# Forest Service shifting gears on ebikes



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

https://cara.ecosystem-management.o...ZRm1wQaZcKgGW0EU4snrImRCHPRpZbLQ_wmnRcblcgFjI

Send in your comments by 10/26

3. Specific Criterion for Trails. In addition to the general and specific criteria in FSM 7715.5, paragraphs 1 and 2, consider and document existing Trail Management Objectives (TMOs) before making designations of motor vehicle use under Subpart B or OSV use under Subpart C that would add vehicle classes on NFS trails. 4. Specific Criteria and Guidance for Designating E-Bike Use on Trails. In addition to the general and specific criteria in FSM 7715.5, paragraphs 1 through 3, when designating trails for e-bike use (FSM 7705), consider and document the following: a. Whether and the extent to which the trails are managed for bicycle use or bicycle use is allowed (FSM 7705) under the applicable TMOs. b. For trails that are managed for bicycle use or where bicycle use is allowed, the extent to which effects from e-bike use are comparable to effects from existing bicycle use, accounting for, as appropriate, differences in speed; potential effects from increased or concentrated use; and any site-specific considerations. c. Whether a programmatic environmental analysis may be feasible and more efficient due to similarities in effects of bicycle use and e-bike use. Consider designating a class or classes of e-bike use, as appropriate, on NFS trails managed for bicycle use or where bicycle use is allowed, where effects from e-bike use would be comparable to effects from bicycle use. E-bikes are not allowed on a National Scenic Trail unless a regulatory exception authorized by the National Trails System Act is met or there is an exception in the enabling legislation for the trail.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Done!

.


----------



## bertschb (Sep 18, 2020)

I added my comments as well. Thanks for letting us know about this.


----------



## tinfang (Sep 2, 2019)

Wish more people would comment on this. It's really important to voice a desire to ride class 1's in USFS trails.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

Done! I took the time to read some of the responses. It's actually quite fascinating. On balance, those who are favorable to eBikes on these trails took the time to state a reason and provide some justification. Those who are opposed generally just said "they shouldn't be allowed". Idiots. I hope we prevail.


----------



## tinfang (Sep 2, 2019)

Thank you for your concern and for bringing this to our attention. The comment you see in Dave's name was not made by Dave and does not represent IMBA. It is fraudulent. We have contacted the Forest Service to have the comment removed.



IMBA supports trail access for Class 1 eMTBs and supports shared use on trails as long as access is not lost or impeded for traditional mountain bikes. IMBA recommends separate management and advocates for all local stakeholders to be involved in those management decisions. You can read our full position here: https://www.imba.com/education/emtb


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

The few morons I have run across on Es are new MTBers, it seems, Those who have been mountain biking for a while are great ambassadors of e-bikes. I'll sign.


----------



## mvray (Jul 26, 2007)

Done. Some of those comments are gold.


----------



## Dirtrider127 (Sep 17, 2010)

mvray said:


> Done. Some of those comments are gold.


^^^That is an understatement. Totally clueless folks just spewing hateful talking points and void of any knowledge of what an eBike is.

Thank you for the link. DONE


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

tinfang said:


> IMBA (International Mountain Biking Association) Executive Director Opposes EMTB's In USFS
> 
> I have asked for a refund of my membership. I suggest you do the same.
> 
> ...


What are the odds that's legit?

If it is, it's yet another reason IMBA hasn't seen any money from me, and won't going forward.

.


----------



## tinfang (Sep 2, 2019)

Thank you for your concern and for bringing this to our attention. The comment you see in Dave's name was not made by Dave and does not represent IMBA. It is fraudulent. We have contacted the Forest Service to have the comment removed.



IMBA supports trail access for Class 1 eMTBs and supports shared use on trails as long as access is not lost or impeded for traditional mountain bikes. IMBA recommends separate management and advocates for all local stakeholders to be involved in those management decisions. You can read our full position here: https://www.imba.com/education/emtb

Apparently it WAS NOT LEGIT.

I'll make a donation and sincere apologies.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

tinfang said:


> Thank you for your concern and for bringing this to our attention. The comment you see in Dave's name was not made by Dave and does not represent IMBA. It is fraudulent. We have contacted the Forest Service to have the comment removed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


After the way they stabbed the STC in the back, they'll never see another dime from me, unless maybe they reverse course on that issue, and there's a major change in their leadership and board of directors.

.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 7, 2007)

mvray said:


> Done. Some of those comments are gold.


Deadline is approaching. Please send in thoughtful comments.


----------



## Bikebox (Sep 30, 2020)

Done, 
wow, some of those comments... I didn't know that E-Bikes emit Noxious fumes and tear up the wilderness?? LOL


----------



## Bikebox (Sep 30, 2020)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/electr...allow-e-bikes-up-to-750w-with-exceptions/amp/
Yay


----------



## bertschb (Sep 18, 2020)

Wow! That was fast!!! I thought it was going to take months or years for a decision.

Wait, that's National Parks, not Forest Service.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Bikebox said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/electr...allow-e-bikes-up-to-750w-with-exceptions/amp/
> Yay


e-bikes will be allowed where traditional bikes are allowed, which is almost nowhere except paved roads in the National Park System.

.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

The OP survey specifically mentions National Forest in it


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

_CJ said:


> e-bikes will be allowed where traditional bikes are allowed, which is almost nowhere except paved roads in the National Park System.
> 
> .


Nope. You got the wrong survey here. The national park report to the interior secretary and this is already a given that you can ride pretty much anywhere pending final review. The national forest report to the usda and the comments are currently open to give ebike access to all trails allowed for bikes.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> Nope. You got the wrong survey here. The national park report to the interior secretary and this is already a given that you can ride pretty much anywhere pending final review. The national forest report to the usda and the comments are currently open to give ebike access to all trails allowed for bikes.


I was referencing the article linked a few posts above, about ebike access in National Parks. Notice the quote?

.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Only 689 comments so far. Kind of surprising. I figured the Wilder-nuts would be all over this, but it seems so far that most of the comments I've read are pro-ebike. I've been tempted to spread the word on this with a wider audience, but decided against it because it'll probably attract attention from undesirable commenters.

Could be that the anti's are holding their comments until the end. This is a common strategy for them in these processes, so that adversarial groups don't have time to rebut their comments.


.


----------



## Delta_kilo (Oct 30, 2006)

Done!


----------



## tinfang (Sep 2, 2019)

I would tell all of your friends to comment as well.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

I read a few this morning. Pro people seem to be reasonable. The anti's are overwhelmingly bonkers. One even said that if e-bike are allowed on non-motorized trails, "there will be violence!"

:eekster:

Hopefully they track down that one and keep an eye on them.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

_CJ said:


> I read a few this morning. Pro people seem to be reasonable. The anti's are overwhelmingly bonkers. One even said that if e-bike are allowed on non-motorized trails, "there will be violence!"
> 
> :eekster:
> 
> Hopefully they track down that one and keep an eye on them.


_CJ, where do you go to read the comments?

Thanks,


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

mtbbiker said:


> _CJ, where do you go to read the comments?
> 
> Thanks,


https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?project=ORMS-2619

.


----------



## HHL (Nov 24, 2004)

My evidence is only anecdotal. But it leads me to think that some trails will need more frequent inspection and maintenance with heavy ebike traffic. I think I am seeing bigger baby heads churned up and out at a greater frequency than I did pre-ebike on trails that get regular usage. With nearly a full horsepower on tap for some ebikes (4 x .25 hp roughly), this is predictable physics. Any plan to open trails to ebikes should have a mitigation plan in concert, and a way to pay for it. I think it is reasonable to position the destructive force of ebikes somewhere between mtb and moto. I have moutainbiked in every western state but maybe Nevada. I thank and applaud the local clubs and land managers that have made that possible. I hope the (young) ebike users will realize that they need to double down on commiting to trail health because of the added pressure on the trails. I am 68, thus, my body has adverse reactions to shovels of any kind, but I am more than happy to get involved in user fees, much as I do now for entry and camping in parks and forest. I have difficulty 'trusting" users to be involved and respectful of the land because of what we have seen when, for example, the US Gov was unfunded, leaving the parks and forest unregulated and unprotected. In California, it was not pretty. I have other thoughts about the increased head count on trails that ebikes will bring and the direction the parks will go if they witness degradation over time on some trails.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

HHL said:


> My evidence is only anecdotal. But it leads me to think that some trails will need more frequent inspection and maintenance with heavy ebike traffic. I think I am seeing bigger baby heads churned up and out at a greater frequency than I did pre-ebike on trails that get regular usage. With nearly a full horsepower on tap for some ebikes (4 x .25 hp roughly), this is predictable physics. Any plan to open trails to ebikes should have a mitigation plan in concert, and a way to pay for it. I think it is reasonable to position the destructive force of ebikes somewhere between mtb and moto. I have moutainbiked in every western state but maybe Nevada. I thank and applaud the local clubs and land managers that have made that possible. I hope the (young) ebike users will realize that they need to double down on commiting to trail health because of the added pressure on the trails. I am 68, thus, my body has adverse reactions to shovels of any kind, but I am more than happy to get involved in user fees, much as I do now for entry and camping in parks and forest. I have difficulty 'trusting" users to be involved and respectful of the land because of what we have seen when, for example, the US Gov was unfunded, leaving the parks and forest unregulated and unprotected. In California, it was not pretty. I have other thoughts about the increased head count on trails that ebikes will bring and the direction the parks will go if they witness degradation over time on some trails.


Respectfully, the incremental power is so marginal that I doubt any meaningful additional surface impact is likely. A strong rider on their own can make more instantaneous power than an average rider + an eMTB motor.

And 250 watts (the actual power to the ground) is roughly 1/3 of a HP. Compare that to the 30-50 horsepower that my dirt bike(s) make. Orders of magnitude different.

Obviously the laws of physics suggest that there would be some incremental impact - I'm merely suggesting that it would be negligible.


----------



## ruthabagah (Jun 4, 2018)

RickBullottaPA said:


> Respectfully, the incremental power is so marginal that I doubt any meaningful additional surface impact is likely. A strong rider on their own can make more instantaneous power than an average rider + an eMTB motor.
> 
> And 250 watts (the actual power to the ground) is roughly 1/3 of a HP. Compare that to the 30-50 horsepower that my dirt bike(s) make. Orders of magnitude different.
> 
> Obviously the laws of physics suggest that there would be some incremental impact - I'm merely suggesting that it would be negligible.


Here in Colorado where I ride, i can confirm that the studies / observation performed by the rangers have shown no additional trail damage due to heavy ebike usage. Som parks have seen a 4 fold increase in the number of ebike riders this year, but interestingly enough, not a massive increase in the number of riders. It is obvious that EMTB do not create new riders, existing riders switch to them when they can.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

ruthabagah said:


> Here in Colorado where I ride, i can confirm that the studies / observation performed by the rangers have shown no additional trail damage due to heavy ebike usage. Som parks have seen a 4 fold increase in the number of ebike riders this year, but interestingly enough, not a massive increase in the number of riders. It is obvious that EMTB do not create new riders, existing riders switch to them when they can.


To further this point, I sold my moto to buy an e-bike, and the impact on the motorized trails legal for e-bike use will be orders of magnitude less.

I also agree that e-mtbs aren't likely to significantly increase the total number of trail users. People aren't suddenly going to get off the couch and drop $4000+ on an e-mtb because it's easier to climb a hill. They're going to stay on the couch. The vast majority of new e-bike riders will be people who were already riding mountain bikes. Same riders, different bikes.

.


----------



## tinfang (Sep 2, 2019)

_CJ said:


> To further this point, I sold my moto to buy an e-bike, and the impact on the motorized trails legal for e-bike use will be orders of magnitude less.
> 
> I also agree that e-mtbs aren't likely to significantly increase the total number of trail users. People aren't suddenly going to get off the couch and drop $4000+ on an e-mtb because it's easier to climb a hill. They're going to stay on the couch. The vast majority of new e-bike riders will be people who were already riding mountain bikes. Same riders, different bikes.
> 
> .


I disagree. I did. In 2017 I was still gasping from quitting smoking and bought a full suspension Powerfly 8 because I figured pedal bob wouldn't be a thing. Then I rode it in the woods. The smells, the green, the earth. It was like being 11 again. I've spent quite a bit now on emtb's and regular mtb's and I still have breath problems but my strength and heart are in much better shape. 
Friends that I started riding with bought their own emtb's last year and now they are eying some for their kids. I think as the weight /power comes down a little and price we'll see more and more people riding. I think if they demo'd cheaper versions of the Levo SL in elementary schools we'd change the world.


----------



## HHL (Nov 24, 2004)

It is not obvious that emtb riders are merely a shift from mtb. Again, anecdotal evidence, but quad people who have never bought mtb are grabbing Levos, as are friends of emtb riders who have never looked at mtb as particularly anything but a lot of work. Many new riders go for the Levo over the Levo SL because they are not really interested in becoming accomplished mtbers, but because they can get the power and glory forever on something that can go up a hill at 20 mph, hanging with their bros without working too hard. Lots of bros are bringing in lots of newbs.

I wish someone who knows the physics of what they are talking about could weigh in on the power generated by a rider and a heavier object that multiplies that power, churning at greater velocity and rotational speed with knobs that are pulling up and pushing back on rough-edged rocks. Sure moto is much more destructive, due to the weight and the ability to dig a hole while remaining in place, or moving slowly forward. We have all seen the rooster tails in videos of moto. On top of that, with an electric motor, you get instant torque. Again, I'm just a lay person doing my own lay(zy) person observations, so physics experts?

I'm just interested in getting emtbers interested in some ownership of their effect on trails.

Oh, and concerning the effect on trails noted by rangers, remember that the parks were closed for a significant length of time (during the wet season in the mountains) over the last year and covid has increased ridership generally since then.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

RickBullottaPA said:


> Done! I took the time to read some of the responses. It's actually quite fascinating. On balance, those who are favorable to eBikes on these trails took the time to state a reason and provide some justification. Those who are opposed generally just said "they shouldn't be allowed". Idiots. I hope we prevail.


If someone doesn't share your opinion they are an idiot?

Not sure that logic adds up to much.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

mikesee said:


> If someone doesn't share your opinion they are an idiot?
> 
> Not sure that logic adds up to much.


Spouting misinformed information with no intentions of looking at actual data is pretty idiotic. Leaving it at "they shouldn't be allowed" with no reasoning as to why is pretty dumb too.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

HHL said:


> It is not obvious that emtb riders are merely a shift from mtb. Again, anecdotal evidence, but quad people who have never bought mtb are grabbing Levos, as are friends of emtb riders who have never looked at mtb as particularly anything but a lot of work. Many new riders go for the Levo over the Levo SL because they are not really interested in becoming accomplished mtbers, but because they can get the power and glory forever on something that can go up a hill at 20 mph, hanging with their bros without working too hard. Lots of bros are bringing in lots of newbs.
> 
> I wish someone who knows the physics of what they are talking about could weigh in on the power generated by a rider and a heavier object that multiplies that power, churning at greater velocity and rotational speed with knobs that are pulling up and pushing back on rough-edged rocks. Sure moto is much more destructive, due to the weight and the ability to dig a hole while remaining in place, or moving slowly forward. We have all seen the rooster tails in videos of moto. On top of that, with an electric motor, you get instant torque. Again, I'm just a lay person doing my own lay(zy) person observations, so physics experts?
> 
> ...


The weight of the bike itself isn't even worth considering. I don't have an e-bike but my bike is 32.5lbs while a typical e-bike seems to be about 45lbs That's only a 12.5 Lbs difference. I weigh 160lbs so should riders weighing more than 172.5lbs be banned?

750 watts is a pretty puny amount of power in terms of the mechanical grip needed to contain it. No one will be doing burn outs with it unless the wheel is pretty much unweighted where it can't do much damage without the friction of weight + sliding like skidding and poor riding technique does. I imagine tire choice, trail condition (wet) and riding style will have a drastically higher impact.

Low speed/high torque like climbing in granny gear probably has about the same scrubbing or pealing effect on the trail or worse than an e-bike maintaining momentum up a climb. How many times have you had a rock peal up out of the ground while grinding in a low gear on steep climbs? An e-bike with momentum would have rolled right over it instead of pealing it out of the ground.

You'll need a whole lot more than 750 watts to get up most climbs at 20mph.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Pro level rider + class 1 emtb = 10mph average uphill. All this nonsense about 20mph on climbs is ridiculous, and it's mostly coming from people who seem to think riding downhill entitles them to 30+mph speeds and the right of way.


----------



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

_CJ said:


> Pro level rider + class 1 emtb = 10mph average uphill.


Kind of depends on the hill eh? There's no need to be a pro ime, many systems deliver full assist with minimal effort.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> Kind of depends on the hill eh? There's no need to be a pro ime, many systems deliver full assist with minimal effort.


----------



## The Squeaky Wheel (Dec 30, 2003)

J.B. Weld said:


> Kind of depends on the hill eh? There's no need to be a pro ime, many systems deliver full assist with minimal effort.


Yes. E-bikes will deliver full assist with minimal effort. But speed is still limited.

Example, my YT assist cuts off at 18 mph. On flat terrain I can reach that speed on all modes (Eco,Trail, Turbo) with fairly mild rider-pedal effort. Of course, if my legs stop moving, so does the motor and the bike.

On steep trail climbs, eco doesn't do much at all. Trail mode takes the edge off. And I can perhaps hit 6-7 mph on turbo mode.

But it's worth noting that Turbo mode is really only applicable on open fire-road type terrain, as "turbo" torque renders the bike nearly unrideable in tech terrain where eco and trail modes are more suitable.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> Pro level rider + class 1 emtb = 10mph average uphill. All this nonsense about 20mph on climbs is ridiculous, and it's mostly coming from people who seem to think riding downhill entitles them to 30+mph speeds and the right of way.


Even 10mph is way to fast on some trails with blind corners if other trail users are not prepared to have uphill traffic on said trail, but that is very situational. I see speed as the only thing any land manager is going to have a problem with and frankly the Jury is out on whether or not it will cause enough trail conflict to warrant a ban. Based on what we are seeing at Sky Park in SoCal and the trail systems in Colorado that opened up to eMTB the locale can change the experience. Even with the reports of bad behavior of eBikers at Sky Park, it is probably better to allow them and then heavily ticket abusers. The reports of problems don't seem to be enough for SkyPark to have changed any rules.

Extra Trail damage is a moot argument and those making it need to stop. Trails will receive more damage from a heavy winter then they ever will from extra bikes or heavier bikes on the trail. I saw living proof of this in a local trail system last winter. The trails were closed off from maintenance due to some shifting powers(another story in itself) and the regular crew of guys who would normally go out and do maintenance chose to avoid possible fines and left the trails alone. The rains were heavier than normal last year and now ruts are everywhere, some trails have caved in forming washes 3-4 feet deep and 5-7 feet wide where nothing like it existed before.

I weigh 230lbs and ride an intense spider 275, I weigh more than a 160lb rider on any eMTB. Weight of bikes is not a good argument if you are against eBikes.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Fajita Dave said:


> Spouting misinformed information with no intentions of looking at actual data is pretty idiotic. Leaving it at "they shouldn't be allowed" with no reasoning as to why is pretty dumb too.


Perhaps you've considered that they've seen different data? Or have different interpretations of the same data? Or simply have other reasons of which you're unaware?

I'm not anti-ebike.

Except when I see this sort of entitled attitude on display.

My goal in interjecting an opinion into this thread is to point out that knee jerk reactions rarely help either side to get what they want.

Just my $.02.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Klurejr said:


> Even 10mph is way to fast on some trails with blind corners if other trail users are not prepared to have uphill traffic on said trail,


Agreed. All trail users need to ride/hike/run responsibly, and being on a bike capable of higher speeds doesn't automatically mean the rider will be irresponsible. For example, my motorcycle is capable of 60mph uphill, yet I climb tight single-track at nearly a walking pace, especially around blind corners. The same can't be said of the irresponsible (non-motorized) enduro-bros bombing downhill on the same trail in their quest for Strava glory. I've seen what happens when a downhill mountain biker runs into a moto that saw him coming and stopped. In my area these are the same people screaming loudest against e-bike access. It has nothing to do with the environment, or safety, it's selfishness plain and simple. They want the trails to themselves, not unlike the wilder-nuts that fight to keep mountain bikes out of Wilderness.

.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

mikesee said:


> Perhaps you've considered that they've seen different data? Or have different interpretations of the same data? Or simply have other reasons of which you're unaware?
> 
> I'm not anti-ebike.
> 
> ...


I have considered the above and there is no legitimate data showing e-bikes contribute more wear on a trail. There's a few trail networks here that have been seeing some regular e-bike traffic and I've ridden with some e-bikers. There's no extra wear on the trail which matches the results of all other reports from unbias observations by the forestry service. The only ones who claim trail damage are anti-bike groups in general who either don't have any data to back up their claims or rig their data by cherry picking or falsifying tests. I shouldn't need to prove any of this to you since you mountain bike and see these results for yourself. Riding style, trail maintenance and weather conditions impact trail conditions heavily, not e-bikes.

In this particular case it isn't entitlement but just reality. I don't think e-bikes should get access everywhere just like not all mountain bikes should get access everywhere. But claiming they're damaging trails and are a danger to other users is straight up fallacy. They don't climb hills at break neck speeds. Yes, a few mph more say from climbing at 5mph on a normal bike to 8ish mph does decrease reaction time to avoid oncoming traffic and slightly increases risk of injury. It's not proving to be an issue anywhere. The places that are having issues are more related to the people who are attracted to riding e-bikes and not a problem with the equipment itself.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fajita Dave said:


> I have considered the above and there is no legitimate data showing e-bikes contribute more wear on a trail. There's a few trail networks here that have been seeing some regular e-bike traffic and I've ridden with some e-bikers. There's no extra wear on the trail which matches the results of all other reports from unbias observations by the forestry service. The only ones who claim trail damage are anti-bike groups in general who either don't have any data to back up their claims or rig their data by cherry picking or falsifying tests. I shouldn't need to prove any of this to you since you mountain bike and see these results for yourself. Riding style, trail maintenance and weather conditions impact trail conditions heavily, not e-bikes.
> 
> In this particular case it isn't entitlement but just reality. I don't think e-bikes should get access everywhere just like not all mountain bikes should get access everywhere. But claiming they're damaging trails and are a danger to other users is straight up fallacy. They don't climb hills at break neck speeds. Yes, a few mph more say from climbing at 5mph on a normal bike to 8ish mph does decrease reaction time to avoid oncoming traffic and slightly increases risk of injury. It's not proving to be an issue anywhere. The places that are having issues are more related to the people who are attracted to riding e-bikes and not a problem with the equipment itself.


Do you go faster on an e-bike than you would on a mountain bike, at the same effort?

If the answer is yes, you are traveling more distance for a given amount of time, and yes, you are causing wearing and tear on the trail accordingly. Now, whether that is amount of wear and tear is significant? Different argument entirely.

But, the entire point of an e-bike is to magnify your effort. To either let you go the same distance with less effort than before, or to go further with the same effort. Either way, you ARE going further than someone who has no battery/motor assist, at the same effort level. That is an incontrovertible fact.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Le Duke said:


> Do you go faster on an e-bike than you would on a mountain bike, at the same effort?
> 
> If the answer is yes, you are traveling more distance for a given amount of time, and yes, you are causing wearing and tear on the trail accordingly. Now, whether that is amount of wear and tear is significant? Different argument entirely.
> 
> But, the entire point of an e-bike is to magnify your effort. To either let you go the same distance with less effort than before, or to go further with the same effort. Either way, you ARE going further than someone who has no battery/motor assist, at the same effort level. That is an incontrovertible fact.


It is, which is why local areas should decide whether their trail networks can handle extra traffic or not based on accurate information. The absolute number of people is what can be a seriously problem more so than individuals riding further. I would think if the trail network is so on edge of falling apart by people riding a bit further on e-bikes something needed to be done a long time ago to alleviate that issue anyway.

Spreading misinformation about how these "motorcycles" will destroy trails with their "powerful" motors is crazy and anyone claiming that rightfully deserves being called an idiot.


----------



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

_CJ said:


>


So 10mph average speed no matter what the hill? Don't sound right.

For me an ebike can easily double my speed (compared to bicycle) on a steep climb while using way less effort.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Using a bike calculator which leaves out a ton of variables it would take 500 watts for a 170lbs rider/45lbs bike to climb an 8% grade at 8.7mph.


----------



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

Fajita Dave said:


> Using a bike calculator which leaves out a ton of variables it would take 500 watts for a 170lbs rider/45lbs bike to climb an 8% grade at 8.7mph.


16.5mph on a 4% grade.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fajita Dave said:


> Using a bike calculator which leaves out a ton of variables it would take 500 watts for a 170lbs rider/45lbs bike to climb an 8% grade at 8.7mph.


That's not a whole lot when the motor can supply 4x what you can.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> Now, whether that is amount of wear and tear is significant? Different argument entirely.


my answer to that is no, it is not significant at this point in time.
Erosion is much more significant to trail damage than emtbs extra mileage.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Le Duke said:


> That's not a whole lot when the motor can supply 4x what you can.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I feel like that's some marketing BS but I could be wrong. 4x what? If I'm putting out a reasonable 200 watts is the bike actually putting out 800 for a total of 1000 watts? That would make it a class 3 e-bike.

Maybe if the rider is putting in 50 watts the bike is putting in 200 which is a nice 250watts. What's the upper limit for that bike?


----------



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

Fajita Dave said:


> I feel like that's some marketing BS but I could be wrong. 4x what? If I'm putting out a reasonable 200 watts is the bike actually putting out 800 for a total of 1000 watts? That would make it a class 3 e-bike.
> 
> Maybe if the rider is putting in 50 watts the bike is putting in 200 which is a nice 250watts. What's the upper limit for that bike?


I think a lot of class 1 ebikes have around 750 watts peak power.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> I think a lot of class 1 ebikes have around 750 watts peak power.


I looked up the max output of the bike in that exact add and it's 565 watts.

Personally I'd love to see Class 1 max out at 400 or 500watts. Seems like a perfectly reasonable max where people can still climb just about any hill but keep speeds under control. Unfortunately without a clear regulation bike companies are just doing whatever with that 750 watt ceiling. I think the vast majority of them aren't coming close to 750 though.

The RIP E9 in the video above has a motor with 85Nm of torque compared to 90 in the Levo. Wattage will depend on RPM and Niner doesn't give any specs besides smooth pedaling for a cadence of 35 to 110.


----------



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

Fajita Dave said:


> I think the vast majority of them aren't coming close to 750 though.


I don't know, it seems like most of the emtb's I've ridden do. That doesn't bother me though.


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> you are traveling more distance for a given amount of time, and yes, you are causing wearing and tear on the trail accordingly. Now, whether that is amount of wear and tear is significant? Different argument entirely.
> 
> But, the entire point of an e-bike is to magnify your effort. To either let you go the same distance with less effort than before, or to go further with the same effort. Either way, you ARE going further than someone who has no battery/motor assist, at the same effort level. That is an incontrovertible fact.


It the answer to wear and tear is that it is not significant, what is your point?

Can you demonstrate that it is significant, or point us to some source material that backs up the implication?

If not, are longer rides on an E-bike still bad?

I'm being sarcastic btw, so many variables (rider weight/bike weight/torque/power/trail conditions/tires etc).

Come on, you can do better than that...

disappointed :yawn:


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

Fajita Dave said:


> Spouting misinformed information with no intentions of looking at actual data is pretty idiotic. Leaving it at "they shouldn't be allowed" with no reasoning as to why is pretty dumb too.


100%. That's why I included data and a cogent argument in my comments on the proposed policy changes.

The anti-eMTB comments do tend way more towards the psycho side of things though!

And the "eMTBs do more damage" case is just not valid, as you point out. What's next? We keep heavy riders and fast riders off the trail?


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

Love these self appointed gatekeepers on what is real mountain biking!


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

I can generate 1500+ watts on an analog bike (lab verified). I'd better report myself to the trail Nazis before I get caught.

(eyeroll)


----------



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

_CJ said:


> I can generate 1500+ watts on an analog bike (lab verified). I'd better report myself to the trail Nazis before I get caught.
> 
> (eyeroll)


For how many seconds? Yes, you should be banned


----------



## HHL (Nov 24, 2004)

Banned or take up Sumo wrestling.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

_CJ said:


> I can generate 1500+ watts on an analog bike (lab verified). I'd better report myself to the trail Nazis before I get caught.
> 
> (eyeroll)


Show us the report. I'd love to compare your legs to a class 2 ebike and a 50cc gas bike, it would be super interesting.


----------



## The Squeaky Wheel (Dec 30, 2003)

_CJ said:


> I can generate 1500+ watts on an analog bike (lab verified). I'd better report myself to the trail Nazis before I get caught.
> 
> (eyeroll)


Then you're strong as heck.

1500+ watts is elite pro cyclist peak power.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

_CJ said:


> I can generate 1500+ watts on an analog bike (lab verified). I'd better report myself to the trail Nazis before I get caught.
> 
> (eyeroll)


And apparently such low sustained power that you now require an eBike...

Weird flex.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

The Squeaky Wheel said:


> Then you're strong as heck.
> 
> 1500+ watts is elite pro cyclist peak power.


1500 peak power with fresh legs isn't that uncommon. Pro roadies need to do it after upwards of 150 miles for the finish line sprint depending on the course.

My FTP is a weak 180watts but I can average close to 1000 for a 20 second sprint. Peak around 1200. On fresh legs of course. I lost some of that sprint power in the last few months trying to up my FTP.


----------



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

Fajita Dave said:


> 1500 peak power with fresh legs isn't that uncommon.


Actually super common on the internet, seems like most everyone on this forum has a 1,500w sprint 

1,000 is big time for me.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Fajita Dave said:


> 1500 peak power with fresh legs isn't that uncommon.


Yup, and 750w is extremely common, yet people are losing their minds over it when it comes from a motor.

,


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> And apparently such low sustained power that you now require an eBike...


Require? No. Enjoy? Yes.

It's not a competition man. If you get off on suffering every time you throw a leg over a bike that's fine, but others don't, and that's okay too.

.


----------



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

_CJ said:


> Yup, and 750w is extremely common, yet people are losing their minds over it when it comes from a motor.


There is a difference, the motor can produce that power until the battery runs dry and most humans can only do it for a few seconds, if at all.


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> There is a difference, the motor can produce that power until the battery runs dry and most humans can only do it for a few seconds, if at all.


Not 100% sure, but I think most of the mainstream drive systems can only sustain 250-350W for extended periods. Not that it really matters, but just clarifying my understanding of their peak vs sustained power.


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

_CJ said:


> If you get off on suffering every time you throw a leg over a bike that's fine, but others don't, and that's okay too.
> 
> .


Is that how you feel every time you ride a regular bike?


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Pisgah said:


> Is that how you feel every time you ride a regular bike?


I still don't plan on getting an e-bike but where I lived not to long ago the topography and trail design is built where you can't have an easy ride. Unless you hace CAT1 XC race fitness then climbs would put you in zone 4+ just grinding along in the lowest gear. An e-bike would be awesome for that to spend more time in zone 2 for building aerobic fitness. I would have been able to spend more hours on the bike rather than those hours being spent recovering throughout the week.

Now I have easy trail access straight from home where I can do 3ish hours in a zone 2 heart rate with two decent climbs thrown in.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

RickBullottaPA said:


> Not 100% sure, but I think most of the mainstream drive systems can only sustain 250-350W for extended periods. Not that it really matters, but just clarifying my understanding of their peak vs sustained power.


It has a lot to do with cooling and the controller, but some have less than the nominal wattage while some have more. Some are marketed with one number, but you can order it with more power. 
https://lunacycle.com/x1-enduro-ebike/
The industry, as well as people who have no idea about physics or power ratings are pushing the rule changes. How many watts will they be making 10 years from now? My guess is that this 2000 watt bike will be pretty common, but people will claim that it's 750. At some point, the pedals are just a controller for a motorcycle.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

New video from eMBN. Shows a reasonably fit middle aged guy testing the new ep8 motor from Shimano, which will be the standard going forward for several years. Take note of how he's NOT flying uphill at 20mph, and how hard he's working for a modest 9-10 mph on a mild fire road climb, and look at how much slower than that he's going on a steep single-track.






.


----------



## tinfang (Sep 2, 2019)

aoliver said:


> It has a lot to do with cooling and the controller, but some have less than the nominal wattage while some have more. Some are marketed with one number, but you can order it with more power.
> https://lunacycle.com/x1-enduro-ebike/
> The industry, as well as people who have no idea about physics or power ratings are pushing the rule changes. How many watts will they be making 10 years from now? My guess is that this 2000 watt bike will be pretty common, but people will claim that it's 750. At some point, the pedals are just a controller for a motorcycle.


I think you are wrong. Policy makers understand the products, it isn't rocket science. I think the more the public gets information the less you will see the higher powered bikes made as bicycles and more towards motorcycles. People that think a forest ranger can't tell what is over 750 watts are sorely mistaken. If people are riding 2000 watts on a singletrack they are doing something wrong. At 15 mph on 250 watts average for singletrack on a Levo it's pretty rough going not to mention any sticks being tossed up by the 29'ers going through 9 spokes before stopping. Bikes will be made LESS powerful and lighter. Just wait until the annual numbers come out and next year you will see every major brand come out with a lower powered lighter model.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

tinfang said:


> I think you are wrong. Policy makers understand the products, it isn't rocket science. I think the more the public gets information the less you will see the higher powered bikes made as bicycles and more towards motorcycles. People that think a forest ranger can't tell what is over 750 watts are sorely mistaken. If people are riding 2000 watts on a singletrack they are doing something wrong. At 15 mph on 250 watts average for singletrack on a Levo it's pretty rough going not to mention any sticks being tossed up by the 29'ers going through 9 spokes before stopping. Bikes will be made LESS powerful and lighter. Just wait until the annual numbers come out and next year you will see every major brand come out with a lower powered lighter model.


Industry knows, policy makers don't care about this fact: More power sells. 
Look at the video above^. The difference between 65Nm of torque and 80Nm shows the limits of where he can climb. Don't you think I could do those climbs faster on my 125cc dirt bike? Power can much more easily make up for weight and can move bigger, grippier tires.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

Ahhh the slippery slope argument that never seems to materialize.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

Fajita Dave said:


> Ahhh the slippery slope argument that never seems to materialize.


Then I take it you have no problem with requiring explicit labels on power ratings or pedal/throttle status?


----------



## tinfang (Sep 2, 2019)

aoliver said:


> Industry knows, policy makers don't care about this fact: More power sells.
> Look at the video above^. The difference between 65Nm of torque and 80Nm shows the limits of where he can climb. Don't you think I could do those climbs faster on my 125cc dirt bike? Power can much more easily make up for weight and can move bigger, grippier tires.


Yes then why are people even riding bicycles? There is a difference and people do love e-cycles they are not emtb's.
If your assumption is true everyone would be driving rocket powered vehicles.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

tinfang said:


> Yes then why are people even riding bicycles? There is a difference and people do love e-cycles they are not emtb's.
> If your assumption is true everyone would be driving rocket powered vehicles.


Because we want a backcountry experience where the landscape doesn't shrink to the power of the vehicle. People are ok being the most powerful vehicle allowed on the trail, they are generally less OK with other people blazing by them. It's why I don't pedal on the highway. Powerful bikes are selling like hotcakes, see link below. I've owned a few and they are fun as hell. I would love to take a dirt bike on mtb trails, Wilderness trails and closed roads. However, there is a reason uses have been separated and it is important to maintain some divisions. If eMTB clearly has a problem with just sticking to motorized trails like they are allowed on now, they must not like fast vehicles. Let's not turn the trails into that, you should be on board with that concept right? To ensure that, the limits on class 1 bikes need to be specific and enforceable.

https://advrider.com/dirt-bikes-dominate-us-motorcycle-sales-in-first-half-of-2020/


----------



## tinfang (Sep 2, 2019)

aoliver said:


> Because we want a backcountry experience where the landscape doesn't shrink to the power of the vehicle. People are ok being the most powerful vehicle allowed on the trail, they are generally less OK with other people blazing by them. It's why I don't pedal on the highway. Powerful bikes are selling like hotcakes, see link below.


Superlight emtb's are coming. The 250 watt will likely shrink below 200. People want more power for specific things and riding a bicycle is one of them for those without fitness but those with are looking for just enough edge to be able to mow the lawn after their 20 mile send fest.

Forestry Rangers have no problems discerning between a 1500 watt bike and a 250 watt bike. The National Park Service answered this question already. Also - yeah. Electric motorcycles are coming, and hard. When people realize how quiet they are they will be everywhere - that's not a great thing for funded trails but it's a great thing for every school with a woodline as I remember the 70's when every school system had trails made by dirt bikes behind them.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

tinfang said:


> Superlight emtb's are coming. The 250 watt will likely shrink below 200. People want more power for specific things and riding a bicycle is one of them for those without fitness but those with are looking for just enough edge to be able to mow the lawn after their 20 mile send fest.
> 
> Forestry Rangers have no problems discerning between a 1500 watt bike and a 250 watt bike. The National Park Service answered this question already. Also - yeah. Electric motorcycles are coming, and hard. When people realize how quiet they are they will be everywhere - that's not a great thing for funded trails but it's a great thing for every school with a woodline as I remember the 70's when every school system had trails made by dirt bikes behind them.


If you send me a picture of a ticket/citation (it's gonna say CFR 212...) written by a ranger for a 1500watt bike, I'll give you 50 bucks.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

aoliver said:


> Then I take it you have no problem with requiring explicit labels on power ratings or pedal/throttle status?


Nope. If they'll be allowed on trails designated non-motorized they'll need to be class 1. Everything I see suggests a very strict distinction that nothing more than class 1 will be allowed.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

Fajita Dave said:


> Nope. If they'll be allowed on trails designated non-motorized they'll need to be class 1. Everything I see suggests a very strict distinction that nothing more than class 1 will be allowed.


Everything you see? Then you aren't looking. The DOI final rule and the proposed policy changes at USFS (WHICH THIS THREAD IS ABOUT) are about all 3 classes. So if you don't want to share trails will DIY 3kw throttle bikes and such, it's time to pull your head out and tell the industry and the land managers to stick to class 1 "strictly".


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

It's pretty plain that all Classes will be allowed dependent on Regional Director discretion so I you want to just have Class 1 bikes in your backyard better start your campaign now.









The way the actual eMTB market seems to be flowing is less power and battery which makes for a lighter bike that enhances the ride experience. Other than the Haibike Flyon, which turned out to be a 60+lb dud, none of the major manufacturers seem to be interested in supplying other than legally compliant bikes.

The Asian market bikes like the successful RAD are not trail worthy and all the High Ah, high power, high weight efforts I have seen that try to be mtb's are junk for the most part geo wise and use cadence sensing PAS systems. Some do get along with that but for single track use torque sensing is much better.

The biggest grey area in the eBike arena is the fast becoming popular mini bike looking things selling like hotcakes. They are not eBikes but mopeds and although there are regs for mopeds on the books they are piggy backing on the eBike craze. Nothing you are going to see on the trails as per this thread but a threat to eBike use in urban and suburban areas. Which is where the largest amount of eBike sales reside. The eMTB sales are going primarily to existing mtb'rs looking for the next thrill that isn't nearly as large a market.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

aoliver said:


> If eMTB clearly has a problem with just sticking to motorized trails like they are allowed on now, they must not like fast vehicles.


The reasons eMTB's have a problem with sticking to motorized trails is that there aren't enough of them, and/or they're too far away. Where I live there are only 18 miles of motorized single track in the hundreds of thousands of acres of public land out my back door. Yet, there are hundreds of miles of non-motorized trail. I can ride my flintstone bike on a different trail every day of the week without getting in my car, yet if I want a motorized single track other than the same old 18 mile out and back, I have to drive more than an hour. It's a ridiculous inequity, and wanting access to non-motorized trails has nothing to do with not wanting to mix with motorcycles on the trail. Unfortunately, none of the public land agencies are going to approve more motorized/motorcycle trails in the area, and even if they did, it'd be a decade before it happened because of the insane amounts of red tape involved in making it happen, and all the anti groups filing lawsuits to stop it, etc.

Beyond that, Class 1 eMTB's are so close to the weight, speed, and environmental impact of a traditional mountain bike, it just makes sense to put them on the same trails.

Clear labeling of power and speed capability of the bikes? Sure, why not? In my recent purchase of an e-bike, I narrowed my search to a 2000w bike and a class 1 bike, and ended up choosing the class 1 for reasons including lighter weight, greater range, because it's there are more places to ride it legally, and also in hopes of class 1 being legalized in more areas going forward.

Does power sell? Sure, to some, but I think most people inclined to ride an eMTB are more interested in lighter weight and longer range. I've been pretty deeply involved with motorcycle advocacy groups in recent years, and I can assure you, almost none of the people riding motos have any interest in replacing their 30-60hp bike with a 1hp pedal bike. Hell, even if it was 6000w (8hp), they'd laugh at it and call it a child's toy. Motos and eMTB's are apples and oranges, especially when talking about class 1.

.


----------



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

_CJ said:


> The reasons eMTB's have a problem with sticking to motorized trails is that there aren't enough of them, and/or they're too far away. Where I live there are only 18 miles of motorized single track in the hundreds of thousands of acres of public land out my back door. Yet, there are hundreds of miles of non-motorized trail. I can ride my flintstone bike on a different trail every day of the week without getting in my car, yet if I want a motorized single track other than the same old 18 mile out and back, I have to drive more than an hour. It's a ridiculous inequity, and wanting access to non-motorized trails has nothing to do with not wanting to mix with motorcycles on the trail. Unfortunately, none of the public land agencies are going to approve more motorized/motorcycle trails in the area, and even if they did, it'd be a decade before it happened because of the insane amounts of red tape involved in making it happen, and all the anti groups filing lawsuits to stop it, etc.
> 
> Beyond that, Class 1 eMTB's are so close to the weight, speed, and environmental impact of a traditional mountain bike, it just makes sense to put them on the same trails.
> 
> ...


Oh the inequity!  Where I'm at there are tons of motorized trails but they're doubletrack (to accommodate atv's & side by sides) You've pointed out one of the big attractions of ebikes for sure though, it's a legal means of enjoying a motorized sport on non-motorized trails. Without those pesky 'barriers' in place higher powered e-cycles would almost certainly be more prevalent.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> Oh the inequity!  Where I'm at there are tons of motorized trails but they're doubletrack (to accommodate atv's & side by sides) You've pointed out one of the big attractions of ebikes for sure though, it's a legal means of enjoying a motorized sport on non-motorized trails. Without those pesky 'barriers' in place higher powered e-cycles would almost certainly be more prevalent.


Except that class 1 eMTB's aren't "motorized". Motorized implies self propelled, via a throttle. eMTB's are pedal assist. All they do is reduce the effort required. Pedal assist is more similar to using lower gears to gain a mechanical advantage, than twisting a throttle to make it go.

I don't think anyone would argue eMTB's are the same as non-motorized. They're just a new class of trail user, and given that they have speeds, weights, and environmental impacts that are almost identical to traditional mountain bikes, they should be treated the same.

.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

aoliver said:


> Everything you see? Then you aren't looking. The DOI final rule and the proposed policy changes at USFS (WHICH THIS THREAD IS ABOUT) are about all 3 classes. So if you don't want to share trails will DIY 3kw throttle bikes and such, it's time to pull your head out and tell the industry and the land managers to stick to class 1 "strictly".


You clearly didn't read all of it. This thread is about e-bike access in US Forests but that's includes fire roads and other service roads. Only class 1 would be permitted on trails and it would be decided on a local basis with clear regulation.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Mar 22, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Oh the inequity!  Where I'm at there are tons of motorized trails but they're doubletrack (to accommodate atv's & side by sides) You've pointed out one of the big attractions of ebikes for sure though, it's a legal means of enjoying a motorized sport on non-motorized trails. Without those pesky 'barriers' in place higher powered e-cycles would almost certainly be more prevalent.


Here's that slippery slope argument again.


----------



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

_CJ said:


> Except that class 1 eMTB's aren't "motorized". Motorized implies self propelled, via a throttle. eMTB's are pedal assist. All they do is reduce the effort required. Pedal assist is more similar to using lower gears to gain a mechanical advantage, than twisting a throttle to make it go.


I respect your opinion but mine is different. I've ridden lots of ebikes and they sure feel motorized to me.


----------



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

Fajita Dave said:


> Here's that slippery slope argument again.


Not a slippery slope argument (though I could make one) just saying that laws are what differentiate trails as far as user groups.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

_CJ said:


> Except that class 1 eMTB's aren't "motorized". Motorized implies self propelled, via a throttle. eMTB's are pedal assist. All they do is reduce the effort required. Pedal assist is more similar to using lower gears to gain a mechanical advantage, than twisting a throttle to make it go.
> 
> I don't think anyone would argue eMTB's are the same as non-motorized. They're just a new class of trail user, and given that they have speeds, weights, and environmental impacts that are almost identical to traditional mountain bikes, they should be treated the same.
> 
> .


 They have a motor. They are motorized no matter how you try to explain that it's not.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

Fajita Dave said:


> You clearly didn't read all of it. This thread is about e-bike access in US Forests but that's includes fire roads and other service roads. Only class 1 would be permitted on trails and it would be decided on a local basis with clear regulation.


Dude, are you high? I've read the entire Forest Service Manual. I've read the entire Travel Management Rule. I've read the entire CFR 212. That's not what they say.

I think you dropped this. Maybe it's a piece that fell off your ebike?
https://img.particlenews.com/img/id/3wNNND_0PqpWNSw00?type=webp_1024x576


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

FYI: Comments close tomorrow. Also, you are not limited to one comment, as long as additional comments make different arguments/points.

From what I've seen in the past couple of days, they anti groups have deployed their standard last minute attack with tons of form letters being submitted.


.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

leeboh said:


> They have a motor. They are motorized no matter how you try to explain that it's not.


Wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/85.1703

Motor vehicle: _a vehicle which is self-propelled, and can exceed a speed of 25 miles per hour over level, paved surfaces.
_

.


----------



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

_CJ said:


> Wrong.
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/85.1703
> 
> ...


The legal description of what a motorized vehicle is and the definition of motorized are 2 different things. Both viewpoints can be correct.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

_CJ said:


> Wrong.
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/85.1703
> 
> ...


Also wrong. That definition right at the beginning says it is only for determining emissions standards. You want this for USFS:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/261.2

And this for ORV on DOI lands.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/43/part-8340


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

aoliver said:


> Also wrong. That definition right at the beginning says it is only for determining emissions standards. You want this for USFS:
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/261.2
> 
> And this for ORV on DOI lands.
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/43/part-8340


Again, from your links:

"_Motor vehicle_ means any vehicle which is *self-propelled*,"

"*Off-road vehicle* means any *motorized vehicle* capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain"

Class 1 e-bikes are not self propelled, therefore not motorized vehicles, therefore not off-road vehicles.

.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

_CJ said:


> Again, from your links:
> 
> "[/FONT][/COLOR]*Off-road vehicle* means any *motorized vehicle* capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain"
> 
> ...


Self propelled is a good point to consider. It doesn't mean self driving like a Tesla. I think it still applies to e-bikes because it is something within the vehicle providing propulsion beyond legs, wind or gravity.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

aoliver said:


> Self propelled is a good point to consider. It doesn't mean self driving like a Tesla. I think it still applies to e-bikes because it is something within the vehicle providing propulsion beyond legs, wind or gravity.


Self propelled: "able to move without external propulsion or agency."

Class 1 e-bikes require external propulsion in order to move, therefore, they are not self-propelled. Class 2 on the other hand are self propelled because they have a throttle that allows the bike to move without additional propulsion from the rider.

.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

_CJ said:


> Self propelled: "able to move without external propulsion or agency."
> 
> Class 1 e-bikes require external propulsion in order to move, therefore, they are not self-propelled. Class 2 on the other hand are self propelled because they have a throttle that allows the bike to move without additional propulsion from the rider.
> 
> .


That is why the Forest Service's attempt to classify pedal assist eBikes (regardless of speed cutoff) as motor vehicles self propelled is going to create legal troubles if someone was to pursue it in a legal sense.

The Forest Service has successfully toyed with the English Language before (mechanical transport) and so far haven't been called out, so they are confident they can impose any absurdity with success.


----------



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

_CJ said:


> Self propelled: "able to move without external propulsion or agency."
> 
> Class 1 e-bikes require external propulsion in order to move, therefore, they are not self-propelled. Class 2 on the other hand are self propelled because they have a throttle that allows the bike to move without additional propulsion from the rider.
> 
> .


You push the pedals, you push a throttle. Technically speaking I'm not seeing a huge distinction. Again, not arguing the point from a legal perspective.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> You push the pedals, you push a throttle. Technically speaking I'm not seeing a huge distinction. Again, not arguing the point from a legal perspective.


A throttle is not an external propulsion method. If you have a throttle and pedal operated propulsion, you could still consider that vehicle not self propelled, but you can't use the throttle exclusively. The new BLM rules actually state that throttle eBikes (class 2) are to be treated the same as regular bikes provided that you aren't using the throttle for an extended period of time.


----------



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

figofspee said:


> A throttle is not an external propulsion method. If you have a throttle and pedal operated propulsion, you could still consider that vehicle not self propelled, but you can't use the throttle exclusively. The new BLM rules actually state that throttle eBikes (class 2) are to be treated the same as regular bikes provided that you aren't using the throttle for an extended period of time.


Like I said, I'm not arguing the legalities of it.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> Like I said, I'm not arguing the legalities of it.


Regardless of the perspective, a throttle is not a means of external propulsion.


----------



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

figofspee said:


> Regardless of the perspective, a throttle is not a means of external propulsion.


Of course not, it controls one. Not understanding your point.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> Of course not, it controls one. Not understanding your point.


Yes , you aren't understanding for some reason, but other people might be capable, so I explain it anyway.


----------



## nilswalk (Nov 26, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> You push the pedals, you push a throttle. Technically speaking I'm not seeing a huge distinction. Again, not arguing the point from a legal perspective.


I'll bite:

In one example the kinetic energy provided by moving your legs is directly used to (at least partially) propel the bicycle forward. In the other the kinetic energy of your thumb or wrist or whatever is operating the throttle is simply a control mechanism.

But of course you already know this and are just being deliberately obtuse.


----------



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

nilswalk said:


> I'll bite:
> 
> In one example the kinetic energy provided by moving your legs is directly used to (at least partially) propel the bicycle forward. In the other the kinetic energy of your thumb or wrist or whatever is operating the throttle is simply a control mechanism.
> 
> But of course you already know this and are just being deliberately obtuse.


For sure not trying to be deliberately obtuse. There are no regulations (that I'm aware of) guiding how much pedal pressure is required to deliver (x) amount of power. I've ridden some class 1's (usually cheaper ones) that give full power with nearly zero watts applied to the pedals. At what point does it become a pedal actuated throttle?

I realize that most ebikes require a fair amount of torque from the rider but some don't.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

If you haven't already, the search function on the comments can be a lot of fun.

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?Project=ORMS-2619&SearchResultsPerPage=25

I've been able to find comments from people I know quite easily. It's also surprising to see who hasn't commented. I suppose some people might be using a fake name, or initials, but that would be pretty chicken ****.

.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> For sure not trying to be deliberately obtuse. There are no regulations (that I'm aware of) guiding how much pedal pressure is required to deliver (x) amount of power. I've ridden some class 1's (usually cheaper ones) that give full power with nearly zero watts applied to the pedals. At what point does it become a pedal actuated throttle?
> 
> I realize that most ebikes require a fair amount of torque from the rider but some don't.


Irrelevant and off topic. The act of pedaling is a means of external propulsion. External propulsion means the bike is not self-propelled. Not self-propelled means the pedal assisted bike is not a motor vehicle according to the current Forest Service definition.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> For sure not trying to be deliberately obtuse. There are no regulations (that I'm aware of) guiding how much pedal pressure is required to deliver (x) amount of power. I've ridden some class 1's (usually cheaper ones) that give full power with nearly zero watts applied to the pedals. At what point does it become a pedal actuated throttle?
> 
> I realize that most ebikes require a fair amount of torque from the rider but some don't.


There are probably figures out there to reflect this theory but keep in mind that it is entirely possible to have a cadence PAS and be legally classified as a Class 1, as long as it doesn't have that devil throttle.

Anyone who has ever ridden a bike with cadence sensing knows that the amount of human input necessary to engage power is minimal as long as you can ghost pedal the cranks the magnets will fire up the power which has of course different levels of motor assist percent.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

figofspee said:


> Irrelevant and off topic. The act of pedaling is a means of external propulsion. External propulsion means the bike is not self-propelled. Not self-propelled means the pedal assisted bike is not a motor vehicle according to the current Forest Service definition.


Just checking. This 20kw bike is pedal driven, so it is not a motor vehicle according to USFS? I think it's relevant, because if you are providing most of the force, I guess it is "assist". If you expend 80 watts and the bike puts out 20,000, I think its just an inefficient way to make a throttle.
https://www.cabmotorworks.com/Electric-Bikes-p/2019-recon.htm


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

aoliver said:


> Just checking. This 20kw bike is pedal driven, so it is not a motor vehicle according to USFS? I think it's relevant, because if you are providing most of the force, I guess it is "assist". If you expend 80 watts and the bike puts out 20,000, I think its just an inefficient way to make a throttle.
> https://www.cabmotorworks.com/Electric-Bikes-p/2019-recon.htm


If you think a throttle is a means of external propulsion like a crankset, then install one on your non-ebike and remove the cranks. See how far that gets you. Posing the same question over and over is about as pointless as relying on a throttle for external propulsion.


----------



## gooseberry1 (Mar 16, 2016)

Omg if it has a Motor to even help or assist its a powered or motorized vehicle its not that hard people. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

gooseberry1 said:


> Omg if it has a Motor to even help or assist its a powered or motorized vehicle its not that hard people.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Ah, another person whose posts move the conversation forward as much as a throttle disconnected to a motor.

What is a bicycle?
A bicycle is defined in §1512.2 as either (1) a two-wheeled vehicle having a rear drive wheel solely human-powered; or (2) a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.


----------



## gooseberry1 (Mar 16, 2016)

figofspee said:


> Ah, another person whose posts move the conversation forward as much as a throttle disconnected to a motor.
> 
> What is a bicycle?
> A bicycle is defined in §1512.2 as either (1) a two-wheeled vehicle having a rear drive wheel solely human-powered; or (2) a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.


Correct depending on the agency enforcing the no motorized vehicles law its up to them. But lots still believe it has a motor and it does so thats how it falls.

So I cant ride one because I'm over 170 pounds ? What

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

figofspee said:


> Ah, another person whose posts move the conversation forward as much as a throttle disconnected to a motor.
> 
> What is a bicycle?
> A bicycle is defined in §1512.2 as either (1) a two-wheeled vehicle having a rear drive wheel solely human-powered; or (2) a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.


You left off that that definition comes from the Consumer Product Safety Commission and is proceeded by "For the purposes of this part:" and is basically safety requirements manufacturers must meet.

I still don't understand why so many ebikers so desperately want their ebikes to be considered to be bicycles. Sorry, but it seems to me it is either ego or they just think it will give them more access. Why can't they just be ebikes?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

chazpat said:


> You left off that that definition comes from the Consumer Product Safety Commission and is proceeded by "For the purposes of this part:" and is basically safety requirements manufacturers must meet.
> 
> I still don't understand why so many ebikers so desperately want their ebikes to be considered to be bicycles. Sorry, but it seems to me it is either ego or they just think it will give them more access. Why can't they just be ebikes?


Uh, yeah it gives them more access. That is the CPSC definition that was voted on by Congress and quoted by DOI when opening up nonmotorized trails to ebikes on 75 percent of Federal lands. The CPSC has also been a key reference in convincing state legislatures. You keep implying that the CPSC ruling is irrelevant, and you keep getting proven wrong. Have you no shame?


----------



## kntr (Jan 25, 2004)

I love my ebike and I agree with both sides.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

gooseberry1 said:


> Correct depending on the agency enforcing the no motorized vehicles law its up to them. But lots still believe it has a motor and it does so thats how it falls.
> 
> So I cant ride one because I'm over 170 pounds ? What
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Wow, that's hopefully just a quick reading mistake and you don't actually think the law only applies to people who weigh 170 pounds. The muddy-the-ebike-waters group isn't sending their brightest. 
According to the DOI, it is not up to the agency to decide if ebikes are motor vehicles, they aren't. The Forest Service is trying to walk on both sides of the fence in creating a definition where ebikes are both motor vehicles and nonmotorized, but we will see how that plays out. There are protections from ambiguous laws that will void the Forest Service's attempt to go rogue. It is highly unlikely that any attempt by the Forest Service to treat ebikes like motor vehicles will hold up in court. The CPSC was determined by elected officials and the USFS definition is determined by appointed officials. If the Forest Service buts heads with Congress, the presiding Judge will be more inclined to lean on the definition determined by elected officials. Congress is the boss of the Forest Service, and short of a new ruling from Congress, low power ebikes are not motor vehicles.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

For the sake of clarity.....the NFS is planning to continue calling e-bikes "motor vehicles", but they're going to put them in a different class, and possibly open up non-motorized trails to "motorized use - e-bike only" (which will also allow all non-motorized users continued access). This of course after revised master planning, nepa studies, lawsuit settlements, etc. etc. etc. so in reality, nothing is going to change for years or decades. In the meantime, my local NFS district will continue to have ONE law enforcement officer on staff, who spends all his time chasing homeless people, so it'll continue to be anarchy out on the trails, which is fine by me.

My biggest concern at this point is my state's OHV group is probably going to start pushing for e-bikes to pay into the OHV fund, even though they have no more environmental impact than a standard bike. Pay to play is BS in my book, so I plan to fight them on that one.


.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

figofspee said:


> Uh, yeah it gives them more access. That is the CPSC definition that was voted on by Congress and quoted by DOI when opening up nonmotorized trails to ebikes on 75 percent of Federal lands. The CPSC has also been a key reference in convincing state legislatures. You keep implying that the CPSC ruling is irrelevant, and you keep getting proven wrong. Have you no shame?


Please show me where I have done this.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

_CJ said:


> For the sake of clarity.....the NFS is planning to continue calling e-bikes "motor vehicles", but they're going to put them in a different class, and possibly open up non-motorized trails to "motorized use - e-bike only" (which will also allow all non-motorized users continued access). This of course after revised master planning, nepa studies, lawsuit settlements, etc. etc. etc. so in reality, nothing is going to change for years or decades. In the meantime, my local NFS district will continue to have ONE law enforcement officer on staff, who spends all his time chasing homeless people, so it'll continue to be anarchy out on the trails, which is fine by me.
> 
> My biggest concern at this point is my state's OHV group is probably going to start pushing for e-bikes to pay into the OHV fund, even though they have no more environmental impact than a standard bike. Pay to play is BS in my book, so I plan to fight them on that one.
> 
> .


Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

From Merriam-Webster
Bicycle 
bi·​cy·​cle | \ ˈbī-si-kəl , -ˌsi- also -ˌsī- \
Definition of bicycle (Entry 1 of 2)
: a vehicle with two wheels tandem, handlebars for steering, a saddle seat, and pedals by which it is propelled
also : a stationary exercise machine that resembles such a vehicle


The rider's act of pedaling a class 1 E-bike does not activate a motor, which then solely propels the bike (like a throttle). The pedaling activates the motor to provide a percentage of wattage. The rider is still providing wattage that goes directly to propelling the bike as well.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

_CJ said:


> For the sake of clarity.....the NFS is planning to continue calling e-bikes "motor vehicles", but they're going to put them in a different class, and possibly open up non-motorized trails to "motorized use - e-bike only" (which will also allow all non-motorized users continued access). This of course after revised master planning, nepa studies, lawsuit settlements, etc. etc. etc. so in reality, nothing is going to change for years or decades. In the meantime, my local NFS district will continue to have ONE law enforcement officer on staff, who spends all his time chasing homeless people, so it'll continue to be anarchy out on the trails, which is fine by me.
> 
> My biggest concern at this point is my state's OHV group is probably going to start pushing for e-bikes to pay into the OHV fund, even though they have no more environmental impact than a standard bike. Pay to play is BS in my book, so I plan to fight them on that one.
> 
> .


Seems like an elaborate process for nothing to change for years, doesn't it? You analysis is one interpretation of their proposal, but it is merely a proposal and it doesn't gaurantee anything. We could see a more dramatic change in the final law, or no change at all. IMBA has come out against the proposal to include a category of motor vehicle (eBikes) on nonmotorized trails, as that would affect their funding. The proposal from the Forest Service is a random assortment of possibilities, which makes it very difficult to comment on. Lawyers will be brought in to hash out the details at some point, and the final law will resemble the DOI at some point in the future. There will be a long period of confusion going forward, but it will be clarified at some point that the USFS cannot differ from all the other Federal agencies (BLM, NPS, BOR, FWS, highway, CPSC) and call an eBike motorized, and expect it to hold up in court. If the USFS chooses to treat an eBike as motorized going forward, then it is only a matter of time before their feet are held to the legal fire.


----------



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

mlx john said:


> The rider's act of pedaling a class 1 E-bike does not activate a motor, which then solely propels the bike (like a throttle). The pedaling activates the motor to provide a percentage of wattage. The rider is still providing wattage that goes directly to propelling the bike as well.


What percentage of wattage? As mentioned some ebikes will deliver full power with nearly zero power input.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

J.B. Weld said:


> What percentage of wattage? As mentioned some ebikes will deliver full power with nearly zero power input.


And those same ebikes will provide no power under full rider input, depending on the setting, which is why they aren't fulfilling the definition of self propelled. You really like riding intellectual merry-go-rounds, don't you?


----------



## john_bikeguy (Nov 23, 2017)

A few random comments on my lunch break ...

E-bikes are propelled by both a motor *and* human power at the same time. A hybrid. A new category. Definitions like "self-propelled" or "external-propelled" doesn't apply very well in that context. 

If a vehicle can adjust its propulsion from almost all motor power to almost all human power, I would think rules should be put in place for the most concerning, e.g. when the motor contributes the most power. 

I get that power limitations and speed limitations are put in place for say class 1 to try and lump capabilities with human output. Good place to start. Still its early days, and there may be additional regulations needed, as torque gets higher, latency lower, battery capacity gets larger, pedal mechanics move away from typically Y=A*X amplifying human output, ... etc. IMO, Its not good to try and merge E-Bike with Bike categories. Its too soon. Need regulations and technology/products to mature before those discussions happen.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

figofspee said:


> Seems like an elaborate process for nothing to change for years, doesn't it? You analysis is one interpretation of their proposal, but it is merely a proposal and it doesn't gaurantee anything. We could see a more dramatic change in the final law, or no change at all. IMBA has come out against the proposal to include a category of motor vehicle (eBikes) on nonmotorized trails, as that would affect their funding. The proposal from the Forest Service is a random assortment of possibilities, which makes it very difficult to comment on. Lawyers will be brought in to hash out the details at some point, and the final law will resemble the DOI at some point in the future. There will be a long period of confusion going forward, but it will be clarified at some point that the USFS cannot differ from all the other Federal agencies (BLM, NPS, BOR, FWS, highway, CPSC) and call an eBike motorized, and expect it to hold up in court. If the USFS chooses to treat an eBike as motorized going forward, then it is only a matter of time before their feet are held to the legal fire.


My understanding, after exchanging some emails with the head of my state's OHV group, is that there are several entities lining up to challenge the Executive Order that allows for e-bikes to be treated differently than traditional motorized vehicles, and the consensus is that it's going to be reversed because there is no existing legal basis for excluding low powered vehicles from being defined as "motorized".

Obviously, I don't agree with that, but this is what these people do, all day, every day, and if they choose to take on the fight legally, it's going to be a long road. As they say, government moves at a glacial pace, and in my dealings with the NFS, that's especially true.

At my age, I might have 10-15 years left of riding at a level that includes mountain single track trails, if I even live that long, and if history is any indicator, nothing is going to change meaningfully in that time. It's getting harder and harder to participate in this crap, or even care what rules these agencies put in place, but I submitted my comments. We'll see what happens.

.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

_CJ said:


> My understanding, after exchanging some emails with the head of my state's OHV group, is that there are several entities lining up to challenge the Executive Order that allows for e-bikes to be treated differently than traditional motorized vehicles, and the consensus is that it's going to be reversed because there is no existing legal basis for excluding low powered vehicles from being defined as "motorized".


LOL I'm sure figofspee could explain it to them.


----------



## mtbbiker (Apr 8, 2004)

_CJ said:


> My understanding, after exchanging some emails with the head of my state's OHV group, is that there are several entities lining up to challenge the Executive Order that allows for e-bikes to be treated differently than traditional motorized vehicles, and the consensus is that it's going to be reversed because there is no existing legal basis for excluding low powered vehicles from being defined as "motorized".
> 
> Obviously, I don't agree with that, but this is what these people do, all day, every day, and if they choose to take on the fight legally, it's going to be a long road. As they say, government moves at a glacial pace, and in my dealings with the NFS, that's especially true.
> 
> ...


I think some of the confusion is people are lumping in all ebikes into this DOI order. The DOI order and many states have the exact same laws about ebike classes are only referring to the 3 classes of ebikes. 
The 3 classes:
Class 1: 750 watts or less, no throttle and motor shuts off at 20mph.
Class 2: 750 watts or less, throttle and motor shuts off at 20mph.
Class 3: 750 watts or less, no throttle, and motor shuts off at 28mph.

If an ebike has more than 750 watts or no speed cut off, then it's not the ebikes DOI and many state laws are talking about. These ebikes not in the classification system, I personally have not seen on my local trails. But I do see them as commuter ebikes or around my area alot of surfers are using these as well.

Off the top of my head, I can't recall any low powered motorized dirt bikes or emotorcycles or mopeds that fall into these classes?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

d365 said:


> LOL I'm sure figofspee could explain it to them.


I am sure the OHV Meatheads know more then the extensive legal team at the DOI who rolled out the legislation that equates eBikes with regular bikes. It is telling that the OHV clubs are seeing the writing on the wall as the population that once relied on an engine are going to shift over to eBike.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

_CJ said:


> My understanding, after exchanging some emails with the head of my state's OHV group, is that there are several entities lining up to challenge the Executive Order that allows for e-bikes to be treated differently than traditional motorized vehicles, and the consensus is that it's going to be reversed because there is no existing legal basis for excluding low powered vehicles from being defined as "motorized".
> 
> Obviously, I don't agree with that, but this is what these people do, all day, every day, and if they choose to take on the fight legally, it's going to be a long road. As they say, government moves at a glacial pace, and in my dealings with the NFS, that's especially true.
> 
> ...


So the 44 states that treat eBikes as a bicycle got it wrong according some 'entity'. I guess we should pack it up and go home, some 'entities' have spoken that are going to reverse the mountain of legislation that equates eBikes and regular bikes. Should Europe be aware too, or is this magical entity only in the US?

Don't be too pessimistic, if history is an indicator, eBike legislation has been happening at a lightning quick pace compared to most of Government.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

figofspee said:


> So the 44 states that treat eBikes as a bicycle got it wrong according some 'entity'. I guess we should pack it up and go home, some 'entities' have spoken that are going to reverse the mountain of legislation that equates eBikes and regular bikes. Should Europe be aware too, or is this magical entity only in the US?
> 
> Don't be too pessimistic, if history is an indicator, eBike legislation has been happening at a lightning quick pace compared to most of Government.


COHVCO in Colorado is the entity, and their president Scott Jones is who I was speaking with. I have developed relationships with many people on the OHV side of things, and with various advocacy groups. To characterized them as meatheads is a giant miscalculation. These people are smart, well funded, deeply connected in the legislative process, and wield a significant amount of influence. I recently resigned from my leadership position in my local OHV club, and walked away from the sport entirely, for various reasons, and have decided to pursue e-biking as a replacement to my single-track motorcycle hobby, but I do continue to ride traditional mountain bikes, and have no intention of giving that up. Single-track motorcycle riders are a tiny minority in the OHV world, and I would suspect fewer than 5% will trade in their motos for e-bikes, so it's unlikely anyone is concerned about losing their enthusiast base, although I do think they see a new user group to add to their base, and will likely try to use the power of the state to force them to contribute to their fund.

My understanding is that the DOI changes that you are referring to hinge on an Executive Order from the Trump admin, and if the anti groups are successful in getting that overturned, it nullifies all subsequent actions and rule changes.

Either way, most of us have no real power in any of that, so it's pretty much wait and see.

.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

figofspee said:


> So the 44 states that treat eBikes as a bicycle got it wrong according some 'entity'. I guess we should pack it up and go home, some 'entities' have spoken that are going to reverse the mountain of legislation that equates eBikes and regular bikes.


There are one set of definitions for tariffs. One set for emissions. One set for each land agency. Each state decides which vehicles to require registration and which to require an offroad sticker. Congress being higher up doesn't make the particular defintion that they touched apply to the others. There is no legislation with the purpose of equating the use of ebikes and bikes. The court probably won't rule on each agency's definition directly either: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference

A state treating an ebike as a bicycle for the purpose of not needing a registration and plate is not the same as the land managers management of vehicles. I don't know what this "entity" stuff is you are talking about, but each one matters. That is the reason that the BOR, NPS, BLM, USFS... have each released separate documents. If one definition would have solved it all, they would have just released one document.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

_CJ said:


> COHVCO in Colorado is the entity, and their president Scott Jones is who I was speaking with. I have developed relationships with many people on the OHV side of things, and with various advocacy groups. To characterized them as meatheads is a giant miscalculation. These people are smart, well funded, deeply connected in the legislative process, and wield a significant amount of influence. I recently resigned from my leadership position in my local OHV club, and walked away from the sport entirely, for various reasons, and have decided to pursue e-biking as a replacement to my single-track motorcycle hobby, but I do continue to ride traditional mountain bikes, and have no intention of giving that up.
> 
> My understanding is that the DOI changes that you are referring to hinge on an Executive Order from the Trump admin, and if the anti groups are successful in getting that overturned, it nullifies all subsequent actions and rule changes.
> 
> ...


Hey, if they want to piss money away on this, I am not going to stop them. Of all groups that are trying to reverse the course of eBike legalization, the OHV crowd were far down on the list. I guess it shows how desperate they are to get that sweet eBike money. Looking at the comments on the Forest Service page, there is a good bit of support for ebike access, but most of the opposition is from the equiners (pretty sure that is where the word whiner originated), followed by the hikers, with the armchair wildlife experts rounding out the field.

If their rationale for overturning the order is that the Trump administration created it (what percent of OHV riders support Trump), that isn't going to go anywhere. Pretty much every democrat run state in the union equates eBikes with bikes, Colorado included.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

figofspee said:


> Hey, if they want to piss money away on this, I am not going to stop them. Of all groups that are trying to reverse the course of eBike legalization, the OHV crowd were far down on the list. I guess it shows how desperate they are to get that sweet eBike money. Looking at the comments on the Forest Service page, there is a good bit of support for ebike access, but most of the opposition is from the equiners (pretty sure that is where the word whiner originated), followed by the hikers, with the armchair wildlife experts rounding out the field.
> 
> If their rationale for overturning the order is that the Trump administration created it (what percent of OHV riders support Trump), that isn't going to go anywhere. Pretty much every democrat run state in the union equates eBikes with bikes, Colorado included.


I must not have explained that well enough. COHVCO isn't against ebike use on motorized trails, they're against them being classified as something other than a motorized vehicle. I pointed out that their position is virtually identical to the Sierra Club and many other anti-OHV groups, but that didn't seem to register. Strange bedfellows imho.

Also, your assumption that they oppose it because Trump wrote it is wrong. It has nothing to do that for the OHV side of things as far as I know, but it probably does play a big role for the traditional anti-bike groups.

.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

_CJ said:


> I must not have explained that well enough. COHVCO isn't against ebike use on motorized trails, they're against them being classified as something other than a motorized vehicle. I pointed out that their position is virtually identical to the Sierra Club and many other anti-OHV groups, but that didn't seem to register. Strange bedfellows imho.
> 
> Also, your assumption that they oppose it because Trump wrote it is wrong. It has nothing to do that for the OHV side of things as far as I know, but it probably does play a big role for the traditional anti-bike groups.
> 
> .


If you want to elaborate on how they plan on opposing it, be my guest. As of now, you have alluded to it being of "no legal basis" and that it can be overturned because it was done by the Trump Administration. Neither rationale bodes well for the organization. This seems like a massive miscalculation on their part, but like the Tahoe lawsuit did, their approach will most likely benefit eBikes status long-term. I fully support their idea to harass the Federal Agencies with regards to their leniency towards eBikes.


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

john_bikeguy said:


> A few random comments on my lunch break ...
> 
> E-bikes are propelled by both a motor *and* human power at the same time. A hybrid. A new category. Definitions like "self-propelled" or "external-propelled" doesn't apply very well in that context.
> 
> ...


This doesn't makes sense. The eu had been able to test this issue for years. That's why class 1 e bikes are allowed everywhere bikes are allowed.
Why do we have to reinvent the wheel here?

And you may not know it, but you will have an e bike in less than two years, when all your friends will have them. I get it though, late adaptor.

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

rod9301 said:


> This doesn't makes sense. The eu had been able to test this issue for years. That's why class 1 e bikes are allowed everywhere bikes are allowed.
> Why do we have to reinvent the wheel here?
> 
> And you may not know it, but you will have an e bike in less than two years, when all your friends will have them. I get it though, late adaptor.
> ...


Unfortunately, we already reinvented the wheel, Class 1 ebikes in the US are faster than Class 1 ebikes in the EU, almost 30% faster. So now we can't just follow the EU.


----------



## gooseberry1 (Mar 16, 2016)

No matter what controls the motor it still has one and that’s the issue. Pedal controlled or throttle it still has a motor and you cant change that. I like watching the guy killing the strava time on the ride thinking he is accomplishing something and when you try to explain to them that it has a motor they try the bs of this post. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FM (Apr 30, 2003)

gooseberry1 said:


> No matter what controls the motor it still has one and that's the issue. Pedal controlled or throttle it still has a motor and you cant change that. I like watching the guy killing the strava time on the ride thinking he is accomplishing something and when you try to explain to them that it has a motor they try the bs of this post.


Take a moment to acknowledge that there are currently people contributing money & time towards mountain bike trail advocacy, building & maintenance who own eBikes. The "if it has a motor it's motorized" stance effectively disowns those people, which will ultimately reduce membership and funds for mountain bike advocacy.


----------



## gooseberry1 (Mar 16, 2016)

FM said:


> Take a moment to acknowledge that there are currently people contributing money & time towards mountain bike trail advocacy, building & maintenance who own eBikes. The "if it has a motor it's motorized" stance effectively disowns those people, which will ultimately reduce membership and funds for mountain bike advocacy.


Yes it does and until it changes sorry. Now I have ridden trails that have access for both and not had the trail destroyed but I have also ridden trials that they destroyed.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

FM said:


> Take a moment to acknowledge that there are currently people contributing money & time towards mountain bike trail advocacy, building & maintenance who own eBikes. The "if it has a motor it's motorized" stance effectively disowns those people, which will ultimately reduce membership and funds for mountain bike advocacy.


If they value the currently nonmotorized places they ride, they know it needs to be taken seriously. Trails that allow "up to" ebikes will either have to come from dirt bike trails that kick out dirt bikes or mtb trails that allow motors.


----------



## bertschb (Sep 18, 2020)

I find this debate about ebikes fascinating. I’ve been riding mountain bikes since before many of you were born. I’ve seen a lot of changes over the decades. I got my first ebike a month ago. The difference between my Levo and Stumpjumper is similar to the difference between a three speed and a 12 speed. The motor in my Levo lets me climb hills that are very difficult to climb on an analog bike. My analog Stumpjumper lets me climb hills that would be impossible to climb with a three speed. 

The motor provides a mechanical advantage similar to a 12 speed over a single speed. Are those of you who are so opposed to ebikes also opposed to 12 speeds? If not, why not?

The argument about ebikes causing more trail damage than analog bikes is also interesting. I would argue the opposite. My ebike gives me just enough momentum on steep climbs to avoid spinning my rear tire. In my experience, my ebike is slightly easier on the trails - at least steep sections. 

The ebike is just another progression in mountain bike technology. It’s no different than progressing from single to multiple speeds, hard tail to full suspension, rim to disc brakes, 24" to 29" wheels, etc.

In ten years, all serious riders will move to this latest innovation and will be riding ebikes.


----------



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

bertschb said:


> I find this debate about ebikes fascinating. I've been riding mountain bikes since before many of you were born.


I kind of doubt that, mostly boomers hanging out around here.

Some guys on single speeds crush others on climbs who have 12 gears and a 52t dinner plate but it's doubtful they would beat the same person if they were riding a class 1 ebike.

Please don't misinterpret this as anti-ebike in any way.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> I kind of doubt that, mostly boomers hanging out around here.
> 
> Some guys on single speeds crush others on climbs who have 12 gears and a 52t dinner plate but it's doubtful they would beat the same person if they were riding a class 1 ebike.
> 
> Please don't misinterpret this as anti-ebike in any way.


+1 on all of the above.


----------



## bertschb (Sep 18, 2020)

J.B. Weld said:


> ...Some guys on single speeds crush others on climbs who have 12 gears and a 52t dinner plate but it's doubtful they would beat the same person if they were riding a class 1 ebike.


One of the things I hope the Forest Service considers is there were speed disparities on the trails long before there were ebikes. There have always been fit/experienced (fast) and unfit/new (slow) riders. The speed difference can be double or triple.

I would argue the natural speed differences among riders is far greater than the slight speed advantage that ebikes give us. In my case, my downhill speed on an ebike is the same as an analog bike. On steep climbs, I'm probably going 2mph faster on my ebike. Yes, my ebike does make me slightly faster but the guy you mentioned with the single speed who crushes others on climbs would almost certainly crush me on my ebike. Do we ban super-fit riders since they are so much faster than the rest of us?

This speed disparity seems to be the key to most people's opposition to ebikes. They don't like having ebikers climb hills faster than they can. They get upset about Strava data posted by ebike riders. I wish they would stop comparing others to themselves and just enjoy their rides.

I'm hoping the Forest Services staff who ultimately make the decisions will ride an ebike themselves on mountain bike trails so they understand the issues firsthand before making their decision.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Wow, somebody spammed the **** out of the comments on the last day. Look at all the duplicate letters with 2006 bytes.

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?project=ORMS-2619

I guess they aren't aware that the NFS changed their policy to consider all form letters as one comment.

:lol:

.


----------



## ron t (Jun 15, 2018)

_CJ said:


> Wow, somebody spammed the **** out of the comments on the last day. Look at all the duplicate letters with 2006 bytes.
> 
> https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?project=ORMS-2619
> 
> ...


That's from the People for Bikes form, and I just realized it's not working properly. I looked up my comment and it just used the form letter contents, even though I had written custom comments. Great job guys!  Way to shoot yourselves in the foot.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Bigwheel said:


> There are probably figures out there to reflect this theory but keep in mind that it is entirely possible to have a cadence PAS and be legally classified as a Class 1, as long as it doesn't have that devil throttle.
> 
> Anyone who has ever ridden a bike with cadence sensing knows that the amount of human input necessary to engage power is minimal as long as you can ghost pedal the cranks the magnets will fire up the power which has of course different levels of motor assist percent.


One of my Class 1 built-from-a-kit ebikes with a cadence PAS would power forward even when ghost pedaling backwards. Need to make a video on that.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

bertschb said:


> I find this debate about ebikes fascinating. I've been riding mountain bikes since before many of you were born. I've seen a lot of changes over the decades. I got my first ebike a month ago. The difference between my Levo and Stumpjumper is similar to the difference between a three speed and a 12 speed. The motor in my Levo lets me climb hills that are very difficult to climb on an analog bike. My analog Stumpjumper lets me climb hills that would be impossible to climb with a three speed.
> 
> The motor provides a mechanical advantage similar to a 12 speed over a single speed. Are those of you who are so opposed to ebikes also opposed to 12 speeds? If not, why not?
> 
> ...


 Not everyone want or desires a heavy bike with a motor. Sure it an advancement. Of a whole different kind. Thats all. I seek the quiet spots. Revel in the sounds of nature. Be it hiking, bird watching, or on the bike. No motor needed.


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

leeboh said:


> Not everyone want or desires a heavy bike with a motor.


I like the trend of lighter E-bikes with smaller motor/batteries. The Levo SL hits the sweet spot for me. That being said, I also really enjoy mountain bikes. I've been riding MTB since 1989.

Once I got the SL, I sold my Hightower 2. The bikes were so similar in travel and handling. Rented the new Evil Following for a few days in Sedona after riding the E-bike exclusively for about 3 months. I actually felt stronger/fitter than I have for a while when it comes to bikes. I've been riding more than usual, the SL is really fun. The shorter travel Evil was also a lot of fun and am now going to be either building up a SC Blur or an Epic Evo.

Really enjoyed the 'regular bike' shorter travel experience. I don't think non-motorized bikes are going away anytime soon, especially high end mountain bikes.

Will have the long travel 39# SL for 5000 ft, 35/40 mile epic rides and a 23/24# short travel XC bike as well.

Leaning towards the Blur (dig SC's engineering prowess) and the $3600 price tag of the Epic Evo frame is a bit silly.

Going to have my cake and eat it too...


----------



## youth slayer (Apr 13, 2010)

figofspee said:


> US Forest Service NEPA Projects Home
> 
> Send in your comments by 10/26
> 
> 3. Specific Criterion for Trails. In addition to the general and specific criteria in FSM 7715.5, paragraphs 1 and 2, consider and document existing Trail Management Objectives (TMOs) before making designations of motor vehicle use under Subpart B or OSV use under Subpart C that would add vehicle classes on NFS trails. 4. Specific Criteria and Guidance for Designating E-Bike Use on Trails. In addition to the general and specific criteria in FSM 7715.5, paragraphs 1 through 3, when designating trails for e-bike use (FSM 7705), consider and document the following: a. Whether and the extent to which the trails are managed for bicycle use or bicycle use is allowed (FSM 7705) under the applicable TMOs. b. For trails that are managed for bicycle use or where bicycle use is allowed, the extent to which effects from e-bike use are comparable to effects from existing bicycle use, accounting for, as appropriate, differences in speed; potential effects from increased or concentrated use; and any site-specific considerations. c. Whether a programmatic environmental analysis may be feasible and more efficient due to similarities in effects of bicycle use and e-bike use. Consider designating a class or classes of e-bike use, as appropriate, on NFS trails managed for bicycle use or where bicycle use is allowed, where effects from e-bike use would be comparable to effects from bicycle use. E-bikes are not allowed on a National Scenic Trail unless a regulatory exception authorized by the National Trails System Act is met or there is an exception in the enabling legislation for the trail.


Laymans terms?


----------



## youth slayer (Apr 13, 2010)

leeboh said:


> Not everyone want or desires a heavy bike with a motor. Sure it an advancement. Of a whole different kind. Thats all. I seek the quiet spots. Revel in the sounds of nature. Be it hiking, bird watching, or on the bike. No motor needed.


Yet some of us have all the options and enjoy having a variety of bikes.As long as we can all get along out there and share the trails nobody will get hurt👊


----------



## TNC (Jan 21, 2004)

_CJ said:


> Wow, somebody spammed the **** out of the comments on the last day. Look at all the duplicate letters with 2006 bytes.
> 
> US Forest Service NEPA Project Public Reading Room
> 
> ...


That's interesting. They consider all form letters as one comment?...or only count it as "one vote"?...vote in this case being each citizen's voiced opinon. Seems kind of obtuse...or perhaps intentional?


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

Lots of equestrians writing against ebikes, which I consider ironic considering the damage horses do and lack of physical activity it takes to ride a horse.


----------



## youth slayer (Apr 13, 2010)

chazpat said:


> Unfortunately, we already reinvented the wheel, Class 1 ebikes in the US are faster than Class 1 ebikes in the EU, almost 30% faster. So now we can't just follow the EU.


I don't know if you guys saw the test in Europe on the canyon road bike.They did a test two people one amateur the other a pro.The times were very close back to back road e bike and a standard road bike.


----------



## youth slayer (Apr 13, 2010)

aoliver said:


> If they value the currently nonmotorized places they ride, they know it needs to be taken seriously. Trails that allow "up to" ebikes will either have to come from dirt bike trails that kick out dirt bikes or mtb trails that allow motors.


Have you ridden a class one.simple question most of people can't answer or truthfully tell us you have put a couple two three hours on one of these bicycles and tell me it's like a motorcycle.Because if this keeps up I'll just buy a new yz 250 and show you a drastic difference ?


----------



## youth slayer (Apr 13, 2010)

Pisgah said:


> Lots of equestrians writing against ebikes, which I consider ironic considering the damage horses do and lack of physical activity it takes to ride a horse.


I remember years ago horse people lost the battle in court when they blamed bikes for erosion.A biker geologist showed up in court and simply took apart their erosion theory in a short period of time


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Here is a good overview on where things currently stand. BLM and USFS Ebike Policies and Proposals - Vail Valley Mountain Trails Alliance


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

youth slayer said:


> Have you ridden a class one.simple question most of people can't answer or truthfully tell us you have put a couple two three hours on one of these bicycles and tell me it's like a motorcycle.Because if this keeps up I'll just buy a new yz 250 and show you a drastic difference ?


I've probably pedaled more bikes and owned more motorcycles than you since you've changed this from a policy discussion to a measuring contest. I've been on a couple class 1 e...actually, nah. Answer my policy first: if they allow motorized e-bikes on the trails, will they then be subject to the minimization criteria? If you don't know anything about TMP, you can't have an opinion on how a land agency should modify it. Do some homework.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Electronic Bicycle Use | US Forest Service 
The Forest Service changed their online statement with regards to ebikes. Their statement previously said that ebikes are motor vehicles and they are banned from any non motorized trails. They have completely removed any direct mention of ebikes being associated with motor vehicles. 

*Emerging technologies such as e-bikes are changing the way people enjoy their visits to national forests and grasslands. Today, more than 60,000 miles of trails and roads on national forests and grasslands are currently open to e-bike use. As use trends change with time and new technologies, the way we manage lands to ensure their long-term health and resilience must change as well. This is why we are closely examining our policy to identify ways to expand access for American’s to enjoy these recreation opportunities on our forests and grasslands in ways that meet user needs while continuing to protect forest resources.*


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

That "news" is already a year old.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Well why didn't you share that info a year ago?


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

if they allow motorized e-bikes on the trails, will they then be subject to the minimization criteria? Why can't any of you answer my policy questions?


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

aoliver said:


> if they allow motorized e-bikes on the trails, will they then be subject to the minimization criteria? Why can't any of you answer my policy questions?


I can't speak for others, but i can imagine folks choose not to interact with you because you are arguing in bad faith, deeply misinformed, or incapable of understanding how the legal system works. For example, you have lumped low speed electric bicycles (which are legally bicycles) in with high speed electric bicycles (which are legally undefined but capable of being considered motor vehicles). The Forest Service, along with every other federal and state agency, are legally required to treat low speed electric bicycles in the same manner as bicycles. Unless you are proposing a change to congressional law, you have nothing to stand on legally speaking.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

Wow. Talk about being deeply misinformed.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

D. Inoobinati said:


> Wow. Talk about being deeply misinformed.


Hah!


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

Cute. Tell me you have no idea what subpart C, minimization criteria means without saying it.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

aoliver said:


> Cute. Tell me you have no idea what subpart C, minimization criteria means without saying it.


Ah thanks, I am quite the cutey. 
Perhaps people don't want to engage with you because you are caustic, combative, and incapable of grasping the topic IDK. Yet here I am taking one for the team. I already addressed your minimization concept, but I guess that went over your head, so I will lay it out for you and for future wasters of time. Maybe then you can apply yourself to more useful tasks.

The concept of low speed electric bikes being legally classified as bicycles dates back to the early 2000s with 15 US Code 2085 section 38b and I quote:
15 U.S. Code § 2085 - Low-speed electric bicycles
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)Construction
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products within the meaning of section 2052(a)(1) [1] of this title and shall be subject to the Commission regulations published at section 1500.18(a)(12) and part 1512 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations.

(b)Definition
For the purpose of this section, the term “low-speed electric bicycle” means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.

(c)Promulgation of requirements
To further protect the safety of consumers who ride low-speed electric bicycles, the Commission may promulgate new or amended requirements applicable to such vehicles as necessary and appropriate.

(*d)Preemption
This section shall supersede any State law or requirement with respect to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law or requirements referred to in subsection (a)*.

(Pub. L. 92–573, § 38, as added Pub. L. 107–319, § 1, Dec. 4, 2002, 116 Stat. 2776.) Unqoute.
So there wee have it, low speed electric bicycles are to be treated like bicycles. This should satisfy he peanut gallery but there are some who cry that this regulation only applies to construction, not motor vehicle code. So here is the motor vehicle code referencing this law, and I quote: 
Low-Speed Electric Bicycles
Pub. L. 107–319, §2, Dec. 4, 2002, 116 Stat. 2776, provided that: "For purposes of motor vehicle safety standards issued and enforced pursuant to chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, a low-speed electric bicycle (as defined in section 38(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 2085(b)]) shall not be considered a motor vehicle as defined by section 30102[(a)](6) [now 30102(a)(7)] of title 49, United States Code." Unquote.
For the sake of completeness, here is the motor vehicle definition that that amendment is referencing. Quote:
49 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2017 Edition
Title 49 - TRANSPORTATION
SUBTITLE VI - MOTOR VEHICLE AND DRIVER PROGRAMS
PART A - GENERAL
CHAPTER 301 - MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY
SUBCHAPTER I - GENERAL
Sec. 30102 - Definitions
From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov

(7) "motor vehicle" means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. Unquote.
But but Figs, can't the USFS ignore US Code and do whatever they want? No! And I quote the USFS:
Laws and Regulations
Federal agencies operate under the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. unquote.
Regulations & Policies | US Forest Service 

For the second time, the minimization criteria does not relate to electric bicycles because THEY ARE NOT MOTORIZED in the legal sense.

But Figs, I still can't trust you or listen to you because your just some internet kook. Fine, listen to the National Park Service's and the DOI's understanding of 15 U.S.C 2085 then:
As explained above, Secretary's Order 3376 directs the NPS to revise 36 CFR 1.4 and any associated regulations to be consistent with the Order. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) are also revising their regulations for consistency with S.O. 3376. Specifically, the Order directs the NPS, BLM, FWS, and Reclamation to add a definition for e-bikes consistent with 15 U.S.C. 2085, and expressly exempt all e-bikes as defined in the Order from the definition of motor vehicles.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

Yes, I am very well aware that the DOI has exempted e-bikes from the definition of off-road vehicle, and therefore trails that they are allowed on within those lands are not subject to the minimization criteria. That's the answer, you didn't really know that though. The fact that you have an imaginary definition to apply on USFS land that makes them nonmotorized is not the same as not also being an off-road vehicle. USFS has to follow the Code of Federal Regulations, including 43 CFR § 8342, so if they are not also exempted from the definition of off-road vehicle, then all trails they are allowed on must be minimized. That means a whole lot of bike trails are going to vanish, so get it straight.


----------



## acer66 (Oct 13, 2010)

D. Inoobinati said:


> Wow. Talk about being deeply misinformed.


How did I get dragged in here? 😛


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

aoliver said:


> Yes, I am very well aware that the DOI has exempted e-bikes from the definition of off-road vehicle, and therefore trails that they are allowed on within those lands are not subject to the minimization criteria. That's the answer, you didn't really know that though. The fact that you have an imaginary definition to apply on USFS land that makes them nonmotorized is not the same as not also being an off-road vehicle. USFS has to follow the Code of Federal Regulations, including 43 CFR § 8342, so if they are not also exempted from the definition of off-road vehicle, then all trails they are allowed on must be minimized. That means a whole lot of bike trails are going to vanish, so get it straight.


Nah, you are just being obtuse because you can't handle any self reflection where you might be wrong.


----------



## JumpinMacaque (Jan 26, 2010)

Yup, so 36 CFR section 1 is about National Parks
50 CFR is Fish Wildlife and Parks
These don't apply to USFS. P4B is very optimistic in interpreting anything and they have something like a $45 million dollar industry push behind them. Even they disagree with your logic.


https://peopleforbikes.cdn.prismic.io/peopleforbikes/76aa2524-3c1d-4e03-a77f-614a1fec9c2e_PeopleForBikes-Letter-E-Bikes-on-Federal-Lands.pdf


If you manage to get the CPSC definition of motor vehicle applied to USFS, maybe they let you in. However, if it's not clear that it also removes e-bikes from off-road vehicles, the damage will be astronomical. I'm not being obtuse and this isn't about self reflection. This is about laws that manage 10,000 miles of trail, and you are misleading people about how they work or how much you know.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

aoliver said:


> Yup, so 36 CFR section 1 is about National Parks
> 50 CFR is Fish Wildlife and Parks
> These don't apply to USFS. P4B is very optimistic in interpreting anything and they have something like a $45 million dollar industry push behind them. Even they disagree with your logic.
> 
> ...


US Code says that low speed electric bicycles are not motor vehicles. The USFS has to follow US Code as does the DOI. The DOI admits they have to follow US Code and here is what the USFS has to say about ebikes: 

Forest Service Statement on Electronic Bicycle Use:
Emerging technologies such as e-bikes are changing the way people enjoy their visits to national forests and grasslands. Today, more than 60,000 miles of trails and roads on national forests and grasslands are currently open to e-bike use. As use trends change with time and new technologies, the way we manage lands to ensure their long-term health and resilience must change as well. This is why we are closely examining our policy to identify ways to expand access for American’s to enjoy these recreation opportunities on our forests and grasslands in ways that meet user needs while continuing to protect forest resources. Unquote.

You will notice the lack of reference to anything regarding a link to off-road vehicle, motorized, or motor vehicle as they are all terms used interchangeably and none of them include low speed electric bicycles. I do not need to wait till they "allow" me to access the Forest. If they want to ticket me, then they would have to demonstrate in court that they are exempt from US Code, an impossible task. Based on the fact that they aren't confident enough to say openly that low speed electric bicycles are motorized, they are a long ways away from wanting to face a judge with that association.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

figofspee said:


> Forest Service Statement on Electronic Bicycle Use:


I looked everywhere for the USFS statement on electronic bikes and could find nothing. I called the my ranger district and asked them their position on electronic bikes and they said "WTF is an electronic bike?" The CFR Blue Book has nothing regarding electronic bikes. I'm currently on hold with the White House, Federal Trade Commission, and SONY while they find someone who knows what an electronic bike is.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

D. Inoobinati said:


> I looked everywhere for the USFS statement on electronic bikes and could find nothing. I called the my ranger district and asked them their position on electronic bikes and they said "WTF is an electronic bike?" The CFR Blue Book has nothing regarding electronic bikes. I'm currently on hold with the White House, Federal Trade Commission, and SONY while they find someone who knows what an electronic bike is.


That could be because they don’t GAF!


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

D. Inoobinati said:


> I looked everywhere for the USFS statement on electronic bikes and could find nothing. I called the my ranger district and asked them their position on electronic bikes and they said "WTF is an electronic bike?" The CFR Blue Book has nothing regarding electronic bikes. I'm currently on hold with the White House, Federal Trade Commission, and SONY while they find someone who knows what an electronic bike is.


I posted the link above (post 164) and you commented that that was old news. Wow, just wow.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

figofspee said:


> US Code says that low speed electric bicycles are not motor vehicles. The USFS has to follow US Code as does the DOI. The DOI admits they have to follow US Code and here is what the USFS has to say about ebikes:
> 
> Forest Service Statement on Electronic Bicycle Use:
> Emerging technologies such as e-bikes are changing the way people enjoy their visits to national forests and grasslands. Today, more than 60,000 miles of trails and roads on national forests and grasslands are currently open to e-bike use. As use trends change with time and new technologies, the way we manage lands to ensure their long-term health and resilience must change as well. This is why we are closely examining our policy to identify ways to expand access for American’s to enjoy these recreation opportunities on our forests and grasslands in ways that meet user needs while continuing to protect forest resources. Unquote.
> ...


US Code does NOT apply to a Federal agency's travel management plans. Case in point, as I pointed out to you earlier, the DOI Secretary's decision to allow ebikes wherever mtb's are allowed did, in fact, NOT result in blanket access for ebikes. Thus the "white list" of permissible trails: re: "BLM, FWS, and BOR’s rules create an opt-in system. The rules encourage agency officials generally to allow e-bikes where traditional bikes are already allowed, *but an agency official must still decide whether to allow e-bikes for each individual area*." from https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2020/0... on October,permitted on non-motorized trails. 
Thus.....in every instance, ebikes must be deliberately permitted on a case by case, travel management plan by travel management plan basis. You're wrong.....AGAIN.....and posting in the ebike forum that you legally have access to trails that you legally don't. A deliberate violation of the ebike "safe place" forum rules.

"Some environmental groups have publicly opposed permitting e-bikes on non-motorized trails on public lands, including prior to Order 3376. At least two lawsuits have been filed recently with regard to e-bikes on public lands. The first, filed on October 23, 2019, challenged the Forest Service’s decision to permit e-bikes on non-motorized trails in the Tahoe National Forest. *This suit was settled on April 1: the national forest has clarified that e-bikes are no longer permitted on non-motorized trails*." 

From the Forest Service's over snow travel managment rule:
"The Forest Service has clearly defined the term “bicycle”, which includes new fat tire bicycles, in Forest Service Handbook 2309.18 as “a pedal-driven, human-powered device with two wheels attached to a frame, one behind the other.” Management of bicycles, including fat tire bicycles in winter, would be addressed as part of trail management planning for non-motorized uses. *New technologies that merge bicycles and motors, such as e-bikes, are considered motor vehicles under § 212.1 of the TMR*."


From Pike-San Isabel National Forests & Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands - Bicycling.


"There are several hundred miles of roads and trails available for bicycle enthusiasts. Visitors may use any of these routes year-round, weather permitting. There are no permits, fees, or registrations required for individuals; however, groups are required to obtain permits.

In some areas, such as designated Wilderness Areas, bicycles are prohibited.

*E-bikes:*

Under the Forest Service’s national Travel Management Rule (2005) (2008) and (2015) E-bikes are classified as self-propelled motor vehicles. Under this classification, E-bikes are allowed where the Travel Management Rule designation is:


Roads Open to All Vehicles
Trails Open to All Vehicles
Trails Open to Vehicles 50” or Less in Width, and
Trails Open to Motorcycles Only.
Therefore, like other motorized transportation, E-bikes can be used on numerous roads and trails open to motor vehicles. Free Motor Vehicle Use Maps are available. These maps indicate which roads and trails are open and to what type of vehicle.

*E-bikes are not allowed on trails designated for non-motorized use*. Non-motorized trails include trails like hiker, horse, or mountain bike trails. E-bikes, like other motorized transportation, also are not allowed to travel cross-country off trail. *There are no exceptions*. 

E-bikes are not considered an assistive device meeting the legal definition of a wheelchair or mobility device giving them an exception to the Forest Service’s Travel Management Rule. The Department of Justice, under their Rule on Other Power Driven Mobility Devices in September, 2010 affirmed that the use of any Other Power Driven Mobility Device is limited to where the use of that device (i.e. an E-bike) is designated for use by all.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

watermonkey said:


> US Code does NOT apply to a Federal agency's travel management plans. Case in point, as I pointed out to you earlier, the DOI Secretary's decision to allow ebikes wherever mtb's are allowed did, in fact, NOT result in blanket access for ebikes. Thus the "white list" of permissible trails: re: "BLM, FWS, and BOR’s rules create an opt-in system. The rules encourage agency officials generally to allow e-bikes where traditional bikes are already allowed, *but an agency official must still decide whether to allow e-bikes for each individual area*." from https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2020/05/interior-rolls-out-controversial-e-bike-rules/#:~:text=The first, filed on October,permitted on non-motorized trails.
> Thus.....in every instance, ebikes must be deliberately permitted on a case by case, travel management plan by travel management plan basis. You're wrong.....AGAIN.....and posting in the ebike forum that you legally have access to trails that you legally don't. A deliberate violation of the ebike "safe place" forum rules.
> "Some environmental groups have publicly opposed permitting e-bikes on non-motorized trails on public lands, including prior to Order 3376. At least two lawsuits have been filed recently with regard to e-bikes on public lands. The first, filed on October 23, 2019, challenged the Forest Service’s decision to permit e-bikes on non-motorized trails in the Tahoe National Forest. *This suit was settled on April 1: the national forest has clarified that e-bikes are no longer permitted on non-motorized trails*."
> From the Forest Service's over snow travel managment rule:
> ...


Watermonkey's post is the single most important post in this sh!tshow of a thread.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

Quote: US Code does NOT apply to a Federal agency's travel management plans. Unquote
Yeah, no chance of that, which is why you have no source other then yourself.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

figofspee said:


> Yeah, no chance of that, which is why you have no source other then yourself.


Yes, I realize that figofspee is beyond reason, and providing facts of any kind are irrelevant when trying to argue with a believer, but I'll post any way for the rest of you sucked into the trainwreck of a thread. 

See below. If your code is the LAW OF THE LAND as dictated from on high, then most class 1 ebikes sold today would be classified as motor vehicles, as they are sold with motors = 750 watts of power. The code specifically states that a ""low-speed electric bicycle" means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and *an electric motor of less than 750 watts.*" The DOI, and current pro-ebike proponents have chosen to ignore this section of the code, and go with People For Bikes Class system for access implementation. So, your code means jack $h!t. 

More details, because detail matter. You "CODE", defines consumer products and ultimately whether they need to be insured, licensed, etc. It has precisely dick to do with any form of access. 

Speaking of People for Bikes, these a$$holes will shout from the roof tops that ebikes aren't motorized vehicles, or mopeds or electric motorcycles, but will then turn around and claim that they actually DO meet the definition of an electric motorcycle, and thus should be exempt from importation tarriffs. You can read more about it here.









Customs ruling means e-bikes excluded from tariffs


WASHINGTON (BRAIN) — U.S. Customs and Border Protection has ruled that e-bikes fall under the same category as electric motorcycles and therefore share an exclusion, granted in September, from the Trump administration's Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports. Importers of Chinese e-bikes are now...




www.bicycleretailer.com













__





U.S.C. Title 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE






www.govinfo.gov




15 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2019 Edition
Title 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE
CHAPTER 47 - CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
Sec. 2085 - Low-speed electric bicycles
From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov

*§2085. Low-speed electric bicycles*
*(a) Construction*
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products within the meaning of section 2052(a)(1) 1 of this title and shall be subject to the Commission regulations published at section 1500.18(a)(12) and part 1512 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations.

*(b) Definition*
For the purpose of this section, the term "low-speed electric bicycle" means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and *an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.)*, whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.

*(c) Promulgation of requirements*
To further protect the safety of consumers who ride low-speed electric bicycles, the Commission may promulgate new or amended requirements applicable to such vehicles as necessary and appropriate.

*(d) Preemption*
This section shall supersede any State law or requirement with respect to low-speed electric bicycles to the extent that such State law or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law or requirements referred to in subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 92–573, §38, as added Pub. L. 107–319, §1, Dec. 4, 2002, 116 Stat. 2776.)

*References in Text*
Section 2052(a)(1) of this title, referred to in subsec. (a), was redesignated section 2052(a)(5) of this title by Pub. L. 110–314, title II, §235(b)(4), Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3074.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

watermonkey said:


> Yes, I realize that figofspee is beyond reason, and providing facts of any kind are irrelevant when trying to argue with a believer, but I'll post any way for the rest of you sucked into the trainwreck of a thread.
> 
> See below. If your code is the LAW OF THE LAND as dictated from on high, then most class 1 ebikes sold today would be classified as motor vehicles, as they are sold with motors = 750 watts of power. The code specifically states that a ""low-speed electric bicycle" means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and *an electric motor of less than 750 watts.*" The DOI, and current pro-ebike proponents have chosen to ignore this section of the code, and go with People For Bikes Class system for access implementation. So, your code means jack $h!t.
> 
> ...


That has already been addressed in my posts (number 172). Time to find a new hobby monkey boy.


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

figofspee said:


> That has already been addressed in my posts (number 172). Time to find a new hobby monkey boy.


Hilarious how you (and all the other e-mtb fanboys) conflate electric bike codes and regulations clearly designed for roads, with their use on trails....but only when convenient

Practicing reading comprehension might be a useful hobby for you.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

D. Inoobinati said:


> Hilarious how you (and all the other e-mtb fanboys) conflate electric bike codes and regulations clearly designed for roads, with their use on trails....but only when convenient
> 
> Practicing reading comprehension might be a useful hobby for you.


Well, a motor vehicle is a motor vehicle regardless of whether it is on a trail or road. If a law is vague or contradictory, it defaults to whatever is most lenient. Having multiple definitions for surface type isn't going to make much sense in a court of law, but I fully encourage you to petition Congress on that idea's behalf.


----------



## rod9301 (Oct 30, 2004)

It really doesn't matter if a e MTN bike is a mirror vehicle or not.
There are so many people buying them that there's no way they will be outlawed fun MTN bike single track.



Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk


----------



## matt4x4 (Dec 21, 2013)

How can the park ranger tell what wattage the ebike is to begin with?
Its not like its a light bulb where you just switch it on and its a fixed or even max of 750W of power being used.
The cheap pedal assist has zero sensing for torque, just spin the crank is all thats needed. Most the generic kits are like that, now I have no clue what the store bought ebikes (Trek, Specialized) are but their prices are sky high that it'd be assumed they are expensive torque sensing, the Townie Electric cruiser is just a cheap Bafang rear hub motor so I cant see them using expensive torque sensing as its cost prohibitive for their price point and they'd just use the magnet ring around the bottom bracket. I just casually look at the prices when I am in the store, the only one's I've ridden are the old BionX 2 decades ago. To rent a $4k+ ebike costs more then renting a $30k car, but the ebike is 1000 times funner.
Will the park rangers be towing a dyno behind their park ranger truck to test ebikes wattages?
LOL
No thats not their style, their style is pen and colorful paper.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

matt4x4 said:


> How can the park ranger tell what wattage the ebike is to begin with?
> Its not like its a light bulb where you just switch it on and its a fixed or even max of 750W of power being used.
> The cheap pedal assist has zero sensing for torque, just spin the crank is all thats needed. Most the generic kits are like that, now I have no clue what the store bought ebikes (Trek, Specialized) are but their prices are sky high that it'd be assumed they are expensive torque sensing, the Townie Electric cruiser is just a cheap Bafang rear hub motor so I cant see them using expensive torque sensing as its cost prohibitive for their price point and they'd just use the magnet ring around the bottom bracket. I just casually look at the prices when I am in the store, the only one's I've ridden are the old BionX 2 decades ago. To rent a $4k+ ebike costs more then renting a $30k car, but the ebike is 1000 times funner.
> Will the park rangers be towing a dyno behind their park ranger truck to test ebikes wattages?
> ...


All class 1 bikes require labeling from the manufacturer. Yes that can be faked, but 99% of trail users will just ride what's legal, if "legal" is defined. If it's all illegal, hell - just ride whatever you want. What's the difference?

As far as hub motors, I'm no expert in them, but it sure looks like physical size is a good indicator of power output.


.


----------

