# What's Watts?



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

There seems to be some confusion on this forum about the actual wattage of the "big players" bikes, whether it be Bosch, Brose, Shimano etc.. People on here are saying that 250w maximum is where the law should be but in reality they aren't now, even the EU models although restricted to a lower top speed, and never will be going forward. Unless your bike is a 24v/10A system that is.

This video produced by some board walk cruiser types that don't seem to like to pedal much has a pretty good explanation about what is going on within the industry that is promoting the fake wattage figures:






Read into it what you will but the numbers don't lie. There is no such thing as a "250w" motor other than all electric bike motors can run at that wattage and either side of it at will.

750w peak and the current Federal regulation standard, in my case @ 52v x 15a = 780w is a little over, but I find it totally sufficient for dragging my 45lb. hardtail and 200lb body up and over about any single track I have tackled on it and with decent range to boot out of a 520wh (52v x 10ah) battery. For an all day adventure I wouldn't mind another 3ah's but waiting on the new 21700 cells to gell before I invest in a new battery.

I don't spin out on climbs as my system provides good torque assist at the lower cadence you are doing, like 30-40rpm. I only can go as low as 1:1 currently, 42x42, but have a 46t in the wings I could probably do most climbing in the 42/40 and use the 46t for a bailout gear.


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

I was very surprised to learn that the Powerplay system in the ROcky Mtn eMTB are not really 250 watts as advertised...

.. instead the system is rated at 1,200 Watts peak, according to Dyname's site (the manufacturer of the ebike system). Albeit the software no doubt puts heavy limitations on that. Still, 48V and 630WH battery makes me wonder what it really puts out. I also own a road ebike-kit with a BBS02 48V and it definitely feels stronger than the brief few minutes I experienced riding the Rocky Mountain eMTB (My BBS02 system has watt meter and can max out at 1100watts momentarily, though most rate it at 750 watts-ish, and I prefer to use 150-250 watts just cruising along. and I hardly ever ride this ebike, but put 4500kms/yr on reg road bike)

https://www.dyname.ca/en/dyname-propulsion/powerplay-drive-system/


----------



## karmaphi (Mar 19, 2018)

The people who say 250W is the peak or maximum are perhaps misinterpreting things. The suppliers of 250W mid-drive motors commonly specify continuous/nominal power, though some mention max torque (e.g. Spec Turbo Levo). Hub motor systems might specify peak, because big numbers sell, so it may be surprising to learn a 750W offering doesn't feel 3x stronger than a 250W mid drive.

The federal law doesn't make a distinction between max and continuous (source).

It's common for electrical components to be rated based on continuous current (e.g. amps). A system can only perform continuously as well as its weakest bottleneck allow (e.g speaker/audio system). Such a bottleneck on an ebike could be the motor itself with its heat dissipation.

Blame marketing for your frustration over watt comparison. It looks to be turning out to be another of those marketing misconceptions, similar to selling cameras by megapixels, and PCs by GHz, cores, and RAM.

You point out an interesting edge case scenario, as more power might not be needed for everyone on the trail, but desirable in a situation where you're hauling a heavy load up a hill. In hilly Oregon, they allow up to 1000W. In EU, people seeking to use e-bikes for utility (cargo bikes), are *extremely* annoyed by the 250W limit (even though their ebikes are likely 250W nominal, but much higher in peak).

Personally, I got my eye on smaller motors, being a lighter weight rider. The idea of a Fazua motor that assists dynamically based on my current speed, that is perhaps 25-100W, sounds great to me. It'll raise my minimum speed, giving me a tailwind when I'm feeling sluggish, yet keeps things feeling more natural at higher speed. I figure 50W is more than enough to counter the extra weight the motor, battery, and chassis reinforcements. I'd venture into 250W nominal if I'm thinking about ditching carbon upgraditis weight-weenism, and picking strong and cheap over lightweight (reinforced wire bead tires, tire inserts, super low maintenance).


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

A motor and battery that has half the capacity and half the weight of what comes standard on a Levo.

Whatever that comes out to in Watts is what I’d support and it’s what I’d buy.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

This article helps explain what's going on with watt and power ratings as well. Older article, but still relates to today's ebikes.

The Myth of Ebike Wattage - EbikeSchool.com


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

European Union directive 2002/24/EC

"Cycles with pedal assistance which are equipped with an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous rated power of 0.25 kW"

"This is the de facto definition of an electrically assisted pedal cycle in the EU. As with all EU directives, individual member countries of the EU are left to implement the requirements in national legislation."

vs:

Public Law 107–319 107th Congress

‘‘(b) 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.)"

‘‘(d) 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).’’.

While the U.S. law does not make the definition or how power is rated the EU law clearly states "maximum continuous rated power of 0.25 kW". Given that "The maximum current is determined by the ebike’s controller" in order to tell what a given bike it is necessary to see what it has for battery voltage and current amperage. As the above articles point out for the most part ALL the current crop of e bikes break the EU rules. 

Can you say eBikegate? 

Although you won't see it on their website the Levo, used as an example, has a 20A controller and a 36v battery equalling 720w. Batteries hot off the charger however have an even higher voltage:

10S (36V pack) – 42V max voltage

13S (48V pack) – 54.4V max voltage

14S (52V pack) – 58.8V max voltage

So fresh from the garage the Levo actually puts out 840w. Unlike a dino fueled engine that power remains constant until the fuel runs out voltage drops as energy is released from the battery but at the end of the ride you still end up with 550w maximum on tap.

36V (10S) – 27.5 volts

48V (13S) – 36 volts

52V (14S) – 39 volts

Given that the EU initiative is driving the e bike bus and is arguably the greatest influence on our current market in the U.S., even in regards to re-moulding the laws via the Class system. The major share of their marketing efforts to date have been focusing on e mtb's. Unfortunately that marketing is putting out the wrong data that many are taking as gospel adding further confusion to an already contentious subject.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I’m not an electrical engineer, so break it down for us:

If the EU says max output 0.25kw, how many does a Levo put out?

Am I correct to understand that 840w is equal to .84kw? So even at the minimum output the Levo has double the EU standard?

If that is true, why the effing hell has the US embraced a more powerful system?

That is craziness, esp considering that the US has more restrictions on trail access than the EU. If anything, I’d expect the US and the US mfgs to be more conservative in order to soften the impact and increase acceptance.

Can we say stoopid?!

So back on topic... I think an EU styled ebike with half as much power, half as much added weight, reduced cost, and half as much bulk, would make for a welcome and acceptable product.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Nurse Ben said:


> I'm not an electrical engineer, so break it down for us:
> 
> If the EU says max output 0.25kw, how many does a Levo put out?
> 
> ...


The regulations are designed around commuting and riding ebikes on the road. I doubt there was any consideration around riding ebikes on Mtb trails when creating the regulations. Ebikes appeal to law makers because it could be a way to reduce congestion and pollution and possibly to encourage those who are too lazy to ride a pedal bike to get a little exercise.

250w is not very much power if the goal is to get people to use the ebike for commuting, especially in areas with hills or to use the bike to transport loads or if your overweight, trying to get exercise and live in area with hills. Law makers want people to use ebikes to commute and/or exercise and if they did not allow for enough power or speed to do this then a lot less people would consider using ebikes for these purposes.

Law makers are not concerned about allowing people who want to use motors on non-motorized trails, especially for those who really don't need a motor, but just want it because it makes it easier. Why would they be?


----------



## JillRide45 (Dec 11, 2015)

Nurse Ben said:


> I'm not an electrical engineer, so break it down for us:
> 
> If the EU says max output 0.25kw, how many does a Levo put out?
> 
> ...


The Levo is a 250 watt nominal and 500 watt max Brose motor. Weird nomenclature but it means it can output 250 watts for extended time and 500 Watts for a short burst. Exact same motor sold in the EU only difference is in the speed limit software. Specialized actually shipped the 2018 carbon Levo to US dealers with EU specifications.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

JillRide45 said:


> The Levo is a 250 watt nominal and 500 watt max Brose motor. Weird nomenclature but it means it can output 250 watts for extended time and 500 Watts for a short burst. Exact same motor sold in the EU only difference is in the speed limit software. Specialized actually shipped the 2018 carbon Levo to US dealers with EU specifications.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's just the motor rating, which as pointed out in the article I posted really doesn't mean much. Here is a good thread about the Levo's power output from a website where people actually know about ebikes. 
https://electricbikereview.com/forum/threads/tested-turbo-levo-watt-output-surprising-results.14452/
If you really want to get information on ebikes, mtbr is not the place for that. Go to a site dedicated to ebikes.


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

Why does the power on the input side matter? What should matter is what the motor puts out at the shaft, not the "wattage" the motor uses to produce that. In America, we generally measure this in "horsepower," but as you all reading this probably know, power is power and it doesn't really matter what unit we use. I think the disconnect in this discussion is that in America, we use the watt generally to talk about electrical power, but a motor doesn't produce electrical power--it uses electricity to make mechanical power. It's the mechanical power that should matter. If the regulation is based on input power, there will just be a push to make more efficient motors that can produce more mechanical output at the shaft with less input power, which doesn't seem like the most important innovation in this area.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

twodownzero said:


> Why does the power on the input side matter? What should matter is what the motor puts out at the shaft, not the "wattage" the motor uses to produce that. In America, we generally measure this in "horsepower," but as you all reading this probably know, power is power and it doesn't really matter what unit we use. I think the disconnect in this discussion is that in America, we use the watt generally to talk about electrical power, but a motor doesn't produce electrical power--it uses electricity to make mechanical power. It's the mechanical power that should matter. If the regulation is based on input power, there will just be a push to make more efficient motors that can produce more mechanical output at the shaft with less input power, which doesn't seem like the most important innovation in this area.


The advancements that the new 250w motor makers advertise are increased torque and lighter weight, so you are correct.


----------



## JillRide45 (Dec 11, 2015)

tahoebeau said:


> That's just the motor rating, which as pointed out in the article I posted really doesn't mean much. Here is a good thread about the Levo's power output from a website where people actually know about ebikes.
> https://electricbikereview.com/forum/threads/tested-turbo-levo-watt-output-surprising-results.14452/
> If you really want to get information on ebikes, mtbr is not the place for that. Go to a site dedicated to ebikes.


I looked at the link and there seems to be some disagreement there. All I can say when I monitor power output from the motor using the mission control app or the Garmin I never see power output above 500 watts and 500 watts only for short peak bursts. Also the battery consumption seems to correspond with the motor ratings provided by specialized. Just my experience over 1000s of miles on the levo and Vado. Enjoy.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Zinfan (Jun 6, 2006)

Harryman said:


> The advancements that the new 250w motor makers advertise are increased torque and lighter weight, so you are correct.


I wonder how torque fits into this discussion. I took a look as some spec and it seems the motors do list maximum torque provided.

Bosch CX 75nM
Brose 90nM
Shimano 70nM
Yamaha 80nM

I looked for the Rocky Mountain specs as I read a review that said it was the most powerful and best climbing emtb they had ridden and I remember seeing a torque value of over 100nM but I can't find that now. Not even sure if it is rated at 250w.

I have no idea how electrical watts convert into mechanical torque values at the crank.


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

Harryman said:


> The advancements that the new 250w motor makers advertise are increased torque and lighter weight, so you are correct.


Torque, AKA, output power by a different name, since it takes only a mathematical calculation and another parameter to calculate one from the other.

I despise the idea of e-bikes, but I think I despise the idea of deceptive marketing even more.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Here, here, power output needs to be standardized and transparent, none of the smoke and mirrors that auto mfgs use when estimating MPG.

In answer to Jillride45: As far as how a commuter bike differs from a mtb, since mtb's are not going to be used on the road for commuting and commuters are not going to be used on trails for mountain biking, that is a straw man argument.

I think software limits are bogus, what we need are firmware limits, which is what I have been suggesting all along. A smaller motor and battery would set the limit, save weight, save money, and "might" help appease the naysayers.

Just think about it.



twodownzero said:


> Torque, AKA, output power by a different name, since it takes only a mathematical calculation and another parameter to calculate one from the other.
> 
> I despise the idea of e-bikes, but I think I despise the idea of deceptive marketing even more.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

Harryman said:


> The advancements that the new 250w motor makers advertise are increased torque and lighter weight, so you are correct.


Just curious at what point you are going to realize that while there are plenty of motor's that can produce 250w there are not motors made specifically that limit @250w and all motor watt limits are set by the battery voltage and current supplied by the controller? Plenty of evidence out that the "250w" mantra people on here stick to is fake news.

The one thing that twodownzero gets that I am surprised others did not jump on in my post up top about peak wattage is the loss of output due to mechanical inefficiency of the reduction gearing necessary inside the motor and through the bikes drivetrain. The percentage is somewhat unquantifiable without scientific analysis and more graphs etc. but there is no disputing the fact that it does effect the overall power ratings further muddying the waters.

The nm torque measurement values advertised are also very hard to quantify in the real world but from my experience torque produced at a lower cadence is higher than with a higher cadence which produces more speed at the sacrifice of torque. To demonstrate this ride at as a high rate of speed and cadence at a hill in the highest assist level and see how far you get before you are grabbing gears and slowing down to get into the torque curve. These values can be adjusted in relation to each other via the ability to modify the assist settings through the apps floating around or directly connecting to the controller.

As far as a Brose motor's peak output and the link above the CA3 display used for the testing is the most accurate gauge of power output available and if it says 680w I would believe that long before anything else. But the bottom line is that it produces plenty of power for it's intended use even though it goes about it somewhat disingenuously through the miracle of marketing.

The components that make up an e system for bikes are never going to be light. Battery cells weigh what they weigh with no solution on the horizon and as suggested downsizing is the only way to make them lighter which Focus has done already. You sacrifice range potential by doing so and then add making the motor smaller, thus lighter, but that will require more amperage to achieve it's maximum potential thereby using more energy from the battery will further reduce range. At that point you are better off just riding your regular bike.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Lot's of confusion going on here. Let's set the record straight on a few things:

1. If a bike has a 52V battery pack and a 20A controller, that does not mean it is a 1.04kW bike. Controllers are typically oversized for the same reason you wouldn't put a 15 amp breaker on a device that draws 15 amps. If the bike's controller is a 20A controller, it's continuous current draw is something significantly less.

2. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is only converted from one form to another. Electrical energy going into a motor will be converted into mechanical energy (shaft turning) and heat. The heat portion of the equation is the big variable. So, given that electrical power is mathematically Voltage * Current, a 52V battery delivering 10A of current will be producing something significantly less than 520 of shaft power given the heat dissipation.

3. Horsepower = Torque * RPM. Therefore, discussing torque and horsepower in the same sentence without a consideration of RPM is meaningless.


All of this discussion, while quite interesting, is probably moot. Truth is that an EU spec'd bike may produce "250W continuous power" and the exact same bike may be marketed in the US with a significantly higher power rating. It's all marketing. So, unless government is going to regulate actual power delivered to the rear wheel, none of this is really relevant to anything other than forum discussions.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Bigwheel said:


> Just curious at what point you are going to realize that while there are plenty of motor's that can produce 250w there are not motors made specifically that limit @250w and all motor watt limits are set by the battery voltage and current supplied by the controller.


I absolutely, 100% understand that the 250w/500ishw peak limit is not a mechanical limit of the motor, and all could be run far in excess of the limits set by the controller or in software. AFAIC, it's both marketing fluff and something for the EU spec motor comapnies to claim for type approval.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Okay, so for us non engineers, how is that done?



Jim_bo said:


> .... So, unless government is going to regulate actual power delivered to the rear wheel, none of this is really relevant to anything other than forum discussions.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Nurse Ben said:


> Okay, so for us non engineers, how is that done?


That's just the point. You can't really do it by practical means. 250W or 750W really has no meaning unless you clarify several things. Are you talking peak or continuous power? Are you talking electrical power delivered to the motor or mechanical power delivered to the wheel? Etc.

I'm sure if the US passed a EUlike law limiting power to 250W, specialized would be able to justify that the turbo Levo would be legal here.


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

kind of like how my car has 450 hp, but if I ran it at WOT all the time it wouldn't last 300 miles, lol, nor get better than 3mpg. most of the time it is using 30-80hp I imagine. (Boats and planes different as they use a lot of their hp all the time.)

except we're fussing over 1hp output (750 watts) vs 1/3 hp. kind of silly. fwiw the traditional defn of moped was around 3hp, 2200watts, scooter up to 5 hp, 3700watts


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

BCsaltchucker said:


> except were fussing over 1hp output (750 watts) vs 1/3 hp. kind of silly. fwiw the traditional defn of moped was around 3hp, 2200watts, scooter up to 5 hp, 3700watts


2200watt for a moped? Funny how Luna can take the motor used on their legal 750w nominal ebikes and go ludicrous by changing the programming and get 2500watts out of it. Same 750 watt nominal, legal class 1 ebike motor, now putting out more than 3x the power of the original rating with a total bike weight at about 1/3 of what a 
moped weighs.


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

wife and I rented mopeds once a few years ago. The one I had couldn't even keep me moving over the top of some of the steep hills. had to walk it at times. but of course no granny gear like eMTB. 

I've now done one proper eMTB ride recently, in oem form. It definitely gets me over some steep stuff I could not execute on my reg mtb. gearing is what makes torque out of a wee amt of power and makes eMTB so effective for climbs. I was impressed, like being 30 years younger is about how I'd describe it. I agree with Nurse ben, there is no need for more power than OEM class 1, and lighter folks could get by with half power of a typical emtb. And that said there are signif amount of trails I think an eMTB is superfluous, just a silly choice.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

tahoebeau said:


> 2200watt for a moped? Funny how Luna can take the motor used on their legal 750w nominal ebikes and go ludicrous by changing the programming and get 2500watts out of it. Same 750 watt nominal, legal class 1 ebike motor, now putting out more than 3x the power of the original rating with a total bike weight at about 1/3 of what a
> moped weighs.


Again, not an apples to apples comparison.

When you speak of the HP of an internal combustion engine, you are speaking of peak HP at a very specific RPM range. As stated before, HP is a function of torque and RPM. On the other hand, electric motors' power output is not nearly as RPM dependent as internal combustion engine's.

So, a Moped that is rated at 1 HP, may have that rating at 12,000 RPMs. But when its engine speed falls off of that high RPM, it's power output drops dramatically. Think "power band". We don't think of "power bands" for electric motors.

So, at a reasonable RPM range, you may find that the 1/3 HP electric motor produces more torque than the 1 HP gas engine. It is naive and out of context to simply think that a 1 HP gas moped should be 3 times as powerful as a 1/3 HP eBike.

Another analogy is that a hot-rod 4cyl engine in a Subaru will likely produce similar or more peak HP than a big diesel engine in an 18 wheeler. But the Subaru's peak power is measured at a very high RPM with a relatively low level of torque, while the diesel engine measures its peak HP at a very low RPM with a very high level of torque. Obviously it would be nonsensical to think of a Subaru pulling an 18wheeler's load with ease because it has more power than the 18wheeler.

People are putting way too much effort into trying to draw comparisons based on Watts, HP, internal combustion engines and electric motors. By doing so, they loose the real point... and that is, is there a significantly detrimental impact to safety and/or environmental impact? And the truth is, I haven't seen any objective study that shows that there is. However, there's tons of people with biased opinions who will take issues out of context, quote non-relatable numbers and cite anecdotes from what they heard somebody say once... but that is not real data.

The bottom line is, we do not live in a simple world any more. Technology blurs all the lines between the nice, neat little compartments we used to put everything in. So, as our technology increases, our wisdom on how to deal with the technology must increase as well. Simply saying "it's got a motor" would not be the words of Solomon.


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

tahoebeau said:


> 2200watt for a moped? Funny how Luna can take the motor used on their legal 750w nominal ebikes and go ludicrous by changing the programming and get 2500watts out of it. Same 750 watt nominal, legal class 1 ebike motor, now putting out more than 3x the power of the original rating with a total bike weight at about 1/3 of what a
> moped weighs.


Luna is a tiny company selling on the fringe. It's like all the cars you see on the road - how many have 'built' 1000hp engines in them?? I imagine for every ludicrous Luna on the trail, there are 1,000 tepid oem Turbo Levos. Further, almost all the eMTB Luna is selling are crappy mtn bikes. they mainly are selling to the MUT set. And really the Turbo Levo is the right amt of power for a heavy rider doing MTB, imho

This hysteria over heavy modified ebikes was used against them on the MUT for years. It gained no traction as it posed minimal impact on the MUT scene. (compared to innumerable fast riders on non ebikes on the MUT). We've had ebikes on the roads and MUTs here for more than 10 years now and I love it, it has helped swell the influence of cyclists in general. I also enjoy that they can move a bit faster so there isn't such a differential in speed when I pass them on my non ebike.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

The issue that most anti ebikers have with ebikes is not the actual risk, but perceived risk; it's not the power per se, but the hype on high powered bikes with a throttle.

So I have a very different take on the US ebike situation:

Ebikes are not gaining acceptance for trail use because there is a large disparity between people who support trails for non motorized use and people who support trails for mixed use (motos allowed). In some areas, like Nevada, mixed use is more common due to our history, but drive over to California and things get downright militant.

I think ebikers, ebike mfgs, and people promoting ebikes on trails need to think real hard about the path they're taking. At this point, trail use for ebikers is becoming more restrictive, which means access is diminishing. That is a bad thing and if things don't turn around, you can expect access is diminish further.

For perspective, consider the fight that mountain bikers are having with accessing trails in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. You can hike or ride a horse in these areas, but no bikes are allowed. You have an entire industry and millions of riders fighting for access and they have gotten nowhere.

So if you think that the governement is going to come to the aid of ebikers over a very vocal anti ebiker sentiment, then you need to cut back on them funny brownies.

What ebikers need is the support of non ebikers, otherwise nothing will change for the better.

My suggestions include promoting low power assist, disallowing throttles, and getting forums like MTBR to stop advertising electric motorcycles; I'm looking at an advertisement for a Zero electric moto jumping a berm as I type.

Sincer we're talking about this on MTBR, I'd ask that MTBR step up to the plate and do the right thing.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

BCsaltchucker said:


> kind of like how my car has 450 hp, but if I ran it at WOT all the time it wouldn't last 300 miles, lol, nor get better than 3mpg. most of the time it is using 30-80hp I imagine. (Boats and planes different as they use a lot of their hp all the time.)
> 
> except we're fussing over 1hp output (750 watts) vs 1/3 hp. kind of silly. fwiw the traditional defn of moped was around 3hp, 2200watts, scooter up to 5 hp, 3700watts


I've only seen two 250w PAS ebikes over the past couple of years on the local bike paths, I mainly see 600w Pedegos and kit bikes which are used exactly like mopeds back in the days when Puchs reigned supreme in my suburban NJ neighborhood. Pedal only when absolutely necessary, otherwise tool around throttle only from 15-35mph. (Depending on the ebike setup.) Fine by me quite honestly, I think an electric version of a moped is a great idea, just don't expect me to believe they're the same as a bike.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Nurse Ben said:


> My suggestions include promoting low power assist, disallowing throttles, and getting forums like MTBR to stop advertising electric motorcycles; I'm looking at an advertisement for a Zero electric moto jumping a berm as I type.


While I agree that promoting a 250w spec for Emtbs would help in gaining ebike access on singletrack, unless it's a law it's or you can convince your local LM to rewrite their own code, it's essentially only going to be an internet thought experiement. Land managers are forced to look to what the laws allow while setting policy, they're unlikely to come up with their own definition of an ebike.

The bike industry wrote the current ebike laws for bike paths, defining an ebike (Class 1-3) was the only way they could sell them nationwide with the existing patchwork of regs. I've found zero evidence that the industry has an interest in writing and introducing a new piece of legislation in all 50 states defining a different emtb class. Maybe they're pondering it now that they see emtb access wasn't a slam dunk, I dunno. Regardless, it's expensive and takes a long time. I'll likely be 10 years before all 50 states adopt the Class 1-3 system.


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

Nurse Ben said:


> The issue that most anti ebikers have with ebikes is not the actual risk, but perceived risk; it's not the power per se, but the hype on high powered bikes with a throttle.
> 
> So I have a very different take on the US ebike situation:
> 
> ...


your point about MTBR advertising e-motorbikes is completely irrelevant. I'm seeing an add for Fujifilm camera. same same. I doubt MTBR has a say in what ads appear on their site anyways, that is all generated by Google's ad service. But I agree on most other issues other than eMTB affecting MTB access to date. eMTB have good penetration and acceptance in the EU, making for good precedent for land managers to look to.

The law here has been adjusted to define ebikes as non-motorized bikes as long as 500W and under, pedelec only, 32kph max, no throttle. That makes sense to me it is just such a trivial amount of power and on balance beneficial to society.

and BTW Zero motorcycles are super cool. I'd love to have one. They make dirt bikes nowtoo?


----------



## Whiptastic (Mar 14, 2016)

The Class 1-3 system works fine in my book. This gives those in control over trail use to use that Class system to make their polices and avoid having to go down more difficult paths.

I just wish that Federal/National Forest lands would start allowing at least Class-1 already.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Yup, but in the meantime it'd make more sense to work toward that ideal than continue down a path that will only worsen access.

At this point, the ebike trend is alienating people who could be brought into the fold.

So Harry, you're a moderator, do you honestly believe that having an add for Zero electric motorcycles on a mountain biking forum is going to sell ebikes to the greater population? if you're thinking like BCSaltchucker, then why no adds for Honda/Yamaha/Suzuki motorcycles?

I think you guys (MTBR) are choosing the ads, throttle based ebikes ... and I think it's sad that you are advocating for these emotos on a mountain bike forum. If you're not choosing, then now is the time to stand up for what your beliefs.

MTBR is the single largest on line forum for mountain biking, so it has a huge potential (and responsibility) to bring ebikers and non ebikers together.

I'm one of those anti ebikers who was brought into the fold after my wife experienced an ebike, but what I've read and experienced on this forum in the past year has pushed me out of the fold.

Think about it.



Harryman said:


> While I agree that promoting a 250w spec for Emtbs would help in gaining ebike access on singletrack, unless it's a law it's or you can convince your local LM to rewrite their own code, it's essentially only going to be an internet thought experiement. Land managers are forced to look to what the laws allow while setting policy, they're unlikely to come up with their own definition of an ebike.
> 
> The bike industry wrote the current ebike laws for bike paths, defining an ebike (Class 1-3) was the only way they could sell them nationwide with the existing patchwork of regs. I've found zero evidence that the industry has an interest in writing and introducing a new piece of legislation in all 50 states defining a different emtb class. Maybe they're pondering it now that they see emtb access wasn't a slam dunk, I dunno. Regardless, it's expensive and takes a long time. I'll likely be 10 years before all 50 states adopt the Class 1-3 system.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Nurse Ben said:


> Yup, but in the meantime it'd make more sense to work toward that ideal than continue down a path that will only worsen access.
> 
> At this point, the ebike trend is alienating people who could be brought into the fold.
> 
> ...


I'm a moderator in the suspension forum, I'm a civilian everywhere else, I've got no clout here. As was pointed out, you're seeing ads provided by Google, based on what you've been looking at lately. Mine are mostly lingerie, but I digress. 

MTBR was recently sold to a group that runs motorhead forums, so maybe it'll go all ebikes all the time? Hard to say. It's privately held anyway, so it's not like they have any real public responsibility to promote anything.

I do have over a decade of experience working with a large number of land managers designing trails and getting them approved, so more than most people, I do know how policy gets made behind the scenes. I've also been involved with them in many of their ebike descussions, both formally and informally, so I know what their concerns are.

There are 3 paths ahead that I see for emtbs, 1) The status quo, which is waiting for the industry to do something, 2) Lobby your local LM to let your 250w emtb in to wherever you ride, or 3) Organize, and as a community push the industry to write new legislation specifically for 250w spec emtbs. Knowing how people are, and that most only get off of their asses when there is a threat of losing something, I'll bet #1 will be what happens.

I've got no emtb in the garage or dog in the fight, so I'll be a bystander. As long as my land managers are fully informed, I'll be happy with whatever they decide.

I understand the intent behind making PAS ebikes seem more bike-like since you have to pedal to turn on the motor, but it's still a throttle in my eyes, just a different type. Pedaling doesn't make the motor go away, just embrace it and you wouldn't have to use 140mm cranks in the rocks anymore. I've ridden both, and I would prefer to use PAS most of the time, with a throttle for the uphill techy stuff where you're stutter pedaling. If your motor isn't very big, what's the dif? It's not like you're going to rototill your way up.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

craigsj said:


> The answer is to insist that e-bikes are bikes and should be treated the same.


Not a chance. For every person that insists that they are "bikes" there are a dozen that say otherwise. Nice bit of propaganda there, good luck with it.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

craigsj said:


> The laws of more than half the states in the US contradict your uninformed opinion. The fact is that very few even have an opinion and, of those, only some cyclists take your point of view. It is these cyclists, including you, that are the problem. The fact is that the typical person doesn't give a sh*t and would see a bike as bike if it is operated as a bike.


The "laws" that you tout govern e-motor bikes on the roads and MUPS primarily with rules for off road usage being left to the land managers or with e-motor bikes being confined to motorized trails. Your opinion is just that, opinion.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

craigsj said:


> and yours isn't? Mine's supported broadly by law and common sense, what supports yours?
> 
> So what? These laws still support that e-bikes are bikes. That doesn't suddenly change when the tire hits grass. Sure it does, all over public lands where e-motorbikes are banned from non-motorized trails.
> 
> ...


Nothing new here, all of your points have been refuted repeatedly by many other posters.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

craigsj said:


> "e-motorbikes" are not e-bikes. "These laws" that were being referred to have nothing to do with e-motorbikes.
> 
> Never said otherwise, yet my state shares this in common with the majority of states.
> 
> ...


The same should be said of you, the one spouting the same tired rhetoric of the unicorn hunting e-motor bike fans.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

And yet another thread falls into the abyss. 

Funny thing is that I agree with craigsj for once, well except for his last statement totally excluding throttles that is. As long as a bike has a good torque assist system. a Class 1.5 if you will, it doesn't get used much but useful when it is for what it is as I have described on this forum before. 

Basically anyone that rides exclusively with a throttle on a legal e bike (on legal terrain) isn't going to get there any faster and certainly isn't going to go nearly as far as one that uses their PAS wisely. Probably have less pedal strikes though.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

True, but it’s easy to police a throttle vs. 100% pedelac. Of course, who’s gonna police anything? So, a mtbr spends his life or a portion there of working on said trails, donating to his/her club, then adds a emtb to his quiver. Is he/she now ousted from said trails? LM says yes, they are illegal. The rider says FU, never works on trails and leaves his/her chapter. Former riders in chapter also follow suit. Where does that leave helpers and chapter members? This is going to be a serious problem for the Mtb community.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

craigsj said:


> You comment is a canonical example of an "internet thought experiment". Your "agreeing" that "promoting a 250w spec for Emtbs would help in gaining ebike access on singletrack" is pure baseless speculation and your earlier comment that 600W throttle-only bikes are going 35 mph shows how disconnected you are from reality. It takes a lot of power to go that fast.


Read what I wrote.

"Pedal only when absolutely necessary, otherwise tool around throttle only from 15-35mph. *(Depending on the ebike setup.)*"

Two days ago I saw a guy with a BBSHD on a commuter keeping up with the traffic I was in at 35. I've also watched a rider on a hardtail with a Cyclone and a dude with twin 1000w hubmotors and apehangers do the same. Pedego riders are in the 15-20 mph speed range.

My comments regarding the potential for increased access with EU spec ebikes are based on reality. I've had conversations with all of the land managers in my area about ebikes individually, and representing my mtb org, if we had the same fines and restrictions on what can be sold as an ebike, it would take much of the daily enforcement issues away from the land managers. Plus, lower power and speed limit sounds better to them as well.



craigsj said:


> Lastly, and at risk of too long a response, the whole talk of "250 watts" causes the argument to be about the wrong thing. 250 watts means that a BBS02 is too much motor when it has proven to be not enough and it completely eliminates the BBSHD.


Proven by....? Seems like the often touted EU emtb wave like 250w ebikes just fine.



craigsj said:


> Meanwhile Luna is selling the Sur-ron which is the real problem. That "bike" is very clearly a motorcycle in bike clothing with the "pedal system" actually optional (and hardly functional). The important fight to have is to keep these 100+ pound monstrosities out of the mix, not to ban useful product.


Considering how few Sur-rons are in the US, I was slightly surprised they're already out poaching trails on them. Ok, not really.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

First two sentences pretty much some up this guy as an a** clown. I’m sorry he has disabilities, but can’t be that crazy considering he’s ripping that frankenbike.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Craigsj,

I agree with your points that the whole 250W vs 750W argument is little more than a distraction. As I've said before, I have no doubt in my mind that a major manufacturer (ie Specialized, Pivot, Cannondale, etc) could take one of their class 1 bikes (rated at far greater than 250W) and justify it as being in compliance with the 250W EU standards. It all depends on how you want to report the data. And without a standard, there really is no meaning to 250W.

So, why do people want to argue about things like that so much? Simple, because they want to regulate something. Even if it is just a piece of paper from a manufacturer that says 250W. But until you can articulate what your core concerns are (safety, environmental impact, etc) and then come up with a reasonable metric for measuring those concerns... all of this discussion is much to do about nothing.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

craigsj said:


> I wouldn't say the Sur-ron is a bad example of this kind of bike, I don't know, I'd say it's the kind of bike it is that's at issue.
> 
> Regarding the Sur-ron, I'd like to point out a couple things. First, it has a 5KW rated motor which in mid-drive form can be added to a bike at around 20 pounds. A Tangent Ascent can do this at half that weight but most solutions will be heavier. Next, the best batteries weigh 10 pounds per kWh, so the Sun-ron's battery could be had at 20 pounds. That leaves the rest of the bike at 70 pounds! Where is all that weight going?
> 
> ...


This dudes a blatant poacher. He claims it himself. Poaching hiking trails? Really.


----------



## E. Bryant (Jan 25, 2018)

Nurse Ben said:


> Here, here, power output needs to be standardized and transparent, none of the smoke and mirrors that auto mfgs use when estimating MPG.


I don't understand what you mean about "smoke and mirrors" with regards to automotive fuel economy ratings. All manufacturers are expected to dyno-test their vehicles to well-known standards, to calculate the common "window-sticker" numbers using known equations, and to publish the results. Those who cheat tend to get caught and punished by the regulatory agency in charge of enforcing the law (the EPA, in this case), as Ford and Hyundai have found out in recent years. This would appear to be exactly what you wish for with e-bike ratings.

The reason that personal experience does not align with the EPA ratings is that most people don't drive to the exact test profiles, and so results may (and will) vary. This, in turn, highlights some of the issues with testing bicycles to a standard. What does "peak" or "max" mean? What does "continuous" mean? Where do we measure the power - the output terminals of the battery, the shaft output of the motor, the drive wheel of the bicycle? Under which conditions do we perform these measurements - what ambient temperature, battery SoC, speed and acceleration profile, etc.? Do we do this with a brand-new bike or one that has aged? All of this stuff took decades for the auto industry to work out (and that's with powerful enforcement agencies and industry groups), and we still have multiples standards by which rated power is measured, and there are still meaningful discrepancies throughout the industry. So I'm not holding my breath for anything better to happen in the bicycle world any time soon.



> I think software limits are bogus, what we need are firmware limits, which is what I have been suggesting all along. A smaller motor and battery would set the limit, save weight, save money, and "might" help appease the naysayers.


Software/firmware limits are the easiest to implement, and the easiest way to address different standards throughout the world without changing the underlying hardware, so that's what we'll see used by any intelligent manufacturer in the foreseeable future absent any wacky government regs to the contrary. FWIW, virtually all "firmware" is "software" nowadays, since true ROM storage in microcontrollers is extremely uncommon nowadays, and even the precious emissions-control devices in automobiles isn't stored in true firmware (as any car guy is well aware).

The problem in trying to establish a power limit in the motor and/or battery is that almost any motor/battery system can be forced into providing power well above its designed limits, if the user is willing to accept the resulting negative effects (reduced component life, lower efficiency, smoke, fire, etc.). Just look at what the radio-controlled car and aircraft guys can do when they aren't concerned about things occasionally going *poof*. If man designed and built the machine, man can hack it to make it do things that it was not intended to see.

As things stand today, the US does not distinguish between different usages (road vs. off-road) for e-bikes, so there isn't a mechanism at the national level to implement a lower maximum power level for off-road bikes, and any manufacturer that attempts to market a less-powerful off-road e-bike is going to be laughed at by the average consumer.

Furthermore, there appears to be little or no enforcement of the existing CPSC standard, as I could not find any examples of regulatory action with a quick search. The CPSC has certainly cracked down on a number of bike companies for safety issues and is generally not an agency that you want to mess with, but with regards to this specific issue, they appear to be either clueless or toothless.

Additionally, if a two-wheeled vehicle is intended for off-road use and has >750W or an electric-only top speed above 20 MPH, then it's not illegal to sell; it's just not supposed to be called an "e-bike" (even though plenty of them still are referred to as such), and so there isn't currently a general mechanism on a national level to restrict the manufacture and sale of silly things like the 15kW Neematic or whatever is selling out of China nowadays. Sure, such a vehicle (not-an-e-bike) isn't allowed to be used on a path that is closed to motorized vehicles, but that enforcement must occur on a local level, and I don't see a lot of sheriffs or conservation officers out there on the paths and trails attempted to determine if someone's e-bike is above or below the legal limit.

I'm generally an advocate for this technology and would like to see it succeed in a fashion that does not expose other trail users to excessive risk. To achieve that goal, I'm in agreement with you that some sort of reasonable power level much below the federal 750W level needs to be in place, but I have absolutely zero confidence that the industry or the federal government will find a way to do this.


----------



## E. Bryant (Jan 25, 2018)

Harryman said:


> I'll likely be 10 years before all 50 states adopt the Class 1-3 system.


Having worked in the automotive and heavy-truck industries for the past 25 years, I don't think that we will ever see a universal set of laws and regulations for e-bikes. There will be one federal law (like the current CPSC regs), and then 50 sets of state laws, and we'll see people getting in trouble in one state for things that are perfectly legal in another state.

A significant number of decisions that are made when designing a car come from case law, which comes primarily from product liability lawsuits. It takes time to develop such history, and I suspect the same will be true with regards to e-bikes.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Gutch said:


> True, but it's easy to police a throttle vs. 100% pedelac. Of course, who's gonna police anything?


But, how do you define a throttle? Right now, technically, the new specialized levo is a class 2 because it has a low speed throttle button used to go almost 4 mph as a "walk assist."

Call It whatever they want, but that's a throttle. I know I have had climbs where I am probably pedaling at about 4 mph. Would be nice to have a button I could just push and give my legs a rest. :thumbsup:

(1) A "class 1 electric bicycle," or "low-speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle," is a bicycle equipped with *a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling*, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.

(2) A "class 2 electric bicycle," or "*low-speed throttle-assisted electric bicycle," is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle*, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Yeah, I’ve twisted many throttles, a button is not a throttle.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Yeah, I've twisted many throttles, a button is not a throttle.


Endless Sphere disagrees.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Interesting, never heard of endless sphere. Is that where closet ebikers go?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

tahoebeau said:


> But, how do you define a throttle? Right now, technically, the new specialized levo is a class 2 because it has a low speed throttle button used to go almost 4 mph as a "walk assist."
> 
> Call It whatever they want, but that's a throttle. I know I have had climbs where I am probably pedaling at about 4 mph. Would be nice to have a button I could just push and give my legs a rest. :thumbsup:
> 
> ...


I would concede your point if you would concede that the legal definition for a "motorized vehicle" relied upon by BLM and USFS says that it has to be self propelled and therefore a true class 1 eBike is not a "motorized vehicle" by the legal definition and therefore not restricted from non-motorized trails.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> I would concede your point if you would concede that the legal definition for a "motorized vehicle" relied upon by BLM and USFS says that it has to be self propelled and therefore a true class 1 eBike is not a "motorized vehicle" by the legal definition and therefore not restricted from non-motorized trails.


Good you brought that up...

If I install a cadence senor PAS system to read my cadence when I pedal and then activate the motor, but set it up to read my cadence when I pedal backwards, how would the ebike be propelling forward if it was not self propelled?

I could also ask about using a supper low gear ratio single speed set up with a cadence sensor. This way, when going the top speed of just under 20mph, the motor would be solely propelling the bike since the gearing would be too low to engage.

What was the federal definition of an electric bike again? Oh, here it is...

"low speed electric bicycle" as a two or three wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals, *a top speed when powered solely by the motor under 20 mph* (32 km/h) and an electric motor that produces less than 750 W (1.01 hp)"

Now, the class system is not recognized by the feds, blm or forest service, but in the few states that it is, the language for class 2 ebikes go something like this...

"A "class 2 electric bicycle," or "*low-speed throttle-assisted electric bicycle*," is a bicycle *equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle*, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour."

Can the motor on the levo be used exclusively to propel the ebike? Well, with the "walk assist" aka "low-speed throttle assist" not only can the motor propel the ebike without pedaling, but it can propel the ebike without even sitting on it! That is just about beyond the definition of self propelled.

So, using the language as written by the state, emtbs with walk assist like the levo are "low speed throttle-assisted electric bicycles" which is interchangeable with "class 2 electric bicycle." What really sucks for levo owners is that they don't get any of the fun of a throttle that can go over 4 mph on their very expensive class 2 ebike like other class 2 ebikes (which can cost a lot less) get to enjoy 

Oh... wait, I know what they should do. States should come up with a class 0 for torque sensing PAS only. That won't be confusing at all, plus, the more regulations we have the better, right?


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

You're not paying attention to your foe. I was anti ebike until my wife tried one, the only reason she tried one was because I'd been reading about them on forum and got curious.

I would not call myself an advocate per se because I remain concerned about abuse.

When I engage in conversation with non ebikes, the primary issues are trail damage and speed. Throttles and high powered ebikes are a huge turn off to non ebikers.

Now you can put your head in the sand till the cows come home, but in the good ole US of A, ebikes are fighting an uphill battle. To win acces, ebikers need to compromise.

The discussion that followed my previous comments would never win over a non ebiker the the cause. In my case, these discussions push me further from the fold, which should get your attention, but I'm just one guy so maybe I don't matter.

Once again I encourage folks to think about whether you'd be willing to accept less power and give up the throttle to win access.

You have won a battle: I'm no longer interested in participating in the forum.

Good luck ?



craigsj said:


> The "ebike trend" is not alienating people who could be brought into the fold, it is triggering fear in ignorant cyclists. They are already alienated because they choose to be.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Gutch said:


> Yeah, I've twisted many throttles, a button is not a throttle.


The "walk assist" thumb button reminded me of a thumb throttle. Most ATVs I have been on use thumb throttle. The buttton is just a much cheaper version with only a on/off function just like a cadence sensor.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Bikes like the Levo are classified as Class 1 250w pedelacs. Your idea of a throttle will not change that. “Walk assist” is just that. It does not have the power to propel you while you are on the bike, technically riding it. Next..


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

The definition I was paraphrasing is the federal definition of "motorized vehicle", not "electric bicycle". Feds don't recognize class 1 or 2. They only see motorized and non motorized. And a real class 1 (you can argue as to whether a levo is a class 1) is, by legal definition, not a "motorized vehicle. "


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> The definition I was paraphrasing is the federal definition of "motorized vehicle", not "electric bicycle". Feds don't recognize class 1 or 2. They only see motorized and non motorized. And a real class 1 (you can argue as to whether a levo is a class 1) is, by legal definition, not a "motorized vehicle. "


Either way, i just proved to you that a class 1 pas only electric bike can be self propelled. So they can fall under either definition and therefore are a motorized vehicle and/or an electric bike depending on where your at. Please post the definition you talking about so we all can see why your wrong.

So, your just going to say the levo is a class 1, even though it is, by definition a class 2, without saying why the levo doesn't have to follow the class definitions? What makes the levo so special it doesn't need to follow the language stated in the regs?

You seem the type of person who likes to just state what they believe as fact, and then when shown they are wrong, just continue to state what they believe as fact without backing it up with anything.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Gutch said:


> Bikes like the Levo are classified as Class 1 250w pedelacs. Your idea of a throttle will not change that. "Walk assist" is just that. It does not have the power to propel you while you are on the bike, technically riding it. Next..


On the Sondors I was riding last week, I could sit on the bike and use the walk assist. Went only a few mph, but I could ride it. But, the language only says class 2 is "equipped with a motor that can be used exclusively to propel the bicycle". The walk assist on the levo and any other ebike with it can be used exclusively to propel the bike whether waking and/or riding it. May not like it, but that is how it is written and that's exactly what walk assist does.

Maybe they should come up with a class system for the walk assist too?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

tahoebeau said:


> Either way, i just proved to you that a class 1 pas only electric bike can be self propelled. So they can fall under either definition and therefore are a motorized vehicle and/or an electric bike depending on where your at. Please post the definition you talking about so we all can see why your wrong.
> 
> So, your just going to say the levo is a class 1, even though it is, by definition a class 2, without saying why the levo doesn't have to follow the class definitions? What makes the levo so special it doesn't need to follow the language stated in the regs?
> 
> You seem the type of person who likes to just state what they believe as fact, and then when shown they are wrong, just continue to state what they believe as fact without backing it up with anything.


No... you proved that you could modify a class 1 bike into being self propelled. Once you do that, it is no longer a class 1.

I never said that a Levo is a class 1. Nor have I said that it is not. Clearly the early version of the Levo was a class 1 because it did not have the walk assist. And I do concede that the walk assist at least makes it grey in determining its category.


----------



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

Cars are pedal assist, they won't move unless someone presses the gas pedal.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

singletrackmack said:


> On the Sondors I was riding last week, I could sit on the bike and use the walk assist. Went only a few mph, but I could ride it. But, the language only says class 2 is "equipped with a motor that can be used exclusively to propel the bicycle". The walk assist on the levo and any other ebike with it can be used exclusively to propel the bike whether waking and/or riding it. May not like it, but that is how it is written and that's exactly what walk assist does.
> 
> Maybe they should come up with a class system for the walk assist too?


Interesting point. In exploring the definitions like this, the absolute absurdity rises to the surface. We find ourselves now nit picking over walk assist. Can ANYONE argue that walk assist has any detrimental environmental or safety impact? Only the most extreme zealot would.

Would we be so quick to say "the law is the law" if the law said only blue bikes are allowed on MTB trails? Or how about if they said only 29ers and 26, but no 27.5? Of course we wouldn't accept that! And the reason is that we would all be offended by such an arbitrary and capricious basis for establishing access regulation.

Well, clearly walk assist would fall in the same arbitrary and capricious category as that described above. And in my opinion, a class 1 bike is not too far behind that given the fact that there is no data out there which suggests a class 1 eBike has any significant environmental or safety impact above that of an MTB.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> No... you proved that you could modify a class 1 bike into being self propelled. Once you do that, it is no longer a class 1..


Ok, then what about riding an ebike with a cadence sensor in the lowest granny gear just under 20mph? Would you consider downshifting into granny modifying the bike? Because in granny gear going just under 20mph with a cadence sensor means the motor is solely propelling the bike since the gearing would be too low to engage.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

craigsj said:


> Sorry, this is not "the federal definition of an electric bike" because there is no "the". This is "a" federal definition for one specific purpose only.


How about you provide that for us then?


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

craigsj said:


> All the bickering about what defines a "throttle" and what a deliberately mistuned PAS control might mean just underscore the absurdity of the well-known attempts to regulate improperly, regulation that isn't justified in the first place.
> 
> First you need a clear understanding of a real problem, then an approach that solves the problem without unreasonable limits on freedom, then a reliable means of enforcement. None of this exists for e-bikes in the US.
> 
> ...


Man, that's a lot of talking to try to get your point across, which I am still not sure what that is, but please explain how the below example would constitute a miss-tuned or broken PAS....

"Ok, then what about riding an ebike with a cadence sensor in the lowest granny gear just under 20mph? Because in granny gear going just under 20mph with a cadence sensor means the motor is solely propelling the bike since the gearing would be too low to engage."


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

craigsj said:


> All the bickering about what defines a "throttle" and what a deliberately mistuned PAS control might mean just underscore the absurdity of the well-known attempts to regulate improperly, regulation that isn't justified in the first place.
> 
> First you need a clear understanding of a real problem, then an approach that solves the problem without unreasonable limits on freedom, then a reliable means of enforcement. None of this exists for e-bikes in the US.
> 
> ...


 " Limits of freedom" "morally wrong" ? We are still talking about trail access here, correct? Not stuff like the right to vote etc. The rules are done by the land managers and stake holders, as well as some trail user input, at some places. CA seems to be the test case, like it or not. You have a new user group, lots of questions, about who , what, where. Some areas CA and MA for one, lots of users, declining trail miles and conflicts are sure to arise. Your state is which? What rules and regs are working there? MA rider here. Mt bikers have become THE go to resource for trail work and trail collaborations due to 25+ years of advocacy, meetings and boots on the ground. At least here. The " new guy" has done what? Claim it's " like a bike" but it's not. And it " sort of" has a motor. Also realize that in many areas, mt bikers are the minority trail user. Tell some AMC or Sierra Clubber that's " it's only a small motor" see how that goes. As well as horsey folk, good luck with that.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

You can take the chain off of my e-bike and still ride it, the cadence sensor still activates. You do look a bit silly trying to get started, but it's sort of fun. 

So I guess by that definition, it's got a "throttle"...

If you just put the EU 15.5mph speed governor on everything that would be fine with me, no other restrictions needed. Want to sit there and throttle along at 15? Fine. Want to use 80w of assist to explore all day while pedaling your butt off? No problem. 

I mean, the goal is to integrate seamlessly with existing trail users and enjoy a mountain bike-like experience with less effort (either because you don't like the effort or because you're not capable of it for whatever reason). That doesn't require a ton of power and it certainly doesn't require a motor assist above 15mph (one could easily argue for 10 since it's *very* rare for anyone to climb even that fast). Now, it might not be very fun to ride to the trailhead or commute to work that way, and that's a bummer... but c'est la vie. More speed on MUTs is just going to get everyone in trouble/banned. 

To me, the existing e-bikes (on the mountain bike side) are heavy, ungainly, and overpowered. I can absolutely go nutty fast on a LEVO, people complain about the higher assist levels being hard to control on the trail. Why have that much power?

To go riding with your younger/stronger buddies you don't probably need more than an extra 100W or so (at the wheel) unless you're unbelievably feeble and/or morbidly obese. Why the manufacturers didn't do super minimalist stuff with limited assist and LOTS of range is beyond me, but it is what it is. The existing bikes and laws make e-bikes their own worst enemies for access. 

-Walt


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Texas has how much legal single track?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I say speed is a good thing. Yeah I said it. Get off the turtle crawl and live! Every downhiller I see here is balls to the walls. Let’s not kid ourselves.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Gutch said:


> I say speed is a good thing. Yeah I said it. Get off the turtle crawl and live! Every downhiller I see here is balls to the walls. Let's not kid ourselves.


Yes, this is what old biddies at city council meetings use to get mountain bikes in general banned. Often successfully.

More speed is wicked fun. It is also a path that leads to completely segregated bike/hike trails, which for most of us means most of our trails get closed.

If you just want more speed, a moto is where it's at. I spent more than a decade racing hare scrambles and enduros and gosh, it's super fun (not so much clenaing air filters and trailering your bike around, etc). It's not compatible with any other trail users, though, so it's pretty much outlawed near any kind of population center anywhere in the USA now (don't even think about the EU...)

We can go there, I guess. We can just say "screw it, we want to rip it up", and we can have dedicated bike trails only. I like that too - I go ride the lift with my fullface probably once a week in the summertime and get stupid, on trails that nobody else can use. That might be in the cards anyway. But it would make me pretty sad to lose shared public trails.

-Walt


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Hell yeah. Ex motocross guy here. I ride as fast as I can everywhere on my Mtb. But am way more conscious on my Focus 29er. It’s dime and dash around here and I bet many places alike. Twin Air filters... the horror


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Craig, Yikes. Good thing I don't live in TX. So that bike definition? Is that a DOT rule for hiways? Still fighting for trail access here in MA for bikes, see also the BIKE mag article about the Ware river watershed. Really. Well in my state, they are motorized vehicles, not allowed for the most part, go figure. Different state, different rules. My impression is that TX has huge amounts of private lands, not so much public lands? Lots of riding where you are? I'm the group that I opposed? Kinda lost me there. And bikes don't have motors, sorry to break it to you. Enjoy your heat, I hear it's kinda dry, cheers. But way back to the OP, there are no limits, watts or otherwise, once that door opens, it will be wide open. For all and any.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

W.A.S.P blind in Texas.. blackie lawless, bad a**s tune!


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Back to the OP, What is watts? Whatever is in the tank on that particular day.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Texas has roughly two and a half times the area of Colorado, and about 38% of the trail miles, based on TrailForks data. You also have next to no public land. 

Come on. If you’re going to pretend to “know” something about trail access issues, perhaps you should at least have trails and public land with access issues to worry about. Seems you have very little of each in your state. 4.2% of Texas is publicly owned. That sucks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

craigsj said:


> What about single track would make it illegal? The answer to that question is "all of it". If you want to know miles, look it up.
> 
> The relevant Texas code says:
> 
> ...


Rip it up!


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

craigsj said:


> What about single track would make it illegal?


Just need a figure not a diatribe. I just don't understand how someone from Texas can have all this "knowledge" of access issues when you actually have no access. There are towns in Az. that have more public trails than the entire state of Texas. Yet you profess to tell us how we should be doing it. Sorry, no legitimacy found here.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

craigsj said:


> What a load of horsesh*t. This isn't about "trail access issues" it's about law and I don't pretend to "know", I do know. It's other posters here that pretend to know. People here aren't informed and aren't interested in being informed. Your e-pen*s isn't longer than mine because of Texas vs. Colorado. You think your opinion matters more and will engage in shallow ad hominem because you don't have facts.


The facts are that e-bikes are currently not allowed on non-motorized trails on BLM and USFS land. We have a lot of that here. I can throw a baseball into the Pike-San Isabel National Forest from my back door. I ride in it every day.

All the other arguments you made citing Texas law are irrelevant to everyone who doesn't live in Texas. We don't care. Texas law covering the tiny amount of STATE land in Texas has absolutely no bearing on the rest of us who ride federal land, or any non-federal public land outside of Texas.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Have you ever considered the fact that there is no litigation from environmental groups re: MTBs and trail access because Texas is a dump that no one cares about?

Not even Texans. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Here’s the thing: 

I haven’t asked you to understand or respect my opinion on e-bikes. Whether you do or don’t is not my concern. 

All I ask is that people obey the law where they live. If e-bikes are legal on the trails you ride, great. Enjoy. 

They aren’t on the trails near me. I’d hope that if you came here you would respect the law. I don’t care if you think it’s unjust; there are plenty of laws that don’t make sense, aren’t based on facts or science, and the application of those laws to individuals will never be perfect, either. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

craigsj said:


> I didn't say "broken" or even "miss-tuned" for that matter.


Um, then how do you explain what is highlighted below?



craigsj said:


> All the bickering about what defines a "throttle" and what a deliberately *mistuned* PAS control might mean just underscore the absurdity of the well-known attempts to regulate improperly, regulation that isn't justified in the first place.
> 
> First you need a clear understanding of a real problem, then an approach that solves the problem without unreasonable limits on freedom, then a reliable means of enforcement. None of this exists for e-bikes in the US.
> 
> ...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

craigsj said:


> You don't need a figure, you want a weapon.
> 
> I find it interesting that you use the same bogus arguments and pitiful ad hominem attacks that Le Duke just did. Did you run and ask other members of your tribe to help you with your bullying campaign?
> 
> As for any town in AZ having "more public trails than the entire state of Texas" I anxiously await your proof. You are a petty liar.


You'll note that I didn't make the claim of "any" town, the fact is that there are "some" towns. Who's lying?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Le Duke said:


> Have you ever considered the fact that there is no litigation from environmental groups re: MTBs and trail access because Texas is a dump that no one cares about?
> 
> Not even Texans.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's not a very nice thing to say to a fellow cyclist. I thought you were Mr. cyclist that can climb anything faster than anyone, and have ridden everywhere. If that's the case and you're that bad ass than set a good example of a cyclist, not bash on someone for where they ride. Weak.


----------



## party_wagon (Oct 10, 2008)

Batteries should be encased and designs tested prior to approval for trail use. Below are the tests for R/C car racing.




ROAR Lipo Safety Testing: 
8.3.2.3 Drop Test
The Drop Test makes sure the case doesn't shatter or produce sharp pieces of the case that
could potentially puncture the cells inside.
8.3.2.4 Overcharge Test
The Overcharge Test simulates a common condition of user error where the pack is being
incorrectly charged. The pack is allowed to puff and/or vent, but the pack is not allowed to
show open flame at any time during the test procedure. A vast majority of Lipo destructive
failures (puffed/vented/burned packs) happen while the pack is on the charger, and a vast
majority of them happen because of simple user error in selecting the correct pack voltage to
charge at, or charging them with anything other than the correct Lipo battery mode.
Forgetting to set the charger to Lipo mode, and then charging the Lipo pack with NiMH mode
is an excellent example of what this test simulates. 
8.3.2.5 External Short Circuit Test
The External Short Circuit Test basically puts a discharge load on the pack, and then
discharges it all the way down to zero volts. The pack is allowed to puff and/or vent, but not
allowed to show any open flame for the duration of the test. This test simulates driving a
vehicle without using a proper 6v cutoff all the way down to where it won't drive any longer,
or a similar case of leaving a Lipo pack plugged into an ESC for an extended period of time
which will also drain it all the way down.

Electric motors generate watts per volt supplied. Limit the watts per volt supplied to a maximum watts per volt.

Limit the maximum battery voltage.

After that it is up to a company to develop a system that will last the life of your 5k electric bike.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

party_wagon said:


> Batteries should be encased and designs tested prior to approval for trail use. Below are the tests for R/C car racing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you really think Bosch, Yamaha, Shimano and Specialized (who make their own proprietary system), haven't tested their power delivery systems?


----------



## party_wagon (Oct 10, 2008)

honkinunit said:


> Do you really think Bosch, Yamaha, Shimano and Specialized (who make their own proprietary system), haven't tested their power delivery systems?


I do not trust my forest trails to these. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1...0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..12.1.208....0.8LpUBKwNhv4

I don't want to get trucked from behind during a climb by one of these. https://www.ebay.com/itm/CAB-Eagle-...437496?hash=item1a2d234b78:g:KicAAOSw0kFazjmj

I don't care of someone is on a $450 hardtail but I definitely care when it can turn into a smoldering fireball in a matter of minutes or there are people trucking at 35mph uphill. You ask how do you write the law? I just set forth a stupid simple way to do it. Everyone from insurance companies, big American bike oem, and parks would probably love for these things to be regulated.

Battery Fires Create Concerns For Every Electric Bike Owner - Jimmy Mac On Two Wheels


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

craigsj said:


> as to e-bikes being their own worst enemy, i strongly disagree. The worst enemy of e-bikes is prejudice. Current production e-bikes are tame.


qft


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

party_wagon said:


> I do not trust my forest trails to these. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1...0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..12.1.208....0.8LpUBKwNhv4
> 
> I don't want to get trucked from behind during a climb by one of these. https://www.ebay.com/itm/CAB-Eagle-...437496?hash=item1a2d234b78:g:KicAAOSw0kFazjmj
> 
> ...


As for the fires, are you going to ban EVs and hybrid cars, phones, drones, rechargeable flashlights, and GPS units from fire prone areas? As long as we are playing what ifs, then any battery should be banned. All of the above have started major fires. Keep in mind that there are tens of millions of lithium powered ebikes already riding around the world. If there was a huge issue, half of China would be smouldering already.

Many fires have been started by someone parking in dry grass with a hot catalytic converter. We don't ban them. The huge fire outside of Durango was probably caused by the train. Let's not even get started on exploding Teslas and Prius'. In the big picture, ebikes are a sliver of worry.

The "law" is already written in many states - Class 1 ebikes only on trails. A class 1 ebike won't go any faster uphill than a Strava-bro.


----------



## party_wagon (Oct 10, 2008)

honkinunit said:


> As for the fires, are you going to ban EVs and hybrid cars, phones, drones, rechargeable flashlights, and GPS units from fire prone areas? As long as we are playing what ifs, then any battery should be banned. All of the above have started major fires. Keep in mind that there are tens of millions of lithium powered ebikes already riding around the world. If there was a huge issue, half of China would be smouldering already.
> 
> Many fires have been started by someone parking in dry grass with a hot catalytic converter. We don't ban them. The huge fire outside of Durango was probably caused by the train. Let's not even get started on exploding Teslas and Prius'. In the big picture, ebikes are a sliver of worry.
> 
> The "law" is already written in many states - Class 1 ebikes only on trails. A class 1 ebike won't go any faster uphill than a Strava-bro.


China to Roll Out Stricter Standards for Electric Bikes


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

China's big cities have had an issue with unregulated e-scooters which they call 'ebikes.' But these are scooters that look like scooters, not pedelec, take up more room, perhaps move too fast. So they;'ve been banned in most tier-1 cities in China. But they still embrace and allow what we call 'ebikes' - pedelec low power bicycle-based ebikes, similar to the class1 bikes mentioned ad nauseum on here, or as you will find for sale in your nearest bike shop. The ebikes saved chinese cities, which were being choked out by pollution from two stroke scooters in the past

also we're talking li-ion cells. Not the volatile high-amp lithium-polymer bare unprotected (no BMS) cells like we use in RC planes and cars. These ebike cells (mostly 18650) are the same kinds of cells used in countless applications like laptops, battery banks, EVs like Tesla and Chevy Volt, etc. And ebike batteries have sophisticated BMS built in to address any and all abnormalities with the cells, isolating the bad cells from the rest of the cells, with balancing circuitry to keep the voltages evenly distributed.

But I think it might not be a bad idea for battery tech to be regulated, since they are stored in folks' homes. Everything the major class1 eMTB companies are producing are to the safest standards. *But if you order a big li-ion pack from china there could be bad cells or low-amps cells that are susceptible to overheat, and the BMS may be an unknown quantity too.* However the one li-fe pack I owned for years which did eventually develop bad cell(s) - just stopped working altogether as the BMS isolated the bad cell(s), no heat resulted and I disposed of it at the local battery dump.

Since li-ion packs are not tightly regulated here, I suspect that makes it impossible to take one on an airplane? They're capacity is way over the limit for Li cells in carry-on baggage afaik.

I've never heard of an ebike from a major MTB maker catching fire JRA (just riding along).

oh and BTW, to understand the scale of ebikes - they now out-sell non-ebikes worldwide. mind boggling, but true


----------



## party_wagon (Oct 10, 2008)

Most of the issues come from a short causing the pack to get too low, balancing, or charging. I would say most come from a small short while it's just sitting.https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.alibaba.com/amp/showroom/lipo-battery-for-electric-bike.html


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

party_wagon said:


> Most of the issues come from a short causing the pack to get too low, balancing, or charging. I would say most come from a small short while it's just sitting.https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.alibaba.com/amp/showroom/lipo-battery-for-electric-bike.html


This is exactly why the higher quality ebike systems (Bosch, Yamaha, Shimano/Specialized), simply don't let the battery get too low. I've been told that a Bosch battery that is "100% discharged" is still actually 15% charged. The electronics in the battery don't allow it to get to 100% discharge under normal use. Of course, a battery could sit on a shelf for several years and deplete, there is no way to be 100% safe with any technology.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

"This is exactly why the higher quality ebike systems (Bosch, Yamaha, Shimano/Specialized), simply don't let the battery get too low."

For one thing it is not letting a battery get too low that causes fire it is allowing them to overcharge or a problem with the battery management system. The above mentioned eBike systems, no matter how high quality they are perceived to be, are not immune to either.

Any battery left on the shelf for more than a few months without proper care to keep the state of charge at at least 50% during storage runs the risk of the voltage going well below the LVC. The BMS will keep letting energy bleed and when it goes below the threshold of the parameters of the BMS it will be hard (costly) or impossible to resuscitate. Might make getting a replacement battery for your 2016 Levo when it wears out, because it will through use, charge cycles and how it is stored while not in use, problematic in the future.

Not to mention the bike industry likes to change standards like underwear and the advent of new battery placement ideas and switching to new cell technology advancements seem to be more of the same.

May be it's time for some eBike School? Home - EbikeSchool.com


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

yeah normally it is safer to store lithium cells at a low storage voltage. They just have less energy and are less volatile at low voltage, like 3.7V.

but as Bigwheel notes above with integrated BMS, there is a slight draw down on the cells and thus risk of one or more going lower than the BMS will accept. ( And hence why the ebike manufacturers recommend recharging after each use, unlike with loose RC lipo which should be discharged after use) Subsequently you get cells that are risky low volts/damaged to try charging back up, and also risk of imbalance in the battery pack which also causes more stress (difference in resistance) to the cells - so a good BMS will shut down the charging or try and isolate the bad cells. It also cuts off the charging at a specified voltage to prevent even-more risky overcharging. . 

I know in a Tesla pack they actually have a built in 'fuse' wiring which isolates bad cells so the pack can continue to operate normally.


----------



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

honkinunit said:


> Many fires have been started by someone parking in dry grass with a hot catalytic converter. We don't ban them.


Where I live cars are prohibited to drive or park on the grass in many areas during fire prone seasons.


----------



## party_wagon (Oct 10, 2008)

I'm sure a lot of the higher end stuff will pass a pretty rigorous test. The problem is that you aren't required to and it can generate a legitimate safety issue. A shorted motor/speed control. Flipping over the bars and tumbling. This isn't the market that cheap junk should be allowed into. It generates legitimate life threatening conditions. The cars have to pass a ton of tests.


----------

