# E-bikes are getting people fit. 2nd good article. With some surprises.



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

https://dirtmountainbike.com/e-bikes/e-mtb-vs-mtb-climbing-test/

It hardly takes a genius to work out that it's going to be quicker climbing with pedal assist than without. But by how much?

Well, a fifteen-minute climb on a e-mtb takes about half the time with pedal assist. So just think, on such a climb you'd get seven dh runs per hour on an e-mtb whilst the standard bike would get you about three factoring in a minute breather on the top of each two to three minute descent. What the numbers do not tell you is the that there can be less fatigue involved with the e-mtb so therefore technically more proficient descending is more likely.

"MORE UPHILLS = MORE DOWNHILLS"

More than this, what the numbers also do not account for is the angle of slope and it's here where big differences are involved not only between e-mtb and mtb bikes but also between the e-mtb's and the power mode. The Hai downhill bike struggled on the really steep terrain, the kind of terrain where even Sram Eagle nearly ran out of steam. It was here where the Trek excelled.

But it's not quite that simple. What the testing showed was how important gearing was between the bikes and also the gradient. On one short, but very steep climb (the kind where pedalling was just about on the limits of possibility for the tester) the Powerfly was by far the quickest. We believe this was largely due to gearing and available modes. The Powerfly in Turbo mode was more than twenty seconds quicker than in Tour mode, but both quicker than any of the other bikes on test. The Trek could climb in second and third gear in 'Turbo' but only first and second gears in 'Tour' mode on our super steep challenge.

HEART RATE NUMBERS - ASCENDING
The fittest still rise to the top with e-mtb but one of the biggest myths is that they are for lazy unfit people. In plain simple terms you can still max your heart rate out on e-mtb, you simply do it differently to how you would on a standard bike. After linking ourselves up to a Fitbit heart rate monitor, some very interesting statistics were gained on climbing the super steep stuff.

"YOU CAN STILL MAX YOUR HEART RATE OUT ON E-MTB"

What was most interesting was that the fastest ascent, combined with high 'turbo' power mode resulted in the highest heart rate recorded. Now the 'turbo' mode is most associated with lazy riding but the reality is you are climbing so rapidly there is the tendency to go through the gears to reach the maximum pedal assist speed - about 29kph. That's pretty rapid climbing. The climbing heart rate for the Trek even surpassed that for a standard mtb climb but the time was more than halved.

STANDARD CLIMB
LAPIERRE (EMTB - TURBO MODE) 5mins 45sec AVE 113bpm MAX 130bpm

***MTB (BMC Trailfox) 11mins 30sec AVE 136bpm MAX 150bpm

SUPER STEEP - EMTB ***(all)

TREK (TURBO MODE) 1min 36sec AVE 137bpm MAX 153bpm

TREK (TOUR MODE) 2min 1sec AVE 138bpm MAX 143bpm

LAPIERRE (TURBO MODE) 2min 2sec AVE 128bpm MAX 147bpm

TURBO LEVO (FULL POWER) 2min 23 sec AVE 132bpm MAX 150bpm

HAI DH (TURBO MODE) 2mins 30sec AVE 135bpm MAX 152bpm

STUMPY 6 FATTIE (NONE) 4min 32sec AVE 137bpm MAX 147bpm

While the super steep climb had most riders pushing their standard bikes due to the crazy gradient, the Trek breezed up in sub two minute times where a push up of up to five minutes was more frequent, it was the feet-up challenge that was also inspiring. We feel the plus tyres and gearing on the Trek aids climbing.

The low speed torque of the Levo is impressive for it allows the rider to power into rocks and keep the front wheel lofted, this is something the Bosch motors do not do. The Levo works at slower speeds better whilst the Bosch powered Trek is more about momentum.

"E-MTB ALLOWS EVEN STEEPER AND MORE TECHNICAL CLIMBS TO BECOME AN OPTION"

The reality of climbing can be confusing. E-mtb allows even steeper and more technical climbs to become an option and as we were to find out its here where the heart rate becomes equivalent to riding standard bikes even in full power Turbo mode. Which is totally contrary to what many people 'think' they know.

More than this the uphill sectors introduce another new dimension to riding bikes. Different hills become challenging, which can be steeper, longer and more technical. Sitting in a valley in the Alps its pretty normal to casually discuss heading up a mountain. But remember the more you climb the more you can potentially descend and that's where there can be even more of a work out.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I rode the other day on tight singletrack in NE, and on assist I could barely hang with my Froomy bud. It all depends on the ride.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

The evidence is beginning to trickle in, and it is indisputable. eBikes provide great workouts, create no more environmental impact than a MTB, and there is no legitimate data that suggests they are more of an impact to safety than a MTB. Clearly class 1 eBikes were designed and intended for the exact same trails as MTBs, yet the MTB vitriol continues unsupported by any rational thought or data. Advantages of eBikes are clear:

1. As much of a workout as MTBs
2. Given that more uphill = more downhill, they are possibly more fun than MTBs
3. Allow for people of significantly different levels of fitness to ride together on a mix of eBike and MTB and each get a great workout
4. Allows for aging or injured MTBers to continue having access to the trails
5. Can be used as a persuasive introduction into MTBs thereby bringing more people into the sport
6. Ideal for supporting trail maintenance days
7. Provide more variety to the MTBer who enjoys riding in multiple niches
8. Infuses more $$ into MTB community which provides more R&D $$ which benefits all MTBers and eBikers
9. Embraces technology rather than demonizing it
10. Provides a great way for free people to exercise their freedom of choice

To prove my point, this post will likely be followed by anti-eBikers making nonsensical, irrational and unpersuasive posts to contradict any point I have made or the OP has made. Their unthoughtful posts are likely to claim that eBikes aren't bikes, bikes don't have motors, they shouldn't be on my trails, they could impact trail access, they might be less safe, they may overcrowd trails, etc, etc. But none of their points will be supported by rational thought or data. 

The tide is turning on the eBike issue. The anti-eBike crowd is being seen as the luddites that they really are. Their bias and hostility resonates with less people as more mainstream publications dispel their eBike myths. There is a swell of people willing to confront the anti-eBike minority and directly ask them, "why?" And the lack of reasonable answers from the anti-eBikers adds just a bit more to the momentum.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Another data point for the swelling acceptance of eBikes is legislative. Of all the state and local authorities that have written legislation specifically addressing eBikes on off-road trails, they have largely been favorable to eBikes. 

The largest land managers, USFS and BLM have not successfully obtained any federal legislation concerning access of eBikes on off-road trails. It's not clear that they have even tried. Instead, they have only attempted to pigeon-hole this new technology into decades old existing legislation. However, the lack of any enforcement (i.e. tickets) and the glaring loopholes in the old legislation (i.e., class 1 eBikes do not fit the definition of motorized vehicles) indicate that federal authorities are taking a "wait and see" approach to eBikes. Given the rapidly gaining of acceptance of eBikes, the outcome of their approach is predictable and inevitable.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Any chance you can ever just make a point without all the whining and crying?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> Any chance you can ever just make a point without all the whining and crying?


I think you just made my point for me.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> ....bla bla bla..... The tide is turning on the eBike issue. The anti-eBike crowd is being seen as the luddites that they really are. Their bias and hostility resonates with less people as more mainstream publications dispel their eBike myths. There is a swell of people willing to confront the anti-eBike minority and directly ask them, "why?" And the lack of reasonable answers from the anti-eBikers adds just a bit more to the momentum.


Wow, that must have taken some time to write all those words that I didn't read. Amazing, all that time spent to try to get across whatever point your trying to make and still you're not allowed to ride ebikes on any MUT trail where I live. One of the most desirable places to mountain bike, and still, ebikes not allowed. Great post :thumbsup:

Well, keep it up wasting your time posting about how ebikes should be allowed anywhere pedal bikes are. As long as ebike advocates are spending their ebike advocacy time here, the pedal only crowed will get to enjoy trails motor free for many, many more years to come. Keep it up!


----------



## Rock Surf (Aug 28, 2010)

https://electricbikereview.com/forum/

Now you guys don't have to hang out with us Luddites and drooling knuckle draggers.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Rock Surf said:


> https://electricbikereview.com/forum/
> 
> Now you guys don't have to hang out with us Luddites and drooling knuckle draggers.


You are the one who came into the eBike forum. You may proclaim to have no interest in eBikes, but you apparently could not resist opening the door and coming in. So, to be clear, it is you who is hanging out with us!! And you are welcome here. Differing opinions are fine, but the preference is that you post civilly, rationally and thoughtfully.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> I think you just made my point for me.


I've been arguing on the side of e-bikes this entire thread.

Get a grip man; you're hysterical.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> I've been arguing on the side of e-bikes this entire thread.
> 
> Get a grip man; you're hysterical.


Telling me that I am whining and crying is the only post in this thread that you have made other than this one. I'm not sure how that is arguing on the side of eBikes. However, to answer your original question... if presenting reasonable, rational arguments and refuting unreasonable/biased/emotionally-fueled arguments fits your definition of "whining and crying", then I guess I'll just have to whine and cry.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> The evidence is beginning to trickle in, and it is indisputable. eBikes provide great workouts


So do bicycles, without a motor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> The evidence is beginning to trickle in, and it is indisputable. eBikes provide great workouts, *create no more environmental impact than a MTB, and there is no legitimate data that suggests they are more of an impact to safety than a MTB. *


Both of those statements are Opinion and cannot be backed up with any facts.

When you post opinions as if they are facts and other users point that out to you, it is not eBike Hate.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> Telling me that I am whining and crying is the only post in this thread that you have made other than this one. .


Sorry, got it confused with the all the other threads that you're whining and crying in.


----------



## karthur (Apr 20, 2018)

I can get in alot more climbs/downs and on steeper terrain with my g-bicycle(gas). Its also better for the environment because I eat so much less! but somehow I'm getting just as much of a work out as a p-bicycle/(pedal).


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> create no more environmental impact than a MTB
> 
> To prove my point, this post will likely be followed by anti-eBikers making nonsensical, irrational and unpersuasive posts to contradict any point I have made or the OP has made. .


Here's my nonsensical contradiction, more miles covered = more environmental impact. Drunk logic.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> Both of those statements are Opinion and cannot be backed up with any facts.
> 
> When you post opinions as if they are facts and other users point that out to you, it is not eBike Hate.


I'm sorry, sir, but you are mistaken. There are two points for which YOU claim are unsupported opinions.

1. The point that ebikes do not cause more environmental impact than MTBs. That point is supported by the IMBA study that can be found Here. You may not agree with the study, but until you present a study that refutes its findings, your disagreement is only opinion.

2. There is no legitimate data to suggest ebikes are more of an impact to safety than MTBs. This is a statement of a negative. It is supported by the lack of a positive. So, if you cannot provide legitimate data concluding that ebikes are a greater impact to safety than MTBs, then my assertion is supported.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> Here's my nonsensical contradiction, more miles covered = more environmental impact. Drunk logic.


That is sometimes the case, but a fit rider doesn't have a range limitation like an electric bicycle.
The tread impact is equivalent to what a person with a winter bulge on an unassisted bike would do provided the tires are the same width and diameter. These environmental arguments are fairly pedantic unless you arguing that unassisted bikes should be banned for environmental reasons because assisted bikes.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

figofspee said:


> That is sometimes the case, but a fit rider doesn't have a range limitation like an electric bicycle.
> The tread impact is equivalent to what a person with a winter bulge on an unassisted bike would do provided the tires are the same width and diameter. These environmental arguments are fairly pedantic unless you arguing that unassisted bikes should be banned for environmental reasons because assisted bikes.


Bare with me here....:

Joe Rider can only do (1) 5 Mile Loop on a pedal bike. Joe Rider can do (2-4) loops on the same 5 Mile Loop on his ebike. Joe Rider skids into the same switchback on each loop.

Does Joe Rider cause impact on his pedal bike or his ebike?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

An eBike rider CAN ride further than the same person on an Mtb. But that doesn't mean he will. 


The IMBA study does not consider distance, nor should it. If distance ridden is a factor that opens the door to limiting use of trails by all users based on distance. That's a thread no one wants to pull.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

figofspee said:


> That is sometimes the case, but a fit rider doesn't have a range limitation like an electric bicycle.
> The tread impact is equivalent to what a person with a winter bulge on an unassisted bike would do provided the tires are the same width and diameter. These environmental arguments are fairly pedantic unless you arguing that unassisted bikes should be banned for environmental reasons because assisted bikes.


Some of your fellow ebikers have already tackled that:

http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/carrying-get-home-backup-battery-1084912.html

http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/car-charger-ebike-battery-1084884.html

Can't wait to pull up to a trailhead full of idling cars recharging ebike batteries so the rider can ride more. And btw, I'm a fit rider and I still have a range limitation.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> An eBike rider CAN ride further than the same person on an Mtb. But that doesn't mean he will.


Isn't that the entire point of the article linked and the discussion being had? eBikes can get one in shape specifically because the rider CAN go further on an eBike than on a pedal bike....

Keep this thread on topic or it will get shut down.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> Another data point for the swelling acceptance of eBikes is legislative. Of all the state and local authorities that have written legislation specifically addressing eBikes on off-road trails, they have largely been favorable to eBikes.


On bike paths, absolutely, not so much for on singletrack.



Jim_bo said:


> 2. Given that more uphill = more downhill, they are possibly more fun than MTBs


I find it amusing that this same article is one of the reasons my LM's passed on allowing emtbs on their trails. More laps isn't a positive point with them.

I can link a bunch of articles showing that ebikers can get fit riding ebikes, I don't see why it's such a point of contention with some people. Work out, get fitter. And really doesn't matter at all except to those who are getting in shape. Land managers couldn't care less.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> Keep this thread on topic or it will get shut down.


Well isn't this to be expected from the most biased moderator of them all....

YOU made an off topic remark to me. That lead to other off topic comments. I responded to them and now you are threatening to shut down the thread because of my response to your remark?

You seem to be fine with threads that go off topic as long as there is an anti-eBike theme to the off topic discussion. However, you seem to break the rulebook out whenever you can't think of a reasonable response to a pro-eBike point.

If you don't want the threads to go off topic, then don't participate in dragging them off topic! But also, don't get all righteously indignant when people follow your lead...


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

Klurejr said:


> Isn't that the entire point of the article linked and the discussion being had? eBikes can get one in shape specifically because the rider CAN go further on an eBike than on a pedal bike....
> 
> Keep this thread on topic or it will get shut down.


Actually I posted it because I was surprised that the average heart rate BPM was similar for someone climbing with a e-mountain bike compared with a pedal-only mountain bike. If that data is true, that's a huge feather in the cap of e-mountain bikes. Huge. It deals a blow to the notion that e-mountain biking is for only lazy/overweight people. You can still get a workout climbing a hill, do it faster than pedal-only, and have more time to explore on top or go back downhill. A lot of advantages, at least to open-minded riders.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

What a bizarre discussion. Of course you can get fit riding an e-bike. You can get fit riding a moto, too. Or a normal bike. 

If I were promoting e-bike trail access, I would steer clear of that article. LMs are going to see the "twice the speed" and "ride straight up fall line trails" parts and not be very happy. The further down the "uphill e-mtb shootout!" road we go (along with subsequent battling between manufacturers to be fastest uphill), the less like normal bikes they'll end up, and the fewer trails they'll be allowed on. 

-Walt


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

richj8990 said:


> Actually I posted it because I was surprised that the average heart rate BPM was similar for someone climbing with a e-mountain bike compared with a pedal-only mountain bike. If that data is true, that's a huge feather in the cap of e-mountain bikes. Huge. It deals a blow to the notion that e-mountain biking is for only lazy/overweight people. You can still get a workout climbing a hill, do it faster than pedal-only, and have more time to explore on top or go back downhill. A lot of advantages, at least to open-minded riders.


And a disadvantage to land managers and trail maintainers. It's not all rainbows and unicorns.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

Harryman said:


> Land managers couldn't care less.


I doubt many of them would even realize a bike has electric power unless someone was doing throttle only. They are looking out for motorcycles and dirtbikes, not mountain bikes with funny hubs or bulging pedals.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

richj8990 said:


> I doubt many of them would even realize a bike has electric power unless someone was doing throttle only. They are looking out for motorcycles and dirtbikes, not mountain bikes with funny hubs or bulging pedals.


They are now.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

chazpat said:


> Some of your fellow ebikers have already tackled that:
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/carrying-get-home-backup-battery-1084912.html
> 
> ...


Yes, the end is near. Soon they will be tailgating on the trailhead and frying fish with their 5V connectors. They will find a way to keep their Bud Ice cold with the Li-Ion battery. They will even hook up a flat-screen TV to their battery and watch Nascar. All on the trailhead. You'll have to use a shortcut to get around them.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> Well isn't this to be expected from the most biased moderator of them all....
> 
> YOU made an off topic remark to me.


I am going to explain this only one time for you.

In this remark below, your first in this thread, only the parts of your reply I have highlighted in BOLD are on-topic, the rest is off-topic and designed to create controversy. I am trying to allow everyone a bit of flexibility here, but Obviously when you makes posts like this in the future I will just need to delete them:



Jim_bo said:


> The evidence is beginning to trickle in, and it is indisputable. *eBikes provide great workouts*, create no more environmental impact than a MTB, and there is no legitimate data that suggests they are more of an impact to safety than a MTB. Clearly class 1 eBikes were designed and intended for the exact same trails as MTBs, yet the MTB vitriol continues unsupported by any rational thought or data. Advantages of eBikes are clear:
> 
> 1. *As much of a workout as MTBs*
> 2. Given that more uphill = more downhill, they are possibly more fun than MTBs
> ...


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Here's my nonsensical contradiction, more miles covered = more environmental impact. Drunk logic.


Mother nature can cause a lot more damage to a trail than bike riders, no matter what they are riding (besides a real motorcycle).

However, if bikes do cause damage, I've noticed it's mostly on switchbacks, with a bunch of guys going down the trail in unison, and creating grooves/ruts on the hairpin turns. That's by far the most damage done on the trails here. Straight line hardpack trails, fireroads, doubletrack have no/minimal damage no matter how many thousands of riders go on them per month.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> Both of those statements are Opinion and cannot be backed up with any facts.
> 
> When you post opinions as if they are facts and other users point that out to you, it is not eBike Hate.


This post is off topic and should be deleted.


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

Jim_bo said:


> This post is off topic and should be deleted.


This post is off topic and should be deleted.



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> This post is off topic and should be deleted.


Suicide by mod?


----------



## Rock Surf (Aug 28, 2010)

Jim_bo said:


> You are the one who came into the eBike forum. You may proclaim to have no interest in eBikes, but you apparently could not resist opening the door and coming in. So, to be clear, it is you who is hanging out with us!! And you are welcome here. Differing opinions are fine, but the preference is that you post civilly, rationally and thoughtfully.


I got to this thread via "New Posts" not the e-bike sub-forum itself. It's you e-bikers who are hanging out with us actually. Ironically the e-bike sub-forum is under the "Classic Mountain Bike Forums" heading. Instead of wasting your energy on arguing with MTBers, you moped riders have your own actual forum:

https://electricbikereview.com/forum/


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

Gas-bikes can get you even more fit. 

"Studies of motocross riders in past years have compared riders against athletes from demanding sports such as NFL football, professional basketball, track and soccer with results showing that riders, overall, were at a higher level of physical fitness. A 2002 study confirmed the previous results."

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

richj8990 said:


> Actually I posted it because I was surprised that the average heart rate BPM was similar for someone climbing with a e-mountain bike compared with a pedal-only mountain bike. If that data is true, that's a huge feather in the cap of e-mountain bikes. Huge. It deals a blow to the notion that e-mountain biking is for only lazy/overweight people. You can still get a workout climbing a hill, do it faster than pedal-only, and have more time to explore on top or go back downhill. A lot of advantages, at least to open-minded riders.


HR bpm is not the only factor in fitness. I could get my heart rate up riding in my easiest gear downhill, not really going to get me in good shape though.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

sfgiantsfan said:


> HR bpm is not the only factor in fitness. I could get my heart rate up riding in my easiest gear downhill, not really going to get me in good shape though.


I'd like to see you prove this.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Having ridden both emtbs and mtbs hard, I will say I don’t agree with statement #1. I am pro ebike but it’s not the same. The reality is if you do a 20 mile loop with your buds and they are on regular bikes and wanna call it quits, you do also on your ebike. After all, a post ride beer tastes better with friends. I will agree that my focus does absolutely no more damage ridden responsibly. The bike is glued to the ground. I can stop just as fast than on my Rip. There’s no need to try and convert anyone. If they choose to ride one, so be it. Otherwise, Who gives a crap?

BTW, just my opinion from riding. Other results may vary. Please consult your doctor and power company before use. Side effects may include, bonking, excessive drinking and higher electric bills. 


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

ninjichor said:


> I'd like to see you prove this.


Not sure about sfgiantsfan, but here is my hr from a run at Angel Fire. Wasn't in my easiest gear, but it's probably not more than a hundred pedal strokes in those 4 miles. My max hr is 175. The drop off and lower rate towards the end of the ride is probably a misread. My hr watch does that. It's annoying when I'm trying to maintain a certain hr during a run and I find myself pushing harder and harder only to realize the device is off. It was probably in the 160s like in the second pic.

Anywho... Not sure what the point of this post was anymore.










Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

IPunchCholla said:


> Gas-bikes can get you even more fit.
> 
> "Studies of motocross riders in past years have compared riders against athletes from demanding sports such as NFL football, professional basketball, track and soccer with results showing that riders, overall, were at a higher level of physical fitness. A 2002 study confirmed the previous results."
> 
> Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk


? totally agree.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Conflating HR data with work performed is just so fitting for this thread. 

But, carry on with the nonsense, gentlemen. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GoGoGordo (Jul 16, 2006)

The Truth butt hurts huh e-haters?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

GoGoGordo said:


> View attachment 1212492
> 
> 
> The Truth butt hurts huh e-haters?


Not really they aren't allowed on bike trails where I ride.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> Both of those statements are Opinion and cannot be backed up with any facts.
> 
> When you post opinions as if they are facts and other users point that out to you, it is not eBike Hate.


Yet you routinely argue the inverse of the no impact to safety argument as if it were fact. Then get upset because people tell you you are making fallacious arguments.



Jim_bo said:


> I'm sorry, sir, but you are mistaken. There are two points for which YOU claim are unsupported opinions.
> 
> 2. There is no legitimate data to suggest ebikes are more of an impact to safety than MTBs. This is a statement of a negative. It is supported by the lack of a positive. So, if you cannot provide legitimate data concluding that ebikes are a greater impact to safety than MTBs, then my assertion is supported.


No, that's an argumentum ad ignorantium, an argument from ignorance. An absence of evidence is not proof.

Until there are actual studies done the arguments around safety, from either side, are pointless as they are just conjecture, emotionally charged, and used to prop up fallacies.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

So today I had to work past 5 PM and could not get on a bike until 7:10 PM. That only left 20 min of sunlight and 45-50 minutes until dusk. With a normal bike that would have meant the usual half-mile downhill trail across the street, and then back on gravel then pavement. I've done it hundreds of times now. Routine and kinda boring. 

But not now that I have an e-bike. I can now bypass that trail, go up a 600 foot street in 6 min, past the sign that says "Trail closed at Sunset" up the fire road, up the 2nd side fire road that's steeper, 900 feet up total, then down a single track, back to the 1st fire road, and down the paved street to the bottom of the mountain by dusk. 12.3 miles in 90 min. This is exactly why I got one, to squeeze in a nice ride after work when I simply could not do the same ride on a normal bike in that timeframe.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

richj8990 said:


> The fittest still rise to the top with e-mtb but one of the biggest myths is that they are for lazy unfit people.


Really? So no lazy or unfit people buy eBikes? Yesterday I visited a friend I haven't seen for about a year. On the way out of the door he mentioned going to look at eBikes and I told him that Dales have a big selection. He said his wife cycles, a regular bike, and he wants to go out with her. I suggested buying a regular bike and he said "Na, I'm too f****** lazy mate! Plus I like the idea of whizzing past her"

I said 'Yeah, they're quite nippy but the speed is limited' and he said "That limiter shite is coming right off". And yes, he means it and has the electronics understanding to do it.

I'm not saying that this is typical but to say that lazy people do not buy eBikes is ridiculous. You guys might get on a little better if you weren't so dogmatic about the benefits of eBikes while consistently ignoring and denying the problems. We might respect you a little more if you were honest. Maybe not, but you could try it!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I'm lazy as hell; I ride regular bikes.

No idea what that that angle has to do with anything at all.


----------



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

richj8990 said:


> So today I had to work past 5 PM and could not get on a bike until 7:10 PM. That only left 20 min of sunlight and 45-50 minutes until dusk. With a normal bike that would have meant the usual half-mile downhill trail across the street, and then back on gravel then pavement. I've done it hundreds of times now. Routine and kinda boring.


Once you do your ebike ride a few hundred times it will get boring too and then you'll have to up the wattage to regain your stoke.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> I'm lazy as hell; I ride regular bikes.
> 
> No idea what that that angle has to do with anything at all.


I honestly think it's a superiority complex. The ability to participate in an activity with a higher than average threshold of entry gives an elitist feeling. Lowering the entry threshold removes some of that feeling.

It's plain that there is at least one person in this thread who is heavily invested in how people perceive him. A person's outward treatment/perception of others is usually indicative of their internal desires for themselves.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, that's an argumentum ad ignorantium, an argument from ignorance. An absence of evidence is not proof.
> 
> Until there are actual studies done the arguments around safety, from either side, are pointless as they are just conjecture, emotionally charged, and used to prop up fallacies.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I think I agree with you as for the spirit of my post. However, technically I didn't claim that eBikes did not impact safety. I said there is not legitimate data to suggest that they do. But I do agree with you, until there are actual studies to evaluate, the safety issue is no more than speculation on either side.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

mtnbikej said:


> Bare with me here....:
> 
> Joe Rider can only do (1) 5 Mile Loop on a pedal bike. Joe Rider can do (2-4) loops on the same 5 Mile Loop on his ebike. Joe Rider skids into the same switchback on each loop.
> 
> Does Joe Rider cause impact on his pedal bike or his ebike?


 Are you saying that we should ration mileage to minimize trail wear? Give everyone a set number of miles per trail per week? Because by your logic we ought to restrict the really fit from riding too much also. Is your intent to discourage everyone from finding more......?


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

Ski hills and shuttling have gotten people that are unfit out riding for years. And it helps improve their health also.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Mr Pig said:


> Really? So no lazy or unfit people buy eBikes? Yesterday I visited a friend I haven't seen for about a year. On the way out of the door he mentioned going to look at eBikes and I told him that Dales have a big selection. He said his wife cycles, a regular bike, and he wants to go out with her. I suggested buying a regular bike and he said "Na, I'm too f****** lazy mate! Plus I like the idea of whizzing past her"
> 
> I said 'Yeah, they're quite nippy but the speed is limited' and he said "That limiter shite is coming right off". And yes, he means it and has the electronics understanding to do it.


This is probably more of an indictment of you and the type of people you associate with rather than an indictment of eBikes.



> I'm not saying that this is typical but to say that lazy people do not buy eBikes is ridiculous. You guys might get on a little better if you weren't so dogmatic about the benefits of eBikes while consistently ignoring and denying the problems. We might respect you a little more if you were honest. Maybe not, but you could try it!


No one said that a lazy person won't buy an eBike. I think the intended point is that eBikes are not inherently for the lazy. But take your same scenario and apply it to a wife who is a runner, so the husband says he will buy a bike to go with her. You ask, "why not just run with her?" And he responds, "Na, I'm too f******* lazy mate! Plus I like the idea of whizzing past her". Now, does that mean that bikes are for the lazy?

This seems to be the way of the anti-eBiker. Develop an anecdotal account of a statistical outlier and use it to predict the whole. It is not only statistically absurd, but it is soft-minded and intellectually dishonest. But I guess that must be all you got.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> This seems to be the way of the emotorBiker. Develop an anecdotal account of a statistical outlier and use it to predict the whole. It is not only statistically absurd, but it is soft-minded and intellectually dishonest. But I guess that must be all you got.


It can cut two ways. And has.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

richj8990 said:


> I doubt many of them would even realize a bike has electric power unless someone was doing throttle only. They are looking out for motorcycles and dirtbikes, not mountain bikes with funny hubs or bulging pedals.


Maybe yours wouldn't know the difference, but mine do, they all ride mtbs, and are knowledgeable about ebikes. I'm not sure how that relates to my comment that they don't care if you want to use an ebiker's fitness as a reason for access? In their opinion, there's already plenty of activities allowed on public land for all levels of fitness.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Jim_bo said:


> The evidence is beginning to trickle in, and it is indisputable. eBikes provide great workouts, create no more environmental impact than a MTB, and there is no legitimate data that suggests they are more of an impact to safety than a MTB. Clearly class 1 eBikes were designed and intended for the exact same trails as MTBs, yet the MTB vitriol continues unsupported by any rational thought or data. Advantages of eBikes are clear:
> 
> 1. As much of a workout as MTBs - *Reason to allow them on non motorized trails? Nope*
> 2. Given that more uphill = more downhill, they are possibly more fun than MTBs - *Reason to allow them on non motorized trails? Nope*
> ...


Replied to you post.


----------



## ninjichor (Jul 12, 2018)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I honestly think it's a superiority complex. The ability to participate in an activity with a higher than average threshold of entry gives an elitist feeling. Lowering the entry threshold removes some of that feeling.
> 
> It's plain that there is at least one person in this thread who is heavily invested in how people perceive him. A person's outward treatment/perception of others is usually indicative of their internal desires for themselves.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Thought it was quite obvious that there's snobbery all over. People often bring up the case with other analogies: skiiers vs snowboarders, or hikers vs bikers. We got existing inner rivalries in the sport looking down on each other:

Singlespeeders vs mainstream. Geared bike riders that think they can't climb, wearing out their knees, or suffering all sorts of compromises, while the singlespeeders are simply enjoying purity and simplicity.

Enthusiasts vs casuals. Fast endurobros that like their susp for control vs laz-e-boy riders that like their susp for comfort. Thickly padded saddles, reflectors, spoke guards, kickstands, racks, and other non-essential things, streamers, are looked down on as being geeky (e.g. scraper bike).

"Underbiked" XC racers vs "overbiked" gravity-oriented riders. The XC racers claim to be riding on courses that include multiple local enduro stages, and mock how slow the enduro racers are.

Plenty of other examples with other disciplines, like fat bikers and roadies, with ebiking being viewed as a new one. There's people being judgmental over all sorts of things, from non-boutique brands to how outdated your geo or suspension linkage is.

Not sure how I'd sum up the anti-ebike vs ebike crowd. "The fruit of your own hard work is sweetest" vs "work smarter, not harder"? Or "no pain, no gain" style training vs ride longer/farther, adventuring without dedicated training?

Motors are like a social taboo. It's like pouring yourself a glass of wine in France and saying bon apetit, as you have fine French cheese on toasted slices supermarket bread. You'll anger a few specific people by doing so, but for what reason? It's seemingly ingrained in the past culture of the angered folk. Motor vehicles were blamed for trail erosion and mtn bikers are already on thin ice, with riding/building illegal trails. It's a difficult process to get legal trails built on public land, as the govt demands all sorts of studies regarding ecological impact before, which requires $$$. It's a huge barrier to seeing new trails, and people are worried about another invasion... I came from running, and rarely see hikers any more since the mtb invasion. I know a lot of them also mtb. Good thing is that motor vehicle trails aren't that bad, but the line blurs when you're going back and forth between them and non-motorized trails, with people running non-standard emtbs... seeing how there's a lack of enforcement to protect trails, people fear the worst, so their irrational side comes out.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ninjichor said:


> seeing how there's a lack of enforcement to protect trails, people fear the worst, so their irrational side comes out.


What, exactly is irrational about the legitimate fear of loss of access because of e-motorbikers that choose to take advantage of "lack of enforcement"?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> What, exactly is irrational about the legitimate fear of loss of access because of e-motorbikers that choose to take advantage of "lack of enforcement"?


Technically speaking, until someone can provide evidence of that exact scenario that fear is unfounded and by definition irrational.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## levity (Oct 31, 2011)

Rock Surf said:


> ... you moped riders have your own actual forum:
> 
> https://electricbikereview.com/forum/


Here's a much better "moped" forum that focuses on e-mtbs:

https://www.emtbforums.com/forums/

lots of enthusiasts and e-mtb info there for those interested


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

> Technically speaking, until someone can provide evidence of that exact scenario that fear is unfounded and by definition irrational.


Agree


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Technically speaking, until someone can provide evidence of that exact scenario that fear is unfounded and by definition irrational.


That doesn't make any sense. Knowledge progresses by using reason to predict outcomes before the results, or evidence, is seen. It's like just about everything else that eBikers say, you just twist the truth to propel your argument and hope nobody notices. Either that or you don't understand what the truth is. Neither is good or likable.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Mr Pig said:


> That doesn't make any sense. Knowledge progresses by using reason to predict outcomes before the results, or evidence, is seen. It's like just about everything else that eBikers say, you just twist the truth to propel your argument and hope nobody notices. Either that or you don't understand what the truth is. Neither is good or likable.


You don't science do you?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

So by using the purported "logic" of the e-motorbikers, if I trespass into the tiger cage my fear of being attacked by a tiger is irrational. Mmmmkay.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

As I've said before, it's all in how you frame it. If you frame an ebike as a bicycle, it is indeed cheating and lazy using a motor to propel a non-motorized vehicle; though I'll certainly make an exception if you are disabled. If you frame an ebike as a motorized vehicle, or just as an ebike for you sensitive types, then it is not cheating. 

Yes, I do feel a sense of accomplishment after riding my bicycle, but I would not call that a superiority complex. Go ahead and do so if that makes you feel superior. I have no qualms that someone using a motor will outperform me in regards to speed and distance.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> So by using the purported "logic" of the e-motorbikers, if I trespass into the tiger cage my fear of being attacked by a tiger is irrational. Mmmmkay.


Not who I am and not what I said...

Just to point out how poorly you grasped that, there is direct evidence of tigers attacking people in cages, hence not an unfounded fear, apples to oranges.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

chazpat said:


> As I've said before, it's all in how you frame it. If you frame an ebike as a bicycle, it is indeed cheating and lazy using a motor to propel a non-motorized vehicle...


No one is saying only lazy people buy eBikes. I was countering the suggestion that non of them do.



tuckerjt07 said:


> Just to point out how poorly you grasped that, there is direct evidence of tigers attacking people in cages, hence not an unfounded fear, apples to oranges.


Does everything you post have to include an insult? You even managed to insult my friends who you know nothing about.

True, we know tigers attack people but the analogy still makes sense. You don't need to witness an even for you to be able to foresee it as a possibility, or even a likelihood. It's an ability that separates us from most animals. Logic pretty much by definition involves predicting events based on what we already know. I have never seen a hiker hit by a high-powered eBike but there is no reason to dismiss the possibility, unless you have an agenda. The higher speed makes such an accident more likely. Any honest person would concede that.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Mr Pig said:


> True, we know tigers attack people but the analogy still makes sense. You don't need to witness an even for you to be able to foresee it as a possibility, or even a likelihood. It's an ability that separates us from most animals. Logic pretty much by definition involves predicting events based on what we already know. I have never seen a hiker hit by a high-powered eBike but there is no reason to dismiss the possibility, unless you have an agenda. The higher speed makes such an accident more likely. Any honest person would concede that.


This is the problem with logical fallacies. They always seem to be exceedingly clever gotchas so people become emotionally vested in them. However, they never hold up under scrutiny.

Yes, higher speeds make an accident much more likely. However, potential for is not the same as it actually happening. For one, you are now talking about a fractional size of an already small population. You are also assuming that such high speed accounters will happen at a rate commensurate with the rate today, the rate would have to actually increase to make them more likely, but I digress. To further confuse the issue one cannot simply assume that a rider will always, possibly, if ever, make use of more available speed. Every rider I know, except for race runs, limits their top end speed on non-directional trails for safety purposes. Are you suggesting that simply adding assist will change that behavior in those that currently practice it? Or are you assuming that there will be a higher percentage of riders that do not practice that behavior? If so that's just an opinion and has no place in crafting policy.

As you can see, there are a multitude of questions that have to be answered before one draw an intelligent conclusion. There are just too many unknowns. Now as far as a tiger is concerned, we have hard, well documented, historical evidence of a tiger attacking someone in his cage on multiple occasions. There is not really a question there. Apples to oranges.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Mr Pig said:


> No one is saying only lazy people buy eBikes. I was countering the suggestion that non of them do.
> 
> Does everything you post have to include an insult? You even managed to insult my friends who you know nothing about.
> 
> True, we know tigers attack people but the analogy still makes sense. You don't need to witness an even for you to be able to foresee it as a possibility, or even a likelihood. It's an ability that separates us from most animals. Logic pretty much by definition involves predicting events based on what we already know. I have never seen a hiker hit by a high-powered eBike but there is no reason to dismiss the possibility, unless you have an agenda. The higher speed makes such an accident more likely. Any honest person would concede that.


Let him continue being the spokesman for the motorized crowd.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Mr Pig said:


> Does everything you post have to include an insult? You even managed to insult my friends who you know nothing about.


Corey Taylor once penned a lyric that conveys my feelings on this scenario perfectly.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

life behind bars said:


> Let him continue being the spokesman for the motorized crowd.


I'm not sure they're going to thank him for it.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Guys, I've already ended up in the bushes because an e-bike (actually, 3 of them) was going uphill super fast when I was going down the same trail. First time I've had to leave the trail to avoid a collision in many, many years. Quite freaky to come around a corner with a closing speed of ~30mph!

It's not theoretical. I'd ride 15mph up the climbs too (faster on the flatter parts) because it would be wicked fun. Lots of people who are fit and like going fast will do that in the future - only a few of those types of riders are out there right now. But it has happened, and it'll continue to happen. 

That's certainly solvable (directional trails), and not a problem in many places (ie, if you're mostly climbing fire roads) but it's not something you can just hand-wave away. 

-Walt


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Walt said:


> Guys, I've already ended up in the bushes because an e-bike (actually, 3 of them) was going uphill super fast when I was going down the same trail. First time I've had to leave the trail to avoid a collision in many, many years. Quite freaky to come around a corner with a closing speed of ~30mph!
> 
> It's not theoretical. I'd ride 15mph up the climbs too (faster on the flatter parts) because it would be wicked fun. Lots of people who are fit and like going fast will do that in the future - only a few of those types of riders are out there right now. But it has happened, and it'll continue to happen.
> 
> ...


By the rules of the trail it's your fault that you ended up in the bushes. The downhill rider yields.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Once you do your ebike ride a few hundred times it will get boring too and then you'll have to up the wattage to regain your stoke.


No...instead I will buy the ultimate bike for excitement: a gravel bike. I'm saving the best for last. Maybe even a singlespeed with rim brakes for that extra 'challenge' on such a tricky surface.

On a more serious note, I found out via reading the wattage on the display that my peak watts are around 1200W. So I already have extra watts. But they are not usable under most conditions. I'm not sure about front hub vs. rear hub and mid-drive for 1000+ watts, but on a front-drive hub, the throttle is more or less unusable on dirt. The throttle will surge the watts, from for example 400 in level 3 to over 1000 in less than two seconds, and the front tire will spin, EVEN ON PAVEMENT. It will do that on pavement and dirt unless the bike is going well over 6 mph. Since I don't use the throttle or the higher assist on a straight surface or slight declines, it's useless for everything but uphill on pavement when you already are going a decent speed to begin with. And the front tire is very grippy, it's a Maxxis 2.7 with huge knobs. So it's not like it's some slick road tire that's slipping or anything.

What this means is that extra watts are great for level street biking, but they don't automatically translate to going up a dirt hill twice as fast as lesser watts. It's not proportional. You have to have either major front and/or back tire grip to even make 600 watts connect and the bike to accelerate up dirt. And remember this is a front hub with extra weight up there, in theory making the tire's grip more than normal. More than 800 watts just means either the hub motor bogs down or the front tire spins. It's like driving a car up a hill in overdrive; it's simply the wrong gear and powerband. I'm good with 500 base watts and 1200 peak watts, because over 800 or so watts will overwhelm the tire's grip on dirt anyway. That's why a lot of the e-mountain bikes that are highly praised are mid-drives that only have 350W, and peak of 750W. Over that and the power overwhelms the tire grip on dirt inclines.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

Mr Pig said:


> Really? So no lazy or unfit people buy eBikes? Yesterday I visited a friend I haven't seen for about a year. On the way out of the door he mentioned going to look at eBikes and I told him that Dales have a big selection. He said his wife cycles, a regular bike, and he wants to go out with her. I suggested buying a regular bike and he said "Na, I'm too f****** lazy mate! Plus I like the idea of whizzing past her"
> 
> I said 'Yeah, they're quite nippy but the speed is limited' and he said "That limiter shite is coming right off". And yes, he means it and has the electronics understanding to do it.
> 
> I'm not saying that this is typical but to say that lazy people do not buy eBikes is ridiculous. You guys might get on a little better if you weren't so dogmatic about the benefits of eBikes while consistently ignoring and denying the problems. We might respect you a little more if you were honest. Maybe not, but you could try it!


Remember that I quoted the article but that is not my direct quote. Besides, there will always be rationalizations against them anyway, always good imaginations out there.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Walt said:


> Guys, I've already ended up in the bushes because an e-bike was going uphill super fast...


In all of the eBike encounters I've had it was the proportionally higher speed of the bike I noticed first. When I was passed on a climb last week I saw the guy flying up the trail at higher speed than even fit riders manage before I heard the whine and knew it was an eBike. Every eBike rider I have seen was going faster than would be possible on a regular bike.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Mr Pig said:


> The higher speed makes such an accident more likely. Any honest person would concede that.


Precise argument used against allowing MTBs on trails used by hikers.
Along with the 'more distance, more impact' one.

We spent decades arguing AGAINST these concepts in order to gain access, now all of a sudden, some of you want to use them to keep other users off trails. Blatant hypocrisy.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Walt said:


> Guys, I've already ended up in the bushes because an e-bike (actually, 3 of them) was going uphill super fast when I was going down the same trail. First time I've had to leave the trail to avoid a collision in many, many years. Quite freaky to come around a corner with a closing speed of ~30mph!
> 
> It's not theoretical. I'd ride 15mph up the climbs too (faster on the flatter parts) because it would be wicked fun. Lots of people who are fit and like going fast will do that in the future - only a few of those types of riders are out there right now. But it has happened, and it'll continue to happen.
> 
> ...


3 different times, in the dingweeds? An ex pro rider like you? C'mon! Your supposed to yield riders coming up! I thought they were banned where you live?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

My bad, 1 time- 3 bikes.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Yes, higher speeds make an accident much more likely. However, potential for is not the same as it actually happening. For one, you are now talking about a fractional size of an already small population. You are also assuming that such high speed accounters will happen at a rate commensurate with the rate today, the rate would have to actually increase to make them more likely, but I digress. To further confuse the issue one cannot simply assume that a rider will always, possibly, if ever, make use of more available speed. Every rider I know, except for race runs, limits their top end speed on non-directional trails for safety purposes.





tuckerjt07 said:


> By the rules of the trail it's your fault that you ended up in the bushes. The downhill rider yields.


Assuming then that an emtb will be climbing at a higher rate of speed than the same person on a mtb, because really, that's that's a commonly related experience, pretty universal actually. Are you proposing that DH riders in areas with emtbs on the trails slow down in case there is an encounter? Aside from controlling my speed so I don't crash, I'll moderate my speed depending on who I might encounter and how fast they're coming in my direction, I try to keep it within a safe stopping distance. Which will vary, depending on if I might run into motos, other mtbers or pedestrians.

Serious question.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> 3 different times, in the dingweeds? An ex pro rider like you? C'mon! Your supposed to yield riders coming up! I thought they were banned where you live?


He didn't say three times, he said three ebikes.

I imagine motorized vehicles will end up being required to yield to non-motorized.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Chris Froome ran me into the bushes the other day while I was bombing the downhill. The guy was flying uphill!


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> Assuming then that an emtb will be climbing at a higher rate of speed than the same person on a mtb, because really, that's that's a commonly related experience, pretty universal actually. Are you proposing that DH riders in areas with emtbs on the trails slow down in case there is an encounter? Aside from controlling my speed so I don't crash, I'll moderate my speed depending on who I might encounter and how fast they're coming in my direction, I try to keep it within a safe stopping distance. Which will vary, depending on if I might run into motos, other mtbers or pedestrians.
> 
> Serious question.


In his case I'm saying I'm not sure 10mph less of closing speed is enough to alleviate all the potential issues, assuming 5mph climbing pace. Especially if that was the threshold for him leaving the trail. At best he gets stopped but probably still frightens other users. The exact thing many attempt to use to justify excluding e-bikes.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

slapheadmofo said:


> Precise argument used against allowing MTBs on trails used by hikers.
> Along with the 'more distance, more impact' one.
> 
> We spent decades arguing AGAINST these concepts in order to gain access, now all of a sudden, some of you want to use them to keep other users off trails. Blatant hypocrisy.


Short term memory is becoming real common here, I think?!


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

chazpat said:


> He didn't say three times, he said three ebikes.
> 
> I imagine motorized vehicles will end up being required to yield to non-motorized.


Yeah, I caught that in my post below. Was Walt on his ebike?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Limit them to 150 watts, think of the workout you could get then. Limits the speed too, seems like a win/win. No one would object to that would they? Since it's just for assist in the first place.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Short term memory is becoming real common here, I think?!


I don't think the problem is so much the people who actually know these things forgetting them, it's more the people who don't know jack **** to begin with trying to pretend that they do.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> In his case I'm saying I'm not sure 10mph less of closing speed is enough to alleviate all the potential issues, assuming 5mph climbing pace. Especially if that was the threshold for him leaving the trail. At best he gets stopped but probably still frightens other users. The exact thing many attempt to use to justify excluding e-bikes.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I wasn't referring to Walt specifically, I was speaking in generalities. If we should moderate our speed in relationship to what is safe when encountering other users, which we should, and most people do, that would mean we should ride decents 5-8 mph slower because we could encounter an ebike coming up 5-8mph faster. I ride differently on moto trails because of the difference in closing speeds after having close calls, so it would be prudent to slow down with faster climbers on the trails.

If you claimed emtbs would lower DH speeds, you could gain allies in the HoH camp


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> I wasn't referring to Walt specifically, I was speaking in generalities. If we should moderate our speed in relationship to what is safe when encountering other users, which we should, and most people do, that would mean we should ride decents 5-8 mph slower because we could encounter an ebike coming up 5-8mph faster. I ride differently on moto trails because of the difference in closing speeds after having close calls, so it would be prudent to slow down with faster climbers on the trails.
> 
> If you claimed emtbs would lower DH speeds, you could gain allies in the HoH camp


I think it carries forward, even in general.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Structure (Dec 29, 2003)

tuckerjt07 said:


> By the rules of the trail it's your fault that you ended up in the bushes. The downhill rider yields.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Actual question. do the usual rules apply if the ebike is poaching non-motorized trails?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Structure said:


> Actual question. do the usual rules apply if the ebike is poaching non-motorized trails?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As a rule, no. Do I still question if said speed wouldn't have scared a hiker to death even if he managed to stop, yes.

I'm pretty anti poaching in any situation.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

To clarify - I was going ~15mph on a trail where I *could* (but only at night when nobody is around) go 20. I go way slower than I could on this trail because I know I could hit somebody if I go faster - and I was acting on the assumption that the fastest someone would be coming up would be, say, 8mph or something (someone taking it really seriously/going race pace). 

I've *never* had a close encounter on this trail, and I've probably ridden it 100 times. 

The trail (Flying Dog) is almost literally in my back yard, and indeed, e-bikes are banned. So I was not expecting uphill traffic going that speed. If that becomes a common thing, I'll have to slow down even more... and at that point, I'm not sure the trail is fun to ride anymore. I think most of you would agree being limited to like 10mph on the descent wouldn't be great.

As I said before, the obvious solution here is to just make the trail directional (you could swap directions on odd/even days if you wanted). I don't mind if someone passes me going the same direction, we'll both have plenty of time to figure it out. But head on traffic coming up at DH speed? No thanks.

-Walt


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Walt said:


> To clarify - I was going ~15mph on a trail where I *could* (but only at night when nobody is around) go 20. I go way slower than I could on this trail because I know I could hit somebody if I go faster - and I was acting on the assumption that the fastest someone would be coming up would be, say, 8mph or something (someone taking it really seriously/going race pace).
> 
> I've *never* had a close encounter on this trail, and I've probably ridden it 100 times.
> 
> ...


With a 7mph difference you are talking a 10' per second difference. While it may be comfortable for you, see professional racecar drivers interviews about the Interstate, I don't know that that decrease is enough to be within every other user's comfort level.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



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

slapheadmofo said:


> Blatant hypocrisy.


Not from me, if ebikes end up being lumped with bicycles as "non-motorized" and therefore allowed wherever they are I would (sadly) be OK with neither being permitted.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> With a 7mph difference you are talking a 10' per second difference. While it may be comfortable for you, see professional racecar drivers interviews about the Interstate, I don't know that that decrease is enough to be within every other user's comfort level.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Maybe you didn't read it all - I ride this trail all the time. I have never had a dangerous or unpleasant encounter (at least that I caused). Never. Until a couple months ago when I ran into a situation I wasn't expecting - fast uphill traffic.

As I said, we can slow way down on all descents. I think it would be better to designate more directional trails. I would have had no problem if we'd all been going the same way (setting aside the fact that the e-bikes were on this trail illegally, of course).

-Walt


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I run into issues with bikers all the time. It will always and has always happened. 3 guys hauling up a hill is visible. Ebike or Mtb. Probably an awkward spot in the trail. I’ve scene people crash passing at 3mph. More directional trails are great, but not necessary for class 1 ebikes.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Gutch said:


> I run into issues with bikers all the time. It will always and has always happened. 3 guys hauling up a hill is visible. Ebike or Mtb. Probably an awkward spot in the trail. I've scene people crash passing at 3mph. More directional trails are great, but not necessary for class 1 ebikes.


Agree. Class 1 eBikes do not need special rules, just as we don't need special rules for very skilled or very fit mtbers.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Walt said:


> Maybe I didn't read it all - I ride this trail all the time. I have never had a dangerous or unpleasant encounter (at least that I caused). Never. Until a couple months ago when I ran into a situation I wasn't expecting - fast uphill traffic.
> 
> As I said, we can slow way down on all descents. I think it would be better to designate more directional trails. I would have had no problem if we'd all been going the same way (setting aside the fact that the e-bikes were on this trail illegally, of course).
> 
> -Walt


FIFY

As I said while you may feel safe that may not be the same for everyone who uses the trail.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> FIFY
> 
> As I said while you may feel safe that may not be the same for everyone who uses the trail.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Thanks Captain Obvious for that pearl of wisdom.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

The problem is now, we will have to ride slower on the downs to make up for some guy that just wants a different ride today or whatever is the going excuse. I have no problem on fire roads or directional trails. I don’t see why I should have to slow my defenses to 7 so you can ride up hill at 15. 
I’m for an uphill speed limit on ebikes of say 7-8mph. That would fix that problem. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

You don’t and won’t slow your speed, no one will. Typically a fast downhill has good sight lines agree? And on tight slow singletrack you can only ride so fast I don’t care what your on, agree? And on tight singletrack climbs or downs you should proceed with caution because of poor sight lines. So where is the user conflicts? with inexperienced newbs ripping uphills alone on 2k watt ebikes?? You barely see class 1’s. And when we see more class 1pedelecs they will self patrol the higher wattage to keep class 1’s privileges. JMO


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> You don't and won't slow your speed, no one will. Typically a fast downhill has good sight lines agree? And on tight slow singletrack you can only ride so fast I don't care what your on, agree? And on tight singletrack climbs or downs you should proceed with caution because of poor sight lines. So where is the user conflicts? with inexperienced newbs ripping uphills alone on 2k watt ebikes?? You barely see class 1's. And when we see more class 1pedelecs they will self patrol the higher wattage to keep class 1's privileges. JMO


You left out the wide open ups, that's where the conflict would arise with motorized vehicles on bicycle trails. And before you say there aren't any wide open ups...........


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Thanks Captain Obvious for that pearl of wisdom.


Apparently it wasn't that obvious...

Nevermind the plethora of times that that point has been dismissed in an effort to vilify e-bikes.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

life behind bars said:


> You left out the wide open ups, that's where the conflict would arise with motorized vehicles on bicycle trails. And before you say there aren't any wide open ups...........


Isn't a fast downhill a wide open up?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Gutch said:


> Isn't a fast downhill a wide open up?


I don't think some realized until just now that this line of argument is not going in a direction they wanted it to. It cannot be argued both ways, vilifying one and ignoring the other.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Rock Surf (Aug 28, 2010)

Saw a moped on the trail today. Young guy looking smug and barely pedaling as he whizzed by us. Saw one two days ago too. ugh..........


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Isn't a fast downhill a wide open up?


Wide open up on a peddle bicycle isn't fast.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I don't think some realized until just now that this line of argument is not going in a direction they wanted it to. It cannot be argued both ways, vilifying one and ignoring the other.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Sure it can, disparate up hill speed, motors. Take your pick.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Wide open up on a peddle bicycle isn't fast.


Of course not that would be a heavy load.

Wide open would offer some good sight lines though.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Sure it can, disparate up hill speed, motors. Take your pick.


No, you're reverting back to unfounded arguments. The only anecdotal evidence given shows that the pedal bike was moving faster and was technically the rider that should give way. I'm not willing to accept that 10' greatly lessens the severity of the potential conflict.

There aren't really any studies for bikes that I could find but for motorcycles mean reaction time to brake application is around half a second. In this instance that would be 5'.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## GoGoGordo (Jul 16, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> Not really they aren't allowed on bike trails where I ride.


Well thats no fun. :crazy:
Try and get that changed!
In the mean time...
BRRRRAAAAPPPP!!! :cornut:


----------



## GoGoGordo (Jul 16, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> Not really they aren't allowed on bike trails where I ride.


Well thats no fun. :crazy:
Try and get that changed!
In the mean time...
BRRRRAAAAPPPP!!! :cornut:


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I don't think some realized until just now that this line of argument is not going in a direction they wanted it to. It cannot be argued both ways, vilifying one and ignoring the other.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Fast down most certainly does not require it to be wide open going up.

That's absurd.

Not to mention, if it's a technical trail going up, I'm not looking 40 yards up the trail. I'm looking at what is right in front of my wheel.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> Fast down most certainly does not require it to be wide open going up.
> 
> That's absurd.
> 
> ...


Almost as absurd as you thinking that my comment was that limited in scope.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------

