# future of ebikes on trails



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

I predict ebikes will open up biking to a lot more people. This will allow ebikes to get *more* momentum against the sierra club, audubon and other anti bike outdoor organizations that ban bikes in general.

It ultimately is about which group has the most noisy stakeholders donating money.

In 20 years once ebikes are mainstream for commuting and riding around, the lay public will be pushing to open up all trails for bikes.

the reality is they are environmentally friendly and will let more people enjoy the outdoors. The sierra club, audubon etc are the same NIMBY baby boomers that are blocking density within cities. As they die off a new crop of climate change aware riders will be the ones who run policy.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

This will get moved to advocacy. One would need to change the laws first. In many areas. Climate aware? Nothing greener than a bike run on my breakfast. Donating money to who? Slippery slope mingling bikes and motorized vehicles. Doing more e bike advocacy than banging away at your keyboard? Start with meetings and trail work days, let us know how that goes.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

From my view here in California the "e-bikes can go anywhere bikes can go" law has played into the Sierra Club's "no bikes on single track" policy quite well.

The SC was very quiet when the e-bike lobby sneaked through AB-1096; the SC openly promotes e-bikes for transportation; by the same token all the more reason no bikes should be allowed on trails.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Riding eBikes on singletrack trails is transportation. 

Who is the eBike lobby you speak of? People for Bikes is the only one I have heard of.


----------



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

figofspee said:


> Riding eBikes on singletrack trails is transportation.


Maybe for a tiny minority, for the rest it's recreation.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

figofspee said:


> Riding eBikes on singletrack trails is transportation.


Perhaps if one is hauling camping gear or tools for trail work. But I reckon 90% of MTB'ing on single track is purely _recreational_.



> Who is the eBike lobby you speak of? People for Bikes is the only one I have heard of.


CBC, BPSA, NBDA and let's not forget IMBA.

IMBA and P4B were co-conspirators in spreading the fake news that AB-1096 only applied to paved bike paths. This dis-information helped the bill getting unanimous approval through the legislative process.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Transportation is not defined by how pleasurable an activity is.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

goodmojo said:


> I predict ebikes will open up biking to a lot more people. This will allow ebikes to get *more* momentum against the sierra club, audubon and other anti bike outdoor organizations that ban bikes in general.
> 
> It ultimately is about which group has the most noisy stakeholders donating money.
> 
> ...


Environmentally friendly? How so, with a motor, and a battery and all? Maybe as compared to a gas fired motorcycle, but not when compared to an actual bicycle.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

mbmb65 said:


> Environmentally friendly? How so, with a motor, and a battery and all? Maybe as compared to a gas fired motorcycle, but not when compared to an actual bicycle.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There's a good body of work out there that shows there's a crossover point where electrical energy becomes more "green" than bio-mechanical energy. For starters, many electronics these days are better than 90% efficient; humans are about the same as internal combustion engines; 25% at best.

When the energy it takes to put food on the table is considered it's likely the e-bike will win the "green" contest. Unless you happen to grow all of your own food in your backyard and cook only with firewood or solar. (Or eat everything raw)


----------



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

Moe Ped said:


> There's a good body of work out there that shows there's a crossover point where electrical energy becomes more "green" than bio-mechanical energy. For starters, many electronics these days are better than 90% efficient; humans are about the same as internal combustion engines; 25% at best.
> 
> When the energy it takes to put food on the table is considered it's likely the e-bike will win the "green" contest. Unless you happen to grow all of your own food in your backyard and cook only with firewood or solar. (Or eat everything raw)


I've seen a few of those studies and I don't buy it, there seem to be a lot of factors omitted to me. For starters I'd like to see a study comparing the difference between the actual calories consumed by sedentary and active people.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

figofspee said:


> Transportation is not defined by how pleasurable an activity is.


'Transportation' IMO would entail using the bike to reach a destination, like commuting to work or doing errands, etc. 'Recreation' would be riding simply for the sake of fun or sport, which is what the vast majority of MTB riders do on the vast majority of rides. Simply riding around on trails from your car and then back to your car wouldn't qualify as 'transportation' usage.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> 'Transportation' IMO would entail using the bike to reach a destination, like commuting to work or doing errands, etc. 'Recreation' would be riding simply for the sake of fun or sport, which is what the vast majority of MTB riders do on the vast majority of rides. Simply riding around on trails from your car and then back to your car wouldn't qualify as 'transportation' usage.


Agreed, the use of the word transportation is a bit misleading and certainly sounds more like Commuting than recreating to me.

When I ride my mountain bike to the my local trailhead and around the trails and end back the same place I started at I do not think of it as "transportation" even thought it technically meets that definition.

When I ride my motorycle to work and back each day I think of that as transportation.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

goodmojo said:


> I predict ebikes will open up biking to a lot more people.


Yep, absolutely. I already see it here, almost without exception (based on appearances) all of the people I see riding ebikes on bike paths/roads are people who likely wouldn't be riding a bike. They're generally old and/or out of shape hauling around a bunch of extra weight. Most hardly pedaling, some even smoking lol.



goodmojo said:


> This will allow ebikes to get *more* momentum against the sierra club, audubon and other anti bike outdoor organizations that ban bikes in general.


They can't ban bikes unless they own the land.



goodmojo said:


> It ultimately is about which group has the most noisy stakeholders donating money.


Sort of? I've been involved in advocacy for 15 years, and it's politics. On the local level at least, where most decisions are made, whoever has the ear of the land manager has weight, which has to do more with an existing relationship than money. On the national level, sure, money buys attention.



goodmojo said:


> In 20 years once ebikes are mainstream for commuting and riding around, the lay public will be pushing to open up all trails for bikes.


Generally, the lay public isn't inerested in emtbs, just go on an ebike forum and poke around. There are the majority who don't have a bike background who love to ride them bike paths and around town, and the minority who are exisiting mtbrs, who ride emtbs. They are pretty much exclusive groups.



goodmojo said:


> the reality is they are environmentally friendly and will let more people enjoy the outdoors. The sierra club, audubon etc are the same NIMBY baby boomers that are blocking density within cities. As they die off a new crop of climate change aware riders will be the ones who run policy.


This is true in that sometimes the only way to change policy is to wait for those who are saying no to either retire or die. I agree that to a point, ebikes will be embraced by the public, the majority will ride them around for fun, some will use them to replace car trips, and the very few hardcore will use them to replace cars. We'll never be Europe or Asia since we view bikes as toys, and are a bunch of lazy, fairweather cyclists living in a land almost completely devoid of cycling infrastrucure, which makes using an ebike to it's potential difficult.

As far as emtbs go, I think we'll start seeing more of these, one which is mostly US legal, one which is not, which will make US emtbs distincitve from the basically EU Pedelecs currently being riden, and make adopting them nationwide less likely than now. If we're arm waving and future casting, if a 4th class specific for emtbs with a clone of the EU regs is pushed for and adopted in all 50 states 10-20 years from now, I could see more locations allowing them.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Moe Ped said:


> There's a good body of work out there that shows there's a crossover point where electrical energy becomes more "green" than bio-mechanical energy. For starters, many electronics these days are better than 90% efficient; humans are about the same as internal combustion engines; 25% at best.
> 
> When the energy it takes to put food on the table is considered it's likely the e-bike will win the "green" contest. Unless you happen to grow all of your own food in your backyard and cook only with firewood or solar. (Or eat everything raw)


I've seen those studies too and I don't buy them either. Do people driving internally combusted cars and riding electric motor bikes not eat?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

A good place to start would be to arbitrarily electrocute people riding single track on modified e-bikes.


----------



## Haymarket (Jan 20, 2008)

rideit said:


> A good place to start would be to arbitrarily electrocute people riding single track on modified e-bikes.


Firm, but fair.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> I've seen a few of those studies and I don't buy it, there seem to be a lot of factors omitted to me. For starters I'd like to see a study comparing the difference between the actual calories consumed by sedentary and active people.


Depending on level of exertion, quite a bit. I recently started a new work out regimen, trying to lose an extra 3% of body fat, and it is a struggle to eat my daily calorie quota on workout days.

Everyone has a base calorie burn, and no, not every sedentary individual is continually gaining weight.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



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

tuckerjt07 said:


> Depending on level of exertion, quite a bit. I recently started a new work out regimen, trying to lose an extra 3% of body fat, and it is a struggle to eat my daily calorie quota on workout days.
> 
> Everyone has a base calorie burn, and no, not every sedentary individual is continually gaining weight.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Interesting, but not really a scientific study like I was suggesting. How about a comparison of caloric intake between a large pool of people who ride x amount of miles per day, one group on bicycles and the other on electric bikes.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Interesting, but not really a scientific study like I was suggesting. How about a comparison of caloric intake between a large pool of people who ride x amount of miles per day, one group on bicycles and the other on electric bikes.


I get what you're trying to ask for but I don't know that a truly accurate study could be performed on that. Sample bias will almost undoubtedly occur with the non-ebike riders.

It's not a reach to assert that for any individual with a semblance of a healthy diet that their caloric intake will share a relationship with their caloric burn.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



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

tuckerjt07 said:


> I get what you're trying to ask for but I don't know that a truly accurate study could be performed on that. Sample bias will almost undoubtedly occur with the non-ebike riders.
> 
> It's not a reach to assert that for any individual with a semblance of a healthy diet that their caloric intake will share a relationship with their caloric burn.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I don't know, I rode 40 miles yesterday and none today and had pretty much the exact same meals both days, typical for me. Anyway, I just don't believe that a person who switches from a bicycle to an electric bike will cut back on enough calories to offset the energy costs of a motor.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

rideit said:


> A good place to start would be to arbitrarily electrocute people riding single track on modified e-bikes.


Whether you know it or not, your attitude IS the problem that will get bikes banned in more places.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't know, I rode 40 miles yesterday and none today and had pretty much the exact same meals both days, typical for me. Anyway, I just don't believe that a person who switches from a bicycle to an electric bike will cut back on enough calories to offset the energy costs of a motor.


I'm the same way, physical activity just doesn't trigger an appetite change for me. And a lot of the ebikers on here claim they get just as much exercise so if that is true, the math certainly doesn't add up.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> IAnd a lot of the ebikers on here claim they get just as much exercise so if that is true, the math certainly doesn't add up.


Nice strawman, that's not what any reasonable individual has claimed. Now, is it possible to achieve the same amount exercise, absolutely, but not during a commute. That's too static.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't know, I rode 40 miles yesterday and none today and had pretty much the exact same meals both days, typical for me. Anyway, I just don't believe that a person who switches from a bicycle to an electric bike will cut back on enough calories to offset the energy costs of a motor.


Then you are either over or under eating on certain days. What are there more of, biking or non-biking days?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

figofspee said:


> Whether you know it or not, your attitude IS the problem that will get bikes banned in more places.


 Bikes don't have motors, start there.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Bikes don't have motors, start there.


Funnily enough, the area of the country with one of the largest trail explosions, which is not stopping any time soon, is extremely e-bike friendly. Time to find another worn out argument.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

leeboh said:


> Bikes don't have motors, start there.


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


----------



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

tuckerjt07 said:


> Then you are either over or under eating on certain days. What are there more of, biking or non-biking days?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


No doubt, and I'm guessing that's pretty common which is sort of my point. Those studies work on theory which isn't necessarily reality.

I think there are more holes in their theory too. One of them that seems to be confirmed here is that people tend to ride for a certain amount of time, not miles, so e-bikers just cover a lot more miles in the same time than they would have on a bicycle.


----------



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

tuckerjt07 said:


> What are there more of, biking or non-biking days?


I'm on the bike about 4 days a week.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> No doubt, and I'm guessing that's pretty common which is sort of my point. Those studies work on theory which isn't necessarily reality.
> 
> I think there are more holes in their theory too. One of them that seems to be confirmed here is that people tend to ride for a certain amount of time, not miles, so e-bikers just cover a lot more miles in the same time than they would have on a bicycle.


It is pretty common. However, if you switched to riding an e-bike for commuting purposes your caloric intake would have to decrease or you would experience weight gain.

That is true for recreational riding. However, for commuting purposes that's not the case. Mileage is going to be static thus reducing the ability and need to go further to get the same workout in.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

This is the term paper that opened the door to the controversy many years ago:

Ebike_Energy

The writer, Justin Lemire-Elmore, went on to do some very big things in the e-bike world (and continues to do so).

He wrote it in 2004 and I believe I first read it around 2010; like some of the posters here I poo-poo'd it at first but since then have come to realize the conclusions are valid and probably understated.

If there's a specific issue with it please do tell.

Anecdotally, since including regular e-bike usage in my lifestyle, I've gained 10 pounds. (I even cut back to one beer a day to try to offset this!)


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Funnily enough, the area of the country with one of the largest trail explosions, which is not stopping any time soon, is extremely e-bike friendly. Time to find another worn out argument.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Your example of one area is not representative of the whole picture, it's just so much rhetoric.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Your example of one area is not representative of the whole picture, it's just so much rhetoric.


Agreed, national land is different but it's not simply rhetoric, it works. In his case land owner resistance is a bit of a red herring. For better or worse their regional org coached the landowners to be resistant. In other areas more opportunities brings more tourism which brings more money which brings more trails so that the cycle can begin anew. That scenario is playing out from New England to California currently.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Nice strawman, that's not what any reasonable individual has claimed. Now, is it possible to achieve the same amount exercise, absolutely, but not during a commute. That's too static.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I wasn't aware we were only talking about commuting; I post on this site mainly in regards to mountain bike (and in this case, emtb).


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> I wasn't aware we were only talking about commuting; I post on this site mainly in regards to mountain bike (and in this case, emtb).


The post you responded to was in response to using a bike as transportation.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



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

tuckerjt07 said:


> It is pretty common. However, if you switched to riding an e-bike for commuting purposes your caloric intake would have to decrease or you would experience weight gain.


Agreed. Again, kind of my point, although there has to be other weirdos out there like me who can't seem to gain or lose weight no matter what they do.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Agreed. Again, kind of my point, although there has to be other weirdos out there like me who can't seem to gain or lose weight no matter what they do.


I used to be that way. We're talking 4k calories a day and not putting on a pound when playing basketball. I got hurt at about 23 and was off my feet for several months and that flipped the gain weight switch.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



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

Moe Ped said:


> If there's a specific issue with it please do tell


I've already mentioned one, two if you consider that most people (definitely most on this site) will probably buy them for recreational purposes.

In the first paragraph he says that speeds over 20mph won't be considered because that's what e-bikes are limited to and that's what a fit cyclist can average. E-bikes here (US) can go 28 mph on the road (without mods) and IME only a very small percentage of (bicycle) riders can average 20mph so that's not a fair representation.

I got more issues with the second paragraph (and 3rd) but I doubt anyone really wants to hear them.


----------



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

tuckerjt07 said:


> I used to be that way. We're talking 4k calories a day and not putting on a pound when playing basketball. I got hurt at about 23 and was off my feet for several months and that flipped the gain weight switch.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I was basically off my feet for 20 years, it was my own doing but it barely affected my weight.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> I was basically off my feet for 20 years, it was my own doing but it barely affected my weight.


I guess it's relative. At my largest I could still wear a pair of jeans I bought in the 9th grade so there is that I suppose.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> I've already mentioned one, two if you consider that most people (definitely most on this site) will probably buy them for recreational purposes.
> 
> In the first paragraph he says that speeds over 20mph won't be considered because that's what e-bikes are limited to and that's what a fit cyclist can average. E-bikes here (US) can go 28 mph on the road (without mods) and IME only a very small percentage of riders can average 20mph so that's not a fair representation.
> 
> I got more issues with the second paragraph (and 3rd) but I doubt anyone really wants to hear them.


I, for one, WOULD like to see your whole list.

Agreed; Justin's paper is focused solely on e-bikes used for (city) transportation.

The recreational aspect would undoubtedly lessen the benefit, i.e. e-bikers just ride more miles and thus expend the same energy. (In the sense of more trail wear and tear worse for the environment)

If of course an e-bike allows somebody to ride to an area with recreational trails (as opposed to hauling the bike there via a motor vehicle) then the score flips again.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The post you responded to was in response to using a bike as transportation.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Pretty sure JB was not using his bike as transportation when he road 40 miles yesterday.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> Pretty sure JB was not using his bike as transportation when he road 40 miles yesterday.


Um, well, yeah, actually he was.

His post was an unrelated, anecdotal, illustrative example of not eating more after riding in response to a post about eating more due to increased exertion while commuting. So yes, he was talking about commuting. How do I know? Because it was my post the post you quoted was in response to.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



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

Moe Ped said:


> I, for one, WOULD like to see your whole list.


The one I mentioned in my last post is important, if you assume 25mph for an ebike and 13mph for a bicycle the calculations would be much different.

Second paragraph, assume that an electric motor will last indefinitely? Tell that to my chop saw that recently shucked the guts out of it's motor.

3rd paragraph, "won't consider the environmental costs of recycling batteries". I take issue with that. I also didn't see any mention of the environmental or health costs involved with the mining of lithium, lead copper or whatever either.

And I still still think that actual, not theoretical calories consumed needs to be determined.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Um, well, yeah, actually he was.
> 
> His post was an unrelated, anecdotal, illustrative example of not eating more after riding in response to a post about eating more due to increased exertion while commuting. So yes, he was talking about commuting. How do I know? Because it was my post the post you quoted was in response to.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Was he using his bike as transportation? JB? I'm sure you'll come back saying that riding any vehicle for any purpose is "transportation" so don't bother.

You do realize this thread is "future of ebikes on trails"? So if you are going to claim my posts are unrelated, maybe you need to consider that your posts are off topic.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

leeboh said:


> Bikes don't have motors, start there.


A *thought-terminating cliché is a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to end cognitive dissonance (discomfort experienced when one simultaneously holds two or more conflicting cognitions, e.g. ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions).*


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Funnily enough, the area of the country with one of the largest trail explosions, which is not stopping any time soon, is extremely e-bike friendly. Time to find another worn out argument.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


An entire Continent that produces the best mountain bike racers in the world actively equates the two as well. A Continent with much higher population density then the states.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It is pretty common. However, if you switched to riding an e-bike for commuting purposes your caloric intake would have to decrease or you would experience weight gain.
> 
> That is true for recreational riding. However, for commuting purposes that's not the case. Mileage is going to be static thus reducing the ability and need to go further to get the same workout in.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Unless you switched from driving to ebiking, then it would go up, which I think would be a much larger group. Most bike commuters that I ride with are pretty hard core.


----------



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

chazpat said:


> Was he using his bike as transportation? JB?


Not by any reasonable definition. I call it recreation but most people would probably consider an out & back with no practical purpose a complete waste of all resources involved


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

figofspee said:


> An entire Continent that produces the best mountain bike racers in the world actively equates the two as well. A Continent with much higher population density then the states.


How are your efforts to get the US to adopt the European standards coming along?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Unless you switched from driving to ebiking, then it would go up, which I think would be a much larger group. Most bike commuters that I ride with are pretty hard core.


Not sure what you are trying to say here. Agreed, if you switched from driving to ebiking your caloric intake would go up. However, you'd still be using a much cleaner form of transportation. One that far offsets the caloric intake piece.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> Was he using his bike as transportation? JB? I'm sure you'll come back saying that riding any vehicle for any purpose is "transportation" so don't bother.
> 
> You do realize this thread is "future of ebikes on trails"? So if you are going to claim my posts are unrelated, maybe you need to consider that your posts are off topic.


Ah the old, I misspoke so let me institute damage control ploy. Clever 

I didn't claim your post was off topic. I claimed your post was a strawman by trying to use someone's words in a misrepresented manner.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Ah the old, I misspoke so let me institute damage control ploy. Clever
> 
> I didn't claim your post was off topic. I claimed your post was a strawman by trying to use someone's words in a misrepresented manner.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


And where did I say that you claimed my post was off topic? Nice damage control yourself there. Maybe you've forgotten that we can all go back and read what was actually written. Go ahead.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> And where did I say that you claimed my post was off topic? Nice damage control yourself there. Maybe you've forgotten that we can all go back and read what was actually written. Go ahead.


What does the word "unrelated" mean?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> The one I mentioned in my last post is important, if you assume 25mph for an ebike and 13mph for a bicycle the calculations would be much different.
> 
> Second paragraph, assume that an electric motor will last indefinitely? Tell that to my chop saw that recently shucked the guts out of it's motor.
> 
> ...


Your points have some validity but it hearkens to the old apples to oranges debate; what assumptions one chooses to compare???

Ebikes dot ca has a real spiffy trip-simulator calculator with plenty of variables. It defaults to a hub-motor e-bike but if one zeros out the motor it would also give Watt-hour values for pedaling only. Easy to set up comparable scenarios for both vehicles. I suppose doing three comparisons would be where to start; one for equal time, one equal distance and one equal speed.

RE battery disposal/recycling yes the jury's still out especially in regards to lithium. Plenty of room for environmental damage. But then again farming food for human consumption isn't very good for the environment either.

We need to get Tungsten over here!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The post you responded to was in response to using a bike as transportation.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk





tuckerjt07 said:


> Um, well, yeah, actually he was.
> 
> His post was an unrelated, &#8230;
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk





tuckerjt07 said:


> What does the word "unrelated" mean?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Ah, context is everything. Unrelated was in context to someone else's post. Off topic is in context to the thread.

A better question: why I am I wasting my time in stupid arguments with you? :madman: I know that's your thing but I prefer to talk about bicycles. Sorry, not playing anymore, go ahead and claim I'm dropping out because "you've won".


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> Ah, context is everything. Unrelated was in context to someone else's post. Off topic is in context to the thread.
> 
> A better question: why I am I wasting my time in stupid arguments with you? :madman: I know that's your thing but I prefer to talk about bicycles. Sorry, not playing anymore, go ahead and claim I'm dropping out because "you've won".


No, unrelated was a direct quote from you saying I called your post off topic. That everyone having a history to read thing cuts both ways.

Cherry picking a snippet of a quote in no way bolsters your argument. Why are you finding it so difficult to state a simple definition? Perhaps you're the only one allowed to use synonyms?

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



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

Moe Ped said:


> Your points have some validity but it hearkens to the old apples to oranges debate; what assumptions one chooses to compare???


How about realistic ones? Some of the assumptions the author made aren't. Assuming 20mph for both electric bikes and bicycles to calculate energy consumption is major flaw imo, just like assuming that someone who does x amount of work will consume x amount of food.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> How about realistic ones? Some of the assumptions the author made aren't. Assuming 20mph for both electric bikes and bicycles to calculate energy consumption is major flaw imo, just like assuming that someone who does x amount of work will consume x amount of food.


Agreed, speed as a constant is a flaw. Equating caloric needs, where individual size is a constant, it has to be to draw any form of conclusion, isn't. It's an assumption but not a flaw.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> How about realistic ones? Some of the assumptions the author made aren't. Assuming 20mph for both electric bikes and bicycles to calculate energy consumption is major flaw imo, just like assuming that someone who does x amount of work will consume x amount of food.


If you want a discussion then please outline exactly what you want to compare. I'd love to crunch some numbers through that calculator.

Human metabolism has been studied to death (hah-hah!) and for a given person x amount of work will need the consumption of x amount of food. For a healthy person the input is around 4 or 5 times the output. (Or an efficiency of 20~25%)

The bigger variable IMO is the energy it takes to put food "on the table" and is what makes a global comparison pointless.


----------



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

Moe Ped said:


> If you want a discussion then please outline exactly what you want to compare. I'd love to crunch some numbers through that calculator





> .Several assumptions will be made in order to simplify the life-cycle comparison.
> The first is that the electric bike and the conventional bike have similar energy
> consumption per kilometre. This simplification is reasonable because electric
> bikes have the same aerodynamic profiles of regular bicycles, and the additional
> ...


The author says it would fail to be true if an individual travels faster on an electric bike than they would under pedal power alone and I'm saying they do, therefore it fails to be true.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> The author says it would fail to be true if an individual travels faster on an electric bike than they would under pedal power alone and I'm saying they do, therefore it fails to be true.


I think that may be poorly worded. At speeds under 20mph I find it hard to believe there is that drastic of change in resistance. Also, most e-bikers are probably not going to be pushing 20mph consistently.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> The author says it would fail to be true if an individual travels faster on an electric bike than they would under pedal power alone and I'm saying they do, therefore it fails to be true.


That's prejudiced; some e-bikers will be going faster, other won't. Again, the paper was sited in an "urban transit" setting and only peripherally applies to recreational MTB'ing. We'll probably agree that recreational e-biking is worse for the environment that regular recreational biking. (MTB or road)


----------



## armii (Jan 9, 2016)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I used to be that way. We're talking 4k calories a day and not putting on a pound when playing basketball. I got hurt at about 23 and was off my feet for several months and that flipped the gain weight switch.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Me too, popped my knee when I was 26, more than 30 years ago, totally changed my metabolism. I have never been able to burn calories the same since, even even after healing up and back to seriously exercising.


----------



## armii (Jan 9, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> That's prejudiced; some e-bikers will be going faster, other won't. Again, the paper was sited in an "urban transit" setting and only peripherally applies to recreational MTB'ing. We'll probably agree that recreational e-biking is worse for the environment that regular recreational biking. (MTB or road)


And both are less of an impact than the rich MFers, from the SC and their 1000+ lb horses, riding even (in the wet), rutting up trails, and leaving dumps for everyone else to enjoy.


----------



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

tuckerjt07 said:


> I think that may be poorly worded. At speeds under 20mph I find it hard to believe there is that drastic of change in resistance. Also, most e-bikers are probably not going to be pushing 20mph consistently.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


It takes about twice as much power to go from 15 to 20mph and almost 4x as much @25mph. I think that's significant, probably why the author mentioned it.

The article was written in the context of commuting, you don't think people will be going mostly full throttle (so to speak) on their way to work?



Moe Ped said:


> That's prejudiced; some e-bikers will be going faster, other won't. Again, the paper was sited in an "urban transit" setting and only peripherally applies to recreational MTB'ing. We'll probably agree that recreational e-biking is worse for the environment that regular recreational biking. (MTB or road)


Prejudiced? Again, commuting. Yes, people will be going faster on them than they would on their bicycle, seems weird to argue that. Actually it's weird to argue any of this, especially since it has nothing to do with the op. I should have just said that I didn't agree with the article for the reasons I mentioned (and a few that I didn't) and left it at that, if anyone else doesn't agree I'm fine with that. Apologies to everyone.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

_The first is that the electric bike and the conventional bike have similar energy consumption per kilometre. This simplification is reasonable because electric bikes have the same aerodynamic profiles of regular bicycles, and the additional weight of the motor and battery pack is small compared to the gross vehicle weight._

Looking at Pedego's website (who claim to be "America's biggest and best brand of electric bikes"), their "commuter" model is listed at 51+ pounds plus about 9 lbs for the battery. Even if you add in the riders weight to the totals, it is more than "small" and should not have been left out of the calculations.

_This treatment is also ignoring all secondary effects. For instance, the health benefits and costs of exercise will not be addressed&#8230;_

Granted, this would be complex. But if the bicycle commuter is fulfilling his/her exercise requirements and the ebiker is not and therefore has to perform another exercise to fulfill these requirements, they are going to burn a lot more calories that are not being accounted for. But yes, a lot of different things could go on here.

But the biggest flaws in this study are that the author appears to have completely left out any calories needed to operate the ebike. Surely an ebiker rider uses some calories. They also assigned cost to the bicyclist that "includes the direct energy consumed by the agricultural industry, the energy used to produce fertilizers, pesticides, farm machinery, and the energy associated with the processing, packaging, transportation, and cooking of food products" and then the production and transportation of the battery, but where did he factor in the cost of production and transportation of the bicycle vs the cost of the electric motored ebike?

This study is based on the energy requirements during riding but does not include the full picture and I think the author's assumptions make even the energy required for riding questionable.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Have you never got behind a Prius going 55 on the freeway? Or 55 in the diamond lane because they can? There's a whole segment out there that will maximize their mileage at any cost. Part "greenwash" and part IDGAF about other drivers.

Similar physics with e-bikes; go twice as fast and have 1/4 the range. Generally speaking, by my observations (including how I ride), except for uphill, e-bikes are going no faster than pedal bikes.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

goodmojo said:


> It ultimately is about which group has the most noisy stakeholders donating money.
> 
> In 20 years once ebikes are mainstream for commuting and riding around, the lay public will be pushing to open up all trails for bikes.


Hmmm... bicycles are mainstream for commuting and riding around already, but only about 15% of people in our country ride bicycles and only 3% of those who do ride bikes take them off road. Maybe ebikes will increase those numbers by a few points in 20 years, but cyclists will always be a small, unwanted minority by those who don't pedal.

But I think in as few as 10 years, eMTB's will generally be accepted by the greater MTB community as well as the USFS and BLM.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> It takes about twice as much power to go from 15 to 20mph and almost 4x as much @25mph. I think that's significant, probably why the author mentioned it.
> 
> The article was written in the context of commuting, you don't think people will be going mostly full throttle (so to speak) on their way to work?


No, I don't. I know I don't on my pedal bikes. There is also the range issue.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Moe Ped said:


> Have you never got behind a Prius going 55 on the freeway? Or 55 in the diamond lane because they can? There's a whole segment out there that will maximize their mileage at any cost. Part "greenwash" and part IDGAF about other drivers.
> 
> Similar physics with e-bikes; go twice as fast and have 1/4 the range. Generally speaking, by my observations (including how I ride), except for uphill, e-bikes are going no faster than pedal bikes.


Then why do class 3 have a cut off at 28mph? Not meaning to argue with you Moe Ped, just pointing that out.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

chazpat said:


> Then why do class 3 have a cut off at 28mph? Not meaning to argue with you Moe Ped, just pointing that out.


That number puts US Class 3 on par with Euro S-Pedelecs which are limited to 45 kph. (28 mph = 45 kph) And in most European countries S-Pedalecs can't go on bike paths, they must stay on the roads.

Pretty sure that number was generated by the manufacturing lobbies.

Above 28 mph is in the moped range, I should know; right???


----------



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

You mean to say that you guys pay $5,000 and up for those electric bikes and then putz around on them @15mph? On the road? I gotta say coming from a non-ebiker like myself that sounds flat out ridiculous but whatever floats your boat I guess. I know several people that either own e-bikes or have ridden a lot of them and they unanimously concur that higher speeds are one of, if not the biggest benefits over a bicycle.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> You mean to say that you guys pay $5,000 and up for those electric bikes and then putz around on them @15mph? On the road? I gotta say coming from a non-ebiker like myself that sounds flat out ridiculous but whatever floats your boat I guess. I know several people that either own e-bikes or have ridden a lot of them and they unanimously concur that higher speeds are one of, if not the biggest benefits over a bicycle.


Me, no. I don't own one. Also, commuter models are nowhere near as expensive as what is listed here. The two guys who ride them to my office think going 12mph on them is fast because they couldn't maintain that on a "normal", never rode a road bike, think Walmart cruiser, bike.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

figofspee said:


> Whether you know it or not, your attitude IS the problem that will get bikes banned in more places.


How so?
Fewer e-bikes on non motorized trails, fewer advocacy issues.
Fewer modified ebikes, fewer conflicts.
It's simple.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

rideit said:


> How so?
> Fewer e-bikes on non motorized trails, fewer advocacy issues.
> Fewer modified ebikes, fewer conflicts.
> It's simple.


Look at New England. Not all advocates took this tact but quite a few educated land owners to be anti-ebike. Now there is potential for major issues. A hard and fast, unbending, negative stance will always miss the positive exceptions.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Funnily enough, the area of the country with one of the largest trail explosions, which is not stopping any time soon, is extremely e-bike friendly. Time to find another worn out argument.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 E bikes are something different and need to be treated as such.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> E bikes are something different and need to be treated as such.


Then why has this area, among others, been so successful in including them with no issues?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Then why has this area, among others, been so successful in including them with no issues?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


He didn't say 'don't include them', he said that they're something different.

Which they are.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> He didn't say 'don't include them', he said that they're something different.
> 
> Which they are.


You left out the "and treated as such". No such distinctions are made here. All with great success and no conflicts arising from them. If anything they are contributing to the boom.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You left out the "and treated as such". No such distinctions are made here. All with great success and no conflicts arising from them. If anything they are contributing to the boom.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Maybe people around here don't want a 'boom', whatever that may be.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Maybe people around here don't want a 'boom', whatever that may be.


Then maybe "people around [there]" should qualify their statements with "around here" rather than making ignorant sounding, absolute statements? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Then why has this area, among others, been so successful in including them with no issues?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 You in AR? MA guy here. Rules and regs vary all over. Really. MA has a mash of state, local, and regional land owners and rules. Mostly a non motor kind of thing on public lands, save for maybe 8 spots in the whole state. Motorized vehicles are highly regulated off road. Guessing a lot more people live here with more population density than in AR. Not going to be any boom here.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Then why has this area, among others, been so successful in including them with no issues?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Where is "this area" of which you speak?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> You in AR? MA guy here. Rules and regs vary all over. Really. MA has a mash of state, local, and regional land owners and rules. Mostly a non motor kind of thing on public lands, save for maybe 8 spots in the whole state. Motorized vehicles are highly regulated off road. Guessing a lot more people live here with more population density than in AR. Not going to be any boom here.


See my above post concerning regional statements. Also, PRKR seems to be making it work. I think NEMBA actually hurt itself at the start of this with the "education" they gave landowners.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> Where is "this area" of which you speak?


Bentonville

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I think NEMBA actually hurt itself at the start of this with the "education" they gave landowners.


What 'education' is that?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> What 'education' is that?


The same one leeboh has been espousing...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The same one leeboh has been espousing...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


That e-bikes are unique from mountain bikes because they have motors?

Explain how I'm being 'hurt' by someone stating the obvious.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> That e-bikes are unique from mountain bikes because they have motors?
> 
> Explain how I'm being 'hurt' by someone stating the obvious.


No, their entire stance on e-bikes. It's no secret that not only is NEMBA aggressively against them but that they went well out of their way to poison the well with landowners. That check will eventually have to be cashed and the results will not be pretty.

I did not you were the entire organization?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> See my above post concerning regional statements. Also, PRKR seems to be making it work. I think NEMBA actually hurt itself at the start of this with the "education" they gave landowners.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 Have you read the document on the Nemba Homepage? And the MA rules and regs concerning motorized vehicles? Familiar with the moto history ( troubled) here? Much of the riding takes places on state forests and parks. Plenty on town conservation land and open space. All have almost no moto access allowed, by law. Huge amount of public space users. Some areas with existing bike/hiker/dog/horse conflicts. And adding a motorized vehicle(s) to the mix will help? Not. E bikes are different and need to do their own advocating, not ride the coat tails of the non moto bike/ hike groups. Ie. human powered. Future of e bikes? I see limited here in MA. So many other areas of the US do have moto access, lots of trails and fewer people. Go North of say Concord NH, lots of options. NH and VT have ATV and snow machine trails that go everywhere, all over.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, their entire stance on e-bikes. It's no secret that not only is NEMBA aggressively against them but that they went well out of their way to poison the well with landowners. That check will eventually have to be cashed and the results will not be pretty.
> 
> I did not you were the entire organization?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I'm not, but I've been a member for decades and I'm on a first name basis with much of the leadership as well as scores local key figures, so I'm figuring I've got a better idea of what our priorities are than you do. So, how are we hurting ourselves by stating we don't want to become the de facto leader of e-bike advocacy in the region, considering none of us are interested in taking up that fight in the least bit?

Please include details, preferably based in reality.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> I'm not, but I've been a member for decades and I'm on a first name basis with much of the leadership as well as scores local key figures, so I'm figuring I've got a better idea of what our priorities are than you do. So, how are we hurting ourselves by stating we don't want to become the de facto leader of e-bike advocacy in the region, considering none of us are interested in taking up that fight in the least bit?
> 
> Please include details, preferably based in reality.


Look at your guidance to land managers on e-bikes. It goes well beyond not wanting "to become the de facto leader of e-bike advocacy". It's an aggressive anti-missive telling managers to flat out ban without putting any of their own thought or research into it. So unless you were attempting to soften the statement intentionally I would suggest perusing your organization's literature.

As parts of the country move forward with well thought out, researched, conflict reducing plans users will expect this to be the norm. At that point NEMBA will have to go back and purify the well that it intentionally poisoned. That is never a fun situation to be in. At the very least it erodes trust.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Have you read the document on the Nemba Homepage? And the MA rules and regs concerning motorized vehicles? Familiar with the moto history ( troubled) here? Much of the riding takes places on state forests and parks. Plenty on town conservation land and open space. All have almost no moto access allowed, by law. Huge amount of public space users. Some areas with existing bike/hiker/dog/horse conflicts. And adding a motorized vehicle(s) to the mix will help? Not. E bikes are different and need to do their own advocating, not ride the coat tails of the non moto bike/ hike groups. Ie. human powered. Future of e bikes? I see limited here in MA. So many other areas of the US do have moto access, lots of trails and fewer people. Go North of say Concord NH, lots of options. NH and VT have ATV and snow machine trails that go everywhere, all over.


I am and it is a problem of NEMBA's own making that inclusion would be so contentious there.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> I'm not, but I've been a member for decades and I'm on a first name basis with much of the leadership as well as scores local key figures, so I'm figuring I've got a better idea of what our priorities are than you do. So, how are we hurting ourselves by stating we don't want to become the de facto leader of e-bike advocacy in the region, considering none of us are interested in taking up that fight in the least bit?
> 
> Please include details, preferably based in reality.


On a side note, ADA is extremely favorable to mountain biking all things given at the moment. What will NEMBA do when "intended usage" is not a blanket cover and instead e-bike allowances have to be made for compliance purposes? That is something that is entirely possible and would be easy to make retroactive.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, their entire stance on e-bikes. It's no secret that not only is NEMBA aggressively against them but that they went well out of their way to poison the well with landowners. That check will eventually have to be cashed and the results will not be pretty.
> 
> I did not you were the entire organization?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


What would a logical land manager do when mt bike organizations come in to warn of this two wheeled menace that not only look like mt bikes but are manufactured and sold alongside mt bikes? I would kill two birds with one stone and ban them both so to eliminate the whiners and the demon eBikes.

One of the main reasons the bill to allow bikes in Wilderness stalled in the Senate is because there was public infighting among the bike community. The eBike hate from the bike community is just one more stain on our reputation as combative haters who are looking for a fight and nobody is our ally. Strength in numbers is how political battles are won. From the looks of who the average eMTBike purchaser is (older, wealthy, with leisure time, and politically connected in my observation) the politically crippled mt bikers would benefit greatly from having an ally so powerful, and potentially boosting our numbers instead of using eBikes as a wedge issue to fracture the community.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> As parts of the country move forward with well thought out, researched, conflict reducing plans users will expect this to be the norm. At that point NEMBA will have to go back and purify the well that itself poisoned. That is never a fun situation to be in. At the very least it erodes trust.


Can you try to explain what this scenario actually involves in some sort of even remotely concrete way? Like, what exactly am I going to have to do with regard to my local trails and what exactly is going to force that to happen? You throw around a lot of super-vague figurative BS, but precisely what actual events are you predicting? Will the local rangers come to my house and hassle me? Will out of the blue all the LMs decide that mountain bikes are out and e-bikes are in, based on absolutely nothing at all? Seriously, how does your theoretical Chicken Little scenario play out in the real world? Cuz that's the only world I'm concerned with.

Also, here is the link to the NEMBA article clarifying it's e-bike stance; I'm assuming this is the one that your talking about. I'll just leave it here so folks can see for themselves how desperately you're trying to twist what's actually said in it.

https://www.nemba.org/news/dealers-guidance-regarding-issue-electric-mountain-bikes

" If our mountain bike advocacy efforts need to include eMTBs, our successes will be few and far between. Right now, there isn't much of a population of eMTB riders but if a user base does develop, this new community of eMTB riders will need to set up their own advocacy organization and make their own case for access."


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> On a side note, ADA is extremely favorable to mountain biking all things given at the moment. What will NEMBA do when "intended usage" is not a blanket cover and instead e-bike allowances have to be made for compliance purposes? That is something that is entirely possible and would be easy to make retroactive.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 Tha ADA issue isn't one. Got a HP card? Go for it. Gong to see them doing drops, riding chunk and other tech stuff? Maybe. Or enjoying the mellow singletrack and double track. The State parks actually have a whole areas for ADA stuff, trails and outreach programs.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

figofspee said:


> What would a logical land manager do when mt bike organizations come in to warn of this two wheeled menace that not only look like mt bikes but are manufactured and sold alongside mt bikes? I would kill two birds with one stone and ban them both so to eliminate the whiners and the demon eBikes.
> 
> One of the main reasons the bill to allow bikes in Wilderness stalled in the Senate is because there was public infighting among the bike community. The eBike hate from the bike community is just one more stain on our reputation as combative haters who are looking for a fight and nobody is our ally. Strength in numbers is how political battles are won. From the looks of who the average eMTBike purchaser is (older, wealthy, with leisure time, and politically connected in my observation) the politically crippled mt bikers would benefit greatly from having an ally so powerful, and potentially boosting our numbers instead of using eBikes as a wedge issue to fracture the community.


There are tons of parallels here from motor vehicle access battles but "we're not motorized" so no one wants to acknowledge them. Part of the antis' early success was pitting different groups with similar goals, motos vs jeeps, against each other.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

figofspee said:


> What would a logical land manager do when mt bike organizations come in to warn of this two wheeled menace that not only look like mt bikes but are manufactured and sold alongside mt bikes? I would kill two birds with one stone and ban them both so to eliminate the whiners and the demon eBikes.
> 
> One of the main reasons the bill to allow bikes in Wilderness stalled in the Senate is because there was public infighting among the bike community. The eBike hate from the bike community is just one more stain on our reputation as combative haters who are looking for a fight and nobody is our ally. Strength in numbers is how political battles are won. From the looks of who the average eMTBike purchaser is (older, wealthy, with leisure time, and politically connected in my observation) the politically crippled mt bikers would benefit greatly from having an ally so powerful, and potentially boosting our numbers instead of using eBikes as a wedge issue to fracture the community.


 You're forgetting, there is not a "We"


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> There are tons of parallels here from motor vehicle access battles but "we're not motorized" so no one wants to acknowledge them. Part of the antis' early success was pitting different groups with similar goals, motos vs jeeps, against each other.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


OK, great. E bikes are aligned with motos and jeeps, good luck with your advocacy.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

leeboh said:


> You're forgetting, there is not a "We"


Precisely


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Also, here is the link to the NEMBA article clarifying it's e-bike stance; I'm assuming this is the one that your talking about. I'll just leave it here so folks can see for themselves how desperately you're trying to twist what's actually said in it.
> 
> https://www.nemba.org/news/dealers-guidance-regarding-issue-electric-mountain-bikes


And just so everyone can see how desperate you are to soften your organization's reactionary hardline stance here is their actual guidance document for land managers, what I have been discussing, not the red herring one issued to dealers (first time that's been mentioned in this debate so not sure where that came from).

https://www.nemba.org/nemba-guidance-land-managers-regarding-electric-power-assist-bikes-trails

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> OK, great. E bikes are aligned with motos and jeeps, good luck with your advocacy.


Point proven 

Anti orgs are playing Go while you're stuck playing checkers. Sadly, it took the off road community several huge losses to realize this. Too bad we can't learn from it. Same battles, same tactics, same results.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> On a side note, ADA is extremely favorable to mountain biking all things given at the moment. What will NEMBA do when "intended usage" is not a blanket cover and instead e-bike allowances have to be made for compliance purposes? That is something that is entirely possible and would be easy to make retroactive.


There is no concern about ADA exemptions, and they have zero to do with general trail access. 100% red herring, as well as statistically insignificant.

FWIW, Lee and I are among a number of NEMBA folks who regularly attend events specifically aimed at increasing wheeled trail access options for disabled users, powered or not. Like I said, it's not a concern whatsoever.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Look at your guidance to land managers on e-bikes. It goes well beyond not wanting "to become the de facto leader of e-bike advocacy". It's an aggressive anti-missive telling managers to flat out ban without putting any of their own thought or research into it. So unless you were attempting to soften the statement intentionally I would suggest perusing your organization's literature.
> 
> As parts of the country move forward with well thought out, researched, conflict reducing plans users will expect this to be the norm. At that point NEMBA will have to go back and purify the well that it intentionally poisoned. That is never a fun situation to be in. At the very least it erodes trust.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 Hmmm. Ever pedaled in New England or MA? You might be missing out on the fact that motorized vehicles are not allowed on the trails here. Save for 8 or so places, most in the western part of the state. Nemba advocates for human powered access and mt bike trails. You really don't have a clue of the hard fought battles for bike access here, still being fought. And adding motorized vehicles will help? Not. Conflict reducing? Hmmm. Not. What works in one part of the country will not fly everywhere. NH and VT have moto trails that go the entire length, lots of choices there. Adding motos to one of the most crowded multi trail areas in the East? Not.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> There is no concern about ADA exemptions, and they have zero to do with general trail access. 100% red herring, as well as statistically insignificant.
> 
> FWIW, Lee and I are among a number of NEMBA folks who regularly attend events specifically aimed at increasing wheeled trail access options for disabled users, powered or not. Like I said, it's not a concern whatsoever.


It absolutely is a concern. Just because mountain biking as a primary activity is currently an exemption does not mean that will hold forever. No, they do not control general trail access. They do control trail design and mobility access.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Hmmm. Ever pedaled in New England or MA? You might be missing out on the fact that motorized vehicles are not allowed on the trails here. Save for 8 or so places, most in the western part of the state. Nemba advocates for human powered access and mt bike trails. You really don't have a clue of the hard fought battles for bike access here, still being fought. And adding motorized vehicles will help? Not. Conflict reducing? Hmmm. Not. What works in one part of the country will not fly everywhere. NH and VT have moto trails that go the entire length, lots of choices there. Adding motos to one of the most crowded multi trail areas in the East? Not.


I'll explain this again. The resistance to e-bikes in your part of the country is a problem created by your access organization, https://www.nemba.org/nemba-guidance-land-managers-regarding-electric-power-assist-bikes-trails . Any argument concerning that has to start there. It is a self manufactured issue.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Point proven
> 
> Anti orgs are playing Go while you're stuck playing checkers. Sadly, it took the off road community several huge losses to realize this. Too bad we can't learn from it. Same battles, same tactics, same results.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 Playing checkers? Or riding sweet trails that I have helped build for the last 18 years.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Playing checkers? Or riding sweet trails that I have helped build for the last 18 years.


Checkers, definitely checkers

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> And just so everyone can see how desperate you are to soften your organization's reactionary hardline stance here is their actual guidance document for land managers, what I have been discussing, not the red herring one issued to dealers (first time that's been mentioned in this debate so not sure where that came from).
> 
> https://www.nemba.org/nemba-guidance-land-managers-regarding-electric-power-assist-bikes-trails


Nothing 'hardline' about recognizing that e-bikes have motors and not wanting them to be confused with mountain bikes. As far as having them managed as a class of motorized vehicle, well, they are. I personally don't feel that they can't or shouldn't ever be given a chance access trails that have been traditionally non-motorized, but it's on e-bikers to get themselves to that point with LMs. I also feel it's a good idea to keep the distinction between mountain bikes and e-bikes as clear as possible in LMs and other user groups minds. This is exactly the point we spent years driving home as far as differentiating MTBs for all motorized user groups, and that has been a major reason for our great success in maintaining and expanding trail access here. LMs simply aren't interested in adding motors back into the mix here; they had a lot of bad experiences in the past and consider allowing e-bikes to be like cracking open Pandoras box again. I myself don't see them as that big a deal, but I'm sure as hell not interested in wasting my time trying to fight for them.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> And just so everyone can see how desperate you are to soften your organization's reactionary hardline stance here is their actual guidance document for land managers, what I have been discussing, not the red herring one issued to dealers (first time that's been mentioned in this debate so not sure where that came from).
> 
> https://www.nemba.org/nemba-guidance-land-managers-regarding-electric-power-assist-bikes-trails
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 Yup, makes sense. E bikes have motors. They need to do their own advocacy. I'm just one of 5,000 plus trail riders and dirt shapers here. And belong to one of 28 chapters. Go advocate for NWA. Were good here. Mt bikers have become the go to resource for trail building and advocacy for MT BIKES. The one without motors. Want to change all the existing rules and laws? Go for it. Hikers and dog walkers out number us in most areas, what do you think their opinion of motos are?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Yup, makes sense. E bikes have motors. They need to do their own advocacy. I'm just one of 5,000 plus trail riders and dirt shapers here. And belong to one of 28 chapters. Go advocate for NWA. Were good here. Mt bikers have become the go to resource for trail building and advocacy for MT BIKES. The one without motors. Want to change all the existing rules and laws? Go for it. Hikers and dog walkers out number us in most areas, what do you think their opinion of motos are?


Then why do you never mention "here" when you give out a blanket statement? One has to wonder.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

From my perspective in California (birthplace of the Sierra Club) the NEMBA position is spot-on:

A little naive perhaps in regards to what they consider "Class 4" and DIY bikes (no mention of hub motors at all).

Their "Wanted Poster" (so to speak) made me chuckle:


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Nothing 'hardline' about recognizing that e-bikes have motors and not wanting them to be confused with mountain bikes. As far as having them managed as a class of motorized vehicle, well, they are. I personally don't feel that they can't or shouldn't ever be given a chance access trails that have been traditionally non-motorized, but it's on e-bikers to get themselves to that point with LMs. I also feel it's a good idea to keep the distinction between mountain bikes and e-bikes as clear as possible in LMs and other user groups minds. This is exactly the point we spent years driving home as far as differentiating MTBs for all motorized user groups, and that has been a major reason for our great success in maintaining and expanding trail access here. LMs simply aren't interested in adding motors back into the mix here; they had a lot of bad experiences in the past and consider allowing e-bikes to be like cracking open Pandoras box again. I myself don't see them as that big a deal, but I'm sure as hell not interested in wasting my time trying to fight for them.


Read it objectively. That missive is horribly biased and aggressive. It in no way suggests a case by case basis it just uses incindiary language to call for a blanket ban.

I have issue with the well people are against it here so it won't work cop out when those very people were educated to be against it from the start. A self made problem is not an excuse.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I'll explain this again. The resistance to e-bikes in your part of the country is a problem created by your access organization, https://www.nemba.org/nemba-guidance-land-managers-regarding-electric-power-assist-bikes-trails . Any argument concerning that has to start there. It is a self manufactured issue.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 Talk to the horse folk, the AMC, The Sierra Club, dog walkers and hikers groups too. Add in the " friends" of the forest groups. What are those opinions like with the motos? Yes, you said it " Access Organization" yup. We do our own access, not another user group. We don't see it as a problem, why do you?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Talk to the horse folk, the AMC, The Sierra Club, dog walkers and hikers groups too. Add in the " friends" of the forest groups. What are those opinions like with the motos? Yes, you said it " Access Organization" yup. We do our own access, not another user group. We don't see it as a problem, why do you?


I don't see "it" as a problem. I see it when you espouse your organization's destined to fail idiology as a global, blanket statement. You qualify it with the "locally" caveat and it's saddening but no real problem.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It absolutely is a concern. Just because mountain biking as a primary activity is currently an exemption does not mean that will hold forever. No, they do not control general trail access. They do control trail design and mobility access.


They do NOT 'control trail design'. I have never heard of a case in 20+ years of building trails where someone from the ADA has inserted themselves into a trail project and started telling anyone what they can and can't do.

And again, no one of any consequence is concerned with legitimate ADA exemptions. That pool of users is so tiny that it's practically non-existent. The only place it's blown wildly out of proportion is here.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> They do NOT 'control trail design'. I have never heard of a case in 20+ years of building trails where someone from the ADA has inserted themselves into a trail project and started telling anyone what they can and can't do.
> 
> And again, no one of any consequence is concerned with legitimate ADA exemptions. That pool of users is so tiny that it's practically non-existent. The only place it's blown wildly out of proportion is here.


Correct they do not as long as it has an exemption condition attached. If it does not have one, it absolutely has to follow guidelines, unless it is grandfathered in. All it takes is one NIMBY individual and boom court case.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> A self made problem is not an excuse.


I'm still having trouble identifying the 'problem'.
You haven't yet explained exactly what it is that you keep insisting we have to worry about. NEMBA isn't getting behind e-bikes and sees a huge issue with confusing them with mountain bikes. BFD.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Read it objectively. That missive is horribly biased and aggressive. It in no way suggests a case by case basis it just uses incindiary language to call for a blanket ban.
> 
> I have issue with the well people are against it here so it won't work cop out when those very people were educated to be against it from the start. A self made problem is not an excuse.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 Not a problem for me. Do you pedal in New England or MA? Lots of great trails to pedal your bike. Cheers. Read the rules, really. And the existing laws currently on the books. Going to change the open space rules and conservation lands we pedal on? Needs to happen at the state house level, not some ranger or conservation land mangers' desk. Again, no clue how stuff works here.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> I'm still having trouble identifying the 'problem'.
> You haven't yet explained exactly what it is that you keep insisting we have to worry about. NEMBA isn't getting behind e-bikes and sees a huge issue with confusing them with mountain bikes. BFD.


You have poisoned the well, intentionally. Eventually that stance will change. At this point it's inevitable. May not be in five, ten or fifteen years but it's coming. At that point your organization has lost credibility with land managers due to a reversal on its guidance. That's just one major problem.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Read it objectively. That missive is horribly biased and aggressive. It in no way suggests a case by case basis it just uses incindiary language to call for a blanket ban.
> 
> I have issue with the well people are against it here so it won't work cop out when those very people were educated to be against it from the start. A self made problem is not an excuse.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


You're not in an area where the majority of trail users are hikers and the majority of those hikers align with Sierra Club policies.

Classifying e-bikes as bicycles simply drags all 2-wheeled vehicles towards the motorized camp.

NEMBA is trying to maintain separation; getting in bed with motor vehicles probably wouldn't work in New England; certainly wouldn't work in California.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> NEMBA is trying to maintain separation; getting in bed with motor vehicles probably wouldn't work in New England; certainly wouldn't work in California.


Nope, there hasn't been an allowance to use e-bikes on national land in California. That would never happen...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Correct they do not as long as it has an exemption condition attached. If it does not have one, it absolutely has to follow guidelines, unless it is grandfathered in. All it takes is one NIMBY individual and boom court case.


So, you're saying every mountain bike trail that's been built in your area is wheelchair accessible? And all it takes is one court case and 'boom' every trail in the country will all of a sudden...what? Be closed unless volunteers completely rebuild them to sidewalks? Or...what exactly?

You constantly throw around a whole bunch of theoretical malarkey that simply has no base in reality. How about try a detailed example based in reality?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Then why do you never mention "here" when you give out a blanket statement? One has to wonder.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 Uhhh, Nemba starts with New England? Pretty clear where that is. Northeast US. Yup that corner where lots of the Baseball and Football winners are.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Nope, there hasn't been an allowance to use e-bikes on national land in California. That would never happen...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Huh? What are you talking about?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> So, you're saying every mountain bike trail that's been built in your area is wheelchair accessible? And all it takes is one court case and 'boom' every trail in the country will all of a sudden...what? Be closed unless volunteers completely rebuild them to sidewalks? Or...what exactly?
> 
> You constantly throw around a whole bunch of theoretical malarkey that simply has no base in reality. How about try a detailed example based in reality?


No, because it has a primary usage exception. All you have to do, currently, is list mountain biking as primary usage and you do not have to comply. There is no guarantee that holds true in perpetuity.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> Huh? What are you talking about?


Mammoth

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Uhhh, Nemba starts with New England? Pretty clear where that is. Northeast US. Yup that corner where lots of the Baseball and Football winners are.


That would work, except the post I responded to originally did not say NEMBA...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You have poisoned the well, intentionally. Eventually that stance will change. At this point it's inevitable. May not be in five, ten or fifteen years but it's coming. At that point your organization has lost credibility with land managers due to a reversal on its guidance. That's just one major problem.


We have more credibility than any other user group with land managers in most of the area. They contract us to teach them trail building and maintenance techniques, and we do huge amounts of volunteer work for them.

You still can't give any sort of actual clear example what the issues you keep warning of are. There is no well, there is no poison. There are trails, advocacy orgs, user groups, and land managers. Try putting things in terms that actually relate to the subject.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You have poisoned the well, intentionally. Eventually that stance will change. At this point it's inevitable. May not be in five, ten or fifteen years but it's coming. At that point your organization has lost credibility with land managers due to a reversal on its guidance. That's just one major problem.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 Oh. wait. It's inevitable. Hmmm. Time will tell. We ( mt bikers) are the resource that land managers depend on to get stuff done, fund raise for the parks, build bridges and do trail work. For all those parks that are underfunded and under staffed. Hmmm. We show up for park clean days, report issues, and keep an eye on things? That show up for friends meetings, conservation meetings, and discuss trails that need attention? The mt bikers that have had the ear and trust for the last 20 + years with some land managers? That kind of credibility? We're good here.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> We have more credibility than any other user group with land managers in most of the area. They contract us to teach them trail building and maintenance techniques, and we do huge amounts of volunteer work for them.
> 
> You still can't give any sort of actual clear example what the issues you keep warning of are. There is no well, there is no poison. There are trails, advocacy orgs, user groups, and land managers. Try putting things in terms that actually relate to the subject.


All of your first paragraph is the well. The poison is the stance you have educated them to take. Poisoning the well is a basic argumentative tactic. One NEMBA has executed to a T. That stance will not be effective long term.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> That would work, except the post I responded to originally did not say NEMBA...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 OK, yup, every other post I said MA, New England or Nemba. Clearer?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, because it has a primary usage exception. All you have to do, currently, is list mountain biking as primary usage and you do not have to comply. There is no guarantee that holds true in perpetuity.


I know all about the ADA guidelines.

Now, how about you explain in detail to yourself why it is that almost every hiking trail in the country hasn't had to be rebuilt, since they don't fall under the MTB exemption.

And again, the ADA **** is a statistically insignificant rathole. I know you pretty much seem to live for trying to turn molehills into mountains, but allowing e-bikes to be classified as OPDMDs (which they already are in many places outside of federal lands) is such a non-issue, it's laughable.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> I know all about the ADA guidelines.
> 
> Now, how about you explain in detail to yourself why it is that almost every hiking trail in the country hasn't had to be rebuilt, since they don't fall under the MTB exemption.
> 
> And again, the ADA **** is a statistically insignificant rathole. I know you pretty much seem to live for trying to turn molehills into mountains, but allowing e-bikes to be classified as OPDMDs (which they already are in many places outside of federal lands) is such a non-issue, it's laughable.


The key word there is grandfathered but you already knew that.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, because it has a primary usage exception. All you have to do, currently, is list mountain biking as primary usage and you do not have to comply. There is no guarantee that holds true in perpetuity.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 Again, no clue here. 99.9 % of the trails I work on are mutli use trails, not mt bike trails.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> All of your first paragraph is the well. The poison is the stance you have educated them to take. Poisoning the well is a basic argumentative tactic. One NEMBA has executed to a T. That stance will not be effective long term.


And what exactly will happen? A plague of metaphors? Scary...


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Mammoth
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Closed for the season.

Leased, privately owned.

Not very applicable to e-bike trail access. Or maybe it is; it took "only" 65 years to develop a relationship with the USFS to get to where they are today.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Again, no clue here. 99.9 % of the trails I work on are mutli use trails, not mt bike trails.


Yes, but what is their primary usage designation?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> Closed for the season.
> 
> Leased, privately owned.
> 
> Not very applicable to e-bike trail access. Or maybe it is; it took "only" 65 years to develop a relationship with the USFS to get to where they are today.


They convinced the USFS to allow e-bikes on their land, in CA. So based on your comments it is relevant.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The key word there is grandfathered but you already knew that.


So you saying that you actually believe that some point in the future, it will be illegal to build any trail anywhere that isn't fully wheelchair accessible?

You're wacky.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> And what exactly will happen? A plague of metaphors? Scary...


It will cause an erosion of trust. All those things you listed that your great relationship makes easy cease to be as easy.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Yes, but what is their primary usage designation?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Hiking


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> So you saying that you actually believe that some point in the future, it will be illegal to build any trail anywhere that isn't fully wheelchair accessible?
> 
> You're wacky.


Nice strawman, time to make it an effigy. No, however I do see allowing e-bikes as a requirement for mobility impaired individuals as a possibility.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It will cause an erosion of trust. All those things you listed that your great relationship makes easy cease to be as easy.


Fantasy land.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Hiking


Uh huh

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Fantasy land.


Exactly, glad you finally realized where NEMBA is living.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Nice strawman, time to make it an effigy. No, however I do see allowing e-bikes as a requirement for mobility impaired individuals as a possibility.


They already are in the majority of non-federal lands. BFD. Most riders I know support the idea. And again, why the big hang-up on a tiny fraction of a fraction of percentage point of riders? Always looking for some way to try to play lawyer on the internet...


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> They already are in the majority of non-federal lands. BFD. Most riders I know support the idea. And again, why the big hang-up on a tiny fraction of a fraction of percentage point of riders? Always looking for some way to try to play lawyer on the internet...


Because your organization has told land managers that they are the devil. Now, at some point in the future, you go back and say well if we want to keep our trails you have to allow the devil in. How is that conversation going to go?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Uh huh
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


100% true. I honestly don't know of a single designated MTB trail on public property in the region. I'm sure there must be a couple here and there, but the overwhelming majority of the trails we build do not have a official primary designation of mountain biking.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> 100% true. I honestly don't know of a single designated MTB trail on public property in the region. I'm sure there must be a couple here and there, but the overwhelming majority of the trails we build do not have a official primary designation of mountain biking.


I would hazard a guess all your new construction is listed as something other than hiking. Otherwise you are wide open to an ADA compliance suit. There are other mitigating factors as well but a non-ped designation is by far the most concrete.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Because your organization has told land managers that they are the devil. Now, at some point in the future, you go back and say well if we want to keep our trails you have to allow the devil in. How is that conversation going to go?


The conversation doesn't need to take place, because that's already how things are, and no one cares.
Much like the feral dog gang problem the rest of the country seems to be dealing with, people making a stink about a few handicapped folks using e-bikes to get out on the trails isn't something that's a big issue to us here.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> The conversation doesn't need to take place, because that's already how things are, and no one cares.
> Much like the feral dog gang problem the rest of the country seems to be dealing with, people making a stink about a few handicapped folks using e-bikes to get out on the trails isn't something that's a big issue to us here.


Perhaps currently, as an informal policy I can see how it works. However, when you have to go to the land manager and explain he has to make an explicit policy allowing something he has been conditioned to be terrified of do you actually see that conversation going well?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I would hazard a guess all your new construction is listed as something other than hiking. Otherwise you are wide open to an ADA compliance suit. There are other mitigating factors as well but a non-ped designation is by far the most concrete.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Do what I did - call the National ADA Trails Coordinator directly and talk with him for a few hours and exchange a few follow-up emails getting your ducks in a row on this. 
You are definitely wildly off-base as far as requirements for trail construction.
Try back when you're educated.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Perhaps currently, as an informal policy I can see how it works. However, when you have to go to the land manager and explain he has to make an explicit policy allowing something he has been conditioned to be terrified of do you actually see that conversation going well?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


They don't have to. They have to go through explicit steps if they want to DENY ADA access for certain vehicle classes, not to allow them.

I thought you were pretending to understand how this stuff works?

And why in the world would I or any other random rider be the one that you think gets called up to explain policy to an LM? I don't care how that conversation goes, because I won't be there; it'll be the LMs and their bosses. Again, reality. Try it.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Do what I did - call the National ADA Trails Coordinator directly and talk with him for a few hours and exchange a few follow-up emails getting your ducks in a row on this.
> You are definitely wildly off-base as far as requirements for trail construction.
> Try back when you're educated.


I would be interested in viewing your documentation on those trails. I'd prefer to be 100% solid, as per the law, rather than utilize a person's, once it goes to court that's all the director is, a person, opinion as my cover.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> They don't have to. They have to go through explicit steps if they want to DENY ADA access for certain vehicle classes, not to allow them.
> 
> I thought you were pretending to understand how this stuff works?


Back to fantasy land. We both know if a rule is written explicitly banning said object then there will have to be a change if it suddenly becomes an approved exception. Even if it is just to stave off mis-informed enforcement issues.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Back to fantasy land. We both know if a rule is written explicitly banning said object then there will have to be a change if it suddenly becomes an approved exception. Even if it is just to stave off mis-informed enforcement issues.


Wrong. Educate yourself on trail guidelines regarding OPDMDs per the ADA.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Wrong. Educate yourself on trail guidelines regarding OPDMDs per the ADA.


I did not say the rule had to be there for ADA compliance. If you wouldn't rush to strawman as often as possible this conversation would go much smoother.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I did not say the rule had to be there for ADA compliance. If you wouldn't rush to strawman as often as possible this conversation would go much smoother.


True to form, now that it's obvious you can't make any legitimate points, you want to start endlessly arguing pointless semantics.

Sorry, you're on your own now (unless you can find another internet wannabe lawyer to play with).


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Back to fantasy land. We both know if a rule is written explicitly banning said object then there will have to be a change if it suddenly becomes an approved exception. Even if it is just to stave off mis-informed enforcement issues.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk





slapheadmofo said:


> Wrong. Educate yourself on trail guidelines regarding OPDMDs per the ADA.





tuckerjt07 said:


> I did not say the rule had to be there for ADA compliance. If you wouldn't rush to strawman as often as possible this conversation would go much smoother.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk





slapheadmofo said:


> True to form, now that it's obvious you can't make any legitimate points, you want to start endlessly arguing pointless semantics.
> 
> Sorry, you're on your own now (unless you can find another internet wannabe lawyer to play with).


I'm sorry you failed to read the last sentence of the post you quoted. There I've apologized, feel better?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I would hazard a guess all your new construction is listed as something other than hiking. Otherwise you are wide open to an ADA compliance suit. There are other mitigating factors as well but a non-ped designation is by far the most concrete.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 You would guess wrong.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

leeboh said:


> You would guess wrong.


Wicked shocka!


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You have poisoned the well, intentionally. Eventually that stance will change. At this point it's inevitable. May not be in five, ten or fifteen years but it's coming. At that point your organization has lost credibility with land managers due to a reversal on its guidance. That's just one major problem.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


 Problem? Not for me. Again, " it's inevitable" ? That there is funny. So now you worry about our org? The poison one. Hmmm. If the laws change, whatever. So be it. So your e bike advocacy group has how many members? Where are the chapters located? States involved?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

leeboh said:


> Problem? Not for me. Again, " it's inevitable" ? That there is funny.


Almost as funny as rambling on about someone suing YOU personally for volunteering to help build trails for the state precisely the way they asked for them to be built.

'But...but...LAWSUIT!!!! STRAWMAN!!!'

LOL!


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

leeboh said:


> Problem? Not for me. Again, " it's inevitable" ? That there is funny. So now you worry about our org? The poison one. Hmmm. If the laws change, whatever. So be it. So your e bike advocacy group has how many members? Where are the chapters located? States involved?


IMBA is a pretty big eBike organization.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Almost as funny as rambling on about someone suing YOU personally for volunteering to help build trails for the state precisely the way they asked for them to be built.
> 
> 'But...but...LAWSUIT!!!! STRAWMAN!!!'
> 
> LOL!


Exactly, strawman it's all you appear to know how to do.

Also, it does not have to be, and most likely would not be, the state or land manager suing for ADA , but you're the self proclaimed ADA expert here so I'm sure you knew that.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

tuckerjt07 said:


> They convinced the USFS to allow e-bikes on their land, in CA. So based on your comments it is relevant.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


They are allowed only on the ski resort, all trails off the private land are closed to mopeds. You could ride on the road, take some lifts then beat it back down the road. Not allowed on FS land.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

sfgiantsfan said:


> They are allowed only on the ski resort, all trails off the private land are closed to mopeds. You could ride on the road, take some lifts then beat it back down the road. Not allowed on FS land.


I would suggest getting your facts straight. Mammoth is on USFS land. So yes, ebikes are allowed on Forest Service land as long as the Forest Service land is within the boundaries of the bike park.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I would suggest getting your facts straight. Mammoth is on USFS land. So yes, ebikes are allowed on Forest Service land as long as the Forest Service land is within the boundaries of the bike park.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Mammoth is a lease, you know that and you know the intent of the post.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> Mammoth is a lease, you know that and you know the intent of the post.


STRAWMAN!!!


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

How many Federal land managers have a look the other way approach to eBikes? How many Federal Agencies are actively ticketing eBikes? It seems that many local communities allow them on trails surrounding Federal lands, so you can imagine that Law Enforcement puts them pretty low on the hit list, especially so considering the government shutdown.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

So your solution is poaching? That should go over well.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

leeboh said:


> So your solution is poaching? That should go over well.


Sometimes ignoring a law can have consequences, but like everything in life you need to balance risk and reward.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

So, " The future of e bikes" thread, you advocate poaching. Got it.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

leeboh said:


> So, " The future of e bikes" thread, you advocate poaching. Got it.


I am strongly against poaching, especially when they leave the carcass to rot.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Mammoth is a lease, you know that and you know the intent of the post.


No, the fact that Mammoth is USFS land was the entire point of bringing it up. It's a changing of attitudes. Up until this year they had been banned by the USFS, even on the resort. Now they are allowed due to the USFS changing its position.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, the fact that Mammoth is USFS land was the entire point of bringing it up. It's a changing of attitudes. Up until this year they had been banned by the USFS, even on the resort. Now they are allowed due to the USFS changing its position.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Yes, changing it's position on land within the resort boundaries. The FACT remains, outside of those boundaries e-bikes are still prohibited. You may feel like your winning, arguing about some point of minutia but that's like winning the Special Olympics.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Yes, changing it's position on land within the resort boundaries. The FACT remains, outside of those boundaries e-bikes are still prohibited. You may feel like your winning, arguing about some point of minutia but that's like winning the Special Olympics.


You and giantsfan are the ones adding the incorrect details. There was a point made about it being difficult to improve ebike access in CA. Mammoth is a pretty infamous example of improving it. The fact that it is USFS owned and regulated land makes it an even stronger advancement. It's not private land, not even a normal lease technically, as was asserted. It is USFS land and regulations were changed for it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Total strawman argument, and I'd say they're very likely to be sued about it the near (or far) future.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

This is the most activity this forum has seen in a long time. I wonder if this thread will get to 200 before it gets locked?

Anyway RE Mammoth it's a bad example; the original owner had a relationship with the USFS going back 50~60 years (did somebody say grandfathered?) and when sold it brought $300 million plus. Likely worth much more now.

Some Podunk bike club (or e-bike club) has neither those kinds of resources nor the decades of business exposure that Dave McCoy had. (It looks like he's still kicking at 103!)

Money talks bull$hit walks.

Dream on.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> This is the most activity this forum has seen in a long time. I wonder if this thread will get to 200 before it gets locked?
> 
> Anyway RE Mammoth it's a bad example; the original owner had a relationship with the USFS going back 50~60 years (did somebody say grandfathered?) and when sold it brought $300 million plus. Likely worth much more now.
> 
> ...


So when did he sell it?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, the fact that Mammoth is USFS land was the entire point of bringing it up. It's a changing of attitudes. Up until this year they had been banned by the USFS, even on the resort. Now they are allowed due to the USFS changing its position.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Do you think that if the resort wasn't there, that this small section of FS land would be open to e-bikes? I feel it would be just like the land that currently surrounds it.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Do you think that if the resort wasn't there, that this small section of FS land would be open to e-bikes? I feel it would be just like the land that currently surrounds it.


Why would you assume I did? It's like any other access battle it's a foot in the door. I can understand why, with your self admitted bias, you are doing everything you can to minimize and obfuscate this but the matter of the fact is that ebikes now have a foot in the door on USFS land. If the trial is successful and brings in extra revenue the footprint will grow.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Why would you assume I did? It's like any other access battle it's a foot in the door. I can understand why, with your self admitted bias, you are doing everything you can to minimize and obfuscate this but the matter of the fact is that ebikes now have a foot in the door on USFS land. If the trial is successful and brings in extra revenue the footprint will grow.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


What sketchy logic you use. The fact that the lease holder is responsible for the approval of e-bike usage and has little to nothing to do with USFS policy is lost on you. Keep dreaming of wide spread adoption, that's as close as it's likely to get in the foreseeable future, a dream.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> What sketchy logic you use. The fact that the lease holder is responsible for the approval of e-bike usage and has little to nothing to do with USFS policy is lost on you. Keep dreaming of wide spread adoption, that's as close as it's likely to get in the foreseeable future, a dream.


No, the lease holder cannot unilaterally make that decision. It is a decision that has to be made by the USFS. A lease to operate a resort on USFS land is not a license to do what one wants. In this case the USFS had to grant an exemption. I agree someone is missing quite a bit but in this instance it is not me.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Again, why the focus on attempting to assign undue significance to minor and isolated exceptions? Making mountains out of molehills again...


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Bike parks are a really lly bad example. They have all sorts of unique traits that do not make them relevant to a discussion about ebikes on multi-use singletrack trails.

Like and this is probably the biggest one "No hikers allowed" and mostly directional trails. (mammoth has one that isn't and would probably be fun to climb on an ebike). 

Also dedicated trail crews, rescue, etc etc.

Almost all the concerns about eMTBs are for general use trails that are multi-directional. 

But I don't understand why none of your arguments point to studies / opinions / etc from across the ocean where eMTBs are more accepted. 

I also don't understand why you would expect an mtb organization to advocate for your ebike. Go do that yourself. Get off the forum and start your own group. Fight your own battles.

I just read the NEMBA statement to trail managers. While I agree with most of it - I think they sort of shot themselves in the foot with the inclusion of the average speed data. My average speed going up a hill might be 5 to 7mph. But, it's significantly faster going downhill and it's easy to use the speed arguments to deny MTBs access.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

cassieno said:


> Bike parks are a really lly bad example. They have all sorts of unique traits that do not make them relevant to a discussion about ebikes on multi-use singletrack trails.
> 
> Like and this is probably the biggest one "No hikers allowed" and mostly directional trails. (mammoth has one that isn't and would probably be fun to climb on an ebike).
> 
> ...


Mammoth is just one example. Bentonville would be an example of what you are looking for, and no, outside of Coler maintenance really isn't performed by trail crews.

Agreed on the NEMBA foot shooting, on multiple levels. 
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Mammoth is just one example. Bentonville would be an example of what you are looking for, and no, outside of Coler maintenance really isn't performed by trail crews.
> 
> Agreed on the NEMBA foot shooting, on multiple levels.
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Are the trails in Bentonville built on Nation Forest land? If not then it's not a good example.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Are the trails in Bentonville built on Nation Forest land? If not then it's not a good example.


Did the post I responded to ask for NFS land examples specifically?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

I didn't ask for any examples. I said choosing a bike park with a land lease that happens to be on USFS land is not a good case for your argument. Pretty sure Northstar has allowed ebikes before. Still not a good example.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

cassieno said:


> I didn't ask for any examples. I said choosing a bike park with a land lease that happens to be on USFS land is not a good case for your argument. Pretty sure Northstar has allowed ebikes before. Still not a good example.


Which was I mentioned Bentonville for an example.

Mammoth is still a good example ignoring the bike park aspects. It highlights a softening in the USFS attitudes.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Which was I mentioned Bentonville for an example.
> 
> Mammoth is still a good example ignoring the bike park aspects. It highlights a softening in the USFS attitudes.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Do you think they would be allowed there if no private lease holder/ski resort/mountain bike park was there?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Do you think they would be allowed there if no private lease holder/ski resort/mountain bike park was there?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Would they be allowed there if the USFS had not instituted a policy change? That's a more pertinent question.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Would they be allowed there if the USFS had not instituted a policy change? That's a more pertinent question.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


It isn't a tidal change in USFS culture, I don't know why you insist that it is changing everything. Or even opening the door to wholesale change.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> It isn't a tidal change in USFS culture, I don't know why you insist that it is changing everything. Or even opening the door to wholesale change.


I'm not insisting it's "changing everything". However, to put it frankly, if you don't think it is a potential inflection point for a change in policy you're deluding yourself.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I'm not insisting it's "changing everything". However, to put it frankly, if you don't think it is a potential inflection point for a change in policy you're deluding yourself.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


If you think it changes anything outside the confines of the lease hold I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. The USFS has long made exemptions for facilities and infrastructure to lease holders without instituting any change to the national forests, it's just a normal part of doing business. But, good luck on your unicorn hunt.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> If you think it changes anything outside the confines of the lease hold I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. The USFS has long made exemptions for facilities and infrastructure to lease holders without instituting any change to the national forests, it's just a normal part of doing business. But, good luck on your unicorn hunt.


Like I said, you're deluding yourself. Of course you keep trying to read so much into my words I'm not surprised. Did I say it has changed anything yet? I understand with your bias why you are doing your best to impersonate an ostrich but it really doesn't change anything.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Like I said, you're deluding yourself. Of course you keep trying to read so much into my words I'm not surprised. Did I say it has changed anything yet? I understand with your bias why you are doing your best to impersonate an ostrich but it really doesn't change anything.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


No matter how you parse it, you insinuate that this is some watershed moment in e-motorbike access. Keep dreaming.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> No matter how you parse it, you insinuate that this is some watershed moment in e-motorbike access. Keep dreaming.


No, you are inferring something that isn't there. I understand it's easier to take pot shots at me than it is to accept reality. I'm glad I can provide you that outlet.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## westernmtb (Dec 19, 2018)

All new tech is designed to help you ride faster, farther with greater comfort. Not to mention, the bicycle itself is tech to allow you to travel faster and farther than you could on your own:

-front shock
-rear shock
-droppers
-wider tires
-bigger wheels
-hydraulics allow you to take corners faster
-higher lumens lights so you can ride faster with greater safety

Pedal assist allows you to ride farther, faster (up to 20 mph) with greater comfort. In this sense pedal assist is tech like any other. 

You could walk or hike off-road for 35 miles, but not in 3 hours like on a standard bicycle. More like 12-16 hours. So cycling itself is a form of cheating if pedal assist is.

Ultimately in 5-10 years ebikes will have gained widespread acceptance so these types of debates will become irrelevant and melt away.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

westernmtb said:


> All new tech is designed to help you ride faster, farther with greater comfort. Not to mention, the bicycle itself is tech to allow you to travel faster and farther than you could on your own:
> 
> -front shock
> -rear shock
> ...


 Guess that crystal ball is clear for you? Hmmm. Going to change all the rules and laws? Motorized, not a " tech" Start there. Good luck with that.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

westernmtb said:


> All new tech is designed to help you ride faster, farther with greater comfort. Not to mention, the bicycle itself is tech to allow you to travel faster and farther than you could on your own:
> 
> -front shock
> -rear shock
> ...


"In that sense pedal assist is tech", ok, but pedal assist involves using a motor, which makes it no longer bicycling. The whole "shocks are tech too" argument has been run through plenty of times on this site, go back and read some of the old threads.

Yes, if I rode my bicycle in a footrace, I would be cheating, I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that. Even if I tried to claim it was mRunning (mechanical running), just a new form of running, pay no attention to the wheels, I still have to move my legs.


----------



## westernmtb (Dec 19, 2018)

chazpat said:


> "In that sense pedal assist is tech", ok, but pedal assist involves using a motor, which makes it no longer bicycling. The whole "shocks are tech too" argument has been run through plenty of times on this site, go back and read some of the old threads.
> 
> Yes, if I rode my bicycle in a footrace, I would be cheating, I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that. Even if I tried to claim it was mRunning (mechanical running), just a new form of running, pay no attention to the wheels, I still have to move my legs.


Bicycling means riding a bicycle. E-Bikes are bicycles. Therefore, pedaling an e-bike is bicycling. See definitions below (verb and noun).

*bi·cy·cle*
/ˈbīsək(ə)l/Submit
noun
1.
*a vehicle composed of two wheels held in a frame one behind the other, propelled by pedals and steered with handlebars attached to the front wheel.*
synonyms: cycle, two-wheeler, pedal cycle; More
verb
verb: bicycle; 3rd person present: bicycles; past tense: bicycled; past participle: bicycled; gerund or present participle: bicycling
1.
*ride a bicycle in a particular direction.*


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

westernmtb said:


> Bicycling means riding a bicycle. E-Bikes are bicycles. Therefore, pedaling an e-bike is bicycling. See definitions below (verb and noun).
> 
> *bi·cy·cle*
> /ˈbīsək(ə)l/Submit
> ...


Just no.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

westernmtb said:


> Bicycling means riding a bicycle. E-Bikes are bicycles. Therefore, pedaling an e-bike is bicycling. See definitions below (verb and noun).
> 
> *bi·cy·cle*
> /ˈbīsək(ə)l/Submit
> ...


Again, go back and read some old threads. We've been through this before.

But while I'm here:

A moped (/ˈmoʊpɛd/ MOH-ped) is a type of small Motorcycle with bicycle pedals, generally having a less stringent licensing requirement than real motorcycles or automobiles because mopeds typically travel only a bit faster than bicycles on public roads. Mopeds by definition are driven by both an engine and bicycle pedals.


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

chazpat said:


> Again, go back and read some old threads. We've been through this before.
> 
> But while I'm here:
> 
> A moped (/ˈmoʊpɛd/ MOH-ped) is a type of small Motorcycle with bicycle pedals, generally having a less stringent licensing requirement than real motorcycles or automobiles because mopeds typically travel only a bit faster than bicycles on public roads. Mopeds by definition are driven by both an engine and bicycle pedals.


end thread...end topic...'nuff said

now prepare for uber flaming from people who can't handle reality...


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Nah bra. My ebike ain't a moped. It's a bike. See mopeds have throttles I don't. Ipso facto denudo not a moped. 

There you go. I covered that argument. It is as ineffective as whenever it's presented. 

Also more quoting the dictionary please that is always an effective tactic in debates. 

At what point does propelled by pedals no longer apply? I was riding a Levo and it kept applying power after I stopped pedaling. Which was really annoying trying to get through a tricky rock garden. The ebike was literally moving itself.

Also a lot of ebikes have walk mode. Again not propeled by pedals.

Please let me know where the cut off is between propelled by pedal and motor. I need to refine my ebike / moped detector model I guess.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

chazpat said:


> Again, go back and read some old threads. We've been through this before.
> 
> But while I'm here:
> 
> A moped (/ˈmoʊpɛd/ MOH-ped) is a type of small Motorcycle with bicycle pedals, generally having a less stringent licensing requirement than real motorcycles or automobiles because mopeds typically travel only a bit faster than bicycles on public roads. Mopeds by definition are driven by both an engine and bicycle pedals.


Does a moped have less than 1hp (746 watts)? Mopeds also use a throttle for the primary means of propulsion. A pedal assist e-bike does not.

Drop the whole moped and motorcycle crap. An e-bike is an e-bike. Not a moped and not purely a bicycle. It's an e-bike. It is much more similar to a normal bicycle than it is anything else hense the term "e-bike."

E-bikes don't pose any more danger to other trail users as normal bikes and horses nor do they damage the trail. Certainly less damaging to trails than horse are. There is no logical reason why they shouldn't be legal anywhere a mountain bike is. Unless wildfires are a concern even with the extremely low chance a battery will fail and catch on fire. The only other reason may be the ego's of those who feel the need to compare their pace of riding to that of someone on a faster e-bike.


----------



## westernmtb (Dec 19, 2018)

leeboh said:


> Motorized, not a " tech"


Wrong. A motor is a form of technology.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/technology

_*Technology*, the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life or, as it is sometimes phrased, to the change and manipulation of the human environment._

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

_An *electric motor *is an electrical machine that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy. Most electric motors operate through the interaction between the motor's magnetic field and winding currents to generate force in the form of rotation. _


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

How many watts does it t to no longer be considered an ebike? Or if you are always pedal assist its always an ebike?


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

cassieno said:


> How many watts does it t to no longer be considered an ebike? Or if you are always pedal assist its always an ebike?


No doubt there needs to be a limit to that. If the bike can crank out 1,500 watts then trail speed would be a major safety problem.

For trail use there will need to be some proper evaluation to decide what would be safe. Up a steep climb 250 watts would probably make the average rider equal to a CAT 1 XC racer. It would still be enough for a new or weak rider who can only put out 50 to 100 watts on their own. Speed limit for assistance should probably cut out at 15mph for trail use. Unassisted (I don't own an e-bike) I can hit 20 on flat trail but some areas with limited sight lines that speed just isn't safe.

The sooner something like that is figured out the better it will be for everyone. The bike industry will have a number they can confidently make bikes with and trail users don't need to worry about someone ripping through trails at 30mph on an "e-bike."


----------



## westernmtb (Dec 19, 2018)

Fajita Dave said:


> No doubt there needs to be a limit to that. If the bike can crank out 1,500 watts then trail speed would be a major safety problem.
> 
> For trail use there will need to be some proper evaluation to decide what would be safe. Up a steep climb 250 watts would probably make the average rider equal to a CAT 1 XC racer. It would still be enough for a new or weak rider who can only put out 50 to 100 watts on their own. Speed limit for assistance should probably cut out at 15mph for trail use. Unassisted (I don't own an e-bike) I can hit 20 on flat trail but some areas with limited sight lines that speed just isn't safe.
> 
> The sooner something like that is figured out the better it will be for everyone. The bike industry will have a number they can confidently make bikes with and *trail users don't need to worry about someone ripping through trails at 30mph on an "e-bike."*


Standard bicycles can reach 30 mph with relative ease depending upon downhill grade, no motor required.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Fajita Dave said:


> Does a moped have less than 1hp (746 watts)? Mopeds also use a throttle for the primary means of propulsion. A pedal assist e-bike does not.
> 
> Drop the whole moped and motorcycle crap. An e-bike is an e-bike. Not a moped and not purely a bicycle. It's an e-bike. It is much more similar to a normal bicycle than it is anything else hense the term "e-bike."


I was actually just showing the prior poster that anyone can copy and paste a definition to try to bolster their argument; mine was more valid that what he posted but I don't see you calling him out on his. But I do find it humorous how worked up ebikers get if their ebikes are called mopeds. I really have to wonder if it was just that one joke.

So a class 2 ebike isn't an ebike, it's a moped because it has a throttle? But you said "an ebike is an ebike". I'm just messing with you, Dave. But I don't agree with your last paragraph.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

westernmtb said:


> Standard bicycles can reach 30 mph with relative ease depending upon downhill grade, no motor required.


Yup, that's why I'm all for e-bikes getting trail access. The pedal assist doesn't make them anymore unsafe on trails than any other mountain bike.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

chazpat said:


> I was actually just showing the prior poster that anyone can copy and paste a definition to try to bolster their argument; mine was more valid that what he posted but I don't see you calling him out on his. But I do find it humorous how worked up ebikers get if their ebikes are called mopeds. I really have to wonder if it was just that one joke.
> 
> So a class 2 ebike isn't an ebike, it's a moped because it has a throttle? But you said "an ebike is an ebike". I'm just messing with you, Dave. But I don't agree with your last paragraph.


Class 2 is an electric moped in my book :thumbsup:. 750 watts with a throttle seems like it would be unsafe on trails.

A class 1 e-bike has one fifth the power of a typical moped and it doesn't have a throttle. Class 1 e-bike is it's own category. By definition is it not a moped regardless of what you claim.

I actually just looked up the limits on class 1. Seems like the Euro spec class 1 is 250watt max with 15mph cuttoff like I just suggested. 750 watts seems like way to much power to be safe for trail use even if it's only pedal assist.

Can't help but feel like it's pretty stupid that the only thing separating class 1 and class 2 is the throttle here in the States. Both are allowed up to 750watts.


----------



## roughster (Dec 18, 2017)

The depth of how many on this thread are trying to rationalize away the truth and are more than willing to try and drag human powered MTBing with them is exactly why most MTB’ers are worried about e-bikes. A few zealous e-bikers seem hell bent on ruining it for EVERYONE and by that I mean even in areas that currently allow human powered MTB, if they can’t ride their motorized bike.


----------



## westernmtb (Dec 19, 2018)

roughster said:


> The depth of how many on this thread are trying to rationalize away the truth and are more than willing to try and drag* human powered MTBing* with them is exactly why most MTB'ers are worried about e-bikes. A few zealous e-bikers seem hell bent on ruining it for EVERYONE and by that I mean even in areas that currently allow human powered MTB, if they can't ride their motorized bike.


E-bikes require human power as well. The motor assists. Unless you pedal, the bike will not move.

Almost all emtbs's are mid-drive without throttles. This includes all brose, Bosch and Shimano motors. At least one bafang mid drive includes a throttle, but this is a rare spec on emtb's.

I am an "Mtber" as you put it. I am not worried about emtb's or ebikes for that matter. Don't lump everyone together as if there were unanimity.

Hyperbole, overgeneralization and pseudo-facts discredit legitimate concerns, whatever they may be. Let's start with accurate definitions and documented evidence and proceed from there.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

westernmtb said:


> E-bikes require human power as well. The motor assists. Unless you pedal, the bike will not move.
> 
> Almost all emtbs's are mid-drive without throttles. This includes all brose, Bosch and Shimano motors. At least one bafang mid drive includes a throttle, but this is a rare spec on emtb's.
> 
> ...


But slippert slopes and other fallacies are so much easier to formulate and so much more compelling... 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

The accurate definition starts with "no motorized vehicles". It ends when / if ebikes are able to classify themselves with the appropriate groups as something different than a motorized vehicle. 

Arguments if a Throttle is different than Pedal assist seem pedantic and really not that helpful in deciding if eMTBs should be allowed on no motorized multiuse trails.

But we are all just rehashing the same tired arguments from both sides. 

The fact is the industry / manufacturers are salivating at the potential $$$ in selling ebikes to a whole new market (those who don't bike because it's too hard but somehow are interested in dropping $5k plus on a new bike?)

It's no surprise that they are pushing emtb=mtb. That would be the most sales with the least effort for them.

Just like there are organizations that have fought hard battles for MTB access, eMTBs will have to to form their own organizations and push for their own access.

The advantage eMTBs have is the industry really really wants to sell these bikes and is probably willing to help out with a few $$.

I know in a few cases they also force local organizations to accept / promote eMTBs in order for them receive industry funding. 

Doesn't mean land managers will agree in all cases. But if eMTBs are actually organized chances are you will eventually get access (and then everyone will be denied access because of eMTBs and MTBs crashing into each because both refuse to yield right of way).


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

westernmtb said:


> E-bikes require human power as well. The motor assists. Unless you pedal, the bike will not move.
> 
> Almost all emtbs's are mid-drive without throttles. This includes all brose, Bosch and Shimano motors. At least one bafang mid drive includes a throttle, but this is a rare spec on emtb's.
> 
> ...


Most of the ebikes sold in the US have throttles, since most of the ebikes sold are class 2 ebikes ridden on streets and bike paths.

Class 1 ebikes can also move under power without pedaling.






I find the entire idea that if you turn on the motor in an otherwise identical ebike with your feet instead of your hand that it's somehow ethically superior silly.

Same motor
Same power
Same speed cut off

Why does it matter?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> I find the entire idea that if you turn on the motor in an otherwise identical ebike with your feet instead of your hand that it's somehow ethically superior silly.
> 
> Same motor
> Same power
> ...


Ethically, I have no clue. It does however make a large difference in the way you ride the thing.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## roughster (Dec 18, 2017)

westernmtb said:


> Hyperbole, overgeneralization and pseudo-facts discredit legitimate concerns, whatever they may be. Let's start with accurate definitions and documented evidence and proceed from there.


Okay lets play this game:

From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle#Pedal-assist_only


> An electric bicycle, also known as an e-bike, powerbike or booster bike, is a bicycle with an *integrated electric motor* which can be used for propulsion.


Since I know what's next, Class I definition from:
https://currentebikes.com/ebike-classes-california/


> *Class 1 eBike*
> A Class 1 eBike, or low-speed pedal-assisted electric bicycles,* is equipped with a motor* that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and that stops providing assistance when the bicycle reaches 20 mph. These e-bikes are legal on any paved surface that a regular bike is allowed to operate.


Now lets look at signage at pretty much every local trail:








Please reconcile the e-bike definition, the class 1 e-bike definition and the clear statement, "*Motorized* vehicles prohibited"...


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

As long as ya'll are getting all dorky with semantics again...

throt·tle
/ˈTHrädl/Submit
noun
1.
a device controlling the flow of fuel or power to an engine.


So you guys are saying there's nothing controlling the flow of power to the motor on Class 1 e-bikes? How do they work then?

Derrr.....


----------



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

My car doesn't move unless I turn the key and push the pedal with my foot. Is my car human powered?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> My car doesn't move unless I turn the key and push the pedal with my foot. Is my car human powered?


Is your name really Fred Flintstone?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Ethically, I have no clue. It does however make a large difference in the way you ride the thing.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


So?


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

With the current 750watt max being so high you can find a lot of stupid and destructive things to do with a throttle. Which won't otherwise be possible with pedal assist. Someone doing a burnout on the trail for example. Hold the front brake, stand over bike and press the throttle. Another is inexperienced riders will probably whiskey throttle themselves into trees, bushes or other trail users. Neither of those are possible with pedal assist.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

Fajita Dave said:


> With the current 750watt max being so high you can find a lot of stupid and destructive things to do with a throttle. Which won't otherwise be possible with pedal assist. Someone doing a burnout on the trail for example. Hold the front brake, stand over bike and press the throttle. Another is inexperienced riders will probably whiskey throttle themselves into trees, bushes or other trail users. Neither of those are possible with pedal assist.


For trails bikes I would even push for no PAS only systems instead torque only motors or torque+PAS system. But like you mentioned a system that REQUIRES pedaling.


----------



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

KenPsz said:


> But like you mentioned a system that REQUIRES pedaling.


Purist!


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> So?


That can make a large difference in trail damage and even user conflict.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Fajita Dave said:


> With the current 750watt max being so high you can find a lot of stupid and destructive things to do with a throttle. Which won't otherwise be possible with pedal assist. Someone doing a burnout on the trail for example. Hold the front brake, stand over bike and press the throttle.


Yeah, that'll never happen on a PAS ebike, especially when more start shipping with shuttle mode. :skep:








Fajita Dave said:


> Another is inexperienced riders will probably whiskey throttle themselves into trees, bushes or other trail users. Neither of those are possible with pedal assist.


Sure it is. Stick an inexperienced rider on a 750w ebike in turbo mode on narrow singletrack and watch the fun. Never underestimate the ability of stupid people to do stupid things.

Besides, I thought only old and slow riders were going to be on ebikes?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

roughster said:


> Okay lets play this game:
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle#Pedal-assist_only
> ...


BTW: CURRENT eBIKES *is NOT* accurately quoting California law, they're posting the bull$hit P4B used to get the law passed. Nowhere in AB-1096 is the "paved surface" stipulation mentioned.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> That can make a large difference in trail damage and even user conflict.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


How so? The bikes are identical. Same wattage, same torque, same weight, same top speeds, etc


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> How so? The bikes are identical. Same wattage, same torque, same weight, same top speeds, etc


No, the bikes are not identical. I am not willing to concede that and it's disingenuous to suggest it. Think about your last few rides. How many times was it difficult, ill advised, or even impossible to get a pedal stroke in?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

westernmtb said:


> Wrong. A motor is a form of technology.
> 
> https://www.britannica.com/technology/technology
> 
> ...


 I don't need definitions. My point is that a motor is not in the same category as a "tech" upgrade. It is a whole other kind of vehicle, ie motorized not human powered. Clear?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, the bikes are not identical. I am not willing to concede that and it's disingenuous to suggest it. Think about your last few rides. How many times was it difficult, ill advised, or even impossible to get a pedal stroke in?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


It doesn't matter to me if you concede it or not, the Class 1-3 state laws which define ebikes and grant them access, define and treat them equally. Fed law as well.

I pedal all the time, whenever possible. I've been riding bikes my entire life, it's ingrained. Even when riding an ebike with a thottle, I pedal it just like a bike. That's my choice, someone else can choose to cruise around on the same ebike using a throttle only. With a Class 1, one person can ride in eco only, one in boost only, one can ghost pedal. It's all the same under the law.

Shouldn't all two wheeled brethren stick together and fight for access? I keep hearing that from ebike riders here.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

[QUOTE =Harryman;13961077]It doesn't matter to me if you concede it or not, the Class 1-3 state laws which define ebikes and grant them access, define and treat them equally. Fed law as well. 
[/QUOTE]

But that is not what you said. You called them identical which based on the rest of your post is clearly disingenuous and a false equivalency.

[QUOTE =Harryman;13961077]
I pedal all the time, whenever possible. I've been riding bikes my entire life, it's ingrained. Even when riding an ebike with a thottle, I pedal it just like a bike. That's my choice, someone else can choose to cruise around on the same ebike using a throttle only. With a Class 1, one person can ride in eco only, one in boost only, one can ghost pedal. It's all the same under the law. 
[/QUOTE]

That's quite a bit of text and needless information to avoid giving a straight answer to a simple question.



tuckerjt07 said:


> How many times was it difficult, ill advised, or even impossible to get a pedal stroke in?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


[QUOTE =Harryman;13961077]
Shouldn't all two wheeled brethren stick together and fight for access? I keep hearing that from ebike riders here.[/QUOTE]

Back to false equivalencies with an added side of straw.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, the bikes are not identical. I am not willing to concede that and it's disingenuous to suggest it. Think about your last few rides. How many times was it difficult, ill advised, or even impossible to get a pedal stroke in?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Probably a very small percentage of the time compared to when it wasn't.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

chazpat said:


> Probably a very small percentage of the time compared to when it wasn't.


Ah, but therein lies the crux of the issue. The times when you were not able to are going to be an extremely high percentage of the only times where assist would cause issues.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## roughster (Dec 18, 2017)

Is anyone going to even try to reconcile my post above?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

What issues?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> What issues?


The ones that have been listed here ad nauseum.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

roughster said:


> Is anyone going to even try to reconcile my post above?


Because pedal assist doesn't mean throttle assist. Throttle = motor. Pedal assist = magical propulsion system that's totally not motorized.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

The point was that a hand throttled motor isn't much different than a leg throttled motor the vast majority of the time.

And who will be hanging out on the trails to be sure the ebikes aren't hand throttled anyway?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The ones that have been listed here ad nauseum.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Assist causes issues when you're not pedaling?

It's been a problem with emtbs in stuttery tech stuff, that the motor shuts off when not pedaling, the manufacturers are speccing shorter cranks so it's possible to spin in more places. A situation where a throttle shines IMO


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> Assist causes issues when you're not pedaling?
> 
> It's been a problem with emtbs in stuttery tech stuff, that the motor shuts off when not pedaling, the manufacturers are speccing shorter cranks so it's possible to spin in more places. A situation where a throttle shines IMO


Please quit being intentionally obtuse. It's a look that's beneath you. We both know I was referring to access issues.

You tried to set a false equivalency trap and got caught in it. Just own it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

roughster said:


> Is anyone going to even try to reconcile my post above?


It wasn't worth responding to.

E-mtbs are a new user group that didn't exist until recently. They aren't motorcycles and they aren't quite a bicycle but they pose no danger to other users or damage to trails. Thus current regulations are outdated and need to be re-evaluated to decide if e-bikes should be allowed on mtb trails. This is no different from when mountain biking was new.

The decision should be made with accurate information and not the opinions of any group. Most often reality is far different from perception.


----------



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

cassieno said:


> Because pedal assist doesn't mean Throttle assist. Throttle = motor. Pedal assist = magical propulsion system that's totally not motorized.


Best answer.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> Purist!


Wow that label really got to you didn't it. LOL!!!!

You're the one the goes on an one about having to pedal so I am just not a pure of a purist as you are.


----------



## roughster (Dec 18, 2017)

Fajita Dave said:


> It wasn't worth responding to.
> 
> E-mtbs are a new user group that didn't exist until recently. They aren't motorcycles and they aren't quite a bicycle but they pose no danger to other users or damage to trails. Thus current regulations are outdated and need to be re-evaluated to decide if e-bikes should be allowed on mtb trails. This is no different from when mountain biking was new.
> 
> The decision should be made with accurate information and not the opinions of any group. Most often reality is far different from perception.


So until that occurs you are staying off all trails that indicate no motorized vehicles right? And you recommend all others do the same to prevent potential issues with access for all MTBers Human Powered and Motorized Power alike?

Sweet, we totally agree with each other!


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

arguing semantics is irrelevant. The question is, will e-bikes allow many more people to go offroad, thus creating a much larger user group with power. I think it will help.

Ultimately the reason bikes are banned is because hikers dont like them. Hikers like to go slow and bikes go fast.

The more people that want to use bikes to get into the wilderness, the more people there will be to advocate.

The usage of wilderness areas should be governed by the number of people miles allowed. A person walks at 3mph, a cyclist goes at 8-10mph, an ebike goes at 15mph.

A person will typically go 3-7 miles. A cyclist 10-20, an ebike 15-45?

For access purposes I would be ok with limiting the total number of people miles using ratios similar to the above. 

Cyclists shouldnt be completely banned (even ebikes) but they should count as more than 1 person because of their mileage.


----------



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

KenPsz said:


> Wow that label really got to you didn't it. LOL!!!!
> 
> You're the one the goes on an one about having to pedal so I am just not a pure of a purist as you are.


I just think it's funny, like " analog bike" is funny to me, I should have used a winky face or something.

Also I think it's hypocritical when used in this context as you so conveniently demonstrated, thanks!


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

roughster said:


> So until that occurs you are staying off all trails that indicate no motorized vehicles right? And you recommend all others do the same to prevent potential issues with access for all MTBers Human Powered and Motorized Power alike?
> 
> Sweet, we totally agree with each other!


I don't own an e-bike so I'll be riding anywhere mtbing is allowed.

Boundaries need to be pushed for change to happen within any transition period. I'm hoping by the time I'm to old to climb on a mountain bike e-bikes will be allowed so I can still enjoy the outdoors on two wheels like I do now. Maybe I'll just move to Europe. For some magical reason they don't have any of these problems. Perhaps it's fairies keeping everyone else safe from those monsterous e-bikes.

FWIW I don't feel like e-bikes belong everywhere. Especially areas where the extra traffic would be detrimental to the wildlife living there. Also most of the west because of the potential fire hazard. In the extremely unlikely event a battery fails and catches on fire it isn't worth creating even one wild fire.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> I just think it's funny, like " analog bike" is funny to me, I should have used a winky face or something.
> 
> Also I think it's hypocritical when used in this context as you so conveniently demonstrated, thanks!


Oh I believe in the pedaling thing, just like you do. But I am also not against a little bit of assist. 
Hell we are all used to assist at this point it just comes in the form of gears and mechanical leverage.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

goodmojo said:


> arguing semantics is irrelevant. The question is, will e-bikes allow many more people to go offroad, thus creating a much larger user group with power. I think it will help.
> 
> Ultimately the reason bikes are banned is because hikers dont like them. Hikers like to go slow and bikes go fast.
> 
> ...


Common sense and reasonable input has no place here!!!!!!


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Please quit being intentionally obtuse. It's a look that's beneath you. We both know I was referring to access issues.
> 
> You tried to set a false equivalency trap and got caught in it. Just own it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Pedaling/not pedaling has no bearing on access IME with land managers actually discussing ebike policy. It all comes down to the effect an ebike has on the tread surface, how they integrate with other trail users, and any possible legal restrictions on land use. IIRC, they allow both class 1 & 2 on the trails in NWA, so I was curious if you've seen issues with class 2, that is what I thought you were alluding to. The performance envelope is the same between the two, my expectation would be that the impact would be the same within the normal variations of rider styles, weights, motors and the like.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> Pedaling/not pedaling has no bearing on access IME with land managers actually discussing ebike policy. * It all comes down to the effect an ebike has on the tread surface* , how they integrate with other trail users, and any possible legal restrictions on land use. IIRC, they allow both class 1 & 2 on the trails in NWA, so I was curious if you've seen issues with class 2, that is what I thought you were alluding to. The performance envelope is the same between the two, my expectation would be that the impact would be the same within the normal variations of rider styles, weights, motors and the like.


Pedaling vs no pedaling will absolutely impact this. I'm not 100% sure on legality of 2s. The BRAIN article advertising the festival only alludes to 1s. We also have the types of trail beds that even a throttle would be hard pressed to damage. There are areas but they are not the norm.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Harryman said:


> Pedaling/not pedaling has no bearing on access IME with land managers actually discussing ebike policy. It all comes down to the effect an ebike has on the tread surface, how they integrate with other trail users, and any possible legal restrictions on land use. IIRC, they allow both class 1 & 2 on the trails in NWA, so I was curious if you've seen issues with class 2, that is what I thought you were alluding to. The performance envelope is the same between the two, my expectation would be that the impact would be the same within the normal variations of rider styles, weights, motors and the like.


I would really like to see class 1 changed to Euro spec. As a non e-biker advocating for e-bike use 750 watts is way to much for trail use. I'd only need to put out 100 watts of my own to be laying down 850 watts up a trail. Most riders can't reach 850 watts in an all out sprint let alone maintain that up a climb. The 20mph assist cut off is a bit to high to be safe as well.

I genuinely wouldn't want to be sharing the trails with someone taking full advantage of that power regardless of being pedal assist only or not.


----------



## tom tom (Mar 3, 2007)

Fajita Dave said:


> E-bikes don't pose any more danger to other trail users as normal bikes and horses nor do they damage the trail. Certainly less damaging to trails than horse are.


Look at this damage........and not one ebike track!!


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Pedaling vs no pedaling will absolutely impact this.


I'm not sure it will. Obviously, no data for 750w emtbs, but if you use 250w as an example, you'd be looking at power levels something like this:

PAS in boost
Rider input @250 + motor peak 750w = 1000w total.

Throttle at 100%
Rider input @250 + 750w = 1000w total.
or 
Rider input @0 + 750w = 750w total.

We all agree aren't motos, you can't roost out of a turn in boost on a 250w emtb, or rototill your way up a climb, they don't have that level of power. If you chose to ride "moto style" with throttle only, you'd be nerfed even more.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Harryman said:


> I'm not sure it will. Obviously, no data for 750w emtbs, but if you use 250w as an example, you'd be looking at power levels something like this:
> 
> PAS in boost
> Rider input @250 + motor peak 750w = 1000w total.
> ...


It absolutely will and to the effects you just described. If you break the rear loose in a turn it is very hard to continue pedaling. However, it would remain fairly easy to just twist a throttle. Same thing with spinning out on a loose climb. It absolutely changes the way you would ride.

No, nowhere near moto power but the throttle opens up the potential for more bad behaviors.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

tom tom said:


> Look at this damage........and not one ebike track!!


looks like a bunch of asshat tracks to me...

but how do you differentiate an ebike track from a flesh powered bike track...the e bike can wear any kind of shoes right?

I see 1 or 2 fatbike tracks, and every thing else looks normal sized to me


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

tom tom said:


> Look at this damage........and not one ebike track!!


Looks like it's bone dry on the other side. Clearly the e-mtb riders went straight through the mud like you're supposed to instead of going around and widening the trail.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Fajita Dave said:


> E-mtbs are a new user group that didn't exist until recently. They aren't motorcycles and they aren't quite a bicycle but they pose no danger to other users or damage to trails. Thus current regulations are outdated and need to be re-evaluated to decide if e-bikes should be allowed on mtb trails. This is no different from when mountain biking was new.
> 
> The decision should be made with accurate information and not the opinions of any group. Most often reality is far different from perception.


Good post. Agree.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Fajita Dave said:


> Looks like it's bone dry on the other side. Clearly the e-mtb riders went straight through the mud like you're supposed to instead of going around and widening the trail.


Was thinking the same thing, what's the BFD?...that looks like an isolated muddy spot in what appears to be an otherwise pretty dry place. Seems likely it's gonna dry and flatten out pretty quickly judging by the surrounding terrain. Through the middle is the right line.


----------



## westernmtb (Dec 19, 2018)

In 5 years emtb's will constitute the majority of mtb sales. In 10 years, the overwhelming majority, and trail access will be a non-issue. It will be the same for emtb's and regular mtb's alike. 

Blowing a lot of hot air in the interim is just a waste of time. We might as well just ban any new form of technology and return to the horse and buggy.


----------



## tom tom (Mar 3, 2007)

slapheadmofo said:


> Was thinking the same thing, what's the BFD?...that looks like an isolated muddy spot in what appears to be an otherwise pretty dry place. Seems likely it's gonna dry and flatten out pretty quickly judging by the surrounding terrain. Through the middle is the right line.


It's people that think like you that made the tracks........


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

westernmtb said:


> In 5 years emtb's will constitute the majority of mtb sales. In 10 years, the overwhelming majority, and trail access will be a non-issue. It will be the same for emtb's and regular mtb's alike.


I really hope that's the case. In the bay area it's the opposite. As time goes on and more people bike we get more and more restrictions and areas denied to us. Trail access is becoming harder and harder for us.

That is what mtbers are afraid of.


----------



## westernmtb (Dec 19, 2018)

How fast can you safely walk or run down a rutted, rocky twisting uneven trail? Say 7 to 9 percent grade? Not very fast. You'll probably have to walk even more slowly than you would on level ground so you don't injure yourself. Say 2.5 mph.

Now, take that same route on bike with 160mm travel full suspension with 29+ 3" or 4"+ fat tires, 200 mm rotors, and a 34x10 top gear down a 9% grade? Pretty darn fast. You can easily achieve 20+ mph. You can travel 8x, 10x, 15x as fast safely depending on your skill level.

Not to mention you take a ski lift to get you to the top of that mountain. Not to mention you drove your car, suv or van to get to the trailhead or resort. 

You are clearly being aided by multiple forms of technology to help you travel faster if you ride a regular mtb. It is beyond hypocritical then to say that it is what? Unethical? Cheating? Immoral? compared to standard mtb's. Impossible to make this argument without banishing use of all other technologies, including the bike itself if you want to make that claim. 

The additional weight damages trails? Ludicrous. I weigh 160 lbs. An emtb weighs 15 lbs more than a conventional bicycle. So, that means what, 175 lbs riders should be banned? What about 200 lbs riders? Should only 115 lbs riders be allowed on trails?

There is no logical, practical much less moral reason to classify class1 emtb's as anything other than mtb's. It's all a bunch of hot air from people who arbitrarily decide that existing tech is "ok" while additional tech beyond some arbitrary point is now "evil" because they fear change.


----------



## westernmtb (Dec 19, 2018)

cassieno said:


> I really hope that's the case. In the bay area it's the opposite. As time goes on and more people bike we get more and more restrictions and areas denied to us. Trail access is becoming harder and harder for us.
> 
> That is what mtbers are afraid of.


I hiked and rode in the hills of Oakland and Berkeley for years. I understand the concerns of hikers. It's very unsettling and unnerving when out of control cyclists scream out "on your left!" at the top of their lungs from 30 feet behind, barreling down a fire road at 25-30 mph. Hikers and other trail users have valid concerns. I share them.

My point is that class1 emtb's aren't any faster on downhills (where top speeds are achieved) than standard mtb's. They can be significantly faster uphill if you want them to be but that means exerting a lot of effort and energy to travel 6-8 mph rather than 3-5 mph on moderately steep grades. You're fighting gravity and don't benefit from momentum so you can't "barrel" into hikers or other riders in front of you.

I don't want or need unlimited trail access as a mountain bike rider. That's because I hike as well and have seen enough dangerous behavior from cyclists to understand that that will never happen. But emtb's don't post any more of a danger than standard mtb's.

If anything, the skyrocketing sales of electric bikes will benefit bike advocacy so that mutually agreeable solutions can be achieved. That does not mean total access to every trail for cyclists.

I've had enough hikes ruined by inconsiderate and dangerous rider to ever consider myself an advocate for mtb riding and nothing else.

The point is, we will all gain access but it will never be and never should be unlimited access to all trails.


----------



## westernmtb (Dec 19, 2018)

Fajita Dave said:


> I would really like to see class 1 changed to Euro spec. As a non e-biker advocating for e-bike use 750 watts is way to much for trail use. I'd only need to put out 100 watts of my own to be laying down 850 watts up a trail. Most riders can't reach 850 watts in an all out sprint let alone maintain that up a climb. The 20mph assist cut off is a bit to high to be safe as well.
> 
> I genuinely wouldn't want to be sharing the trails with someone taking full advantage of that power regardless of being pedal assist only or not.


Which bikes are you talking about? The specialized turbo levo has a 250 watt motor. It has no throttle and is class 1, top speed 20 mph. Even with a billion watts, only class1 bikes are allowed on trails which means assist tops out at 20 mph, period.

Also, you have no experience riding emtb's. I've ridden brose, Bosch and Shimano mid drive. I can tell you right now that brose motors are severely underpowered offering very modest assist on climbs. Motor assist is irrelevant on descents where you rely solely on gravity.

Your "analysis" is hampered first by your total inexperience riding e-bikes, and second with your wildly exaggerated wattage claims based upon fictional motors.


----------



## westernmtb (Dec 19, 2018)

KenPsz said:


> Oh I believe in the pedaling thing, just like you do. But I am also not against a little bit of assist.
> Hell we are all used to assist at this point it just comes in the form of gears and mechanical leverage.


The entire bicycle itself is a form of assist. As are ski lifts taking you up to the top of the mountain. Cars to get you to the resort or trail.

Common sense dictates that if we demonize and ban one form of technology and assist, then we should demonize and ban all of them.

I suppose cavemen were evil for using rocks to carve drawings on their walls or spears for fishing.


----------



## westernmtb (Dec 19, 2018)

cassieno said:


> Because pedal assist doesn't mean throttle assist. Throttle = motor. Pedal assist = magical propulsion system that's totally not motorized.


Because gears offer mechanical leverage = assist. Because wheels offer assist. Because wider tires offer assist. Because bigger wheels offer assist. Because suspension offers assist. Therefore, riding a bike = assist. Therefore, bikes = evil. All bikes should be banished from all trails.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

I think I don't agree that more users = better for access. Speaking of my small bubble where there are a huge amount of mountain bikers with generally a lot of money and access is just getting worse.

There are like three large bike companies right here and all the good / interesting stuff is undocumented or illegal. I think access is a valid concern.

Gatekeeeping by making it hard is a way of limiting access. More limited bikes on trails means less chance for user conflict. 

Of course, you could be right. Maybe Ebikers are better able to organize and enact change at their local government level. 

But that does start by accept that having a motor does make you something different.

I am looking at it only from a trail conflict perspective. 
Mtbers limited because it's hard and scary on the downs.
Emtb no longer limited because it's hard (still expensive), scary on the downs And ups.


----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

westernmtb said:


> The entire bicycle itself is a form of assist. As are ski lifts taking you up to the top of the mountain. Cars to get you to the resort or trail.
> 
> Common sense dictates that if we demonize and ban one form of technology and assist, then we should demonize and ban all of them.
> 
> I suppose cavemen were evil for using rocks to carve drawings on their walls or spears for fishing.


There is a reason the wilderness act says mechanical transportation with the BLM mentioning mechanized. There is no mention of motors or engines, so your point would be spot on and will not win you any fans in these discussions.


----------



## westernmtb (Dec 19, 2018)

cassieno said:


> I think I don't agree that more users = better for access. Speaking of *my small bubble where there are a huge amount of mountain bikers* with generally a lot of money and access is just getting worse.


You've already contradicted yourself right there. Small =/= huge.

Also, I wasn't talking about your "small bubble" obviously, I was talking about the many millions of dollars in additional sales because of the explosion in electric bike sales.



cassieno said:


> There are like three large bike companies right here and all the good / interesting stuff is undocumented or illegal. I think access is a valid concern.


What does "like three companies" mean? There are 3 large companies or there aren't. There are. What does that have to do with the "interesting stuff" and whether it's "undocumented or illegal?" You are writing total non-sequiturs. What does "access" have to do with "like three large bike companies" or "undocumented or "illegal" "interesting stuff?" You are just babbling about nothing.



cassieno said:


> Gatekeeeping by making it hard is a way of limiting access.


Do you realize you are becoming even more incoherent?



cassieno said:


> More limited bikes on trails means less chance for user conflict.


That ship has sailed. Next point.



cassieno said:


> Of course, you could be right. Maybe Ebikers are better able to organize and enact change at their local government level.
> 
> But that does start by accept that having a motor does make you something different.


Of course they are different. That's why I refer to them as e-mtb's, not mtb's. I outlined the differences in detail. But I also stated that your ridiculous, baseless assertions of 750 watt motors is just that baseless. It's a wild exaggerated claim with zero evidence. None of the "like three big companies" are offering these types of motors.



cassieno said:


> *I am looking at it only from a trail conflict perspective. *
> Mtbers limited because it's hard and scary on the downs.
> Emtb no longer limited because it's hard (still expensive), scary on the downs And ups.


What you should do is look at your own posts and edit them because they are incoherent drivel. No offense.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tom tom said:


> It's people that think like you that made the tracks........


Always been pretty common knowledge IMHO. That area doesn't look the least bit sensitive or prone to erosion from moving water. If there were extended sections of trail that were rutted up, that's one thing. But that pic only shows a few foot long puddle. If the vast majority of the trails are fine, then what are you supposed to do at that point? Turn around and go home? Go around and widen the trail?


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

So while my posts might be drivel. No real argument there. They arent THAT incoherent.

1. Small l (geography and experience with other geographies) 
2. Huge (amount of mountain bikers in the areal

Common that was super basic to understand. 

3. Three companies - Ibis, Specialized, Santa Cruz. You would think they have the pull to enhance bike access. But they don't. Most trails in Santa Cruz are illegal. Near San Jose we are losing access. The bike companies aren't able to stop it. I know recently Specialized is working on enhancing access / pays a couple full time to work with local mtb groups. But where we can ride is still be reduced. 

4. What gatekeeping isn't spelled with 3 es? That's what I get for typing on my phone. I guess you win that round. Completely incoherent with that extra e. 

5. Nope. Access issues haven't sailed. There are whole groups dedicated to ensuring mtbers access is limited (hi Sierra club)

6. 750 watts? Pretty sure I didn't say that....


You really don't like the word like huh? Its a comparison word to mean something is similar but not exactly the same. I. E. We could pedantically argue that if I had said the three big companies I would be wrong. But by saying "there are like three" I give myself a little leeway - I don't have the exact count.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> Always been pretty common knowledge IMHO. That area doesn't look the least bit sensitive or prone to erosion from moving water. If there were extended sections of trail that were rutted up, that's one thing. But that pic only shows a few foot long puddle. If the vast majority of the trails are fine, then what are you supposed to do at that point? Turn around and go home? Go around and widen the trail?


If you had an ebike you could use the "totally not a motor magic pedal driven power" to levitate over it.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

westernmtb said:


> There is no logical, practical much less moral reason to classify class1 emtb's as anything other than mtb's. It's all a bunch of hot air from people who arbitrarily decide that existing tech is "ok" while additional tech beyond some arbitrary point is now "evil" because they fear change.


And the only subset of that group you need to convince are land managers.


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> And the only subset of that group you need to convince are land managers.


No you missed the point. They don't have to do anything. Because a mtb is allowed they are allowed. Because a pedal assist motor isn't a real motor and they are just normal bikes.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> And the only subset of that group you need to convince are land managers.


Not necessarily

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

cassieno said:


> If you had an ebike you could use the "totally not a motor magic pedal driven power" to levitate over it.


If I had skillz, I would probably be able to bunnyhop it.


----------



## westernmtb (Dec 19, 2018)

The opponents of e-bikes have descended into passive-aggressive sarcasm with no real point, no argument, no logic, no evidence, just smarmy, evasive spam posts with zero content.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

cassieno said:


> Because a pedal assist motor isn't a real motor and they are just normal bikes.


What are you smoking?

Maybe Euro bikes and original Levo's were only 250 watts but the race to hit the 750 watt USA limit is on. *750 watts = one horsepower.*


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I know you're a new member, so just fyi, I'm not an opponent of e-bikes. I just think it's a good idea for them to be considered unique from strictly human powered when it comes to defining user groups as far as mtb access goes. I'm fine with sharing the trails with e-bikes personally, but if issues ever do arise with them, I don't want mountain bikers to be lumped in. 

Other than that, whatever. If you're not beating the trails more than an mtb and you ride respectfully and have a good time (and get involved in trail work as a community), then I couldn't care less. 

From my experience though, in my area, it would not be a good idea to equate mountain bikes with any sort of motor whatsoever. The people that count are sensitive about that sort of thing around here.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

westernmtb said:


> Which bikes are you talking about? The specialized turbo levo has a 250 watt motor. It has no throttle and is class 1, top speed 20 mph. Even with a billion watts, only class1 bikes are allowed on trails which means assist tops out at 20 mph, period.
> 
> Also, you have no experience riding emtb's. I've ridden brose, Bosch and Shimano mid drive. I can tell you right now that brose motors are severely underpowered offering very modest assist on climbs. Motor assist is irrelevant on descents where you rely solely on gravity.
> 
> Your "analysis" is hampered first by your total inexperience riding e-bikes, and second with your wildly exaggerated wattage claims based upon fictional motors.


Legal definition of class 1 here is max of 750 watts and 20mph cut off...... I never said all class 1 bikes can put out 750 watts or the riders are using them on max output all the time. I'm saying a rider being able to maintain 850+ watts on a trail seems pretty dangerous.

20mph is about the top speeds you can reach around here on downhills. It's plenty steep to go faster but trail design and sight lines are a limiting factor. If someone's cruising through the flats at 20mph and going up climbs at 15 I can see there being user conflicts regarding safety.

I have ridden e-bikes and ridden with friends using e-bikes on eco mode. I never bothered to ask what the max output was. I just don't own an e-bike myself. I have enough experience with trail riding dirtbikes, mountain bikes and building trails to know what's safe and what isn't around here.


----------



## westernmtb (Dec 19, 2018)

Fajita Dave said:


> Legal definition of class 1 here is max of 750 watts and 20mph cut off...... I never said all class 1 bikes can put out 750 watts or the riders are using them on max output all the time. *I'm saying a rider being able to maintain 850+ watts on a trail seems pretty dangerous.*


So who is manufacturing these bikes? Give at least ONE example of a class1 emtb with a 850+ watt motor.



Fajita Dave said:


> 20mph is about the top speeds you can reach around here on downhills. It's plenty steep to go faster but trail design and sight lines are a limiting factor. If someone's cruising through the flats at 20mph and going up climbs at 15 I can see there being user conflicts regarding safety.


Can you show videos of riders on class1mtb's riding up climbs at 15 mph? I can achieve that with class 3 ebikes on paved roads with relative ease. On class1 emtb's on trails with far less traction, roots, loose rocks, ruts, I doubt it. More like 6-8 mph.

I've encountered many normal mtb riders riding at speeds far in excess of 20mph on fire roads when I was in berkeley/oakland.



Fajita Dave said:


> I have ridden e-bikes and ridden with friends using e-bikes on eco mode. *I never bothered to ask what the max output was. *I just don't own an e-bike myself. I have enough experience with trail riding dirtbikes, mountain bikes and building trails to know what's safe and what isn't around here.


You don't have to ask. Just look at a spec sheet. Where are these 850+ watt class 1 emtb's you are supposedly referring to?

Do you believe that other e-bike riders are necessarily irresponsible unlike yourself? How do you know this? Is this an assumption on your part or the reality? Facts before fiction, I say.

Also, are you claiming that all regular mtb riders ride responsibly? I can tell you first hand that that's not the case. That's not an assumption on my part, it's based on first hand experience.


----------



## westernmtb (Dec 19, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> I know you're a new member, so just fyi, I'm not an opponent of e-bikes. I just think it's a good idea for them to be considered unique from strictly human powered when it comes to defining user groups as far as mtb access goes. I'm fine with sharing the trails with e-bikes personally, but if issues ever do arise with them, I don't want mountain bikers to be lumped in.
> 
> Other than that, whatever. If you're not beating the trails more than an mtb and you ride respectfully and have a good time (and get involved in trail work as a community), then I couldn't care less.
> 
> From my experience though, in my area, it would not be a good idea to equate mountain bikes with any sort of motor whatsoever. The people that count are sensitive about that sort of thing around here.


What about the damage horses create on trails? Why are they allowed to trash trails with impunity? Not to mention the horseshit they leave on trails.

What about the damage to trails created by hikers? I know plenty of hiking groups that have several dozen hiking wth every outing.

Where do people get this deluded idea that e-mtb's are an evil that damage trails at some unfathomably high rate? Class1 can't get you any faster than 20 mph, and it might not even get to 8 mph uphill on turbo.

Not to mention the trail itself is a scar through the wilderness. Trails are man-made, artificial, can be repaired and new trails can be created. This notion that trails are holy territory which are to be protected as if they were endangered species is just dumb and illogical.

Ban horses and hikers first. Then ban regular mtb's third since they are far more commonplace. Problem solved.

Better yet, let's just leave all land untouched. No more trails. No more walking. No more cities.

There are just so many levels of stupid to tackle in this thread you don't know where to begin.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

westernmtb said:


> Give at least ONE example of a class1 emtb with a 850+ watt motor.
> 
> Where are these 850+ watt class 1 emtb's you are supposedly referring to?


Dude!

That post clearly stated 750 watts from the motor plus 100 watts from the rider; hence 850 watts wear and tear on the trails.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> Dude!
> 
> That post clearly stated 750 watts from the motor plus 100 watts from the rider; hence 850 watts wear and tear on the trails.


It does not work like that. Higher watts does not mean more wear and tear.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It does not work like that. Higher watts does not mean more wear and tear.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


What have you been smoking?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> What have you been smoking?


Please, by all means, explain how you think higher watts guarantees more wear and tear.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

westernmtb said:


> The opponents of e-bikes have descended into passive-aggressive sarcasm with no real point, no argument, no logic, no evidence, just smarmy, evasive spam posts with zero content.


To be fair, I think both sides have. That's sort of the point. One side says one made up fact other side counters with a true fact. Etc.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Please, by all means, explain how you think higher watts guarantees more wear and tear.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I'm by no means a world class cyclist, but I can tell you that a high power effort certainly does remove more soil from a trail than trundling along.

Just like going down a hill fast, going up fast results in more tire slip, and (gasp) braking that wouldn't exist and lower speeds. Both of those displace soil.

Then, if someone doubles their climbing speed, they can cover quite a bit more ground in a given amount of time. More mileage per unit of time most certainly results on more wear, even if the person is riding very slowly, when compared to their slower, non-motorized self. If everyone that uses a given trail doubled their mileage overnight , that would effectively double the current number of users. Doubling normal wear and tear is a big deal.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cassieno (Apr 28, 2011)

Rain removes a bunch of dirt from trails too. Wind also.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> I'm by no means a world class cyclist, but I can tell you that a high power effort certainly does remove more soil from a trail than trundling along.
> 
> Just like going down a hill fast, going up fast results in more tire slip, and (gasp) braking that wouldn't exist and lower speeds. Both of those displace soil.
> 
> ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> I'm by no means a world class cyclist, but I can tell you that a high power effort certainly does remove more soil from a trail than trundling along.
> 
> Just like going down a hill fast, going up fast results in more tire slip, and (gasp) braking that wouldn't exist and lower speeds. Both of those displace soil.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


First, that's not what he said. Second, both of the scenarios are hypotheticals, not guarantees, slippage much more so than braking. If the trail can hold the power then there will be no discernable difference. If you are not exceeding the traction threshold then there is no difference.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think you meant to edit but quoted yourself. The newest claim is even more dubious than the first ones. Sure it does, but to what extent. Would it even be measurable in the real world? Who knows, would most likely depend on the trail surface.

Even with all that nothing you have described can be measured in x watts damage as was asserted.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## roughster (Dec 18, 2017)

westernmtb said:


> Then ban regular mtb's third since they are far more commonplace. Problem solved.


And this is what I meant by some eMTB'ers willing to throw ALL MTB'ers under the bus and jeopardize access for everyone because they can not ride their *MOTORIZED VEHICLE* anywhere they want.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Please, by all means, explain how you think higher watts guarantees more wear and tear.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


High school physics. Newton's 3rd law. A 750 watt system will have 3 times the reaction of a 250 watt system. (Assuming both are being used at maximum capacity)

Yes I do ride e-bikes and have several.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

roughster said:


> And this is what I meant by some eMTB'ers willing to throw ALL MTB'ers under the bus and jeopardize access for everyone because they can not ride their *MOTORIZED VEHICLE* anywhere they want.


First, can you say cherry picking. Second, the sarcasm

Your head

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> High school physics. Newton's 3rd law. A 750 watt system will have 3 times the reaction of a 250 watt system. (Assuming both are being used at maximum capacity)
> 
> Yes I do ride e-bikes and have several.


Ah, therein lies your problem. Newton's third law does not guarantee or even hint at there having to be displacement as a result of forward motion. Glad we could clear that up for you. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> First, that's not what he said. Second, both of the scenarios are hypotheticals, not guarantees, slippage much more so than braking. If the trail can hold the power then there will be no discernable difference. If you are not exceeding the traction threshold then there is no difference.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Having ridden an e-bike, yes, I will be braking going uphill considerably more often than I am now. This is not a hypothetical. This is the truth.

Again, I'd also be riding a good bit further each ride. A 30 mile ride instead of a 20 mike ride IS putting more wear into the trail.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Le Duke said:


> Having ridden an e-bike, yes, I will be braking going uphill considerably more often than I am now. This is not a hypothetical. This is the truth.
> 
> Again, I'd also be riding a good bit further each ride. A 30 mile ride instead of a 20 mike ride IS putting more wear into the trail.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Truth for you, hypothetical for others. I was more addressing your slippage claim anyways.

I addressed this in response to the failed edit.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> First, that's not what he said. Second, both of the scenarios are hypotheticals, not guarantees, slippage much more so than braking. If the trail can hold the power then there will be no discernable difference. If you are not exceeding the traction threshold then there is no difference.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Whatever the traction threshold is the bike with the most power will reach it first.

On soft natural trail surfaces that threshold is even crossed by hikers. Explain a foot print or a tire track. Material is being loosened and then displaced.

Which gets back to why e-bikes are generally welcome on paved surfaces and elsewhere not so much.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> Whatever the traction threshold is the bike with the most power will reach it first.
> 
> On soft natural trail surfaces that threshold is even crossed by hikers. Explain a foot print or a tire track. Material is being loosened and then displaced.
> 
> Which gets back to why e-bikes are generally welcome on paved surfaces and elsewhere not so much.


No, a footprint or tire track, like the ones shown in the mud hole in this thread, has zero to do with power being applied. It has to do with the surface tension, softness, of the soil not being able to support the weight of the object. There, that's explained and cleared up as well.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Ah, therein lies your problem. Newton's third law does not guarantee or even hint at there having to be displacement as a result of forward motion. Glad we could clear that up for you.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


You must live in a perfect world with perfect traction. Or maybe you stay on the pavement. I know I've left plenty ruts with my e-bikes because I've been spinning out. (And not on purpose)


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> You must live in a perfect world with perfect traction. Or maybe you stay on the pavement. I know I've left plenty ruts with my e-bikes because I've been spinning out. (And not on purpose)


Now you're moving the goal posts. It went from tire track to ruts. Also, just because you exhibit bad behaviors on the trail, slipping and leaving a slight skid mark happens, but ruts, seriously, doesn't mean you can project that onto others.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, a footprint or tire track, like the ones shown in the mud hole in this thread, has zero to do with power being applied. It has to do with the surface tension, softness, of the soil not being able to support the weight of the object. There, that's explained and cleared up as well.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Is this about the riding through a mud hole on level ground? Well I concede you're 100% correct.

I spend most of my time going up and down hills, but if your experience is limited to level mud holes so be it.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> Is this about the riding through a mud hole on level ground? Well I concede you're 100% correct.
> 
> I spend most of my time going up and down hills, but if your experience is limited to level mud holes so be it.


You're the one that said tire tracks and footprints. The only way to get a clearly defined print would be soft soil. Now skid marks and scuffs, that's an entirely different conversation than the one I was responding to.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You're the one that said tire tracks and footprints. The only way to get a clearly defined print would be soft soil. Now skid marks and scuffs, that's an entirely different conversation than the one I was responding to.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Any chance that the soil is soft because it's loosened by traffic? One little skid mark or scuff no big deal but when multiplied a thousand or whatever times it is a big deal.

My own personal take on ebikes is that compared to "regular" bikes the reactive component is about double and they're ridden about twice as far so the "wear and tear" is about 4X.

The park I volunteer at is where Specialized tests their Levo's; ebike traffic is now nearly 50% of total use on some trails and increased wear on the trails is noticeable.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> Any chance that the soil is soft because it's loosened by traffic? One little skid mark or scuff no big deal but when multiplied a thousand or whatever times it is a big deal.
> 
> My own personal take on ebikes is that compared to "regular" bikes the reactive component is about double and they're ridden about twice as far so the "wear and tear" is about 4X.
> 
> The park I volunteer at is where Specialized tests their Levo's; ebike traffic is now nearly 50% of total use on some trails and increased wear on the trails is noticeable.


You're reaching horribly. There are too many variables there to form an educated opinion, merely guesses. The Specialized test riders, if you mean that rather than demos, which would have its own set of problems, are most likely going to put additional wear and tear regardless of what and where they ride. Also, it appears from your words that traffic on the trails has increased significantly, again not something directly attributed to the wattage part of the equation.

There's also the facts concerning of attentive trail maintenance and poor trail design that could be causing the issues in your first paragraph. Again, not directly attributed to wattage.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You're reaching horribly. There are too many variables there to form an educated opinion, merely guesses. The Specialized test riders, if you mean that rather than demos, which would have its own set of problems, are most likely going to put additional wear and tear regardless of what and where they ride. Also, it appears from your words that traffic on the trails has increased significantly, again not something directly attributed to the wattage part of the equation.
> 
> There's also the facts concerning of attentive trail maintenance and poor trail design that could be causing the issues in your first paragraph. Again, not directly attributed to wattage.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Why are you such a wattage denier?

No, traffic is about the same; quite a few "regular" bike riders went to the dark side and got e-bikes. In the park's bike patrol about half of the active members have switched to e-bikes. I'm one of them. E-bikes are very handy for hauling tools for trial maintenance. And as volunteers we maintain the trails the best we can. Yes the Specialized test riders haul ass but the demo riders tend to be skid kiddies.

Maybe what your saying is that e-bikes should be kept off of poorly designed and maintained trails? Or maybe all bikes? (That's the Sierra Club's take on it)


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> Why are you such a wattage denier?
> 
> No, traffic is about the same; quite a few "regular" bike riders went to the dark side and got e-bikes. In the park's bike patrol about half of the active members have switched to e-bikes. I'm one of them. E-bikes are very handy for hauling tools for trial maintenance. And as volunteers we maintain the trails the best we can. * Yes the Specialized test riders haul ass but the demo riders tend to be skid kiddies. *
> 
> Maybe what your saying is that e-bikes should be kept off of poorly designed and maintained trails? Or maybe all bikes? (That's the Sierra Club's take on it)


There is one of your main reasons for increased wear and tear. It's not the wattage it's rider behaviors. I'm not expressly denying it. I'm saying correlation does not equal causation.

Specifically, in your case it's a horrible mix with demo riders. Not only do you have the no skin in the game stereotype but with e-bike demos you may have the novice aspect as well that has no clue about trail stewardship.

I absolutely believe that not every trail is made for every user group. E-bikes fall into that. I also believe just as firmly that blanket bans are beyond moronic.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

westernmtb said:


> What about the damage horses create on trails? Why are they allowed to trash trails with impunity? Not to mention the horseshit they leave on trails.
> 
> What about the damage to trails created by hikers? I know plenty of hiking groups that have several dozen hiking wth every outing.
> 
> ...


What in the world does this rambling pile of nonsense remotely have to do with what I said regarding not having a problem with e-bikes? Or anything really.

You've got issues.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Hey fellas, I found out that I became a much happier person after I used the ignore feature for certain individuals. It really beats pointless bickering.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

cassieno said:


> Because a pedal assist motor isn't a real motor and they are just normal bikes.


You win the internet


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

Fajita Dave said:


> Looks like it's bone dry on the other side. Clearly the e-mtb riders went straight through the mud like you're supposed to instead of going around and widening the trail.





slapheadmofo said:


> Was thinking the same thing, what's the BFD?...that looks like an isolated muddy spot in what appears to be an otherwise pretty dry place. Seems likely it's gonna dry and flatten out pretty quickly judging by the surrounding terrain. Through the middle is the right line.





tom tom said:


> It's people that think like you that made the tracks........


I wonder why people would not have just hopped that....unless the approach/landing areas wouldn't allow for it...that would have been my instinct...


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Harryman said:


> You win the internet


I didn't think he was serious. Is he serious?! Looked back at some of his other comments and I still can't tell.


----------



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

sXeXBMXer said:


> I wonder why people would not have just hopped that....unless the approach/landing areas wouldn't allow for it...that would have been my instinct...


Looks like it might be about 10' to clear that mess and a hop that long requires a fair amount of speed, even then I doubt most could do it.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

westernmtb said:


> So who is manufacturing these bikes? Give at least ONE example of a class1 emtb with a 850+ watt motor.
> 
> Can you show videos of riders on class1mtb's riding up climbs at 15 mph? I can achieve that with class 3 ebikes on paved roads with relative ease. On class1 emtb's on trails with far less traction, roots, loose rocks, ruts, I doubt it. More like 6-8 mph.
> 
> ...


I have no idea what set you off and I think you skip over reading most of my posts.

Legally class 1 is max of 750 watts of assistance. If it becomes legal to ride class 1 e-bikes on trails there will definitely be people finding 750 watt output e-bikes to ride. If you include 100 watts of their own power that is 850 watts being put down to propel you forward (up to 20mph). I can easily maintain 100 watts all day long until that battery is dead but my end power output will be 850w with assistance. Does someone riding around at 850w+ on a wooded trail with limited sight lines sound safe to you? Even a top world tour pro will have a very hard time maintaining that kind of power for up to one minute let alone an entire ride.

For climbing speed maybe I should have elaborated slightly more. No one can climb much of anything at 100w like I said above. How about 300 watts like I'd normally be climbing at? Add in the 750w of assistance and we have 1050w of total power output. With a 50lbs bike, 160lbs rider climbing a 15% grade that will put you at roughly 14mph. No doubt the downhill rider will still be carrying more speed and potential for damage but having a rider on an e-bike climbing at 14mph instead of 5mph has never been a risk factor until now. This is something that needs to be considered if e-bikes are going to gain legal trail access. A max of 250w assistance (like most people have now as you're pointing out) will be drastically safer in terms of closing speed between the two user groups in this scenario. The point is current law would allow people up to 750w of assistance.

All user groups on all trails have irresponsible users. How did you come to the conclusion I was assuming everyone was responsible? The entire reason I'm worried about people having up to 750 is BECAUSE of irresponsible people. I don't care if I'm sharing a trail with someone on a 450cc motocross bike if they're responsible in the given riding environment. I am looking at the facts that if you can legally ride an e-bike with 750w of assistance than there will definitely be people using it irresponsibly. Are you assuming e-bike riders will be responsible and keep their power settings to a reasonable level for the trail they're on?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

chazpat said:


> I didn't think he was serious. Is he serious?! Looked back at some of his other comments and I still can't tell.


I'd wage a sixer of the good stuff that was all sarcasm.


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

westernmtb said:


> How fast can you safely walk or run down a rutted, rocky twisting uneven trail? Say 7 to 9 percent grade? Not very fast. You'll probably have to walk even more slowly than you would on level ground so you don't injure yourself. Say 2.5 mph.
> 
> Now, take that same route on bike with 160mm travel full suspension with 29+ 3" or 4"+ fat tires, 200 mm rotors, and a 34x10 top gear down a 9% grade? Pretty darn fast. You can easily achieve 20+ mph. You can travel 8x, 10x, 15x as fast safely depending on your skill level.
> 
> ...


the classifications are just semantics. Ultimately the hikers would ban everyone else if they could. Eventually ebikes will be mainstream, will that help us or hurt us? If all the hikers are also riding ebikes, will they be ok with ebikes on trails?

Hikers hate bikes because the speed differential. Everything else (trail damage, scaring wildlife etc) are just BS reasons. The amount of damage caused via erosion compared to natural processes is virtually insignificant. Yet hikers have managed to shift the goal post to that. When really they were just looking for a way to ban bikes.

I have a property where we have trails. When I bought the property a bunch of friends parked on the street. The old NIMBYs didnt like it so they contacted the city and tried to use every means possible to stop us

1) parking on the street is dangerous
2) I didnt have dedicated parking
3) was doing illegal development
4) was building structures without a permit
5) cutting down protected trees
6) was developing in the presence of endangered species.
7) was running an illegal business

Ultimately they didnt like that the mtb werent all driving fancy expensive cars and that offended their precious eyes. Their constant calling forced the city to come out and I had to spend thousands of dollars to defend my right to have trails on my own property.

I see hikers as the same.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

