# I rode a pedal assist bike at Sea Otter



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

It was a weird but interesting experience. First, they are just bikes, not motorcycles in any way. There is no impact on other trail users or trails other than what regular MTB is. All the wild speculation and myths need to stop and informed opinion take over the discussion.

I didn't like the weight at all. We recently bought Yeti SB-95 carbon bikes and I strongly prefer the sportiness of newer and lighter bikes, especially in the roots, rocks and ruts. However, we did ride down a steep single track trail with loose dirt and the bike behaved reasonably well. We also rode up that trail and it was much more fun than hiking the bike. That really was a cool experience!

On the Demo Flow Trail you would sacrifice some downhill performance but you would also be able to ride the trail twice as much. That is a highly personal tradeoff and I don't have a feeling which way I would go.

I wouldn't use them on most shuttled rides such as Downieville but they would take some of the drudgery out of the Cannell Trail. It would be nice to ride up the Cannell Plunge with pedal assist then enjoy the ride down. That use case makes sense. Ride the Plunge twice or even three times in a day? That is attractive.

I can't think of many use cases in south Utah except maybe riding upper Mag 7 several times and maybe the Slick Rock Bike Trail with those steep ascents. However, you would not want to push these bikes up those if you couldn't pedal them.

I see no reason land managers should ban the pedal assist bikes. I've located a demo bike and offered to let the Midpen staff try it on their trails in the Santa Cruz Mountains. We'll see what happens.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

You're fired


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

Motostrano (redwood city) has been promoting e-bike (and fat-bike) demo days; next one is the 25th. Presumably you could get to waterdog or something close.


----------



## jsheldon (Jul 17, 2010)

As a mtn. biker & sometimes off-road motorcycle rider, here is an informed opinion. 
Pedal assist bikes are not mountain bikes, they are more like motorcycles in every way as you noted in most all paragraphs.

Weight: they are heavier & will take more toll on the singletrack.
Sacrifice some downhill: lighter mtn bikes are way more fun downhill.
Increased riding distance: again, more toll on trails & more yahoos
Mechanicals: dreaded part of trail riding, especially if far out in BFE

I see every reason land managers should ban the pedal assist bikes. There is already OHV land designated for these non-human powered machines.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

jmpreston said:


> It was a weird but interesting experience. First, they are just bikes, not motorcycles in any way. There is no impact on other trail users or trails other than what regular MTB is. All the wild speculation and myths need to stop and informed opinion take over the discussion.
> 
> ....
> 
> I see no reason land managers should ban the pedal assist bikes. I've located a demo bike and offered to let the Midpen staff try it on their trails in the Santa Cruz Mountains. We'll see what happens.


Are you going to keep the make/model of said E-bike a secret?


----------



## Motosc (Dec 19, 2007)

Otherwise known as a moped, a pedal assisted motorcycle.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

jsheldon said:


> As a mtn. biker & sometimes off-road motorcycle rider, here is an informed opinion.


Have you ridden a pedal-assist bike to make this an informed opinion? Or is this just bench-speculation? My guess (from seeing and spending 30 seconds on an earlier electric bike) is that they're rather different, though certainly both in the two-wheels-can-use-narrow-trails-device category which ranges from a bmx bicycle to a honda goldwing.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

It was a German Haibike which sounds Chinese but isn't. Oddly the frame was a Yamaha hard tail, not my choice but they were recharging the better bikes. Not a big deal on the Fort Ord trails.


I was riding motorcycles in the desert long before dirt bikes were invented. There is no similarity except two wheels.

Mechanical malfunctions are not anyone's problem but the rider's. That should never be a criteria for limiting personal choice.

As a trail worker and FS lead at times since the early 1960's I probably know trail maintenance rather well. I saw no evidence that pedal assist make any difference even on steep climbs and I tried to make it damage the hillside as a test. Skid kiddies do far more damage, as do horses and hikers who cut corners on switchbacks. Silly to say that a 40 pound bike will do more damage due to weight when a lot of us who are 20, 50, or more pounds overweight and can ride our bikes without undue damage!


Mike the IMBA co-founder guy who escorted three of us on the trails and helped us understand the bikes reminded our group that there was a big battle against geared bikes on trails. Then there was the battle against suspension bikes on trails.

Same old crap, heh? 

BTW, I looked at Scram's electronic shifter. Really cool but over $4k seems a bit much for my budget. Besides, land managers should never allow them on MTB trails. What if they break! What if the rider spent $4k instead of feeding his or her family! What if the rider didn't earn his or her turns! Obviously land managers need to protect us from such horrors.


----------



## jsheldon (Jul 17, 2010)

jmpreston said:


> It was a German Haibike which sounds Chinese but isn't. Oddly the frame was a Yamaha hard tail, not my choice but they were recharging the better bikes. Not a big deal on the Fort Ord trails.
> 
> I was riding motorcycles in the desert long before dirt bikes were invented. There is no similarity except two wheels.
> 
> ...


Don't get me wrong...I bet a majority of mtn bikers (including myself) would have a blast going UP a fast, MTB, flowy singletrack.
I think engineers/scientists are only scratching the surface of the electric power capabilities...for instance, check out this KTM Freeride e-bike (minus the pedals). 



Where/how do you draw the line for speed and directional trails?

Agree about the electronic shifters though...definitely part of the future when the price drops!


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Sorry I didn't take photos of the bike and trail. I was focused on trying different things with the bike so I would have an informed opinion. I realize that not everyone respects informed opinions based on at least some evidence.

The industry is working on a classification system for e-bikes with pedal assisted bikes at the bottom and clear enforceable criteria. Europe has already done that but for some reason the U.S. has to reinvent the wheel.

Engineers need to reduce the weight of the pedal assist bikes. That seems to be happening rapidly but I don't have a cite to post. I've read about 32 pound pedal assist bikes. Certainly low powered. My old Honda 50 was way more powerful.

I'm not sure that going up a flow trail on a pedal assist bike would be fun at this time. I don't think that even on the high setting a rider would get much of a flow experience. They just aren't that powerful at higher speeds.


As a side note I fell off the bike. I stopped at the start of an incline on some single track and with the right pedal in a high launch position for getting on the bike at enough speed to climb I got a little surprise. It launched under more power than I was used to and when my ass came down where I expected the seat to be the bike was already ahead of me on the trail. So there are a few things to get used to.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

jsheldon said:


> Where/how do you draw the line for speed and directional trails?
> !


The line is about 500 watts. Trivial to define.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Motosc said:


> Otherwise known as a moped, a pedal assisted motorcycle.


Except it is nothing like a moped or motorcycle.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Yeah, we may fart 500 watts, just not enough to get far. Hopefully...


----------



## mtnbiker831 (Sep 19, 2011)

I have no problem with pedal assist bikes or eBikes....as long as they stay on motorized vehicle trails as they are a MOTORIZED VEHICLE, classified as such because it has a MOTOR. I have had a zero motorcycles rep tell me how cool it is that is it so quiet, you can just ride mountain bike trails in sc, do you think this would do anyone any good at all? You think legal trail access is hard to come by now.....


----------



## Alias530 (Apr 1, 2013)

jsheldon said:


> As a mtn. biker & sometimes off-road motorcycle rider, here is an informed opinion.
> Pedal assist bikes are not mountain bikes, they are more like motorcycles in every way as you noted in most all paragraphs.
> 
> Weight: they are heavier & will take more toll on the singletrack.
> ...


I'm against e-bikes but I think weight is a silly reason...

Rider A - old school downhill bike that's 40lbs, 160lb rider = 200lbs
Rider B - weight weenie XC bike that's 20lbs, 180lb rider = 200lbs
Rider B - e-bike that's 50lbs, 150lb rider = 200lbs

There's plenty of variation among riders and bike types already... An e-bike that's 45-50lbs vs a normal 25-35lb mountain bike... I'm personally 6'6" 240lbs, am I ruining the trails by riding them?


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

mtnbiker831 said:


> I have no problem with pedal assist bikes or eBikes....as long as they stay on motorized vehicle trails as they are a MOTORIZED VEHICLE, classified as such because it has a MOTOR. I have had a zero motorcycles rep tell me how cool it is that is it so quiet, you can just ride mountain bike trails in sc, do you think this would do anyone any good at all? You think legal trail access is hard to come by now.....


Wow. Your incredible use of capitalization changed my opinion of ebikes ...

You do realize that you sound exactly like the HOHAs, don't you?


----------



## rangeriderdave (Aug 29, 2008)

I also test rode the pedal assisted bike with Mike ,I rode the the same bike he rides. I could see having one in the right conditions ,where legal. I didn't ride it long enough to get a real feel for it ,but it was cool to do 14 mph up a hill that I might go up at 5 mph .


----------



## mtnbiker831 (Sep 19, 2011)

zorg said:


> Wow. Your incredible use of capitalization changed my opinion of ebikes ...
> 
> You do realize that you sound exactly like the HOHAs, don't you?


I don't really care what I sound like. I am just looking down the road 10 feet and seeing what is in the best interest for me (who wants to be able to ride my bike in as many places as possible,) and not for a small group of out of shape bike riders, just so they can feel good about themselves for passing other (real) riders going uphill.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I'm sure these motorized bicycles makes sense to some people at some point. This isn't gearing or suspension, no matter what spin is used to sell folks on what some people seem to want for their reasons.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

mtnbiker831 said:


> I don't really care what I sound like. I am just looking down the road 10 feet and seeing what is in the best interest for me (who wants to be able to ride my bike in as many places as possible,) and not for a small group of out of shape bike riders, just so they can feel good about themselves for passing other (real) riders going uphill.


So are you against it because they're motorized or because you feel they threaten your access or because lesser fit riders will pass you?


----------



## GoGoGordo (Jul 16, 2006)

My pal and I rode some E-zip bikes today at the Otter.
We did the the whole XC course in like 20 mins. :eekster:
They were a BLAST!!! :thumbsup:
I was laughing the whole way.
Video to follow soon.
You luddites need to get on board.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Stay tuned for a special announcement that will address many of these eMTB issues


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

Went back and rode a pedal assisted fat bike at the otter this year and had fun. Still wouldn't trade my carbine 29er that I raced this weekend for one but I would love to own one to ride for fun. All these bikes do is give you a little extra boost when you pedal. At the end of a few hill climbs, I was still tired and sweaty, and I was still slowly grinding up the steeper trails in my easiest gear, but I wasn't dead tired or out of breath at the top. As for the descents, I'm faster on my regular mountain bike hands down. The extra weight of this bike made it harder to jump and pump backsides of rollers. 

To the guy who is talking about having fun ripping up the flow trail- thats pretty much impossible with one of these, even set at max power and its obvious at this point you are passing judgement without ever having ridden one of these bikes. Go try one and then get back to us.


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

At 4-6k dollars, I do not see a bunch of these suddenly appearing on trails, especially given a fair number of people who might truly want to buy an ebike are probably going to want to stay on the road. That is, totally an assumption, folks who are not willing to get into the shape needed to mountain bike probably still would not enjoy the rough terrain even with the limited efforts (guessing that percentages would go this way, with the occasional older mountain biker wanting an ebike to extend his or her adventures). 

I know, lots of assumptions, but no more than many above


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

mtnbiker831 said:


> I have no problem with pedal assist bikes or eBikes....as long as they stay on motorized vehicle trails as they are a MOTORIZED VEHICLE, classified as such because it has a MOTOR.


Actually they are classified as bicycles. Because they impact trails like a bicycle, not as a motorcycle. How they are constructed is irrelevant.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

I agree that the extra weight of the ebike as causing more trail damage is not a very good argument against pedal assist bikes. I weigh 240lbs and would do more trail damage than someone who weighs 200 on a pedal assist bike.

Side note, I have had a few too many beers after my ride today so here goes my rant: 

I do believe they will cause more trail damage for two reasons and could also cause more trail user conflict.

First, I went for 13 mile a ride today. I am not in biking shape yet as winter just ended. I wanted to go all the way to Watson lake so I could take one of my favorite trails, the grinder, back down, but after the first 1k climb and a rough DH on the TRT, I realized that in the shape I am in it would take me too long to get all the way up to Watson lake, along with the trail back down and the final climb back to my house. So I took a fun alternate route down to Lake Tahoe and made the climb back to my house. 

If These trail allowed pedal assist bikes and I had one, I would have easily been able to make it to Watson lake and maybe further, even though I am out of shape. That would have been one more ride down one of my favorite trails causing one more rides worth of damage. With a pedal assist bikes allowed I would be able to get to Watson lake whenever I want in a short period of time and take the grinder down to Lake Tahoe many more times a season. The grinder is currently a weekend only ride as it takes too long for me to get there and back after work. But with a pedal assist allowed on these trails, I could make that ride after work. Just me alone would be causing more trail damage if pedal assist bikes were allowed. Add many more mtbrs riding pedal assist bikes able to easily make that ride many more times a season, and that makes for more damage to the trail.

Second, I saw a total of two other mtbrs while on my ride today. They were in shape and I could tell they knew what they were doing as I let them pass me on a DH run. I also ran into 2 groups of hikers. The second after I got passed by the other mtbrs. Before they new i was behind them I rang my bell and of course they were a little startled, but were very nice and said they wished more mtbrs used bells. I asked did those other bikers have bells? and they said no, they startled us, but were very nice and went around us going slow. 

I think we can all agree that most who have been riding long enough to have the skill and be in the kind of shape to ride these "backcountry" type trails understand trail etiquette. How many yahoos who normally couldn't make it up to backcountry trails who could just rent a pedal assist bike while up for the weekend do you think understand just how important proper trail etiquette is? Right now it doesn't matter because, chance are they wouldn't get past the first 500' climb, but with pedal assist, the backcountry is no longer backcountry, it's just country to them.

Also, if these trails allowed pedal assist bikes, just about anyone who either doesn't ride very often on vacation, not acclimated to the altitude and/or in decent shape or that lived here like me but can't make that ride other than weekends and/or when in shape would be able to ride the grinder whenever they want causing more trail damage. It is currently a very narrow singletrack, 12" wide in most places. How long would it stay that way if anyone could just rent a pedal assist bike for the weekend and it was legal to ride on that type of trail?

Rant over, time for another beer.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

jsheldon said:


> I think engineers/scientists are only scratching the surface of the electric power capabilities...for instance, check out this KTM Freeride e-bike (minus the pedals).
> 
> 
> 
> Where/how do you draw the line for speed and directional trails?


First off, that is a motorcycle with an electric motor. Lumping that I the same category as a electric pedal assist mountain bike is silly. I dont think any more explanation than that is necessary.

Secondly, engineers have been able to drop powerful electric motors into bikes like that for years now. That KTM has been on sale in Europe for a long time . I know because I want one of those as well to ride at Hollister hills and have been hoping KTM will sell them in the US.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

singletrackmack said:


> That would have been one more ride down one of my favorite trails causing one more rides worth of damage.


Do you skid non-stop up and down every trail you ride???:skep:


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

the 'i can go further with electric assist' is exactly one of the arguments against mtb. you can go further on your mtb than you could hiking, after all!

as i noted above, motostrano is having a demo day this coming weekend if you want to check them out. i don't know the registration size/details/what they'll have, but it's convenient to anyone on the peninsula or sf. (i'll probably be well out of town.)


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Empty_Beer said:


> Do you skid non-stop up and down every trail you ride???:skep:


Ya, of course, especially up.  if you have ever been to northstar you know how washed out those trails get by mid season. More riders, more trial damage. Even the more easily accessible popular parts of the TRT I can tell have changed a lot from rider use over the 5 years I have lived here. They are more washed out, wider and the terrain is not as challenging as it once was. The less traveled more backcountry trails have changed very little if at all in that same amount if time.

If all the sudden a portion of the millions of tourists who come here every summer can just rent a pedal assist bike allowing them easy access to trails that were once not easily accessible, then those trails will get damaged faster.

Not to mention the other thread in this forum about Tahoe trails being dumbed down. When the money starts to complain that those backcountry trails are just a little too hard to ride my rented pedal assist bike on, how do you think that will work out?


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

mbmtb said:


> the 'i can go further with electric assist' is exactly one of the arguments against mtb. you can go further on your mtb than you could hiking, after all!!!


Yes, but there is still the human limit with the majority of people not being able to go very far and only a few able to go out far. Once allow machines and motors to propel you, then you take away that human limit, also anyone can then go as far as they want, not just a few. This is why land managers should be and probably are concerned about motorized bicycles on non-motorized trails.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

My friend tried a fatbike electric-assist bike at the SOC this weekend and everyone who had a go on it and had a big grin. I refused. Luddites unite!  I am glad people are having fun and all, and I somewhat glad that out of shape people and otherwise people with diminished physical capabilities can be able to get out on the trails. But I worry about their threat to mountain bike access, as expressed already. The marketing is scary - all their booths at the sea otter had some variation of "the next big thing". MTB gods help us all if that is the case.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

jmpreston said:


> It was a weird but interesting experience. First, they are just bikes, not motorcycles in any way. There is no impact on other trail users or trails other than what regular MTB is. All the wild speculation and myths need to stop and informed opinion take over the discussion.
> 
> I didn't like the weight at all. We recently bought Yeti SB-95 carbon bikes and I strongly prefer the sportiness of newer and lighter bikes, especially in the roots, rocks and ruts. However, we did ride down a steep single track trail with loose dirt and the bike behaved reasonably well. We also rode up that trail and it was much more fun than hiking the bike. That really was a cool experience!
> 
> ...


Thank you for trying it out and telling us about the experience!!!


----------



## gonzo (Feb 18, 2004)

*sign*

sign on bike trails


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

I don't understand why it has to be that people that would want to ride/own an ebike have to be 'out of shape' or 'fat' or retards that can't ride, or entitled buttheads, or etc...

Why can't they just be mtb'ers that want to ride further into the backcountry for the day or afternoon?

Why can't the 'backcountry' be further into the backcountry?

I wonder what is so wrong with the wish of something like trying to ride the entire Tahoe Rim Trail in one day on an ebike. For mere mortals like me, I'll start with trying to ride rose to toads in 1 day on an ebike. It will still kick my ass. I know scores of people that can do it without assist, and they are all badasses.

My god help us all? when autos became predominant, more roads and hwys were built to accomodate. I believe that is historically accurate.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

gonzo said:


> sign on bike trails


A simple solution for every MUT trail around here and at all the area open space preserves.

Segway anyone.


----------



## TahoeBC (Apr 11, 2006)

I think there needs to be some serious advances in battery life, to go too deep into the backcountry, You would not even come close to doing Rose to Toads on an e-bike with todays tech. You will although get in good shape trying to peddle your e-bike out of the back woods once you run out of juice


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

TahoeBC said:


> I think there needs to be some serious advances in battery life, to go too deep into the backcountry, You would not even come close to doing Rose to Toads on an e-bike with todays tech. You will although get in good shape trying to peddle your e-bike out of the back woods once you run out of juice


I'm a battery geek, so "challenge...accepted". ;-) Now I just need an ebike.

I'm hoping to join you badasses this year at the annual Tamba R2T ride, non assist.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

rensho said:


> I don't understand why it has to be that people that would want to ride/own an ebike have to be 'out of shape' or 'fat' or retards that can't ride, or entitled buttheads, or etc...
> 
> Why can't they just be mtb'ers that want to ride further into the backcountry for the day or afternoon?
> 
> ...


Dude - it is the pro ebike people who are playing the elderly/handicapped/out of shape card. That's all fine and good as far as I'm concerned - I did not intend any value judgement. Self-described out of shape people have expressed interest in these type of bikes to me. I'm not exactly svelt myself, but my response to that is to do the work necessary to build the strength, endurance, and lose the excess. Of course perfectly able-bodied and fit people can find pedal assist bikes fun too.

Yes, more people will be out there riding more miles than they were previously capable of. More use by fit people who already ride + more use by less fit people or people who previously didn't ride will all equate to more crowded, more beat-up trails, more trail conflict, etc. Historically when it applies to mountain biking, land managers have not responded to that with, "Let's open more trails to mountain bikes!". That would be nice, though. We'll see what happens, becuse obviously these bikes are here and will have to be dealt with.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

TahoeBC said:


> I think there needs to be some serious advances in battery life, to go too deep into the backcountry, You would not even come close to doing Rose to Toads on an e-bike with todays tech. You will although get in good shape trying to peddle your e-bike out of the back woods once you run out of juice


TBC posted this ^ from his cell phone


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

shredchic said:


> Dude - it is the pro ebike people who are playing the elderly/handicapped/out of shape card. That's all fine and good as far as I'm concerned - I did not intend any value judgement. Self-described out of shape people have expressed interest in these type of bikes to me. I'm not exactly svelt myself, but my response to that is to do the work necessary to build the strength, endurance, and lose the excess. Of course perfectly able-bodied and fit people can find pedal assist bikes fun too.
> 
> Yes, more people will be out there riding more miles than they were previously capable of. More use by fit people who already ride + more use by less fit people or people who previously didn't ride will all equate to more crowded, more beat-up trails, more trail conflict, etc. Historically when it applies to mountain biking, land managers have not responded to that with, "Let's open more trails to mountain bikes!". That would be nice, though. We'll see what happens, becuse obviously these bikes are here and will have to be dealt with.


Would more bike users lead to more trail workers?

Or, maybe these horrible devil people that are so incredibly against more bike trails might just happen to try an ebike and think 'hey, it is kinda fun to ride bikes in the open space' and be probike. You know the types, the damn bluehairs that are so out of shape, all they can do is maybe hike.

'dealt with'


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

rensho said:


> Would more bike users lead to more trail workers?
> 
> Or, maybe these horrible devil people that are so incredibly against more bike trails might just happen to try an ebike and think 'hey, it is kinda fun to ride bikes in the open space' and be probike. You know the types, the damn bluehairs that are so out of shape, all they can do is maybe hike.
> 
> 'dealt with'


I guess neither of us has a crystal ball, but perhaps you will be proven right! I hope so.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

shredchic said:


> I guess neither of us has a crystal ball, but perhaps you will be proven right! I hope so.


Don't get me wrong. You're a great ambassador for the sport. I'm sure as the sport/rec progresses, you'll continue to be a great ambassador.

Frankly, I just want less hate for all things 2 wheels, trail or road.

I was out in Markleeville yesterday. The amount of available land for trails in CA is endless. Less hate, more fun.


----------



## linger (Nov 10, 2010)

I never considered an E-bike before, and I test rode an Ebike at Sea Otter just for kicks. I am really ashamed to say this but...

I had a blast. I was giggling like a little kid the entire time.
Ebikes rocks
I'll consider adding an E-bike to my bike collection


----------



## TahoeBC (Apr 11, 2006)

rensho said:


> I'm a battery geek, so "challenge...accepted". ;-) Now I just need an ebike.
> 
> I'm hoping to join you badasses this year at the annual Tamba R2T ride, non assist.


Should be no problem, living in the mountains and retired = you should be in great shape 

There are so many bailout spots now your guaranteed to have a great ride even if you don't make it to Toads :thumbsup: Hope to see ya there

And Empty screw you and your fancy pansy smart phone


----------



## NotQuiteClimbing (Jul 26, 2010)

To me there isn't much of a difference between riding an ebike to the top of a shuttle trail and taking a shuttle up to the top of the trail. It seems like it'd be pretty cool to have the option of self shuttling a trail like that.


----------



## GoGoGordo (Jul 16, 2006)

NotQuiteClimbing said:


> To me there isn't much of a difference between riding an ebike to the top of a shuttle trail and taking a shuttle up to the top of the trail. It seems like it'd be pretty cool to have the option of self shuttling a trail like that.


Agreed!


----------



## ronski (Jul 28, 2009)

I


TahoeBC said:


> Should be no problem, living in the mountains and retired = you should be in great shape
> 
> There are so many bailout spots now your guaranteed to have a great ride even if you don't
> make it to Toads :thumbsup: Hope to see ya there
> ...


That flip phone of your's is a riot. Go Pro? Check. Carbon Bike? Check. Killer Tahoe pad? Check. Flip Phone? Yes!!!!!! Love it.


----------



## CactusJackSlade (Apr 11, 2006)

*eBike class at Prairie City Race Series*

We are going to open an electric assist bike class at the Prairie City Race Series - probably the last 5 races. We just got clearance form the OHV park manager.

Details in a separate thread...


----------



## O5-KR (May 15, 2012)

OMG with this new devil machines I will loose all my KOMs !!!!!!!!!

Oh wait ! I do not have any KOMs


----------



## J-Flo (Apr 23, 2012)

The threat to trail access concerns me, and I think it is a real threat. But many of the arguments against e-bikes sound exactly like the screeds of the M!ke [email protected]@an types (EVEN WITHOUT THE ALL CAPS).

One thing is for sure: they are coming. There were e-bikes everywhere at the Otter.


----------



## GoGoGordo (Jul 16, 2006)

let the good times roll daddy-o!


----------



## GoGoGordo (Jul 16, 2006)

Let the good times roll Daddy-O!
28MPH!!!
Cray Cray FUNN!!
Go git ya one.

[video]



[/video]


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

Yea, another e-bike thread!

There's a variety of users on the trails of all types, and e-bkes extend that mix for a variety of good purposes. They will allow weaker and disabled to also enjoy the outdoors. They will allow family and friends to keep up the pace with others. They will also allow more enjoyment of the wider outdoors with less effort.

I feel the MTB bias against e-bikes looks just like that of equestrians hikers against bikers, and more based on fear than reality.

I'm seeing the same fears repeatedly. Here's the main ones:

1. Wild riders on overpowered bikes (hacked or not) will be ripping up trails with their extreme power.
But nothing stops illegal high power bikes (electric or gas) on the trail right now anyway, other than the rarity of such people and chance of getting caught.

2. Electric bikes going faster and creating trail sharing issues with other users.
But bikes can go quite fast downhill right now already. Same issues and need for polite considerations already exist and are being handled.

3. Electric Bikes will be lumped with regular MTB, and get both banned from parks with protests from managers and other users.
I have this fear too, and feel the ebike promotion should be done in separate organizations from MTB, and laws should not allow e-bikes to be grouped or piggyback on MTB access. So far, main e-bike opposition appears to be from MTB, not these other user groups that would cause access problems. Anti-MTB groups don't currently seem to separate out battery power any more than bike color or wheel size. But their opposition might come later if they see political advantage.

4. Someone is going to beat me up the hill, not earning their turns, and break my Strava record by their electric cheat.
Sometimes I wonder if this ego-threat is at the root of opposition among other MTB riders?

On this thread is the first time I heard that e-bikes may make biking more popular and the trails more used, which is an odd argument *against *e-bikes. I thought promotion of trail usage and biking was a good thing. Do we really want to argue trail access should be limited?

We do see more trails built all the time due to demand by MTB. We've recently seen JDT at Henry Coe, John Nicholson at Sanborn, Emma McCreary in Santa Cruz, and the Flow Trail at Demo. All these are driven by more MTB users on the trail with more demand, Likewise, the parks are noticing much more demand by MTB than horses and changing policies, very much so in Santa Clara parks, and warming up in MidPen as well. Santa Clara is now opening Calero and Rancho San Vicente with 28 miles of new local trails, and assuring Multi-Use Trails to include MTB was a prime objective due to the strong MTB presence.

Having more bikes out in the distant trails, such as Henry Coe backwoods, could help some of the trails from reverting to zero-track with lack of use. And more active use of those trails could encourage more attention to them, rather than maintenance and improvement being focused on trails near the entrance.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

As usual Larry is the voice if reason


----------



## GoGoGordo (Jul 16, 2006)

BRRRRRRAAAAAAPP.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

rensho said:


> Would more bike users lead to more trail workers?
> 
> Or, maybe these horrible devil people that are so incredibly against more bike trails might just happen to try an ebike and think 'hey, it is kinda fun to ride bikes in the open space' and be probike. You know the types, the damn bluehairs that are so out of shape, all they can do is maybe hike.
> 
> 'dealt with'





shredchic said:


> I guess neither of us has a crystal ball, but perhaps you will be proven right! I hope so.


I'm going to use common sense here and say the majority of those handicap/elderly/out of shape ebike users are NOT going to be out doing trail work.

They could however throw money at the issue, like I do. I have more money than time to do trail work.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

OS-KR said:


> OMG with this new devil machines I will loose all my KOMs !!!!!!!!!
> 
> Oh wait ! I do not have any KOMs


You have to learn to do the KOM tricks like me. Start the segment in your backyard or the front of your apartment or house.

You can also look around your neighborhood for courts to do start from. Also, make a crazy patterned segment out of streets around your house.

Using these tricks can get you the KOM for segments that have been ridden by 1 person total, but done many times.


----------



## O5-KR (May 15, 2012)

I also think that ebikes have come to stay. And it can be a game changer, even more than FS because it will increase the range of any rider and make less important other factors as physical fitness, recovery times, etc. Like GGG it can be seen as a shelf shuttling.

It means you can ride wonderful routes with your wife and kids and probably have new/more trails to ride. It can bring many good things like more safety in case of injuries, extending the age to practice the sport, better afterwork rides, ...but it also means a broader range or riders will have access to "the good stuff", like high mountain routes or remote private gardens. It will be more difficult to keep them in good shape or under the radar. 

In "the MTB I like", those gems are rewards you can only access when you earn it. It is part of the magic. It multiplies expotentally the joy of the downhill. But many people will not share this "masochist" view.

The ski analogy comes to my mind also. Carving skis changed the game. Until they invaded the market, you had "the good stuff" for yourself. Beginners and Intermediate riders would not go to the difficult spots because simply it was not fun if you had not the technique. Now, you can see beginner riders flying on rails at speeds they can not manage in case of problems and difficult spots are as crowded as flat slopes.

It was a good change? for the ski industry there is no doubt it has been the best improvement since artifitial snow guns. In my case, it has killed the thrill, I prefer 1000 times a day with telemark or backcoutry skis, but hey, my kids love it!.

So things change and when they do, it is irrelevant to rant if it was better in the old days, we need to learn, adapt and enjoy !


----------



## O5-KR (May 15, 2012)

ziscwg said:


> You have to learn to do the KOM tricks like me. Start the segment in your backyard or the front of your apartment or house.
> 
> You can also look around your neighborhood for courts to do start from. Also, make a crazy patterned segment out of streets around your house.
> 
> Using these tricks can get you the KOM for segments that have been ridden by 1 person total, but done many times.


Hahaha, I prefer the tool linked in TahoeBC's signature.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Making mountain bikes better makes the sport easier. Who doesn't want to be able to ride the technical trails? You can become more skilled and/or get a bike that absorbs the challenge for you. Who doesn't want their climbs to be easier? You can get stronger of buy a bike that will take you up the hills.

The marketplace is cashing in on this and it is plain to see at the biggest West Coast marketing event outside Vegas.

This isn't rocket science but dismissing resistance to e-bikes as simple anti-ism is a mistaken notion.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

All the usual suspects here making our regular args - welcome everyone. 

As I've said on the other threads, and as Singletrackmack and OS-KR argue, the problem is traffic. Lots and lots of traffic. Trails stay good because they are hard to get to. Trails stay uncrowded because riding is hard. 

Impact: Usually the impact argument breaks down into a dispute over whether ebikes do more impact per mile. That's not the point, it doesn't matter. The point is, when riding becomes easy, everyone will do it, and every trail would be like your typical Northstar DH - a moondust mess of chum. Fun, but much different from a well made backcountry trail. And, not climbable. And, that's being generous . . . N* invests in maintenance.

Traffic: We're talking about a LOT more people all over our trails, going up, going down, all the time. Many great downhills never have a climber because they're a slog or even unclimbable by all but the fittest. But with Ebikes, we'll have to contend with packs of people shooting up at you who would never be out there if they didn't have assistance. 

OS-KR's skiing analogy is a perfect comparison - I've made the same analogy before. With fat skis and high speed detachables, powder is gone in 2 runs, everyone can consume the steeps, fast. Technology yields faster consumption of a fixed resource, its that simple. A couple weeks ago on the last powder day of the season, a Weds with 19 inches and mostly locals, they opened Palisades at Squaw, for, I believe, the first time this season. I can't ever remember see that many people climb up and ski the chutes, 20 years ago it would have been a handful of people, this day it was a line of a hundred. And it got tracked out immediately, one run and it was done. Technological advancements are the difference, and the thrill is gone.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Procter said:


> As I've said on the other threads, and as Singletrackmack and OS-KR argue, the problem is traffic. Lots and lots of traffic. Trails stay good because they are hard to get to. Trails stay uncrowded because riding is hard.


The only solution to crowding is more trails. To get more trails we need broader advocacy effort. To get better advocacy, need more people riding. It is too easy for land managers to just not bother with cycling at all if only a few "hardcore" elitists are the ones riding.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

Axe said:


> The only solution to crowding is more trails. To get more trails we need broader advocacy effort. To get better advocacy, need more people riding. It is too easy for land managers to just not bother with cycling at all if only a few "hardcore" elitists are the ones riding.


Do you have any idea at all the rate at which we get new trails open? Efforts starting now are going to be usable after we're dead.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

shredchic said:


> Do you have any idea at all the rate at which we get new trails open? Efforts starting now are going to be usable after we're dead.


It will be faster if more people ask for it. Plenty of existing trails we are excluded from, which only takes political will to open.

And I do care about my kids too.

I think fear of crowding is a red herring anyway. Plenty of space out there, especially if you ride further away.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

These fat, shaped skis won't make the slopes overcrowded, there's plenty of trails and pow for everyone . 

These cheap, light, mass production fiberglass and foam surfboards won't make the waves too crowded, there's plenty of beach in the world. 

These new mass produced automobiles will never over crowd the roads, there's thousands of miles of road across the country.

Should we stop building better bikes, skis, surfboards or cars? Of course not, but the point is when consumption of a resource becomes much easier, overcrowding happens pretty quickly, and the biking situation is unique because the technology makes such a dramatic difference in the consumption rate of a fixed resource.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

The overcrowding argument is weird. So, we encourage kids to go mountain biking, join high school racing leagues, because the more of us, the merrier. But, adding a few folks with less fitness on ebikes is bad. Okay....

So, we've been saying for decades that bikes have little impact on the trail, but if we add a bunch of newcomers, trails will go to sh!t. So, which is it?

The lack of logic highlighted above seems to indicate that folks are trying to rationalize their bias. Just like the hikers have been doing for years: MTBers are bad, they'll ruin our wilderness experience, thrash the trails, they cover more miles in a day and shrink wilderness. Should I go on?


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

I would be very concerned about these new electric powered mopeds causing overcrowded single-track trails and increased trail damage if it weren't for these two reasons:

First land managers simply will not allow motorized vehicles on trails that prohibit them ever. Period. Sorry to all you moped lovers, but here is a reality check... it will never happen.

Second reason is because mopeds as simply lame. And since they will never be allowed on trials that prohibit motorized vehicles, other than to commute why would anyone buy one? Have fun riding your weak ass, low powered moped on ORV trails while moto bikes and quads scream by you kicking up dirt and rocks into your face.

And for those who want to argue and say they are not mopeds, they're ebikes or whatever. Call them what you want, but technically, there mopeds whether you like it or not...

Merriam-Webster's full definition...

*moped: a lightweight low-powered motorbike that can be pedaled*

Moped | Definition of moped by Merriam-Webster


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> I would be very concerned about these new electric powered mopeds causing overcrowded single-track trails and increased trail damage if it weren't for these two reasons:
> 
> First land managers simply will not allow motorized vehicles on trails that prohibit them ever. Period. Sorry to all you moped lovers, but here is a reality check... it will never happen.
> 
> ...


Woohoo, you win, you called them mopeds... At least, it got you to open a dictionary, so this was not all for nothing.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> And for those who want to argue and say they are not mopeds, they're ebikes or whatever.


Except they are nothing like mopeds, they are not and will not be regulated the same way as mopeds and motorcycles, outdated definition does not apply, so your entire argument is red herring.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

zorg said:


> The overcrowding argument is weird. So, we encourage kids to go mountain biking, join high school racing leagues, because the more of us, the merrier. But, adding a few folks with less fitness on ebikes is bad. Okay....
> 
> So, we've been saying for decades that bikes have little impact on the trail, but if we add a bunch of newcomers, trails will go to sh!t. So, which is it?
> 
> The lack of logic highlighted above seems to indicate that folks are trying to rationalize their bias. Just like the hikers have been doing for years: MTBers are bad, they'll ruin our wilderness experience, thrash the trails, they cover more miles in a day and shrink wilderness. Should I go on?


You make a good point, but to me its a matter of scale. When we recruit kids to start the sport, they don't do it in the numbers that would be possible in a post ebike world. Its a manageable number of people, and the trail growth keeps up with the user growth. Counting legal trails only, maybe unfairly counting legal trails only, we've added only a few in my area in the last few years: Demo flow, Emma Maccrary, and John Nicholas. I'm leaving out Ohlone in Skeggs because its a modest little connector. The trails haven't gotten more crowded, but I think they will if we add ebikes.

How much? There's no way to quantify it, we'll have to agree to disagree I guess. But to me it seems to happen with everything, in time.

And yes, we use arguments against ebikes that hikers use against bicycles. Unless you're advocating that we open the trails up to motos, you do the same, you just draw the line at a slightly different point than I do.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Procter said:


> Should we stop building better bikes, skis, surfboards or cars? Of course not, but the point is when consumption of a resource becomes much easier, overcrowding happens pretty quickly, and the biking situation is unique because the technology makes such a dramatic difference in the consumption rate of a fixed resource.


That is only true for truly limited resources. Trails, ski lifts etc. are not. You can make more when there is demand. There is plenty of land for all to enjoy. 
You sound exactly like a HOHA, complaining about his ruined "solitude". Just go a bit further.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

Axe said:


> That is only true for truly limited resources. Trails, ski lifts etc. are not. You can make more when there is demand. There is plenty of land for all to enjoy.
> You sound exactly like a HOHA, complaining about his ruined "solitude". Just go a bit further.


Great, why don't you go petition the proper authorities and get some new trails approved. After, I'll join the ebike movement. Let's meet back here in 2025 for a status update, you should have a yes /no by then. 

New ski trails!? That'll be great too. In the past 30 years, Squaw opened Squaw Creek, and Silverado, and Northstar opened Lookout Mountain. Heavenly opened Mott Canyon. I can't think of any other significant openings in Tahoe. Squaw got sued by the Hewlett family for cutting too many trees, it went pretty badly.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Axe said:


> Except they are nothing like mopeds, they are not and will not be regulated the same way as mopeds and motorcycles, outdated definition does not apply, so your entire argument is red herring.


Really doesn't matter what you call them. They have a motor and therefore will never be allowed on the fun singletrack trails we love to mountain bike on that prohibit non-motorized vehicles. Have fun on the ORV trails, I'll see ya out there on my moto.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

tahoebeau said:


> Really doesn't matter what you call them. They have a motor and therefore will never be allowed on the fun singletrack trails we love to mountain bike on that prohibit non-motorized vehicles. Have fun on the ORV trails, I'll see ya out there on my moto.


Really doesn't matter what you call them. They have wheels and mechanized parts and therefore will never be allowed on the fun singletrack trails we love to hike on that prohibit bicycles. Have fun on the fireroad trails, I'll see ya out there on my moto. 

See how it works?

p.s. I agree they present a real semantic problem. Doesn't mean they aren't coming and aren't going to poach "your" trails. Strange times indeed...


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Procter said:


> Great, why don't you go petition the proper authorities and get some new trails approved.


I do, and some new trails are constructed and opened around here. SCCOSA parks, Sanborn, Calero coming up, water lands near crystal springs should open up, Harvey Bear, Demo, new trails in east bay etc. Access diminished greatly in the nineties, and slowly coming back - because of advocacy, and there is no replacement for new riders.

There had been a lot of new ski lifts constructed, and I do not remember running into people on good trails recently. And if not for all the customers - resorts would be closing, not expanding. There is plenty of space for everyone and e-bikes will not affect you to any objective extent whatsoever.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> Really doesn't matter what you call them.


Indeed. What matters is what they are and how they impact trails and other users. And they are absolutely nothing like motorcycles. And, for example for ADA access regulations, they are already clearly distinguished by most land managers around here. Limited power electric bikes OK, mopeds are not. I guess they do not read dictionary.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Axe said:


> Except they are nothing like mopeds, they are not and will not be regulated the same way as mopeds and motorcycles, outdated definition does not apply, so your entire argument is red herring.





Empty_Beer said:


> Really doesn't matter what you call them. They have wheels and mechanized parts and therefore will never be allowed on the fun singletrack trails we love to hike on that prohibit bicycles. Have fun on the fireroad trails, I'll see ya out there on my moto.
> 
> See how it works?
> 
> p.s. I agree they present a real semantic problem. Doesn't mean they aren't coming and aren't going to poach "your" trails. Strange times indeed...


Semantics do not apply to that which is black and white. It is as simple as this, having a motor is what crosses that line that mtb's, hikers and horses don't. That is a very defined line and very black and white. That's the way it is. Not concerned about my trials ever being poached due to motorized vehicles being allowed on them especially here in Tahoe. There are so many agencies dedicated to protecting my beloved trails and this great area who will never let motorized vehicles of any sort allowed on anything other the the trails they have already dedicated for them. Not going to happen, ever. The only poaching will be by those who choose to ride their motorized vehicles illegally on trails that prohibit them. I hope you do not condone that.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> Semantics do not apply to that which is black and white. It is as simple as this, having a motor is what crosses that line that mtb's, hikers and horses don't.


It crosses your own arbitrary line that has nothing to do with actual impact on trails and other people. Horses are much more destructive by any objective measure. 
All your argument is - it is bad because "motor". But why does it matter? It does not poop on trails, it does pulverize it, it does not sound for miles and scare animals. It is no more unnatural or destructive than a cell phone in your pocket. You could just as well prohibit hiking shoes or cell phones because "rubber", or "batteries". No more justified.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

shredchic said:


> Do you have any idea at all the rate at which we get new trails open? Efforts starting now are going to be usable after we're dead.


Where I live in south San Jose, the trail access has just about tripled during the 10 years I lived there, mostly due to increased public demand and advocacy by many, including myself. For example, Almaden Quicksilver went from one MTB entrance (Hacienda) to three (added Mockingbird and Hicks) with more trails as well. The new park Rancho Canada del Oro was added to the south side of Calero, and has starting becoming real popular, with the ~40 space lot filling up on weekends now. So a new lot was made down the road, that will also serve Blair Ranch on the south side, that will be become a whole new MTB park as well. Then there's the 28 miles of new MTB trails in opening Calero and the entirely new park Rancho San Vicente that connect Santa Teresa, Quicksilver, and Rancho Canada del Oro. And on the other side of Quicksilver, MidPen is making a couple miles of new multi-use singletrack to Mt. Umunhum, that will be opening in the next year or two. That's just sampling the local trails I can ride right from my garage.

And as mentioned before, don't you see all the new trails in Demo and Santa Cruz? Much of this came from public demand and interest in seeing them put in place and carried through with trail work effort.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

Axe said:


> It will be faster if more people ask for it. Plenty of existing trails we are excluded from, which only takes political will to open.
> 
> And I do care about my kids too.
> 
> I think fear of crowding is a red herring anyway. Plenty of space out there, especially if you ride further away.


I agree that fear of crowding is bogus, and even a negative argument. With more public interest will come more trail access, as has been proven regularly. And few trails are really crowded - especially open are the farther out trails the e-bikes would help reach. I'm lucky to see one other person in an entire day of riding the depths of Henry Coe.

I don't get how allowing the greater public enjoy the outdoors is something that should be limited just for the sake of those with special interests. The greater public pays the taxes to maintain the parks, so shouldn't the greater public have access, rather than be limited to existing users?

By that "limited crowding" argument, only Sierra Club hikers in soft shoes should be allowed to walk any outdoor nature trails. No bikes or horses anywhere.

By that "limited crowding" argument, only the lesser number of existing equestrians should be allowed park access, as adding all that biker traffic will just add more trail usage and mess up the environment.

I think the "crowding" argument is bogus, first of all because it's not likely to happen. And to the extend we get more public interest, we are just as likely to get more trails And finally, limiting trail access arbitrarily to just those few special interests that have been grandfathered into the law, rather than the greater public, is exactly what we've been fighting.

The issue of e-bikes affecting the environment is separate matter that is being addressed with studies. But the lower power bikes being proposed are much more like human power than motorcycle power. And the size and weight are more similar to existing bicycles a well. I suspect there's not much difference.


----------



## jasonmason (Mar 21, 2007)

Axe said:


> It crosses your own arbitrary line that has nothing to do with actual impact on trails and other people. Horses are much more destructive by any objective measure.
> All your argument is - it is bad because "motor". But why does it matter? It does not poop on trails, it does pulverize it, it does not sound for miles and scare animals. It is no more unnatural or destructive than a cell phone in your pocket. You could just as well prohibit hiking shoes or cell phones because "rubber", or "batteries". No more justified.


I'm not really sure how that's an arbitrary line - the bike is either solely human-powered, or it's not. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Whether it's more destructive or not is a debatable point, but I can't really see much argument on the definition of motorized vs non-motorized.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

AXE, the non-motor folks are just as selfish and dogmatic as the hikers and equestrians who are anti-mechanized trail use (bikes).

They are blind to a simple fact. Motorized used to have significant bad impacts on nature and other users so it was a convenient criteria for limiting those impacts.

Now there are motors that don't do that so we can use other criteria such as lack of a throttle and limited battery power to achieve the same desired results. Conditions have changed but some people get rather lost with that. Same happens in politics, economics, religion ...

That self centered argument that out-of-shape people could ride uphill faster than the non pedal assist riders is really amazing. That is simple blatant selfishness. They want to take away people's freedom of choice for their own "values". They should be disgusted with themselves.

It should not be their decision to restrict the use of trails and enjoyment of nature to their own class of users. Maybe having black people on the trails violates some of those riders "values". What's the difference?

Pedal assist will be used by folks who have medical conditions whether these selfish riders like it or not. However, since low power pedal assist bikes have no significant impacts on nature, trails, or other riders then this class of bike should be open to all. 

I refuse to be selfish and dogmatic and I invite others to join me. I also invite the selfish crowd to flame me. I enjoy embarrassing you.

Jim


----------



## jasonmason (Mar 21, 2007)

jmpreston said:


> ...I refuse to be selfish and dogmatic and I invite others to join me. I also invite the selfish crowd to flame me. I enjoy embarrassing you.
> 
> Jim


There is a big difference between having a different opinion, and being selfish and dogmatic. I think you're continuing to conflate the two.

For those that have medical/disability issues that require the use of e-bikes to allow them to ride, I definitely think that they should be allowed. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that firmly disagrees with this.

However, for able-bodied riders, who simply choose to ride e-bikes - I reserve the right to call them lazy. The 'no more impact' argument goes out the window when the discussion becomes about taking more runs on a trail in a day. Lowering the commitment required to get into the backcountry will (in my opinion) result in more rescues/distress situations, simply because they allow the rider to get further into harms way without really knowing it, given their lack of experience.

To me, e-bikes are starting to feel a lot like google glass.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

jmpreston said:


> AXE, the non-motor folks are just as selfish and dogmatic as the hikers and equestrians who are anti-mechanized trail use (bikes).
> 
> They are blind to a simple fact. Motorized used to have significant bad impacts on nature and other users so it was a convenient criteria for limiting those impacts.
> 
> ...


Tying this to the struggle for real equality by minority classes is both comical and insulting to their plight. Why don't you go to your local gym and demand that you be allowed to bring a pneumatic lift so that you can squat as much as quadzilla the body builder?


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

jasonmason said:


> However, for able-bodied riders, who simply choose to ride e-bikes - I reserve the right to call them lazy. The 'no more impact' argument goes out the window when the discussion becomes about taking more runs on a trail in a day. Lowering the commitment required to get into the backcountry will (in my opinion) result in more rescues/distress situations, simply because they allow the rider to get further into harms way without really knowing it, given their lack of experience.


I'm confused by your argument. You just stated that people who get more runs/ride farther in a day have a negative impact on trails. Is that really a stance you want to take? In shape riders who are able to do multiple loops now are creating a negative impact?

ebikes or not, mountain biking is getting more and more popular and more and more people are riding. Way back when I was in high school people looked at me strange when I talked about mountain biking and I had one other friend who did it. It wasn't considered cool so we really kept the whole riding and racing thing to ourselves. Now high schools have mountain bike teams, and groms are rocking rockshox stickers on the back of their cars. The sport is growing and with that comes more people and our trails that we're maintaining(you are going out and helping with trail maintenance right?) are going to need to be able to withstand that influx with or without ebikes.

As for your back country rescue point, that may be, however the same argument could be made about mountain bikes or horses. Be careful which red flags you wave with ebikes. They are so similar to mountain bikes in so many ways that those red flags could also apply to non-motorized bikes as well.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

Procter said:


> Tying this to the struggle for real equality by minority classes is both comical and insulting to their plight. Why don't you go to your local gym and demand that you be allowed to bring a pneumatic lift so that you can squat as much as quadzilla the body builder?


He probably won't do that because anyone can walk, hobble or wheel themselves into a gym and see the fantastic sights and beauty that the gym provides (being sarcastic, not a pervert).

I have a friend with cystic fibrosis. She currently has ~40% lung function on a good day. She goes to the gym religiously to keep what little fitness she has and has trained for and raced in triathlons... but at the end of the day, she can't go for a chill mountain bike ride with us up to see the flume trail, or cruise the redwoods up and down emma mccrary trail. It's not for lack of trying, but short, flat rides on a road bike are all she can muster. It would be pretty awesome to get her pedal output boosted by 250% so she could come with us to the awesome places that mountain bikers take for granted.

So yeah, there's lots of people out there who wouldn't be asking to blast up trails like Ned Overend, they'd just like to be able to go on rides like the rest of us. I don't care if they're fat, out of shape, old, or sick, I think more people should get to experience how fun mountain biking can be. We were all new to this sport once.

PS- for all you guys who think that anyone can throw a leg over an ebike, push a throttle and sit bike and bask in their out-of-shape-ness, you obviously haven't ridden one. You guys are probably also the same people who think that you don't have to be in shape to ride moto.


----------



## jasonmason (Mar 21, 2007)

bdamschen said:


> I'm confused by your argument. You just stated that people who get more runs/ride farther in a day have a negative impact on trails. Is that really a stance you want to take? In shape riders who are able to do multiple loops now are creating a negative impact?


You know, you're right - i phrased that poorly.

The OP talks about running multiple laps on a trail like Cannell; I personally would think that the high price of entry is one of the things that helps a trail like that from getting over-used. If you have a rider doing multiple up-down laps on it, they are effectively running the trail not once but six times over three laps. Trails like that which could be cherry picked for the descents without all the usual work to 'earn' could see dramatically more use, I would think.

As for the trail advocacy group angle, I just don't share your optimism in the e-bike demographic substantially increasing trail maintenance numbers.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

jasonmason said:


> You know, you're right - i phrased that poorly.
> 
> The OP talks about running multiple laps on a trail like Cannell; I personally would think that the high price of entry is one of the things that helps a trail like that from getting over-used. If you have a rider doing multiple up-down laps on it, they are effectively running the trail not once but six times over three laps. Trails like that which could be cherry picked for the descents without all the usual work to 'earn' could see dramatically more use, I would think.
> 
> As for the trail advocacy group angle, I just don't share your optimism in the e-bike demographic substantially increasing trail maintenance numbers.


Fair enough. At the moment even the percentage of mountain bikers who do any time of trail work is low. As it becomes more and more mainstream, I would imagine those numbers will go down even further.

One thing to keep in mind for ebikes. At max power output (which is really the only fun way to ride them otherwise they just turn into really heavy mountain bikes), you're good for about 30 miles before it's time to charge the battery. So I could see someone doubling the amount of riding they are doing but probably not more than that.


----------



## TahoeBC (Apr 11, 2006)

Extra Batter Pack - Check
80-90 mile range - Check
56 MPH - Check


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

jasonmason said:


> I'm not really sure how that's an arbitrary line - the bike is either solely human-powered, or it's not.


There are many different properties that can be chosen as a test. Low power motor does not really change the nature of the bike as far as its objective, measurable impact on environment and other users is concerned. It is still ten times less than a horse.

We got excluded from a whole lot of very best lands because "mechanized". Same flawed logic.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

bdamschen said:


> He probably won't do that because anyone can walk, hobble or wheel themselves into a gym and see the fantastic sights and beauty that the gym provides (being sarcastic, not a pervert).
> 
> I have a friend with cystic fibrosis. She currently has ~40% lung function on a good day. She goes to the gym religiously to keep what little fitness she has and has trained for and raced in triathlons... but at the end of the day, she can't go for a chill mountain bike ride with us up to see the flume trail, or cruise the redwoods up and down emma mccrary trail. It's not for lack of trying, but short, flat rides on a road bike are all she can muster. It would be pretty awesome to get her pedal output boosted by 250% so she could come with us to the awesome places that mountain bikers take for granted.
> 
> ...


This is what ebike should be used for. She just needs some kind of disability thing and good to go.

I train so I can do the occasional race, but also so I can do 3-4 laps at Demo. Some are fine with 1 lap. I am not.


----------



## jasonmason (Mar 21, 2007)

Axe said:


> There are many different properties that can be chosen as a test. Low power motor does not really change the nature of the bike as far as its objective, measurable impact on environment and other users is concerned. It is still ten times less than a horse.
> 
> We got excluded from a whole lot of very best lands because "mechanized". Same flawed logic.


You're trying really hard to make this sound like an arbitrary line. It's either wholly human-powered, or it's not. That is as simple a definition as can be made. You might not like that because it lumps all motorized two-wheeled devices together, but motorization is the differentiating factor.

Why are you trying so hard to pretend it's not motorized?


----------



## rangeriderdave (Aug 29, 2008)

How many e-bike riders are there going to be? How many are going to go off road ?The cost of one is going to keep many away. How many riders do epic rides ,how many more would do them with an e-bike? Who of the general population would be interested in a e-bike ,that wound not be interested in a pedal only bike? I would think the percentages are low.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

jasonmason said:


> You're trying really hard to make this sound like an arbitrary line. It's either wholly human-powered, or it's not. That is as simple a definition as can be made. You might not like that because it lumps all motorized two-wheeled devices together, but motorization is the differentiating factor.
> 
> Why are you trying so hard to pretend it's not motorized?


It is motorized, you're right.

Is motorized bad? That is debatable. A few years back, motorized meant 2 stroke or 4 stroke gas engine. No other motor had the power, or endurance that something like that did, and yeah it sucked. But things change and technology changes and now certain motors aren't that bad. No noise, no pollution emitted, doesn't take more than a minute or so of riding to figure out how to control it, doesn't roost. Not too bad really.

Technology changes, circumstances change and really opinions should also be open to change. Have you rode an ebike yet? Have you seen one in action? You're missing out on a lot of life if you're too busying saying "no" to try new things.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

TahoeBC said:


> Extra Batter Pack - Check
> 80-90 mile range - Check
> 56 MPH - Check


That thing looks like a POS. I'm doubting some of the claims that dude is making. If they're true, it would be terrifying to ride on trails with that little travel and steep head angle... and don't even get me started on the stem and bars.


----------



## dirtvert (Jun 30, 2010)

One scenario: A rental shop sets up business down the street from your favorite trailhead, say Emma McCrary in Santa Cruz. "E-bikes: So easy even your grandma can ride one." Next thing you know, hordes (ok, maybe just a few) of tourists are zipping up and down the trails--with little effort and less etiquette. Battles ensue... (this has already started happening in Newport Beach/El Moro State Park)

None of us knows how this will play out, but Francis is smarter than almost everybody about this kind of thing, and he doesn't think it will be the end of mtb as we know it. Still, I imagine e-cyclists drink way more wine than beer, so conflict is almost inevitable.


----------



## keen (Jan 13, 2004)

Don't know if this has been brought up but speed is what pisses of other trail users. If mountain bikes were creeping along @ the same or less speed than equestrians there would probably be far less negative encounters. I couldn't imagine two wheels flying up as well as down. Equestrians won't differentiate electric bikes and non - Gonna be lumped together. Maybe trails will need stops signs, posted speed limits and traffic enforcement to deal w/ a boat load of e-bakes. As much as I'd like to assume all e-bikers will ride very cautiously aint gonna happen just like mtn bikes.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

More power adds up to speed. Less fatigue adds up to speed. Former Norcal IMBA rep Tom Ward said that "the biggest problem we have on the trails is that we ride too fast."


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

jasonmason said:


> Why are you trying so hard to pretend it's not motorized?


I would appreciate if you do not put words in my mouth. What I said is that the test you choose to differentiate such mode of travel is a bad one, as it does not reflect the resulting impact correctly. Yes it is motorized. No, it is nothing like a motorcycle, and should not be considered together. That is obvious to anybody who rode both a moto and a low power assisted bicycle. 
It is no more useful as the "mechanized" test chosen by mountain biking opponents to exclude us from many lands. Just a scare label that does not reflect reality.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> More power adds up to speed. Less fatigue adds up to speed. Former Norcal IMBA rep Tom Ward said that "the biggest problem we have on the trails is that we ride too fast."


Ban racing and exercise.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Axe said:


> It crosses your own arbitrary line that has nothing to do with actual impact on trails and other people. Horses are much more destructive by any objective measure.
> All your argument is - it is bad because "motor". But why does it matter? It does not poop on trails, it does pulverize it, it does not sound for miles and scare animals. It is no more unnatural or destructive than a cell phone in your pocket. You could just as well prohibit hiking shoes or cell phones because "rubber", or "batteries". No more justified.


The line is very distinct and is what defines either a bicycle or a motorbike and decides which has access to given trails, so in no way is this line arbitrary. It is very real, easily enforceable and is the law. I am not sure how you could think that something that is deemed important enough to have it be enforceable by law is arbitrary.

As far as if ebikes are destructive or whatever, that's only part of it. Yes they will lead to more damage to trails. How much depends on what kind of power it puts out. We've all seen ebikes that have the power to go 50+ mph which I don't think anyone could argue will not cause damage. The other part of it is that the conservancies and land managers who will never allow motor bikes of any kind on non-moto trails are not just protecting the land, but also everyone's right to enjoy the intimacy of nature free from what is just about impossible to escape from in modern life. Non-moto trails are not just about protecting the land, but our right to be intimate with nature as well. Allowing motorized vehicles of any kind in what millions of people consider to be sacred places is one more step in taking away what already little connection we have nature. That is a line that should never be crossed.

But really, all this arguing is pretty pointless because these ebikes/mopeds/bikes with motors whatever you feel like calling them will never be granted access to non-moto trails for one very simple reason: there is absolutely no need to do so. The first step in getting a conservancy agency or land manager to consider your request is to demonstrate a need for that request. And that is what really separates mountain bikes from ebikes, there is no need and never will be a need to grant ebikes access to any trails other than ORV trails.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

^ If only it were that easy. With little to no enforcement (in many, many places), where do you think the oncoming eMTB's are going to ride their low speed pedal assist bicycles that look just like your mountain bike? I'll answer for you: EVERYWHERE. That is why this is a serious issue (in my mind) and just writing them off as trivial is extremely short sighted. We can't sweep this issue under the rug and pretend it isn't going to affect traditional mountain biking.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

No one want to call it a motor but it is a motor; it's just an attempt to spin for marketing or ego-saving. At least let's not call it mountain biking. As soon as you add artificial power it just doesn't qualify anymore. 

Motorized Offroad Bicycling? MOBing.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Axe said:


> Ban racing and exercise.


And banning works for mountain bikers? Yeah, right.


----------



## J-Flo (Apr 23, 2012)

Tahoebeau, there is an arbitrary element to many legal boundaries. The lawmakers have to set a limit somewhere, and the exact point picked is usually arbitrary in some sense. 

Reading your posts only leads one to think the opposite view is correct. Go back and read what Empty Beer did with a post a while back. You say e-bikes and their riders don't "need" to be on the trails, they are too fast, they interfere with our enjoyment of nature, they cross a line that must never be crossed, they damage trails -- and others say they don't like to be passed by people who are not working as hard as they are; they prefer emptier trails; e-bikes travel too far into the wilderness and create rescue problems; they dislike machines on trails.

These arguments are exactly the same as the case for banning bikes from the trails. And they fail for the same reasons. 

I agree with Mike that it isn't the same as mountain biking if there is a non-human motor involved. Mountain bikes were pretty radically different from regular bikes when they were invented too.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> But really, all this arguing is pretty pointless because these ebikes/mopeds/bikes with motors whatever you feel like calling them will never be granted access to non-moto trails for one very simple reason: there is absolutely no need to do so.


I believe your favorite logical fallacy is called "Proof by Assertion". "False dilemma" also applies.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> No one want to call it a motor but it is a motor; it's just an attempt to spin for marketing or ego-saving. At least let's not call it mountain biking. As soon as you add artificial power it just doesn't qualify anymore.


The reason for the choice of terminology is to highlight the fact that in the spectrum of travel contraptions assisted bicycles are by far closer to regular bicycles then to motorcycles - by look, behavior, capabilities, interaction with other trail users etc. etc. They are more like a mountain bike in that regard than a mountain bike is in comparison to a road bike.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

Axe said:


> The reason for the choice of terminology is to highlight the fact that in the spectrum of travel contraptions assisted bicycles are by far closer to regular bicycles then to motorcycles - by look, behavior, capabilities, interaction with other trail users etc. etc. They are more like a mountain bike in that regard than a mountain bike is in comparison to a road bike.


Why can't they be their own thing instead of one or the other?


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

And now we have HOBA


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Axe said:


> I believe your favorite logical fallacy is called "Proof by Assertion". "False dilemma" also applies.


Please explain what exactly the false dilemma is in my argument. I obviously don't see it and would like to know. Thanks.



J-Flo said:


> You say e-bikes and their riders don't "need" to be on the trails, they are too fast, they interfere with our enjoyment of nature, they cross a line that must never be crossed, they damage trails -- and others say they don't like to be passed by people who are not working as hard as they are; they prefer emptier trails; e-bikes travel too far into the wilderness and create rescue problems; they dislike machines on trails.
> 
> These arguments are exactly the same as the case for banning bikes from the trails. And they fail for the same reasons.


No, I am saying agencies have absolutely no need to change their policies around motorized vehicles on non-moto trails, nothing to do with trail damage or overcrowding. There was a huge need to let mtb's allowed on these trails and that is why we can ride them there.


----------



## jms (Feb 4, 2006)

Axe said:


> The reason for the choice of terminology is to highlight the fact that in the spectrum of travel contraptions assisted bicycles are by far closer to regular bicycles then to motorcycles - by look, behavior, capabilities, interaction with other trail users etc. etc. They are more like a mountain bike in that regard than a mountain bike is in comparison to a road bike.


Sophistry | Definition of sophistry by Merriam-Webster

A pretty good definition of this entire debate.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

jms said:


> Sophistry | Definition of sophistry by Merriam-Webster
> 
> A pretty good definition of this entire debate.


ha, people arguing with 50% of the facts and 100% of the opinions.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

bdamschen said:


> ha, people arguing with 50% of the facts and 100% of the opinions.


So it is my opinion not a fact that ebikes have a motor?
It is my opinion not fact the because they have a motor they are banned from non motto trails?

And why don't we do a quick check to figure out one more opinion vs fact. It is my opinion that no one here on this thread even owns an electric mountain bike. So how about we figure out the facts for that one?

Who here even owns an electric mountain bike? Seriously, Axe do you own one? Bdamschen how about you? Jms you got one of these? Does anyone here on this thread own one of these novelties? Does anyone even know someone who does?

That would be neat "fact" to know.


----------



## oaklandish (May 7, 2011)

Riding a bike is hard work, riding a mountain bike is harder work, riding a mountain bike on a technical single track is even harder still. We all made the long and often times gruelling transition to get to the point where we are now.

Perhaps I missed it and it was already touched on; but I think making the argument that 'getting more users on the trail because these e-bikes allow people otherwise incapable of riding them is a good thing' will eventually lead to even more dumbing down of our trails. 

By riding our bikes, and I mean within our own power, we are both getting stronger and technically more adept. This traditional method begets a more capable rider and culls out those that (for whatever reason) can't. If we short-circuit the conditioning required, and by virtue the skills that go with the thousands and thousands of miles of off road bicycling and welcome this e-bike group with (most likely) a much more limited skill set on the trails, we will open ourselves up to more accidents from ill prepared newbies and litigation that could eventually result in nothing but wide flow trails in the future.


----------



## dirtvert (Jun 30, 2010)

I don't think discussing a subject that affects us all--and potentially trail access--is sophistry. We enter a discussion with the facts we know, not the facts we wish we knew or will know at a later time... Nothing wrong with showing a little passion about our sport. It's better than apathy, right?!


----------



## jms (Feb 4, 2006)

tahoebeau said:


> Jms you got one of these?


Nope. Not interested in owning a motorcycle ; )


----------



## jms (Feb 4, 2006)

dirtvert said:


> I don't think discussing a subject that affects us all--and potentially trail access--is sophistry. We enter a discussion with the facts we know, not the facts we wish we knew or will know at a later time... Nothing wrong with showing a little passion about our sport. It's better than apathy, right?!


Don't confuse indifference with apathy ; )


----------



## jasonmason (Mar 21, 2007)

Axe said:


> The reason for the choice of terminology is to highlight the fact that in the spectrum of travel contraptions assisted bicycles are by far closer to regular bicycles then to motorcycles - by look, behavior, capabilities, interaction with other trail users etc. etc. They are more like a mountain bike in that regard than a mountain bike is in comparison to a road bike.


Does an e-bike look for the most part like a mountain bike? Sure.
Does an e-bike have a motor? Unequivocally yes.
Are bicycles (road, mountain, any) inherently defined by their solely pedal-driven nature? Yes.

Why are you so insistent on trying to shoehorn these into the mountain bike category, as opposed to having them stand as their own entity? I really don't think I'm putting words in your mouth with this one, since it's point you've been pressing hard throughout this whole thread.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I recall talking with and off-road motorcycle and tav group who wanted to partner with mountain bikes for advocacy as we both wanted dirt access.

No way; being heaped into the same category with a motor for us would have huge negative repercussions and baggage. They were great folks but we just couldn't do it.

The e-bike folks are trying to do the same thing. I takes sense to try and co-opt a group that has a solid disposition and a large community that, _given a bit of confounding, can be at least presented as sharing the same values. _ So the most insidious technique, transparent here though, is making the distinctions between a mountain bike and an e-bike fuzzy.

Uh...nope.

Tout the advantages, the necessity, the use of common dirt all you want but it is not a mountain bike. Deny the motorized definition because it is only a small motor and only used sometimes, but it is not a mountain bike. It's a blast? That is as may be; but it is not a mountain bike.

Ride it if you like it, wherever you can, but it is _not_ a mountain bike.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Upholstery for a sofa?*

Well that's a new word for me! Once again MTBR expands my vocabulary! Doubt that I'll be using "sophistry" any time soon though.

About time for a new poll! (So the mods can move it somewhere less relevant)

Some ramblings...

In Europe, E-bikes are championed even by governments; anything to get people away from their automobiles. Even do away with automobiles.

How will this work in the USA? If allowed say at Demo Forest would we ride our E-bikes there to ride the Flow Trail or would we still haul our bikes to the location?

Also in Europe there's a push to legitimize the E-bike "twist and go" (throttles) on their otherwise pedelecs; apparently old folks have trouble launching pedal-only E-bikes at times. Safer to keep both feet close to the ground until up to balancing speed.

And waivers for "big" people to have higher-wattage motors. (This make sense to me)

Think I'll take my Charger (classic USA pedelec) out for a spin today!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

pliebenberg illustrates, so very clearly, where the e-bike is going. What it can do, and what it is allowed to do, is being stretched based upon need to make its use and application easier for the less powered and skilled.

This was predicted in the first discussion we had on this topic a month or so ago and was dismissed as a hater approach; the nose of the camel.

And here we are.


----------



## Jasone510 (Oct 28, 2008)

All I know is if I had one of these 160mm, full suspension, e-bikes I would be doing multiple laps at Demo, Santa Cruz, Pacifica where right now I am only good for one or two loops. Good for me, bad for the trails, but good for me and that's all that matters right =) I can't afford an e-bike so it doesn't matter. 

I'm interested in seeing the interest level for each target market and what price point each are willing to pay: beginner/less skilled to intermediate/advanced. Will a beginner/less skilled person be willing to drop the coin on an e-bike that is trail capable? How many intermediate/advanced riders are interested and at what price point would you lose interest? 

This reminds me of a surfboard called the Wave Jet. A motorized surfboard that propels you in the water. Cool idea to help those that physically can't paddle efficient enough to get into waves, but a huge boost to more advanced riders which would give an unfair advantage in the line up. I have yet to see one in the line up, why? Likely because the cost of admission is too high. My point is I honestly don't think this will increase trail use by a HUGE margin. Those that will be willing to pay the $$$ needed for a capable trail e-bike are the intermediate/advanced riders looking for a way to get more riding in and I don't think that will be a huge number of riders due to cost. Beginners will not drop the coin, a normal mountain bike is already outrageous in price to a person that is not into the sport.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Buzzaro said:


> Why can't they be their own thing instead of one or the other?


They are their own thing. Every body here refers to them as ebikes, pedal assisted bikes, pedelecs...


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> Seriously, Axe do you own one?.


No. Given I recently ride single speed 80% of my time, on local hills, I am in no need of assistance and extra hassle and expense. But one day I may need it. Thankfully, most local land managers explicitly allow ebikes for people with disabilities (and not motorcycles). 
But I do know a lot of people who will be able to enjoy local trails with just a little boost. I do not think it is fair to exclude them for fitness related reasons when there is absolutely no objective, real reason to do that. None.

What bugs me in this discussion is that all the arguments against that are presented are exactly, word for word, with substitution of "mechanized" to "motorized", same as the ones used to exclude regular cycling.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Axe said:


> What bugs me in this discussion is that all the arguments against that are presented are exactly, word for word, with substitution of "mechanized" to "motorized", same as the ones used to exclude regular cycling.


That, in itself, doesn't disqualify the arguments and can be seen as simply dismissive tactic in the discussion.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

tahoebeau said:


> So it is my opinion not a fact that ebikes have a motor?
> It is my opinion not fact the because they have a motor they are banned from non motto trails?
> 
> And why don't we do a quick check to figure out one more opinion vs fact. It is my opinion that no one here on this thread even owns an electric mountain bike. So how about we figure out the facts for that one?
> ...


Woah there, I wasn't directing my comment at you. I think most people, myself included are lacking all the facts in this argument, such as what exactly is going to happen if ebikes go mainstream.

To address your questions- like I said, most people in this thread have 50% of the facts. Yes, ebikes have a motor. However certain things with electric motors are allowed on certain non-motorized only trails all the time. Both California State and National Parks allow the use of OPDMDs(ADA Requirements: Wheelchairs, Mobility Aids, and Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices) even on non-motorized trails. There is indeed a gray area there and not quite as black and white as you're claiming. 1 out of 2 facts right = 50%

Other facts since you're interested:

I don't own an ebike.
I have ridden several types of ebikes, both throttle and pedal assist
I had the most fun on the pedal assist bike
I'm not out of shape and I do ride my mountain bike a lot
I would buy an ebike if I had the extra cash, but priorities currently go to my mountain bikes or my dirt bike. I don't see those priorities changing any time soon.
I have personally made an attempt to tear up a trail using an ebike to see if that's even possible. It's nearly impossible to spin the bike tire on an ebike.

Opinion time!
People who are couch sitters now aren't going to ride these. They're not getting off the couch to ride a dirt bike or mountain bike, why would this be any different? Especially when the price point is the same for all three rides.

Your average hiker would probably not be able to tell the difference between someone on a pedal assist ebike and a regular mountain bike.

Interrogation time! (turnabout is fair play after all)
Tahoebeau- have you ever ridden an ebike?


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

Jasone510 said:


> All I know is if I had one of these 160mm, full suspension, e-bikes I would be doing multiple laps at Demo, Santa Cruz, Pacifica where right now I am only good for one or two loops. Good for me, bad for the trails, but good for me and that's all that matters right =) I can't afford an e-bike so it doesn't matter.


I hate this argument because it implies that riding a trail on a mountain bike is bad for the trail and the more riding on a trail, the worse it gets. I'd like to believe that isn't true. I'd like to believe that most legal mountain bike trails are built to be sustainable with increased traffic because as mountain biking becomes more popular while the number of legal trails stay the same, they will have to be, ebike or not.


----------



## Jasone510 (Oct 28, 2008)

bdamschen said:


> I hate this argument because it implies that riding a trail on a mountain bike is bad for the trail and the more riding on a trail, the worse it gets. I'd like to believe that isn't true. I'd like to believe that most legal mountain bike trails are built to be sustainable with increased traffic because as mountain biking becomes more popular while the number of legal trails stay the same, they will have to be, ebike or not.


Increased traffic is increased traffic be it hiking, biking, or equestrians. You can believe what you want, but increasing use will wear anything down. If trails were anywhere near sustainable, why would they need routine maintenance. I'm not arguing one way or another, excluding or including ebikes, I just know how I would use one and the way I would use one would increase my mileage on trails ten fold.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> That, in itself, doesn't disqualify the arguments and can be seen as simply dismissive tactic in the discussion.


It does not disqualify them in itself, but it does demonstrate their lack of quality and their true motivation and danger. It makes it easier to present a counter argument.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Jasone510 said:


> Increased traffic is increased traffic be it hiking, biking, or equestrians. You can believe what you want, but increasing use will wear anything down. If trails were anywhere near sustainable, why would they need routine maintenance.


Have you seen trails after a few years of non-use? They are not there anymore. Nature claims them back. Was in Henry Coe where trails had been taken off the official map for a lack of use?
Trails getting used is a good thing. Means there are people interested in keeping them open and building more.


----------



## Jasone510 (Oct 28, 2008)

Axe said:


> Have you seen trails after a few years of non-use? They are not there anymore. Nature claims them back. Was in Henry Coe where trails had been taken off the official map for a lack of use?
> Trails getting used is a good thing. Means there are people interested in keeping them open and building more.


Yes, I understand that use is a good thing and nature reclaims unused trails. I meant bad as in blown out and dusty from increased use and lack of moisture . And NO I am not against ebikes nor am I for them, I don't care as long as mountain bike access is not negatively affected.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Axe said:


> It does not disqualify them in itself, but it does demonstrate their lack of quality and their true motivation and danger. It makes it easier to present a counter argument.


I disagree. We cannot measure the quality of the arguments alongside those put forth in the last 30 years by haters. They never did stand up in principle and that disqualified them at that time but that didn't help us then. The haters had the good fortune of years of deeply ingrained traditions which underpinned old ways of thinking and regulation. Their propositions resonated and were upheld by those rules. So even if there were gray areas we lost the coin-toss.

The roads were littered with failed advocacy folks who quit when they realized that logic did not work. It took years of experience, user group growth, and science to get these rules changed. Once those were changed in the face of real data the haters had to shut-up.

I don't think that this is the same thing. We are hearing objections from folks who ride on mountain bikes already and have untold years of experience on the trails. Marketers and folks who look forward to the usage of e-bikes are dismissing the very skills and judgements that got everything where it is today. They are going so far as to equate those who object as "haters." That is simply a smear tactic and reprehensible.

Unfortunately the counter argument to concerns expressed by modern mountain bikers boils down to, "not they won't." Not much to that.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> We cannot measure the quality of the arguments against those put forth in the last 30 years by haters.


Of course we can. They are the same.



Berkeley Mike said:


> We are hearing objections from folks who ride on mountain bikes already and have untold years of experience on the trails.
> 
> Unfortunately the counter argument to concerns expressed by modern mountain bikers boils down to, "not they won't." Not much to that.


So you assert that people expressing concerns and regurgitating old hater arguments are talking from experience, and those who reject those claims as hogwash are not.

I can not agree with that assertion. It is both condescending and untrue.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Axe said:


> Of course we can. They are the same.


Axe, those were promoted in a different time with different circumstances and different knowledge base. To suggest that mountain bikers are simply regurgitating is another way of being dismissive.

Presenting that is different than saying that confronting the arguments as such is hogwash. You are saying that the arguments said then are the same as they are now and they have the same value. That is where we disagree.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Axe, those were promoted in a different time with different circumstances and different knowledge base.


Makes it even worse to not learn the lesson after all those years.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

You just made my point about where we disagree.


----------



## J-Flo (Apr 23, 2012)

The "hater" arguments are mostly illogical and based on selfish, exclusionary thinking rather than facts. If mountain bikers use the rhetorical tools (and sophistry) of the "haters" to oppose e-bikes, does anyone think the audience and land managers will perceive the distinction (assuming there is one)? 

They won't. Instead, one of two things will happen: the arguments will be dismissed as identical to those of the HOHAs, or, worse, the arguments might lend perceived strength in numbers to the HOHA arguments and end up undermining bike access opportunities. The inclusive, share-the-trails message that has helped to gain (or regain) much trail access is just not consistent with these "keep them away"-style "hater" arguments.

My point is not to favor or oppose e-bike trail access. A bad argument is a bad argument no matter what purpose it is put to, and it can only backfire. I am very concerned about the potential consequences if unfettered e-bike access is allowed. I would guess that the same concern is strong among many of us in the inner Bay Area and other areas where trail access is already tightly restricted.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I think it unlikely that mountain bikers will generate much presence to land managers in opposition to e-bikes. Consider that flat participation when we need them to work FOR their own access. There just isn't enough motivation, the issues are poorly vetted, and there is nothing galvanizing enough. Everyone is pretty much just jawing here, whether fact based or not. 

Consider that equestrians are 3% of trail users, leave crap on the trails, bring crap to our reputation and even with our numbers we don't cause them problems. Mountain bikers just don't do that sort of thing. They'd rather ride.

No, land managers are going to do what they are going to do, with or without us. Everyone is just blowing smoke.

As an advocate I will not support e-bikes on our trails if asked. If e-bikes want access they are on their own.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

But Mike, what if e-bikers simply disregard rules and trail designations and simply ride any trail they please... under the cloak of "mountain biking"? Do we as a user group expect no fall-out from that? We just pretend they aren't there and aren't our problem? Or maybe hope nobody notices?


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

Empty_Beer said:


> But Mike, what if e-bikers simply disregard rules and trail designations and simply ride any trail they please... under the cloak of "mountain biking"? Do we as a user group expect no fall-out from that? We just pretend they aren't there and aren't our problem? Or maybe hope nobody notices?
> 
> View attachment 983413


----------



## misooscar (Sep 22, 2008)

*budget ebike (full suspension)*

ebikes are not too expensive, if you have an old FS setup collecting dust in the garage, it can be converted to a state of the art mid-drive Chinese e bike system (motor and battery), for around 1K, currently I have a a 29er hardtail Bosch model, wish I had full suspension to make the DHs more entertaining, if I had 5" travel in the back, I'd be set...next mod for me is this kit that I mentioned...

I think you have to be an intermediate level mountain biker to really enjoy the e-bike. Cost (considering most folks wouldn't want to e-bike convert), and the technicality of mtbing, will result in ebikes just being another niche, kind of like DH, and XC race bikes are... see you on the trails!

IMO, the best way to learn mtb skills is on a lightweight, flickable bike. Too hard for beginners to progess on a 45 lb rig


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

BigLarry said:


> Where I live in south San Jose, the trail access has just about tripled during the 10 years I lived there, mostly due to increased public demand and advocacy by many, including myself. For example, Almaden Quicksilver went from one MTB entrance (Hacienda) to three (added Mockingbird and Hicks) with more trails as well. The new park Rancho Canada del Oro was added to the south side of Calero, and has starting becoming real popular, with the ~40 space lot filling up on weekends now. So a new lot was made down the road, that will also serve Blair Ranch on the south side, that will be become a whole new MTB park as well. Then there's the 28 miles of new MTB trails in opening Calero and the entirely new park Rancho San Vicente that connect Santa Teresa, Quicksilver, and Rancho Canada del Oro. And on the other side of Quicksilver, MidPen is making a couple miles of new multi-use singletrack to Mt. Umunhum, that will be opening in the next year or two. That's just sampling the local trails I can ride right from my garage.
> 
> And as mentioned before, don't you see all the new trails in Demo and Santa Cruz? Much of this came from public demand and interest in seeing them put in place and carried through with trail work effort.


I'm glad to hear that your neck of the woods is opening up. The flow trail was to replace the old Tractor trail single track that was taken out by logging, and the Emma McCrary trail is 1.6 miles long. At the last MBOSC meeting, we met with a member of the Sempervirons group who is campaigning for Coast Dairies to receive National Monument status. Even with the expedited funding from that designation, the access won't happen until the next generation. Still worth fighting for.

About crowding of trails - ever ride Santa Cruz, starting from the EMT on a Saturday morning? These are my backyard trails and I try to avoid mornings now since it is unpleasant. It's no Henry Coe. This place is great, but a little cramped for my taste. Everyone has their own tolerance level for crowds and mine is just very low. Henry Coe is awesome, but it is a good 2 hours round trip for me (at least) burning fossil fuel, as are most of the places you mentioned.

There are not in fact, unlimited trails, trail building volunteer time or donations, or government money to build them. I know the bike industry would love to see an explosion of sales and growth, and are always looking for "the next big thing", like all of the E-bike marketing slogans pasted up all over the Sea Otter expo suggest. But if that's what they want, they should think about stepping it up on the advocacy/trail building side of things. Some companies are intelligent in this regard and some are not.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DannyvG (Apr 21, 2014)

tahoebeau said:


> And why don't we do a quick check to figure out one more opinion vs fact. It is my opinion that no one here on this thread even owns an electric mountain bike. So how about we figure out the facts for that one?
> Who here even owns an electric mountain bike?


I have a Cube Stereo Hybrid 140 Race, I havent posted in this thread before since I live in the Netherlands and I cant relate to the trail acces problems that seem to be an issue in the US. In europe ebikes can be used legally on mtb trails because they are classified as bicycles and not mopeds/motorcycles. To meet this classification they need to be <250W continuous power output and <25km/h pedal assist (no throttle allowed).

I used to be an avid mountainbiker focussing mostly on Enduro and DH kind of riding but I quit about 5 years ago, a year ago I picked up biking again with a simple hardtail riding local (pretty flat) trails. But I quickly noticed I wanted a fully instead of a hardtail, so after investigating some options I stumbled upon the ebikes. Riding for me isnt about covering miles and punishing myself to get the fastest laptimes it is about having fun and trying to rip the nice sections. With my ebike I have more fun because the boring parts are made easier and I have more energy left for having fun. And I still get a very good workout, the emphasis just isnt on the legs but more of a total body workout. Thanks to the pedal assist I am out of the saddle more often and attack the fun parts of the trails.
I dont do more damage to the trails than a traditional mtb and I have respect for other trail users including hikers and equestrians (even though I really dont like horses). The issue isnt with the ebike itself but probably the users and I dont expect much trail use from mtb noobs that buy a e-mtb for fun.


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

Empty_Beer said:


> View attachment 983413


Wait for the first one to be sneaked into an Enduro race. Battery in the Camelbak, power cord down the arm of a long sleeve jersey, connect on the bars. Rule those transition stages!


----------



## TahoeBC (Apr 11, 2006)

*Pedophile*

noun pe•do•phile \ˈpe-də-ˌfī(-ə)l, ˈpē-\
1 : a person who has a sexual interest in children
2 : a person who rides a pedal assist electric bike, also referred to as a pedelec


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

DannyvG said:


> I have a Cube Stereo Hybrid 140 Race, I havent posted in this thread before since I live in the Netherlands and I cant relate to the trail acces problems that seem to be an issue in the US. In europe ebikes can be used legally on mtb trails because they are classified as bicycles and not mopeds/motorcycles. To meet this classification they need to be <250W continuous power output and <25km/h pedal assist (no throttle allowed).
> 
> I used to be an avid mountainbiker focussing mostly on Enduro and DH kind of riding but I quit about 5 years ago, a year ago I picked up biking again with a simple hardtail riding local (pretty flat) trails. But I quickly noticed I wanted a fully instead of a hardtail, so after investigating some options I stumbled upon the ebikes. Riding for me isnt about covering miles and punishing myself to get the fastest laptimes it is about having fun and trying to rip the nice sections. With my ebike I have more fun because the boring parts are made easier and I have more energy left for having fun. And I still get a very good workout, the emphasis just isnt on the legs but more of a total body workout. Thanks to the pedal assist I am out of the saddle more often and attack the fun parts of the trails.
> I dont do more damage to the trails than a traditional mtb and I have respect for other trail users including hikers and equestrians (even though I really dont like horses). The issue isnt with the ebike itself but probably the users and I dont expect much trail use from mtb noobs that buy a e-mtb for fun.


Woohoo! A primary source! I wanted to ask a few questions-

How long does it take to charge?

How far or how long can you ride for realistically on fun trails while riding hard?

How much do you weigh?


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

Stripes said:


> jmpreston: since you rode one, do you think a newb on the ebike would be likely to hurt themselves from the torque on it than a non ebike?


I've ridden a few. The added power really doesn't catch you by surprise under normal conditions. There is a slight bit of lag, like 100th of a second, where the motor is still pushing a little bit when you stop pedaling. I could see that catching a new person out on a steep/technical hill climb. With the extra assistance you feel invincible until your tire slips and then everything suddenly gets sketchy and the bike will give one last little push while you're trying to put a foot down or dismount.

I would say the weight of the bike might be more of an issue. The last ebike I rode was nearly 50 lbs. I rode it down the sea otter dual slalom course when no one was looking and it cornered and popped off of jumps well enough to make me think I was on a regular mountain bike... until I tried to bunny hop over something and almost fell on my butt because the bike didn't follow. My normal bike is around 28 lbs though, so maybe it's just a bias from someone used to a much lighter bike.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

"...the damn bluehairs that are so out of shape, all they can do is maybe hike."

Interesting that we want to think hikers are out of shape, but people who need a motor aren't. Is up down now?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Empty_Beer said:


> But Mike, what if e-bikers simply disregard rules and trail designations and simply ride any trail they please... under the cloak of "mountain biking"? Do we as a user group expect no fall-out from that? We just pretend they aren't there and aren't our problem? Or maybe hope nobody notices?
> 
> View attachment 983413


I hear that; I don't want anything to do with being lumped together with e-bikes in any form. In any forum, meeting, summit, or town hall I will make every effort to distinguish mountain biking from motorized off roading.

In fairness though, as a group, we don't do the best job of following the rules as it is. I doubt that our community, though, will do much about this.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> As an advocate I will not support e-bikes on our trails if asked. If e-bikes want access they are on their own.





Berkeley Mike said:


> In any forum, meeting, summit, or town hall I will make every effort to distinguish mountain biking from motorized off roading.


In just one day, just one picture did put you in a category of people who actively prevent people from quietly enjoying outdoors in a manner they like - that is pretty much indistinguishable by a casual observer from "regular" mountain biking. You are the same kind of an ideologue as Sierra Clubbers. "Motorized off-roading" . On that thing? Laughable attempt at labeling. Motorized, mechanized, nobody cares. That will surely fire back.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

"E-bikes will fracture the mountain bike community at the core."

-someone


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

Axe said:


> In just one day, just one picture did put you in a category of people who actively prevent people from quietly enjoying outdoors in a manner they like - that is pretty much indistinguishable by a casual observer from "regular" mountain biking. You are the same kind of an ideologue as Sierra Clubbers. "Motorized off-roading" . On that thing? Laughable attempt at labeling. Motorized, mechanized, nobody cares. That will surely fire back.


Yeah, I gotta agree there. To the average person someone looks like they're just riding their mountain bike and are a pretty fit climber.

I had a dude blow my doors off pedaling up the fire road in Nisene a few weeks back. At first I thought I had just been caught by someone who was a good climber and I mentioned something about how I was impressed when he rode by. It took me until he was almost out of site to realize he was on an ebike and I'm someone who pays attention to that sort of thing.

For your normal hiker, it would have just been really in shape old guy out for a climb.


----------



## O5-KR (May 15, 2012)

The blame is on jmpreston for testing that bike, hahaha

Seriously, I think it is too early to takr strong positions on either side.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

OS-KR said:


> The blame is on jmpreston for testing that bike, hahaha
> 
> Seriously, I think it is too early to takr strong positions on either side.


Agreed 1000%. Let it play out a little. Listen. Learn. Try them. And remember that we are fighting mostly ourselves on this one. At least for now.

fc


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

fc said:


> Agreed 1000%. Let it play out a little. Listen. Learn. Try them. And remember that we are fighting mostly ourselves on this one. At least for now.
> 
> fc


This has been playing out for 10 or 15 years now.

I like E-bikes.

They are motorcycles.

End of story.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

Mudguard25 said:


> Wait for the first one to be sneaked into an Enduro race. Battery in the Camelbak, power cord down the arm of a long sleeve jersey, connect on the bars. Rule those transition stages!


yeah, because getting first in transition stages gets you on the podium..........

I just can't any advantage in an enduro race unless some of the timed stages had a few notable uphills.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

TahoeBC said:


> *Pedophile*
> 
> noun pe•do•phile \ˈpe-də-ˌfī(-ə)l, ˈpē-\
> 1 : a person who has a sexual interest in children
> 2 : a person who rides a pedal assist electric bike, also referred to as a pedelec


So now all the people the ride ebikes or pedal assist bikes are pedofiles???

OK, I can live with that.................

I can just see a group of cyclists talking.
Guy 1 asks, "What type of riding are you into?"

Guy 2, "I'm a roadie"
Guy 3, "I'm a Tri man myself"
Guy 4, "I love the enduro racing"
Guy 5, "I'm a pedophile"

Guy 1-4 are in shock and then guy 5 hits the floor because a mom at the Starbucks with her kids just zapped him with her stun gun.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

OS-KR said:


> The blame is on jmpreston for testing that bike, hahaha
> 
> Seriously, I think it is too early to takr strong positions on either side.


I blame Al Gore for inventing the internet.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

pliebenberg said:


> ...
> End of story.


I rest my case.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

This is all happening without data except references to what is happening in Europe. And, as has been said, ad nauseum, our world is different here. So this is like arguing the number of angels on the head of a pin. 

What we are left with is opinions and our relative civility in dealing with differences about motor-assisted machines in a traditionally human-power oriented forum. I wonder what it was like when Viagra first came on the scene?

So far we have the usual dismissiveness, derision, and character references. We can always do without that but as a community we are better at overcoming obstacles than shoveling smoke so all is forgiven.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I hear that; I don't want anything to do with being lumped together with e-bikes in any form. In any forum, meeting, summit, or town hall I will make every effort to distinguish mountain biking from motorized off roading.
> 
> In fairness though, as a group, we don't do the best job of following the rules as it is. I doubt that our community, though, will do much about this.


I think we can expect some fall out, and pretending they aren't related to us is a little too laissez faire to me. Time to chat with land managers to see what the possible consequences might be when eMTB's start showing up on non-motorized trails... and mountain bikers call in to complain


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

ziscwg said:


> yeah, because getting first in transition stages gets you on the podium..........
> 
> I just can't any advantage in an enduro race unless some of the timed stages had a few notable uphills.


yup. I think I topped out at around 40 mph on one of the sea otter enduro stages and 37 mph on another. I tried and definitely couldn't get anywhere near that on the current crop of ebikes.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

ziscwg said:


> yeah, because getting first in transition stages gets you on the podium..........
> 
> I just can't any advantage in an enduro race unless some of the timed stages had a few notable uphills.


There was an e-bike category at an enduro race in the UK.
Enduro Night Race at Forest of Dean 7-2-2015 - Mini Enduro - Mini Enduro

And you are correct... the results show quite a few faster guys on regular bikes:
http://my1.raceresult.com/34866/RRP...|NE Results List (portrait)&contest=1&lang=en


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> So far we have the usual dismissiveness, derision, and character references.


Yes. You and other opponents did just that. And firmly promised to fight it tooth and nail on every meeting you go to without knowing any data.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

Empty_Beer said:


> There was an e-bike category at an enduro race in the UK.
> Enduro Night Race at Forest of Dean 7-2-2015 - Mini Enduro - Mini Enduro
> 
> And you are correct... the results show quite a few faster guys on regular bikes:
> http://my1.raceresult.com/34866/RRP...|NE Results List (portrait)&contest=1&lang=en


Holy bats, Batman,
I WANT to do one of those!!! Night enduro, what could go wrong?????

I hope they only lit the start and end of the timed segment.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

Empty_Beer said:


> There was an e-bike category at an enduro race in the UK.
> Enduro Night Race at Forest of Dean 7-2-2015 - Mini Enduro - Mini Enduro
> 
> And you are correct... the results show quite a few faster guys on regular bikes:
> http://my1.raceresult.com/34866/RRP...|NE Results List (portrait)&contest=1&lang=en


Heh, two of the ebikes DNFed... Dead batteries?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Axe said:


> Yes. You and other opponents did just that. And firmly promised to fight it tooth and nail on every meeting you go to without knowing any data.


Well, not really. What I said was:

"In any forum, meeting, summit, or town hall I will make every effort to distinguish mountain biking from motorized off roading."

I think that the distinction an important one. I have made no comment about the rightness or wrongness, trail erosion, crowding and all the rest.


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

bdamschen said:


> yup. I think I topped out at around 40 mph on one of the sea otter enduro stages and 37 mph on another. I tried and definitely couldn't get anywhere near that on the current crop of ebikes.


The transition stages in Rotorua were long and hard enough that riders were only making it with a few minutes to spare. 
I think they'd make very little difference on the timed sections. But being fresh as a daisy from the climb up would be useful.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

bdamschen said:


> Heh, two of the ebikes DNFed... Dead batteries?


I noticed that too... and the 4th place guy seemed to have some kind of problem on the 3rd run  At least it's better than DNP (Did Not Pedal)!


----------



## DannyvG (Apr 21, 2014)

bdamschen said:


> Woohoo! A primary source! I wanted to ask a few questions-
> 
> How long does it take to charge?
> 
> ...


The bosch battery pack is 400Wh, 36V, 11Ah the charger is 4A. So from fully depleted it takes 2.75hours plus some overhead so around 3.5hours max.
Most of the times the battery is around 40~60% charged when I have done around 30~40km trip. It depends a lot on the support levels you use, most of the time I am on the lower support levels.

The bike weighs 21kg incl the 2kg battery pack, I weigh around 80kg (183cm)


----------



## DannyvG (Apr 21, 2014)

btw some more about ebike races
New race series: 'German eMTB Masters - epowered by Bosch' | E-Bike Mountainbike Magazine
Lapierre even has an ebike team.


----------



## jasonmason (Mar 21, 2007)

I still think the racing aspect of it has got to be embarrassing, especially to the riders. I mean really, team riders for this now? "Can't hack it in Cat 1? Here, try this..."

How could any self-respecting racer (of any level) stoop to that level?


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

fc said:


> Agreed 1000%. Let it play out a little. Listen. Learn. Try them. And remember that we are fighting mostly ourselves on this one. At least for now.
> 
> fc


That might be a good strategy if your trying to sell them or want them on the trails. If your like me and your mind's made up, letting them out of the cage now and trying to reign them in later sounds like a bad plan.


----------



## dirtvert (Jun 30, 2010)

jasonmason said:


> I mean really, team riders for this now? "Can't hack it in Cat 1? Here, try this..."


Actually, they have their own system: Puss 1, Puss 2, etc...

What next, scooters in the TDF?!

VV Don't confuse intolerance with self-preservation. If you think we have access issues now, just wait...


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

dirtvert said:


> Actually, they have their own system: Puss 1, Puss 2, etc...


The real question is how can anybody be this intolerant? Who cares how folks get their fun? Really turns out that bikers are no better than hikers after all.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Vote early and often....*

Oh lookie; a new e-bike poll:

http://forums.mtbr.com/california-norcal/e-bikes-wilderness-areas-964910.html


----------



## NoBalance (Feb 23, 2007)

Its early days now for e-bikes but I can imagine 5-10 years from now when the technology is built into the frame better and it will be almost impossible to tell if a bike is e-powered or not. Imagine having a moderately e-powered bike that only adds a couple pounds. Take a 24lb Epic and modify it to have built-in e-bike capabilities and you could easily see a 28-30 lb machine.

I noticed at Sea Otter a couple folks riding the e-bikes and one guy with a fat-e-bike ran out of juice on the final difficult climb out of the XC course. He could barely push the bike up the hill. This will probably be where "yahoos" will suffer the most, being inexperienced with the technology and not in enough shape to ride a 50lb bike up any hill anywhere.

Not sure I'd want an e-bike myself just because I'd be too tempted to use it rather than get a real workout.


----------



## Czar Chasm (Jul 19, 2012)

While you are at it, outlaw bike lights. Because the batteries could run out before your ride is over and you will be stuck in the dark and you will need to be rescued. 

Electronic shifting? Outlaw it. Your battery could die while you are in a hard gear and you will need to be rescued.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

That'll work.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

I wonder what this guy said









When he saw this...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Yeah, and look at the mess we've made!: smog, a fractured ozone layer, no room for bikes on streets, and horses crowded onto our trails.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Yeah, and look at the mess we've made!: smog, a fractured ozone layer, no room for bikes on streets, and horses crowded onto our trails.


Cars also saved cities from nasty pollution due to all the horse manure that was seeping into everything. At its peak, NY had 1000s of tons of horse crap to move daily or weekly (can't remember). It was a health hazard. But I digress.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

fc said:


> Agreed 1000%. Let it play out a little. Listen. Learn. Try them. And remember that we are fighting mostly ourselves on this one. At least for now.
> 
> fc


And what about when the HOHA's catch on?


----------



## menusk (Jun 27, 2009)

i posted this somewhere but technically e bikes aren't illegal and aren't considered motorized vehicles. the only bad outcome i could see of this is someone who may be greedy sue land managers because of falsely prohibiting use of their e bike on the trail. so to avoid confrontation closing down access if they do happen to cause more damage.

In conformance with legislation adopted by the U.S. Congress defining this category of electric-power bicycle (15 U.S.C. 2085(b)), CPSC rules stipulate that low speed electric bicycles[49] (to include two- and three-wheel vehicles) are exempt from classification as motor vehicles providing they have fully operable pedals, an electric motor of less than 750W (1 hp), and a top motor-powered speed of less than 20 miles per hour


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Are land managers listening to congress? I doubt it and plenty of people would love to ban all bikes if that's what it took to ban e-bikes. Be careful of the company you keep.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

shredchic said:


> And what about when the HOHA's catch on?


They caught on to us about 30 years ago. When the mechanized vs motorized was sneaked into Wilderness bill, locking us out. Nothing changed, nothing will change, unless more people, especially voting and politically active people ride.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

Axe said:


> They caught on to us about 30 years ago. When the mechanized vs motorized was sneaked into Wilderness bill, locking us out. Nothing changed, nothing will change, unless more people, especially voting and politically active people ride.


So, in a situation where lots of people do not want to see mountain bikes on trails, do you think the situation will get better once we include not only mechanized, but now motorized users?


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

shredchic said:


> So, in a situation where lots of people do not want to see mountain bikes on trails, do you think the situation will get better once we include not only mechanized, but now motorized users?


Not a logical argument


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

zorg said:


> Not a logical argument


It was a question, not an argument. And I suppose it's more logical to think that all kinds of new trails and open space will magically be opened up to us if we simply embrace motors on bikes? If they had no love for us now as mechanized users, wait until we have motors. I'm not saying the opposing HOHA viewpoint follows logic, or that I necessarily agree with it, but it's a mindset that has affected/does affect our access.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

So far, the only opposition seems to be coming from HOBAs. It seems that we keep playing defense. Who cares what HOHAs think? It is about time we play offense and not let them set the agenda.


----------



## KrankedBikes (Apr 26, 2015)

*Refreshing to Read*



jmpreston said:


> It was a weird but interesting experience. First, they are just bikes, not motorcycles in any way. There is no impact on other trail users or trails other than what regular MTB is. All the wild speculation and myths need to stop and informed opinion take over the discussion.
> 
> I didn't like the weight at all. We recently bought Yeti SB-95 carbon bikes and I strongly prefer the sportiness of newer and lighter bikes, especially in the roots, rocks and ruts. However, we did ride down a steep single track trail with loose dirt and the bike behaved reasonably well. We also rode up that trail and it was much more fun than hiking the bike. That really was a cool experience!
> 
> ...


Sorry for the length!!!

It was both refreshing and encouraging to read your piece on this topic.
You are absolutely right of course, it is time to end the myths and for informed opinion to take over.

Here in British Columbia we are blessed with mile upon mile of trail head. Too much for one person to explore in a lifetime perhaps. We have trail builders from the North Shore, and locally, and on the Sunshine Coast of BC, where the BC Bike race takes place, we are particularly lucky, being able to ride from one end of the coast to the other without seeing a road. Let me ask you is there anywhere better to design, build and test high performance e-rides?

Kranked Bikes were at Sea Otter, but without the corporate clout or reach of Bosch. We believe that e-rides should remain true to the nature and performance of the bike. We don't want to alter what the bike is capable of, we want to enhance it.

Kranked Bikes have designed and tested a bracket that mates an Evo electric motor with the Santa Cruz line of bikes, the cream of which is the carbon framed V10 (it can be mated to most major mtb's) Adding very little weight or profile to the bikes, and putting the battery pack into a rucksack designed for purpose, which easily absorbs the extra weight allowing the bike to perform as designed. There are no compromises in downhill performance. There is no trade off or sacrifice on these bikes.

I have read some of the sheer malice and lack of understanding in the comments here, so just invite anyone reading this to look at our V10 as an example of whats possible. Does it look like a motorcycle? No. Please, understand that this is a bike with one very simple performance enhancement. It is still a mountain bike. It has two wheels, pedals and uses all of the gears the designers wanted it to use. The electric motor is cadenced to provide more assistance with lower gear section, so legs are not running like a hamster wheel, but pedalling efficiently....yes pedalling. The key word is "ASSIST".

There seems to be such anger and hate geared towards the concept, and as you highlight in later posts on this thread, the same anger was aimed at gearing, suspension, and now of late electric gear shift.

There seems to be a misconception, that as well as not been real bikes, that e-assist bikes are not for 'real bikers' . Is there a boy scout badge for such a title? Did I miss something? Because I choose to ride around the big drops and jumps, as I can't afford to get injured and let my family down, should I stop riding flowy downhill tracks or return my season pass for Whistler Bike Park? Are all those thousands of riders taking a lift up Whistler mountain cheating and not being 'real riders'? Who decides?

Is there no such thing as an over weight road bike or mountain bike rider? Should we not be applauding every persons effort to improve their fitness not treating them with derision. So much for equality! So...if that same rider, aspiring to explore and get fitter, chooses to do so on an e-assist bike, might it actually be a real motivating factor for everyone involved? They still have to pedal like hell to get where they want to, but instead of giving up after a month because they never get anywhere meaningful they keep coming back for more, and riding further, harder, faster. Really, what is the problem with that? Should we be having a weigh station at the start of trail heads? Perhaps we should ensure that appropriately approved clothing is worn?

I am a recent convert myself, and I have ridden motorcycles my whole life, and I have never gotten to the top of a hill on a motorcycle and brought up the contents of my stomach! Pedal assist really does mean you still have to pedal! A simple example - if a rider on a 'real' bike and an e-assist bike each pedals for an hour, does one do less work than the other? NO, one just goes further. Just like on any other bike a super fit individual will get further faster than a new rider whose fitness and ability lack. An hours peddling, with real effort is just that. Do we really think, that having an e-assist bike will allow anyone to just turn up and ride rock and root? Tackle steep ascents, and everything a trail can throw at you? Of course not, these skills come in time with riding.

So what does that gain for the fit adventurous e-rider? Well quite a lot actually. Time, exploration, a lot more downhill, a lot more uphill?

Could E-Up-Hill or all Hill become a sport!!!

Look, for my part I love my bike, and I love riding in the woods and mountains. I was introduced to these bikes only this year. My problem is time first, ability second, fitness third. I am a pretty devoted father who gave up a career to look after my boys, and work from home. That means that while my wife might occasionally let me ride for 8 hours, I won't; well not often anyway. I want and need to maximize my ride time. My fitness is in tune with the time I can apportion. I will never win a medal but I can hold my own in my age group. I know what I'm capable of in an hour or two of free time, and I know its not a 25-30k off road loop of my local trails. Thats the difference. Instead of simply riding out and riding uphill until I have just enough time to ride home, I get to really explore, get in some real exercise, and my motivation is top level. I get to do my favourite runs more than once, while finding new flows. I went higher, further and found trail head and incredible scenery I simply didn't know existed.

I get more exercise, my ability is challenged, and improved. It is not a free ride. Legs hurt, lungs pop, cores burn. Its just different. Different is not bad, its just different. New.

I get that change can feel alien, but no one has the right to say this or that does not belong, or "stay off my trail".

Here in Beautiful British Columbia, I find myself constantly encouraged by the determination of everyone to enjoy and explore the outdoors in any way they can. Eco tourism, hiking, biking, camping. The beautiful world around us is there for everyone to enjoy, so lets just all get on and enjoy it.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

E-bike or not; it is soooo easy when you have a lot of room,low population density and the desire to bring customers to your area. We hear that from folks all owner the world. Even IMBA says that, that is, until they try and do something here and then leave.


----------



## KrankedBikes (Apr 26, 2015)

What troubles me as an individual, is the derision being thrown at me as a rider. I ride a downhill, xtc and e-bike, and they are all tools suited to a style of riding. My e-bike makes absolutely no more impact on the trail to any other bike, in fact being a carbon V10 it may make less impact than some. Referring to these bikes as motor cycles is I suggest a dangerous way to go without understanding the ways they can and will be used. It allows HOHA's to group when there is really no need. Most people will not know its an bike. Live and let live. Yes, some might abuse land, but we all know of riders that do that now; leave litter spoil it for others etc.


----------



## KrankedBikes (Apr 26, 2015)

Berkeley Mike said:


> E-bike or not; it is soooo easy when you have a lot of room,low population density


Just wanted to add that, Yes, in BC I accept low population density and a lot of room makes difference, but I maintain that you really have nothing to fear.


----------



## Mudguard (Apr 14, 2009)

KrankedBikes said:


> Referring to these bikes as motor cycles is I suggest a dangerous way to go without understanding the ways they can and will be used.


I live in New Zealand, and as such, I don't think there is same conflict with land use as there seems to be in the US. That said, like most places, rules tend to created in broad strokes, for example, no motorbikes usually means no motorbikes. It doesn't mean 50cc bikes or electric bikes are allowed. 
With that in mind, where would you draw the line? Pedal assist, a certain wattage etc? Imagine the sign at the trailhead, EBike sub 50w ok, Sub 100cc petrol ok, Pedal Bikes ok?

Personally I'm not against E Bikes. I travel a lot for work, but have had a desk job in the past, and am likely to in the future. To be blunt I would ride a normal bike for the fitness element, but I'd love to have the option of using an E bike _instead_ of my car, rather than replacing my bike to go get groceries, things were I don't want to get sweaty.

I guess I'm trying to see how they would actually be allowed, how you would actually decide which E Bikes were acceptable or not.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

shredchic said:


> So, in a situation where lots of people do not want to see mountain bikes on trails, do you think the situation will get better once we include not only mechanized, but now motorized users?


Situation will get better once people start assessing actual impact, not imaginary ideological cherry picked definitions. 
I am not pro e-bike. I am anti ideological and unsubstantiated reasoning to exclude them, as I believe it will come right back at regular mtb. Because they look and behave the same. Unlike motorcycles. And yes, it is quite easy to draw a line - wattage and weight.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> E-bike or not; it is soooo easy when you have a lot of room,low population density.


We have plenty of room in California for this.


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm going to take a different approach on this thread. I'm in my early fifties and very unexpectedly came down with an inflammatory arthritis disease a couple of years ago. The first thing that went was mountain biking. I just could not do it without my feet and hands killing me after a ride. A couple of years later and a lot of meds I have the pain and inflammation pretty well under control. Still, the disease is not going away, it's about management. 

I felt things were pretty under control and got on my mountain and went for a good single track ride this week. I was supposed to ride with a friend this morning but bailed because I am sore and stiff with a numb hand. Something like these e-assist bikes or whatever you want to call them would get me and lot of others out on the trail more often. I'm used to being a really active individual and I am not ready for a retired life in a rocking chair, but I am physically not capable of things that were not a big deal a few years ago. Maybe sometimes it's about a bigger picture than your perceived view of the right and wrong way to do things. It's a thought anyhow.


----------



## Rod (Oct 17, 2007)

rensho said:


> Would more bike users lead to more trail workers?
> 
> Or, maybe these horrible devil people that are so incredibly against more bike trails might just happen to try an ebike and think 'hey, it is kinda fun to ride bikes in the open space' and be probike. You know the types, the damn bluehairs that are so out of shape, all they can do is maybe hike.
> 
> 'dealt with'


More trail workers.... I had a good laugh. The trail work would be left to the insane few who take on the impossible task.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Get the blue placard*



FX4 said:


> I'm going to take a different approach on this thread. I'm in my early fifties and very unexpectedly came down with an inflammatory arthritis disease a couple of years ago. The first thing that went was mountain biking. I just could not do it without my feet and hands killing me after a ride. A couple of years later and a lot of meds I have the pain and inflammation pretty well under control. Still, the disease is not going away, it's about management.
> 
> I felt things were pretty under control and got on my mountain and went for a good single track ride this week. I was supposed to ride with a friend this morning but bailed because I am sore and stiff with a numb hand. Something like these e-assist bikes or whatever you want to call them would get me and lot of others out on the trail more often. I'm used to being a really active individual and I am not ready for a retired life in a rocking chair, but I am physically not capable of things that were not a big deal a few years ago. Maybe sometimes it's about a bigger picture than your perceived view of the right and wrong way to do things. It's a thought anyhow.


When you're mobility disabled enough to qualify for the placard you're then entitled to use qualified e-bikes wherever plain bicycles are used.

Most places anyway.

Arthritis sucks. But what disease doesn't suck?


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

That's a pretty narrow view of the world. I have days when it's hard to walk across a parking lot and days when I feel pretty normal, just like most people with inflammatory arthritis. The days I feel normal are the days I want to climb on a bike and go for a ride. I'm not ready for a placard just like I'm not ready to retire to a rocking chair but I sure as heck can't do the things that were easy a few years ago. I think the one thing I have come to understand is disabilities whether mild or severe come in many forms. Technology like these e-assist bikes will help people stay active.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

FX4 said:


> That's a pretty narrow view of the world. I have days when it's hard to walk across a parking lot and days when I feel pretty normal, just like most people with inflammatory arthritis. The days a feel normal are the days I want to climb on a bike and go for a ride. I'm not ready for a placard just like I'm not ready to retire to a rocking chair but I sure as heck can't do the things that were easy a few years ago. I think the one thing I have come to understand is disabilities whether mild or severe come in many forms. Technology like these e-assist bikes will help people stay active.


Fair enough; on your good days go riding---bad days enjoy the rocker. If you don't need crutches you don't need an e-bike to get out.

BTW I'm early-to-mid sixties and there's a lot of stuff I can't do like I used to do. Just called getting old. A natural process I have come to understand.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

KrankedBikes said:


> Sorry for the length!!!


I'll be brief. You offer up a big jug of e-bike Kool-Aid and no thank you.

If range is what you're after then let's start pushing for hybrid bikes; gas/electric so to speak. A 2-wheeled Prius for the woods. For marketing purposes we won't say "gas/electric"; it'll be "bio-fuel/electric".

Noise? No problem; just lock out the ICE in "quiet zones" like wilderness areas and go battery-only pedal-assist until the other side.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

Axe said:


> Situation will get better once people start assessing actual impact, not imaginary ideological cherry picked definitions.
> I am not pro e-bike. I am anti ideological and unsubstantiated reasoning to exclude them, as I believe it will come right back at regular mtb. Because they look and behave the same. Unlike motorcycles. And yes, it is quite easy to draw a line - wattage and weight.


How long has it taken for actual impact to be assessed for MTB? They've got a motor. That is not imaginary, idealogical, nor cherry picked. There is no reason for MTB access to take backwards steps by being associated with this new type of machine. Will that happen for sure? I don't know. These things need to be classified and regulated separately. If it turns out that their impact and acceptance is the same as MTB, then that's ok too. I am not anti e-bike either but rather I am pro access, specifically MTB access. I am not going to fight electric bike access but I will oppose their classification as bicycles.


----------



## delquattro (Mar 19, 2005)

It is unfortunate that some can't distinguish between a 1000 watt e-assist pedal bike, and a 20hp, smelly, smoky, noisy, internal combustion engined motorcycle.

With the advent of e-shift from Shimano, it is unfortunate that Luddites want to interfere with the possible evolution, as technology advances, that would allow the crank set to be replaced with a generator, the chain with wires, and the rear cassette with a hub motor, or for AWD/FWD, a front and/or rear hub.


----------



## delquattro (Mar 19, 2005)

Duplicate post. Can't figure out how to delete.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Axe said:


> We have plenty of room in California for this.


Not in populated areas - we're pretty full on the weekends, especially in tourist traps like Marin. I know great places in the Sierra where anything goes.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

KrankedBikes said:


> but I maintain that _you_ really have nothing to fear.


Just to clarify, the "you" to whom you refer is not "me." I have expressed no fear concerning erosion, overuse, crowding or the like. I have expressed no hate nor have I been derisive.

I have expressed the determination that mountain bikes not be identified with motorized bikes out of concern for the political reprocussions in our area which I know far better than you.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

delquattro said:


> ...it is unfortunate that Luddites want to interfere with the possible evolution, as technology advances, that would allow the crank set to be replaced with a generator, the chain with wires, and the rear cassette with a hub motor, or for AWD/FWD, a front and/or rear hub.


I've already mocked up just such a set up; even though the efficiency of electronics has gotten better, the simple roller chain @ +/- 98% is hard to beat. Take some really great electronics with the components (generator/controller/motor) all at 95% and the overall efficiency is now down to 87%.

The AWD + infinite transmission options makes it very enticing though.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

delquattro said:


> It is unfortunate that some can't distinguish between a 1000 watt e-assist pedal bike, and a 20hp, smelly, smoky, noisy, internal combustion engined motorcycle.
> 
> With the advent of e-shift from Shimano, it is unfortunate that Luddites want to interfere with the possible evolution, as technology advances, that would allow the crank set to be replaced with a generator, the chain with wires, and the rear cassette with a hub motor, or for AWD/FWD, a front and/or rear hub.


 But why stop there?

Let's put on a fairing, possibly even a low wind resistance enclosure - to increase efficiency. And when that enclosure traps heat, we can add air conditioning.

And for those not ready for two wheels and balancing, we can offer a 4 wheel version.

And since these trails can be rough and rocky, we should have a 4WD version as well.

I envision MTB's of the future will look just like this!


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I have expressed the determination that mountain bikes not be identified with motorized bikes out of concern for the political reprocussions in our area which I know far better than you.


 This.


----------



## Entrenador (Oct 8, 2004)

Yes, I've ridden one. And I was able to climb uphill faster than I could do without a motor and battery.

Yes, I sound like a HOHA when I say "Keep that sh#t off my trail." So what? Should I be better than that? We argue for what we want on our trails, just like the other user groups. I'm in favor of promoting electric assisted bicycles as a form of transportation where motorized vehicles are allowed. Sell the fnck out of them, please. I am also in favor of excluding electric assisted bicycles / mopeds from trails that prohibit motorized vehicles for recreational purposes. I am in no way, shape or form, in favor of opening trails / changing regulations to allow electric assist bikes.

My dogma: Climbing hills is and should be work. To me, this is sacred to the sport. Technology improves and our ability to climb improves: lighter bikes, better traction, diet research, epo!, etc. With all of the non-motor related technological gains made, climbing speeds have only increased modestly. Follow it out to the end of potential and we have uber-fit riders crushing climbs on sub-16lb bikes. Awesome, I applaud. In the end they are only climbing a few mph faster than the Cat 2 guy doing his weekend ride. Without a motor, the fastest riders are already very near the limit of their performance potential. This is what I'm used to seeing on the trails, and I'm happy with it as is.

Motors will change this sport for the worse. Lots of claims here stating otherwise, so call me stubborn; I like it how it is. Thanks but no thanks.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I have expressed the determination that mountain bikes not be identified with motorized bikes out of concern for the political reprocussions in our area which I know far better than you.


Yes, exactly! ^^


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I have expressed the determination that mountain bikes not be identified with motorized bikes out of concern for the political reprocussions in our area which I know far better than you.


Problem with this stance is every non-mountain biker is going to identify eMTBs as bicycles, regardless of the distance anyone wants to keep.

Fictional conversation at a trailhead parking lot:

Hiker: "A mountain biker flew by me back there! I had to jump out of the way! I was almost severely injured!"

Mountain Biker: "It was obviously an e-biker. They aren't mountain biking."

Hiker: "A what? It was a mountain biker! I know what a mountain bike looks like!"

Mountain Biker: "It has an electric motor on it. It's basically a motorcycle. It's not even legal here."

Hiker: "It was definitely a mountain bike!"

Mountain Biker: "No, all mountain bikers are courteous. Since e-bikers are not mountain biking, we don't teach them trail courtesy... because we don't want to be seen or identified with them. I shouldn't have even mentioned the e-word. Please don't tell my people."

Hiker: "What? Most mountain bikers aren't courteous! I'm telling this Ranger here!"

Ranger: "This is becoming a problem. 12th complaint this week. This is a non-motorized trail system. We can't tell the difference between real and motorized bikes either. We need to revisit allowing wheeled vehicles in this park."

Hiker: "Yes! Finally a bike-free park experience!"

Mountain Biker to Ranger: "But, but, but.... THEY AREN'T MOUNTAIN BIKES!!!"


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

An interesting assumption with many slim conditions, not necessarily supportable, that describes a possible universe.

That might have _some_ traction if we, as human powered cyclists, were perfect. The real problem is too much speed and a lack of consideration for other trail users, regardless of how the bicycle is powered.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Berkeley Mike said:


> The real problem is too much speed and a lack of consideration for other trail users, regardless of how the bicycle is powered.


Thank you for finally saying it.


----------



## KrankedBikes (Apr 26, 2015)

Empty_Beer said:


> Problem with this stance is every non-mountain biker is going to identify eMTBs as bicycles, regardless of the distance anyone wants to keep.
> 
> Fictional conversation at a trailhead parking lot:


Hiker: "A mountain biker flew by me back there! I had to jump out of the way! I was almost severely injured...were they with you?"

Mountain Biker: "Sorry I didn't see anyone else on the trail but I'm going to make a huge assumption here, and blame on that new E-Bike crowd, because it's always them, they're not real bikers, I HATE THEM, WE HATE THEM AGHHHHH."

Hiker: "Er.....Who's we?"

Mountain Biker: "US...THE REAL, REAL BIKERS!"

Hiker: "Well these were young lads riding, I've seen an e-bike its pretty easy to recognize, it is like every other mountain bike with a small electric motor, when their pedalling you can even hear it which helps as you know they are coming."

Mountain Biker: "NO, NO NO NO....it couldn't possibly be a real biker, we don't do that, all mountain bikers are courteous, hard rugged individuals who wouldn't dream of using an e-bike, OR BEHAVING LIKE THAT! Right, I might even sleep on the trail head tonight to catch these scallywag e-bikers, how dare they ride on this public trail system."

Hiker: "Have you been drinking? er...bye"

Ranger: "This is becoming a problem. We have really nice folks riding bikes considerately here, but like everywhere there is the odd idiot who rides without a thought for anyone else, but lately a few people have been ranting and raving about this other group using pedal assist bikes, being rude and blaming them for everything. They've been no trouble at all actually, in fact I'm saving for one as I don't have a great deal of time to ride myself"

Hiker: "Yes! Sounds like a good idea....that guy did seem a little paranoid?!"

Mountain Biker arrives...ranting to Ranger: "But, but, but.... I AM REAL BIKER, WITH A REAL BIKE, LOOK AT MY BIKE, LOOK AT MY SHIRT,!!"

RANGER: "Hello 911 we've got another one...."


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Great stuff, Krank!


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

KrankedBikes said:


> Hiker: "A mountain biker flew by me back there! I had to jump out of the way! I was almost severely injured...were they with you?"
> 
> Mountain Biker: "Nope, have a good one"


Fixed that for ya


----------



## NekoPlasmid (Apr 24, 2015)

I actually sold my 2003 GSX-R600 with plans to buy a montainbike and use it as my main transportation. I just finished purchasing a Goblin Evo but I had/have a strong interest in the electric scene and love what tesla is doing. I stumbled on these(Haibike) bikes after some random YouTube viewing and I have to say I am dam impressed. This is the type of set up I was hoping to find back when I first did research on what the market had. They are absolutely beautiful in form and function from what I can tell and would buy if I could now.


----------



## KrankedBikes (Apr 26, 2015)

Buzzaro said:


> Fixed that for ya


haha brilliant


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Axe said:


> ...And yes, it is quite easy to draw a line - wattage and weight.


How would you regulate that wattage and weight line? Would rangers carry around equipment to test the wattage and a scale to weight it? What about some sort of dynamometer to test power output?

Who is going to pay for that equipment and training on how to use it?

Also, how would that work? Would they stop every ebike they see on the trail to test it for wattage and power? How long does it take to test the wattage and power? Is this a valuable use of rangers time and the tax payers dollar?

Answers to those questions are a lot more complicated than you let on.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

singletrackmack said:


> How would you regulate that wattage and weight line?


The exact same way multitude of similar regulations are enforced. You can not buy it in a store if it is does not meet the criteria. It works.

Yes, some people will hack it. Just like people hack cars. But there are few of them and they are already doing it anyway..


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Maybe if they have enough e-bike problems and politically connected hikers complain enough, they'll just ban all bikes.


----------



## GoGoGordo (Jul 16, 2006)

NekoPlasmid said:


> I actually sold my 2003 GSX-R600 with plans to buy a montainbike and use it as my main transportation. I just finished purchasing a Goblin Evo but I had/have a strong interest in the electric scene and love what tesla is doing. I stumbled on these(Haibike) bikes after some random YouTube viewing and I have to say I am dam impressed. This is the type of set up I was hoping to find back when I first did research on what the market had. They are absolutely beautiful in form and function from what I can tell and would buy if I could now.


Haibike

Now yer talkin!!!!


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

iheartbicycles said:


> But why stop there?
> 
> Let's put on a fairing, possibly even a low wind resistance enclosure - to increase efficiency. And when that enclosure traps heat, we can add air conditioning.
> 
> ...


TWEET! Flag on the play, 20 yard penalty for using a google-able logical fallacy: Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Darn right - the next step up is a dirt bike, not a jeep. Come on.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

Axe said:


> The exact same way multitude of similar regulations are enforced. You can not buy it in a store if it is does not meet the criteria. It works.
> 
> Yes, some people will hack it. Just like people hack cars. But there are few of them and they are already doing it anyway..


Exactly. There's always going to be the odd person who breaks the rules. Shoot, people poach non-motorized trails on motos now, some mountain bikers ride illegal trails, people hiking walk off trail and cows have no respect for keeping off freshly groomed trails when they are wet. All those are outliers though and you can't base your argument around them.


----------



## 779334 (Oct 10, 2014)

I am pedalling uphill, suffering, sweating, and exhausted. About to reach the top. An ebike just passes me like he's going downhill...how will most people feel? "That's not fair! I have to work hard for a nice payoff going downhill, while some guys are grinnnig both ways."

The truth is, you can't really compete with an ebike while going uphill. Oh well....

I am not against them, but neither am I inclined into buying one. I enjoy pedaling and challenging myself.

What I am gaining?
>Endurance
>Physique
>Fat burning
>A healthier me

What are they gaining?
>Fat
>More miles per ride maybe

In the end, maybe ebikes should have ebike designated trails? Either way, they don't bother me. If there will be a market, ebikes will sell and people will ride them, regardless of how "real bikers" feel. That's just business.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

People constantly hop-up cars and remove smog equipment and such. The same thing will happen with e-bikes. Look at the videos put out by some of the companies now. These bikes don't just cater to cripples - they cater to young guys that want to go fast and for whatever reason can't handle a real dirt bike. If this were merely about old people getting a boast, it wouldn't be an issue. This will be a disaster for access.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

SS Hack said:


> People constantly hop-up cars and remove smog equipment and such. The same thing will happen with e-bikes. Look at the videos put out by some of the companies now. These bikes don't just cater to cripples - they cater to young guys that want to go fast and for whatever reason can't handle a real dirt bike. If this were merely about old people getting a boast, it wouldn't be an issue. This will be a disaster for access.


The people that take hopped up over powered ebikes out on trails that limit motor size and power output are going to be the same people that take ebikes out on trails that ban ebikes.

Those dudes are going to do douchey illegal stuff no matter what.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

ziscwg said:


> yeah, because getting first in transition stages gets you on the podium..........
> 
> I just can't any advantage in an enduro race unless some of the timed stages had a few notable uphills.


There is a huge advantage from reaching the top with far less fatigue. That's somewhat countered by the fact that you're downhilling with a much heavier bike, but, many Enduro riders are used to that since they usually ride a lot of full DH too.


----------



## NekoPlasmid (Apr 24, 2015)

Being I plan to use my bike as most people use their cars, I've seen trailers attached to bikes, an electric motor should help with whatever I decide to put back there. I traveled between towns with my last bike for exercise and what have you, now I would be able to buy more groceries coming back  My backpack was ok as I used that when I had my motorcycle, and tied lighter stuff to the hooks inside my trunk on the non muffler side, but still seems like a plus to me. My back was not happy with the 40 minute grocery runs but riding in freazing cold, rain, and fog was never "fun"....


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

Procter said:


> There is a huge advantage from reaching the top with far less fatigue. That's somewhat countered by the fact that you're downhilling with a much heavier bike, but, many Enduro riders are used to that since they usually ride a lot of full DH too.


I could see that advantage, but at that point it starts to become DH racing with lift runs to the top, not riding. Part of what makes enduro different is the fact that you have to have a bike that can make the climbs without exhausting you.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I know far better than you.


The crux of your argument. Good luck with it.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

ziscwg said:


> I could see that advantage, but at that point it starts to become DH racing with lift runs to the top, not riding. Part of what makes enduro different is the fact that you have to have a bike that can make the climbs without exhausting you.


This was covered a couple pages ago...



Empty_Beer said:


> There was an e-bike category at an enduro race in the UK.
> Enduro Night Race at Forest of Dean 7-2-2015 - Mini Enduro - Mini Enduro
> 
> And you are correct... the results show quite a few faster guys on regular bikes:
> http://my1.raceresult.com/34866/RRP...|NE Results List (portrait)&contest=1&lang=en


6 starters, 2 DNFs, and 1 that sucked  E-bikes vs. E-bikes. Who cares? Plenty of real MTB's had faster times than fastest e-biker, in this case.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

bdamschen said:


> TWEET! Flag on the play, 20 yard penalty for using a google-able logical fallacy: Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


lemme guess, your browser doesn't support sarcasm font?


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

ziscwg said:


> I could see that advantage, but at that point it starts to become DH racing with lift runs to the top, not riding. Part of what makes enduro different is the fact that you have to have a bike that can make the climbs without exhausting you.





Empty_Beer said:


> This was covered a couple pages ago...
> 
> Yeah, but no one listens to me. I fired the OP, but the thread exploded into 3 pages of access issues and "fairness" of ebike racing.
> 
> Can't we talk about mtb and boobies instead??


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

ziscwg said:


> Can't we talk about mtb and boobies instead??


Those are fBoobies.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

Axe said:


> We have plenty of room in California for this.


It really depends on where you ride. For example, at Skeggs, Resolution, Giant Salamander or Manzanita frequently get very packed on your typical Saturday morning or at the after work hour during the riding season. Likewise, Waterdog is too packed on a Saturday morning to ride at the normal pace safely, you really have to slow it down (below the 15mph speed limit), and there's a lot of waiting for folks passing both ways.



Axe said:


> The exact same way multitude of similar regulations are enforced. You can not buy it in a store if it is does not meet the criteria. It works.


We can't expect the industry to regulate itself w.r.t. wattage, nor can we expect legislative wattage limits to work. Stores will happily sell bikes which exceed those wattage limits, since they will all be legal _somewhere_, whether that's some trails, or just OHV parks, or even just pavement. Stores and manufacturers don't care. Already there are bolt-on kits of various wattages, that will continue to expand. So, yes, agree with the previous poster, its impractical to think rangers can effectively enforce wattage limits.

Side note, I think I'll go buy a run of '300W' stickers and sell them to ebikers online. They will be an easy sell.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Mr.P said:


> Those are fBoobies.


As opposed to nBoobies?


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Procter said:


> It really depends on where you ride. For example, at Skeggs, Resolution, Giant Salamander or Manzanita frequently get very packed on your typical Saturday morning or at the after work hour during the riding season. Likewise, Waterdog is too packed on a Saturday morning to ride at the normal pace safely, you really have to slow it down (below the 15mph speed limit), and there's a lot of waiting for folks passing both ways.


Your definition of packed is quite different from those who lived in an actual urban environment.

Get a little bit further, there is nobody. There is plenty of space. Waterdog is my backyard - I would not mind more people there at all. Place is deserted most of the time. But yes, keeping it in control on all those blind turns will help. And ebikes will have nothing new to do with that.

And there is certainly a LOT of space for new legal trails - if there is enough people pushing for it. Like opening water lands (https://www.facebook.com/opentheSFwatershed) or all the other parks. Skeggs is busy because nothing else is open. Nothing else is open because not enough people ask for it to get around foothills pony lobby.



Procter said:


> We can't expect the industry to regulate itself w.r.t. wattage, nor can we expect legislative wattage limits to work.


Of course we don't. Regulators will do it for them. DOT already has rules what constitutes an e-bike.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

Axe said:


> The exact same way multitude of similar regulations are enforced. You can not buy it in a store if it is does not meet the criteria. It works.





Axe said:


> Of course we don't. Regulators will do it for them. DOT already has rules what constitutes an e-bike.


How will regulators stop stores from selling bikes which are perfectly legal on places like pavement and OHV trails, but illegal on some other trails, with wattage limits varying by locality/trail/etc. That doesn't work.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Procter said:


> How will regulators stop stores from selling bikes which are perfectly legal on places like pavement and OHV trails, but illegal on some other trails, with wattage limits varying by locality/trail/etc. That doesn't work.


Of course it does. Just have a sensible standard that everybody uses. Not that hard, just agree on wattage number.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

ziscwg said:


> Can't we talk about mtb and boobies instead??


Wait... are those real boobies?? Cause if they are artificially enhanced boobies, they have no place on this thread. But maybe pliebenberg should make a poll to decide if fake boobies should be here....


----------



## O5-KR (May 15, 2012)

Mmmmnnnn, 29ers me thinks


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Axe said:


> The crux of your argument. Good luck with it.


Axe, you _know_ that is taking things out of context. I said that to a North Van rider about our area.

If you want to discuss and disagree, then okay, but distortion helps nothing.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

iheartbicycles said:


> lemme guess, your browser doesn't support sarcasm font?


That is correct.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

Mr.P said:


> Those are fBoobies.


You know, I am not sure if you are right.

You and I are going to have to feel them to know for sure.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Axe, you _know_ that is taking things out of context.


I have done that for a rhetorical emphasis, solely in the context of the current discussion and some previous arguments presented. I do know who you are and what you have done and I have a great deal of respect for that, with no ifs or buts. 
But rhetorical embellishments or not, I do still mean that point. I think you do assume a bit much on this particular issue.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I don't care why you re doing it, it is clear misattribution of my words and a misuse of information.

Again, we disagree. North Van, Greater Vancouver being essentially an economic island surrounded by trees, is not Sf Bay area with its incumbent stresses for access and usage. 

This sort of thing has been discussed in this forum for years with respect to lots of input form places with lower population densities, greater open spaces, and a disposition begging for economic attractions.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

Procter said:


> It really depends on where you ride. For example, at Skeggs, Resolution, Giant Salamander or Manzanita frequently get very packed on your typical Saturday morning or at the after work hour during the riding season. Likewise, Waterdog is too packed on a Saturday morning to ride at the normal pace safely, you really have to slow it down (below the 15mph speed limit), and there's a lot of waiting for folks passing both ways.


To add - Emma McCrary saw 60 riders per hour according to the traffic monitor out there on one particular weekend day, presumably most of those heading up U-Conn into UCSC...and it wasn't the SCMtB festival day, either! So, I bring this up because I'm not being hyperbolic or elitist or exclusionary or making up the whole crowding argument. Yes it's great, and something to celebrate. Hopefully the data can be used to say, "Hey, look - we need more places for mountain bikes." And it probably will. But the situation here is already ridiculous and given the rate of new trail mileage opening up, it's just going to get more ridiculous if we add a whole other group of users.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> This sort of thing has been discussed in this forum for years with respect to lots of input form places with lower population densities, greater open spaces, and a disposition begging for economic attractions.


You just assume and state for an indisputable fact that lack of trails and resources is somehow an inherent and unmovable problem here. It is not. It is entirely man made. There should be more then enough space for all kind of use, if there is political will to use it. Thousand humans per square mile is not that prohibitive, especially given the amount of open and undeveloped space.


----------



## NekoPlasmid (Apr 24, 2015)

How do trails get made? Can a couple of guys with some shovels say ask if they can make a trial at the town hall? I know I would go out there and help out for free...


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Axe said:


> The exact same way multitude of similar regulations are enforced. You can not buy it in a store if it is does not meet the criteria. It works...


Oh yeah, that makes total sense. I am sure the government will get right ontop of that. We all know republicans love to add more regulations for businesses right? And ofcoarse democrats would do anything they could to make it more difficult for people to buy an electric vehicle. Also, don't forget about all those state and local governments who are allways looking for ways to prevent people from using alternate forms of transportation for getting to work and around town which god forbid might ease traffic congestion.

Oh, wait I may have got some of that wrong. In fact, the more you think about your suggestion for regulating an electric mountain bike on trails the more ridiculous and unrealistic it sounds.

Your forgetting that the most popular use, and probably the only real use, for an electric bike is for transportation, not recreation. I do not see any good reason why any government agency would ever create a regulation for buying an electric bike that would make using one for transportation more difficult.

So really, how would you regulate electric mountain bikes trail access? Because regulating what type can or cannot be purchased will clearly never happen.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

^ Whoa! Draft regulation/legislation?

Bill Text - AB-1096 Vehicles: electric bicycles.

Previous AB875 was pulled because it was somewhat redundant to this one... which is still alive.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

singletrackmack said:


> Oh yeah, that makes total sense.


Yes, it does. Unlike haughty political ranting it does in fact make complete sense.

What makes it particularly funny is that you rant against government regulation on vehicle type in favor of government regulations prohibiting that said vehicle type on trails...


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Empty_Beer said:


> ^ Whoa! Draft regulation/legislation?
> 
> Bill Text - AB-1096 Vehicles: electric bicycles.
> 
> Previous AB875 was pulled because it was somewhat redundant to this one... which is still alive.


Three classes seems a bit complicated:



> 312.5. (a) An "electric bicycle" is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts.
> (1) A "class 1 electric bicycle," or "low-speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle," is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
> (2) A "class 2 electric bicycle," or "low-speed throttle-assisted electric bicycle," is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.
> (3) A "class 3 electric bicycle," or "speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle," is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour, and equipped with a speedometer.
> ...


They need to figure it out on the federal level anyway. They will.

The interesting proposed bit - part b:



> 21207.5. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 21207 and 23127 of this code, or any other provision of law, a motorized bicycle or class 3 electric bicycle shall not be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, unless it is within or adjacent to a roadway or unless the local authority or the governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over the path or trail permits, by ordinance, that operation.
> (b) The local authority or governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over a bicycle path or trail, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, may prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle on that path or trail.


Suggestion is that faster e-bikes are prohibited unless permitted, and slow ones may be prohibited by ordinance.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Empty_Beer said:


> ^ Whoa! Draft regulation/legislation?
> 
> Bill Text - AB-1096 Vehicles: electric bicycles.
> 
> Previous AB875 was pulled because it was somewhat redundant to this one... which is still alive.


Nice find empty. Really glade to see the following in the bill:

"The local authority or governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over a bicycle path or trail, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, may prohibit by ordinance the operation of a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle on that path or trail"

Looks like this change will ensure that this bill will not be able to allow electric bicycles on trails already designated as non-mortorized vehicle trials since there are local ordinances in place to prevent motorized vehicles on those trails. Those ordinances state "no motorized vehicles", that is as black an white as can be as far as to the question of will electric bikes be allowed on these trails. That's pretty awesome!


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

Empty_Beer said:


> ^ Whoa! Draft regulation/legislation?
> 
> Bill Text - AB-1096 Vehicles: electric bicycles.
> 
> Previous AB875 was pulled because it was somewhat redundant to this one... which is still alive.


Wait, you and Axe seem to be missing the point. Myself and others said rangers won't be able to validate whether they conform, on the trail. In answer to that, Axe said, well, that's simple, stores won't sell bikes that don't conform. But the legislation won't do that. It merely defines an ebike, for the purposes of access on bike trails and other paths. It didn't say anything about restricting the _ sale _ of anything.

Also, while this bill is pretty restrictive on access, there are are other policies in the mix, like the midpen one, which allow access under ADA. It remains to be seen how all those work out together.

If we get to a place where some e bikes are allowed in trails, but under certain wattage limits and max speed, it's not very enforceable. Manufacturers will be able to make bikes that exceed the specs on the official definition (750 watts), and people will buy them. They may not be officially ebikes, but rangers won't be able to judge power, max speed and other characteristics on trail. Stickers? I'll make you some stickers in a few min with photoshop and my laser printer.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Procter said:


> Wait, you and Axe seem to be missing the point. Myself and others said rangers won't be able to validate whether they conform, on the trail. In answer to that, Axe said, well, that's simple, stores won't sell bikes that don't conform. But the legislation won't do that. It merely defines an ebike, for the purposes of access on bike trails and other paths. It didn't say anything about restricting the _ sale _ of anything. Manufacturers will be able to make bikes that exceed the specs on the official definition (750 watts), and people will buy them. They may not be officially ebikes, but rangers won't be able to judge power, max speed and other characteristics on trail.


Where did we say that this particular proposed legislation does prohibit anything? We said that one may be written that does, and first step is to define what we are talking about.

This particular one explicitly establishes wattage and speed limits and establishes certification. Good first step. Even that will discourage mass production and sale of non-conforming equipment. Most people, surprisingly, do follow rules.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

tahoebeau said:


> Those ordinances state "no motorized vehicles", that is as black an white as can be as far as to the question of will electric bikes be allowed on these trails.


That legislation states: "An "electric bicycle" is a bicycle". Not a moped, motorcycle or other motorized vehicle.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Empty_Beer said:


> ^ Whoa! Draft regulation/legislation?
> 
> Bill Text - AB-1096 Vehicles: electric bicycles.
> 
> Previous AB875 was pulled because it was somewhat redundant to this one... which is still alive.


Well foot in my mouth. Thanks for posting empty beer, I had no idea about this bill.



tahoebeau said:


> Nice find empty. Really glade to see the following in the bill:
> 
> "The local authority or governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over a bicycle path or trail, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, may prohibit by ordinance the operation of a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle on that path or trail"
> 
> Looks like this change will ensure that this bill will not be able to allow electric bicycles on trails already designated as non-mortorized vehicle trials since there are local ordinances in place to prevent motorized vehicles on those trails. Those ordinances state "no motorized vehicles", that is as black an white as can be as far as to the question of will electric bikes be allowed on these trails. That's pretty awesome!


It's also really good to see that the bill goes out of its way to define ebikes as either a "motorized bicycle" or " moped" which further clears up that they will not be allowed on trails that already restrict access to motorized vehicles. Guess I should have more faith in the good old government. That should make it very easy for rangers to regulate, like you said, black and white.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

Axe, you said



Axe said:


> You can not buy it in a store if it is does not meet the criteria. It works.


The legislation defines an ebike as 750 watts. But you can still sell anything you want, it's just not an ebike. Rangers won't be able to evaluate them and tell the difference. Manufacturer stickers won't work, they're fakeable.

midpen published an ebike draft which allows them with certain characteristics, and does not require proof of disability on the trail

http://forums.mtbr.com/california-norcal/midpen-speaks-out-e-bikes-disabilities-962447.html

"OPDMDs are not permitted on the following:
1. Narrow width unpaved (e.g., unpaved trails that are generally less than 10
feet wide) except for electric powered bicycles which may go where 
bicycles are allowed. "

And:

"In lieu of a valid, state‐issued disability parking placard or card, or state‐issued proof of disability, the District shall accept as a credible assurance a verbal representation, not contradicted by observable fact, that the OPDMD is being used for a mobility disability."


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Procter said:


> Axe, you said
> 
> The legislation defines an ebike as 750 watts. But you can still sell anything you want, it's just not an ebike. Rangers won't be able to evaluate them and tell the difference. Manufacturer stickers won't work, they're fakeable.


"The" legislation is one particular proposal. Adopting it does not preclude any other legislation from being proposed and adopted - which is what I have actually suggested.

The point is, it is possible, and it will work, but for a few scofflaws. Given the liability climate in CA, no sane store will sell non-conforming products for long.

As for the proof of disability, they can not require one by ADA. But if you lie to law enforcement, that is a much more serious crime than just riding some contraption on a trail. Don't think too may people will risk that.

P.S. Unsubscribing. Enough bickering here, it does not matter anyway.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Axe said:


> That legislation states: "An "electric bicycle" is a bicycle". Not a moped, motorcycle or other motorized vehicle.


First off, the bill is named "AB-1096 *Vehicles*: electric bicycles" so that clears up the question as to whether or not electric bicycles are legally considered a "vehicle".

Second, the bill states word for word: "an electric bicycle is a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals *and an electric motor* of less than 750 watts"

Since the ebike is technically a "vehicle" and is "equipped with an electric motor" it is therefore a motorized vehicle and not allowed on trails that have ordinances restricting access to motorized vehicles. Not sure how you are confused by that.:skep:

You can try to spin it all you want, but that is as black and white as it can get. The bill does not allow access of electric bicycles on trails that prohibit motorized vehicles.



singletrackmack said:


> Well foot in my mouth. Thanks for posting empty beer, I had no idea about this bill.
> 
> It's also really good to see that the bill goes out of its way to define ebikes as either a "motorized bicycle" or " moped" which further clears up that they will not be allowed on trails that already restrict access to motorized vehicles. Guess I should have more faith in the good old government. That should make it very easy for rangers to regulate, like you said, black and white.


They bill is attempting to regulate ebikes and motorized bikes/mopeds, but defines them a little different it looks like.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

The proposed law sounds good to me albeit somewhat complicated. Works around many of the issues they're having in Europe right now. Doesn't really address DIY e-bikes from kits; that bridge will probably be crossed if it becomes an issue.

Really obvious Big S had a lobbyist at the table; that Class 3 describes their Turbo S to a "T")

Like the way it mandates helmets for Class 3 and the age limit.

Also pleased with the "twist and go" being Class 2 and having the same freedoms as the Class 1. And having 3x the power as most of Europe. Fat people won't have a reason to complain.

The "25 words or less" is "Classes 1 and 2 e-bikes are permitted on California trails unless locally prohibited and Class 3 are prohibited unless locally permitted".


----------



## DannyvG (Apr 21, 2014)

pliebenberg said:


> Works around many of the issues they're having in Europe right now.
> 
> And having 3x the power as most of Europe.


What problems in Europe?
Also the power limit in Europe is 250W continuous power is around 750W peak power so the power limits are similar.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

DannyvG said:


> What problems in Europe?
> Also the power limit in Europe is 250W continuous power is around 750W peak power so the power limits are similar.


The European standard isn't very standard. Google it.

We're looking at 750 continuous for California; who knows what peak power we'll be able to cheat with.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

pliebenberg said:


> The "25 words or less" is "Classes 1 and 2 e-bikes are permitted on California trails unless locally prohibited and Class 3 are prohibited unless locally permitted".


More importantly it considers an ebike as a "vehicle" and defines it as one that has a "motor". And as you pointed out it gives local authorities the power to prohibit them on trails through ordinances. So if there is an ordinance prohibiting the use of a motor vehicle on a specific trail, then ebikes, regardless of their class, will also be prohibited.


----------

