# Busting 10 myths about e-bikes



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

I am liking this e-bike debate so much more than political ones. 

Here are 10 myths about e-bikes busted.

For copy write reasons I do not want to copy and past the whole article so here is the link.

https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/busting-10-myths-e-bikes/

Here is one I particularly liked though.

9. MYTH: E-bike riders don't know trail etiquette!

FACT: Sure they do. Most have years of trail experience. The typical e-bike rider is 45-65 years old and generally uninterested in reaching maximum speeds or passing other trail users without proper warning or slowing down.

Before responding please remember:

This section is for discussion of eBikes and eBike specific accessories, discussions about legality and such will be moved out of this section or deleted at the Moderators' discretion.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> I am liking this e-bike debate so much more than political ones.
> 
> Here are 10 myths about e-bikes busted.
> 
> ...


People For Bikes is hardly an objective source. Thread fail.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

So since "the typical e-bike rider is 45-65 and generally uninterested in reaching maximum speeds", they should be fine with my proposal to form a new class for emtbs with much lower wattage, much lower cut off speed and assistance only on inclines, right? Make them truly ride like a bicycle?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

KenPsz said:


> I am liking this e-bike debate so much more than political ones.
> 
> Here are 10 myths about e-bikes busted.
> 
> ...


If they are uninterested in maximum speed, why do they have a motor on their e-bikes?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> If they are uninterested in maximum speed, why do they have a motor on their e-bikes?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Now a fair question:

To get to the top of a downhill easier since climbing sucks and the older you get the more is sucks.

Although I have recently read on a different bike site that if you can't climb you should just hike. Which gives the impression mountain biking should only be for the young and fit, screw those that have gotten old, built trails, ridden for decades; you've just aged out.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> Now a fair question:
> 
> To get to the top of a downhill easier since climbing sucks and the older you get the more is sucks.
> 
> Although I have recently read on a different bike site that if you can't climb you should just hike. Which gives the impression mountain biking should only be for the young and fit, screw those that have gotten old, built trails, ridden for decades; you've just aged out.


Aging out is inevitable, e-motorbikes aren't.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

KenPsz said:


> Now a fair question:
> 
> To get to the top of a downhill easier since climbing sucks and the older you get the more is sucks.
> 
> Although I have recently read on a different bike site that if you can't climb you should just hike. Which gives the impression mountain biking should only be for the young and fit, screw those that have gotten old, built trails, ridden for decades; you've just aged out.


I see plenty of old fat dudes on MTBs. Getting to the top of the hill under their own power.

Maybe you should adjust your attitude, and your fitness will follow. The human body is quite amazing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Le Duke said:


> I see plenty of old fat dudes on MTBs. Getting to the top of the hill under their own power.
> 
> Maybe you should adjust your attitude, and your fitness will follow. The human body is quite amazing.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't need to adjust my attitude I climb a 35lb FS fatbike up hills, just fine thank you.
I personally am in better shape than most late 20 year olds, but I know that will not last forever. But by all means please tell me how the human body works and can adjust that I have not learned in almost 50 years of life.

Like many old fat guys pushing 50 if given a choice of suffering or assistance many would choose assistance. Since we have more money than time for a hobby.

Don't you worry you will continue to see old fat guys suffering to get to the top of hills since we currently have no other choice. But it will it be fun to see the younger crowed get older and see their attitudes change. Or when times change and e-bikes are allowed in more places.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

https://www.globalcyclingnetwork.com/video/can-you-get-fit-from-riding-an-e-bike


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> I don't need to adjust my attitude I climb a 35lb FS fatbike up hills, just fine thank you.
> I personally am in better shape than most late 20 year olds, but I know that will not last forever. But by all means please tell me how the human body works and can adjust that I have not learned in almost 50 years of life.
> 
> Like many old fat guys pushing 50 if given a choice of suffering or assistance many would choose assistance. Since we have more money than time for a hobby.
> ...


btw, a lot of us that you have been arguing with across all these threads are older than you, including me. I notice you still don't want to answer my question.


----------



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

KenPsz said:


> To get to the top of a downhill easier since climbing sucks and the older you get the more is sucks.


Speak for yourself, I'm older than you and am competetive with riders half my age, also still improving and establishing new pr's. Climbing does hurt some but it's a good kind of pain, for me anyway.

As for the article, it seems to be a promotion for electric bikes and #1 is bs. 3-4mph faster on flats and climbs? Who came up with that atbitrary number?


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> Speak for yourself, I'm older than you and am competetive with riders half my age, also still improving and establishing new pr's. Climbing does hurt some but it's a good kind of pain, for me anyway.
> 
> As for the article, it seems to be a promotion for electric bikes and #1 is bs. 3-4mph faster on flats and climbs? Who came up with that atbitrary number?


Do you have proof to back you claim #1 is bs? Easy to claim on an anonymous forum that the article is bs, yet they wrote and article.

As far as climbing I assume you enjoy it but I don't and I know many a rider that shares my view. So right back at you speak for yourself.

We all know you don't like e-bikes and have a serious bias against them. Beyond your "they have a motor" do you have anything else to add?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> ? Easy to claim on an anonymous forum that the article is bs, yet they wrote and article.


Have you even bothered to look into who "THEY" are?


----------



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

KenPsz said:


> So right back at you speak for yourself.


If you read what I wrote you might notice that I was speaking for myself, in fact I specifically mentioned that.


----------



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

KenPsz said:


> We all know you don't like e-bikes and have a serious bias against them. Beyond your "they have a motor" do you have anything else to add?


You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, I've no bias against electric bikes and have never mentioned anything about not liking them.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Le Duke said:


> If they are uninterested in maximum speed, why do they have a motor on their e-bikes?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 To go farther on a two hour ride, not to be KIng of the Mountain. At 65 it all about seeing more back country in a given time period, not top speed. If I wanted that I'd just buy regular dirt bike........


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Speak for yourself, I'm older than you and am competetive with riders half my age, also still improving and establishing new pr's. Climbing does hurt some but it's a good kind of pain, for me anyway.
> 
> As for the article, it seems to be a promotion for electric bikes and #1 is bs. 3-4mph faster on flats and climbs? Who came up with that atbitrary number?


Hopefully those new PR's don't happen when other users are on the trail. As one of the small group who developed the GPX file format I think of Strava and the like as a sort of red-headed stepchild.

Speed on flats and climbs - gravity power for 210 pound rider plus bike and gear at 20 mph is 835 watts. Turn 10 percent slope around and an unfit rider could climb at 14 mph on 10 percent slope with 500 motor plus 100 human watts.

In terms of capability claim 1 is BS - the unfit rider would be climbing at 2.39 mph, which means walking.

In practice, I only double my climbing speed on a long hill from 4 to 8 mph on the trail because I'm riding for enjoyment and don't want the trail to end too quickly. Just because I can go much faster doesn't mean that I do.


----------



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

hikerdave said:


> Hopefully those new PR's don't happen when other users are on the trail. As one of the small group who developed the GPX file format I think of Strava and the like as a sort of red-headed stepchild.


On 9mph climbs? The trails around here are only sparsely populated with deer, javalina, coyotes, etc but even if there were more humans I doubt that would cause any conflict.

Also as a (former) ginger I take offense to that


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Le Duke said:


> I see plenty of old fat dudes on MTBs. Getting to the top of the hill under their own power.
> 
> Maybe you should adjust your attitude, and your fitness will follow. The human body is quite amazing.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 So taxpayers are unable to access state and city trails that they are the actual owners of and that their dollars have paid to acquire and protect? Simply because one pressure group wants to freeze technology at what was available in 1990, despite a total lack of evidence of adverse consequences in areas where Class 1's are permitted? Those who manage state and municipal recreational areas are servants of the public and will respond to the will of either the majority or of the most powerful minority. If that group is lots of aging boomers with time and money on their hands to apply to convincing their peers in elected office that ebikes are something that they want on public lands then that is what will happen.

All of this crap about "it's a good kind of pain" and telling others to just push through it no matter how old they are and what physical issues they may have is irresponsible at the minimum and arrogant at the worst. Unless you are someone's doctor and have performed a complete physical exam on them recently you have no business telling anyone how they should deal with pain during extreme physical effort over long periods of time. And no one should be judging how much pain someone else should be experiencing or how much is tolerable, no one, with the possible exception of a specialist pain management MD. Are any of you in that category? Telling someone with diagnosed injuries that they should ride with pain in order not to hurt your feelings on hills is borderline psychopathy.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

chazpat said:


> So since "the typical e-bike rider is 45-65 and generally uninterested in reaching maximum speeds", they should be fine with my proposal to form a new class for emtbs with much lower wattage, much lower cut off speed ando assistance only on inclines, right? Make them truly ride like a bicycle?


My 205 pounds plus bike 50 lbs plus gear 5 lbs theoretically needs 310 watts to get up a 15 percent grade at 4 mph but in practice I've found that with 500 watts peak my PW-SE powered bike barely makes it.

Riding a short slope like that is easy on my human-powered bike until the slight twinge I felt in my back turns into raging pain a few hours later.

The challenge is that with my 500 watts of power on tap I could easily tear down a level trail at 20 mph if I were so inclined. Rider self-restraint is key.


----------



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

All of this crap about "it's a good kind of pain"...[/QUOTE]



J.B. Weld said:


> Climbing does hurt some but it's a good kind of pain, *for* *me* *anyway*.


When you quote other people please keep it in the proper context.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

WoodlandHills said:


> So taxpayers are unable to access state and city trails that they are the actual owners of and that their dollars have paid to acquire and protect? Simply because one pressure group wants to freeze technology at what was available in 1990, despite a total lack of evidence of adverse consequences in areas where Class 1's are permitted? Those who manage state and municipal recreational areas are servants of the public and will respond to the will of either the majority or of the most powerful minority. If that group is lots of aging boomers with time and money on their hands to apply to convincing their peers in elected office that ebikes are something that they want on public lands then that is what will happen.
> 
> All of this crap about "it's a good kind of pain" and telling others to just push through it no matter how old they are and what physical issues they may have is irresponsible at the minimum and arrogant at the worst. Unless you are someone's doctor and have performed a complete physical exam on them recently you have no business telling anyone how they should deal with pain during extreme physical effort over long periods of time. And no one should be judging how much pain someone else should be experiencing or how much is tolerable, no one, with the possible exception of a specialist pain management MD. Are any of you in that category? Telling someone with diagnosed injuries that they should ride with pain in order not to hurt your feelings on hills is borderline psychopathy.


The person I quoted has never mentioned a disability or any other ailment other than a lack of intestinal fortitude.

I don't ride my bike in Wilderness areas. I don't trespass on military training areas. I don't ride a moto on non-moto trails. I've paid for all of those areas, but I also obey the rules set forth by the people that manage those areas. It's pretty simple.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, I've no bias against electric bikes and have never mentioned anything about not liking them.


Your words say otherwise but sure we can go with that.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> Speak for yourself, I'm older than you and am competetive with riders half my age, also still improving and establishing new pr's. Climbing does hurt some but it's a good kind of pain, for me anyway.


Sucky is a term of enjoyment not competition. We all are willing to suffer a bit to be competitive (correct spelling by the way).

But if you want to say climbing is not sucky and it is getting less sucky as you age, good for you I disagree.

As I stated above I know many a biker that mirrors my opinion on climbing. Even a guy that is a complete stud climb and can hang with racers hates climbing. I can hang his wheel also. But being able to climb and be competitive does not mean it does not suck.

Again when your counter argument is "enjoy the pain" that is a losing argument for many. Since pain is the direct opposite of enjoyment for most people and really not a helpful way to bring more people into the hobby. But then again I have been reading the lots of "serious bikers" dislike e-bikes because it might bring more people into the hobby and spoil "their" trails.


----------



## shreddr (Oct 10, 2009)

KenPsz said:


> Now a fair question:
> 
> To get to the top of a downhill easier since climbing sucks and the older you get the more is sucks.
> 
> Although I have recently read on a different bike site that if you can't climb you should just hike. Which gives the impression mountain biking should only be for the young and fit, screw those that have gotten old, built trails, ridden for decades; you've just aged out.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shreddr (Oct 10, 2009)

I debated decades ago with some fat ass know it all, that motocross wasn’t a sport because the motorcycle did all the work. Having been a racer for 12 seasons I knew better. 

The e-bike debate is the same. For any cycling enthusiast training doesn’t make it easier, you just go faster. E-bikes will allow those skilled riders past their prime to still bomb the downhills without coughing up a lung on the way up. 

I always said downhills were the payoff for the ride up, but I’ve paid for privilege for close to 40 years and don’t mind a little assist at this point in my life. 

Wake up brothers e-bikes are here to stay and we are not the enemy, most of us were the pathfinders. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

KenPsz said:


> Your words say otherwise


Only in your head, if you quote me verbatim you might see that you are mistaken.



KenPsz said:


> Sucky is a term of enjoyment not competition. We all are willing to suffer a bit to be competitive (correct spelling by the way).


Good grief, now you're the spelling police? Are you going to critique my grammar next? And what does that first sentence, "Sucky is a term of enjoyment, not competition" mean anyway? Like the rest of your post it seems to have nothing to do with anything I said.

Ken I'm beginning to think that you just enjoy arguing.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> Sucky is a term of enjoyment not competition. We all are willing to suffer a bit to be competitive (correct spelling by the way).
> 
> But if you want to say climbing is not sucky and it is getting less sucky as you age, good for you I disagree.
> 
> ...


Ok, so you hate bicycles, you've established that. Sorry, cycling is a suffer sport. Why can't you just be happy being an "ebiker"? Why do you and the other bike haters keep trying to claim you are riding a bicycle? Does your ego still want to think you're riding a bicycle even though the truth is you hate riding bicycles? Or do you hope to get access to all those bicycle trails for your ebike by convincing everyone they are bicycles? You're still ignoring my question to you about why not make ebikes behave like bicycles (but still help with the part you find "sucky").


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> Only in your head, if you quote me verbatim you might see that you are mistaken.


I have quoted you and read your posts. Now it is possible I have your views wrong I fully admit that. Forums are not the best places to discuss issues if there is any type of disagreement.



> Good grief, now you're the spelling police? Are you going to critique my grammar next? And what does that first sentence,


Yes I was being a jerk, sorry it is a habit from political forums. I apologize.



> "Sucky is a term of enjoyment, not competition" mean anyway? Like the rest of your post it seems to have nothing to do with anything I said.


When I stated that climbs suck and they suck more the older you get. You responded with [para phrasing] "speak for yourself I'm competetive with riders half my age". In the quote I have what I view sucky as meaning.

So yes my response did have something to do with your response. It is your response to my post that had nothing to do with the topic. Since I was in no way shape or form referring too competition. Mountain biking is fun for me not competitive, I gave up the dream of competition for biking 20 years ago since it didn't look like fun.



> Ken I'm beginning to think that you just enjoy arguing.


Arguing??? No 
But a spirited debate you betcha.

Now I will admit that I will get caught up in the discussion and become a bit of a jerk, that is par for the course. But I will say there is a group of people here that do mob and attack those that are pro-ebike.
I am limiting my interactions with them since I have found the ignore list, you are not on the list.


----------



## Haymarket (Jan 20, 2008)

KenPsz said:


> But then again I have been reading the lots of "serious bikers" dislike e-bikes because it might bring more people into the hobby and spoil "their" trails.


Two different hobbies. My hobby is mountain biking; biking with a motor is not that. The problem is not those with another hobby on my trails, it is with people like you who seek to eliminate the distinction in order to let motorized on all mountain biking trails...that's when access is lost. Enjoy your motorbike on paved trails and trails that allow motorcycles...but don't pretend they're mountainbikes to piggyback access that was hard fought, and which will fade away when the pubkic starts falsely thinking that mountain bikes have engines...like you do.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Haymarket said:


> Two different hobbies. My hobby is mountain biking; biking with a motor is not that. The problem is not those with another hobby on my trails, it is with people like you who seek to eliminate the distinction in order to let motorized on all mountain biking trails...that's when access is lost. Enjoy your motorbike on paved trails and trails that allow motorcycles...but don't pretend they're mountainbikes to piggyback access that was hard fought, and which will fade away when the pubkic starts falsely thinking that mountain bikes have engines...like you do.


See myth #4 in the article, my response is below.

Oh boy seems another person that has not tried an ebike and thus does not know the differences.

Not to be picky but there is a technical difference between a motor (electric) and an engine (compression). Seems I am not the only one wanting to blur lines.

You're right I don't see a distinction since to me a bike is a bike, one just has a bit of assist. This notion notion of the sky is falling the sky is falling that access will be lost is a strawman with no backing.

Can you at least come up with something original that i have not already responded to with other posters? Something original that has not been discussed in multiple articles and organizations already? Since people like you like it or not are going to see ebikes on the trails its coming slowly but surely just like mountain bikes themselves, front suspension and full suspension.


----------



## Haymarket (Jan 20, 2008)

KenPsz said:


> Oh my more of the same debate, please see my response is other threads that cover this.
> 
> Thanks


I have heard them all. They all fall flat. Selfishness of the highest degree drives those who seek to make the two hobbies one and steal access that isn't theirs, and that will cost others.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Haymarket said:


> I have heard them all. They all fall flat. Selfishness of the highest degree drives those who seek to make the two hobbies one and steal access that isn't theirs, and that will cost others.


LOL!!!! Oh my the entitle ownership claim, how special. Seen this same attitude long ago from hikers and horse folks, guess what is old is now new with a different group.

Trails are trails you don't own them, but hey like the hikers and horse riders before you fight to keep a user group out is has been so productive.

Ironic when bikers become like those they had to fight against in the first place because they themselves became entitled in their thinking.
I remember the days when hikers and horse riders told mountain bikers the trails were theirs and to ride the fire roads or motorcycle trails, same old story just different players.

https://www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb-columns/beer-trails-dont-belong/


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

KenPsz said:


> See myth #4 in the article, my response is below.
> 
> Oh boy seems another person that has not tried an ebike and thus does not know the differences.
> 
> ...


 You do realize that people for bikes is an organization paid for by bike companies to promote the e bike agenda? The term that is used is " motorized' Does it have a motor? Bike don't have motors. This has been hashed out many times before. E bikes on the trails? One would need to change the laws first in many areas. Or will you just poach? I have tried an e bike, that won't change the laws either.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> Not to be picky but there is a technical difference between a motor (electric) and an engine (compression). Seems I am not the only one wanting to blur lines.


So therefore a Tesla should be considered a horse-drawn carriage rather than an automobile?

There is a lot bigger technical difference between a true bicycle and a bicycle that has a motor for propulsion (electric or not).


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

Haymarket said:


> I have heard them all. They all fall flat. Selfishness of the highest degree drives those who seek to make the two hobbies one and steal access that isn't theirs, and that will cost others.


At my local trail a few no e-bikes stickers on the sign posts went up, so I called the land manager who sent out his rangers to take down the unlawful signs, because e-bikes are allowed. So in this case someone was stealing -my- legal access to the trail.

I knew a dirt biker who liked to remind me that some of my favorite mountain bike trails were once moto trails. They lost access primarily because of air quality regulations; states and local governments lose federal money when dust and ozone levels become too high. This isn't a factor with an e-bike. Neither is noise. Speed is debatable; uphill speed is faster up to a point.

Many of the reasons for closing off access to motorcycles just don't apply to class I electric assist mountain bikes so I think that more jurisdictions will open access; after all, their business is to serve the public and e-bikes are becoming very popular; already ten percent of wholesale in the bike industry and growing quickly.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

hikerdave said:


> e-bikes are becoming very popular; already ten percent of wholesale in the bike industry and growing quickly.


Most of those will never leave the pavement.


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

KenPsz said:


> I don't need to adjust my attitude I climb a 35lb FS fatbike up hills, just fine thank you.
> I personally am in better shape than most late 20 year olds, but I know that will not last forever. But by all means please tell me how the human body works and can adjust that I have not learned in almost 50 years of life.
> 
> Like many old fat guys pushing 50 if given a choice of suffering or assistance many would choose assistance. Since we have more money than time for a hobby.
> ...


Please excuse me if this story sounds quaint and old fashioned. I bought my first mtb in 1981, but stopped riding for a time in the early '90s for all the usual reasons: grad school, career, family. By 2006, I was 50, 30lbs overweight and a smoker. A car accident had left me with screws and a plate in my left leg where the docs patched up a shattered femur, pelvis, and hip joint.

In 2007 I quit smoking and decided to start bike commuting to ease back into cycling. I discovered early hub conversion ebikes online and was strongly leaning toward getting one. Hoping to one day return to mtb, I began to research trail access and learned they were not allowed on the trails I wanted to ride, including the rail trail that was to serve as my main commuting route. I probably could have poached it, but I did not want to be "that guy".

Long story short, I got a Surly LHT and started riding 6 miles one way to work. It wasn't easy, at first, but I loved it and immediately started gaining fitness. In 2009, I moved back to Nome, Alaska for work and took my Surly with me along with a renewed love of cycling. This was about the time I discovered MTBR and fatbikes.

I bought a Fatback and started riding dog mushing and snow machine trails in the winter, beaches and abandoned mining trails in the summer. I went out in all kinds of weather, but generally followed the 20-20 rule. Stay home when it's 20 below zero and the wind is over 20 mph. By then I was down 30 lbs, getting faster and gaining endurance.

I'm 62 now, semi-retired, riding a FS trail bike, and living in Arizona since 2016. I'll never be fast, but I can do 50 mile rides with 7000+ feet of climbing. Takes me 10 hours, but so what. What's the point of this story?

When I decided I wanted to ride trails, I got a bike that was legal for the trails I wanted to ride. I did not expect the rules to change for me. And if I could start riding a regular bike in the condition I was in back in 2007, almost anyone can and be better for it. Is riding an ebike cheating? No, but poaching non-motorized trails on one certainly is. You would have to feel pretty damned entitled to think it's OK.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to veloborealis again.


----------



## natrat (Mar 20, 2008)

i don't give a **** about how fast or in shape anyone else is, i just like my levo cuz it's pretty quick uphill and i have been riding way more singletrack. It is like cheating though if you don't pay attention and peddle hard


----------



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

natrat said:


> i don't give a **** about how fast or in shape anyone else is


Same here brother, I'm only concerned with my own affairs.


----------



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

I skimmed the ebike advertisement in the op, a few good points were made but zeros myths were busted.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

I'll most likely waste my time again and ask the "stupid", "silly" question of you or any other "legit" e-biker who isn't full of $hit...... How do you regulate who's running a legal e-bike, class1 and who's running a hacked e-bike, class1? Won't even get it how you differentiate between class1, 2 or 3.

If but one e-bike "lover" would give this answer, a realistic answer, I think all would appreciate it.



hikerdave said:


> ...................Many of the reasons for closing off access to motorcycles just don't apply to class I electric assist mountain bikes so I think that more jurisdictions will open access; after all, their business is to serve the public and e-bikes are becoming very popular; already ten percent of wholesale in the bike industry and growing quickly.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

KenPsz said:


> You're right I don't see a distinction since to me a bike is a bike, one just has a bit of assist.


Good luck convincing me that 750w is a "bit of assist" from a 250w motor.






https://www.emtbforums.com/community/threads/exceeding-the-250w-peak-motor-power-output.1300/page-2

A 750w motor can easily top out at 1500w, which is legal in the US. I don't understand the reticence to just acknowledge they're not a bicycle, they're a new form of a motorized bicycle and simply lobby for their access as such. None of the land managers here are buying the fairytale that they're just like a mountain bike, so it's unlikely they will ever get access on singletrack.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

LyNx said:


> I'll most likely waste my time again and ask the "stupid", "silly" question of you or any other "legit" e-biker who isn't full of $hit...... How do you regulate who's running a legal e-bike, class1 and who's running a hacked e-bike, class1? Won't even get it how you differentiate between class1, 2 or 3.
> 
> If but one e-bike "lover" would give this answer, a realistic answer, I think all would appreciate it.


You're a hater


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I could basically care less. If the EU standards had been adopted for class 1 and there was some sort of way to enforce them, I'd probably be all for it. 250W and 15mph is plenty to get even the laziest elderly person up any hill they'd want to ride. 

As it is, none of the land managers in my area want anything to do with them. We've already had hot-rodded and DIY 3000w bikes show up and we don't have the resources to inspect people's rides. So they are just blanket banned. 

I mean, I don't "hate" motos either. I used to own a bunch of them. They're appropriate in some places and not others. Just like e-bikes. Just like normal bikes. That's not "hate", IMO.

-Walt


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Walt said:


> I could basically care less. If the EU standards had been adopted for class 1 and there was some sort of way to enforce them, I'd probably be all for it. 250W and 15mph is plenty to get even the laziest elderly person up any hill they'd want to ride.
> 
> As it is, none of the land managers in my area want anything to do with them. We've already had hot-rodded and DIY 3000w bikes show up and we don't have the resources to inspect people's rides. So they are just blanket banned.
> 
> ...


Companies like Luna Cycles are not doing this biking segment any favors, with there 2500+ watt "insane" systems.

I was looking at a 250watt system for $900 a year ago until I bought a 750 watt system from Luna for significantly less. For a commuter bike mind you so that those that want to get their panties in a bunch about a 750watt mountain bike can unclinch.

What you have stated Walt is not hate is a statement of what is happening and the issues that need to be addressed. But just do a google search for "hate ebikes" and you will find a lot of hatred, both road and mountain bike related. Many of the same rationality for the hatred that I have read here along with people making physical threats. It is all crazy especially when those the seem to be looking at ebikes the most are older bikers that are far from noobs on the road or trails.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

veloborealis said:


> Please excuse me if this story sounds quaint and old fashioned. I bought my first mtb in 1981, but stopped riding for a time in the early '90s for all the usual reasons: grad school, career, family. By 2006, I was 50, 30lbs overweight and a smoker. A car accident had left me with screws and a plate in my left leg where the docs patched up a shattered femur, pelvis, and hip joint.
> 
> In 2007 I quit smoking and decided to start bike commuting to ease back into cycling. I discovered early hub conversion ebikes online and was strongly leaning toward getting one. Hoping to one day return to mtb, I began to research trail access and learned they were not allowed on the trails I wanted to ride, including the rail trail that was to serve as my main commuting route. I probably could have poached it, but I did not want to be "that guy".
> 
> ...


I have seen this claim of poaching trails quite regularly here and other places yet I have seen no statements by folks saying they do or plan on doing such a thing. Where i live there is a hiking only trail that decades ago did allow bikes. People poach that trail years on (gasp mountain bikes) with no regard for the rules. It stopped once the fines got high enough and enough were issued.

I do like the "entailed" comment though when I have read mountain bikers make statements like "stay off my trails" as if they own the trails. This whole debate is about entitlement and is ironic that many a mountain biker has the same entitled attitude about trails that hikers and horse folks used decades ago to try and keep mountain bikes off of trails.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

leeboh said:


> You do realize that people for bikes is an organization paid for by bike companies to promote the e bike agenda? The term that is used is " motorized' Does it have a motor? Bike don't have motors. This has been hashed out many times before. E bikes on the trails? One would need to change the laws first in many areas. Or will you just poach? I have tried an e bike, that won't change the laws either.


OK and????? They are working on changing the rules and if the means "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" than so be it. Since I am really getting irritated by the folks that make up this hobby and there snotty entitled attitudes that are very much like road riders. If the rules change and it piss off you snotty entitled folks that will make me happy, since to me you violate the welcoming and friendly attitude that mountain bikers have traditionally had.

I do love the 4 year old word games with "motor" + "bike" = "motorbike" how cute. If you have tried a ebike you would know that word game is false, so I call your claim you have tried one as B.S.

You might want to update your definitions to what the federal government standards.

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/static.peopleforbikes.org/uploads/E-Bike Law Primer v3 (1).pdf


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

I don't care what or where you ride, just ride legal. And you're quoting DOT rules and CSP rules, nothing which apply to off road trails in the woods, on state or federal property. I'm the nicest guy on the trail, always. I even pet dogs. Really. The term is motorized, just look at what the land mangers and rule makers have decided on that term. Tell me an e-bike doesn't have a motor? Our opinions here matter not, it's the current rules on the books. They might change, maybe. So be it. Be the wheel.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

leeboh said:


> I don't care what or where you ride, just ride legal. And you're quoting DOT rules and CSP rules, nothing which apply to off road trails in the woods, on state or federal property. I'm the nicest guy on the trail, always. I even pet dogs. Really. The term is motorized, just look at what the land mangers and rule makers have decided on that term. Tell me an e-bike doesn't have a motor? Our opinions here matter not, it's the current rules on the books. They might change, maybe. So be it. Be the wheel.


What's funny about folks like you that keep spitting out "your opinions don't matter" is this. If they did not matter you would not respond like pavlov's dog. So seem you posted another lie.

Oh and I have read plenty on the land manager and rule makes have decided, it's a mixed bag. There is a conflict between the two Federal definitions applied to the same devices.

So you're just a snotty entitled mountain biker online?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Enjoy your motorized vehicle on the bike paths. Cheers.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

leeboh said:


> Enjoy your motorized vehicle on the bike paths. Cheers.


I will enjoy my e-bike

thanks


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Speak for yourself, I'm older than you and am competetive with riders half my age, also still improving and establishing new pr's. Climbing does hurt some but it's a good kind of pain, for me anyway.
> 
> As for the article, it seems to be a promotion for electric bikes and #1 is bs. 3-4mph faster on flats and climbs? Who came up with that atbitrary number?


It's hard to know exactly how much faster they are unless you time the same rider with a normal and e-bike with the same app.

Problem is that at least on Strava, if you set the ride to e-bike, it will not show any segment times, at least off-pavement. So as I'm typing in this MTBR tab, I'm toggling over to the Strava tab and have to edit a previous e-bike ride up the same hill as a normal bike ride, look at the mph, watts, time, etc., and then like a good boy, set it back to an e-bike ride and that segment disappears.

Normally on a particular level 4 climb with a regular bike: 0.68 miles, 366 feet up, 10% grade, I do it in about 16 minutes @2.6 mph (yes I am very slow), 133 natural pedal watts.

The e-bike did it in 9 1/2 minutes @4.3 mph, 220 calculated watts, but that's obviously wrong since I had 190-300W of e-power on and probably did another 100 or so watts of pedal power.

So...in this case the e-bike bit less than 2 mph faster on hills FOR THE SAME RIDER. And I'd say I was at about 70-80% max power before the tire would slip, so maybe best-case scenario for my front-drive setup I could average maybe 6 mph up, which is 3 1/2 mph faster than 100% human pedaling. 3-4 mph faster. Which means the article is correct, if someone really wanted to ride up the hill as fast as tractionally possible with e-power on (I was trying to save some battery juice, still had another 800 feet to go up the mountain after this 1st hill). BTW the fastest 100% human-powered rider on this climb averaged 8.2 mph, faster than what my e-bike can probably do. But that's an outlier, the vast majority of riders climb much slower than 6 mph on a level 4 hill. Only 27 out of 830 logged riders climbed faster than 6.0 mph. Only the top 3.3% mountain biking athletes could, at least on this level 4 hill, 10% grade, beat a cheap $1100 e-bike setup. No complete data for riders 1 and 2; rider 3 was 7.6 mph on 100% human power, 176 calculated bpm, 340W calculated human power.

On an entire loop, with a normal bike I average 4.5-7.5 mph, e-bike 8-10 mph, which is again 3-4 mph faster on a more flat surface. For the same rider, that is a key point.

This doesn't mean everyone should go out and buy an e-bike. It just means that e-bikes are a little bit faster. But why would someone NOT think that an e-bike is faster? If they were not faster, there is no point in many/most people riding them. You really think people spend extra money to make their bike weigh 20 lbs more just to be the same speed as a normal bike? No...as Mr. Bickle on here would say, try again.


----------



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

richj8990 said:


> The e-bike did it in 9 1/2 minutes @4.3 mph, 220 calculated watts, but that's obviously wrong since I had 190-300W of e-power on and probably did another 100 or so watts of pedal power.


220w sounds about right to me if rider and bike weight is approximately 200-220#. Was there a lightning bolt next to the #3 riders time? Lightning bolt means actual (not estimated) power. I'm guessing the kom was pushing 360-375w, which is an incredible effort.

Can't you create your own segments on strava's ebike category?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> It's hard to know exactly how much faster they are unless you time the same rider with a normal and e-bike with the same app.
> 
> Problem is that at least on Strava, if you set the ride to e-bike, it will not show any segment times, at least off-pavement. So as I'm typing in this MTBR tab, I'm toggling over to the Strava tab and have to edit a previous e-bike ride up the same hill as a normal bike ride, look at the mph, watts, time, etc., and then like a good boy, set it back to an e-bike ride and that segment disappears.
> 
> ...


Ah, but do those speeds/times as a percentage and they are pretty big differences. But at least Rich is admitting that it is about having a motor experience rather than a bicycle experience and thus answers the question I have tasked the ebikers with that they ignore: why don't they push for a new class for emtbs that would make them more like the bicycles that they claim they are, lower power and cut-off and assist only on climbs since so many claim it is about just getting a little help and being able to keep up with their friends. A few have admitted that they aren't willing to give up the higher speed the ebike brings, but most won't. If they want to go faster, fine, but don't try to claim they are bicycles and should be allowed where ever bicycles are allowed. Again, some trails, ok, all trails, not ok.


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

KenPsz said:


> I have seen this claim of poaching trails quite regularly here and other places yet I have seen no statements by folks saying they do or plan on doing such a thing. Where i live there is a hiking only trail that decades ago did allow bikes. People poach that trail years on (gasp mountain bikes) with no regard for the rules. It stopped once the fines got high enough and enough were issued.
> 
> I do like the "entailed" comment though when I have read mountain bikers make statements like "stay off my trails" as if they own the trails. This whole debate is about entitlement and is ironic that many a mountain biker has the same entitled attitude about trails that hikers and horse folks used decades ago to try and keep mountain bikes off of trails.


If you don't poach or advocate poaching non-motorized trails on an ebike, I have no beef with you or your ebike. But plenty of other e-holes on your forum seem to feel entitled to do just that. I'm curious why you spend so much time posting about "ebike hate" when the only issue that evokes anything close to that level of opposition is illegal use.

If your vehicle is legal you don't have to justify or apologize for the use of that vehicle to anyone. Like someone else said, I'm starting to think you just like to argue. And maybe you're just a little miffed that some people have the nerve to call your expensive new toy a cheater bike. You seem quick to assume that the disdain some serious cyclists have for ebikes is ego-driven. Perhaps your obvious umbrage is ego-driven, as well?


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

leeboh said:


> I don't care what or where you ride, just ride legal. And you're quoting DOT rules and CSP rules, nothing which apply to off road trails in the woods, on state or federal property. I'm the nicest guy on the trail, always. I even pet dogs. Really. The term is motorized, just look at what the land mangers and rule makers have decided on that term. Tell me an e-bike doesn't have a motor? Our opinions here matter not, it's the current rules on the books. They might change, maybe. So be it. Be the wheel.


The National Forests and BLM can't change the travel management rule to excluded e-bikes from the definition of motorized vehicles without an executive order amending executive order 11644, promulgated by Richard Nixon in 1972 and later amended by Jimmy Carter in 1977, because that's the legal basis for these rules.

However, the president can with the stroke of a pen change an executive order at any time.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Wow, as expected, NONE of the e-bike proponents will answer this one simple question, just try to retort with lame excuses like this 

FYI, I don't hate e-bikes, I think that they're actually fantastic for commuting and to assist those who honestly and sincerely need assistance. What I do dislike immensely is those who try to lump them in with bicycles and claim that they are the same and that somehow their motor is different to any other motor in not being a motor 



sfgiantsfan said:


> You're a hater


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

hikerdave said:


> The National Forests and BLM can't change the travel management rule to exclude e-bikes without an executive order amending executive order 11644, promulgated by Richard Nixon in 1972 and later amended by Jimmy Carter in 1977, because that's the legal basis for these rules.
> 
> However, the president can with the stroke of a pen change an executive order at any time.


 They are not excluding anything. There are already regs concerning motorized vehicles, access and the areas they are permitted. I understand there are lots of those areas in some of the BLM lands.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

LyNx said:


> Wow, as expected, NONE of the e-bike proponents will answer this one simple question, just try to retort with lame excuses like this
> 
> FYI, I don't hate e-bikes, I think that they're actually fantastic for commuting and to assist those who honestly and sincerely need assistance. What I do dislike immensely is those who try to lump them in with bicycles and claim that they are the same and that somehow their motor is different to any other motor in not being a motor


They ignore my questions as well. Also the suggestions I've made as to how they could improve their relations with mountain bikers and make their bikes more welcome. I'm tempted to make a correlation between their efforts on and off the trails.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

leeboh said:


> They are not excluding anything. There are already regs concerning motorized vehicles, access and the areas they are permitted. I understand there are lots of those areas in some of the BLM lands.


Oops, what I meant to write and corrected was "exclude e-bikes from the definition of motorized vehicles". Forest service hands are tied by Nixon's executive order on motorized vehicles and OHVs which ultimately led to the TMR. Public law 86-517 mandates multiple use, with one of the uses being the broad category of "outdoor recreation".

There are OHV areas within two hours drive. I'm one of a fortunate few who can hop on my e-bike, ride to the trailhead and ride legally (according to state law as interpreted by the park manager, with whom I have personally spoken).

I would rather ride my mountain bike, but I quit trail riding and bicycle commuting when my SI joint arthritis became too severe.

Here in Arizona and out in the West are millions and millions of acres of forest, range and desert where no one would be bothered by an e-bike and very little if any, additional damage relative to mountain bikes would occur. I've ridden my mountain bikes on forest trails where I didn't see another soul.

No one could have built a quiet 45 pound full-suspension bike in 1972 and we're still being governed by Nixon's executive order restricting motor vehicles and by the sensibilities of people living on the East Coast where public land is a scarce resource; Utah, Montana, Idaho, and Arizona where I've mostly lived have concentrated populared areas but are otherwise wide open. Not so much in Massachusetts where I was born.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

hikerdave said:


> Oops, what I meant to write and corrected was "exclude e-bikes from the definition of motorized vehicles". Forest service hands are tied by Nixon's executive order on motorized vehicles and OHVs which ultimately led to the TMR. Public law 86-517 mandates multiple use, with one of the uses being the broad category of "outdoor recreation".
> 
> There are OHV areas within two hours drive. I'm one of a fortunate few who can hop on my e-bike, ride to the trailhead and ride legally (according to state law as interpreted by the park manager, with whom I have personally spoken).
> 
> ...


Thank you for this post. It sounds like you understand that situations vary, depending on where you are. As I've said, I think ebikes are fine on some trails, just like where you ride. But I am on the East Coast in a metro area. The trails I usually ride are tight, twisty and pretty heavily populated. Passing definitely happens but I think greatly increasing the amount of passing by introducing a user group that travels at a higher speed will cause issues, such as blowing out the trails wider. And yes, I will be honest, not an ego thing but being passed is disruptive to riding; a few times on a 5 mile loop is one thing but if having to stop or slow down and get out of the way constantly, it will damage the experience for me. These trails were built and are maintained by mountain bikers. This is why I am against a blanket "ebikes are bicycles and should be allowed wherever bicycles are allowed". Let the land managers decided what is appropriate.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

hikerdave said:


> Oops, what I meant to write and corrected was "exclude e-bikes from the definition of motorized vehicles". Forest service hands are tied by Nixon's executive order on motorized vehicles and OHVs which ultimately led to the TMR. Public law 86-517 mandates multiple use, with one of the uses being the broad category of "outdoor recreation".
> 
> There are OHV areas within two hours drive. I'm one of a fortunate few who can hop on my e-bike, ride to the trailhead and ride legally (according to state law as interpreted by the park manager, with whom I have personally spoken).
> 
> ...


 Makes sense. Local rules as fitting the riding area. The broad sweeping categories are hard to fit across the board.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

KenPsz said:


> Now a fair question:
> 
> To get to the top of a downhill easier since climbing sucks and the older you get the more is sucks.
> 
> Although I have recently read on a different bike site that if you can't climb you should just hike. Which gives the impression mountain biking should only be for the young and fit, screw those that have gotten old, built trails, ridden for decades; you've just aged out.


Age isn't truly a factor unless you decide to get lazy and not take care of yourself. Plenty of us older guys continue to race and climb just fine.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Crankout said:


> Age isn't truly a factor unless you decide to get lazy and not take care of yourself. Plenty of us older guys continue to race and climb just fine.


Well good for you don't buy an e-bike then, but not everyone is or wants to be like you.

I particularly love the entitled snotty "get lazy" type comments those are such winners.

I am getting the distinct feeling that many of your ilk feel very threatened and know that if given a choice people will not listen to your fitness nonsense since they want to have fun. For some reason your ilk needs to judge yourself by how you can control other peoples lives and compare your life to theirs.

Ride what you want to ride and let other people ride what they want. As long as someone is not douchebag on the trails there is no issue.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> Well good for you don't buy an e-bike then, but not everyone is or wants to be like you.
> 
> I particularly love the entitled snotty "get lazy" type comments those are such winners.


There's no "entitled" attitude coming from the motorized crowd though.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

An ebike can have a wind up motor for all that matters and People for Bikes can claim that the motor is harmless till the sun comes up.....


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

chazpat said:


> Thank you for this post. It sounds like you understand that situations vary, depending on where you are. As I've said, I think ebikes are fine on some trails, just like where you ride. But I am on the East Coast in a metro area. The trails I usually ride are tight, twisty and pretty heavily populated. Passing definitely happens but I think greatly increasing the amount of passing by introducing a user group that travels at a higher speed will cause issues, such as blowing out the trails wider. And yes, I will be honest, not an ego thing but being passed is disruptive to riding; a few times on a 5 mile loop is one thing but if having to stop or slow down and get out of the way constantly, it will damage the experience for me. These trails were built and are maintained by mountain bikers. This is why I am against a blanket "ebikes are bicycles and should be allowed wherever bicycles are allowed". Let the land managers decided what is appropriate.


I met a couple of mountain bikers who called me "The Soul Crusher" for having an e-bike. They told me that they thought it was fine with them that e-bikes are out there. Later, they seemed quite pleased when they actually passed me on the trail.

But in the wrong hands an e-bike can be a menace to other users. I'm actually amazed that most trails in Arizona are open even to mountain bikes; I guess that most hikers here are the tolerant sort.

I didn't even get the stinkeye even once at the Sedona Mountain Bike festival. I preemptively apologized to some hikers close to the festival for our numbers, but they, a couple of thirty-something women, didn't care.

Once I crossed a raging Oak Creek under the watchful eye of an 80 year old German woman at the Midgely Bridge who assured me that it could be done; she had earlier given me some helpful trail information.

But I did get the old stinkeye about once a day on my mountain bike and on my last ride with my daughter she was snarked at after stopping to let a woman pass who saw her and went straight up the center of the very wide and smooth trail. Probably just some internalized mysogyny at work.

A feeling of inferiority analagous to that I have always had when riding my mountain bike - in the back of my mind has been the question? Do I and others like me belong here? Only now with the e-bike that feeling is intensified, but my money is spent and there's a Haibike in the garage, not a Honda, so I'll ride it where I can.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

Not trying to argue that every e-bike rider will be a saint, by the way; quite a few trails should get the dreaded no-e-bikes sticker but I hope that land managers will be judicious with their application.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

hikerdave said:


> Not trying to argue that every e-bike rider will be a saint, by the way; quite a few trails should get the dreaded no-e-bikes sticker but I hope that land managers will be judicious with their application.


You sir, are in the wrong sub-forum. Sanity is no longer acceptable in this one.


----------



## mousehunter (Sep 22, 2015)

Age specifically might not be an issue, but injuries (both significant and accumulated), and general degeneration are. You may have won the genetic and environmental lotteries, but many have not. Which reminds me, I hiked some today (was scouting some new trails to cut), wonder if vitamin I can get the swelling down before tomorrow.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

Walt said:


> I could basically care less. If the EU standards had been adopted for class 1 and there was some sort of way to enforce them, I'd probably be all for it. 250W and 15mph is plenty to get even the laziest elderly person up any hill they'd want to ride.
> 
> As it is, none of the land managers in my area want anything to do with them. We've already had hot-rodded and DIY 3000w bikes show up and we don't have the resources to inspect people's rides. So they are just blanket banned.
> 
> ...


Exactly. I do know that if you put e-bikes on the trails around here they would do irreparable damage to those trails. Horses for courses. I am sure there are many appropriate places for these things, but the solitude of the wild is hard enough to find without opening it up to a bunch of sightseers on motorized bicycles.


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

Myth # 11: Ebike proponents and opponents cannot stop shouting at each other long enough to engage is civil, productive dialogue. 

Busted! 

Kudos to JBWeld, KenPsz, hikerdave, lbb, Walt, and leeboh for staking out a bit of common ground. Just 'cause you don't want ebikes (or standard mtbs, for that matter) everywhere doesn't make you a hater. As someone who enjoys being outside in a variety of ways, it's refreshing to see different user groups acknowledge how one's chosen activity can impact the experience of other resource users. Commonsense trail etiquette and a share the trail ethos go a long way toward easing potential conflicts. In case I haven't been clear, I don't look down on ebikes. I may own one some day. I don't have a problem sharing the trail with them in many places. I also feel a need to defend our remaining nonmotorized trails.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

veloborealis said:


> Myth # 11: Ebike proponents and opponents cannot stop shouting at each other long enough to engage is civil, productive dialogue.
> 
> Busted!
> 
> Kudos to JBWeld, KenPsz, hikerdave, lbb, Walt, and leeboh for staking out a bit of common ground. Just 'cause you don't want ebikes (or standard mtbs, for that matter) everywhere doesn't make you a hater. As someone who enjoys being outside in a variety of ways, it's refreshing to see different user groups acknowledge how one's chosen activity can impact the experience of other resource users. Commonsense trail etiquette and a share the trail ethos go a long way toward easing potential conflicts. In case I haven't been clear, I don't look down on ebikes. I may own one some day. I don't have a problem sharing the trail with them in many places. I also feel a need to defend our remaining nonmotorized trails.


My problem with the non-motorized club (which is how that term is being used) is that term was written to keep a very different type of motorized vehicle off of trails. The e-bikes being discussed are far far far away from even a honda 50cc mini-bike in capabilities and importantly noise. This notion that once the non-motorized cherry is broken that motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATV's etc... will be allowed is a strawman slippery slop argument.

Times change and attempting to cling to the past and past definitions is failing across the board.

But I get the solitude desire of some, but lets face it if mountain bikes are already bombing down hills there the solitude is already broken.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Ken, the issue is that many of us think that since there's no way to enforce the Class 1 limits (which IMO are also too high, I'd be fine with the EU 250/15mph) allowing e-bikes will essentially open the trails to electric motorcycles with vestigial pedals/cranks. 

Even on this forum there have been probably a dozen people who have openly posted about derestricting their class 1 bikes, as well as a number of people who have posted their completely illegal DIY setups. If you go to an actual e-bike forum (ie, endless sphere) you'll find a ton of that stuff. 

We already had this happen here in Park City, and we have no resources to be inspecting bikes or patrolling the trails. We also have a lot of private land accessed via easement that is specifically no-motor terrain. Hence no choice but to ban them entirely. 

I think if more thought had been put into the legislation that PeopleforBikes wrote, this would be much less of an issue:
1: Adopt the EU standards for power/speed. It's working there so far.
2: Adopt the EU penalties/inspections for manufacturers and individuals who sell or modify e-bikes in excess of the limits. And yes, I mean that if you're Specialized and someone manages to modify your e-bike, you are partially responsible. Make sure the manufacturers have skin in the game to prevent mods.
3: Fund some form of trail building/advocacy/enforcement to at least make a token effort to prevent illegal bikes and improve trail access for everyone.

They didn't do any of that, probably because they were mostly thinking about commuter/bike path/bike lane issues, not mountain biking. C'est la vie.

-Walt


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

KenPsz said:


> Well good for you don't buy an e-bike then, but not everyone is or wants to be like you.
> 
> I particularly love the entitled snotty "get lazy" type comments those are such winners.
> 
> ...


Well, it is laziness that contributes to a lack of fitness barring any medical issues. Lack of motivation is a prettier term if that helps.

I do pride myself on being fit and always will. It takes work and persistence.

I'm not so much threatened as am I annoyed, but I'll get over it.

To get back on point, age is no excuse, nor should it be.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Walt said:


> Ken, the issue is that many of us think that since there's no way to enforce the Class 1 limits (which IMO are also too high, I'd be fine with the EU 250/15mph) allowing e-bikes will essentially open the trails to electric motorcycles with vestigial pedals/cranks.
> 
> Even on this forum there have been probably a dozen people who have openly posted about derestricting their class 1 bikes, as well as a number of people who have posted their completely illegal DIY setups. If you go to an actual e-bike forum (ie, endless sphere) you'll find a ton of that stuff.
> 
> ...


There is no way to do proactive restriction, ok and??? It becomes like any law or rule we have in society those that are honest follow them those that don't when caught are punished. You make the fine high enough for a violation and people will stop hacking their systems let alone riding those system on trails.

I have seen this method used on a local trail that became hikers only. At one time it was multi use but got closed to bikers when a trail across the road opened up. Yet people still poached the trail, so the rangers cracked down and after enough $50 and $100 tickets word got around and people stopped.

One time for work I went to the Netherlands and asked the people I was working with about the e-bikes. They old me the same thing there are restrictions that people hack and LE is setup to catch them and the fines are serious.

This notion that you stop everything because you cannot 100% proactively police is not how our society works.

I do agree though that the industry is working more for the commuter market since it is so huge. Companies like Luna cycles are not helping much.

But come on we accept speeding on our roads, uturns on our streets, bikes bombing down trails etc.... Why ebikes have to hit some 100% compliance before being allowed is unrealistic.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

sfgiantsfan said:


> You're a hater


He's entitled, whatever that means.


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

KenPsz said:


> My problem with the non-motorized club (which is how that term is being used) is that term was written to keep a very different type of motorized vehicle off of trails. The e-bikes being discussed are far far far away from even a honda 50cc mini-bike in capabilities and importantly noise. This notion that once the non-motorized cherry is broken that motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATV's etc... will be allowed is a strawman slippery slop argument.
> 
> Times change and attempting to cling to the past and past definitions is failing across the board.
> 
> But I get the solitude desire of some, but lets face it if mountain bikes are already bombing down hills there the solitude is already broken.


Yes, slippery slope arguments are rather weak. Hard to prove or, for that matter, disprove. I'm hoping that government inertia and a coalition of non-moto user groups can sustain the status quo on federal lands.

FWIW, I regularly find solitude or something close on my rides. I guess things are different where you live. I see ebikes as a threat to that solitude as the "price of admission" to more remote areas drops due to ebikes. The need to "earn your turns" is a self-regulating measure forestalling the need for more onerous, restrictive regulation.

It won't win me friends in the downhill camp but I see the adoption of ebikes by self-shuttling shredders as one of the biggest threats. A road or lift to the top will no longer be necessary. The potential is there to degrade the experience for many solitude seeking trail users. Selfish? Perhaps. And yet another slippery slope argument.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Crankout said:


> Well, it is laziness that contributes to a lack of fitness barring any medical issues. Lack of motivation is a prettier term if that helps.
> 
> I do pride myself on being fit and always will. It takes work and persistence.
> 
> ...


Wow more "my way or you are lazy" how nice. I'm sure you are a hoot at parties.

I built a ebike for my mom and you know what she is in better shape now than previous because she actually rides more. Hills were keeping my mom from riding around the town she lives in.

Age is a fine reason since you have zero right to judge/control how another person should be doing a hobby based on your fitness and likes.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

veloborealis said:


> Yes, slippery slope arguments are rather weak. Hard to prove or, for that matter, disprove. I'm hoping that government inertia and a coalition of non-moto user groups can sustain the status quo on federal lands.
> 
> FWIW, I regularly find solitude or something close on my rides. I guess things are different where you live. I see ebikes as a threat to that solitude as the "price of admission" to more remote areas drops due to ebikes. The need to "earn your turns" is a self-regulating measure forestalling the need for more onerous, restrictive regulation.
> 
> It won't win me friends in the downhill camp but I see the adoption of ebikes by self-shuttling shredders as one of the biggest threats. A road or lift to the top will no longer be necessary. The potential is there to degrade the experience for many solitude seeking trail users. Selfish? Perhaps. And yet another slippery slope argument.


Selfish no, at least in my opinion. We all have different wants and needs.

Where I live there is far from solitude on the trails unless you go at a very off time, so that does shape my view. You go on a weekend morning there are riders, hikers and runners galor. The only time the trails are almost empty is night riding and even then we run into 2 or 3 other groups on a ride.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

KenPsz said:


> There is no way to do proactive restriction, ok and??? It becomes like any law or rule we have in society those that are honest follow them those that don't when caught are punished. You make the fine high enough for a violation and people will stop hacking their systems let alone riding those system on trails.
> 
> I have seen this method used on a local trail that became hikers only. At one time it was multi use but got closed to bikers when a trail across the road opened up. Yet people still poached the trail, so the rangers cracked down and after enough $50 and $100 tickets word got around and people stopped.
> 
> ...


Like Walt, I think that if we had the same EU standards, and enforcement here that they do there, emtbs would gain more access and it'd be much less of an issue. But we don't. Our laws allow much more powerful and faster ebikes to be sold, and ridden. In the EU, our 750w/20mph ebikes would be classified as a moped. And there is essentially zero enforcement for anything here out of compliance. Unlike the EU, no one gives a damn.

https://www.bike-eu.com/laws-regula...8.1795735609.1537898048-1746257129.1537898048

Anything with pedals and an electric motor is being sold here as an ebike. Most of the ebikes I see are not legal, 1000w and up.

Agreed, if you want to modify peoples behavior, then fines for breaking the rules are an effective way to do it. Like this; a $9000 fine? That would sure get your attention.

Bici elettriche modificate, il commissariato di polizia fa scattare i primi sequestri e le maxi multe | Qui Licata

And it's not like hacking an emtb is unusual in the EU, it's common.

https://www.emtbforums.com/community/forums/deristricting.36/

The #1 reason people like this app is it allows detrestricting ebikes.
https://www.emtbforums.com/community/threads/the-official-blevo-thread.806/

Since there is liabilty on the manufacturer for a hacked ebike in the EU, Specialized tried to make the new Levo unhackable, which actually led to people not buying it. A workaround has since been figured out, but it demonstrates that expecting riders to place regulations ahead of personal interest is a fantasy.

You can wade through here if you don't believe me.
https://www.emtbforums.com/community/threads/2019-turbo-levo-owners-thread.1710/

But to have any enforcement, you need enforcers. Which where I live, we don't have. City and county parks staff don't have the people or money for new hires to police 52,000 acres and 350 miles of trails. We butt up against USFS and all they can manage to do is try to pick up the mountains of trash the homeless leave behind. They allocate next to nothing for recreation managment.

I've spent over a decade working closely with the local land managers around here, and unlike what most people think, their first concern is to protect and preserve the land for future generations, it's not to provide recreational opportunites for the public. That's farther down the list.


----------



## FlatEarMick (Sep 3, 2018)

rockerc said:


> Exactly. I do know that if you put e-bikes on the trails around here they would do irreparable damage to those trails. Horses for courses. I am sure there are many appropriate places for these things, but the solitude of the wild is hard enough to find without opening it up to a bunch of sightseers on motorized bicycles.


Could you elaborate on how an ebike will damage trails? I just don't see what damage an it could do.


----------



## FlatEarMick (Sep 3, 2018)

Riding a bike doesn't always have to be about fitness, it could be about fun too.


----------



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

FlatEarMick said:


> Riding a bike doesn't always have to be about fitness, it could be about fun too.


No doubt, and it can be also be about both.


----------



## FlatEarMick (Sep 3, 2018)

Thanks!


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

FlatEarMick said:


> Could you elaborate on how an ebike will damage trails? I just don't see what damage an it could do.


A few years ago a friend of mine brought an early e-bike up to our local trail in the Tortolitas, and ran it several times up the steep part of the trail. Our trails here are decomposed granite, with hard pack and a lot of rocks in the trail beds. On every run I witnessed, with one of them ridden by myself to try it out, the thing tore out the trail bed going uphill, dislodging rocks and basically ripping up the surface. Like a long uphill skid! I have no real idea how powerful it was compared to what is on offer now, but as has been pointed out, some people will always soup them up and run them as hot as possible. 'Uman nature innit?!?


----------



## FlatEarMick (Sep 3, 2018)

That wasn't a legal ebike if it's tearing up the trail like that. Trust me a legal bike isn't tearing up anything, but I completely get what you're saying about your friends bike. I have a 750w ebike, I'm 195lbs and I am not burning out or uphill skidding as you mention ever, lol. They really are not that powerful. (legal ebikes)


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

FlatEarMick said:


> That wasn't a legal ebike if it's tearing up the trail like that. Trust me a legal bike isn't tearing up anything, but I completely get what you're saying about your friends bike. I have a 750w ebike, I'm 195lbs and I am not burning out or uphill skidding as you mention ever, lol. They really are not that powerful. (legal ebikes)


Like I said, I don't even know if there is such a thing as a "legal" e-bike, I guess you mean something that is not breathed on. We are tinkerers tho, and there will be versions like the one I tried, which will be extremely difficult to police on some of the more remote trails out here. It's a resounding "Nein Danke" from me, even tho I am a candidate for needing one being old and infirm!


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Harryman said:


> Like Walt, I think that if we had the same EU standards, and enforcement here that they do there, emtbs would gain more access and it'd be much less of an issue. But we don't. Our laws allow much more powerful and faster ebikes to be sold, and ridden. In the EU, our 750w/20mph ebikes would be classified as a moped. And there is essentially zero enforcement for anything here out of compliance. Unlike the EU, no one gives a damn.
> 
> https://www.bike-eu.com/laws-regula...8.1795735609.1537898048-1746257129.1537898048
> 
> ...


Your last statement is a very interesting one and not something brought up much. Frankly is something that could convince me that bikes should not be in the deep woods at all.

Now local trails are a different thing to me since those are small enough and have few enough ways in/out to police and fine.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

rockerc said:


> A few years ago a friend of mine brought an early e-bike up to our local trail in the Tortolitas, and ran it several times up the steep part of the trail. Our trails here are decomposed granite, with hard pack and a lot of rocks in the trail beds. On every run I witnessed, with one of them ridden by myself to try it out, the thing tore out the trail bed going uphill, dislodging rocks and basically ripping up the surface. Like a long uphill skid! I have no real idea how powerful it was compared to what is on offer now, but as has been pointed out, some people will always soup them up and run them as hot as possible. 'Uman nature innit?!?


A sample size of one example does not back you overall statement. Is there a potential sure but I see people spinning out if they are geared low enough.

Like I have above the government can and should shape actions by fines.


----------



## rockerc (Nov 22, 2010)

KenPsz said:


> A sample size of one example does not back you overall statement. Is there a potential sure but I see people spinning out if they are geared low enough.
> 
> Like I have above the government can and should shape actions by fines.


There are a lot of things this 'government' can and should do, but I feel this particular thing is fairly low on their list of priorities. 
And I disagree with your conclusion about the validity of my statement, as I have further explained. 
People 'spinning out if they are geared low enough' is a whole different kettle of fish to what I have seen.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

FlatEarMick said:


> Riding a bike doesn't always have to be about fitness, it could be about fun too.


100%

For me it's all about fun, whether I'm pedaling or cracking a throttle.
The whole 'fitness police' angle with regard to trail access is BS.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

rockerc said:


> There are a lot of things this 'government' can and should do, but I feel this particular thing is fairly low on their list of priorities.
> And I disagree with your conclusion about the validity of my statement, as I have further explained.
> People 'spinning out if they are geared low enough' is a whole different kettle of fish to what I have seen.


You have a sample size of one

I have a sample size of two (my bike and my mom's) that in no way shape or form can do what you describe.

Now there are stupid systems like those sold at Luna Cycles that can do what you describe. That frankly should not be sold as DIY systems.

Spinning out is spinning out they both destroy the trails, so no I don't see it as a different kettle of fish.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> You have a sample size of one
> 
> I have a sample size of two (my bike and my mom's) that in no way shape or form can do what you describe.
> 
> ...


Have you or your mom ridden your ebikes on the trails rocker rides? Just sayin'.

I think you have said you don't even own an emtb?


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

FlatEarMick said:


> Riding a bike doesn't always have to be about fitness, it could be about fun too.


It's always about fun or it would suck ballz.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

KenPsz said:


> Wow more "my way or you are lazy" how nice. I'm sure you are a hoot at parties.
> 
> I built a ebike for my mom and you know what she is in better shape now than previous because she actually rides more. Hills were keeping my mom from riding around the town she lives in.
> 
> Age is a fine reason since you have zero right to judge/control how another person should be doing a hobby based on your fitness and likes.


Your mom will experience improved fitness and eventually ditch the e-bike.

Oh, I judge, but don't we all. I however have the couth not to insult anyone in person other than my friends. We continually insult each other for character-building.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Crankout said:


> Your mom will experience improved fitness and eventually ditch the e-bike.


No she will not, not at 72 years old. She sees the bike as a tool to get things done and not use her car. Plus she really enjoys riding the ebike and has lost 10lbs doing so since something that is enjoyable people have a tendency to want to do more.



> Oh, I judge, but don't we all. I however have the couth not to insult anyone in person other than my friends. We continually insult each other for character-building.


So you insult strangers online and your friends in person? :madman:


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Crankout said:


> It's always about fun or it would suck ballz.


Yet we are having (at times) very heated discussion about that very fact and how ebikes should not be used. Even though ebikes make biking fun again for many.

I have meet only one person that has ridden my commuter ebike and not had a smile. That one guy likes to suffer and uses it to try and get "oh wow your cool" comments from others.


----------



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

KenPsz said:


> Yet we are having (at times) very heated discussion about that very fact and how ebikes should not be used. Even though ebikes make biking fun again for many.
> 
> I have meet only one person that has ridden my commuter ebike and not had a smile. That one guy likes to suffer and uses it to try and get "oh wow your cool" comments from others.


In the same way that the fitness thing shouldn't be used as an anti electric bike argument (imo) the fun factor shouldn't be used as a pro electric bike argument, it is equally irrelevant. Lots of things are fun.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> In the same way that the fitness thing shouldn't be used as an anti electric bike argument (imo) the fun factor shouldn't be used as a pro electric bike argument, it is equally irrelevant. Lots of things are fun.


I will respectively disagree with that. Since one of the major selling points of a ebike is having fun on a bike. Since as I mentioned earlier if something is fun people have a tendency to like doing it.

Why do most of us get on bikes as a kid to start with? It's not for fitness it is for fun and freedom.


----------



## FlatEarMick (Sep 3, 2018)

Yep!


----------



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

KenPsz said:


> I will respectively disagree with that. Since one of the major selling points of a ebike is having fun on a bike. Since as I mentioned earlier if something is fun people have a tendency to like doing it.
> 
> Why do most of us get on bikes as a kid to start with? It's not for fitness it is for fun and freedom.


Sure, but should that drive policy? For lots of people more power means even more fun. Using your reasoning things should be allowed or not allowed based on whether or not it's fun.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> I will respectively disagree with that. Since one of the major selling points of a ebike is having fun on a bike. Since as I mentioned earlier if something is fun people have a tendency to like doing it.


And just like 'they're not getting enough exercise' isn't a valid argument to keep e-bikes off trails, 'they're fun' isn't a valid argument to allow them.

My kid's KFX450 is fun as hell, but that doesn't get as anywhere as far as convincing LMs to let us take it on the trails. 

View attachment 1228804


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

KenPsz said:


> I will respectively disagree with that. Since one of the major selling points of a ebike is having fun on a bike. Since as I mentioned earlier if something is fun people have a tendency to like doing it.
> 
> Why do most of us get on bikes as a kid to start with? It's not for fitness it is for fun and freedom.


Land managers could care less how fun an activity is, how much money people spend on it, and how much or little excercise you get while doing it when they evalutate access. Really.

It's great for internet arguing, but it has no impact in the real world.


----------



## FlatEarMick (Sep 3, 2018)

Not relevant


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> Like I have above the government can and should shape actions by fines.


Double fines for riding unsanctioned trails on an ebike would be a great place to start.

Around here, that would be $700+ for riding an ebike in some State parks.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

og-mtb said:


> Double fines for riding unsanctioned trails on an ebike would be a great place to start.
> 
> Around here, that would be $700+ for riding an ebike in some State parks.


DANG! It would not take many of those for the word to get out.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

And if MTB riders would have the courage and would care enough about their sport to self-police violators via peer pressure Rangers would not be necessary to enforce rules. But they don’t and they don’t as was clearly stated here by several. There is a lot of tough talking on forums, but when it comes to actually telling violators to knock it off, not so much.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

WoodlandHills said:


> And if MTB riders would have the courage and would care enough about their sport to self-police violators via peer pressure Rangers would not be necessary to enforce rules. But they don't and they don't as was clearly stated here by several. There is a lot of tough talking on forums, but when it comes to actually telling violators to knock it off, not so much.


If there is being harm done to the trail I get what you are saying but playing hall monitor and "the rules say" does nothing but cause a situation that is just not worth it.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> And if MTB riders would have the courage and would care enough about their sport to self-police violators via peer pressure Rangers would not be necessary to enforce rules. But they don't and they don't as was clearly stated here by several. There is a lot of tough talking on forums, but when it comes to actually telling violators to knock it off, not so much.


I"ve seen rangers on trails maybe twice in 30 years of riding. 
We're actually pretty good about self-policing in New England. LMs trust us, that's why we get to build so many trails here.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

KenPsz said:


> No she will not, not at 72 years old. She sees the bike as a tool to get things done and not use her car. Plus she really enjoys riding the ebike and has lost 10lbs doing so since something that is enjoyable people have a tendency to want to do more.
> 
> So you insult strangers online and your friends in person? :madman:


She can ride on her own! Give her a chance! And that is actually good news about her weight loss.


----------

