# Embracing E-Mt bikes!?



## NH Mtbiker (Nov 6, 2004)

Interesting video from 2 former mtn bikers (yes, all 2 of them...lol) that have been converted over to the dark side....the E Mtbike realm! What they have to say makes sense, but still rubs me the wrong way....really, pedal assist on a dh or trail bike? Still, it warrants a look and makes you think if this could be the future for a particular segment of riders in certain parts of the country. The technology is interesting and makes me curious how these bikes ride and handle out on the trail. The verdict is STILL out on these!.....

https://www.bicycling.com/news/a217...=bicycling.com&utm_medium=newsletter&smartcod


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

All 2 of them? Yawn.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

I am pretty much all in myself for Road and Mtb. The fun part is what gets me.









Luckily the only vitriol I encounter is what I skim here and some other hot spots. All I can say is you don't know what you are missing.

Also there is no such thing as a 250w mtb made by any of the "big boys". They all top out over 700w. Which is fine as that is really about all you need to get to the fun part. Yet you don't always use that much power when you learn how much battery it will eat, negating the twice as far deal. Claiming to ride twice as fast? Not me.


----------



## karmaphi (Mar 19, 2018)

More fitness? Eh, maybe. I'm pretty sure I'd be lazy on an ebike as far as intensity goes, but not so lazy that I'd be shuttling. I think it might be okay for "garbage miles", but bad for intensity sessions.

Shifting is a little more precise on an emtb? Seriously? I think I'd shift less, and rely on the motor more if the trail was up-and-down.

Twice as fast and twice as far? Maybe uphill. Considering I average about 200W, the motor's rating can apparently add at least that much of additional power. On flats and DH, the 20 MPH limit will stop it from going twice as fast. Distance will be limited to battery range and my own fuel.

Thought about ebikes during my ride today since it hit 93 F at one point. That and my ride buddy is a total gearhead and I'm tired of him asking for my opinion on bikes when the most I can do is offer speculation. I'm trying to get him to get an ebike, to be the guinea pig, before I go in, but he says he doesn't want to spoil the experience of his other bikes. I retorted that I said the same thing about all the things he recommends for me, from hemp/cbd oil to premium lightweight bikes to go faster. It's all "doping" to me.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

"Embrace it as a whole new sport"

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

"Twice as fast, twice as far, twice as fast"

...chose two.

In my part of California I'd say these 2 guys represent the norm when it comes to e-bikes; still a minority but there are dozens if not hundreds of them.

(Being close to the Specialized factory skews the population a bit)


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

I will no longer listen to RATM with the same enthusiasm. 

I have no idea how they improve fitness. I guess walking instead of sitting improves fitness, but marginally. Pedal, go hard, sweat and earn it.


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

“Earn it” thats now optional! I say “Enjoy it”


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

Crankout said:


> I have no idea how they improve fitness. I guess walking instead of sitting improves fitness, but marginally. Pedal, go hard, sweat and earn it.


They improve fitness because they allow riders to find the appropriate level of effort that fits their physical condition. There are days when I have had a good night sleep, proper hydration and I will ride with the minimal level of assists. And there there is those days where i feel like crap, but still want to ride so that I can clear my head, and I will use more assist.

They improve fitness because with an Ebike, we ride more and longer ride. If I climb a tough hill, just like I did with my regular bike, and then realize there is another spur on the trail but I need to climb more to get to it... no hesitation on an ebike.

Also, it's been proven, that constant repetition of movement, not just effort, is what is most beneficial to muscles and joint. With an ebike, you have to spin way more than on a regular bike.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

PinoyMTBer said:


> "Earn it" thats now optional! I say "Enjoy it"


Ya, I was "enjoying it" out on the beach yesterday. We were able to go for miles without pedaling hard (or at all) or putting any real effort in and working up a sweat and tiering our selves out. Left us plenty of energy to surf after each ride.

I wouldn't call it a new sport, but it was a great new activity that requires little effort. Even my father inlaw, who just retired was jamming around on the beach and trails and he has not riden a bike for decades. He kept up with me the whole time no problem. He liked keeping it in a low gear with the power up to 5 and just doing easy spinning with the motor doing 90% of the work. He said it felt good on his legs while going over 15mph.

Good way to bring people with little stamina or abilities other than balance on a bike, together with those who ride all the time.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

ruthabagah said:


> They improve fitness because they allow riders to find the appropriate level of effort that fits their physical condition. There are days when I have had a good night sleep, proper hydration and I will ride with the minimal level of assists. And there there is those days where i feel like crap, but still want to ride so that I can clear my head, and I will use more assist.
> 
> They improve fitness because with an Ebike, we ride more and longer ride. If I climb a tough hill, just like I did with my regular bike, and then realize there is another spur on the trail but I need to climb more to get to it... no hesitation on an ebike.
> 
> Also, it's been proven, that constant repetition of movement, not just effort, is what is most beneficial to muscles and joint. With an ebike, you have to spin way more than on a regular bike.


I guess they are good for folks with poor to lower levels of fitness and endurance, and if one is not willing to work hard to improve those physical and mental challenges inherent to the sport.

And people say they are fun to ride, which I believe, and they are legal to ride in some place it seems.

They are their own entity. Enjoy yours and it's good that you're seeing benefits from using it.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

PinoyMTBer said:


> "Earn it" thats now optional! I say "Enjoy it"


Yes, sir. Enjoy it! Effort is overrated anyway.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> With an ebike, you have to spin way more than on a regular bike.


Or you don't have to spin at all, or you can spin way less than a regular bike. Having a motor to do all the work for you if you want, gives you the option to spin how you want to or not at all.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

tahoebeau said:


> Or you don't have to spin at all, or you can spin way less than a regular bike. Having a motor to do all the work for you if you want, gives you the option to spin how you want to or not at all.


Are you implying a throttle use here? Because it has been my experience that I am spinning way more on an ebike than my regular bike. Now i am also using my ebikes mostly for mountain single tracks.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> Are you implying a throttle use here? Because it has been my experience that I am spinning way more on an ebike than my regular bike. Now i am also using my ebikes mostly for mountain single tracks.


Yes, obviously I am talking about a throttle. The vast majority of ebikes come with throttles standard so it is pretty common for people to not pedal if they don't want to. When using the pedal assist, I definitely spin less since I like to put the assist on high and put the bike in a low gear and just do a pedal rotation or two at a time to activate the motor. However, I really prefer a throttle when using a motor as it is a much more efficient way to activate the motor vs using the pedal sensor to activate it.


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

tahoebeau said:


> Or *you don't have to spin at all*, or you can spin way less than a regular bike. Having a *motor to do all the work for you* if you want, gives you the option to spin how you want to or *not at all*.


I'm new to this e-bike thing so go easy on me....

I just started looking into E-bikes and I was under the impression you HAVE to pedal or nothing happens. They ARE NOT electric motor cycles. Right?

There is not a throttle you twist to make it go. Right?

You HAVE to help it - help you. Right?

Or am I confused?

Looking at a Commencal Meta Power.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

tahoebeau said:


> Yes, obviously I am talking about a throttle. The vast majority of ebikes come with throttles standard


Nope. The vast majority of Ebikes available and sold are pedal assist bikes with no throttles. Now, you can get a class 2 ebike, with a throttle if you fancy it, but these come with heavy restrictions on most trails or bike path. (depending of where you live)


----------



## karmaphi (Mar 19, 2018)

tahoebeau said:


> Yes, obviously I am talking about a throttle. The vast majority of ebikes come with throttles standard so it is pretty common for people to not pedal if they don't want to. When using the pedal assist, I definitely spin less since I like to put the assist on high and put the bike in a low gear and just do a pedal rotation or two at a time to activate the motor. However, I really prefer a throttle when using a motor as it is a much more efficient way to activate the motor vs using the pedal sensor to activate it.


Thread's about e-mt bikes, not ebikes in general.

I'd believe your claims if you include any 2 wheeled vehicle with elec motor propulsion, including elec scooters, hoverboards, skateboards, (all of which are bunched under ebikes on import classification) on top of road/hybrid hub motor bikes, etc. If you refer to bikes that are mtb capable, the case is more likely the opposite.

I get the impression that you're just projecting your own insecurity, and thinking that there's many like you, and are worried that real possibility that it could be a problem if that were really the case. If the throttle could be modulated like an analog one, I wouldn't see an obvious problem. Not so sure about push button throttle that you have to pulse to "modulate".


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

I guess I don't see the difference in the MTB snob who claims that eBikers don't deserve to be on their trails because they didn't earn their fitness and the downhiller who looks down his nose at an XCer (or vice versa). 

I've never had to wait in line to ride a trail. There is tons of room out there for everyone. I just don't understand the anger and the vitriol.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> I just don't understand the anger and the vitriol.


Whats so hard to understand about people not wanting motorized vehicles on bicycle trails?


----------



## Zinfan (Jun 6, 2006)

tahoebeau said:


> When using the pedal assist, I definitely spin less since I like to put the assist on high and put the bike in a low gear and just do a pedal rotation or two at a time to activate the motor. However, I really prefer a throttle when using a motor as it is a much more efficient way to activate the motor vs using the pedal sensor to activate it.


How well do you think your approach to pedal assist riding would work on any actual mountain bike trail techy or smooth? One reason the e-mtb's cost so much is the more complex torque sensor motors that will vary assist based on pedal effort applied.

I haven't looked up your post history but others have indicated you post in the E-bike forum for the most part and this hatred towards them on trails along with your ridiculous comment above means I will ignore your input moving forward.


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> Whats so hard to understand about people not wanting motorized vehicles on bicycle trails?


Technically, by definition, they're still bicycles.

I'm honestly trying to learn about these new machines, not trying to be a smart a** or start a flame war.....

So can someone please explain what do e-bikes do to the trails that a normal bike doesn't? It's not like they throw rooster tails out like a 600cc dirt bike or anything.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Ginther said:


> Technically, by definition, they're still bicycles.


No, they are not.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> No, they are not.


The law says otherwise. Electrical assisted bicycle is the legal term used in multiple states.

And, like it or not, they are not considered motorized vehicles.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> The law says otherwise. Electrical assisted bicycle is the legal term used in multiple states.
> 
> And, like it or not, they are not considered motorized vehicles.


For purposes of discussion in this sub forum they are not bicycles. They are something else. Taint. Taint a moped, taint a bicycle. Bicycles for discussions sake do not have motors.


----------



## jmeb (Jun 4, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> The law says otherwise. Electrical assisted bicycle is the legal term used in multiple states.
> 
> And, like it or not, they are not considered motorized vehicles.


Like it or not, the USFS where a huge number of MTB trails exist disagrees with you.

Lets not pretend there are clear legal classifications for eBikes that apply with any regularity around the US.


----------



## Zinfan (Jun 6, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> For purposes of discussion in this sub forum they are not bicycles. They are something else. Taint. Taint a moped, taint a bicycle. Bicycles for discussions sake do not have motors.


Are you making the rules now for this sub-forum? Do you set laws in California that define E-bikes? Just want to know what kind of badass we are dealing with here, you may decide to let loose the black helicopters onto me for disagreeing with your definition.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Zinfan said:


> Are you making the rules now for this sub-forum? Do you set laws in California that define E-bikes? Just want to know what kind of badass we are dealing with here, you may decide to let loose the black helicopters onto me for disagreeing with your definition.


No, I didn't set the rules. And fyi, I have no fcuks to give about California.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Zinfan said:


> Are you making the rules now for this sub-forum? Do you set laws in California that define E-bikes? Just want to know what kind of badass we are dealing with here, you may decide to let loose the black helicopters onto me for disagreeing with your definition.


If you're talking about roads and paved bike paths, then yes, some places consider them bikes so that you don't need a license and registration. If you are talking about off road, most places consider them motor vehicles BECAUSE THEY HAVE MOTORS. Why don't you go with that definition?


----------



## Zinfan (Jun 6, 2006)

sfgiantsfan said:


> If you're talking about roads and paved bike paths, then yes, some places consider them bikes so that you don't need a license and registration. If you are talking about off road, most places consider them motor vehicles BECAUSE THEY HAVE MOTORS. Why don't you go with that definition?


Because I go with the California bill that defines the issue not some internet expert who decides what they are because that is what he believes they are. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1096

And for the purpose of off road in California the bill actually says that land managers can prohibit them if deemed inappropriate for their trail systems but they are legal by default for trail use (oops edit, Class 1 bikes). Perhaps you can provide your own links to show where "most places" consider them motor vehicles so they ban them.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Ginther said:


> Technically, by definition, they're still bicycles.
> 
> I'm honestly trying to learn about these new machines, not trying to be a smart a** or start a flame war.....
> 
> So can someone please explain what do e-bikes do to the trails that a normal bike doesn't? It's not like they throw rooster tails out like a 600cc dirt bike or anything.


Yes, I will explain. You will see more trail, you will climb gnarlier sections, you will not catch as much air, harder to whip, you will explore more, you will still go for a ride if you are beat, you will smile all the time, your electric bill will increase!, you will get a better upper body workout, and mainly after you ride you will be fresh for beer. Sorry for the run on sentence ?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Zinfan said:


> How well do you think your approach to pedal assist riding would work on any actual mountain bike trail techy or smooth? One reason the e-mtb's cost so much is the more complex torque sensor motors that will vary assist based on pedal effort applied.
> 
> I haven't looked up your post history but others have indicated you post in the E-bike forum for the most part and this hatred towards them on trails along with your ridiculous comment above means I will ignore your input moving forward.


Spin to win seems to be the most efficient way of riding a emtb like a Levo. High cadence for sure, and hey if it's turned off you have no option but to spin!


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Yes, I will explain. You will see more trail, you will climb gnarlier sections, you will not catch as much air, harder to whip, you will explore more, you will still go for a ride if you are beat, you will smile all the time, your electric bill will increase!, you will get a better upper body workout, and mainly after you ride you will be fresh for beer. Sorry for the run on sentence 


Thank you.:thumbsup:

But I still don't know what they do to trails that warrants their banning. lol


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Gutch said:


> Spin to win seems to be the most efficient way of riding a emtb like a Levo. High cadence for sure, and hey if it's turned off you have no option but to spin!


https://www.blm.gov/policy/ib-2015-060

There is 247mil acres right there.

https://peopleforbikes.org/wp-conte...cBikesAndTrailManagement_final-Fed-2016-1.pdf

232mil acres


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Ginther said:


> Thank you.:thumbsup:
> 
> But I still don't know what they do to trails that warrants their banning. lol


Land Managers have the right to accept or ban emtbs from the land they manage. It's the electric "motor" that has opposers riled up. It's the fear of the 2% (guessing) clowns on frankenbikes and 5000w motors flying uphills and side hacking granny sitting on a log eating a granola bar. You will see more 250w Class1 access in the future (IMO)


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

NH Mtbiker said:


> Interesting video from 2 former mtn bikers (yes, all 2 of them...lol) that have been converted over to the dark side....the E Mtbike realm! What they have to say makes sense, but still rubs me the wrong way....really, pedal assist on a dh or trail bike? Still, it warrants a look and makes you think if this could be the future for a particular segment of riders in certain parts of the country. The technology is interesting and makes me curious how these bikes ride and handle out on the trail. The verdict is STILL out on these!.....
> 
> https://www.bicycling.com/news/a217...=bicycling.com&utm_medium=newsletter&smartcod


Luke, I am your father... come with me and experience the power of the "e"side...


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

I beginning to feel that a lot of people (bureaucrats, politicians, cyclists, etc) are confusing e-bikes with electric MOTORcycles. Which they are not. :nono:


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Land Managers have the right to accept or ban emtbs from the land they manage. It's the electric "motor" that has opposers riled up. It's the fear of the 2% (guessing) clowns on frankenbikes and 5000w motors flying uphills and side hacking granny sitting on a log eating a granola bar. You will see more 250w Class1 access in the future (IMO)


Yeah, that's what I figured. Ignorance and knee jerk reactions.

These bikes can't do any more damage than any other bike.

A regular bike with some hot shot whipping, kicking, roosting, etc... instead of just riding down the trail, probably does more damage than anything.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

sfgiantsfan said:


> https://www.blm.gov/policy/ib-2015-060
> 
> There is 247mil acres right there.
> 
> ...


Why are you telling me this? IDGAF.


----------



## karmaphi (Mar 19, 2018)

Gutch said:


> Yes, I will explain. You will see more trail, you will climb gnarlier sections, you will not catch as much air, harder to whip, you will explore more, you will still go for a ride if you are beat, you will smile all the time, your electric bill will increase!, you will get a better upper body workout, and mainly after you ride you will be fresh for beer. Sorry for the run on sentence 


Is it safe to presume the electric bill increases from spending extra time making up idiotic arguments (or arguing with idiots) online, rather than the half kW (less than 10c) it takes to recharge a battery from full empty?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

karmaphi said:


> Is it safe to presume the electric bill increases from spending extra time making up idiotic arguments (or arguing with idiots) online, rather than the half kW (less than 10c) it takes to recharge a battery from full empty?


This^^^^


----------



## Zinfan (Jun 6, 2006)

sfgiantsfan said:


> https://www.blm.gov/policy/ib-2015-060
> 
> There is 247mil acres right there.
> 
> ...


Fair enough, I do note that in the second link they are indicating that they are looking further into ebike's to see if access is warranted so it seems the strict "they have a motor so they are banned" interpretation does not tell the full story.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

LOL, my electric bill goes up because I have a electric koze cooler mounted on my emtb for my PBR’s.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Ginther said:


> I beginning to feel that a lot of people (bureaucrats, politicians, cyclists, etc) are confusing e-bikes with electric MOTORcycles. Which they are not. :nono:


And likewise, some people try to confuse them with bicycles, which they are not.:nono:


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

chazpat said:


> And likewise, some people try to confuse them with bicycles, which they are not.:nono:


I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

They still have two wheels, and you still have to pedal them.

They are WAY closer to a regular bicycle than they are to a motorcycle. :thumbsup:


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Ginther said:


> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> They still have two wheels, and you still have to pedal them.
> 
> They are WAY closer to a regular bicycle than they are to a motorcycle. :thumbsup:


Here you go; you're welcome:

A moped (/ˈmoʊpɛd/ MOH-ped) is a small motorcycle, generally having a less stringent licensing requirement than motorcycles or automobiles because mopeds typically travel about the same speed as bicycles on public roads. Mopeds by definition are driven by both an engine and bicycle pedals; the term is unequivocally not appropriate for the very specific design classic known as the scooter. Scooters are regulated similarly and travel at about the same speed as motorcycles[1].

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


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Gutch said:


> Why are you telling me this? IDGAF.


obviously a misquote, even though you should hear it too, DAMF


----------



## Zinfan (Jun 6, 2006)

chazpat said:


> Here you go; you're welcome:
> 
> A moped (/ˈmoʊpɛd/ MOH-ped) is a small motorcycle, generally having a less stringent licensing requirement than motorcycles or automobiles because mopeds typically travel about the same speed as bicycles on public roads. Mopeds by definition are driven by both an engine and bicycle pedals; the term is unequivocally not appropriate for the very specific design classic known as the scooter. Scooters are regulated similarly and travel at about the same speed as motorcycles[1].
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped


A wiki article that calls them small motorcycles is your source? I posted a link to the California bill that creates a class of Vehicles called Electric Bicycles so I'll go with my source being closer to the facts than the wiki.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

sfgiantsfan said:


> obviously a misquote, even though you should hear it too, DAMF


I know you secretly love Ebikes, it's ok. You came out of the closet once, you can do it again. Troll.


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

sfgiantsfan said:


> obviously a misquote, even though you should hear it too, DAMF


Way to keep it classy. Since someone disagrees with you, you have to resort to profanity and name calling. Its people like you that kill civil discussion.

:bluefrown:


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Ginther said:


> Way to keep it classy. Since someone disagrees with you, you have to resort to profanity and name calling. Its people like you that kill civil discussion.
> 
> :bluefrown:


He's a real beauty.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> For purposes of discussion in this sub forum they are not bicycles. They are something else. Taint. Taint a moped, taint a bicycle. Bicycles for discussions sake do not have motors.


You don't get to decide what they are since you obviously have major prejudice against ebikes and the folks who ride them. They are bikes. Live with it.


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

chazpat said:


> Here you go; you're welcome:
> 
> A moped (/ˈmoʊpɛd/ MOH-ped) *is a small motorcycle*, generally having a less stringent licensing requirement than motorcycles or automobiles because mopeds typically travel about the same speed as bicycles on public roads. Mopeds by definition are *driven by both an engine* and bicycle pedals; the term is unequivocally not appropriate for the very specific design classic known as the scooter. Scooters are regulated similarly and travel at about the same speed as motorcycles[1].
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped


Keywords: MOTORcycle. Driven by and engine.

I know it's a gray area and there is a lot left to interpretation, but here's how I see it....

E-Bikes *WILL NOT* propel the vehicle with electric power *ONLY*. They are not driven by an engine/motor. They have to have pedal input or the motor does not function. The motor does not function alone. You cannot rely on the motor to propel you. You have to put in effort.

I'll concede that these new e-bikes are in a new class all their own.

And just to be clear, I'm talking about E-Mountain Bikes like the Commencal Meta Power, the Specialized Levo, the Trek Powerfly, etc etc.... Ones you *have to pedal to go*, no throttle, no pedal to get it started, then hold the throttle.... Not those hub powered electric motorcycle things you get off eBay.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> You don't get to decide what they are since you obviously have major prejudice against ebikes and the folks who ride them. They are bikes. Live with it.


All I do is advocacy, it's up to others to decide.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Ginther said:


> And just to be clear, I'm talking about E-Mountain Bikes like the Commencal Meta Power, the Specialized Levo, the Trek Powerfly, etc etc.... Ones you *have to pedal to go*, no throttle, no pedal to get it started, then hold the throttle.... Not those hub powered electric motorcycle things you get off eBay.


You conveniently leave out entire classes of e motorized cycles though, so this incomplete thought is just that, incomplete.


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

Gutch said:


> He's a real beauty.


No he's a ****** **********. Look at this crap.

Can't articulate a valid argument, resorts to profanity and name calling, then dings me with negative reps because I disagree with his OPINION.

Maybe the mods need to meet him. :madmax:


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Ginther said:


> No he's a ****** **********. Look at this crap.
> 
> Can't articulate a valid argument, resorts to profanity and name calling, then dings me with negative reps because I disagree with his OPINION.
> 
> ...


Does that hurt your feelings?

Go back under your rock


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> You conveniently leave out entire classes of e motorized cycles though, so this incomplete thought is just that, incomplete.


Well since the title of this thread is "*Embracing E-Mt bikes*" I wanted to make sure we were clear that we were talking about *E MOUNTAIN BIKES*... not those other things.

Ya know, since some people tend to get off topic and insert randomness to try to prove their point. :thumbsup:


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Ginther said:


> Well since the title of this thread is "*Embracing E-Mt bikes*" I wanted to make sure we were clear that we were talking about *E MOUNTAIN BIKES*... not those other things.
> 
> Ya know, since some people tend to get off topic and insert randomness to try to prove their point. :thumbsup:


So in your estimation other classes of *e mountain bikes* don't need inclusion in the discussion because they don't fit the narrative that you are trying to spin. Got it.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Ginther said:


> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> They still have two wheels, and you still have to pedal them.
> 
> They are WAY closer to a regular bicycle than they are to a motorcycle. :thumbsup:


The color yellow is closer to red than purple. That doesn't make yellow red.


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> The color yellow is closer to red than purple. That doesn't make yellow red.


Yes. Duh. Everyone knows that.


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Does that hurt your feelings?
> 
> Go back under your rock


Yep, you got me. You win. Congrats.


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> So in your estimation other classes of *e mountain bikes* don't need inclusion in the discussion because they don't fit the narrative that you are trying to spin. Got it.


Well if that's how you have to interpret it to fit YOUR narrative, then sure. Got it.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Zinfan said:


> A wiki article that calls them small motorcycles is your source? I posted a link to the California bill that creates a class of Vehicles called Electric Bicycles so I'll go with my source being closer to the facts than the wiki.


"Electric Bicycles"; not the same thing as a bicycle; that's why it is a new class. What's wrong with that? Why do so many of you desperately want them to be bicycles? Do you not want to admit that you are no longer riding a bicycle or are you just hoping if they get lumped in with bicycles you can ride them anywhere a bicycle can be ridden? Please tell me why they can't just be "ebikes".


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Ginther said:


> Keywords: MOTORcycle. Driven by and engine.
> 
> I know it's a gray area and there is a lot left to interpretation, but here's how I see it....
> 
> ...


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/throttle

Definition of throttle - a device controlling the flow of fuel or power to an engine

Doesn't pedaling the ebike control the power to the engine? It's just throttled differently; it doesn't have a twist throttle.


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

chazpat said:


> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/throttle
> 
> Definition of throttle - a device controlling the flow of fuel or power to an engine
> 
> Doesn't pedaling the ebike control the power to the engine? It's just throttled differently; it doesn't have a twist throttle.


My point was that you can't just sit there and twist a throttle to go.


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

chazpat said:


> "Electric Bicycles"; not the same thing as a bicycle; that's why it is a new class. What's wrong with that? Why do so many of you desperately want them to be bicycles? Do you not want to admit that you are no longer riding a bicycle or are you just *hoping if they get lumped in with bicycles you can ride them anywhere a bicycle can be ridden?* Please tell me why they can't just be "ebikes".


Before this thread went sideways, I asked "So can someone please explain what do e-bikes do to the trails that a normal bike doesn't?"

I guess that's my biggest question about these bikes and people's feelings toward them.

We can argue the semantics/definitions/classifications all we want, call them whatever you want, what do they do that makes them a threat to trail systems and/or traditional mtb's?

And again, just to be clear, I'm referring to mtbs like in the original video. Just those type, nothing else.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Does that hurt your feelings?
> 
> Go back under your rock


Yeah, he neg reps me also. But at the end of the day, who cares? All the ebike riders or people interested in Ebikes get neg rep'd by anti ebikers.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Yeah, he neg reps me also. But at the end of the day, who cares? All the ebike riders or people interested in Ebikes get neg rep'd by anti ebikers.


No they don't and you know it. Stop spreading blatant lies.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Gutch said:


> Yeah, he neg reps me also. But at the end of the day, who cares? All the ebike riders or people interested in Ebikes get neg rep'd by anti ebikers.


Why are you telling me this? IDGAF.


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

ruthabagah said:


> Nope. The vast majority of Ebikes available and sold are pedal assist bikes with no throttles. Now, you can get a class 2 ebike, with a throttle if you fancy it, but these come with heavy restrictions on most trails or bike path. (depending of where you live)


Who's checking?! I almost want to laugh at the idea of a "class 2" ebike.


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Yeah, he neg reps me also. But at the end of the day, who cares? All the ebike riders or people interested in Ebikes get neg rep'd by anti ebikers.


Yeah, not real worried about it. It's typical behavior for some people I guess.

I still don't understand why people are anti-ebike? Or what e-bikes allegedly do to the trails.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

life behind bars said:


> No they don't and you know it. Stop spreading blatant lies.


B.S. Would you like to see my negative rep from the opposing clowns?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> B.S. Would you like to see my negative rep from the opposing clowns?


That's you, not "all". You likely earned yours.


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> That's you, not "all". You likely earned yours.


Hey Gutch at least you earned your reps... cuz apparently you aren't earning anything else on your e-bike! LMAO!! :lol:


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Ginther said:


> Before this thread went sideways, I asked "So can someone please explain what do e-bikes do to the trails that a normal bike doesn't?"
> 
> I guess that's my biggest question about these bikes and people's feelings toward them.
> 
> ...


A lot of us ride mountain bikes to get away from "technology" and just be at peace with the world. Pretty much the same reason a lot of us are against other riders blasting their music from bluetooth speakers while they ride. I'm also ok with trails that do not allow bikes; I understand that sometimes hikers want to get away from us. I think emtbs are ok on some trails, just not on all trails.

Unfortunately, the powers that be in the US set Class 1 to be more powerful and faster than what is allowed in Europe (20mph vs 15.5mph) The European standard makes Class 1 more like true bicycles. Some people are concerned about closing speed; ebikes zipping uphill at a faster than normal rate while others are coming downhill. Not such a concern where I mostly ride as the trails are directional and pretty heavily used. But it is tight, twisty singletrack and adding faster vehicles will result in more passing, which will widen the trails and disrupt riding more to allow passing. If it's only a few ebikes, not a big deal. But if they take over, as some people around here claim is inevitable, the sport I love will forever be changed for the worse for the true mountain bikers.

And, possibly the biggest concern is that who is going to check/enforce that only Class 1 ebikes are on the trails? Can you tell the difference between the classes at a glance? Is there anyone on your trails with the authority to stop an ebike and check that it is truly an unmodified Class 1 (there are plenty of hacks for Class 1)? If Class 1 bikes are allowed, you're basically allowing all ebikes.

And we're concerned about how mtbs will be looked at by user groups if "bicycles have motors now". If ebikes are blended in with bicycles, if there are issues with non-class 1/modified ebikes, then we go down with the ebikes when bans come down.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Ginther said:


> Hey Gutch at least you earned your reps... cuz apparently you aren't earning anything else on your e-bike! LMAO!! :lol:


Yup, earn earn earn. They are butt hurt and their world is changing. They cannot accept change.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Ginther said:


> Hey Gutch at least you earned your reps... cuz apparently you aren't earning anything else on your e-bike! LMAO!! :lol:


Come back when you have something new to add cause this shtick is old and tired.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Yup, earn earn earn. They are butt hurt and their world is changing. They cannot accept change.


Not one thing has changed regarding e motorbikes in my world, still prohibited.


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

chazpat said:


> A lot of us ride mountain bikes to get away from "technology" and just be at peace with the world. Pretty much the same reason a lot of us are against other riders blasting their music from bluetooth speakers while they ride. I'm also ok with trails that do not allow bikes; I understand that sometimes hikers want to get away from us. I think emtbs are ok on some trails, just not on all trails.
> 
> Unfortunately, the powers that be in the US set Class 1 to be more powerful and faster than what is allowed in Europe (20mph vs 15.5mph) The European standard makes Class 1 more like true bicycles. Some people are concerned about closing speed; ebikes zipping uphill at a faster than normal rate while others are coming downhill. Not such a concern where I mostly ride as the trails are directional and pretty heavily used. But it is tight, twisty singletrack and adding faster vehicles will result in more passing, which will widen the trails and disrupt riding more to allow passing. If it's only a few ebikes, not a big deal. But if they take over, as some people around here claim is inevitable, the sport I love will forever be changed for the worse for the true mountain bikers.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the well thought out and civilized reply. I appreciate it. And you make some good points too. :thumbsup:

I agree we don't need modified e-bikes turning into blazing fast electric dirt bikes disguised as mountain bikes. That's a tough one to deal with I agree.

The 15.5 to 20 mph thing is insignificant, but if people mod the bikes to go uphill at 30+ mph I can see where that would be a problem. Downhill is a different story. People already go faster than 20 mph with manual bikes. No e-power needed. lol

And I agree, trying to enforce "no mods to class 1 bikes" will be impossible. The MTB community will have to police itself mostly. I guess it would be like what would you do if someone was riding a dirt bike on the trails... video them, report them, yell at them, beat them, etc... You'd have to do the same for modded e-bikes I guess??

I guess I'm just being naive hoping people could just enjoy "a little help" from stock e-bikes and not hack into them and ruin it for everyone.

I guess all we can really do it go for the ride and see what the future brings. :thumbsup:


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

Wow! You guys got fired up, its so funny to read thru the same arguments I’ve gone thru when I first got my ebike in 2016.

Lets share the trails, be respectful of the laws and each other. If you cant do that....You’re the one who don’t belong there!


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

Like it or not! This is the future


----------



## Zinfan (Jun 6, 2006)

chazpat said:


> A lot of us ride mountain bikes to get away from "technology" and just be at peace with the world. Pretty much the same reason a lot of us are against other riders blasting their music from bluetooth speakers while they ride. I'm also ok with trails that do not allow bikes.


We will never agree on emtb impact on the trails but I find the idea of escaping "technology" on a 12 speed carbon 140mm dual suspension bike with tubeless carbon rims and it being ruined by seeing an emtb to be a stretch. I take my cell phone on my rides as a techno safety measure and sometimes since I pay to have it anyways I carry my satellite SOS device just in case. I won't argue that a emtb makes some noise (at least my Shimano E8000 has a slight hum) but you would never hear it at all if a rider on a bike equipped with i9 or similar ratcheting hubs went by.


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

Zinfan said:


> We will never agree on emtb impact on the trails but I find the idea of escaping "technology" on a 12 speed carbon 140mm dual suspension bike with tubeless carbon rims and it being ruined by seeing an emtb to be a stretch. I take my cell phone on my rides as a techno safety measure and sometimes since I pay to have it anyways I carry my satellite SOS device just in case. I won't argue that a emtb makes some noise (at least my Shimano E8000 has a slight hum) but you would never hear it at all if a rider on a bike equipped with i9 or similar ratcheting hubs went by.


Yep! My Meta Power got that hum as well. But I simply love how the Shimano E8000 delivers power and just the right amount of torque. Not too much, just perfect!


----------



## GoGoGordo (Jul 16, 2006)




----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

Eventually you will, happy trails!


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> Nope. The vast majority of Ebikes available and sold are pedal assist bikes with no throttles. Now, you can get a class 2 ebike, with a throttle if you fancy it, but these come with heavy restrictions on most trails or bike path. (depending of where you live)


Well, you better let Pedego know that, because they offer all there bikes with a throttle standard. Oh, and they make Mountain bikes too. One of the biggest ebike companies in the states might be in real trouble if what you say is true. But fortunately for them, it's not. That's why they are opening ebike specific only franchises all over the country and Canada. Strange how their well paid lawyers don't know what your talking about. You must be really smart to catch what that huge company missed


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Zinfan said:


> We will never agree on emtb impact on the trails but I find the idea of escaping "technology" on a 12 speed carbon 140mm dual suspension bike with tubeless carbon rims and it being ruined by seeing an emtb to be a stretch. I take my cell phone on my rides as a techno safety measure and sometimes since I pay to have it anyways I carry my satellite SOS device just in case. I won't argue that a emtb makes some noise (at least my Shimano E8000 has a slight hum) but you would never hear it at all if a rider on a bike equipped with i9 or similar ratcheting hubs went by.


12 speed - nope 
carbon - nope 
140mm dual suspension bike - nope 
with tubeless carbon rims - nope 
i9 or similar ratcheting hubs - nope

Here are the two bikes I last rode on single track btw:

















and I didn't say "seeing an emtb", I said that if mtbrs constantly have to pull over to let people using motors pass, it will ruin the sport, at least on these trails. The trails I often ride get a lot of traffic but it works amazingly well since everyone is pedaling. Sure, there is some passing but a lot less than you would think based on the number of cars in the parking lot.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

tahoebeau said:


> Well, you better let Pedego know that, because they offer all there bikes with a throttle standard. Oh, and they make Mountain bikes too. One of the biggest ebike companies in the states might be in real trouble if what you say is true. But fortunately for them, it's not. That's why they are opening ebike specific only franchises all over the country and Canada. Strange how their well paid lawyers don't know what your talking about. You must be really smart to catch what that huge company missed


From their website:

Why Pedego Electric Bikes?
Pedego is the number one brand of electric bikes in America because we put people first.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

PinoyMTBer said:


> Like it or not! This is the future


For some it will be. For others, never. Access is key, and many states are not willing to allow them on biking trails, which I'm personally fine with. I'm too much a purist myself but to each his own. There may come a time when trails are delineated by power source...


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

chazpat said:


> From their website:
> 
> Why Pedego Electric Bikes?
> Pedego is the number one brand of electric bikes in America because we put people first.


I also found these little gems from their web site.

"In the United States, we have the luxury of using throttles on our electric bikes, which are forbidden in Europe."

"Throttles provide full power on demand and Americans love them because they give us complete control."

"We don't have any bikes that are pedal assist only (except what we send overseas), simply because most people don't like them. Even if you prefer pedal assist, why wouldn't you want the option of using throttle?"

Hmm, good question. I think the answer is because it's harder to pretend it doesn't have a motor when there is a throttle.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> I also found these little gems from their web site.
> 
> "In the United States, we have the luxury of using throttles on our electric bikes, which are forbidden in Europe."
> 
> ...


I built a throttle eMTB fifteen years ago out of an old Specialized Ground Control and a Heinzmann hub motor. Lead acid battery and all. I now have an eMTB with a Bosch system and it is vastly superior to anything with a throttle.

Pedego mass markets to the same people who buy Huffy's at Wal Mart. It only takes about 10 seconds to realize they are Chinese shitbikes. I doubt you are are going to see very many on any actual mountain bike trails.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

honkinunit said:


> Pedego mass markets to the same people who buy Huffy's at Wal Mart. It only takes about 10 seconds to realize they are Chinese shitbikes. I doubt you are are going to see very many on any actual mountain bike trails.


Wow, snobby are we? Looks pretty legit to me. I don't remember seeing too many Huffy's coming stock with Maxxis tires 

Pedego Elevate:
Full Suspension: 140mm F Travel - RockShox, 130mm R Travel - RockShox
Shimano Deore Hydraulic Brakes w/ 203mm Rotors
Thru Axle F+R Hubs w/ Boost Spacing
27.5+ x 2.8 Maxxis Highroller II Tires
Tubeless Ready
11 Speed Drivetrain SLX


----------



## Ginther (Jun 27, 2006)

The Elevate is the only without a throttle form what I can see. All the others have throttles and are hub drive. The Elevate is the only on close to the e-mtb's I was looking at. Like the Commencal Meta Power, Spesh Levo, Giant Full-E+ etc etc... 

Those hub drive bikes look more suited for roads and paved bike paths.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

In South Dakota the greatest fear is losing current gray/pirate trails that the FS never liked, in the mystic district of the Black Hills longterm timber harvests have been a boon to trail gnomes and trails for decades.
Now we have an antagonistic ranger that happily shuts down legacy trails their predecessors treated as DADT, and forcing long standing charity ride to be run on system trails in an area where the only system trails are double track #erd FS roads. And now we have ebikers exploiting the gray reality and riding on FS land that unless the local ranger (when hell freezes over) explicitly authorizes their use ebikes are considered motorized as defined in the FS Travel Management Rule (TMR) and updated by agency memo, and its useful to note that BLM which has a non-mechanized trail designation follows the TMR.

In the past advocates have tried mapping and "grandfathering" legacy trails with the net result being a short system trail through poison ivy and slate, and the loss of multiple legacy trails.

Adding ebikes to this mix has me quite wary of continued access to trails I have ridden for three decades. And engagement has not worked here in the past.

Basically if the e-rapture that Gutch prosthelytizes comes to pass I am extremely worried about access impact.


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

I wonder if the forest service would even give a danm if the anti-ebikers mountain bikers didn't make the stink they like to make against ebikes? I really can't see ebikers having any different impact than non ebikers, and I can't see hikers knowing the difference between the two in encounters. So how would the forest service even know or care about the distinction? Perhaps the few mtn bikers whom are paranoid about ebikes are throwing gasoline on the fire they're supposed to be fighting?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

bcsaltchucker said:


> i wonder if the forest service would even give a danm if the anti-ebikers mountain bikers didn't make the stink they like to make against ebikes? I really can't see ebikers having any different impact than non ebikers, and i can't see hikers knowing the difference between the two in encounters. So how would the forest service even know or care about the distinction? Perhaps the few mtn bikers whom are paranoid about ebikes are throwing gasoline on the fire they're supposed to be fighting?


^^^ this ^^^^


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

Because the FS is a government entity that is required by law to manage the lands under its authority. The fear mongering as you put it, or the rational fears of an existing user group may have effected their decision, regardless it is current FS policy (clarified in 2016) that ebikes=motorized unless the local FS crafts an explicit policy.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3vl9DoEg1qW6OvSklq9I4V

Why simply explaining current federal policy equates to hate boggles the mind, no different than everyone linking to California's laws for a proebike stance. Except for the fact that the majority of mtbers ride on federal land making it an accurate but weak proebike argument.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> Wow, snobby are we? Looks pretty legit to me. I don't remember seeing too many Huffy's coming stock with Maxxis tires
> 
> Pedego Elevate:
> Full Suspension: 140mm F Travel - RockShox, 130mm R Travel - RockShox
> ...


If you want to pay $5500 for a generic with a 20 year old suspension design, probably sold by a shop that has never seen any of the components and wouldn't have a clue what to do with them, be my guest.

Compare that to a Commencal MetaPower Race Fox for the same price, or even a MetaPower Essential for $1000 less.

FRAME 
2018 META V4.2 POWER 650b+ 150 mm
SYSTEMSHIMANO E8000SHOCKFOX FACTORY DPX2, 210 x 55, Lockout, Rebound
FORKFOX FACTORY 36 FLOAT, E-Bike specific, 160 mm, Boost 110 x 15, 3 positions, Rebound
HEADSETCANE CREEK 40 SERIES, ZS44/ZS56
STEMNEW RIDE ALPHA, Aluminium 6061, 50 mm, 31,8 mm, 0° Angle
BARRIDE ALPHA, Alloy 7075, double butted, 30 mm rise, 780 mm, 31.8 mmGRIPSRIDE ALPHA, ergonomic grips, alloy one lock, super soft compoundBRAKESSRAM CODE R, 200 mm / 200 mmSHIFTERSSRAM EX1, 1 x 8 speed, E-Bike SpecificFRONT / REAR MECH- / SRAM EX1, 1 x 8 speed, E-Bike SpecificBOTTOM BRACKETSHIMANO CRANKSETSHIMANO E8050, 34T, 170 mm CHAINPowerChain™ SRAM PC 1051CASSETTESRAM XG 899, 11-48T, E-Bike SpecificWHEELSETE13 TRS WHEELSET, 32 holes, tubeless ready, 35 mm inner width, E-Bike specific
TYRESMAXXIS HRII 650 x 2.5 WT, 3C/DD/TR Front, MAXXIS AGGRESSOR 650 x 2.5 WT, 2C/DD/TR rear
SEATPOSTKS LEV INTEGRA, 31,6 mm, 125 mm travel on S/M and 150 mm on L/XL, KGSL alloy lever
SADDLEWTB VOLT RACE, 142 mm width, black
WEIGHT22.4 kgPEDALS INCLUDEDYes


----------



## Zinfan (Jun 6, 2006)

Velocipedist said:


> Because the FS is a government entity that is required by law to manage the lands under its authority. The fear mongering as you put it, or the rational fears of an existing user group may have effected their decision, regardless it is current FS policy (clarified in 2016) that ebikes=motorized unless the local FS crafts an explicit policy.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3vl9DoEg1qW6OvSklq9I4V
> 
> Why simply explaining current federal policy equates to hate boggles the mind, no different than everyone linking to California's laws for a proebike stance. Except for the fact that the majority of mtbers ride on federal land making it an accurate but weak proebike argument.


Your anti-ebike argument is that the trails you are now riding illegally would be more so if ebikes were ridden there? I don't know what grey trails actually are but I'd guess they are trails that you aren't supposed to ride but the rangers/whomever don't enforce the rules. Seems a bit much to base an argument against ebikes if that is the case.

I link the Ca laws because they define an ebike not because I'm using it to show pro-ebike access to federal lands. The link was in direct response to someone claiming that since wiki says they are "small motorcycles" that must be true.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> All I do is advocacy, it's up to others to decide.


which contradict your previous posts. No worries, advocacy is actually my job, and I am good at it. One state or local government at a time... Next is the federal. Getting there soon. We have a workshop / demo scheduled for the first week of October. More details to come.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

And my link shows that others (FS, BLM) do consider them small motorcycles.

As for gray trails, to use FS language authorized non maintained, they are the reality in the Black Hills and you cannot ride them illegally as it is not illegal to ride your bicycle in the National Forest, it is illegal to build trail.

Regardless, increased user volumes, which the e-bikes are likely to create will impact trail access and in the historical context of the Black Hills it is likely to be negative impact. 

I am not arguing for or against ebikes, simply stating the legal reality and historical context for my riding area. 

Arguing on the internet does nothing to change the current FS policy, advocacy does.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> which contradict your previous posts. No worries, advocacy is actually my job, and I am good at it. One state or local government at a time... Next is the federal. Getting there soon. We have a workshop / demo scheduled for the first week of October. More details to come.


Cool story bro. Can wait for the "details".


----------



## Zinfan (Jun 6, 2006)

Velocipedist said:


> And my link shows that others (FS, BLM) do consider them small motorcycles.
> 
> As for gray trails, to use FS language authorized non maintained, they are the reality in the Black Hills and you cannot ride them illegally as it is not illegal to ride your bicycle in the National Forest, it is illegal to build trail.
> 
> ...


Ahh that makes more sense now, I was thrown off by the comment you made about grey/pirate trails and equated them together. I can see why you wouldn't want ebikes on trails that haven't been approved for their usage, I actually argue for the same point, ebikes on trails they shouldn't be on won't help get them approved in the future.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

tahoebeau said:


> Wow, snobby are we? Looks pretty legit to me. I don't remember seeing too many Huffy's coming stock with Maxxis tires
> 
> Pedego Elevate:
> Full Suspension: 140mm F Travel - RockShox, 130mm R Travel - RockShox
> ...


Who's pedago? They have zero scene in emtb's.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

life behind bars said:


> Cool story bro. Can wait for the "details".


LBB, you've met your opponent and they have more clout than you.. the horror.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> LBB, you've met your opponent and they have more clout than you.. the horror.


You just keep thinking that.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Gutch said:


> LBB, you've met your opponent and they have more clout than you.. the horror.


ruthagaba is about as believable as your stupid stories about how every person you meet on the trails loves your ebike and just can't wait to get one.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

honkinunit said:


> If you want to pay $5500 for a generic with a 20 year old suspension design, probably sold by a shop that has never seen any of the components and wouldn't have a clue what to do with them, be my guest.
> 
> Compare that to a Commencal MetaPower Race Fox for the same price, or even a MetaPower Essential for $1000 less.


Ya, i agree. I sure wouldn't be looking at a Pedego and I don't think there would be too many here on this site interested in one. But, those buying ebikes do not buy from typical bike dealers like we do. I can see why someone would be interested in a Pedego just to be able to bring it in to the dealer for maintenance and the warranty.

However, I am not really concerned about a "mountain biker" on an ebike. I am concerned about the non-mountain biker who might not have the respect for the areas we do. That person probably isn't looking at a the type of ebike a mountain biker would be looking at. And that type of person probably wouldn't ever make it to the areas we cherish without a motor. But, if they are allowed to ride bikes with motors in these areas then they will.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

sfgiantsfan said:


> ruthagaba is about as believable as your stupid stories about how every person you meet on the trails loves your ebike and just can't wait to get one.


Please show me "1" post in which I've said that. Don't you have a wife or significant other that you can b**ch at? What bike do you ride?


----------



## karmaphi (Mar 19, 2018)

It's not the bike, it's the people, better described as bitches/assholes or idiots.






Shouldn't need to call out these people, including the intolerant people, like sfgiantsfan. Perhaps watch out for Osco too, as I get the impression that he'd pull out a gun on ebikers who bump into him on the trail, or ebikers he sees damaging the trails.

Think e-mtbs seriously give a bad image for cycling? Listen to the guy at 5:51 in the above video give a honest outsider perspective. He doesn't point out what specifically they're riding on, road bike or mtb; he speaks more about how the cyclists are awful at sharing public space.

How about making real attempts to solve the problem instead of playing a blame game, and discriminating against a minority? The problem of attitude/personality and closed minded principles? It's an e-mtb, not a mtb, not a moped, nor a typical "ebike". Scientific testing showed that soft surface trails are suited for e-mtb use, right?

One Colorado county's solution to address eMTB myths/misconceptions: https://www.bicycleretailer.com/nor...-familiarity-breeds-acceptance-e-bikes-trails


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Correct. Their is an underlying brotherhood amongst cyclists, then there are fools.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

tahoebeau said:


> Ya, i agree. I sure wouldn't be looking at a Pedego and I don't think there would be too many here on this site interested in one. But, those buying ebikes do not buy from typical bike dealers like we do. I can see why someone would be interested in a Pedego just to be able to bring it in to the dealer for maintenance and the warranty.
> 
> However, I am not really concerned about a "mountain biker" on an ebike. I am concerned about the non-mountain biker who might not have the respect for the areas we do. That person probably isn't looking at a the type of ebike a mountain biker would be looking at. And that type of person probably wouldn't ever make it to the areas we cherish without a motor. But, if they are allowed to ride bikes with motors in these areas then they will.


I agree, where I ride the tourists flow in, ride, then leave. Most don't donate time or money to the trails. There is soo many it upsets everyone. Then I see dudes taking their newbie date on black diamond trails! My son is 10, I think I bought him some pedego stuff when he was a toddler.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

Ebikes are a blast to ride, really enjoyed the Focus Jam 2. The question was asked why there is concern about ebikes on non motorized trails, and I agree that they do not cause direct trail impact beyond the potentially increased number of users.

As the poster above linked, many non cyclists have a bad impression from asshat cyclist. Which is similar to the point I was trying to make: The FS official policy is ebike=motorized and my local ranger district is highly unlikely to change that, therefore my concern is losing trail access to bicycles too, as the non cyclists will happily push for closure of trails to all "bikes". And my FS ranger is likely to oblige given their current stance on recreation in "their" working forest. 

Of course this is only a potential outcome, and it is not my intention to obfuscate, merely to discuss without rancor or "hate" why , for valid reason, many mtbers are concerned about ebikes and their potential impacts both negative and positive.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

karmaphi said:


> It's not the bike, it's the people, better described as bitches/assholes or idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great article. Here's my favorite from that study..

"Seventy-one percent of the people who demo'ed said the test ride changed their perception of e-bikes," Bonnell said. "That attitude changed pre- and post-demo."


----------



## karmaphi (Mar 19, 2018)

Gutch said:


> Great article. Here's my favorite from that study..
> 
> "Seventy-one percent of the people who demo'ed said the test ride changed their perception of e-bikes," Bonnell said. "That attitude changed pre- and post-demo."


Lots of good quotes from these academic studies.

















"We find that, with few exceptions, riders of e-bike behave very similarly to riders of bicycles. Violation rates were very high for both vehicles. Riders of regular bicycles and e-bikes both ride wrong-way on 45% and 44% of segments, respectively. We find that average on-road speeds of e-bike riders (13.3 kph) were higher than regular bicyclists (10.4 kph) but shared use path (greenway) speeds of e-bike riders (11.0 kph) were lower than regular bicyclists (12.6 kph); both significantly different at >95% confidence. At stop control intersections, both bicycle and e-bike riders violate the stop signs at the similar rate with bicycles violating stop signs at a slightly higher rate at low speed thresholds (∼80% violations at 6 kph, 40% violations at 11 kph). Bicycles and e-bikes violate traffic signals at similar rates (70% violation rate)."









"Nearly all [surveyed] non-motorized trail users would continue to use the trails if eMTBs were permitted"

Well, at least can't deny that the more people there are, the more bitches/assholes and idiots there are. Doesn't seem to matter what gear they're using, they can be dick about it.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

sfgiantsfan said:


> ruthagaba is about as believable as your stupid stories about how every person you meet on the trails loves your ebike and just can't wait to get one.


You are free to believe whatever you want. Fact is, I live in a state that seems really progressive towards ebikes compare to other states. And this only happened because some of us are leading the charge in activism.

Oh, and it's ruthabagah. Not whatever you tried to spell.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

life behind bars said:


> Cool story bro. Can wait for the "details".


I am not your Bro, pal or buddy. Lets keep it this way. And you will learn the details through the media, since the last thing we all need is a troll like you crashing our Eparty.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

karmaphi said:


> Lots of good quotes from these academic studies.


A single study. Get back to me when there are a few looking at the impact of what land managers will really have to deal with, which are 750w ebikes. Because, that's what the data they actually want to see. Old guys noodling around on 250w ebikes aren't where ebikes will be 10 years from now.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

karmaphi said:


> Lots of good quotes from these academic studies.


Sounds like it's mostly road with some greenway paths, not actual mountain biking trails, unless there was more in the article than you posted. Noticed that it says "walking trail", not "hiking trail". I'm not going to pay for the report. I am surprised about the high percentage of wrong-way rides, but that just leads me to believe it was a very limited study and not on mountain bike trails.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

The soil studies are IMBA on a 350w class 1 ebike. Apparently all state parks in Colorado allow ebikes where they allow bicycles.


----------



## karmaphi (Mar 19, 2018)

chazpat said:


> Sounds like it's mostly road with some greenway paths, not actual mountain biking trails, unless there was more in the article than you posted. Noticed that it says "walking trail", not "hiking trail". I'm not going to pay for the report. I am surprised about the high percentage of wrong-way rides, but that just leads me to believe it was a very limited study and not on mountain bike trails.


That quote that mentions wrong way riding and traffic violations was taken from a GPS-equipped bike share study with ebike + regular bikes. It shows the natural ride habits of non-cyclists who just happen to get on either a bike or ebike. The excerpt was to give an idea of how it's the people and the route, rather than the gear itself, the dictated habits.
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457515001992

The part that mentions "walking trail", actually mentions walking *trial*. It was an experiment done on an on-campus bike route, where respondents did the same hilly 4.4 km route on foot, on bicycle, and ebike, measuring fitness metrics and surveying the impression of each experience. The excerpt was to give an idea of the "effort" involved in riding vs ebike riding, comparing to a different study that did the same for another route.
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140516303930

Plenty of others academic papers to check out here: 
- LEV Publications

Not much done on eMTB besides the IMBA study: 
- https://b.3cdn.net/bikes/c3fe8a28f1a0f32317_g3m6bdt7g.pdf

Here's a P4B study/survey that they did during an ebike demo: 
- https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...g/docs/eMTB Intercept Study Report_5-1-17.pdf

Here's an eMTB land manager Oct '15 survey showing just how familiar they are with eMTB. ~19% were familiar with eMTBs, ~55% didn't receive any questions about eMTB, and less than that, ~11%, were actively addressing policy on them, ~19% were open to allowing them. The appendix had a long list of concerns.
- https://b.3cdn.net/bikes/8834549e2b0ec018d0_qum6b48z6.pdf

Is there a good reason to be actively critiquing the matter, yet not be educated on it?

It seems the land managers are prone to same logical fallacy, risk aversion, fear of loss, etc. as typical people here:

- "Currently, we have no interest in allowing eMTB on our mountain bike trails as we encouraged human powered recreation and do not want this to open a can of worms for other motorized activities on the trails or in our parks. IMBA endorsing eMTB use on off-road cycling trails would be a step in the wrong direction, and a *slippery slope* in our opinion and make it more difficult for us to keep our trails human powered only." _(The problem with the slippery slope argument is that it denies the possibility of a stable middle ground; once on the slope, the arguer expects the worst case scenarios in short order.)_

- "While I like devices that make public lands more accessible, there are purists who dislike change. Would pedal power riders accept a mechanical bike that was charged solely by the rider or a non-electric energy conservation using a device to store energy like winding a watch? I'm really wondering if [the resistance to e-bikes can be summed up as muscle vs motor, or trail user with lack of tolerance for other users vs a more tolerant trail user.]"

- "New social trails are a concern. We don't want to spend more time addressing and closing unauthorized trails than being able to plan and develop trails in areas that can handle them with fewer resource issues or social conflicts. eMTBs have potential to go further into areas where bikes may not be and with industry developing more powerful and faster eMTBs, how can you limit and successfully manage for some without the impacts of all? Not all eMTBs are equal"

Some seem to see it more at a fundamental level, with specific requirements needing to be met:

- "The best way for the mountain biking community to ensure a high degree of access onmultiple use federal public trails is for mountain bike users as a group to have a very highpercentage (99%) of positive or neutral trail interactions with other trail users."

- "eMTB management will be primarily a social issue. Impacts from use on resources like trails will be insignificant. Providing education and clear direction on the ethical, legal and appropriate use will be key. Most e-bike/pedal assist users will want to use non-motorized routes and be associated with mountain bikes. As mountain bike enthusiasts age, e-bike/pedal assist will allow people to stay active/healthy by cycling. Providing adequate opportunities will be very important."

Similar split of opinions among them.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

karmaphi said:


> That quote that mentions wrong way riding and traffic violations was taken from a GPS-equipped bike share study with ebike + regular bikes. It shows the natural ride habits of non-cyclists who just happen to get on either a bike or ebike. The excerpt was to give an idea of how it's the people and the route, rather than the gear itself, the dictated habits.
> - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457515001992
> 
> The part that mentions "walking trail", actually mentions walking *trial*. It was an experiment done on an on-campus bike route, where respondents did the same hilly 4.4 km route on foot, on bicycle, and ebike, measuring fitness metrics and surveying the impression of each experience. The excerpt was to give an idea of the "effort" involved in riding vs ebike riding, comparing to a different study that did the same for another route.
> ...


Jesus Christ that's a lot of freakin mumbo jumbo. Is any of it relevant to the discussion? Bike paths? Who cares? Campus walking paths? Who cares? And where are these "emtb land managers?" Are you Boris? Your cut and paste style matches, fer sure.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

Gutch said:


> The soil studies are IMBA on a 350w class 1 ebike. Apparently all state parks in Colorado allow ebikes where they allow bicycles.


Yes, Colorado State Parks allow Class 1 eBikes on their trails. Jefferson County Open Space does as well. Jeffco trails are the most heavily used in the state.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Cool, who’s next?!


----------



## karmaphi (Mar 19, 2018)

mbmb65 said:


> Jesus Christ that's a lot of freakin mumbo jumbo. Is any of it relevant to the discussion? Bike paths? Who cares? Campus walking paths? Who cares? And where are these "emtb land managers?" Are you Boris? Your cut and paste style matches, fer sure.


Here's a case where we may need reading-assist. If only there were someone/something to electronically perform this function for this guy. I presume he's used to being fed "viral/trending" pictures, headlines, and comments. I'm going call him lazy and start discriminating against "his kind", speaking of the slippery slope of how any children they may raise will be even worse in literacy. Perhaps society will devolve to sub-3rd grade reading levels as a response to people not putting in real effort to read.

Ban read-assist before it ruins the literature industry, because it's AI/robotic rather than human-powered. Don't want to see my favorite literary sources shut down, as people load thousands of literary works into their portable electronic devices. There's plenty of opportunity for those who can't read, such as audio books and film/animation, so don't ruin the classic literary experience for me.

P.S. The above was an attempt to be a metaphor of the common arguments presented in this discussion... yea, who cares? Do you? Half the length of the post is from actual US land managers on the topic of emtb. That's part of the survey title that I made up, not the title of the position, as the survey targeted land managers on the emtb topic. One of the linked studies was done in Colorado.

Another excerpt from scientific study to add to the discussion:


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Ginther said:


> Yes. Duh. Everyone knows that.


So then you agree that e-bikes are not bicycles. Glad that's clear.

I don't understand how people still don't understand why a lot of mountain bikers are anti e-bikes. It's been outlined, discussed, and beaten to death in just about every e-bike thread. If you really don't know why, try reading previous threads.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

karmaphi said:


> Here's a case where we may need reading-assist. If only there were someone/something to electronically perform this function for this guy. I'm presume he's used to being fed "viral/trending" pictures, headlines, and comments. I'm going call him lazy and start discriminating against "his kind", speaking of the slippery slope of how any children they may raise will be even worse in literacy. Perhaps society will devolve to sub-3rd grade reading levels as a response to people not putting in real effort to read, or everything will turn into audiobooks/soundbites.
> 
> P.S. The above was an attempt to be a metaphor of the common arguments presented in this discussion... yea, who cares? Do you? Half the length of the post is from actual US land managers on the topic of emtb. That's part of the survey title that I made up, not the title of the position, as the survey targeted land managers on the emtb topic. One of the linked studies was done in Colorado.
> 
> ...


Your ineffectiveness is impressive. Thanks. Can you translate "I'm presume" for me? Is that fancy "literacy"? And again, thanks. Do you proof this stuff, or do you rely on spell check?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

karmaphi said:


> The part that mentions "walking trail", actually mentions walking *trial*. I


whoopsie 



karmaphi said:


> Would pedal power riders accept a mechanical bike that was charged solely by the rider or a non-electric energy conservation using a device to store energy like winding a watch?


I've actually thought about that, a "sealed" ebike that only get's it's power from that which the rider generates on the ride. I imagine it would be pretty low power generated compared to what it needed to climb back up. But it's an interesting idea and I'm not sure how I feel about it. I was at a trade show last week and they had stationary bikes you could pedal to recharge your phone. So I hopped on and pedaled away but I apparently was using too high of a cadence as it kept cutting out the resistance suddenly after a short bit of generating. Toward the end, a guy next to me was pedaling slower and was able to keep going without the sudden jolt of free spinning. But I got my phone all charged up. And then I realized I was all sweaty.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

mountainbiker24 said:


> So then you agree that e-bikes are not bicycles. Glad that's clear.
> 
> I don't understand how people still don't understand why a lot of mountain bikers are anti e-bikes. It's been outlined, discussed, and beaten to death in just about every e-bike thread. If you really don't know why, try reading previous threads.


I think that's kinda the point. Only grouchy old farts who spend more time on mtb forums rather than riding mtbs seem to be anti eBike. However, of all the riders I have encountered in California, Nevada and Utah, I've never met one who would not welcome an eBiker to ride with them.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

This graph is worthless. Climbing any loose soil surface above a 10% grade on a legal e bike using only the throttle will not do any more damage than using pedal assist. A throttle over ride does not magically make the engine more powerful and turn it into a rut digging beast, in fact you will have less power than if you are putting in a consistent pedaling effort along with. That is the beauty of a good torque sensing system because it allows you to feel the terrain and coordinate your pedaling input to the engine output.

The reason I know this is because I have a throttle on my 780w mid drive that I primarily use for starting out and after the PAS engages it is released. It doesn't provide Tommy Ivo fiery burnouts even hot off the charger. But I personally wouldn't own an e bike without one.


----------



## karmaphi (Mar 19, 2018)

Bigwheel said:


> View attachment 1204912
> 
> 
> This graph is worthless. Climbing any loose soil surface above a 10% grade on a legal e bike using only the throttle will not do any more damage than using pedal assist. A throttle over ride does not magically make the engine more powerful and turn it into a rut digging beast, in fact you will have less power than if you are putting in a consistent pedaling effort along with. That is the beauty of a good torque sensing system because it allows you to feel the terrain and coordinate your pedaling input to the engine output.
> ...


That's why I snipped the text.

4.5m climb (15 feet), 45% grade (like riding up the side of a highway ramp's grassy hillside, not quite 30 degrees), highest power setting, change measured after 50 laps

Regular mtb actually has creates the deepest soil change (ruts), but the PAS disturbs more soil over a wide area and the throttle disturbs even more of that. Most of the impact was at the crest of the climb.

*shrug* did you think people would just look at the graph and imagine why it's like that without reading the text? Who's that lazy and idiotic?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Bigwheel said:


> View attachment 1204912
> 
> 
> This graph is worthless. Climbing any loose soil surface above a 10% grade on a legal e bike using only the throttle will not do any more damage than using pedal assist. A throttle over ride does not magically make the engine more powerful and turn it into a rut digging beast, in fact you will have less power than if you are putting in a consistent pedaling effort along with. That is the beauty of a good torque sensing system because it allows you to feel the terrain and coordinate your pedaling input to the engine output.
> ...


That IMBA included that graph in an otherwise marginal "scientific" paper disqualifies the whole thing IMHO. My experiences are similar to yours.

The main thing that bugs me about the IMBA "study" is that they state:

_Equipment and rider variables controlled:
• Wheel size (for MTB and Class 1 eMTB)
• Tire make and model (for MTB and Class 1 eMTB)
• Tire pressure (for MTB and Class 1 eMTB)
• Rider skill and weight_​
...and then no statement (other than mentioning 350W Class 1 ebike) is made about how those variable were controlled; i.e. what _was_ the wheel size, tire make/model, tire pressure, rider skill, rider weight, rider fitness (not even considered)? The most glaring omission is what _was_ the make/model/suspension/framesize/weight/etc of the test bikes?


----------



## FactoryMatt (Apr 25, 2018)

Jim_bo said:


> I think that's kinda the point. Only grouchy old farts who spend more time on mtb forums rather than riding mtbs seem to be anti eBike. However, of all the riders I have encountered in California, Nevada and Utah, I've never met one who would not welcome an eBiker to ride with them.


i'm not old, and have had a blast riding e-bikes, and welcomely ride with ebikers i know, BUT en masse, i think ebikes are bad for the sport. the arguments are well trodden i wont repeat them.


----------



## karmaphi (Mar 19, 2018)

Moe Ped said:


> That IMBA included that graph in an otherwise marginal "scientific" paper disqualifies the whole thing IMHO. My experiences are similar to yours.
> 
> The main thing that bugs me about the IMBA "study" is that they state:_Equipment and rider variables controlled:
> • Wheel size (for MTB and Class 1 eMTB)
> ...


I think it's just fluff for land managers, cause they asked for it. It's not a high budget exhaustive study. It's not useless either.

Anyone who went through high school physics knows that any strong acceleration (change in velocity or direction) will create a proportional amount of erosion. The heavier the total system weight, the more force... the ebike's maybe 17 lbs heavier, but it could spread its force out with fatter 2.8 tires. Not unexpected for a pair of rolling tires carrying 200 lbs to create less erosion than a heavy footed hiking boot carrying 170 lbs.

People are just discovering how good/bad of a judge they are when they are speculating about something in a comparative manner. They think they know themselves and their gear well, but sometimes it takes something like this field study to actually back it up with data. It's scientific since it actually uses controls and consistent measuring.

I thought it was note worthy, as I learned from it. I tried to find a hill that was similar to what was described in the test--starting from where my bike was laying, ending where it turns left and flattens out.









Makes sense that the throttle disturbs the soil more at the crown, since it accelerates more there. Using the throttle to accelerate might not create a burn-out, but it disturbs and amount of dirt proportional to the strength/force of acceleration. Makes sense that the uneven pedaling and spiky torque of a normal mtb digs deeper ruts on the steep climb than an ebike. Considering the measurement was taken after 50 runs, the "area of disturbance" makes sense, especially if it's not a super narrow 1-line only climb.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I think it’s fair to say they aren’t going to harm the trails. Kinda weak bullshit. We really need to advocate for more trails as a new sport. That should make everyone happy and if it doesn’t then s***w every other argument.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

ruthabagah said:


> Are you implying a throttle use here? Because it has been my experience that I am spinning way more on an ebike than my regular bike. Now i am also using my ebikes mostly for mountain single tracks.


Please explain how an additional 250+ watts results in you "spinning" more.

Also, define "spinning". Do you mean more? A higher cadence?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> We really need to advocate for the privilege of building more trails as a new sport.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## JillRide45 (Dec 11, 2015)

The reason the ebike might promote spinning, or a higher cadence, is the way the motor supplies assist. Because the ebike has a torque and speed sensor keeping the pedals going is much more effective than mashing out the power. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> Please explain how an additional 250+ watts results in you "spinning" more.
> 
> Also, define "spinning". Do you mean more? A higher cadence?
> Spinning at a higher cadence is how these sensors like to work. They are not push the big ring kinda bikes- at least the ones I own, particularly mid drive.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

JillRide45 said:


> The reason the ebike might promote spinning, or a higher cadence, is the way the motor supplies assist. Because the ebike has a torque and speed sensor keeping the pedals going is much more effective than mashing out the power.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


These people don't understand, they don't own them. It's like me talking about Ferrari's with a guy that owns one and I drive F250.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

life behind bars said:


> Fixed it for you.


Hmm, if ebikers did build new trails, would we have to allow Mtb's?!!!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Hmm, if ebikers did build new trails, would we have to allow Mtb's?!!!


Land managers make those decisions.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

life behind bars said:


> Land managers make those decisions.


Yes, along with private land owners. Not everything is Federal or BLM BS.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Yes, along with private land owners. Not everything is Federal or BLM BS.


No one here gives a flyin fcuk about private land.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Gutch said:


> Yes, along with private land owners. Not everything is Federal or BLM BS.


You realize that the vast majority of riders spend the vast majority of their riding time on public land, right?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FactoryMatt (Apr 25, 2018)

Gutch said:


> These people don't understand, they don't own them. It's like me talking about Ferrari's with a guy that owns one and I drive F250.


what do you call spinning lol.

shimano steps is good up to ~100rpm effectively. that's nothing out of the ordinary compared to a reg mtb.

on the contrary, ebikes make it easier to run 80 rpm because you're not so torque limited (most humans don't make peak power at 80rpm). 80rpm power pulses are harder on trails than 100 or 110 rpm pulses.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

life behind bars said:


> No one here gives a flyin fcuk about private land.


Yes I do. Being a private land owner that allows users to ride on my land is important to me and I hope other Private land owners embrace emtbs.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Yes I do. Being a private land owner that allows users to ride on my land is important to me and I hope other Private land owners embrace emtbs.


Which has zip to do with public lands, the preponderance of the discussions regarding everything cycling. But we understand that there is always that one guy that has to be special. Carry on.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> You realize that the vast majority of riders spend the vast majority of their riding time on public land, right?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

life behind bars said:


> Which has zip to do with public lands, the preponderance of the discussions regarding everything cycling. But we understand that there is always that one guy that has to be special. Carry on.


Well I certainly hope you don't traverse across any privately owned land, because obviously you don't give a **** for actual land owners. Back to your cave.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Gutch said:


> Well I certainly hope you don't traverse across any privately owned land, because obviously you don't give a **** for actual land owners. Back to your cave.


I own quite a bit of public land.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Well I certainly hope you don't traverse across any privately owned land, because obviously you don't give a **** for actual land owners. Back to your cave.


Well, I don't know how you come to that extremely spurious conclusion, it's quite the reach in logic. But I'm sure that in your mind it makes complete sense. Carry on.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Jim_bo said:


> I think that's kinda the point. Only grouchy old farts who spend more time on mtb forums rather than riding mtbs seem to be anti eBike. However, of all the riders I have encountered in California, Nevada and Utah, I've never met one who would not welcome an eBiker to ride with them.


Going for the personal insults a bit early, aren't you? I'm not particularly old, and I am anti e-bike BECAUSE I enjoy riding mountain bikes on public lands. It doesn't take long to do a quick search, nor does it take much thought to realize the potential and real dangers e-bikes present to mountain bikers and other trail users. Congrats on meeting clueless or unassuming mountain bikers. Unless, of course, you meet these people where e-bikes are legal.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I’m not old and enjoy riding on public lands also. But the difference is I also see the advantages of people enjoying their ebikes on public land. Has anybody lost trail access because of emtbs? How are the test areas doing? What I’m seeing is mtbrs riding both, regardless of age.


----------



## Zinfan (Jun 6, 2006)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Going for the personal insults a bit early, aren't you? I'm not particularly old, and I am anti e-bike BECAUSE I enjoy riding mountain bikes on public lands. It doesn't take long to do a quick search, nor does it take much thought to realize the potential and real dangers e-bikes present to mountain bikers and other trail users. Congrats on meeting clueless or unassuming mountain bikers. Unless, of course, you meet these people where e-bikes are legal.


 It would be nice if you could link up a quick search result that highlighted the dangers of ebikers to other trail users. Maybe check in with Europe since they have greater legal riding for ebikers so there must then be a correlation to increased injuries to other trail users.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Zinfan said:


> It would be nice if you could link up a quick search result that highlighted the dangers of ebikers to other trail users. Maybe check in with Europe since they have greater legal riding for ebikers so there must then be a correlation to increased injuries to other trail users.


Maybe the United States and Europe have different situations, people, and policies that would make a direct comparison impractical. There are common sense scenarios, including the impracticality of monitoring different classes of e-bikes, that require consideration before considering e-bikes as mountain bikes. Even if land managers could monitor e-bikes and enforce regulations, I don't want my trail access as a mountain biker to be tied to e-bikes. I've fought enough battles and done enough trail advocacy to demand e-bikers fight their own battles on their own merits. The burden of proof and changing public perception of e-bikes is on YOU. Not me.


----------



## Ryder (Aug 20, 2004)

Oxford English Dictionary definition of a bicycle...

A vehicle consisting of two wheels held in a frame one behind the other, propelled by pedals and steered with handlebars attached to the front wheel.

Sounds like a class 1 ebike fits that definition?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Zinfan said:


> It would be nice if you could link up a quick search result that highlighted the dangers of ebikers to other trail users. Maybe check in with Europe since they have greater legal riding for ebikers so there must then be a correlation to increased injuries to other trail users.


European assist cut-off: 15.5 mph
US assist cut-off: 20 mph

Not much of a difference in a car; huge difference on a bicycle encountering other bikes and hikers. Again, if US class 1 ebikes were just another bike on the trails, I'd be more accepting of them. Also some way to ensure only class 1 legal bikes are on the trails; that's a tough one.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Ryder said:


> Oxford English Dictionary definition of a bicycle...
> 
> A vehicle consisting of two wheels held in a frame one behind the other, propelled by pedals and steered with handlebars attached to the front wheel.
> 
> Sounds like a class 1 ebike fits that definition?


Ok, as long as you don't add a motor. Please don't make me dig up the thread where this was already been gone through with a "it doesn't say it can't have a motor" type argument. Definitions don't define what is not part of something.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

chazpat said:


> Ok, as long as you don't add a motor. Please don't make me dig up the thread where this was already been gone through with a "it doesn't say it can't have a motor" type argument. Definitions don't define what is not part of something.


Anyone is more than welcome to come ride my emtb 20mph on typical singletrack uphill. Not gonna happen.


----------



## Ryder (Aug 20, 2004)

chazpat said:


> Ok, as long as you don't add a motor. Please don't make me dig up the thread where this was already been gone through with a "it doesn't say it can't have a motor" type argument. Definitions don't define what is not part of something.


But..but..never mind


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Anyone is more than welcome to come ride my emtb 20mph on typical singletrack uphill. Not gonna happen.


And on the flats?


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

"Who's that lazy and idiotic?"

Probably most of the people that read that report and see the big red line perpetuating the theory that e bikes with throttles are the devil. 

Any report that lists gradient's like 45% are bs. The steepest street in the world maxes out at 38% and it is like a freaking wall. While there are plenty of steep climbs in the trail world actual gradient might approach that but once again I will re-itereate that a throttle on a legal, and even an overish legal one, will not get you up even a 20%+ grade, no matter what level of assist, without pedal input. Especially at the crest as by that time your momentum will be next to nil on throttle alone and that 1hp just won't be doing much, much less disturbing soil. 

If you have get off the bike with no hope of getting going again and use the throttle to aid getting the heavier bike up and over without your weight on the bike it is possible that you can make the rear wheel spin however, this was the case once yesterday on a nasty rutted out old skid trail climb and made me think of this thread. Finding the sweet spot keeping the bike on traction was easy enough by modulating throttle in put and my biggest problem was finding traction with my feet as my new bike shoes were basically worthless in that regard. 

I only use my lowest assist setting exclusively and working the gears am able to climb just about anything I have the technical ability to. I never even consider using my throttle for climbing unless I mess up and feel it is possible to get going again then I'll hit it long enough to get my PAS activated again and then release it. I see way more trail damage done by late braking dh squidders blowing out corners.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Gutch said:


> Anyone is more than welcome to come ride my emtb 20mph on typical singletrack uphill. Not gonna happen.


Great. It's possible in many places I've lived. OR, CO, UT, VA, IL, NY, etc.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> Great. It's possible in many places I've lived. OR, CO, UT, VA, IL, NY, etc.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Can't ride them on non-moto trails where I ride either. And I ride in one of the best mountain biking locations in California.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

life behind bars said:


> No one here gives a flyin fcuk about private land.


We have a lot of trails on private land in the northeast.

None of us really GAF about BLM lands though; none to be found around here.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> We have a lot of trails on private land in the northeast.
> 
> None of us really GAF about BLM lands though; none to be found around here.


 Lots of town conservation lands as well, plenty of watershed areas too. A much different mix than the huge fed lands that many ride.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

leeboh said:


> Lots of town conservation lands as well, plenty of watershed areas too. A much different mix than the huge fed lands that many ride.


Yup.

I'm sure we both can think of a many trails in the area where riders constantly cross property lines, most of them without even knowing it. Hell, KT is all private lands (or mainly anyway). How many riders showed up for NEMBAFest this past weekend? 
(And how many slept under a chair? )


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

5-6 K ? No idea yet. And that was just a nap, dude. Got up at 5:30 from Burke campground so I could just drive onto the tent area and not shuttle with an atv at 8am and later.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Bigwheel said:


> Any report that lists gradient's like 45% are bs.


Very true. There might be legacy trails that have steep sections over 20%, but you'd have a hard time finding or building anything with sustained pitches over the low teens unless it's a DH trail, on slickrock or just short. Everything is 8-10% around here due to the soil conditions. I know a professional trailbuilder who's been at it for 25 years and now is shooting for 6% grades. People far overestimate the steepness of the trails they ride. Plus use degrees and percent interchangably.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

chazpat said:


> And on the flats?


Hell, a normal Mtb on the flats can do 20.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

leeboh said:


> 5-6 K ? No idea yet. And that was just a nap, dude. Got up at 5:30 from Burke campground so I could just drive onto the tent are and not shuttle with an atv at 8am and later.


My buds were there for 2 days, great time. Did 60 miles and 6k climbs.


----------

