# Uphill Closing Speeds



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

Just an illustration of the potential closing speeds on trails that allow for horse use. Personally, the dirt bike is far more desirable user as it won't lose it's mind like a horse. One horsepower is 750 watts and the horse doesn't have mechanical inefficiencies to overcome like a pedelec.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9BIA1d9MOlA


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Before any of the pro-eBike guys chime in, this video was linked just to show that not all MUT trails are so tight and techy that they will limit the speed of an eBike.

The fact that there is a motorcycle following a horse does not mean the OP is comparing a eBike to a motorcycle.


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

Klurejr said:


> The fact that there is a motorcycle following a horse does not mean the OP is comparing a eBike to a motorcycle.


Really? Come on, relative this forum this video is a joke and you, as a moderator, should have locked it immediately. Usually you're much quicker, if it doesn't derailed in your prefered way.


----------



## LargeMan (May 20, 2017)

I have no idea what the video is about or why we are watching it, cool horse rides with moto. Notice how much damage the horse does to the trail, BAN ALL HORSES NOW!


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

LargeMan said:


> I have no idea what the video is about or why we are watching it, cool horse rides with moto. Notice how much damage the horse does to the trail, BAN ALL HORSES NOW!


The common argument is that land managers shouldn't allow pedelecs because the increased closing speeds on climbs. Rather than derail other threads with this sidebar conversation it is in a thread of it's own.
Horses can outride pedelecs uphill, even dirt bikes. Mountain bikers have been sharing the trail with vehicles that can outclimb unassisted bikes since the birth of trail cycling.
This thread is for me to link too when/if someone brings up closing speeds.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Since I've had a few head on close calls with motorcycles over the years since neither of us could hear the other coming, I'm not sure why pointing out that the same could occur with a horse means that it's a non issue? I've never seen anyone canter a horse like that on singletrack around here, trail horses here walk. If the riders want to run them, they run them in a field where it's open.

I've never seen a horse that used to motos, that's pretty cool.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

It actually proves you wrong. As usual


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

this thread is dead from the start

one major thing here is: I have seen hundreds of horses with riders in my days, out on trails


but absolutely ZERO of them were galloping along. 

ALL of the horses were just walking along with the rider on top. real world horse-on-trail events, that rider and horse is poking along. no one wants to hurt the horses hooves doing a gallop on anything but flat, open, packed dirt. never rocks and roots, where 99% of my MTB adventures are


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

eFat said:


> Really? Come on, relative this forum this video is a joke and you, as a moderator, should have locked it immediately. Usually you're much quicker, if it doesn't derailed in your prefered way.


At first I thought the same exact thing, but then I watched the video and re-read the OP's first post. Linktung sums it up nicely in his post:



Linktung said:


> The common argument is that land managers shouldn't allow pedelecs because the increased closing speeds on climbs. Rather than derail other threads with this sidebar conversation it is in a thread of it's own.
> Horses can outride pedelecs uphill, even dirt bikes. Mountain bikers have been sharing the trail with vehicles that can outclimb unassisted bikes since the birth of trail cycling.
> This thread is for me to link too when/if someone brings up closing speeds.


----------



## karmaphi (Mar 19, 2018)

Only idea I got from the video is that other trail users will eventually be conditioned to pay little mind to other nearby users if they have built up the experience with them. Someone in here described the horse as cool. Can the opposite be said of the "horses" who are intolerant?

Is it like how road bikers find that cars passing them is just a normal part of riding, while other cyclists think it's suicidal to be sharing the road and feel oppressed? There are efforts to ban cyclists from roads on a fairly regular basis, due to how dangerous they are seen to be; not too unlike the efforts to ban mtn bikes (but normal and emtb) on trails.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

This thread, much like the "closing speed" argument, would have an ounce of relevance if closing speed was actually the reason why BLM and USFS are attempting to push eBikes towards OHV trails vice MTB trails. But closing speed has nothing to do with it. 

As arbitrary and capricious as BLM and USFS are, they aren't so dumb as to claim a hazard of a measurable condition without having real data to support them and not just a video of a dirt bike and a horse.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

It's not filmed on a multi use trail, there is no one coming the other way. It's just another bunch of nonsense.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

You know, a Ferrari Testarosa has a top speed of about 180mph. So, if there are two of them, they could have a closing speed of around 360mph!! That's way too much!! So, why aren't they banned? Because reasonable people assume that the vast majority of people are reasonable as well and will not operate their vehicle in a grossly irresponsible manner.

This whole closing speed argument gets dumber and dumber the more I see anti-eBikers cling to it.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Jim_bo said:


> You know, a Ferrari Testarosa has a top speed of about 180mph. So, if there are two of them, they could have a closing speed of around 360mph!! That's way too much!! So, why aren't they banned? Because reasonable people assume that the vast majority of people are reasonable as well and will not operate their vehicle in a grossly irresponsible manner.
> 
> This whole closing speed argument gets dumber and dumber the more I see anti-eBikers cling to it.


Talk about a dumb argument. Have you ever been on a road where there no speed limit, and barely room to pass, then see two Ferraris going 180 towards each other around blind corners? It would never happen. This is the same fantasy world you guys live in where a motor on a bike is not a motor on a bike.

Show me a public road in the US where it is legal to go 180, especially a one lane road.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Talk about a dumb argument. Have you ever been on a road where there no speed limit, and barely room to pass, then see two Ferraris going 180 towards each other around blind corners? It would never happen. This is the same fantasy world you guys live in where a motor on a bike is not a motor on a bike.
> 
> Show me a public road in the US where it is legal to go 180, especially a one lane road.


You really miss the point of a obvious analogy. Maybe I should use smaller words and pictures.


----------



## jochribs (Nov 12, 2009)

Jim_bo said:


> You really miss the point of a obvious analogy. Maybe I should use smaller words and pictures.


Jim, the same can be said of you, and your missing his extension of your analogy.

Your analogy sort of held water...until the SFgiantsfan brought more real world sense to it, and I'm sorry, but he's got you there.

Do _you_ need smaller words and pictures?

Just in case you need it spelled out, your analogy isn't possible ANYWHERE. Not even on a race track where there is no speed limit and you COULD go 180, or over. (Because it's one direction). Whereas, on trails, and for the sake of argument, multi-directional trails, there is really no 'enforced' speed limit and blind corners are abundant.

It's a real problem and it isn't 'dumb'.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

jochribs said:


> .
> 
> It's a real problem and it isn't 'dumb'.


 it is completely irrelevant. The only issue is, will they beer legally allowed on mtb trails or not. And so far, no regulatory agency has based any decision on closing speed. So you may as well argue about their color or how many spikes they have on their wheels because those issues are irrelevant also!


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Jim_bo said:


> it is completely irrelevant. The only issue is, will they beer legally allowed on mtb trails or not. And so far, no regulatory agency has based any decision on closing speed. So you may as well argue about their color or how many spikes they have on their wheels because those issues are irrelevant also!


Maybe, but they do base decisions on speed, and motors, and they have too much of both.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> it is completely irrelevant. The only issue is, will they beer legally allowed on mtb trails or not. And so far, no regulatory agency has based any decision on closing speed. So you may as well argue about their color or how many spikes they have on their wheels because those issues are irrelevant also!


Sure they have, among other issues they're concerned about, at least among the land managers I know. Just like other ordinances, "no shooting", or "no drones", they don't put in the ordinance or on the sign the reasons behind their decision, they just post it. Increased speed on the trails, and closing speeds are not inconsequential to them. I'm not sure why you'd expect to find internal policy discussions on the internet?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Maybe, but they do base decisions on speed, and motors, and they have too much of both.


No... they have not based any decision on speed. They only based decisions on motor, lumping them in with dirtbikes, quads, and side-by-sides.

So, if you think they have "too much of both", what amount would be OK?


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Maybe, but they do base decisions on speed, and motors, and they have too much of both.


if you're right, then they will be banning expert+ XC racers and sub 23 lbs XC racing bikes - based on speed they're typically going to be moving about like a dude on a trail ebike, perhaps faster. Can't really be having such a scary differential in leg power between riders ON THE SAME TRAIL??!!

I remember back in the old days when I used to organize a major regional XC race, we were all amazed that the top expert elite guys would do a lot of our trails in the big ring, 46 tooth. the horror, lol. Now imagine them out training .. being ALLOWED on the same trails as mortals?? With extra 250 watts of muscle fibre ON THE SAME TRAILS


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

BCsaltchucker said:


> if you're right, then they will be banning expert+ XC racers and sub 23 lbs XC racing bikes - based on speed they're typically going to be moving about like a dude on a trail ebike, perhaps faster. Can't really be having such a scary differential in leg power between riders ON THE SAME TRAIL??!!
> 
> I remember back in the old days when I used to organize a major regional XC race, we were all amazed that the top expert elite guys would do a lot of our trails in the big ring, 46 tooth. the horror, lol. Now imagine them out training .. being ALLOWED on the same trails as mortals?? With extra 250 watts of muscle fibre ON THE SAME TRAILS


Top expert elite guys- pretty much says that there a very few of them. Put a motor on mountain bikes and 90% of the people can now ride at that speed. That is a problem.

Most hikers are not out walking around looking at birds and flowers during a time when Top expert elite guys are ripping by them. They will be if ebikes are allowed on those trails.

I think that on mtb specific, one way trails, ride all the ebikes you want. Fire roads, have at it. Multi use single track, leave it alone.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Jim_bo said:


> No... they have not based any decision on speed. They only based decisions on motor, lumping them in with dirtbikes, quads, and side-by-sides.
> 
> So, if you think they have "too much of both", what amount would be OK?


That's easy, zero motor


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

sfgiantsfan said:


> That's easy, zero motor


So, to resurrect the absurd case of a guy taping a 5v fan to his handlebars, you would restrict that bike from a "non-motorized" trail because it has a motor.

The absurdity of that analogy reflects the level of thought you have put into your opinion.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> So, to resurrect the absurd case of a guy taping a 5v fan to his handlebars, you would restrict that bike from a "non-motorized" trail because it has a motor.
> 
> The absurdity of that analogy reflects the level of thought you have put into your opinion.


As pointed out in a recently closed thread, the forest service and BLM state "restrictions on motor vehicle use that are applied consistently to everyone have repeatedly been shown to not be discriminatory."

So, if they allow one type of motor, but not others, then they would be discriminating against those users with a different type of motor. That's clear cut logic that easily takes care of your ridiculous "fan bike" argument and any others.

but at the end of the day, it is really about limiting access. When motors are allowed, access is much easier, more people take advantage of that and more damage occures. Oh, and I am not talking about damage to man made trails. Trails can be easily repaired, wild life cannot.


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

tahoebeau said:


> As pointed out in a recently closed thread, the forest service and BLM state "restrictions on motor vehicle use that are applied consistently to everyone have repeatedly been shown to not be discriminatory."
> 
> So, if they allow one type of motor, but not others, then they would be discriminating against those users with a different type of motor. That's clear cut logic that easily takes care of your ridiculous "fan bike" argument and any others.
> 
> but at the end of the day, it is really about limiting access. When motors are allowed, access is much easier, more people take advantage of that and more damage occures. Oh, and I am not talking about damage to man made trails. Trails can be easily repaired, wild life cannot.


Why was that thread locked? I thought it did a good job of bringing out the concerns/validations of E-bikes.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

tahoebeau said:


> As pointed out in a recently closed thread, the forest service and BLM state "restrictions on motor vehicle use that are applied consistently to everyone have repeatedly been shown to not be discriminatory."
> 
> So, if they allow one type of motor, but not others, then they would be discriminating against those users with a different type of motor. That's clear cut logic that easily takes care of your ridiculous "fan bike" argument and any others.
> 
> but at the end of the day, it is really about limiting access. When motors are allowed, access is much easier, more people take advantage of that and more damage occures. Oh, and I am not talking about damage to man made trails. Trails can be easily repaired, wild life cannot.


That which you call non-discrimatory, I call lazy. It's easy to simply lump a class 1 eBike in with a 500cc dirt bike. But it takes effort to utilize a bit of judgement and determine that the mix of 500 cc dirtbikes and class 1 eBikes makes far less sense than the mix of class 1 eBikes and MTBs. The attempt to restrict eBikes is far more about laziness, ignorance and pandering than it is about judicious and reasonable land management.

My argument has always been against the inappropriate lumping classes of vehicles based upon nonsensical standards. If we accept lumping class 1 eBikes in with OHVs simply because they have a motor, what prevents MTBs being lumped in with OHVs simply because they are vehicles?

The 5V fan analogy does not point out the fairness of the process. It illuminates the absurdity of the process. The same process would have us believe there is no difference between raindrops and atomic bombs.

So, feel free to champion land manager's narrow mindedness. I will not. I refuse to be as simple as the majority of anti-eBikers here who can't articulate a rational reason for being anti-eBike other than "it's got a motor" or "just becuz".


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

str8line said:


> Why was that thread locked? I thought it did a good job of bringing out the concerns/validations of E-bikes.


If you objectively read the previously locked threads (and ones that weren't locked), you'll see that the moderators have a bias against eBikes as well. They don't really promote open, rational discussion unless it aligns with their agendas.


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

tahoebeau said:


> but at the end of the day, it is really about limiting access. When motors are allowed, access is much easier, more people take advantage of that and more damage occures. Oh, and I am not talking about damage to man made trails. Trails can be easily repaired, wild life cannot.


ah yes, the elitist approach. 5 people a day on a trail is the ideal to strive for. heaven forbid that public land owned by the nation of 350 million citizens be actually accessible to any citizen. Save it for the miniscule number of elites, and only them. Can't be adding 2 or 3 ebikers per day, that;s like .. like .. like a 40% increase. Think of the baby chipmunks getting startled FORTY PERCENT more often


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> If you objectively read the previously locked threads (and ones that weren't locked), you'll see that the moderators have a bias against eBikes as well. They don't really promote open, rational discussion unless it aligns with their agendas.


So you're the champion of rational discussion huh?

Now THAT'S funny!


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> So you're the champion of rational discussion huh?
> 
> Now THAT'S funny!


Yes I am. Would you like to have one?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> That which you call non-discrimatory, I call lazy. It's easy to simply lump a class 1 eBike in with a 500cc dirt bike. But it takes effort to utilize a bit of judgement and determine that the mix of 500 cc dirtbikes and class 1 eBikes makes far less sense than the mix of class 1 eBikes and MTBs. The attempt to restrict eBikes is far more about laziness, ignorance and pandering than it is about judicious and reasonable land management.
> 
> My argument has always been against the inappropriate lumping classes of vehicles based upon nonsensical standards. If we accept lumping class 1 eBikes in with OHVs simply because they have a motor, what prevents MTBs being lumped in with OHVs simply because they are vehicles?
> 
> ...


 Not anti e biker. Just ride legal, thats all. Rational reason? How about, just follow the rules? In my forests( MA) stuff like no paint ball, cutting of live trees, trampling vegetation off trail, unauthorized fires and the like. As well as no motorized vehicles except where permitted. Seems a pretty clear line, does it have motor? Does it not? I guess not all can follow that reasoning.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> Yes I am. Would you like to have one?


 Seems your time spent would be better served with trail builders, community trail users, decision makers as well as state and local land mangers. Let us know how those meetings go, really.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

As a guy who actually rides a horse, and who pedals a bicycle faster than most (well, I think all I have encountered so far) eBikes, I don't think I need to waste my time watching a dirt bike vs horse video to show some sort of example on how it effects eBikes on trails.

Never ridden an eBike, not interested. But the ridiculous arguments against them are....well...just ridiculous. People have way to much time to cry about it, time better spent riding.



leeboh said:


> Not anti e biker. Just ride legal, thats all. Rational reason? How about, just follow the rules? In my forests( MA) stuff like no paint ball, cutting of live trees, trampling vegetation off trail, unauthorized fires and the like. As well as no motorized vehicles except where permitted. Seems a pretty clear line, does it have motor? Does it not? I guess not all can follow that reasoning.


I can't tell you how many times I have ridden well established trails, just to find out a year later that they were illegal.

Just ride legal.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Just ride legal, awesome. And don't knowingly poach. Great.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> Yes I am. Would you like to have one?


Have had many.

Don't think you're capable of holding up your end though; you seem to be sorely lacking in the pragmatism department.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> Have had many.
> 
> Don't think you're capable of holding up your end though; you seem to be sorely lacking in the pragmatism department.


I would say the ad hominems that you have used in the past along with pejorative tone of your current email strongly suggests that it is you who has the problem with conducting a rational discussion.

As it stands, there are several topics that we could have a rational discussion about right in this thread. But you chose to enter this thread with only the intent to cast negative aspersions. Feel free to pick up on any of the issues initiated in this thread and I'll be more than willing to participate in a civil, rational manner.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> I would say the ad hominems that you have used in the past along with pejorative tone of your current email strongly suggests that it is you who has the problem with conducting a rational discussion.
> 
> As it stands, there are several topics that we could have a rational discussion about right in this thread. But you chose to enter this thread with only the intent to cast negative aspersions. Feel free to pick up on any of the issues initiated in this thread and I'll be more than willing to participate in a civil, rational manner.


I've already heard everything you have to say on the subject, many times over.
You don't have enough of an understanding of how trail access and advocacy actually work in the real world to construct an informed or useful opinion; if I find myself dying to re-read the same bunch of pointless and convoluted philosophical and "legal" ramblings, I'll get back to you.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> I've already heard everything you have to say on the subject, many times over.
> You don't have enough of an understanding of how trail access and advocacy actually work in the real world to construct an informed or useful opinion; if I find myself dying to re-read the same bunch of pointless and convoluted philosophical and "legal" ramblings, I'll get back to you.


I don't know how that supports your original pejorative statement implying that I cannot have a rational discussion. But if that makes you feel better, then so be it.


----------

