# National org calls for class 1 access to all MTB trails



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

"_PeopleForBikes is urging land managers to allow the use of Class 1 e-bikes — but no other e-bikes — on all non-motorized, natural surface trails (including singletrack mountain biking trails) where traditional bicycles are allowed_."









PeopleForBikes recommends Class 1 e-bikes for mountain bike trails


LAKE TAHOE, Calif. (BRAIN) — PeopleForBikes is urging land managers to allow the use of Class 1 e-bikes — but no other e-bikes — on all non-motorized, natural surface trails (including singletrack mountain biking trails) where traditional bicycles are allowed.




www.bicycleretailer.com






.


----------



## evdog (Mar 18, 2007)

And class 2 e-bikers cry foul for being excluded. You can't make this sh*t up. Slippery slope indeed.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Wont work, the Feds have zero control to mandate access at the State, County and City levels. That is why there is so much disparity on trail use and rules to begin with when it comes to what trails can have hiking, hikers or cyclists or some variation of those.


----------



## trmn8er (Jun 9, 2011)

Once you allow class one mopeds then others will follow because it’s human nature and class 2 riders will whine and complain. It’s pretty simple. Simply exclude all mopeds unless on a trail system that allows motor driven vehicles. But it’s the way everything is trending. More screen time ( I’m guilty). Less people want to pedal. They complain they deserve access, but before you know it trails more remote get more crowded. It’s the lazy entitlement of our society and it’s really sad. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

And I'm sure they have visited all non-motorized, natural surface trails where traditional bikes are allowed to be sure ebikes are appropriate on all these trails. Or maybe they just want to sell more ebikes?

_PeopleForBikes is an industry coalition made up of 280 cycling-industry members, and some 1,000 Ride Spot retailer members, along with a cycling community of almost 1.4 million individual riders. It was founded in 1999 (originally known as “Bikes Belong”) by a group of bike industry companies, to promote stronger representation in congress and coordinated advocacy programs – to help develop and promote economic policies that benefit bike businesses.









The Outer Line: PeopleForBikes is changing with the industry


Most cyclists have heard of PeopleForBikes, but what does it actually do, and where will its energetic new CEO Jenn Dice steer the organization in the future?




www.velonews.com




_


----------



## GKelley (Sep 4, 2018)

chazpat said:


> Or maybe they just want to sell more ebikes?


Exactly!


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

chazpat said:


> Or maybe they just want to sell more ebikes?
> _ ...to help develop and promote economic policies that benefit bike businesses._


Agree,of course. Big business, lots of money involved, this is the United States after all.


trmn8er said:


> It’s the lazy entitlement of our society and it’s really sad.


Sounds like my Dad back when I was a kid. "Stupid kids and that damn MTV! What the hell is a Van Halen?!"

Gen Z is going to be fine and the Earth will keep spinning long after we're gone.

I've never once felt lazy, entitled, or sad when riding my E-MTB.


----------



## WillDB (Jul 15, 2020)

I think the headline should actually read *Bike Industry Shills Recommend E-Motos on All Trails*.

Looking forward to more jerks shouting on your left and overtaking me on climbs while not keeping single track single with their "pedal assist" bikes.


----------



## Redlemon (4 mo ago)

trmn8er said:


> Once you allow class one mopeds then others will follow because it’s human nature and class 2 riders will whine and complain. It’s pretty simple. Simply exclude all mopeds unless on a trail system that allows motor driven vehicles. But it’s the way everything is trending. More screen time ( I’m guilty). Less people want to pedal. They complain they deserve access, but before you know it trails more remote get more crowded. It’s the lazy entitlement of our society and it’s really sad.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're wrong and Canada is a great example as only regular MTBs & class 1 eMTBs are allowed on trail systems.

Class 2-3-4 and anything else are being refused and it looks like it's easy to manage...anyway these classes are normally cheap hub powered bikes made for the road as serious MTB manufacturers are only making class 1 bikes anyway.

Some centers are charging a little bit more for ebikes and some lift assisted parks can refuse ebikes because of the weight, but that's pretty much it.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

chazpat said:


> And I'm sure they have visited all non-motorized, natural surface trails where traditional bikes are allowed to be sure ebikes are appropriate on all these trails. Or maybe they just want to sell more ebikes?
> 
> _PeopleForBikes is an industry coalition made up of 280 cycling-industry members, and some 1,000 Ride Spot retailer members, along with a cycling community of almost 1.4 million individual riders. It was founded in 1999 (originally known as “Bikes Belong”) by a group of bike industry companies, to promote stronger representation in congress and coordinated advocacy programs – to help develop and promote economic policies that benefit bike businesses.
> 
> ...


Not once have I ever ridden a non-motorized trail on my class 1 eMTB and thought it was inappropriate. Motorized trails? Hell yes, most of those are torn to shreds, and I often find myself thinking "wrong bike for this trail", but never on natural surface trails open to traditional bikes. If it's appropriate for MTB's it's appropriate for class 1 eMTB's imho.

.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

chazpat said:


> And I'm sure they have visited all non-motorized, natural surface trails where traditional bikes are allowed to be sure ebikes are appropriate on all these trails.


Why would a trail not be suitable for a class 1 eMTB?


----------



## eb1888 (Jan 27, 2012)

There's thousands of offroad miles for motorized vehicles where you can ride e-bikes.
Side-by-sides and CFR450s will blast past you.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> Why would a trail not be suitable for a class 1 eMTB?


Heavy Walking traffic MUT's with lots of strollers and small kids running around might not be suitable if that is what the local land manager decides upon. Local hiking groups that do not understand the difference between a Class1 pedelec and the Twist throttle commuter eBikes that can hit speeds over 30mph. Equestrian groups that hold heavy sway over land managers to block other groups.... there are many hurdles.

The real issue here is People for Bikes thinking that a blanket policy will work for all trail systems and that they can somehow convince all land managers to follow said blanket policy.

There are already a wide variety of trails and access rules to go along with them, People for bikes is greatly mistaken if they think just posting about this is going to have any impact on local level trail managers who are fighting other bigger fights with developers, Government agencies and environmental groups.


----------



## Redlemon (4 mo ago)

eb1888 said:


> There's thousands of offroad miles for motorized vehicles where you can ride e-bikes.


We all leave that for ATVs & things like that here, eMTBs are all riding on MTB trails.

There's no issues, no fight and we're all having fun...hard to believe right ?


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> The real issue here is People for Bikes thinking that a blanket policy will work for all trail systems and that they can somehow convince all land managers to follow said blanket policy.
> 
> There are already a wide variety of trails and access rules to go along with them, People for bikes is greatly mistaken if they think just posting about this is going to have any impact on local level trail managers who are fighting other bigger fights with developers, Government agencies and environmental groups.


Laws can be passed at the Federal level that supersede lower levels of state, county, city, etc. Same goes for state laws over local. Feds also have powerful incentives they can use over states, like funding for public lands, etc.

Will that happen? Probably not given the current state of American politics, and the inability of the two party system to agree on anything.


.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

_CJ said:


> Laws can be passed at the Federal level that supersede lower levels of state, county, city, etc. Same goes for state laws over local. Feds also have powerful incentives they can use over states, like funding for public lands, etc.
> 
> Will that happen? Probably not given the current state of American politics, and the inability of the two party system to agree on anything.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'd suggest spending more time becoming directly involved with local land-use advocacy. It's painful, and frustrating, but you might actually achieve something.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Klurejr said:


> Heavy Walking traffic MUT's with lots of strollers and small kids running around might not be suitable if that is what the local land manager decides upon. Local hiking groups that do not understand the difference between a Class1 pedelec and the Twist throttle commuter eBikes that can hit speeds over 30mph. Equestrian groups that hold heavy sway over land managers to block other groups.... there are many hurdles.


A heavily trafficked MUT with lots of small kids and strollers isn't suitable for anyone to be cranking along at 15-20mph, regardless of whether they're using legs or motors to achieve that speed and I doubt equestrian groups care if the bike had a motor or not if it spooked a horse who threw its rider. Speed limits, common sense and etiquette are the solution to those problems surely?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Laws can be passed at the Federal level that supersede lower levels of state, county, city, etc. Same goes for state laws over local. Feds also have powerful incentives they can use over states, like funding for public lands, etc.
> 
> Will that happen? Probably not given the current state of American politics, and the inability of the two party system to agree on anything.
> 
> ...


Laws can be passed at the federal level, but there is no group interested in pushing such an agenda in Washington, and even then I doubt the states will give up their state level rights for trail access.

It is a pipe dream to think something actionable will come from this declaration from People for bikes.

Trail access is going to continue to be managed at the Federal Level for Federal Lands, the State level for state lands, the county level for county lands and the city level for city lands.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> Trail access is going to continue to be managed at the Federal Level for Federal Lands, the State level for state lands, the county level for county lands and the city level for city lands.


In the federal case, national forests are handled at a local level by the local forest staff. This is why there's a recommendation to allow e-bikes in national forests, but this isn't the case in every national forest.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> A heavily trafficked MUT with lots of small kids and strollers isn't suitable for anyone to be cranking along at 15-20mph, regardless of whether they're using legs or motors to achieve that speed and I doubt equestrian groups care if the bike had a motor or not if it spooked a horse who threw its rider. Speed limits, common sense and etiquette are the solution to those problems surely?


The common sense and etiquette would state that no one ride anything with wheels in such a place, not even skateboards or roller skates. But common sense is not very common and people will need enforceable rules to follow. There is a reason bikes are typically not allowed on beachside boardwalks and city sidewalks. Some MUT's look and act a lot like boardwalks and sidewalks..... 

I am just pointing out that each locality has their own unique set of circumstances and blanket rules wont work for everywhere.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

dysfunction said:


> In the federal case, national forests are handled at a local level by the local forest staff. This is why there's a recommendation to allow e-bikes in national forests, but this isn't the case in every national forest.


Of in National Parks, by the parks Service, which is a Federal organization. And I would not expect it to be handled any other way. The Park Rangers in a specific National Park will be more Intune to what works best in the area they support and manage.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> Of in National Parks, by the parks Service, which is a Federal organization. And I would not expect it to be handled any other way. The Park Rangers in a specific National Park will be more Intune to what works best in the area they support and manage.


Totally. But it causes confusion for a lot of people I think.


----------



## AEyogi (Nov 19, 2021)

trmn8er said:


> Once you allow class one mopeds then others will follow because it’s human nature and class 2 riders will whine and complain. It’s pretty simple. Simply exclude all mopeds unless on a trail system that allows motor driven vehicles. But it’s the way everything is trending. More screen time ( I’m guilty). Less people want to pedal. They complain they deserve access, but before you know it trails more remote get more crowded. It’s the lazy entitlement of our society and it’s really sad.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Klurejr said:


> I am just pointing out that each locality has their own unique set of circumstances and blanket rules wont work for everywhere.


I get it, but I would argue that if a trail isn't suitable for a class 1 ebike then one could probably argue that it isn't suitable for any bike...


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

They allow class1 on our local trail. So far, 2 out of the 10 that I've seen were not class1. 

But sure.... no issues.....


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

d365 said:


> They allow class1 on our local trail. So far, 2 out of the 10 that I've seen were not class1.
> 
> But sure.... no issues.....


Dogs have to be leased in our town but I see plenty that aren't. I called one guy out on it a few weeks ago, he was out with his two young daughters and two dogs off leash. I was with my family and our dog on leash. His dogs came bounding up to ours to say hello as he's calling them to come back and they ignore him. We walk past down the trail and he continues up, but his dogs start following us down the trail whilst he calls their names in vain. I turned around and suggested that he could put them on a leash like they're supposed to be and he said "I could, but this is America".

When you live in a society where half the people don't think the rules apply to them then what's the point in having rules?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> I get it, but I would argue that if a trail isn't suitable for a class 1 ebike then one could probably argue that it isn't suitable for any bike...


I think the issue the Land Managers are struggling with in some area's is the slippery slope of letting anything with a motor, then everything with a motor will start showing up and THEN they will have to actively enforce the rules. Too many land managers and municipalities want to set some rules and then rely on people to just follow them, they do not want to and usually do not have the resources to enforce the rules they make, so in many cases the easiest thing to avoid class 2, 4 and above from riding trails only approved for Class 1 and Class pedal with your legs only - is to just say no motors and draw the line there.

I am not saying that is good or right, in fact the opposite, that is really lazy. I think Class 1 eBikes should be able to ride the same trails at MTB's - but there needs to be some sort of enforcement to stop the bad actors.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> I turned around and suggested that he could put them on a leash like they're supposed to be and he said "I could, but this is America".


I despise idiots like that person. In California Dogs are required to be on a 6 foot leash and under control unless they are in a dog park that allows off-leash dogs. That is a state level thing. leash laws are just as much to protect your dog from himself as they are to protect others....


In my local riding area the dangers to dogs off leash are foremost:
*Rattle Snakes
*Coyotes
*Cacti

The other dogs and people after those main three items.... I let my dog run with me on a ride just ONCE off leash. I had some high hopes of training her to be a trail dog..... I spent that night holding a 55lb Pit Bull Terrier down on her back while my wife pulled Cactus needles from her chest...... I felt so bad and had a revelation that there is more to leash laws than I realized.


----------



## boostin (Apr 21, 2008)

Shills pushing **** onto the masses. Gimme a break! We all know what happens after she agree's to just the tip..


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

chiefsilverback said:


> Dogs have to be leased in our town


Well that's at least a start. Maybe they can use revenue from the leases to do DNA testing on the poop.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Allow dogs, next thing you get unleashed dogs, then you get leash vigilantes...the slippery slope is real.


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> so in many cases the easiest thing to avoid class 2, 4 and above from riding trails only approved for Class 1 and Class pedal with your legs only - is to just say no motors and draw the line there.


This seems to be the case in OC parks. Signs everywhere banning motorized vehicles, but as for as I know, rangers are unofficially letting class 1s ride.


----------



## She&I (Jan 4, 2010)

WillDB said:


> I think the headline should actually read *Bike Industry Shills Recommend E-Motos on All Trails*.


Thanks for that edit. The group name is a bullshit story in itself. As long as we're shooting for accuracy, let's edit that, too. BikeCompaniesForProfit lacks some panache, but it's dead fukking on in my mind.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

chiefsilverback said:


> A heavily trafficked MUT with lots of small kids and strollers isn't suitable for anyone to be cranking along at 15-20mph, regardless of whether they're using legs or motors to achieve that speed and I doubt equestrian groups care if the bike had a motor or not if it spooked a horse who threw its rider. Speed limits, common sense and etiquette are the solution to those problems surely?


Problems? Or absurd conjecture with no basis in reality?

.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

_CJ said:


> "_PeopleFor*Motor*Bikes is urging land managers to allow the use of Class 1 e-bikes — but no other e-bikes — on all non-motorized, natural surface trails (including singletrack mountain biking trails) where traditional bicycles are allowed_."


Further fixed it.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> I think the issue the Land Managers are struggling with in some area's is the slippery slope of letting anything with a motor, then everything with a motor will start showing up and THEN they will have to actively enforce the rules. Too many land managers and municipalities want to set some rules and then rely on people to just follow them, they do not want to and usually do not have the resources to enforce the rules they make, so in many cases the easiest thing to avoid class 2, 4 and above from riding trails only approved for Class 1 and Class pedal with your legs only - is to just say no motors and draw the line there.
> 
> I am not saying that is good or right, in fact the opposite, that is really lazy. I think Class 1 eBikes should be able to ride the same trails at MTB's - but there needs to be some sort of enforcement to stop the bad actors.


When you give people a legal option, like class 1, most are likely to buy a bike that complies with that law, so they are legal. Will a small minority ignore the law and do as they please? Sure, but they're going to ignore the law regardless.

At the end of the day, things with electric motors aren't going away. There's no putting the Jennie back in the bottle. The only reasonable course of action is to give people some guidance as to what's most appropriate.


.


----------



## SteveF (Mar 5, 2004)

"People for Bikes," is a lobbying/marketing entity made up of bike companies that want to push their e-peds. The name is misleading at best.


----------



## LanceWeaklegs (Dec 24, 2019)

Klurejr said:


> Wont work, the Feds have zero control to mandate access at the State, County and City levels. That is why there is so much disparity on trail use and rules to begin with when it comes to what trails can have hiking, hikers or cyclists or some variation of those.


I don’t think that “People for Bikes” is the feds, any more than PETA is. Like the article said, it is simply a national organization. A private one. Non-governmental. One that I never heard of. One that may have been formed last week. But it’s not the federal government, by a long shot.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

_CJ said:


> When you give people a legal option, like class 1, most are likely to buy a bike that complies with that law, so they are legal. Will a small minority ignore the law and do as they please? Sure, but they're going to ignore the law regardless.


Per my dog lease/leash anecdote many people just don't care, an ebike is an ebike, why can that person ride their ebike but I can't ride mine etc...

I had a guy bring his ebike over a few days ago because the derailleur wasn't shifting properly. It was some truly awful folding class 3 contraption and he was extolling it's virtues and how he rides it every where and how he got it for $1000 but that you can pay up to three times that for some ebikes. I didn't both to mention the $10K+ class 1eMTBs that are increasingly popular.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

Title of this thread should be National Org that advocates for e-bikes calls for class 1 access to all mtb trails.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

chiefsilverback said:


> Per my dog lease/leash anecdote many people just don't care, an ebike is an ebike, why can that person ride their ebike but I can't ride mine etc...
> 
> I had a guy bring his ebike over a few days ago because the derailleur wasn't shifting properly. It was some truly awful folding class 3 contraption and he was extolling it's virtues and how he rides it every where and how he got it for $1000 but that you can pay up to three times that for some ebikes. I didn't both to mention the $10K+ class 1eMTBs that are increasingly popular.


I think the dog analogy works. Most will leash their dog with there is a leash law. Where there aren't leash laws, many more will go without a leash. Where dogs are banned completely from all parks? people will do as they please.

Just like dogs, ebikes aren't going to go away. We need to find a way to accommodate them, and educate people on what is appropriate and where.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

SteveF said:


> "People for Bikes," is a lobbying/marketing entity made up of bike companies that want to push their e-peds. The name is misleading at best.


Pay no attention to who's on IMBA's board of directors.  


.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

LanceWeaklegs said:


> I don’t think that “People for Bikes” is the feds, any more than PETA is. Like the article said, it is simply a national organization. A private one. Non-governmental. One that I never heard of. One that may have been formed last week. But it’s not the federal government, by a long shot.


Sorry if I was not clear, I never said people for bikes was a government entity, they are just a lobbying group calling out for Federal rules regarding eBikes and trails.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> I think the dog analogy works. Most will leash their dog with there is a leash law. Where there aren't leash laws, many more will go without a leash.


Quite the opposite here in SoCal..... I see off-leash dogs every single time I ride in the city nature preserve. People are selfish and will do whatever they want regardless of the laws. That is why so many people are glued to their cell phones while driving cars. If the law says no eBikes, people will still ride eBikes until the law is enforced to the degree that it becomes too painful to break the law. If the law says class 1 only, people will still ride class2, 3 and above until the enforcement steps up and the cost of getting caught becomes too painful.

Look at Drunk Driving. It was an epidemic in this nation until MADD and other organizations pushed hard to step up enforcement and make the consequences high enough to get people to start making better decisions.

Until Distracted driving is treated with the same punishment as Drunk Driving, people will ignore the law and keep doing dangerous things behind the wheel.

Until Class limitations are heavily enforced (something I doubt will even happen outside a few places) people will ride whatever they please on any trail they want.

You are correct, the Genie is out of the Bottle and eBikes are super popular - but the things many of us warned about as the popularity started are coming true. Deaths of young ones in Carlsbad has reached unprecedented highs in the last 2 years and the local government is taking note and starting with more enforcement of helmet laws and rider education. I hope that works to curtail the deaths of young ones, but if it does not you can bet the government will step up and make more changes.

One only has to look at what happened to the 3-wheeler motorcycle market.

Hypothetically - if People for Bikes convinced the Federal government to force a mandate on all trail stewards and land managers to allow all class 1 eBikes be allowed on the same trails with bicycles it would do NOTHING to stop Class 2, Class 3 or eMotos from working really hard to slide in under that banner. If that hypothetical situation came to pass, nothing would change on the trails.


----------



## Horseshoe (May 31, 2018)

Stupid idea. I consider myself a huge advocate for e-MTBs (suck it, haters) but this has to be a local land management decision. I'm thinking of a place like Sedona which is already a sh*tshow on any given weekend now being opened to tourists on e-bikes. People are going to die.


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Europe very ebike friendly? Not sure why they can coexist, but here in USA, chaos will occur if we allow class 1 on trails?


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Bikeventures said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Europe very ebike friendly? Not sure why they can coexist, but here in USA, chaos will occur if we allow class 1 on trails?


Lack of centralization in regards to rules (also lack of ability to follow rules enacted) creates chaos.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Bikeventures said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Europe very ebike friendly? Not sure why they can coexist, but here in USA, chaos will occur if we allow class 1 on trails?





dysfunction said:


> Lack of centralization in regards to rules (also lack of ability to follow rules enacted) creates chaos.



The euro standard for the classes of bikes is a bit different as well.

The culture around bikes in Europe is way different than in the US. Bikes are much more prevalent, people are more educated about safe operation and land management is much more different.

Saying "but it works in Europe" is an apples and oranges argument for many things including eBikes.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> Quite the opposite here in SoCal..... I see off-leash dogs every single time I ride in the city nature preserve. People are selfish and will do whatever they want regardless of the laws. That is why so many people are glued to their cell phones while driving cars. If the law says no eBikes, people will still ride eBikes until the law is enforced to the degree that it becomes too painful to break the law. If the law says class 1 only, people will still ride class2, 3 and above until the enforcement steps up and the cost of getting caught becomes too painful.
> 
> Look at Drunk Driving. It was an epidemic in this nation until MADD and other organizations pushed hard to step up enforcement and make the consequences high enough to get people to start making better decisions.
> 
> ...


There you go again....conflating class 1 eMTB's with eMotos. Apples and oranges. One does not lead to the other. In fact, as I said before, making class 1 legal will lead to fewer people on other e-mobility devises.

And your talking point on more kids riding SurRons and eMopeds on the street getting killed (in a time period that saw an equal increase in the number of people riding them)....again, nothing to do with class 1, or people for bikes, or riding on trails.

We've been over this too many times, but I'll review for the newcomers.

FACT: Everywhere class 1 eMTB's have been given access to trails equal to MTB's, there have been zero issues. No hoards of SurRons, no collisions resulting from riders going "too fast" uphill, no increased erosion, nothing. Millions of rider miles over years of equal access, on all types of terrain/soils with all sorts of trails, and it's all fine. This has been documented by the land managers themselves. There's no legitimate argument left. They've all been disproven.

.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

Klurejr said:


> I despise idiots like that person. In California Dogs are required to be on a 6 foot leash and under control unless they are in a dog park that allows off-leash dogs. That is a state level thing. leash laws are just as much to protect your dog from himself as they are to protect others....


California has no statewide leash law. They are set at a county/city/agency level.


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> Wont work, the Feds have zero control to mandate access at the State, County and City levels.


I'm not so sure about that? I thought that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 overruled state and local authority on federal land. Am I confusing BLM land with national forest?

Regardless, what a mess. Give an inch and the motorized community will take a mile. The e-bike rules are changing rapidly and I can see this playing out in some expensive litigation.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> There you go again....conflating class 1 eMTB's with eMotos. Apples and oranges. One does not lead to the other. In fact, as I said before, making class 1 legal will lead to fewer people on other e-mobility devises.
> 
> And your talking point on more kids riding SurRons and eMopeds on the street getting killed (in a time period that saw an equal increase in the number of people riding them)....again, nothing to do with class 1, or people for bikes, or riding on trails.
> 
> ...


you have very poor reading comprehension.

Please back up your FACT statement with some data. Zero issues, really? you lose all credibility with blanket statements like that. Issues with class 1 being allowed on trails are documented all over this site, just because you put your head in the sand an pretend to not see them is not proof they do not exist.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

ballisticexchris said:


> I'm not so sure about that? I thought that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 overruled state and local authority on federal land. Am I confusing BLM land with national forest?
> 
> Regardless, what a mess. Give an inch and the motorized community will take a mile. The e-bike rules are changing rapidly and I can see this playing out in some expensive litigation.


"on federal land" is the key statement there. If the Federal government said that class 1 ebikes shall be allowed on trails states, counties and cities can still write and enforce their own rules.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Cary said:


> California has no statewide leash law. They are set at a county/city/agency level.


you are correct, my mistake, but there are very few counties and cities that allow off leash dogs in public places, so most of the state is covered.



> *Is it Legal to Have Your Dog Off a Leash?*
> You must keep your dog on a leash in most municipalities in California. Although the state does not have a universal law requiring owners to keep all dogs on leashes, most counties have enacted their own ordinances with this requirement. If you live in a rural area, this might not be the law in your region, but California’s metropolitan places require dogs on leashes in public places.











California Leash Law (2022)


California has leash laws for animals to help improve the safety of everyone in public places. To learn more, visit our blog post.




www.rosenthalinjurylaw.com






I have never been to a trail system that allows dogs off leash, only specific dog parks and dog beaches. and some forest do not allow dogs at all.


----------



## Porkchop_Power (Jul 30, 2008)

trmn8er said:


> Once you allow class one mopeds then others will follow because it’s human nature and class 2 riders will whine and complain. It’s pretty simple. Simply exclude all mopeds unless on a trail system that allows motor driven vehicles. But it’s the way everything is trending. More screen time ( I’m guilty). Less people want to pedal. They complain they deserve access, but before you know it trails more remote get more crowded. It’s the lazy entitlement of our society and it’s really sad.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


100% Agree. Already starting to see a lot of supposedly Class 1 eBikes modified to be much faster then the original design point and tearing up the trails.


----------



## Porkchop_Power (Jul 30, 2008)

LanceWeaklegs said:


> I don’t think that “People for Bikes” is the feds, any more than PETA is. Like the article said, it is simply a national organization. A private one. Non-governmental. One that I never heard of. One that may have been formed last week. But it’s not the federal government, by a long shot.


Its been around awhile. They do a lot of good stuff mainly for promoting safe commuting routes but they are absolutely funded and tied to all the major bike companies. I will not support them due to pushing for ebikes on singletrack.


----------



## LanceWeaklegs (Dec 24, 2019)

Klurejr said:


> Sorry if I was not clear, I never said people for bikes was a government entity, they are just a lobbying group calling out for Federal rules regarding eBikes and trails.


Nope. They are not calling for federal rules or laws regarding the “legalization” of e-bikes. They are calling on “land managers” to alter rules, when required, to allow e-bikes. Land managers could be private, municipal, state, federal, or any combination of that. Generally, the federal government cannot make rules or laws regarding the use of property, other than federal property, such as national forests etc. I too, was wrong once. i thought I made a mistake but I didnt.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

Klurejr said:


> you are correct, my mistake, but there are very few counties and cities that allow off leash dogs in public places, so most of the state is covered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good, I needed a win today after my massive basic addition fail in another thread. 

EBRPD in the Bay Area, which are tyrants in all other regards, allow dogs off leash in most of their parks (generally signed where on leash required). As one backs up to my house, it is nice, I have a riding partner.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

As others have noted: People for bikes is basically an eBike lobbying organization these days. Shilling it on behalf of the industry. They don't have any legitimacy beyond (and honestly far below) any advocacy group. Oh Jenn... whomp whomp.


----------



## Porkchop_Power (Jul 30, 2008)

Bikeventures said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Europe very ebike friendly? Not sure why they can coexist, but here in USA, chaos will occur if we allow class 1 on trails?


You can also drink beer and wine at like 16 in most countries legally over in Europe. Not a good idea here.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Porkchop_Power said:


> You can also drink beer and wine at like 16 in most countries legally over in Europe. Not a good idea here.


And land management is vastly different and eBike regulated speed is significantly slower. Oh, don't forget that they actually hold you accountable (generally) if you get caught breaking the laws/modified bikes where prohibited. Very different level of enforcement.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> Why would a trail not be suitable for a class 1 eMTB?


The last three trails systems I rode were old school super tight singletrack where you're thinking you'd better check for ticks after the ride. I would hate to see these trails blown out wide due to passing and ebikes mixed with regular bikes will bring about more passing. These trails also had sections that were abandoned forest service roads which would be easier to pass on (though some sections the double track is reverting to singletrack) but I doubt a lot of ebikers would be willing to ride behind a bicycle until one of those sections was reached. 

Most of the trails around me aren't as tight. Some of them are flow trails and there is room for passing. Others are still pretty tight but so twisty that passing isn't always easy, you have to find a spot where you can pull over a little and pause and let someone by. But again, more passing will mean the trails get wider and wider. It's really a numbers game, a few ebikes and it's not an issue. But if the percentage gets greater and greater, more passing.

I have no perceptions that I should be faster than a motor assisted bike, or a lot of non-assisted bikes. Call me a luddite for not wanting the trails to change. I've ridden out west with a member of this site on an ebike and I saw no issues on those trails, a lot more miles per rider available than where I ride and a lot more open.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Carl Mega said:


> And land management is vastly different and eBike regulated speed is significantly slower. Oh, don't forget that they actually hold you accountable (generally) if you get caught breaking the laws/modified bikes where prohibited. Very different level of enforcement.


Yep. Totally different cultures in general. I was going to make a longer winded comment, but fear it'd be interpreted as political. 

Also, the geography (and geology) is a bit more... diverse here.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

_CJ said:


> There you go again....conflating class 1 eMTB's with eMotos. Apples and oranges. One does not lead to the other. In fact, as I said before, making class 1 legal will lead to fewer people on other e-mobility devises.


Maybe the industry should start producing class 1 ebikes at a similar price point to the class 2 and 3 models so that people can buy them. Also I just looked at RadPower's site and I can't see any clear indication of what class their bikes are, so I guarantee that the majority of people with ebikes have absolutely no idea what class they are on and will assume all ebikes are the same.


----------



## buumer (Jul 8, 2020)

Weight aside, I’m curious about the effect of a bike with aggressive downhill tires being able to hit 500w+ would do to local trails. We have many clay based trails here that are already at risk of erosion from being ridden when wet, so will they be able to withstand the addition of emtbs (even Class1)?

Personally I hope the trail maitence communities in each local get the final say in the matter.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

_CJ said:


> FACT: Everywhere class 1 eMTB's have been given access to trails equal to MTB's, there have been zero issues. No hoards of SurRons, no collisions resulting from riders going "too fast" uphill, no increased erosion, nothing. Millions of rider miles over years of equal access, on all types of terrain/soils with all sorts of trails, and it's all fine. This has been documented by the land managers themselves.


Got something to back that FACT up with? Where is this resource that ALL land mangers contribute their thoughts on eMTBs?


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

buumer said:


> Personally I hope the trail maitence communities in each local get the final say in the matter.


In the cases I have seen, they did not.


----------



## FortOrdMTB (May 29, 2021)

_CJ said:


> "_PeopleForBikes is urging land managers to allow the use of Class 1 e-bikes — but no other e-bikes — on all non-motorized, natural surface trails (including singletrack mountain biking trails) where traditional bicycles are allowed_."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And meanwhile here in Monterey, CA there’s a candidate running for the County Parks who wants to ban all bikes in all parks in the county. I’d rather see the push to be inclusive than running us off.


----------



## dryk1t (7 mo ago)

trmn8er said:


> Once you allow class one mopeds then others will follow because it’s human nature and class 2 riders will whine and complain. It’s pretty simple. Simply exclude all mopeds unless on a trail system that allows motor driven vehicles. But it’s the way everything is trending. More screen time ( I’m guilty). Less people want to pedal. They complain they deserve access, but before you know it trails more remote get more crowded. It’s the lazy entitlement of our society and it’s really sad.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yea, lets just take the simple approach and ban mechanical systems from off road pathways? (with a facetious tone, lets just go back to hiking? )

I get what you mean but I think we all have to accept that the world of cycling is rapidly changing. Whether that is for good or not, is subjective.

At what point do we say enough is enough, or do we go backwards and remove more access from the environs to all forms of mechanical assistance?

Do we instead look for the best way to be inclusive taking the least disruptive option?

Do we introduce a national disability scheme where those who meet permit requirements cannot be barred from any cycling path experience due to discrimination prohibitions?

It is a minefield.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Cary said:


> California has no statewide leash law. They are set at a county/city/agency level.


Federal leash laws are in effect in CA National Forests. Even in very remote places. At least that's what the signs read around here.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

trmn8er said:


> Once you allow class one mopeds then others will follow because it’s human nature and class 2 riders will whine and complain. It’s pretty simple. Simply exclude all mopeds unless on a trail system that allows motor driven vehicles. But it’s the way everything is trending. More screen time ( I’m guilty). Less people want to pedal. They complain they deserve access, but before you know it trails more remote get more crowded. It’s the lazy entitlement of our society and it’s really sad.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The rest of the world figured it out. And I'm guessing you've never ridden one. And god forbid the trails get "crowded" because they're your trails only, right? C'mon man. They're coming. It's unstoppable at this point. Best to work with organizations who want reasonable restrictions.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

dryk1t said:


> Yea, lets just take the simple approach and ban mechanical systems from off road pathways? (with a facetious tone, lets just go back to hiking? )
> 
> I get what you mean but I think we all have to accept that the world of cycling is rapidly changing. Whether that is for good or not, is subjective.
> 
> ...


We should ban Cat 1 racers from ALL trails. They're too fast.


----------



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

RickBullottaPA said:


> We should ban Cat 1 racers from ALL trails. They're too fast.




It has never required regulations of any type to keep cat 1 racers limited to a tiny percentage of the cycling population.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Some people are way salty.

Others don't quite get how federal land differs from state and local.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

chazpat said:


> The last three trails systems I rode were old school super tight singletrack where you're thinking you'd better check for ticks after the ride. I would hate to see these trails blown out wide due to passing and ebikes mixed with regular bikes will bring about more passing. These trails also had sections that were abandoned forest service roads which would be easier to pass on (though some sections the double track is reverting to singletrack) but I doubt a lot of ebikers would be willing to ride behind a bicycle until one of those sections was reached.


Again I would argue that the trails are perfectly suitable for ebikes, they're not suitable for selfish people who don't give a sh!t about preserving the trail regardless of what bike they ride.

My local trails comprise 60+ miles of old school tight and twisty, rocky and rooty single track and virtually no one rides them other than the group that built and maintain them and I don't think allowing ebikes on them would change that because the trails are simply too hard for Joe Average popping out for a ride once a month. Actually ebikes are allowed on them and no one rides them!

I think hikers probably do more damage to trails avoiding puddles and muddy spots than bikers who tend to ride straight through...


----------



## kevjob (Jan 25, 2021)

buumer said:


> Weight aside, I’m curious about the effect of a bike with aggressive downhill tires being able to hit 500w+ would do to local trails. We have many clay based trails here that are already at risk of erosion from being ridden when wet, so will they be able to withstand the addition of emtbs (even Class1)?
> 
> Personally I hope the trail maitence communities in each local get the final say in the matter.


My county did a study to determine if ebikes are worse than mtb on trails. https://www.jeffco.us/DocumentCenter/View/9672/e-Bike-Presentation?bidId=

They found the ebike was same as mtb when it came to erosion etc... 

worth a read.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

kevjob said:


> My county did a study to determine if ebikes are worse than mtb on trails. https://www.jeffco.us/DocumentCenter/View/9672/e-Bike-Presentation?bidId=
> 
> They found the ebike was same as mtb when it came to erosion etc...
> 
> worth a read.


I don't see anything in that presentation about physical impact to the trails, it appears to be all about peoples perceptions and opinions. I'm assuming they surveyed people who hadn't ridden an ebike, and then asked the same questions after they had had a go on an ebike? If that's how it worked it's interesting that the number of people who thought ebikes shouldn't be allowed increased after riding one (if i'm reading those charts correctly).


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> It has never required regulations of any type to keep cat 1 racers limited to a tiny percentage of the cycling population.


Ha! Other than anti-doping regs...


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

chiefsilverback said:


> Again I would argue that the trails are perfectly suitable for ebikes, they're not suitable for selfish people who don't give a sh!t about preserving the trail regardless of what bike they ride.
> 
> My local trails comprise 60+ miles of old school tight and twisty, rocky and rooty single track and virtually no one rides them other than the group that built and maintain them and I don't think allowing ebikes on them would change that because the trails are simply too hard for Joe Average popping out for a ride once a month. Actually ebikes are allowed on them and no one rides them!
> 
> I think hikers probably do more damage to trails avoiding puddles and muddy spots than bikers who tend to ride straight through...


And around here, equestrians riding on soft trails do more damage than any other user group.


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

dysfunction said:


> Some people are way salty.
> 
> Others don't quite get how federal land differs from state and local.


I fall into the later category. It really becomes confusing when you go from BLM/National Forest to local. My perception of state and local is "prevention and education" enforcement is just not there. It's all about tickets and income for the local municipality's. 

The best way I can explain this is when you come across a BLM officer or national forest ranger on the trail or land they are not writing tickets. Of the dozens of times I have came across them, they are checking that I had a spark arrester or directing me to the legal trails or the quickest way back to staging area if someone in our group is injured or if you are worn out from getting in over your head. Never once being aggressive or hassled.

At the state parks and local city trails it is just the opposite. You never once see any officials on the trails themselves. They are always close to the staging areas and fire roads waiting for the illegal "trail poachers". As soon as they are back or stopped on the dirt fire road, the ticket book comes out. I have even seen them wait until the tires touch the ground at the trailhead and ticket them on the spot. 

At my local city multi use trail, The county park rangers or sheriffs are waiting at the various staging areas and writing tickets to the e-bikes and SurRons.


----------



## Horseshoe (May 31, 2018)

chiefsilverback said:


> I guarantee that the majority of people with ebikes have absolutely no idea what class they are on and will assume all ebikes are the same.


While I suspect this might hold true for generic e-bike use, I can't imagine that the people that don't know what class their e-bike is would be the type to seek out single track mtb trails.


----------



## MiddleAgedMissile (Dec 31, 2019)

Here in NW Arkansas e-bikes are not a problem. I see them all over the trails and very rarely occasionally get passed on uphill climbs. Not once have I seen any actions on single track that would give me pause. One of my fellow NICA coaches, a past Level one competitor, rides an e-bike because he still has the skills but not the stamina at 74 years. I will own one next year when I reach 65 to keep up with the fast kids on the school teams and to sweep multiple races. I Additionally, as a representative of a local chapter of NW Arkansas’s largest volunteer trail work group, I see no impact to our trails by Class 1 e-bikes.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Horseshoe said:


> While I suspect this might hold true for generic e-bike use, I can't imagine that the people that don't know what class their e-bike is would be the type to seek out single track mtb trails.


I would tend to agree if you're talking about single track only areas, but we have state parks around here that have dirt road/cycling trails and also single track so that's where you might see folks venture 'off road'?


----------



## Horseshoe (May 31, 2018)

chiefsilverback said:


> I would tend to agree if you're talking about single track only areas, but we have state parks around here that have dirt road/cycling trails and also single track so that's where you might see folks venture 'off road'?


That’s a valid point. Noted.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

kevjob said:


> My county did a study to determine if ebikes are worse than mtb on trails. https://www.jeffco.us/DocumentCenter/View/9672/e-Bike-Presentation?bidId=
> 
> They found the ebike was same as mtb when it came to erosion etc...
> 
> worth a read.


What you linked to says nothing about trail erosion or impact on natural trails.


----------



## buumer (Jul 8, 2020)

kevjob said:


> My county did a study to determine if ebikes are worse than mtb on trails. https://www.jeffco.us/DocumentCenter/View/9672/e-Bike-Presentation?bidId=
> 
> They found the ebike was same as mtb when it came to erosion etc...
> 
> worth a read.


Thank you for sharing - I’m glad there is some objective being thrown at the issue. That said, I don’t actually see where the study highlights the erosion aspect.

I don’t think it’s unfair to say that a bike like Santa Cruz Heckler would be very out of place in Ohio, if not for the electric motor. It allows for a combination of aggressive tires with pro levels of power output to be available to anyone with money to buy an emtb. It certainly stands out among mostly XC/DC bikes around here.

Perhaps the question isn’t if there is greater than average impact from an emtb, but rather if that impact is excessive to the longevity and sustainability of the trail.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

RickBullottaPA said:


> The rest of the world figured it out. And I'm guessing you've never ridden one. And god forbid the trails get "crowded" because they're your trails only, right? C'mon man. They're coming. It's unstoppable at this point. Best to work with organizations who want reasonable restrictions.


The rest of the world figured out class 1 ebikes should be limited to 15.5 mph. The US didn't. 20mph is significantly faster. But an easier sell for the manufacturers.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

chazpat said:


> The rest of the world figured out class 1 ebikes should be limited to 15.5 mph. The US didn't. 20mph is significantly faster. But an easier sell for the manufacturers.


Good point but in terms of MTB doesn't the trail tend to dictate the max speed? I'm not super fit by any means, but I'm probably faster than a good % of 'normal' riders and I was able to average 8.5mph on a 15 mile ride around some local trails recently with average speeds for different trail segments ranging from 6mph to 12mph, the slower being really rough, technical stuff where you literally couldn't ride a 20, or even 15mph...


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

trmn8er said:


> It’s the lazy entitlement of our society and it’s really sad.


Lazy entitlement my ass. I ride more, enjoy more and feel as much "spent" riding my ebikes as I do my traditional bikes. The biggest difference is that rather that be hammered from ride, I can go out again the next day and enjoy myself all over again.

I'm more likely to feel lazy and take a day off riding my regular bike and my body just won't take it...


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

chazpat said:


> The rest of the world figured out class 1 ebikes should be limited to 15.5 mph. The US didn't. 20mph is significantly faster. But an easier sell for the manufacturers.


Ha. I don't know how you ride, but I am 99.84% certain you go significantly faster than 15.5 MPH on every ride.


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

chazpat said:


> The rest of the world figured out class 1 ebikes should be limited to 15.5 mph. The US didn't. 20mph is significantly faster. But an easier sell for the manufacturers.





chiefsilverback said:


> Good point but in terms of MTB doesn't the trail tend to dictate the max speed? I'm not super fit by any means, but I'm probably faster than a good % of 'normal' riders and I was able to average 8.5mph on a 15 mile ride around some local trails recently with average speeds for different trail segments ranging from 6mph to 12mph, the slower being really rough, technical stuff where you literally couldn't ride a 20, or even 15mph...


Trail dictates the speed. I recently rode a system on my regular bike and compared the same route on my Orbea Rise in eco, trail and boost. I did this for a video I will put on my channel (not posted yet) but the difference might surprise you. Yes the eMTB is quicker but the real world results is not significant. Between the regular bike and the eMTB the average speed over an 8 miles, 1000ft course was between ~1.5 (evo) and ~3mph faster (boost) over the regular bike.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Roaming50 said:


> Lazy entitlement my ass. I ride more, enjoy more and feel as much "spent" riding my ebikes as I do my traditional bikes. The biggest difference is that rather that be hammered from ride, I can go out again the next day and enjoy myself all over again.
> 
> I'm more likely to feel lazy and take a day off riding my regular bike and my body just won't take it...


If you cant go out and ride the next day and enjoy yourself you might be out of shape.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Roaming50 said:


> …and feel as much "spent" riding my ebikes as I do my traditional bikes. The biggest difference is that rather that be hammered from ride, I can go out again the next day and enjoy myself all over again.
> 
> I'm more likely to feel lazy and take a day off riding my regular bike and my body just won't take it...


 Isn't this contradictory? You feel as spent but you're not hammered and can go out again the next day without taking a day off?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

I don’t think many people have a good grasp of how fast 20mph sustained (or near there) is on a bike. Looking at what we do in xc races where we are flat out, that performance/speed is exceptional and way way beyond what most people can sustain. Thats fast enough that wind resistance is huge.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Sure, trail dictates the speed in a lot of cases but not always, plenty of time on a ride I could ride much faster if I wasn't tired or I'm pacing myself. I once posted the 15.5 limit in Europe and an eMTBer from this site replied "that's too slow". I respected him for his honesty, I doubt many e bikers would be willing to lower the top speed limit of assistance.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

chazpat said:


> Sure, trail dictates the speed in a lot of cases but not always, plenty of time on a ride I could ride much faster if I wasn't tired or I'm pacing myself. I once posted the 15.5 limit in Europe and an eMTBer from this site replied "that's too slow". I respected him for his honesty, I doubt many e bikers would be willing to lower the top speed limit of assistance.


The moment the trail turns downhill, 25 seems slow. On two way trails, are you suggesting we should have speed limits for downhills?


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

chazpat said:


> The last three trails systems I rode were old school super tight singletrack where you're thinking you'd better check for ticks after the ride. I would hate to see these trails blown out wide due to passing and ebikes mixed with regular bikes will bring about more passing. These trails also had sections that were abandoned forest service roads which would be easier to pass on (though some sections the double track is reverting to singletrack) but I doubt a lot of ebikers would be willing to ride behind a bicycle until one of those sections was reached.


I think this is a false premise. Usually tight old-school single track where you get whiplashed in the face is that way because few people ride it. I'm in Wisconsin, where admittedly there is not much population, and there is a lot of this type of old school single track. I ride my eMTB on it and very rarely come across other riders. When I do, it is not much of an issue to wait a bit behind them after asking "may I pass when it's convenient?". 

If there is a lot of traffic, then by definition the trail tends to be wider. When I lived in Colorado the trails were often stupid wide because of over use. This is in systems where eMTB is not allowed. It was just general use and lack of trees or features to keep the trail narrow. The irony is that midwest single track is still pretty single track even though many systems now allow eMTB (unlike the mountain states). It's not the eMTB that's the issue. It's the overuse by riders, irrespective of what is beneath their legs.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Roaming50 said:


> Trail dictates the speed. I recently rode a system on my regular bike and compared the same route on my Orbea Rise in eco, trail and boost. I did this for a video I will put on my channel (not posted yet) but the difference might surprise you. Yes the eMTB is quicker but the real world results is not significant. Between the regular bike and the eMTB the average speed over an 8 miles, 1000ft course was between ~1.5 (evo) and ~3mph faster (boost) over the regular bike.


I'd be interested to see the segment times/speeds and where the ebike made the most difference. My guess, without know what trails you were riding/type of terrain etc... is that it's on the 'mellow' parts. Looking the GPS data from the ride I referenced there was a 3 mile section of pretty much double track climbing 300' and I was averaging about 9.5mph. On an ebike I'm guessing I could have easily cranked sections of that up to 15mph and that would have lifted my overall average considerably, but once I was back into the rock rooty stuff I bet the benefit of the ebike would be far less impressive?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

RickBullottaPA said:


> Ha. I don't know how you ride, but I am 99.84% certain you go significantly faster than 15.5 MPH on every ride.


On downhill sections, sure. On flat sections, no. 



RickBullottaPA said:


> The moment the trail turns downhill, 25 seems slow. On two way trails, are you suggesting we should have speed limits for downhills?


What are we talking about, passing, right? Going downhill there isn't really an issue of ebikes passing bicycles. But going uphill and on flatter sections there is. And around me is where the trails are not designed for passing when going up hill. Really, I think ebikes should be much more limited so that they behave closer to a regular bicycle. They should just offer assistance in climbing and at a more typical speed and zero assistance when not climbing no matter what the speed. If ebikes really were just another bike on the trails, I think they would be fine on all trails. Please remember, I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed on a lot of trails, just that there shouldn't be a blanket "allowed everywhere".

Do some of y'all think bicycles should be allowed on all hiking trails?


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

buumer said:


> Weight aside, I’m curious about the effect of a bike with aggressive downhill tires being able to hit 500w+ would do to local trails. We have many clay based trails here that are already at risk of erosion from being ridden when wet, so will they be able to withstand the addition of emtbs (even Class1)?
> 
> Personally I hope the trail maitence communities in each local get the final say in the matter.


Non issue. You can't single out eMTB with aggressive tire any more than you can single out a heavy rider.

I weigh 162 lbs. My eMTB is 46 lbs. Let's add 10lbs for clothes/water etc and my system weight is 218 lbs. Now, lets say a pretty average American is 180 lbs (I'm being generous here), riding an aggressive trail bike around 32 lbs (many get heavier than this). With the same 10 lbs for "stuff" that system weight is 222 lbs. That's really no different , yet you would have no concern about that rider. Heck, that may be you?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Roaming50 said:


> I think this is a false premise. Usually tight old-school single track where you get whiplashed in the face is that way because few people ride it. I'm in Wisconsin, where admittedly there is not much population, and there is a lot of this type of old school single track. I ride my eMTB on it and very rarely come across other riders. When I do, it is not much of an issue to wait a bit behind them after asking "may I pass when it's convenient?".
> 
> If there is a lot of traffic, then by definition the trail tends to be wider. When I lived in Colorado the trails were often stupid wide because of over use. This is in systems where eMTB is not allowed. It was just general use and lack of trees or features to keep the trail narrow. The irony is that midwest single track is still pretty single track even though many systems now allow eMTB (unlike the mountain states). It's not the eMTB that's the issue. It's the overuse by riders, irrespective of what is beneath their legs.


Yes, you're probably right. The trails in my immediate area are heavily trafficked. But the trails that are least trafficked are not just the more difficult trails but also the trails that require more cardio. I will admit that I don't want more users on the trails, I really doubt anyone here would feel differently once the number reaches a certain point. Go ask a bunch of basket ballers if they want more people on the courts so that they have to wait around to play. And there isn't a lot more room for more trails where I am.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

RickBullottaPA said:


> The moment the trail turns downhill, 25 seems slow. On two way trails, are you suggesting we should have speed limits for downhills?


I call BS on this. I did an enduro race this summer and my max speed was 27mph. Ive done races above that, but the point is, thats flying, its not “slow”. Checked my peak speed at another race, this one at a bloody steep park, 34mph. Again, 25 aint “slow”.


----------



## AMac4108 (Oct 8, 2008)

About time


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Some of these speeds are road bike speeds coming down mountain roads.

Also, I'm waiting to hear American's complain about how the feds are over-reaching about ebike access


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

chazpat said:


> The rest of the world figured out class 1 ebikes should be limited to 15.5 mph. The US didn't. 20mph is significantly faster. But an easier sell for the manufacturers.





Jayem said:


> I don’t think many people have a good grasp of how fast 20mph sustained (or near there) is on a bike. Looking at what we do in xc races where we are flat out, that performance/speed is exceptional and way way beyond what most people can sustain. Thats fast enough that wind resistance is huge.


As someone who has a good grasp on speeds, 15 mph is extremely fast on a mtb and 20 mph is just absurd. That's faster than our local pro who has several national championship jerseys. If I'm grasping this correctly, people can pick up a bike off the shelf and turn speeds faster than a multiple national champion that has represented our country in international events. Wow, just wow.

And then people will say they do not see how an ebike could have an impact.


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

Jayem said:


> If you cant go out and ride the next day and enjoy yourself you might be out of shape.


Or I might be 52 years old that likes to ride but found that no matter what I do my leg'e endurance has suffered over the last 5 years. This year I'm up to 3,000 miles and 137,000 ft of climbing - not too bad for someone that lives in a flat state.


----------



## fly4130 (Apr 3, 2009)

Roaming50 said:


> None issue. You can't single out eMTB with aggressive tire any more than you can single out a heavy rider.


Weight and power output are two different things,


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Rod said:


> If I'm grasping this correctly, people can pick up a bike off the shelf and turn speeds faster than a multiple national champion that has represented our country in international events. Wow, just wow.
> 
> And then people will say they do not see how an ebike could have an impact.


On a smooth trail a class 1 eMTB will let you pedal up to 20mph, but that's not the same as sending a DH course at 20mph. I think on the 'straightaways' on the World Cup courses they can hit 50mph, but their average speed for the course is nowhere near that fast. If you point any bike down a hill and don't touch the brake it will easily hit 20mph, but most of us don't have the skill or the courage to try!


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

chazpat said:


> Isn't this contradictory? You feel as spent but you're not hammered and can go out again the next day without taking a day off?


You might think but I have found that not to be the case. I track my heart rate as when exercising I can push it way higher than what is recommended. Until I got my ebike I would ride for say 3 to 4 hours averaging 176 bpm across the ride with peaks pushing 205 to 210. Oh, I'm 52. My recommended "max" iusing standard guidelines is 168. That's a joke and my Dr says I run around 20 bpm faster than average due to genetics. But still, its high... I started to wear the HR monitor to limit my peaks to 195.. 

Now with the eMTB, my average would still be up in the 170 ish level but the peaks are gone. The ride is more "level" with less variability in HR intensity and that puts me less into the anaerobic zone. Eliminating that zone eliminates the burn out while I still get a similar carbo intensity.

Sure I can do rides with less intensity where my average HR is more like 145 to 150, but there I don't feel like I am working out at all. I've trained by body to work at a certain average intensity and I ride at that level be it on a regular bike or e-bike.


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

chiefsilverback said:


> I'd be interested to see the segment times/speeds and where the ebike made the most difference. My guess, without know what trails you were riding/type of terrain etc... is that it's on the 'mellow' parts. Looking the GPS data from the ride I referenced there was a 3 mile section of pretty much double track climbing 300' and I was averaging about 9.5mph. On an ebike I'm guessing I could have easily cranked sections of that up to 15mph and that would have lifted my overall average considerably, but once I was back into the rock rooty stuff I bet the benefit of the ebike would be far less impressive?


The riding was on a twisty single track up and down a midwest ski hill. Short sharp climbs and short descents and a lot of braking into tight corners and accelerating out. 

Where the e-assist comes into play more is the acceleration out of the tight corners. It makes the trail come much more alive and makes it feel much quicker even though the average is not that much more but as soon as you are getting up to speed then you are often hitting brakes again for the next turn. 

On long straight(ish) fire roads or uphill single track that has plenty of visibility, openness and lack of turns then yes, I can see the eMTB being considerably faster on those sections.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Roaming50 said:


> Or I might be 52 years old that likes to ride but found that no matter what I do my leg'e endurance has suffered over the last 5 years. This year I'm up to 3,000 miles and 137,000 ft of climbing - not too bad for someone that lives in a flat state.


If it’s suffering that much, id recommend seeing a doctor.


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

fly4130 said:


> Weight and power output are two different things,


Ok, I misread your post - I saw weight...

Still, I would say that 500w is not accurate. eMTB are limited by law to 1hp which is 250w (or so I've read). Yes, it can push out more power than that, but not sustained. What I find with my eMTB is that power delivery through the ground is actually more gentle in most cases than with my regular bike. Carrying speed and having the assist with over run allows you to carry over technical/loose uphill sections more easily where on a regular bike you are more likely to be standing and grunting, potentially slipping out and wheel spinning. 

Have I spun out my back wheel with power delivery on my eMTB? Sure I have, I will not lie but I have see less spin out and less potential for erosion than with my regular bike as well.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

chiefsilverback said:


> On a smooth trail a class 1 eMTB will let you pedal up to 20mph, but that's not the same as sending a DH course at 20mph. I think on the 'straightaways' on the World Cup courses they can hit 50mph, but their average speed for the course is nowhere near that fast. If you point any bike down a hill and don't touch the brake it will easily hit 20mph, but most of us don't have the skill or the courage to try!


I should have clarified. I'm talking about XC riding or racing. 20 mph in through that lens is insane. DH is a completely different world that I know absolutely nothing about.

20 mph on the road is the pace of A groups. So we have people on the trails that can pedal assisted as some of the fittest people ride their bikes on open roads.


----------



## buumer (Jul 8, 2020)

Roaming50 said:


> Non issue. You can't single out eMTB with aggressive tire any more than you can single out a heavy rider.
> 
> I weigh 162 lbs. My eMTB is 46 lbs. Let's add 10lbs for clothes/water etc and my system weight is 218 lbs. Now, lets say a pretty average American is 180 lbs (I'm being generous here), riding an aggressive trail bike around 32 lbs (many get heavier than this). With the same 10 lbs for "stuff" that system weight is 222 lbs. That's really no different , yet you would have no concern about that rider. Heck, that may be you?


Overall weight may be a factor in trail erosion, but it’s the power output combined with weight and aggressive tires thats the bigger question.

I haven’t maintained trails in years, but I am at least aware of the challenges that trails around this area have with erosion from riding (especially in the wet). There should be more understanding around the impact of emtb on longevity of trails - or is that a contentious statement?


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

buumer said:


> Overall weight may be a factor in trail erosion, but it’s the power output combined with weight and aggressive tires thats the bigger question.
> 
> I haven’t maintained trails in years, but I am at least aware of the challenges that trails around this area have with erosion from riding (especially in the wet). There should be more understanding around the impact of emtb on longevity of trails - or is that a contentious statement?


I don’t think power is so much of an issue directly. But there is one aspect of EMTB that I believe will impact the trail and that is in corners. An EMTB rider tends to carry more speed into a corner and unless there’s a trail feature, like a rock or tree that prevents the rider from drifting wide, then I believe there will be natural erosion on the outside of the corner to make it flow faster.

I’m guilty with this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

Roaming50 said:


> Still, I would say that 500w is not accurate. eMTB are limited by law to 1hp which is 250w (or so I've read).




1hp=750w


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

RickBullottaPA said:


> And around here, equestrians riding on soft trails do more damage than any other user group.


By me it is the Fish n Game Wardens driving their 6k lbs trucks all over the "ecological reserve" and total lack of maintenance for erosion control that causes the most damage. Horses can't come close to the damage from an F150.....


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Rod said:


> 20 mph on the road is the pace of A groups. So we have people on the trails that can pedal assisted as some of the fittest people ride their bikes on open roads.


With class 2 ebikes they don't even need to pedal, just press a button and off they go at 20mph!


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> Good point but in terms of MTB doesn't the trail tend to dictate the max speed? I'm not super fit by any means, but I'm probably faster than a good % of 'normal' riders and I was able to average 8.5mph on a 15 mile ride around some local trails recently with average speeds for different trail segments ranging from 6mph to 12mph, the slower being really rough, technical stuff where you literally couldn't ride a 20, or even 15mph...


Sure, but when the trail allows good sight lines you can hit nearly 20mph climbing a grade that most people can only do at 3mph.... I know because I tested this myself on a friends Levo. I rode a loop on my bike, got off and did the same loop on his Levo. My downhill time was only a few seconds slower on the eBike and that is probably because it was my first time riding it ever. My total climb time to get back to the top was 3 times faster. I documented it all in a thread on this site because I was tired of the eBikers telling me that Class 1 bikes are "not THAT much faster" - some even tried to keep making that false claim after being presented with my findings...... they really just need to own that the reason they love riding their eBike is because they are so stinking fast. The acceleration is addictive.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Klurejr said:


> Sure, but when the trail allows good sight lines you can hit nearly 20mph climbing a grade that most people can only do at 3mph.... I know because I tested this myself on a friends Levo. I rode a loop on my bike, got off and did the same loop on his Levo. My downhill time was only a few seconds slower on the eBike and that is probably because it was my first time riding it ever. My total climb time to get back to the top was 3 times faster. I documented it all in a thread on this site because I was tired of the eBikers telling me that Class 1 bikes are "not THAT much faster" - some even tried to keep making that false claim after being presented with my findings...... they really just need to own that the reason they love riding their eBike is because they are so stinking fast. The acceleration is addictive.


BTW, after riding his Levo I was so much reminded of my dirtbike days I instantly decided I wanted one.

Another close friend who I ride with sold his Vespa and bought a Commencel(spelling?) eBike and is all grins and has been riding it all the time because it is "so fast on the climbs" to quote him. He is trying to convince me to sell one of my street motorcycles to buy an eBike.

I really do want one, and I want one because they are so fast on the climbs......


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Klurejr said:


> BTW, after riding his Levo I was so much reminded of my dirtbike days I instantly decided I wanted one.
> 
> Another close friend who I ride with sold his Vespa and bought a Commencel(spelling?) eBike and is all grins and has been riding it all the time because it is "so fast on the climbs" to quote him. He is trying to convince me to sell one of my street motorcycles to buy an eBike.
> 
> I really do want one, and I want one because they are so fast on the climbs......


I can definitely see myself having one in the future, especially something like the Rise, although my wife might get one before I do, but I do love a punishing climb!


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> I can definitely see myself having one in the future, especially something like the Rise, although my wife might get one before I do, but I do love a punishing climb!


I see a place in the stable for both bikes really.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> With class 2 ebikes they don't even need to pedal, just press a button and off they go at 20mph!


And really, once BikesforPeople has sold everyone a class 1 ebike, will they then move to "allow class 2 ebikes wherever class 1 are allowed"? You can make the exact same arguments for allowing them everywhere.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

chazpat said:


> And really, once BikesforPeople has sold everyone a class 1 ebike, will they then move to "allow class 2 ebikes wherever class 1 are allowed"? You can make the exact same arguments for allowing them everywhere.


From the outset my concern has been lumping class 1, 2 and 3 together under the 'ebike' moniker, if it's got a throttle then it should be treated as an entirely different type of transportation device and land managers can ban anything with a throttle.


----------



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

chiefsilverback said:


> From the outset my concern has been lumping class 1, 2 and 3 together under the 'ebike' moniker, if it's got a throttle then it should be treated as an entirely different type of transportation device and land managers can ban anything with a throttle.



Is there a regulation that determines how much pedal power the rider needs to provide to get full motor assist?


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

chiefsilverback said:


> From the outset my concern has been lumping class 1, 2 and 3 together under the 'ebike' moniker, if it's got a throttle then it should be treated as an entirely different type of transportation device and land managers can ban anything with a throttle.


Why the difference? 

3/4 of the "pro" arguments here would apply to throttle bikes or not. Pinky swears that they personally ride slow and dubious claims about erosion (avoiding the main user conflict regarding speed differential between mixed groups). Nevermind legal entanglements regarding conservation easements, titled/deeded land use restriction and wild life/habitat preservation... anyway class 1,2,3 is complete synthetic and exists only to conflate eBikes to human powered at some disingenuous level.

We venture off the rez a bit jumping to erosion arguments but that's a topic further down the line tho - capability (eg; how easy eBikes are) will inspire directional use changes which will have an impact on trails conditions.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

chiefsilverback said:


> With class 2 ebikes they don't even need to pedal, just press a button and off they go at 20mph!


I know! I'm familiar with those as well. A family member in bama has one. She rides it when I bring my road bike down. It tops out around 20 mph. I know everyone loves hating on ebikes, but it gives us an opportunity to ride together while I still get in a workout. Her battery would safely last around 30 miles in high, 40 tops.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

chazpat said:


> The rest of the world figured out class 1 ebikes should be limited to 15.5 mph. The US didn't. 20mph is significantly faster. But an easier sell for the manufacturers.


c'mon, 4.5 mph isn't "significant". and nobody is riding their ebike at 20mph on single-track trails, well maybe downhill but only where analog bikes do too. The only place I hit the limiter is on flat or downhill roads.


.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> c'mon, 4.5 mph isn't "significant". and nobody is riding their ebike at 20mph on single-track trails, well maybe downhill but only where analog bikes do too. The only place I hit the limiter is on flat or downhill roads.


I did and I posted the numbers to prove it. It was a freaking blast and I want to do it again.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

chiefsilverback said:


> If you point any bike down a hill and don't touch the brake it will easily hit 20mph,


Gravity assist! Cheaters! These contraptions must be regulated! Speed must be limited! It's unsafe and unsustainable!


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> From the outset my concern has been lumping class 1, 2 and 3 together under the 'ebike' moniker, if it's got a throttle then it should be treated as an entirely different type of transportation device and land managers can ban anything with a throttle.


On a technical level Class 1 has a throttle, it is a pedal activated throttle, but a throttle none the less. The terminology would need to be specific to identify hand activated twist or Thumb throttle. After riding a Class 1 eBike the only difference between the two is that a pedal activated throttle will give the rider more exercise, and I guess one could argue that a Class 2 bike would be easier to do burnouts with......


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

chiefsilverback said:


> I can definitely see myself having one in the future, especially something like the Rise, although my wife might get one before I do, but I do love a punishing climb!


The Rise is a good bike and you can still get a punishing climb in. Ride it with the motor off for real punishment! LOL. Riding in ECO gives you a good workout still but it is like every trail is just a few degrees less steep. Uphill is still uphill. That 20% grade will still feel very steep, but that 3-5% grade will now feel like riding on the flat. The flat will feel like a strong breeze over your shoulder and well and down hill is a down hill; don't really need a motor for that.

Ride in ECO until you're tired (like a regular ride), then you can put it into TRAIL and do another lap... When you get tired on that, put it into BOOST and ride more for a final fast lap. A system where you might have one 2-3 laps you now might do 4-5 laps. It's addictive and you'll probably be surprised at your workout while enjoying yourself.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Lol. 30% faster. Yeah, barely a thing. You guys are unreal with these arguments.

I hate referencing the rarified air of elite athletes. The "better outlaw Nino! he goes fast" crybabies... like the tiny fraction of elite level riders means squat vs. masses being able reach high speeds with barely an effort.... Anyway:

Val di Sole XC World Cup 2022, where the absolute best and most fit riders are featured (on a closed course!) had the male winning (6 laps of 4.3km) - or: 16miles in a time of 1:22 resulting in *11.65* miles/hour. Yeah, you guys are def riding regular bikes over 15mph as matter of course. Better sign up for some world cups, sounds like your wins are in the bag! Maybe another way of looking at is: ebikes top out at nearly 2X the best in the world.

From here:





__





Loading…






www.pinkbike.com













All you need to know about the UCI Mountain Bike World Cup in Val di Sole


Get up to speed with all the essential information ahead of the last round of the 2022 UCI Downhill and Cross-Country Mountain Bike World Cup in Val di Sole, Italy.




www.redbull.com


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

_CJ said:


> c'mon, 4.5 mph isn't "significant". and nobody is riding their ebike at 20mph on single-track trails, well maybe downhill but only where analog bikes do too. The only place I hit the limiter is on flat or downhill roads.
> .


A 30% increase in speed isn't significant?


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

Carl Mega said:


> Lol. 30% faster. Yeah, barely a thing. You guys are unreal with these arguments.
> 
> I hate referencing the rarified air of elite athletes. The "better outlaw Nino! he goes fast" crybabies... like the tiny fraction of elite level riders means squat vs. masses being able reach high speeds with barely an effort.... Anyway:
> 
> Val di Sole XC World Cup 2022, where the absolute best and most fit riders are featured (on a closed course!) had the male winning (6 laps of 4.3km) - or: 16miles in a time of 1:22 resulting in *11.65* miles/hour. Yeah, you guys are def riding regular bikes over 15mph as matter of course. Better sign up for some world cups, sounds like your wins are in the bag! Maybe another way of looking at is: ebikes top out at nearly 2X the best in the world.


It would be interesting their times on an eMTB. I bet it would not be significantly faster. Again, once you get to the power capabilities of these athletes the times are more dictated by course design. Would they be 30% faster? Doubt it.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Roaming50 said:


> The Rise is a good bike and you can still get a punishing climb in. Ride it with the motor off for real punishment! LOL. Riding in ECO gives you a good workout still but it is like every trail is just a few degrees less steep. Uphill is still uphill. That 20% grade will still feel very steep, but that 3-5% grade will now feel like riding on the flat. The flat will feel like a strong breeze over your shoulder and well and down hill is a down hill; don't really need a motor for that.
> 
> Ride in ECO until you're tired (like a regular ride), then you can put it into TRAIL and do another lap... When you get tired on that, put it into BOOST and ride more for a final fast lap. A system where you might have one 2-3 laps you now might do 4-5 laps. It's addictive and you'll probably be surprised at your workout while enjoying yourself.


But all those extra laps don't increase trail damage? 

Obviously I don't really know your situation but from a lot of what you have posted, it doesn't sound like you "need" an ebike, you're not overweight (unless you're really short) and you're not that old, sounds more like it's just what you want to ride.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Roaming50 said:


> It would be interesting their times on an eMTB. I bet it would not be significantly faster. Again, once you get to the power capabilities of these athletes the times are more dictated by course design. Would they be 30% faster? Doubt it.


The issue I saw with your other post and this one is that the overall ride is not much faster due to the downhill times being just about equal. If you took note of just the climbs and compared the times you will find the times are 2-3 times faster when using boost mode. Obviously that can be adjusted any way the rider sees fit if they do the climbs in Eco or trail instead of boost and put in less effort.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

chazpat said:


> But all those extra laps don't increase trail damage?


Technically, yes.

Realistically it is not going to be of significance when Horses, Rain and trucks do more damage than MTB's or class 1 eMTB's running extra laps will ever do.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Roaming50 said:


> It would be interesting their times on an eMTB. I bet it would not be significantly faster. Again, once you get to the power capabilities of these athletes the times are more dictated by course design. Would they be 30% faster? Doubt it.


Lets do: some regular ppl on regular bikes vs. what they can do on an ebike. Way the F faster. You guys have to be kidding me. Do you think we haven't ridden these? Such nonsense.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

Roaming50 said:


> It would be interesting their times on an eMTB. I bet it would not be significantly faster. Again, once you get to the power capabilities of these athletes the times are more dictated by course design. Would they be 30% faster? Doubt it.


The real issue is an average Joe can now ride these speeds on trails open to the public. User conflict is the obvious outcome and the blowback associated with it. I don't have the answers. I just see the red flags. All it takes is one rotten apple.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Rod said:


> But the real issue is an average Joe can now do these speeds on trails open to the public and the exact opposite situation of a closed course. User conflict is the obvious outcome and the blowback associated with it.


That is true. The proliferation of eMTB's is still waaaay below that of street use eBikes, but the pattern has been set. eBikes on the street have blown up in the more affluent and populated places and this increase in use has led to conflict and a major increase in deaths, especially among very young riders. 

I don't think we are seeing major conflicts on the trails(like we do on the streets) due to the fact that eMTB's are more expensive than street style ones and they are really still the exception and not the rule when it comes to bikes on the trails.









Aliso Viejo to Enforce New Regulations on E-bikes


At the Sept. 21 meeting, the City Council approved an ordinance allowing law enforcement to cite illegally operated motorized transportation.




voiceofoc.org













Teen bicyclist seriously injured after colliding with an Amazon delivery van


The teen was on an e-bike when he collided with an Amazon delivery van at the intersection of San Elijo Road and Elfin Forest Road




www.sandiegouniontribune.com













Emergency declared for bike, e-bike, traffic safety


  View this email in your web browser City of Carlsbad declares state of emergency for bike, e-bike, traffic safety Citing a 233% increase in collisions involving bikes and e-bikes since 2019, the Cit



myemail.constantcontact.com


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

chazpat said:


> But all those extra laps don't increase trail damage?
> 
> Obviously I don't really know your situation but from a lot of what you have posted, it doesn't sound like you "need" an ebike, you're not overweight (unless you're really short) and you're not that old, sounds more like it's just what you want to ride.


There is no need, only want!

Seriously though, do I need an eMTB? No, not really. But after buying an e-gravel bike (for other safety reasons), being seduced by that and then renting a Trek Rail 7 in Bentonville and being further seduced by that, I then "did the talk" with my spouse and bought one.. Consider it "mental wellness".

There is one distinct health advantage that people overlook and became very apparent after getting en eMTB. In my early 40s I would ride 40 miles and do 4000ft on a single ride. Now in my early 50s I can do 25 miles and around 2000ft in a ride before my legs cramp and/or blow up. I still consider myself pretty fit and active and better than the vast majority of 50+ year olds out there, but also know many 50+ riders that are still much fitter than me. However I can't defy the fact that my endurance has waned and I am slower which puts pressure on time away to get a ride in.

What I discovered is that with the eMTB the tiredness I get as I reach that 20-25 mile point is not there now so I can continue and push those longer rides, but that loss of tiredness has a strong safety effect. Before eMTB, I was finding that my ability to ride technical terrain was falling off as I got tired. I would opt for walking rather than riding, or I would ride and occasionally crash as I misjudge something. Kind of like riding while drunk or extremely tired. You lose focus and the risk of injury goes up. With the eMTB that has gone away (though there has been some other learning in handling a 46 lb bike as opposed to a 28 lb bike).

Now, the bike makes me feel like I am in my mid/late 20s again. I'm not concerned about distance or amount of feet to climb as I ride in a more eco setting and then save some boost for exploration or a fast lap at the end. That's good as I like to ride different systems sight unseen so I am never 100% on what a ride is going to be.

"Game changer" is over used but an eMTB really is. I have a regular CX bike, a fat bike and two regular mountain bikes. I now have a e-gravel bike and an eMTB. I will never buy a regular bike again.

Luckily Wisconsin is really chill on eMTB. The State declared class-1 as being a regular bike. I get lots of positive questions about my Rise and mostly hear the comment that is is not if someone will get one but when..

As much as the ebike haters make a stink, eMTB is only going to grow. It's inevitable.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Klurejr said:


> Technically, yes.
> 
> Realistically it is not going to be of significance when Horses, Rain and trucks do more damage than MTB's or class 1 eMTB's running extra laps will ever do.


They don't allow trucks on the trails I ride! Most don't allow horses, though it's not posted, probably way too many trail users for the horse folks to want to ride them. We do get rain, though.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

Klurejr said:


> That is true. The proliferation of eMTB's is still waaaay below that of street use eBikes, but the pattern has been set. eBikes on the street have blown up in the more affluent and populated places and this increase in use has led to conflict and a major increase in deaths, especially among very young riders.
> 
> I don't think we are seeing major conflicts on the trails(like we do on the streets) due to the fact that eMTB's are more expensive than street style ones and they are really still the exception and not the rule when it comes to bikes on the trails.
> 
> ...


Agreed. When I visited D.C. this summer I couldn't believe all of the ebikes that I saw. They were ubiquitous. I've seen only a few on the trail when I was visiting a mtb destination.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Roaming50 said:


> There is no need, only want!
> 
> Seriously though, do I need an eMTB? No, not really. But after buying an e-gravel bike (for other safety reasons), being seduced by that and then renting a Trek Rail 7 in Bentonville and being further seduced by that, I then "did the talk" with my spouse and bought one.. Consider it "mental wellness".
> 
> ...


That's pretty much why I bought a gravel bike, it is my long distance exploring bike and I take it way beyond the gravel a lot of the time. It's hard to get big mileage mountain biking around here unless you repeat trails. I'm 59 btw.


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> If you took note of just the climbs and compared the times you will find the times are 2-3 times faster when using boost mode.


I don't disagree with you here. I can definitely do say 9-10mph uphill in a section were before I might have been going 3-4 mph. And I can hit 15+ mph uphill on flowy sections I know whereas before it might have been 7-8 mph. The eMTB can be significantly fast where the trail is of the condition that it allows you to "stretch the legs" so to speak. 

But, in all my riding, the overall time of a ride is not significantly faster. This is usually because of trail conditions and a certain amount of self preservation (not wanting to hit a tree at 20+). It's also the number one rule of "not being a dick around others" when you come across other riders. Like everything it is wrong to cherry pick small sections to look at. You need to consider the overall picture in the jigsaw of opinions 😁


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Roaming50 said:


> As much as the ebike haters make a stink, eMTB is only going to grow. It's inevitable.


All the more reason to have a sensible appreciation of the capability and impacts of these motorized products so that coherent policies can be enacted that consider the interests of all trail users and habitat.

It ain't all about you.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

The e-bikes go too fast seems like a red herring to me. I get all passed all the time on climbs by them on my local ride (where they are not legal). I am lugging along at 4-6 mph, they are hauling ass at 8-10 mph, hardly a high speed event. Do they cause more wear on the trails, yes, if the same person is going three laps instead of one, there is more wear. Are there idiots that ride them, yes, but there are idiots on regular bikes, foot, and horses also. In fairness, the only ones I have been seeing are Class 1 bikes, no true emotos to date.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Roaming50 said:


> I don't disagree with you here. I can definitely do say 9-10mph uphill in a section were before I might have been going 3-4 mph. And I can hit 15+ mph uphill on flowy sections I know whereas before it might have been 7-8 mph. The eMTB can be significantly fast where the trail is of the condition that it allows you to "stretch the legs" so to speak.
> 
> But, in all my riding, the overall time of a ride is not significantly faster. *This is usually because of trail conditions and a certain amount of self preservation (not wanting to hit a tree at 20+). It's also the number one rule of "not being a dick around others" when you come across other riders*. Like everything it is wrong to cherry pick small sections to look at. You need to consider the overall picture in the jigsaw of opinions 😁


How does one educate all the newbies on Trail etiquette?

That is where I have personally seen the trail conflict between eBikers and regular MTB's on my local trails. I am not in the best shape and have always been a slow climber, but I can still outclimb a Newbie on a regular MTB. A newbie on an eMTB will blast past me without a bell or call-out and ride off the trail to go around me.

Trail conflict is not coming from experienced Mountain Bikers who learned Etiquette pedaling and moved on to a eBike. Trail conflict is coming from riders new to the sport who are starting on an eMTB.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

chazpat said:


> They don't allow trucks on the trails I ride! Most don't allow horses, though it's not posted, probably way too many trail users for the horse folks to want to ride them. We do get rain, though.


well there should not be trucks in the local Ecological Reserve, but some nut jobs at the Sierra Club put a ton of lobbying pressure on CDFW to get more enforcement and when the Game Wardens head out to patrol they do not go on foot, the drive their trucks..... it is the most backward rationality I have ever seen from an agency that is supposed to protecting a resource..... And they wonder why everyone ignores the signs and rides there anyway. They hypocrisy is thick enough to cut with a knife.

To answer your question though I was just pointing out that in many trail systems there are plenty of other factors that do more to cause erosion and trail damage that have a much bigger impact than an eBike doing a couple extra laps.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Wow, the false equivalencies, and slippery slope arguments are abound in this thread.....yet, none of these things has transpired in places where class 1 have been given equal access to traditional MTB's, for years.

You guys just need to step back, maybe consult a therapist, and let people enjoy themselves without being so judgmental.


.


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

Cary said:


> Do they cause more wear on the trails, yes, if the same person is going three laps instead of one, there is more wear.


What if I promise to not repeat a trail?


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

Carl Mega said:


> All the more reason to have a sensible appreciation of the capability and impacts of these motorized products so that coherent policies can be enacted that consider the interests of all trail users and habitat.


I totally agree. There needs to be a coherent set of policies so that as ebike usage grows (which it will) that land managers know what they are dealing with for unambiguous application and enforcement of the law.

I believe that the policy of declaring Class-1 MTB as regular bikes would be a big step forward in this regards. Throttle assist is completely different and should never have been classified as class-2 in my opinion. That leads to confusion. Throttle should be reserved for pave paths only or true Moto-trails. Class-3 (which I also have) should be allowed on all paved bike trails and long distance MUP as well as road obviously by default. For single-track that could be left to the local jurisdiction but I would imagine most would prohibit them. Having ridden my class-3 Creo on a class-1 single track I would say that speed is not the issue. It was slower than using my regular mountain bike as class-3 only come in road-bike/commuter configurations and don't handle single-track all that well, so not really an issue.

I said Wisconsin (in a prior post) was pretty chill but actually it is a **** show. The state declared all ebikes (class 1, 2 and 3) as regular bikes, but then state forests still consider FS rules and don't allow ebikes except for those long distance MUP. Then again there is no enforcement so you can ride your class-1 pretty much with immunity. Then at the county level, county parks have their own rules. Most allow class-1 (which is good as these are some of the best system) but some do not. Then within the counties you get city parks which have their own rules again. Most cities do not have a distinct policy and so defer to the state level so all ebikes; class 1,2 and 3 are allowed. But then cities, like Milwaukee allow any type of ebike but have a 15 mph speed limit rule, which is hilarious as I will regularly ride my class-3 Creo at 22-25mph on it (BTW with wind resistance, unless you are going downhill it is actually hard to pedal at 28 mph). Finally there are private systems, like ski resorts, of which those that I have used allow eMTB class 1.

So in general, Wisconsin has a cluster**k of rules but no enforcement and everyone is chill about it. But I guess authorities could draw on the rules if there was an issue, like a rider/hiker collision. This basically puts responsibility of the ebike rider to be a good citizen so there is no need to enforce any rules.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

_CJ said:


> Wow, the false equivalencies, and slippery slope arguments are abound in this thread.....yet, none of these things has transpired in places where class 1 have been given equal access to traditional MTB's, for years.
> 
> You guys just need to step back, maybe consult a therapist, and let people enjoy themselves without being so judgmental.
> 
> ...


I take it you are already actively working locally on land-use advocacy for e-bikes then.


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

Ban throttle assist "bikes" everywhere...there I said it.


----------



## Dan Zulu (Jul 5, 2008)

_CJ said:


> Laws can be passed at the Federal level that supersede lower levels of state, county, city, etc. Same goes for state laws over local. Feds also have powerful incentives they can use over states, like funding for public lands, etc.
> 
> Will that happen? Probably not given the current state of American politics, and the inability of the two party system to agree on anything.
> 
> ...


The federal government cannot preempt state law on every issue. There must be a clear grant of authority to the federal government in the US Constitution. The states are the opposite, they have general police powers to regulate anything unless a constitutional limit applies, or a federal power preempts it.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Dan Zulu said:


> The federal government cannot preempt state law on every issue. There must be a clear grant of authority to the federal government in the US Constitution. The states are the opposite, they have general police powers to regulate anything unless a constitutional limit applies, or a federal power preempts it.


It's amazing, to me, how few people understand how this works


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> How does one educate all the newbies on Trail etiquette?
> 
> That is where I have personally seen the trail conflict between eBikers and regular MTB's on my local trails. I am not in the best shape and have always been a slow climber, but I can still outclimb a Newbie on a regular MTB. A newbie on an eMTB will blast past me without a bell or call-out and ride off the trail to go around me.
> 
> Trail conflict is not coming from experienced Mountain Bikers who learned Etiquette pedaling and moved on to a eBike. Trail conflict is coming from riders new to the sport who are starting on an eMTB.


Very valid question. 

It's not one specific to eMTB riders though but to all riders, regular bikes and assisted. I'm pretty certain that in the early 90s I was considered a menace to the other trail users of the day as a new 20-something mountain bike rider. With experience, interaction and reading books (pre-internet) with MTB etiquette rules and how-to, I learned to behave myself and today I try to set a good example (in most cases 😉).

Some systems I've been to have a gateway to the trail system and on that gateway they have information and etiquette rules. I think for bigger, more populate systems that is a start as long as newbies read those rules.

Still, I've no real answers for you. How do you train anyone to do anything?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Bikeventures said:


> Ban throttle assist "bikes" everywhere...there I said it.


include those where the pedals are the Throttle?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

dysfunction said:


> I take it you are already actively working locally on land-use advocacy for e-bikes then.


doubtful. from many interactions with CJ I have learned he lives in a small town with low population, rides in JeffCo where they have directional trails and alternating hiker only and biker only days on other trails. He sees no concflicts because hte population is low and the trail systems are well managed with incredibly good rules to specifically prevent conflict. 

Rose Colored Glasses from here he sits.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Roaming50 said:


> How do you train anyone to do anything?


I have an answer that People for bikes and most eBike riders will hate.

Require a license for anything with a motor. At the very least require a safety course with some sort of identification you completed it.
Require registration and insurance for anything with a motor that is operated on city streets.

Enforce these rules.

That will work. Get caught without your license or certificate, get a fine and your bike confiscated...... all of a sudden learning and performing proper trail etiquette off-road and proper use On-road becomes a priority.

The motor changes things. I know this from riding one. It is not the same experience for a brand new rider that jumps on a pedal MTB vs one who jumps on an eBike for the first time. Newbies on mountain bikes are pushing their bikes up the harder climbs, not blowing by others and going off trail, not digging ruts by trying to ride up lines not designed for uphill use. Newbies on pedal bikes on city streets don't try to "make the yellow" from a false sense of ability without a motor pushing them along.


Do I think for one second my idea will ever gain traction, not at all, it is too far-fetched and restrictive for all those who believe "freedom of MERICA" means not having to abide by general etiquette and rules.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> doubtful. from many interactions with CJ I have learned he lives in a small town with low population, rides in JeffCo where they have directional trails and alternating hiker only and biker only days on other trails. He sees no concflicts because hte population is low and the trail systems are well managed with incredibly good rules to specifically prevent conflict.
> 
> Rose Colored Glasses from here he sits.


Well, then I got zero sympathy


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Wow, the false equivalencies, and slippery slope arguments are abound in this thread.....yet, none of these things has transpired in places where class 1 have been given equal access to traditional MTB's, for years.
> 
> You guys just need to step back, maybe consult a therapist, and let people enjoy themselves without being so judgmental.





d365 said:


> They allow class1 on our local trail. So far, 2 out of the 10 that I've seen were not class1.
> 
> But sure.... no issues.....


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> include those where the pedals are the Throttle?


Cmon you know what I mean. Hand throttles. Power activated by device on handlebar where no pedaling is required.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Roaming50 said:


> I believe that the policy of declaring Class-1 MTB as regular bikes would be a big step forward in this regards. Throttle assist is completely different and should never have been classified as class-2 in my opinion. That leads to confusion. .... For single-track that could be left to the local jurisdiction but I would imagine most would prohibit them.


Here's where you and I differ. Class 1 are not regular bikes and should not be given carte blanche equivalence to human power. They are undeniably much faster for virtually every user. Area by area at the behest of the land managers who consider public appetite, suitability and legality. 

The speed differential is legit and not every trail area can accommodate faster users en mass without mitigation and enforcement. The viability of that varies wildly between agencies.

I do personally believe class 1 will have a widespread adoption in systems but it is plain and obvious that some areas are overrun and already ruining foot traffic use ...faster motorized bikes are going to accelerate and aggravate those conflicts. 

Further, every argument you made in this thread (ex. aging out of your past abilities) could be applied to Class 2 and Class 3. As an observation from someone who uses/advocates for motorized use trails, I find it sort of funny that low power motorized users so easily distance themselves from slightly more powerful motorized ones and completely disown the existing moto base. You've already crossed the dividing line - welcome to the club. I leave you with this: one of the biggest mistakes in moto advocacy was the delusional denial of the capability of the machines and the impacts. That headstrong denial, led to rebellious poaching and a terse relationship with land managers because the user group couldn't be trusted to operate in good faith. It's taken decades to regain footing... but trust, don't squander it on ridiculous notions.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Bikeventures said:


> Cmon you know what I mean. Hand throttles. Power activated by device on handlebar where no pedaling is required.


yes I know what you mean, just playing devils advocate because a throttle is a throttle where activated by turning a wrist, pushing a thumb button or moving a foot.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Roaming50 said:


> Very valid question.
> 
> It's not one specific to eMTB riders though but to all riders, regular bikes and assisted. I'm pretty certain that in the early 90s I was considered a menace to the other trail users of the day as a new 20-something mountain bike rider. With experience, interaction and reading books (pre-internet) with MTB etiquette rules and how-to, I learned to behave myself and today I try to set a good example (in most cases 😉).
> 
> ...


That SHOULD work but the truth is, very few people read signs.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

Klurejr said:


> How does one educate all the newbies on Trail etiquette?


When they pass me climbing without calling out, I just shove a stick in their spokes. I don't know if it is effective, as I keep riding while they are getting up. 


In all seriousness, like many things, I am pretty much past the people passing without calling out and not knowing some of the etiquette, it is the seeming need to blast electronic music from some Bluetooth speaker while in the woods that drives me crazy.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Cary said:


> In all seriousness, like many things, I am pretty much past the people passing without calling out and not knowing some of the etiquette,


but when riders start doing that and begin widening the trails, how do the land managers react to trail damage that causes erosion problems? just looking the other way does not always work


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

dysfunction said:


> I take it you are already actively working locally on land-use advocacy for e-bikes then.


Locally, regionally, and nationally.


.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> I have an answer that People for bikes and most eBike riders will hate.
> 
> Require a license for anything with a motor. At the very least require a safety course with some sort of identification you completed it.
> Require registration and insurance for anything with a motor that is operated on city streets.
> ...


Permission slips for everyone!!! Hey boy, you got a license for them sneakers? 

Jesus, the authoritarianism is strong with this one.

For the record, Most states have already defined ebikes (Class 1, 2, 3) as "non-motorized", and therefore can't require a license, registration, etc.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

dysfunction said:


> Well, then I got zero sympathy


Don't believe everything you read.

.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

_CJ said:


> Don't believe everything you read.
> 
> .


I'm sure you understand why I would feel this way though.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Permission slips for everyone!!! Hey boy, you got a license for them sneakers?
> 
> Jesus, the authoritarianism is strong with this one.
> 
> For the record, Most states have already defined ebikes (Class 1, 2, 3) as "non-motorized", and therefore can't require a license, registration, etc.


Yeah, let's just file that under "You can keep that crap in CA".
It's not really a big problem for most of 'Merica. Ya'll are special over there.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

If i get someone from another state, will i have a National Org?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I just read through the article _CJ linked. It includes this:

_However, suppliers of Class 2 bikes were less pleased. “Despite consumer demand to the contrary, the industry and cycling advocacy groups continue to demonstrate favoritism for Class 1 electric bicycles while simultaneously promoting inclusion,” said Don DiCostanzo, the founder and CEO of Pedego. 

“There is no rational reason to exclude Class 2 electric bicycles anywhere Class 1 are allowed unless the goal is to promote exclusion.” Pedego sells its e-bikes, which are mostly Class 2, through over 200 licensed retailers in the U.S. 

Proponents of Class 2 say the throttle allows riders to more easily get started from a stop. It generally is also a less expensive technology. _


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Klurejr said:


> I have an answer that People for bikes and most eBike riders will hate.
> 
> Require a license for anything with a motor. At the very least require a safety course with some sort of identification you completed it.
> Require registration and insurance for anything with a motor that is operated on city streets.
> ...


Similar, but I think in places like Flagstaff, the system needs to become no motorized vehicles and camping (in motorized vehicles) by permit only. The fires they've had over the last 5 years have been absolutely devastating to the trails and ecosystem and somehow it's got to be managed. They usually decide on a "forest-closure" by the time a large part of it is burning down at the same time...but by then it's too late. They simply have to regulate more. Maybe even permits for all the users. There are trails and areas that are permit-only.


----------



## C Smasher (Apr 20, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> That will work. Get caught without your license or certificate, get a fine and your bike confiscated......


In Moab they fine ebike riders 1000$ and confiscate (impound) the bike for riding on non motorized trails


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

Jayem said:


> Similar, but I think in places like Flagstaff, the system needs to become no motorized vehicles and camping (in motorized vehicles) by permit only. The fires they've had over the last 5 years have been absolutely devastating to the trails and ecosystem and somehow it's got to be managed. They usually decide on a "forest-closure" by the time a large part of it is burning down at the same time...but by then it's too late. They simply have to regulate more. Maybe even permits for all the users. There are trails and areas that are permit-only.


Today should be interesting for this thread as the “freedom fanatics” put on the eyeblack and get in some good hamstring stretching to do battle with the “authoritarian a__holes.”

What defines a legitimate need for regulation/governance or a change in it?

This is so much more provocative (and fun) when phrased, “how do you feel about eliminating personal freedoms?” Now THAT would be an interesting thread topic. 

However phrased, this is an important question for the country right now (replace e-bikes with guns and we can kill this thread in a nanobot second, and yes, we did this before - probability theory suggests also in an e-bike thread). 

From an academic perspective, Jayem nails it: 

1. It’s part ‘situational’…:unique circumstances that cause outsize risk and or cost (“these places” = lots of combustible material AND spark/heat producing equipment)

2. …and ‘material’: - those risks/costs are prohibitively high (“it’s got to be managed”: fires that are expensive to put out and/or landscape that obviously cannot be easily replaced).

So, if the increased speed that e-MTBs give to the “population of users” sufficiently changes the costs of the “system” (could be trail repair, injury to self or others, the need for more trail, some combo, etc. etc) well then, a “need” for regulation or a change in regulation is “indicated” to maintain the system. 

I doubt anyone seriously questions whether e-bikes change the “governing dynamics” of trail systems. While max speed may still be limited by physical ability (different by bike class) the average speed and the number of users undoubtedly goes up, and therefore with them go “the costs” in the system. 

So, unless we think the system will self-regulate (more trails will just appear AND natural selection will vector certain users to certain trails AND new etiquette will simply evolve), people trained to plan and make decisions about risk management and resource allocation will have to redo the rules (yes, policy making is a discipline - and yes, many who do it professionally seemingly skipped lots of classes). 

Before people lose their minds, I didn’t say what the rules should be. Areas with fewer people and more trails (ie. rural markets)without much rain/erosion, maybe they get by with fewer or no new rules, but everyone else…

Effective governance design must reflect the local market, but very little of human endeavor in modern/complex societies actually self-regulates efficiently and anyone who thinks differently probably also thinks the average Uber driver makes a true $ profit. 

So, should we try this with guns (oh, I mean tools used in some markets to keep wolves from killing livestock and which children learn to use safely and effectively before they can drive the tractor; in other markets they keep human versions of wolves from pillaging; and in still other markets they serve to allow some people who have never felt powerful to feel like Dirty Harry or Chris Kyle - NOT intended to be a comprehensive list of tool utility or markets.

(Yes, Cary, I am testing the feedback loop efficiency of the moderator system!)


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

DGUSMC said:


> Today should be interesting for this thread as the “freedom fanatics” put on the eyeblack and get in some good hamstring stretching to do battle with the “authoritarian a__holes.”
> 
> What defines a legitimate need for regulation/governance or a change in it?
> 
> ...


Stupid comparison, really no one is calling for a complete ban on either item (especially your compared item), just regulation to be sure the items are used properly without causing damage and/or issues for others. BTW, I don't own an ebike, I do own what you're talking about.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

Jayem said:


> I call BS on this. I did an enduro race this summer and my max speed was 27mph. Ive done races above that, but the point is, thats flying, its not “slow”. Checked my peak speed at another race, this one at a bloody steep park, 34mph. Again, 25 aint “slow”.


It's quite fast compared to the rider climbing on the same trail at 3 MPH. My point is that speed differentials exist independent of eMTBs - faster/more fit riders or racers, uphill vs downhill, experience on technical stuff, etc...


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

chazpat said:


> Stupid comparison, really no one is calling for a complete ban on either item (especially your compared item), just regulation to be sure the items are used properly without causing damage and/or issues for others. BTW, I don't own an ebike, I do own what you're talking about.


Interesting. I didn’t mention the word ban nor was I really making a direct comparison. Rather I stated that we would be well served in any debate about regulation, especially the most contentious and passion provoking ones, to start with the purpose of the regulation so we don’t over or under regulate. 

If the risk of fires is too deemed too great in CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES it makes sense to consider limiting things/situations that cause fires, but it would seem silly and be economically inefficient to regulate all camp grounds the same way if they don’t have the same risk for catastrophic fire. 

Some people seem to imply that having an e-bike and a regular bike on the same trail, ANY trail, is a bad idea. That kind of statement or sentiment is hard to deal with objectively from a policy planning perspective unless one lives in a place with plenty of buildable land and a big fat tax base that likes public projects. Similarly, if you’re trying to regulate etiquette vs. say safe use, you’re in a whole different game. That’s all. 

Well, that’s not all, my reference to the other debate was really a frustrated gripe about those who would over simplify complex things to engender tribal hostility rather than foster an honest discussion about what best serves a very diverse society.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

DGUSMC said:


> Today should be interesting for this thread as the “freedom fanatics” put on the eyeblack and get in some good hamstring stretching to do battle with the “authoritarian a__holes.”
> 
> What defines a legitimate need for regulation/governance or a change in it?
> 
> ...


Man, that's a whole lot of speculation. Luckily, we have several models that have already demonstrated that there's no need for additional regulation. They've been treating class 1 the same as traditional bikes, and haven't had any issues directly resulting from ebikes. No additional trail impact, no additional user conflicts, no fires, nothing. The land managers have even published articles saying so. This is true in areas with millions of people (JeffCO), and in rural areas like Colorado state parks, and small towns that defer to Colorado's state regulation on ebikes, and other states like Arkansas.

As I said before, this isn't even in question any more among those actually involved in trail management. The real problem they face is with other user groups (elitist MTB riders included) who _don't like_ ebikes. Fortunately, proper land management isn't based on people's _feelings_. Interestingly, a recent pole of NEMBA's membership found that 50% support ebike access on trails, 30% don't care, and only 20% oppose it. If we ARE going to manage lands based on people's opinions and feelings, I suggest that a 20% elitist minority isn't enough to continue with this denial of access.


.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

^lol. Maybe that poll should include non-bike riding trail users too? Foot users....they're a big lot. They are the ones most impacted. 

FWIW, Jeffco (where I worked for years) has very particular settings and conditions - biggest budget in US, several dozen rangers doing enforcement, probably like 40 seasonal/trail crew members + YHP, very few trail intersections, virtually all alignments with line of sight, directional use, sanctuary hiker only trails, sanctuary hiker only parks, odd/even use days in parks - hiker/biker, odd/even use days on particular trails, night closures - it is all very, very, very highly regulated aimed at reducing conflict. And even with all that, if you talk to the staff there's more to the story than the very carefully worded public facing comments to the effect of 'ebikes haven't introduced new types conflicts they didn't have prior'.

Anyway - eBikes can work. But you need proper consideration of your setting, user base before laying claim to it's all going to be hunky dory. I can think of plenty of flat nexus trails where there's a lot of foot traffic that already terrible conflict points where even the comparatively slow mtb speeds are presently resulting in friction. Easy, boring but heavily trafficked trails with easy access (car to trail) - but they are feeder trails to the rest of the system. 'casual' eBike users can easily dominate an area like that with speed that is 5X the foot traffic - that will result in push back - I guarantee it (because it's already happening now!)


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Where I live, there is practically zero chance of seeing any enforcement whatsoever regarding trail usage, regardless of what anyone puts on paper.
We're not seeing much as far as actual problems aside from a small number of people dealing with terminal butthurt.

That's not just locally, but regionally.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> Where I live, there is practically zero chance of seeing any enforcement whatsoever regarding trail usage, regardless of what anyone puts on paper.
> We're not having any actual problems aside from a small number of people dealing with butthurt.


 Nice! Unfortunately not the same everywhere. We've had spike strips buried in trails around here in the not so distant past.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

DGUSMC said:


> Interesting. I didn’t mention the word ban nor was I really making a direct comparison. Rather I stated that we would be well served in any debate about regulation, especially the most contentious and passion provoking ones, to start with the purpose of the regulation so we don’t over or under regulate.
> 
> If the risk of fires is too deemed too great in CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES it makes sense to consider limiting things/situations that cause fires, but it would seem silly and be economically inefficient to regulate all camp grounds the same way if they don’t have the same risk for catastrophic fire.
> 
> ...


Fair enough, but when you start off with _"This is so much more provocative (and fun) when phrased, “how do you feel about eliminating personal freedoms?” _you've kinda set the tone.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

DGUSMC said:


> Some people seem to imply that having an e-bike and a regular bike on the same trail, ANY trail, is a bad idea. That kind of statement or sentiment is hard to deal with objectively


Huh?

The literal premise of this thread and the accompanying story is that: "Some people are *directly saying* that having an ebike and regular bike on the same trail is always a great idea",


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Interestingly, a recent pole of NEMBA's membership found that 50% support ebike access on trails, 30% don't care, and only 20% oppose it. If we ARE going to manage lands based on people's opinions and feelings, I suggest that a 20% elitist minority isn't enough to continue with this denial of access..


Ok, now poll those people again and ask them "do you support ebike access on all trails throughout the country that allow bicycles?" since that is what this thread is about.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

chazpat said:


> Ok, now poll those people again and ask them "do you support ebike access on all trails throughout the country that allow bicycles?" since that is what this thread is about.


You should ask IMBA to do that. I suspect the results will be the same. Yes, IMBA polled their membership years ago and received a lot of pushback, but so did NEMBA, and their membership's position has evolved. 

This is just dumb. Nobody cares. It's fine.


.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Fortunately, proper land management isn't based on people's _feelings_. Interestingly, a recent pole of NEMBA's membership found that 50% support ebike access on trails, 30% don't care, and only 20% oppose it.


Surely you see the irony in having a sentance about people's feelings follow one that says feelings are not part of decision making for land management.

The more you post the more I see you have zero empathy to understand what is happen to trail systems outside of your tiny corner of the world that happens to have one of the best designed and managed trail system in the entire US.

The least you can do is recognize that a national standard might face challenges you do not experiance when you live.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> Surely you see the irony in having a sentance about people's feelings follow one that says feelings are not part of decision making for land management.
> 
> The more you post the more I see you have zero empathy to understand what is happen to trail systems outside of your tiny corner of the world that happens to have one of the best designed and managed trail system in the entire US.
> 
> The least you can do is recognize that a national standard might face challenges you do not experiance when you live.


Dude, what's funny is that you think you know anything about where I live, or ride, or have lived, or have ridden. I can assure you, it's more vast than you imagine.

None of that matters though. At the end of the day, it's about how eMTB's effect the trails they use, and the fact is, their impact on other trail users and on the trails themselves is no different than traditional MTB's. Doesn't matter if that's in Colorado, California, New England, Ireland, or Columbia. If traditional MTB's can ride it, the addition of eMTB's won't change anything. That's been proven, everywhere they've been incorporated.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

I can imagine a lot! This guy...lulz.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

Ahhh influencing successfully. For sure


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I’d ask if folks ever got tired of talking about this shite … but I suspect the folks who do are simply ignoring this thread 🙄


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Let's say all trails open to MTB are suddenly legal for eMTB, and it all goes completely off the rails. e-riders climbing downhill trails, horrible collisions and injuries, novices getting in over their heads, e-riders forgetting to log their rides on Strava as E and taking all the KOM's, children crying at the mere sight of an eMTB. Then what? The trails get closed to eMTB's again? Funding materializes for protection from the "evil" eMTB's? Kinda seems like all you haters should be pushing for legalization, just to get it over with.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

_CJ said:


> Let's say all trails open to MTB are suddenly legal for eMTB, and it all goes completely off the rails. e-riders climbing downhill trails, horrible collisions and injuries, novices getting in over their heads, e-riders forgetting to log their rides on Strava as E and taking all the KOM's, children crying at the mere sight of an eMTB. Then what? The trails get closed to eMTB's again? Funding materializes for protection from the "evil" eMTB's? Kinda seems like all you haters should be pushing for legalization, just to get it over with.


What I've seen time and time again throughout history is that when the cat gets "out of the bag"...it's not possible to get it back in.


----------



## dberdinka (3 mo ago)

It’s mid-fall, hasn’t rained in months, trails are pounded to dust. Repair and patching the damage will never match the rate of disintegration. And that’s without ebikes.

Mountain biking has been hard. It should stay that way. There has to be some sort of garekeeping to avoid the tragedy of the commons.

Call it elitist, but when the trickle of ebikes becomes a flood the quality of riding will decline despite the increased quantity. Human nature I guess. Always needing MOAR.


----------



## BIGTIMEBALLER (Jul 7, 2020)

For me, it’s just an ego thing. No one is going to call “on your left” when I’m riding hard!

Few weeks back I was riding hard and I felt/heard someone about a minute behind me. Of course I put it into another gear, but then I could actually see them on a multiple switch-back section and I couldn’t believe they were gaining on me!

I was able to finish the trail ahead of them, but not by much. At the trail connector, I’m huffing and puffing, heart about to jump out of my chest, and this guy just wizzes on by to the next trail on his e-bike!


----------



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

I went for a ride on a super sweet class 1 e-mtb today and it's not even remotely comparable to pedaling a standard bike. People saying they're almost the same crack me up.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> I went for a ride on a super sweet class 1 e-mtb today and it's not even remotely comparable to pedaling a standard bike. People saying they're almost the same crack me up.


What was it? Mines super sweet  It's so much fun that my Ripmo just hangs on the wall collecting dust.


----------



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

alexbn921 said:


> What was it? Mines super sweet  It's so much fun that my Ripmo just hangs on the wall collecting dust.



Trek Rail 9.8. A bicycle it ain't.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> Trek Rail 9.8. A bicycle it ain't.


But was it fun? Did you have a smile on your face afterwards?


----------



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

alexbn921 said:


> But was it fun? Did you have a smile on your face afterwards?



Entertaining for sure, not really my thing though, It doesn't represent cycling for me but I could see the appeal for others.


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> I went for a ride on a super sweet class 1 e-mtb today and it's not even remotely comparable to pedaling a standard bike. People saying they're almost the same crack me up.


My experience as well. The Yamaha YDX Moro is not even a top flight e-mtb and it's a beast in turbo mode. Let's face it, even the fittest of rider is not going to be able to put out the watts of what the motor can. 

Good news is I can hear these electric motors coming up behind me. They make a lot of noise humming and flattening the hills. I think Trek has a new Fuel that is supposed to be pretty quiet.


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

alexbn921 said:


> But was it fun? Did you have a smile on your face afterwards?


Anything on 2 wheels is fun for me. However there are certain segments of bicycling that do not appeal to me. Electric bicycles make no sense when I can jump on my Beta and hit single track that no e-mtb could ever manage.

I predict that more restrictions are coming for electric bicycles on the trails. I also predict it's not going to prevent electric bicyclists from doing whatever they want.


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

Carl Mega said:


> Huh?
> 
> The literal premise of this thread and the accompanying story is that: "Some people are *directly saying* that having an ebike and regular bike on the same trail is always a great idea",


Yeah - I chose the extreme end of spectrum “never” for this response when the silliness of the original “always” was covered in my first post.


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

chazpat said:


> Fair enough, but when you start off with _"This is so much more provocative (and fun) when phrased, “how do you feel about eliminating personal freedoms?” _you've kinda set the tone.


I’ve tried to warn people earlier, Marines are generally no good at sarcasm. That part was the tongue in cheek section. While I think oversimplifying can be counterproductive, I do find it fun getting into it with those that don’t have a factual basis for their positions. 

And to be clear, Chaz - that wasn’t you. I was generalizing and this thread has ferreted out the silly - the fact that some people want certain outcomes is not a remotely sufficient “fact base” to make complex decisions about planning for scarce shared resources. That said, if one has never had to design or modify a policy I suppose it’s not surprising that some might oversimplify it, and as a general rule the all, always, never extreme qualifiers usually disqualify policy options except in very local and specific circumstances. 

I would love to see us use process analysis frameworks for evaluating all the things we fight about politically - it depersonalizes the topics quickly and gets us down to the brass tax of asking what are we trying to accomplish, does it makes sense for the situation and how do we pay for it? We would quickly find that while government is almost always inefficient about dealing with questions of morality it is actually quite capable, when well designed/and not corrupt, of managing almost anything else.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

ballisticexchris said:


> Anything on 2 wheels is fun for me. However there are certain segments of bicycling that do not appeal to me. Electric bicycles make no sense when I can jump on my Beta and hit single track that no e-mtb could ever manage.
> 
> I predict that more restrictions are coming for electric bicycles on the trails. I also predict it's not going to prevent electric bicyclists from doing whatever they want.


Yes but you can't ride your beta on MTB trails and that's all we have in the bay area. The majority of my local trail are directional. The ones that are not you ride with the expectation of people coming the other way.

In a pure climb the fire roads and descend the DH trails there is ZERO problems with ebikes. As far as maintenance, all the trail gnomes have migrated to riding ebikes. No dig no ride.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

ballisticexchris said:


> Anything on 2 wheels is fun for me. However there are certain segments of bicycling that do not appeal to me. Electric bicycles make no sense when I can jump on my Beta and hit single track that no e-mtb could ever manage.


Different strokes for different folks I suppose. I used to ride moto, a Beta even, and of all the ways I've traversed single-track, moto is without question the worst imho. Too big, too heavy, too loud, too smelly, requires too much body armor, totally insulates the rider from the environment around them, and negatively impacts other user's experience within at least a one mile radius with all the sound and smoke.

eMTB's on the other hand are virtually indistinguishable from traditional MTB's in appearance, sound, speed, and environmental impact, at least to the casual observer. There's no legitimate reason to treat them differently.


.


----------



## ZiggsterZaskar (Jul 25, 2021)

Carl Mega said:


> Here's where you and I differ. Class 1 are not regular bikes and should not be given carte blanche equivalence to human power. They are undeniably much faster for virtually every user. Area by area at the behest of the land managers who consider public appetite, suitability and legality.
> 
> The speed differential is legit and not every trail area can accommodate faster users en mass without mitigation and enforcement. The viability of that varies wildly between agencies.
> 
> ...


I really don't understand the simplicity of solving this divide with traditional people powered mtbs and E-bike advocates. Ride E-bikes on OHV trails...there's plenty of wide open areas to ride motorized mtbs and to still have the freedom to do what you want. Leave people powered trails to hikers and traditional mtbs. One more thing....anybody that is a gear head such as I, knows that the aftermarket industry will find ways to not only upgrade the power of lower powered E-bikes but to mask the higher powered twist throttle E-bike by offering pedal kits for them. Sur Ron's are the perfect example.


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

alexbn921 said:


> Yes but you can't ride your beta on MTB trails and that's all we have in the bay area. The majority of my local trail are directional. The ones that are not you ride with the expectation of people coming the other way.
> 
> In a pure climb the fire roads and descend the DH trails there is ZERO problems with ebikes. As far as maintenance, all the trail gnomes have migrated to riding ebikes. No dig no ride.


Unless the heavier, more powerful bikes cause more damage to the trails than budgeted for, or more danger to others on the trails, or…. 

I try to mindful of “absolute” statements (zero - especially when in ALL CAPS, all, never, always); they generally don’t survive thoughtful/detailed examination.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

ZiggsterZaskar said:


> I really don't understand the simplicity of solving this divide with traditional people powered mtbs and E-bike advocates. Ride E-bikes on OHV trails.


Anyone who has ridden a class 1 eMTB on OHV trails learns pretty quickly that it's the wrong place for them. Put aside that there just aren't that many of OHV trails around (comparatively) or that they're generally not close to population centers, class 1 bikes on OHV trails just aren't a lot of fun. eMTB tires are too small, the suspension is inadequate, and they don't have enough power. The experience is very much the same as riding a traditional MTB on OHV trails.

The trails that are most appropriate for eMTB's are trails that are open to MTB use, and in places where they've been given access, it hasn't presented a problem. This isn't some theoretical proposition, we have millions of rider miles of experience with eMTB's sharing trails with non-motorized users over a huge variety of terrains. The questions have already been answered. It's not a problem.


----------



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

_CJ said:


> Anyone who has ridden a class 1 eMTB on OHV trails learns pretty quickly that it's the wrong place for them.



Depends I suppose. Most of the OHV trails I've ridden in the SW usa are fine and fun for mtb's so I don't see why you couldn't have fun riding an emtb on them too.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

DGUSMC said:


> Unless the heavier, more powerful bikes cause more damage to the trails than budgeted for, or more danger to others on the trails, or….
> 
> I try to mindful of “absolute” statements (zero - especially when in ALL CAPS, all, never, always); they generally don’t survive thoughtful/detailed examination.


Well, since the budget for trail maintance is ZERO, your fears are unfounded. The only people that work on the trails do it in their free time. AND over 90+% of them now ride ebikes. Maybe we should ban MTB's from the trails since they don't work on them.


----------



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

alexbn921 said:


> The only people that work on the trails do it in their free time. AND over 90+% of them now ride ebikes.



wut?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> wut?


I’ve noticed that a number of people from CA tend to extrapolate their local experiences to the rest of the country.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

alexbn921 said:


> Well, since the budget for trail maintance is ZERO, your fears are unfounded. The only people that work on the trails do it in their free time. AND over 90+% of them now ride ebikes. Maybe we should ban MTB's from the trails since they don't work on them.


Dude - volunteer hours are a resource just like dollars from a tax base. You might just be thinking about how a community “invests” in projects a bit too narrowly. Similarly, “cost” cannot simply be measured in dollars.


----------



## urmb (Oct 4, 2005)

The e_____ conundrum is interesting (looking from the outside). I wonder where it will be in 1-year...5-years. There is a paved trail up a canyon near me that is open to the public. It has a single side lane for pedestrian traffic and an uphill lane for wheels and a downhill lane for wheels. Speed limit is 15mph. The trail is heavily used by runners, walkers, wanderers who walk or run in the wheel lanes, group/family walkers, inline skaters, wheel cross country skates, road cyclists, mountain bikers, cross bikers, recumbents, skateboarders, strollers, dogs(usually leashed) etc. I use it to access or loop several singletrack trails. There are ebikes (a company now rents the ones that look like tote-goats near the entrance), eskateboards, euniwheel-things, edual-wheel things, escooters on the trail more often than not. Did I miss anything? Estrollers(that follow the parent), erunning shoes, ekid-wagons, or edogs may be next. Just waiting for the escat to hit the fan.

Several years ago skateboards were completely banned due to several accidents with pedestrians. That was lifted with promised good behavior. One walking only section was made near a natural attraction. I almost went down due to a skateboard. Boarder jumped off the board instead of stopping. Board headed directly at me. I hopped and my rear tire landed on the board. My rear wheel went with the board as it continued moving. My tire rolled off the board and i did a vicious S swerve and barley saved my skin. Something to be aware of. Often see helmet less ebike riders going pretty fast up the trail and over shooting turns and going as fast as they can on the straight segments on the rented ebikes. I have turned up my alertness level. Had to laugh when an eskateboard passed me going up hill on the trail one day.

Seeing more ebikes and euniwheel vehicles on the singletrack trails every year. Even seeing the rental tote-goatish bikes up on the trails more and more. Cat is out of the bag...Genie out of the bottle...doubt they are ever going back.


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

urmb said:


> The e_____ conundrum is interesting (looking from the outside). I wonder where it will be in 1-year...5-years. There is a paved trail up a canyon near me that is open to the public. It has a single side lane for pedestrian traffic and an uphill lane for wheels and a downhill lane for wheels. Speed limit is 15mph. that is heavily used by runners, walkers, wanderers who walk or run in the wheel lanes, group/family walkers, inline skaters, wheel cross country skates, road cyclists, mountain bikers, cross bikers, recumbents, skateboarders, strollers, dogs(usually leashed) etc. I use it to access or loop several singletrack trails. There are ebikes (a company now rents the ones that look like tote-goats near the entrance), eskateboards, euniwheel-things, edual-wheel things, escooters on the trail more often than not. Did I miss anything? Estrollers(that follow the parent), erunning shoes, ekid-wagons, or edogs may be next. Just waiting for the escat to hit the fan.
> 
> Several years ago skateboards were completely banned due to several accidents with pedestrians. That was lifted with promised good behavior. One walking only section was made near a natural attraction. I almost went down due to a skateboard. Boarder jumped off the board instead of stopping. Board headed directly at me. I hopped and my rear tire landed on the board. It rolled off it as it continued moving and i did a vicious S swerve and barley saved my skin. Something to be aware of. Often see helmet less ebike riders going pretty fast up the trail and over shooting turns and going as fast as they can on the straight segments on the rented ebikes. I have turned up my alertness level. Had to laugh when an eskateboard passed me going up hill on the trail one day.
> 
> Seeing more ebikes and euniwheel vehicles on the singletrack trails every year. Even seeing the rental tote-goatish bikes up on the trails more and more. Cat is out of the bag...Genie out of the bottle...doubt they are ever going back.


My history is a little weak on this subject but have to imagine the same kind of dynamic had to happen the first time non-horse powered wheeled tools started showing up on roads, trails any other place that was previously used by humans to move from point A to point B.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> I’ve noticed that a number of people from CA tend to extrapolate their local experiences to the rest of the country.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I was only taking about my local hill. As I always do. I talk about my experiences and not so random made up story like the rest of the haters.


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

alexbn921 said:


> I was only taking about my local hill. As I always do. I talk about my experiences and not so random made up story like the rest of the haters.


Life must be so much easier when you can know when other people are making things up. You must be great at the card table.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

DGUSMC said:


> Dude - volunteer hours are a resource just like dollars from a tax base. You might just be thinking about how a community “invests” in projects a bit too narrowly. Similarly, “cost” cannot simply be measured in dollars.


Okay. The park rangers spend zero time working on the DH trails. No hikers or horse riders do anything to the DH trails other than drag sticks onto them. 

It a close bye park, the rangers are out every week destroying recitational trails and blocking the couple legal trails to slow down riders. So I'm glad they leave us alone.

Barley any effort is made to even keep the fireroad cleared of fallen trees. Every couple years the park grades the fireroads or fixs a gate.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

DGUSMC said:


> Life must be so much easier when you can know when other people are making things up. You must be great at the card table.


Anytime your not talking about yourself or your experiences, it's probably BS. 

I was called out for my experiences. Do you have a guilty conscience.


----------



## jdeolivares (Jul 1, 2021)

Carl Mega said:


> Here's where you and I differ. Class 1 are not regular bikes and should not be given carte blanche equivalence to human power. They are undeniably much faster for virtually every user. Area by area at the behest of the land managers who consider public appetite, suitability and legality.
> 
> The speed differential is legit and not every trail area can accommodate faster users en mass without mitigation and enforcement. The viability of that varies wildly between agencies.
> 
> ...


The California motor vehicle code states that class 1 e-bikes are not motor vehicles and there fore be treated equivalent to bicycles. As an older rider in my seventies, younger riders regularly go faster than me riding an ebike. You don’t know what you are talking about.


----------



## friz (Dec 2, 2012)

I'm in the, IDGAF what you ride as long as you are out there on work days, camp.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk


----------



## trmn8er (Jun 9, 2011)

California does not have any authority to tell private land owners, local municipalities, or even California State Parks how to treat mopeds (aka e-bikes). If it's private land, the land owner decides. Secondly, according to parks.ca.gov, they are not allowed in State Park areas as outlined below; 

*The following is California State Parks’ e-bike policy:*

No person shall operate an e-bike in a park unit of the State Parks System, except on public roadways https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30521#edn1_ and in areas allowed through a Superintendent’s Order.


[*]E-bike use on trails and nonpublic, controlled-access [ii]roads shall be allowed only where designated by Superintendent’s Order in the following park unit classifications:

State recreation area
State vehicular recreation area
_
_
So it's not super clear. And the State does not mandate "e-bikes be treated equivalent to bicycles" and mentioned above. Not saying it will never happen, but we're not there. Also, local government and private land owners have the ability (and often do) to restrict and not allow mopeds. The State does not have authority to make these blanket decisions. for example, Chino Hills State Park they are strictly forbidden. Yet people do it anyway. I was told but the local LE the Park is issuing a lot of citations, especially on the weekends. Mopeds are allowed on paved roads, but that is nothing new, but trail access is often restricted for now. More info below; 

"California’s State Parks Department does allow Class 1 e-bikes on some controlled-access roads and trails, in most cases where traditional mountain bike use is already permitted. Class 2 and 3 e-bikes are not allowed anywhere except on public roads and in a few vehicular recreation areas (Clay Pit, Heber Dunes and Hollister Hills)"._


----------



## ZiggsterZaskar (Jul 25, 2021)

alexbn921 said:


> I was only taking about my local hill. As I always do. I talk about my experiences and not so random made up story like the rest of the haters.


I love the way people like you throw around the word "Haters".....like I'm the enemy along with the rest of traditional mtb'ers for trying to protect and preserve traditional mtbing.....
..


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

alexbn921 said:


> I was only taking about my local hill. As I always do. I talk about my experiences and not so random made up story like the rest of the haters.


Perhaps you could amend your statement below to include language that actually indicates that you are referring, very specifically, to your own hyper-local situation. 



alexbn921 said:


> Well, since the budget for trail maintance is ZERO, your fears are unfounded. The only people that work on the trails do it in their free time. AND over 90+% of them now ride ebikes. Maybe we should ban MTB's from the trails since they don't work on them.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

ZiggsterZaskar said:


> I love the way people like you throw around the word "Haters".....like I'm the enemy along with the rest of traditional mtb'ers for trying to protect and preserve traditional mtbing.....
> ..


It's only assumptions being made. Hate is a horrible word I hear a lot these days. I have never once used the word hate to describe anything that has 2 wheels.

The electric bicycles and laws are still in their infancy. I personally see no reason to own one. What I can't do on my bicycle I have a motorcycle for. 

This is starting to get built up like the side by sides vs Jeeps and quads vs motorcycles.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

ZiggsterZaskar said:


> I love the way people like you throw around the word "Haters".....like I'm the enemy along with the rest of traditional mtb'ers for trying to protect and preserve traditional mtbing.....
> ..


Ebikes and MTB and not mutily exclusive. So long as your trail access isn't threatened, then they have no effect on MTB riding.

Unless you want the trails to yourself. Which we are all a little guilty of. Busy 2 way single track isn't much fun.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

jdeolivares said:


> You don’t know what you are talking about.


I ❤ irony.


----------



## ZiggsterZaskar (Jul 25, 2021)

Le Duke said:


> Perhaps you could amend your statement below to include language that actually indicates that you are referring, very specifically, to your own hyper-local situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bull ****!!!!!


----------



## ValEs (6 mo ago)

Klurejr said:


> I have an answer that People for bikes and most eBike riders will….
> …restrictive for all those who believe "freedom of MERICA" means not having to abide by general etiquette and rules.


Sounds like an Euro thing. Rules have never made people etiquette compliant. Imho.
A simple education campaign will probably yield higher compliance.


----------



## Jimmy Curry (Jul 12, 2021)

ballisticexchris said:


> My experience as well. The Yamaha YDX Moro is not even a top flight e-mtb and it's a beast in turbo mode. Let's face it, even the fittest of rider is not going to be able to put out the watts of what the motor can.
> 
> Good news is I can hear these electric motors coming up behind me. They make a lot of noise humming and flattening the hills. I think Trek has a new Fuel that is supposed to be pretty quiet.


LOL You probably won't hear an ORBEA RISE coming up on you. My riding buds on their analog bikes say they don't even notice im on an ebike.


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

DGUSMC said:


> Life must be so much easier when you can know when other people are making things up. You must be great at the card table.





alexbn921 said:


> I was called out for my experiences.


There is a lot of that here on the mtbr forum. It gets tiring after a while. Just wait until you get some goofball who pulls up old posts in a feeble effort to discredit your comments. Some members here don't have anything better to do than troll.


----------



## Jimmy Curry (Jul 12, 2021)

_CJ said:


> Anyone who has ridden a class 1 eMTB on OHV trails learns pretty quickly that it's the wrong place for them. Put aside that there just aren't that many of OHV trails around (comparatively) or that they're generally not close to population centers, class 1 bikes on OHV trails just aren't a lot of fun. eMTB tires are too small, the suspension is inadequate, and they don't have enough power. The experience is very much the same as riding a traditional MTB on OHV trails.
> 
> The trails that are most appropriate for eMTB's are trails that are open to MTB use, and in places where they've been given access, it hasn't presented a problem. This isn't some theoretical proposition, we have millions of rider miles of experience with eMTB's sharing trails with non-motorized users over a huge variety of terrains. The questions have already been answered. It's not a problem.


Good post. I feel pretty silly , having to look up what an OHV was. I now understand. Seems OHV trails would see mostly jeeps, dirt bikes, and other true off road type vehicles. Mountain biking on an analogue or an ebike just would not be very enjoyable.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Jimmy Curry said:


> Good post. I feel pretty silly , having to look up what an OHV was.


Forest Service has motorized single track and additional motorized OHV designations that must be under a certain width. Many, many of those trails would be good emtb because they are currently good mountain bike trails (and good moto single). I ride them all the time. Further, we have FS trails that are open to eMtb class 1 but closed to moto; just rode 8mi on a new one (which I advocated for) and it was a fine trail, great line of sight fwiw.


----------



## ttengineer (Jun 7, 2012)

It seems like one of the most common complaints about ebike access is that class 1 bikes will tear up a trail due to the added power of the motor. 

As an engineer I was curious what the numbers say as I’m very analytical and use data and facts to backup my conclusions. 

So using myself as an example I ran some numbers. Now I consider myself a slightly above average middle of the road rider but that’s pretty anecdotal based on my own observations without any hard data. So take this with a grain of salt if you will. 

I’m 6’1” weigh 225lbs (102.2kg) and have a PR of 306w average for an hour ride per my peloton. That gives me a 2.99w/kg FTP. Google says the average rider is ~2 w/kg and pros are in the 5-6 w/kg range. So I’d say I’m pretty average. 

Now using that data, if I did an hour long ride on a full power Bosch gen 4 equipped ebike with the same average output on full power (turbo) mode, the ebike would add an additional 340% to my power. The catch here is class one ebikes max out at 750w per google. 

So using my numbers above the ebike would allow me to ride about 2.45 times as fast as I normally ride at absolute maximum effort while capping assist out at 20mph also. Another catch, I don’t pedal down hill. So the ebike would only help on the climbs/pedal sections. 

Extrapolating that data, the more output a rider can produce, the less an ebike would benefit that rider.

According to google the best FTP of a pro is 490w so that rider would only see a 250w output increase. While a beginner would potentially see a significant increase in potential output. 

So, now with this data, do we have an answer for ebikes? 

For me, it says the average rider would be exerting about the same force an elite rider exerts on the trail with the potential to exert about ~25% more than elite riders. But people do not ride at max effort every ride or even every other ride. 

So I’d say class 1 should be allowed on every trail a traditional bike is allowed on because no one is screaming pros ruin trails. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> I went for a ride on a super sweet class 1 e-mtb today and it's not even remotely comparable to pedaling a standard bike. People saying they're almost the same crack me up.


ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. 

After reading over and over again that my opinion meant nothing until I rode one... I went and rode one and 100% confirmed all my opinions were correct. They are really fast and super fun. I am trying to convince my wife to let me sell one of our motorcycles so I can put the cash into a Class 1 eBike.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> I’ve noticed that a number of people from CA tend to extrapolate their local experiences to the rest of the country.


CJ is from Colorado not California, but yes, many on this site do that, especially on this topic.....


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

ttengineer said:


> It seems like one of the most common complaints about ebike access is that class 1 bikes will tear up a trail due to the added power of the motor.


Only eBike advocates talk about 'tearing up trail'. The land managers are concerned about the speed vs other trail users - particularly foot traffic.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> CJ is from Colorado not California, but yes, many on this site do that, especially on this topic.....


I didn't quote CJ.


----------



## Spokey-Doke (Apr 4, 2005)

urmb said:


> The e_____ conundrum is interesting (looking from the outside). I wonder where it will be in 1-year...5-years. There is a paved trail up a canyon near me that is open to the public. It has a single side lane for pedestrian traffic and an uphill lane for wheels and a downhill lane for wheels. Speed limit is 15mph. The trail is heavily used by runners, walkers, wanderers who walk or run in the wheel lanes, group/family walkers, inline skaters, wheel cross country skates, road cyclists, mountain bikers, cross bikers, recumbents, skateboarders, strollers, dogs(usually leashed) etc. I use it to access or loop several singletrack trails. There are ebikes (a company now rents the ones that look like tote-goats near the entrance), eskateboards, euniwheel-things, edual-wheel things, escooters on the trail more often than not. Did I miss anything? Estrollers(that follow the parent), erunning shoes, ekid-wagons, or edogs may be next. Just waiting for the escat to hit the fan.
> 
> Several years ago skateboards were completely banned due to several accidents with pedestrians. That was lifted with promised good behavior. One walking only section was made near a natural attraction. I almost went down due to a skateboard. Boarder jumped off the board instead of stopping. Board headed directly at me. I hopped and my rear tire landed on the board. My rear wheel went with the board as it continued moving. My tire rolled off the board and i did a vicious S swerve and barley saved my skin. Something to be aware of. Often see helmet less ebike riders going pretty fast up the trail and over shooting turns and going as fast as they can on the straight segments on the rented ebikes. I have turned up my alertness level. Had to laugh when an eskateboard passed me going up hill on the trail one day.
> 
> Seeing more ebikes and euniwheel vehicles on the singletrack trails every year. Even seeing the rental tote-goatish bikes up on the trails more and more. Cat is out of the bag...Genie out of the bottle...doubt they are ever going back.


I have lived in and around Sacramento, CA my whole life. I am primarily a mountain biker, but I ride pretty much every analog bike type except a true road bike (gravel, CX).

For decades I have been riding on the America River Parkway, which spans about 35 miles from Sacramento to Folsom, CA. There is a paved trail with many dirt options splintering off everywhere. Mountain biking has never technically been legal on the dirt trails, but signage was rare and so were conflicts. Enforcement was nonexistent. I never once had any issues riding on the dirt trails. Park rangers always waved.

There are "No Motorized Vehicle" signs all along the main paved trail, and they pre-date eBikes. What this means now is open to interpretation. To me, class 1 is motorized, but to many people it is not. Typically these are older dudes and ladies, and they are just out there exercising. They seem to be normal cyclists who call out "on your left" and generally obey all the rules. I can live with that. I may be one of those people someday. We'll see.

Class 2 shouldn't be there under any circumstances. These are usually kids with huge backpacks, and they are likely commuting to school or work. They haul ass and don't pedal. They buzz people and get their swerve on. They are usually helmetless, so the problem may take care of itself.

I see the occasional class 3, and these are the guys who will kill someone. The other day I saw three guys decked out in full-faced helmets and body armor. I had to laugh because the trails around the parkway are pretty flat and tame. They blew by me at what seemed roughly twice the posted 15 mile per hour speed limit. I have ridden a friend's class 3 (Luna) on trails (just once), and in no way is this a bicycle in my mind. I climbed up a rocky freaking cliff at mind boggling speed.

All three classes allow you to easily exceed the low speed limit. It would be hypocritical of me to not mention that in my younger road racing days, my team regularly used the trail as a return route for training rides. Even though we were "cooling down," we would paceline at speeds well above the speed limit. We were ticketed a few times. Ah, the days when parks had money for rangers. Even now on a gravel bike, I'm technically "speeding."

If you're wondering why I am talking about a _paved _trail on MTBR, here is the point: Recently about 100 "No Bikes" signs were erected at nearly every damn dirt trail entrance. Even the wide access roads that the rangers use, which I always assumed were cool to ride on, have no bikes signs. They were great fun on the gravel bike. RIP.

I have no direct evidence that eBikes are the reason this happened, but it makes me wonder. We all peacefully coexisted for 40 years without the need for signs everywhere. The timing is definitely odd. To clarify, I am in the "they're just not for me (yet?)" camp, not the eBike hater camp (yet?). Do your thing, have fun, but do it responsibly. So far I am seeing too much irresponsible behavior.

I lived through the trail access battles in the '80s as our sport was emerging. Locally we lost everything all at once (literally overnight) and had to claw our way back trail by trail. This situation has the same foreboding feel to me.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Jimmy Curry said:


> Good post. I feel pretty silly , having to look up what an OHV was. I now understand. Seems OHV trails would see mostly jeeps, dirt bikes, and other true off road type vehicles. Mountain biking on an analogue or an ebike just would not be very enjoyable.


Depends on the OHV trail in question for sure. There is an OHV State Park in the desert next to the Salton Sea called Ocotillo Wells. It is a blast on a dirt bike, truck or anything in-between, I would never bring my MTB there with me, nor would I bring a Class 1.

Then there are OHV trails in the mountains all over SoCal that are plenty of fun on am MTB and would be even better on a Class 1 eMTB.

The trick is to not make blanket statements or rules that try to treat every single trail the same. The geography and diversity of nature in this Country do not allow for that sort of narrow minded thinking.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

ttengineer said:


> It seems like one of the most common complaints about ebike access is that class 1 bikes will tear up a trail due to the added power of the motor.


Actually the biggest issue is Speed differential.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> I didn't quote CJ.


I know, just making a point.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

ValEs said:


> Sounds like an Euro thing. Rules have never made people etiquette compliant. Imho.
> A simple education campaign will probably yield higher compliance.


The trick is how to educate everyone who already has an eBike and how to educate all those getting them.

I agree, education is the key. 

I do not think the best solution is to force a License or registration on eBikes, but I have yet to see anyone provide a better reply as to how to get all eBike riders educated. 

If at the very least you needed a permit that was granted after taking an online course or something, then you might get some education out to riders. This etiquette issue is mostly around young kids and those who are new to trail riding in general. Us old-timers could pass a quick permit test in a few min.

Again, I don't think this will ever happen, I have just yet to see any real solutions. A few posters you will see on this site are staunchly in the camp that because there are no reported trail issues where they live, then that must apply to every trail everywhere...... Head in the sand type arguments.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Klurejr said:


> A few posters you will see on this site are staunchly in the camp that because there are no reported trail issues where they live, then that must apply to every trail everywhere...... Head in the sand type arguments.



When you made the suggestion for licensing, etc, you didn't limit it to CA or your local area.
The people who came out against the idea seemed to say their were against applying what you feel you need locally to every trail everywhere. 
I for one clearly did. 
People in certain areas tend to find more need for and acceptance of a high level of legislative control than others. 
For myself and where I live and ride, yeah, no thanks. I'd prefer to see less rather than more.


----------



## buumer (Jul 8, 2020)

ttengineer said:


> So using my numbers above the ebike would allow me to ride about 2.45 times as fast as I normally ride at absolute maximum effort while capping assist out at 20mph also. Another catch, I don’t pedal down hill. So the ebike would only help on the climbs/pedal sections.
> 
> Extrapolating that data, the more output a rider can produce, the less an ebike would benefit that rider.
> 
> ...


This writeup only supports the assertion that e-bikes can cause significant wear on a local trail system, no? There is noticeable trail erosion on our local XC trails after just a single amateur race with <200 riders. I can’t see how they are capable of supporting pro-level power output on the daily. Then again - I think it should be down to each local to have the final say on motorized bikes. Some trails may be much better suited to emtb riding.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> When you made the suggestion for licensing, etc, you didn't limit it to CA or your local area.
> The people who came out against the idea seemed to say their were against applying what you feel you need locally to every trail everywhere.
> I for one clearly did.
> People in certain areas tend to find more need for and acceptance of a high level of legislative control than others.
> For myself and where I live and ride, yeah, no thanks. I'd prefer to see less rather than more.


I also made it pretty clear that the licensing thing was never going to happen anywhere, just that I felt it was the only way to truly get the education out to everyone riding one.

It was pure hypothetical.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

People need to understand that there are places in this country where MTB access to trails is limited and still faces opposition. I now live in one such area. It is hard enough to get people to accept sharing the trail with NON-motorized bikes. The blanket grouping of eBikes (even Class 1) with normal bikes would only make this job that much harder.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

kapusta said:


> People need to understand that there are places in this country where MTB access to trails is limited and still faces opposition. I now live in one such area. It is hard enough to get people to accept sharing the trail with NON-motorized bikes. The blanket grouping of eBikes (even Class 1) with normal bikes would only make this job that much harder.


Which brings this topic back around to the Title, it does not matter if people for bikes - a national organization funded by bike companies - makes a blanket statement that all trails should conform. The local realities in many places just will not align with such an idea.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

ttengineer said:


> It seems like one of the most common complaints about ebike access is that class 1 bikes will tear up a trail due to the added power of the motor.
> 
> As an engineer I was curious what the numbers say as I’m very analytical and use data and facts to backup my conclusions.
> 
> ...


An admirable attempt, but your numbers are off. Virtually all class 1 eMTB's sold today are based on the European model, where the motors are only capable of generating 250w for an extended period of time. Even the most powerful can only do 560w peak.

Also, IMBA did a study, and they found no appreciable difference in trail damage compared to a traditional MTB. We can also use the statements of land managers where eMTB's are allowed as evidence, and they also say there's no additional impact from allowing ebike access.

This has all been beat to death and disproven twelve times over, but that won't stop the gate keepers from their gate keeping.

.


----------



## ttengineer (Jun 7, 2012)

Carl Mega said:


> Only eBike advocates talk about 'tearing up trail'. The land managers are concerned about the speed vs other trail users - particularly foot traffic.





Klurejr said:


> Actually the biggest issue is Speed differential.


I’m glad you mentioned speed differential because at first I also considered this a potential issue. 

But again looking at the numbers, I don’t think it’s a concern. 

Using me as an example and the ebike drive train I mentioned it has the potential to increase my speed up to x2.4. Now the caveat here is that all class 1 bike stop assisting at 20mph. 

As mentioned, mountain bikers, for the most part, don’t pedal down hill. So let’s look at climbing only. I usually carry a 3ish mph climbing speed on longer single track assents. I’m purposely not mentioning fire roads and double track because, well, there’s room to get around people. 

So if I’m at max effort , which I can not maintain for very long, I can probably get up to 5 or 6 mph uphill. With an ebike that increases to 15ish mph per the numbers. But honestly I don’t think that’s doable from not only a physical stand point but also a handling perspective. It would be hard to maintain that speed and the trail awareness all while pedaling … at max effort. 

Moreover, is even 12 mph all that fast? I don’t think so. I also don’t think most riders are even capable of powering an ebike up to 20mph. Hell most people can’t even ride that fast down hill on single track. 



buumer said:


> This writeup only supports the assertion that e-bikes can cause significant wear on a local trail system, no? There is noticeable trail erosion on our local XC trails after just a single amateur race with QUOTE]
> 
> No I don’t think there is and I think you’re reaching for that conclusion. I will say that every trail is different and agree that every group should decide what’s best for their area.
> 
> ...


From what I’ve found via google, there are several ebikes that peak at 750w, some at 1000, but all class ones shut assist off at 20mph. So it’s a game of what comes first, peak watts or peak speed. 


I think everyone should watch this video. It’s less analytical; however, JK brings very good points to the table. 

 https://youtu.be/38f3NF54ki8

I personally liked his point that ebikes go against the traditional American point of view for hard work, which is silly if you ask me. After all laziness is the mother of innovation and if it weren’t for laziness we’d all still be living in caves.


----------



## trmn8er (Jun 9, 2011)

_CJ said:


> An admirable attempt, but your numbers are off. Virtually all class 1 eMTB's sold today are based on the European model, where the motors are only capable of generating 250w for an extended period of time. Even the most powerful can only do 560w peak.
> 
> Also, IMBA did a study, and they found no appreciable difference in trail damage compared to a traditional MTB. We can also use the statements of land managers where eMTB's are allowed as evidence, and they also say there's no additional impact from allowing ebike access.
> 
> ...


Then lobby the gate keepers. We are not them. Class 1 only may have a path to wider acceptance but public perception is a very powerful dynamic. If you want to get more and more bike riders to support the cause, it is helpful to follow the correct, legal, ethical path towards changing local, state, and private land owners stance. Being defiant, riding where you’re not allowed to, and even miss recording ride types to appear you’re doing this amazing achievement is not gonna make a lot of friends. As mentioned, I’m at the age where it’s challenging to put in the 4-5k climbing days I used to, and perhaps someday I’d get a class 1. Some insist it’s the same as a bicycle but it’s just not. Own it. Be honest about what it is and be honest where you ride it. If you want to be able to ride it anywhere you please, good luck with that. MTB riders can’t even do that thanks for similar bad perception from some decision makers. The more e-bike riders follow the rules and are super respectful the better your chances of wider acceptance. Insisting on a web forum they should be treated the same as a bicycle is not going to change anything. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ZiggsterZaskar (Jul 25, 2021)

ttengineer said:


> It seems like one of the most common complaints about ebike access is that class 1 bikes will tear up a trail due to the added power of the motor.
> 
> As an engineer I was curious what the numbers say as I’m very analytical and use data and facts to backup my conclusions.
> 
> ...


Your anology might make some sense on paper but unfortunately that does hold up in the real world when you put the human factor in which blows your your on paper statistics out the window because in the real world it's the rider who is in charge of how the the motorized bike is ridden and how much and when the power is applied. All I hear and read is how E-bikes make going uphill easier and in a lot of cases hills that would be hike a bike on a traditional bike now climable because of electric motor assist...so you explain me why E-bikes wouldn't be at home on OHV trails and parks.....


----------



## ttengineer (Jun 7, 2012)

ZiggsterZaskar said:


> Your anology might make some sense on paper but unfortunately that does hold up in the real world when you put the human factor in which blows your your on paper statistics out the window because in the real world it's the rider who is in charge of how the the motorized bike is ridden and how much and when the power is applied. All I hear and read is how E-bikes make going uphill easier and in a lot of cases hills that would be hike a bike on a traditional bike now climable because of electric motor assist...so you explain me why E-bikes wouldn't be at home on OHV trails and parks.....


No offense, but that’s complete garbage. 

Numbers don’t lie, power is power. That’s what’s beautiful about math. 

Class 1 ebikes do not output a crazy number. Hell I can generate more instant watts than an ebike. Yea it’s only for a second or two, but I’ve hit over 1000 watts on many rides. 

The other factor that no one really talks about is that most folks don’t ride in Turbo mode. They want to conserve the battery so they can ride longer/further. I’d venture to say most ebike riders stay in a medium setting (trail mode) or an adaptive setting on some of the newer models. Those modes output less power than turbo. 

As for OHV areas, I didn’t bring them up but I don’t think they are an answer. For the most part there are relatively few, they are typically far distances from populations, and they typically cost money to enter. 

Take windrock TN for example. It’s a private OHV. They do have a mountain bike park there, but the other trails that are frequented by motorized vehicles are not suitable for ebikes. 

As some have stated ebikes are faster than traditional bikes. But the difference is minimal from a trad bike to an ebike. Maybe 6-8mph, and that’s up hill. Downhill they are virtually the same. Where as the difference between an ebike and a motorcycle or side by side is far greater. Class one ebikes cap assist out at 20mph. What does a motorcycle or SxS cap out at? Significantly more. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

ttengineer said:


> As some have stated ebikes are faster than traditional bikes. But the difference is minimal from a trad bike to an ebike. Maybe 6-8mph, and that’s up hill.



There's another thread going here started by a mod with lot's of ebike experience and he says he'll do 3x the distance in the same time as on a regular bike. That's significant.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Spokey-Doke said:


> I see the occasional class 3, and these are the guys who will kill someone. The other day I saw three guys decked out in full-faced helmets and body armor. I had to laugh because the trails around the parkway are pretty flat and tame. They blew by me at what seemed roughly twice the posted 15 mile per hour speed limit. I have ridden a friend's class 3 (Luna) on trails (just once), and in no way is this a bicycle in my mind. I climbed up a rocky freaking cliff at mind boggling speed.


FWIW what the law says is that a Class 3 is just a Class 1 with a top speed of 28 mph. No twist or thumb throttle as on a Class 2. Same 750 W limit as for all 3 classes.

Very few of the bikes that Luna sells are legit e-bikes, the ones that qualify as "Class" bikes are sold with the understanding (and instructions) that they're very easy to mod into kilowatt-power mopeds.

And that Sur Ron (have one) is straight up a mini-motorcycle.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

trmn8er said:


> Then lobby the gate keepers. We are not them. Class 1 only may have a path to wider acceptance but public perception is a very powerful dynamic. If you want to get more and more bike riders to support the cause, it is helpful to follow the correct, legal, ethical path towards changing local, state, and private land owners stance. Being defiant, riding where you’re not allowed to, and even miss recording ride types to appear you’re doing this amazing achievement is not gonna make a lot of friends. As mentioned, I’m at the age where it’s challenging to put in the 4-5k climbing days I used to, and perhaps someday I’d get a class 1. Some insist it’s the same as a bicycle but it’s just not. Own it. Be honest about what it is and be honest where you ride it. If you want to be able to ride it anywhere you please, good luck with that. MTB riders can’t even do that thanks for similar bad perception from some decision makers. The more e-bike riders follow the rules and are super respectful the better your chances of wider acceptance. Insisting on a web forum they should be treated the same as a bicycle is not going to change anything.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Don't worry, "our people" _are_ lobbying the policy makers. Gate keepers just complain on the internet, but as it turns out their numbers are dwindling. As few as 20% of MTB riders object to eMTB sharing the same trails these days. It used to be 50%. Soon, the e-haters will be relegated to the ranks of people who thing suspension, gears, and even freewheels are "cheating".


.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

_CJ said:


> Also, IMBA did a study, and they found no appreciable difference in trail damage compared to a traditional MTB.


From that study:

_This small study represents a very limited set of site and user conditions, the results of which may or may not be replicated in other locations and test conditions. *No broad*_* conclusions should be made from the observations presented. *

_This was a small study, under a limited set of environmental and trail conditions, and user behavior. *This study does not, and should not be interpreted to represent consensus on the environmental impacts of Class 1 eMTB.* However, it is a first step in better understanding the physical impacts to tread surfaces from their use, and how these impacts may be similar to or different from other two-wheeled uses. _

One obvious limitation of this study is that they compared MTBs and eMTBs traveling the same number of laps. Seeing as one of the most often touted benefits of eMTBs is that you go farther in the same amount of time/effort, the fact that the study did not account for this is a real limitation.



_CJ said:


> We can also use the statements of land managers where eMTB's are allowed as evidence, and they also say there's no additional impact from allowing ebike access.


You made this blanket statement earlier and claimed it as fact. When asked where this compiled data of all land mangers input can be found, you gave no response.

What I assume you mean is the land manager reports _you are aware of_. OK, lets take that as true. Are you implying that to mean that allowing eBike access everywhere MTBs are allowed (which is what PeopleForBikes is advocating) will also cause no issues?

Consider this: Land managers are going to allow access in places where they feel the likelihood of issues are small, and not allow them where the likelihood is greater. So you are really not getting a true representation of how such a proposal will pan out when applied in all places. Think of speed limits: 75 mph speed limits seem to work pretty well where they have been implemented. Does that mean it will work on all roads? No. Because 75pmh limits are only implemented in places that planners think it will work out OK.

Another thing to consider is that even in places that allow eMTBs, there are still not THAT many eMTBs out there in many places. My old stomping grounds in SW VA allows them, but the reality is that I see very few there. However, the numbers are going to increase in coming years. Then we will have a better idea if there are going to be issues. And part of the reason there are not more eMTBs than there are is because they are not permitted in many areas. Allow them everywhere that MTBs are allowed (like PeopleForBikes is suggesting), and even more people will buy them. (of course, this is what PeopleForBikes wants as it is big money for the industry they represent)


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

In somethreads I am being told that eMTBs are not easier, they just let you go a lot farther in a given time. In other threads, I am being told they are not that much faster.

Well which is it? If you are going twice as far (a claim I often hear) you would have to average double the speed.


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

kapusta said:


> In somethreads I am being told that eMTBs are not easier, they just let you go a lot farther in a given time. In other threads, I am being told they are not that much faster.
> 
> Well which is it? If you are going twice as far (a claim I often hear) you would have to average double the speed.



Depends mostly on what power you're running (SL vs FF), fitness (believe it or not, I don't care) and elevation gain, or lack thereof.

Range can be part of it. If I'm doing a 15 mile loop, I'll run more trail and turbo because it's fun and my battery can take it. If I'm doing 35 miles and 5000 feet of climbing, I'm going mostly eco, and on average, a lot slower.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

kapusta said:


> From that study:
> 
> _This small study represents a very limited set of site and user conditions, the results of which may or may not be replicated in other locations and test conditions. *No broad*_* conclusions should be made from the observations presented. *
> 
> ...


Yes, IMBA often straddles fences to appease the elitist's among their membership. That's nothing new. I welcome more studies, as they will reveal the same results, but until then, I will interpret IMBA's results as I see fit.

75mph speed limit is a false equivalency, but as we all know, speed limits are set on the speeds people drive, not on what they should drive. In fact, there are several studies that demonstrate fewer accidents in places where there are NO speed limits. But like I said, that's a different topic.

As for ebikes causing problems....please show me an example of ebikes being given access, and it proving to be a problem severe enough to re-restrict access. Something documented by a land manager. We have years of access over thousands of miles of trails, and no such documentation. Effectively millions of miles ridden over several continents, and none of the apocalyptical scenarios have transpired.

That's really the problem with all these arguments. You ask that people prove it won't be a problem, but deny access until they do. And then when examples of access being given without it causing problems, you say it doesn't apply here or there, or there aren't enough riders to draw a conclusion. You can't prove there won't be a problem if access isn't granted. I suggest we just throw the gates open, and if it becomes a problem, shut it all back down. Call it a "trial period" if you must.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

ttengineer said:


> The other factor that no one really talks about is that most folks don’t ride in Turbo mode. They want to conserve the battery so they can ride longer/further. I’d venture to say most ebike riders stay in a medium setting (trail mode) or an adaptive setting on some of the newer models. Those modes output less power than turbo.


That is quite the assumption. Do you have any numbers to back up such a statement? Just because you might not want to ride it in Turbo Mode all the time has no bearing on how others use their toys.



ttengineer said:


> As some have stated ebikes are faster than traditional bikes. But the difference is minimal from a trad bike to an ebike. Maybe 6-8mph, and that’s up hill. Downhill they are virtually the same. Where as the difference between an ebike and a motorcycle or side by side is far greater. Class one ebikes cap assist out at 20mph. What does a motorcycle or SxS cap out at? Significantly more.


In my testing on a Specialized Turbo Levo I was able to go 3x as fast uphill - sustained.








Let's just own that Class 1 eBikes are more than...


E bikes aren’t 2x faster. Anyone can ride an ebike. yes having an ebike pass you on a climb with a few mph difference might be annoying having a bike come down the other direction at warp speed can be hazardous, any kind of bike




www.mtbr.com






Before I did this test I did not really think I would be interested in an eBike. After riding one and seeing how fast I could go uphill and how much fun it was to go 15mph+ uphill I changed my mind and decided I do want one sooner rather than later. I just do not have the cash to invest at the moment.


Please stop peddling this false premise that Class 1 eBikes are only a little bit faster than pedal bikes.... they are waaaay faster.


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

Are Class 1 E-Bikes too Fast for Certain Trails? Some Think a Slower Class is Needed


With more than one type of electric mountain bike on the market today, some bikes might be more appropriate for certain trails than others.




www.singletracks.com


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> That is quite the assumption. Do you have any numbers to back up such a statement? Just because you might not want to ride it in Turbo Mode all the time has no bearing on how others use their toys.


Most ebike riders start in turbo and go wow this thing is a rocket ship. After a couple rides they settle into wanting more range and slow down. Then they turn it all the way down and try for the longest possible range.

For most and I ride with a lot of ebike. It's a mix of time and range, with low and mid being the main modes. I rarely ride full power unless time is limited. 
In our area it's about getting to the fun stuff and then going as fast as possible on DH trails. Then moving on to the next trail at a comfortable pace. 

When I ride alone, range>time>power. Give me 5-6k feet and 25 miles. Can't do that in turbo.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

alexbn921 said:


> Most ebike riders start in turbo and go wow this thing is a rocket ship. After a couple rides they settle into wanting more range and slow down. Then they turn it all the way down and try for the longest possible range.


Anecdotal.

Again your personal experience does not equate to actual experiences across the board.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> Anecdotal.
> 
> Again your personal experience does not equate to actual experiences across the board.


Only the 30+ guys I ride with regularly. And another 20+ I follow on Strava. 

What are you drawing your conclusion from? Seeing someone on the trails you don't want to talk to.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

alexbn921 said:


> Only the 30+ guys I ride with regularly. And another 20+ I follow on Strava.
> 
> What are you drawing your conclusion from?


I am not drawing a conclusion, just letting you and everyone else in this thread know that anecdotal experiences do not equate to actual numbers without data to back it up.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> I am not drawing a conclusion, just letting you and everyone else in this thread know that anecdotal experiences do not equate to actual numbers without data to back it up.


That's kind of the problem isn't it. Data is scarce and not very accurate. All we have for the most part is personal experience and conjuncture. 
I'm offering a large sample size of personal experience. 
Ebikes are very limited on range and it is the number one thing. That introduces traded offs and the first thing to go is power for range.


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

I'll admit it. If I encounter a boring section of trail with nobody around, I'll turboing!

Until the novelty wears off I guess.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> anecdotal experiences do not equate to actual numbers


Wow, so nice of you to finally admit it. Your ONE ride on an eMTB, where you went out to confirm your biases, means nothing. It wasn't related to how you'd actually ride one if you owned it any more than a car magazine doing 1/4 mile tests on a demo car relates to daily driving the same car.

Get back to us after you have 1000+ miles under your belt. 


.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

If battery conservation (range anxiety?) is what is keeping people running lower levels of assistance , then I would think that will become moot as batteries continue to improve.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Wow, so nice of you to finally admit it. Your ONE ride on an eMTB, where you went out to confirm your biases, means nothing. It wasn't related to how you'd actually ride one if you owned it any more than a car magazine doing 1/4 mile tests on a demo car relates to daily driving the same car.
> 
> Get back to us after you have 1000+ miles under your belt.
> 
> ...


I only needed one test to prove that eBikes _*CAN*_ be ridden up to 3x faster uphill, and I documented it via a GPS tracking app, so that test is not anecdotal, it is scientific, just not peer reviewed.

Riding more miles will not change the data I collected and presented.

I never postured that everyone who rides an eBike is going to always ride in turbo mode on every trail on every ride. I was simply putting to bed the false argument that eBikes are only slightly faster than regular bikes.

eBikes CAN be ridden up to 3x as fast as a pedal bike uphill. FACT.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

kapusta said:


> If battery conservation (range anxiety?) is what is keeping people running lower levels of assistance , then I would think that will become moot as batteries continue to improve.


When batteries outlast your back, knees and hands then yes you will want to go faster.

But I would rather have a lighter bike.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> I only needed one test to prove that eBikes _*CAN*_ be ridden up to 3x faster uphill, and I documented it via a GPS tracking app, so that test is not anecdotal, it is scientific, just not peer reviewed.
> 
> Riding more miles will not change the data I collected and presented.
> 
> ...


Cars can be driven 200mph. Fact!


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

alexbn921 said:


> Cars can be driven 200mph. Fact!


That is true!

Glad we got that out of the way.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> That is true!
> 
> Glad we got that out of the way.


Lets only talk about how they can be driven that fast and nothing else about them. 

On the subject of cars, what's the first question people want to know about an electric car? How far does it go on a single charge! Well I only drive at top speed soooooo not very far.


----------



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

Mod with a ton of ebike experience started another thread and said 3x the distance in the same time wasn't unusual..


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> I only needed one test to prove that eBikes _*CAN*_ be ridden up to 3x faster uphill, and I documented it via a GPS tracking app, so that test is not anecdotal, it is scientific, just not peer reviewed.
> 
> Riding more miles will not change the data I collected and presented.
> 
> ...


And I've demonstrated and posted that the way "experienced eMTB riders" ride ebikes, they're insignificantly faster in overall speed and power output. FACT!!!!









eMTB vs Analog data comparison


For those wondering how a traditional bike compares to an eMTB over the same course, I put this together. Same route, same rider, similar conditions, ridden about a week apart. Yes, there's a slight difference in distance, because I forgot to include a small extra loop of gravel bikepath along...




www.mtbr.com





I've also demonstrated that analog bikes are 2x as fast as ebikes....FACT!!!!









Let's just own that pedal bikes are more than twice...


Over the years there has been a lot of back and forth arguing about just how fast a Class 1 eBike can go and whether or not they are faster then pedal bikes. I have ridden pedal bikes downhill and been blown away by how fast they are. So I decided to sit down and compare the speeds of some...




www.mtbr.com







Pay attention everyone. This is where Kluger deletes the posts that he doesn't like, and locks the thread so nobody can call him out on it.


.


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

Klurejr said:


> The euro standard for the classes of bikes is a bit different as well.
> 
> The culture around bikes in Europe is way different than in the US. Bikes are much more prevalent, people are more educated about safe operation and land management is much more different.
> 
> Saying "but it works in Europe" is an apples and oranges argument for many things including eBikes.


Really, are mountain bikers different in Europe?
And how so?

I live in France 4 months a year, and see very very few mountain bikers not in e bikes 

You may be right that as transportation, Europe is different when it comes to bikes 

But not in mountain biking. 

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

chazpat said:


> The last three trails systems I rode were old school super tight singletrack where you're thinking you'd better check for ticks after the ride. I would hate to see these trails blown out wide due to passing and ebikes mixed with regular bikes will bring about more passing. These trails also had sections that were abandoned forest service roads which would be easier to pass on (though some sections the double track is reverting to singletrack) but I doubt a lot of ebikers would be willing to ride behind a bicycle until one of those sections was reached.
> 
> Most of the trails around me aren't as tight. Some of them are flow trails and there is room for passing. Others are still pretty tight but so twisty that passing isn't always easy, you have to find a spot where you can pull over a little and pause and let someone by. But again, more passing will mean the trails get wider and wider. It's really a numbers game, a few ebikes and it's not an issue. But if the percentage gets greater and greater, more passing.
> 
> I have no perceptions that I should be faster than a motor assisted bike, or a lot of non-assisted bikes. Call me a luddite for not wanting the trails to change. I've ridden out west with a member of this site on an ebike and I saw no issues on those trails, a lot more miles per rider available than where I ride and a lot more open.


I doubt there will be more passing because most mountain bikers will soon be in e bikes, so there won't be many people to pass

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

chiefsilverback said:


> Maybe the industry should start producing class 1 ebikes at a similar price point to the class 2 and 3 models so that people can buy them. Also I just looked at RadPower's site and I can't see any clear indication of what class their bikes are, so I guarantee that the majority of people with ebikes have absolutely no idea what class they are on and will assume all ebikes are the same.


Yeah but have you seen rad bikes on singletrack?

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

chiefsilverback said:


> I don't see anything in that presentation about physical impact to the trails, it appears to be all about peoples perceptions and opinions. I'm assuming they surveyed people who hadn't ridden an ebike, and then asked the same questions after they had had a go on an ebike? If that's how it worked it's interesting that the number of people who thought ebikes shouldn't be allowed increased after riding one (if i'm reading those charts correctly).


Why would anyone do a study to see if there's more erosion from e bikes?

All you have to do is look at Europe, they had e bikes for a lot longer

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

_CJ said:


> Pay attention everyone. This is where Kluger deletes the posts that he doesn't like, and locks the thread so nobody can call him out on it.


Can you please give it a break? What is up with your arguing and taking members posts out of context. Your negative attitude is becoming a trend.



alexbn921 said:


> Ebikes are very limited on range and it is the number one thing. That introduces traded offs and the first thing to go is power for range.


I think we can all agree this goes for anything with a motor. Small battery and heavy use of power is the same as a small fuel tank and heavy throttle hand. 

The new Trek Fuel is helping to solve that issue by offering an aux battery.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

ballisticexchris said:


> Can you please give it a break? What is up with your arguing and taking members posts out of context. Your negative attitude is becoming a trend.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All the SL bikes with range extenders still have less energy than a FF ebike.
The original 500wh batteries have a very limited range. about 35-40 minutes on turbo. The 700wh will drain a battery in 55-60 minutes on turbo. 

I've stretched the 700wh to over 5 hours of ride time. Most of my rides are 2-3 hours. 

700 is the sweet spot for range, power and weight. Even then batteries are getting better everyday and 700-1000wh will be normal with the weight of a SL bike now.

I don't even want full power 95+% of the time. But I have to have a full power motor to get the big battery.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> And I've demonstrated and posted that the way "experienced eMTB riders" ride ebikes, they're insignificantly faster in overall speed and power output. FACT!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In that very thread you tried to argue that eMTBs are only slightly faster than regular MTBs.... perhaps you forgot about that? 😘


----------



## ttengineer (Jun 7, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> That is quite the assumption. Do you have any numbers to back up such a statement? Just because you might not want to ride it in Turbo Mode all the time has no bearing on how others use their toys.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No numbers to back it up, just anecdotal, which I thought was obvious and implied. But based on my own observations and discussions with ebike riders my generalization is in fact a general statement that holds water. 

Class 1 ebikes are indeed not that fast generally speaking. Sure YOU might be able to go 3 times as fast, but a better rider will not see that much of a speed increase. And I don’t believe you are capable of going 15mph on a climb unless it’s a fire road with a mellow grade. And even then, why would it matter on a fire road? There is plenty of room to pass. 

On a full power bike you’re still capped out at 20mph. Period. I’d honestly bet 99% of riders can’t get up to 20mph on a climb either. 

Here’s the thing, an ebike rider may be able to pass a trad bike rider at 2-3 times the speed, but if those speeds are 5 and 15, is that really a concern? A human on average can run at 8mph, with Bolt reaching nearly 28mph in his world record time. So ebikes really aren’t that fast, relatively speaking. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## trmn8er (Jun 9, 2011)

_CJ said:


> Don't worry, "our people" _are_ lobbying the policy makers. Gate keepers just complain on the internet, but as it turns out their numbers are dwindling. As few as 20% of MTB riders object to eMTB sharing the same trails these days. It used to be 50%. Soon, the e-haters will be relegated to the ranks of people who thing suspension, gears, and even freewheels are "cheating".
> 
> 
> .


Seeing as you like to quote statistics, would you share your sources of that data? I’d really like to see where you are getting these numbers from. I’ll wait. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

rod9301 said:


> I doubt there will be more passing because most mountain bikers will soon be in e bikes, so there won't be many people to pass
> 
> Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


This makes me sad as you are saying that the sport I love, mountain biking, is dying. We tend to think that things last forever but they don't. Track cycling used to be the biggest sport in the US but now it gets very little attention.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

ballisticexchris said:


> Can you please give it a break? What is up with your arguing and taking members posts out of context. Your negative attitude is becoming a trend.


He started this thread fully knowing the direction it would go.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

rod9301 said:


> Really, are mountain bikers different in Europe?
> And how so?
> 
> Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


US emtbs motor boost are allowed to be 30% faster than in Europe.


----------



## bongo_x (Aug 20, 2006)

No motorized vehicles on my trails.

I totally disagree with all the "emtbs are the future, it's inevitable, blah blah blah" and think it's kind of hilarious.
Segways were the future. Hoverboards were the future. So many things were "inevitable".
Ebikes are expensive. Ebikes are going to do OK for transportation uses.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

chazpat said:


> US emtbs motor boost are allowed to be 30% faster than in Europe.


USA = 20mph / EU = 15.5mph top assisted speed. 
20-15.5= 4.5mph difference in top speed. You can walk at 4mph easily. 4,5mph is slightly to fast for a walk, but too slow for a jog. Just to put this speed difference to context.

20mph is only really achievable on the road ride to the trails when it’s flat or a slight grade. On the trail, most climbs I do drops my speed between 5 to 10mph. Yes, I could probably hit close to 20mph on a fire road with a slight grade, but probably for several seconds. Remember, to get more speed/power from class 1 ebike requires more power from the rider. Just like a regular bike rider, the rider will be at their max power, which can’t be sustain for very long. On the climbs, most ebikers are going way slower then 20mph and even slower than 15,5mph.


----------



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

mtbbiker said:


> Remember, to get more speed/power from class 1 ebike requires more power from the rider.




That depends. There is no industry standard that determines how much pedal pressure is required to get (x) amount of motor power. Some class 1's I've ridden seem to give full power even if you're barely pedaling.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

Klurejr said:


> I only needed one test to prove that eBikes _*CAN*_ be ridden up to 3x faster uphill, and I documented it via a GPS tracking app, so that test is not anecdotal, it is scientific, just not peer reviewed.
> 
> Riding more miles will not change the data I collected and presented.
> 
> ...


Your ride, because you just jumped on an ebike and wanted to prove a point was anecdotal at best and seems to be an outlier. Just went over my data, and most of my rides up & down are at about 10mph ave. When I look at only the climbs, my ave drops between 5 to 10mph, depending how steep the grade is. That’s my data point and I ride with many more ebikers than you do. My fellow ebikers are all right at about 5 to 10 mph climbing, again depending on grade. The steeper the grade, which most trail systems are, the slower ebikes go, but definitely not 15mph and yes faster then a regular biker. There’s so many variables, you just can’t make a blanket statement. An older ebike rider or disabled rider or over weight rider may not ride as fast up a climb than a fit regular rider.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> That depends. There is no industry standard that determines how much pedal pressure is required to get (x) amount of motor power. Some class 1's I've ridden seem to give full power even if you're barely pedaling.


That’s only about 550watts, that’s not that much power. If there’s a steep climb, the ebiker rider is still going to putting out a lot of effort if he/she wants to get up that climb fast.


----------



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

mtbbiker said:


> That’s only about 550watts, that’s not that much power.



Ha ha, go for a ride on a regular bike with a power meter and get back to me on that one 🙃


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

Klurejr said:


> I only needed one test to prove that eBikes _*CAN*_ be ridden up to 3x faster uphill, and I documented it via a GPS tracking app, so that test is not anecdotal, it is scientific, just not peer reviewed.
> 
> Riding more miles will not change the data I collected and presented.
> 
> ...


Exactly - you don’t need to flip a light switch 400 times to have a statistically significant sample regarding what’s likely to happen on the 401st throw. 

High school graduation should now require at least one statistics class, one economics class and one coding class, we can add one yoga class too if they will yield on the others.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> Ha ha, go for a ride on a regular bike with a power meter and get back to me on that one 🙃


I did. What's your point.

Both my road and ebike have power meters that I use to train.


----------



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

alexbn921 said:


> I did. What's your point.



because you said 550w isn't much power. That's elite pro power, the average cyclist couldn't hold 550 for more than a few seconds. But you have a pm so you must know that already.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Ha ha, go for a ride on a regular bike with a power meter and get back to me on that one 🙃


How often do you ride an ebike? I ride mine at least 4 times a week. Very familiar with the 3 setting on my Kenevo and all the extra tuning you can do through Mission Control to Eco, Trail, Turbo.


----------



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

mtbbiker said:


> How often do you ride an ebike? I ride mine at least 4 times a week. Very familiar with the 3 setting on my Kenevo and all the extra tuning you can do through Mission Control to Eco, Trail, Turbo.



Don't mean to be rude but what does that have to do with what you quoted? All I was saying is 550w is a lot of juice.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Don't mean to be rude but what does that have to do with what you quoted? All I was saying is 550w is a lot of juice.


I should have said Max 550watts, not the entire ride at 550watts. If you rode an ebike often, you’d realize that. In turbo, you can get to that 550watts easier, but you still need to put out a lot of effort if you want to stay at 550watts. 

I think that’s the problem with some of the people against Ebikes. They look at the specs and only focus on 20mph/550watts and make a lot of assumptions. You see it all through this thread. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

mtbbiker said:


> USA = 20mph / EU = 15.5mph top assisted speed.
> 20-15.5= 4.5mph difference in top speed. You can walk at 4mph easily. 4,5mph is slightly to fast for a walk, but too slow for a jog. Just to put this speed difference to context.
> 
> 20mph is only really achievable on the road ride to the trails when it’s flat or a slight grade. On the trail, most climbs I do drops my speed between 5 to 10mph. Yes, I could probably hit close to 20mph on a fire road with a slight grade, but probably for several seconds. Remember, to get more speed/power from class 1 ebike requires more power from the rider. Just like a regular bike rider, the rider will be at their max power, which can’t be sustain for very long. On the climbs, most ebikers are going way slower then 20mph and even slower than 15,5mph.


4.5 mph difference is huge when you're talking about bike speed or walking/running speed, not so different if you're talking about motor speed of cars, etc. If there isn't much difference, the US would have made the cut off 15.5 to match Europe but they didn't. And I was just answering this question from another post:



rod9301 said:


> Really, are mountain bikers different in Europe?


and yeah, I sure hope ebikers are going "slower" than 15.5mph on climbs.


----------



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

mtbbiker said:


> If you rode an ebike often, you’d realize that. In turbo, you can get to that 550watts easier, but you still need to put out a lot of effort if you want to stay at 550watts.



I ride various ebikes often on sustained climbs. I'm pretty familiar with them and those things can fly uphill, on steep climbs I can go 3x the speed while using a fraction of the power I would on a regular bike.

Nothing wrong with that and I never said there was.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> I ride various ebikes often on sustained climbs. I'm pretty familiar with them and those things can fly uphill, on steep climbs I can go 3x the speed while using a fraction of the power I would on a regular bike.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that and I never said there was.


Yep. I stopped by a buddies house yesterday to check out his new to Him Commensal Meta, took it for a quick spin up the hill he lives on, the torque brought me up to 15mph almost instantly. It was awesome going that fast with so little effort.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> because you said 550w isn't much power. That's elite pro power, the average cyclist couldn't hold 550 for more than a few seconds. But you have a pm so you must know that already.


I didn't say it. Just that I have power meters. I fully understand how much power I make and for how long.

Fyi I can hold 421watts for 5:14 minutes.


----------



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

alexbn921 said:


> Fyi I can hold 421watts for 5:14 minutes.





alexbn921 said:


> What's your point.


So my point is that if you're bragging about holding 420 for 5 minutes (which is a lot btw, congrats) then surely 550 doesn't qualify as "not that much power"

I realize you didn't say that but it seemed implied because you quoted me referring to that post. Sorry if I was mistaken but if so hopefully you can understand why.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

ttengineer said:


> Here’s the thing, an ebike rider may be able to pass a trad bike rider at 2-3 times the speed, but if those speeds are 5 and 15, is that really a concern?


Are you an engineer who doesn't understand related rates? 

Things I learned from reading this thread:

People on $10K+ eBikes are down on their luck regular joes needing a break and people riding regular bikes are "elites". Yup, there's nothing elite about wanting to play with new, expensive power toys wherever you want.

Ebikers can do 3X the traditional bikers distance in the same time, but somehow the have physics that enable that by only going 30% faster or less. Magic!

20mph isn't fast, even tho WC winning elites do their 16mi closed race course in avg of just over 11mph. 20mph on eBike is only attainable where it's relatively flat or not super steep which is 'rare' - unless you consider that most the areas this org is calling for opening to eBikes are riddled with flat / not super steep congested trails. Certainly, 20mph will mesh well with foot traffic and dog walkers there - they're going to love getting buzzed by yahoos and will probably give them flower lays for being so rad.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

I've noticed whenever people feel the need to yell "FACT!" that either they can't back it up with solid evidence, or the fact is of small value to the larger point being debated.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

550watts is a lot for a cyclist, but it's still not a lot of power overall. Especially as it's max power.

It does create a speed differential. It makes you faster than any human.

It's not dirt ripping power, but you are faster on flat and up hill terrain.

DH it can boost you out of a corner, but has little effect as most of the time you are not pedaling or are above the speed cutoff.

I love MTB and I love ebikes. Both can be ridden recklessly and garner a negative interaction. We are all jundged by the worse among us and the public doesn't see a difference. A bike is a bike. The problem is that those we are fighting against like the sierra club, don't view us as human. We are an enemy that needs crushed regardless of the methods or cost.

I've been to the meeting and listened to these people equate use to murderers. My son couldn't understand how they could hate us so much. I brought him up and let him talk to the council. It's good for him to learn how we fight for rights in this country and how the enemy really is.

ebikers are coming and are having the same fight that we had for rights and access. It's understandable that those who put in the effort don't want ebikes tagging along. It's not ebikes that are the enemy, but they are feared to be used against MTB access by the enemy.

I have and will continue to fight for my rights, even if that falls outside the "rules".
I will do it in a courteous manner with 2 bells on my bike.
I will encourage and educate my chidden to keep up the fight for things they are passionate about.
I will do it all with a smile on my face knowing that I (me personally) am not harming the people I interact with.
I pull over for horses, I rake trails and I carry a folding saw to clear dead fall.
I'm not a criminal, even it I resist some laws.


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

alexbn921 said:


> My son couldn't understand how they could hate us so much. I brought him up and let him talk to the council. It's good for him to learn how we fight for rights in this country and how the enemy really is.


Since the only thing many of us do everyday that actually does “change the world” is influence how our children experience and understand it, I just have to ask…who is the enemy?


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

DGUSMC said:


> Since the only thing many of us do everyday that actually does “change the world” is influence how our children experience and understand it, I just have to ask…who is the enemy?


Around here and in most of the USA the Sierra club is the enemy of access.
They are retired with lots of time and money to fight. They are also well organized with well defined goals and a willingness to use ANY means to achieve them.


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

alexbn921 said:


> Around here and in most of the USA the Sierra club is the enemy of access.


Not that it’s my place to judge but I do appreciate the edit. I teach my kid not to allow the muzzle of any weapon to “cover” anything he’s not willing to destroy, and the word “enemy” I generally reserve for things that meet that description. Someone or a group of people I disagree with don’t come close to meeting that standard.


----------



## Spokey-Doke (Apr 4, 2005)

Moe Ped said:


> FWIW what the law says is that a Class 3 is just a Class 1 with a top speed of 28 mph. No twist or thumb throttle as on a Class 2. Same 750 W limit as for all 3 classes.
> 
> Very few of the bikes that Luna sells are legit e-bikes, the ones that qualify as "Class" bikes are sold with the understanding (and instructions) that they're very easy to mod into kilowatt-power mopeds.
> 
> And that Sur Ron (have one) is straight up a mini-motorcycle.


I know all this. Not sure what your point is.

Can your average citizen tell the difference between eBike classes? Can your average park ranger tell the difference? Can your average park ranger tell the difference between a traditional mountain bike and some of the newer class 1 bikes? (It's getting much harder.) Does he even want to try? (Not even a little.)

That is why the "no bikes" signs will go up. We may all understand the differences, but the hiker who gets run over by a newbie on a Luna won't care. Any jurisdiction that doesn't have the manpower or desire to police eBike types will simply ban ALL bicycles.

The MTB community has spent decades cultivating relationships with hiking and equestrian groups. And they STILL don't like us. Attend any local trail meeting and you'll see.

In 1984 the Sierra Club convinced the Forest Service to change the definition of "mechanized transport," which was originally meant to ban motorized vehicles from wilderness areas, to include "human powered" bicycles. It was a game changer.

We can argue amongst ourselves about speeds and watts, and keep repeating the "no difference between class 1 and analog bikes," and all the other BS. But the bottom line is there's a motor on it and that's what the opposing groups will focus on and use against us.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

alexbn921 said:


> ebikers are coming and are having the same fight that we had for rights and access. It's understandable that those who put in the effort don't want ebikes tagging along. It's not ebikes that are the enemy, but they are feared to be used against MTB access by the enemy.


What I appreciate about your posts here is that you acknowledge that eBikes are different, faster. Man, that goes a long way compared to the delusional posters - a great starting point for a legit conversation on inclusion and meshing.

I'm not particularly fond of 'enemy' language though I understand the animus and the adversarial positioning. But some of the advocacy groups operate in bad faith (see: Backcountry hunters and anglers BHA) - I think this varies quite a bit by regions tho. Personally, I don't see eBikes as enemy nor do I see hikers/conservationists as enemy. Simply put, there are competing interests. And that is why there is a process. And yes it's a slow process. But if it wasn't duly considered and open to amendment, mtb et al wouldn't have nearly the footing it does today. 

What I find unreasonable is when groups act irrationally and willfully ignorant of the process and circumstances. I'm going to cite the eBike dilemma here but the same thing happens w/ mtb, pickleballs, ohv, etc. 

EBikers need to appreciate what they are asking for is significant and not trivial - basically saying that areas that never had motorized travel before, need to accommodate low powered motorized vehicles. You can dance around words like 'assist' but motor it is. Truth is, no one knows how this is going to turn out 5, 10 years down the line; adhering to the process to vet it is reasonable - eBikes have barely been on the scene but a few years and they are asking for the most significant access change ever. The process is the same for any change like this and the process may not be on your personal timeline - petition but understand the circumstances. 

I've elaborated on some of the areas land managers need to consider and work thru such as conservation easements and varied / contradictory laws & policy. I'm always surprised that they don't get the engagement here because understanding that is a blue print, step by step guide to inclusion... it's always easier to cry 'I want' instead of leaning into the work. But from where I sit, understanding what a land manger needs to consider & perform (plus the limitations) and addressing it with preparation is how to grease the skids to get the most of what you want. Ignore it and resist reality at your peril.


----------



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

alexbn921 said:


> Around here and in most of the USA the Sierra club is the enemy of access.
> They are retired with lots of time and money to fight. They are also well organized with well defined goals and a willingness to use ANY means to achieve them.


yep,



> Sierra Club Mission Statement
> To practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; To educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.



They are failing but I do applaud their defined goals.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

DGUSMC said:


> Not that it’s my place to judge but I do appreciate the edit. I teach my kid not to allow the muzzle of any weapon to “cover” anything he’s not willing to destroy, and the word “enemy” I generally reserve for things that meet that description. Someone or a group of people I disagree with don’t come close to meeting that standard.


I've been to enough meetings on access and informed myself on the some people and there goals that show up in opposition. The Sierra club stated goals it to completely eliminate MTB access, "disappoint them in doses that they can stand". Nothing short of a total ban is acceptable. We are their enemy and they are at "war" with MTB access. Even if you don't see it that way.

Again this is personal experience.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> yep,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The thing is I an environmentalist and support a lot of the advocacy they do. I want natural places, free from development. I also want to ride my bike in an old mine or on a 100+ year old ranch.
Getting out into nature is part of MTB.


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

alexbn921 said:


> I've been to enough meetings on access and informed myself on the some people and there goals that show up in opposition. The Sierra club stated goals it to completely eliminate MTB access, "disappoint them in doses that they can stand". Nothing short of a total ban is acceptable. We are their enemy and they are at "war" with MTB access. Even if you don't see it that way.
> 
> Again this is personal experience.


I think most people with personal experience with “war” might see it a little differently. 

Using the language of violence in situations that don’t remotely call for violence has to register somewhere on a irresponsibility spectrum, but you do you.


----------



## Spokey-Doke (Apr 4, 2005)

DGUSMC said:


> I think most people with personal experience with “war” might see it a little differently.
> 
> Using the language of violence in situations that don’t remotely call for violence has to register somewhere on a irresponsibility spectrum, but you do you.


When one uses spike strips or strings barbed wire across a trail, perhaps the word is warranted?


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

DGUSMC said:


> I think most people with personal experience with “war” might see it a little differently.
> 
> Using the language of violence in situations that don’t remotely call for violence has to register somewhere on a irresponsibility spectrum, but you do you.


We (MTB) were equated to clubbing baby seals and pouring motor oil in lakes. 

Maybe war is the wrong word, not sure what to call a coordinated campaign to eliminate all MTB access with zero concessions should be called. I was not trying to downplay or dilute the meaning of your connection to the word. 

Hate is the right word though. They hate MTB.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

alexbn921 said:


> I also want to ride my bike in an old mine or on a 100+ year old ranch.


Opportunity time. Did you know that a frequent, widespread way that olden time ranchers preserve their ranch land from development is through Conservation Easements? It's a restriction you can place your land that limits development and 'devalues' the land. You get a tax break. Typically this so devalues land so it can be reasonably purchased or donated to the public. You know who sets the type of restrictions? The Rancher does - according to his/her wishes. "I'd like to devalue my land and preserve it so no new roads, open to horses, closed to moto, etc - put it into CE. I now donate my land, my way". We all benefit from this.

So that land you are riding on or using, was gracefully donated/devalued by someone who trusted in the public & codified how it can be used. Generous huh? 

But then 10-20 years, some group comes in and says.... I've been using this public land and now I want to: put in a bigger parking lot, but in a road, add motorized....whatever. "Who is this rancher? Who cares about that guy? I've been using it for years so I don't see the big deal" How soon we forget and lose gratitude for their generosity.

So let's say, there's some appetite to make that amendment. Well, there's a non-trivial process to make that happen - there's an independent agency that manages the CE. It's not light and breezy decision - for one, do you want to alienate ranchers/farmers from preserving their land because you're just going to change their easement at the drop of a hat? There's a trust component here. But legally it's more complicated. The tax / devaluation is set. That means, if you "increase the value" of the land by allowing something previously restricted, you need to devalue something else. So let's take eBike/motorized - if you increase the value by extending types of use, you must decrease the value correspondingly. You know what typically is the first thing to go? Shut down a previously open area to trail building/development. Teet. For. Tat. How about that huh? Extending access on a CE controlled land might actually reduce the opportunity for new trails.

The more you know!


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

Spokey-Doke said:


> When one uses spike strips or strings barbed wire across a trail, perhaps the word is warranted?


 No question that physical attacks are heinous and require quick and swift justice whenever possible, but I just loathe that we have devolved to a point where the language of combat is followed so often and easily with actual acts of violence. 

I’m not naive. Even the thinnest understanding of history imparts the reality that the tribes within our society have often and perhaps always been “at each other’s throats” verbally and physically. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be lamented or that it should be perpetuated if and when we can find in ourselves the discipline to just decide to stop.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

The local ranch was donated to the state with a 100+ year lease to ranch on for the family. 

Perfect place. Except no legal single track. We are finally earning some headway in access for social trails. Enforcement is sporadic and seasonal. As good neighbors we try to police ourselves.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

alexbn921 said:


> The local ranch was donated to the state with a 100+ year lease to ranch on for the family.
> 
> Perfect place. Except no legal single track. We are finally earning some headway in access for social trails. Enforcement is sporadic and seasonal. As good neighbors we try to police ourselves.


I'm not going to meddle in some CA affairs. But it might be worth looking into how that land is preserved. The 100+ lease is typical of a CE - so the Rancher/next gen can live out using their land. 

I'm very mindful of the generousity of Ranchers and other donors and with that, I respect their wishes. They don't have to do this. So, I'm ultra keen on being a good citizen through example: if you donate, you can count on us to respect your terms. What you don't want to do is lose other potential land donations by being short sighted and selfish.


----------



## Spokey-Doke (Apr 4, 2005)

DGUSMC said:


> No question that physical attacks are heinous and require quick and swift justice whenever possible, but I just loathe that we have devolved to a point where the language of combat is followed so often and easily with actual acts of violence.
> 
> I’m not naive. Even the thinnest understanding of history imparts the reality that the tribes within our society have often and perhaps always been “at each other’s throats” verbally and physically. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be lamented or that it should be perpetuated if and when we can find in ourselves the discipline to just decide to stop.


I'm the son of a Marine, but never a service member myself. I mean no disrespect to anyone, especially my old man. I was an English major. The language is complex and vague at times. The word "war" is used often both literally and figuratively—culture war, war of attrition, war on drugs, etc. I'm trying to think of a word that better describes the combative relationship we've had with the Sierra Club, but I simply can't.

Peace.


----------



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

alexbn921 said:


> We (MTB) were equated to clubbing baby seals and pouring motor oil in lakes.



hyperbole does not help your argument

I agree some areas that are off limits probably shouldn't be but overall there seems to be a ton of legal places to ride so no big deal.


----------



## Spokey-Doke (Apr 4, 2005)

J.B. Weld said:


> hyperbole does not help your argument
> 
> I agree some areas that are off limits probably shouldn't be but overall there seems to be a ton of legal places to ride so no big deal.


I have fewer legal places today than I had a year ago. Winter is coming. Figuratively.


----------



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

Spokey-Doke said:


> I have fewer legal places today than I had a year ago. Winter is coming. Figuratively.



Maybe that's just regional. I'm guessing there is a lot more mtb trail available overall now than 10 years ago.

"winter is coming" in that context is so doom & gloom, there are a lot or worrisome problems in the world but I don't think that's one of them.


----------



## Spokey-Doke (Apr 4, 2005)

J.B. Weld said:


> Maybe that's just regional. I'm guessing there is a lot more mtb trail available overall now than 10 years ago.
> 
> "winter is coming" in that context is so doom & gloom, there are a lot or worrisome problems in the world but I don't think that's one of them.


Maybe riding a bike where I want helps me deal with more worrisome problems.

If you only prioritize the biggest problems, especially the ones you have little control over, the small ones where you could have contributed will quickly be snatched away from you.

Trail access may be a small problem to you, but it's been one I've been involved in for most of my life.


----------



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

Spokey-Doke said:


> Maybe riding a bike where I want helps me deal with more worrisome problems.



Same here. The only places around me I'd want to ride but can't is private land but thankfully there's so much public land and national forest to choose from that seems like a trivial matter. In my case. Sorry for your troubles, good luck!


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> hyperbole does not help your argument
> 
> I agree some areas that are off limits probably shouldn't be but overall there seems to be a ton of legal places to ride so no big deal.


I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

A sierra club member got up at a meeting and said those things with my son sitting next to me. This was for including bikes on a section of trail promised as general use as part of a development. The terms where prearranged before construction began. After the fact the Sierra club brought lawsuits and protested at all meetings with the sole purpose of restricting bikes.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

I think we can all agree that the Sierra Club is the worst.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> Maybe that's just regional. I'm guessing there is a lot more mtb trail available overall now than 10 years ago.
> 
> "winter is coming" in that context is so doom & gloom, there are a lot or worrisome problems in the world but I don't think that's one of them.


They destroyed and limited traisl locally with the promise of building a dedicated flow trail. It's been 2 years and it's bogged down in lawsuits. This is after the MTB community gave up social trails and agreed to help police itself.
The trail was already planned and funded, ready to start.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mtbbiker said:


> Your ride, because you just jumped on an ebike and wanted to prove a point was anecdotal at best and seems to be an outlier. Just went over my data, and most of my rides up & down are at about 10mph ave. When I look at only the climbs, my ave drops between 5 to 10mph, depending how steep the grade is. That’s my data point and I ride with many more ebikers than you do. My fellow ebikers are all right at about 5 to 10 mph climbing, again depending on grade. The steeper the grade, which most trail systems are, the slower ebikes go, but definitely not 15mph and yes faster then a regular biker. There’s so many variables, you just can’t make a blanket statement. An older ebike rider or disabled rider or over weight rider may not ride as fast up a climb than a fit regular rider.


Can you provide some data please? What I would like to see is a GPS tracked segment that is a climb. Show us all your averages on an MTB, then show us all your averages on an eBike.

I rode by buddies Commensal Meta yesterday, hit 15mph in just a few pedal strokes while going up a grade.....

I will admit That I would like much more of my own comparison data. I know my trail system really well, that is why I was able to get those 2x and 3x faster speeds on the loop I tested the Levo on. I am extremely interested in a Class 1 bike for myself now that a few friends have them and I have personally ridden them and seen just how much faster they are. The speed is the draw for me.

Here is the point and how it relates to this topic of People for bikes calling out a national level allowance. Land Managers are being pressured from Hikers, Horse owners and MTB organizations. Certain Hiker groups want trails to be hiker only. Certain horse owners don't want bikes. It is an uphill battle for MTB orgs in many places, especially in the more crowded area's where open land is more limited. The fact is a Class 1 eBike CAN hit 15mph in mere seconds and sustain that pace on flat ground or an incline for long periods of time. Much longer than the average human. Hikers and Equestrians can use that as fodder to push back. They do not care about the nuances of trail design, sightlines and other factors that would limit how fast any bike is travelling. 

How does People for Bike propose to win over the Sierra Club and Equestrian groups? Do they have an actual plan, or are they going to continue sticking their head in the ground and saying "eBikes are here and people like em so just deal with it, here we come". I have not seen any sort of messaging from them as an organization to back up their desire for a National standard of Class 1 acceptance on all trail systems.


----------



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

alexbn921 said:


> I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
> 
> A sierra club member got up at a meeting and said those things with my son sitting next to me.



A sierra club member said mountain biking was like clubbing baby seals and pouring oil in a lake? At a meeting? For real?




Klurejr said:


> I think we can all agree that the Sierra Club is the worst.


Nope. Not all of us.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Nope. Not all of us.


There were directly involved in shutting down a local riding area by me, so I am not a fan at all.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> A sierra club member said mountain biking was like clubbing baby seals and pouring oil in a lake? At a meeting? For real?


yes


----------



## Bikeventures (Jul 21, 2014)

New video from Jeff Kendalls Weed. Maybe propaganda since he's sponsored by Jensens. Or level headed commentary. You decide.


----------



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

alexbn921 said:


> yes




That's incredibly hard to imagine.


----------



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

Klurejr said:


> There were directly involved in shutting down a local riding area by me, so I am not a fan at all.



That's fine but you don't speak for everyone.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> That's fine but you don't speak for everyone.


Do you have some personal experience where the Sierra Club helped MTB access?


----------



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

Klurejr said:


> Do you have some personal experience where the Sierra Club helped MTB access?



No, but I also have no personal experience where they took any away. Even if I did I would have to regard the big picture, I'm not automatically against that even though I love mountain biking.

I'm not really meaning to defend the Sierra Club and I know they're far from a perfect organization but I'm glad there are at least some voices (and money) out there defending open space and wilderness. How many others are doing it?


----------



## rhondarayestreib (3 mo ago)

I understand what each are saying, have you thought out those like me whom a doctor botched my surgery, left me essentially disabled, I live in pain. A electric bike allows me to switch when my body can not handle any more. 
Should nature taken away from me, as its in my bones, I deserve the chance with help to stay strong, go off the beaten path, enjoy all nature has to offer me. I would be able to without these type of bike? Must only be allowed to the road of traffic, or my local park, that's if its allowed. When we take away peoples rights, what's next. 
Learning to respect each other sharing the path, how is this hurting those like me whom should be punished??? 
A few ruin it for us as I have dealt with those running over me without respect. 
If anything I am open to rules for any type of bike, rather assist, or a bike without help. 
I deserve as the rest here whom feel they were here first, I must be punished, not worthy. 
Can we not get a long, not all are out to be a jerk when riding.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

trmn8er said:


> Seeing as you like to quote statistics, would you share your sources of that data? I’d really like to see where you are getting these numbers from. I’ll wait.


It was in a podcast I listened to while hiking. Singletracks maybe? interviewing Travis? with NEMBA, talking about a survey of their membership. I'm sure he'd be happy to point you to the data if you really want to see it.



chazpat said:


> He started this thread fully knowing the direction it would go.


Bro, all I did was share an article about ebike advocacy. Notice I only quoted the article, didn't share any opinions of my own. Then as usual, the trolls came out to play. Not my fault they decided to make shitty comments, or that a forum moderator/owner decided to start in with his standard passive-aggressive anti-ebike posts....when he should really be keeping the puritans and their negativity out of this sub-forum.


.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

chazpat said:


> 4.5 mph difference is huge when you're talking about bike speed or walking/running speed, not so different if you're talking about motor speed of cars, etc. If there isn't much difference, the US would have made the cut off 15.5 to match Europe but they didn't. And I was just answering this question from another post:
> 
> 
> and yeah, I sure hope ebikers are going "slower" than 15.5mph on climbs.


25-30 mph is common on downhills, for all mountain bikes. The difference between the 15.5 and 20 an ebiker might see on the flats, or mild fire road climb isn't significant relative to downhill speeds, and it still well within the "normal" operating speeds of mountain bikes.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Bikeventures said:


> New video from Jeff Kendalls Weed. Maybe propaganda since he's sponsored by Jensens. Or level headed commentary. You decide.


Level headed commentary imho, and seems to mirror my experience with eMTB's as well, after analyzing and comparing GPS data from my own rides.


.


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

_CJ said:


> 25-30 mph is common on downhills, for all mountain bikes. The difference between the 15.5 and 20 an ebiker might see on the flats, or mild fire road climb isn't significant relative to downhill speeds, and it still well within the "normal" operating speeds of mountain bikes.


The fact that a speed is not problematic in one setting can’t be offered as suggestion that the same speed isn’t a problematic in another. 

I think we have all been on double track or gravel roads when some jackass (e or not) buzzes past people at 20mph when others are at 10pm or less. Yes, it’s the behavior that’s bad not the bike. But ebikes give that capacity to anyone who can mount a bike, and that dramatically changes the expectable frequency of shared trails experiencing a large uptick in jackassery. 

I’m not advocating one way or the other rather just saying the discussions here seem to be more often than not missing the situational context that would allow objective assessment.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

chazpat said:


> 4.5 mph difference is huge when you're talking about bike speed or walking/running speed, not so different if you're talking about motor speed of cars, etc. If there isn't much difference, the US would have made the cut off 15.5 to match Europe but they didn't. And I was just answering this question from another post:
> 
> 
> and yeah, I sure hope ebikers are going "slower" than 15.5mph on climbs.


Or EU should have picked a more reasonable speed of 20mph. As many people over there have found out riding to the trail head is painfully too slow. Once on the trail and climbing most will not hit 15.5mph whether in the USA or EU. The bigger issue and always has been is DH speed can easily exceed 20mph and often higher with poor line of site is a disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mtbbiker said:


> Or EU should have picked a more reasonable speed of 20mph. As many people over there have found out riding to the trail head is painfully too slow. Once on the trail and climbing most will not hit 15.5mph whether in the USA or EU. The bigger issue and always has been is DH speed can easily exceed 20mph and often higher with poor line of site is a disaster waiting to happen.


That is why directional trails are needed where they do not exist. Up at Greer(where you ride) and down at Calavera(where I ride) we have directional trails. There is no conflict on the trails because all the bikes are going the same direction.

When riding downhill where Gravity is your main source of momentum, there is little to no difference between a bike with a motor and one without.

The difference is when climbing up a trail that is directional or Multi-direction, that is where the conflict happens.

Dedicated DH trails have no place in this discussion.


----------



## ZiggsterZaskar (Jul 25, 2021)

_CJ said:


> Don't worry, "our people" _are_ lobbying the policy makers. Gate keepers just complain on the internet, but as it turns out their numbers are dwindling. As few as 20% of MTB riders object to eMTB sharing the same trails these days. It used to be 50%. Soon, the e-haters will be relegated to the ranks of people who thing suspension, gears, and even freewheels are "cheating".
> 
> 
> .You sound like an E-bike dealer salesman....there are a lot of you on this sight and this forum to sell E-bikes .Explain to me why you motorized bike riders just dont go ride at OHV trails.....what is wrong with that? Are you intimidated by trying to blend in with the moto world which, I am a part of but, I also embrace the traditional world of mtbing. Your part of the moto world already so what's the big deal? Why are you trying to make our already overcrowded people powered trails even more crowded by taking the work out of riding a mtn bike and introducing people that never would throw a leg over a traditional bike and invite them to flood our ALREADY OVERCROWDED PEOPLE POWERED trails because now they don't have to pedal when the going gets tough meaning UPHILL.....this does not pertain to elderly injured or cancer survivors...(another line of crap your kind like to accuse traditionalists like me of) I accept that scenario....maybe the next thing you young and healthy E-bike advocates can jump is when technology comes up with a walking assisted hiking boot.....mtb'ers like me ARE NOT HATERS we are riders who accept technology but not at the expense of losing our trails that have been made and ridden in by decades of traditional riding and riders such as I


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

mtbbiker said:


> Or EU should have picked a more reasonable speed of 20mph. As many people over there have found out riding to the trail head is painfully too slow.


Man, this post is great. 

I could swear I remember pedaling to the trail head under my power like it was..... just this morning. Like I've done for decades. I hope I live long enough to tell my grand kids of my fantastic feats!

Now getting a free ride up to 15mph isn't enough. Lulz. It does remind me of what I've found true.... once you start a moto addiction, there's never enough. The arms race for more power/speed is a well honed pursuit, ebikes are not immune.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

Carl Mega said:


> Now getting a free ride up to 15mph isn't enough.


Yup, E-bike advocates love to claim that increasing powered classes gaining access, modding e-bikes, enforcement, and related topics are a "slippery slope fallacy" while we watch it right in front of us. It's not a fallacy, there aren't leaps in logic, groups are currently advocating well beyond class 1 access to currently non-motorized trails. Previous standards for e-bikes weren't enough for Americans and going fast is fun. Walk assist on "Class 1" e-bikes arrived only a few years after the class was defined and allowed motor operation without pedaling. 

P4B wants to put the burden on land managers rather than take on responsibility or cost for changes they want to see. In my state, they had a bill in the legislature that would have modernized the definitions for the sake of on-road use. I would have supported it. P4B hired an experienced coal industry lobbyist to sneakily change the wording between readings without giving anyone the text. This wording would have put the burden on local land managers and enforcement to figure out new motorized rules, supply signage, and incur significant legal costs with no funding. I helped get that bill shot down at that point. I'll keep doing my part to keep e-bikes from appropriating/jeopardizing my access as long as the industry wants to try to ride in on MTB coat tails.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

mtbbiker said:


> Or EU should have picked a more reasonable speed of 20mph. As many people over there have found out riding to the trail head is painfully too slow. Once on the trail and climbing most will not hit 15.5mph whether in the USA or EU. The bigger issue and always has been is DH speed can easily exceed 20mph and often higher with poor line of site is a disaster waiting to happen.


So riding a bicycle is too painfully slow? You're not selling that an ebike is still about a bicycling experience with a little assist here, sounds more like a motor experience is what you're looking for. Hey, I get it, it's fun. But let's be honest about it.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

_CJ said:


> 25-30 mph is common on downhills, for all mountain bikes. The difference between the 15.5 and 20 an ebiker might see on the flats, or mild fire road climb isn't significant relative to downhill speeds, and it still well within the "normal" operating speeds of mountain bikes.


So you'd be fine lowering class 1 to cut off at 15.5mph?


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

Klurejr said:


> Can you provide some data please? What I would like to see is a GPS tracked segment that is a climb. Show us all your averages on an MTB, then show us all your averages on an eBike.
> 
> I rode by buddies Commensal Meta yesterday, hit 15mph in just a few pedal strokes while going up a grade.....
> 
> ...





Klurejr said:


> Can you provide some data please? What I would like to see is a GPS tracked segment that is a climb. Show us all your averages on an MTB, then show us all your averages on an eBike.
> 
> I rode by buddies Commensal Meta yesterday, hit 15mph in just a few pedal strokes while going up a grade.....
> 
> ...


All those groups your talking about want to get rid of MTB/emtb period. Again, I think your missing the point here and that other thread you posted about 3x faster. There are so many variables that my data wouldn’t matter either. Person’s age, skill level, terrain, body type, health, desire for climbing, going downhill or just out having fun, and many more.

Yes, ebike will make the rider climb faster than if on a regular bike. I don’t think anyone is disputing that. But, You are focusing in on the wrong issue. It’s the downhill differential speed, that’s the issue. Downhill speed is about same regardless of MTB or emtb. I looked at my data for climbing and downhill and I bet you can guess which one was significantly faster. On the climb, there were some sections for a brief time I hit 12mph. Every downhill, there were sections steep enough for me to hit for brief moment 22, 24 and 26mph.

What speed is the problem here? Going uphill and hitting 12mph for a brief moment? Or downhill hitting well over 20mph for a brief moment? Let’s say I see another trail user coming at me while climbing at 12mph. I can hit my brakes and with the uphill assisting the brakes stop extremely fast, collision adverted. Now imagine the other scenario, On the downhill, I hit 26mph. I see another trail user, I hit my brakes and now gravity is going against me. It takes significantly longer to stop, and the other trail user jumps out of the way or we collide. This trail system has one way downhills, but sometimes hikers ignore the signs and go up. Let’s stop focusing in on the wrong issue!


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

chazpat said:


> So riding a bicycle is too painfully slow? You're not selling that an ebike is still about a bicycling experience with a little assist here, sounds more like a motor experience is what you're looking for. Hey, I get it, it's fun. But let's be honest about it.


Nope, not to too slow, just not as much fun. An ebike has a low powered motor, so the experience is going to be slightly different then riding a regular bike. I’ve ridden MTB for well over 40yrs and loved it, except the climb. I’ve only been emtb riding the last 3yrs and having way more fun. Still getting a pretty good workout, but obviously not the same type of workout as riding an mtb. For me, I’m fine with that,


----------



## g.lee.trevino (5 mo ago)

I get that ebikes are faster but so is a Porsche compared to a Camry, ride or drive outside your skill level and your asking for trouble. My concern is for path riders with ebikes, witnessed a hard fall to the head, no helmet of course, a female on a cheapy ebike, if she were pedalling she would be going 8mph and on the ebike 14-15mph. She was clearly riding out of her skill level with the same input to the pedals. I just rode a bike park with lifts and not sure an ebike would have made me ride any faster as I know what I'm capable of. I think most mishaps occur when riders fatigue and get lazy and don't position themselves on the bike correctly. I get that being fit is part of the process of becoming a competent rider but as some have reached that point, it so much more fun going down than the struggle of going up. There is room for class one bikes on all trails, riders just need be educated on trail etiquette. There are plenty of experienced KOM riders who can be ass clowns on the trails with their 10K+ analog bikes.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

DGUSMC said:


> Yes, it’s the behavior that’s bad not the bike. But ebikes give that capacity to anyone who can mount a bike, and that dramatically changes the expectable frequency of shared trails experiencing a large uptick in jackassery.


Except that hasn't happened in places that have equal access for class 1, according to many land managers. People just don't ride these bikes in a way that's really much different than traditional bikes.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

chazpat said:


> So you'd be fine lowering class 1 to cut off at 15.5mph?


Sure, I really just don't exceed 15mph all that often, and when I do, it's usually on a road going to/from trails. I'd probably want to see older bikes grandfathered in, so that people wouldn't be left holding a bike they can't sell.

This whole "if we only did it like the Euro's" thing seems to be a new talking point, but it's just another tactic. While many of us would jump at the chance to give up 4.5mph for equal trail access, I seriously doubt the people making that argument would be willing to make that trade. They'll just find something else, like all ebikes should be limited to 60nm or they'll pay somebody to come up with a study showing the "sound" of an ebike disturbs butterflies, or something like that.

The reality is that nothing needs to change. In places where class 1 have equal access, there aren't any problems under the current rules and regulations. Thousands of riders on thousands of trails, for years now, and it's all fine. It's time to move on. Find something else to complain about.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

mtbbiker said:


> All those groups your talking about want to get rid of MTB/emtb period. Again, I think your missing the point here and that other thread you posted about 3x faster. There are so many variables that my data wouldn’t matter either. Person’s age, skill level, terrain, body type, health, desire for climbing, going downhill or just out having fun, and many more.
> 
> Yes, ebike will make the rider climb faster than if on a regular bike. I don’t think anyone is disputing that. But, You are focusing in on the wrong issue. It’s the downhill differential speed, that’s the issue. Downhill speed is about same regardless of MTB or emtb. I looked at my data for climbing and downhill and I bet you can guess which one was significantly faster. On the climb, there were some sections for a brief time I hit 12mph. Every downhill, there were sections steep enough for me to hit for brief moment 22, 24 and 26mph.
> 
> What speed is the problem here? Going uphill and hitting 12mph for a brief moment? Or downhill hitting well over 20mph for a brief moment? Let’s say I see another trail user coming at me while climbing at 12mph. I can hit my brakes and with the uphill assisting the brakes stop extremely fast, collision adverted. Now imagine the other scenario, On the downhill, I hit 26mph. I see another trail user, I hit my brakes and now gravity is going against me. It takes significantly longer to stop, and the other trail user jumps out of the way or we collide. This trail system has one way downhills, but sometimes hikers ignore the signs and go up. Let’s stop focusing in on the wrong issue!


I strongly disagree that Downhill speeds are the problem here. eBikes and Pedal bikes travel downhill at the same speed. The issue is strictly for uphill and flat land travel where the eBikes are clearly faster. 

If you have a really good trail system like they do at JeffCo where most of the trails are directional and use-type specific, there will not be very many cases of bikes passing bikes on the DH runs since the speed differential is all about skill at that point.

It is on the uphill sections where skill is thrown out the window and only fitness or a motor is going to create a speed differential.

Again - the topic at hand is that P4B thinks a national standard should be put in place. I think the issue needs to be settled as it always has at the local level by the land managers in charge of each trail system. There will be many trail systems where Class 1 will have little to no impact and there will be places where the land managers are going to take a more conservative approach and gauge what works for their area of responsibility. The aggressive push by guys on SunRons in the Orange County area has shown that in some places Caution is warranted until more data has been collected.


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

_CJ said:


> Except that hasn't happened in places that have equal access for class 1, according to many land managers. People just don't ride these bikes in a way that's really much different than traditional bikes.


What is the current adoption rate/market share of e-bikes? Hard to imagine it’s sufficiently close to what it would ultimately be to assume that current use cases are representative. 

If so, comments like “people just don’t ride these bikes much differently” or “according to many land managers” probably do not represent an appropriate basis for conclusion.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Blanket policy is a bad idea. That means if land managers want to limit ebike use on a particular trail for any reason, they will also be required to limit regular bike use. Having a separate category for ebikes avoids that problem for regular bikes. I realize that is completely obvious to most people except perhaps the bike industry.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Klurejr said:


> If you have a really good trail system like they do at JeffCo where most of the trails are directional and use-type specific, there will not be very many cases of bikes passing bikes on the DH runs since the speed differential is all about skill at that point.


The proper take-away of the Jeffco approach is: "Strict controls on direction and segregated use, provide an effective means of mitigating conflict in high-use, multi-modal trail systems." Maybe a note about planning few trail intersections / congregation points and trail alignment with ample line of sight.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Carl Mega said:


> The proper take-away of the Jeffco approach is: "Strict controls on direction and segregated use, provide an effective means of mitigating conflict in high-use, multi-modal trail systems." Maybe a note about planning few trail intersections / congregation points and trail alignment with ample line of sight.


Agreed, JeffCo is a shining beacon as a good example for other Land Managers to follow. Unfortunately the Park systems in San Diego and much of SoCal have a hands off approach or have no clue how to manage or build trails.

Check this example out, these photos were taken THIS WEEK of the Carlsbad City Parks Department "fixing" a rut on a trail that used to be Single Track:










I WISH we had competent land managers like JeffCo does.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

^So I have to be fair here Kjr, I can't judge those guys. I've done a lot of excavator work and rehab'd trail / fixed drainage in ways that the public wouldn't nec. be in a position to judge no matter what it looked like in the moment.

What I'd say about Jeffco is they have a top notch "system" - a way of doing the day to day business...and is extremely well funded and largely backed by their many, many constituents. There's a lot of history - gripes and advocacy changes... a real tale. The product is, what it is. It proudly serves a lot of people, giving them a natural reprieve from urban/suburban living. As I wrote previously, I'd never ever trade my current riding experience for theirs - but I understand it and respect it. My earlier point is, to consider their methods you need to look at it all, not just one thing that is 'working' for them...why is it working, how did they set the stage for success, etc.

Sort of steering this back on track, I've said that I personally feel that roughly 65% of traditional bike trails are also suitable for eBikes (obviously this is in opposition to POB 100% view). I'm not sure if I've adequately explained why that ~35% is important.

First thing to know, I don't necessiarly view this 35% as being "traditional bike" territory, I'm not reserving it for "bikes". A sizeable portion of that 35% is mutli-use refuge areas where congregations of mainly slow foot traffic area either already under-pressure from faster bike traffic/overtaking or they are areas that foot traffic have been pushed into because they are being overrun. It's not that bikes are so great here (truthfully neither is the riding), it's that faster bikes and more people on easy/fast bikes are going to further impact those trail users experience. The push back is already happening "I'm overrun by all the bikes! I can't take my kids or walk my dog". So I can't condone flippantly making their situation worse by some needless, impractical blanket rule.

Right now, many areas regard these refuges - informally. Some are good qasi/feeder trails/areas so there's purpose. But I think eBikes are going to be the tipping point and many areas will have succumb to having bikes shut out so hikers/walkers can have a little peace. When its reshuffled, I expect we'll lose even more than these token areas.

tldr: some boring trails are informally a refuge for foot traffic, it's a small concession to keep these off limits to faster users because the inevitable push back will close trails to all bikes. Sharing & empathy is important.

^clearly this all depends area to area (ex: jeffco already has hiker only, etc). It may not be the situation in your local system but it is commonplace.


----------



## bongo_x (Aug 20, 2006)

The rest of my ebike hot take:

Ebikes solve a transportation problem. The vast majority of MTB is not a transportation problem.
Do you want to ride downhills and not have to shuttle or pedal up? Do you want to ride with faster friends but are not able? Those are transportation problems. Is it worth thousands of dollars for you to change that? For most people, no. That's a rental situation.

Street transportation is the more likely use, and may become a permanent thing, but even for street transportation most people are not going to be comfortable or feel it's safe and convenient. And you still have all the same problems of riding in work or appropriate clothes, or working and shopping in your riding clothes, and similar problems.

I compared ebikes to Segways as a joke but I wouldn't at all be surprised if this isn't close to where they end up. As useful tools for specific situations, things you can rent a lot of places, but not something people feel is worth owning. After all, you can use a Seqway in a suit and it's not as awkward as riding a bike for a lot of people and they still weren't interested.

Lots of people are going to buy MTB ebikes because they think it sounds fun and then never touch them, there will be a glut, and a lot of them will be turned into street cruisers and lot of them will go in landfills.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Klurejr said:


> I strongly disagree that Downhill speeds are the problem here. eBikes and Pedal bikes travel downhill at the same speed. The issue is strictly for uphill and flat land travel where the eBikes are clearly faster.


Yep, has anyone ridden or WALKED on a city-type-path in the last few years? JFC with the e-bikes zipping in and out and making people get out of the way.


----------



## bongo_x (Aug 20, 2006)

Jayem said:


> Yep, has anyone ridden or WALKED on a city-type-path in the last few years? JFC with the e-bikes zipping in and out and making people get out of the way.


I've only noticed it recently here, and it's a little crazy because the people riding them are almost always going way too fast and clearly not skilled riders in control of the bikes. It's tough to watch out for kids and pedestrians on the paths here while pedaling, and then someone comes flying by at twice your speed. 
I don't think they're actually allowed on the paths here. They belong on the street.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

bongo_x said:


> The rest of my ebike hot take:
> 
> Ebikes solve a transportation problem. The vast majority of MTB is not a transportation problem.
> Do you want to ride downhills and not have to shuttle or pedal up? Do you want to ride with faster friends but are not able? Those are transportation problems. Is it worth thousands of dollars for you to change that? For most people, no. That's a rental situation.
> ...


I agree about the trails.
Not about mtb ebikes. New riders might drop off , but the hardcore riders are switching to them and if your friend do it so do you. It's going to be the predominant bike out on the trails in many areas of the USA. It's already that way in Europe.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

DGUSMC said:


> What is the current adoption rate/market share of e-bikes? Hard to imagine it’s sufficiently close to what it would ultimately be to assume that current use cases are representative.
> 
> If so, comments like “people just don’t ride these bikes much differently” or “according to many land managers” probably do not represent an appropriate basis for conclusion.


Those are good questions, so I went looking for answers.

US ebike sales
2019 250,000
2020 450,000
2021 790,000
2022 1,000,000 (projected)
Continued growth is projected along the same vector

45% of all ebikes sold are Class 1.

SO, that's 1,120,500 class 1 ebikes that have been sold since 2018, with a projection of 500,000-1,000,000 additional units _per year._ This isn't just a tiny subset of riders, this is a tidal wave that's going to over-run the entire sport. The sheer numbers alone disqualify any suggestion that the sample size is too small to draw conclusions. We're talking millions of miles ridden, just in the United States without any of the post apocalyptical scenarios being bandied about coming to fruition.

I think it's funny how so many on this site are talking out both sides of their mouths, with tales of seeing so many people riding trails illegally, but then when you're given examples of places where class 1 bikes have been successfully integrated, you say there aren't enough e-riders for it to be statistically significant.

And then there's old Kluger, dragging out his old chestnuts about Jefferson County, that hold only a kernel of truth, which he blows into a complete fabrication to misrepresent the situation on the ground....which he has no personal knowledge of. Conveniently ignoring that there's also legal class 1 access in ALL of Colorado's state parks, which afford no special treatment of days, user groups, or direction. Or any myriad of other places, like Bentonville, or first hand accounts from people in BC.

The real minority out there these days are the puritan elitists.


.


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

_CJ said:


> Those are good questions, so I went looking for answers.
> 
> US ebike sales
> 2019 250,000
> ...


Cool. Those are numerators. What are the denominators? The ratio is what will tell us whether there is sufficient density to predict interaction patterns when extrapolating. 

I don’t think anyone suggested people are not buying e-bikes.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

DGUSMC said:


> Cool. Those are numerators. What are the denominators? The ratio is what will tell us whether there is sufficient density to predict interaction patterns when extrapolating.
> 
> I don’t think anyone suggested people are not buying e-bikes.


I'm fairly certain those numbers are all types of eBikes. By far, the most common ebikes are commuter style rigs - more inexpensive the better. The expensive mtb mid-drive market doesn't have nearly that footprint.

Plenty of articles like this: New Research Shows That E-Bikes Are Outpacing Electric Cars Sales in the U.S.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

_CJ said:


> Those are good questions, so I went looking for answers.
> 
> US ebike sales
> 2019 250,000
> ...




What you leave out is the percentage of those sales that are actually mountain bikes, which is a very small percentage. Further posts that cast aspersions on particular members or the group as a whole will result in warnings and the points that go with them. A person is not an "elitist" simply because they have a differing opinion. Keep it civil. That applies to all users.


----------



## C Smasher (Apr 20, 2012)

alexbn921 said:


> but the hardcore riders are switching to them and if your friend do it so do you.


No hardcore riders I know are switching to ebikes. All the hardcore riders I know are building sweet regular bikes. And by far greater amount - the people I see poaching trails on ebikes are newbs, out of shape newb middle agers, and elderly.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

C Smasher said:


> No hardcore riders I know are switching to ebikes. All the hardcore riders I know are building sweet regular bikes. And by far greater amount - the people I see poaching trails on ebikes are newbs, out of shape newb middle agers, and elderly.


like I said. You and your friends ride MTB.
All my friends switched to ebikes. I eventually did too. Most of the fast guys have migrated to them in this area.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

alexbn921 said:


> All my friends switched to ebikes cuz their slow.
> Now we can just cruise no stop-n-go
> We don't care about the motor rules
> You don't know that mebikes are for fools


----------



## tom tom (Mar 3, 2007)

I would rather follow 10 e-bikes up a tight single track trail, then 10 horses!! I $hi you not!!


----------



## C Smasher (Apr 20, 2012)

alexbn921 said:


> like I said. You and your friends ride MTB.
> All my friends switched to ebikes. I eventually did too. Most of the fast guys have migrated to them in this area.


I guess Im not hard core then


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> What you leave out is the percentage of those sales that are actually mountain bikes, which is a very small percentage. Further posts that cast aspersions on particular members or the group as a whole will result in warnings and the points that go with them. A person is not an "elitist" simply because they have a differing opinion. Keep it civil. That applies to all users.


Ding, Ding, Ding - We have a winner.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

C Smasher said:


> I guess Im not hard core then


If you say so.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

life behind bars said:


> What you leave out is the percentage of those sales that are actually mountain bikes, which is a very small percentage.


There you go again, talking out both sides of your mouth.

According to some people in this thread, eMTB's aren't currently a problem because there aren't that many on the trails, stating that only a tiny percentage of the millions of ebikes sold are eMTB's.....so by that logic, going forward eMTB's will never be a problem, because no matter how popular ebikes become, eMTB's will only be a tiny percentage of sales.

Excellent. I totally agree. Class1 eMTB's are only a tiny percentage of all ebikes sold, therefore, there will never be enough of them to be a problem on non-motorized trails.

I'm so happy we're all on the same page now. Time to move forward with legalizing class 1 eMTB's everywhere traditional MTB's are legal.


----------



## trmn8er (Jun 9, 2011)

I hope they are not allowed everywhere bicycles are. Certainly not all single track. I do think they have their place and perhaps select trails but e-bikes are a moped not a bicycle therefore they will always be perceived as different. Not that they are bad. But not a bicycle. Trying to bully your way onto trails will likely result in slower adoption. Playing by the rules, legal lobbying, and generally being super cool may help. Land owners, local municipalities, state agencies, federal forests are often managed by different groups. You can’t force them all to adopt these motor bikes. No single entity has that authority. There will always be exceptions. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

Always a deception or a half truth with this guy.

If you are minded on a durable policy, you respect the situation with objectivity and process that goes into change.

eBikes have only been a meaningful presence in the US for ~five years
in the course of that five years, there has already been significant changes in capability, price offerings and adoption
adoption is stymied by early adopter costs - mostly catering to enthusiast market (mtb) and access prohibitions
relative to existing mtb, the ebike usage foot print is small
because of this small footprint and narrow demographic, we don't have a useful sample to predict what the user-conflict/experience change will be _should_ ebike use become widespread with respect to demographic changes & offerings

based on previous five years we're trying to appreciate the situation as volatile, and plan with an expectation that the landscape will continue to rapidly change - this presents more unknowns
demographics are shifting (traditional mtb users to new users) as value bikes are being widespread
marketing and attraction has spurred new sales relative to traditional bikes
value bikes / grey market bikes are suspect w/ regard to being class1 compliant or easily overcome to operate beyond class 1 restrictions
given the amount of poaching, mods and grey market bikes, what is the credibility of new ebike user group being able to conform to class 1 restrictions if that is the acceptable mark for inclusion

One can go on and on. 

FWIW, I watched front row the rise of the SxS.. used to be an occasional thing... the early ones were mostly dorky too. Largely driven by dorks. For a short while, there wasn't much change. But adoption dramatically shifted and so did the offerings. They are very approachable for the layperson. These days, the conduct is beyond terrible. Areas are completely overrun - dangerously so. It didn't take long - but if you looked at the shift over ten years.... you'd go from not problematic, to major concerns....unless you're a SxS enthusiast, where you are safe in cage. These are mostly ohv/4x4 roads too - where vehicle speed is expected. But if you are on something other than a SxS (dirt bike/moto, jeep, horse, bike, god forbid walking) - it is undeniable that your experience & safety has been negatively impacted. SxS push back has spurred trail width restrictions and other mitigations/controls...but as someone wrote earlier, the cat is out of the bag. Some resources cannot be replaced and entrenched behaviors are not easily changed.

No, ebikes are not SxS...but there's a cautionary tale there about planning, marketing/offerings, education and trying to use the current state adoption as a predictor regarding fast shifting technology.


----------



## EABiker (Jun 24, 2004)

Do they make E-SXS?


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

EABiker said:


> Do they make E-SXS?


Heh. Found this look at some of their cool eMoto offerings: https://armstrongelectricvehicles.com/store/ols/products/eb2-pre-order


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> There you go again, talking out both sides of your mouth.
> 
> According to some people in this thread, eMTB's aren't currently a problem because there aren't that many on the trails, stating that only a tiny percentage of the millions of ebikes sold are eMTB's.....so by that logic, going forward eMTB's will never be a problem, because no matter how popular ebikes become, eMTB's will only be a tiny percentage of sales.
> 
> ...


You were asked to provide numbers and totally side stepped the question. Who is the one talking out of both sides of their mouth now?

So can you answer a direct question? Of all those sales figures, how many of them were Class 1 eMTB's? How many were Classs 2 eMTB's? How many were Class 3 eMTB's?

Providing stats that are mostly for street style eBikes has no bearing on this conversation.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> You were asked to provide numbers and totally side stepped the question. Who is the one talking out of both sides of their mouth now?
> 
> So can you answer a direct question? Of all those sales figures, how many of them were Class 1 eMTB's? How many were Classs 2 eMTB's? How many were Class 3 eMTB's?
> 
> Providing stats that are mostly for street style eBikes has no bearing on this conversation.


Dude, it's your argument. Go prove it. I'm not wasting my time searching for data just so you all can say it's not good enough, or from a poor source, or is incomplete. That's the oldest tactic in online debate, and pretty much SOP around here.

I already took the time to find that data on US ebike sales, and what percentage of them are class 1 (45%). I'm not aware of many "cheap" class 1 bikes that sell in large numbers. The largest sales among cheap bikes are predominantly class 2 and class 3.

I'll humor you though. A study that took me all of 30 seconds to find says ~32% of ALL ebike sales in Switzerland were class 1 mountain bikes. So we can extrapolate that into a total of nearly 400,000 in the USA over the past three years. Assuming those bikes were ridden 250 miles per year each (an absurdly low estimate by the way), that's 100,000,000 miles ridden without creating any major catastrophe, or outsized impact on the trails. Even if I'm half wrong, hell 90% wrong, those numbers put to bed any question about potential harmful impact from allowing class 1 on non-motorized trails.

Prove me wrong.


----------



## smr238 (3 mo ago)

EABiker said:


> Do they make E-SXS?


they do and the big players will soon


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

Carl Mega said:


> Largely driven by dorks. For a short while, there wasn't much change.


LOL…everyone knows how hard it is to accurately model dork driven change!


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Dude, it's your argument. Go prove it. I'm not wasting my time searching for data just so you all can say it's not good enough, or from a poor source, or is incomplete. That's the oldest tactic in online debate, and pretty much SOP around here.


Actually it is your argument. You posted a bunch of numbers for eBike sales to make a point, but those numbers did not differentiate eMTB vs road based eBikes. The onus is on you to provide better data to make your points. SO for now all that sales data that includes Class 1 eBikes sold for street use is of no use in a discussion about eMTB trail access.



_CJ said:


> Prove me wrong.


See above.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> Actually it is your argument. You posted a bunch of numbers for eBike sales to make a point, but those numbers did not differentiate eMTB vs road based eBikes. The onus is on you to provide better data to make your points. SO for now all that sales data that includes Class 1 eBikes sold for street use is of no use in a discussion about eMTB trail access.
> 
> 
> 
> See above.


No, that was in response to one of your e-hating brethren who was also too lazy to supply his own stats. If you can refute what I posted above, please do so, but with somewhere between the equivalent of 400 and 4000 trips around the earth ridden by class 1 eMTB's on non-motorized trails, without causing problems, there's nothing left to talk about.

I'll leave you with this Interesting and timely quote that came across my desk today.

_"The beauty of doing nothing is that you can do it perfectly. Only when you do something is it almost impossible to do it without mistakes. Therefore people who are contributing nothing...except their constant criticisms, can feel both intellectually and morally superior" -Thomas Sowell _


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> but with somewhere between the equivalent of 400 and 4000 trips around the earth ridden by class 1 eMTB's on non-motorized trails, without causing problems, there's nothing left to talk about.











Dozens Of Conservation Groups Oppose eBikes On Non-Motorized Trails


Opposition to allowing eBikes on non-motorized trails in the federal lands system has been voiced by dozens of conservation groups, who fear permitting the motorized bikes on those trails will create a "slippery slope" that will lead to future problems with managing those trails.




www.nationalparkstraveler.org







https://www.yakimaherald.com/sports/outdoors/proliferation-of-e-bikes-raises-question-of-whether-they-should-be-on-trails/article_e3470054-aca4-542d-9cfb-c0704eece9d5.html











“Cheater!”: Tensions rise as Coloradans debate how much trail access to give e-bikes


Some say e-bikes are a great tool for accessibility. Others argue they’re bringing chaos to the backcountry.




coloradosun.com





A quick google search brings back a few articles that directly contradict what you just posted above.

Perhaps you can post some stats that prove your wildly inaccurate statement that eBikes are not causing ANY problems on ANY trails..... Goodness, just admit that not all trails or locales are the same. Class 1 works in most places and it does not work in others.... why is that so hard to admit? That does not mean Class 1 eBikes are bad or wont eventually find acceptance in more places, but your constant blanket statements really discredit anything you have to say on this subject.


----------



## trmn8er (Jun 9, 2011)

I’m still trying to find where in this thread someone stated they hate e-bikes like this guy claims? Just because some don’t want them everywhere does not mean they may not have their place. And over time who knows? Calling them a moped does not a hater make. It’s just perception and a far more accurate description than bicycle. Ok let’s call it an e-bike if that really upsets some so much. Still not a bicycle. Fact is it’s a motor assisted bike. Much like a moped except electric power instead of gas. 

“The word “moped” is a combination of “motorized” and “pedal,” which refers to the vehicle's combination of propulsion methods”. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

trmn8er said:


> I’m still trying to find where in this thread someone stated they hate e-bikes like this guy claims?


There are some who see any resistance to eBikes as being "haters". I don't get it.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

trmn8er said:


> I’m still trying to find where in this thread someone stated they hate e-bikes like this guy claims?


There's two main arguments at play, and a bonus one:

If you don't agree that ebikes are a perfect match for 100% of all trails, you are a *hater*.

If you see the difference between a bike with a motor and one without, you are an *elitist*.

From other threads / sites / eluded to here, if you ever value conservation over unfettered recreation (even once!) you are a *wildebeast*.


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

Carl Mega said:


> Always a deception or a half truth with this guy.
> 
> If you are minded on a durable policy, you respect the situation with objectivity and process that goes into change.
> 
> ...


This is stupid, we don't have to wait for e bikes to be a majority to study and find out what will happen.
All we have to do is look at Europe, were you'd be hard pressed to find a mtn biker not on a e bike.

No conflicts 

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


----------



## C Smasher (Apr 20, 2012)

rod9301 said:


> This is stupid, we don't have to wait for e bikes to be a majority to study and find out what will happen.
> All we have to do is look at Europe, were you'd be hard pressed to find a mtn biker not on a e bike.
> 
> No conflicts
> ...


rod has confirmed! 100% of Europeans are on ebikes


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

But I thought Europe didn't have freedom?


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

rod9301 said:


> This is stupid, we don't have to wait for e bikes to be a majority to study and find out what will happen.
> All we have to do is look at Europe, were you'd be hard pressed to find a mtn biker not on a e bike.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> Dozens Of Conservation Groups Oppose eBikes On Non-Motorized Trails
> 
> 
> Opposition to allowing eBikes on non-motorized trails in the federal lands system has been voiced by dozens of conservation groups, who fear permitting the motorized bikes on those trails will create a "slippery slope" that will lead to future problems with managing those trails.
> ...


Dude, posting articles about people like you who don't like ebikes, who cling to slippery slope fallacies, and make false equivalencies is not supporting your position. The fact that some people don't like ebikes, or regular bikes, or horses, or grumpy boomers with trekking poles doesn't mean they should be banned from the trails. This is really more of a YOU problem than an US problem.

As far as proving the absence of conflict, that's tough to do, but I've shared things in the past to support that position. We have land managers on record saying eMTB's don't present a problem. And we can look at not only how access hasn't been rescinded after being granted as evidence there's no problems with ebikes on trails, but also the continued growth in access and increasing acceptance among even those who used to be anti-access.

I can only guess the reason you continue to troll this thread and others like it is for the clicks....given that you have a financial interest in this website. What you don't seem to realize is that you're also helping our cause, by keeping it at the forefront.


.


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

LOL. Financial interest. There''s ALWAYS a distortion with this guy. Always.

Here's why this argument / thread is stupid: Land access is not mountain bikers to give. Let's pretend you convince me, now what? Magic wand? Wave it all good? Nope, you're still in the process - might as well, roll up your sleeves and work it? You know, as your own user group not on the backs of mtb community that has credibility largely thru decades of building trust and luckily has natural limits of human power. I don't see a workable eBiker's action plan, just grumbling.

And, hikers/foot traffic users are the majority stakeholder group nationwide. So the idea that you are going to enact a policy without hearing their concerns is laughable. Here's another nugget: by far, negative trail encounters / conflict between foot/bike are foot traffic being overtaken/buzzed by mountain bikers riding too fast. They're not wrong either - I see it all the time, it's heartbreaking. Etiquette has been eroding for a while, pandemic worsened it. 

There's a park behind my house, over the last 15 years there used to be a decent amount of foot traffic...runners, dog walkers, hikers. It's a great system too - a bit of a relic because it is a spiderweb of trails intersecting, terrible line of sight because it's like a maze of vegetation. It's approachable for a lot of riders and modest climbs, fast, fun and flowing (though right into blind corners). Fast forward and foot traffic has been run off - there's a few local holdouts left grumbling - because few yield to them and basically blasts by. It is fkn dangerous if you are not on a bike, off housrs, or not on your game - right behind my house and I'd never walk it. Shame because it's a great park that serves a sizeable neighborhood.

Someone has mentioned they like ebikes because 'it allows them to do what they lost thru no fault of their own'...ok now think about these hikers, you cannot use this park without fast reflexes. That's not through fault of their own either. If you walk your dog, you're at risk. Do we need some blanket rule opening up this unsuitable park to even faster traffic? The resentment has been building, foot users are mounting their momentum and case. Mountain bikers who should be committing to an education and action plan to ease the friction, are now instead having eBikers jumping in and say "No, we need faster ebikes in there too!"....yeah, not helpful. And it's local situations like this, where the conditions/situation is known by the managing agency and not served by some bs blanket rule.

But hey it's all about you and your new electric toys.


----------



## C Smasher (Apr 20, 2012)

_CJ said:


> or grumpy boomers with trekking poles


An old lady tried to stab my buddy with her trekking pole this spring as we rode by. She held it out like a spear and tried to shove it in his chest. We laughed but it was pretty f*&kt


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Carl Mega said:


> Here's why this argument / thread is stupid: Land access is not mountain bikers to give. Let's pretend you convince me, now what? Magic wand? Wave it all good? Nope, you're still in the process - might as well, roll up your sleeves and work it? You know, as your own user group not on the backs of mtb community that has credibility largely thru decades of building trust and luckily has natural limits of human power. I don't see a workable eBiker's action plan, just grumbling.


All of Carl Mega's posts in this thread have been on target and fair. Ebike enthusiasts don't do themselves any favors by disregarding his input because they don't like it.

I used the word "enthusiast" for a reason. I see references to attending public meetings, but that's not advocacy. Are the ebike proponents learning about the land manager's planning process? Are they meeting with advocacy groups to develop proposals for trail management, access, construction, or maintenance? Are they meeting with the land managers directly? Guess what- the hikers are. And so am I and my peers. But I'm at the table to represent in favor of mountain bikes. I'm not going to weaken my position by dividing my constituency or arguing with the land manager that their interpretation of motorized is wrong (regardless of my personal opinions on ebike access to multi-use singletrack). Frankly I think this will be settled at a national or regional level for federal land managers, so I have no desire to put another stumbling block in my local/regional mountain bike advocacy.

Ebike enthusiasts need to roll up their sleeves and work at advocacy. Arguing in threads like these isn't going to do it.


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

C Smasher said:


> rod has confirmed! 100% of Europeans are on ebikes


Not 100 percent but really high percentage

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

_CJ said:


> And we can look at not only how access hasn't been rescinded after being granted as evidence there's no problems with ebikes on trails, but also the continued growth in access and increasing acceptance among even those who used to be anti-access.


Since the Secretarial Order forcing BLM to consider e-bikes alongside traditional mountain bikes, it has resulted in a loss of access for mountain bikes. E-bikes are an anchor. You can keep pointing to strawmen arguments and knocking them down, but you are too weak to address the real issues. See Pryor Mountain TMA. 

I've never had a conflict with my dirt bike. Can I ride it on all trails? Can't everyone share their e-bike trails with me? I can't pedal as fast as when I was 25. Just becase I CAN ride it fast doesn't mean I'm going to. One study showed that dirt bikes are less distruptive to wildlife because we don't sneak up on them. Many people tell me I look charming and handsome on my dirt bike. In fact, 100% of Europeans ask me if I am an underwear model. Why isn't someone else making me more dirt bike trails, I don't get it?!


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

evasive said:


> All of Carl Mega's posts in this thread have been on target and fair. Ebike enthusiasts don't do themselves any favors by disregarding his input because they don't like it.
> 
> I used the word "enthusiast" for a reason. I see references to attending public meetings, but that's not advocacy. Are the ebike proponents learning about the land manager's planning process? Are they meeting with advocacy groups to develop proposals for trail management, access, construction, or maintenance? Are they meeting with the land managers directly? Guess what- the hikers are. And so am I and my peers. But I'm at the table to represent in favor of mountain bikes. I'm not going to weaken my position by dividing my constituency or arguing with the land manager that their interpretation of motorized is wrong (regardless of my personal opinions on ebike access to multi-use singletrack). Frankly I think this will be settled at a national or regional level for federal land managers, so I have no desire to put another stumbling block in my local/regional mountain bike advocacy.
> 
> Ebike enthusiasts need to roll up their sleeves and work at advocacy. Arguing in threads like these isn't going to do it.


Well said.

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks I am against eBikes or have any financial stake in this website. Neither are true.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

_CJ said:


> If it's appropriate for MTB's it's appropriate for class 1 eMTB's imho.


Well then, what's the problem? Just go and ride whatever trail floats your boat. Regulatory designations are irrelevant if you ride a e-bike.


----------



## tom tom (Mar 3, 2007)

Curveball said:


> Well then, what's the problem? Just go and ride whatever trail floats your boat. Regulatory designations are irrelevant if you ride a e-bike.


I agree completely!!


----------



## Sir kayakalot (Jul 23, 2017)

_CJ said:


> Dude, posting articles about people like you who don't like ebikes, who cling to slippery slope fallacies, and make false equivalencies is not supporting your position. The fact that some people don't like ebikes, or regular bikes, or horses, or grumpy boomers with trekking poles doesn't mean they should be banned from the trails. This is really more of a YOU problem than an US problem.
> 
> As far as proving the absence of conflict, that's tough to do, but I've shared things in the past to support that position. We have land managers on record saying eMTB's don't present a problem. And we can look at not only how access hasn't been rescinded after being granted as evidence there's no problems with ebikes on trails, but also the continued growth in access and increasing acceptance among even those who used to be anti-access.
> 
> ...


Where do you come up with this stuff?


----------

