access. We have 2 proposed NICA trails here in MSP that are meeting stiff opposition (and MN leads the nation in urban trails, so they haven't been controversial in the past) because of this very issue.

The kicker here, is that with a few minor changes in wording, I think everything would be better. Here is how that should have been worded, bold for the sections that clear up the issues: "*IMBA continues to believe that all classes of eMTBs should be managed as a motorized use on existing trails. IMBA does not support the addition of eMTBs on lands designated non-motorized.* For some trails, land managers may have leeway in whether uses are considered motorized or not. If those land managers review policies and determine that Class I eMTBs would be acceptable on existing trails, IMBA has no opinion, pro or con, on the use of these trails by eMTBs. IMBA does believe, however, that new trails should consider future use of trails by Class I eMTBs and proactively develop policies around this possible use. *IMBA is supportive of any land manager who, after reviewing policies, determines that eMTBs should not allowed in their property.* IMBA is also supportive of eMTB manufacturers, dealers and trade publications working to educate users of eMTBs about where they are acceptable so as not to endanger access, existing or future." Way clearer, covers all the bases and doesn't need the word salad of "yeah buts".


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

We share trails with hikers and horses in Indiana. In other parts of the country we share with motorized as well. I am not sure that a stance that we refuse to share trails with other user groups is a good position. E-bikes are just like horses, hikers, atvs, motorcycles, etc... They are a separate user group that needs to advocate for themselves. Should IMBA take a stand against sharing trails with hikers too?

There is some level of semantics involved. If trails are classified as non motorized, and ebikes are classed as motorized then it would, for most land managers take some heavy lifting to get e-bikes added. 

The key is that ebikes need to be viewed as a separate user group. If e-bikers get access to a trail and then there are issues, ebikes can be removed with out impacting mountain bike access.

As to the legality on each trail. Its up to all trail users to know that they are legally using any trail.


----------



## CycleKrieg (Dec 19, 2013)

indytrekracer said:


> There is some level of semantics involved. If trails are classified as non motorized, and ebikes are classed as motorized then it would, for most land managers take some heavy lifting to get e-bikes added.
> 
> The key is that ebikes need to be viewed as a separate user group. If e-bikers get access to a trail and then there are issues, ebikes can be removed with out impacting mountain bike access.


That is precisely the problem with IMBA's update: it doesn't do a lot of separating. If its got a motor, its motorized. Lets figure where that motorized thing should and shouldn't go, but lets not pretend it doesn't have a motor and put it into a non-motorized basket.

We share trails here in MN. Its a little different than IN. Few, if any, motorized (ATV/snowmobile) sharing. Not much horse sharing. For hiking/biking sharing, most of our trails that allow MTB are directional and bike primary, so that changes the sharing dynamic. Cuyuna is like one of 3 places in the whole state that allows e-MTBs, so I have first hand knowledge of them and sharing trails with them. The real test will be when Cuyuna expands into lands that do not allow e-MTBs.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

indytrekracer said:


> So I seems like they said exactly what you wanted. I am confused on how anyone could read the statement and take away that IMBA is going to advocate for ebikes.


IMBA's trying to play both sides here; from the same page this seems pretty pro e-bike:

_"IMBA believes that eMTB access to non-motorized trails that are open to bikes present both opportunity and challenge. If managed effectively, eMTBs may increase ridership and stewardship of trails, along with other benefits."_

Let us not forget that IMBA's blog categorically stated that RE the then-soon-to-be-passed California e-bike law (paraphrasing) "will not allow e-bike access on dirt single track".

Ignorance or obfuscation? The effect was the latter.


----------



## JAGI410 (Apr 19, 2008)

CycleKrieg said:


> Cuyuna is like one of 3 places in the whole state that allows e-MTBs, so I have first hand knowledge of them and sharing trails with them. The real test will be when Cuyuna expands into lands that do not allow e-MTBs.


This is where it gets ugly for the rest of us. Here in Moorhead, MN we do not allow eMTBs on our trails. I asked the land manager and they specifically stated non-motorized use only, and specifically no eBikes. Now one of the local bike shops has/had eMTBs on the sales floor. What does that mean for them? That hurts their sales and sticks them with product that will be harder to move. They'll end up debating with the land manager to allow access. Not because there's a need for them on the trails, but because there's money to be made off of them.

That's not the ugly part though. Our group, all being fans of Cuyuna, tend to look at Cuyuna to set the standard for the greater MN. Cuyuna sets minimum tire widths for fatbikes on groomed trails. We do the same. We don't want to be the group that says 2" tires are fine, and have riders here go complain at other trails stating that Moorhead allows it. Then we get the reputation of having poor trail stewardship. So if Cuyuna allows eMTBs, its only a matter of time before we all have to give in and allow them too.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Screw the IMBA, may it die a quick and deserved death.


----------



## lml427 (May 13, 2008)

I agree with indytrekracer that ebikes should be viewed as a separate user group. They should advocate for themselves and IMBA should stick to non-motorized mountain bikes. Class 1 eMTB's are easily modified to disable the governors/limiters and become dangerously fast. I have been reluctant to post this link but you can see for yourselves how easy it is. A modified eMTB rider could just say "but it's only a class 1".

https://www.ebiketuning.com/comparison/yamaha-tuning.html


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

lml427 said:


> I agree with indytrekracer that ebikes should be viewed as a separate user group. They should advocate for themselves and IMBA should stick to non-motorized mountain bikes. Class 1 eMTB's are easily modified to disable the governors/limiters and become dangerously fast. I have been reluctant to post this link but you can see for yourselves how easy it is. A modified eMTB rider could just say "but it's only a class 1".
> 
> https://www.ebiketuning.com/comparison/yamaha-tuning.html


"Psssst---wanna buy a dongle???"

And a half dozen smartphone apps boosting top speed to 46~48 mph!

Woo-hoooo...

Harmless Class 1 e-bikes my a$$.


----------



## JAGI410 (Apr 19, 2008)

All it takes is a few ebike batteries starting wildfires to really change the tone of all of this.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

As a mountain bike advocate, if I could wave a magic wand and make e-bikes go away, I would. Its going to be a rough few years till things shake out.

With Bosch behind the push for e-bikes, there isn't any thing IMBA can do or say to just make it go away. 

The most important thing that needs to be settled is whether any form of e-bike falls under the umbrella of mountain biking. This is very important. 

On the Federal level, if all e bikes are determined to be their own class (National Forests and Parks ultimately are the deciders). Then adding e-bikes (even class one) would require a NEPA review for each trail. This would definitely slow down access for e-bikes on the federal level.

The key is that e-bike riders and dealers would all have to understand even Class 1 e-bikes do not have automatic access to mountain bike trails. That e-bikes are a separate class and there access to a trail is not related to mountain bike access.

Then the Class 1, 2, or 3 debate and the ADA vs able body issues will be theirs to deal with.

If E-Bikes cause issues, they can be removed. If E-bikes are an issue with new trail access, they can be restricted. 

While many pro e-bike advocates are happy about some of the nice things the IMBA position said about class 1 e-bikes, they are missing the key point, that IMBA is defining even Class 1 e-bikes as a separate user group. IMBA not being specifically against them isn't a big deal. The big deal is that there isn't a National Level e-mountain bike advocacy group and no clear direction from the e-bike community of where they want to go. If the end game access for ADA? Is it access for everyone with Class 1, or are they going to fight for Class 1, 2, 3 for everyone? These are big issues to work out. 

It is pretty likely that with IMBA defining Class 1 as not a mountain bike, that the Federal agencies will follow suit. This will then help on the State Level doing the same.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

slocaus said:


> Our Coastal Sector Superintendent for CA State Parks just clarified this at our last Trails Committee Meeting last week. Here is a snip from the confirmation email:
> 
> Here is the bill text for those who can wade through it without going cross eyed.
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1096
> ...


I was at that meeting and was the one that questioned about the topic. I never received a recap and I'm quite surprised to see Class 2 was mentioned as only 1 or 2 of us had the slightest clue regarding classification and as it was left the Class 1 designation was the ONLY one allowed, that coming from the Super. I brought up an interaction that I had on one of the trails only a week prior to the meeting, one of the reason I breached the subject. I was nearly taken out on a turn by an UPHILL eBike on a limited sight turn on Oat's Pk trail. He was on what clearly was not a Class 1. It had a throttle and was a rigid fat-tire. He had both brakes locked up and was skidding upill when he was caught off guard by my presence. The bike was lurching forward and he was unable to control it. Had it not been for my excellent M785 brakes and quick response, he would have been into and on top of me. His bike clearly had a throttle which I believe he failed to release. As soon as there was a spot to pass, he was gone! Jeans, t-shirt, no protective gear, and not giving a ****. Gone.

The consensus of staff regarding my experience and complaint was that there was no way they would even consider attempting to identify the different classes and that they would not have the resources to do so. So, the Pandora's Box is open. Embrace motorcycles on your State Park trails. There will be no enforcement. Now, this is where we have the great potential as mtbr's to get bit in the ass. The other stakeholders at the meeting, hiker's, equestrians, etc, are now raising concern about speeds on the trails. Their perception of eBikes is already bad and they aren't really even here, yet. Their concern now included non-mtbs where before, not a f*** was given. Yep, Pandora's box is open.


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

I tuned out as soon as I heard "IMBA says . . ."

Any port in a storm for those guys.


----------



## Dirtrider127 (Sep 17, 2010)

Just follow the money and you'll get the answers

Speaking of money, with the extra cash you have from not renewing your membership you can buy beer and piss on the old outdated card...


----------



## evdog (Mar 18, 2007)

tbmaddux said:


> The thing I noticed from the press release was they were going to accept them based on land manager decisions, kind of like the STC bill for bikes in Wilderness areas.


Right, yet out of the other side of their mouth they refuse to support those very same local land managers having the discretion to allow or not allow MTBs in Wilderness.


----------



## mtndude23 (Apr 18, 2012)

Cotharyus said:


> Ok, standing up and pedaling hard? For what, 6 inches? I was sitting down. Three feet. I didn't even think about standing up and leaning forward, like you would to skid a fixie. Maybe I'll go back and try that. See if I can do a doughnut.


If you can do a 3 foot burn out on a legitimate pedal assist bike-I want to see a video.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Harryman said:


> Agreed, the IMBA study was a start, but by not using what's fully allowed by law, it's not worth much. We're in the early stages of working with a local engineering university on a legit new study using current 250w emtbs and 750w. Stay tuned.


Any updates on this?


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

mtndude23 said:


> If you can do a 3 foot burn out on a legitimate pedal assist bike-I want to see a video.


I think you need to go back and read my ORIGINAL post on this thread. What I describe is clearly NOT a burnout. It's a 3 foot long displacement of gravel. Imagine a packed gravel road. If you come to a quick stop on it, without skidding, be very close, you can make the gravel roll under the tire, and thus see a "freshly disturbed" strip of gravel. What I'm telling you is, I created a 3 foot long freshly disturbed strip of gravel pedaling an e-bike. It's a far cry from a burnout, but something I can't do on a non-ebike. Lets try and stick to the facts.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Switchblade2 said:


> I want to see the burn out video of the Ebike. I ride Ebikes all the time and have never done or considered doing a burn out. Sounds like more Fake News.


Please read the original post I made. Actually, let me make this easy for you, here it is:



> I saw this. I haven't seen the study yet. Thanks for that link. I recently had a chance to play with an E-MTB at my LBS. After promptly trying to do a wheelie and discovering there's some sort of torque management system, I set out to figure out where the actual application peaked. In the alley behind the shop, I was able to accelerate hard enough to displace the grave/dirt mixture that had settled in the alley from runoff up the hill. Conclusion? It took me less than 5 minutes to figure out how to cause enough damage to equate, roughly, to a skid 3 feet long coming out of every turn if you really wanted to stand up and hammer on it. It may not have a twist throttle, but it can cause a heck of a lot more damage than a bike you JUST have to pedal.


----------



## mtndude23 (Apr 18, 2012)

Ok

"I was able to accelerate hard enough to displace the grave/dirt mixture" sounds a lot like a "burnout" to me


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Does this vehicle have a motor?

If yes, it is a motor-cycle.
If no, it is a bicycle.
Conversation over.


----------



## mtndude23 (Apr 18, 2012)

I'm not debating if a bike=ebike. They are clearly different modes of transport. But what I will say is, if you claim you can take a pedal assist ebike right off the show room floor and do the damage to trails like mentioned above-do it. Take video and show proof of the destructive power of these things. It'd only help your argument. At least until people start bringing up videos of people on normal bikes short cutting switch backs and skidding through corners. 

If not, then move on and don't worry about the two wheeled contraption someone else is riding. Honestly, I bet most of the people on here are faster then me, and would still be faster then me even if I had an ebike. But I don't ride with or for my ego. I ride to have fun.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Here's my main issue with allowing motorized vehicles on MTB networks. For years IMBA has promoted the idea of "Stacked Loop" networks in their own literature. The concept here is that the distance a user must travel from the trail head is a filter, and will limit the number of casual users on the most distant and remote sections of the network. 

In accordance with this philosophy, many trail builders have created MTB networks to keep the most advanced, and in many cases by definition the most fragile trails farther out, or up the in the Mtns and hills. I say the most fragile becasue in most cases I can think of, the general rules of sustainability are pushed or exceeded on more advanced trail and that is considered more acceptable because of the filters of skill and endurance needed to reach these trails, and the skill needed to find them enjoyable.

By allowing motorized bikes into the fold, they now abandon that design principle and will inevitably not only increase the general number of users thus increasing impact, but also give easy access to those outer trails in their promoted stacked loop design. My local network was designed with this principle in mind and the climb, in Vermont and New England is considered a big on to get to the most primitive, fragile, and challenging trails in the network. The climb and distance from the trail head is why these trails are currently sustainable. Eliminate the filter of physical fitness and increase traffic. In general, folks who have developed the fitness and confidence on a bike to venture out so far, have also developed skill and trail creep and braiding around features is less of an issue, and has allowed for more aggressive routes on the outer trails in our stacked loop system, a design principle we used after learning it from the IMBA publications on Trail Design and MTB management.

It is clear that the industry is all-in on e bikes to grow the market to people (most humans) who find pedaling up Mtns too hard. It's now clear that IMBA is more of an industry shill than they are representation for the wants and needs of mountain bikers. Just as Divestment is the only real political movement in the greater realm of corporatism in governance, in this case divesting in IMBA is the answer. Stop joining. MTB clubs stop supporting them. Stop applying for IMBA grants ect. 

I think e bikes are great for commuter/cargo/kid hauling. If they want to be in the woods it should be on trails designated for motorized traffic. Anything else is intentionally blurring the lines between the well established guide lines of Motorized vs Non-motorized traffic that MTBers have used to gain and keep access to open lands all over the country and world.
$.02


----------



## mtndude23 (Apr 18, 2012)

You have valid points. I'm truly don't think that a pedal assist bike will actually give a rider with no ability the skills to ride the tech trails. It'll only help them where it only comes down to smooth pedaling. It'd still take a decent skill set to muscle a 50 pound bike around a trail. All the pedal assist bikes I've read up on, cut out at 25mph. So, it's not like they're going to be blasting by anyone faster then a standard mtb. 

My thinking leads down to this-they are another user group that we can fight with. Or we can all band together and fight for opening/building and maintaining trails with. And let's face it, if we really have bigger fights to work on. 

And if we don't want to share trails-should we be really trying to get hiking trails open to us? There is a bigger gap between hikers and mtb'ers, then mtb and ebikes. Should we be on trails with horses? Should we expect to ride on the trails built for motorbikes? 

Maybe we should all just stick to ourselves and have separate trails for all groups. Honestly, that sounds like garbage. In the end, we can band together and make killer trails, or we can fight and end up losing.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

mtndude23 said:


> You have valid points. I'm truly don't think that a pedal assist bike will actually give a rider with no ability the skills to ride the tech trails. It'll only help them where it only comes down to smooth pedaling. It'd still take a decent skill set to muscle a 50 pound bike around a trail. All the pedal assist bikes I've read up on, cut out at 25mph. So, it's not like they're going to be blasting by anyone faster then a standard mtb.
> 
> My thinking leads down to this-they are another user group that we can fight with. Or we can all band together and fight for opening/building and maintaining trails with. And let's face it, if we really have bigger fights to work on.
> 
> ...


Other user groups are already using e-bikes as ammunition to get mtb's banned from multi-use trails, this is a either, or scenario. Motors is a clear line of delineation and crossing it will likely prove to be the undoing of decades of mountain bike advocacy work. This is a case of working together will be to the detriment of all of us.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Curveball said:


> Any updates on this?


Nope


----------



## mtndude23 (Apr 18, 2012)

What trails have had mtb banned because of ebikes?

And if they did-it's because we are to divided amongst ourselves to stop them.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

mtndude23 said:


> You have valid points. I'm truly don't think that a pedal assist bike will actually give a rider with no ability the skills to ride the tech trails. It'll only help them where it only comes down to smooth pedaling. It'd still take a decent skill set to muscle a 50 pound bike around a trail. All the pedal assist bikes I've read up on, cut out at 25mph. So, it's not like they're going to be blasting by anyone faster then a standard mtb.
> 
> My thinking leads down to this-they are another user group that we can fight with. Or we can all band together and fight for opening/building and maintaining trails with. And let's face it, if we really have bigger fights to work on.
> 
> ...


E bike are FAR easier to climb than a muscle-powered MTB. To say EBikes are still difficult to climb as compared to a bike with no motor is so inaccurate we might as well just call it B.S.

The advantage is very significant, which is why they are great for commuting. If e bikes replace the daily drive for people in hilly terrain, I think that is FKNA awesome. At the same time let's keep this conversation rooted firmly in reality. I do not want to fight for access for motorized bicycles. I have fought for access locally for Non-motorized use of the local trails and sold my activity of "Rogue" trail building on that principle. It worked. I'll stick with that ethic. Our network is Closed to EBikes. Unless you are disabled or limited due to your age.

On that note I think kids e bikes are an untapped market. Even with my 8 yo on a really nice 20 Bike, it's still almost half his weight. Hard for him to make much of any climb, it's the equivalent of adults riding 60-70 pound bikes. I digress.....


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

mtndude23 said:


> Ok
> 
> "I was able to accelerate hard enough to displace the grave/dirt mixture" sounds a lot like a "burnout" to me


If I'd meant burnout I've had said burnout. I think most people understand this would be more of a "tire chirp" than a burn out. To me, burnout implies smoke, and if it makes you feel any better, I did not smoke the tire for three feet. That said, if you want video, go figure it out for yourself. I chanced to stop by the shop while they had one there, I don't star on a reality TV show, and don't think so much of myself that I carry a camera around to film myself with everywhere I go. So you have to deal with my words and not video. If my reputation is not good enough for you, then get a damn salt lick to carry around with you, because I talk/post a lot, and if you'll need a lot of salt to go with most of what I say if you want to doubt or play games with words I think I'm pretty clear with.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

If we had more motorized trails, e-bikes wouldn't need to ride on non-motorized trails.


.


----------



## mtndude23 (Apr 18, 2012)

LoL, I think this is the only forum I've been on that has "reputation" meter and where it apparently means you're an expect and the words of the gods roll off your tongue.

Look dude, burnout, rooster tail whatever. I've heard plenty of people use those to describe the same thing in the dirt. But whatever, some people will hang on propaganda to try and make nothing in something.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^It's because we actually build, maintain, and closely observe our mtb trails, in my own case for over 30 years. We actually know what we are talking about. That's pretty god-like.

... dude


----------



## mtndude23 (Apr 18, 2012)

Well, I'll admit I've only spent the last 20 years helping build and maintain the local trails. Still not sure how that relates to an internet forum. I guess I'll bow down to your more god like internet postings now.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Praise Ollie!


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

mtndude23- Thanks for the help! 

It's about the quality of what's being said. 

The green chicklets are the opinions of others, about that.

You will learn a lot in the next ten years...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

_CJ said:


> If we had more motorized trails, e-bikes wouldn't need to ride on non-motorized trails.
> 
> .


Start handing out Rougue Hoes with every e-motorbike purchase.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

Ahhhh....from kick-starting her eBike?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Wow, your example of one convinces me. I'm selling all my bicycles and buying a moped.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> I met a women yesterday that had a brace on her calf to her heal. Anyone want to guess why she had that brace? She use to run marathons and ride a mountain bike.


Met her where? Was she on a trail? Legally? Where does she plan to ride that thing? Does she get a pass because of the MS?

.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

I was supposed to guess all that?! :skep:

Good for her staying active. that is so important. I get it, trust me on that. 5 years ago, my legs completely stopped working one morning after having slowly atrophied my muscle mass below the waist. Turns out my neck was toast and none of the doctors caught that. When my big event happened, my Neurosurgeon told me that had it been 20 years prior, I would have been placed in a wheelchair and likely diagnosed with MS. Fortunately, he was able to fix me. My recovery was starting to mountain bike, on an '07 Stumpjumper 10 speed that I had to trade my bitchin, fully restored '73 Yamaha Enduro 125. It was a brutal year and a half getting back. Absolutely brutal.

I'm a bit confused with the matter since there has been this argument by pro-eBikers from the beginning that it's not any easier to pedal an eBike. If that's the case, how is it that eBikes seem to be "the answer" for the old, disabled, or injured?

And as always, do your eBiking. More _power_ to you if that's what floats your boat. Just keep them off the multi-use singletrack trails where they're illegal and don't expect to just ride in on the advocacy shoulders of mtbr's because where I live, we have an absolutely phenomenal relationship with hikers and equestrians we share trail with. They absolutely despise ebikes openly and having them on our trails could easily set us back decades in advocacy and relationships.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

mtndude23 said:


> You have valid points. I'm truly don't think that a pedal assist bike will actually give a rider with no ability the skills to ride the tech trails. It'll only help them where it only comes down to smooth pedaling. It'd still take a decent skill set to muscle a 50 pound bike around a trail. All the pedal assist bikes I've read up on, cut out at 25mph. So, it's not like they're going to be blasting by anyone faster then a standard mtb.
> 
> My thinking leads down to this-they are another user group that we can fight with. Or we can all band together and fight for opening/building and maintaining trails with. And let's face it, if we really have bigger fights to work on.
> 
> ...


 You seem to confusing the " we" There are mt bikes, and then there are motorized vehicles. Ban together with your other motorized vehicles, plenty of places for them to ride already. You want to get e bikes on mutli use human power trails? That is another ball of wax, don't count on most of the mt bikers to help you.


----------



## old_MTBer (Feb 16, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> Nope she has MS and needs pedal assist to be able to ride with her boyfriend. She has decided to do everything she can to stay active. She has put a deposit down on a Shuttle. Her bike dealer said that Pivot is sold out on at least the medium models and a container is on it way and should be here in two weeks.


The situation of the lady with MS using an ebike gets into a gray area. If her doctor states she is mobility disabled or she just states she is mobility disabled she has the right to use an Other Power Driven Mobility Device. The ebike could easily be defined as an OPDMD in her case.

From the DOJ decision.
On March 15, 2011, new Department of Justice rules took effect, specifying the "other power-driven mobility devices" (OPDMD) that could be used on trails by "individuals with mobility disabilities." If you manage a trail that is open to the public this rule applies to your facility.

An "other power-driven mobility device" (OPDMD) is defined in the rules as: "any mobility device powered by batteries, fuel, or other engines- whether or not designed primarily for use by individuals with mobility disabilities- that is used by individuals with mobility disabilities for the purpose of locomotion, including golf cars, electronic personal assistance mobility devices (EPAMDs), such as the Segway® PT, or any mobility device designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes, but that is not a wheelchair within the meaning of this section. This definition does not apply to Federal wilderness areas; wheelchairs in such areas are defined in section 508(c)(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12207(c)(2).

In short an other power-driven mobility device is anything with a motor that can be driven, regardless of size or horsepower, if it is driven by a person who has a mobility related disability.

Full information here:
Basic facts and requirements of Department of Justice Rule on Other Power Driven Mobility Devices


----------



## mtndude23 (Apr 18, 2012)

So much hatred ok, a mtb doesn't equal a ebike. Never said they were the same, but in the same ball game a ebike doesn't equal a motorbike. And if you really think it does-you've never actually spent time on a motorbike. Take a lap on any trail with all three bikes, and show me they can have equal times on the lap, and I'll never say another word about. 

And it is we-all trails users face the same problems with trail usage.

I thought ebikes were as dumb as anyone else on here when they first started coming out. I said the same things, a bunch of lazy people need to earn there miles like I did. After reading more about how the pedal assist systems work, I was a little less hating of them. And then honestly after awhile-I realized. Not a single person on an ebike would ruin my day. 

I mean when it comes down to it, all our wheel standards are stupid, our multiple axle standards are stupid and yes ebikes are still pretty stupid. But, it comes down to the fact that all this tech is here. It's not going anywhere just like 29" wheels and then 27.5" wheels. 

If anyone else here was around when mtbr was still just a message board instead of a forum. You could've read about how full suspension bikes were for lazy people. "Real mountain bikers don't need that" guess what? It didn't go anywhere, and wether we like it or not neither will ebikes. 

So, you can hold onto your hatred or just learn to coexist with other users.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

mtndude23 said:


> So, you can hold onto your hatred or just learn to coexist with other users.


Just not on the same trails.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Not hatred, just need to follow the rules already in place by the land mangers and land owners. Most all have rules in place for motorized, mt bikes and such. Does it have a motor? Start there, really. Sort of a bike? Not going to fly. You should coexist with the other motorized trail users. So many variations on state, federal and local rules, not one size fits all. Advocate for your local use, good luck with that.


----------



## mtndude23 (Apr 18, 2012)

"Just not on the same trails."

I believe this is the motto of hikers as well.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> Just not on the same trails.


Your membership card from HOHA is in the mail.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

mtndude23 said:


> "Just not on the same trails."
> 
> I believe this is the motto of hikers as well.


Yep, and mountain bikes don't belong on every trail so why do e-motorbikers want every trail motorized?


----------



## mtndude23 (Apr 18, 2012)

Why shouldn't mtbers have access to all trails?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

mtndude23 said:


> Why shouldn't mtbers have access to all trails?


Maybe because some public trails are too crowded as it is?

Whatever the point of your rhetorical question may have been; in areas where "regular" MTB access is tenuous, adding e-MTB's to the mix will only make MTB advocacy that much more difficult.


----------



## mtndude23 (Apr 18, 2012)

It wasn't rhetorical, if hikers and trail runners can use any trail-well it should really goes both ways.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

mtndude23 said:


> Why shouldn't mtbers have access to all trails?


Because of reasons of tenuous access, user density, deed restrictions, singular use, safety of other user groups. Tired of winning yet?


----------



## mtndude23 (Apr 18, 2012)

So hikers and bikers are unsafe on the same trail? If theze trails are overcrowded, then they should be restricting all users access. You can bow down to your hiking overlords, while that is in jest. It really means we shouldn't have to give concessions.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

mtndude23 said:


> It really means we shouldn't have to give concessions.


Concessions in many cases earns us access. I'd rather have access than cede it.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

mtndude23 said:


> It wasn't rhetorical, if hikers and trail runners can use any trail-well it should really goes both ways.


So you want hikers and runners on MTB-specific trails???


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

On the tenuous access front: someone posted about burnouts above. I've never seen one. But the first time I saw an e-bike was years ago, in a place which is mostly used by bicycles but also 'off limit' to bicycles. He was using the throttle to roost every corner in a tiny mostly flat area.

So yes, e-bikes can have huge impact potential and problems.

I just prefer to think about why that is at a more fundamental level than a dismissive and divisive 'ebike go away' (which is basically the HOHA for Bikes approach) or 'ebike is always the same as normal bike' (which seems to be the industry and maybe IMBA approach).


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

mbmtb said:


> On the tenuous access front: someone posted about burnouts above. I've never seen one. But the first time I saw an e-bike was years ago, in a place which is mostly used by bicycles but also 'off limit' to bicycles. He was using the throttle to roost every corner in a tiny mostly flat area.
> 
> So yes, e-bikes can have huge impact potential and problems.
> 
> I just prefer to think about why that is at a more fundamental level than a dismissive and divisive 'ebike go away' (which is basically the HOHA for Bikes approach) or 'ebike is always the same as normal bike' (which seems to be the industry and maybe IMBA approach).


It's not a fundamental issue but keep going forward with that simplistic tact, I'm sure you'll enjoy much success.


----------



## 1-track-mind (Aug 11, 2005)

I confess to not reading the whole thread, but IMBA's stance does not matter one iota if it is ignored by local/regional chapters.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

1-track-mind said:


> I confess to not reading the whole thread, but IMBA's stance does not matter one iota if it is ignored by local/regional chapters.


No.

IMBA is *the* national voice for mountain bikers.

It may not actually represent what mountain bikers actually think (and that's not even cohesive). But it is who national level people listen to. (Think: congress; sierra club; etc. Or more importantly, the USFS, BLM, or the NPS) Or people who don't know better. (Think: journalist, even in a local newspaper.)


----------



## edubfromktown (Sep 7, 2010)

I've seen first-hand and spoken to some of the ebike contingent who already have or intend to hot rod their ebikes with jumper wires or software/firmware updates that will make them go faster. 

I'm fine with people who have physical limitations accessing trails with an ebike. Hacking them to go faster pisses me off to the maxxxx. The excess speed reduces the room for error/avoidance/stopping capabilities and increases the inherent danger to hikers and pedal-only cyclists who share the same trails. 

Getting slammed into by an ebike traveling at an even higher rate of speed than the manufacturers designed them for is not my idea of a good time/happy ending.


----------



## 1-track-mind (Aug 11, 2005)

edubfromktown said:


> I've seen first-hand and spoken to some of the ebike contingent who already have or intend to hot rod their ebikes with jumper wires or software/firmware updates that will make them go faster.
> 
> I'm fine with people who have physical limitations accessing trails with an ebike. Hacking them to go faster pisses me off to the maxxxx. The excess speed reduces the room for error/avoidance/stopping capabilities and increases the inherent danger to hikers and pedal-only cyclists who share the same trails.
> 
> Getting slammed into by an ebike traveling at an even higher rate of speed than the manufacturers designed them for is not my idea of a good time/happy ending.


I don't think so. if you are an adrenaline junkie, you are not going to buy a class one pedal-assist in the first place, you are buying a class 3 throttle. If those folks want to mod their bikes, I could care less. I'm working for class one access on mountain bike trails. To derestrict would be defeating the purpose.


----------



## 1-track-mind (Aug 11, 2005)

mbmtb said:


> No.
> 
> IMBA is *the* national voice for mountain bikers.
> 
> It may not actually represent what mountain bikers actually think (and that's not even cohesive). But it is who national level people listen to. (Think: congress; sierra club; etc. Or more importantly, the USFS, BLM, or the NPS) Or people who don't know better. (Think: journalist, even in a local newspaper.)


I really hope you are right but locally, the USFS has far more power than IMBA in steering the ship with the local chapter.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

1-track-mind said:


> I don't think so. if you are an adrenaline junkie, you are not going to buy a class one pedal-assist in the first place, you are buying a class 3 throttle. If those folks want to mod their bikes, I could care less. I'm working for class one access on mountain bike trails. To derestrict would be defeating the purpose.


You're kidding yourself and I DO think so. And am seeing/hearing it come true. I know a bunch of the local MX guys. None of them want to work to pedal bikes like many of us do. It's not their thing. Their eyes have lit up with this ebike crap because guess what? It just opened a myriad of trails they can hammer within 15 minutes of their house, not an hour's drive out to USFS land where they normally roost away the trails. Why would they do something stupid and buy an obviously illegal bike like a Class 2 or 3 when they can tweek the **** out of a Class 1 and skate through virtually unnoticed. I see a couple of these guys on our City network of trails already where ebikes are not allowed. They truly don't give a ****. They mod their bicycles just like they mod they're motorcycles. These types are NOT stewards of the trails nor the lands.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Oh My Sack! said:


> You're kidding yourself and I DO think so. And am seeing/hearing it come true. I know a bunch of the local MX guys. None of them want to work to pedal bikes like many of us do. It's not their thing. Their eyes have lit up with this ebike crap because guess what? It just opened a myriad of trails they can hammer within 15 minutes of their house, not an hour's drive out to USFS land where they normally roost away the trails. Why would they do something stupid and buy an obviously illegal bike like a Class 2 or 3 when they can tweek the **** out of a Class 1 and skate through virtually unnoticed. I see a couple of these guys on our City network of trails already where ebikes are not allowed. They truly don't give a ****. They mod their bicycles just like they mod they're motorcycles. These types are NOT stewards of the trails nor the lands.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Oh My Sack! again.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

I cannot wait till Ebikes take all of the STRAVA KOM's everywhere lol.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

hacksawreynolds said:


> i cannot wait till ebikes take all of the strava kom's everywhere lol.


bwahaha!


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Oh My Sack! said:


> You're kidding yourself and I DO think so. And am seeing/hearing it come true. I know a bunch of the local MX guys. None of them want to work to pedal bikes like many of us do. It's not their thing. Their eyes have lit up with this ebike crap because guess what? It just opened a myriad of trails they can hammer within 15 minutes of their house, not an hour's drive out to USFS land where they normally roost away the trails. Why would they do something stupid and buy an obviously illegal bike like a Class 2 or 3 when they can tweek the **** out of a Class 1 and skate through virtually unnoticed. I see a couple of these guys on our City network of trails already where ebikes are not allowed. They truly don't give a ****. They mod their bicycles just like they mod they're motorcycles. These types are NOT stewards of the trails nor the lands.


My one e bike encounter happened while I was cleaning up the rental fleet for our local university's Outdoor Center where I work as the trail guy and MTB guy. It was POURING. Buckets of rain coming down. Every riding area in the state was closed. Dude pulls up in his sprinter van. Sees me set up outside under the tent and u turns to go down to the lower lot and parks at the far end. After a few minutes he and his lady emerge and attempt to cut up the steep grassy slope to access the trails. I yelled at them from 300 yards away. I had to yell a few times before he looked over. Gave him the universal WTF? to which he responded, " What?" I said, "We're closed."

I hadn't even noticed the e bikes yet, just thought he was an out of state a hole refusing to accept that it rained on his vacation. He decided to pedal over and further demonstrate his entitlements. When he got closer I said, "It's pouring, the trails are soaked we're closed." 
"Since when is THAT a rule?" he clucked
I explained to him that every ride spot in Vermont was closed, then I noticed he ebike and went on to inform him that no matter what the conditions, our trails are non-motorized use, so he'd have to come back on a bicycle to ride here.

"It's pedal assist!" He asserted.
"It has a motor." I said.
"Fine, I guess I'll see ya never!" he barked as if that was going to ruin my day.
"Sounds good to me Brah." I called after him.

These two were CLEARLY not MTBers. They clearly did not give a poop about the trails, accepted protocols of use, were attempting to be sneaky dicks, then tried to claim ignorance and demonstrated an amazing level of self importance. Something tells me I could not count on such a user-group to pop in on a trail day and dig water bars or haul dirt buckets.

This conversation makes me think of autonomous cars. Who in their right mind thinks mixed motorized/non-motorized use a good idea? The Industry.

Here's another idea for Ebike use. Development of a lift serve bike park where there are no lifts. Just have e bikes. People could shred the gnarly flow trails and e bike up the access road back to the top. They need to develop their own scene, like we have.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

HacksawReynolds said:


> I cannot wait till Ebikes take all of the STRAVA KOM's everywhere lol.


Yep, cutting b-lines and braiding trails all the way, can't wait!


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Oh My Sack! said:


> You're kidding yourself and I DO think so. And am seeing/hearing it come true. I know a bunch of the local MX guys. None of them want to work to pedal bikes like many of us do. It's not their thing. Their eyes have lit up with this ebike crap because guess what? It just opened a myriad of trails they can hammer within 15 minutes of their house, not an hour's drive out to USFS land where they normally roost away the trails. Why would they do something stupid and buy an obviously illegal bike like a Class 2 or 3 when they can tweek the **** out of a Class 1 and skate through virtually unnoticed. I see a couple of these guys on our City network of trails already where ebikes are not allowed. They truly don't give a ****. They mod their bicycles just like they mod they're motorcycles. These types are NOT stewards of the trails nor the lands.


Wow.....

The ignorance, and self appointed "moral superiority" of your statements is just sad.

Are you aware that motorcycle riders are the ONLY group using single-track trails who are forced to pay for the privilege? To the tune of millions of dollars, and that it's spent entirely on maintaining trails also enjoyed by non-motorized users?

I know a ton of moto guys, and very few are interested in an under-powered moped to ride on non-motorized trails. Hell, they laugh at my 125cc dirtbike because it's so "underpowered", but it has 15x the power of a hopped-up e-bike. And even at 15x the power of an e-bike, it has no more impact on my local trails than my mountain bike.

Most of the moto guys who ride mountain bikes enjoy them for what they are, and/or ride them to stay in shape for motorcycle riding. Contrary to the average MTBer's opinion, riding dirt bikes on single track is really physically demanding.....more demanding than riding a mountain bike imho, and according to my heart rate monitor, burns the same number of calories per hour.

The few moto guys I know who are getting into e-bikes are only doing so because they've been left with no choice after having their local trails closed to them, and handed over to non-motorized users.

And lets not forget the rather sizable population of mountain bikers who "live for the downhill", complaining about every pedal stroke they take against gravity. Riding bikes with "bump assist" (full suspension), getting shuttled to the top of a run in their mom's truck, or riding a chairlift at the local ski resort, constantly cutting illegal trails because multi-use trails aren't rad enough for them? Are they also greater stewards of the environment? In my area at least, the environmental damage caused by guys like this is FAR greater than the motorcycle riders.

.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

DaveVt said:


> This conversation makes me think of autonomous cars. Who in their right mind thinks mixed motorized/non-motorized use a good idea? The Industry.


Multi use trails including motorized users have existed for decades. They pre-date mountain bikes in fact. I ride them regularly on both my mountain bike, and motorcycle, and shock of all shocks, everyone gets along just fine. There have even been trail work days where mountain bikers and moto guys work together. As usual though, no hikers or equestrians show up.

.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

_CJ said:


> Wow.....
> 
> The ignorance, and self appointed "moral superiority" of your statements is just sad.
> 
> ...


 Wow back at you. Your 125 cc dirt bike has no more impact on trails than your mt bike, umm ok. Every poaching dirt bike and atv I see are roosting.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

_CJ said:


> As usual though, no hikers or equestrians show up.


I can't speak for equestrians but most hikers want only a narrow path through the woods, why should they pitch in to build berms and jump lines?

Agree about multi-use (moto/non-moto) trails, I ride them often and they are fun.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> I can't speak for equestrians but most hikers want only a narrow path through the woods, why should they pitch in to build berms and jump lines?
> 
> Agree about multi-use (moto/non-moto) trails, I ride them often and they are fun.


Strangely, they seem to really enjoy hiking on the motorcycle trails around here. It's more about the scenery, and access to remote areas though. Hell, I even hike them once in a while.

Not all motorcycle trails are blown out MX tracks....

View attachment 1198189


View attachment 1198194


.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

_CJ said:


> .


Hikers and equestrians built most of the trails where I used to live. They were also far sighted enough to see the advantages of allowing bicycle access while at the same time advocating for motorized trails (which they were also successful in getting). Not all trails are suitable for motorized conveyances just like they aren't all suitable for mountain bikes.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

leeboh said:


> Wow back at you. Your 125 cc dirt bike has no more impact on trails than your mt bike, umm ok. Every poaching dirt bike and atv I see are roosting.


Poaching? I don't know any motorcycle guys who poach non-motorized trails, and the trails I ride both on are legal for both. ATV's aren't allowed on these trails, and they don't even try to ride them because they're too narrow, and they'd roll down the side of the mountain.

.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

life behind bars said:


> Hikers and equestrians built most of the trails where I used to live. They were also far sighted enough to see the advantages of allowing bicycle access while at the same time advocating for motorized trails (which they were also successful in getting). Not all trails are suitable for motorized conveyances just like they aren't all suitable for mountain bikes.


Interesting. Most trails in my area were built by motorcycle guys, long before mountain bikes existed, but have been closed to motorcycles over the years, and handed over to non-motorized groups.

No, not all trails are appropriate for motorized use, but many are. For some reason, people seem to think there's some moral superiority to non-motorized use. Pay no attention to how they arrived at the trail head.

.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

_CJ said:


> For some reason, people seem to think there's some moral superiority to non-motorized use.
> 
> .


More so than the walk on water attitude from the e-anything advocates? This makes me chuckle just thinking about the holier than thou attitude displayed by the Prius crowd. Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

_CJ said:


> For some reason, people seem to think there's some moral superiority to non-motorized use. Pay no attention to how they arrived at the trail head.


Maybe some people do but I think the majority just want there to be places where they can temporarily escape the mechanized world, no moral superiority involved.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Strangely, they seem to really enjoy hiking on the motorcycle trails around here. It's more about the scenery, and access to remote areas though. Hell, I even hike them once in a while.
> 
> Not all motorcycle trails are blown out MX tracks....
> 
> ...


Where is "here"? You do realize the United States is basically 50 different countries and the laws, customs and cultures vary wildly from state to state. Thinking that because something "works" where you live means nothing in the grand scheme of things since it may ONLY work where you live, or only be similar in a few other places around the country.



_CJ said:


> Pay no attention to how they arrived at the trail head.


I ride my bicycle to my trail-head, and I live in Suburbia Northern San Diego county. but even for those who have to drive a car many miles to get to a trailhead, I am not sure what that has to do with what a motorized vehicle can do to a dirt trail or how the speeds of said motorized vehicle could impact other trail users.

As eBikes become more popular, whether they are stock Class 1, Stock Class 3, Frankenbikes or modified Class 1 bikes, the interactions between fast eBikes and hikers, walkers, equestrians and pedal bike users is only going to increase. What no one can predict is how good or bad those interactions will be.

I think IMBA has made a mistake in this adoption so early and they may have to back-pedal on this decision in a few years.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> Maybe some people do but I think the majority just want there to be places where they can temporarily escape the mechanized world, no moral superiority involved.


There are already places for that, they're called Wilderness Areas, but for some reason there is a constant push to remove all mechanized use from all public lands. Motorized users are tax payers, and deserve places to enjoy themselves too.

And in my area, non-motorized users have dozens of trails to choose from, but that doesn't keep them from bitching and moaning about the ONE motorized trail we have close to town.

.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> Where is "here"? You do realize the United States is basically 50 different countries and the laws, customs and cultures vary wildly from state to state. Thinking that because something "works" where you live means nothing in the grand scheme of things since it may ONLY work where you live, or only be similar in a few other places around the country.


I'm in Colorado, but shared use is proven to work in MOST of the American west. No reason it can't work elsewhere, if everyone involved is actually willing to share.

Hell, take a look at the recent moto/mtb event that took place in northern Cali.

"@sierratrails Spring Epic in #quincy was amazing today. 50 mountain bikers and 50 moto riders having an amazing #herodirt day on Mt. Hough sharing trails and high-fiving each other. Proof that shared multi-use recreation can work, and we are building it in the #lostsierra #moto #mountainbike #sierratrails #sharetrails - in Quincy, California."

View attachment 1198195


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

_CJ said:


> There are already places for that, they're called Wilderness Areas, but for some reason there is a constant push to remove all mechanized use from all public lands. Motorized users are tax payers, and deserve places to enjoy themselves too.
> 
> And in my area, non-motorized users have dozens of trails to choose from, but that doesn't keep them from bitching and moaning about the ONE motorized trail we have close to town.


I'm guessing you live in a highly populated area? Crowds make people angry. Around here there are many thousands of acres available for both moto trails and non-moto trails. Maybe I'm just not listening but I never hear any bitching.

Anyway it seems to me that the vast majority of available space for people is clogged with machinery so I think it's only natural people are protective about keeping some of it wild. Just my opinion.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> Anyway it seems to me that the vast majority of available space for people is clogged with machinery so I think it's only natural people are protective about keeping some of it wild. Just my opinion.


Nobody is protecting it....they're actively involved in trying to take it away. The vast majority of trail miles along the front range of Colorado are for non-motorized use already, but that's apparently not enough. With this most recent invasion of Californians, the problem is only getting worse. Enviro-nuts bringing lawsuits against the forest service, booby traps being placed in trails, it's really getting out of hand.

.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

_CJ said:


> Nobody is protecting it....they're actively involved in trying to take it away. The vast majority of trail miles along the front range of Colorado are for non-motorized use already, but that's apparently not enough. With this most recent invasion of Californians, the problem is only getting worse. Enviro-nuts bringing lawsuits against the forest service, booby traps being placed in trails, it's really getting out of hand.
> 
> .


So, you speak of a "local" problem while including everyone else. That's not going to engender a positive response with most reasonable people.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

_CJ said:


> I'm in Colorado, but shared use is proven to work in MOST of the American west. No reason it can't work elsewhere, if everyone involved is actually willing to share.
> 
> Hell, take a look at the recent moto/mtb event that took place in northern Cali.
> 
> ...


I'd love to see those trails after 50 braaap braaps and 50 MTB'rs rip thru there lol.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

_CJ said:


> Multi use trails including motorized users have existed for decades. They pre-date mountain bikes in fact. I ride them regularly on both my mountain bike, and motorcycle, and shock of all shocks, everyone gets along just fine. There have even been trail work days where mountain bikers and moto guys work together. As usual though, no hikers or equestrians show up.
> 
> .


 First off, I get your passion, really. Second, not everyone lives in the mountains of the west. MA rider here. The crowded east. Really crowded in some parts. Lots people, limited trails, some conflicts exist. Motos had access, abused the trails and flouted the laws, and for the most part got booted off. Most of the riding here is on state forest land and some conservation land as well. There are like 7 ? public places to ride motos in the whole state. Some dirt bike, some atvs, some both. Mt bikers earned their seat at the table, showing up for meetings, lobbying and trail days. Fast forward 25 years. Lots of places for mt bikes, still access issues. Lots of cooperative efforts with land mangers, forest stewards and land owners. In some areas we have become the go to resource for trail building, where do e bikes stand? Nowhere. We get hiker support for trail days all the time, just did one last week on a boardwalk build and 1/2 mile of new single track, sweet work with the friends of the forest group. So yes, all the motos I see are poaching, the enviro police get a call, sometimes followed by a sting, fines and moto impoundment.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

HacksawReynolds said:


> I'd love to see those trails after 50 braaap braaps and 50 MTB'rs rip thru there lol.


The trails in that (larger) area are heavily used by mountain bikes, and definitely used by motorcycles and occasionally other users. Some of them get blown out. Many were created by aggressive gold miners.

However it is remote. Local population is ~4000, and the next larger town is about 75 miles in any direction. There's not as much as a gas station between Quincy and Oroville, though there is serious infrastructure (transcontintental rail, water and hydropower systems, etc).


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

mtndude23 said:


> "Just not on the same trails."
> 
> I believe this is the motto of hikers as well.


Not on a lot of the trails I ride, the hikers are fully aware that the trails they are hiking on were built and are maintained by mountain bikers. If they want "not on the same trails", they would have to do a lot of work themselves. They are smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

mtndude23 said:


> "Just not on the same trails."
> 
> I believe this is the motto of hikers as well.


From what I've been told very recently, this is going to be the motto of the National Forest Service soon too. And guess where all those new "hiker only", and "equestrian only" trails are going to come from? Say goodbye to that mountain bike trail that was built by mountain bikers.

.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

_CJ said:


> From what I've been told very recently, this is going to be the motto of the National Forest Service soon too. And guess where all those new "hiker only", and "equestrian only" trails are going to come from? Say goodbye to that mountain bike trail that was built by mountain bikers.
> 
> .


Funny, the USFS is approving new mtb and multi use trails at an increasing pace, I'd like to know the source of that very suspect information.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

life behind bars said:


> Funny, the USFS is approving new mtb and multi use trails at an increasing pace, I'd like to know the source of that very suspect information.


A Forest Service supervisor.

.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Maybe that's more of _CJ's satire.


----------



## railntrail (Jun 18, 2009)

Hey that’s great that IMBA’s now okay with class one E- bikes ! Praise the lord ! ... with all the hate I just thought someone should show some excitement about the good news !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

HacksawReynolds said:


> I'd love to see those trails after 50 braaap braaps and 50 MTB'rs rip thru there lol.


A trail near my house that's open to motorcycles and MTB's looks the same today as it did in the early 90's when I first started riding it. In fact the worst I've ever seen the trail is when motorcycles were temporarily banned for a couple of years. It is actually possible to have sustainable motorized use trails.

.


----------



## aborgman (Apr 18, 2016)

leeboh said:


> just need to follow the rules already in place by the land mangers and land owners.


...or get them changed.

...just like MTB folks have done on many previously hiking only or equestrian/hiking only trails.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

^^^^ Agreed, seems the e bike crowd has some work ahead of them.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> From what I've been told very recently, this is going to be the motto of the National Forest Service soon too. And guess where all those new "hiker only", and "equestrian only" trails are going to come from? Say goodbye to that mountain bike trail that was built by mountain bikers.





life behind bars said:


> Funny, the USFS is approving new mtb and multi use trails at an increasing pace, I'd like to know the source of that very suspect information.





_CJ said:


> A Forest Service supervisor.


Both of you - please post links to actual press releases or documented interviews with those at the forest service making these types of decisions. Anecdotal stories that cannot be verified do nothing to push either side of this argument.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> Both of you - please post links to actual press releases or documented interviews with those at the forest service making these types of decisions. Anecdotal stories that cannot be verified do nothing to push either side of this argument.


What planet do you live on? These are private conversations with statements being made off the record. Notice I didn't say which forest supervisor? There's a reason for that.

.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

_CJ said:


> What planet do you live on? These are private conversations with statements being made off the record. Notice I didn't say which forest supervisor? There's a reason for that.
> 
> .


Hmm, interesting. So why are you posting articles like this one on your website?

Excerpt:

_The ban was put in place by unelected Forest Service officials worried about bicycles on trails when the activity was new, with unknown effects. Urged on by certain environmental traditionalists, the officials interpreted the Act's prohibition of "mechanical transport" to include bicycles.

This action went against a congressional mandate of four years earlier. Congress stated in the Rattlesnake Wilderness Act of 1980 that bicycles are a form of "primitive recreation" compatible with wilderness, alongside hiking and horse riding.

One of the original framers of the Wilderness Act of 1964, U.S. Sen. Frank Church, showed concern over the Forest Service's defiance. In the 1977 publication, "Wilderness in a Balanced Land Use Framework," Church wrote: "The Forest Service with its purist doctrine is trying to scuttle the Wilderness Act. Such policies are misguided. If Congress had intended that wilderness be administered in so stringent a manner, we would never have written the law as we did."

But instead of debating the past, let's look to the future. Youth mountain biking is popular. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, 22 percent of youths aged 6-24 bicycle, while only 15 percent hike. The demographic of future land stewards is changing, and H.R. 1349 would broaden the base of those who value wilderness.

It's unrealistic to expect younger people to support a land designation when their preferred method of human-powered travel is banned on the basis of outdated rules imposed by their grandparents' generation.

In an age in which public lands are being eyed for increased extractive uses, wilderness needs more advocates. The mountain bike community has proven to be an enormous volunteer labor asset to land managers across the West, helping keep historic trails open for fellow users such as hikers and equestrians.

You cannot expect the mountain biking community, comprising thousands of Californians, to support wilderness when their human-powered, low-impact mode of travel is prohibited. H.R. 1349 will give mountain bikers an equal seat at the table, and engage the next generation, strengthening the voice of wilderness._

Read more here: McClintock mountain biking bill would actually help the wilderness | The Sacramento Bee


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

chazpat said:


> Hmm, interesting. So why are you posting articles like this one on your website?


Totally unrelated.

To expand on the "separate but equal" subject. This is an idea that's being discussed within the Forest Service. Nothing has been decided, and user groups are lining up to try and persuade them that it's a bad plan.

.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Totally unrelated, but nice work stalking me.
> 
> .


If you didn't want people visiting your website, why did you put it in your profile? Maybe you should delete that before you get more visitors, I mean "stalkers".

Your website really lends me to believe you are just trolling.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> Both of you - please post links to actual press releases or documented interviews with those at the forest service making these types of decisions. Anecdotal stories that cannot be verified do nothing to push either side of this argument.


Just a couple of examples;

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=51515

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/fo...cle_740cb66c-6ca6-5822-a5aa-99a357c40de0.html


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Note the advocacy efforts of the guys in Flagpole, one of the hardest places in the country to get trails built. They deserve all the props. They take donations too;

Donate to the Trail Maintenance & Construction Fund | Setting Wheels in Motion


----------



## 1-track-mind (Aug 11, 2005)

Folks, this access issue is not going to be won or lost here on MTBR treads.
If you are pro-ebike, use your time more constructively by talking to local land managers and be aware that every e-mtb rider will be under closer scrutiny than any other trail user. Be an ambassador and protect the access that we do have with stewardship.
It's an uphill battle that is going to take patience and perservance. The rift between mtb and e-mtb does not benefit either side, imo. Let's face it, these arguments are like a broken record with the needle stuck in the same groove...over,and over...


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

There has always been a rift between human powered and motorized activities. Ebikes are motorized recreation, not appropriate for human powered infrastructure. Mtb has nothing in common with emotorbiking, never will most likely. Emotorbikes are illegal on most mtb trails.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

_CJ said:


> Totally unrelated.


I'm not so sure that IMBA's stance on E-bikes (purpose of this thread) and IMBA's stance on mountain bikes in Wilderness and subsequent opposition to H.R. 1349 are unrelated.

It seems like IMBA's stance that they won't advocate for wilderness access for mountain bikes because they don't want to harm their relationship with the land managers and the Sierra Club is totally at odds with them openly supporting E-bikes, which is sure to piss off those same Environmental groups and potentially land managers that don't allow E-bikes on non-motorized trails.

That just never made any sense to me until I looked at it like this. The bike industry is pushing IMBA to support E-bikes. One of the main arguing points used by STC is that the Wilderness Act never intended to restrict bikes, but rather "mechanized transport" really meant motorized transport. The USFS and BLM have national policies stating that e-bikes are considered motorized. Therefore, the non-motorized argument doesn't hold up if you're also advocating for E-bikes.

I keep hearing E-bike proponents (on these threads and elsewhere) saying E-bikes are coming and they will take over whether you like it or not. The more popular E-bikes become, the more it will be impossible for the mountain bike community to be viewed as a separate user group in the eyes of those who oppose mountain bikes and e-bikes alike. It's so easy for them to say, "E-bikes have a motor, we can't really tell them apart from mountain bikes nor reasonably enforce their ban, and you the land manager don't have the resources to enforce it, so the only solution is to ban them both."

So, it is my opinion that IMBA can't come out on one hand and say "we support E-bikes", and on the other say "we support bikes in Wilderness" because we all know that where mountain bikes are allowed, E-bikes will follow.

Disclaimer: I'm neither for nor against e-bikes. Don't own one, don't want one (maybe in a few decades when approaching 70 years old and this is all sorted). I have no problems with E-bikes on purpose built directional mountain bike trails. I do have a problem with E-bikes threaten traditional mountain bike access and advocacy (i.e Wilderness debate and poaching trails where a land manager has a set policy banning mountain bikes).


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

twd953 said:


> I'm not so sure that IMBA's stance on E-bikes


And look how well imba is doing. Bwaaaahaaahaaa! Good riddance to them.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

life behind bars said:


> And look how well imba is doing. Bwaaaahaaahaaa! Good riddance to them.


IMBA taking positions contrary to what a majority of their membership wants (anecdotally at least) on Wilderness access and E-bike access (arguably the 2 advocacy issues that tend to get mountain bikers riled up the most), isn't a recipe for future success.


----------



## ONDAROX (Jun 13, 2018)

So I'm new to this forum and not trying to create enemies right off the bat by saying I have an unmodified Class I e-bike (2018 Haibike Allmtn 8.0). 

I am writing this only for the purpose of opening a few peoples minds and to contradict some of the current stereotypes surrounding e-bike riders.

My quick riding history is that I've ridden BMX and Mountain bike since I was a kid. I have also been riding dirt bikes and belong to a local club which takes trail maintenance and erosion control very seriously. I am a professional Civil Engineer with an emphasis in hydrology. I am also an Eagle Scout and love the outdoors. 

That being said I bought my current e-bike because I'm admittedly slightly out of shape and wanted a fun way I could get back into mountain biking. I also wanted to be able to commute to work on an off-road rail trail 32 miles a day to work in under an hour. 

I have been riding a few trail systems in the DC metro area and everyone so far was very accepting of my e-bike and had not encountered any restrictions. I planned a trip this coming weekend to Carvins Cove near Roanoke, VA with a riding buddy from high school (bikes and dirt bikes) who helped build and maintain a lot of the trails there; only for me to find out that e-bikes were not permitted. So my research began to figure out what peoples reservations, concerns, and complaints were regarding e-bikes. Hence me finding this forum and thread...

So I offer the following thoughts:

I find the most convincing argument against e-bikes is the increase torque to the wheel causing an increase of erosion and trail degradation on steep accents. That being said, I'm not sure how much worse that is that any bike skidding down the same slope. 

I think the real problem will be both of the above from the increased numbers of riders that e-bikes will be bringing to any trail system. E-bikes are being purchased at an exponentially increasing rate and with that, will ultimately come regulatory influence driven by the money backed industry. To the purists out there that do not believe that, they should probably try one out to better understand where technology is leading the industry. I believe that E-(mtn)bikes are not typically for the lazy and juvenile rule breakers without respect. 

At this critical inflection point in the mountain biking industry, the individuals that have the money to buy these e-bikes are responsible adults, which is one more reason why now is the time to shape the rules, regulations, and mentality now. As prices come down, like they do with any technology, the younger (typically more reckless) demographic will rebel if sensible trail access is not in place and well regulated. 

I believe some of these regulations could include the following (Please help expand on this):
-Class I (500W assist only)
-limitations on trail access based on erosion potential (steepness & soil type) with alternate routes for e-bikes
-weather related trail condition closures for e-bikes 
-setting a maximum number for e-bike access per day
-increased cost for e-bike access to help pay for increased trail maintenance and trail access oversight
-
-

Again, I am writing this only for the purpose of opening a few peoples minds and to contradict some of the current stereotypes surrounding e-bike riders. I think now is the time to think about methods of responsibly integrating e-bike riders into the mountain biking community and realize that the two mindsets do not have to be so far apart and can actually have a more powerful and beneficial impact to mountain biking community as one cohesive unit.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^It's about the motorized bicycle, not the rider. 

You convince no one but yourself, and this is not the forum to advocate for ebikes.

Ebikes are not human powered mountain bikes, which are what we build trail and advocate for.

As time goes by the motorized mtb movement will merge with other motorized use, not hpmtb and other human powered use. Suck it up dude.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

After cancer four years ago and then hit by a car on my bicycle that broke my leg, I still cannot ride a bike due to pain in the leg. I lost all my fitness over four years of being very inactive. I have been very active in this forum in the past, and have spent years advocating for trails (still do).

It is becoming obvious that being almost 70 years old, cancer ravaged (not to mention the radiation and chemo treatments) and with a seriously damaged leg, my unassisted trail riding days may be over forever. I got my first MTB in 1979 and worked for years in the bike wholesale business.

So with that background, am I banned if I decided to get an eMTB to get back out the the hills I love and it give me the ability to actually perform trail work rather than just being a city hall, trails committee, or trail head advocate?


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

bsieb said:


> ^It's about the motorized bicycle, not the rider.
> 
> You convince no one but yourself, and this is not the forum to advocate for ebikes.
> 
> ...


Absolutely agree with all of that. Not attempting to derail but I don't believe anybody is refuting that eBikes are fun. Anything that makes it easier to go fast with minimal effort is indeed FUN! It's why I love my 150hp SportTour moto. As for just getting back into riding, what the hell is wrong with getting back on a regular mtb? 4 months after experiencing paralysis waist down and getting fixed with titanium and fusion in my neck back in '13, I got on a '07 Stumpjumper Comp and started my riding lifestyle. It was tough as all heavy exercise and conditioning is. Why someone thinks that starting on an ebike is actually beneficial is beyond me but if that's what you think you need to do, then do it. Just do it on motorized trails or the road and not on multi-use singletrack trails that mtbr's have spent decades advocating for, building relationships, and moving dirt.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Oh My Sack! said:


> Absolutely agree with all of that. Not attempting to derail but I don't believe anybody is refuting that eBikes are fun. Anything that makes it easier to go fast with minimal effort is indeed FUN! It's why I love my 150hp SportTour moto. As for just getting back into riding, what the hell is wrong with getting back on a regular mtb? 4 months after experiencing paralysis waist down and getting fixed with titanium and fusion in my neck back in '13, I got on a '07 Stumpjumper Comp and started my riding lifestyle. It was tough as all heavy exercise and conditioning is. Why someone thinks that starting on an ebike is actually beneficial is beyond me but if that's what you think you need to do, then do it. Just do it on motorized trails or the road and not on multi-use singletrack trails that mtbr's have spent decades advocating for, building relationships, and moving dirt.


Yep.

If someone starts doing Olympic lifts, do they start deadlifting 500lbs with poor form and two people helping them? Or do they start with the bar, gain proper form over time, and add weight as they get stronger?

If you are training to run a 4:30 mile in a race, do you have your dog tow you in training? Or do you train up to it over time?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

slocaus said:


> After cancer four years ago and then hit by a car on my bicycle that broke my leg, I still cannot ride a bike due to pain in the leg. I lost all my fitness over four years of being very inactive. I have been very active in this forum in the past, and have spent years advocating for trails (still do).
> 
> It is becoming obvious that being almost 70 years old, cancer ravaged (not to mention the radiation and chemo treatments) and with a seriously damaged leg, my unassisted trail riding days may be over forever. I got my first MTB in 1979 and worked for years in the bike wholesale business.
> 
> So with that background, am I banned if I decided to get an eMTB to get back out the the hills I love and it give me the ability to actually perform trail work rather than just being a city hall, trails committee, or trail head advocate?


Many city/state parks in the US allow disabled users the aid of a "mobility device" on trails. E-bikes, in that instance, should fall under the umbrella of mobility device.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

aero901 said:


> Many city/state parks in the US allow disabled users the aid of a "mobility device" on trails. E-bikes, in that instance, should fall under the umbrella of mobility device.


I'm not legally disabled, I walk hours and miles each day but on pavement and level ground. This was partly tongue in cheek being a long time bicycle / MTB rider / advocate and MTBR member.

Sometimes life hits you really hard with a big spiked club, no fault of your own. I really don't care, I was just curious of the attitudes here toward physically disadvantaged rider who did not choose to loose fitness and get injured.

I gave up on Internet arguments, long ago.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

aero901 said:


> Many city/state parks in the US allow disabled users the aid of a "mobility device" on trails. E-bikes, in that instance, should fall under the umbrella of mobility device.


ADA doesn't mean every trail.


----------



## ironhippy (Nov 21, 2017)

slocaus said:


> Sometimes life hits you really hard with a big spiked club, no fault of your own. I really don't care, I was just curious of the attitudes here toward physically disadvantaged rider who did not choose to loose fitness and get injured.


I would be more concerned with the safety of a rider who required an ebike to get out into the woods. (implying a back country like trail, not one looping between houses)

If you need a motor to get out there, what happens if the motor or battery fails? Are you willing to call search and rescue because the piece of technology you relied on broke?

I don't bike anywhere I can't reasonably walk out from. If I get injured, I may have to call search and rescue. 
If my bike breaks and I don't have the parts/tools/expertise to fix it, that's on me and I'm in for a walk.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

ironhippy said:


> I would be more concerned with the safety of a rider who required an ebike to get out into the woods. (implying a back country like trail, not one looping between houses)
> 
> If you need a motor to get out there, what happens if the motor or battery fails? Are you willing to call search and rescue because the piece of technology you relied on broke?
> 
> ...


Amen.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

ironhippy said:


> I would be more concerned with the safety of a rider who required an ebike to get out into the woods. (implying a back country like trail, not one looping between houses)
> 
> If you need a motor to get out there, what happens if the motor or battery fails? Are you willing to call search and rescue because the piece of technology you relied on broke?
> 
> ...


That's on them. Not you.

Lots of people on this forum ride places where they can't easily get out if their bike breaks.

Some even do multi day backcountry bikepacking trips.

Should those be banned too? After all, it's not safe.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

mbmtb said:


> That's on them. Not you.
> 
> Lots of people on this forum ride places where they can't easily get out if their bike breaks.
> 
> ...


And they can walk out. Just because I'm 20 miles from the nearest road doesn't mean I'm in any danger.

A person with known mobility problems is going to have problems that an able-bodied, fit person won't.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ironhippy (Nov 21, 2017)

mbmtb said:


> *That's on them.* Not you.
> 
> Lots of people on this forum ride places where they can't *easily *get out if their bike breaks.
> 
> ...


Of course it's on them, I was replying to:

*"I was just curious of the attitudes here toward physically disadvantaged rider who did not choose to loose fitness and get injured."*

I never said the walk would be done easily. That's why I would be concerned with someone with mobility problems relying on a motor to get out there. If the walk out was easy, I would have no problem.



Le Duke said:


> And they can walk out. Just because I'm 20 miles from the nearest road doesn't mean I'm in any danger.
> 
> A person with known mobility problems is going to have problems that an able-bodied, fit person won't.


This is my point, thanks. I may have to walk all night (or even multiple nights if I was bikepacking) but I would be able to walk. If I can't walk, I am calling search and rescue.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

ironhippy said:


> I would be more concerned with the safety of a rider who required an ebike to get out into the woods. (implying a back country like trail, not one looping between houses)
> 
> If you need a motor to get out there, what happens if the motor or battery fails? Are you willing to call search and rescue because the piece of technology you relied on broke?
> 
> ...


I did some serious mountaineering and ski descents in Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Washington, Oregon back in the 1960's and 1970's, including some winter time first ascents. I have had many first aid and wilderness medicine courses, worked on both Alpine and Nordic Ski Patrols, trained National Ski Patrol members in the Mountain West district in basic survival and orienteering in harsh winter conditions. I also worked on Sheriffs Dept. doing summer and winter Search and Rescue.

That was long before cell phones and such. I've done solo two week backpack trips and solo non-technical ascents. I'm ok in the deep mountains and can get myself out if necessary. My pack always has enough food supplies to get me out on foot or probably crawling as far as I need to get out. I can walk fine, and descent steep slopes fine. The pain I get is on the forward step up or the forward pedal stroke.

My current bike choices are duke it out with the cars on the street or get an eMTB to get on the trails where their use is legal where I live.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Switchblade2 said:


> My wife and I got so tired of all the negative Ebike Fake News so we headed to Davos Switzerland to ride Ebikes up and down the epic Swiss Alp trails.
> 
> Everyone in Davos is pro Ebike, so you don't have to worry about some Ebike hater going ballistic when you meet them on the trail you are enjoying.
> 
> It will be interesting how long it takes for US landmanagers to a European view.


 You mean like all the land use laws, customs and norms of the EU? Guessing never?


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

EU trails are not purpose built mtb singletrack, they are centuries old multi-use paths.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> My wife and I got so tired of all the negative Ebike Fake News so we headed to Davos Switzerland to ride Ebikes up and down the epic Swiss Alp trails.


Could you make this permanent?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Switchblade2 said:


> It will be interesting how long it takes for US landmanagers to a European view.


Too bad the ebike laws aren't the same, our class 1-3 ebikes are classified as mopeds in the EU because of the higher power and speeds.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Harryman said:


> Too bad the ebike laws aren't the same, our class 1-3 ebikes are classified as mopeds in the EU because of the higher power and speeds.


So, can we call them Euro-mopeds and still comply with the forum posting rules? It is an "international" forum.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

watermonkey said:


> So, can we call them Euro-mopeds and still comply with the forum posting rules? It is an "international" forum.


The no moped rule is only in the ebike forum.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Harryman said:


> The no moped rule is only in the ebike forum.


Actually, that rule was removed from the ebike forum a few months ago.


----------

