# My thoughts after my first 500 miles on an E bike



## Mr Spanky (May 8, 2014)

I just thought I'd share some of my thoughts/experiences after putting 500 miles on my first ebike. After talking with a few buddies who initially took the piss outta me for buying an ebike, I got a lot of "I hadn't thought of that before". So I thought I'd share.

First, a few of the reasons I bought the bike:


It's just one of the quiver. I've got an XC bike, a commuter, a road bike and a single speed. I like them all and ride regularly.
My general area consists of lots of climbing - usually an 8 mile, 2,500 foot climb. I can't keep up with some of my faster friends and this allows me to go longer and faster to be able to ride with them, instead of them having to wait for me.
I have chronic back pain. Riding helps loosen it up when the pain flares up, but I can't ride anything strenuous. Now I can go out on a ride and slowly ride harder and harder as the pain subsides and i loosen up. Sitting on the couch and eating opiates just makes it worse.
I have a 2 year old and I like to ride with him in a Burley. But I just can't climb with a 60lb trailer. This lets me get to a few lakes and beaches with the trailer, which is a ton of fun for the kid. Actually, I was really limited to only a few flat fire roads without the ebike. Now I'm totally liberated and have hundreds of options for rides.
There's just so many long rides with big, steep climbs that I just haven't been able to do and I want the freedom to ride them. I've been eyeballing this 30 mile loop with 5,000 feet of climbing - I finally did it and it was a blast.
With a 2 year old, my time is just limited. I can't afford to go on my usual 4-hour sunday ride. Sometimes I just need to jam out a 15 mile ride in an hour. I was doing more and more road riding from my house and it was getting boring. I was dying for a quick spin up the local mountain but the climb normally takes me 2 hours.

Now that I've put my first 500 miles, here are my thoughts:

comparisons to motorcycles are stupid. Even calling it a "motorized vehicle" is just silly and all this controversy about banning them from trails is overblown and really needs to be taken down. The only time it kicks in is from a dead stop or on hills. It's still very much a bicycle - you have to pedal just as hard, you just climb a little faster.
It's not for lazy people - Everyone can benefit from these bikes. I've been wearing my heart rate monitor and my rides are actually a better workout. I can ride farther and longer without tiring out. I can monitor my HR and only kick in the juice when I start to get into zone 5, my HR comes back down to zone 4 and i can turn the juice back down again. Before, on brutal climbs, I would gas out and have to pull over and take a break. Now I can keep cruising at a steady speed. I'm losing weight and, according to my garmin, the workouts are far superior.
It really helps with my time committments (job, kids, chores, etc.) I can knock out a ride in an hour or two whereas I couldn't make the committment before. If my ride runs late, I can turn on the juice and get home on time.
auto zero - I've almost entirely stopped driving to the trail head. I can cruise to the bike path, do the climb, ride down and jam back home - whereas before I would forego the ride to the trail-head because of time constraints and saving my energy for the climb. I also generally tend to ride bikes to run errands, but I'm finding the ebike is a good compromise when I'm deciding between running that errand on my bike or car. I also haven't driven my car to work once - I used to drive when I had commitments after work and needed to hustle home. Now I can take the ebike - it's just as fast as the car when I can fly up the hills on full power.
It also lets me take the scenic route to work or knock out a few detours on my way home. I wouldn't do that before because of long climbs after a long day of work. But with the ebike, there's no excuses - take the long way, catch the sunset, get that little extra couple mile dirt loop at the park, etc.
The battery range is a bit disappointing but also forces you to manage the battery. You can't just be lazy and use all your juice on the hills. You definitely have to ride as far as you can without juice, then slowly kick it up as you run out of steam. Or you'll end up stranded. Around town though, when battery isn't an issue, you can jam up hills at a good clip.
I went riding at 9,000 elevation. Previously this was very stressful for me - but I rode out to this remote lake and did some fly fishing - spectacular.
I've come to think about the motor as little more than just another component. It's no more "cheating" than a guy with a carbon frame. It's just not a huge difference.

Bottom line is that it's allowing me to ride more, ride farther, ride longer and have more fun. I would hope we could all agree that it's a good thing.

Let's not fight over access. My ebike doesn't hurt your enjoyment of the trails. Mtbikers who hate on ebikes are exactly the same as hikers who hate on mtbikers. Let's not act like that. Let's support more people riding more and having more fun.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

More power to you ^^ (pardon pun)

I was half expecting a review about an e-bike...

A professional colleague has an e-bike. He uses it to commute during the warmer months.

He let me have a wee ride on it & it was certainly different. The torque it generated was a surprise. Plus, I was expecting an armchair ride uphill - but like you stated, you've got to put in some effort.

His one topped out at 25km/hr i.e. motor shuts off. He also mentioned he goes through chains (gear) a lot quicker i.e. he'll get about 1000-1500 km's on a chain. If it needs serviced (motor) he'd have to send it away for a long period (think he said it would end up off shore to receive maintenance).

Otherwise, he's like yourself - wrapped with his purchase (it was pricey too).

When my (and better half's) legs start to fail, I'm sure an e-bike would be a great way to maintain being physically active. 

Could be a great present for my father/mother-in-law(s) once prices come down a bit ^^

-----------------------------------------------------------
#1 resolution... Ride it like I stole it!!


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Mr S, what kind of bike did you select?


----------



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

Mr Spanky said:


> [*]comparisons to motorcycles are stupid. Even calling it a "motorized vehicle" is just silly and all this controversy about banning them from trails is overblown and really needs to be taken down.


How can something be banned if it isn't already allowed?

I'm happy that you're having fun with your electric bike but I sincerely hope things stay exactly the way they are here in my neck of the woods, and that e-bikes remain in a separate category from bicycles.


----------



## Mr Spanky (May 8, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> How can something be banned if it isn't already allowed?
> 
> I'm happy that you're having fun with your electric bike but I sincerely hope things stay exactly the way they are here in my neck of the woods, and that e-bikes remain in a separate category from bicycles.


I don't know where you live, but where I live, they're considered bicycles and can go anywhere a bicycle can. And I hope it stays that way. There's no reason to ban the bikes - they don't go fast, they don't make noise, and they don't damage trails. But there are still some haters out to ban them.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Mr Spanky said:


> I don't know where you live, but where I live, they're considered bicycles and can go anywhere a bicycle can.


That's not really accurate.


----------



## Mr Spanky (May 8, 2014)

Care to enlighten me? I would hate to break any laws unknowlingly and I did a pretty extensive amount of research before forking over the money for a bike. 

My understanding is that, in California where I live, if your bike is pedal assisted that cuts off at 20mph and doesn't have a throttle, there are no restrictions on where I can ride.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

Even in California if you are on Federal land, BLM or FS, they are motorized vehicles and are regulated to OHV/ATV/Motorcycle trails and are not allowed for use on multi-use trails. And my understanding is that any local exemptions would be included upon the next renewal of the TMR (Travel Management Rule), state laws have obviously no impact on Federal lands.

See

http://flagstaffbiking.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/20150929EBikesBriefingPaper.pdf

http://flagstaffbiking.org/wp-conte...nds-BLM-Field-Going-Notification-July2015.pdf


----------



## Mr Spanky (May 8, 2014)

fos'l said:


> Mr S, what kind of bike did you select?


I got the izip E3 Peak. Not terribly thrilled with it. But it's nice and a lot of fun. But the components aren't great and I've had an issue with chain-suck and the rear derailure. But overall it's fun. But it was a lot of money for what I got. Prices are coming down though.

I went for the full-suspension thinking I would be going on 50 or 60 mile rides and I was worried about back pain for off-road rides that long. Looking back I would have saved money and gotten a hard-tail or even a fat-tire. The range isn't good enough to squeeze out 50 or 60 miles.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Mr Spanky said:


> Even calling it a "motorized vehicle" is just silly and all this controversy about banning them from trails is overblown and really needs to be taken down.


Does the bike have a motor? Is it a vehicle?

Can you please explain how it's not a "motorized vehicle"?


----------



## Mr Spanky (May 8, 2014)

Velocipedist said:


> Even in California if you are on Federal land, BLM or FS, they are motorized vehicles and are regulated to OHV/ATV/Motorcycle trails and are not allowed for use on multi-use trails. And my understanding is that any local exemptions would be included upon the next renewal of the TMR (Travel Management Rule), state laws have obviously no impact on Federal lands.
> 
> See
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info. But I don't think there's much restrictions on motor vehicle use on BLM land. You can pretty much drive trucks and motorbikes anywhere you want, so that doesn't seem to be much of a restriction. And you can shoot guns and chop down trees on FS land - so I would find it difficult to believe I would get hassled for an ebike. I could still ride on any fire-road I want.

But the federal government does always seem to be looking for ways to keep the public from going on "their" land and will use any excuse to kick you off - dogs, horses, 'saving the meadows' and now ebikes.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

CA redefined "motorized" in AB-1096 to "electrical" for Class 1,2 & 3 bicycles. The law, signed into legislation effective 1/1/2016, was written with the INTENT that Class 1 bicycles (PAS, 20 mph assist, 750w max) could ride "trails". However, it's ambiguous and I've heard different Rangers interpret it differently. Imagine like everything else out here, the courts will decide when someone is jailed, fined, has his (or her) bike confiscated or some combination .


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

Correct, I was simply pointing out that even in California where multi use (bicycle/horse/hiker) singletrack is located on federal land ebikes are unfortunately not allowed.

Interestingly some BLM land in the Southwest have areas that are posted non-mechanized prohibited. So I can't ride there either. Apples to apples comparison as it were, So how the rest of the area is managed is of little consequence when we are talking specifically about multi use singletrack.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I was looking at it from a reality standpoint rather than a regulatory one.

Is an electric motor not a motor?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

As I understand it, the equivocation of e-bikes with real bikes only applies to certain lands. It's not a 'free pass' to ride anywhere bicycles are allowed. It seems that a lot of people aren't clear on this distinction.

"Some mountain bikers worry that the legislation will also open up trails to eMTBs, but it does not. The bill applies only to bike paths, lanes, routes, and protected lands that are governed by the state's vehicle code."

New California Legislation Clarifies Murky E-Bike Debate | Outside Online

"The law does not prevent local authorities from further restricting e-bike use if necessary, and applies only to roads and bike paths governed under state and federal vehicle code; natural surface paths in parks and open space areas, like mountain bike trails, are not covered by the new law."

California Approves E-Bikes on Bike Paths | Bicycling


----------



## Mr Spanky (May 8, 2014)

Curveball said:


> I was looking at it from a reality standpoint rather than a regulatory one.
> 
> Is an electric motor not a motor?


Yes, I intend to discuss the topic in regards to reality and not the world of lawyers or semantics.

In reality, these things are bikes not motorcycles, motor vehicles, etc. After having the experience of 500 miles on one, I can tell you, it's silly to consider them anything other than a bicycle. You pedal it and it moves. You get a few watts under a few specific circumstances (starting from a dead stop and hills) but otherwise it acts and performs like a human-powered bicycle.

We can play semantics all day long ("is a motor not a motor?"). Is a bike light electric? Should it be banned too?

If you want to talk about reality and not play lawyer with words, then my answer is absolutely no, it's not a motorized vehicle and should get the same treatment as other bikes.

I encourage you to have an open mind and spend some time riding one. I think you'll find that it's so similar to a regular bike that the controversy is just silly.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

I think you missed my point entirely.

Where did I write anything about banning e-bikes? Please tell me.

Playing lawyer? I asked a very simple question.

Do I need to explain the definition of a motor? (Hint: it's different than a light and not terribly complicated.)

I can copy and paste the dictionary definition of a motor if you need it.


----------



## Mr Spanky (May 8, 2014)

I apologize, I re-read my comment and came off very snarky. That was not my intention. 

I was being genuine and not accusatory though. After riding one, it is very much a human-powered mechanical bicycle and not a motor vehicle. It rides like a bike, it acts like a bike, it handles like a bike...Yes, technically it has a very tiny motor that gives you a small amount of assistance under a few very specific circumstances. But it's a bike. 

if I missed your point the first time, did I get it this time?


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

My point is that e-bikes do have a small electric motor which makes them regulated as motorized vehicles to most land management agencies across the country.

With that in mind, it opens discussions about how to use e-bikes within that regulatory framework.

For one thing, Federal land management agencies like the Forest Service and BLM do offer extensive networks of motorized trails. In my experience, a lot these trails are also really fun for mountain biking and would be more than appropriate for e-bike use.

Of course, there are trails that are closed to all bikes like in designated wilderness areas.

And then there are trails that are open to non-motorized use. This is where most of the contention lies regarding e-bikes.

Under current regulations, e-bikes would appear to be excluded from these Federal trails. If you would like to gain access to these trails, then that's where your work lies.

At present, I'd say that most state land agencies generally mirror those at the Federal level with differing levels of access for users.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Welcome Mr Spanky to the power side we have lots of work to do but may I add BINGGO as I said the reg Mt bikers have nothing to fear , its all good!


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

IMHO, most land managers are looking to see what happens in CA since they were the first to try and encourage ebikes on an administrative level. If the experience here is successful expect to see more areas follow suit, after all, if real-world experience proves that there is no more trail damage and that there is increased usage of parklands by the public, why not?

All of this arguing is simply speculation, on both sides: in a few years the data will be in and decisions can be made on the basis of facts and not hysteria. If it turns out that all ebikers are riding 3000w electric motocross bikes and throwing roost on the children then I am sure the rules will be changed. Just as I am sure that if there is little or no adverse impact, more miles of trail will become available all over the country/world.......


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

Be that as it may, currently ebikes are not allowed on posted non motorized trails and if even a small segment of ebikers continue to flagrantly ignore that fact and illegally ride prohibited trails it will not lead to the acceptance you seek, the opposite actually. And it is not speculation at all sense they are currently classified as motorized period full stop. Until that changes I would recommend a prudent approach and stay on OHV and other trails listed in the Forest Services MVUM.


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

It would be nice if things actually worked that way, but I don't think gaining access will be that easy for e-bikes.

I'm not especially opposed to e-bikes, and yes I've ridden them before (in Switzerland). I am a fairly letter of the law kind of guy though, and there is just no getting around that e-bikes have motors. So currently non-motorized trails are a no-go.

As far as impact on the trails, they might not do any more damage than a normal bike. Once there have been studies showing one way or the other that might be an effective argument to get the rules changed but it's certainly not a given.

As an example you just have to look at regular MTB access, it's been proven that they don't cause any substantial damage to trails and way less than equestrians but MTBs are still banned in places you can ride a horse. It seems to defy logic, but despite a lot of effort those bans remain in effect.

So while I wish you and your e-bikes no ill will, I don't want your e-bike access tied to regular MTB access. Logic does not always prevail in these kind of things.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

One thing I don't worry about on a pedal bicycle...
...is the fact he e-bike can run out of juice!

So far I have been way out and never had it happen, pedaling a heavy sled would not be a ball. Talk about a workout.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Regardless of how we feel E bikes are here to stay and the manufactures are all pushing a low power mid drive e bike s and older riders are buying them , the manufactures will push for trail access there will be some kind of guide lines . These are exciting times to be in the E bike business and all the manufactures know it .


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

So, after these 500 miles, has the motor stood up to the bouncing around, jumps, bumps bruises and wet? I have wondered how the mechanism survives the trail?

in the distant future I could see myself considering this for longer bike-packing trips as the technology gets more trail-worthy. Also, if they came up with a way to keep it charged through a hub dynamo or something like that.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

sXeXBMXer said:


> Also, if they came up with a way to keep it charged through a hub dynamo or something like that.


I have asked this question over on the bike packing forum. What a great set up it would be to have recharging on trail or while on a trip during riding.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

Which all may be true, and I will accept you on the trails with open arms after a vigorous public debate has established that ebikes have a right to such access not before. No amount of platitudes or equivocation on the part of ebikers to justify current bad behavior because it may eventually be acceptable makes current ebike useage on posted non motorized trails legal. Ignoring those facts and the current reality of ebikes classification as motorized will possibly lead to less access and will most certainly lead to conflict with current users and I for one will happily begin the public education campaign to shame and ticket all ebikers that flaunt the existing rules rather than work as other user groups have had to do.

Take a multipronged approach and try and approach local districts directly to open trails to ebikes while lobbying to redefine ebikes as bicycles under federal rules that would allow you to demonstrate through your good behavior that impact is negligible and you truly deserve access. Condoning current bad behavior is much less likely to lead to the outcome you desire.


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

NEPMTBA said:


> I have asked this question over on the bike packing forum. What a great set up it would be to have recharging on trail or while on a trip during riding.


makes perfect sense to me!!! Plus, would allow for smarter use of body/leg strength on extended trips, especially in case of emergency


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

A bit of musing here.

Regardless of what regulations CA has in place, if you were to ride an e-bike on the non-motorized US Forest Service trails, then you may possibly get a ticket.

Fighting that ticket in court would likely prove futile regardless of making arguments that your e-bike doesn't really have a motor. I'd wager a steak dinner that the judge wouldn't buy the non-motorized argument.

All that said, if you have an e-bike that doesn't have a very obvious battery like the new Specialized, then the odds of actually getting a ticket appear quite remote. I see scores of traffic violations every day during my commute and those drivers face little to no chance of enforcement and will continue to do what they do. I'd guess that the odds of Forest Service law enforcement of non-motorized regulation to be pretty low.


----------



## Mr Spanky (May 8, 2014)

OP Here. A few responses.

I just dislike how this debate has turned Mt Bikers into wanna-be lawyers. Talking about regulations and what constitutes a motor... The reality is that there's absolutely no reason to ban these bikes from trails and we should therefore support their adoption. They don't pollute, cause noise, tear up trails or endanger anyone. 

I understand this fear that hikers and the irrational government and the power tripping land managers might react predictably irrationally. But that's no reason to follow their lead. Mt Bikers who work to ban ebikers are exactly the same as hikers who work to ban mt bikers.

Many places don't have any OHV areas. I live in the Bay Area - there are no OHV areas anywhere close. We have state parks with fire roads. There's relatively little singletrack even. If we're banned from fire roads and the few single tracks around.

Overall I just dislike the attitude that "these are MY trails/roads". I hear it all day long. The guy in the car behind me honking on my way to work yelling "get of MY road, get out of MY way..." Hikers think these trails belong to THEM and "I don't want bikes on MY trails!" And now we have mt bikers saying "ebikes are OK on the street but not on MY local trail..." 

I understand the need for regulation for safety, protecting the environment and preserving the enjoyment of others. But ebikes pose no additional safety risk, no environmental risk and it doesn't effect the enjoyment of others. 

Sorry Rant Over


----------



## Mr Spanky (May 8, 2014)

sXeXBMXer said:


> So, after these 500 miles, has the motor stood up to the bouncing around, jumps, bumps bruises and wet? I have wondered how the mechanism survives the trail?
> 
> in the distant future I could see myself considering this for longer bike-packing trips as the technology gets more trail-worthy. Also, if they came up with a way to keep it charged through a hub dynamo or something like that.


Motor is OK but I did rip the rear derailure off. Chain suck. Normally the chain ring would just stop - but with a motor powering it, it was enough to break the derailure.

I think you'll be disappointed if you're thinking about extra long rides, as I was. You'll be able to do a ton more climbing - but the battery just can't last the miles in hilly conditions. You could always carry another battery. I can definitely ride farther. But I had imagine squeezing 60 miles out of the motor if I only used the juice on the hills. But they're just not that good.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Mr S, By CA law, you're riding an electric bicycle which was removed from the "motorized" category. Down here in Orange County there are a few walking trails that state "no electric bicycles". They have established a precedent, so if a city, county or state trail doesn't prohibit e-bikes, we ride them. Who knows? Eventually other trails may prohibit e-bikes, but ride them until then.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

How does talking about the current legal access of e-bikes make any of us wanna-be lawyers, rather than engaged citizenery?

Everything I posted was specifically in regards to posted non motorized trails, that while I fully agree you have a valid arguement that low power pedal assist ebikes are very similar and quite comparable to bicycles, which unless the local managing authority has explicitly allowed ebikes they unfortunately are not welcome yet. The law , AB-1086 everyone is quoting pertains to bike paths governed by California vehicle code.

The campaign manager for PeopleForBikes has expicitly said the bill language they helped draft has no bearing on non motorized trails, only Class I-IV Bikeways.



> By Morgan Lommele, E-Bikes Campaigns Manager at PeopleForBikes.
> 
> This new law, effective January 1, 2016, only applies to Class I, II, III, and IV bikeways in California. For more information about particular access on each of those bikeways, visit this link. California governor signs law modernizing electric bike regulations | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News
> 
> ...


The New California E-Bike Law & Electric Mountain Bikes | Electric Bike Report | Electric Bike, Ebikes, Electric Bicycles, E Bike, Reviews

Please enjoy your ebike and I wish you the best for increased access, MTBers have done this dance and I only meant to provide information for discourse and to learn from our mistakes. Naively assuming access does not help you in the long run.

I never meant to insinuate I have personal claim over public lands, they are not mine or yours they are ours and as such all users need to obey signage be it a MTBer considering a hiking trail or an ebiker looking at non motorized trail. In reality neither of "us" are prohibited from enjoying such trails on public lands only our vehicles are prohibited.

Looks like you will continue to gain access in California as WoodlandHills rightly points out in a seperate thread that although state parks and other open space area are not affected by law AB-1086 some have chosen to open access to ebikes, if they aren't to far from you I would recommend frequenting them your good behavior on legal trails will hopefully offset the bad better than MTBers were able to in the past.

Good luck:thumbsup:

TLDR Ask managing authority if ebikes are allowed, act accordingly and enjoy our public lands.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

fos'l said:


> Mr S, By CA law, you're riding an electric bicycle which was removed from the "motorized" category. Down here in Orange County there are a few walking trails that state "no electric bicycles". They have established a precedent, so if a city, county or state trail doesn't prohibit e-bikes, we ride them. Who knows? Eventually other trails may prohibit e-bikes, but ride them until then.


The signs establish nothing. You think every trail in the state that doesn't have a "NO MONSTER TRUCKS" sign is automatically open to monster truck traffic? Your position on this is ridiculous.


----------



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

Mr Spanky said:


> . The reality is that there's absolutely no reason to ban these bikes from trails and we should therefore support their adoption.


Your reality, there are others. Rant over.


----------



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

-and once again they aren't being banned because they were never allowed.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I don't really care if e-bikes gain access as long as they are always considered a separate and distinct user group. I think they're a great option for an OPMD for disabled folks and have no interest in 'working to ban them'. If they are able to get access and prove themselves responsible users, more power to them.

A major issue is that there is a ton of confusion on the part of many e-bikers as to their current status regarding access to MTB trails. Many seem to think they are automatically allowed anywhere MTBs can go. This is very clearly not the case, but it seems that no matter how often this is made clear, certain e-bike proponents here insist on willfully ignoring the facts and continually posting misinformation along the lines of "e-bikes are now allowed everywhere".


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Mr Spanky said:


> I was being genuine and not accusatory though. After riding one, it is very much a human-powered mechanical bicycle and not a motor vehicle. It rides like a bike, it acts like a bike, it handles like a bike...Yes, technically it has a very tiny motor that gives you a small amount of assistance under a few very specific circumstances. But it's a bike.


I think whatever lobbyist that wrote and pushed through the federal legislation, which then was the basis for the CA regs and all that will follow, really did a disservice to the e-bike community. As in most of the EU countries, if ebikes were only 200-250W, your statement, and that of those who are advocating for assist bikes would be true for all ebikes. The fact that the motor only has enough power to assist you on climbs is traded off by the extra weight that you have to carry. People would choose them for the assist, they would still only provide a bike like experience, not a moto like one.

Unfortunately, with our higher limits and little effective enforcement, higher wattage bikes that people will choose strictly for the performance and a moto like experience are in, or perceived to be in the same class. Elsewhere, they are considered mopeds and both sold and regulated differently.

So, a blanket statement that they only provide assist and are essentially no different than a bike is not accurate. Maybe yours is, but not all of them are. It's america, people can easily and legally buy whatever ebikes they want and they will feel entitled to ride them where ever they can justify it.

If the emtb comunity could approach a land manager and say, "95% of the ebikes you'll see will be 250W or less, because you can't legally buy any with a higher wattage motor" you'd likely have a good shot at universal access. I've ridden among those bikes, all they are good for is climbing at a decent pace, otherwise they feel the same or worse because of the weight penalty as a regular trail bike.

A weekend warrior typically puts out a steady 100-150W for an extended period, like on a climb.

A fit local racer is @ 250W.
Domestic pro @ 350W
World tour rider @450
Elite riders, mutants like Froome @500-550W

If e-mtbs were only about providing assist for riders who require it, and not about providing a moto-lite experience, why would they need 750W? Or the very popular 1000W Bafang bdshd which some here are riding? Isn't an extra 250W enough to those who want an assist up the climbs? It seems to work just fine in the alps for the ebikers there.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

My purpose was to state the CA law and how other somewhat ambiguous laws have been interpreted in this state, that is many need to be defined by the courts. That's the reality whether we like it or not. I have no interest in hearing from profane deviates or entitled elitists. I'll see you on the trails, on my p-bike or e-bike.


----------



## Mr Spanky (May 8, 2014)

Harryman said:


> I think whatever lobbyist that wrote and pushed through the federal legislation, which then was the basis for the CA regs and all that will follow, really did a disservice to the e-bike community. As in most of the EU countries, if ebikes were only 200-250W, your statement, and that of those who are advocating for assist bikes would be true for all ebikes. The fact that the motor only has enough power to assist you on climbs is traded off by the extra weight that you have to carry. People would choose them for the assist, they would still only provide a bike like experience, not a moto like one.
> 
> Unfortunately, with our higher limits and little effective enforcement, higher wattage bikes that people will choose strictly for the performance and a moto like experience are in, or perceived to be in the same class. Elsewhere, they are considered mopeds and both sold and regulated differently.
> 
> ...


Totally agreed. I live in California where the laws have been clarified a bit - and I'm talking about the Class-2 bikes (20mph limit and pedal assist only). Those are no different than an ordinary bike and should get the same treatment.

And I agree that full-on electric motorcycles have no place on trails - but because there's good reason: they go too fast and are unsafe to others, and they tear up trails. Class-2 ebikes don't pose those risks.

I just hope the haters, like most people on this thread, will have an open mind and give them a try before making silly statements like 'they are motorcycles' or the guy who compared them to monster trucks, or the who didn't want anyone to pass him on climbs. When you guys talk, I just imagine some old timer telemark skier in leather boots and a coonskin hat grumbling about how "in my day, we didn't have chairlifts, we had to walk barefoot in the snow to chop down a tree and carve our own skis - and that's the way it was and we liked it!"

My intention with this thread was to give my experience after putting a good chunk of miles on it. I encourage you to do the same. You'll see how silly the resistance to ebikes is. There's so much positivity to them - being able to have your aging father ride with his grandson. Being able to ride with your wife and have her keep up with you and your buddies. Being able to tow your kid in a trailer and have your kids grow up with mountain biking and adventure in their lives. Having the luxury of safety by bringing an extra liter of water, spare parts and a proper first aid kit because you're not super concerned about weight...I think those things are so much more important than Billy Badass being butt-hurt because someone passed him on a climb.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Probably depends on the type of e-bike; for example, a 250 W pedal-assist ebike will acti no differently than what you and I are doing out there.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Mr Spanky said:


> ' or the guy who compared them to monster trucks.


You don't really need me to explain this, do you? Seriously, you couldn't follow that part of the conversation?

Try and keep up:

Someone suggested that the fact that some signs saying 'No Electric Bikes' had been installed on certain trails. His take-away from that was that now a legal precedent had been set and that any trail that wasn't specifically signed was now automatically open. Which is, well...stupid. That's not how things work; the 'monster truck' reference was to help make the lack of logic even more obvious for those that may have trouble with basic common sense.

I ride all sorts of motorized vehicles. I have no issue with e-bikes as long as their not equated to real bikes. The fact that most e-bikers don't understand access rules and seem to lose their **** and go into some sort of paranoid frenzy if anyone tries to enlighten them doesn't mean the rest of us are 'haters'.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

I wonder if the same people wanting to keep e-bikes off singletrack, and use existing rules for the reason to not make any changes, want to change rules to allow bicycles in designated Wilderness.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

I guess I am confused because no one is trying to keep ebikes off trails they are legally allowed to ride, simply advocating they use good judgment to stay off trails that at present they are prohibited from. 

Very much like a MTBer that supports opening up designated Wilderness to bicycles does not poach said Wilderness because the negative impact is readily apparent.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

richde said:


> I wonder if the same people wanting to keep e-bikes off singletrack, and use existing rules for the reason to not make any changes, want to change rules to allow bicycles in designated Wilderness.


Since they are motorized, I only want to keep them off non-motorized singletrack. I've got zero issues with them on moto legal trails.

I don't like that horses are allowed in the wilderness since they trash trails, but I can live with bikes being excluded. I think they should allow staff to use chainsaws and and other mechanized, motorized tools for repair and maintenance, since that's just unecessary stupidity.


----------



## Mr Spanky (May 8, 2014)

Velocipedist said:


> I guess I am confused because no one is trying to keep ebikes off trails they are legally allowed to ride, simply advocating they use good judgment to stay off trails that at present they are prohibited from.
> 
> Very much like a MTBer that supports opening up designated Wilderness to bicycles does not poach said Wilderness because the negative impact is readily apparent.


The point is how laws are interpreted, implemented and enforced.

When those laws were written, they meant dirt bikes. Dirt bikes don't belong because they are dangerous, loud and destructive in certain circumstances. A pedal assist bike, like the Class 1 and 2 in California, is clearly none of those things and therefore should get the same treatment as a bicycle.

I think California has the right idea - make a distinction between pedal assisted bikes with a governor and full-fledged electric dirt bikes. Treat pedal assist like mountain bikes and electric dirt bikes like dirt bikes. That's perfectly reasonable.

No one is advocating breaking laws. We're advocating for treating pedal assisted bikes like regular bikes.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Why not just treat them like exactly what they are? 
No they are not dirt bikes, no they are not real bikes. 
They're a new and distinct class of vehicles, which is why you have new guidelines to go with them. CA has decided to let them have the same access to bike paths covered under the Vehicle Code that real bikes have, which is an important step for you guys. Sounds like a number of land managers have also decided to allow you access to off-road trails, which is also good for you. The new law was not written for dirt bikes, it was written specifically for e-bikes. 

So now, instead of *****ing and demanding immediate access to everything else under the sun, or pretending you already are guaranteed that (which you are not), your best bet would be to establish yourselves as a responsible user group and lobby for greater access. But telling everyone they need to pretend an e-bike is exactly the same as a real bike is not going to fly.


----------



## Mr Spanky (May 8, 2014)

slapheadmofo said:


> Why not just treat them like exactly what they are?
> No they are not dirt bikes, no they are not real bikes.
> They're a new and distinct class of vehicles, which is why you have new guidelines to go with them. CA has decided to let them have the same access to bike paths covered under the Vehicle Code that real bikes have, which is an important step for you guys. Sounds like a number of land managers have also decided to allow you access to off-road trails, which is also good for you. The new law was not written for dirt bikes, it was written specifically for e-bikes.
> 
> So now, instead of *****ing and demanding immediate access to everything else under the sun, or pretending you already are guaranteed that (which you are not), your best bet would be to establish yourselves as a responsible user group and lobby for greater access. But telling everyone they need to pretend an e-bike is exactly the same as a real bike is not going to fly.


Why is there a need for a separate class and user group? Does every component need a separate lobbying group for access? Carbon frames? Clipless pedals? 29" wheels? Do we all need to start fighting against each other for rights to ride bikes? Pedal assist is just another component on a bike. It makes much more sense to stay united as one user group.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

Mr Spanky said:


> The point is how laws are interpreted, implemented and enforced.
> 
> When those laws were written, they meant dirt bikes. Dirt bikes don't belong because they are dangerous, loud and destructive in certain circumstances. A pedal assist bike, like the Class 1 and 2 in California, is clearly none of those things and therefore should get the same treatment as a bicycle.
> 
> ...


But you are breaking the law even in California, that unless you know the land manager has at the local level allowed ebikes in, on non motorized trails that are not and were not intended to be effected by AB-1086.

Promoting the impression that class 1 & 2 ebikes are equal to bikes is conflating your desired reality with the actual regulatory language as it stands now.

Sure class 1 & 2 ebikes being treated as bicycles is totally reasonable, but you are not there yet in regards to non motorized trails.

The general misinterpretation that trails are open unless closed and those perpetuating it harm your long term goals of actuall being treated the same.


----------



## Mr Spanky (May 8, 2014)

You guys keep saying the same thing- "because it has a motor. because it has a motor. because it has a motor...."

But not once have you made an argument for why a motor should be banned? What is it about pedal assistance that causes problems in any way, shape or form? What problems are pedal assisted bikes causing that traditional bikes don't? It's not speed, safety, environmental damage, noise pollution, or anything else? 

Many of you have made comments like "that's fine for the bike lane or multi-use paths, but not on trails." Well motor vehicles aren't allowed in bike lanes. Why aren't you guys using the same logic to be outraged about ebike access to bike lanes?


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> -and once again they aren't being banned because they were never allowed.


That's the same EXACT argument HOHAs make about mountain bikes regaining access to Wilderness and the PCT! I kid you not.


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

Not a red herring have you actually read the Forest Services rule on ebikes?
http://flagstaffbiking.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/20150929EBikesBriefingPaper.pdf

Currently as we speak they are motorized as per our federal overseers. How pointing out that simple fact makes you think I want to ban ebikes on trails is logical gymnastics. I will happily share the trail with you, unfortunately the law is not yet on your side.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I'm not arguing for banning anything. Just to keep a clear delineation between human powered and other vehicles. That way, if e-bikers don't behave well and problems arise down the road with people souping them up or whatever, those of us that don't use motors are not lumped in with those that do.


----------



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

richde said:


> I wonder if the same people wanting to keep e-bikes off singletrack, and use existing rules for the reason to not make any changes, want to change rules to allow bicycles in designated Wilderness.


Not me, I want there to be places where feet are the only access. There is a place for everything, mountain bikes don't belong everywhere and neither do motors.


----------



## Mr Spanky (May 8, 2014)

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating breaking any laws. I fully understand that they're not allowed in some places and I'll stay off them. I just wish there wasn't such a divide in the greater mountain bike community. 

I've read that Forest Service paper and I still don't think it makes much sense. You can drive motor vehicles on forest service land. So the fact that they consider ebikes motor vehicles doesn't mean they're banned. You can drive trucks, dirt-bikes and ebikes on forest service land - so they're not banned. Hell, you can even shoot guns, chop down trees and burn them on most forest service land. 

The majority of people, at least in California, are riding on fire roads in state parks, which I'm pretty sure is legal under CA law, although individual land managers have the power to ban them.


----------



## sml-2727 (Nov 16, 2013)

E Bike riders matter. So sad we live in a society were everything needs to be put into categories. Hate comes in so many different ways, now its mountain bikers hating on ebikers. 

I'm glad your enjoying your ebike. As long as your having fun with it "F" all the haters


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

Mr Spanky said:


> Just to clarify, I'm not advocating breaking any laws. I fully understand that they're not allowed in some places and I'll stay off them. I just wish there wasn't such a divide in the greater mountain bike community.
> 
> I've read that Forest Service paper and I still don't think it makes much sense. You can drive motor vehicles on forest service land. So the fact that they consider ebikes motor vehicles doesn't mean they're banned. You can drive trucks, dirt-bikes and ebikes on forest service land - so they're not banned. Hell, you can even shoot guns, chop down trees and burn them on most forest service land.
> 
> The majority of people, at least in California, are riding on fire roads in state parks, which I'm pretty sure is legal under CA law, although individual land managers have the power to ban them.


You are correct fireroads are definately good to go since they will see vehicle traffic and are therefore governed by AB-1086.

What you think makes sense doesn't matter, and again conflating the fact that some areas of Forest Service land allow you to harvest resources and even enjoy motorized recreation does not have any bearing on the conversation at hand. Which is specifically about non motorized trails and the types of users that are allowed access to those public lands that the government manages for all of our benefit.

The point no one has engaged on is the fact that due to their current status under federal law, and the fact that many state parks and other local jurisdictions base their rules on said federal interpretations the general rule of thumb for ebikers should be closed unless open.

Simply because there is no sign explicitly prohibiting ebikes does not mean they are allowed, and no evaluation of the current regulations gives them blanket access to any non motorized trails, nor requires said trails to post signage restricting their use as they , unfortunately, are still considered motorized by the majority land manager in the US of A.

No vitriol no hate, good luck with gaining equal access I think you make sensible arguments for why Class 1 and Class 2 ebikes do belong in the same class as MTBs, but wishing it so does not change the current reality of access on non motorized trails.


----------



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

sml-2727 said:


> Hate comes in so many different ways, "F" all the haters


Yep.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Yup, cuz the only reason anyone disagrees about anything has to be 'hate'.

Jeezus, some people are friggin' drama queens.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Mr Spanky said:


> I've read that Forest Service paper and I still don't think it makes much sense. You can drive motor vehicles on forest service land. So the fact that they consider ebikes motor vehicles doesn't mean they're banned. You can drive trucks, dirt-bikes and ebikes on forest service land - so they're not banned. Hell, you can even shoot guns, chop down trees and burn them on most forest service land.


Yes, you can drive motor vehicles on USFS lands. But not everywhere. That's subject to travel plans. And you can cut trees, but not everywhere. Commercial harvests, firewood, and Xmas tree cutting all have various degrees of rules and permitting involved. And while you can shoot and camp (up to 14 nights) nearly everywhere, there are also designated areas where you can't. USFS lands aren't a free-for-all anymore.

That the USFS allows certain uses in some areas doesn't mean those uses are allowed everywhere.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> Not me, I want there to be places where feet are the only access. There is a place for everything, mountain bikes don't belong everywhere and neither do motors.


I'd like to ban hikers from our limited selection of bike-friendly trail systems here since they can to 20 other places to hike whilst we have 2 (!!) legally-designated systems. Fokkers.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Crankout said:


> I'd like to ban hikers from our limited selection of bike-friendly trail systems here since they can to 20 other places to hike whilst we have 2 (!!) legally-designated systems. Fokkers.


 We actually have a few local spots where mountain bikers are the only user group granted access (fairly large tracts of private property). Pretty cool.


----------



## dstepper (Feb 28, 2004)

Velocipedist said:


> Not a red herring have you actually read the Forest Services rule on ebikes?
> http://flagstaffbiking.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/20150929EBikesBriefingPaper.pdf
> 
> Currently as we speak they are motorized as per our federal overseers. How pointing out that simple fact makes you think I want to ban ebikes on trails is logical gymnastics. I will happily share the trail with you, unfortunately the law is not yet on your side.


Flagstaff has a long history of motos and MTBing co-existing. Many trails I ride there are shared with motos, it fact built but local moto clubs. As the feds take away moto access in the greater Elden area they plan moto routes open to get to trails further out of town that the motos ride. So verbiage to call e-bikes motorized in Flagstaff still leaves much to e-bike. Blanket laws are OK as long as they leave local discretion to met local demand.

I have only been to Downeville in CA a couple of times but another but good place to e-bike.

Dean

Dean


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

And that is cool, because those trails are actually posted as open to motorized traffic. While the document maybe linked from a flagstaff it is the current Forest Service TMR defining how ebikes are classified as motorized for the Federal Government. The only current exceptions to the rule will have to take place at the local level, and contrary to the misinterpretation by some California's AB-1086 has no effect whatsoever on the states non motorized trails.

I do not see where the confusion is, if it is posted non motorized and the local managing authority has not publicly posted access is available to ebikes it is not. They are motorbikes , weak powered and open to argument perhaps, but as far as the overseers of our public lands are concerned since January of 2015 ebikes are motorized.

Please stay on motorized or locally now openly posted open to ebikes trails.

Poaching trails is no bueno, and I would argue that ship has sailed for the majority of mountain bikers that favor increased future access over immediate self gratification.



dstepper said:


> Flagstaff has a long history of motos and MTBing co-existing. Many trails I ride there are shared with motos, it fact built but local moto clubs. As the feds take away moto access in the greater Elden area they plan moto routes open to get to trails further out of town that the motos ride. So verbiage to call e-bikes motorized in Flagstaff still leaves much to e-bike. Blanket laws are OK as long as they leave local discretion to met local demand.
> 
> I have only been to Downeville in CA a couple of times but another but good place to e-bike.
> 
> ...


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Velocipedist you are talking about BLM land right? fed land? which do have there own rules , so just because we think a e bike is legal in a city or county park or bike path running into a BLM ranger on fed land is a whole diff thing . E bikers should know and understand this


----------



## Velocipedist (Sep 3, 2005)

rider95 said:


> Velocipedist you are talking about BLM land right? fed land? which do have there own rules , so just because we think a e bike is legal in a city or county park or bike path running into a BLM ranger on fed land is a whole diff thing . E bikers should know and understand this


Yes exactly. As to city or county parks even California's new law does not effect non motorized trails in those areas only class 1-4 "bikeways" governed by California vehicle code.

The Forest Service is the only entity at the moment that has explicit rules concerning ebikes, as it is likely to be used as guidance by state and local authorities it seems prudent to make ebikers aware of the potential detriment their current actions may cause.


----------



## elee325 (Sep 27, 2006)

Mr Spanky said:


> I just thought I'd share some of my thoughts/experiences after putting 500 miles on my first ebike. After talking with a few buddies who initially took the piss outta me for buying an ebike, I got a lot of "I hadn't thought of that before". So I thought I'd share.
> 
> First, a few of the reasons I bought the bike:
> 
> ...


Thx for the post. I have been thinking about acquiring an ebike also but one big question in my mind is what will I do with my other 3 bikes (all top quality bikes at $8k range) if I get spoiled on an ebike. Any thoughts?


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

elee325 said:


> Thx for the post. I have been thinking about acquiring an ebike also but one big question in my mind is what will I do with my other 3 bikes (all top quality bikes at $8k range) if I get spoiled on an ebike. Any thoughts?


I am thinking that you won't get spoiled. You will find a place for the e bike just like you would the other ones. I personally will not try an e bike until my body physically can't handle it's own weight...which I hope is a loooong time down the road. This is not because I disdain e bikes, but because I don't feel like I have done everything I should on a regular bike yet. I have not pushed to my personal goals yet.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Mr Spanky said:


> You guys keep saying the same thing- "because it has a motor. because it has a motor. because it has a motor...."
> 
> But not once have you made an argument for why a motor should be banned? What is it about pedal assistance that causes problems in any way, shape or form? What problems are pedal assisted bikes causing that traditional bikes don't? It's not speed, safety, environmental damage, noise pollution, or anything else?
> 
> Many of you have made comments like "that's fine for the bike lane or multi-use paths, but not on trails." Well motor vehicles aren't allowed in bike lanes. Why aren't you guys using the same logic to be outraged about ebike access to bike lanes?


 It's always about the motor. First off, nice post, thought out and good points. 250 watts, 750, 3,000 watts? How to tell be looking? you can't. E motorcycles are a thing. After market mods, controller overrides already exist. IT will be about speed, esp. uphill. Wait until the uproar for when the first hiker/kid/HOH gets hit by a speeding e bikers. And trail damage. And when they decide to throw out all the wheeled bikes. It will be too late then.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

The hiker or kid that gets hit by a speeding Mt bike doesn't care or know the difference between a e bike and reg mt bike nor does the group of horse back riders when a MT biker blast by them . I know I stop and talk to them all with a e bike were not trying to beat our best time we simply don't care about that , e bikes fit in very nicely with other users of the park .


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> The hiker or kid that gets hit by a speeding Mt bike doesn't care or know the difference between a e bike and reg mt bike nor does the group of horse back riders when a MT biker blast by them . I know I stop and talk to them all with a e bike were not trying to beat our best time we simply don't care about that , e bikes fit in very nicely with other users of the park .


And? You are but one person in a minuscule segment within a minuscule segment of outdoor activities. You by no means representative of the entire motorized community.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

leeboh said:


> It's always about the motor. First off, nice post, thought out and good points. 250 watts, 750, 3,000 watts? How to tell be looking? you can't. E motorcycles are a thing. After market mods, controller overrides already exist. IT will be about speed, esp. uphill. Wait until the uproar for when the first hiker/kid/HOH gets hit by a speeding e bikers. And trail damage. And when they decide to throw out all the wheeled bikes. It will be too late then.


FYI, Mr. Spany's last visit to MTBR was 06-14-2016...

Replying to his post directly here wont do you much good.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Mr Spanky said:


> Why is there a need for a separate class and user group? Does every component need a separate lobbying group for access? Carbon frames? Clipless pedals? 29" wheels? Do we all need to start fighting against each other for rights to ride bikes? Pedal assist is just another component on a bike. It makes much more sense to stay united as one user group.


Oh man, I was with you on your OP for the most part but you're going down the rabbit hole. It's a motor. Motors aren't frames, pedals, wheels or any other bike component. It's a component that hasn't been on a bike since the beginning of bikes and literally goes against the very point of a bike (human-powered).

I agree that people are making that distinction more significant than necessary in many cases, but you're doing the exact opposite and are equally damaging to the sport as a whole in my opinion.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> FYI, Mr. Spany's last visit to MTBR was 06-14-2016...
> 
> Replying to his post directly here wont do you much good.


Damn, I really need to start looking at dates.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Well, it's a year later........ Has the world ended yet? Have the trails been overrun with electric MX bikes with pedals like was predicted? 

From my vantage point in southern CA it looks like much ado about nothing: eMTBs have been legal on many of the most popular trails for a couple of years and I haven't heard of any atrocities......


----------



## scooterman (Aug 10, 2004)

Charging an ebike from a dynamo (it already has one "the motor") would be much harder than riding a normal bike. Thats regenerate mode on some ebikes, it basically charges when you hit the brakes or are ok with going slow downhill. But the amount it charges is minimal. People always forget about conservation of energy


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> Well, it's a year later........ Has the world ended yet? Have the trails been overrun with electric MX bikes with pedals like was predicted?
> 
> From my vantage point in southern CA it looks like much ado about nothing: eMTBs have been legal on many of the most popular trails for a couple of years and I haven't heard of any atrocities......


They are still prohibited on all of my usual haunts thank Dawg.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> Well, it's a year later........ Has the world ended yet? Have the trails been overrun with electric MX bikes with pedals like was predicted?
> 
> From my vantage point in southern CA it looks like much ado about nothing: eMTBs have been legal on many of the most popular trails for a couple of years and I haven't heard of any atrocities......


Still not legal on almost all the trails here and still haven't seen one outside of the street or bike path, so far the mangement plan is working well.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Velocipedist said:


> As to city or county parks even California's new law does not effect non motorized trails in those areas only class 1-4 "bikeways" governed by California vehicle code.


FWIW there were 2 separate pieces of e-bike legislation being considered a couple of years ago. You're quoting the one that wasn't put forth into law.

Trails in city and county parks are "open unless closed" to e-bike classes 1 & 2 per AB-1096. There is some talk that this may be re-written and re-submitted to be more restrictive.

Another FWIW is that IMBA and a couple other groups spread this "bikeways" misinformation around. Out of ignorance or because of conspiracy is the question.


----------



## portnuefpeddler (Jun 14, 2016)

elee325 said:


> Thx for the post. I have been thinking about acquiring an ebike also but one big question in my mind is what will I do with my other 3 bikes (all top quality bikes at $8k range) if I get spoiled on an ebike. Any thoughts?


 I'm not sure if you're kidding or not? But obviously to me anyway, convert one of your high end bikes with a Bafang mid drive kit. The one with the frame most suited for the motor placement and maybe with frame space for a battery.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

Harryman said:


> If e-mtbs were only about providing assist for riders who require it, and not about providing a moto-lite experience, why would they need 750W? Or the very popular 1000W Bafang bdshd which some here are riding? Isn't an extra 250W enough to those who want an assist up the climbs? It seems to work just fine in the alps for the ebikers there.


I would be ok with a 250 watt limit instead of a 750 watt limit, but what is the big deal about 750 watts? It is just 1 HP. Might as well allow it. Seems an awful lot like saying gun owners do not need 30 rounds and should be limited to 10 shots. 750 watts is nothing like a motorcycle which could be 30-60 hp or more. And I already ride 28 mph on my regular MTB.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

rsilvers said:


> I would be ok with a 250 watt limit instead of a 750 watt limit, but what is the big deal about 750 watts? It is just 1 HP. Might as well allow it. Seems an awful lot like saying gun owners do not need 30 rounds and should be limited to 10 shots. 750 watts is nothing like a motorcycle which could be 30-60 hp or more. And I already ride 28 mph on my regular MTB.


It is just 1 HP? Have you seen how strong a horse is? A lot stronger than a person.

Wikipedia: When considering human-powered equipment, a healthy human can produce about 1.2 hp briefly (see orders of magnitude) and sustain about 0.1 hp (74.57 W) indefinitely; trained athletes can manage up to about 2.5 hp (1.85 kW) briefly and 0.35 hp (260 W) for a period of several hours.

So your just 1 HP is 10x that of a healthy human and 3x that of a trained athlete.


----------



## highroad 2 (Jan 24, 2017)

Regarding bicycles in Idaho Frank Church Wilderness area or possibly any other Federal wilderness area.
I fly this wilderness area that is unique in that it allows airplanes to land at the many designated back country airstrips.
Recently a pilot was ticketed for riding his folding bicycle down the airstrip.
I do not see any form of bicycles getting access to wilderness area any time soon.
Highroad 2


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

highroad 2 said:


> I do not see any form of bicycles getting access to wilderness area any time soon.
> Highroad 2


You should check out this recently started thread. There is a current movement to allow just that and It is getting traction.

http://forums.mtbr.com/california-norcal/action-alert-contact-your-congressperson-1064236.html


----------



## BeeZee1 (Jul 24, 2017)

Definitely, the e-bikes are a blast, a time saver, and let you get out there more often. I also ride both electric and traditional trail bikes. Sometimes feel like one, sometimes the other. The naysayers just don't get it!


----------



## highroad 2 (Jan 24, 2017)

If riding Mtn bikes in wilderness areas is gaining traction, I fully understand why the pedal only riders do not want Class 1 or 2 e-bikes grouped in with them.
IMO, even though Class 2 ebikes make the same wattage as a class 1, having a throttle and not needing to pedal at all, is a big stretch to call a bicycle as has been said countless times already.
Our new local Mtn bike trails allow Class 1 but not 2.
I am finding out that when Bafang and many other retrofit companies say their motor has 7 levels of assist, that does not mean pedal assist only, it means it is a class 2 and pedaling is an option.
It costs a lot more Brose, Bosch, Shimano,........ to produce class 1 bikes since the torque and cadence features that make them class 1 are complex.
I rode motos today, an look forward to either the Haibike or Santa Cruz tomorrow.
I will not be poaching.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

I build a class-2 and found it very unsatisfying - at least as a bike. It was a fine electric moped. I sold the parts off it and decided class-1 with torque sensing, or nothing.


----------



## BeeZee1 (Jul 24, 2017)

As an e mtb rider I still have to fully agree with you and with that decision to limit trails to Class 1 bikes. The class 1's just level the field for the less fit, or allow the more fit to pedal and go a little farther faster. Anything with a throttle and no peddling required would just be an electric motorcycle,, and I think that crosses the line to unsafe and unwise for most hiking and biking trails.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

chazpat said:


> It is just 1 HP? Have you seen how strong a horse is? A lot stronger than a person.
> 
> Wikipedia: When considering human-powered equipment, a healthy human can produce about 1.2 hp briefly (see orders of magnitude) and sustain about 0.1 hp (74.57 W) indefinitely; trained athletes can manage up to about 2.5 hp (1.85 kW) briefly and 0.35 hp (260 W) for a period of several hours.
> 
> So your just 1 HP is 10x that of a healthy human and 3x that of a trained athlete.


First of all, the concept that a horse is 1 HP is a myth. A typical horse can produce work effort comparable to a 15 HP motor.

Next, 750W = 3-4X healthy human (sustained). And the more common (and what will probably be the legal e-Bikes) Class 1 bikes are 250W. Roughly the equivalent boost of a solid rider.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

RickBullottaPA said:


> First of all, the concept that a horse is 1 HP is a myth. A typical horse can produce work effort comparable to a 15 HP motor.
> 
> Next, 750W = 3-4X healthy human (sustained). And the more common (and what will probably be the legal e-Bikes) Class 1 bikes are 250W. Roughly the equivalent boost of a solid rider.


1HP is the sustain power of a horse for 8 hours. If you have a source that says a horse can produce work comparable to 15 HP motor for 8 hours, please provide it.

Here is what Wikipedia says in regards to wattage:

Horsepower (hp) is a unit of measurement of power (the rate at which work is done). There are many different standards and types of horsepower. Two common definitions being used today are the mechanical horsepower (or imperial horsepower), which is 745.7 watts, and the metric horsepower, which is approximately 735.5 watts.

So now you are backing that down to 250 when what I replied to was your statement:

"what is the big deal about 750 watts? It is just 1 HP. "


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

chazpat said:


> 1HP is the sustain power of a horse for 8 hours. If you have a source that says a horse can produce work comparable to 15 HP motor for 8 hours, please provide it.
> 
> Here is what Wikipedia says in regards to wattage:
> 
> ...


Eight hours is a long time to sustain work. A horse working for one hour can be more than one HP. And imagine for five minutes. Or a 30 second sprint.

https://www.carkeys.co.uk/guides/does-one-horsepower-really-equal-the-power-of-one-horse

"Not quite. It's a common misconception that one horsepower is equal to the peak power production of a horse, which is capable of a maximum of around 14.9 horsepower."

Personally I could live with a 250 watt limit if that was a future law on trails, but may as well make it 750 watts. 1 HP is not much. I think my dual-sport is 29 hp.


----------



## highroad 2 (Jan 24, 2017)

IMO, a throttle totally takes away from the "Spirit" of what a bicycle is.
Hundreds of posts on this forum would argue that having a class 1 assist takes away from the spirit of a bicycle.

I feel it is time to dismiss the lame argument that Class 1 bikes are more unsafe when mixed with Mtn bikes and hikers.
What is unsafe is the person riding the bike, regardless if class 1 or not.
There are plenty of You tubes that show advanced riders on non assisted bikes exceeding 20 mph on downhill trials with blind corners that could easily injure a hiker or biker.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

I think almost everyone would agree that with a throttle, it is not just a bike. It is an electric moped. Worse than that, most throttle bikes have very poor to no pedal torque sensing, so even when pedaling, they make terrible electric bicycles.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

RickBullottaPA said:


> And the more common (and what will probably be the legal e-Bikes) Class 1 bikes are 250W. Roughly the equivalent boost of a solid rider.


I'd like to see your evidence for the legal limit for class 1 ebikes being lowered to 250w. I've never heard a whiff of it anywhere, and I try to keep up on such things. It also seems unlikely since the people creating the legislation have stated to me that they have no intention to.

For the record, 250w torque sensing ebikes normally add 50-300% of your effort, up to @530w, for a 750w ebike, they max at @1500w unless they're modded or underrated like every Bafang motor. So, a weekend warrior putting out 200w on a climb on a Levo can have 530w added on top if they're in turbo.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

Harryman said:


> I'd like to see your evidence for the legal limit for class 1 ebikes being lowered to 250w. I've never heard a whiff of it anywhere, and I try to keep up on such things. It also seems unlikely since the people creating the legislation have stated to me that they have no intention to.
> 
> For the record, 250w torque sensing ebikes normally add 50-300% of your effort, up to @530w, for a 750w ebike, they max at @1500w unless they're modded or underrated like every Bafang motor. So, a weekend warrior putting out 200w on a climb on a Levo can have 530w added on top if they're in turbo.


You are correct - I should have said 250W e-Bikes (which, in Europe, is the high end for Class 1). Mine happens to be a Euro spec bike.

I would support a limit of 250W nominal e-Bikes on MUTs, but don't see a need for the higher powered bikes.

Thank you for the clarification and pointing this out.

Cheers.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

Harryman said:


> I'd like to see your evidence for the legal limit for class 1 ebikes being lowered to 250w. I've never heard a whiff of it anywhere, and I try to keep up on such things. It also seems unlikely since the people creating the legislation have stated to me that they have no intention to.
> 
> For the record, 250w torque sensing ebikes normally add 50-300% of your effort, up to @530w, for a 750w ebike, they max at @1500w unless they're modded or underrated like every Bafang motor. So, a weekend warrior putting out 200w on a climb on a Levo can have 530w added on top if they're in turbo.


Maybe a Levo can sometimes put out 530 watts, but I rode one today for 11 miles where I averaged 96 watts into it (it has a power meter) and I used up 44% of the battery. It worked out to it averaging 328 watts from the battery. If we guess that the motor is 85% efficient, then it was averaging about 280 watts. Also I could never exceed about 23 mph on level ground and my average speed was 17.8. I have averaged 20 mph on a road bike over the same distance - though that is with more like 160 watts from me. I actually tried to use the Turbo Levo (on 100% power) to break a segment time that I did on my road bike, and I could not.


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

RickBullottaPA said:


> I would support a limit of 250W nominal e-Bikes on MUTs, but don't see a need for the higher powered bikes.


250 watts would be tolerable if that were what was decided on. But 750 is not too much. When I look at my data after me riding my Giant Trance, I sometimes reach 600+ watts on my Stages power meter. I would need 750 watts to match that if my bike were 50 lbs heavier. No matter what bike I am on, my speed is limited by the trail, turns, rocks, etc anyway.


----------



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

rsilvers said:


> When I look at my data after me riding my Giant Trance, I sometimes reach 600+ watts on my Stages power meter.


But only for brief moments?


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> But only for brief moments?


Yes, like for a short climb or to get over an obstacle.

The thing about power is - if you only have a 250 watt motor, you don't need a 20 mph speed limiter, as you can't really go much over 20 anyway due to drag (at least on a MTB). If you have 750 watts, then a speed limiter would be needed if you want to keep people from going fast, but if you do have such a limiter, the 750 watts doesn't hurt anyone because it just allows you to climb faster - but still within the speed limit.

So if I were writing laws from scratch, I would say that you can have 250 watts and no speed limiter, or 750 watts and have a speed limiter.

280 lb guy on a 50 lb bike, climbing, is going to want 750 watts, not 250. And it really doesn't hurt anyone. He won't appear faster than a good rider on a regular bike.


----------



## STAGER1 (Sep 23, 2017)

Interesting post. Though I do not agree with you saying you have to pedal. Though I have never ridden one I can tell you lots of the delivery people use them like mopeds they don't pedal at all.


----------



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

The theory that electric bikes are the same as bicycles because they are equivalent in power and speed is greatly flawed IMO. Depending on the trail an accomplished rider may not gain much but the average rider will significantly improve their average speed and miles traveled. That's why they're fun and that's why people will buy them, and if they were similar to a bicycle they would not sell.


----------



## hobbit (Apr 23, 2007)

I agree that they are not the same but for class 1 I don't think it matters. I like to think im an accomplished rider at least in terms of skill even if fitness is lacking. On a normal bike a typical ride was 12 miles 1500ft climbing 5 mph average, on my Levo I'm typically doing 20 miles 2500ft climbing at 8mph average; so a small increase. Normally use the mid trail setting as full is too much.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

hobbit said:


> I agree that they are not the same but for class 1 I don't think it matters. I like to think im an accomplished rider at least in terms of skill even if fitness is lacking. On a normal bike a typical ride was 12 miles 1500ft climbing 5 mph average, on my Levo I'm typically doing 20 miles 2500ft climbing at 8mph average; so a small increase. Normally use the mid trail setting as full is too much.


That isn't a small increase, that is a huge increase.

distance: 167%
elevation: 167%
average speed: 160%


----------



## STAGER1 (Sep 23, 2017)

I'd say so


----------



## hobbit (Apr 23, 2007)

Never thought of it like that but i guess you're right. I've always ridden until I drop, but now instead of that point being due to being knackered from the climbs it's become the point where I'm battered from the downhill. It's surprising how much hauling 50lbs off drops n gaps takes it out of your upper body.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

rsilvers said:


> Maybe a Levo can sometimes put out 530 watts, but I rode one today for 11 miles where I averaged 96 watts into it (it has a power meter) and I used up 44% of the battery. It worked out to it averaging 328 watts from the battery. If we guess that the motor is 85% efficient, then it was averaging about 280 watts. Also I could never exceed about 23 mph on level ground and my average speed was 17.8. I have averaged 20 mph on a road bike over the same distance - though that is with more like 160 watts from me. I actually tried to use the Turbo Levo (on 100% power) to break a segment time that I did on my road bike, and I could not.


Obviously, you are you, and choose how much effort you want to put out, how much you want the bike to add, what terrain to ride, all that stuff. My point is that not everyone rides like you, or like me for that matter. I find it interesting that in the EU, many emtb riders ride at much higher assist levels and for much shorter distances than people seem to do here. Part of that might be they're riding in smaller, bike center sort of environments, while riders here, especially in the west have more expansive areas in which to ride, leading to choosing less assist for a longer time.

Regardless, here's some strava data where a guy on a emtb is climbing at the same level as a TDF pro on the road. What does it prove? Nothing revolutionary, just that giving a fast guy more power makes him faster.

https://www.lift-mtb.com/accueil-faq-english/strava-english/


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

The Turbo Levo is especially bad as a road bike, due to tires, drag, and gearing. The same motor on a road bike would average closer to 30 mph.


----------



## hobbit (Apr 23, 2007)

You've pretty much described any mtb on road, not just the Levo. I don't do 'Road' at all so all the figures from my previous posts are trail. I believe Specialised do make a road bike with the same/similar motor but don't know anything about it, although if it's class 1 the assistance would be limited to the same as the Levo, i would imagine ... 'roads' not for me😁


----------



## Mountie (Jun 12, 2017)

Mr Spanky said:


> I don't know where you live, but where I live, they're considered bicycles and can go anywhere a bicycle can. And I hope it stays that way. There's no reason to ban the bikes - they don't go fast, they don't make noise, and they don't damage trails. But there are still some haters out to ban them.


Totally allowed here as well no issues, I've been riding trails and bike paths all year no issues just loads of fun. Enjoy the bike Mr S....


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Mountie said:


> Totally allowed here as well no issues, I've been riding trails and bike paths all year no issues just loads of fun. Enjoy the bike Mr S....


Actually, Mr Spanky wasn't correct in his assumptions. 
Might be different where you are though.


----------



## mtnking (Feb 10, 2012)

Why does it matter? What does an e-bike hurt? Is it the ego of the others? I don't understand.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

mtnking said:


> Why does it matter? What does an e-bike hurt? Is it the ego of the others? I don't understand.


 Access and legality stuff needs to go in General.


----------

