# The Angry Singlespeeder rides an e-bike and doesn’t hate it



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

The Angry Singlespeeder rides an e-bike and doesn't hate it


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

" I don’t see myself owning a MORB anytime soon. I’d rather spend the money on a dirt bike and keep my mountain bike adventures 100-percent human-powered."

That about sums it up


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Seems (TO ME) as though he approached the subject objectively. Be interested to see him review one in about 40 years.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

I liked the first half of the article 

As far as the comments on handling and range, they don't match my experience, as my own e-mtb way out handles my mtb (mojoSL), and it will easily do all the "normal" local rides, and it's been on a number of rides only a few mtb riders ever do around here (and there are many strong riders here). 

Sure the mtb is 25lbs easier to push. But the e-mtb CAN be pushed up nearly anything that's on a trail. And it's not hard cause you are fresh. No moto, including trials bikes can be pushed up anything steep. 

Obviously when it comes to long range and dealing with rough conditions, moto is the only option. 

With e-mtb each will have their own local conditions and handling demands, and the e-mtb will strike different people differently. I never go over about 20 on either mtb or e-mtb on single track, and frankly, I often get off on the nasty bits just in case.

There's a saying: there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. But there are no old bold pilots


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

The Levo is an unicorn though. Its electronics and software package is more advanced than undoubtedly every other e-mtb currently out there. Their proprietary design should not be discounted, and the ride experience of a Levo is so unique that it can't be used to generalize about the ride experience of other e-bikes in general, except high end ones from Spec and whoever else decides to do the same improvements, unless Spec has it patented. Replace any instance of him saying "MORB" with "Levo", and I find it more agreeable. Also, even though it weighs an extra 25 lbs over a mtb of the same cost, and feels different on the DHs due to that weight, feeling fresher after gaining all the elevation to "charge the gravity meter" is value in itself. 

Aren't there enough emtb vs mtb comparisons, from an experienced MTBer's perspective? Need to highlight some of the other perspectives to get a better idea of the bigger picture. Being an utility vehicle, that helps haul extra equipment around and an alternative for search and rescue... there's good and there's bad. No point in telling the Endur-bros what they already know, trying to gauge its potential as a fun machine. I anticipate there will be outcry when the rangers get these and start seriously addressing illegal trails, and also hype for them when news about search and rescue personnel use them to save those in need, where no other land-based vehicle can efficiently go.


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> Obviously when it comes to long range and dealing with rough conditions, moto is the only option.


Ahem.....

Bikepacking and Bike Expedition - Mtbr.com
Endurance XC Racing - Mtbr.com

























not the only option.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> Ahem.....
> 
> Bikepacking and Bike Expedition - Mtbr.com
> Endurance XC Racing - Mtbr.com
> ...


this just shows that uhoh7 is just a guy that rides motorcycles. Of course the only thing he thinks can get deep in wilderness must have a motor. Whats wrong with your feet dude. Maybe you need e-boots. Keep your dumb ass on the jeep trails and motocross tracks. We don't want you out here if you can't even walk a few miles on trails


----------



## Capt.Ogg (Jun 5, 2015)

sfgiantsfan said:


> " I don't see myself owning a MORB anytime soon. I'd rather spend the money on a dirt bike and keep my mountain bike adventures 100-percent human-powered."
> 
> That about sums it up


"Ten minutes later he came back with a giant smile on his face."

That about sums it up =D

Good article.


----------



## jugdish (Apr 1, 2004)

fos'l said:


> Seems (TO ME) as though he approached the subject objectively. Be interested to see him review one in about 40 years.


When I get old and can't ride anymore I'll find another activity, I won't expect the world to change for me. But that's just me, obviously.


----------



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

I think the ass missed the entire dart board on this one, the article read more or less like a review from mtb action and these machines represent a good deal more than the latest upgrade. Three of the "important" points mentioned-

1) They're fun!
2) What about the terminally ill?
3) They'll never become mainstream anyway because of weight and battery life!

I guess I just expected a more insightful piece from the ass, is everyone here an industry shill?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> There's a saying: there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. But there are no old bold pilots


You live in a different reality than some of us (maybe all of us). A strange place where no one over some arbitrary age limit can improve, or even maintain, any sort of fitness and skill, where the singletrack is simple enough to run at 20 mph, but at the same time so technical that even trials motos need to be pushed on it. 
Weird.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

jugdish said:


> When I get old and can't ride anymore I'll find another activity, I won't expect the world to change for me. But that's just me, obviously.


My dad is 72. He rides and/or builds trail 3-5 days a week, year round.
He's not always the oldest guy on rides either. I've ridden with 80 year olds that would embarass a lot riders 1/4 their age.

If my mom didn't break her hip a couple years back, she'd likely still do some light trail riding too. She's 76.

The age excuse is BS.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

Also worth noting, that he rode on "moto-legal trails". Avoided getting into the non-motorized trail access issues at all, which is all I care about.


----------



## dbhammercycle (Nov 15, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> My dad is 72. He rides and/or builds trail 3-5 days a week, year round.
> He's not always the oldest guy on rides either. I've ridden with 80 year olds that would embarass a lot riders 1/4 their age.
> 
> If my mom didn't break her hip a couple years back, she'd likely still do some light trail riding too. She's 76.
> ...


Damn, I can't seem to get my dad outta the lazy boy. Your folks rock, hope your dad keep's rolling as long as he can.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

sfgiantsfan said:


> this just shows that uhoh7 is just a guy that rides motorcycles. Of course the only thing he thinks can get deep in wilderness must have a motor. Whats wrong with your feet dude. Maybe you need e-boots. Keep your dumb ass on the jeep trails and motocross tracks. We don't want you out here if you can't even walk a few miles on trails


Thanks for the pidgeonhole, which I suppose is much easier for your brain. And of course it's impossible for you to post anything without "dumb ass" and numerous other low class inferences.

I stand by my point, because living and using the biggest ST system in the lower 48, on foot, horses, on bikes, on motos, and now on e-mtbs for 35 years, it's what I see.

That's not to say there are no exceptions. I hike all the time. But daily range is pretty limited for normal people. If you have 6 days you can cover some ground of course.

Bike Packing. Never in all these years have I even seen one in the Idaho backcountry. Yes there are a few out there. More power to them. But no bike can cover remotely the ground as a moto on good trails, let alone what we often ride on motos, which would require many many carries.

Mtb riders are 95% extremely picky about trail selection, here, for good reason. Humping all your gear for miles on your back on a rough trail, vs riding it on a moto, who do you think has the range?

Sure give the bike packing stud 3 days he can do what the moto guy does in 1, albeit far more exposed in the process.

Horses? Again you have to be very picky on trails as many conditions will ruin a horse. But you don't know that, or much else as far as I can tell.

That does not stop you from assuming knowledge and projecting your prejudice on others. Nice 

L1022094-3 by unoh7, on Flickr

L1022243 by unoh7, on Flickr



slapheadmofo said:


> My dad is 72. He rides and/or builds trail 3-5 days a week, year round.
> He's not always the oldest guy on rides either. I've ridden with 80 year olds that would embarass a lot riders 1/4 their age.
> 
> If my mom didn't break her hip a couple years back, she'd likely still do some light trail riding too. She's 76.
> ...


Nice anecdotes, and congrats to your dad. Data tells another story, but don't let that get in the way of nice diatribe. 

Back to the actual topic of the article:

I think it's interesting that basically the author is complaining that the with exception possibly of climbing, the e-mtb is TOO SLOW and dull for him. That's a common conclusion in the e-mtb reviews by hard core mtb guys.

Another common PC declaration: "I'll never buy one myself." Somebody should keep track of these claims and let's see who has one in 5 years


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

dbhammercycle said:


> Damn, I can't seem to get my dad outta the lazy boy. Your folks rock, hope your dad keep's rolling as long as he can.


Thanks man; good luck to whatever tries to stop them. They definitely kick ass. Hell, my sister is 45 and has cystic fibrosis and operates at about 50% lung capacity on a good day, and even SHE doesn't have a motor on her bike.

Glad I was raised not to give up easily.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> Nice anecdotes, and congrats to your dad. Data tells another story, but don't let that get in the way of nice diatribe.


That's fine if you confine yourself to what 'data' tells you you should be doing.
How's that golf swing going?


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> Hell, my sister is 45 and has cystic fibrosis and operates at about 50% lung capacity on a good day, and even SHE doesn't have a motor on her bike.


She probably knows the looks she would draw from you. 

And let's not consider that stigma aside, your father and sister might well have more fun and be safer with assist bikes. They certainly would have no more trail impact.


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> ....I hike all the time........daily range is pretty limited.........no bike can cover remotely the ground as a moto on good trails..........Humping all your gear for miles on your back on a rough trail...........who do you think has the range?.............give the bike packing stud 3 days he can do what the moto guy does in 1........far more exposed in the process.........many conditions will ruin a horse.............
> ...you don't know that...........


Are you commuting to work across backcountry wilderness land? Why all the emphasis on range? You complain of exposure but a vast majority of people enter wild lands with the specific intent to expose themselves to it. Distance covered can be irrelevant.

_"A lifetime can be spent in a Magellanic voyage around the trunk of a single tree." _

-E Wilson.

_"Covering vast distances on a tight schedule is best accomplished through the use of pavement and large motors"_

-JBW

Your post does further emphasize the importance of not lumping electric bikes together with bicycles though, so thanks for that!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> She probably knows the looks she would draw from you.
> 
> And let's not consider that stigma aside, your father and sister might well have more fun and be safer with assist bikes. They certainly would have no more trail impact.


Trust me, she could care less what I think. 

Neither of them would be safer travelling at much higher speeds than they can generate under their own power. And of course if they were going faster and travelling farther, they would have more trail impact. Data, man, data.


----------



## Deep Thought (Sep 3, 2012)

d365 said:


> Also worth noting, that he rode on "moto-legal trails". Avoided getting into the non-motorized trail access issues at all, which is all I care about.


He was riding and reviewing a product in the manner it was intended to be used. I think it's great that he did that without all of the drama and mudslinging that seems to accompany most other e-MTB discussions.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

Deep Thought said:


> He was riding and reviewing a product in the manner it was intended to be used.


Exactly.... on motorized trails. Take non motorized trails out of the equation, and I have 0 problems with e-bikes.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I'll go even further than that and say as long as they're e-bike and mountain bike access remain separate, I don't even care if they find their way onto appropriate non-motorized trails. 

Just don't say "It's the same thing as a real bike, and I'm automatically allowed to take it anywhere real bikes are allowed". That's a bunch of BS.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

uhoh7 said:


> I think it's interesting that basically the author is complaining that the with exception possibly of climbing, the e-mtb is TOO SLOW and dull for him. That's a common conclusion in the e-mtb reviews by hard core mtb guys.


That's because they're riding heavy 250w bikes, I'm pretty sure the technology won't stagnate here while 750w is the upper limit. I'm sure the "hard core" guys would be a lot more interested in a bike that can acellerate out of corners with 3X the power. If you can ride a low angle flow trail downhill at 20mph, why couldn't you ride up it at say 15 and rip the berms?

I'm not concered about the bikes that are out now, or the people currently riding them. I'm making my decisions with an eye to the future. What will be available for ebike riders 10 years from now will bear little resemblence to what is for sale now.

Shimano to make e-bikes indistinguishable from normal bikes - BikeRadar

Rember mtbs 10 years ago? 20? 30? The legislation set now needs to take that into account, it's not going to change every 5 years.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> Trust me, she could care less what I think.
> 
> Neither of them would be safer travelling at much higher speeds than they can generate under their own power. And of course if they were going faster and travelling farther, they would have more trail impact. Data, man, data.


haha, good for your sister 

For a trail expert you don't really know what wears trails, do you?

Water. Nothing else comes remotely close.

And what stops those little canyons forming in the center of the ST from digging deeper?

A tire. The wider the better, and often 

@Harry. Always enjoy your posts. As to thinking ahead: that's whats wrong with so much regulation: it deals with the theoretical, not the real.


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> haha, good for your sister
> 
> For a trail expert you don't really know what wears trails, do you?
> 
> ...


Trailwork with the emphasis on draining water off the trail.



uhoh7 said:


> A tire. The wider the better, and often
> 
> -snipped


Nope. Motorbikes generally create a nice deep track that water can run along and sit in. All the worst trails I've ever seen have been motorbike trails, followed closely by 4wd trails.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

Martin.au said:


> Trailwork with the emphasis on draining water off the trail.
> 
> Nope. Motorbikes generally create a nice deep track that water can run along and sit in. All the worst trails I've ever seen have been motorbike trails, followed closely by 4wd trails.


Ever seen a horse trail?


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

Linktung said:


> Ever seen a horse trail?


Yeah. But they aren't too common over here. May be why they aren't anywhere near as bad as moto-tracks - less traffic.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

uhoh7 said:


> As to thinking ahead: that's whats wrong with so much regulation: it deals with the theoretical, not the real.


No, that's what's wrong with so many of your posts. 

It's the job of legislators to pass legislation that protects people from imminent issues. If logic and common sense tell us the housing market is going to crash, ocean levels will rise and cover major cities, terrorists plan on attacking a specific venue, and the Zeka virus will likely spread, you think we should let it all happen and THEN try to fix the damage rather than preventing it?

There was a time when I respected your posts and responses, but your comments have been getting further and further out of touch from reality.


----------



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

Deep Thought said:


> He was riding and reviewing a product in the manner it was intended to be used. I think it's great that he did that without all of the drama and mudslinging that seems to accompany most other e-MTB discussions.


There was a bit of mudslinging but since it wasn't a discussion it only came from one side.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> For a trail expert you don't really know what wears trails, do you?
> 
> Water. Nothing else comes remotely close.


You were the one that brought up user impact comparisons in the first place. 
Derrr.....



uhoh7 said:


> S...might well have more fun and be safer with assist bikes. They certainly would have no more trail impact.


You should stick to things you know: trees and passive/aggressive off-topic sniping.


----------



## bakerjw (Oct 8, 2014)

uhoh7 said:


> Sure give the bike packing stud 3 days he can do what the moto guy does in 1, albeit far more exposed in the process.


A quote to live by... "It is better to travel well than to arrive."

OR

"Enjoy the ride"


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Well, e-bikes have been associated with meth, pedophilia, terrorism, ocean rising, economic disaster and the spread of zika. Thought the lunacy had reached its apex; guess not. Shout out to the person with great fortitude who sends a private message to call me a name. Read a post he's made and realize that's the limit of his capability.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

fos'l said:


> Well, e-bikes have been associated with meth, pedophilia, terrorism, ocean rising, economic disaster and the spread of zika. Thought the lunacy had reached its apex; guess not. Shout out to the person with great fortitude who sends a private message to call me a name. Read a post he's made and realize that's the limit of his capability.


I think you're taking what I said out of context, although if you want to make that association I can't/won't stop you.

Also, don't make it appear that I sent you any messages and called you a name. I'd call you a name right here if I was going to call you anything. Just wanted to make that clear.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

M24 --- didn't mean to imply that you sent the message; was another individual. Still consider your post outlandish, but representative of some who are fervently against e-bikes (IMO, for any application). BTW, I learned about "sticks and stones" in Kindergarten, so fire away; probably shouldn't have said anything about the creepy situation of sending a private message for that reason, just let the individual wallow under his rock.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Fair enough.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

uhoh7 said:


> haha, good for your sister
> 
> For a trail expert you don't really know what wears trails, do you?
> 
> ...


Trails here shed water with no issue and we have very few areas where drainage is a problem. Instead, they erode in late summer when they're dry and loose. People drag their brakes down steep pitches and around switchbacks, creating ruts and holes. Many switchbacks are blown-out messes by the end of August. That is an issue created by wheeled users and requires maintenance. (And like drainage, could be mitigated by more informed trail design.)


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> No, that's what's wrong with so many of your posts.
> 
> It's the job of legislators to pass legislation that protects people from imminent issues. If logic and common sense tell us the housing market is going to crash, ocean levels will rise and cover major cities, terrorists plan on attacking a specific venue, and the Zeka virus will likely spread, you think we should let it all happen and THEN try to fix the damage rather than preventing it?
> 
> There was a time when I respected your posts and responses, but your comments have been getting further and further out of touch from reality.


LOL 

You compare trail access for pedelecs, now a fact in Switzerland and Austria, with no downside I've heard about, with Global Warming, Terrorists, and Zika, and I'm the one loosing touch with reality?

As to your once high regard of me: familiarity breeds contempt 



evasive said:


> Trails here shed water with no issue and we have very few areas where drainage is a problem. Instead, they erode in late summer when they're dry and loose. People drag their brakes down steep pitches and around switchbacks, creating ruts and holes. Many switchbacks are blown-out messes by the end of August. That is an issue created by wheeled users and requires maintenance. (And like drainage, could be mitigated by more informed trail design.)


TY much for post with just information and no insults 

Listen, I must respect your experience in your local conditions. 

But it does sound as if you are describing very high use trails.

There is likely a tipping point between the traffic which will compact a trail and stabilize it, and when you just have a ton of people riding it and the wear you describe is a real factor.

Even in your conditions I'd suspect water is going to be the killer when it meets the loose conditions you describe.

I agree trail design is a huge part, but even well built trails need to be ridden to hold.

I do have alot of experience with ST in a big variety of conditions and designs. Many of our older trails were made by motorcycles. When I first got out far enough to really ride them often I thought: OMG these are a bit hammered, whoops etc. Pretty soon they will be a real mess. 16 years later those trails appear near identical with no work on them at all, just regular riding. Even the switchbacks where I saw ruts and thought: wow we are mining here, they are near unchanged.

We had numerous mega-fires sweeping across out trail systems in the last 10 years, and some trails were closed "to recover" for three years, as is current "policy" after a fire.

What I learned is that post-fire those highly compacted trails are the one thing that has not been hurt, and they may even be tougher after the heat. But closed, water attacks. This was a very stupid policy, but now we are back on most of them.

During all this, I have seen many many trails re-built, and rerouted. By UFS trail crews, Contractors with little tracked trail makers, and volunteers from locals to troubled kids from the city. The variety of builds in a 50 mile radius of my house is remarkable.

Most of the builds are nice for bikes, but the gentle inclines and many ups and downs to release water make them much longer than they were before, and so for those actually looking to TRAVEL in the backcountry, sometimes they are so silly even the MTB people are taking shortcuts.

But one thing should be obvious: narrow tires concentrate weight in a smaller area and will erode more, every thing else being equal. 27+ and fattie tires are better for the trail. But it's not a giant difference.

A moto with trials tires and a good pilot is also very good to stabilize trails, with the sole exception being the very steep stuff when you are stuck in a rut with loose conditions. That trail does need a re-route.

But while the motos are actually keeping many trails open here, with regular riding and cutting, no one can deny they make noise, get really hot, and sometimes move fast.

The e-mtb really is totally different: trail interaction is near identical to mtb, but the main thing as far as others are concerned: they are silent.

It's funny I read the wars of words between some hikers and mtb people, and what do I hear: "You mtb people are just LAZY!!" and "We don't restrict you, just leave your bike at home" etc.

It sounds familiar LOL but actually there really are some big issues for the other users which motivate the complaints: the mtbs can be fast moving and appear without warning.

Those fundamental contrasts, however are not the case at all for a mtb rider considering how it will be to share a trail with e-mtb. On the trail the e-mtb is the same, except probably slower DH, and faster UH. So the hue and cry anti-E does not have much foundation from mtb riders, vs a horseman who is afraid of bikes.

The anti-E mtb faction must move off the trail altogether into the realm of trail access politics to identify the terrible threat of e-mtbs. If we let e-mtbs on our trails, the horsemen will call all mtbs motorcycles and keep us out.

That argument is so convoluted compared to the horseman who says: a fast bike frightens my horse. That fear is based on many real incidents and injuries. 

When it comes to NIMBY hypocrisy, the poor horse people are naive and simple compared to the hysteria I read from the mtb anit-E faction. They move their arguments against "the other" to a whole new level. 

Since there is no actual real reason on the trail to ban pedelecs from mtb trails, I guess they have no choice but to use their imagination and add a little extra vilification to otherwise nebulous points. 

Hence the many insults.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Good points and post in general. 
Still doesn't address the whole combining access with mtb's though. 
Care to share your thoughts on that issue, long as you're in a loquacious mood?


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> Most of the builds are nice for bikes, but the gentle inclines and many ups and downs to release water make them much longer than they were before, and so for those actually looking to TRAVEL in the backcountry, sometimes they are so silly even the MTB people are taking shortcuts.


I asked before but I'll try again. Why are you regularly TRAVELING in the backcountry? Do you have a schedule to keep on these commutes?

Gentle inclines and ups & downs to release water are generally good trail building practice IME.


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> It's funny I read the wars of words between some hikers and mtb people, and what do I hear: "You mtb people are just LAZY!!" and "We don't restrict you, just leave your bike at home" etc.


Lazy? Never heard that one.

There is no anti-electric bike faction, only reasonable people wishing to implement reasonable policies.


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> TY much for post with just information and no insults


and if you want responses with no insults you might try to avoid dishing them out.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> The anti-E mtb faction must move off the trail altogether into the realm of trail access politics to identify the terrible threat of e-mtbs. If we let e-mtbs on our trails, the horsemen will call all mtbs motorcycles and keep us out.


This is the biggest issue with e-bikes as many of us see it. It is not something that we made up; it's how things actually work.

Do you deny that trail access politics exist at all? If so, then you are delusional; if not, then why does it seem that those looking for trail access for e-bikes stubbornly avoid sharing their ideas on how to deal with the issue?

Not insulting anyone, just wondering why it is that everyone just rambles on about about power limits and how they think things work across the ocean any time the subject comes up.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

uhoh7 said:


> LOL
> 
> You compare trail access for pedelecs, now a fact in Switzerland and Austria, with no downside I've heard about, with Global Warming, Terrorists, and Zika, and I'm the one loosing touch with reality?
> 
> As to your once high regard of me: familiarity breeds contempt


How about actually responding to the issue rather than misdirecting the discussion? Why would legislators wait for the damage to be done if it would be easier and more effective to prevent it?


----------



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

mountainbiker24 said:


> Why would legislators wait for the damage to be done if it would be easier and more effective to prevent it?


The most important thing isn't preventing damage. which is conjecture at this point, it's establishing legal terminology that separates electric bikes so that bicycles are not forced to carry their weight, and so trail access for them can be considered on an individual basis the same way that bicycles, horses, and atv's are.

IMHO

I think the reason is obvious why some of the most staunch e-bike advocates here avoid answering the most relevant questions.


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

jugdish said:


> When I get old and can't ride anymore I'll find another activity, I won't expect the world to change for me. But that's just me, obviously.


When I get old I am going to buy a e-bike. I'll get one with the biggest motor and a throttle. It will have pedals only so the man doesn't hassle me on my way to the grocery store. I know that I will have long since lost my licence. When I am that old I don't think that way out in the wilderness will be the safe place for me.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> The most important thing isn't preventing damage. which is conjecture at this point, it's establishing legal terminology that separates electric bikes so that bicycles are not forced to carry their weight, and so trail access for them can be considered on an individual basis the same way that bicycles, horses, and atv's are.
> 
> IMHO
> 
> I think the reason is obvious why some of the most staunch e-bike advocates here avoid answering the most relevant questions.


True, and I think defining e-bikes as different than mountain bikes will prevent the obvious issues, e.g. trail access issues and user conflicts, from surfacing.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

mountainbiker24 said:


> True, and I think defining e-bikes as different than mountain bikes will prevent the obvious issues, e.g. trail access issues and user conflicts, from surfacing.


There is no way to make a universal definition like that. There are so many different managing agencies that we cannot declare everyone behave a certain way. In some states they are considered bikes and others, like New York, ban them from anywhere and everywhere like a class 1 drug. There is rumor of some Federal Agencies treating them like bikes and others who act like EBs are a threat to all that is holy. Sadly, the loudest Anti-EB crowd is the Strava users who fear the death of their KOM.

All it takes to shut down an activity is a common, transferable predjudice. The land managers do not use data, reasoning, and education to shape public policy. All it takes is an anecdote about misbehavior from an offended user and Agencies bolster their heavy-handed throat grip on their enemy of choice. The fact that many cyclists are afraid Federal Agencies won't be authoritative enough is bizarre. Cyclists have been boot-stomped by Federal Agencies long enough to know that there is plenty of irrational beurocracy to go around.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Linktung said:


> There is no way to make a universal definition like that.


Like defining emotorbikes as bicycles? I would agree, you can't .


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tiretracks said:


> Like defining emotorbikes as bicycles? I would agree, you can't .


Exactly.

I still don't understand what the big deal is about defining e-bikes as...you guessed it...e-bikes. Isn't that just plain common sense? What am I missing here.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)




----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Well, on the topic of legislation, my observation is that all they accomplish is strike a compromise between the various interested parties, with the more powerful/influential parties getting a better deal. Hence why people want to grow the population of mtn bikers (to help with legislation), yet don't want the extra traffic on _their_ trails. The e-mtb crowd is pretty underdogged, without many aligned with their self interests... e-mtbers don't seem to be getting any significant support from mtbr forum users with such posts, while mtbr management seemingly has no choice but to let the industry helm the ship.


----------



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

slapheadmofo said:


> I still don't understand what the big deal is about defining e-bikes as...you guessed it...e-bikes. Isn't that just plain common sense? What am I missing here.


I've asked that question a half dozen times and have only heard crickets so I guess I'll just answer it myself.

Ensuring that ebikes are defined the same as bicycles is the entire endgame, otherwise what is the point?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Linktung said:


>


Almost as relevant as a picture of a tree.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> Lazy? Never heard that one.


look in the comments here:
The Fight For Mountain Bike Trail Access In 2016 | Teton Gravity Research


> There is no anti-electric bike faction, only reasonable people wishing to implement reasonable policies.


If that were the case everybody would be fine with class 1 pedelecs on the trail. You have to get well beyond "reason" to find a raison 'd BAN, 



slapheadmofo said:


> Do you deny that trail access politics exist at all?


You mean the politics which have you banned from all wilderness in the USA? I deny the validity of those politics and feel they should be fought, but without hypocrisy.



rlee said:


> When I get old I am going to buy a e-bike. I'll get one with the biggest motor and a throttle. It will have pedals only so the man doesn't hassle me on my way to the grocery store. I know that I will have long since lost my licence. When I am that old I don't think that way out in the wilderness will be the safe place for me.


LOL I would think traffic might pose even more danger for you than wilderness 



Linktung said:


> There is no way to make a universal definition like that. There are so many different managing agencies that we cannot declare everyone behave a certain way.


I think really the big deals are: USFS and BLM. I think the Swiss and Austrian models would work fine. But you are right, as the biologists would mostly just prefer humans stay away altogether. If that is your goal, then letting the stakeholders fight each other and respecting prejudice is a sweet pill.



Varaxis said:


> e-mtbers don't seem to be getting any significant support from mtbr forum users with such posts, while mtbr management seemingly has no choice but to let the industry helm the ship.


You hit some key points here. Within a decade we are going to see lots of people riding e-mtbs. 30% of mtbs sold in Switzerland are now pedelecs. So the dynamics are going to evolve.

I have no problem with folks who don't want a e-mtb, or don't like a e-mtb. We all have personal preferences. But vocal attacks, as if they are "spawn of the devil" (you actually read that), and cheers to relegate a 250w pedelec to motorized trails are well beyond the pale of personal taste.

Basically these rabid anti-E types are taking the sierra club tactics and using them for self interest. The Sierra Club is trying to protect the land, while these guys are trying to "protect trails"...their "own". Pretty big difference morally.

E-mtbs mean more careers in mtb/e-mtb and more access to public lands for those who use them, all with a pretty "clean" platform the euros have already designated.

For some that is just terrible news 

Now...it's time for a ride


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> If that were the case everybody would be fine with class 1 pedelecs on the trail. You have to get well beyond "reason" to find a raison 'd BAN,


bs. There's no "anti-atv" faction either, is everyone ok with them on *every* trail? Your argument is flawed and it's no surprise that you continue to avoid the most pertinent objections to electric bicycles.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> You mean the politics which have you banned from all wilderness in the USA? I deny the validity of those politics and feel they should be fought, but without hypocrisy.


No. My concerns have little to nothing to do federally designated wilderness areas. I'm talking about the places where mountain biking actually takes place.

Why is it hypocritical to expect the e-bike user group to be treated the same as all other user groups? Why do you think mountain bike access should hinge on e-bike access? Or do you? None of you has even said where you stand on the topic, just danced around it.

I've asked again and again, why should mtb advocates be saddled with carrying the responsibility for e-bike access at risk of our own? No one even attempts to answer. Can we assume it's because the answer is obvious, but none of you wants to put it in writing because it clearly demonstrates your sense of entitlement and willingness to screw mountain bikers out of what we've worked so hard for so you can have things easy? If not, then what?

Please, share your thoughts.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

uhoh7 said:


> As to thinking ahead: that's whats wrong with so much regulation: it deals with the theoretical, not the real.


Since the CA regulation in place reflects the theoretical, that 750w etmbs are the same as bicycles without any data to back it up, do you think the regs should be ammended to reflect the real, that we should mirror the 250w 15.5 mph limits in Europe? As you have stated numerous times, that's what they are riding in Switzerland and Austria and you haven't heard about any problems.

You'd likely get a fair amount of support for that.

You look at your 250w/20 mph emtb and project out a future based on that, I look at what I can find out about 750w emtbs and project a future based on those since I see no reason they won't show up. They are very different vehicles.

The EU regs already allow 750w ebikes to be classified as ebikes, the specific usage doesn't allow them at this point. Like here, the regs are pushed by the industry, which you know will want a universal standard. If 750w emtbs are adopted here, they will be there as well.


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

Some of my favorite trails have been closed to mountain bikers. Some because of perceived environmental reasons and some because of political user conflict. I support bans of e-bikes on non-motorized trails, for now anyway. I don't think that 250w e-bikes will be a problem but when you spend a little time on e-bike forums, 250w are not what people are talking about. User conflict will happen with fast e-bikes.
If in a year or two we find that this won't be a issue we can change rules then. If we don't establish them now then MTB's will get banned from more areas.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> it clearly demonstrates your sense of entitlement and willingness to screw mountain bikers out of what we've worked so hard for so you can have things easy?


So much twisted angst in that statement. You would think that people who ride e-mtbs have just landed from another planet and want your job. Every e-mtb owner I know is a long time mtb rider. They are not trying to screw anybody out of anything. Instead they want the USFS to recognize the impacts of a e-mtb, both in terms of noise and effect on trails is near identical to mtbs. It's their public land as much as it is yours. Maybe you personally made all the trails around your house, but here the CCC laid down much of the system in the 30s, and the new trails have been put in by a wide variety of users, and more often, professionals. What is hypocritical is to make all sorts of arguments for your own access (which I agree with), then actually take a page from earth first and fight hard against other users and a new technology for political reasons. You are not trying to protect the land, just your own turf. NIMBY, is what that is often called.

@JB ATVs? really? E-mtbs are just like ATVs, now? Yikes, you will really grasp any argument.

@ Harry. The rules in eurpoe actually vary. Switzerland and Austria allow more than 250w, and even the speed cap is different. What is the problem with current federal class 1? You really think 750w is alot of power? In fact, it's a de facto limit on range 

750w with 20mph limit seems pretty reasonable to me. It's already legal on "non-motoirised" bike paths across the nation (I ride by the signs locally all the time and think of you guys  )

Response to Harry aside, one of the interesting things in researching these issues is seeing how the MTB "community" is regarded by the more pissed off factions of other users. according to them, mtb users are often selfish, oblivious, gear fixated people who think making trails is "good" and have little interest in the natural world where they travel. I could add that some are also close-minded hypocrites, whose intolerance toward a new invention of like impact is well....epic.

What is the most popular mtb video today?






One of, anyway. It does have great photography and great riding. But I was personally aghast on the first view at what had been done to the hillside. I'm sure it's private land, but imagine a sierra club person watching that.

I have to remind myself all the time, most mtb riders I know have nothing in common with the trolls here and in other forums and comment sections, who participate in forums or comments about subjects which don't interest them simply to torment those who are interested.

If the USFS and BLM decides to adopt the Swiss regulations for emtbs, you think a bunch of trails are going to suddenly close? Well obviously plenty do think this, primarily because it's being screamed from the rooftops by the nasty bits. However there is zero evidence it will happen, and many reasons why it won't happen.

Nevertheless the mere idea is enough for many to advocate e-mtbs not being ever allowed off motorized trails in any form. Such a stance makes the sierra club look like thoughtful open-minded folk, as once again, they actually have REAL reasons why they don't like you


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

emoter riders didn't arrive from another planet, they just don't ride mountain bikes. I am not sure why you don't get that the people we fight against, everyday, that hate bikes will now say-you can't tell what has a motor and what doesn't. The easiest thing for land managers to do is just ban anything that looks like an e-bike. Do you know what looks just like an ebike? I know you do because you say it every other post. 

We have fought long and hard for every scrap of trail we have. You and other e bikers have just got here and want it all. I know there is no more trail damage from a 250 assist. We are not losing access because of trail damage. We are losing because of perception. It's not right, but it is a fact. If the hoha's claim you are motorcycle, you are as far as land mangers are concerned.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

uhoh7 said:


> So much twisted angst in that statement. You would think that people who ride e-mtbs have just landed from another planet and want your job. Every e-mtb owner I know is a long time mtb rider. They are not trying to screw anybody out of anything. Instead they want the USFS to recognize the impacts of a e-mtb, both in terms of noise and effect on trails is near identical to mtbs. It's their public land as much as it is yours. Maybe you personally made all the trails around your house, but here the CCC laid down much of the system in the 30s, and the new trails have been put in by a wide variety of users, and more often, professionals. What is hypocritical is to make all sorts of arguments for your own access (which I agree with), then actually take a page from earth first and fight hard against other users and a new technology for political reasons. You are not trying to protect the land, just your own turf. NIMBY, is what that is often called.
> 
> @JB ATVs? really? E-mtbs are just like ATVs, now? Yikes, you will really grasp any argument.
> 
> ...


As in e-bikes banned from most/all singletrack in Switzerland?

Because that's how it is right now.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

uhoh7 said:


> LOL
> 
> TY much for post with just information and no insults
> 
> ...


No, for the most part, water beds the trails down and compacts them again. Yes, the trail network immediately adjacent to town does see quite a lot of use. Regardless, water isn't the only agent of erosion, and others can be significant. I'm a geologist, and I evaluate unpaved road networks for erosion and sediment yield. I have a solid understanding of drainage and erosion, much better than the local trail professionals, in fact (to my eternal frustration). The major factors controlling drainage and erosion are contributing length, slope, and material. The first two are simple to control with trail design. It's not hard to lay out a trail that sheds water with no fuss. Traffic is needed, mostly to keep vegetation down.

The post-fire conditions you're describing are not just the effect of water, but rather the effect of much more water. After a significant burn, runoff is commonly much higher, and peaks faster. This is because vegetation and duff is gone, and because the burned soil can be hydrophobic.


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> @JB ATVs? really? E-mtbs are just like ATVs, now? Yikes, you will really grasp any argument.


Bravo! Spoken like a good politician. In case I'm mistaken though and you are just 'challenged' or perhaps have some sort of disability I'll restate it in a manner you might understand.

I never suggested that electric bikes had anything in common with atvs. They're also different than cars, horses, and bicycles, among other things.

Got it?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> So much twisted angst in that statement. You would think that people who ride e-mtbs have just landed from another planet and want your job. Every e-mtb owner I know is a long time mtb rider. They are not trying to screw anybody out of anything. Instead they want the USFS to recognize the impacts of a e-mtb, both in terms of noise and effect on trails is near identical to mtbs. It's their public land as much as it is yours. Maybe you personally made all the trails around your house, but here the CCC laid down much of the system in the 30s, and the new trails have been put in by a wide variety of users, and more often, professionals. What is hypocritical is to make all sorts of arguments for your own access (which I agree with), then actually take a page from earth first and fight hard against other users and a new technology for political reasons. You are not trying to protect the land, just your own turf. NIMBY, is what that is often called.


Once again you avoid the question completely. Why? Also, just to fill you in, most riding does not take place on federal lands in the US, nor are most access battles fought on a federal level. It's very much local for the most part.

And probably for the 10th time, at the very, very least, I have no problem sharing trails with e-bikes. I think everyone else here save you has been able to get that from the numerous posts I've made saying exactly that. But if they become a problem, I don't want to get kicked out because of it. I'm not fighting anything; I also don't want to be forced to fight FOR you, or lose access because of you.

Can you really not understand this? You throw around a lot of words but seem to have serious difficulty grasping this simple concept.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Once again you avoid the question completely. Why? Also, just to fill you in, most riding does not take place on federal lands in the US, nor are most access battles fought on a federal level. It's very much local for the most part.
> 
> And probably for the 10th time, at the very, very least, I have no problem sharing trails with e-bikes. I think everyone else here save you has been able to get that from the numerous posts I've made saying exactly that. But if they become a problem, I don't want to get kicked out because of it. I'm not fighting anything; I also don't want to be forced to fight FOR you, or lose access because of you.
> 
> Can you really not understand this? You throw around a lot of words but seem to have serious difficulty grasping this simple concept.


 Mabey you have trail access problems because you ride like your in a red bull video sitting fast time, somehow you think an old mt biker whos been riding since the 80s that now has bought a e bike to keep riding will ride like you do ?? is that what your scared of??


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

And again, no attempt at all to address the issue. Nice one.

I've been riding since the 80's too. And involved in trailwork and access since the early 90s. Nice try though. (Well, actually it was pretty pathetic.)

Any particular reason that you're all so afraid of this question? Besides the obvious? 
Are you all too lazy/entitled to deal with your own access issues and want to try to force mountain bikers to carry your weight? 

If not, then what?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> More pathetic deflection from the real question


Weak.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

tiretracks said:


> Weak.


 Wow is that all you can say?? I have come to expect much better name calling from you Weak!!! indeed


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> Wow is that all you can say?? I have come to expect much better name calling from you Weak!!! indeed


And more deflection.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

In case you missed it the last dozen times:



slapheadmofo said:


> Why should mtb advocates be saddled with carrying the responsibility for e-bike access at risk of our own?
> 
> Please, share your thoughts.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> In case you missed it the last dozen times:


OH I thought the OP was The Angry Singlespeeder rides an e-bike and doesn't hate it not the same ole same ole BS that you guys take every post too quickly followed with the name calling


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

uhoh7 said:


> @ Harry. The rules in eurpoe actually vary. Switzerland and Austria allow more than 250w, and even the speed cap is different. What is the problem with current federal class 1? You really think 750w is alot of power? In fact, it's a de facto limit on range


Yeah, I know, 500w/15.5 and 600w/15.5mph in Switzerland and Austria, the speed cap is the same. 15.5 for trail legal pedelecs, 28mph for S-pedelecs which are not legal on single track. I have looked for emtbs in that range though and unless you want to buy off of Alibaba or build a kit, there's none for sale, so my point still stands, without a significant group to provide data, how can you be sure a more powerful emtb has the same trail and social impact? The limits are higher in Switzerland and Austria, but as far as I can tell, they are riding the same 250w emtbs as everyone else.

Power is relative, I think 750w is far more powerful than a mtb, 3x more powerful than a 250w emtb and not as powerful as a dirt bike. What's wrong with keeping 250w? It provides all the assist you'd ever need if that's the goal.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Harryman said:


> Power is relative, I think 750w is far more powerful than a mtb, 3x more powerful than a 250w emtb and not as powerful as a dirt bike. What's wrong with keeping 250w? It provides all the assist you'd ever need if that's the goal.


Exactly. If you just don't want to suffer on the climbs (or wanted a ton of range), but keep overall speed the same, 250W is way more than enough, as is 15mph. Hell, 10mph and 150W would basically do it unless you're an enormous and very lazy person.

750W/20mph is a huge departure from what mountain bikes powered by humans can do.

-Walt


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

d365 said:


> Exactly.... on motorized trails. Take non motorized trails out of the equation, and I have 0 problems with e-bikes.


+1000 My favorite thing about this article was the Term MORB (Motorized Off Road Bicycle) because that is truly what they are, Motorized.



slapheadmofo said:


> Just don't say "It's the same thing as a real bike, and I'm automatically allowed to take it anywhere real bikes are allowed". That's a bunch of BS.


Exactly, they are different and should be treated differently.



Harryman said:


> That's because they're riding heavy 250w bikes, I'm pretty sure the technology won't stagnate here while 750w is the upper limit. I'm sure the "hard core" guys would be a lot more interested in a bike that can acellerate out of corners with 3X the power. If you can ride a low angle flow trail downhill at 20mph, why couldn't you ride up it at say 15 and rip the berms?
> 
> I'm not concered about the bikes that are out now, or the people currently riding them. I'm making my decisions with an eye to the future. What will be available for ebike riders 10 years from now will bear little resemblence to what is for sale now.
> 
> ...


THIS, yes. It is not the current models that are a problem, it is the upgrades and future. We all know Electric Cars are becoming very popular and companies like Toyota and Tesla are making huge strides in making more powerful batteries in smaller packages. It is not a matter of IF, but rather a matter of WHEN MORB's are sold at 1000watt and up for similar prices to pedal bikes.... Then what?



J.B. Weld said:


> The most important thing isn't preventing damage. which is conjecture at this point, it's establishing legal terminology that separates electric bikes so that bicycles are not forced to carry their weight, and so trail access for them can be considered on an individual basis the same way that bicycles, horses, and atv's are.
> 
> IMHO
> 
> I think the reason is obvious why some of the most staunch e-bike advocates here avoid answering the most relevant questions.


Forcing all Motorized vehicles to stick to the same trails is really the only safe answer here, no one is going to come out to my local trail and start checking MORB's Wattage outputs to see if they are below a certain threshold.. rather, the Hikers and Equestrians are gonna start complaining to city council that people on "bikes" are riding 30mph down the trails, spinning the rear tires and making ruts.. etc. etc, then they City Council just blanket bans all bike access. The writing is on the wall, MTB groups have a hard enough time keeping access to the current shared trails because of a few knuckle heads who decide to cut trails/build jumps where they have no permission, or are just jerks to those they need to share with.



Linktung said:


> There is no way to make a universal definition like that.


Yes there is, Motorized vs Human powered. The End.

Also, this is already a thing, do you want to share any of the trails designed for Human Powered Bikes, Hikers and Equestrians with something like this?::::





*One last thing, Stop the name calling and personal insults, Keep the discussion to the Topic rather than the person commenting on it.*


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

rider95 said:


> OH I thought the OP was The Angry Singlespeeder rides an e-bike and doesn't hate it not the same ole same ole BS that you guys take every post too quickly followed with the name calling


How is asking a question and looking for opinions 'name calling'?

Try again: Why is it you feel that mtber's should take responsibility for e-bikes?


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

So with an open mind, I brought a Turbo Levo up to Downieville in order to sort it out on an extensive network of moto-legal trails to determine its capabilities and pitfalls. 
Even the ASS realises it has a motor.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

They're not awarding Nobel Prizes to individuals who realize if a given state in the US (at least CA & UT, probably others, soon maybe to be all) say that it's not a motorized vehicle, by state law it's not motorized.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

fos'l said:


> They're not awarding Nobel Prizes to individuals who realize if a given state in the US (at least CA & UT, probably others, soon maybe to be all) say that it's not a motorized vehicle, by state law it's not motorized.


And therefore allowed on certain trails governed by the state vehicle code.
Which doesn't make it allowed everywhere mountain bikes are allowed.

Really, this again?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

fos'l said:


> They're not awarding Nobel Prizes to individuals who realize if a given state in the US (at least CA & UT, probably others, soon maybe to be all) say that it's not a motorized vehicle, by state law it's not motorized.


 Good thing MA law states" No motorized vehicles allowed on trails"


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

The "there's a law that says they're not motorized!" thing is THE WORST THING YOU CAN SAY in an advocacy or trail access situation. It makes you seem cynical and calculating.

Concentrate on making the case that e-bikes are safe and capable of sharing trails. The "we can because XXX state law that's intended for bike lanes says we can" thing is a dead end. 

-Walt


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Walt said:


> The "there's a law that says they're not motorized!" thing is THE WORST THING YOU CAN SAY in an advocacy or trail access situation. It makes you seem cynical and calculating.


Actually, it makes you sound like a flat-out idiot.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

And yet that is exactly what got us access in California........ Is it still a dead end or idiotic sounding if it works?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

fos'l said:


> They're not awarding Nobel Prizes to individuals who realize if a given state in the US (at least CA & UT, probably others, soon maybe to be all) say that it's not a motorized vehicle, by state law it's not motorized.


Fed law reclassified them as no longer a Motor Vehicle, a very specific legal definiton.

CA/UT say nothing about them not being a motorized vehicle they specifically state that a "motorized bicycle" is now called an "electric bicycle". A bicycle with an electric motor. They split them away from motorized bicycles/mopeds.

Since the "no motorized vehicles" signs that are posted are not limited by a legal definition, I would think most places would consider an ebike to be motorized. That's certainly the case here.

Bill Text - AB-1096 Vehicles: electric bicycles.

SB0121


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Harry; some day where e-MTB's are allowed in CA will be decided definitively beyond the places that already accept us. Until then we're just riding and enjoying all of the trails just like when we started with MTB's 30+ years ago. We get along with the majority of other trail users and haven't had a confrontational meeting in a long time. Not surprised that the name calling, acerbic individuals responding here have trouble in their areas. They probably have issues with everybody including other MTB riders. BTW, we're not asking anyone for assistance. The manufacturers are providing all we need.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Quite an imagination you've got there.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

fos'l said:


> Harry; some day where e-MTB's are allowed in CA will be decided definitively beyond the places that already accept us. Until then we're just riding and enjoying all of the trails just like when we started with MTB's 30+ years ago. We get along with the majority of other trail users and haven't had a confrontational meeting in a long time. Not surprised that the name calling, acerbic individuals responding here have trouble in their areas. They probably have issues with everybody including other MTB riders. BTW, we're not asking anyone for assistance. The manufacturers are providing all we need.


 Very well put us e bike riders are not the antichrist


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

fos'l said:


> Harry; some day where e-MTB's are allowed in CA will be decided definitively beyond the places that already accept us. Until then we're just riding and enjoying all of the trails just like when we started with MTB's 30+ years ago. We get along with the majority of other trail users and haven't had a confrontational meeting in a long time. Not surprised that the name calling, acerbic individuals responding here have trouble in their areas. They probably have issues with everybody including other MTB riders. BTW, we're not asking anyone for assistance. The manufacturers are providing all we need.


You mean poaching on your 1000w e-bike?.....


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

rider95 said:


> Mabey you have trail access problems because you ride like your in a red bull video sitting fast time, somehow you think an old mt biker whos been riding since the 80s that now has bought a e bike to keep riding will ride like you do ?? is that what your scared of??


I don't know about anybody else, but I'm scared by your lack of education. Your grammar and spelling is absolutely atrocious.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

d365 said:


> You mean poaching on your 1000w e-bike?.....


It's rated at 750w; I poach only with "legal" equipment.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

fos'l said:


> However, I have a 1000w motor that others have reported pumping 4kw into.


Just going off what you wrote..... so now it's 750?


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

d365; didn't mean to mislead; that's a different bike, and not suitable for off road. Built it just to see how an inexpensive system would perform. Very well; some individuals have 20,000 miles on them.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

d365 said:


> You mean poaching on your 1000w e-bike?.....


 So poaching on private land on an illegal trail is OK on a pMTB, but trail riding on a legal 750w ebike is not? Correct me where I got it wrong, but isn't a big part of pMTB culture and history all about riding private/secret trails on someone else's land?

And wouldn't cutting a secret trail be a much bigger violation of property rights and the environment in general than riding a 750w or even a 1500w ebike on an existing multi-use trail?

I mean, you pMTBsrs created the word "poaching" to describe some action or some sort of behavior........ And you did it long before ebikes. So what were you all talking about back then?

And how does that reconcile with the oh-so-holy attitudes we see displayed here in 2016 when the subject of eMTBs on existing trails comes up?


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

WoodlandHills said:


> So poaching on private land on an illegal trail is OK on a pMTB, but trail riding on a legal 750w ebike is not? Correct me where I got it wrong, but isn't a big part of pMTB culture and history all about riding private/secret trails on someone else's land?
> 
> And wouldn't cutting a secret trail be a much bigger violation of property rights and the environment in general than riding a 750w or even a 1500w ebike on an existing multi-use trail?
> 
> ...


If you ask people if it's okay to poach trails on a regular MTB I suspect you would get a similar amount of push back, that's just not what this section of this site is discussing so you don't see it.

I don't poach trails, the history of the sport has little to do with how I ride. If your argument is 2 wrongs make a right, my grandmother would like to have a word with you.


----------



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

WoodlandHills said:


> Correct me where I got it wrong, but isn't a big part of pMTB culture and history all about riding private/secret trails on someone else's land?


I've been mountain biking for 30 years and have never knowingly ridden (illegally) a secret trail on private land. Mountain bikers had nothing to do with creating the word "poaching", you're thinking of hunters.

And adding a "p" before mtb is both unnecessary and redundant.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

So the unapologetic poaching is the go-to plan for folks like WoodlandHills. At least he's being honest about riding illegally. I guess if he ever has to answer for it he can say "I was doing it to spite real bikers". Solid reasoning there, as usual.

I'm becoming more convinced by the hour that maybe I shouldn't be as open to e-bikes as I am currently. If (most) of the folks here are a representation of the type of people that buy them, they definitely aren't a user group that seems to have any sort of knowledge or respect for trails or other users.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> So the unapologetic poaching is the go-to plan for folks like WoodlandHills. At least he's being honest about riding illegally. I guess if he ever has to answer for it he can say "I was doing it to spite real bikers". Solid reasoning there, as usual.
> 
> I'm becoming more convinced by the hour that maybe I shouldn't be as open to e-bikes as I am currently. If (most) of the folks here are a representation of the type of people that buy them, they definitely aren't a user group that seems to have any sort of knowledge or respect for trails or other users.


 WE e bike riders are called names in almost every post now its poaching this time I have come to the same conclusion you e hater have come too , there is only about 3 of the anti e bike guys on here who are worth talking too the rest of you just want to call names . We came here because we was invited we are long time MT bikers who now ride a e bike we love and care for OUR trails in the same way we did when riding a P bike . So Dorothy Click your heels together and keep repeating NO e bikes on my trail in the mean time I am going riding .


----------



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

rider95 said:


> there is only about 3 of the anti e bike guys on here who are worth talking too the rest of you just want to call names .


You seem to be responding to smhmf's post which is funny since he's been one of the most reasonable posters on these threads, can't recall him "name calling" even once.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Other funny thing is I've said many, many times that I have no problem with e-bikes on trails, and even that locally I would support their access efforts locally by sharing my opinion that low-powered ones shouldn't be any sort of an issue (fwiw - I would be considered the 'go to mtb guy' locally for the LMs who would be involved in making these decisions).

I don't come here to call names, but in the light of the paranoia and ignorance demonstrated constantly by virtually all of the e-bikers who post here...well...you gotta call a spade a spade. Some of you guys are straight up whackjobs (ahem..rider95) and absolutely clueless when it comes to anything having to do with trail access. You're also incredibly arrogant, closed-minded and hyper-defensive. 

I'm sorry you guys have no answers to my basic question that doesn't make you look like *****, but the problem is not with the question.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> So poaching on private land on an illegal trail is OK on a pMTB, but trail riding on a legal 750w ebike is not? Correct me where I got it wrong, but isn't a big part of pMTB culture and history all about riding private/secret trails on someone else's land?
> 
> And wouldn't cutting a secret trail be a much bigger violation of property rights and the environment in general than riding a 750w or even a 1500w ebike on an existing multi-use trail?
> 
> ...


Your credibility has reached zero. Neg rep for advocating the one thing that will certainly close access.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

JB and Harry; continually enjoy your cogent and sometimes even humorous posts; you're keeping this thread entertaining. FWIW, don't remember ever poaching on my MTB either, but probably did and definitely was on trails later than they were "open" if I had a flat, got lost or whatever. Don't know FOR SURE yet if I've poached riding my e-MTB since TO ME the law isn't defined adequately (some person, we know, who is going to call this rationalization, but will use a profane, pejorative or some other really derogatory term; don't care since he's a non-entity to me and I don't read his posts). Anyway, as before, ride where I'm not seen so it matters little (TO ME). BTW, I also go faster than the speed limit on the freeway sometimes, but otherwise am an upstanding citizen AFAIK.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Other funny thing is I've said many, many times that I have no problem with e-bikes on trails, and even that locally I would support their access efforts locally by sharing my opinion that low-powered ones shouldn't be any sort of an issue (fwiw - I would be considered the 'go to mtb guy' locally for the LMs who would be involved in making these decisions).
> 
> I don't come here to call names, but in the light of the paranoia and ignorance demonstrated constantly by virtually all of the e-bikers who post here...well...you gotta call a spade a spade. Some of you guys are straight up whackjobs (ahem..rider95) and absolutely clueless when it comes to anything having to do with trail access. You're also incredibly arrogant, closed-minded and hyper-defensive.
> 
> I'm sorry you guys have no answers to my basic question that doesn't make you look like *****, but the problem is not with the question.


 Because your not asking a question its the same ole *****ing and name calling ( wackjob is a new one for me but still nicer than most you have called me ) You're also incredibly arrogant, closed-minded and hyper-defensive. I couldn't have said it better you e haters sure are !!


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

rider95 said:


> my setup I currently use most likely wouldn't be trail legal . It will cost me about $800 to change my bike over but happy to do it as soon as I need too .


So when do you think you'll "need" to make your e-bike legal? You certainly set a fine example for us all.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

rider95 said:


> Because your not asking a question


Err....okay...
Let me know and I can show you a few dozen other times I've asked the same thing. Have yet to see any sort of attempt to actually address this isssue; people crying "You're mean!" is about it.



slapheadmofo said:


> No. My concerns have little to nothing to do federally designated wilderness areas. I'm talking about the places where mountain biking actually takes place.
> 
> Why is it hypocritical to expect the e-bike user group to be treated the same as all other user groups? Why do you think mountain bike access should hinge on e-bike access? Or do you? None of you has even said where you stand on the topic, just danced around it.





slapheadmofo said:


> I've asked again and again, why should mtb advocates be saddled with carrying the responsibility for e-bike access at risk of our own? No one even attempts to answer. Can we assume it's because the answer is obvious, but none of you wants to put it in writing because it clearly demonstrates your sense of entitlement and willingness to screw mountain bikers out of what we've worked so hard for so you can have things easy? If not, then what?
> 
> Please, share your thoughts.





slapheadmofo said:


> How is asking a question and looking for opinions 'name calling'?
> 
> Try again: Why is it you feel that mtber's should take responsibility for e-bikes?





slapheadmofo said:


> How many times can the same question be repeated before even a single one of you even make any sort of attempt to actually address it?





slapheadmofo said:


> *"Again, I ask any of you to please explain why you feel I should be saddled with fighting your access battles in addition to my own."*
> .





slapheadmofo said:


> Oh, and again, you completely avoid the issue and put up a picture of a tree.





slapheadmofo said:


> *"Again, I ask any of you to please explain why you feel I should be saddled with fighting your access battles in addition to my own."*





slapheadmofo said:


> Why is this issue somehow thrown in my lap? I have no motor. It is not my problem. Fight your own fight. Seems to me your major strategy is just to be 100% parasitic on MTB advocacy efforts. Disagree? Please, do explain.
> .





slapheadmofo said:


> I have no problems with e-bikes in many, many places. I just don't want e-bike access tied to real bike access. Probably the 100th time I've said it, and others have as well. Why is that an issue with you guys?





slapheadmofo said:


> Again, I ask any of you to please explain why you feel I should be saddled with fighting your access battles in addition to my own.





slapheadmofo said:


> I wouldn't show up to voice my opposition to e-mtbs. I would very likely actually say the opposite - that as a long time mtb'er and trail builder/maintainer, I really don't see any sort of issue with low-power e-bike usage. But that's as far as I would be willing to take it; I don't want to be forced to adopt someone else's battle.
> 
> Please tell me how exactly that is an unreasonable or 'anti' stance in any way, shape or form? And please tell me how much time any of you spend fighting for access for user groups you are not a part of.





slapheadmofo said:


> If facts bear out that there is no major difference in trail wear and safety issues (which I believe will be the case for the most part) I could really give a damn whether e-bikes share appropriate trails with mtbs. I just want to make sure that a clear distinction remains in place.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

I think it's amusing that both sides accuse the other of behavior that is common to everyone, all user groups, all humans. I spend a lot of time in my local parks, riding my bike, hiking and bushwacking while working on new trial alignments. I know all the legal trails and most of the illegal ones. The "rules" are broken continuously, by everyone, all the time. Dogs off leash, people straying off trail, going on closed trails, whatever. The worst users and creaters of non system social (illegal) trails are pedestrians by far btw. I always love the pictures on social media where a hiker will post a picture of a bike track on an illegal trail surrounded by a zillion footprints, "Look at how mtbs are ruining our land!" Um, what about you? And all the others?

Anyway, the mountain bike community is not immune or any different, some riders will go where they want to go, regardless of who says what. That sense of entitlment is widespread with all users. Does anyone expect it to be any different with someone on an ebike? It'll be the same deal, except they can go farther and faster on an illegal trail and in most places, more illegal trail available.

WH, your assertation that "poaching" was invented by and is the defacto policy of the mountain bike community is absurd.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Curious thing to me is that in the early days of MTB, probably we were poaching before we knew what it meant (except as a hunting term).


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Harryman said:


> I think it's amusing that both sides accuse the other of behavior that is common to everyone, all user groups, all humans. I spend a lot of time in my local parks, riding my bike, hiking and bushwacking while working on new trial alignments. I know all the legal trails and most of the illegal ones. The "rules" are broken continuously, by everyone, all the time. Dogs off leash, people straying off trail, going on closed trails, whatever. The worst users and creaters of non system social (illegal) trails are pedestrians by far btw. I always love the pictures on social media where a hiker will post a picture of a bike track on an illegal trail surrounded by a zillion footprints, "Look at how mtbs are ruining our land!" Um, what about you? And all the others?
> 
> Anyway, the mountain bike community is not immune or any different, some riders will go where they want to go, regardless of who says what. That sense of entitlment is widespread with all users. Does anyone expect it to be any different with someone on an ebike? It'll be the same deal, except they can go farther and faster on an illegal trail and in most places, more illegal trail available.
> 
> WH, your assertation that "poaching" was invented by and is the defacto policy of the mountain bike community is absurd.


 That was not my point at all. I was just pointing out that by whatever name you call it, illegal trails and illegal trail riding is part and parcel of the sport. If it is not defacto policy at MTBR it is certainly NOT discouraged here either editorially or in the posts in the forum by random pMTBers. To get up on a high horse and whine about someone riding a multi-use trail on an ebike that might be over 750w and not also condemn any and all poaching by pMTBs is simply hypocrisy. It ignores the greater damage to our environment by building an illegal trail as opposed to riding an ebike on an existing and permitted trail.

Look, I get it: you guys tried long and hard and you finally muscled your way into the club, now you want to keep a new group out of the club just like the existing members tried to keep you out. It is only human nature........


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

fos'l said:


> Curious thing to me is that in the early days of MTB, probably we were poaching before we knew what it meant (except as a hunting term).


 The sport from its founding days was propelled by rebels who refused to accept the existing rules and who flipped the bird to any and all authorities that tried to keep them out. It is funny watching people try to rewrite that past now that the truth is politically inconvenient........


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> That was not my point at all. I was just pointing out that by whatever name you call it, illegal trails and illegal trail riding is part and parcel of the sport. If it is not defacto policy at MTBR it is certainly NOT discouraged here either editorially or in the posts in the forum by random pMTBers. To get up on a high horse and whine about someone riding a multi-use trail on an ebike that might be over 750w and not also condemn any and all poaching by pMTBs is simply hypocrisy. It ignores the greater damage to our environment by building an illegal trail as opposed to riding an ebike on an existing and permitted trail.
> 
> Look, I get it: you guys tried long and hard and you finally muscled your way into the club, now you want to keep a new group out of the club just like the existing members tried to keep you out. It is only human nature........


 Not exactly. There were no mt bike policies or rules in the beginning. They were new to the woods. Most bikers followed game trails, dirt bike trails and hiking paths. The POINT we all are trying to make is now there are rules in place, for motor vehicles, ORV and such. With a much larger population using the shrinking trail mileage available. Just follow the rules in place. Don't like the rules? Change them, that is how democracy works. Not by sliding in a back door using federal MV laws as it applies to roads and not trails.


----------



## SeaBass_ (Apr 7, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> The sport from its founding days was propelled by rebels who refused to accept the existing rules and who flipped the bird to any and all authorities that tried to keep them out. It is funny watching people try to rewrite that past now that the truth is politically inconvenient........


Except those guys pedaled their bikes unassisted. It's a different "sport" when you have a motor to help you, if it even qualified as a sport.

Sure, I'd get one to f*ck around on. First thing I would do is try to make it faster like when I hooked up 2 6V batteries in series on my kids' PowerWheels so they could smoke all the other neighborhood kids.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> That was not my point at all. I was just pointing out that by whatever name you call it, illegal trails and illegal trail riding is part and parcel of the sport. If it is not defacto policy at MTBR it is certainly NOT discouraged here either editorially or in the posts in the forum by random pMTBers. To get up on a high horse and whine about someone riding a multi-use trail on an ebike that might be over 750w and not also condemn any and all poaching by pMTBs is simply hypocrisy. It ignores the greater damage to our environment by building an illegal trail as opposed to riding an ebike on an existing and permitted trail.
> 
> Look, I get it: you guys tried long and hard and you finally muscled your way into the club, now you want to keep a new group out of the club just like the existing members tried to keep you out. It is only human nature........


So, before we are allowed to post any objections to motorized bicycles on the trails in the ebike forum we have to prove we are not hypocrites by clearly stating our objections to illegal trail building, poaching and stravatards? Anything else? Maybe we should have to compare the damage to the trail by an ebike to the damage to the environment caused by the parking lot at the trailhead?

All we're talking about is ebikes. All the other issues, while relevant to the problems our sport has, aren't what we're discussing.

I don't want to keep you out because you're a new group, I want you to take responsibility for yourselves, prove that a sea of 750w emtbs aren't going to damage the trails and the relationships we mountain bike riders have with our partners. I'm not interested in doing that for you and I'm doing the best I can to make sure I won't have to.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> Look, I get it: you guys tried long and hard and you finally muscled your way into the club, now you want to keep a new group out of the club just like the existing members tried to keep you out. It is only human nature........


WRONG as far as I'm concerned.

I really don't care what you do, as long as I (and the rest of the real bikers) don't have to answer for it. Which we will unless e-bikes and real bikes remain clearly distinct from each other.

So, do whatever you want, just make sure you own the fact that your are NOT riding a mountain bike, you are riding something new, different, and motorized. Keep those distinctions 100% clear and there's not good reason for real cyclists to care much what you do.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Harryman said:


> I'm not interested in doing that for you and I'm doing the best I can to make sure I won't have to.


Exactly, which begs the same question I've asked again, and still no answer at all from ANY of the e-bikers:

Why do you feel we should be stuck fighting your battles and taking your falls for you?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

WoodlandHills said:


> If it is not defacto policy at MTBR it is certainly NOT discouraged here either editorially or in the posts in the forum by random pMTBers. To get up on a high horse and whine about someone riding a multi-use trail on an ebike that might be over 750w and not also condemn any and all poaching by pMTBs is simply hypocrisy.


You've been on these forums for what, 8 whole months? People get called out for endangering trail access quite often. These e-bike threads are an example of that. Maybe you need to get off your high horse and start learning how to gain trail access for your new form of trail motorcycles rather than continually telling us how hypocratic mountain bikers are.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

WoodlandHills said:


> The sport from its founding days was propelled by rebels who refused to accept the existing rules and who flipped the bird to any and all authorities that tried to keep them out. It is funny watching people try to rewrite that past now that the truth is politically inconvenient........


No, it really wasn't. You should read up on the history of mountain biking before making erroneous claims like you're making. Sure, there were factions of the sport that fought the authorities, but it wasn't from the beginning, and it wasn't the foundation of the sport by any means.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Mountain biking was never punk rock or about sticking it to the man, at least outside of Marin. And we all know how well that worked out...

-Walt


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> No, it really wasn't. You should read up on the history of mountain biking before making erroneous claims like you're making. Sure, there were factions of the sport that fought the authorities, but it wasn't from the beginning, and it wasn't the foundation of the sport by any means.


People bragged about poaching trails, they still do, don't play dumb.

I hope you weren't one of the MANY people complaining about the people poaching trails on the military land having their bikes confiscated earlier this year.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> People get called out for endangering trail access quite often.


How exactly do ebikes endanger trail access?


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

richde said:


> How exactly do ebikes endanger trail access?


By travelling too fast an trails that are open to horses. Trust me though I would sooner share trails with any e-biker than Equestrians.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

richde said:


> How exactly do ebikes endanger trail access?


Repeat after me: speed is the #1 enemy of mountain bike trail access.

-Walt


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Anyone who says that early MTB advocates weren't rebellious has never been to Orange County, CA. The first mountain bikers in the area rode where they wanted as a group and still do thumbing their noses at whoever tries to stop them. This doesn't relate to the Marine Base issue; it's in San Diego County.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

fos'l said:


> The first mountain bikers in the area rode where they wanted as a group and still do thumbing their noses at whoever tries to stop them.


So are you saying that in this day and age and knowing what you know, you think that's a solid plan for e-bikes to become an accepted user group?


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Harryman said:


> I know all the legal trails and most of the illegal ones. The "rules" are broken continuously, by everyone, all the time. Dogs off leash, people straying off trail, going on closed trails, whatever. The worst users and creaters of non system social (illegal) trails are pedestrians by far btw..


Oh, no pedestrians are not the worst:

Reckless Driver by unoh7, on Flickr

These bastards have trails, and I mean well worn trails, all over the place here 

I like your post though 

I have a friend who has taken two wheels to many very unusual places and still does, I think. But he is careful and once told me his ethos: "leave no marks and don't ride the same route twice a season".

One the other hand I see flow trails scarring the hillsides like never before. Totally legal.

Real life, as you know Harry, is full of nuance 



slapheadmofo said:


> So are you saying that in this day and age and knowing what you know, you think that's a solid plan for e-bikes to become an accepted user group?


You really have to bully your ideas into everyones posts. You would be great I bet at demanding false confessions 

I love the way you pretend to have an real open mind but then you can't help yourself LOL Bullies are always "victims" and can tell you about their oppression at length. When called for extreme views, they simply blame others. "I was all for e-bikes untill..."

I should not give you too hard a time, it's just male primate behavior which many of us can fall into if we are not careful.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Walt said:


> Repeat after me: speed is the #1 enemy of mountain bike trail access.
> 
> -Walt


Amen


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

rider95 said:


> Amen


THE SEARCH FOR A GRIZZLY BEAR THAT KILLED A MOUNTAIN BIKER IN MONTANA HAS BEEN CALLED OFF AFTER AN INVESTIGATION FOUND A COLLISION WAS TO BLAME.
Wildlife response team investigator Brian Sommers believes Treat was riding at a high rate of speed with poor visibility along a narrow trail and hit the bear. Authorities believe the collision was unavoidable and the cameras and bear traps being used to find the bear have been removed.

Brad Treat, 38, and another rider were riding in the Half Moon Lakes area of the Flathead National Forest on Wednesday when they reportedly surprised the bear and it attacked Treat. He was knocked off his bike and his fellow rider went to look for help.

Treat's body was found at the scene but the bear was nowhere to be seen. Treat was a law-enforcement officer for the US Forest Service.

Read more at https://dirtmountainbike.com/news/m...grizzly-bear-montana.html#4APIsJcxGFRIRpAi.99

First bear death in Montana since 2001. His partner fled. Alaska types say they should have both had bear spray, and the partner should have tried to use it, as has been done successfully to stop attacks in AK I guess.

I have a bell on my bike now. 

I'm looking into a taser which will run off my battery to deal with bears and angry e-haters 

More seriously, a nice light electric horn would not be a bad thing to have 

I have come across many black bears over the years on my various motos. But they hear you and they don't seem inclined to face off if the motor is running. In the late 70s I worked in a logging camp in SE AK, and saw a giant Bear fight quite close when my truck got stuck way out and I was waiting for help.

Now once those bears get 3k watt E-bikes....

PS Here is "the" current bear tactics lecture:


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> blah blah picture of something unrelated blah blah blah completely avoid the question blah blah


Nice deflection.

When you've got nothing, just change the subject and throw in some personal attack.

I should not give you too hard a time, it's just male primate behavior which many of us can fall into if we are not careful.

*MODERATOR EDIT - Stop the Name Calling.*


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> More seriously, a nice light electric horn would not be a bad thing to have


Good god, what next? 200w sound system with sat nav? Cruise control? Backcountry e-charging stations?

A slippery slope indeed.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

As long as the bear didn't give anyone a MERSA infection, we should be ok.



-Walt


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

And yet another advantage to an e-mtb. You don't need to hesitate on the bear spray on account of weight 



Walt said:


> As long as the bear didn't give anyone a MERSA infection, we should be ok.
> 
> 
> 
> -Walt


Ah, yes you think it's really stupid to be aware of how easy it is to get a bad infection from mtb cuts. And MRSA is such a joke right?








slapheadmofo said:


> Nice deflection.


Just following your lead on the topic of the Turbo Levo review: ignore it 

Fine for you to wander off in whatever direction you like, but let me give an example of gravity powered speed consequences in response to several posts: I'm deflecting :nono:

I think I'll deflect up to a nice high circ shortly  You should go lick your flow trail incase somebody mussed it up 

Gunsight CIrc by unoh7, on Flickr


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

You've obviously been dipping into some of whatever rider95 has had too much of.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

richde said:


> How exactly do ebikes endanger trail access?


 Not legal on multi use trails here in MA. In state parks and forests.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Expressing contempt for other folks trails is a great way to make allies!

-Walt


----------



## Bikedriver (Jun 11, 2016)

Walt said:


> Exactly. If you just don't want to suffer on the climbs (or wanted a ton of range), but keep overall speed the same, 250W is way more than enough, as is 15mph. Hell, 10mph and 150W would basically do it unless you're an enormous and very lazy person.
> 
> 750W/20mph is a huge departure from what mountain bikes powered by humans can do.
> 
> -Walt


250 W may be enough for you, but not me and many riders I know, 500 -750 @ 20 mph is more my style, and certainly reasonable for 95% of trails, that's what I ride that now and 20 mph can be achieved by most bikes without assistance.

15 mph is too slow for most skilled off road riders. Your comments are like your opinion is and should be fact for all. IT's not, because 15 mph is certainly too slow for me. My first ebike was limited to 15 and I was always wanting more. 20 mph and <750 watts is perfect in my opinion for off road, anything more get's too heavy anyway.

IN Europe, just FYI - they may be limited in some places to 15 mph, but overwhelmingly those who live there just go get their bikes from other countries that allow for 20 (or they reprogram it to 20 after buying it).

You are right about 1 thing;, "750 watts / 20 mph is a departure from what humans can do" ...That's exactly right. And that's the whole point that you and all those who don't actually ride an ebike are missing while trying to influence policy for those that do, with ignorance. That "departure" is the whole point of those who are riding an ebike,like me, do it. The feeling of being "beyond human." It's awesome.


----------



## Bikedriver (Jun 11, 2016)

NEPMTBA said:


> The Angry Singlespeeder rides an e-bike and doesn't hate it


To the point of the thread, I tried the new Specialized a few weeks ago. It was pretty nice, looked slick, but I'd give it a thumbs sideways too. AT low speeds and steep climbs it was great but in general, Accel was too slow, felt too heavy and maybe it was just the geometry I didn't like ...but it felt a little weird. The other thing I wasn't crazy about was the shifting...it's tough on the chain and cassette.

I find it so funny on these posts that the post starts somewhere on a topic and then just a page in , there is nothing at all about the actual post.

So to the point of the post.. I only got to ride it for a few miles but I agree. Thumbs sideways.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Walt said:


> Expressing contempt for other folks trails is a great way to make allies!
> 
> -Walt


I'm sure he's given much more back to the sport than I ever have, so his opinions carry a lot of weight.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

Bikedriver said:


> 250 W may be enough for you, but not me and many riders I know, 500 -750 @ 20 mph is more my style, and certainly reasonable for 95% of trails, that's what I ride that now and 20 mph can be achieved by most bikes without assistance.
> 
> 15 mph is too slow for most skilled off road riders. Your comments are like your opinion is and should be fact for all. IT's not, because 15 mph is certainly too slow for me. My first ebike was limited to 15 and I was always wanting more. 20 mph and <750 watts is perfect in my opinion for off road, anything more get's too heavy anyway.
> 
> ...


Your entire post just provides more proof, that all the backlash against e-bikes sharing non motorized trails is completely justified. Thanks.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Bikedriver said:


> My first ebike was limited to 15 and I was always wanting more. 20 mph and <750 watts is perfect in my opinion for off road, anything more get's too heavy anyway.


Too heavy for now.....



Bikedriver said:


> You are right about 1 thing;, "750 watts / 20 mph is a departure from what humans can do" ...That's exactly right. And that's the whole point that you and all those who don't actually ride an ebike are missing while trying to influence policy for those that do, with ignorance. That "departure" is the whole point of those who are riding an ebike,like me, do it. The feeling of being "beyond human." It's awesome.


Thanks for the aknowledgment that an ebike is a new vehicle providing a new experience. The vast majority of ebike proponents still claim they are the same as bikes, that the only people that will ride them are the old and/or slow, that no one will care.

All the more reason that as a new class of vehicle, there should be a clear distinction and separation where appropriate.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Bikedriver said:


> That "departure" is the whole point of those who are riding an ebike,like me, do it. The feeling of being "beyond human." It's awesome.


It's good to see this openly acknowledged. We can dispense with the "it's just like a bike! E-bikes don't go any faster! What about when you get old!" stuff now, right?

If I had an e-bike, it sure as heck wouldn't be a measly 250W. I'd made it as powerful as I could, and go as fast as I could, and it would be rad and super fun.

On moto trails.

-Walt


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

Walt said:


> It's good to see this openly acknowledged. We can dispense with the "it's just like a bike! E-bikes don't go any faster! What about when you get old!" stuff now, right?
> 
> If I had an e-bike, it sure as heck wouldn't be a measly 250W. I'd made it as powerful as I could, and go as fast as I could, and it would be rad and super fun.
> 
> ...


 Exactly.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

So funny (if you ignore the individuals with a big ax to grind --- their tripe is boring, perfunctory and not relevant) reading these threads; need to go back to the title to determine what they were about originally since all gravitate to the same comments by the only ones worth reading, JB, Harry and Walt. Just a lot of verbiage. I'm still riding my bikes (electric or not) almost every day with impunity.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

fos'l said:


> So funny (if you ignore the individuals with a big ax to grind --- their tripe is boring, perfunctory and not relevant) reading these threads; need to go back to the title to determine what they were about originally since all gravitate to the same comments by the only ones worth reading, JB, Harry and Walt. Just a lot of verbiage. I'm still riding my bikes (electric or not) almost every day with impunity.


I don't think anyone here is saying that you specifically are the problem, but when we see videos of 10000 watt e-bikes and threads about 14000 watt e-Bikes it scares the crap out of those who have been working for years to help keep MTB access on Multi-use trails. How do you honestly think Land Managers are going to react when they see the same things posted online?

How can any proponent for e-Bike access on Multi-use trails defend 10k watts and more? The kits are available and real, this is not hypothetical.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

From my standpoint, they've been available (just like ICE's although not as long obviously) for awhile and shouldn't be on trails. I've seen ICE's a few times in 35+ years of riding, but never a high-power ebike. Once my wife and I were riding on a remote fire road in CA, which allowed street legal vehicles and there were off road ICE's riding near where a Ranger was patrolling in his truck. He wouldn't even chase them because probably he couldn't apprehend them and AIR he said that if one of them had an accident while ha was chasing them (for a misdemeanor) he could be liable for legal action (happened a long time ago and this may be wrong, but whatever he didn't chase them).


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

What is an ICE?

So you are saying high powered Motorized Mountain Bikes should NOT be on trails. So then how do the Land Managers police this? Who is going to keep the high-powered stuff off the Multi-Use Trails?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Internal 
Combustion
Engine


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Only two ways that I can perceive to apprehend is "trap" them (read MTBR article about how the US Marines caught bikes poaching on military land) or have Rangers "ride them down" somehow.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Harryman said:


> Internal
> Combustion
> Engine


/facepalm



fos'l said:


> Only two ways that I can perceive to apprehend is "trap" them (read MTBR article about how the US Marines caught bikes poaching on military land) or have Rangers "ride them down" somehow.


Well those are two very different things. I live in San Diego and am very aware of the Area in which users were targeted by the Military. I do not see how that applies to this at all unless someone is riding a motorized Mountain Bike on Military land....

As for chasing them down and ticketing, do your local riding area's have Rangers who both actively patrol and are able to write tickets to people? My local riding area is a nature preserve, parts managed by the City of Carlsbad, parts managed by Fish n Game and parts managed by the Water Authority. Only the area managed by the City has Rangers and they are volunteers, spend about 1 hour per day there and are not able to write tickets of any sort, they can only talk to people. The area managed by the Water District has no oversight and the Area Managed by Fish n Game sees the Fish n Game rangers out there once every 3 years. Other trail systems in the Area get less oversight by any sort of Rangers. Who is going to Chase them down to ticket them? This is a very complicated issue with no easy solution.

Personally I would like to see more engagement by the Manufacturers, especially ones as large as Specialized. They are getting free press from articles like this, yet I have heard nothing about them educating the dealerships they sell through or being active in IMBA or other organizations to help find the right fit for them. The Angry Single Speeder avoided this issue in his Article by only riding the Motorized Bike on Motorized approved trails, but we all know that they will be used on Multi-Use trails until there is better direction for all area's on this sort of thing.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

fos'l said:


> Only two ways that I can perceive to apprehend is "trap" them (read MTBR article about how the US Marines caught bikes poaching on military land) or have Rangers "ride them down" somehow.


That is the problem, it won't happen like that. The easiest thing for them to do is do ban all bikes, because they can't tell them apart. The land managers will always do the easiest thing they can. This is why people that have worked hard for years, just to get some scraps are worried. You thinking that 15 uphill and 25 downhill is a good starting point is laughable. It shows you have no idea what it is like to fight for access.


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

Klurejr said:


> /facepalm
> 
> Well those are two very different things. I live in San Diego and am very aware of the Area in which users were targeted by the Military. I do not see how that applies to this at all unless someone is riding a motorized Mountain Bike on Military land....
> 
> ...


The way I gather it's regulated here in Australia is generally that trail users report illegal trail usage, which is followed by a crackdown on the poachers, often by police. I suspect this is usually done by choosing a few choke points and waiting for the offenders. eg: They can just wait at the trail access point and ping anyone coming out of the trail network.


----------



## dstepper (Feb 28, 2004)

You can not out ride radios. Land mangers call the Sherriff and the Sherriff waits at trails heads holds suspected poacher until park staff identifies them. That is unless the semi-pro cyclocross rider that works for Irvine Police is on bike patrol sees ya. We can not shake him off. 

Dean


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Klurejr said:


> /facepalm
> 
> Well those are two very different things. I live in San Diego and am very aware of the Area in which users were targeted by the Military. I do not see how that applies to this at all unless someone is riding a motorized Mountain Bike on Military land....
> 
> ...


You asked me for suggestions and that's what came to mind. I'm not perfect; maybe they're infeasible; if you have something better, let us know. FYI, Rangers at a local park actually set up a blockade on an illegal trail (much like the Marines) and trapped individuals. You need to catch them at the top of a hill around a corner or some place where they need to slow down.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

It's different everywhere. Our rangers don't want to be LEOs and won't. There's no radar guns, no inspections, no rangers on the trail at all actually.

Peer pressure keeps the motos off motorized here, which is why I'm not for ebikes on non motorized. No one, ranger or civilian will be able to tell which ebike is a legal one, and which isn't, or which one was before and isn't now. If they're mixed together, the small number of idiots will ruin it for everyone, both ebikers and mtb riders.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Harryman said:


> Peer pressure keeps the motos off motorized here, which is why I'm not for ebikes on non motorized. No one, ranger or civilian will be able to tell which ebike is a legal one, and which isn't, or which one was before and isn't now. If they're mixed together, the small number of idiots will ruin it for everyone, both ebikers and mtb riders.


Sorry but I just don't agree 

Obviously anyone can tell the difference between a 250w pedelec and a 250cc motorbike. Of course few can tell the difference between that and a mountain bike.

So if ti appears to be a mountain bike and acts like one on the trail, then it belongs.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

We'll see. I hear people are modifying their rides already...

-Walt


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> We'll see. I hear people are modifying their rides already...
> 
> -Walt


You mean they are modifying their rides under local laws?

What is wrong with that, please?

You never modify your mtb bikes?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

rlee said:


> By travelling too fast an trails that are open to horses. Trust me though I would sooner share trails with any e-biker than Equestrians.





Walt said:


> Repeat after me: speed is the #1 enemy of mountain bike trail access.
> 
> -Walt


So what's the speed limit you're endorsing now?


----------



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

richde said:


> So what's the speed limit you're endorsing now?


I don't know about Walt but I think human powered speed is good because it is forever limited and self regulating.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

richde said:


> So what's the speed limit you're endorsing now?


Speed limits aren't easily enforceable, but power assist cutoffs (in theory) are. The EU standard 15mph would work as a starting point to see how things go. I've stated that many times, though I think 10mph cutoff would be better.

-Walt


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

fos'l said:


> You asked me for suggestions and that's what came to mind. I'm not perfect; maybe they're infeasible; if you have something better, let us know.


What I have that is better is to Ban all Motorized Vehicles on Mutli-Use Trails.

Until the Motorized Bike Crowd and advocates come up with something better, that is really the only solution that is feasible. Even then, there will still be people riding Motorized Mountain Bikes on Multi-Use Trails.

This is a very sticky situation, and it is not going to magically get better for everyone.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

uhoh7 said:


> Sorry but I just don't agree


Ok, we'll agree to disagree then.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

So ban them, which BTW seems to be the opposite direction that CA areas are leaning. As long as dealers keep selling them, individuals will keep riding them on trails mostly with impunity. For the troll that can't wait to jump off the couch and ask this question, I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong; it's my opinion, and I've been wrong before (ask Harry and JB who, I hope, enjoyed watching me eat my dinner --- humble pie) last night.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

fos'l said:


> So ban them, which BTW seems to be the opposite direction that CA areas are leaning. As long as dealers keep selling them, individuals will keep riding them on trails mostly with impunity. For the troll that can't wait to jump off the couch and ask this question, I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong; it's my opinion, and I've been wrong before (ask Harry and JB who, I hope, enjoyed watching me eat my dinner --- humble pie) last night.


Ca. left that decision to land managers. Which path of resistance do you think they'll take? I'll add that all it takes is a few individuals to subvert the best efforts of the most responsible and well meaning, other threads here have aptly demonstrated that. If it were me, I'd get out in front of this and continue to try and develop some meaningful relationships and allies without making demands for full access and stop with the semantics that it's not a motorized vehicle. If the conversation continues on its current trajectory, bikes in general are going to lose.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tiretracks said:


> Ca. left that decision to land managers. Which path of resistance do you think they'll take? I'll add that all it takes is a few individuals to subvert the best efforts of the most responsible and well meaning, other threads here have aptly demonstrated that. If it were me, I'd get out in front of this and continue to try and develop some meaningful relationships and allies without making demands for full access and stop with the semantics that it's not a motorized vehicle. If the conversation continues on its current trajectory, bikes in general are going to lose.


I agree with this.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

It is early days. I think in the next few years we'll see significant problems, followed by bans in a lot of the currently legal places. Hopefully those bans will not extend to non-motorized bikes.

The manufacturers could at least help solve this right now by widely adopting some form of tamper-proof EU-limit driveline. But apparently short term profits are more important.

-Walt


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> It is early days. I think in the next few years we'll see significant problems


You like all the terrible problems in Austria and Switzerland where e-mtbs can go anywhere a mtb can go?

Or you mean confrontations between users over turf? Not a response to bad behavior, but "hey that's not allowed here, go back or I'll beat you up!" ?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I have confronted moto guys on non-motorized trails, if by "confronted" you mean told them politely that their motos weren't allowed. After you hear that enough times on a ride you don't tend to come back, which is why we don't have any on our MUTs here. So I'm not worried about that. 

-Walt


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> You like all the terrible problems in Austria and Switzerland where e-mtbs can go anywhere a mtb can go?


Oh wait, you live in Australia AND Switzerland and can attest from personal experience that no problems at all have cropped up, people are riding Motorized Vehicles on Mutli-Use Trails and everyone is living in a peace loving utopia?

One quick glance at the political tension in the USA shows that attitudes in this country are far different from the rest of the world. This sport is in its infancy but those who have been actively involved in Trail Advocacy for Human Powered MTB's for the last 20 years here know that there are always users who will ruin it for the majority, there are user groups who don't want any sort of mechanized travel on trails with horses and hikers and in many places it has been an uphill battle.

The manufacturers and the user base needs to get on board with finding a way to regulate the bikes or they will help get all mechanized access banned.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

fos'l said:


> . For the troll that can't wait to jump off the couch and ask this question, I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong; it's my opinion,


Just because you are asked a question that you can't (or more accurately, refuse to) answer honestly, that doesn't constitute 'trolling'.

Sorry that none of you has any sort of suggestions of reasonable solutions to the tough access issues that e-bikes engender and that hearing those issues raised hurts your feelings, but that doesn't mean those those issues don't exist. And if you aren't going to help come up with ways to deal with them, then you will just have to deal with what's handed to you.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Klurejr said:


> Oh wait, you live in Australia AND Switzerland and can attest from personal experience that no problems at all have cropped up, people are riding Motorized Vehicles on Mutli-Use Trails and everyone is living in a peace loving utopia?


Nope. He lives in the middle of the sticks, surround by huge amounts of open space and very lightly used trails where access issues are basically non-existent. In other words, his experience is worlds away from that of the overwhelming majority of mountain bikers and provides no practical insight regarding these sort of issues.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Crap, I have a ton of ideas.
-Software patches to limit motor controllers.
-Sealed motor/battery units with tamper indicators ALA iPhones.
-GPS in the motor housing that reports back to the manufacturer about where/how fast bike went.
-Motor/controller systems that auto-update from county or city websites when the bike goes to a new area to know where it can operate/not operate. 
-Trail designs that maximize sight lines, use lots of chokes and tight radius turns, and are directional/stacked loops. Something that would benefit everyone!
-Widespread industry support for a power/assist standard that does not increase overall speeds on the trail (750w/20mph is WAY too much).

Etc, etc. 

Why am I not hearing more about this from the e-bike proponents? These kinds of ideas are the ONLY way forward to widespread trail access. Yes, they'll be hard to pull off. Lots of things in life are hard, but the onus is on you guys to make it work such that we can all continue to enjoy the trails.

-Walt


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Walt said:


> I have confronted moto guys on non-motorized trails, if by "confronted" you mean told them politely that their motos weren't allowed. After you hear that enough times on a ride you don't tend to come back, which is why we don't have any on our MUTs here. So I'm not worried about that.
> 
> -Walt


It plays out exactly the same here. Not confrontations, at least that I've ever heard about and I'm pretty plugged in to both groups. The motos that stray onto non motorized mostly do so because they don't know any better.

It would work with ebikes here as well only if it was all ebikes, which is currently the case.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Harryman said:


> It plays out exactly the same here. Not confrontations, at least that I've ever heard about and I'm pretty plugged in to both groups. The motos that stray onto non motorized mostly do so because they don't know any better.
> 
> It would work with ebikes here as well only if it was all ebikes, which is currently the case.


Yes let's whip up a healthy e-hatred with hundreds of nasty posts (not from you) and assume it will have no effect in personal interaction, where calm reason prevails.

I've seen tons of other users riding my e-mtb. Only once did I get a nasty reaction, from a large group of young mtb riders, the kind who are plugged in to the comments on youtube etc...and here.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Hey, feel free to add your own/actually engage with them. I freely admit there might be much better ideas and there are certainly tons of people with more experience with trail design/user management than me.

I think all of those are well worth exploring and would in many cases be win/win for everyone. But they won't let you rip fast on singletrack any more than you can unassisted, so I'm not sure anyone actually wants them.

-Walt


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

uhoh7 said:


> Yes let's whip up a healthy e-hatred with hundreds of nasty posts (not from you) and assume it will have no effect in personal interaction, where calm reason prevails.


Actually, I will assume that, since reason does prevail in the real world. There's no shortage of flaming of equestrians, mountain bikers and motos on the internet and the stories I've heard of violence between trail users has been rare and hard to confirm. I'm talking on a national level, I've not heard of any here in a ctiy of half a million people. There's probably more fights over who took the last donut.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> Hey, feel free to add your own/actually engage with them. I freely admit there might be much better ideas and there are certainly tons of people with more experience with trail design/user management than me.
> 
> I think all of those are well worth exploring and would in many cases be win/win for everyone. But they won't let you rip fast on singletrack any more than you can unassisted, so I'm not sure anyone actually wants them.


Your focus is all on fear, which has no foundation beyond what we are already exposed to from mtb riders on gravity.

My focus is on the many upsides of e-mtb riding and access. 

My model is already in place in densely populated areas like Switzerland and Austria.

People love it there, by and large. Always some will complain, as horse riders do about you all the time TODAY


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> About a subject of which you have zero real experience. Congratulations


Really? Walt doesn't know anything about how trail layout and design affect user experiences? And you on the other hand are some sort of expert I suppose? Much like with your absolute absence of experience with trail advocacy, you somehow consider yourself an expert?

What a pompous frigging hypocrite you are.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

uhoh7 said:


> Your focus is all on fear, which has no foundation beyond what we are already exposed to from mtb riders on gravity.
> 
> My focus is on the many upsides of e-mtb riding and access.
> 
> ...


Swiss rules for e bikes:

Find
Cycling in Switzerland

Anyone wanting to cycle on roads in Switzerland must be of school age and be able to pedal with both feet while sat in the saddle. Cyclists also have to abide by the general road traffic regulations.

Twitter
Facebook
Bike insurance sticker
The vignette (insurance sticker) for bicycles was phased out at the beginning of 2012. Cover against damage caused to third parties in an accident involving a bicycle can be provided by your personal liability insurance. If you ride a pedal-assisted e-bike with a speed of over 25 km/h, you need a motor-assisted bicycle authorisation and an annually-renewable vignette (read how to get one below).

Most insurance companies automatically include cover for cycling accidents in personal liability insurance. You should ask your insurer to be sure you have this cover. If you do not have liability insurance you are no longer insured if you cause damage to third parties in a cycling accident.

Rules for e-bikes/electric bikes
The minimum age for riding an electric bike is 14.
Young people under the age of 16 need a category M driving licence (motorised bicycle). For information on driving licence categories see. No licence is needed over the age of 16.
Pedal-assisted e-bikes with a speed of over 45 km/h are considered motorcycles.
E-bikes must use cycle lanes.
Slow e-bikes (up to 25km/h) are allowed to use roads signposted "no motorised bicycles". Fast e-bikes can only use these roads with their motor switched off.
Pedal-assisted e-bikes with a speed of over 25 km/h still need a number plate and vignette. (Get these from your canton's road traffic office if they are not supplied directly by the shop that sold you your bike).


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

uhoh7 said:


> My focus is on the many upsides of e-mtb riding and access.


Then engage with my ideas, they are all positive ones. E-bikes are banned from practically everything right now. Don't you want to change that?

-Walt


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Walt said:


> Crap, I have a ton of ideas.
> -Software patches to limit motor controllers.
> -Sealed motor/battery units with tamper indicators ALA iPhones.
> -GPS in the motor housing that reports back to the manufacturer about where/how fast bike went.
> ...


As I've said, agree the EU standard is acceptable, manufacturers need to take the lead, something should be done to make bikes tamper proof and DIY not allowed unless the kits are "legal" and tamper-proof. If I have an opinion, that's all it is, neither an endorsement nor condemnation, and won't comment further unless I'm wrong, then I'll eat crow which I've come to develop a taste for. Also, I'm not going to confront anyone and not going to initiate any action. Let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

You could put little transponders at trailheads that do a quick handshake with your controller and tell it how fast it's allowed to go. That would be a PITA but at least doable and not require anything from the end user. 

-Walt


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Manufacturers never take the lead. 
They don't care about anything but making money; once the sale is done, they're out.
Ask anyone that's bought an ATV or moto in most of the the northeast USA. 

You wont' be able to pass the buck to them either. They don't care about you have legal riding or not.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yeah, quarterly earnings report coming, we better sell a ton of these. Who cares what happens in a couple of years?

You'd think big companies like Trek would take the long view. So far it doesn't look that way.

Lame.

-Walt


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

fos'l said:


> As I've said, agree the EU standard is acceptable, manufacturers need to take the lead, something should be done to make bikes tamper proof and DIY not allowed unless the kits are "legal" and tamper-proof.


+1 :thumbsup:

It's a pipe dream, but I'm all for it.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

uhoh7 said:


> You like all the terrible problems in Austria and Switzerland where e-mtbs can go anywhere a mtb can go?
> 
> Or you mean confrontations between users over turf? Not a response to bad behavior, but "hey that's not allowed here, go back or I'll beat you up!" ?


In my area,( MA) environmental police do stings after they get enough calls for atvs and motos on conservation areas. They impound the vehicle, fine you and then another fine to get your moto back. Could be anywhere from $ 300-800.00 for both. And I like to take videos with my I- phone, nice evidence to back up a report.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> I don't know about Walt but I think human powered speed is good because it is forever limited and self regulating.


How fast is that?



Walt said:


> Speed limits aren't easily enforceable, but power assist cutoffs (in theory) are. The EU standard 15mph would work as a starting point to see how things go. I've stated that many times, though I think 10mph cutoff would be better.
> 
> -Walt


All bikes should be limited to 15mph, or just some? If ebikes are dangerous at 15mph, why aren't all mtbs dangerous at 15mph?


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Walt said:


> You could put little transponders at trailheads that do a quick handshake with your controller and tell it how fast it's allowed to go. That would be a PITA but at least doable and not require anything from the end user.
> 
> -Walt


Not to disagree, but there are usually multiple entrances to trails in my area for a bike (if this isn't true elsewhere, doesn't apply), so one would need too many of them. Also as you may have intimated, doubt that manufacturers would act unless their backs were really against the wall.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

richde said:


> How fast is that?
> 
> All bikes should be limited to 15mph, or just some? If ebikes are dangerous at 15mph, why aren't all mtbs dangerous at 15mph?


Maybe they should be assisted up to 15 and if you want to go faster, you need to actually work for it? Might cut down on people with limited handling skills going much faster than they can deal with.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

fos'l said:


> Not to disagree, but there are usually multiple entrances to trails in my area for a bike (if this isn't true elsewhere, doesn't apply)


Yeah, this would never work anywhere I've ever ridden.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

richde said:


> All bikes should be limited to 15mph, or just some? If ebikes are dangerous at 15mph, why aren't all mtbs dangerous at 15mph?


Mountain bikes are often dangerous at 15mph. But they can only achieve those speeds in certain limited places because going uphill or on the flats, humans in general don't have the power to go that fast on dirt.

The whole point is that the new vehicles need to not go significantly faster than a fast mountain bike rider. Otherwise we exacerbate our existing access issue, which is speed. A 15mph assist cutoff would probably increase speeds overall, but not by *too* much. A 20mph cutoff would make all the climbs into descents, for all practical purposes, and would be a safety (40mph closing speeds on 2 way trails?) and user experience nightmare.

-Walt


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

fos'l said:


> Not to disagree, but there are usually multiple entrances to trails in my area for a bike (if this isn't true elsewhere, doesn't apply), so one would need too many of them. Also as you may have intimated, doubt that manufacturers would act unless their backs were really against the wall.


Walt's, and most of the posters here, aren't trying to come up with any reasonable, realistic solution, or a reasonable or realistic objection...they're just creating an unstoppable avalanche of bull****.

How can someone say that speed is dangerous, then not address the speed that a normal MTB is capable of? Because you don't think speed is the actual problem, that's how. That applies to just about any complaint about ebikes, because the complaints aren't unique to ebikes.

*If you have an ebike, or want an ebike, and want to talk about it, the trolls should be ignored, moderator or not.*

Personally, I'd have to search long and hard for a **** to give, I've ridden with someone on an ebike, and nobody got physically or psychologically hurt. Just last week I was out riding road and a couple on ebikes blew past me on a climb like I was standing still...there was no butthurt, I was glad they were getting out and seeing the sights.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Walt said:


> Mountain bikes are often dangerous at 15mph. But they can only achieve those speeds in certain limited places because going uphill or on the flats, humans in general don't have the power to go that fast on dirt.
> 
> The whole point is that the new vehicles need to not go significantly faster than a fast mountain bike rider. Otherwise we exacerbate our existing access issue, which is speed. A 15mph assist cutoff would probably increase speeds overall, but not by *too* much. A 20mph cutoff would make all the climbs into descents, for all practical purposes, and would be a safety (40mph closing speeds on 2 way trails?) and user experience nightmare.
> 
> -Walt


If they're dangerous above 15mph, they're dangerous above 15mph, whether they have pedal assist or not. Don't start creating cutouts to justify your logic-free argument.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Not at all. I've proposed lots of interesting ideas to get e-bikes onto more trails. I think if you look through my posts on this topic you'll see that pretty clearly. If your goal is to get more people out into the woods to enjoy the mountain bike experience, without needing quite as much fitness, and keeping speeds around where they are now, I think that's a good goal. 

I have also specifically talked about how speed is a problem, and how existing human powered mountain bikes can and do get banned due to their speeds. I think we can all agree that too much speed is bad - so how you'd deal with 20mph (which any fit rider can do) on the uphills is a legitimate question that needs answering. On a directional, bike only trail (again as I have said already) I think it could work just fine. Elsewhere, I'm doubtful.

If nobody wants to engage with those ideas, that's fine. Enjoy the moto trails. 

-Walt


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

richde said:


> If they're dangerous above 15mph, they're dangerous above 15mph, whether they have pedal assist or not. Don't start creating cutouts to justify your logic-free argument.


I agree, all of them can be dangerous over 15mph. Pedal assist can just do that a _lot more places_ than a human powered bike. If you swap that sweaty dude going 8mph uphill for a less sweaty one going 15, it's going to be a very different encounter for other trail users.

-Walt


----------



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

richde said:


> How fast is that?


As fast as you're able to "mod" your motor.


----------



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

richde said:


> Walt's, and most of the posters here, aren't trying to come up with any reasonable, realistic solution, or a reasonable or realistic objection...they're just creating an unstoppable avalanche of bull****.


Since Walt's been super reasonable I can only assume you're bundling me in there too. My only objection to them (electric bikes) is calling it a bicycle and granting them access wherever bicycles are allowed. Is that unreasonable bull$hit?


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> People love it there, by and large. Always some will complain, as horse riders do about you all the time TODAY


Horsie riders love me, always have nice interactions with them. It's been suggested before but I think you should seriously consider living in Austria, you'd _love_ it there!


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Walt said:


> Not at all. I've proposed lots of interesting ideas to get e-bikes onto more trails. I think if you look through my posts on this topic you'll see that pretty clearly. If your goal is to get more people out into the woods to enjoy the mountain bike experience, without needing quite as much fitness, and keeping speeds around where they are now, I think that's a good goal.
> 
> I have also specifically talked about how speed is a problem, and how existing human powered mountain bikes can and do get banned due to their speeds. I think we can all agree that too much speed is bad - so how you'd deal with 20mph (which any fit rider can do) on the uphills is a legitimate question that needs answering. On a directional, bike only trail (again as I have said already) I think it could work just fine. Elsewhere, I'm doubtful.
> 
> ...


So work with them to create awareness, just like the awareness you're trying to create with normal mtbs. Do something other than screaming "NO!" and creating silly hypotheticals about people hammering away at max power settings at all times.

I think people on ebikes will climb at slightly higher speeds, but their level and descending speeds won't change that much. It's kinda funny to see one branch of the argument claiming that the riders are lazy, and another saying that they'll be hammerheads, and neither side caring because they're both working towards the same goal.

Sure, when you see a pro pushing their sponsor's ebike, they're going to ride it fast, just like they're going to ride a normal bike fast...it's what they do. Put a normal person on an ebike and they'll ride it just about how they would a normal bike. How fast they ride will be limited by their skill and the conditions. If people run out and crash..so be it, it ends up being a learning experience, just like it is with regular bikes. Idiots will always find a way to be idiots.

I just prefer to look at it keeping in mind how I'd ride one, not imagining a nightmarish dystopian fantasy. I'd certainly climb a little faster, but I definitely wouldn't try as hard...because I wouldn't have to. Level speed might creep up a little, because again, I wouldn't try as hard...because I wouldn't have to. Think a couple mph difference, a marginal difference that is virtually the same for all practical purposes. Descending will be about the same, partially because of the limiters on ebikes, but mostly because it's so easy to go fast downhill that the motor doesn't really make a difference. Take someone with less fitness and skill, and other than climbing, they'll probably ride slower than I do right now. Does that make me the unsafe one that needs to be regulated?


----------



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

richde said:


> It's kinda funny to see one branch of the argument claiming that the riders are lazy, and another saying that they'll be hammerheads, and neither side caring because they're both working towards the same goal.


It's also kind of funny how electric bike proponents claim they're no faster than a bicycle yet they can cover twice the ground in the same amount of time.  super confusing.

I like mountain biking so concerns and goals of motor enthusiasts _shouldn't_ affect me in the slightest, they only do when insisting they are bicycles or that they are "technically" not motorized.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

richde said:


> I think people on ebikes will climb at slightly higher speeds, but their level and descending speeds won't change that much.


I'll agree that on a descent, especially as they get steeper and more technical, I don't think having a motor would help at all and in all likelihood, hinder your performance because of the weight, I can't agree that you wouldn't go faster any other time you didn't have an obstacle in your way, be it on climbs, rolling terrain or flats. The one I've ridden certainly felt like I could easily increase my speed on the almost everywhere. If I have the skills to ride a moderate downhill at 20 mph, why couldn't I climb it at 15 with a motor instead of 6 by leg power? Or ride a technically similar flat trail at 20 instead of my usual 10?

You're also basing your opinion on the bikes that are currently 1/3 the power of what we will see in the future. More power allows you to do less work to run straight up to the speed limit cut off. Be it 15.5 mph or 20 mph.

Then, as we've seen, it's easy and cheap to double the speed limit entirely. UHOH7 says he can't hit 30 on his 250w delimited bike on a flat road, here's a vid of a 350w emtb doing 38mph on a mild uphill. How fast do you think a 750w bike could go?

At least on a bike, while you can hit over 20 on a downhill, you won't be able to do it everywhere else limited to pedal power alone.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

richde said:


> So work with them to create awareness, just like the awareness you're trying to create with normal mtbs. Do something other than screaming "NO!" and creating silly hypotheticals about people hammering away at max power settings at all times.


You don't understand - if no e-bikes are ever allowed on any trails, I won't be all that upset. The ball is in the court of the manufacturers and riders to distinguish themselves from motos and prove they can police themselves to preserve the existing user experience on MUTs. That will mean going over the top to show that speeds and impacts won't increase, and the easiest way to do that is probably a non-hackable assist limit.

-Walt


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

uhoh7 said:


> Your focus is all on fear, which has no foundation beyond what we are already exposed to from mtb riders on gravity.
> 
> My focus is on the many upsides of e-mtb riding and access.
> 
> ...


 What are the upsides of e-mtb's over mountain bikes?
I don't have conflict with horses but ride in areas where there are. Most of the situations happen on a climb trail where cyclists go slow. If you are a new rider this means several rest breaks even when climbing in granny. So my understanding is that a new e-mtb rider could use full assist (750W) right off the bat and out climb our local pro's?
I know that most seasoned riders on a e-bike will know how to conduct themselves but put some e-watts into a new rider?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> It's also kind of funny how electric bike proponents claim they're no faster than a bicycle yet they can cover twice the ground in the same amount of time.  super confusing.
> 
> I like mountain biking so concerns and goals of motor enthusiasts _shouldn't_ affect me in the slightest, they only do when insisting they are bicycles or that they are "technically" not motorized.


Twice the ground? That's hyperbole and you know it. Maybe in the case of a rider limited by serious health issues, but the average rider? No ****ing way.

Doubling average speed would require one hell of a lot more than 250w.

Actually they don't effect you at all (any more than any current MTB rider), regardless of their legal status, yet here you are....here all of you are, acting very, very concerned.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Walt said:


> You don't understand - if no e-bikes are ever allowed on any trails, I won't be all that upset. The ball is in the court of the manufacturers and riders to distinguish themselves from motos and prove they can police themselves to preserve the existing user experience on MUTs. That will mean going over the top to show that speeds and impacts won't increase, and the easiest way to do that is probably a non-hackable assist limit.
> 
> -Walt


The fact that the mid drive bikes aren't at all like motos completely flies over your head, apparently.

You seem unable to understand the rank hypocrisy in your demand that everyone that you don't like prove their worth before you deem them worthy....despite the vast array of mountain bikers who also don't meet your standards of purity. But you seem to know that these e-bike riders won't be worthy, you just.know.it.

Then there's the obvious point that you're not going to find much, if any, evidence that e-bikes will have any different impact than a traditional bike. Or how any concern that you bring up already exists, whether it's higher power, weight or a basic lack of skill.

They will probably always be able to smoke all of us going up a hill though, so the pride and butthurt level of riders around the world is at stake....and apparently is a big ****ing deal.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

richde said:


> Twice the ground? That's hyperbole and you know it. Maybe in the case of a rider limited by serious health issues, but the average rider? No ****ing way.
> 
> Doubling average speed would require one hell of a lot more than 250w.


I wouldn't be so sure of that. If you were pretty fit and skilled you could make the most of the motor.



> The Xduro can come in handy when you are pressed for time. I rode from my house to Expresso trail on Fromme, traversing singletrack to arrive at the fireroad before climbing and descending, and made it home in 42 minutes. I don't think I could do the same ride under my own power in less than 90 minutes.


Haibike Xduro AMT 27.5 E-Bike Review - NSMB.com



richde said:


> Actually they don't effect you at all (any more than any current MTB rider), regardless of their legal status, yet here you are....here all of you are, acting very, very concerned.


They don't affect me at all right now, since it's not legal to ride them here on non motorized, which is a situation I'd like to keep. Based on 10 years of advocacy, they would impact access if they were mixed in on our MUTs, I'm sure of that.


----------



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

richde said:


> Twice the ground? That's hyperbole and you know it. Maybe in the case of a rider limited by serious health issues, but the average rider? No ****ing way.


I'm just reporting what I've heard here from users, don't blame the messenger.

And it's not so uncommon for a leisurely rider to average only ~5mph on a ride, you don't think 250 extra watts could get them to 10?


----------



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

richde said:


> Actually they don't effect you at all (any more than any current MTB rider), regardless of their legal status, yet here you are....here all of you are, acting very, very concerned.


Yet. And yes I am concerned, what's it to you?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

richde said:


> You seem unable to understand the rank hypocrisy in your demand that everyone that you don't like prove their worth before you deem them worthy....


The thing is, you need us. You are going to get a *really* hostile reaction from non-bike users and land managers. If you want to ride on the coattails of mountain bikes, you've gotta show us you're going to toe the line, big time. So if you don't want the support of mountain bikers, great. Do whatever you want. You'll be locked out of everywhere in notime. You could make us allies, if you wanted to. But it doesn't seem like you do.

We don't need you, on the other hand. So you can step up, or you can go ride moto trails (which is super fun, don't get me wrong). Your call.

-Walt


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

Walt said:


> The thing is, you need us. You are going to get a *really* hostile reaction from non-bike users and land managers. If you want to ride on the coattails of mountain bikes, you've gotta show us you're going to toe the line, big time. So if you don't want the support of mountain bikers, great. Do whatever you want. You'll be locked out of everywhere in notime. You could make us allies, if you wanted to. But it doesn't seem like you do.
> 
> We don't need you, on the other hand. So you can step up, or you can go ride moto trails (which is super fun, don't get me wrong). Your call.
> 
> -Walt


I'd expand on that.

"We don't need E-bikes" isn't strong enough. I think that E-bikes are a huge liability for MTB trail access.

As I pointed out to Uhoh, or linktung earlier, the best thing MTBers can do for their own trail access is to promote themselves as "human powered" and separate themselves as much as possible from the E-bike crowd. This was of course promptly ignored and many pretty pictures were posted.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

You know what they say about oppions


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> You know what they say about oppions


Que?


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Walt said:


> The thing is, you need us. You are going to get a *really* hostile reaction from non-bike users and land managers. If you want to ride on the coattails of mountain bikes, you've gotta show us you're going to toe the line, big time. So if you don't want the support of mountain bikers, great. Do whatever you want. You'll be locked out of everywhere in notime. You could make us allies, if you wanted to. But it doesn't seem like you do.
> 
> We don't need you, on the other hand. So you can step up, or you can go ride moto trails (which is super fun, don't get me wrong). Your call.
> 
> -Walt


I don't ride an e-bike.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but we're talking about public land, so they don't need your permission to use your public lands, because those lands don't belong to you, they belong to everyone and they're meant to be enjoyed.

If e-bikes don't do anything differently than fit/fat/skilled/unskilled regular MTB riders, they should be allowed....unless you want to advocate removing those riders as well, there's no reason to maintain the ban indefinitely. The BLM, USFS, ect, want people to use the land, otherwise it doesn't serve any purpose.

Considering this opinion, it sounds like the problem isn't anyone else, it's you:



Walt said:


> Yeah, the world I live in needs more mountain bikers like it needs more surfers. Which is not at all, really. I used to live in the front range like Harryman and don't anymore because of the exact problem he's describing.
> 
> Despite the fact that I make my living from it, I have zero desire to "grow the sport" or whatever.
> 
> -Walt


So how about you take one for the team and allow someone who doesn't act as if they personally own public lands to enjoy them as they were intended to be enjoyed...by everyone, responsibly.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm just reporting what I've heard here from users, don't blame the messenger.
> 
> And it's not so uncommon for a leisurely rider to average only ~5mph on a ride, you don't think 250 extra watts could get them to 10?


5 mph average means you either ride your bike uphill both ways to school everyday, or you sit around a lot.

You may not notice this on the trails you ride, but power isn't always the limiting factor in mountain biking.


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

Novel idea. Maybe educate yourself about the debate first, before wandering in and blessing us with your ignorance.


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 4, 2011)

I have an KTM Macina e-bike. Have been riding for over twenty years and have just turned 60 , so I think they are the best thing to happen for me , giving me the ability to continue riding and enjoy it.
I find the bike rides and handles as well as any other bike I have owned (Santacruz tallboy, Cannondale Rush, Pivot and Specialized) all being top end bikes with top spec running gear.
It's all good to be a purist , you will be 60 one day !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

tigerboy said:


> I have an KTM Macina e-bike. Have been riding for over twenty years and have just turned 60 , so I think they are the best thing to happen for me , giving me the ability to continue riding and enjoy it.
> I find the bike rides and handles as well as any other bike I have owned (Santacruz tallboy, Cannondale Rush, Pivot and Specialized) all being top end bikes with top spec running gear.
> It's all good to be a purist , you will be 60 one day !
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Amen brother! lets keep riding


----------



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

richde said:


> You may not notice this on the trails you ride, but power isn't always the limiting factor in mountain biking.


That's what I love about this forum, you learn something new every day. Thanks for the info!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tigerboy said:


> I have an KTM Macina e-bike. Have been riding for over twenty years and have just turned 60 , so I think they are the best thing to happen for me , giving me the ability to continue riding and enjoy it.
> I find the bike rides and handles as well as any other bike I have owned (Santacruz tallboy, Cannondale Rush, Pivot and Specialized) all being top end bikes with top spec running gear.
> It's all good to be a purist , you will be 60 one day !
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm pushing 50 myself and ride with guys in their 60s on real bikes all the time.
The age excuse is BS.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

richde said:


> I don't ride an e-bike.
> 
> I'm not sure if you realize this, but we're talking about public land, so they don't need your permission to use your public lands, because those lands don't belong to you, they belong to everyone and they're meant to be enjoyed.
> 
> ...


Completely agree with this.

The only issue to me is that I don't want have to be held responsible for fighting for motorized access, or denied/lose access in the event problems arise down the road (and no one can say they will or won't at this point, but there is plenty of potential).

So what's wrong with treating e-bikes as e-bikes and having them stand on their own as a user group? Like every other user group. Why do e-bikers think they should get some special pass, and that mountain bikers owe it to them to fight their battles for them? That's the only issue I have with them. And exactly zero e-bikers that have chimed in here seem willing to take any sort of responsibility for their own access; they just want to have everything given to them on a platter and try to force mountain bikers to become e-bike apologists/advocates by decree. **** that; it's hard enough for us without now equating us with motorized users (and no matter what some silly suits in CA say, a motor is a motor. Duh.).


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

richde said:


> 5 mph average means you either ride your bike uphill both ways to school everyday, or you sit around a lot.
> 
> You may not notice this on the trails you ride, but power isn't always the limiting factor in mountain biking.


There are plenty of mountain bike trails where doubling or tripling the power available to the rider will result in double or triple the climbing speed.

I'm not sure how this is an issue, or debatable.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

richde said:


> The fact that the mid drive bikes aren't at all like motos completely flies over your head, apparently.
> 
> You seem unable to understand the rank hypocrisy in your demand that everyone that you don't like prove their worth before you deem them worthy....despite the vast array of mountain bikers who also don't meet your standards of purity. But you seem to know that these e-bike riders won't be worthy, you just.know.it.
> 
> ...


Jeez..it feels like a giant breath of clean air just blew into the Sargasso Sea 

Great posts, great points. Thank You 



Harryman said:


> Then, as we've seen, it's easy and cheap to double the speed limit entirely. UHOH7 says he can't hit 30 on his 250w delimited bike on a flat road, here's a vid of a 350w emtb doing 38mph on a mild uphill. How fast do you think a 750w bike could go?


Yesterday I made house calls on my bike and on the way home I had a nice 3/4 mile flat road, few driveways, no traffic, very slight DH, slight tailwind.

OK, I thought, now I will try my hardest and I should be able to break the 30 barrier. So I went into a full sprint. I pushed as hard as I possibly could, so hard I could not hold it for past a few seconds. Assist? Well it was maxed on the power meter, but you could not tell from how hard I was working.

Well uhoh7 is old and fat, right?

Day before I marched up this thing at 11k, and I am riding and hiking several times a week:
L1051439 by unoh7, on Flickr

L1051451 by unoh7, on Flickr

I'm not in terrible shape.

So, what happened? My bike has a feature which records your max speed. I had zeroed this out prior to the run. I had to catch my breath and coast for 30 secs or so, then I checked it.

29.5 MPH. I was surprised. Perhaps the fat tires? Weight? Whatever. This was at 6k. It's perfect for me, because the bike really is limited to Idaho's 30mph rule for electric bicycles. 

Now what is the top speed of a full suspension MTB? I looked up a number of threads to see what guys could do: many could hit 33 or so in a Sprint.

So my dangerous un-regulated ped is SLOWER than a FS mtb? Yes it is.

I'm sure road tires, a slick outfit I might break 30. But the point is it's not easy to push the 250w mtb bikes to road bike top speeds. I can't do it.

Now, what is nice is 22mph. You can cruise very easily at that speed on pavement, which is why I removed the 20 barrier.

So anyway, the hulabalo about derestriction of a 250w e-mtb is both silly and hypocritical, since it is still performing like a bike at the higher speeds. Down at 22 it feels like an e-bike for sure. At 28 it feels like a lot of work 

As I have said many times, if allowed on non-motorized ST conditional to a speed restriction, 15 or 20, I'm fine. My original restriction is "on" by default every time you turn the bike on. I don't even toggle it off on ST because why? 20 is so fast on flats I almost never hit it on a USFS trail.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> There are plenty of mountain bike trails where doubling or tripling the power available to the rider will result in double or triple the climbing speed.
> 
> I'm not sure how this is an issue, or debatable.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


This is also baffling to me. It was immediately apparent to me that I could go much faster with an e-bike. Not sure why there's any debate about this at all.

-Walt


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

I sure would like to see you maintain a 20 mph avg on some of the trails I ride you can have all the power you want .


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> Nope. He lives in the middle of the sticks....


I'm sure of one thing: a stick lives up your ass 

Where I live:
Stage by unoh7, on Flickr

Drop Martha's Vineyard into the middle of 10 pristine mountain ranges 

Where was the chairlift invented? Back in the sticks near uhoh's house 

Your ignorance of geography exceeds even your ignorance of electric bicycles 

PS the meaning of "in the sticks":
"the country; especially the unsophisticated backwoods."

the whole phrase is a pigeonhole, as we all know sophistication can happen in many circumstances, especially today. Or you can be like me, uncultivated in a garden of achievement


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

If anybody was on the fence about whether or not to support e-bikes, richde presents a strong argument to fight e-bikes at every opportunity. Just about every single thing he types is ignorant and flat out wrong. Therefore, believe the opposite of what he says and you'll probably be right.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> PS the meaning of "in the sticks":
> "the country; especially the unsophisticated backwoods."
> 
> the whole phrase is a pigeonhole, as we all know sophistication can happen in many circumstances, especially today. Or you can be like me, uncultivated in a garden of achievement


The sticks mean somewhere uncrowded, where there's plenty of room to dick around and no one really cares. My town is considered the 'rural', but it's nothing like what you've got there. In truth, I'd love to live in a place like you do, but have never been able to work it out (so far anyway). Most other riders don't have the luxury of acess to huge swaths of terrain littered in trails and very little traffic or competing interests. Access issues are very real for most of us.

Grow some awareness of the bigger picture in your garden.


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 4, 2011)

*Age isn't an excuse*



slapheadmofo said:


> I'm pushing 50 myself and ride with guys in their 60s on real bikes all the time.
> The age excuse is BS.


 Pushing 50 is over ten years away from being 60 , 
So you probably should wait that long to make a comment on something you don't know about , if you haven't worked physically hard and don't have arthritis and other related joint problems then you should be fine to ride unaided , so if your lucky enough get to 60 and feeling pain free then great !
But if you get there and the body isn't as good as it used to be Then I hope you stay true to yourself and stay home , because if hate to see you have to eat your own words ....


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tigerboy said:


> Pushing 50 is over ten years away from being 60 ,
> So you probably should wait that long to make a comment on something you don't know about , if you haven't worked physically hard and don't have arthritis and other related joint problems then you should be fine to ride unaided , so if your lucky enough get to 60 and feeling pain free then great !
> But if you get there and the body isn't as good as it used to be Then I hope you stay true to yourself and stay home , because if hate to see you have to eat your own words ....


Plenty of sore spots already; many years professionally picking things up and putting them down in my past. If you're truly disabled, then you're already allowed to ride an e-bike almost anywhere you want and none of this conversation even applies to you. If you're just old and creaky and want the rules changed to make everything easy on you, then that's fine too. Good luck, but I still don't see why this would mean that MTBers have to fight your access fights for you.

FWIW, my sister has cystic fibrosis and extremely limited lung capacity and rides a real bike. My dad is 74 and rides a real bike. If you can ride an e-bike you can ride a real bike. Maybe not as far or fast as you wish you could, but let's not pretend that it's some black or white choice between either e-biking or doing absolutely nothing at all. That's a pretty childish outlook for 60. What do you think people have been doing up until now? (Hint - Fifty+ Years Old - Mtbr.com)


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> The sticks mean somewhere uncrowded, where there's plenty of room to dick around and no one really cares. My town is considered the 'rural', but it's nothing like what you've got there. In truth, I'd love to live in a place like you do, but have never been able to work it out (so far anyway). Most other riders don't have the luxury of acess to huge swaths of terrain littered in trails and very little traffic or competing interests. Access issues are very real for most of us.
> 
> Grow some awareness of the bigger picture in your garden.


Grow some awareness of the language you use, and realize most of use use the actual definitions as opposed your personal "take", which you will need to tele-project more strongly if you expect us to understand it 

But at least you don't curse at me this time, so I'll do you the same courtesy 



mountainbiker24 said:


> If anybody was on the fence about whether or not to support e-bikes, richde presents a strong argument to fight e-bikes at every opportunity. Just about every single thing he types is ignorant and flat out wrong. Therefore, believe the opposite of what he says and you'll probably be right.


Another lazy post where it's all too clear how you feel but no evidence your emotion comes from anything other than NIMBYism.

i.e. like all the e-trolls, you have no experience with your subject and don't respect those who do 

What does richde have going for him? Reflection. Unlike our fearless mod, who often responds to my posts before I can even finish fixing the mistakes in typing. Since Walt already "knows", an attitude he gets I guess from building beautiful frames, he doesn't bother to consider actual information from the ground. His goal is "control", mine is to learn, experience and report 



tigerboy said:


> Pushing 50 is over ten years away from being 60 ,
> So you probably should wait that long to make a comment on something you don't know about , if you haven't worked physically hard and don't have arthritis and other related joint problems then you should be fine to ride unaided , so if your lucky enough get to 60 and feeling pain free then great !
> But if you get there and the body isn't as good as it used to be Then I hope you stay true to yourself and stay home , because if hate to see you have to eat your own words ....


Oh, when that day comes he will switch in a minute and deny he ever felt differently. Hypocrisy is no issue for him because his awareness is not high enough to realize when he's doing it


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I'm not your mod, actually. Just for the framebuilding forum. NEPMBA is your dude.

I've said this before, but you're more than welcome to report any posts of mine you find offensive or inappropriate. I've spent lots of time trying to get folks to engage with constructive ideas to protect access for mountain bikes while promoting it for e-bikes, but if that's what you think constitutes an attack, we'll have to agree to disagree.

-Walt


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

Boy I tell you what; these e-bike threads are like a one legged cat trying to bury turds on a frozen pond...


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> I'm not your mod, actually. Just for the framebuilding forum. NEPMBA is your dude.
> 
> I've said this before, but you're more than welcome to report any posts of mine you find offensive or inappropriate.
> 
> -Walt


And you are welcome to apologize for intentionally distorting the views of others with your paraphrases 

I've called you on it multiple times, and not a word of acknowledgment.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Hey, you can go back and read your own posts and find all of the stuff I've called you on. If you want to make ridiculous claims about safety/MRSA/e-bikes, you're going to get laughed at, sorry. Because that's silly. So if you avoid making ridiculous statements, you'll be all set.

Posting your delimiting mod thread was not super smart, but you didn't back down on that one either. Again, your own words/choices have made you look terrible.

I'm still interested in discussing how to get e-bikes on trails while keeping the user experience just as good as it is now for other users. If you want to discuss that, feel free. Or you can just keep complaining about everyone else.

-W


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

uhoh7 said:


> Another lazy post where it's all too clear how you feel but no evidence your emotion comes from anything other than NIMBYism.
> 
> i.e. like all the e-trolls, you have no experience with your subject and don't respect those who do


If only you actually read and understood all of my posts on this subject, you wouldn't be so quick to be wrong.

I have experience with all forms of bicycles in many different states and regions, all of which have different dynamics and community support. This includes experience with an e-bike or two over the years. I've been involved with trail work, trail advocacy, my local IMBA branch, various cycling clubs, worked for a few bike shops, and have lost more than a trail or two because of community and/or management perception. I've been mountain biking since 1991, and I plan on continuing to mountain bike until I am physically unable to do so. When that happens, I'll find another way to enjoy life without ruining it for everybody else.

What exactly is your experience? What makes you so qualified to judge other peoples' opinions without any authority? If you had any respect for mountain bikers and other trail users, you might have a leg to stand on. Until then, maybe you could do some personal reflection about your intentions when riding your e-bike and posting on a public forum.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I plan on continuing to mountain bike until I am physically unable to do so. When that happens, I'll find another way to enjoy life without ruining it for everybody else.


Oh yes, the guy with the knee replacement who rides a turbo levo is "ruining it" for everybody else.

All your experience and you still can't think straight. Instead it's smears and the tactics of the sierra club without the justifications.

What exactly is my experience? Review my last 40 posts. I've gone into detail a number of times. I'd wager I am the only one here who has spent alot of time in the backcountry on both horses, feet, mtbs, enduros, trials bikes, kayaks and now e-mtbs over 40 years.

I am all the users, which is how I know a load of crap when you spew it.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

uhoh7 said:


> Oh yes, the guy with the knee replacement who rides a turbo levo is "ruining it" for everybody else.
> 
> All your experience and you still can't think straight. Instead it's smears and the tactics of the sierra club without the justifications.
> 
> ...


You talk about people lacking respect and calling names, but you cannot respond to my post with a respectful response. You are one of the main reasons I have decided to fight e-bikes on mountain bike trails. I initially believed that e-bikes under a specified power were fine for certain people with disabilities. I have changed my stance because of the interactions I have had and witnessed in these forums. Congratulations!

You are right about one thing: I Have ZERO RESPECT for YOU. None of your experiences in the backcountry, which is much different than what most mountain bikers experience btw, involve trail maintenance, advocacy, or politics. You have made it perfectly clear that you do not understand how things work in the real world, and I will not respect anything you say on this matter.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You are one of the main reasons I have decided to fight e-bikes on mountain bike trails.


Yeah, that's how I make up my mind about new things and other users too, based on my confrontations with other people on the internet 

That I'm sure has also made for plenty of hikers hating mtb riders.

For me, I'll take the facts on the ground, not talk in a forum, as a basis for informed opinion.

What's my experience? A decade before anyone sold MTBs I was riding single track seriously:

Buckle by unoh7,1972 or 73 

Oh it could be 1971 even. 



mountainbiker24 said:


> You have made it perfectly clear that you do not understand how things work in the real world, and I will not respect anything you say on this matter.


My heart is broken 

But I'm sure it makes things easier for you as now you don't have to subject your preconceptions to review.....from a real user of the tech in question.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

A decade of trail use does not equal trail advocacy, maintenance, and politics. I'm basing my decision to fight e-bikes on the attitudes of people like you. It's attitudes like yours and the other posters that will cause trail access issues.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> A decade of trail use does not equal trail advocacy, maintenance, and politics.


There you go: a misreading of my words combined with your math, equals?

Not much, I fear 

You have already confessed you can't form opinions from facts but must instead rely on the mean musings of those who have other views than yours 

The whole idea some person riding a e-mtb on a non-motorized trail, as is legal today in Switzerland and Austria, is "ruining it for others" is prejudicial and self serving in the extreme. It's a lie and a slur with no basis beyond your fantasy trail politics and personal preference.

Your inability to handle having that pointed out is shameful.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

So, how 'bout them ideas to help e-bikes share the trails with everyone and not ruin anything?

Anyone?

-Walt


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> So, how 'bout them ideas to help e-bikes share the trails with everyone and not ruin anything?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> -Walt


Exactly the same tactics mtb riders should use to avoid killing equestrians 

Of course the e-rider might actually have some serious first aid and a SPOT to help a downed horse lady


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

uhoh7 said:


> Exactly the same tactics mtb riders should use to avoid killing equestrians
> 
> Of course the e-rider might actually have some serious first aid and a SPOT to help a downed horse lady


I carry first aid on my mountain bike, and it would be difficult for a mountain biker to kill a person sitting on a horse. If anybody gets injured, it's most often because the horse was not properly trained. 

Did the smiley faces make me look smarter, or do I need a random, pointless photo?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

uhoh7 said:


> Exactly the same tactics mtb riders should use to avoid killing equestrians
> 
> Of course the e-rider might actually have some serious first aid and a SPOT to help a downed horse lady


Ok, to me that includes going <15mph (and preferably a lot less) on the climbs. As of now, I can't easily cause problems going uphill because I don't have the power in my legs. How do we limit speeds in the places where it's currently only limited by human power (ie twisty singletrack climbs/flats)? I'm not going to accept "everyone will just be nice", here, because that's not how people act on the downhills where they're not limited by power.

Most people are nice and considerate. But if we're going to provide more power and speed, we need to think about the people who aren't, because they're everywhere, and they're able to generate lots of bad feelings and get bikes banned if they treat the uphill like the downhill (as Bikeradar points out "All that extra power means that mild or uphill trails quickly becomes a fast and furious test of skills. Instead of huffing, puffing and dripping with sweat, you'll now be going fast enough to have to spot berms and catch drifts even on uphill trails. Basically it's like descending all the time, and who could hate that?")

Second, as we know, some people like to modify their motor/battery/controller systems to get more power. Do you think that's a potential problem? If not, why not?

-Walt


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

Walt said:


> So, how 'bout them ideas to help e-bikes share the trails with everyone and not ruin anything?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> -Walt


You are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Where has a large scale problem been created by e-bikes? Should a large-scale problem be caused by e-bikes in an area I would then support a tempory ban until the land manager can work out a solution. A big part of the difficulty in getting e-bikes allowed is that they look like mt bikes. Non-e-bikes have a rocky relationship with other trail users in many areas so the thought of another style of bicycles scares many land managers.

You guys are afraid of e-bikes ruining it for you when it is you who ruins it for e-bikes.


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> I love this
> 
> Hypocrisy is in your blood, 24


lol, if nothing else you are the king of hypocrisy on these boards Mr uhoh. Entertaining too!


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

Walt said:


> Ok, to me that includes going <15mph (and preferably a lot less) on the climbs. As of now, I can't easily cause problems going uphill because I don't have the power in my legs. How do we limit speeds in the places where it's currently only limited by human power (ie twisty singletrack climbs/flats)? I'm not going to accept "everyone will just be nice", here, because that's not how people act on the downhills where they're not limited by power.
> 
> Most people are nice and considerate. But if we're going to provide more power and speed, we need to think about the people who aren't, because they're everywhere, and they're able to generate lots of bad feelings and get bikes banned if they treat the uphill like the downhill (as Bikeradar points out "All that extra power means that mild or uphill trails quickly becomes a fast and furious test of skills. Instead of huffing, puffing and dripping with sweat, you'll now be going fast enough to have to spot berms and catch drifts even on uphill trails. Basically it's like descending all the time, and who could hate that?")
> 
> ...


I am faster on twisty singletrack climbs on my non-e-bike the I am when supported by a high power no speed shut off motor, I confirmed this on Strava.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> So, how 'bout them ideas to help e-bikes share the trails with everyone and not ruin anything?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> -Walt


Anyone? How about you, Walt? No one in the whole forum is more desperate to be the e-bike expert. No one has made more posts here.

On top of this you are an expert frame builder, who according you has made more custom 29r frames than anyone in the world.

I'm not sure about that, but you do make some really beautiful frames, anyway.

SO why don't you get off your ass an make a serious 29r e-mtb? Go the DIY route, and use the 750w drives which are popular, but do it right, make a riding machine, and limit it how you choose: actually you could experiment with limits.

That process would really be a service to this forum, if you reported as you went, and let us know your thinking.

You would not have to keep the bike, and meantime you could blame it on mean uhoh if shamed by your buds.

Untill you make that commitment to obtaining knowledge your posts are just another armchair prescription.

PS , my apologies for accusing you of moderating this forum. Sry, I thought that was the case.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Linktung said:


> I am faster on twisty singletrack climbs on my non-e-bike the I am when supported by a high power no speed shut off motor, I confirmed this on Strava.


Really? Why not just let everyone ride motos on the trails, then, since more power makes you slower?

This assertion makes no sense to me at all. Why on earth would you put a motor on your bike if *you are faster even UPHILL* without it?!?

-Walt


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> lol, if nothing else you are the king of hypocrisy on these boards Mr uhoh. Entertaining too!


At least when I accuse somebody of hypocrisy I give an example. 

But glad to entertain, anyway. 



Walt said:


> Really? Why not just let everyone ride motos on the trails, then, since more power makes you slower?
> 
> This assertion makes no sense to me at all.
> 
> -Walt


I just love it when your veneer of reason breaks down, and you start on the extreme hyperbole 

What you also don't understand is the real reason we have "motorized trails" is not power, it's noise.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

uhoh7 said:


> I just love it when your veneer of reason breaks down, and you start on the extreme hyperbole


Ok, you support Linktung's assertion that e-bikes are slower on climbs, then? Really?

-Walt


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> Ok, you support Linktung's assertion that e-bikes are slower on climbs, then? Really?
> 
> -Walt


Did I say that? Really? 

I got to go look back and check. I might be a hypocrite too 

However I'm the only expert here on how 250w e-mtbs really compare on the trails to mtbs. 300 miles with and without speed control.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

Walt said:


> Really? Why not just let everyone ride motos on the trails, then, since more power makes you slower?
> 
> This assertion makes no sense to me at all.
> 
> -Walt


When you get an e-bike and ride one a lot you will understand better. It is really hard to dumb down this topic for people who have no experience. On flat, gradual inclines with good sightlines I can usually travel faster on an e-bike. On steep straight climbs that were put in by motos I can usually clean, but when I have to lug my e-bike up a steep climb it is pretty awful.

The extensive limits on motos is pretty dumb, but by and large that is debate I won't be drawn into. There are lots of disappearing trail where tempory motorcycle access could save it from dying,


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

That's what he just said, in fact.

-Walt


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Linktung said:


> When you get an e-bike and ride one a lot you will understand better. It is really hard to dumb down this topic for people who have no experience. On flat, gradual inclines with good sightlines I can usually travel faster on an e-bike. On steep straight climbs that were put in by motos I can usually clean, but when I have to lug my e-bike up a steep climb it is pretty awful.
> 
> The extensive limits on motos is pretty dumb, but by and large that is debate I won't be drawn into. There are lots of disappearing trail where tempory motorcycle access could save it from dying,


 OK I'm not the only expert. Good post, even if you know nothing about Idaho


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> That's what he just said, in fact.
> 
> -Walt


I know what he said and I know what you wrote I was "saying" 

But it sounds like he knows one hellva lot more than you on the subject so maybe you should let his wisdom sink in a bit.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

The Bikeradar guys seem to feel differently...in fact, the awesome extra speed on the climbs is the #1 reason to try one!

-Walt


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Just for the record: I am all for e-bikes that are slower on the climbs, slower on the flats, and slower downhill than existing human powered bikes. Everyone will be lining up for those, sounds like a blast!

-Walt


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

uhoh7 said:


> OK I'm not the only expert. Good post, even if you know nothing about Idaho


I know lots about Idaho....The Big Holes rock for e-biking


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> At least when I accuse somebody of hypocrisy I give an example.


Here's one-

Calling for civility and complimenting posts that you consider thoughtful and rational (e.g. posts that you agree with) while simultaneously handing out snide remarks and punctuating them with smileys, which for you double as a smirk.

If one behaved like that in the real world they would get gut punched about a dozen times a day.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Personally I do go faster on the climbs, all types. But I am not a hard core fit rider, and I suspect Lingtung is closer to that


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> Here's one-
> 
> Calling for civility and complimenting posts that you consider thoughtful and rational (e.g. posts that you agree with) while simultaneously handing out snide remarks and punctuating them with smileys, which for you double as a smirk.
> 
> If one behaved like that in the real world they would get gut punched about a dozen times a day.


Actually this sounds like normal banter and ball breaking between friends and relatives 

Do you advocate punching people out when somebody gives you a hard time?

You think a harsh remark deserves a violent response?

I'm pretty careful in my tone believe it or not. I change it depending on who and what comment I'm dealing with, and I try to be ready to let bygones be bygones. I have often been polite to people who are very rude to me, here. But not always


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

Walt said:


> Just for the record: I am all for e-bikes that are slower on the climbs, slower on the flats, and slower downhill than existing human powered bikes. Everyone will be lining up for those, sounds like a blast!
> 
> -Walt


They will and are lining up for them because many people are not the climbing powerhouse that I am. The fact that I am faster on a non-e-bike on certain "twisty, singletrack" does not a generalization make. You are also ignoring the fact that effort and speed can be too different desires. When riding an e-bike I am more concerned about conserving energy then I am about gaining speed.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

See, that wasn't so hard! More power means more speed in a lot of places on a trail, can we all agree on at least that?

Going a little faster on the climbs isn't the end of the world, unless it gets to the point where the climbing speeds are like descending speeds - which is why I've advocated for the EU 250/15 limits (though I'd prefer slower), and hack-proof systems. 

-Walt


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Linktung said:


> They will and are lining up for them because many people are not the climbing powerhouse that I am. The fact that I am faster on a non-e-bike on certain "twisty, singletrack" does not a generalization make. You are also ignoring the fact that effort and speed can be too different desires. When riding an e-bike I am more concerned about conserving energy then I am about gaining speed.


Ok, if you are saying that you are deliberately riding slower on the e-bike, that's believable. Do you think other folks will act that way? If not, what would be the consequences?

-Walt


----------



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

uhoh7 said:


> You think a harsh remark deserves a violent response?


Definitely not, some things are just reactive and instinctual though.

There is no way you could get away with being as cocky and condescending face to face as you are on these forums and you know it.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

Walt said:


> Ok, if you are saying that you are deliberately riding slower on the e-bike, that's believable. Do you think other folks will act that way? If not, what would be the consequences?
> 
> -Walt


I was deliberately trying to beat my non-e-bike time and failed


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> See, that wasn't so hard! More power means more speed in a lot of places on a trail, can we all agree on at least that?


You betray you lack of experience again here. "Speed"....I'm talking around 8 to 12mph without technical moves.

The e-mtb rider is actually a safer user to pass anyone when he's climbing because it's not such a desperate affair.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> Do you think other folks will act that way?


Here is your real conviction and it's real hypocrisy.

This is EXACTLY the main argument against MTB riding around other users. And what is your prescription? A mechanical restriction and/or banning.

By Walt logic we should be closing a bunch of MTB trails, because there is NO WAY to stop bad riding otherwise.

And it's pretty tedious to point out over and over and over because you don't get how your negative ideas are not born out by facts.....like Switzerland and Austria.

And you are too stubborn to get some e-time.

Oh well


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

uhoh7 said:


> Anyone? How about you, Walt? No one in the whole forum is more desperate to be the e-bike expert. No one has made more posts here.
> 
> On top of this you are an expert frame builder, who according you has made more custom 29r frames than anyone in the world.
> 
> ...


He, like all mountain bikers, have nothing to prove. It's on YOU to show that e-bikes belong. You keep making the mistake thinking that WE need YOU. We don't.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

uhoh7 said:


> Here is your real conviction and it's real hypocrisy.
> 
> This is EXACTLY the main argument against MTB riding around other users. And what is your prescription? A mechanical restriction and/or banning.
> 
> ...


They get closed for that reason all the time. If the bad riding can happen on the climbs too, is that a problem?

-Walt


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> He, like all mountain bikers, have nothing to prove. It's on YOU to show that e-bikes belong. You keep making the mistake thinking that WE need YOU. We don't.


OMG Where do I say mtb riders need e-mtb riders? "WE" "YOU" what a real fool you are, I am a mtb rider since 1983. When did you start?

And why are you arguing with the devil?

I was hoping your last rants meant you would just ignore me.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

uhoh7 said:


> You betray you lack of experience again here. "Speed"....I'm talking around 8 to 12mph without technical moves.
> 
> The e-mtb rider is actually a safer user to pass anyone when he's climbing because it's not such a desperate affair.


Got no problem with those speeds, so we're agreed that 250w/15mph is a reasonable upper limit? I wouldn't complain about bikes like that on most of the trails in my area. That's not to say I'd advocate *for* allowing them either, necessarily, but I don't see a big problem.

750/20 and we have major problems, though.

-Walt


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

Walt said:


> Got no problem with those speeds, so we're agreed that 250w/15mph is a reasonable upper limit? I wouldn't complain about bikes like that on most of the trails in my area. That's not to say I'd advocate *for* allowing them either, necessarily, but I don't see a big problem.
> 
> 750/20 and we have major problems, though.
> 
> -Walt


Where has 750/20 caused any major problems, other then your imagination?


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> Got no problem with those speeds, so we're agreed that 250w/15mph is a reasonable upper limit?
> 
> -Walt


Two different things totally.

The limiting factor is actually the drive power. 250w continuous is self limiting in daily use. You don't need any speed restrictions at all because a regular mtb can beat the e-mtb in sprint, almost certainly.

You would know this if you put some time on them.

Normal people don't touch the speed limit on ST, except when they don't need to pedal. However if you are riding on the street the restriction is actually a little dangerous.

I was riding around yesterday and I wanted to make a left, so I pulled into the street (speed limit 30) and put my arm out. But in a flash a BMW was on my ass. Why?

By default my 20mph restriction is on when you start the bike. I had not hit the button to turn it off.

So with beemer butt, I did. Boom, I sped up to 25 and made a safe left, without a tailgater.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

uhoh7 said:


> OMG Where do I say mtb riders need e-mtb riders? "WE" "YOU" what a real fool you are, I am a mtb rider since 1983. When did you start?
> 
> And why are you arguing with the devil?
> 
> I was hoping your last rants meant you would just ignore me.


You asked Walt to solve YOUR problem. Yes, it's you against us. Don't be delusional or naive. I already stated I started riding in '91. Alzheimer's setting in? I just thought you might be the Antichrist, I didn't realize you were the devil. I wish I could ignore e-bikers. Unfortunately, you guys might be a real problem for mountain bikers. I'll grant your wish and ignore you. I'll focus my attention on fighting e-bikes rather than wasting my time with you.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Linktung said:


> Where has 750/20 caused any major problems, other then your imagination?


Where are there large numbers of bikes at those numbers on the trails?

I don't think you understand: if you blow this, you blow it for all e-bikes forever. You have to really, really make yourselves look like good citizens to even have a shot at gaining access to most of the MUT terrain in the US. There are very few e-bikes out there now, and they tend to be 250/15 bikes, and I have not heard of any problems. But I haven't heard of any problems with 29+ full suspension bikes either - which means nothing since there are maybe 20 of them in the entire US.

I have no evidence that 100,000W and no speed limit at all would be a problem, because those bikes don't exist on the trails. Are you saying that no matter how much power or speed a vehicle has, it's fine? Because that's basically what it sounds like. If that's the case, we really have nothing to say to each other, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

-Walt


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Alzheimer's setting in?


Not a single insult to you in my post. My reward?

What I find particularly disgusting in your viewpoint is that you blame your opinion on others. Not their actions, their words. You can't even take personal responsibility for your stance against e-bikes. You have to blame it on me.

Lame and weak. 

Somebody needs to invent a e-mtb for thinking. You could use one.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> if you blow this, you blow it for all e-bikes forever.
> 
> -Walt


so over the top.

Regulations can't evolve based on experience. That is a fact. In Walt's world.

You don't even realize that most e-mtbs in the USA are NOT restricted at 15mph.

After all these posts you still don't get USA class one?

Thats fine, but why you are so fired up about something you don't study, I don't know. Well it's just maleness maybe


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

Walt said:


> Where are there large numbers of bikes at those numbers on the trails?
> 
> I don't think you understand: if you blow this, you blow it for all e-bikes forever. You have to really, really make yourselves look like good citizens to even have a shot at gaining access to most of the MUT terrain in the US. There are very few e-bikes out there now, and they tend to be 250/15 bikes, and I have not heard of any problems. But I haven't heard of any problems with 29+ full suspension bikes either - which means nothing since there are maybe 20 of them in the entire US.
> 
> ...


As was already discussed there are many climbs where 'more power' does not equal 'more speed'. For the majority of descents 'more power' equals 'less speed'. One size doesn't fit all and there are far too many trails out there to give a blanket answer. Do you want to ban high power no limit ebikes from trails where they are proven slower both up and down? Do you want to ban e-bikes on trails where they are faster but the trail sees less then fifty users a year? Far to many scenarios out there to say that there is a blanket approach that will be safest.

The point of having public lands is to allow for a diverse culture of users. For a user group to be banned from a trail there needs to be ample proof that that policy is done of sound mind. The burden of proof lies with you, not me.

We need to put more pressure on the bad apples of the mt bike world because they hurt access not only for mt bikers, but e-bikers as well. Just because mt bikers behave badly doesn't mean that e-bikers are going to behave badly, they are a different category of bike as you folks so adamently insist.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Linktung said:


> As was already discussed there are many climbs where 'more power' does not equal 'more speed'. For the majority of descents 'more power' equals 'less speed'. One size doesn't fit all and there are far too many trails out there to give a blanket answer. Do you want to ban high power no limit ebikes from trails where they are proven slower both up and down? Do you want to ban e-bikes on trails where they are faster but the trail sees less then fifty users a year? Far to many scenarios out there to say that there is a blanket approach that will be safest.
> 
> The point of having public lands is to allow for a diverse culture of users. For a user group to be banned from a trail there needs to be ample proof that that policy is done of sound mind. The burden of proof lies with you, not me.
> 
> We need to put more pressure on the bad apples of the mt bike world because they hurt access not only for mt bikers, but e-bikers as well. Just because mt bikers behave badly doesn't mean that e-bikers are going to behave badly, they are a different category of bike as you folks so adamently insist.


I'm sure you don't care what I think, but another excellent post, thank you for taking the time to educate here.

I fear your points are lost on the very emotional e-guardians, but others read the threads.

"For a user group to be banned from a trail there needs to be ample proof that that policy is done of sound mind. The burden of proof lies with you, not me."

And they are very desperate to prove it, indeed.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Linktung said:


> As was already discussed there are many climbs where 'more power' does not equal 'more speed'. For the majority of descents 'more power' equals 'less speed'. One size doesn't fit all and there are far too many trails out there to give a blanket answer. Do you want to ban high power no limit ebikes from trails where they are proven slower both up and down? Do you want to ban e-bikes on trails where they are faster but the trail sees less then fifty users a year? Far to many scenarios out there to say that there is a blanket approach that will be safest.


Ok, so you *are* arguing that power doesn't matter. Thanks for clearing that up. I don't agree, but there's not much more I can say on that front.

Enjoy the moto trails. I mean that - I'd build up an e-bike in a hot second to ride them if we had any around here.

-Walt


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> Ok, so you *are* arguing that power doesn't matter. Thanks for clearing that up.


What a specious insulting retort. By all means don't let his experience sink in, just give a cute, fast dismal of one of the best posts made so far in this forum. Well thought, interesting and clear, and beyond you, sad to say.

You cry for input and ideas and simply can't grasp them when somebody does take the time to give you one. Worse you paraphrase opinions.

That is pretty troll-like, but at least you don't cuss


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

Walt said:


> Ok, so you *are* arguing that power doesn't matter. Thanks for clearing that up. I don't agree, but there's not much more I can say on that front.
> 
> Enjoy the moto trails. I mean that - I'd build up an e-bike in a hot second to ride them if we had any around here.
> 
> -Walt


Last time I was riding on motorcycle singletrack where you could legally be on a 50 horsepower machine I was passed (yielding of course) by an old lady with her daughter who was carrying a newborn.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> I'd build up an e-bike in a hot second to ride them if we had any around here.
> 
> -Walt


In other words, the e-mtb user we need to fear is you.

Give Walt a turbo levo and he is going PROVE the thing is dangerous. Those are the most dangerous e-riders, the ones who "want to see what it will really do".

250w pales in comparison to gravity, for creating danger.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

No question at all, I have to deliberately hold back except on certain trails, because it's too dangerous to ride all out. But I will when I can do so safely, as will many folks. Some will when it's not so safe, too. 

It's human nature, folks. Many people like to ride their bikes as fast as they can.

-Walt


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

Walt said:


> No question at all, I have to deliberately hold back except on certain trails, because it's too dangerous to ride all out. But I will when I can do so safely, as will many folks. Some will when it's not so safe, too.
> 
> It's human nature, folks. Many people like to ride their bikes as fast as they can.
> 
> -Walt


Hahahahaha, yes I have to hold back too, it is called braking. The vast majority of folks who 'aren't safe' are going to end up in the hospital long before they injure someone else. That is true for all things except a automobile. (motor vehicle LOL, terminologies are far too overlapping).


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Well, speaking only for myself, I'd probably put both myself AND the person around the blind corner in the hospital if I just went full gas everywhere. I think we can all agree that's a terrible idea.

In my experience plenty of riders can ride too fast for conditions and endanger others without crashing themselves. But maybe my experience (relatively crowded trails in a ski town) is not typical.

-Walt


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Harryman said:


> I wouldn't be so sure of that. If you were pretty fit and skilled you could make the most of the motor.
> 
> Haibike Xduro AMT 27.5 E-Bike Review - NSMB.com
> 
> They don't affect me at all right now, since it's not legal to ride them here on non motorized, which is a situation I'd like to keep. Based on 10 years of advocacy, they would impact access if they were mixed in on our MUTs, I'm sure of that.


In what world is "I don't think" the way a sentence with factual information in it begins?

You'd have extra power, but you'd still be limited by traction while climbing, so suggesting that you could easily double your climbing speed is just ignorant...unless you're talking about a smooth straight trail, which also means that additional speed isn't an issue.



J.B. Weld said:


> Yet. And yes I am concerned, what's it to you?


You're concerned just like a stick-up-the-ass hiker...but you refuse to see it.

Land managers will rule on usage rules based on evidence, just like they did when they allowed MTBs on hiking trails.



Walt said:


> The thing is, you need us. You are going to get a *really* hostile reaction from non-bike users and land managers. If you want to ride on the coattails of mountain bikes, you've gotta show us you're going to toe the line, big time. So if you don't want the support of mountain bikers, great. Do whatever you want. You'll be locked out of everywhere in notime. You could make us allies, if you wanted to. But it doesn't seem like you do.
> 
> We don't need you, on the other hand. So you can step up, or you can go ride moto trails (which is super fun, don't get me wrong). Your call.
> 
> -Walt


E-bike users don't have to show you ****, they have to show land managers that there is virtually no difference in impact compared to an already allowed user, the supporting evidence for this already exists.

I don't ride an ebike, how many times do I have to repeat that for it to sink into your head?

I have no horse in this race, but I do see the exact arguments that have been used against mountain bikes being re-purposed against e-bikes by a bunch of useful idiots. I can't wait for those arguments to be made against regular mtb riders on your local trails and you all lose access because you're dumbasses who don't know what the hell you're talking about and especially don't understand the implications of what you're saying.

But you've already said you don't want anyone else to go riding, so I don't know why you keep repeating it, or why it's suddenly so focused on e-bikes.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Land managers are just going to say "that has a motor", just like most of the general public. Nonmotorized, regardless of the official legal definition that I'm sure someone will quote in a moment, is pretty widely understood to mean just what you think it does.

With the right mix of persuasion and care, you could make your case that e-bikes can share the trails and not negatively affect other users. But I don't see a lot of evidence that anyone here is thinking that way. I know the land managers here were VERY specific about keeping e-bikes off singletrack when they started thinking about this issue a few years ago. Hell, they banned them from soft surface *doubletrack/rail trails*, which I think is nuts. 

I mean, MOAB banned all the e-bikes from non-moto trails. MOAB. The land of shred, shuttles, and 7" travel "XC" bikes. The most bike-friendly place on earth, basically. That's a bad, bad sign. 

Just a knee-jerk reaction to motors? Absolutely. That's what e-bikes are up against, though. The debate about motors and trails already happened in the 1960s in the US, and motors basically lost. The bar is set very high now for gaining trail access in most places.

_Walt


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> Plenty of sore spots already; many years professionally picking things up and putting them down in my past. If you're truly disabled, then you're already allowed to ride an e-bike almost anywhere you want and none of this conversation even applies to you. If you're just old and creaky and want the rules changed to make everything easy on you, then that's fine too. Good luck, but I still don't see why this would mean that MTBers have to fight your access fights for you.
> 
> FWIW, my sister has cystic fibrosis and extremely limited lung capacity and rides a real bike. My dad is 74 and rides a real bike. If you can ride an e-bike you can ride a real bike. Maybe not as far or fast as you wish you could, but let's not pretend that it's some black or white choice between either e-biking or doing absolutely nothing at all. That's a pretty childish outlook for 60. What do you think people have been doing up until now? (Hint - Fifty+ Years Old - Mtbr.com)


SHM, sorry to hear about your sister; you have a right to be proud of her and your dad. This AM my wife and I rode to the mountains (7000') and ascended 1200-1500' on our MTB's for a great downhill run. Doesn't mean that I won't ride the ebike next since I enjoy the different experience. Also, realize that lots of respondents have different environments to contend with; some MTB riders may need to distance themselves from eMTB for survival. I get it; while "unification" would be great, we're willing to go it alone.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I think that is a great distinction - an e-bike is a different experience that can be super fun. But it's different, and it might or might not work where you live/ride on shared trails. 

The main riding areas here in UT already dropped the ban hammer, but maybe with some time that will change, if we see things going well elsewhere.

_Walt


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

Walt said:


> Land managers are just going to say "that has a motor", just like most of the general public. Nonmotorized, regardless of the official legal definition that I'm sure someone will quote in a moment, is pretty widely understood to mean just what you think it does.
> 
> With the right mix of persuasion and care, you could make your case that e-bikes can share the trails and not negatively affect other users. But I don't see a lot of evidence that anyone here is thinking that way. I know the land managers here were VERY specific about keeping e-bikes off singletrack when they started thinking about this issue a few years ago. Hell, they banned them from soft surface *doubletrack/rail trails*, which I think is nuts.
> 
> ...


Moab didn't ban anything, the BLM said they weren't allowed, they were never allowed, but that may change...it probably will change.

You *really* don't know what you're talking about, do you? You really shouldn't put yourself in the heads of land managers and expect that they're as dumb as you.

It's easy to see why motorcycles are banned, due to the noise and trail damage, those arguments simply don't exist for e-bikes any more than they do for regular mountain bikes. That's how access decisions are made, because if they aren't, they can get sued.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Walt said:


> I think that is a great distinction - an e-bike is a different experience that can be super fun. But it's different, and it might or might not work where you live/ride on shared trails.
> 
> The main riding areas here in UT already dropped the ban hammer, but maybe with some time that will change, if we see things going well elsewhere.
> 
> _Walt


FYI, almost as usual, didn't see another bike on the trail up until we reached the downhill where the shuttle and chair lift "riders" were. Fortunately, my wife keeps me honest since she loves pain (probably why she selected me) and won't ride an eMTB.


----------



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

richde said:


> You're concerned just like a stick-up-the-ass hiker...but you refuse to see it.


I doubt you understand my position on electric bikes but long story short it's not anti e-bike and it's reasonable (IMHO), just as the concerns of many "stick-up-the-ass-hikers" are also reasonable.

Why so angry?


----------



## thead73 (Jun 30, 2016)

250w is a joke for trail riding. 750w is just about enough to help out with the extra weight of motor and battery. mine gets up to 1500w on climbs and I have never spun the tire or did any more damage to the trail than a normal mtb. The people making the laws don't have a clue. Rain is the only thing around my parts that damage the trails. my dirtbikes and atvs haven't been started in years due to laws and restrictions. but Im riding my ebike 4 times a week and loving it till they come lock me up.


----------



## Martin.au (Jan 1, 2006)

thead73 said:


> 250w is a joke for trail riding. 750w is just about enough to help out with the extra weight of motor and battery. mine gets up to 1500w on climbs and I have never spun the tire or did any more damage to the trail than a normal mtb. The people making the laws don't have a clue. Rain is the only thing around my parts that damage the trails. my dirtbikes and atvs haven't been started in years due to laws and restrictions. but Im riding my ebike 4 times a week and loving it till they come lock me up.


Wow, however did riders on normal bikes who might manage a sustained 200W ever manage?


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Walt said:


> It's human nature, folks. Many people like to ride their bikes as fast as they can.
> 
> -Walt


I think you spend alot time at those ski resort bike parks. In the real world "out there", people want to stay out of the hospital. The fast guys are very much the exception, both with motos and bikes. Attrition keeps that faction limited in MTB and moto.

Certainly e-mtbs are not going to make it any worse than it already is, except when the walts suddenly get set loose  But they will be going REAL slow in short order, because they will be out of battery 

@richede

Thanks man. They are beyond clueless. They don't know what they don't know and they think they know it all.

It's pretty funny to listen to them tell people who do have a clue all about everything.

And you can see the favorite tactic is to demonize anyone who bothers to try and help them understand whats really going on.

Play school with the little bullies in charge, LOL

@thead73: appreciate the report. What kind of frame and suspension are you using, and what is your weight?

And to other e-mtb riders: lets not let people who are negative about e-mbts rule the e-bike forum forever. All the major posters here just want them to go away, and they are also fine if e-mtb riders don't participate here.

We can't change that, they are way too stubborn. But we can share our experiences anyway. The E-nots will learn nothing, but we will


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

^ Look up "passive aggressive". Wow. Oh hang on - smile face


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I don't know, I am certainly a racer by nature, but I'd say at least 50% of the riders I see on the trail are trying to go fast on at least some sections of their ride. 

There are plenty of wander-about-on-a-bike folks as well, of course. And almost everyone is either in a hurry or not sometimes. But bottom line: there are a ton of people who try to ride fast (just look at any of the forums here about almost any subject - speed/what's faster will come up in almost every one regularly). 

If nobody wanted to ride fast, we could all just take full on motos anywhere we wanted to, right? I'm being realistic here: many people ride at least partially for the thrill of going (subjectively, of course) fast. I guess you can argue that folks in Ketchum don't or something, I wouldn't know. I've lived all over the west, though, and in general - mountain bikes go fast.

Adding power to the bikes of folks who want to go fast will... make them go faster.

-Walt


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

richde said:


> arguments simply don't exist for e-bikes any more than they do for regular mountain bikes. That's how access decisions are made, because if they aren't, *they can get sued*.


Had to quote this for the absolute & complete failure to grasp the situation.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Carl Mega said:


> ^ Look up "passive aggressive". Wow. Oh hang on - smile face


Look up Troll 

Let me help you:
"a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community"

So the topic of your post is.....my passive aggression?

Oh, wait also my misuse of smileys 

Why would I be grumpy as a e-mtb rider in a e-bike forum dominated by those who do not believe they should EVER leave motorized trails?

And how many of these folks have and ride e-mtbs?

ZERO, hero


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Wow, this thread has fully derailed and no longer has anything to do with the Original Article Linked. I had to remove some personal attacks from both sides of this argument and now I feel this thread needs to be closed.


----------

