# The opposite of advocacy



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

What is the opposite of advocacy? Defamation?

One of the big claims to fame here is being a member of the "advocacy community". For good reason, building trails and communication is a really good thing. 

To my mind there is a big difference between advocating access for a group, mtb riders for example, and well, the opposite: screaming to high heaven about other users with different tools and how they should not get near "our trails", especially if those trails are on public land. 

Yes you may have built a trail, but sorry, you don't own it, if that trail is in the NF or BLM. Permission to build the trail on our land is a privilege, not a right. 

The hue and cry to ban class 1 from mtb trails for all time really does not make those members of the mtb "community" look very attractive, except to others with the same intolerant and irrational view. 

If I built a trail and a new silent low impact vehicle was invented why on earth would I scream to high heaven about some person riding one there?

The idea that class-one access is a threat to mtb access is so paraniod, so baseless, and so oblivious to the real threat, it boggles the mind. 

The real threat? Youtube. The whole world can see the mtb "communities'" idea of what the back country is for: hauling ass downhill. 

I admit it is damn sexy  Those Red Bull rampages especially. Of course, what becomes clear is the poor kids in that contest, unless they are very fresh, are very scared, and rightly so. Double-jumps and rad riding is so unbelievably stupid in a place where your cell phone doesn't even work, yet the whole pantheon of mtb heros is ready to show how it's done and lure legions of impulsive youth into serious danger. 

That truth is something to be paranoid about, not a 250w pedelec on "non-motorized" single track. 

What I see advocated over and over by the leading MTB riders today is reckless riding in the backcountry. Obviously they don't cry: "ride stupid!", but they show it. Ad infinitum. 

That kind of riding should be done close to a hospital and on a trail with no other users at all. It's really not a question of if you will crash hard, no matter your skill level. It's when.

Now normally, I would not say a thing about this behavior, however reckless, because I really don't believe in telling people what they ought to be doing or not, unless they are a real live "right now" threat to others. But when this gonzo culture pretends to hold a high moral ground and tell me my own 250w class one can never leave motorcycle trails, regardless of the huge difference between it and a real motorcycle as we have known them forever, KTM 300 etc, well I'm not so inclined to ignore the hypocrisy from the many vocal class 1 e-bike critics, especially the ones who are ripping it DH on public land where there are hikers and other folks. 

Advocacy for your access, yes. Trashing others who want to access with other, equal impact tools, is no longer advocacy, it's something else, and not pretty.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I don't think your vehicle has "equal impact" on other trail users, and believe that it threatens all bike access. Further, I think that once motors are allowed on a trail, more powerful motors are sure to follow. 

There are lots of motorized vehicles roads, paths, and trails in the world. I'm more than happy to see people riding assist bikes on those.

-Walt


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Since your a fan of advocacy maybe you could advocate for your own trails? Once you discover how hard won trail access is you may understand the resistance you encounter.


----------



## JVG1967 (Feb 22, 2014)

Oh here we go again! A new thread about trail access and E Bike usage. Cant we all just get along?!


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

We do. Ride motorized vehicles on motorized trails, and we're totally going to get along great. 

-Walt


----------



## JVG1967 (Feb 22, 2014)

Walt said:


> We do. Ride motorized vehicles on motorized trails, and we're totally going to get along great.
> 
> -Walt


I get the trail access issue and I would never ride my Levo on a trail it wasn't allowed on. Fortunately in Delaware, there aren't many trails that I can't ride it on. I also have a FS 29er so the access issue is important to me too.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

The opposite of advocacy is sitting on your A$$, expecting access to trails that people had to fight for, for years. Showing up with a motorcycle that looks just like a mtb, that is threatening access for all of us. Most places we are hanging on by a thread. With strava times now being used against us, how do you think it will help to have bikes going 20mph up hills and on flats now too? You all say it looks just like a regular bike....that is the major problem.


----------



## JVG1967 (Feb 22, 2014)

sfgiantsfan said:


> The opposite of advocacy is sitting on your A$$, expecting access to trails that people had to fight for, for years. Showing up with a motorcycle that looks just like a mtb, that is threatening access for all of us. Most places we are hanging on by a thread. With strava times now being used against us, how do you think it will help to have bikes going 20mph up hills and on flats now too? You all say it looks just like a regular bike....that is the major problem.


My Levo has made the hills around here more fun but I've yet to hit 20mph on one.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

JVG1967 said:


> My Levo has made the hills around here more fun but I've yet to hit 20mph on one.


Then you're much slower than most.


----------



## dstepper (Feb 28, 2004)

I really wonder how many have rode a 250watt class 1 e-bike. Some of the statements about speed and power tell me that they have not but want to comment anyway.

Dean


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

I have been passed by ebikes, on a flat, at 20 at least. It looked like they were going 30 but I doubt it. I was passed by an old man and his obese grandson on a hill I was grinding up in granny. I am not a fast climber but these guys were riding like they were on a flat surface. When I got to the top the kid was mowing a sandwich and the old guy was smoking. There is no way they would have been able to walk up that hill.
These guys were pedaling but it was obviously an e bike. Nothing like the bikes I see now.


----------



## JVG1967 (Feb 22, 2014)

sfgiantsfan said:


> I have been passed by ebikes, on a flat, at 20 at least. It looked like they were going 30 but I doubt it. I was passed by an old man and his obese grandson on a hill I was grinding up in granny. I am not a fast climber but these guys were riding like they were on a flat surface. When I got to the top the kid was mowing a sandwich and the old guy was smoking. There is no way they would have been able to walk up that hill.
> These guys were pedaling but it was obviously an e bike. Nothing like the bikes I see now.


The motor on my Levo actually cuts out if you exceed 20mph. Having that happen on a steep incline would not be a fun experience because your then stuck with trying to get a 40lb bike up the rest of the way.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Speed

At 250W (solid sustainable power output for a fit adult male cyclist) you're going to go about 4.5 M/S (10mph) on a 5% grade with a .02 coefficient of rolling resistance (should be close for smoothish dirt).

At 500W (adding a conservative 10kg for motor/battery and assuming you can access the full 250W of assist), you're at 7.5 M/S (17mph). That's braking-for-corners speed. Uphill. On a medium grade/difficulty climb.

On anything less steep, you'll hit 20mph no problem. And we're not even talking about the 500-750w setups (at 1000W, you can go 27mph up that climb, assuming the assist stays on!)

-Walt


----------



## JVG1967 (Feb 22, 2014)

Walt said:


> Speed
> 
> At 250W (solid sustainable power output for a fit adult male cyclist) you're going to go about 4.5 M/S (10mph) on a 5% grade with a .02 coefficient of rolling resistance (should be close for smoothish dirt).
> 
> ...


Gee, Thanks for pointing out that I'm slow, even on an E-Bike.........

Seriously though, like I pointed out the Levo will cut power at 20mph so to avoid having that happen mid climb you need to stay under that speed. That usually requires using a lower gear (cog) than one would normally. You end up peddling more but keep the speed under the cut off and in the power band.

Not sure how other bikes work but this is how the Specialized Levo works.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yeah, the 20mph cutoff is insane. That's crazy fast. 

-Walt


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

dstepper said:


> I really wonder how many have rode a 250watt class 1 e-bike. Some of the statements about speed and power tell me that they have not but want to comment anyway.
> 
> Dean


This.

There have been federal regulation compliant e bikes for sale here in the US for the last 20 years in big box stores as well as stand alone brick and mortar shops, not to mention all manner of online opportunities for purchasing kits and complete bikes. There is a large online community of folks that have all manner of garage tech going on using some pretty serious power and has been for a long time. But now that the "manufacturers" are on board everybody all the sudden sees them as a threat to "their" trails.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Bigwheel said:


> This.
> 
> There have been federal regulation compliant e bikes for sale here in the US for the last 20 years in big box stores as well as stand alone brick and mortar shops, not to mention all manner of online opportunities for purchasing kits and complete bikes. There is a large online community of folks that have all manner of garage tech going on using some pretty serious power and has been for a long time. But now that the "manufacturers" are on board everybody all the sudden sees them as a threat to "their" trails.


Sounds a lot like the beginning of the mountain bike. Mountain bikers worked their butts off to earn trail access when mass priduction caught on and it became more mainstream. If e-bikers want access to non-motorized trails, they will need to earn it. There are too many variables and reasons for concern for people that have done the hard work of gaining trail access and voluntarily maintaining those trails to just blindly accept e-bikes. It's not reasonable to expect them to.

If e-bikers want trail access on trails that are non-motorized, start volunteering at trail work days, advocate to your local land managers and representatives, present yourselves respectfully and responsibly, and be prepared for victories and disappointments.


----------



## portnuefpeddler (Jun 14, 2016)

Uhoh7: I was in your area yesterday and saw some MBT'rs cheating. I had just cleared Galena Summit (8701' for those unfamiliar) and looked down and saw a group of shuttle vehicles unloading a bunch of bikes. I guess they weren't capable or at least not interested in pedaling up, so they used trucks and SUV's. Where do we report this cheating? I would have rode up myself, just saying, it makes the descent much more satisfying.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yup, with enough assist, the uphill is shred-time too. Your local climbs *and* descents will be covered with those shuttle kids. Fun times.

-Walt


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Sounds a lot like the beginning of the mountain bike. Mountain bikers worked their butts off to earn trail access when mass priduction caught on and it became more mainstream. If e-bikers want access to non-motorized trails, they will need to earn it. There are too many variables and reasons for concern for people that have done the hard work of gaining trail access and voluntarily maintaining those trails to just blindly accept e-bikes. It's not reasonable to expect them to.
> 
> If e-bikers want trail access on trails that are non-motorized, start volunteering at trail work days, advocate to your local land managers and representatives, present yourselves respectfully and responsibly, and be prepared for victories and disappointments.


 Can you show me any instances of the MTB community 25 or so years ago volunteering to maintain trails that they were banned from using themselves? IIRC the surge in volunteering and trail maintainence by MTB riders, as MTB riders only and not as hikers who also rode, began when access was opened to pMTBs and their riders had some skin in the game. You are wanting to hold eMTBs to a standard that was never required of pMTBs: open ended support and commitment to trail building and repair for trails that eMTBs are banned from now and in the future. Exactly how many years would you like us to give you our time and money before you are willing to consider us worthy? Considering that the history of your part of the sport was very, very different.........


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

portnuefpeddler said:


> Uhoh7: I was in your area yesterday and saw some MBT'rs cheating. I had just cleared Galena Summit (8701' for those unfamiliar) and looked down and saw a group of shuttle vehicles unloading a bunch of bikes. I guess they weren't capable or at least not interested in pedaling up, so they used trucks and SUV's. Where do we report this cheating? I would have rode up myself, just saying, it makes the descent much more satisfying.


 I am sure they spent all week out trail building, they were probably worn out..... Right?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> Can you show me any instances of the MTB community 25 or so years ago volunteering to maintain trails that they were banned from using themselves? IIRC the surge in volunteering and trail maintainence by MTB riders, as MTB riders only and not as hikers who also rode, began when access was opened to pMTBs and their riders had some skin in the game. You are wanting to hold eMTBs to a standard that was never required of pMTBs: open ended support and commitment to trail building and repair for trails that eMTBs are banned from now and in the future. Exactly how many years would you like us to give you our time and money before you are willing to consider us worthy? Considering that the history of your part of the sport was very, very different.........


I'm opened minded enough to the idea that e bikers can build their own trails, beyond that our ideologies diverge rather abruptly.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

JVG1967 said:


> The motor on my Levo actually cuts out if you exceed 20mph. Having that happen on a steep incline would not be a fun experience because your then stuck with trying to get a 40lb bike up the rest of the way.


Had that happen at a demo and it turned into a big turd halfway up  I had to try one to see what all the fuss was about and to give me some street cred when advocating against e bikes. I personally think they are great for people who want to half heartily put the effort into riding a bike, just find legal motorized trails to do it on.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

portnuefpeddler said:


> Uhoh7: I was in your area yesterday and saw some MBT'rs cheating. I had just cleared Galena Summit (8701' for those unfamiliar) and looked down and saw a group of shuttle vehicles unloading a bunch of bikes. I guess they weren't capable or at least not interested in pedaling up, so they used trucks and SUV's. Where do we report this cheating? I would have rode up myself, just saying, it makes the descent much more satisfying.


LOL Priceless. All this exclusionary talk makes me think: maybe we should ban mtbs from motorised trails? No question they are the most dangerous thing in the backcountry to other users.

Then I thought: wait a minute, I'm a mountain biker too 



WoodlandHills said:


> Can you show me any instances of the MTB community 25 or so years ago volunteering to maintain trails that they were banned from using themselves? IIRC the surge in volunteering and trail maintainence by MTB riders, as MTB riders only and not as hikers who also rode, began when access was opened to pMTBs and their riders had some skin in the game. You are wanting to hold eMTBs to a standard that was never required of pMTBs: open ended support and commitment to trail building and repair for trails that eMTBs are banned from now and in the future. Exactly how many years would you like us to give you our time and money before you are willing to consider us worthy? Considering that the history of your part of the sport was very, very different.........


Great post 

Please spare us the "holier than thou, we built the trails, so we have the rights" crap. I will put my own forest advocacy up against anybody. I have cut out many trails, never buit any, but I spent 3 years and over 14k of my own money, and I'm am not rich, to attempt protection of whitebarks from MPB. I personally applied over 5 thousand verbenone patches to whitebarks over 8k elevation.

Some of the mtbs guys act like the only thing to do in a forest is play on your bike. These are public lands. People can use them in different ways. Mutual respect and the benefit of the doubt is the best policy towards other users.

Since when in the USA are you guilty till proven innocent? 250w pedelecs don't hurt the trails and offer the chance for a wider variety of users to enjoy them in new ways. They are not "motorcycles" as the term has been defined thus far. The extreme negative attitudes remind me more of immigration discussion than backcountry policy. I have not heard one single rational argument against 250w pedelec access to mtb trails. What the haters lack in data, they make up in enthusiasm to ban others from pubic lands. They also whip up hatred in other mtb riders who otherwise don't have an opinion yet. If their heroes rant against 250w pedelecs, the things must be "spawn of the devil"

I my own case I have plenty of places to ride and adhere to the current draconian NFS and BLM anti-pedelec policy. And not only do we have huge trail systems all over central Idaho, but we have very friendly users, in general. Respect gets Respect. The baseless "ban em" attitude to 250w bikes put forward offers no repsect and consequently receives none from me. Yes I will use my FS connections to try to change that policy.


L1049346 by unoh7, on Flickr


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I have built plenty of non-bike trails. I mean, I hike and trail run and (used to) have a dog, too. All the advocacy groups I know regularly work on non-bike trails just to build goodwill.

Does that answer the question?

-Walt


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Yikes, paranoid for sure. Where to start. MA rider here. No motor vehicles allowed on trails in MA state forests and parks. So, "our trails" belong to everyone. Allowed by law. Don't like the law? Change it. Democracy in action. We work with hikers, sometimes horse folk, birders, dog walkers, conservation groups, land owners and stakeholders. The threat is still there for closure, read much? Here in New England, mt bike access is shaky at best, and the battle is fought in every corner and property. The e motorcycles are going to help this how? 250,500, 750 watts? How do you tell by looking at them? You can't.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Once upon a time those who gave to charity often remained anonymous, because it was considered a bit garish to brag about it. Locally we have had extensive trail work in the past 10 years, on many many trails, with complete re-routes over long distances. What percentage was done by mtb volunteers? Maybe 10%. Youth camps, USFS trail crews and contractors did the lion share. Who do we owe the most to for our trails? The CCC. They built huge systems here, and many we still use 

Trail building is great, and I admire and appreciate volunteers very much. But lording that service over other users as a badge that implies some sort of authority is gag worthy, and dis-respects the many who really just do it for fun, the cammeraderie, and to help everybody. Thank you to them


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

If all emtbs were 250W and the land managers, hiking and equestrian communities were happy in allowing motorized vehicles on nonmotorized trails, I would care less about emtbs. Truly. Unfortunately, that is not the case, a 250W emtb in the US is a dinosaur headed for extinction and a bike with a motor is a motorized vehicle to most people. Any manufacturer who wants a piece of the emtb pie will be shipping 750W bikes as soon as Bosch, Brose, Yamaha, Shimano and whoever else can supply them with the motors. If you're going to drop $5K+ on a electric moutain bike, wouldn't you buy the one that has 3X the power?

I just heard of someone in the bike industry focusing on getting grants for motorized trail construction to expand access for emtbs. Sounds like a win to me.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Hi Harry,

Well maybe the euro 250w benchmark is the one to advocate for access to mtb trails in the USFS. I'm not sure how much more "extreme" the 750 pedelecs are, I doubt it's that wild, since that's the standard legal now on all bike paths. 4500w, OK that's some real power 

I would also note there is still mtb riding in the White Clouds, thanks to the advocacy of motorized users. We did not loose a single motorized trail in the White Clouds, even the grand prize trail which was on the block for years, is now grandfathered like airplanes in the Frank Church. 

So next time you see one: thank a *******! 

As far as trash in the backcountry, 99% is from hunters, in my experience. But most hunters don't litter. One thing I see so often is taking the actions of a few bad users, fast mtb DH, high REV motos, horses in the wet, drunk beer can throwing hunters, million watt ebikes, and using those exceptions to paint a whole class of users as "********" or whatever.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> Can you show me any instances of the MTB community 25 or so years ago volunteering to maintain trails that they were banned from using themselves? IIRC the surge in volunteering and trail maintainence by MTB riders, as MTB riders only and not as hikers who also rode, began when access was opened to pMTBs and their riders had some skin in the game. You are wanting to hold eMTBs to a standard that was never required of pMTBs: open ended support and commitment to trail building and repair for trails that eMTBs are banned from now and in the future. Exactly how many years would you like us to give you our time and money before you are willing to consider us worthy? Considering that the history of your part of the sport was very, very different.........


"You are wanting to hold eMTBs to a standard that was never required of pMTB..."

I have read this line before in other posts of yours.
The reality of right now is that you do not have e-bikes _then_, you have e-bikes _now_ - with the benefit of the knowledge of past events. While those past events concerned mountain bikes and mountain bike access and not electric bikes, the lessons have been learned and must be applied to now. Mountain bikers, with 20/20 hindsight, have a clear view of the repercussions of electric bike access to common mountain bike trails. Electric bikes will be especially damaging on the trails where mountain bikes share access with other user groups. Not damaging to the trails themselves, but to the shared access of those trails.

Current trail users are still getting used to the speed and quiet of mountain bikes. People are becoming educated and better aware of their surroundings and fellow trail users. In large part they know that mountain bikes are faster downhill, so they watch that way. If they have to watch for electric bikes uphill and downhill and on the flats - and don't forget that some places have a LOT of flats - I believe those users' acceptance (or mere tolerance in some cases) will wane. If you add even a couple user conflicts/accidents involving electric bikes (which are inevitable), ALL bike access will be dis-allowed because someone decided that electric bikes and mountain bikes are the same thing - which they are not. And conflicts and accidents are bound to happen when you put people out there whose equipment can travel beyond their own abilities to control it. In all fairness, mountain bikes have the same problem with braking and cornering and speed, but it's usually concentrated in downhill sections. Electric bikes will expand this "hazard zone" to everywhere. Most trail users will not tolerate that. If someone decides that electric bikes and mountain bikes are equal because of where they are used, then the risk of mountain bike access loss is increased exponentially. Meanwhile, after losing their battle to access trails that are open to mountain bikes (and getting mountain bikes kicked off in the process) the electric bike crowd goes over to the ORV trail (where they belonged in the first place) with an experiment gone awry in their history of trail access, but still a decent place to ride, while the mountain bikers all become outlaws.
...at which point the electric bike crowd will then lobby for mountain bikers to regain access to the trails to which they already had access because they feel bad for screwing things up.
So excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse us mountain bikers if we don't jump on the electric wagon.

Let me cite a couple scenarios. Let me know if these sound unreasonable.
Uphill vs. downhill riders:
The current etiquette, like it or not, is that the uphill rider has the right-of-way. The closing speed between the uphill rider and downhill rider, let's say, is 25mph. The downhill rider is traveling 20mph while the uphill rider is traveling 5mph.

Now let's put them both on electric bikes. The closing speed is now 40mph. The downhill rider is traveling 20mph, the uphill rider is traveling 20mph. They are riding heavier equipment, but with no larger brakes or tires than the much lighter mountain bikes. How can they possibly stop or maneuver in a safe manner? There is no safe way to make this work on singletrack.

Let's change the scenario to flat ground:
Rider 1 is pedaling at 12mph. Rider 2 is pedaling toward rider 1 at 12 mph. Closing speed = 24mph.
Electric bike rider 1 is traveling at 20mph. Electric bike rider 2 is traveling toward electric bike rider 1 at 20mph. Closing speed = 40mph. Again, this is not a safe scenario.

New scenario: Let's throw some hikers into the mix, and maybe a couple dogs on leashes....

No. Just no.

-F


----------



## Surly29 (Jun 8, 2009)

leeboh said:


> MA rider here. No motor vehicles allowed on trails in MA state forests and parks. So, "our trails" belong to everyone. Allowed by law. Don't like the law? Change it. Democracy in action.


https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section1

Here's a direct quote from the general laws of the Commonwealth of Mass.:

'The definition of ''Motor vehicles'' shall not include motorized bicycles.'

It goes on to say that motorized bicycles are defined as under 50 c.i. motor with a max speed of 30 mph. Doesn't give a max size for electric motors, but it does say the Registrar will make the decision in doubtful cases.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Fleas said:


> "You are wanting to hold eMTBs to a standard that was never required of pMTB..."
> 
> I have read this line before in other posts of yours.
> The reality of right now is that you do not have e-bikes _then_, you have e-bikes _now_ - with the benefit of the knowledge of past events. While those past events concerned mountain bikes and mountain bike access and not electric bikes, the lessons have been learned and must be applied to now. Mountain bikers, with 20/20 hindsight, have a clear view of the repercussions of electric bike access to common mountain bike trails. Electric bikes will be especially damaging on the trails where mountain bikes share access with other user groups. Not damaging to the trails themselves, but to the shared access of those trails.
> ...


 What's the big deal, we are just following the successful model for gaining trail access that you pMTBers used: flood the trails with illegal riders, promote sales with outrageous videos of more illegal riding, play dumb when the riding public imitates them and simultaneously have your industry lobbyists pressure and push for access. It worked pretty good for you guys, now it's our turn. Why are you upset? We are just imitating you....... Isn't turnabout fair play?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

uhoh7 said:


> Hi Harry,
> 
> Well maybe the euro 250w benchmark is the one to advocate for access to mtb trails in the USFS. I'm not sure how much more "extreme" the 750 pedelecs are, I doubt it's that wild, since that's the standard legal now on all bike paths. 4500w, OK that's some real power
> 
> ...


The 250W horse has long since left the barn thanks to the people who sell them and wrote the regs, which while it makes sense for electric bikes as vehicles, it will make it that much harder to make the argument that they are low powered and suitable for a non motorozed trail. It's really to the detriment of the ebike riding community IMO. And yeah, there is a significant difference, in Europe, they would be considered mopeds, need licences, lights, turn signals the whole shebang and not be allowed off road.

To be clear as well, no ebikes are legal on all bike paths, it depends on the local municipality. Some allow them, some don't. They are legal on all roads though.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Fleas said:


> Let me cite a couple scenarios. Let me know if these sound unreasonable.
> Uphill vs. downhill riders:
> The current etiquette, like it or not, is that the uphill rider has the right-of-way. The closing speed between the uphill rider and downhill rider, let's say, is 25mph. The downhill rider is traveling 20mph while the uphill rider is traveling 5mph.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty convinced a 250w pedelec mtb in actual daily use by real riders will be safer than a normal mtb. If you are following the e-mtb scene you will learn the brakes are extra-beefy and the low CM weight for mid drive will allow a faster stop with less skid.

An even larger factor is fatigue. The more tired a rider is the lower is their coordination. Riders with less fatigue are going to be more alert and better able to deal with the unexpected.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

WoodlandHills said:


> What's the big deal, we are just following the successful model for gaining trail access that you pMTBers used: flood the trails with illegal riders (It wasn't illegal, because there were no laws against mountain bikes at the time.), promote sales with outrageous videos of more illegal riding (What videos promoted sales with illegal riding? Maybe trespassing, which had nothing to do with being on bikes?), play dumb when the riding public imitates them (Who played "dumb"?)and simultaneously have your industry lobbyists pressure and push for access (I wish that was true. Maybe e-bikers can form their own version of IMBA. Maybe it'll work better for you.). It worked pretty good for you guys, now it's our turn. Why are you upset? We are just imitating you....... Isn't turnabout fair play?


So you identify e-bikers as different than mountain bikers, too, huh? Maybe instead of leeching off of the hard work of mountain bikers, you could put all of the effort you put into whining on message boards into actually getting something done. Finally, if there is one thing a mountain biker who has worked for trail access knows, it's that life isn't fair. Quit *****ing and go earn your right to ride trails. Imitate that.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

Fleas said:


> "You are wanting to hold eMTBs to a standard that was never required of pMTB..."
> 
> I have read this line before in other posts of yours.
> The reality of right now is that you do not have e-bikes _then_, you have e-bikes _now_ - with the benefit of the knowledge of past events. While those past events concerned mountain bikes and mountain bike access and not electric bikes, the lessons have been learned and must be applied to now. Mountain bikers, with 20/20 hindsight, have a clear view of the repercussions of electric bike access to common mountain bike trails. Electric bikes will be especially damaging on the trails where mountain bikes share access with other user groups. Not damaging to the trails themselves, but to the shared access of those trails.
> ...


This nails all points perfectly, I have never seen the argument summarized this well.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yeah, 250W and 10mph cutoff could have worked. Too late. Even if the thin legal pretext holds up for a few years that "motor" and "motorized" mean different things WRT singletrack trails, the writing is on the wall because what the industry wants to sell are quieter motorcycles. 

Dumb move, because a low power, low speed cutoff assist could provide all kinds of advantages for handicapped and elderly riders. And I honestly believe they wouldn't cause any major problems.

-Walt


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

There are lots of great comments and perspectives here on this issue. Walt's, Harry's and Fleas resonate the strongest with me. 
The biggest issue I see and maybe the biggest MTB access issue we have is the Wilderness and Wilderness Study designations with the federal government. We are currently loosing trail access to Wilderness Study designation that the BLM and Feds are labeling in areas in the east and west. It clearly states in the Wilderness designation that no motorized vehicles are permitted. Mtb's are being banned even though they are not motorized and that seems to be out biggest battle. 
Now if you lump eMTB's in with pMTB's then the waters are not just muddied they are tainted and this could cause irreversible damage to our MTB access on federal lands. 
I'm not anti ebike our eMTB but they need to be limited to roads and or specifically designed and built trails for them. 
No one is entitled to access, you have to go out and advocate it, design and build it. I don't care if your a MTB, eMTB or equestrian, you want access and trails, then organize your group go out and put in the time, do the work and earn it. 
That's JMHO!


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

So, people still believe that adding 250w of power won't let people go down faster?

If there is no penalty to riding them on the flats or uphills, what prevents every e-"bike" owner from throwing the biggest, beefiest DH tires he can find on his/her rig?

Right now, people have to choose whether they want to slog up every hill and have great traction, or go faster up and slightly slower down. With a 250w boost, you're fresher at the top (yes, that helps you go much faster down) AND you have the added benefit of much higher traction.

You basically turn what were formerly "earn your turn" trails into shuttled trails where the rider can call his grandmother with one hand while cruising to the top at a very respectable pace, and then crush the downhill on tires he might otherwise never consider riding.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Le Duke said:


> So, people still believe that adding 250w of power won't let people go down faster?
> 
> If there is no penalty to riding them on the flats or uphills, what prevents every e-"bike" owner from throwing the biggest, beefiest DH tires he can find on his/her rig?
> 
> ...


Speaking of......

Here you go, same guy, two different bikes perfectly demonstrating what you're talking about. He can now easily climb steeps on full gravity bikes that he could barely before, self shuttle, recover on the climbs, fast forward through the boring flats and stravatard his way up the leader board. I have no doubt he was a tool when he was riding mtbs as well, a motor allows him to be a tool more often. The commentaries are telling.

Welcome to the future:

On a 750W BBSO2 Bronson with a double crown






And a 1000W BBSHD Santa Cruz V10


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Fleas said:


> Let me cite a couple scenarios. Let me know if these sound unreasonable.
> Uphill vs. downhill riders:
> The current etiquette, like it or not, is that the uphill rider has the right-of-way. The closing speed between the uphill rider and downhill rider, let's say, is 25mph. The downhill rider is traveling 20mph while the uphill rider is traveling 5mph.
> 
> ...


I'm more concerned about the flat trails than the uphill trails.

Having ridden a high-end Haibike (at an OHV park in race conditions), even with pedal assist on turbo, no way was I or the other expert level riders able to go anywhere near 20 mph. In fact, on the steeper uphill stuff (12% and 16% grades), expert racers on normal mt. bikes were faster (as per Strava) than we were on ebikes.... just like they were faster on pedally descents. Speeds on those 2 _short and exhausting_ climbs were 8-13mph at max effort.

On the flat stuff, you can get to 20mph without working very hard, which is concerning when considering people who may not have any understanding of trail etiquette hop aboard and get that big grin that comes with zooming around on a bike. (These endorphins seem to make some people forget they are not on a private track). Those that are already exceeding 20mph on those flats on normal bikes logically have some cycling experience, although the massive speed differential between us and other trail users remains one of our biggest PR problems.

I just think the fears about people essentially trying to pin it uphill on an ebike all the time are silly and grossly exaggerating perceived danger. I think 99% of ebike riders are/will be in it to make it up climbs and will not be trying to set speed records.


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

Harryman said:


> Speaking of......
> 
> Here you go, same guy, two different bikes perfectly demonstrating what you're talking about. He can now easily climb steeps on full gravity bikes that he could barely before, self shuttle, recover on the climbs, fast forward through the boring flats and stravatard his way up the leader board. I have no doubt he was a tool when he was riding mtbs as well, a motor allows him to be a tool more often. The commentaries are telling.
> 
> ...


Perfect! What a tool, nice that he yielded to the pedal rider! NOT. Well at least now he's a descent climber. LOL
F' that you might as well be on a dirt bike. What the heck was he puffing about anyway. I like earning my turns but hell we might as well open a our land, backcountry and trails everywhere including the national parks to dirt bikes and snowmobiles that way we don't have to work for turns in pow or brown pow and everything can get blown out even quicker.
Edit: I for one as a mountain biker do not want to be associated with anyone like this a-hole in the video and I sure as hell don't want him on any of the trails I ride, anywhere! 
That's a motorized vehicle plain and simple.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

FUD is strong in this thread

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

Yeah, about those 20 mph cutoffs:

https://www.e-bikeshop.co.uk/bosch-ebike-tuning-dongle

JUM-Ped for Bosch with Intuvia Display

Speed Tuning Kits Threaten E-Bike Market Development

Bosch Tuning dongles arrived today - 50kph cut off.. | Pedelecs - Electric Bike Community

. . . ad infinitum


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Harryman said:


> Speaking of......
> 
> Here you go, same guy, two different bikes perfectly demonstrating what you're talking about. He can now easily climb steeps on full gravity bikes that he could barely before, self shuttle, recover on the climbs, fast forward through the boring flats and stravatard his way up the leader board. I have no doubt he was a tool when he was riding mtbs as well, a motor allows him to be a tool more often. The commentaries are telling.
> 
> ...


I tried to watch this as objectively as possible. The thing is, other than the "all throttle/no pedal" comment around 5:15, I didn't see anything that really upset or offended me. He wasn't going uphill like an idiot, or particularly "fast" for that matter. He was having fun on the downhill, going seemingly as fast as you or I would on our normal mt. bikes. Passing other trail users seemed pretty darn normal with no close calls from what I could see on the crappy fish-eye GoPro. Not sure why you call him a "tool".

Is your belief that the mass market will be aftermarket motors for regular bicycles instead of purpose built ebikes (e.g., Levo)?

I'm not terribly offended by strictly pedal assist. But these throttle-don't-have-to-pedal versions do bother me. But if it isn't having a real impact on the trails or other trail users, I need to reevaluate why it bothers me. Riding up instead of taking a shuttle vehicle seems like a good thing too. Hmmm.

Maybe ebikes will open the door for a hell of a lot more purpose built bike-only trails. One can dream...


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

zorg said:


> FUD is strong in this thread
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


No FUD on my part at all. The ebikes will totally screw up contended trail access issues with the federal govt. (and probably many local and state groups) if they are combined together with mountain bikes. 
They are perfect for lazy asses that are not fit or strong enough to to get to the top and earn the right to ride the DH sections and the more distant backcountry.


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

uhoh7 said:


> What is the opposite of advocacy? Defamation?
> 
> One of the big claims to fame here is being a member of the "advocacy community". For good reason, building trails and communication is a really good thing.
> 
> ...


i think opposite of Advocacy is probably closer to Apathy...btw, those vehicles are ok with me personally, but politically too much at stake due to other users and their fear and influence i support ban.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aborgman (Apr 18, 2016)

Fleas said:


> Current trail users are still getting used to the speed and quiet of mountain bikes. People are becoming educated and better aware of their surroundings and fellow trail users.


Sounds to me like those are largely trails which trail advocates should be advocating for the removal of mountain bikes from.


----------



## aborgman (Apr 18, 2016)

WoodlandHills said:


> What's the big deal, we are just following the successful model for gaining trail access that you pMTBers used: flood the trails with illegal riders, promote sales with outrageous videos of more illegal riding, play dumb when the riding public imitates them and simultaneously have your industry lobbyists pressure and push for access. It worked pretty good for you guys, now it's our turn. Why are you upset? We are just imitating you....... Isn't turnabout fair play?


What I think is funny is that there are two potential realistic scenarios:

1) e-MTBs never take off in big numbers, and thus create no conflicts
2) e-MTBs take off in big numbers, and thus have the clout to get trails opened to them.

If there aren't enough of them to create conflict - who cares.

If there are enough? Well -the MTB community isn't all that big, and if the e-MTB guys combine with the ORV folks... they'll be a bigger user group than mountain bikes... and they'll get access.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Surly29 said:


> https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section1
> 
> Here's a direct quote from the general laws of the Commonwealth of Mass.:
> 
> ...


 Yes you are correct as it pertains to " Registrar of motor vehicles", ie hiway and road use definitions. Not multi use trail off road use. See the state DCR ( managing body for forests and parks) rules for appropriate trail use. There are a few areas, maybe 6 or so in the state for ORVs. E motor cycles are welcome to ride there. Nice try though.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

aborgman said:


> What I think is funny is that there are two potential realistic scenarios:
> 
> 1) e-MTBs never take off in big numbers, and thus create no conflicts
> 2) e-MTBs take off in big numbers, and thus have the clout to get trails opened to them.
> ...


 Mtb community is not that big? Beg to differ. Look at all the tourism dollars being generated all over, all the mtb clubs, races, events, High School teams and mt bike parks opened all over.


----------



## aborgman (Apr 18, 2016)

leeboh said:


> Mtb community is not that big? Beg to differ. Look at all the tourism dollars being generated all over, all the mtb clubs, races, events, High School teams and mt bike parks opened all over.


In the last 15 years:

National Sporting Goods Association Sports Participation Survey (2000-2015):

Adult bike usage (not just MTB) has stayed steady, but not grown.
Youth bike usage (not just MTB) has fallen 20%
Overall bike usage has changed -10% while the population has grown +10%.

"Fewer than 3.4 million adults in the US ride a bicycle frequently"

There are more than 2x as many hikers as bikers total.

There are more runners than bikers total.

The number of OHV users in the USA is greater than the number of mountain bikers.

Spending on bicycle equipment lags WAY behind golf, general excercise, and hunting among sporting goods spending.

The size of the golf market in Florida is bigger (in $$) than the bicycle market for the entire USA.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Well, it's a huge economic engine here in PC. Literally every person on my street rides a mountain bike regularly on trails, ranging in age from 8 to (literally) 80. We have at least a dozen bike shops in a town of 7000 people...

I wouldn't use broad survey data about bike riding to draw any conclusions about singletrack trail usage. 

-Walt


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

aborgman said:


> Sounds to me like those are largely trails which trail advocates should be advocating for the removal of mountain bikes from.


No, these are trails that were purpose-built FOR mountain bikes and allowed hikers and runners to share.

-F


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Empty_Beer said:


> I'm more concerned about the flat trails than the uphill trails.
> 
> Having ridden a high-end Haibike (at an OHV park in race conditions), even with pedal assist on turbo, no way was I or the other expert level riders able to go anywhere near 20 mph. In fact, on the steeper uphill stuff (12% and 16% grades), expert racers on normal mt. bikes were faster (as per Strava) than we were on ebikes.... just like they were faster on pedally descents. Speeds on those 2 _short and exhausting_ climbs were 8-13mph at max effort.
> 
> ...


Thank you for a reasonable answer.
Maybe you could coach some of the other respondents in this thread.

-F


----------



## aborgman (Apr 18, 2016)

Walt said:


> Well, it's a huge economic engine here in PC. Literally every person on my street rides a mountain bike regularly on trails, ranging in age from 8 to (literally) 80. We have at least a dozen bike shops in a town of 7000 people...


Yes - Park City is the exception to the exception to the exception to the exception to the rule.

It's whiter than white, really wealthy, and hugely funded by tourism.

...but even there summer visitors say they came to hike (36%) twice as much as MTB (18%), and skiing dominates the tourism income. Winter visitor spending is 3X summer visitor spending.

Only 25% of all Park City tourism comes from summer visitors, and mountain biking is nowhere near the majority of that.



Walt said:


> I wouldn't use broad survey data about bike riding to draw any conclusions about singletrack trail usage.


Single track usage isn't what we're talking about.

Size and power of the user group is what we're talking about.

...and that broad survey data is a lot more representative of the great majority of the USA than Park City is.


----------



## aborgman (Apr 18, 2016)

Fleas said:


> No, these are trails that were purpose-built FOR mountain bikes and allowed hikers and runners to share.


...and?

If bigger user groups decide MTBers are a problem and causing conflict - the original builders can be removed from access. It's happened to motorized trails all over the country.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

aborgman said:


> ...and?
> 
> If bigger user groups decide MTBers are a problem and causing conflict - the original builders can be removed from access. It's happened to motorized trails all over the country.


Yes, perhaps. But it is e-bikes that are in the cross hairs now. Right now. Expect resistance to grow. Every advocacy group has them in their sites, many of them perusing these very threads.


----------



## aborgman (Apr 18, 2016)

tiretracks said:


> Yes, perhaps. But it is e-bikes that are in the cross hairs now. Right now. Expect resistance to grow. Every advocacy group has them in their sites, many of them perusing these very threads.


Oh - I doubt the moto folks do.

...and they'd be glad to have a nice influx in numbers - right now they're about the same as MTBs, but with the big influx of e-mtbs to their ranks the fear mongers are predicting - they'll dwarf mtbs in combined numbers.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

aborgman said:


> Oh - I doubt the moto folks do.
> 
> ...and they'd be glad to have a nice influx in numbers - right now they're about the same as MTBs, but with the big influx of e-mtbs to their ranks the fear mongers are predicting - they'll dwarf mtbs in combined numbers.


Moto riders are notoriously apathetic. They don't advocate, rather they let the other guy do it. Good luck on your Unicorn hunt.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

aborgman said:


> Single track usage isn't what we're talking about.


Oh, really? Because I'm pretty sure it's already legal to ride your ebike on any dirt roads you want.

-Walt


----------



## aborgman (Apr 18, 2016)

Walt said:


> Oh, really? Because I'm pretty sure it's already legal to ride your ebike on any dirt roads you want.


Current law/regulation/rules can be changed.

Large user groups often manage it.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

aborgman said:


> ...and?
> 
> If bigger user groups decide MTBers are a problem and causing conflict - the original builders can be removed from access. It's happened to motorized trails all over the country.


The original builders in this case are also the land manger and local park system. I s'pose they could remove themselves... :???:

But you are right. If bigger user groups decide ANY other group is a problem, then they might have the leverage to have them removed. This is exactly why most mountain bikers do not want to be associated in any way with electric bicycles and the complications they cause with land access and trail sharing. I'm sure there are plenty of good places to ride electric bicycles off road - but those places are not with pedal-powered and other non-motorized users.

-F


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Empty_Beer said:


> I'm more concerned about the flat trails than the uphill trails.
> 
> Having ridden a high-end Haibike (at an OHV park in race conditions), even with pedal assist on turbo, no way was I or the other expert level riders able to go anywhere near 20 mph. In fact, on the steeper uphill stuff (12% and 16% grades), expert racers on normal mt. bikes were faster (as per Strava) than we were on ebikes.... just like they were faster on pedally descents. Speeds on those 2 _short and exhausting_ climbs were 8-13mph at max effort.
> 
> ...


Great post, because it's full of info from real experience, as opposed to FUD spewing.

As far as the danger from 'inexperienced' riders going too fast on the flats, I think that's going to be somewhat self-regulating on single track. One hard crash is all it will take 

As to the popularity of mtb riding. If you don't think mtb has grown you are not "out there". There are many more mtb riders than before and it grows year by year. What I love is how many women I see  Even five years ago a woman rider was pretty rare. Today I see packs. I'm not kidding.

Look at the crowds at the Rampage.

Will it replace golf? No, it's crazy hard and crazy dangerous. When I move between my two motos and my MojoSL, I go into high alert on the SL, which is so rickety compared to a motorcycle, and basically ridden naked.

Great workout though 

What's funny to observe in these threads is the swap from drooling ire at the thought of a pedelec on a mtb trail with all kinds of contorted FUD, to "oh I like them fine if they stay with the motorcycles"


----------



## aborgman (Apr 18, 2016)

Fleas said:


> The original builders in this case are also the land manger and local park system. I s'pose they could remove themselves... :???:


I've seen it happen.

When it comes to city parks especially - votes and being in the ear of the city commissioners can get LOTS changed.

I've even seen a skatepark built with donations - at the request of the city park managemtn - get tossed out because the softball teams that played at the same park decided a couple years later they didn't like skaters.


----------



## aborgman (Apr 18, 2016)

uhoh7 said:


> As to the popularity of mtb riding. If you don't think mtb has grown you are not "out there". There are many more mtb riders than before and it grow year by year.


The number of serious riders is up slightly over the last 15 years (and especially up among women).

The number of casual riders and children (which make up the great majority of all bike riders) is down significantly.

As a percentage of the population - bike riding has decreased noticeably over the last 15 years.

In my area - there are a lot more places to ride than when I started in the mid 1990's... but there aren't any more riders. In fact - the number of folks riding old school XC has plummeted.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

aborgman said:


> votes and being in the ear of the city commissioners can get LOTS changed.
> 
> .


Yep, we've been at it for over three decades and we're not slowing down.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

The realities of political power being what they are (money talks: loudly), and the demographics of ebikers (older and wealthier) once enough product gets into the hands of the public, change will come. The social class of individual who rides horses is the same class as those who buy and ride $5,000 ebikes: they may very well come to an accommodation regarding access over cocktails in the Club bar after a round of golf........ This is America in 2016: the wealthy get what they want and if they want to ride ebikes on trails with their grandchildren, then that is what will happen.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

aborgman said:


> In my area - there are a lot more places to ride than when I started in the mid 1990's... but there aren't any more riders. In fact - the number of folks riding old school XC has plummeted.


When there are more places to ride you meet less riders. In the places where motorized trails have been drastically cut, when you do ride one, it's crazy. I've been riding at least 30 times this spring on motorized trails. How many motorbikes have I met on the trail? Two Riding together last sunday. But you see plenty of motorbikes on pickups around town.

Because access is wide here with many trails, impact is very low. 


L1036862 by unoh7, on Flickr


Rockhound by unoh7, on Flickr


L1037136-2 by unoh7, on Flickr


sharing by unoh7, on Flickr


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Empty_Beer said:


> I tried to watch this as objectively as possible. The thing is, other than the "all throttle/no pedal" comment around 5:15, I didn't see anything that really upset or offended me. He wasn't going uphill like an idiot, or particularly "fast" for that matter. He was having fun on the downhill, going seemingly as fast as you or I would on our normal mt. bikes. Passing other trail users seemed pretty darn normal with no close calls from what I could see on the crappy fish-eye GoPro. Not sure why you call him a "tool".


I call him a tool because I'm a grumpy curmegeon.  Watching trails I've designed get shortcutted by the gnargnarbros like this guy chasing strava segments annoys me.



Empty_Beer said:


> Is your belief that the mass market will be aftermarket motors for regular bicycles instead of purpose built ebikes (e.g., Levo)?


Nope, they will be the minority. Just like the guys that buy their own frames and build up them up now. They won't be rare, just the minority. The big guys (Haibike/Trek/Spec etc) I'm sure are hard at work reengineering mtbs to work with 750W motors. Except for the kits, and the kickstarter type bikes, there aren't any off the shelf 750W true emtbs available. Considering the significant increase in torque a bike company can't just slap a 750W motor on an existing platform and not expect to have warranty issues, it's pretty clear from the kit bikers experience that drivetrains and wheels will have to be overbuilt so the public can thrash them and not have them end up straight back in the shop. While SRAM released their ebike drivetrain a month or so ago, it will take a year or so before the OEM suppliers and bike manufacturers finish getting the issues resolved and we see the higher wattage bikes in the shops.



Empty_Beer said:


> I'm not terribly offended by strictly pedal assist. But these throttle-don't-have-to-pedal versions do bother me. But if it isn't having a real impact on the trails or other trail users, I need to reevaluate why it bothers me. Riding up instead of taking a shuttle vehicle seems like a good thing too. Hmmm.


I honestly don't care if you switch on the power by turning the crank or turning a throttle, I think a throttle is safer actually. Once you get up into the 750W range, the motor is no longer assisting you, you are assisting the motor. Soft pedaling while the motor does most of the work might make it look more like you are riding a bike but doesn't mean that you are.



Empty_Beer said:


> Maybe ebikes will open the door for a hell of a lot more purpose built bike-only trails. One can dream...


Or more fun single track moto trails, I like to ride those too.

The point I was trying to make is that with a very low human powered mtb we have to balance our bike choice between how well it climbs and how well it descends. We can't have an 18lb carbon XC bike on the climbs that morphs into world cup DH rig once the trail points down. While bike technology and the speeds that go with it have improved tremendously over the past decade, human power/bike weight has still been a reasonable filter as to what you can ride where. The fastest bikes downhill suck to ride uphill, this has kept them to where people are willing to push them, shuttle them or there are lifts.

If you add in motor power, that all goes away. As the rider in the vids states, he rides uphill with his bike optimized for DH riding, dropper in BMX postion because it doesn't matter, he's hardly working at all. So, instead of seeing shuttle ready big bikes at the handful of trails that you can shuttle, you could see them everywhere. An 8" daily driver that you can do multiple laps on your front country trails after work. Which sounds appealing until you realize that our #1 trail conflict issue is speed.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> The realities of political power being what they are (money talks: loudly), and the demographics of ebikers (older and wealthier) once enough product gets into the hands of the public, change will come. The social class of individual who rides horses is the same class as those who buy and ride $5,000 ebikes: they may very well come to an accommodation regarding access over cocktails in the Club bar after a round of golf........ This is America in 2016: the wealthy get what they want and if they want to ride ebikes on trails with their grandchildren, then that is what will happen.


 Older like many of the mt bikers I ride with? Pedaling $ 4-8,000 bikes. But not golfing, ick. The same ones who have been a go to resource for land mangers for the last 15 or so years. The same mt bikers/ hikers/ conservation folks all showing up at the same public forums/ meetings/ and trail days. I call them mt bikers. Mt biking has become REALY popular here in New England. A money maker for eco tourism, bike parks, trail design and land management are now seen as a way to generate cash flow. Summer use of a ski resort anyone? Everyone? My same friends are now buying second homes/ rental property in the trail areas and are now tax payers and land owners. Yes money talks. The chances of getting trails closed because of the rogue new kids on the block making waves. Not going to happen.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Harryman said:


> If you add in motor power, that all goes away. As the rider in the vids states, he rides uphill with his bike optimized for DH riding, dropper in BMX postion because it doesn't matter, he's hardly working at all. So, instead of seeing shuttle ready big bikes at the handful of trails that you can shuttle, you could see them everywhere. An 8" daily driver that you can do multiple laps on your front country trails after work. Which sounds appealing until you realize that our #1 trail conflict issue is speed.


So are motors the "enemy"... or is suspension, disc brakes, dropper posts, etc.?  People were already complaining about our speed (and courtesy) when we only rode rigid 26ers with rim brakes.

I just hope that when it is all said and done, most people are like me and just don't want to deal with a truly unnecessary component that requires even more time and $ to maintain, tune, repair, etc. I hope there are recalls galore for the motorized components, leaving the public unconfident about purchasing them.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Empty_Beer said:


> So are motors the "enemy"... or is suspension, disc brakes, dropper posts, etc.?  People were already complaining about our speed (and courtesy) when we only rode rigid 26ers with rim brakes.
> 
> I just hope that when it is all said and done, most people are like me and just don't want to deal with a truly unnecessary component that requires even more time and $ to maintain, tune, repair, etc. I hope there are recalls galore for the motorized components, leaving the public unconfident about purchasing them.


i appreciate reflection and rational thinking. 

E-bike as "enemy", the vocal outrage, rings a bit hollow when you consider: there aren't any. I never saw one in the wild yet myself. I will be the first guy on the trail riding one anyone here has ever seen. I'm trying to think how I will ever live up to all the paranoia?

Maybe meth? I've never tried it, but it could have the desired effect 

An ashtray on the handlebar?

Boombox blaring from the seat-post?

Electric horn?

Perhaps the urge by some mtb leaders to whip everybody to fear and loath electrical bicycles really just shows the character behind behaviors hikers and horse riders fear: reckless downhill riding, which is both demonstrated and lionized by many of the same folks so vocally anti-ebike.

This implusive and aggressive direction of negative feelings to the "other", maybe fueled in part by PTSD from so many near death experiences, how does that reflect on the mtb community?


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

It does seem e bikes are being blamed for past bad behavior from reg mt bikers , if some of the ppl so against e bike would go ride one or ride with one it would relive the fear of them . The e bike will be good for everyone bike makers shops selling and working on them to the fun they will bring both old and new riders .


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Dude, not against them, Just illegal to ride on the trails here. Great for road and ORV areas.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

You guys are still ignoring the heart of the issue many mountain bikers have with e-bikes. People will modify or run more powerful electric bikes/motorcycles under the label of pedal-assist. Lumping e-bikes, mountain bikes, pedal-assist, electric motorcycles together WILL cause trail access issues for mountain bikers, who have worked hard over the last few decades to earn that access. 

Can you guys guarantee that people will strictly run low power pedal-assist e-bikes on mountain bike trails? If you can't, then we have nothing to discuss, and this conversation is over in my opinion.

P.s. And don't say that one or two irresponsible exceptions don't matter. I, like many mountain bikers, know that it only takes one person to lose access for everybody.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> The realities of political power being what they are (money talks: loudly), and the demographics of ebikers (older and wealthier) once enough product gets into the hands of the public, change will come. The social class of individual who rides horses is the same class as those who buy and ride $5,000 ebikes: they may very well come to an accommodation regarding access over cocktails in the Club bar after a round of golf........ This is America in 2016: the wealthy get what they want and if they want to ride ebikes on trails with their grandchildren, then that is what will happen.


I venture a guess that they will all expire of natural causes before access is gained. Meanwhile, the upcoming generations of Cyclists will simply be too ashamed to be seen on a motorized vehicle until their "golden years" age them out of the sport. Rinse, repeat. No joy for the Moped contingent.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

WoodlandHills said:


> The realities of political power being what they are (money talks: loudly), and the demographics of ebikers (older and wealthier) once enough product gets into the hands of the public, change will come. The social class of individual who rides horses is the same class as those who buy and ride $5,000 ebikes: they may very well come to an accommodation regarding access over cocktails in the Club bar after a round of golf........ This is America in 2016: the wealthy get what they want and if they want to ride ebikes on trails with their grandchildren, then that is what will happen.


If your facts are true which I doubt, makes it sound like a bunch of rich lazy snobs own em. Yup makes me dislike ebikes even more.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Can you guys guarantee that people will strictly run low power pedal-assist e-bikes on mountain bike trails? If you can't, then we have nothing to discuss, and this conversation is over in my opinion.


You sound like a guy named Todd McMahon when the topic is mountain bikes being allowed on currently forbidden trails. Google him


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Empty_Beer said:


> You sound like a guy named Todd McMahon when the topic is mountain bikes being allowed on currently forbidden trails. Google him


So this conversation is over. You obviously have nothing worthwhile to say.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

mountainbiker24 said:


> So this conversation is over. You obviously have nothing worthwhile to say.


Buh-bye. I stand by all my comments in these ebike threads. And there's no use trying to open a closed mind. Have fun in whatever forum or thread you try to shut down next.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> So this conversation is over. You obviously have nothing worthwhile to say.


Toddy!

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



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

WoodlandHills said:


> The realities of political power being what they are (money talks: loudly), and the demographics of ebikers (older and wealthier) once enough product gets into the hands of the public, change will come. The social class of individual who rides horses is the same class as those who buy and ride $5,000 ebikes: they may very well come to an accommodation regarding access over cocktails in the Club bar after a round of golf........ This is America in 2016: the wealthy get what they want and if they want to ride ebikes on trails with their grandchildren, then that is what will happen.


Well you finally got something right, nearly anyway. The change will come due to the diligence ($$$) of manufactures who stand to pocket a small fortune, _then_ the product will flow into the consumers hands.


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

WoodlandHills said:


> The realities of political power being what they are (money talks: loudly), and the demographics of ebikers (older and wealthier) once enough product gets into the hands of the public, change will come. The social class of individual who rides horses is the same class as those who buy and ride $5,000 ebikes: they may very well come to an accommodation regarding access over cocktails in the Club bar after a round of golf........ This is America in 2016: the wealthy get what they want and if they want to ride ebikes on trails with their grandchildren, then that is what will happen.


This is hilarious! Just picture Judge Schmalles and Lacy Underalls entertaining their eBike cohorts, Rodney Dangerfield, at Bushwood Country Club. of course, Carl the Groundskeeper (MTB low-life) races DH on his days off. They should make a movie about it.

But seriously , some trail access is likely to happen in some states where access issues are ratchetted downa notch or two. But this will never happen in California as a "norm.". You still can't mountain bike in the City of Los angeles parks, fopr example. You don't realize how recently mountain bikes weren't allowed in state parks in CA and then only on fire roads. There is a well funded, politically entrenched anti-bike culture and they will circle the wagons over motorized access on many trails.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

uhoh7 said:


> i appreciate reflection and rational thinking.
> 
> E-bike as "enemy", the vocal outrage, rings a bit hollow when you consider: there aren't any. I never saw one in the wild yet myself. I will be the first guy on the trail riding one anyone here has ever seen. I'm trying to think how I will ever live up to all the paranoia?
> 
> ...


Maybe you should get off your ass and get on your bike. If you didn't spend so much time defending motorcycles you could ride a bike up a hill without help.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> ...The social class of individual who rides horses is the same class as those who buy and ride $5,000 ebikes: they may very well come to an accommodation regarding access over cocktails in the Club bar after a round of golf........ ....


Really?

For the record, I'm not against ebikes.
I am against mixing them in, willy-nilly, with human-powered mountain bikes.

Obviously, the human-powered bikes aren't suitable for every trail, so some have to be built from time to time. Sure, there are some really nice existing trails that most mountain bikers think they should be able to ride (and maybe were allowed at one time) and can't understand why they are not allowed. That is where mountain biking is right now.

The idea that electric bikes would like to short-cut that process doesn't sit well with anyone except the electric bike owners (and mfr's). Maybe someone will open a test trail for electric bikes. That seems reasonable. But any sort of blanket allowance - in the same way that a blanket restriction is unfounded - completely ignores logic. Trail access _should_ be considered on a case-by-case basis.

And again, if electric bikes have to follow the protocol, there will be surveys, proposals, environmental impact studies, public comments, proposal revisions, more comments, funding, and then maybe a trail will be built. Get used to that. That's the way of the world. And yes, those are the standards that mountain bikers have to meet these days.

-F


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> You guys are still ignoring the heart of the issue many mountain bikers have with e-bikes. People will modify or run more powerful electric bikes/motorcycles under the label of pedal-assist. Lumping e-bikes, mountain bikes, pedal-assist, electric motorcycles together WILL cause trail access issues for mountain bikers, who have worked hard over the last few decades to earn that access.
> 
> Can you guys guarantee that people will strictly run low power pedal-assist e-bikes on mountain bike trails? If you can't, then we have nothing to discuss, and this conversation is over in my opinion.
> 
> P.s. And don't say that one or two irresponsible exceptions don't matter. I, like many mountain bikers, know that it only takes one person to lose access for everybody.


Incredible draconian view. Can you guarantee nobody is going to modify their car? Well, let's outlaw all of them.

Can you guarantee no mtb riders will mis-behave DH? OK let's get some trails closed.

Your attitude to ebikes is full of double standards and intolerance for something about which you and I know very little, except what's in our imagination. Nevertheless, your base position is guilty until proven innocent to a factor of certainty unseen in science. Nice, if you are a Stalinist. 

There's a chance that guy is disloyal: "Shoot him!"

Do you know a single case of a modded 250w pedelec terrorizing a trail at all? Do you really think they will exceed the current DH offenders?



sfgiantsfan said:


> Maybe you should get off your ass and get on your bike. If you didn't spend so much time defending motorcycles you could ride a bike up a hill without help.


Oh what a friendly fellow to share the trails with you are. I ride my mtb all the time, poo-breath, and it's not at sea-level in the hills.  Not only that, on my main motorcycle, you can't sit down!

You should be banned from typing in case you accidentally say something nice or funny and give us a stroke from the shock 

PS do you stand at those giants games?

Spanish Horse by unoh7, on Flickr


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

uhoh7 said:


> Blah, blah, blah


Get used to the resistance because you only have a glimpse of it right now.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

These same riders have had trails closed to them for there bad behavior now they want to blame e bikes but most have never seen one lol funny ppl .


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

tiretracks said:


> Get used to the resistance because you only have a glimpse of it right now.


And you better get used to somebody pointing the hypocritical baseless nature of those extreme views about low-impact access to public lands.

If you have no argument I guess the only thing left is to close your ears and write "blah blah" in the place of somebody else's actual quote.

If you want to quote me, fine do so. If you want to paraphrase, leave it out of quotation per forum guidelines, please. 

@uhoh7 works just fine


----------



## albeant (Feb 24, 2004)

It seems like the best criticism of e-bikes on singletrack involves the potential for increased user conflict and trail closures--basically Walt's overall point. 

OTOH, if e-bikes are used as a replacement for shuttling, they could mitigate some of shuttling's environmental impact, while not changing the user-conflict picture dramatically. (In my local range, the San Gabriel mountains outside of Los Angeles, we have two professional shuttling services making multiple daily trips with flatbed trailers into the national forest. The most popular shuttle route is a front-country line from 5,000' down to 1,300', with riders in full DH kit on some of the most popular multi-use trails in the area. The services are permitted by USFS, and most riders have seemed pretty indifferent to the human and environmental impacts.) 

So why condone shuttling while excoriating e-bikes? The most popular pro-shuttling argument is that while there are a few bad apples, most shuttlers are respectful of other trail users. Should the same argument be applied to the e-bike rider? Or should we broadly condemn shuttling, e-bikes, and perhaps even driving to the trailhead? (These aren't meant to be rhetorical questions; I'm actually interested in reading reasoned argument.)


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

albeant said:


> It seems like the best criticism of e-bikes on singletrack involves the potential for increased user conflict and trail closures--basically Walt's overall point.
> 
> OTOH, if e-bikes are used as a replacement for shuttling, they could mitigate some of shuttling's environmental impact, while not changing the user-conflict picture dramatically. (In my local range, the San Gabriel mountains outside of Los Angeles, we have two professional shuttling services making multiple daily trips with flatbed trailers into the national forest. The most popular shuttle route is a front-country line from 5,000' down to 1,300', with riders in full DH kit on some of the most popular multi-use trails in the area. The services are permitted by USFS, and most riders have seemed pretty indifferent to the human and environmental impacts.)
> 
> So why condone shuttling while excoriating e-bikes? The most popular pro-shuttling argument is that while there are a few bad apples, most shuttlers are respectful of other trail users. Should the same argument be applied to the e-bike rider? Or should we broadly condemn shuttling, e-bikes, and perhaps even driving to the trailhead? (These aren't meant to be rhetorical questions; I'm actually interested in reading reasoned argument.)


Odd how e advocates always omit the minor detail that they are motorized and that fact makes their use on non-motorized trails against the law.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

A refreshing post asking some good questions about a area the e haters live in .


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Odd how the anti crowd never answer a reasonable inquiry.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

fos'l said:


> Odd how the anti crowd never answer a reasonable inquiry.


I did.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

uhoh7 said:


> Incredible draconian view. Can you guarantee nobody is going to modify their car? Well, let's outlaw all of them.
> 
> Can you guarantee no mtb riders will mis-behave DH? OK let's get some trails closed.
> 
> ...


Man, you continue to completely miss the point. My point is that true pedal-assist bikes with low power MIGHT have a place with mountain bikes on certain trails for certain users. Anything more than that should unquestionably be classified differently than a mountain bike. Why is this so difficult for your people to understand?

A mountain biker misbehaving on a mountain bike is stilla mountain biker. An e-biker misbehaving on an electric motorcycle is not a mountain biker. Do you not see the difference?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

tiretracks said:


> I did.


We aren't communicating with intelligent life at this point. For some reason, they just continue to argue against figments of their imagination.


----------



## albeant (Feb 24, 2004)

Not that one's advocacy or lack thereof is relevant to questions and answers--the validity of a truth claim doesn't depend on the identity of the speaker--but I've never ridden an e-bike, and don't have plans to get one. I've been loving non-motorized mtb-ing for 25 years. 

Especially given that e-bikes are still in their infancy, I think discussing questions is important. These conversations tend to become dogmatic really quickly.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Nothing that you have said has been reasonable tiretracks all rude


----------



## albeant (Feb 24, 2004)

tiretracks said:


> Odd how e advocates always omit the minor detail that they are motorized and that fact makes their use on non-motorized trails against the law.


I don't think it's a minor detail, but I wasn't discussing that point. The way I see it, the law should follow proposed needs for behavior-regulation, and I was asking about that need itself.

Clearly e-bikes are illegal on trails that don't permit their use. That seems a given. But to rephrase my question: Should shuttling be illegal on the same trails?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

rider95 said:


> Nothing that you have said has been reasonable tiretracks all rude


Yeah. I get it. The truth and facts usually offend people that get overly invested in extremely tenuous positions. Rock on.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Man, you continue to completely miss the point. My point is that true pedal-assist bikes with low power MIGHT have a place with mountain bikes on certain trails for certain users. Anything more than that should unquestionably be classified differently than a mountain bike. *Why is this so difficult for your people to understand? *
> 
> A mountain biker misbehaving on a mountain bike is stilla mountain biker. An e-biker misbehaving on an electric motorcycle is not a mountain biker. Do you not see the difference?


Of course I see the "difference", and I have read your post quite carefully.

"Your people". Cmon man are we tribes here?

However, I do hear a hint of potential compromise in your post, that perhaps there really are places for an mtb to share a "non-motorized" trail with a 250w pedelec, but without normal motorcycles.

I appreciate that


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

albeant said:


> It seems like the best criticism of e-bikes on singletrack involves the potential for increased user conflict and trail closures--basically Walt's overall point.
> 
> OTOH, if e-bikes are used as a replacement for shuttling, they could mitigate some of shuttling's environmental impact, while not changing the user-conflict picture dramatically. (In my local range, the San Gabriel mountains outside of Los Angeles, we have two professional shuttling services making multiple daily trips with flatbed trailers into the national forest. The most popular shuttle route is a front-country line from 5,000' down to 1,300', with riders in full DH kit on some of the most popular multi-use trails in the area. The services are permitted by USFS, and most riders have seemed pretty indifferent to the human and environmental impacts.)
> 
> So why condone shuttling while excoriating e-bikes? The most popular pro-shuttling argument is that while there are a few bad apples, most shuttlers are respectful of other trail users. Should the same argument be applied to the e-bike rider? Or should we broadly condemn shuttling, e-bikes, and perhaps even driving to the trailhead? (These aren't meant to be rhetorical questions; I'm actually interested in reading reasoned argument.)


As long as the shuttle trucks are not running up non motorized trails I see nothing wrong.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

uhoh7 said:


> Of course I see the "difference", and I have read your post quite carefully.
> 
> "Your people". Cmon man are we tribes here?
> 
> ...


Yes, we are "tribes". E-bikes are different than mountain bikes. The problem, which has been stated over and over without any real response, is that these pedal-assist bikes are already evolving into more powerful electric motorcycles, and that is a slippery slope that should terrify both mountain bikers and e-bikers.


----------



## albeant (Feb 24, 2004)

bdundee said:


> As long as the shuttle trucks are not running up non motorized trails I see nothing wrong.


The way I see it, many of the criticisms of e-bikes can also be applied to shuttling:


E-bikes will simply increase the number of trail users, many of whom are inexperienced in the backcountry, inevitably leading to more user conflicts, trail damage, and rescue calls.
E-biking is a moral failure, a sign of laziness. What goes down must pedal up.
E-bikers will be able to haul full DH kit and suspension into trails that once were the province of XC riders, effectively turning multi-use trails into DH tracks and/or leading to trail closures.
E-bikes are environmentally unfriendly, since they rely on the electricity grid, which is often powered by fossil fuels.

This isn't a defense of e-bikes or a condemnation of shuttling, but I am a little bemused by the general acceptance of driving bicycles up a mountain in a vehicle burning a gallon of gasoline every 20-odd miles, with the sole purpose of setting a new KOM on a multi-use trail--sorry, this is standard practice here--while taking a hard line against e-bikes.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

albeant said:


> The way I see it, many of the criticisms of e-bikes can also be applied to shuttling:
> 
> 
> E-bikes will simply increase the number of trail users, many of whom are inexperienced in the backcountry, inevitably leading to more user conflicts, trail damage, and rescue calls.
> ...


The law doesn't prohibit, so this is a Straw Man and is part of the diversion from the facts.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Yes, we are "tribes". E-bikes are different than mountain bikes. The problem, which has been stated over and over without any real response, is that these pedal-assist bikes are already evolving into more powerful electric motorcycles, and that is a slippery slope that should terrify both mountain bikers and e-bikers.


Oh, that slippery slope! Yeah smoke pot, and the next thing you know you are addicted to opiates. Let's ban pot "just in case", right?

Nobody has ignored the issue of modding. It exists anywhere there are regulations. It would be/is against the law. Some are going to break the law. Mtb riders are poaching as we speak. Should we ban them because some do?


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

albeant said:


> The way I see it, many of the criticisms of e-bikes can also be applied to shuttling:
> 
> 
> E-bikes will simply increase the number of trail users, many of whom are inexperienced in the backcountry, inevitably leading to more user conflicts, trail damage, and rescue calls.
> ...


Are you sure that the people calling for a separate designation for e-bikes are the same people shuttling for Strava KOMs? I bet they're not. I'm confident that the vast majority of mountain bikers concerned about the impact of e-bikes are also very concerned about the impact of Strava.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

mountainbiker24 said:


> Are you sure that the people calling for a separate designation for e-bikes are the same people shuttling for Strava KOMs? I bet they're not. I'm confident that the vast majority of mountain bikers concerned about the impact of e-bikes are also very concerned about the impact of Strava.


Luckily, based on my experience, the vast majority of mtb riders have better things to think about than fantastical threats to access. 

On the ground the real truth is when denied access they often take it anyway, if there's no alternative This has been one major motivation for managers to provide more trails for them.

Ranger to Sheriff: "At least they are not holding anyone at gunpoint  Let's humor them. They will self regulate through injury" LOL


----------



## aborgman (Apr 18, 2016)

mountainbiker24 said:


> and that is a slippery slope that should terrify both mountain bikers and e-bikers.


You do realize the "slippery slope" is a classical logical _*fallacy*_, right?


----------



## RichardU (Jun 16, 2016)

aborgman said:


> You do realize the "slippery slope" is a classical logical _*fallacy*_, right?


From Wiki FWIW: Both fallacious and valid forms of slippery slope are prevalent in political and public policy debate generally;[4] distinguishing which one is operating in any given argument can be challenging.


----------



## aborgman (Apr 18, 2016)

RichardU said:


> From Wiki FWIW: Both fallacious and valid forms of slippery slope are prevalent in political and public policy debate generally;[4] distinguishing which one is operating in any given argument can be challenging.


 The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In a non-fallacious sense, including use as a legal principle, _*a middle-ground possibility is acknowledged, and reasoning is provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome.*_


----------



## albeant (Feb 24, 2004)

tiretracks said:


> The law doesn't prohibit, so this is a Straw Man and is part of the diversion from the facts.


The law doesn't, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't. We agree on the fact of legislation, and I'm not advocating that riders disobey the law if they're unhappy with it. But if the discussion only covers what the law currently allows, this would be a pretty short conversation, leaving no room for advocacy. Perhaps especially if you've taken sides against the e-bike, it pays to anticipate the opposition's arguments in the advocacy wars to come.

I'm really just asking whether in practice, e-biking is qualitatively different enough from shuttling that we shouldn't consider the two to be similar behaviors. This is a practical and moral question from which legislation would follow, not a question of what the law currently allows.


----------



## albeant (Feb 24, 2004)

mountainbiker24 said:


> I'm confident that the vast majority of mountain bikers concerned about the impact of e-bikes are also very concerned about the impact of Strava.


I hope you're right, but I haven't seen it. But what of the shuttling comparison? Just as a thought experiment, what if a socially and environmentally responsible e-biker were to ride up a paved or OHV road, and then descend ST. Wouldn't that be more defensible than shuttling in a truck?


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

albeant said:


> I hope you're right, but I haven't seen it. But what of the shuttling comparison? Just as a thought experiment, what if a socially and environmentally responsible e-biker were to ride up a paved or OHV road, and then descend ST. Wouldn't that be more defensible than shuttling in a truck?


You are missing the point, if the single track is non motorized access only then the e bike has no rights to be there. Who cares what people do on the roads as long as they don't run over me while I'm peddling my non motor bike up under my own power.


----------



## albeant (Feb 24, 2004)

bdundee said:


> You are missing the point, if the single track is non motorized access only then the e bike has no rights to be there. Who cares what people do on the roads as long as they don't run over me while I'm peddling my non motor bike up under my own power.


Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're saying that people aren't entitled to break the law. I agree. But my scenario doesn't only involve what people do on roads, because it includes DH on ST. Would the e-bike DH'er pose a greater run-over risk to other trail users than shuttlers?


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

bdundee said:


> while I'm peddling my non motor bike up under my own power.


Here is a big base of objection. The 250w pedelec helps you climb. That's not fair, right?

A horse helps those riders up a trail, should they be considered a lesser user?

It's fine for you to feel human power is the most noble, and choose to access that way. But why impose your values on others who will get a little help?

Horses cost alot, are very dangerous, have a big carbon footprint etc. A 250w pedelec really has the potential to be a "peoples horse" in the backcountry, with less of the negatives.

I do know horses real well, as I was an endurance rider once upon a time


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Is there some reason you can't just produce 250w of your own power?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

uhoh7 said:


> Here is a big base of objection. The 250w pedelec helps you climb. That's not fair, right?
> 
> A horse helps those riders up a trail, should they be considered a lesser user?
> 
> ...


So take it up with your law makers. Change the laws and regulations. Until then you're pissing in the wind. No one here gives two fcuks about your electric motorbikes but, we fought for our access for decades and we're not going to allow electric motorcycles put it at risk. Keep arguing about semantics but the facts are that in most parts of the country vehicles with motors are forbidden from mtb trails.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Ummm, what he said ^^^.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

leeboh said:


> ummm, what he said ^^^.


x2!!


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

uhoh7 said:


> Here is a big base of objection. The 250w pedelec helps you climb. That's not fair, right?
> 
> A horse helps those riders up a trail, should they be considered a lesser user?
> 
> ...


As long as horses are allowed and they pick up their sh*t I have no problem with em. Personal opinion, do I think most people who are on ebikes are being lazy yes but that really has no bearings on it. Personal opinion aside, if you want ebikes on non motorized trail fight for it but don't expect to win my heart or the hearts of most mountain bikers so we join the fight, we just have nothing to gain. You'all know your battle isn't going to be won here, right??


----------



## cjsb (Mar 4, 2009)

^^
Have the E Bike zealots started their own thread on equestrian or hiking forums? stir the pots everywhere


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## albeant (Feb 24, 2004)

Le Duke said:


> Is there some reason you can't just produce 250w of your own power?
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Is there a reason someone can't produce 250w and simultaneously use an e-bike?


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

tiretracks said:


> So take it up with your law makers. Change the laws and regulations. Until then you're pissing in the wind. No one here gives two fcuks about your electric motorbikes but, we fought for our access for decades and we're not going to allow electric motorcycles put it at risk. Keep arguing about semantics but the facts are that in most parts of the country vehicles with motors are forbidden from mtb trails.


And that's how it should be. Ebike (motorized) access to any of our MTB or multi use (see human powered) trails is heading down a very slippery slope. The thought that they (including equestrian) can all share the same trails is delusional! 
If they want to ride ebikes then go ride the dirt bike trails and roads. 
Can we close this thread now? It's really starting to piss me off.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Shuttling causes tons of problems on trails where it's possible. They get closed to bikes all the time. So yeah, shuttling sucks and hurts access because it increases user density and speeds. There are some trails where it works out fine, but they tend to be directional flow/DH trails where there is no 2-way traffic and no hikers/dogs/kids. 

E bikes would probably be fine on directional bike-only trails. But most trails aren't set up that way.

-Walt


----------



## btsjeff (Dec 13, 2013)

Motorized vehicles are such a threat where Im from in southern California that the authorities close down everything even close to where the 4x4's and dirt bikes used to go. I cant even ride a bike on the BLM land trails near my area. You have to stay on the roads with the border patrol trucks ONLY. 

With this kind of treatment of the public trails in my area, wouldn't you be concerned about electric motorized bikes entering the scene?


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

btsjeff said:


> Motorized vehicles are such a threat where Im from in southern California that the authorities close down everything even close to where the 4x4's and dirt bikes used to go. I cant even ride a bike on the BLM land trails near my area. You have to stay on the roads with the border patrol trucks ONLY.
> 
> With this kind of treatment of the public trails in my area, wouldn't you be concerned about electric motorized bikes entering the scene?


That's a shame, but I don't see what e-bikes have to do with it. I would get all my mtb buddies together and get a meeting with the BLM to allow some local access.

You don't even need to mention e-bikes. BLM already considers them identical to motorcycles, which of course I think is silly, but renders the whole "they are going kill our access" idea moot on BLM today.



manitou2200 said:


> And that's how it should be. Ebike (motorized) access to any of our MTB or multi use (see human powered) trails is heading down a very slippery slope. The thought that they (including equestrian) can all share the same trails is delusional!
> If they want to ride ebikes then go ride the dirt bike trails and roads.
> Can we close this thread now? It's really starting to piss me off.


The fact you admit you can't share a trail with a horse gives me a hint how hard you're riding. That's the only reason mtbs have access issues anywhere. They scare people.

So really you are demanding your "own" trail system. Mtbs only. Because multiple use is "delusional". In fact multiple use works well on vast tracts of NFS land. Very well.

Sorry you want to shut down the conversation, but really, you don't have to click on the thread. It's optional


----------



## albeant (Feb 24, 2004)

Walt said:


> Shuttling causes tons of problems on trails where it's possible. They get closed to bikes all the time. So yeah, shuttling sucks and hurts access because it increases user density and speeds. There are some trails where it works out fine, but they tend to be directional flow/DH trails where there is no 2-way traffic and no hikers/dogs/kids.
> 
> E bikes would probably be fine on directional bike-only trails. But most trails aren't set up that way.
> 
> -Walt


I agree that shuttling (along with most other technological innovations in MTB, I suppose) increases speed and density, and I'd maybe even add that shuttlers often _look_ especially alienating and aggressive to other trail users (full-face, armor, goggles, etc.).

But I'm still a little stuck on why we as a community have converged on the argument that shuttling is fine (it's just a few bad apples that create conflict and threaten access) while e-bikes are a totally different kind of thing in practical terms. Would e-bikes really be more destructive to trail access than eight guys in tactical gear bombing a multi-use trail on DH bikes?

I get that the e-bike is still in its infancy and will likely become more powerful, but right now I don't really see the e-bike as an entirely different kind of thing from what the MTB community (forums, magazines, shuttle businesses, and riders) has already been celebrating.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I never said I had concluded that shuttling is fine. In my experience it mostly ends in trail closures and tears. But how do you ban shuttling? It can't be illegal to put your bike in your car, or ride in your car with your bike, or get out of your car with your bike and go ride a trail that's open to bikes. The end result is that easily shuttleable trails get closed or designated uphill only. If it were legally possible to ban shuttling, that might be worthwhile in some cases, but it's not. 

So I don't think the community is as pro-shuttling as you think. Remember that 95% of mountain bikers are normal folks who ride what we basically would all call "XC". What you see in magazines and on youtube isn't very representative of the majority of mountain biking, but big air and DAKINE frame pads on trucks make for good advertising. 

-Walt


----------



## albeant (Feb 24, 2004)

Walt said:


> I never said I had concluded that shuttling is fine. In my experience it mostly ends in trail closures and tears. But how do you ban shuttling? It can't be illegal to put your bike in your car, or ride in your car with your bike, or get out of your car with your bike and go ride a trail that's open to bikes. The end result is that easily shuttleable trails get closed or designated uphill only. If it were legally possible to ban shuttling, that might be worthwhile in some cases, but it's not.
> 
> So I don't think the community is as pro-shuttling as you think. Remember that 95% of mountain bikers are normal folks who ride what we basically would all call "XC". What you see in magazines and on youtube isn't very representative of the majority of mountain biking, but big air and DAKINE frame pads on trucks make for good advertising.
> 
> -Walt


I didn't mean to suggest that you'd personally defended shuttling; indeed, you pretty clearly stated that it is a problem. I agree, but I still think the practice is broadly defended. I mentioned in an earlier post USFS-permitted shuttle services that make multiple daily drops with vans/flatbeds in the Angeles National Forest, right onto heavily used frontcountry trails. Yet, criticizing them can make you an MTB pariah. Walt, you seem entirely consistent in your opinions, but I think as a community our simultaneous defense of shuttling and condemnation of the e-bike is wildly incoherent.

As for regulation, you make a good point about the impracticality of regulating shuttling, though it might be pretty easy to regulate professional, for-profit shuttling. But e-bikes too will only get more difficult to distinguish from analog bikes, and will pose similar problems for enforcement.

I mean, shitt, MTB's have been becoming more and more like motorcycles for a long time anyway, which like the e-bike only increases speed and density. If everybody were committed to no-car, full-rigid there'd be fewer of us out there, going a hell of a lot slower, and trail access problems/user conflicts would decline proportionally.

A lot of us--I don't mean you, and I'm not excluding myself--could take a good hard look in the mirror when it comes to how we already use trails, often as public race courses, before deciding that the e-bike will be the beginning of the end. You could probably just as easily make that argument about the 1989 RS-1 (ok maybe the Mag 20; the RS-1 was just plain dangerous!).


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

albeant said:


> MTB's have been becoming more and more like motorcycles for a long time anyway


Yeah, ummm, except for one immutable characteristic: mountain bikes don't have a motor. Can you also guess the one defining trait of a so called ebike that makes it motorbike?


----------



## albeant (Feb 24, 2004)

Carl Mega said:


> Yeah, ummm, except for one immutable characteristic: mountain bikes don't have a motor. Can you also guess the one defining trait of a so called ebike that makes it motorbike?


I think you're point is a given in the discussion.


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> The fact you admit you can't share a trail with a horse gives me a hint how hard you're riding. That's the only reason mtbs have access issues anywhere. They scare people.
> 
> So really you are demanding your "own" trail system. Mtbs only. Because multiple use is "delusional". In fact multiple use works well on vast tracts of NFS land. Very well.
> 
> Sorry you want to shut down the conversation, but really, you don't have to click on the thread. It's optional


I'm not going to deny I like riding fast and are you ready? For this....becoming one with the trail, haha but I'm not an ass-hole when I'm riding. Perfect example; yesterday on my way home from a business meeting, I rode a backcountry section of the NCT, it's a 30+ mile out 'n back, designed as a hiking trail, bench cut, rolling contour, ridge line type riding. It's a beautiful flowing trail with around 4500' ft of climbing on the round trip. 
Normally I don't see any other bikers and in 8 trips though there this year I've only seen one other cyclist. Yesterday was super busy on this trail, I lost count at 35+ backpackers. So what did I do when I approached these other trail users? I slowed down and dismounted, then walked by the if they were hiking. The ones that were stopped or saw me before I saw them and had moved off of the trail, I then rode by slowly and had conversation with them. That's how you treat other users on these types of trails. It's all about respect for others and tolerance of any activity that you might encounter on a multi use trail.
What you fail to realize is that equestrians are the most destructive users of the non motorized groups using trails. They are also for the most part (not all) self entitled snobs that rarely put in any volunteer time in to maintain and or create trails. They are mostly users/ takers and almost none of them clean up the crap their animals leave on the trail. 
Last but most importantly horses, their weight and hooves are not compatible users with hikers, runners and MTB on any trail that is of a loamy/ dirt/ soil type composition. 
So please don't tell me I'm intolerant or willing to share trails with other users. I'm just not willing to share all of the non-motorized trails we have with anything motorized, I don't give a crap if it only has 50 watts. It's still a motor. 
I'm personally heading up the design aspect of a project (all volunteer on my part) of a potentially new trail system on national park land that could encompass as much as 75 miles of single track. Purpose built but this will be shared with other users, except equestrians and absolutely no motorized vehicles.
Do yourself a favor and do some research and reading about the federal wilderness and wilderness study designations going on currently and how that will impact MTB access. Then let me know if you think eMTB's are best included in with pedal powered bikes in the big picture of trail access.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Very nice and well put manitou2200 and true expect for the e bike stuff no more of a impact than a reg mt bike I have you ever ridden a Midwest trail after horses ??


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

rider95 said:


> Very nice and well put manitou2200 and true expect for the e bike stuff no more of a impact than a reg mt bike I have you ever ridden a Midwest trail after horses ??


Agreed but you omitted one issue. Motorized! That's the big deal!! Rider95, I'm not trying to exclude you or any disabled user that is one area I think we could make exceptions. 
I mostly have issue with lazy ass people that are always trying to take shortcuts to get to the goods or are not interested in contributing to a sustainable solution.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Lot's of talk about 250W motors like that's all we'll ever see. They are now since except for the kitbikes, everyone is selling what is legal in Europe. Anyone think that with the legal limit in the US set at 750W that will continue to be the norm? That there won't be a race to get the most powerful legal ebike to market?

The entire "low powered" ebike statement is one that is non qualified. Low powered compared to what? A bike? A moped? A motorcycle? A 750W ebike in Europe is considered a moped, I think they have a pretty good idea what rides like a bike and what rides like a moped since both bikes and mopeds are well integrated into their tramsportation systems.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Search UTUBE for 8000 watt pedal electric bike.


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

Harryman, Agreed, it's a race of tech to bring the fastest most powerful ebike to market. That's the beauty of free enterprise. The reality is its motorized and that's the issue. We users that are considerate of others would have no issues with making them fit in but that's not the case with a lot of trail users (and in their everyday life) that are in their own world clueless of others around them. That's why we will have issues with shared trail users, land managers and governing bodies.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Harryman said:


> Lot's of talk about 250W motors like that's all we'll ever see. They are now since except for the kitbikes, everyone is selling what is legal in Europe. Anyone think that with the legal limit in the US set at 750W that will continue to be the norm? That there won't be a race to get the most powerful legal ebike to market?
> 
> The entire "low powered" ebike statement is one that is non qualified. Low powered compared to what? A bike? A moped? A motorcycle? A 750W ebike in Europe is considered a moped, I think they have a pretty good idea what rides like a bike and what rides like a moped since both bikes and mopeds are well integrated into their tramsportation systems.


Harry man with all due respect that's a bunch of BS its the law the law says under so many watts its a bicycle so it is sorry that's the law now is it allowed on bicycle only trails???


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Oh, I know, I'm in the thick of it. There's no way other user groups that are already negatively bike biased would ever agree that a motorized bike with a motor of any size is nonmotorized and is fine on a non motorized trail. I can't support them on non motorized because, gee, they have a motor. They're fine with me on motorized trails though.

I've ridden a 250W PAS bike and ridden with piles of them in Europe. I agree that they are not damaging to trail surfaces, at least no more than someone ripping around in full enduro mode on a trail bike. But a 250W bike is a different animal than a 750W bike, let alone those above and far above the legal limit. With a 250W bike, the motor assists you and turns you into a very fit climber, on a 750W bike and above, you assist the motor when you choose to. Regardless of if you are twisting a throttle or soft pedalling to activate the motor, if you don't have to provide enough power on your own to move forward, you are now riding a moped. The argument that they are "pedal assist" loses all validity at that point IMO.

Here's some power level examples when climbing:

250W





750W Bafang BBSO2





750W Bafang BBSHD, it's labeled as 750W, sold as 1000W and generally recognized as a 1500W motor. The preferred e-mtb kit motor since it has high torque and runs cool. Even set up for climbing like this bike, it can still hit 28 in the flats without pedalling.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

rider95 said:


> Harry man with all due respect that's a bunch of BS its the law the law says under so many watts its a bicycle so it is sorry that's the law now is it allowed on bicycle only trails???


The federal law defines an ebike for the purpose of selling it.

State laws define an ebike and set permissions for their use on land under their control, it is not a mandate to local jurisdictions.

Local laws, park managers, etc define the use on their land. So, if your town or local park doesn't allow motorized vehicles on their bike paths or trails and consider ebikes motorized, they are banned. If they don't consider them motorized, they are allowed. If they allow them anywhere they allow bikes, they're good to go. It's up to them, the state says "we consider them bicycles, you guys can decide as you see fit where they can go."

Marijuana is legal in Colorado (state law) yet you can't buy it everywhere in Colorado. Same thing.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

It doesn't matter harryman what you tube or you think its what the law says if the law says under so many watts its a bicycle that's it!! that's the law in your state , The question is if by law in your state its a bicycle because its under so many watts then is it legal on a bicycle only trail


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Harryman said:


> The federal law defines an ebike for the purpose of selling it.
> 
> State laws define an ebike and set permissions for their use on land under their control, it is not a mandate to local jurisdictions.
> 
> ...


completely agree


----------



## Carl Mega (Jan 17, 2004)

rider95 said:


> he question is if by law in your state its a bicycle because its under so many watts then is it legal on a bicycle only trail


Your word salad arguments make no sense.

As clearly called out earlier - the motor vehicle/bicycle legal def has to do with roadways, licensing/permits and sales categorization. So the question you actually should be asking is: If a trail is non-motorized, and your e-bike has a motor is it legal? I've got the answer for you...but you won't want to hear it.

Frankly you come across pretty kooky. I hope it gets better.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Carl Mega said:


> Your word salad arguments make no sense.
> 
> As clearly called out earlier - the motor vehicle/bicycle legal def has to do with roadways, licensing/permits and sales categorization. So the question you actually should be asking is: If a trail is non-motorized, and your e-bike has a motor is it legal? I've got the answer for you...but you won't want to hear it.
> 
> Frankly you come across pretty kooky. I hope it gets better.


Well thank you for your deep thought incite I can count that as a no ?


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

manitou2200 said:


> I'm not going to deny I like riding fast and are you ready? For this....becoming one with the trail, haha but I'm not an ass-hole when I'm riding. Perfect example; yesterday on my way home from a business meeting, I rode a backcountry section of the NCT, it's a 30+ mile out 'n back, designed as a hiking trail, bench cut, rolling contour, ridge line type riding. It's a beautiful flowing trail with around 4500' ft of climbing on the round trip.
> Normally I don't see any other bikers and in 8 trips though there this year I've only seen one other cyclist. Yesterday was super busy on this trail, I lost count at 35+ backpackers. So what did I do when I approached these other trail users? I slowed down and dismounted, then walked by the if they were hiking. The ones that were stopped or saw me before I saw them and had moved off of the trail, I then rode by slowly and had conversation with them. That's how you treat other users on these types of trails. It's all about respect for others and tolerance of any activity that you might encounter on a multi use trail.
> What you fail to realize is that equestrians are the most destructive users of the non motorized groups using trails. They are also for the most part (not all) self entitled snobs that rarely put in any volunteer time in to maintain and or create trails. They are mostly users/ takers and almost none of them clean up the crap their animals leave on the trail.
> Last but most importantly horses, their weight and hooves are not compatible users with hikers, runners and MTB on any trail that is of a loamy/ dirt/ soil type composition.
> ...


Well, I'm glad you don't ride like you type  Sounds like our behavior on the trail is similar.

What I fail to realize about horses? OMG. I ride single track all over Idaho, you think I don't know all about horses? Your generalizations about equestrians are ignorant. Just like there are jerk mtb riders, jerk hikers, jerk moto riders, there are jerk horsemen. They are the exception. Most of the trails in the national forest were built with the support of horses/mules to carry tools etc. As to horses tearing up the trail, it's a wet weather issue, and again it's a minority of horsemen involved. Trails wear. Get over it. Or maybe we should ban the elk too, look what the heck they do:

illegal elk trail by unoh7, on Flickr

Congrats on getting mtb trails on national park land. We just went through the whole White Clouds wilderness designation here where motorized trails survived and mtb riders lost everything else. It wasn't because of ebikes. It's because EVERYBODY has seen a mtb rider out of control, in a way no other forest user is. Sure, horses spook, throttles stick, and hikers throw fits, but it's so rare. OOC mtb rider is not rare.

Now normally I don't care, but the hypocrisy of the shrill E-hate, "oh we will loose trails" is beyond the pale. e-Bikes have NOTHING to do with your access problems, and with a 250w restriction, they likely never would.

If you want an forest advocacy peeing contest, I could easily go there. But my momma taught me not to brag about giving.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I think you need to leave ID sometime and see how the other 99% ride/live. 

Totally different situation. 

-Walt


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Walt said:


> I think you need to leave ID sometime and see how the other 99% ride/live.
> 
> Totally different situation.
> 
> -Walt


Or in the Midwest we don't seem to have trail access issues you left coast riders have and with all the land you western riders have to ride on I cant understand how there could be a problem ?


----------



## manitou2200 (Apr 28, 2006)

uhoh7 said:


> Well, I'm glad you don't ride like you type  Sounds like our behavior on the trail is similar.
> 
> What I fail to realize about horses? OMG. I ride single track all over Idaho, you think I don't know all about horses? Your generalizations about equestrians are ignorant. Just like there are jerk mtb riders, jerk hikers, jerk moto riders, there are jerk horsemen. They are the exception. Most of the trails in the national forest were built with the support of horses/mules to carry tools etc. As to horses tearing up the trail, it's a wet weather issue, and again it's a minority of horsemen involved. Trails wear. Get over it. Or maybe we should ban the elk too, look what the heck they do:
> 
> ...


Ok now settle down here. I don't disagree with your perspective on horses in ID and I'm sure they did use horses in building a lot of the old trails. True story, there are jerks in every aspect of life but I like to think they are a minority, I hope FGS! You also live in one of the least densely populated areas of then country so congrats to you for that wisdom! You also need to factor that into your perspective as it's not a great cross section of what's going on in other areas of the country with access. Some types of terrain hold up better to hooves of heavy animals. Nice pic BTW. Look at all those damn illegally cut elk trails. Not what I'd call bench cut rolling contour. I'd blame the Elk out there, open season, let's fire up the grills and meat dryers! JK 
We'll take the NP project. It's a good precedent and hopefully builds as a MTB trail movement. It's going on all over the country and we have to help drive it. This is a general statement (not directed at you) to get more involved in advocacy, help make it happen and have a voice. 
I was not bragging but merely making reference as to what's going on in my region of the country and that I'm trying to stay involved in trail advocacy right now. 
You're right they don't affect my trail access currently but they will, no doubt there. The deal as I see it is no motor, motor! 
Laws do change.


----------



## 802spokestoke (Jun 20, 2012)

If there's going to be a parking lot brawl over motors, I'd rather be on an ebike, especially one of those 1000w jobbies so I can ride away on a wheelie giving everyone the finger.

But seriously, I live in Vermont, ride all week long and have yet see one. Maybe they're illegal? I don't really care. What I do see is a mass flux of mtb bro's shortcutting benches, being boneheads, and treating parking lots like back yard bbq's. Don't throw stones in glass houses, we have our own growing concerns within the community. 

I imagine this indifference to ebikes is largely a problem where multi-use trail sharing has and always will be a problem because people don't tend to agree on compromise. And it's a shame because our country is host to sooo much wilderness and public land. Maybe mtb and moped possies can extend olive branches and pave the way for PUBLIC land use advocacy that extends across user-borders. Now that would be something!


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

manitou2200 said:


> Ok now settle down here. I don't disagree with your perspective on horses in ID and I'm sure they did use horses in building a lot of the old trails. True story, there are jerks in every aspect of life but I like to think they are a minority, I hope FGS! You also live in one of the least densely populated areas of then country so congrats to you for that wisdom! You also need to factor that into your perspective as it's not a great cross section of what's going on in other areas of the country with access. Some types of terrain hold up better to hooves of heavy animals. Nice pic BTW. Look at all those damn illegally cut elk trails. Not what I'd call bench cut rolling contour. I'd blame the Elk out there, open season, let's fire up the grills and meat dryers! JK
> We'll take the NP project. It's a good precedent and hopefully builds as a MTB trail movement. It's going on all over the country and we have to help drive it. This is a general statement (not directed at you) to get more involved in advocacy, help make it happen and have a voice.
> I was not bragging but merely making reference as to what's going on in my region of the country and that I'm trying to stay involved in trail advocacy right now.
> You're right they don't affect my trail access currently but they will, no doubt there. The deal as I see it is no motor, motor!
> Laws do change.


TY for a very civil and friendly post. 



802spokestoke said:


> If there's going to be a parking lot brawl over motors, I'd rather be on an ebike, especially one of those 1000w jobbies so I can ride away on a wheelie giving everyone the finger.
> 
> But seriously, I live in Vermont, ride all week long and have yet see one. Maybe they're illegal? I don't really care. What I do see is a mass flux of mtb bro's shortcutting benches, being boneheads, and treating parking lots like back yard bbq's. Don't throw stones in glass houses, we have our own growing concerns within the community.
> 
> I imagine this indifference to ebikes is largely a problem where multi-use trail sharing has and always will be a problem because people don't tend to agree on compromise. And it's a shame because our country is host to sooo much wilderness and public land. Maybe mtb and moped possies can extend olive branches and pave the way for PUBLIC land use advocacy that extends across user-borders. Now that would be something!


This 

I'm thinking about a kickstarter for a taser-like device which attaches to your battery so you can properly defend yourself when attacked by some foaming neanderbiker 

Ironically, the shrill anti-e sentiment is only going to hasten the e-coming. I live in a mountain bike town, and hardly anybody even knows about them. The controversy will change that, and in my experience, many riders eyes light up at the prospect of a bike like the turbo levo.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Just as soon as this ebike vs pbike thing is sorted the hikers are going to have to deal with Iron Man style powered walking suits. First for the handicapped and then for anyone else who wants them........ They're in the labs right now and will be in the woods in 20 years or less, all it will take is the next advance in battery tech to store enough power.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> Just as soon as this ebike vs pbike thing is sorted the hikers are going to have to deal with Iron Man style powered walking suits. First for the handicapped and then for anyone else who wants them........ They're in the labs right now and will be in the woods in 20 years or less, all it will take is the next advance in battery tech to store enough power.


Weaksauce, improve your trolling skills.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Pfft, old news.


----------



## Deep Thought (Sep 3, 2012)

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about these "e-bikes" or "e-motorcycles" or whatever you want to call them, but I have seen about a dozen of them out on the trails, and every one of them was far more courteous about passing than most of the non-motorized MTB'ers I regularly encounter. 

Perhaps these e-bikers should be concerned about being lumped in with regular bikes, who are already perceived by other users as inconsiderate.


----------



## uhoh7 (May 5, 2008)

Deep Thought said:


> I don't feel strongly one way or the other about these "e-bikes" or "e-motorcycles" or whatever you want to call them, but *I have seen about a dozen of them out on the trails, and every one of them was far more courteous about passing than most of the non-motorized MTB'ers I regularly encounter.*
> 
> Perhaps these e-bikers should be concerned about being lumped in with regular bikes, who are already perceived by other users as inconsiderate.


Ah, a little reality. 

By which I mean actual experience in the real world, as opposed to the tortured fantasies about motivations of Hikers, Horse people, and e-bikers.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

uhoh7 said:


> Ah, a little reality.
> 
> By which I mean actual experience in the real world, as opposed to the tortured fantasies about motivations of Hikers, Horse people, and e-bikers.


 Yep pretty much in my 3 yr exp that's what I have found from other riders it kills me to see riders not slow down for hikers, or insist to bomb down the trail when your picking your way up that's what is causing the trail issues .


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Wow, a dozen? Where do you live?

-Walt


----------

