# Philosophical thoughts on emtbs



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

I was doing my usual random thinking this morning and a question popped up in my little head. What problems are emtbs intending to solve. As we know every innovation attempts to solve a problem and I'm assuming rightfully or wrongfully that emtb's are no different, so this is the list I'm came up with.


Emtb's are fun, more riding with less work
Emtb's enable people to ride longer and for longer distances
Emtb's can let people go faster
Emtb's let companies sell more higher end bikes at a premium price
Emtb's enable those with physical disabilities ride otherwise inaccessible trails
Emtb's will "grow" the sport more people will be out riding


As I thought about these answers I also came up with another question. How do any of these answers help promote better mountain biking?


The answer I came up with is they really don't with the one exception being that they allow people with disabilities ride when it is no longer physically possible for them to.


The majority if not all of the other answers pretty much end up hurting the sport rather than helping it. Being able to ride faster and longer is great if you need to commute 20 miles a day to and from work but on most shared trail systems you're only asking for more conflicts with other users. Not to mention the fact that this will probably open the door to more riders with more of them being inexperienced on a limited resource system. Which may ultimately result in access risks regardless of whether they are motorized or not. 


And we can go on about opening doors to ever more powerful ebikes that will only increase the fun, range, speed, and price.... and what about policing for rogue emotos disguised as class 1 bikes? Is that really going to be possible?


At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, are the solutions worth the problems?


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

No, but then neither are bikes, or for that matter hikers. Humans don’t belong in the wilds, but that’s never stopped us, which is why the wilds are protected ... to prevent the loss of the wilds.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

The disability argument is weak. One still needs decent mobility to handle an ebike.

I say this because ebikers share that it still requires a reasonable amount of effort to pedal and handle them.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

This **** again?


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> This **** again?


Sorry if I'm striking the wrong cord, but had some thoughts that I wanted to share.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

> Emtb's are fun, more riding with less work
> Emtb's enable people to ride longer and for longer distances
> Emtb's can let people go faster
> Emtb's let companies sell more higher end bikes at a premium price
> ...


 Your opinions only. Heavier and so much more $$. 5-10K will grow the sport? 1K Hellmart specials are a thing yet? Ride longer for longer distances? Hmm. Going to plug into a tree to recharge on my bikepacking trips? My recharging involves coffee, bacon and double lunches. Faster on my chunky, tech singletrack? Okay, good luck with that. Most of my trails, speed is limited by skill, nerve and and to some extent bike tech.


----------



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

leeboh said:


> Ride longer for longer distances? Hmm. Going to plug into a tree to recharge on my bikepacking trips?


You really don't think that most people go faster and further on a electric bike than they would on a bicycle? I'm guessing the vast majority do


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

> Your opinions only. Heavier and so much more $$. 5-10K will grow the sport? 1K Hellmart specials are a thing yet? Ride longer for longer distances? Hmm. Going to plug into a tree to recharge on my bikepacking trips? My recharging involves coffee, bacon and double lunches. Faster on my chunky, tech singletrack? Okay, good luck with that. Most of my trails, speed is limited by skill, nerve and and to some extent bike tech.


Someone didn't bother to read the entire post....


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Nurse Ben said:


> Humans don't belong in the wilds


I strongly disagree with this statement.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

Klurejr said:


> I strongly disagree with this statement.


Me too, humans need to respect it, that's it.


----------



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

Klurejr said:


> I strongly disagree with this statement.


Same here. Humans absolutely belong in the wilderness which is exactly why wilderness needs to be preserved.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Lemonaid said:


> At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, are the solutions worth the problems?


No they are not worth it. The key thing to remember is that e-bikes are not mountain bikes it's a whole different activity. So the fact e-bikes don't make mountain biking better isn't shocking. Just like letting electric dirt bikes use mountain bike trails won't make mountain biking better.

Being 100% human powered puts a pretty finite limit on what you can do on a mountain bike. Once you add motors and batteries to a machine you can extend the speed and range as far as you want within the limits of the technology.

Having to power my bicycle 100% with my legs and lungs has always been a feature of mountain biking I really liked. It's never been a problem I was trying to solve.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

And that's suprising?

I would hope that you at least understand the sentiment, which was my point.

It's not as though humans are going to do anything but use and destroy all that is wild in time, it's our nature.

That said, I don't know that we need to speed up the process.

There's a body of theologic thought that suggests this planet exists for the use of humanity, that once it's gone there will be a spirtual evolution that will negate the impacts we've made and/or place humanity on a different plane/planet/whathaveyou.

The argument against this thought is very simple: What if we're wrong?

So far, the evidence suggests that we are burning the candle at both ends. I await the proof otherwise.

A nice local example: Nevada has more than a hundred year history of wild horses (mustangs), they arrived with settlers, they are not native, in fact there are no large herbivores other than deer and elk that are native to Nevada; buffalo never came this far west due to poor grazing.

The horses overuse the grazing, water resources, and damage fragile desert ecosystems. Efforts to reduce their impact by culling, birth control, etc has led to significant resistance from "horse lovers". As a result, the wild horses continue to cause damage to an environment that is not native to them and which cannot support them.

Horse are in Nevada because of humans.



Klurejr said:


> I strongly disagree with this statement.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Nurse Ben said:


> Horse are in Nevada because of humans.


There are 2 sides to the coin for sure, but the answer is the same regardless.

Theological side: The Earth, the plants and the animals were all created for the enjoyment of man and man was tasked with being the caretaker. It is up to man to take good care of the earth and put animals and humans where they see fit as long as they do not damage the earth beyond repair. Things like Oil Spills and Toxic releases of chemicals into the water supply are way more damaging than horses in Nevada. (The Bible in no way advocates for the Earth to be treated like trash due to some heavenly calling(Rev 11:18 - and the appointed time came...to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.))

Evolutionary side: The Earth and all life on it happened by chance and only the strongest survive, hence only the strongest make the rules. Humans are the top of the food chain and thus hold the most responsibility to care for the earth we have. It is up to man to take good care of the earth and put animals and humans where they see fit as long as they do not damage the earth beyond repair for future generations. Things like Oil Spills and Toxic releases of chemicals into the water supply are way more damaging than horses in Nevada.

I do not believe in either case the purposeful destruction of the earth is of benefit to anyone. I also do not believe keeping humans out of the wilderness serves any sort of higher purposes or is necessary.

I do believe that all humans need to clean up after themselves and treat everything with respect. What happened in Joshua Tree and other National Parks during the shutdown was shameful.


----------



## scottxpc (Jan 24, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> You really don't think that most people go faster and further on a electric bike than they would on a bicycle? I'm guessing the vast majority do


If your talking Emtb on mountain bike trails further yes faster no trails dictate the sd pex according to the surface

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## scottxpc (Jan 24, 2013)

I question why ebike haters are always on ebike forums hmmm got nothing better to do I guess lol

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



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

Nurse Ben said:


> The argument against this thought is very simple: What if we're wrong?


There are lots of better arguments against that thought, but the believers should realize that God was playing a joke when he (she?) gave humans egos.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

scottxpc said:


> I question why ebike haters are always on ebike forums hmmm got nothing better to do I guess lol


This is a mountain bike forum. If you were on an e-Bike forum you wouldn't have most of the issues you are having. A bunch of us have suggested that solution a number of times.

If you want to talk about motorsports in the middle of a mountain bike forum you are going to get some folks that power their bikes with their legs and lungs participating and some of them are not going to be fans of motorsports on mountain bike trails.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

scottxpc said:


> I question why ebike haters are always on ebike forums hmmm got nothing better to do I guess lol
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


A different point of view doesn't mean "hater".


----------



## scottxpc (Jan 24, 2013)

vikb said:


> This is a mountain bike forum. If you were on an e-Bike forum you wouldn't have most of the issues you are having. A bunch of us have suggested that solution a number of times.
> 
> If you want to talk about motorsports in the middle of a mountain bike forum you are going to get some folks that power their bikes with their legs and lungs participating and some of them are not going to be fans of motorsports on mountain bike trails.


My bad I guess I didnt look close enough at the thread I thought this was the ebike forum sorry

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> A different point of view doesn't mean "hater".


+1 Ditto



scottxpc said:


> My bad I guess I didnt look close enough at the thread I thought this was the ebike forum sorry
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


This is an eBike section on a Mountain Biking forum. All new posts show up in the "new posts" view which many users of the site use to keep track of active topics. Even posts in the eBike section of the Mountain Biking Forum show up there when someone makes a post.

Again, eBike section, just like we have a vintage bike section and a downhill section that are all part of the Mountain Biking forum.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Here's the thing to many this is not a sport but a hobby. I get what the OP is saying in regards to a sport which implies competition. But as a hobby many of what the OP listed do improve the hobby, but I will agree impact on the sport is very different.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> A different point of view doesn't mean "hater".


I agree there are always two sides to a coin and I think it's always a good idea to learn both perspectives before forming a judgment which is kind of what wanted to do with this thread. Everyone's views are correct from a certain point of view, that's why I think it's a good idea to look beyond one's own position and look at the broader picture.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Lemonaid said:


> I was doing my usual random thinking this morning and a question popped up in my little head. What problems are emtbs intending to solve. As we know every innovation attempts to solve a problem and I'm assuming rightfully or wrongfully that emtb's are no different, so this is the list I'm came up with.
> 
> Emtb's are fun, more riding with less work
> Emtb's enable people to ride longer and for longer distances
> ...


The main problem E-bikes were designed to solve is separating people that might not blow $3k on a bike from their money by getting them to blow $3k on an ebike. If you think ebikes exist for any reason than to separate you from your money, same with bikes for that matter, you are thinking this too deeply. They might be fun and etc, etc, etc, but they exist to grab some more of the western civilization discretionary spending dollars and funnel it into someone else pocket. Same reason you see that ford and other auto makers are going to jump into ebikes. Bucks.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

rockcrusher said:


> The main problem E-bikes were designed to solve is separating people that might not blow $3k on a bike from their money by getting them to blow $3k on an ebike. If you think ebikes exist for any reason than to separate you from your money, same with bikes for that matter, you are thinking this too deeply. They might be fun and etc, etc, etc, but they exist to grab some more of the western civilization discretionary spending dollars and funnel it into someone else pocket. Same reason you see that ford and other auto makers are going to jump into ebikes. Bucks.


I agree 


> Emtb's let companies sell more higher end bikes at a premium price


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

scottxpc said:


> If your talking Emtb on mountain bike trails further yes faster no trails dictate the sd pex according to the surface
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Not according to a lot of the posts in his thread:

https://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/what-your-speed-stats-typical-ride-1096112.html#post13973979


----------



## scottxpc (Jan 24, 2013)

chazpat said:


> Not according to a lot of the posts in his thread:
> 
> https://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/what-your-speed-stats-typical-ride-1096112.html#post13973979


I would bet that alot of posters in this thread have never ridden a true class 1 ebike now bikes with throttles I totally agree they are motor bikes and do not belong on mountain bike specific trails

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

scottxpc said:


> I would bet that alot of posters in this thread have never ridden a true class 1 ebike now bikes with throttles I totally agree they are motor bikes and do not belong on mountain bike specific trails
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Out of curiosity. How does one tell a class 1 vs a non class 1 bike and enforce that non class 1 bikes are excluded from the trails?


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Lemonaid said:


> Out of curiosity. How does one tell a class 1 vs a non class 1 bike and enforce that non class 1 bikes are excluded from the trails?


Check for a throttle if the bike has one it is not class 1.

No way to guarantee anything in life so if you are wanting an absolute way to identify and keep non-class 1 bikes off you can't. Just like you cannot guarantee that mountain bikes will be used on hiking only trails or in wilderness areas they are banned from.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Lemonaid said:


> Out of curiosity. How does one tell a class 1 vs a non class 1 bike and enforce that non class 1 bikes are excluded from the trails?


Therein lies the crux of the issue.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

Lemonaid said:


> Out of curiosity. How does one tell a class 1 vs a non class 1 bike and enforce that non class 1 bikes are excluded from the trails?


The Arizona eBike law treats class 1 and class 2 eBikes the same.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

chuckha62 said:


> Therein lies the crux of the issue.


what crux? Telling the difference between class 1 & 2 is easy.
No throttle it is class 1
Yes that means you have to physically look at the bike


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

Crankout said:


> The disability argument is weak. One still needs decent mobility to handle an ebike.
> 
> I say this because ebikers share that it still requires a reasonable amount of effort to pedal and handle them.


I'm not disabled but riding my cx bike to work even once a week was hurting me because of arthritis. Now I'm commuting every day on the eBike and riding about ten miles on the trail on the weekends. I had quit mountain biking entirely. For me, the eBike is a quality of life improvement.

What if someone healthy that would otherwise be shuttling buys an eBike to simplify their logistics?

How about people of average fitness who want to enjoy mountain biking without making a lifestyle commitment?

The philosophy I'm advocating is maximum personal freedom, subject of course to not lessening the freedom of others. If I my joints were as healthy as I was two years ago there's no way I would have purchased an eBike.

Some of the people most vehemently against eBikes will eventually be riding them; you become what you despise.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

hikerdave said:


> I'm not disabled but riding my cx bike to work even once a week was hurting me because of arthritis. Now I'm commuting every day on the eBike and riding about ten miles on the trail on the weekends. I had quit mountain biking entirely. For me, the eBike is a quality of life improvement.
> 
> What if someone healthy that would otherwise be shuttling buys an eBike to simplify their logistics?
> 
> ...


For me there is the crux of the discussion, hobby vs. sport.

Those that view mountain biking as a sport (ask competition) will never see a benefit. Since they have a very well defined (and rightly so) of what a mountain bike competition is made up of.

Those that view mountain biking as a hobby (recreation, non-formal exercise) will see a benefit. Since they are not out formally competing so their outlook is very different.

I remember discussions like this in the late 90's as to why full suspension was not needed. Those that raced thought it was a waste and was un-needed those that rode for fun liked suspension.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> I remember discussions like this in the late 90's as to why full suspension was not needed. Those that raced thought it was a waste and was un-needed those that rode for fun liked suspension.


Cool fairy tale.

Yeah, all those folks that raced in the 90's thought full suspension was a waste and unneeded.









How do you come up with so much nonsense?


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

og-mtb said:


> Cool fairy tale.
> 
> Yeah, all those folks that raced in the 90's thought full suspension was a waste and unneeded.
> 
> ...


I have to ask how old are you? Since back in the mountain bike magazines there were those discussions along with all the shows on outdoor life. I remember when the Giant NRS was such a big deal because it was FS and faster yet racers refused to use them because it did not feel faster.

So I get "such nonsense" from real life experiences instead of online "discussions" which you seem to not know how to actually have.

It is cool that you kids can use google to find images and think that is making an actual point. You're just wanting to argue so guess onto the ignore list you go.


----------



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

KenPsz said:


> I have to ask how old are you? Since back in the mountain bike magazines there were those discussions along with all the shows on outdoor life. I remember when the Giant NRS was such a big deal because it was FS and faster yet races refused to use them because it did not feel faster.


They were never contriversal though, just another thing that someone either wanted or not. Like going from 8 speed to 9, or whether or not to use a dropper post.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> I have to ask how old are you? Since back in the mountain bike magazines there were those discussions along with all the shows on outdoor life. I remember when the Giant NRS was such a big deal because it was FS and faster yet races refused to use them because it did not feel faster.
> 
> So I get "such nonsense" from real life experiences instead of online "discussions" which you seem to not know how to actually have.
> 
> It is cool that you kids can use google to find images and think that is making an actual point. You're just wanting to argue so guess onto the ignore list you go.


I started riding MTBs in 1988.

That handy photo is Missy's 1993 rig that she placed 3rd on in the DH World Championship that year. It was provided to show that what you posted is nonsense.

Here is another photo that shows yet another racer (1999 this time) who didn't think that full suspension was "a waste and unneeded." There are literally hundreds of photos like this from the 90s because racers did not think that FS was a waste and unneeded.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> They were never contriversal though, just another thing that someone either wanted or not. Like going from 8 speed to 9, or whether or not to use a dropper post.


I beg to differ on the idea they were not controversial. I had many a trail side discussion of "why do you need a bike like that? All you really need is a hardtail and not even a front fork (suspension)". The more someone raced the more they though my Proflex was stupid and unneeded.

There were TV and print discussion about was FS needed etc.. Since FS was a significant change to the hobby/sport of mountain biking.

Now you're right no one tried to get my bike kicked off of trails but folks like me did get snotty comments about those early FS rigs. Where now FS does not get a second look let alone a bike over 30lbs.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

KenPsz said:


> You're just wanting to argue so guess onto the ignore list you go.


The ignore list is the refuge of those that can't engage with those that have differing view points imo.


----------



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

KenPsz said:


> I beg to differ on the idea they were controversial. I had many a trail side discussion of "why do you need a bike like that? All you really need is a hardtail and not even a front fork (suspension)". The more someone raced the more they though my Proflex was stupid and unneeded.


That's sort of difficult to believe but I'll have to take your word for it. Again though, and as you said it's not the same deal at all as bolting on a motor so why mention it?

Sorry for contributing to the same old bickerfest.


----------



## scottxpc (Jan 24, 2013)

Lemonaid said:


> Out of curiosity. How does one tell a class 1 vs a non class 1 bike and enforce that non class 1 bikes are excluded from the trails?


Easy real bicycle manufacturers ie Specialized, Giant, Trek , ect. Only produce class 1 pedal assist ebikes be suspect of anything else other than the major bike manufacturers

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

scottxpc said:


> Easy real bicycle manufacturers ie Specialized, Giant, Trek , ect. Only produce class 1 pedal assist ebikes be suspect of anything else other than the major bike manufacturers
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


And the manufacturers that go beyond class 1?


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

life behind bars said:


> The ignore list is the refuge of those that can't engage with those that have differing view points imo.


No it makes dealing with those that can't have a conversation and just want to argue to argue go away.

Think of it this way I am banning them from my trails, since they are destructive and disruptive to the discussion 

Is interesting though I have never seen a site where a moderator is suggesting people argue. I have always seen moderators just suggest using the ignore or report functionality when things get heated.

Notice you have different views and you're not on my ignore list. Matter of fact there are several here that have different views and are not on my ignore list.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> That's sort of difficult to believe but I'll have to take your word for it. Again though, and as you said it's not the same deal at all as bolting on a motor so why mention it?
> 
> Sorry for contributing to the same old bickerfest.


I brought up FS as a discussion that was like this, I did not mean to imply it was totally equivalent. Yes I had those discussion back in the early to late 90s. I never understood the issue about FS either, but then I never raced since it did not look like fun.

My main point is that people that view mountain biking as a sport or a hobby have very different views and goals as to what they want and why.

I would bet the appeal of e-bikes are more towards those that view this as a hobby than a sport, I acknowledged that earlier. If your competitive you want to go man vs. man (as much as a wallet warrior parts allow for that) where e-bike you just want to ride and get up that stupid hill that just sucks and enjoy the ride.

I am not sure what is so controversial about that view point, but it does seem to strike a nerve with some.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> No it makes dealing with those that can't have a conversation and just want to argue to argue go away.


When weak folks are confronted with their lies/ignorance (in your case, the repeated false claim that the USFS/BLM aren't enforcing the letter of the law, your nonsense claim that racers in the 90s thought full suspension was a waste nad unneeded, etc. etc.) they hide rather than having a conversation and admitting their mistakes.

It's very telling.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

Horses evolved in North America.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Bison ranged as far west as Alaska.
American Bison - North America | Big Game Hunting Records - Safari Club International Online Record Book

Your point was stronger without the hyperbole.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

og-mtb said:


> I started riding MTBs in 1988.
> 
> That handy photo is Missy's 1993 rig that she placed 3rd on in the DH World Championship that year. It was provided to show that what you posted is nonsense.
> 
> ...


That looks a lot like a motorcycle. At least it did to me back then. I started riding in 1982 and thankfully skipped the development phase of full suspension bikes; rode ten years without suspension and almost another ten with front suspension.

Join us and come to the dark side; you'll enjoy riding an eBike if you enjoy riding a mountain bike. You know you want to; otherwise why would you be spending so much of your time on this sub-forum?


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

hikerdave said:


> That looks a lot like a motorcycle. At least it did to me back then. I started riding in 1982 and thankfully skipped the development phase of full suspension bikes; rode ten years without suspension and almost another ten with front suspension.
> 
> Join us and come to the dark side; you'll enjoy riding an eBike if you enjoy riding a mountain bike. You know you want to; otherwise why would you be spending so much of your time on this sub-forum?


I have og-mtb on ignore so thanks for quoting him so I can see the desperation to want to use downhill bikes an example to argue something that was not even my main point. I knew I should specified cross-country to avoid that type sillyness. But arguing to argue seems to be the point.

I want to see a purist "earn their turns" pedaling one of those tanks uphill instead of shuttling. Does seem that a motor/engine is acceptable to get up a hill though if that a downhill bike is an OK example.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

scottxpc said:


> Easy real bicycle manufacturers ie Specialized, Giant, Trek , ect. Only produce class 1 pedal assist ebikes be suspect of anything else other than the major bike manufacturers
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Pfft

They're actually already producing Class 2 emtbs according to the laws that _they_ wrote, that they're selling as Class 1. Which is pretty amusing, since they tout that as a big reason why Class 1 emtbs are special and should be allowed, even though they are treated the same under the laws. Each generation of the Levo is getting farther away from "but you still have to pedal" with walk assist and shuttle mode.






Just embrace throttles and be done with it.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

hikerdave said:


> That looks a lot like a motorcycle. At least it did to me back then. I started riding in 1982 and thankfully skipped the development phase of full suspension bikes; rode ten years without suspension and almost another ten with front suspension.


Which is all fine and dandy but ignores the reason why I posted that photo as an example.



hikerdave said:


> Join us and come to the dark side; you'll enjoy riding an eBike if you enjoy riding a mountain bike. You know you want to; otherwise why would you be spending so much of your time on this sub-forum?


There are a few very odd things about this-

#1. The trite canard that "I like my electric motor bicycle so if you only tried one you would like it too"

I've ridden one.

I have no interest in owning one or riding one.

#2. That spending a few minutes a day is "spending so much of my time on this sub-forum."


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> I want to see a purist "earn their turns" pedaling one of those tanks uphill instead of shuttling.


Fun fact:

Many folks aren't weak like KenPsz.

In fact, back in the day, there were tanks that actually were able to accept a double so you could ride their 43 pounds of free ride goofiness uphill. Example: my 43lb Foes Fly.


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

og-mtb said:


> Fun fact:
> 
> Many folks aren't weak like KenPsz.
> 
> In fact, back in the day, there were tanks that actually were able to accept a double so you could ride their 43 pounds of free ride goofiness uphill. Example: my 43lb Foes Fly.


My old Big Hit weighed over 18kg (40lbs). It had 2.5 Super Tacky tires and a double. I used to ride up everything (slowly) on it. 
What I've noticed of late, is seeing riders on e-bikes/moto on trails where you rarely saw other riders. These are trails that lead to very difficult descents. The reason they were built so far out or at the top of tricky climbs, is that only experienced riders could get out there. This reduced the risk of a less experienced rider riding the trails. And the riders of e-bikes (insert stereotype) did not look they would be comfortable with the descent. 
Who knows, they may have shredded their way down. But I was surprised to see them.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Oh og-mtb you are so cute! But not real smart you should ask what type of bikes I used to ride. I was a big fan of the Kona Stinky Deluxe with at 160mm fork, 38lb bike. Was a blast going downhill but up hill was just slow.

Fun Fact:
most people did not ride those tanks even if they could accept a double. So your exception to the rule proves nothing. 

But hey keep the insults flowing it is showing just how weak your argument is or lack of one actually. Considering you are clinging to my FS example it shows a lack of reading comprehension also.

Seems it was a good choice to put you and your "argue to argue" on ignore. 

But please continue....


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Harryman said:


> Pfft
> 
> They're actually already producing Class 2 emtbs according to the laws that _they_ wrote, that they're selling as Class 1. Which is pretty amusing, since they tout that as a big reason why Class 1 emtbs are special and should be allowed, even though they are treated the same under the laws. Each generation of the Levo is getting farther away from "but you still have to pedal" with walk assist and shuttle mode.
> 
> ...


ugh.....

I wish the industry would stop sponsoring people like this. Even if you take the motor off that bike the way that guy rides is not how you want most people to treat trails.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> Oh og-mtb you are so cute! But not real smart you should ask what type of bikes I used to ride. I was a big fan of the Kona Stinky Deluxe with at 160mm fork, 38lb bike. Was a blast going downhill but up hill was just slow.
> 
> But hey keep the insults flowing it is showing just how weak your argument is, or lack of one actually. Considering you are clinging to my FS example it shows a lack of reading comprehension also.
> 
> ...


So much for that ignore thing you've been crowing about...that lasted what, a couple of hours?

My argument is that it is false that, in the late 90's, "Those that raced thought it was a waste and was un-needed those that rode for fun liked suspension."

You made that crazy claim. I merely disproved it. Like so much of the nonsense that you post here.

But thanks for admitting that it was common for folks to "earn their turns" pedaling one of those tanks uphill instead of shuttling. It was a weird attempt at discrediting folks who rode FS bikes so it's understandable that you've back-tracked now.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

og-mtb

To add insult to injury on your stupid assumption you should really look at where most of my posts have been i the last few years. I ride fat bikes specifically a FS fatbike so your notion that I am "weak" because I support the usage of ebikes is funny. I ride what many today would call a tank. LOL!!!!

But hey run with your assumptions they have all been wrong so far....

You also seem to desperately want to make this personal with me or to get my attention, so glad I have you on ignore. 

Now back to the topic.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> your notion that I am "weak" because I support the usage of ebikes is funny.


Hey, how's that "ignore" thing going?

I don't think you're weak because you support the usage of ebikes. That's just you being slow. Again.

I noted that you're weak because you posted this:

"I want to see a purist "earn their turns" pedaling one of those tanks uphill instead of shuttling."

Pro tip: if you don't want me commenting on your goofy posts, simply stop posting nonsense. It's such a simple concept that even you should be able to understand.


----------



## portnuefpeddler (Jun 14, 2016)

vikb said:


> This is a mountain bike forum. If you were on an e-Bike forum you wouldn't have most of the issues you are having. A bunch of us have suggested that solution a number of times.
> 
> If you want to talk about motorsports in the middle of a mountain bike forum you are going to get some folks that power their bikes with their legs and lungs participating and some of them are not going to be fans of motorsports on mountain bike trails.


 No, I just double checked, this IS an e bike forum, YOU'RE in the wrong place.


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

portnuefpeddler said:


> No, I just double checked, this IS an e bike forum, YOU'RE in the wrong place.


That argument could be applied to motors on mountain-bike trails? I don't really have a dog in this fight only that one of my riding group has got one, a second is contemplating one. So I don't know how this will end.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Wow! Who could have predicted this topic could have devolved, as it has?


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

chuckha62 said:


> Wow! Who could have predicted this topic could have devolved, as it has?


They all turn into this mess, it is always the same people too that derail the discussion.


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

Nurse Ben said:


> Humans don't belong in the wilds....





Klurejr said:


> I strongly disagree with this statement.





jcd46 said:


> Me too, humans need to respect it, that's it.


This makes me think about the fact that we originally were OF the wilds, then we evolved to a place where we were ABOVE the wilds, and lost our respect for it. I agree that we should be in the wilds, but we should also respect and revere what it is

Oh yeah...

If an ebiker falls in the woods....


----------



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

KenPsz said:


> For me there is the crux of the discussion, hobby vs. sport.
> 
> Those that view mountain biking as a sport (ask competition) will never see a benefit. Since they have a very well defined (and rightly so) of what a mountain bike competition is made up of.


For many it's both, their sport *is* their hobby. Or maybe it's the other way around 

I think ebikes can be appealing and have benefits for competitive people too, not just recreational riders. And even though I don't want one it's easy for me to understand why other people do.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> For many it's both, their sport *is* their hobby. Or maybe it's the other way around
> 
> I think ebikes can be appealing and have benefits for competitive people too, not just recreational riders. And even though I don't want one it's easy for me to understand why other people do.


With the new racing for ebikes that is going to show up this year that will be interesting.

For me this is one of several hobbies so I am more relaxed about riding, I know a few that mountain biking is their only hobby and they do have a more sport oriented outlook on it.


----------



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

Being a recreational rider, or a sport rider, or liking electric bikes or not liking them are all things that have nothing to do with how policies are determined. At least they shouldn't be.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> Being a recreational rider, or a sport rider, or liking electric bikes or not liking them are all things that have nothing to do with how policies are determined. At least they shouldn't be.


That I agree with you on. But how you view the hobby/sport very much influences how you feel policy should be created, shaped and applied. For this topic (ebikes) though it is interesting how threatened many seem to feel/react, I have seen this only in one other topic that is not bike related.

I also don't think policies were what the OP was about though, although these discussions always go that direction.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

hikerdave said:


> I'm not disabled but riding my cx bike to work even once a week was hurting me because of arthritis. Now I'm commuting every day on the eBike and riding about ten miles on the trail on the weekends. I had quit mountain biking entirely. For me, the eBike is a quality of life improvement.
> 
> What if someone healthy that would otherwise be shuttling buys an eBike to simplify their logistics?
> 
> ...


Your's is not a disability as most people would view it, but it's certainly good that an ebike benefited your situation.


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

Klurejr said:


> There are 2 sides to the coin for sure, but the answer is the same regardless.
> 
> Theological side: The Earth, the plants and the animals were all created for the enjoyment of man and man was tasked with being the caretaker. It is up to man to take good care of the earth and put animals and humans where they see fit as long as they do not damage the earth beyond repair. Things like Oil Spills and Toxic releases of chemicals into the water supply are way more damaging than horses in Nevada. (The Bible in no way advocates for the Earth to be treated like trash due to some heavenly calling(Rev 11:18 - and the appointed time came...to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.))
> 
> Evolutionary side: The Earth and all life on it happened by chance and only the strongest survive, hence only the strongest make the rules. Humans are the top of the food chain and thus hold the most responsibility to care for the earth we have. It is up to man to take good care of the earth and put animals and humans where they see fit as long as they do not damage the earth beyond repair for future generations. Things like Oil Spills and Toxic releases of chemicals into the water supply are way more damaging than horses in Nevada.


great stuff here!!! And it made me think:
for me, in the end, there needs to be balance. No matter what viewpoint or belief system is used/happening, if things are out of balance, there will always be issues.

Both scenarios above speak of different amounts of balance: the Theological version tipping the balance all in favor of humans, which is bad. The Evolutionary version puts the balance completely out of human control, or out of balance the other way.

I think the Evolutionary version is closer to what is really happening, and that is scary to modern First World society humans because it puts them out of control of their environs.

Personally, once I realized that it is not my right, or really responsibility to be "in control of" or "the master of" ALL my surroundings, I found a higher sense of balance, and then respect, for the world around me. I noticed how bigger picture systems work, and how I fit into them.



Klurejr said:


> I do not believe in either case the purposeful destruction of the earth is of benefit to anyone. I also do not believe keeping humans out of the wilderness serves any sort of higher purposes or is necessary.
> 
> I do believe that all humans need to clean up after themselves and treat everything with respect. What happened in Joshua Tree and other National Parks during the shutdown was shameful.


I definitely agree with what you said above 100%, and I would add that we need to think about the "wake" we leave by/in our existence when we are gone. Did we leave a positive, useful wake, or a negative selfish destructive wake. Our existence does not give us the "right" to take and destroy if we can avoid it


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

KenPsz said:


> I have to ask how old are you? Since back in the mountain bike magazines there were those discussions along with all the shows on outdoor life. I remember when the Giant NRS was such a big deal because it was FS and faster yet racers refused to use them because it did not feel faster.
> 
> So I get "such nonsense" from real life experiences instead of online "discussions" which you seem to not know how to actually have.
> 
> It is cool that you kids can use google to find images and think that is making an actual point. You're just wanting to argue so guess onto the ignore list you go.


I'm 52 and was around for the transition to FS and don't recall nearly the amount of dissension with that compared to ebikes (and rightfully so).


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

I'm holding out for nuclear powered bikes!


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

scottxpc said:


> I question why ebike haters are always on ebike forums hmmm got nothing better to do I guess lol
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Well, this is MTBR.COM. I imagine there are forums and sites out there for motor-powered enthusiasts.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Crankout said:


> I'm 52 and was around for the transition to FS and don't recall nearly the amount of dissension with that compared to ebikes (and rightfully so).


I addressed that above

for the life of me I can't understand why my mentioning FS and the dislike people that did cross country had initially for those got this much attention.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

chuckha62 said:


> Wow! Who could have predicted this topic could have devolved, as it has?


Ha!!


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> I addressed that above
> 
> for the life of me I can't understand why my mentioning FS and the dislike people that did cross country had initially for those got this much attention.


You never mentioned "cross country." You merely made a crazy claim about racers thinking FS was a waste and unneeded. This speaks volumes about your lack of experience - that you now claim that "racers' only includes XC racers.

I "did cross country" (what an odd turn of phrase) during the 90s and never encountered anyone that claimed FS was a waste and unneeded.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Folks the original question was are the potential conflicts worth the benefits that i listed? Are there any other benefits or risks that i missed? And also I'm curious to know how much people think emtbs contribute to the sport?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Lemonaid said:


> Folks the original question was are the potential conflicts worth the benefits that i listed? Are there any other benefits or risks that i missed? And also I'm curious to know how much people think emtbs contribute to the sport?


 The " sport " of mt biking doesn't include motors. E bikes are a different thing.


----------



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

Lemonaid said:


> Folks the original question was are the potential conflicts worth the benefits that i listed?


I don't think any of the benefits are worth polluting the definition of what is motorized and what isn't. Beyond that I say have at it.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> That I agree with you on. But how you view the hobby/sport very much influences how you feel policy should be created, shaped and applied.


Actually, I find what influences it the most is how much one actually KNOWS about how policy is created, shaped and applied.

The people with the most real world experience creating and advocating for MTB trails are definitely far more savvy about this stuff than hobbyists such as yourself, who doesn't even grasp most basic stuff (ie - Wilderness designation). The overwhelming consensus among that group is that it is a terrible idea for MTBers to let there be any equivocation between our sport and motors.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Lemonaid said:


> Folks the original question was are the potential conflicts worth the benefits that i listed? Are there any other benefits or risks that i missed? And also I'm curious to know how much people think emtbs contribute to the sport?


It's not the same sport, so they only thing they 'contribute' is a bunch arguing and BS.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

og-mtb said:


> You never mentioned "cross country." You merely made a crazy claim about racers thinking FS was a waste and unneeded. This speaks volumes about your lack of experience - that you now claim that "racers' only includes XC racers.
> 
> I "did cross country" (what an odd turn of phrase) during the 90s and never encountered anyone that claimed FS was a waste and unneeded.


Been riding since 1990. Never once gave a damn what XC racers/gear weenies thought about my bike. Good thing, because time has proven that they were wildly mistaken on almost every count.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> Actually, I find what influences it the most is how much one actually KNOWS about how policy is created, shaped and applied.
> 
> The people with the most real world experience creating and advocating for MTB trails are definitely far more savvy about this stuff than hobbyists such as yourself, who doesn't even grasp most basic stuff (ie - Wilderness designation). The overwhelming consensus among that group is that it is a terrible idea for MTBers to let there be any equivocation between our sport and motors.


We are going to have to agree to disagree since everyone has a bias and yours goes a particular way others go a different way.

But thank you for acknowledging that as a hobbyist my bias is very different than that of someone that looks at this as a sport or as a land usage issue. By the fact you used the term sport shows where your bias lies, which is neither good nor bad.

short and long though we all have a bias that shapes our views of what we like, dislike, support and fight against.

Sorry to say I don't fully trust people such as yourself that do not have my interest at heart and are actively working against them.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

og-mtb 

I covered in a later post that I should've specified cross-country in my original post. Since cross-country is more like the riding we do day in and day out vs. DH. 

Look you're just looking for something to argue with me about, I really don't care to engage with you.


----------



## og-mtb (Sep 23, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> og-mtb
> 
> I covered in a later post that I should've specified cross-country in my original post. Look you're just looking for something to argue with me about, I really don't care to argue with you. So in short find someone else to engage.


I see that your "ignore" campaign continues to go really well...

When you make stuff up, like you repeatedly do, don't be surprised when folks with actual subject matter knowledge and experience point out your confusion.

I predict that you will continue to struggle with your problems on those fronts.


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't think any of the benefits are worth polluting the definition of what is motorized and what isn't. Beyond that I say have at it.


that is a great way to put it


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> We are going to have to agree to disagree since everyone has a bias and yours goes a particular way others go a different way.
> 
> But thank you for acknowledging that as a hobbyist my bias is very different than that of someone that looks at this as a sport or as a land usage issue. By the fact you used the term sport shows where your bias lies, which is neither good nor bad.
> 
> ...


"Sport" is a basic definition I use for convenience and carries no deep meaning; "hobby" or "pastime" or "pursuit" or scores of other words can be used instead. Makes zero difference except to weird internet forum wanna-be semanticists.

You have no idea what my 'bias' is. You are simply stringing together a bunch of odd assumptions and sprinkling in some mistaken assumptions based on a very, very shallow level of understanding of what drives trail use policy in the real world.

The fact that you don't trust people "such as myself" speaks strictly to your bunker mentality and utter ignorance of how things actually work, as well as your apparent inability to familiarize yourself with how people like me (ie - those that actually have dealt with these issues beyond rambling on the interent) come to the conclusions we do.

tl/dr - keyboard wannabe experts<real people with real experience


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> "Sport" is a basic definition I use for convenience and carries no deep meaning; "hobby" or "pastime" or "pursuit" or scores of other words can be used instead. Makes zero difference except to weird internet forum wanna-be semanticists.


I would disagree with that statement. Since to me sport means competition, I am not trying to play wanna-be semantics.

That view is shaped by being in hobbies where there is a serious distinction between those that do sport vs. hobby.



> You have no idea what my 'bias' is. You are simply stringing together a bunch of odd assumptions and sprinkling in some mistaken assumptions based on a very, very shallow level of understanding of what drives trail use policy in the real world.


We all assume that is part of the problem in a internet "conversation". 
I will tell you I throw in the mechanical and mechanized to poke people. 
Frankly folks like you do a piss poor job of explaining the "real world" policy that drives trail access. 
There is more of a condescending attitude of "you don't understand so go away" response. 
Again I don't trust those that don't have my interests at heart and can't really explain why.



> The fact that you don't trust people "such as myself" speaks strictly to your bunker mentality and utter ignorance of how things actually work, as well as your apparent inability to familiarize yourself with how people like me (ie - those that actually have dealt with these issues beyond rambling on the interent) come to the conclusions we do.


Do a better job of explaining yourself and maybe that will change. But instead folks like you seem to want to argue and minimize those that "don't understand". Not up to me to learn how you think it is better for all involved if you can explain your decisions in a clear manor.

I have yet to see an answer as to why e-bikes don't belong on the trails past nonsense like "they are not bikes", "they have motors", "they are a fire hazard", "they are too fast". To those that ride these types of bike those are all weak.



> tl/dr - keyboard wannabe experts<real people with real experience


Oh boy I am so impressed.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> I would disagree with that statement. Since to me sport means competition, I am not trying to play wanna-be semantics.
> 
> That view is shaped by being in hobbies where there is a serious distinction between those that do sport vs. hobby.
> 
> ...


First off, I don't compete. Have no interest in racing. So your baseless assumptions in that regard are as worthless as baseless assumptions usually are. My use of 'sport' in regard to MTBing are nothing at all more than common vernacular. You're trying to assign WAYYYY too much meaning to it.

The reason you end up in arguments is the fault of one person, and that's yourself.

You never ask "Could you help me understand...?". You never say "I admittedly know nothing about this, but based on my limited knowledge, this is how it appears to me".

Nope. You come in spouting completely made up crap like it's gospel and try to present your completely erroneous assumptions as equal to facts, then absolutely refuse to do any sort of research on your own no matter how many times people try to point out to you that you should. Change your attitude from "I know everything, even though I know nothing", ask people nicely for help understanding things, drop the weird paranoid attitude along with the constant act of assuming you know things you don't and you'll have better luck.

Or just keep throwing **** against the wall and annoying people. Can't say I really care. I'll be here to keep correcting the ridiculous misinformation folks like you insist on trying to spread.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> First off, I don't compete. Have no interest in racing. So your baseless assumptions in that regard are as worthless as baseless assumptions usually are. My use of 'sport' in regard to MTBing are nothing at all more than common vernacular. You're trying to assign WAYYYY too much meaning to it.


It is a personal view of what the difference is between "sport" and "hobby".
You feel it is baseless I don't, it is a personal bias of mine as to what those terms mean. That bias does shape my view on mountain biking in general.



> The reason you end up in arguments is the fault of one person, and that's yourself.


LOL - I would say you're projecting a bit since I am not the only one folks like you seem to have run in's will. Come up with reasons than mean more than "because I said so" and you might get a conversation.



> You never ask "Could you help me understand...?". You never say "I admittedly know nothing about this, but based on my limited knowledge, this is how it appears to me".


LOL!!!!! Oh that's rich! 
Oh please super duper trail builder slapheadmofo can you please explain trail access and the work needed and why decisions are made to the uninitiated, pretty please.

Give me a break, no one should have to ask you to be clear about what you are stating.



> Nope. You come in spouting completely made up crap like it's gospel and try to present your completely erroneous assumptions as equal to facts, then absolutely refuse to do any sort of research on your own no matter how many times people try to point out to you that you should. Change your attitude from "I know everything, even though I know nothing", ask people nicely for help understanding things, drop the weird paranoid attitude along with the constant act of assuming you know things you don't and you'll have better luck.


Why? I was jumped on from the get go by folks like you on this forum when I did try to play nice and learn. Folks like you are more interested in stopping e-bikes than actually discussing the topic.



> Or just keep throwing **** against the wall and annoying people. Can't say I really care. I'll be here to keep correcting the ridiculous misinformation folks like you insist on trying to spread.


Oh you care or you would not always seem to be one of the people that respond to me and seem to search out my posts.

You correct nothing ever. All someone like you gives for answers are "it has a motor", "go talk to a land owner" like those are enough since you seem to think "Because I said so" is a valid answer.

Tell you what I will ask you a serious question:

Why do you feel e-bikes don't belong in the sport and on the trails? You don't get to use "because it has a motor" as your reasoning. Because once that becomes the focus the dramatic "it's a motorcycle"," what's next ATV's" blah blah blah start coming.


----------



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

KenPsz said:


> That view is shaped by being in hobbies where there is a serious distinction between those that do sport vs. hobby.


That's ok if that's the way you see it but it isn't reality and even if it were I don't understand what it has to do with anything involved in this conversation.

My hobby happens to be a sport, just like it is for millions of other people. Is that difficult to understand? shmf is totally right, hobby, sport, pastime or whatever tf you want to call it are all interchangeable in this context.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> That's ok if that's the way you see it but it isn't reality and even if it were I don't understand what it has to do with anything involved in this conversation.


It makes a large distinction if you have the same type of view about the difference between "sport" and "hobby".

We discussed this above. I agree e-bikes have not business being in the sport of mountain biking, since completion is involved in sport and the e-bike gives and unfair advantage.

Hobbies are mostly about just having fun and doing something so there should be no issues with e-bikes in the world of the mountain biking the hobby.

Does that clarify my view?



> My hobby happens to be a sport, just like it is for millions of other people. Is that difficult to understand? shmf is totally right, hobby, sport, pastime or whatever tf you want to call it are all interchangeable in this context.


As stated above if you are in competition (aka a sport) than I agree with you. But what I do is a hobby and there is plenty of room for e-bikes.

I will disagree over and over that those terms are not interchangeable. Those terms have very distinctly different meanings.

But then I am trying to clarify my views on words in a forum where people will equate an e-bike with a motorcycle. So maybe terms really don't mean anything here.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

KenPsz said:


> Tell you what I will ask you a serious question:
> 
> Why do you feel e-bikes don't belong in the sport and on the trails? You don't get to use "because it has a motor" as your reasoning. Because once that becomes the focus the dramatic "it's a motorcycle"," what's next ATV's" blah blah blah start coming.


LOL!! Perfect question to demonstrate why you should stop running off half-cocked due to baseless assumptions .

I've said over and over (and over and over) here that I have no problem with e-bikes on trails. I've repeatedly supported expanding OPDMD definitions on federal land to include e-bikes (that means allowing them for disabled use). My son and I regularly ride dirt bikes, ATVs and snowmobiles; I have zero issues with motorized recreation in general and am keenly aware of the differences between e-bike and higher powered ORVs; very very likely a lot more than you are. I've argued against the ridiculousness of the whole 'purist'/"earn your turns'/'fitness police' arguments against e-bikes for years. If you did even the slightest bit of background reading here instead of being in such a huge hurry to start shooting off your mouth, you'd already know all of this.

Speaking of background reading, if you had done even the slightest bit of research on this subject, you would already know exactly why many MTB advocates aren't fans of equivocating MTBs with motors. Hell, if you even put a couple minutes of coherent thought into the matter, I would imagine you could come up with the answers all by yourself. But no, you just want to scream and pout and play victim, while at the same time thinking your baseless ramblings need to be given the same credence as actual facts.

My suggestion to you is the STFU and go get learnt. Might want to work on your assumption issues too. You seem to confuse them with facts quite often.


----------



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

KenPsz said:


> Does that clarify my view?


Not really but I'll give it my best shot. Hobby cyclists are laid back and welcome electric bikes whereas sport cyclists are uptight purists who will have nothing to do with them?

How do you explain why some professional athletes like them?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> How do you explain why some professional athletes like them?


I'm a hobby cyclist that has no problem with e-bikes.

Somehow just recognizing the fact that e-bikes actually DO have motors on them equals "hate" I guess.

Amazing how one-dimensional some people's thinking is.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

KenPsz said:


> It makes a large distinction if you have the same type of view about the difference between "sport" and "hobby".
> 
> We discussed this above. I agree e-bikes have not business being in the sport of mountain biking, since completion is involved in sport and the e-bike gives and unfair advantage.
> 
> ...


 Hobby? Anything outside of work that is of interest. Sport? Same thing but with some kind of physical activity too. Not that hard.


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

leeboh said:


> Hobby? Anything outside of work that is of interest. Sport? Same thing but with some kind of physical activity too. Not that hard.


Chess is a sport


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

langster831 said:


> Chess is a sport


Chess is a game.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

Sport: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.

Hobby: an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure.

KenPsz: a person who takes things way too literally.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

[QUOTE
Why do you feel e-bikes don't belong in the sport and on the trails? You don't get to use "because it has a motor" as your reasoning. Because once that becomes the focus the dramatic "it's a motorcycle"," what's next ATV's" blah blah blah start coming.[/QUOTE]

Uhhh, it's the motor? Slap and I live in MA. A whole lot of nothing available to the moto crowd on public state parks and forests here. Maybe 8 or so in the whole state. Some private stuff around. So, not legal as the current rules are. Change the laws? Go for it. Lots of conservation lands, town open space and some Trustees' organizations too. Most of that in the charter/rules/bylaws prohibit motorized vehicles. Would need to seek an amendment through the state legislature and so many other bylaws to begin to change that. Good luck with that. Human powered, multi use off road trails. Horses can't even get access in many areas. Bikes don't have motors, they are something else and need to treated as such. Start there. Really.


----------



## KingOfOrd (Feb 19, 2005)

jcd46 said:


> Chess is a game.


Yes, it is also a game.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

jcd46 said:


> Chess is a game.


Well, football is a sport and teams play in games.

WTF does any of this have to do with ebikes?

This forum is an fn joke.

Can all the posts in this forum be removed from the "new posts" section?


----------



## geraldooka (Jul 3, 2012)

I have no interest in mountain bike competition. I also don’t believe eMopeds belong on multi use trails. They have sadly recently been allowed on our local with essentially zero forethought or public consultation. I guarantee there will be a review of this hasty decision, right after some idiot decides to mod their eMoped and hurts a person or animal or worse burns the forest down.


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

If I was being honest, I would rather not see e-bikes on specific mountain-bike trails (which is where I spend the bulk of my time riding).

Hypothetically, if this had a crank and pedals instead of pegs, would you mind it being on bike trails? If you really want to be pedantic, you could argue that e-bikes do have a throttle, instead of spinning a grip, you spin the cranks. 
I've no problem with e-bikes as commuters, or trail bikes, like I don't have an issue motocross bikes on their trails or riding down a beach. If you have a motor assisting you, then you're either on moto trails or the road. Not on mountainbike trails. NB of course this doesn't apply to mixed trails. Personally I'd rather not ride where there's a risk of colliding with a horse or moto.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

langster831 said:


> Chess is a sport


Speaking of activities considered a sport or televised on ESPN...poker, of all things. What the fugg.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

E-sports!


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

Lemonaid said:


> I was doing my usual random thinking this morning and a question popped up in my little head. What problems are emtbs intending to solve. As we know every innovation attempts to solve a problem and I'm assuming rightfully or wrongfully that emtb's are no different, so this is the list I'm came up with.
> 
> Emtb's are fun, more riding with less work
> Emtb's enable people to ride longer and for longer distances
> ...


The MTB sport is helped or hurt by the attitude and behavior of the people riding whatever bikes they are on, not the bikes themselves. An e-bike rider going at a slow and respectable pace near hikers is going to be a much better MTB ambassador than a dozen enduro bros that are all racing each other on a singletrack and forcing the hikers off the trail. Did that concept ever occur to you? Did you really think all e-bikers by definition behave worse than normal mountain bikers? If you think so, that's just being prejudiced.

Also, I don't know how others on here mainly use their e-bike, but one of my favorite things to do is to attempt to climb steeper inclines that I simply could not get up with a normal bike. The e-bike helps me get up sections I could not before. It's challenging, it still requires a lot of finesse and adjustments, and it's something I'm still learning how to do on this different setup. You don't just twist a throttle and shoot up a steep, loose, rocky/rutted incline like someone could on a dirt bike. Anyone who thinks that has simply not ridden an e-bike. Climbing otherwise impossible inclines with an e-bike is not hurting the sport. It's adding a new wrinkle to it. Before I could not climb a steep technical section, now I can. Big deal if e-power was the difference, I'm not some perfectionist. Some sections I still cannot climb, so that's why I'm trying to power down towards 100 watts and install a 0.60 granny ratio for crawling up the incline and see if that helps. Again, it's a challenge. I do things my own way, I care nothing for having to do something a certain way just because it's some MTB conventional wisdom. That's just boring.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

richj8990 said:


> The MTB sport is helped or hurt by the attitude and behavior of the people riding whatever bikes they are on, not the bikes themselves. An e-bike rider going at a slow and respectable pace near hikers is going to be a much better MTB ambassador than a dozen enduro bros that are all racing each other on a singletrack and forcing the hikers off the trail. Did that concept ever occur to you? Did you really think all e-bikers by definition behave worse than normal mountain bikers? If you think so, that's just being prejudiced.
> 
> Also, I don't know how others on here mainly use their e-bike, but one of my favorite things to do is to attempt to climb steeper inclines that I simply could not get up with a normal bike. The e-bike helps me get up sections I could not before. It's challenging, it still requires a lot of finesse and adjustments, and it's something I'm still learning how to do on this different setup. You don't just twist a throttle and shoot up a steep, loose, rocky/rutted incline like someone could on a dirt bike. Anyone who thinks that has simply not ridden an e-bike. Climbing otherwise impossible inclines with an e-bike is not hurting the sport. It's adding a new wrinkle to it. Before I could not climb a steep technical section, now I can. Big deal if e-power was the difference, I'm not some perfectionist. Some sections I still cannot climb, so that's why I'm trying to power down towards 100 watts and install a 0.60 granny ratio for crawling up the incline and see if that helps. Again, it's a challenge. I do things my own way, I care nothing for having to do something a certain way just because it's some MTB conventional wisdom. That's just boring.


That's all fine and good, just do it on a moto trail, not a mountain bike trail.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I believe my emtb is lighter than my Foes “weasel” I used to cart around everywhere, but who cares both still fun.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

sfgiantsfan said:


> That's all fine and good, just do it on a moto trail, not a mountain bike trail.


You hear that Europe? Giants fan is gonna git you.


----------

