# E-bikes - Demon or enabling tool?



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

So e-bikes were seen as the devil 5 years ago. Enthusiast cyclists generally hated e-bikes even on the road.

Now, the tide is changing, specially for commuting. For trail riding, the community is still split on them. How does the Fifty+ crowd feel about them?

E-bike laws are now maturing as they are being defined as 250 watt bikes with pedal assist only. Basically we are following Europe's lead.

I've ridden about 6 e-bikes on both road and mountain and they are definitely evolving for the better. I've been to Europe a few times and e-bikes there are a non-issue really. It's just a bike over there. 

Commuting with them is generally accepted now. Although some cyclists still get pissed off when they get passed. For trail riding, it's a whole can of worms. But bike parks and shuttle rides are obvious first steps.

Last year, I had a mysterious knee problem and I could not climb more than a quarter of my normal self. I then realized what others go through and what's ahead for me and the rest of us cyclists. It was a gut punch and it took me a year to sort it out. But it'll be back in other forms. We all diminish in climbing capacity through the years.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

We all diminish in sexual capacity too but do you want to be swapped out for something with batteries? 

My point is that just because you can't do something as well as you would like does not mean that all methods of accomplishing it are acceptable in all situations. For some people on some trails an e-bike might be a great blessing. For other users on other trails a destructive nuisance. There isn't one simple answer to this.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Some quotes:Electric boost puts e-bikes on the fast track - CNET

"DiCostanzo, 58, focuses on baby boomers looking for recreation or wanting to keep up with the grandkids. "Ninety-nine percent of our customers would never have purchased another bike in their lifetime if not for us," DiCostanzo says.

But don't think e-bikes are just for older folks. Serious riders are embracing e-bikes to commute to work. And they are opening the great outdoors to people who don't feel fit enough to bike up hills and mountains without a boost."


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

I wouldn't call the trail riding community "split". My sense is the vast majority oppose ebikes on non-motorized trails. Commuting, fire roads, logging roads -- anything open to a motor vehicle -- fine. I have no problem with them. I'm 59, and I could see myself getting one one day, just to keep moving or to rehab after an injury, but I still wouldn't want them on trails. 

So roadies have a problem getting passed by ebikes? Tough shift. Making every ride a race in your mind, doesn't make it a real race. Nothing like trying to make everyone around you live within your own delusion.


----------



## Brisk Eddie (Jun 23, 2014)

My opinion...
E-bikes have their place, but it isn't on non-motorized trails. 
If I can't rip it up on a Husqvarna, you can't hummmm along on your e-moto.


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

The trail riding community is not split. E bikes flat out have no place in mountain biking. They are motorcycles, period. The Devil rides an ebike on single track.


----------



## jp08865 (Aug 12, 2014)

Travis Bickle said:


> The trail riding community is not split. E bikes flat out have no place in mountain biking. They are motorcycles, period. The Devil rides an ebike on single track.


I'm with TB on this _(at this time)_ check back when I'm 70+, maybe I'll feel differently then, but I doubt it.

Motor = *Motor*cycle ............


----------



## kneecap (Dec 20, 2003)

I'm old as dirt, & the knees are starting to go, Apparently that means I'm supposed to cease mountain biking? I come from a moto background, & still have bike handling skills. Just a "little" assist sure would be nice, 
Truth be told, I'm very tempted...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Motor = Motorcycle. They have plenty of trails burned in to ride on.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

Mr Pig said:


> We all diminish in sexual capacity too but do you want to be swapped out for something with batteries?


LOL! But so true! E-bikes should not be allowed on trails IMHO. I also doubt the community is "split" on this. Although I'm cool with e-bikes, they have their own place to be ridden. The beauty of the sport is the challenges we encounter, once you motorize it, in my eyes, is no longer MTB.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

I stilll see this as a no brainer. It has a motor, period. It doesn't belong on a non-motorized trail. No matter my age, I won't own that as an enabler.

edit: I've ridden one and I like it. It still has no place on my local trails.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

I've ridden an e-Bike. Loads of fun, like being 18 again.

I'll get one when I'm old and frail.


----------



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

I concur with the majority here, motor = motorcycle. As long as they stay in areas designated for motorized traffic I have no problem with them.


----------



## syl3 (Apr 23, 2008)

I currently have 2 road bikes, 5 mountain bikes, 2 ebikes and one motorcycle. The ebike is so clearly a bike it's not even funny anymore how wrong you guys are, and history will prove it, look back in 10 years and all you naysayers will be looked at like v-brake evangelists and supension fork deniers. Thanks for spearheading 29ers and fatbikes, but you will have to follow europe's lead on this one. Motors that are capped at 250W don't make any bike into a moto. Most cat1 racers have a 300W advantage on the average weekend warrior. Once people realise that you can use ebikes to ride mtb with the whole family without anyone having to wait around for ages, they will spread like wildfire. And they are super useful for beginners because they descend on rails pretty much, that hunk of weight placed low in the frame guarantees that there will be no more endos to scare your kids and girfriends out of the sport.


----------



## fog (Jan 14, 2005)

Get a motorcycle!
E-bike equals motor bike.
Keep them off my trails!!!


----------



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

syl3 said:


> I currently have 2 road bikes, 5 mountain bikes, 2 ebikes and one motorcycle. The ebike is so clearly a bike it's not even funny anymore how wrong you guys are, and history will prove it, look back in 10 years and all you naysayers will be looked at like v-brake evangelists and supension fork deniers. Thanks for spearheading 29ers and fatbikes, but you will have to follow europe's lead on this one. Motors that are capped at 250W don't make any bike into a moto. Most cat1 racers have a 300W advantage on the average weekend warrior. Once people realise that you can use ebikes to ride mtb with the whole family without anyone having to wait around for ages, they will spread like wildfire. And they are super useful for beginners because they descend on rails pretty much, that hunk weight placed low in the frame guarantees that there will be no more endos to scare your kids and girfriends out of the sport.


Your opinion, as fair as mine but dead wrong so far as I'm concerned. Europe has a lot going for it that the US doesn't but they haven't gotten everything right, I'd prefer to keep a fair portion of our open spaces wild as possible, and free of motors.

Sadly I fear you prediction about them becoming accepted and spreading like wildfire will prove to come true, largely base on profit motives.


----------



## palerider (Jul 15, 2004)

Don't you still have to pedal? Just wait, in 15 yrs ebikes will be 25lbs with a range of 50 miles.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I don't think e-bikes belong on mountain bike trails. Heck, I don't even think electronic shifting belongs on mountain bike trails!


----------



## loopsb (Aug 9, 2004)

I've spoke with many diverse trail users on this as of late, kids to blue hairs, and "it's a motorcycle" was almost the unanimous consensus. And they don't want them on our local trails. Mountain bikers equally divided? Oh my . I go with Demon


----------



## SteveF (Mar 5, 2004)

Keep 'em off non-motorized trails and pathways.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

An assistive e-Bike with a capped output (usually 200-250 watts) is what is going to keep us geriatrics riding well into our 80s.

They are speed limited, so if someone is exceeding a reasonable speed it is because they are actually doing most of the work.

Imagine - still able to ride up hills!


----------



## Boomchakabowwow (Sep 8, 2015)

not for me..YET.
STORY:
i grew up riding motorcycles. i went 8 years living in SF with no car, just a motorcycle. i carried some stupid stuff with that bike. mostly 600CC sportbikes. most notable..was a 10 foot long 2x4. like a joust..i rode down the street. like an idiot.really, but i got it done.

when those 3-wheel bikes started showing up, i kinda had a chip on my shoulder..those are not bikes..pompose BS from me. i was at a coffee shop and some guy had the latest/greatest 3 wheeler. two wheels up front..big one in the back. i just see the bike outside..and as i go in, an older veteran guy comes out..i hold the door open for him..he walks up to the bike and gets on..he had one fake leg. he sees me staring and tells me he lost his leg in a big fight..and had to buy the new ride just because he missed the wind in his face. he even fashioned a cool ass leather scabbard for his cane. i wish i had caught him inside so i could have bought his coffee and chatted with him.

right there, right then..i decided to be less judgmental. i dont know what circumstances makes a person choose a tool or a lifestyle.

e-bikes. whatever..i see older people on them. on a trail? whatever. maybe they just love the wind in their face. and sometime, somewhere..something happened where they cant pedal like we can. we are lucky..BLESSED to have good legs, good lungs..good $$ to buy a sweet bike. not everyone is blessed..and wind in the face kickass. live and let live i say.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I have a good friend who rides a handbike because he can't pedal/use his legs anymore. But you NEED a motor on your bike? Really? Wonder what he thinks of you?


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

legally here in north Idaho under region 1 of the forest service, if it has a motor it is motorized. 
the fs law enforcement officer was very picky about that one. I had some issues with that gentleman last fall, until he realized I was not on a e bike.


----------



## syl3 (Apr 23, 2008)

bsieb said:


> I have a good friend who rides a handbike because he can't pedal/use his legs anymore. But you NEED a motor on your bike? Really? Wonder what he thinks of you?


You are the first one to bring the word NEED into the conversation. Remember, based on this argument you don't need bikes either, you can walk the trail just as well and enjoy the fresh air and the birds chirping.

Mountainbiking is fun not just because of the environment but primarily because it's a unique experience. If you think pedal assist takes away from that it's fine, just don't do it. But there is absolutely no reason to deny that experience to others. It has absolutely no downside, you can't hear the noise more than 2 feet away, there is no exhaust fumes, the power is well within the spectrum of human capability so you can't claim erosion, the weight is also within the range of a non assisted DH bike... there is absolutely no logical, reasonable argument you can make for banning ebikes.

It is very sad to see a community who has fought hard to end trail use discrimination fall into the same trap of using emotional arguments that has been used against us for decades. Basically, we got trail access so f,ck everyone else. Unfortunately this reveals that many bikers weren't fighting for a principle, it was just a selfish ego driven rant

This is a very shortsighted approach, welcoming ebike traffic on bike only trails would advance the popularity of the sport immensely, and its political and lobbying capabilities as well. It is a very powerful conversion tool when used with an open mind. I make it a point to encourage everyone to test drive my ebikes and i managed to infect some hardcore motocross people. Most of them have bought regular bikes as well.


----------



## Boomchakabowwow (Sep 8, 2015)

bsieb said:


> I have a good friend who rides a handbike because he can't pedal/use his legs anymore. But you NEED a motor on your bike? Really? Wonder what he thinks of you?


Huh?

I know a guy that got a virus in his heart and it took out his capacity. I suggested an e-bike because his cardio is cut in half. There's an ass for every seat friend.

And who cares what anyone thinks.?

Sent via Jedi mind trick.


----------



## kneecap (Dec 20, 2003)

syl3 said:


> You are the first one to bring the word NEED into the conversation. Remember, based on this argument you don't need bikes either, you can walk the trail just as well and enjoy the fresh air and the birds chirping.
> 
> Mountainbiking is fun not just because of the environment but primarily because it's a unique experience. If you think pedal assist takes away from that it's fine, just don't do it. But there is absolutely no reason to deny that experience to others. It has absolutely no downside, you can't hear the noise more than 2 feet away, there is no exhaust fumes, the power is well within the spectrum of human capability so you can't claim erosion, the weight is also within the range of a non assisted DH bike... there is absolutely no logical, reasonable argument you can make for banning ebikes.
> 
> ...


Thank you, that's what I thought, only peddle assist. green chip coming your way for a reasonable no hater opinion. Also, what most of you are not considering, these bikes are not cheep, so I don't imagine they'll be hundreds on all trails.


----------



## jrm (Jan 12, 2004)

Cheating..


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

I'm 66 and think e-bikes on a trail are the demons seed. If I'm too old to climb or otherwise mountain bike, I'll do something else but I won't resort to an e-bike. Working for your ride keeps you in shape.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

I ride now so I can still ride when I'm in my 80's. My 100 year old uncle was still running a mile every morning because he did it all his life, not because he had some mechanical assist.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Rev Bubba said:


> I'm 66 and think e-bikes on a trail are the demons seed. If I'm too old to climb or otherwise mountain bike, I'll do something else but I won't resort to an e-bike. Working for your ride keeps you in shape.


That's well and good, personal choice.

However when I get too frail to ride my bike, and hopefully that's still many years away, I'm not going to give up my lifetime recreation. I'll be getting an assistive e-Bike and riding it on the trails.

Fortunately I live in Scotland where we have open access laws.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

I think the most interesting (and refreshing) thing about this question is that while there are conflicting points of view, people have not resorted to name calling. That, in itself, makes it worth being on the Fifty + forum.


----------



## Ericmopar (Aug 23, 2003)

Rev Bubba said:


> I think the most interesting (and refreshing) thing about this question is that while there are conflicting points of view, people have not resorted to name calling. That, in itself, makes it worth being on the Fifty + forum.


Are you calling us mature? 
I've never been so insulted in my life sir!


----------



## Brute987 (Jun 10, 2011)

I haven't had the privilege of riding one yet but count me as "for em". If we can share space w/hikers, bikers, equestrian etc. then why not e-bikes. As for motorized trails only & motor = motorcycle, I would guess that those types of trails are about as appealing on an e-bike as they are to me on a mtb.


----------



## Rev Bubba (Jan 16, 2004)

Ericmopar: Mature, maybe, or maybe just too tired to argue ....


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

syl3 said:


> Motors that are capped at 250W don't make any bike into a moto. Most cat1 racers have a 300W advantage on the average weekend warrior.


You're missing the point.

It's not practical to allow certain kinds of motorised bikes on trails and not others. If an allowance was made for the low-powered ones pretty soon people would notice and start riding the trails on more powerful machines. How could other trail users and usage enforcers be expected to make on the spot assessments of whether or not a motorised bike was within the rules?

It's not like the planet is_ that _small. Sure, let motorbikes of all kinds use some trails but trails designed specifically for human-powered bicycles should be kept free of them, and blanket demarcation is the only method that is practicable.


----------



## syl3 (Apr 23, 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> You're missing the point.
> 
> It's not practical to allow certain kinds of motorised bikes on trails and not others. If an allowance was made for the low-powered ones pretty soon people would notice and start riding the trails on more powerful machines. How could other trail users and usage enforcers be expected to make on the spot assessments of whether or not a motorised bike was within the rules?
> 
> It's not like the planet is_ that _small. Sure, let motorbikes of all kinds use some trails but trails designed specifically for human-powered bicycles should be kept free of them, and blanket demarcation is the only method that is practicable.


We don't have blanket demarcation here in europe and it works great. We just treat "pedelecs" (250W max, assistance only = no throttle) as bicycles and everything else as mopeds/scooters, requiring tax, insurance, registration, DMV visit, technical inspection and so on.

Its crazy that you say any motor=motorcycle for trail access purpose but not for licensing purpose. There clearly has to be a demarcation line, whether 250W or otherwise, but anyway, you don't need to make rangers chase ebikes in the forest and put them on a dyno. Just make sure they are controlled everywhere starting with the point of sale and traffic cops check them when they look like they have no assist speed limit.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Always humorous (and sad) to see mt bikers sound just like hateful hikers and equestrians when this topic comes up!

My favorite is when people I know who poach say "hell no [those motorcycles that look just like my bike and don't move unless they are pedaled] they shouldn't be allowed on trails!"

I still haven't heard of a good idea that will successfully keep them from poaching trails, but I'm pretty sure mt bikers will lead the effort in making this into a much larger issue with land managers than it ever should be. I can hear the HOHA's giggling with delight.


----------



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

Empty_Beer said:


> Always humorous (and sad) to see mt bikers sound just like hateful hikers and equestrians when this topic comes up!


Being philosophically opposed to allowing motor vehicles on wilderness trails that currently prohibit them is not hateful.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> Being philosophically opposed to allowing motor vehicles on wilderness trails that currently prohibit them is not hateful.


Being philosophically opposed to allowing mechanized vehicles on wilderness trails that currently prohibit them is not hateful either, I suppose.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

Empty_Beer said:


> Always humorous (and sad) to see mt bikers sound just like hateful hikers and equestrians when this topic comes up!
> 
> My favorite is when people I know who poach say "hell no [those motorcycles that look just like my bike and don't move unless they are pedaled] they shouldn't be allowed on trails!"
> 
> I still haven't heard of a good idea that will successfully keep them from poaching trails, but I'm pretty sure mt bikers will lead the effort in making this into a much larger issue with land managers than it ever should be. I can hear the HOHA's giggling with delight.


Well said. To often people make more of things than they ought to be. I see many uses for e bikes. I took my bike while visiting another town this summer and was riding on a paved trail when a young gal on an e bike passed me. I got after it and rode her down. After a short distance she stopped. Apparently, what many are missing on here is that one still has to pedal hard to go fast. I'm all for them and would like one.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)




----------



## syl3 (Apr 23, 2008)

Welnic said:


> More Power by Cyclone 5000 Watt 48 Volt e-bike in a Mountain Ride


5kW is about 7hp. that you can drive a 7hp scooter on the road with no drivers licence or insurance just because it's electric is nuts.

50cc scooters still require a licence and are around 3-4hp. anything over 5hp has way more expensive insurance and requires a higher class licence in most jurisdictions.

So you guys trying to lump in all ebikes is pretty ignorant. Clearly you have a legislation problem here, if all electric motos are legal to drive on the road without any papers.


----------



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

Empty_Beer said:


> Being philosophically opposed to allowing mechanized vehicles on wilderness trails that currently prohibit them is not hateful either, I suppose.


Of course not, why would it be?


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

I want to thank Ben for that video above of an electric motorcycle. I'm not sure what that has do to with e bikes, because that clearly is not an e bike.


----------



## cyclelicious (Oct 7, 2008)

One day, relatively soon, e-bikes will become cheaper to buy. Cheaper to the point where more people will be saying "Why would I want to kill my legs on a climb when the fun part is going down." Heck there are some people who say shuttling and lift parks isn't real mountain biking.

One day those e-bikes will become more nimble and have better handling. Stay tuned


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

I dont understand why opposition has to equal "hate". In a previous thread on this topic, I expressed my opposition and was labeled "hateful". There's nothing hateful about my opposition. I just think non-motorized means exactly that.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

If we are going get purist about mechanical assistance on the trails, can we also ban the use of gears? They make riding easier too...

(Sorry, in singlespeed Troll mode there  )


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Velobike said:


> If we are going get purist about mechanical assistance on the trails, can we also ban the use of gears? They make riding easier too...
> 
> (Sorry, in singlespeed Troll mode there  )


Made me smile though ;0)


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

E-bikers deserve more respect then shuttlers and lifteys. The less dependant cycling is on the child-killing climate-changing auto, the better. I would like to see the same animosity and condescension applied to those who need a chairlift to those who use an e-bike. My main frustration when riding is that people cannot keep up. I want these for the folks I ride with ( in crankforward geometry of course).


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Linktung said:


> The less dependant cycling is on the child-killing climate-changing auto, the better.


Fair to say you're not a car fan then?


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Linktung said:


> E-bikers deserve more respect then shuttlers and lifteys...


A good point.

The reality is anyone on an assistive eBike isn't going to be hammering the trails like a DH or trailpark hero.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Velobike said:


> A good point.


No it isn't.

DH bikes are used on DH runs which are built and maintained for the purpose.

If low-output e-bike acceptance leads to high-powered machines being used on trails they could be run on _any_ trail and on cross-country ones they could cause considerably more damage and pose a significantly higher risk than pedal cycles ever could.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Mr Pig said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> DH bikes are used on DH runs which are built and maintained for the purpose.
> 
> If low-output e-bike acceptance leads to high-powered machines being used on trails they could be run on _any_ trail and on cross-country ones they could cause considerably more damage and pose a significantly higher risk than pedal cycles ever could.


Come to think of it, there's a few are being used on trails around here in Scotland and I haven't noticed any damage. We are still talking about assistive eBikes, aren't we?

Unfortunately not all DH bike owners are as pure as you, and their sliding and skidding on descents on natural trails reminds me of the days when the Japanese dirt bikes first came out.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Velobike said:


> Come to think of it, there's a few are being used on trails around here in Scotland and I haven't noticed any damage.


I've never seen one and besides, you're missing the point again.

One or two low-powered ones are unlikely to cause any issues but if they open the doors to bigger ones and their popularity increases, all bets are off.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Mr Pig said:


> I've never seen one and besides, you're missing the point again.
> 
> One or two low-powered ones are unlikely to cause any issues but if they open the doors to bigger ones and their popularity increases, all bets are off.


We're talking about assistive eBikes. There are no bigger ones.

Anything with more power is classified as a motorbike here.


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

Velobike said:


> If we are going get purist about mechanical assistance on the trails, can we also ban the use of gears? They make riding easier too...
> 
> (Sorry, in singlespeed Troll mode there  )


And crank arms! Puhleeze!


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Velobike said:


> We're talking about assistive eBikes. There are no bigger ones.


It's like talking to Scooby Doo..

It's not like a brick wall line, all nice e-bikes are green and the nasty big ones are blue. If these bikes become popular there will be all kinds running around and as the technology gets more compact it will become increasingly difficult to tell the difference between a mild e-bike and a more powerful one. Then a walker gets hit by a 30mph e-bike.

e-bike's big problem is that they can quietly bring more power, and therefore speed, into any given trail situation. And greater speed equals greater risk and substrate wear. It's not a story that will end well.


----------



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

I'm 100% with the pig on this one. 

That doesn't make me a hater, quite the opposite in fact.


----------



## Jake January (Sep 12, 2014)

If you've never seen an ebike on a trail I don't see the problem.

From what I can tell they are heavy and expensive, and appeal only to weaker and out of shape folks.

I saw quite a few ebikes while touring Holland, mainly ridden by the well to do. They do go faster, but so do the little 50cc scooters they also allow on bike paths.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Mr Pig said:


> It's like talking to Scooby Doo..
> 
> It's not like a brick wall line, all nice e-bikes are green and the nasty big ones are blue...


Well, over here there is a line.

It is established by legislation. The power is limited, and it is much less than the output of a trained cyclist. Anything else is a motorbike.

Ride a motorbike in a public place without the suitable tax, insurance, etc and you can expect heavy fines and potential loss of your driving licence, so there's plenty motive to keep it clean. The public are quick enough to report motorbikes being ridden where they shouldn't, and with mobile phones, the police can be on it right away.

Hitting a walker at 30mph on an unregistered and uninsured motorbike could earn you a free stay in one of Her Majesty's holiday camps, not to mention what the walker could sue you for.


----------



## Barman1 (Jan 8, 2014)

As long as I can still push my bike up a hill I'm good. Trails around here are a bit too tech for an overweight E-lectronic bike anyway.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Barman1 said:


> As long as I can still push my bike up a hill I'm good...


I think most of us will agree with that, but I know quite a few riders who have effectively given up because of age or infirmity.

Be nice to see them back on wheels. It might help to extend what fitness they have left too.

The point about trails being too tech for eBikes? I'm not so sure. I've been talking to a local eBike rider over the last few days. He's riding stuff I'm walking! (Check out the Cube mtb eBikes). Weight is ceasing to be an issue.

I suspect battery life will be the biggest limitation on where we are likely to see them.

While I have being disagreeing with Mr Pig on this topic, I have the same distaste as him for those who tear up the trails, but the sort of person who is likely to buy an assistive eBike is unlikely to have aggressive riding in mind, and in any case they will still be putting down less power all up than a regular XC racer.

The aggressively minded riders will want what is effectively a motorbike.

I suspect it is time to be talking to the appropriate trail authorities in countries where freedom of the trails doesn't exist. They need to know the difference between an assistive eBike with limited power (only available when the pedals are being turned), and an electric motorbike.

In 10-15 years times it may allow you to still be on the trails. Or looking at the present, maybe it will help to get get some of your old unfit riding companions (or spouse) back out on the trails.

Edit: just to make it clear - over here an assistive eBike is also speed limited. Assistance cuts out at 15mph and any speed over that is all the rider's own work. I think most of us can easily exceed that on our normal bikes.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> I'm 100% with the pig on this one....


I'm 100% with velobike.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

I have ridden a few E-bikes recently due to a local lady who sells them and needs a mechanical helper. In New Zealand, top speed is the measure and 34kmph (21mph) is that limit. Anything that can travel faster requires a motorcycle licence and insurance. I have ridden on 1500w bikes that fly under the radar at 65kmph and riders are getting away with this at present. None of the high powered bikes are pedal assist, they use the cranks as foot-pedals. My experience so far has been only on the road and cycle-ways and only as a tester. I could see myself owning one in the distant future so as to experience the cycle pleasures, but I fear that I would loose the value of the exercise. Personally, I ride at similar speeds to the 200-250W machines and I am comfortable with those machines, but not with the larger self powering types. My lady friend sells to the older people group and variously disabled and enables them to get out and about again. There is the concern of the sub-group of power freaks who must push the outer limits, and I hear the concerns regarding this group. The video clip shown of a 7KW powered bike is just what we don't want on the trails. I understand the genuine concerns here, but realise that there are 2 differing groups being addressed. I am happy for the infirm getting out and about, but not happy with power obsessed demons spoiling for the genuine riders who sweat out a hard grind on the pedals.

Eric


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Eric Malcolm said:


> ..I am happy for the infirm getting out and about, but not happy with power obsessed demons spoiling for the genuine riders who sweat out a hard grind on the pedals.


That sums it beautifully. Surely we can all agree on that.


----------



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

Eric Malcolm said:


> I am happy for the infirm getting out and about, but not happy with power obsessed demons spoiling for the genuine riders who sweat out a hard grind on the pedals.
> 
> Eric





Velobike said:


> That sums it beautifully. Surely we can all agree on that.


Actually I'm afraid I can't.

Of course I agree with the first part of the sentence but I disagree with the second half, I have no problem with power obsessed "demons", In fact I'm one of them at times.

Everything has it's place, ebikes included.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I have a good friend who rides a hand bike on some very technical trails. I don't hear him whining about needing to put a motor on his bike. At some point the infirm need to give it up if they can't hang, not change mtb to a motorized sport. No problem with ebikes on motorized trails or roads, but Mtb is a human powered activity and the distinction needs to be maintained.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

bsieb said:


> ...At some point the infirm need to give it up if they can't hang...


Infirm is not one size fits all you know. They have human rights too.

On one hand we have people like Nothing's Impossible (on the mtbr forums) who has one leg but could grind most of us into the dust, and then there's people with far less capability. We should be fighting for the right for all of them to keep using the trails, not trying to exclude them (that's medieval).

Seeng as most European countries know the difference between an eBike and a motorbike, fortunately the less capable won't be getting discriminated against here. A legal eBike is a bicycle here.

And as for infirmity, at our age it can come rapidly and unexpectedly, so hopefully in another decade or so (or less), you won't be pondering your responses to this question when you're looking wistfully at the trails that have been closed off to legal eBikes.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Velobike said:


> Infirm is not one size fits all you know. They have human rights too.
> 
> On one hand we have people like Nothing's Impossible (on the mtbr forums) who has one leg but could grind most of us into the dust, and then there's people with far less capability. We should be fighting for the right for all of them to keep using the trails, not trying to exclude them (that's medieval).
> 
> ...


There are plenty of legal places to ride ebikes already, and our mtb trails are not like your euro commuter trails. I don't think I will be looking wistfully at the tech mtb trails when I'm 85, I have a hard enough time staying motivated at 65. 

I disagree that mtb trail resources must be available to all people, regardless of age or physical condition. The ebike fad is not something mtbers want or need.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

bsieb said:


> There are plenty of legal places to ride ebikes already, and our mtb trails are not like your euro commuter trails. I don't think I will be looking wistfully at the tech mtb trails when I'm 85, I have a hard enough time staying motivated at 65.


Euro commuter trails aren't quite what I had in mind, but they're good.

This is what I call a trail - which I'm riding on my roadbike - and which anyone can take a legal eBike over.



or this



I'm 70 and I want to keep riding as long as I can get a leg over a bike, and when I can't do that I'll be on a mtb trike (now there's a real problem on singletrack) 



bsieb said:


> ...I disagree that mtb trail resources must be available to all people, regardless of age or physical condition. The ebike fad is not something mtbers want or need.


People used to say much the same thing about wheelchair access.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

No one is going to take an ebike way out into the wilds if they don't have the capacity to get it back should the batteries fail. For most, ebikes will be toys.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Velobike, your trails are what we call forest roads, and those are open to ebikes. Our mtb trails are 12" wide, and not so hardened, and definitely not so flat. 

We don't currently build wheelchair accessible mtb trails here. Openings, gates, and ramps that pedestrians can access must be at least 32" wide, but no other trail modifications for wheelchairs are required. Purpose built mtb trail is still legal here in northwestern New Mexico.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

syl3 said:


> We don't have blanket demarcation here in europe and it works great. We just treat "pedelecs" (250W max, assistance only = no throttle) as bicycles and everything else as mopeds/scooters, requiring tax, insurance, registration, DMV visit, technical inspection and so on.
> 
> Its crazy that you say any motor=motorcycle for trail access purpose but not for licensing purpose. There clearly has to be a demarcation line, whether 250W or otherwise, but anyway, you don't need to make rangers chase ebikes in the forest and put them on a dyno. Just make sure they are controlled everywhere starting with the point of sale and traffic cops check them when they look like they have no assist speed limit.


Here in MA, USA, no motor( vehicles) allowed on public trails. So not allowed. Please don't tell us how we should do things here from another country. We kicked their a$$es last time that happened. ( Tea taxes anyone ?) Where I ride( MA), trail access for mt biking is not allowed everywhere and is limited in some areas as well. How does one tell from just looking at a motorcycle , 250, 500 or full on 750 watt electric motorcycle? Starting down that slippery slope. There are a few areas in which to ride off road ORV. They can ride there. Or commute on the road, perfect for long distance or heavy cargo bikes. Many Americans are just lazy and looking for an easy fix. We'll send then to Russia?


----------



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

Velobike said:


> This is what I call a trail - which I'm riding on my roadbike - and which anyone can take a legal eBike over.


That explains part of our misunderstanding because around here we call those roads, and pretty decent ones at that. The first one looks similar to the one I have to drive on to get to my house every day. We have thousands of roads like that in and around the rocky mountains that already allow motor traffic and I'm fine with that.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

Interesting discussions and viewpoints. What is evident is that there is quite a wide variance and interpretation of 'Trail and E-bike'. In an ordered society like Europe, the definitions are clear cut and understood. In the USA, maybe not so much? The E-bike certainly is innovative and fun, but I have reservations on what I have ridden and the abilities of those who ride them. The market that I observe these bikes being sold into are unable to pedal them once on self power when the battery goes flat - I know, you carry a spare - more weight. I know of one bike that is of the MTB type that stranded a rider on the trail that broke a wire after a crash. Too heavy to walk out and the rider was not so 'able' at walking out either. Yes, more technology, and these machines will become lighter, but the whole purpose for me is being able to exercise, and to do that you pedal. Simple. See what Sedgeway's have done to walking. Fit healthy people need to exercise fully, leave the novelty at home. Leave them to those who have a need to use them, it opens the world to them.

Eric


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

bsieb said:


> Velobike, your trails are what we call forest roads, and those are open to ebikes. Our mtb trails are 12" wide, and not so hardened, and definitely not so flat.
> 
> We don't currently build wheelchair accessible mtb trails here. Openings, gates, and ramps that pedestrians can access must be at least 32" wide, but no other trail modifications for wheelchairs are required. Purpose built mtb trail is still legal here in northwestern New Mexico.


OK, then how about these:

deer track



singletrack




singletrack (churned up by horse riders)

[URL="https://flic.kr/p/oPZpGk"]

more singletrack



There is not much in the way of built and hardened single track in Scotland because we have open access to the whole country and don't need special playgrounds. The singletrack that exists is either old paths or the like of deer tracks, and there's tens of thousands of miles of such single track. Anyone has the right to access those under their own power, ie by foot, by cycle (uni, bi, tri, quad) and including legal eBikes, or by horse. And it's the horses that really stuff up the tracks because they usually come in big groups.

I wasn't talking about wheelchair access to mtb tracks, I was talking about the attitude to wheelchair access to city facilities and shops. It wasn't that long ago such access was really difficult, and it still needs improving. (I should have made myself clearer.)



leeboh said:


> Here in MA, USA, no motor( vehicles) allowed on public trails. So not allowed. Please don't tell us how we should do things here from another country. We kicked their a$$es last time that happened. ( Tea taxes anyone ?) Where I ride( MA), trail access for mt biking is not allowed everywhere and is limited in some areas as well. How does one tell from just looking at a motorcycle , 250, 500 or full on 750 watt electric motorcycle? Starting down that slippery slope. There are a few areas in which to ride off road ORV. They can ride there. Or commute on the road, perfect for long distance or heavy cargo bikes. Many Americans are just lazy and looking for an easy fix. We'll send then to Russia?


I thought we were discussing the impact on trails of eBikes.

This forum is aimed at a worldwide audience not USA only. If it is USA only, I'll happily withdraw from the forum. I have no desire to have the USA attack little Scotland over a difference of opinion on eBikes.

You seem to have an ideological antipathy to eBikes. Fair enough, that's your opinion.

But I am surprised that a person who appears to be a patriotic member of the USA is keen to put limitations in the way of disabled people using the trails, particularly when many of them have got that way in the service of their country. Still, as you say, it's your country.

And on that note, I'm out of this discussion.


----------



## KevinGT (Dec 25, 2012)

I still don't understand the controversy. There is no gray area at all.

Ebikes are motorized vehicles. Period. 

They can be ridden on trails allowing motorized vehicles and can't be ridden on trails that prohibit motorized vehicles. It's that simple. Whether the motor is a 250cc internal combustion engine or a 1/100th horsepower electric motor, it's still a motorized vehicle. 

There is no gray area and no controversy.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

I agree about horses - Big mess makers.

Eric


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

E bikes are indistinguishable from mt. bikes. If we throw them under the bus and tell land managers that ebikes should be banned, then we are asking them to ban all bikes. If a land manager cannot distinguish ebikes from bikes, then we are all banned. Mt bikers in the US are often their own worst enemy. If we want to publicly shame one of our own lets go after the stravaholes and DHers. Those two groups do far more to malign the mt. bike community then ebikers ever will.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Linktung said:


> E bikes are indistinguishable from mt. bikes. If we throw them under the bus and tell land managers that ebikes should be banned, then we are asking them to ban all bikes. If a land manager cannot distinguish ebikes from bikes, then we are all banned. Mt bikers in the US are often their own worst enemy. If we want to publicly shame one of our own lets go after the stravaholes and DHers. Those two groups do far more to malign the mt. bike community then ebikers ever will.


Nonsense, ebikes are already banned from non-motorized trails on federal managed lands. I see this as affirmation that the motor assisted bike bs is just that. What about non-motorized is complicated?


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

The part that is complicated is that they look and sound like bikes. If you want the ban enforced effectively all bikes need to be banned.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

^ Bingo.

The end of mountain biking, or just another bicycle with additional technology?:


----------



## dope pedaler (Apr 25, 2014)

Mr Pig said:


> It's like talking to Scooby Doo..
> 
> It's not like a brick wall line, all nice e-bikes are green and the nasty big ones are blue. If these bikes become popular there will be all kinds running around and as the technology gets more compact it will become increasingly difficult to tell the difference between a mild e-bike and a more powerful one. Then a walker gets hit by a 30mph e-bike.
> 
> e-bike's big problem is that they can quietly bring more power, and therefore speed, into any given trail situation. And greater speed equals greater risk and substrate wear. It's not a story that will end well.


Mr. Pig, I get it. These advocates for low power pedal assist bikes are like gun control extremists that want to outlaw high caliber assault weapons. If you place any restrictions at all on guns it will lead to the feds coming and breaking down your door and confiscating your hunting rifle. Same deal with ebikes, give them an inch of acceptance and it will lead to motocrossers on every singletrack! Stay strong Pig!


----------



## Jake January (Sep 12, 2014)

Honestly I think it would be kinda cool to lace up a bionx_d500 to a Moonlander and spray some sand on the beach.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Linktung said:


> *E bikes are indistinguishable from mt. bikes.* If we throw them under the bus and tell land managers that ebikes should be banned, then we are asking them to ban all bikes.* If a land manager cannot distinguish ebikes from bikes*, then we are all banned. Mt bikers in the US are often their own worst enemy. If we want to publicly shame one of our own lets go after the stravaholes and DHers. Those two groups do far more to malign the mt. bike community then ebikers ever will.


Well, which is it? Are they or are they not distinguishable?


----------



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

These guys have been spending money on ad space here lately-

https://www.surface604.com/fatbike/boar/

Aside from the sticker I wonder if anyone can distinguish between the 250 and 350 watt version? Are forest rangers going to be forced to start carrying multi-meters?

And that's another thing I could live without, the need for cops on the trails.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Mr Pig said:


> No one is going to take an ebike way out into the wilds if they don't have the capacity to get it back should the batteries fail. For most, ebikes will be toys.


I think so, too. I've yet to run into any on our local trails, so I don't think they've gained much traction around here. There is an old guy who effortlessly passes me on the hills on my road bike, and I want to push him over. But I don't.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

'But it will lead to motorcrossers using our trails'
Easy, we can make the ban start at gas powered, fifty pounds, and throttles. Any of those three and you are banned from bicycle trails. 
'Just wait till someone dies going 30 miles an hour'
Same argument hikers use against cyclists in general. Cyclists do die going thirty miles an hour without a motor. That was their choice and I respect their freedom to make it. As far as cyclists killing another user with their ebike, well that is just as unlikely as it is today. The average ebiker is going to be less rowdy then the average stravahole and far less rowdy then the average DHer. As an everyotherday trail user I have no fear of the ebikers using my favorite trail. Perhaps it will get the motorcrossers to see the error of their ways and use a non (direct) polluting, quiet, means of trail access that gives a safer, healthier, experience.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> And that's another thing I could live without, the need for cops on the trails.


If anything close to that happens, you'll have whiney mt bikers to thank. You know... the ones that incessantly call in to the rangers that they just saw an ebikes poaching. (Just like some hikers and equestrians do regarding mt bikers).

HOHAs already think we are all riding motorcycles. Normal everyday hikers and equestrians won't know the difference between a regular bike and an ebike... but they will always know the difference between a friendly/courteous rider and an a$$hole.

Ride your ride. Be nice. Say hi to others.


----------



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

Empty_Beer said:


> Ride your ride. Be nice. Say hi to others.


If your ride is capable of exceeding 30mph (my point in my previous post) then it starts to become incompatible with other trail users & local residents.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

^ exactly what hikers and equestrians say about mt bikers!


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

Just another toy in the box, and not to be compared to other forms of mt biking, but will be helpful to aging legs...


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Velobike said:


> OK, then how about these:
> 
> deer track
> 
> ...


No attack meant, just pointing out that world wide, every area has different standards and norms. This discussion is not about the American ADA and the rights for disabled to access trails. I ride with my friend in an electric wheel chair. An ADA discussion is something different. I'm all about discussing E bikes. We DON"T have access to all land under human power, nor do we have crown land ( Canada) or such. What we are ,as USA mt bikers trying to preserve the limited access we have , not to lose it. Not antipathy, they are illegal on my trails. We actually have access issues, not being able to ride. Please pedal a mile in my shoes before being critical. And pass me some of that fabulous Ardbeg.


----------



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

Empty_Beer said:


> ^ exactly what hikers and equestrians say about mt bikers!


And a lot of times they have a valid point, which is why I have no problem with certain trails being closed off to bicycles.

The 30mph was just an arbitrary number and not meant to be taken literally btw. What I meant is that bicycles are wonderfully self regulating as far as speed and distance limitation goes. On most multi-use trails the typical mountain biker can only manage about 5-10 mph average, and an exceptional world class athlete can top that by maybe around 4 or 5 mph.

With a hopped up ebike all of a sudden anyone could potentially be a super star and rip trails averaging 20mph or better, and IMHO that doesn't integrate well with other users and their backcountry experience.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> And a lot of times they have a valid point, which is why I have no problem with certain trails being closed off to bicycle.


As long as they aren't your preferred trails it's okay to ban cyclists. Based on your wildly inaccurate assessments on what ebikes can do to mph I can only wonder if you actually ride trails. You support the banning of certain bikes, as long as they aren't your bikes.


----------



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

Linktung said:


> As long as they aren't your preferred trails it's okay to ban cyclists. Based on your wildly inaccurate assessments on what ebikes can do to mph I can only wonder if you actually ride trails. You support the banning of certain bikes, as long as they aren't your bikes.


Evidently you didn't read any of my posts, including the one you quoted. If you did you might notice where I said that I'm OK with some trails not allowing bicycles, which is the kind of bike I ride. On trails.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Linktung said:


> As long as they aren't your preferred trails it's okay to ban cyclists. Based on your wildly inaccurate assessments on what ebikes can do to mph I can only wonder if you actually ride trails. You support the banning of certain bikes, as long as they aren't your bikes.


Where I live, trails are classified as motorized or non-motorized by the US Forest Service. It has always been this way. There is no hate involved, just the simple fact that motorized conveyances are not allowed on non-motorized trails. This position has been affirmed by these agencies, rightly or wrongly. No one is getting thrown under a bus, there is no bus. Electric motorized bikes came late to the table and are trying to defeat that system, but in truth, those bikes require a different trail design, and as a trail builder I don't see it happening without new environmental assessments being done. It would be better to build new separate or shared infrastructure to accommodate such use, and I suspect the funding path would be less complicated too. Just changing the classification of an existing trail system is seldom successful on Forest Land, unless it's to a lighter use. We have non-motorized two track that would be more suitable for allowing ebikes, but there's that pesky motor again.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

I should note that I was an e-bike hater when I first heard of them last year or so, for all the same reasons I read here and elsewhere on the Interwebs. Then I looked into what these things really were and deduced that there is _no way_ we will keep them off singletrack, regardless of an outright ban on them. Humans (especially mt. bikers) are predictable that way. I also demo'd a Haibike (at an OHV State Park) and put it through its paces so that I could understand its capabilities and limitations.

The ebikes that are/will be sold in stores require real effort to get to 20mph and once you hit 20mph, the assist turns off and you're left to pedal a 50-something pound bike with no assist. I don't believe those interested in ebikes will be all that interested in speed, cause they are horrible for speed. In any event, at least in my area, riding any bike over 15 mph on singletrack would be challenging, simply due to the nature of the trails themselves. Adding e-assist won't increase average speed on anything but middle gear climbs, in my opinion. And it won't be much.

Will people hot-rod stock ebikes? Some will. But they already can do that any number of ways and those bikes are not causing us problems anywhere as far as I know. And yes these ebikes will get lighter, but with industry regulations limiting e-assist to 20mph, I still don't see speed demons seeking these out. Those that can ride that fast at a sustained pace are already doing it on a normal mt. bike.

It troubles me greatly that ebikes may have the ability to really mess things up for traditional mtb access -- because of a tiny, harmless motor -- but more troubling is that it will primarily be mountain bikers leading the charge that could end up getting all wheels removed from some places. I think many people need to take a deep breath and decide if a little pedal assist is really that offensive, or if its just another way to get people out advocating for more trails.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

bsieb said:


> Where I live, trails are classified as motorized or non-motorized by the US Forest Service. It has always been this way.


You're buying into the semantics of access. No different than how human powered bicycling got tossed from Wilderness in 1984. Look into the history of "non-motorized" as a trail designation and why it became so. Look into the history of "mechanized transport" and decide if the intent matches the result.

With that said, my understanding is that the industry is looking to create a new designation that further separates low powered e-assist bicycles from motorized vehicles. It's getting interesting...


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> Evidently you didn't read any of my posts, including the one you quoted. If you did you might notice where I said that I'm OK with some trails not allowing bicycles, which is the kind of bike I ride. On trails.


You are okay with your trails being closed to bikes...Got it.....I can see why you support the banning of e-bikes then, they too resemble bikes.


----------



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

Linktung said:


> You are okay with your trails being closed to bikes...Got it.....I can see why you support the banning of e-bikes then, they too resemble bikes.


Again with the reading comprehension problems, I'll be as clear as I possibly can this time. I don't think every single trail on earth should be open to bicycles, just like I don't think every trail on earth should be open to motorcycles, cars, boats, tanks, etc. etc. etc.

I would prefer if the trails I currently ride on remain open to mountain bikes. I don't support the banning of ebikes, I support leaving regulations as they stand.



Linktung said:


> Based on your wildly inaccurate assessments on what ebikes can do to mph I can only wonder if you actually ride trails.


Wildly inaccurate-

Specialized expands its Turbo e-bike family with trail models | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Just look at Liktungs post history and you'll understand the disparity between his world and reality.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> those bikes require a different trail design


To be legal? I'm not following and I design trails too. I don't see any appreciable difference in the impact on trails. I haven't ridden one, just been passed by a bunch, but I couldn't see any difference between the impact of climbing on a trail by a fit biker and an ebiker. No roosting, they aren't super fast, the rider just isn't working very hard. I didn't see any difference descending, it's just a bike.

I spent 3 weeks riding in Europe last month and I saw a lot of ebikes on the trail. No scientific data, but at the hotel I was staying it was @ 50/50 in the bike garage. Some were low - mid range, more for the very casual rider on roads and bike paths, but most were for enthusiasts, nice frames with high quality bits hanging off them. Guess who was riding the nicest bikes? Old fools like us who have been riding for years. Nice kit, pads on, they're just bikers. The story I heard over and over was the same, "I can't ride enough to stay in shape for the big climbs" or "My (fill in the blank) can now keep up with me, so we can ride together."

I was an emphatic hater, but my time amongst the ebikes made me realize a few things:

1) They're expensive. Unless they're renting, the idiot masses aren't going to be flooding the backcountry on them. It'll be experienced riders who have the skill and money. When cheap ebikes come out, they'll be like cheap mountain bikes, they'll suck to ride too. You'll see them on pavement and dirt roads, not so much where it takes skill to ride.

2) The limited ones are OK on trail, they're just bikes. Sure, it steams me to see someone cruise past while I'm suffering up some grind fest, but I'll learn to deal I suppose.

4) They do fill a need. Like lifts and commercial shuttles. Maybe one you don't share, but they do.

5) They're coming, like it or not. The industry is HUGELY behind it, there's lots of aging boomers out there.....


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

The "Industry" is behind it so we are supposed to sit still and accept it? I think not. What a huge sense of entitlement I detect from those that seem to think they have a right to operate motor vehicles, putting hard won access to trails at risk. Don't even begin to think the Sierra Clubbers aren't waiting to pounce on this very issue. And yes, they monitor this very web site that this nonsense is being posted on.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

tiretracks said:


> Don't even begin to think the Sierra Clubbers aren't waiting to pounce on this very issue. And yes, they monitor this very web sight that this nonsense is being posted on.


The Sierra Club doesn't need to lift a finger. They have you doing their work for them!


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

Harryman, very sensible, your viewpoint is the likely outcome and is in-line with what I am observing.

Eric


----------



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

Harryman said:


> They're coming, like it or not. The industry is HUGELY behind it


^Truest statement in the whole thread.

Though I'm passionately opposed to opening the floodgates I have no illusions that it won't happen, Specialized and other multi-billion dollar conglomerates would not be all in unless the road was already paved.

Right or wrong, money will prevail.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

They will have an effect on trail design to account for the dumbing down aspect. We should cherish our old school singletracks while they are still around.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

bsieb said:


> They will have an effect on trail design to account for the dumbing down aspect. We should cherish our old school singletracks while they are still around.


I would think that this will depend on the actual numbers of potential ebike users on singletrack. Will there be enough of these folks to make an impact on trail design, and will others bother listening to them?

I'm still not a fan but mostly for purist reasons. I'm really not sensing a threat otherwise where I ride.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Trail design will be affected because of the heavier faster machine, which is less manueverable. Sort of like the track a motorcycle leaves on a bike trail, or how a dh trail looks. This will fit well with the current "flow" trail fad of smooth wide paths.


----------



## syl3 (Apr 23, 2008)

The bike is heavier by 12-15 lbs or so. Riders vary way more than that. And it's only faster uphill, by ~5mph, if you pedal HARD. If you just fake it and let the motor do all the work it's a wash. On the descent it's about 10% slower because it lacks the same maneuvrability in certain situations so it forces you to brake a bit more.

If you guys insist on banning all ebikes it's going to be a nightmare. Because they will show up on the trails sooner or later. But if you play this right they won't be able to use it to take access away from all bikes.

This is a pretty important moment to lobby for smart legislation which makes electric motorcycles harder to acquire and legal ebikes easier to buy and use. Otherwise the same argument that ebikes and e-motos can't be told apart can be turned around into bikes and ebikes cant be told apart. This is not a matter of trail acces regulation, it's a matter of electric vehicles regulation.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> Trail design will be affected because of the heavier faster machine, which is less manueverable. Sort of like the track a motorcycle leaves on a bike trail, or how a dh trail looks.


So, when I get fatter over the winter I do significantly more trail damage in the spring? Have you ever seen an ebike let alone ridden one? It's like the difference between a trailbike ridden by an unfit person and a fit one. There is far more difference in impact between different personal riding styles, like between a rowdy skidding enduro dude and someone simply rolling over everything.

I'm not an advocate of them, nor am I dead set against them as I once was. I think there's a lot of people in this thread railing against the unseen enemy with little to no real experience with them.

I don't think there will be this huge influx of new riders trashing trails or a new set of idiots getting themselves in trouble deep in the back woods. The people who are going to buy these are your fellow mountain bikers. The same people you ride with now, maybe even you. Those who see them as a way to shuttle rides without a shuttle, ride farther and longer, make up for lack of training time, whatever.

The fact is that mountain bikes are primarily about providing a fun experience, however you individually define it. I've been riding them since 1985 and they've gotten way faster, more comfortable, lighter, safer and far, far more fun over the years. I can rip through sections without thinking now that I used to barely survive back then when I was stronger and had better reflexes. Is this a positive thing? Mostly. Check any bike magazine and let me know if you can find an ad that is selling bikes as a great way to get fit. It's all about thrills and chills. This is another product that provides a way for people to have fun on a bike, like it or not. They're not going to be the primary bike on a shops floor anytime soon, but they will be in every shop at some point not far off.

I agree, it's an issue that will only add confusion to trail advocacy fights. It's a problem and one where I side with the exclusion crowd at this point until we have more information. Honestly though, I don't know what it's like where you live, but with zero enforcement here on pretty much everything, there's nothing to keep ebikes off any of our local trails currently.


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

Just to clarify the e-bike design, the motors are very heavy and where they are placed factors how they will perform on the trails. Bike balance is crucial. Rule out front wheel drive designs. Rear hub designs have the bike not 'flying' well in the air as they drop to the ground rear wheel first, so jumps factor in the trail build which makes a trail less of a challenge to the purist. Mid mounted BB pedal assist drive has potential and is the most likely choice for a MTB e-bike that could traverse the pure trails, so anything can happen out there. An e-bike probably will inspire a new genre of tricks and require a different trail again - who knows?

Eric


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

The e bikes I have seen are like 40-60 lbs, way heavy. I can't image trying to loft the front wheel up and over say an 8" log on one of those. Add the sheer weight and seems would be a fail on most of the singletrack I ride on. Maybe these would be more popular on say dirt roads.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

syl3 said:


> The bike is heavier by 12-15 lbs or so. Riders vary way more than that. And it's only faster uphill, by ~5mph, if you pedal HARD. If you just fake it and let the motor do all the work it's a wash. On the descent it's about 10% slower because it lacks the same maneuvrability in certain situations so it forces you to brake a bit more.
> 
> If you guys insist on banning all ebikes it's going to be a nightmare. Because they will show up on the trails sooner or later. But if you play this right they won't be able to use it to take access away from all bikes.
> 
> This is a pretty important moment to lobby for smart legislation which makes electric motorcycles harder to acquire and legal ebikes easier to buy and use. Otherwise the same argument that ebikes and e-motos can't be told apart can be turned around into bikes and ebikes cant be told apart. This is not a matter of trail acces regulation, it's a matter of electric vehicles regulation.


Very accurate info IMHO. It's pretty obvious you've ridden one. I encourage everyone to try them or at least understand what they are before galvanizing an opinion.

Hub motors are for commuting since the front/back balance is off. The bottom bracket motors are really what's widening the range.

Climbing, they don't cause more damage. Descending, they are slower in all cases as your really don't descend with the motor. Nothing is faster than an All Mountain bike or DH bike.

They're assist bikes so you have to pedal to get any motor output. So you may end up riding more or longer. I find it's good for steep areas where it's 90% climbing time and 10% descending time. It balances out the riding time to about 50-50.


----------



## matuchi (Jun 9, 2008)

When I retired three years ago I balloned up 23 lbs to 228 lbs and decided i needed some exercise and bought a pedel assisted e-bike. I rode it around town and then up some fire roads and ended up riding it over 1,200 miles in the first year alone and lost sixteen pounds. The following year I bought a new Specialized Camber Comp Carbon and in a little over a year I lost an additional 17 pounds and I'm down to 195 - which is lighter than I was when I was working.

My e-bike got me off the sofa and back on two wheels and turned out to be the best thing to happen to me in years. I still use it, but mostly for errands around town. It has a battery that lasts close to 50 miles and it will hit 30 mph on the flats if you peddle like crazy. I still take it on the fire roads when I'm riding with much younger riders so I can keep up - but other wise it's what I use instead of driving my truck.

E-bikes are a lot of fun and evryone that has ridden my e-bike has wanted one. Below is my Stromer ST1 Platinum:


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

matuchi- Thanks for the informative post. Ebikes will affect trail design though, we are about to build over 50 miles of new routes, and it will be hard not to add the heavier clumsier machines into the routing factoring & deciding brain process, which adds up to smoother straighter less tech tread routing. Some of our existing trails would not be appropriate for the above bike unless you can pick it up. 

Note to self, design hike a bikes into inappropriate trails.


----------



## kneecap (Dec 20, 2003)

Ha, bsieb, there ya go. That would slowem down for sure. 
There are trails I would ride one on, & rugged back country trails I wouldn't. So, seems like you've balanced things out a bit.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

bsieb said:


> Trail design will be affected because of the heavier faster machine, which is less manueverable. Sort of like the track a motorcycle leaves on a bike trail, or how a dh trail looks. This will fit well with the current "flow" trail fad of smooth wide paths.


I don't get the impression that these things have that much power although I see your point. However, there are bikers on trails now that have bikes that weigh 15 lbs more than mine and I doubt they are harming the dirt more than me.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

In case folks weren't aware, IMBA is in the midst of an E bike study including their physical impact on trails. The preliminary report:

https://www.imba.com/news/eMTB-early-study-results


----------



## matuchi (Jun 9, 2008)

I would never take my e-bike on single track trails and I only use it on roads/fire roads. It's too big and heavy for any technical single track type riding - but it sure is a blast on fire roads. The price of a decent e-bike will in my opinion keep a lot of potential buyers away. I'm going to be 64 in a couple of weeks and had to retire due to a bad back - so my e-bike was a godsend for me and got me back into riding again.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Crankout said:


> I don't get the impression that these things have that much power although I see your point. However, there are bikers on trails now that have bikes that weigh 15 lbs more than mine and I doubt they are harming the dirt more than me.


It's not so much harming the dirt as changing the flow to a ~50% heavier machine with ~50% less maneuverability at the same speed type of flow. Therefor the trail line will be straighter and smoother and less absorbing/exhilerating for mtbers, or whatever we will be calling them now, hpmtbers. I imagine urban multi-purpose trails won't be affected as much.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> Ebikes will affect trail design though, we are about to build over 50 miles of new routes, and it will be hard not to add the heavier clumsier machines into the routing factoring & deciding brain process, which adds up to smoother straighter less tech tread routing.


I don't know what your parameters are for your trail build, but we design for the desired user experience, not the limitations of the specific bike. Considering all the different flavors of mtbs already out there. The users will self sort, designing trails around a certain bike seems illogical.



> It's not so much harming the dirt as changing the flow to a ~50% heavier machine with ~50% less maneuverability at the same speed type of flow. Therefor the trail line will be straighter and smoother and less absorbing/exhilerating for mtbers,


lol


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

Harryman said:


> I don't know what your parameters are for your trail build, but we design for the desired user experience, not the limitations of the specific bike. Considering all the different flavors of mtbs already out there. The users will self sort. Designing trails around a certain bike seems illogical.


and when users don't self sort?

They will widen the trail because they will be riding heavier less maneuverable bikes that can not be easily ridden within the trails borders. 
Sadly you can not build trails with the expectation that people will use them the way you specifically intended, you have to build trails that accommodate the trail users themselves.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> They will widen the trail because they will be riding heavier less maneuverable bikes that can not be easily ridden within the trails borders.


Do you mean fat bikes?  Users self sort now, why do you think they wouldn't in the future? Are your most technical trails flooded with gapers now?

The majority of ebikes I saw being ridden in Europe on single track were ones like in the video I posted. They're trail bikes, ridden by trail bike riders. I don't know why you all think they are less maneuverable to the point of less controlable. The skill of the rider will dictate if they can manage the trail, the bikes are very capable.

There are plenty of other ebikes out there that are more suited for communting or light duty, like the hub motor bikes, I don't think you'll see many of those off dirt roads or bike paths.


----------



## niknas (Apr 25, 2012)

Been follow this thread for while and I have to add my 2 cents. I am a 70 year old guy. A very fit 70 year old guy who has been biking from the beginning of time and mountain biking for for half of my life. I didn't start Mt. biking because I wanted to kick ass going up or down hill. Yes I did and still do do get a rush out going fast down a tight single track here in the Gorge, Park City, Moab,Baja and most anyplace I travel to. My joy in mountain biking is being able to get outdoors away from internal combustion machines. I did ride dirt bike for several years, love it, wish I still could. My current bike is Santa Cruz Solo (5010). My last ride on it was last week in Moab. I love that bike. 

I on a lark bought a Felt Lebowske, a big heavy (48#) electric assist fat tire bike. I bought it to ride in Mexico on the beach and sandy arroyos. But being a rider I started riding it on our local trails (the Gorge, aka Hood River). Just to see what it is capable of. I added a Bluto fork to the bike to make it a little more trail worthy. So in short I think I have something to add to this thread.

Pedal assist Mountain Bike DO NOT damage trails. Not going up or going down. I am not racing my buddies when riding. I set a pace according to the group I am riding with. My electric assist bike will not move an inch without human power. The assist is as much as you want or not. I can and do pedal it with the assist off. Mostly I use the second lowest setting when climbing. 

Going back to my age. I am 70 years old, I have a fused ankle and two total knee replacements. I am a really old guy who wants to keep moving and enjoying the trails I have been riding for 35 years. I want want to keep riding with my buddies in their 40, 50, who could drop me like a bad habit on long steep hill climbs. Now with a little help from the electric assist I can hang with them. They have no problem with the electric assist bike. They are happy that I am still riding with them. These are hard core bikers, some were a little skeptical at first but now they are 100% behind me.

Please don't shut me out. Let me ride.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

niknas said:


> Been follow this thread for while and I have to add my 2 cents. I am a 70 year old guy. A very fit 70 year old guy who has been biking from the beginning of time and mountain biking for for half of my life. I didn't start Mt. biking because I wanted to kick ass going up or down hill. Yes I did and still do do get a rush out going fast down a tight single track here in the Gorge, Park City, Moab,Baja and most anyplace I travel to. My joy in mountain biking is being able to get outdoors away from internal combustion machines. I did ride dirt bike for several years, love it, wish I still could. My current bike is Santa Cruz Solo (5010). My last ride on it was last week in Moab. I love that bike.
> 
> I on a lark bought a Felt Lebowske, a big heavy (48#) electric assist fat tire bike. I bought it to ride in Mexico on the beach and sandy arroyos. But being a rider I started riding it on our local trails (the Gorge, aka Hood River). Just to see what it is capable of. I added a Bluto fork to the bike to make it a little more trail worthy. So in short I think I have something to add to this thread.
> 
> ...


^^Tough argument to defy. Keep on ridding! This perspective changes my thoughts on this subject.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

jcd46 said:


> ^^Tough argument to defy. Keep on ridding! This perspective changes my thoughts on this subject.


Agreed! Hard to argue with that. Thanks for some perspective niknas


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

jcd46 said:


> ^^Tough argument to defy. Keep on ridding! This perspective changes my thoughts on this subject.


I find it hard to believe that niknas can pedal a 48# fat bike with hardly any assist but can't pedal a sub 25 lb mtb. Just sayin, no offense niknas.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

bsieb said:


> I find it hard to believe that niknas can pedal a 48# fat bike with hardly any assist but can't pedal a sub 25 lb mtb. Just sayin, no offense niknas.


Or that there are trails that do not test his physical abilities so strenuously in the first place.


----------



## matuchi (Jun 9, 2008)

bsieb said:


> I find it hard to believe that niknas can pedal a 48# fat bike with hardly any assist but can't pedal a sub 25 lb mtb. Just sayin, no offense niknas.


With me it was knowing the assist was there in case I needed it that gave me a boost of confidence that I didn't have at the time with a regular bike. Like jcd46 - I use the lower Eco setting for most of my riding and rely on the Power setting on only the steepest of climbs. The nice thing about an e-bike is you have that "In case of emergency break glass" kind of feeling knowing you have the help if you really need it.


----------



## Ptor (Jan 29, 2004)

niknas said:


> Please don't shut me out. Let me ride.


I like the "motorized / non-motorized " distinction as a limiter on public lands. I also like the "non-mechanized travel in wilderness" rule. From a land and wildlife management perspective it's about controlling the amount of activity in fragile or rare ecosystems. Motors make it easier to encroach into remote areas. Mountain bikes make it easier to encroach into wilderness areas. If you make it harder or more time consuming for joe-public to get into the backcountry, the more effectively it can be managed. A current issue facing our local National Forest is the effort to close some roads and long-used but illegal routes for resource management reasons. Numerous comments have been made at the open meetings with the USFS and in local papers about the publics right of access, but what they're really arguing for is their right to drive anywhere. I see a similar theme here with motor-assisted bicycles, the "I'm no longer able to do it without a motor but I deserve the right to still be there so let me use my motor-assist bike to get there" argument. I don't think it's an inherent right to be able to get where you use to just because you age out of it. I realize I've aged out of some of my favorite backcountry epics, but I've made it a priority to find value in what I can still do (smaller incursions into the wilds). I encourage all to think about the bigger picture and not make it about "you" -- it should be about the forests, wild life, and conservation. Okay, maybe I'm being selfish, because I'm pretty sure that allowing motor-assists on bikes to access all that you can on a regular bike will just degrade our precious resources faster and I want my son, and then his son or daughter, to have the same opportunity to experience quality backcountry.


----------



## niknas (Apr 25, 2012)

bsieb said:


> I find it hard to believe that niknas can pedal a 48# fat bike with hardly any assist but can't pedal a sub 25 lb mtb. Just sayin, no offense niknas.


I can and do ride my Solo often, I just can't hang with my younger friends on steep long uphill grinds. I do pick my ride to match the bike. Or I join the shuttle crew for mostly downhill. No fun riding alone.

As I stated I am quite fit for a 70 year. The mode I ride in is "tour" it increase my output by 120 percent. As if I had 20 year old legs again. The e-fat bike as been a real eye opener. No more am I wasted the next day recovering from a ride. The Hood River area is known for steep uphill grinds.


----------



## niknas (Apr 25, 2012)

PeT said:


> I like the "motorized / non-motorized " distinction as a limiter on public lands. I also like the "non-mechanized travel in wilderness" rule. From a land and wildlife management perspective it's about controlling the amount of activity in fragile or rare ecosystems. Motors make it easier to encroach into remote areas. Mountain bikes make it easier to encroach into wilderness areas. If you make it harder or more time consuming for joe-public to get into the backcountry, the more effectively it can be managed. A current issue facing our local National Forest is the effort to close some roads and long-used but illegal routes for resource management reasons. Numerous comments have been made at the open meetings with the USFS and in local papers about the publics right of access, but what they're really arguing for is their right to drive anywhere. I see a similar theme here with motor-assisted bicycles, the "I'm no longer able to do it without a motor but I deserve the right to still be there so let me use my motor-assist bike to get there" argument. I don't think it's an inherent right to be able to get where you use to just because you age out of it. I realize I've aged out of some of my favorite backcountry epics, but I've made it a priority to find value in what I can still do (smaller incursions into the wilds). I encourage all to think about the bigger picture and not make it about "you" -- it should be about the forests, wild life, and conservation. Okay, maybe I'm being selfish, because I'm pretty sure that allowing motor-assists on bikes to access all that you can on a regular bike will just degrade our precious resources faster and I want my son, and then his son or daughter, to have the same opportunity to experience quality backcountry.


I like what you have to say mostly. I not asking to venture into "wild areas" Moab has turned into a playground. Hood River, Park City, Bend, Whistler, and others have become adventure parks for Mt. Bikers. There is nothing remotely resembling a outback wilderness for most Mt. bike riding anymore.



> I don't think it's an inherent right to be able to get where you use to just because you age out of it.


In days of old if you couldn't keep up they would prop you up against a tree and leave the old to the wolves.



> I'm pretty sure that allowing motor-assists on bikes to access all that you can on a regular bike will just degrade our precious resources faster


Not sure I follow your rationale here. An e assist bike causes no more damage than a regular bike. Are you concerned about more people using the trail system? If so the trail should be closed to all users other than hikers.


----------



## matuchi (Jun 9, 2008)

There are places where I ride where they rent Segway's - and that to me is going a little too far - but people are paying good money to ride them.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

matuchi said:


> With me it was knowing the assist was there in case I needed it that gave me a boost of confidence that I didn't have at the time with a regular bike. Like jcd46 - I use the lower Eco setting for most of my riding and rely on the Power setting on only the steepest of climbs. The nice thing about an e-bike is you have that "In case of emergency break glass" kind of feeling knowing you have the help if you really need it.


Correction - I do not own an e-bike  I was just empathizing with niknas's post.


----------



## matuchi (Jun 9, 2008)

jcd46 said:


> Correction - I do not own an e-bike  I was just empathizing with niknas's post.


I had you two mixed up - sorry.


----------



## Ptor (Jan 29, 2004)

niknas said:


> I not asking to venture into "wild areas" Moab has turned into a playground. Hood River, Park City, Bend, Whistler, and others have become adventure parks for Mt. Bikers. There is nothing remotely resembling a outback wilderness for most Mt. bike riding anymore.


When I visit Moab, Fruita or Durango, I'm sure looking for the less crowded areas, wether it be crowded due to hikers, bikers or motorized traffic. Population density for all of those types of users falls off asymptotically as you move away from the trailhead. Motor-assisted bikes will affect that distribution. That will change management practices and quite potentially lead to trail closures. I'm lucky enough to live where we bike on Federal lands, primarily USFS, that once away from the trail head the environment quickly approaches "wild". Management practices for these lands take into account human user loads and if motor-assisted bicycles increase the propensity for incursions deeper into these areas, there will be changes and impacts that will more quickly degrade the environment.



niknas said:


> In days of old if you couldn't keep up they would prop you up against a tree and leave the old to the wolves.


And that might well happen if you overcommit on a ride, depending on your motor-assisted bike that poops out on you. Your riding buddies might well leave you to the wolves! In all seriousness though, I'm expecting this to become a not uncommon occurrence -- people trying to pull off rides they're really not capable of by depending on their motor-assist and end up baking to death in the middle of the desert. This sort of thing happens with snowmobilers in the mountains around here all the time -- snowmobile breaks down, unfit, ill-prepared hack from the midwest dies trying to posthole back to civilization.



niknas said:


> Not sure I follow your rationale here. An e assist bike causes no more damage than a regular bike. Are you concerned about more people using the trail system? If so the trail should be closed to all users other than hikers.


Sorry, but that's not what I intended to say. As noted above, my concern is that instead of the natural buffer of distance and difficulty that self-propulsion imparts for accessing semi-wild areas, motor-assisted bicycles will effectively decrease this type of buffer. If the managers of mtb trail systems in urban or suburban areas are okay with motor-assisted bikes, I'm fine with that. However, I am not swayed by arguments that everyone deserves access to difficult to reach areas on public lands and will lobby managers of public lands in wild and semi-wild areas (i.e - national forests) to preclude allowing motorized vehicles of any sort from using trails now designated as for use by "non-motorized vehicles only".


----------



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

PeT said:


> When I visit Moab, Fruita or Durango, I'm sure looking for the less crowded areas, wether it be crowded due to hikers, bikers or motorized traffic. Population density for all of those types of users falls off asymptotically as you move away from the trailhead. Motor-assisted bikes will affect that distribution.
> 
> As noted above, my concern is that instead of the natural buffer of distance and difficulty that self-propulsion imparts for accessing semi-wild areas, motor-assisted bicycles will effectively decrease this type of buffer.


Great point^


----------



## GraniteRash (Jun 3, 2006)

I wish our public debate of US political issues was this thoughtful. This is great discourse, forcing me to think about both sides of the issue.


----------



## Ghost_HTX (Sep 19, 2014)

Ha ha! Maybe someone should ask Trump what he thinks of e-bikes?

Ive got a few years to go (16 to be exact) before I qualify for this thread, but blow me if niknas hasnt changed my mind about e-bikes... Well, at least shown me a situation when e-biking is permissable.

Im Scottish too, by the way.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Ghost_HTX said:


> ...Im Scottish too, by the way.


Perhaps you can tell the folk here how having open access removes all the problems of this issue...


----------



## Ghost_HTX (Sep 19, 2014)

Velobike said:


> Perhaps you can tell the folk here how having open access removes all the problems of this issue...


Pretty much as follows;

1. You get on your bike.
2. You pretty much go where ever the hell you please, within reason.
3. Ride home again when done.
4. Repeat.
5. Don't try this in England.

I have to admit, though, I didn't really start riding until I emigrated to Norway.
It's pretty much the same here, except that the Forestry Commission (or whatever the Norwegian equivalent is) actively ENCOURAGES riding on narrow twisty-turny single track. It stops it from growing over, you see...
The advantage of a small population and endless natural beauty


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> In all seriousness though, I'm expecting this to become a not uncommon occurrence -- people trying to pull off rides they're really not capable of by depending on their motor-assist and end up baking to death in the middle of the desert. This sort of thing happens with snowmobilers in the mountains around here all the time -- snowmobile breaks down, unfit, ill-prepared hack from the midwest dies trying to posthole back to civilization.


While I agree that ebikes have the potential to croak out in the boonies, the sledhead or motorcycle analogy is a little heavy handed. Unlike those machines, you could ride an ebike back to town if you run out of juice, heavy yep, unridable, no.

They will enable people to get in over their heads, just like people do on mtbs now. But, it's not like it will triple your range, I don't think there will be an epidemic of strandees tragically dying.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

I huge problem I see.....is just because they are going faster than everyone - they assume absolute right-of-way, expecting everybody else to yield for them. I foresee lots of collision-induced trail rage....


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

niknas said:


> As I stated I am quite fit for a 70 year. The mode I ride in is "tour" it increase my output by 120 percent. As if I had 20 year old legs again. The e-fat bike as been a real eye opener. No more am I wasted the next day recovering from a ride. The Hood River area is known for steep uphill grinds.


I'm hoping testosterone can achieve similar results!


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Zachariah said:


> I huge problem I see.....is just because they are going faster than everyone - they assume absolute right-of-way, expecting everybody else to yield for them. I foresee lots of collision-induced trail rage....


Now read that again as if a hiker in the 1980's wrote that about mountain biking.

History is repeating itself.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

GraniteRash said:


> I wish our public debate of US political issues was this thoughtful. This is great discourse, forcing me to think about both sides of the issue.


You are absolutely correct. So many operate with extreme prejudice and slippery slope arguments that were used against us by hikers.

So some thought and understanding cannot hurt.


----------



## kneecap (Dec 20, 2003)

I don't get the "only the young strong & fit should have access to wilderness areas".
Perhaps those of you, the environmental extremest, ought to join the sierra club & help keep humans out of those areas altogether & hang up your bikes.
Where I live in southern ca. most of wilderness back-country in the sierra Nevada mountains are hardly accessible even by foot. I pay the same taxes for national forest as every one else...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

kneecap said:


> I don't get the "only the young strong & fit should have access to wilderness areas".
> Perhaps those of you, the environmental extremest, ought to join the sierra club & help keep humans out of those areas altogether & hang up your bikes.
> Where I live in southern ca. most of wilderness back-country in the sierra Nevada mountains are hardly accessible even by foot. I pay the same taxes for national forest as every one else...


National Forests and Wilderness are two entirely different discussions.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Zachariah said:


> I huge problem I see.....is just because they are going faster than everyone - they assume absolute right-of-way, expecting everybody else to yield for them. I foresee lots of collision-induced trail rage....


And this assumption is based on.....?

That anyone on an ebike will act like a Stravatard?

That everyone on an ebike will be faster than everyone else?

That faster riders and slower riders already can't coexist?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Its clear that anyone that has a monetary concern in increasing sales are backing this and will shove it down our collective throats in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.


----------



## kneecap (Dec 20, 2003)

tiretracks said:


> National Forests and Wilderness are two entirely different discussions.


OK, i'm referring to wild areas, back country, remote areas. Where I live the ruling politicians are closing vast areas of mountain & even desert to all mechanical assist altogether. I don't see the harm in a very thin single track trail any where. sorry, I guess this is more of a rant..


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

kneecap said:


> OK, i'm referring to wild areas, back country, remote areas. Where I live the ruling politicians are closing vast areas of mountain & even desert to all mechanical assist altogether. I don't see the harm in a very thin single track trail any where. sorry, I guess this is more of a rant..


No need for apologies, just trying to clarify that single point as it seems to get muddled and perpetuated on the internet. I get what your saying about the loss of access and that drives my opposition to motorcycle access to Mountain Bike trails, it will lead to the loss of very hard won access. All in the name of making a dollar.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

PeT said:


> I like the "motorized / non-motorized " distinction as a limiter on public lands. I also like the "non-mechanized travel in wilderness" rule. From a land and wildlife management perspective it's about controlling the amount of activity in fragile or rare ecosystems. Motors make it easier to encroach into remote areas. Mountain bikes make it easier to encroach into wilderness areas. If you make it harder or more time consuming for joe-public to get into the backcountry, the more effectively it can be managed. A current issue facing our local National Forest is the effort to close some roads and long-used but illegal routes for resource management reasons. Numerous comments have been made at the open meetings with the USFS and in local papers about the publics right of access, but what they're really arguing for is their right to drive anywhere. I see a similar theme here with motor-assisted bicycles, the "I'm no longer able to do it without a motor but I deserve the right to still be there so let me use my motor-assist bike to get there" argument. I don't think it's an inherent right to be able to get where you use to just because you age out of it. I realize I've aged out of some of my favorite backcountry epics, but I've made it a priority to find value in what I can still do (smaller incursions into the wilds). I encourage all to think about the bigger picture and not make it about "you" -- it should be about the forests, wild life, and conservation. Okay, maybe I'm being selfish, because I'm pretty sure that allowing motor-assists on bikes to access all that you can on a regular bike will just degrade our precious resources faster and I want my son, and then his son or daughter, to have the same opportunity to experience quality backcountry.


So are you campaigning to ban horses from the backcountry? Because, you know, they make it too easy to encroach into the remote areas.

You should also ban hiking boots. That would keep a huge number of people out of "your" places. Go barefoot or go home.


----------



## Ptor (Jan 29, 2004)

honkinunit said:


> So are you campaigning to ban horses from the backcountry? Because, you know, they make it too easy to encroach into the remote areas.
> 
> You should also ban hiking boots. That would keep a huge number of people out of "your" places. Go barefoot or go home.


Until this message showed up, I too felt that this was a pleasantly thought provoking thread. I shouldn't be surprised it didn't last...

You've carried my point to a ridiculous extreme and to illustrate that I'll carry your point to an equally ridiculous extreme. Why stop at just allowing motor-assisted bikes on what have been designated as non-motorized trails? Some people have poor balance -- they deserve to drive 4 wheels in there. Some people can't handle the bumpy surface of an unpaved trail -- it should be paved! Everyone deserves access to these areas so we need to make them navigable to all forms of locomotion -- foot, road bike, mtb, motor-assisted bike, automobiles, Ferraris... Yeah, that's a ridiculous argument.

Why are people uncomfortable with the notion that there are places where access of humans should be limited? Lets assume for the sake of discussion that such places exist. Then the discussion might be do we limit absolute numbers, limit the type of transport used to get to those areas (knowing that will directly lead to limitation of numbers), limit types of activities in areas (knowing that will directly lead to limitation of numbers), or perhaps some combination of those options? In fact, that's what happens for many sensitive areas where too much human activity would disrupt wildlife and fragile ecosystems. If you don't accept the premise that there are places where too much human activity is a bad thing, then I suppose we won't be able to have a productive discussion. Luckily (from my perspective), wildlife scientists, the US government and even the right-leaning government of my state (Wyoming) agree with me.

I'm not being selfish here -- I don't backpack, I don't horse-pack, and hence I've never been into the heart of the Wind River Range, one of the most revered backcountry areas in my neck of the woods. I'm never likely to as you can't bike into it or do a hard day hike or run and make it there (let alone back) in a day. I still like knowing it's there and that my friends who do backpack can go there and that if my children or your children someday desire to to visit the high country wilderness of the Wind River Range it very likely will look the same (leaving out the prospects of climate change) in 20 years time. Will it look the same if motor assisted vehicles get access to it? I wouldn't bet on it...

Oh, and despite Wyoming being "Cowboy Country", there is at least a 100 - 1 ratio of hikers/backpackers to horse riders on the trails in this or neighboring states. Owning a horse and dealing with the equipment required to access backcountry is another level of expense and effort compared to hiking or biking on the same trail or to the same place. Horses are a straw man for this argument -- other then the crap on the trails and the fact that even one horse can trash a soft trail for other users horse mediated access is irrelevant.

You think we MTBers have trail access problems now? Just wait for the problems that will come if the industry pressing for motor-assisted bikes to have access to the currently designated "non motorized trails" on public lands gets their way. So, yeah, I am speaking out against allowing motor-assisted bikes access to "non motorized trails" and acting in my own self interest when it comes to protecting access to trails that regular mtbs have currently.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

honkinunit said:


> So are you campaigning to ban horses from the backcountry? Because, you know, they make it too easy to encroach into the remote areas.
> 
> You should also ban hiking boots. That would keep a huge number of people out of "your" places. Go barefoot or go home.


I think mtbs are far less destructive to backcountry than horses are, so it is totally appropriate to allow bikes in places horses are not permitted. However bikes with motors will definitely make that more difficult to achieve, because now it's not human powered anymore. Human powered activities are a lot less destructive than non-human powered, as I see it, so that is an important distinction to maintain for political reasons. Horses are non-human powered transportation too, as well as 10x heavier, and as such displace more soil on trail treads. The real answer is to have suitable resources for both, and given the similarity in weight probably many could be shared. So who cares what a bunch of rich old men want to do, lets keep this going for the long haul. Mtb is currently the lightest means of trail conveyance, and can be significantly lower in impact than even hiking. That is what will get us into the backcountry wilders. Ebikes will get us horses and other non-human powered forms of transportation on our existing trails.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> You think we MTBers have trail access problems now?





> However bikes with motors will definitely make that more difficult to achieve, because now it's not human powered anymore.


To me, this is the only significant problem ebikes bring, and it's a big, big one. Considering the hyperbolic declarations of doom that have been prevelent in this thread which is filled with mountain bikers who intimately understand mountain bikes and the people who ride them. think how impossible it would be to explain the simularities and difference to a room full of hikers or horsey people.

I was a hater initially, but my time among the ebikes has eased my fears for the most part of their impact on the community and the trails. Ignoring the philosophical dilemma (to cheat or not to cheat) they're essentially just bikes, not even close to a moto. The sky hasn't fallen in central Europe where they are common.

However from a trail builder and trail advocates position, I can't even think about how I could sell that to a land manager. "Yeah, I know it has a motor, but it's not like it makes a difference in user impacts. It's really a bike even though it's not."



> Its clear that anyone that has a monetary concern in increasing sales are backing this and will shove it down our collective throats in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.


This is true and has me worried. If there was reasonable debate, research and a rational decision was made to allow them, I'd be ok with it. I fear we'll see that decision made either way based on spin and emotion.


----------



## Ladmo (Jan 11, 2013)

My guess is the person that would ride one of these due to age or infirmity would not be up for riding most of the places I like to ride anyway. I'm fortunate to live in a place with lots of steep hills. Someone with limited skills may well very happily use it to get up the graded road or "easy climbing trail" to the top. But when they head down the hill on the one way downhill trail, they will have a very hard time riding back to the bottom. Don't know the weight of a typical e-bike, but someone aged or infirm is going to have a difficult time walking one down a steep section they don't have the skills to ride. And riding back up is not a very good option either whether you are on an e-bike or not. If fact, I can easily see quite a few people not knowing what they are getting into, and finding themselves in hazardous situations. Realistically, I expect to see e-bikes on rails to trails type stuff around here, but not so much besides that. 

We'll see, but I think this will turn out to be a much smaller deal than is currently feared.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

If I was a big bike company that wanted to push e-bikes, say one that started with an S, I would definitely hire people to post on forums like this posting about how they are able to keep riding due to the little extra boost that you get with an e-bike. And I think that is a lot more effective than the earlier version where the poster knew a now handicapped war veteran who needed an e-bike to ride, and being against e-bikes was un-American. But people who need just a little help to get out there is not their main market. That is just something that is easier to get support for. Perfectly healthy people who just want to go faster is their ultimate market.

Specialized Bicycle Components









"At the battery, you'll find that it's fully integrated with the down tube and easily removable for quick charging or swaps. It has a lengthy lifespan for hitting long, out of the way trails and, along with the motor, is strategically placed for optimal weight distribution."

"The custom, compact, and lightweight motor adds up to 530 watts of additional power to your pedal stroke for blistering, nearly effortless speed on the climbs and flats, and it's output is fully adjustable on-the-fly."

"It's the total package for anyone looking to go faster and have more fun."


----------



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

Welnic said:


> If I was a big bike company that wanted to push e-bikes, say one that started with an S, I would definitely hire people to post on forums like this posting about how they are able to keep riding due to the little extra boost that you get with an e-bike. And I think that is a lot more effective than the earlier version where the poster knew a now handicapped war veteran who needed an e-bike to ride, and being against e-bikes was un-American. But people who need just a little help to get out there is not their main market. That is just something that is easier to get support for. Perfectly healthy people who just want to go faster is their ultimate market.


Exactly^ Supporters of off-road ebikes seem to think the only people who will use them are kindly old gentleman and law abiding, hard luck infirms. That's all well and good but as Welnic mentioned there is a lot of money out there fishing for a much broader audience, specifically lazy Americans with fat wallets.

As it stands now on non-motorized trails there are 2 reasons why mountain bikers don't go faster on trails.

1) They don't want to.

2) They can't.

Some folks still wouldn't want to but every person who buys an ebike will now be capable of achieving or exceeding speeds previously reserved for hard core riders without jobs. This forum is already jammed with threads complaining about "stravatards" (Hate that term!) and I can imagine they will increase exponentially when these electric motorcycles start flooding the trails.

And that's only considering the "legal" ones. Manufactures are already producing models well beyond the arbitrary 250 watt limit that are indistinguishable to me from the less powerful versions, and I have no doubt that market will expand once the doors are open.


----------



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

Harryman said:


> I was a hater initially.


I've never been a hater and it seems most here opposed to them aren't either.



fc said:


> So many operate with extreme prejudice and slippery slope arguments that were used against us by hikers..


Based on what's happening now how can you say the hikers were wrong? Apparently it _*is*_ a slippery slope, where is the bottom? Thousands of atv enthusiasts think it's ridiculous that they don't have access to wilderness trails.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

fc said:


> So many operate with extreme prejudice and slippery slope arguments that were used against us by hikers.


And it has turned out to be rather slippery, now the apocalypse the Hikers feared is upon us with manufacturers already purveying 500+ watt motorcycles cloaked in the guise of e assisted bicycles. You wouldn't have a vested interest in this fight would you? Nothing to gain from the industry push for these?


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

"We don't hate mountain bikes. They can be really fun and they have their place. It's just not on narrow trails." - Hikers and Equestrians


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Empty_Beer said:


> "We don't hate mountain bikes. They can be really fun and they have their place. It's just not on narrow trails." - Hikers and Equestrians


Except now the mtb trails are narrower than the foot trails, so any other use just makes them wider and less interesting to ride. Which leads to higher speeds to compensate, which straightens treads and leads to more soil displacement and more maintenance labor and cost. Many of these trails are purpose built mtb trails and systems, which were built to avoid user conflicts and stay narrow. I have watched the mtb singletracks get wider and sandier as the hiking and particularly running traffic gets heavier. If heavier uses don't affect trails then they are pretty bombed out to begin with by some standards.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

^ I can't think of anywhere near me (NorCal) where it is like that. 

One more reason blanket policies are no bueno. Local land managers (working with local communities) should determine what can work or cannot work on their trail system(s).


----------



## Ericmopar (Aug 23, 2003)

What amazes me, is places like Bootleg Canyon in which 99% of the trails are built by and for mountain bikers, but the hiking/running crowd started trying to have trails closed and turned into hiking only trails. 
These same nuts insist on having the downhill runs open to hikers as well. 
I'm not a downhiller, but I think the downhill runs should be one way and closed to foot traffic, except for maintenance crews. 
Bootleg really took a hard hit when they opened the zip lines.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> Again with the reading comprehension problems, I'll be as clear as I possibly can this time. I don't think every single trail on earth should be open to bicycles, just like I don't think every trail on earth should be open to motorcycles, cars, boats, tanks, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> I would prefer if the trails I currently ride on remain open to mountain bikes. I don't support the banning of ebikes, I support leaving regulations as they stand.
> 
> ...


Leaving the regulations as they stand is effectively banning ebikes. Forcing them onto moto trails which are inaccessible to some and unridable for others is like saying they have no place in many parts of the country. Ebikes are primarily non-motorized and they give zero assist when the user isn't pedalling.

Somehow Europe has allowed ebikes, and their world keeps spinning. Many bike companies (specialized included) have ebikes that they do not selll here in america because America cannot handle the technology of ebikes. That is interesting considering the US has sold it's soul to the motorized transportation industry. The banning of primarily non-motorized usages is some sort of compensation for our completely broken moral compass.

The problem with banning things from trails is that creates a subconcious hostility to that usage. Banning bikes from certain trails reinforces the idea in many peoples minds that bikes are evil and don't belong. People are very good at self policing. If there is a trail where my presence on a bike is inappropriate I don't bike there or I do so during a more appropriate time. I don't want to bike in a high traffic time of day regardless of whether the other users are biking or hiking. I have felt out of place surrounded by other bicyclists mainly because I do not enjoy being in the woods with a bunch of other people. In that case I will find another trail to ride or ride that particular trail when nobody is on it.

The criteria for banning bicyclists from trails is primarily pedestrian ambiance. Many times of the day hikers are not even using the trails. The problem with making certain trails closed to bikes is that the bicyclist might be travelling through and although a small section might be inappropriate, the trail leads to an area where biking is harmless to hiker ambiance. The banning of certain usages also implies that a current dominate usage (usually hiking) is going to remain a dominant usage. The government should not be telling the population what is the best way to experience nature. The people should be free to decide what is the best way to experience nature.

Banning cars(?), boats(??), tanks(???), and motorcycles from trails is more buerocratic overreach. Laws that ban motorcycles are not always the best solution but gas-powered and elecric-powered motorcycles need to be held to a higher standard of conduct. There are circumstances where that higher standard of conduct is pushed aside for the addiction to fumes and power and in that scenario, yes, the law can be brought in for a small grace period. By and large the motorcycle community is pretty good about riding in appropriate places. My hope is that with ebike technology trail motorcycles will slowly go away. Why would someone want to take a multihundred pound device into the woods when they can get that similar experience with a fifty pound device. Sure you still have to work on the climbs but it is not the miserable slog that drove them to the dark side in the first place. Bicycling is more in tune with nature then motorcycling, in fact I find myself more connected to nature on a bike then I do hiking.


----------



## Linktung (Oct 22, 2014)

tiretracks said:


> Just look at Liktungs post history and you'll understand the disparity between his world and reality.


Jealous much? Thanks for taking the time to read through my post history. It's nice to know that I still have fans out there.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

Linktung said:


> ...
> My hope is that with ebike technology trail motorcycles will slowly go away. Why would someone want to take a multihundred pound device into the woods when they can get that similar experience with a fifty pound device. Sure you still have to work on the climbs but it is not the miserable slog that drove them to the dark side in the first place. Bicycling is more in tune with nature then motorcycling, in fact I find myself more connected to nature on a bike then I do hiking.





tiretracks said:


> Just look at Liktungs post history and you'll understand the disparity between his world and reality.


I see a pretty big disparity even without looking at other posts. People who ride motorcycles off-road were not driven to the dark side because they don't like climbing on a bicycle. They just like to ride a motorcycle. There are even people that ride both motorcycles and bicycles, and understand the difference between them. That someone wanting to ride a 45 horsepower 250cc motocross would consider a ⅔ horsepower bicycle a similar experience is ludicrous.


----------



## kneecap (Dec 20, 2003)

Hey, I resemble that post. I ride both, or used to anyway.
Bicycles have become much, much better since I started riding them.
At this point the whole lengthy deal of motoing with loading up, acquiring fuel, & driving for hrs. to a legal spot isn't nearly as fun as in the past. Not to mention handling a 220+ machine feels clumsy compared to my mountain bikes. 
However at my advanced age a small amount of peddle assist, without a lot of excess weight just for extended climbs would sure be nice, although I don't think that really exists yet. I love the feel of a light weight bike, so ebikes in their present form may not be for me yet?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Linktung said:


> Bicycling is more in tune with nature then motorcycling, in fact I find myself more connected to nature on a bike then I do hiking.


That is one of the reasons that the ban on Motorcycles should continue. Motor = Motorcycle. Any way you attempt to spin it, its a Motorcycle. And before someone throws out the dead Herring argument about the 250 watt threshold, that has already been exceeded by more than 100%.


----------



## gonzo (Feb 18, 2004)

*I used to___*

I used to:
play sports through high school, then soccer and marathons for another 25 yr, now I mtn bike for the last 25 yrs.

There will come a time when I can't mtn bike, then I will take up hikes, a walk. I will not change the environment around me so that I can do what I used to AND I will not demand that single track be cemented over so I can drive my golf cart up and down.


----------



## milliesand (Jun 29, 2015)

Some well thought out arguments on both sides of ebikes, Thank you


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

Ghost_HTX said:


> Pretty much as follows;
> 
> 1. You get on your bike.
> 2. You pretty much go where ever the hell you please, within reason.
> ...


Not to mention bottomless North Sea oil revenue!


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

This is a tough topic. Initially, it seemed simple. NO to e-bikes. But I happen to know niknas personally, and I have to say it has been great to see him back out there having fun on an mtb at 70+. Just GREAT!

And another friend we shall call Big Bruce used to just flat get after every sport he participated in. Well, BB had an accident, and he isn't quite perfect anymore. But he still has that insatiable drive, and I see e-bikes helping him have more fun.

So I'm not so sure anymore, nor do I have a simple solution, because I don't think there is a simple solution.

I know I'm fine with guys like niknas and BB using pedal assisted e-bikes anywhere they want to go. And I've told these guys that I'm fine with anybody over 60 using an e-bike anywhere they want to, but that probably doesn't work perfectly either.

I also know I don't want guys like ME (twenty years ago) ripping around on trails with pedal assist bikes that have been hot rodded to 500 or more watts (it isn't that hard to do)!


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

E-bike parks.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

kosmo said:


> This is a tough topic. Initially, it seemed simple. NO to e-bikes. But I happen to know niknas personally, and I have to say it has been great to see him back out there having fun on an mtb at 70+. Just GREAT!
> 
> And another friend we shall call Big Bruce used to just flat get after every sport he participated in. Well, BB had and accident, and he isn't quite perfect anymore. But he still has that insatiable drive, and I see e-bikes helping him have more fun.
> 
> ...


This is great insight. An assist bike can add a decade of riding to someone who is older or injured. And it can be with no additional damage to the trail since assist bikes really have no more impact than an All Mountain bike.

I find that what it's really good at is moving the ratios of work vs play around. So if you have bad knees and spend 90% of your riding climbing and only 10% descending, that can be moved to 50/50. You will still pedal and most likely ride longer.

The other thing it does even for younger folks is it can make really shitty riding areas bearable. We have really huge parks in Northern California like Downieville, Coe etc. and most people either don'r ride them or just shuttle them cause 95% of the ride time is climbing. An e-bike can close those ratios to 50/50 possibly.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

*Who is currently buying these e-bikes?*

I thought this would be interesting to post here. A bike shop in my region (run by a super-duper nice and hardworking couple) posts photos of customers and their new bikes, including those who buy e-bikes. As expected, most of the buyers are getting on in years... but not everyone is "old". Others "look" like folks who might never take their ebike on dirt... sorta like so many SUV owners. I blacked out the name of the shop in case anybody here has thoughts of lighting them up for selling devil bikes.

To me, they all look like people stoked to get a new bike, for whatever purpose they choose to use it for :thumbsup:


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

...


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

@EmptyBeer...

Watch your back at your next xc race! These guys are out for the win!


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Empty_Beer said:


> I thought this would be interesting to post here. A bike shop in my region (run by a super-duper nice and hardworking couple) posts photos of customers and their new bikes, including those who buy e-bikes. As expected, most of the buyers are getting on in years... but not everyone is "old". Others "look" like folks who might never take their ebike on dirt... sorta like so many SUV owners. I blacked out the name of the shop in case anybody here has thoughts of lighting them up for selling devil bikes.
> 
> To me, they all look like people stoked to get a new bike, for whatever purpose they choose to use it for :thumbsup:


WHAT?? Undeserving human beings are gonna pedal their e-bikes and get assist? Inconceivable. That's actually a really good photo post Empty_Beer.

I'm actually not sure that e-bikes will hurt our trail access. They do not cause any more damage or conflict than a normal bike.

In the end the only thing that will really affect our access is the number of people that love cycling. When people - rich, young, old, doctors, politicians, ceos, and decision makers are infected with the cycling bug, that's when we gain access to the roads and land.


----------



## kneecap (Dec 20, 2003)

francois, I like your take on all this.
Curious, what happened to the electric bike board we used to have? Maybe time to resurrect it?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

fc said:


> WHAT?? Undeserving human beings are gonna pedal their e-bikes and get assist? Inconceivable. That's actually a really good photo post Empty_Beer.
> 
> I'm actually not sure that e-bikes will hurt our trail access. They do not cause any more damage or conflict than a normal bike.
> 
> In the end the only thing that will really affect our access is the number of people that love cycling. When people - rich, young, old, doctors, politicians, ceos, and decision makers are infected with the cycling bug, that's when we gain access to the roads and land.


Or lose it because of wanton corporate greed, and that's all this is is a money grab.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

matuchi said:


> With me it was knowing the assist was there in case I needed it that gave me a boost of confidence that I didn't have at the time with a regular bike. Like jcd46 - I use the lower Eco setting for most of my riding and rely on the Power setting on only the steepest of climbs. The nice thing about an e-bike is you have that "In case of emergency break glass" kind of feeling knowing you have the help if you really need it.


I call it coffee and bacon, no motor needed. And a big shot of HTFU.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

So from a MA, USA rider, very easy take on this. "No motor vehicles allowed" that statement covers most of the public riding areas. Like the state forest and parks , as well as some other reserves that I pedal. I don't see the laws changing anytime soon.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

kneecap said:


> francois, I like your take on all this.
> Curious, what happened to the electric bike board we used to have? Maybe time to resurrect it?


So we started it on Mtbr and Roadbikereview. Died on the vine on both sites with just no posts. Maybe it's time to ressurect it indeed. Fundamentally, we just need a couple moderators to start topics and welcome new people.

You think we are ready for it? It's a slam dunk for commuting. Trail is obviously a mixed bag.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

tiretracks said:


> Or lose it because of wanton corporate greed, and that's all this is is a money grab.


Mountain bikes were not invented merely for corporate greed!! Oh is that what you meant?

I guess every product made is simply for greed and to sell something. Not sure it's wanton though.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

leeboh said:


> So from a MA, USA rider, very easy take on this. "No motor vehicles allowed" that statement covers most of the public riding areas. Like the state forest and parks , as well as some other reserves that I pedal. I don't see the laws changing anytime soon.


Like the Department of Motor Vehicles? Ban all mechanized vehicles too??


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> In the end the only thing that will really affect our access is the number of people that love cycling. When people - rich, young, old, doctors, politicians, ceos, and decision makers are infected with the cycling bug, that's when we gain access to the roads and land.


True. Although, I woudn't say it the only thing, but one of the most important things. I see anti-mtbers aging out of positions of influence with younger, pro bike people moving up to fill those slots locally. I live in an outdoor state, so I think it's rare these days for an active person here to not to be multi sport (bike/hike/trail run) or at least not be understanding to the idea of bikes being allowed anywhere other non motorized users travel.

I feel like we'll be starting over with trail access with ebikes involved though, just like in the early days when there was predominantly misinformation regarding bikes and their impact. The perception of disruption was greater than the reality, for the most part, I think multiuse has proven that we can indeed get along. Ebikes will likely get there too, but it's going to take a while.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

fc said:


> Mountain bikes were not invented merely for corporate greed!! Oh is that what you meant?
> 
> I guess every product made is simply for greed and to sell something. Not sure it's wanton though.


No, E-Bikes are and this site is Pimping them. You started this thread as the gateway to reintroducing the sub forum, nothing else. You're not interested in opposing view points or the consequences of them on the trails, just the revenue stream. That's called greed by the way.


----------



## p08757 (Mar 15, 2012)

I've actually been looking at an E-Bike conversion kit for my wifes bike. Her knees are getting bad and she can't keep up on our short group beer rides i organize once a week. We mainly ride a MUP and side streets.

I don't want to exclude her, so when I plan the rides its usually a short distance with as few hills as possible. This really limits where we go.

With an electric assist, she would be able to keep up with the group and make it up the hills and we would have many more options open to us.

Now, using an bike off road on MTB trails, I really don't think that's a good idea.


----------



## Slow Danger (Oct 9, 2009)

tiretracks said:


> No, E-Bikes are and this site is Pimping them. You started this thread as the gateway to reintroducing the sub forum, nothing else. You're not interested in opposing view points or the consequences of them on the trails, just the revenue stream. That's called greed by the way.


So are you saying the OP is an enabling tool or a demon?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Slow Danger said:


> So are you saying the OP is an enabling tool or a demon?


 You're not helping. FC and I are diametrically opposed on this subject but will not resort to insults or name calling. I appreciate that this is his business enterprise and also appreciate the latitude that he has given us to discuss this very divisive subject. I stand by my opinion that this is driven from the industries need for new revenue streams and that over the long run it will not be beneficial to the sport. But the industry is widely known for being short sighted so that should not surprise. Last post on the subject.


----------



## Ghost_HTX (Sep 19, 2014)

kosmo said:


> Not to mention bottomless North Sea oil revenue!


...which is depreciating faster than an ice sculpture in the Sahara... But yeah - Norway has all the money 

The small population (approx 5m), the disproportionately large green spaces and the Norwegian culture of being outside and doing sports / activities as much as one can means that as far as I can see, e-bikes are not an issue here at all. 
The issue of restricted access just doesn't happen here so e-bikes are viewed as more of an alternative mode of transport than a toy to chuck around the woods.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

fc said:


> Like the Department of Motor Vehicles? Ban all mechanized vehicles too??


Not quite following you. Here in MA, the DCR( State run parks and forests) has rules and by laws. No cutting of live trees, carry out your trash, camping in designated camp areas only, etc. The rules for trail use state, no motor vehicles. Some areas allow horses, most allow bikes, some do not. E bikes have a motor, so not allowed. Clearer?


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

I was in a pretty bad wreck and basically spent the majority of 2013 either in bed, in a wheelchair, or learning to walk again. My main motivation was I wanted to ride again (all those insane videos had me stoked as well) I made the decision if I couldn't get on a regular mountain bike again to continue on with just gravel and road riding and never ever get on a E bike. I wonder what I would be like today if I told myself I was only going to get well enough so I could get on a bike with a motor? As far as ebikes on the road I could care less, this is a mountain bike forum  

Short story, honestly personally I would give up mountain biking before I used an e bike.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

bdundee said:


> I was in a pretty bad wreck and basically spent the majority of 2013 either in bed, in a wheelchair, or learning to walk again. My main motivation was I wanted to ride again (all those insane videos had me stoked as well) I made the decision if I couldn't get on a regular mountain bike again to continue on with just gravel and road riding and never ever get on a E bike. I wonder what I would be like today if I told myself I was only going to get well enough so I could get on a bike with a motor? As far as ebikes on the road I could care less, this is a mountain bike forum
> 
> Short story, honestly personally I would give up mountain biking before I used an e bike.


Not sure I have your level of binary "in or out" conviction.

Let me ask you, if you had failed in being able to get back on the bike, would you honestly feel this way?

I know I would start determined to do it, but I'm old enough and honest enough to admit that if I failed, I might give in because I would SO BADLY miss the feel of bending a two-wheeled vehicle around sweet corners in the forest.

To be clear, I'm 100% AGAINST blanket approval of e-bikes on single track, but there MAY be a need to allow certain individuals to obtain an exemption from such a ban, using only low-powered, pedal-assist bikes -- though it will be very, very difficult to decide who can and cannot take advantage of such an exemption, and probably even harder to police it.

At some point, some lawyer is going to push this under the Americans With Disabilities Act, anyway, and it will be decided for us, which will likely be awful.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

kosmo said:


> Not sure I have your level of binary "in or out" conviction.
> 
> Let me ask you, if you had failed in being able to get back on the bike, would you honestly feel this way?


Yes, just riding a mountain bike through the woods is really not my style and if it came down to that's all I could do I would rather be on a gravel bike. See I am not happy unless one or both wheels are in the air for a good portion on the ride, kinda a [email protected] out fun attitude but it's what I enjoy. Heck sometimes a good ride will take me off the bike for a few weeks and at the minimum keep me up for a few nights without sleep. I can ride gravel without pain pretty much and if I didn't have that I would just turn into a full time gym rat for entertainment , I have learned to be really creative in the things I can do now. All that being said I don't think an e bike would fit my riding style.


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

bdundee said:


> Yes, just riding a mountain bike through the woods is really not my style and if it came down to that's all I could do I would rather be on a gravel bike. See I am not happy unless one or both wheels are in the air for a good portion on the ride, kinda a [email protected] out fun attitude but it's what I enjoy. Heck sometimes a good ride will take me off the bike for a few weeks and at the minimum keep me up for a few nights without sleep. I can ride gravel without pain pretty much and if I didn't have that I would just turn into a full time gym rat for entertainment , I have learned to be really creative in the things I can do now. All that being said I don't think an e bike would fit my riding style.


Just goes to show you that it takes all kinds, and there is room for all.

For me, the airborn stuff has faded, and I have realized that every single sport that I truly love involves the love of the turn.

MTB, windsurfing, skiing, and dirt biking are all about the g-forces pulled during turns for me!


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

Airborne while pulling high g in a turn is the best.









*This was during a photo session, so it isn't actually in a high g turn.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

*Nothing like a leaf blower to clear trail and give a bit of pedal assist...*


----------



## stingray (Mar 12, 2014)

fc said:


> e-bikes ... How does the Fifty+ crowd feel about them?


I am for anything that gets people out of their cars and away from the gas pumps.

e-bikes remind me of Guitar Hero. Many people bought real guitars after the thrill of the fake e-instrument wore off.


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

*Real men don't ride ebikes...*

Or maybe I've just been on the Paleo diet too long.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

Empty beer, I like the photos of e bike customers.


----------



## stingray (Mar 12, 2014)

I looked at Empty Beer's photos. I get the urban e-bike. The full suspension e-bike is a mystery to me.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

An e-bike might be useful for trail building. At least it would be good for hauling trail building tools and supplies in and out. One could envision something more, some kind of "bike-dozer" (do these exist already)?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

andytiedye said:


> An e-bike might be useful for trail building. At least it would be good for hauling trail building tools and supplies in and out. One could envision something more, some kind of "bike-dozer" (do these exist already)?


Carry coffee, a keg and trailbuilding tools and it'll gain a couple of friends.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

stingray said:


> I looked at Empty Beer's photos. I get the urban e-bike. The full suspension e-bike is a mystery to me.


So here's the ebike FS. The best application for it is shuttle rides where you have to take a bus to get to the top of hill and bike down. Think climb 5000 feet on a bus, then descend and maybe climb 1000 feet on the way down. In Norcal we have areas like Downieville, Tahoe, Cannell, Noble.

One can climb up for sure but folks rarely do cause it's just not that fun to climb for four hours and descend for 30 minutes.

So e-bikes can let you bike up in let's say an hour and pedal the whole way up instead of sitting in a shuttle bus. Trails where it's just a hike-a-bike or a brutal payoff of 90% climbing time to 10% descending time are candidates too.

Are they rideable downhill? 5 years ago.... no cause they were all hub motors and 60 lbs. Today, they are botttom bracket motors and about 50 lbs. They work... it's like having 20 lbs of extra belly (or muscle).

This is a Haibike with 250 watts of power (legal limit)





Specialized is coming out soon with this Levo that is about 40 lbs. The real opportunity is when they get to about 30-35 lbs and not too much power but more rideable with the motor off. (only use when needed).


----------



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

alphazz said:


> Empty beer, I like the photos of e bike customers.


Yeah, after seeing pictures of all those happy people with their new motorbikes I've reconsidered and have now put all of my concerns regarding them to rest.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Yeah, after seeing pictures of all those happy people with their new motorbikes I've reconsidered and have now put all of my concerns regarding them to rest.


I'll have to look at the photos again, I don't remember seeing any motorbikes in the photos.


----------



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

alphazz said:


> I'll have to look at the photos again, I don't remember seeing any motorbikes in the photos.


Well color me stupid, I was under the impression that those bikes all had electric motors on them. They sure have goofy looking water bottles though!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

kosmo said:


> At some point, some lawyer is going to push this under the Americans With Disabilities Act, anyway, and it will be decided for us, which will likely be awful.


This has been covered under ADA guidelines for many years already.
How much "awfulness" have you actually seen?

QUESTIONS and ANSWERS on Department of Justice Rule on Other Power Driven Mobility Devices


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

fc said:


> So here's the ebike FS. The best application for it is shuttle rides where you have to take a bus to get to the top of hill and bike down. Think climb 5000 feet on a bus, then descend and maybe climb 1000 feet on the way down. In Norcal we have areas like Downieville, Tahoe, Cannell, Noble.
> 
> One can climb up for sure but folks rarely do cause it's just not that fun to climb for four hours and descend for 30 minutes.
> 
> ...


Others just like to ride. If you're not having fun, maybe take up golf?


----------



## OldGringo (Oct 2, 2015)

I'm also a bowhunter & I think e-bikes will follow a similar path as crossbows. When crossbows first came out you had to have a disability to use one during bow season. Manufacturers with lots of money & influence immediately started lobbying to make crossbows legal during bow season and lots of non-bowhunters joined in. Meanwhile "real" bowhunters looked down harshly on anyone without a disability who wanted to use a crossbow. Becoming proficient & accurate with a crossbow was so easy that bowhunters saw crossbow hunters as being less skilled, lazy, cheaters, etc. From what I see in the forums that's how "real" MTBrs see e-bikers here in the early stages. Fast forward 15+ years & crossbows are now mostly accepted & commonplace. With manufacturers standing to profit from a new product (like the fat bike explosion) who knows how much the e-bike climate will change over time. For the record, I'll never be interested in a crossbow or an e-bike.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

According to California law my throttle less eBike is totally legal for all places any other bike can go: parks, bike lanes, single track, fire roads, etc. I have a legal bicycle and I enjoy riding wherever I am allowed to ride, just like any other bicycle.
I am geared for a maximum of 20mph on the flat and my range is about 40 miles with my current 46t/22t SS gearing. With power assist level 5 I can climb the 35 degree hill in front of my house at 13mph, but I have to stand on the pedals.
I run 1000 watts about 1hp and the whole kit cost $800 not counting the battery. It is a mid-drive so if I had a rear dérailleur I could use the gear cluster, but I lose the front gears for a single chainwheel. As soon as I get this one all polished and upgraded I will give it to my wife and build a full suspension version. BTW, the base bike is a $399 Bikes Direct Fat Bike and my wife can't wait to get it! 
I am 62 and quit riding back in 2004, now I am spending hours a week on the trails. My friends who have ridden my eBike all want me to show them how to build them for themselves. And why not? It only took 2 hours to assemble the bike AND install the drive!!!

Where did this myth about American eBikes being limited to 250 watts come from? There is no mention of power in the CA state law, just speed..... Since when did Americans allow EU bureaucrats make our rules anyway?


----------



## OldGringo (Oct 2, 2015)

WoodlandHills said:


> According to California law my throttle less eBike is totally legal for all places any other bike can go: parks, bike lanes, single track, fire roads, etc. I have a legal bicycle and I enjoy riding wherever I am allowed to ride, just like any other bicycle.


No judgement here, just a couple questions. You mention that you quit riding back in 2004. Did the e-bike make it possible for you to begin riding again or was it just a choice you made for some other reason? Also, what have the reactions been when you encounter non-powered MTBs on the trails?


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

The grip of the fat 4" tires convinced me to get back on the bike, the power assist lets me pedal a fat bike at 62 for miles. Most everyone I meet is cool, but when I pass on a climb I sometimes get dirty looks when they eventually make it to the top..... 

Frankly I don't care what folks think, as long as I am courteous and obey the rules I have free and full access to our public spaces: dirty looks be damned! But having said that, more people want to know about the bike than ignore me and most seem receptive. The younger the rider, the better the response: young Asian kids in their twenties on FS MTBs seem the most interested.

And why wouldn't they want one? It's really a lot of fun slaloming around the curves at 15 mph going up a steep rutted track!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> According to California law my throttle less eBike is totally legal for all places any other bike can go: parks, bike lanes, single track, fire roads, etc. I have a legal bicycle and I enjoy riding wherever I am allowed to ride, just like any other bicycle.


Out of curiosity, could you post a link to the statute that grants e-bikes trail access?
From what I've seen, these 'laws' typically are more a reference to how e-bikes are treated as far as use on developed roads and pathways rather than what most mtbers would consider "trails", or to how they are classified as far sale and manufacture, etc, rather than granting blanket access to any and all places bicycles are allowed.

You may want to do a little more research before hitting the singletrack. I think you may misunderstand the extent of what the 'bicycle' classification grants you with regard to motorized access to non-motorized trails.

From an recent article regarding the latest Cali regs:

"Some mountain bikers worry that the legislation will also open up trails to eMTBs, but it does not. The bill applies only to bike paths, lanes, routes, and protected lands that are governed by the state's vehicle code.

New California Legislation Clarifies Murky E-Bike Debate | Outside Online


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

California governor signs law modernizing electric bike regulations | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News

About 1/2 down the article it says class 1s can go wherever old fashioned bikes can. It also gives munis and other rule makers the ability to regulate in future.

Your link is also interesting, I am surprised that the Ranger didn't say anything about this when I encountered him the other day on Mulholland. I was riding uphill and he slowly drove by and gave me a wave as he passed. Given the hill and my speed I am sure he was aware of the assist..... Strange.... I have also crossed paths with the Conservency trail "monitor?" volunteers on their bikes and just gotten nods and waves.

I guess the best thing to do is call the SM Mtns Conservency ranger station tomorrow and see what they say.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> It also gives munis and other rule makers the ability to regulate in future.


...


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> California governor signs law modernizing electric bike regulations | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News
> 
> About 1/2 down the article it says class 1s can go wherever old fashioned bikes can. It also gives munis and other rule makers the ability to regulate in future.
> 
> ...


I'm no expert, specially when it comes to local stuff beyond my own turf, but I do believe that there's some sort of distinction as far as what sort of trails are included. Maybe you've just got cool rangers and he saw you were having a good time and not hurting anything and let you slide on the ol' wink-n-nod (something I've been the beneficiary here and there myself, as have a lot of riders). Or maybe you're all set. Definitely worth checking into anyway; good to be clear on where stuff stands.


----------



## SteveF (Mar 5, 2004)

WoodlandHills said:


> It's really a lot of fun slaloming around the curves at 15 mph going up a steep rutted track!


And therein lies the problem, especially on shared use/dual direction trails.


----------



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

^exactly


----------



## syl3 (Apr 23, 2008)

SteveF said:


> And therein lies the problem, especially on shared use/dual direction trails.


Relax, if he can do 15mph then it's not steep enough )


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

SteveF said:


> And therein lies the problem, especially on shared use/dual direction trails.


These old farts don't give a sh*t about anything but themselves. They get sedentary and can't get it back at a point, then try to turn the bike trails into moto trails. Having spent a good portion of my life building those trails, I resent that. They all talk smooth but something is not right about them, like they are shills or something. Just sayin'...


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Which is why I mentioned it. The younger generation seems to want something different than I do (surprise!.......NOT) from eBiking. 

Given how much money Bosch is spending to promote the eBike race at the Sea Otter Classic this year in order to sell more eMTBs, do you really think they won't spend millions on trail access issues? You can bet that as we sit here there is an industry group doing just that in order to promote growth and sales. 

Will a total ban on off-road eBikes last very long when the public can see that everywhere else in the state eBikes and pushbikes are legally the same? Not when there are sales to be made and issues of equal access and fair play at stake. Not when a wealthy and aging population discover the sheer fun of eBiking and won't take no for an answer at parks and trailheads.

My point is that accommodation is inevitable if only to control the change which is going to come no matter what.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

bsieb said:


> These old farts don't give a sh*t about anything but themselves. They get sedentary and can't get it back at a point, then try to turn the bike trails into moto trails. Having spent a good portion of my life building those trails, I resent that. They all talk smooth but something is not right about them, like they are shills or something. Just sayin'...


 So you figure that gives you permission to discriminate? To restrict access to only those of a certain age, BMI and resting heart rate? Sounds like blatant ageism to me, which IIRC is a violation of state law (discrimination on the basis of age and disability). The fact that CA state law considers Class 1 eBikes and traditional pushbikes to be identical indicates that your opposition to access is based upon emotion and bias, not facts and the law.

Are you saying that folks who need artificial assistance to ride "your" trails should be banned? Assistance like prescription glasses, artificial knees and hips, pacemakers, etc? These are all mechanical devices that allow older Americans to get outside and be active, does this also trigger your resentment against technology? How about multi-speed gears or suspension bikes? They are mechanical systems that help older guys who just can't ride that pure SS hard tail with a rigid fork anymore stay on the trail, surely that pisses you off too....?

Best of luck keeping The Wrong Sort of People off of "your" trails, you know: the ones who aren't like you.....


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> Which is why I mentioned it. The younger generation seems to want something different than I do (surprise!.......NOT) from eBiking.
> 
> Given how much money Bosch is spending to promote the eBike race at the Sea Otter Classic this year in order to sell more eMTBs, do you really think they won't spend millions on trail access issues? You can bet that as we sit here there is an industry group doing just that in order to promote growth and sales.
> 
> ...


You might want to see how that's worked out for other motorized user groups before making any assumptions. Lots of money wrapped up in dirt bike/ATV/UTV industries too, but that doesn't equate to blanket access. In my region, it's barely led to any access at all actually. Motorized is motorized; there will always be a distinction made when it comes to trail access.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> So you figure that gives you permission to discriminate? To restrict access to only those of a certain age, BMI and resting heart rate? Sounds like blatant ageism to me, which IIRC is a violation of state law (discrimination on the basis of age and disability). The fact that CA state law considers Class 1 eBikes and traditional pushbikes to be identical indicates that your opposition to access is based upon emotion and bias, not facts and the law.
> .


Motorized versus non is the entire issue. 
And it seems you're still misinterpreting the law as far as trail access goes. 
E-bikes appear to be considered OHVs in the off-road aspect and face the same restrictions as far as where you can use them.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Having a Class 1 eBike declared as the legal equivalent of a pushbike makes your comparison inaccurate. Under state law there is NO legal difference between the two, saying that this law will never apply on dirt seems to be a bit of a stretch.

On a functional basis if I am limited to 20mph and am as quiet as everyone else where is the harm? Some tender Fee-fees might get hurt when some stud gets passed on a hill by granny, but so what: they will pass her on the descent! The same thing will be happening to the roadies on pavement, are you saying that they are more emotionally secure than MTBers or will they start to lobby to keep Class 1 eBikes off of their favorite routes too?


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

slapheadmofo said:


> Motorized versus non is the entire issue.
> And it seems you're still misinterpreting the law as far as trail access goes.
> E-bikes appear to be considered OHVs in the off-road aspect and face the same restrictions as far as where you can use them.


 Since we are talking about access to public lands, how long do you think you can keep Class 1's out? Remember that the law has already clarified that they are legally identical to pushbikes everywhere else in the state. Just what is it that makes state owned dirt roads different under the law than state owned paved ones? If a Ca state park already allows access to pushbikes today how can they legally ban something the law has already declared to be the same as a pushbike?

All it will take is one test case funded by an eBikeing industry group and the CA Supreme Court will strike down any access ban on Class 1's and maybe even on all eBikes.......! My bet is that the intent of the law is so clear that it won't even get to the Supremes........


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Is eBike access to public lands an ADA issue? How is an eBike different from a motorized wheelchair: they both allow those who are otherwise physically unable access to public spaces....... I wonder what the courts would make of this argument?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> Is eBike access to public lands an ADA issue? How is an eBike different from a motorized wheelchair: they both allow those who are otherwise physically unable access to public spaces....... I wonder what the courts would make of this argument?


Your own words.

"It also gives munis and other rule makers the ability to regulate in future".

The feeling that you're an industry shill is strong.


----------



## OldGringo (Oct 2, 2015)

WoodlandHills said:


> Is eBike access to public lands an ADA issue? How is an eBike different from a motorized wheelchair: they both allow those who are otherwise physically unable access to public spaces....... I wonder what the courts would make of this argument?


To answer your question, one pretty clear difference is that the intended purpose of a wheelchair is to provide mobility for someone who can no longer walk under their own power. Its not a choice...its a need. The e-bike is clearly a chosen form of transportation & recreation, not a tool to assist those who have a disability.

So the question IS about e-bike access...not based on need but rather choice. In other words, do people have the right to choose to use electric bikes on trails that have historically banned all forms of motorized transportation. You say the new CA law says "yes." So that leaves us with what choices you & other e-bike folks will make. For example, I could go ride on a sloppy wet trail today here in WI & leave it all rutted up. But I choose not to do that out of respect for others & because I'm not a complete toolbag. What choices will you make?


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Well, I have chosen to use a singlespeed fat bike with 4" tires to prevent trail damage and I have limited my top speed to 20mph through gearing. I have also removed the throttle from my bike in order to be Class 1 compliant. Does that answer your question?

I am guessing that you probably do more trail damage than I do if you have 2" knobbies on your bike....... And in the same vein: just WHAT damage can I do to a 30' wide fire road? Will it be any rougher on the right of way than the excavators and equipment putting in the new 8" water main on Dirt Mulholland where I mostly ride? Will my eBike do more damage than the bulldozer?


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

OldGringo said:


> To answer your question, one pretty clear difference is that the intended purpose of a wheelchair is to provide mobility for someone who can no longer walk under their own power. Its not a choice...its a need. The e-bike is clearly a chosen form of transportation & recreation, not a tool to assist those who have a disability.
> 
> So the question IS about e-bike access...not based on need but rather choice. In other words, do people have the right to choose to use electric bikes on trails that have historically banned all forms of motorized transportation. You say the new CA law says "yes." So that leaves us with what choices you & other e-bike folks will make. For example, I could go ride on a sloppy wet trail today here in WI & leave it all rutted up. But I choose not to do that out of respect for others & because I'm not a complete toolbag. What choices will you make?


 I beg to differ: there are lots of your fellow citizens who are able to walk in a limited fashion, but who benefit from mobility carts. In fact, many are bought under medical prescription by Medicare, one does not need to be a paraplegic to be helped by a wheelchair or a three wheeled battery cart such as seen in most malls and supermarkets. Are you saying that only those who are totally unable to walk at all should use a wheelchair and that those who are limited to walking just a few hundred feet unassisted should just be homebound? And if not, what is wrong with using a powered device in order to gain full access to ones own public spaces, surely those weaker than you have rights too?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> Is eBike access to public lands an ADA issue? How is an eBike different from a motorized wheelchair: they both allow those who are otherwise physically unable access to public spaces....... I wonder what the courts would make of this argument?


This has long since been figured out; do a search for ADA OPMD trail access.
ANYTHING can be used as an OPMD on many trails, unless certain steps have been taken by the land managers to restrict specified types of OPMDs according to clearly defined criteria. Unless those steps have been followed, as disabled person could show up with a full-on ATV and demand access to hiking trails and it would have to be granted. Interestingly enough, the ADA guidelines apply to trails whose primary designation is as a "Hiking Trail", but DO NOT apply if a trail is primary designation is a "Biking Trail", so oddly enough, one way Land Managers can keep e-bikes and any other OPMD from accessing trails through the ADA is to designate them as biking rather than hiking trails.

Of course, simply being over 60 doesn't qualify you as disabled, so I don't see how this matters in your case.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

How about my cousin who has early stage COPD, does he qualify? He wants me to put a motor on a trike so he can ride with his grandkids...... He gets winded easily, but thinks the power assist will let him keep up. How is the world made a better place by keeping him and others in his situation off of public access to their own state parks?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> Having a Class 1 eBike declared as the legal equivalent of a pushbike makes your comparison inaccurate. Under state law there is NO legal difference between the two,


No matter how many times you repeat this, it remains untrue.

Please link to the statute you believe says there is absolutely no distinction as far as trail access goes. I have yet to see anything like that, and don't believe you have either, as it doesn't exist to the best of my knowledge.

Also, I don't think anybody gives much of a damn about dirt roads.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

WoodlandHills said:


> Are you saying that folks who need artificial assistance to ride "your" trails should be banned? Assistance like prescription glasses, artificial knees and hips, pacemakers, etc?


Which of these devices allows them to put down more power than an able-bodied person?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> How about my cousin who has early stage COPD, does he qualify?


Do you think inquiring on some online biking forum is really the way to determine this? Wouldn't his doctor and DDS be a more sensible choice as a starting point?

How did your call to the ranger district turn out? Or are you more interested in just arguing than becoming more informed about your actual standing as far as access goes?


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Jason's doctor says that he is healthy enough for moderate outdoor exercise. I was just wondering if YOU felt he was of sufficient disability to be permitted an assistance device to let him bike in Chesboro Canyon with his grandkids.

I think I put the fox into the henhouse with my call to the Conservency. I spoke to the Public Affairs person who was aware of the issue but had no answers. I called the #2 ranger since the head guy was on holiday and it turned out to be a ranger I know from other park issues! I left a message, but really don't expect to hear from him until after Thanksgiving. I did get through to my contact in Councilman Blumenthals office and we had a long talk about the subject. I think I was able to educate him a bit and he's going to talk to the city attorney's office about how to comply with state law as regards LA city parks.

Monday, I think I will call the LA county attorney and see what their plan is to comply with state law.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

slapheadmofo said:


> No matter how many times you repeat this, it remains untrue.
> 
> Please link to the statute you believe says there is absolutely no distinction as far as trail access goes. I have yet to see anything like that, and don't believe you have either, as it doesn't exist to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> Also, I don't think anybody gives much of a damn about dirt roads.


 California governor signs law modernizing electric bike regulations | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News

The relevant quote is about 1/2 way down where it clearly states that Class 1 and Class 2 eBikes can go wherever other bikes can. So why is dirt exempt from state law? And just how long to you think your narrow interpretation will survive court challenge?


----------



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

WoodlandHills said:


> Jason's doctor says that he is healthy enough for moderate outdoor exercise. I was just wondering if YOU felt he was of sufficient disability to be permitted an assistance device to let him bike in Chesboro Canyon with his grandkids.


Yes on roads or trails that that allow motor traffic, otherwise no. Grandkids can wait up for the oldster.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Here you go, time for an email campaign to make bicyclists wishes on the issue clear.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...XjLW3hBZyOpw84g5eN5WKw&bvm=bv.108194040,d.dmo


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> Yes on roads or trails that that allow motor traffic, otherwise no. Grandkids can wait up for the oldster.


He's already allowed to take his electric scooter, but it's too slow.... What's the difference between that and a three wheeled electric trike? The size of the tires? Is that what the argument is about?


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> Yes on roads or trails that that allow motor traffic, otherwise no. Grandkids can wait up for the oldster.


What he said. It sucks that some people get debilitating injuries and diseases. Others get old and become less able. It's part of life. We all try to put it off as long as possible.

Bottom line is that ebikes have a motor, period.


----------



## OldGringo (Oct 2, 2015)

WoodlandHills said:


> I beg to differ: there are lots of your fellow citizens who are able to walk in a limited fashion, but who benefit from mobility carts. In fact, many are bought under medical prescription by Medicare, one does not need to be a paraplegic to be helped by a wheelchair or a three wheeled battery cart such as seen in most malls and supermarkets. Are you saying that only those who are totally unable to walk at all should use a wheelchair and that those who are limited to walking just a few hundred feet unassisted should just be homebound? And if not, what is wrong with using a powered device in order to gain full access to ones own public spaces, surely those weaker than you have rights too?


Man...you really struggle with responding to what people actually say. My quote: "the intended purpose of a wheelchair is to provide mobility for someone who can no longer walk under their own power. Its not a choice...its a need." So you want to take that & argue about the degree of need. Then you want to make some sort of veiled discrimination accusation? Come on...everyone here knows where you're really coming from...lets just call it a day.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Ran into a few folks riding up at the Hub an hour or so back and gave a mini-seminar, LOL! Lots of questions and one guy even put the addy of my motor seller in his phone. The lights seemed to come on when he said that his GF will never ride with him, but he was sure she would if he put an assist on her MTB. That brought a lot of nods and smiles from the others there! Basically everyone was positive about my eBike and thought that it was a cool idea even if they might not get one themselves.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

WoodlandHills said:


> He's already allowed to take his electric scooter, but it's too slow.... What's the difference between that and a three wheeled electric trike? The size of the tires? Is that what the argument is about?


OK, let's play it your way...can he take an electric 4 wheel quad? How about an electric 4 seater UTV as I'm sure they aren't far behind.

I can't speak for the guys at The Hub as I don't know the context of the conversation but NOBODY I ride with (ages 54, 56, 57 & 61) agrees with allowing e-bikes out on the singletrack trails (i.e. Hangover in Sedona, TWE in Moab, Gooseberry Mesa in Southern Utah or Oakridge up in Oregon as a few examples). I'm 50 myself and I'm of the argument that allowing e-bikes **on the type of trails mentioned above** is only going to hurt access (and maybe lead to more or faster closures) in the long run. You of course disagree with that assessment.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> California governor signs law modernizing electric bike regulations | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News
> 
> The relevant quote is about 1/2 way down where it clearly states that Class 1 and Class 2 eBikes can go wherever other bikes can. So why is dirt exempt from state law? And just how long to you think your narrow interpretation will survive court challenge?


Where exactly did I ever say it was MY interpretation, and what kind of wild imagination do you have where you believe I am the one that writes these laws? Or even cares what much one way or the other?

The link you posted is not a link to the actual verbiage of the law as passed.
It's just an article. 
Here's another:

"Though AB 1096 permits various classes of e-bikes to ride in or on various bike paths and lanes (as indicated on the chart above), be aware of where e-bikes still may not be permitted to ride, unless specifically indicated in these areas:

Bike paths and roads that are not under federal or state vehicle codes (an example would be a bike path in a county park).
Natural surface paths in parks, like mountain bike trails, and open space areas.
Most importantly, counties, cities and other government entities still have the right to regulate e-bikes, just as they have the right to regulate bicycle usage with their domains."

Low Speed E-Bikes Given Bicycle Privileges |


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Obviously I have peed in your eBike bashing thread by introducing an opposing viewpoint and having the temerity to defend that viewpoint. I do want to thank you all for letting me know the sort of sort of reactionary response eBikers can expect. I also want to thank you for showing me that I need to do something to prod our public officials along the correct path. Meanwhile, I will keep riding and keep making new converts.

Come to think of it, Dirt Mulholland will be packed with families, hikers and bikers this weekend, maybe I can give test rides? Once people try it they can't stop grinning! 

They might also start to wonder why their children can ride their eBikes in traffic, on the street, but some folks want to keep them off of safe and quiet car-free country roads and trails in their own state and county parkland.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Motor=No Bueno on Single Track trails, the tools statement below is proof enough that even those who should know better, don't and as much BS as you people pushing these try to convince that it'll be responsible "fellow mtbers" using them, that's like <1% of who'll buy and use them.

You keep converting all those lazy bastards who don't want to do the work, you know, the typical american couch potatoe and keep on shillin for the e-bikes. The quoted statement says it all to how "responsibly" you ride your bike. Tell SpecialED and the other big boys to take their almighty $$ and shove it real far, keep the "pedal" assist on the gravel paths and fireroads.



WoodlandHills said:


> Obviously I have peed in your eBike bashing thread by introducing an opposing viewpoint and having the temerity to defend that viewpoint. I do want to thank you all for letting me know the sort of sort of reactionary response eBikers can expect. I also want to thank you for showing me that I need to do something to prod our public officials along the correct path. Meanwhile, I will keep riding and keep making new converts.......
> 
> 
> WoodlandHills said:
> ...


FC, very sad to see how you've caved to the $$ being thrown at you from the big companies, really sad


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Sorry, but I had to respond to this idiocy. What is wrong with going up a trail at 15? I assume that you go down trails at a lot higher speeds. I also assume that it is your responsibility to ride in a controlled and aware manner so as not to collide with anyone else on that trail. So what is the difference between going down and going up? Does the trail care? 

Or is it all a bunch of self-righteous twaddle about eBikers not having "earned" the right to access public lands? And just how far do you think that ******** will go in a court of law examining land access? So you feel that sweat is a mandatory requirement to access taxpayer owned lands that are held in trust for the entire population? Climb down off of your absurd moral high horse and smell your own elitist roses: the ability to rapidly pedal a bicycle does not give you any right to look down your nose at anyone about anything! What a snob!


----------



## OldGringo (Oct 2, 2015)

WoodlandHills said:


> Obviously I have peed in your eBike bashing thread by introducing an opposing viewpoint and having the temerity to defend that viewpoint. I do want to thank you all for letting me know the sort of sort of reactionary response eBikers can expect. I also want to thank you for showing me that I need to do something to prod our public officials along the correct path. Meanwhile, I will keep riding and keep making new converts.
> 
> Come to think of it, Dirt Mulholland will be packed with families, hikers and bikers this weekend, maybe I can give test rides? Once people try it they can't stop grinning!
> 
> They might also start to wonder why their children can ride their eBikes in traffic, on the street, but some folks want to keep them off of safe and quiet car-free country roads and trails in their own state and county parkland.


You got exactly what you were looking for so don't go away mad...just...you know...go away.


----------



## syl3 (Apr 23, 2008)

Lapierre stays in EWS for 2016, ends DH program to focus on ebike racing:

Lapierre Parts Ways With Pure Agency - Pinkbike

big deja-vu in the comments


----------



## kosmo (Oct 27, 2004)

WoodlandHills said:


> Sorry, but I had to respond to this idiocy. *What is wrong with going up a trail at 15?* I assume that you go down trails at a lot higher speeds. I also assume that it is your responsibility to ride in a controlled and aware manner so as not to collide with anyone else on that trail. So what is the difference between going down and going up? Does the trail care?
> 
> Or is it all a bunch of self-righteous twaddle about eBikers not having "earned" the right to access public lands? And just how far do you think that ******** will go in a court of law examining land access? So you feel that sweat is a mandatory requirement to access taxpayer owned lands that are held in trust for the entire population? Climb down off of your absurd moral high horse and smell your own elitist roses: the ability to rapidly pedal a bicycle does not give you any right to look down your nose at anyone about anything! What a snob!


It's not the speed (see bold italics above) that is the concern, it's the speed differential. Call it "closing speed". It matters a lot, and anything that increases it reduces safety. You can argue to what degree, but not that it will result in a reduction.

FWIW, calling your opposition names in an attempt to marginalize their argument is not typically a great to engage people in a thoughtful debate.

Take the high road, man!

We should all be thankful today that we have these first world problems to worry about.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

.....


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Travis Bickle said:


> The trail riding community is not split. E bikes flat out have no place in mountain biking. They are motorcycles, period.


^^^ this.

Now if you want to lobby your local/federal government reps and ask for more moto friendly trails I think that's reasonable.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

That this really needs explaining speaks volumes about how full of **it you are. If I can only go 5mph up a steep and winding climb and you can gas it and produce enough torque and power to go 15mph, do I really need to explain anymore?  I think the old fart is more upset I dinked him and told him to tell SpecialED to shove their $$$ as far up as they can 



WoodlandHills said:


> Sorry, but I had to respond to this idiocy. What is wrong with going up a trail at 15? I assume that you go down trails at a lot higher speeds. I also assume that it is your responsibility to ride in a controlled and aware manner so as not to collide with anyone else on that trail. So what is the difference between going down and going up? Does the trail care?
> 
> Or is it all a bunch of self-righteous twaddle about eBikers not having "earned" the right to access public lands? And just how far do you think that ******** will go in a court of law examining land access? So you feel that sweat is a mandatory requirement to access taxpayer owned lands that are held in trust for the entire population? Climb down off of your absurd moral high horse and smell your own elitist roses: the ability to rapidly pedal a bicycle does not give you any right to look down your nose at anyone about anything! What a snob!


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

You come to the conclusion that "the trail riding community" is not split, but totally opposed to ebikes, despite this thread reaching 262 replies. Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as an industry shill won't fly.

l don't have one, have never ridden one but would like to try one, am undecided on trail access but might find such a thing useful on our own property.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I like to ride all sorts of things, a number of them have throttles. I would rip an e-bike on my trails, and wouldn't really give much of a damn if someone else did either, though I know the some of the LMs wouldn't go for it. We had a tough enough time getting the okay to even get bike access (it took us years actually), and the speed issue on mixed use trails was definitely something we spent a lot of time having to address in the process. E-bikes would give the HoH contingent around here fresh ammo to try to get us shut out completely. 

But my personal opinion has nothing to do with what the laws say, and I know that MTB access on other trail systems would suffer if e-bikes get umbrella-ed in with bikes. This will definitely lead to some LMs just banning all bikes on certain trails if they aren't able to distinguish between motorized and non-motorized use.

It seems like Woodhills isn't interested in what his local laws actually say; he's just gonna do whatever he wants regardless and keep on fantasizing about Supreme Court cases and being some sort of e-bike freedom fighter. Luckily, it does seem that LMs retain the right draw access lines as they see fit. As long as they continue to see the obvious differences between e-bikes and real bikes, it'll be up to e-bikers to prove whether they can function as a responsible user group on traditionally human-powered trails or whether they end up lumped in with OHVs.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> So you feel that sweat is a mandatory requirement to access taxpayer owned lands that are held in trust for the entire population?


Tons of 'sweat equity' is EXACTLY why, in my region, MTBers have an extensive and ever-expanding selection of legal trails and why ATV and moto riders have very few. The whole taxpayer argument has gotten them nowhere either BTW, and there's way more industry money behind them than e-bikes.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

With only 30 some odd posts and a join date of this month, Woodlandhills looks to be here specifically to campaign for ebikes. I wouldn't expect him/her to understand the anti side to the argument.


----------



## Capt.Ogg (Jun 5, 2015)

kosmo said:


> It's not the speed (see bold italics above) that is the concern, it's the speed differential. Call it "closing speed". It matters a lot, and anything that increases it reduces safety.


How about the speed difference between mtbs and hikers going downhill or even trail? Should we ban ourselves due to safety reasons?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Capt.Ogg said:


> How about the speed difference between mtbs and hikers going downhill or even trail? Should we ban ourselves due to safety reasons?


No. Mountain bikers yield to hikers. Of course you didn't know that or you wouldn't have posted such ridiculousness.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> E-bikes would give the HoH contingent around here fresh ammo to try to get us shut out completely.
> 
> But my personal opinion has nothing to do with what the laws say, and I know that MTB access on other trail systems would suffer if e-bikes get umbrella-ed in with bikes. This will definitely lead to some LMs just banning all bikes on certain trails if they aren't able to distinguish between motorized and non-motorized use.


Pretty much just this. Maybe it's just where I live, where single track is mostly MU non-moto with some MU moto happy as well, but I don't see class 1 e-bikes as they stand now as much of a threat to the trails themselves, or to other users. A huge threat to future access and advocacy though.

I've been riding mtb's since 1985 and at the time the battles for access were just being joined. The bikes we were riding and our expected impact was very different than what we see now. The equipment of the time wasn't even as good as current cyclocross bikes which lead to far slower speeds and less impact. Not to mention the much smaller cycling population at the time. We couldn't have imagined how the bikes have evolved, riders and techniques progressed, the population boomed.

The e-bikes of today are not what we will see in the future, I'm sure they will become lighter, cheaper and more powerful, I'm not confident that any of the current power limitations will remain either. Which leads me to want to keep them off non-motorized trails and let them live everywhere else. It's a potential Pandora's box I don't want opened.

I'm a huge fan of them as alternative transportation, they're awesome for commuters, cargo bikes and getting more butts out of cars and into bike seats. I'm sure they're really fun as mtb's too. But so are DH bikes and I don't need one of those either.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Harryman said:


> The e-bikes of today are not what we will see in the future, I'm sure they will become lighter, cheaper and more powerful, I'm not confident that any of the current power limitations will remain either. Which leads me to want to keep them off non-motorized trails and let them live everywhere else. It's a potential Pandora's box I don't want opened.


It's annoying that the e-bike advocates can't concede the logic of this argument. It seems to me that they are seeing only what they want to and ignoring the likely realities that might result from e-bike growth and development.

All it take is one hiker to get hit by an e-bike and the world of trail access is going to get a whole lot more hostile. Even if the accident is no worse that it would have been had it involved a standard MTB, it won't make any difference. The people who want tyres off the trails will sensationalize the situation and use it as leverage. I have little doubt that e-bikes will, in one way or another, will have a negative impact on trails.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

It wouldn't even take an actual incident. Locally, ourland agents receive suspect reports all the time. Among my favorites: A hiker reported being hit and their pelvis broken, guy rode off. A hiker reported that a biker stopped and beat them senseless without provocation. Ofc, no documentation, hospital reports, records of EMT response, etc.

Along the lines of, "She turned me into a newt!"

We could solve the entire problem with a powered exoskelton. Regular bikes, battery powered humans.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Banning ebikes won't affect the ability of the bike haters to make up stuff like that, and for sympathetic LM agencies to accept such reports as gospel despite the lack of evidence.

For MTBers to actively campaign for an ebike ban could easily backfire, as most arguments against ebikes could also be used against the pedal and gravity-powered kind.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

andytiedye said:


> Banning ebikes won't affect the ability of the bike haters to make up stuff like that, and for sympathetic LM agencies to accept such reports as gospel despite the lack of evidence.
> 
> For MTBers to actively campaign for an ebike ban could easily backfire, as most arguments against ebikes could also be used against the pedal and gravity-powered kind.


Stop referring to them with the name that the industry cloaks them in, "E-Bike" and refer to them as what they are, motorcycles. The industry hacks would love for that term become entrenched in the language used discussing them.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

tiretracks said:


> Stop referring to them with the name that the industry cloaks them in, "E-Bike" and refer to them as what they are, motorcycles...


But they're not motorcycles. Mopeds perhaps, but certainly not motorcycles. Motorcycles do not have pedals. How about "e-moped"?


----------



## OldGringo (Oct 2, 2015)

andytiedye said:


> But they're not motorcycles. Mopeds perhaps, but certainly not motorcycles. Motorcycles do not have pedals. How about "e-moped"?


bike with (& powered by) motor = motorized bike.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Motor + cycle = motorcycle. Anything else is propaganda and misdirection.


----------



## Bmach (Nov 15, 2015)

This is my take on an electric assist bicycle. My wife has a bad knee and it will need to be replaced in the future. He bike is an electric assist if she does not pedal she does not move. There is no throttle at all. This setup her to ride with me, if not for this type of bike we could not ride together.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Bmach said:


> This is my take on an electric assist bicycle. My wife has a bad knee and it will need to be replaced in the future. He bike is an electric assist if she does not pedal she does not move. There is no throttle at all. This setup her to ride with me, if not for this type of bike we could not ride together.


So it is your belief that the back country is an appropriate place for her to be bad knee and all solely due to her use of an electric motorcycle?


----------



## loopsb (Aug 9, 2004)

What if my knee doesn't allow me to pedal at all ? Do I get to just ride my Moto? It's just so much more comfortable for all my physical impediments.


----------



## Bmach (Nov 15, 2015)

Yes, I do and show me proof that a electric assist bike damages trails.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)




----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Welnic said:


>


You have discovered the Loch Ness Monster since every single proponent of electric motorcycles insists that none of them exceed 250 watts and cause zero trail degradation. Congrats.


----------



## Bmach (Nov 15, 2015)

And that is not what I am talking about. That has a throttle, I am talking about a true electric assist bike.


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

Hey guys I'm lazy and don't want to put any effort into getting into mountain biking shape so I need a ebike to get up the hill

Stop discriminating against lazy out of shape people that want to ride a mtb as fast as the pros!!


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Bmach said:


> And that is not what I am talking about. That has a throttle, I am talking about a true electric assist bike.


You're wasting your time.

Those who are unable to tell the difference between the impact of an assist bike and a motorbike are those who can't tell the difference between

this:










and this:


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Bmach said:


> And that is not what I am talking about. That has a throttle, I am talking about a true electric assist bike.


You guys utterly, utterly and deliberately ignore the point! It's really starting to piss me off.

It does no matter that some bikes are tame and sweet-smelling while others are more powerful and bad. As these two extremes become more and more visually similar, it will be totally impossible to implement regulations to allow one and not the other. Blanket restrictions will be the order of the day.

Seriously, some of you guys have got your heads so far up your own arses I reckon you can taste your tonsils! Unless you feel like being a little less self-centred and taking an honest look at the bigger picture I don't see the point in continuing this farce.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

The bikes are here. Plain and simple. The momentum cannot be stopped. I tried a few in Germany between January and April and even had students do an interview with a big bike shop that sells a lot of eBikes for mountain biking.

Elephant On The Trail: The Great E-Bike Controversy

One of the non-mountain bike eBikes that I tried (this one in Vienna, Austria) had me grinning from ear to ear. I'm not in the market for one to use on dirt or pavement at this point in my life even though I really enjoyed the experience, but I "get it".



__
https://flic.kr/p/rEkid2
 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

There's no turning back now. Instead, moving forward will be about how to co-exist with the choices of equipment people use - be it on pavement, gravel, dirt, snow. I expect a lot of debate, arguments, and changes that we will all witness and be a part of going forward.

:thumbsup:


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Man, you know what, I was totally wrong, e-bikes are harmless, no one will ever mod what is sposed to be a stock 250w bike and take it on the trails :skep:


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Welnic said:


>


I'm more disturbed by that dude's ponytail and his butchery of the art of the donut than if he rips an e-bike on dirt roads like in the video. I can't image a bike like that is gonna get anywhere on anything resembling New England singletrack.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Mr Pig said:


> You guys utterly, utterly and deliberately ignore the point! It's really starting to piss me off.
> 
> It does no matter that some bikes are tame and sweet-smelling while others are more powerful and bad. As these two extremes become more and more visually similar, it will be totally impossible to implement regulations to allow one and not the other. Blanket restrictions will be the order of the day.
> 
> Seriously, some of you guys have got your heads so far up your own arses I reckon you can taste your tonsils! Unless you feel like being a little less self-centred and taking an honest look at the bigger picture I don't see the point in continuing this farce.


LOL, well put! E-bikes are neat, but when categorizing vehicles for trail use you must have delineations. E-bikes or no, having a motor is still an obvious delineation. If E-bikers want to carve out their own category and lobby for trail access I am cool with that. Just don't lump them in with regular bicycles (duh).

I don't know much about e-bikes, but I figure any guy worth his man-card ought to be able to double the power while keeping it close to stock looking (or just pay someone else to do it). I have no plans to get an e-bike, but if I did, just like my mountain bike I would modify it and optimize it to be the best machine it can be. I bet I'm not the only one.


----------



## Bmach (Nov 15, 2015)

Lynx, everyone of those ebikes was more like an e moped. If you noticed not one of them were pedaled. I am talking about electric assist bikes where if you don't pedal you don't move and they do not have a throttle.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Bmach said:


> Lynx, everyone of those ebikes was more like an e moped. If you noticed not one of them were pedaled. I am talking about electric assist bikes where if you don't pedal you don't move and they do not have a throttle.


Read my last post. Address that point or you have nothing to add here.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Bmach said:


> Lynx, everyone of those ebikes was more like an e moped. If you noticed not one of them were pedaled. I am talking about electric assist bikes where if you don't pedal you don't move and they do not have a throttle.


I don't understand why the method of activating the motor matters. I push on a pedal to activate the motor in my car, but it's not difficult.

Granted turning pedals to activate the motor is a bit more inconvenient than rolling back on a throttle, but that is small potatoes. The only thing that makes pedaling a bike mean anything is the effort required. If a significant % of the total power to the wheel must always come from the rider, I guess that the pedal activation starts to have meaning. Although that still sounds like something pretty easily defeated / modified.


----------



## Bmach (Nov 15, 2015)

you are basing off of effort and electric assist makes it meaningless because it cuts back on effort. Then you should be turning a 53/39 with 12/25 because anything else cuts down the effort needed to move.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Bmach said:


> you are basing off of effort and electric assist makes it meaningless because it cuts back on effort.


Yes exactly my point. Without the effort, pedaling really doesn't mean much. Might as well just hook the motor up to a hand throttle. If there is no significant effort involved, why fake it?



Bmach said:


> Then you should be turning a 53/39 with 12/25 because anything else cuts down the effort needed to move.


You are forgetting something. When a bicycle is human powered, there is no free lunch. You can reduce the required torque at the pedals by shifting to a lower gear, but you then must increase your cadence to maintain a given power level.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

So this ends with two mtb categories... human powered and human assisted? 

Ooo-kay... been down that road before with ADA "assistive" devices. On FS lands, where trails are classified as appropriate for different activities, including ADA device access, based on conditions that will be encountered. Typically this is done as part of the development process, early on in the designation process, but can be done at any time as part of the administrative process. Once done, you don't just change the definition of a "mountain bike" (not even the Governor) to change the use to something that was not considered appropriate in the original trail design/designation process. This is not something that can be done with a blanket change of definition, there will be too many lawsuits generated. I doubt things are much different on most public land in the USA. The proponents of ebikes as mtb's have a lot to learn about the process of funding, designing, building, and maintaining recreational trails in the current public land administrative environment.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

You know, I'd maybe take you somewhat seriously if your account wasn't only just created a week ago when this thread really started showing that MTBers are against e-bikes, that you happened to start a fake thread with your first post, replied to it twice, then joined into this discussion -_ if I didn't know any better, I'd maybe think you had admin privileges on this site, since a new member cannot create a new thread AFAIK_ut:

While they were not pedaled, they had cranks and pedals and could be and then, how would you know what power they had? Can you imagine what damage a 9,000w fat bike would do on a technical climbs with loose features? What happens when the suped up es come upon a normal MTB on a tech climb? I am not against them, for commuters/ing, gravel roads, double track or anywhere motor powered vehicles are allowed, but NO, not on proper single track. What sort of reaction time do you think a 70-something with serious arthritis and muscle atrophy will have? What sort of muscle condition to control it in the chunk or when things go wrong?



Bmach said:


> Lynx, everyone of those ebikes was more like an e moped. If you noticed not one of them were pedaled. I am talking about electric assist bikes where if you don't pedal you don't move and they do not have a throttle.


----------



## Bmach (Nov 15, 2015)

I go back to the day when hikers did not want bikes, dirt bike or anything but feet on trails. Even to the point where there was move to have bikes have to have sleigh bells on them so you could hear them coming. Then there was a manual that was all about sabotaging trails anyone other than a hiker would be hurt. That was their way of keeping the trails to themselves. We all need to just get a long and share responsibly.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

LyNx said:


> ...What sort of reaction time do you think a 70-something with serious arthritis and muscle atrophy will have? What sort of muscle condition to control it in the chunk or when things go wrong?


About the same as my 70+ body... (partial paralysis, some atrophy, assorted niggling old motorcycle injuries, not as nimble as I used to be etc)

And even without an engine, when I'm descending I'm going as fast as an e-bike would because I'm going as fast as I feel safe, not as fast as I can go. I'm sure your hypothetical 70+ derelict would be following a similar policy.

I'm glad I don't live in your neck of the woods. It sounds a bit like an overcrowded rat cage with too many rats fighting for territory. Open access is the answer, not fighting each other for territory.

BTW if you do some simple arithmetic, a 9,000 watt fatbike being used to capacity isn't likely to get more than a few hundred yards away from the trailhead unless he had an enormous weight and bulk of batteries, which would be kind of obvious.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Bmach said:


> We all need to just get a long and share responsibly.


Nope. These motorcycles will be the end of our hard won trail access.


----------



## Bmach (Nov 15, 2015)

I agree if you are talking about the type in the comparasion video. A electric assist without a throttle will not. Take one for a test ride I think you might then see my point.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

You don't need to use all that power all the time, just put it down when you need it, you know on that hard, loose climb you can't normally make on a human powered MTB, brap, brap, brap like the other motos do, tear the trail up.

As to too bulky, lots of fatbikes have frame bags and a frame bag would be more than enough room to store more than enough battery life to get far enough into trails to cause trouble. How then at a glance, to someone who is not a biking enthusiast, do you tell it's not a normal fatbike?


Velobike said:


> BTW if you do some simple arithmetic, a 9,000 watt fatbike being used to capacity isn't likely to get more than a few hundred yards away from the trailhead unless he had an enormous weight and bulk of batteries, which would be kind of obvious.


----------



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

BruceBrown said:


> One of the non-mountain bike eBikes that I tried (this one in Vienna, Austria) had me grinning from ear to ear. I'm not in the market for one to use on dirt or pavement at this point in my life even though I really enjoyed the experience, but I "get it".


My old motorbike had me grinning ear to ear when I hopped on that thing too but it's totally irrelevant to this conversation IMO. I agree that their arrival here is inevitable and I have no problem with that, but hopefully the fight to have them classified in every respect as bicycles isn't yet over, and I'll ***** & moan about how wrong I believe that is until the fat lady sings.

Yes, there will be some crossover but I think that by and large manufactures view prospective buyers of e(mtb)bikes as a huge untapped market who previously had no interest in 'mountain biking'. The industriy strategy, including the benign and cute 'ebike' tag is nothing more than a smokescreen to obtain access to areas that now restrict motorized vehicles by redefining what 'motorized' means.



Velobike said:


> BTW if you do some simple arithmetic, a 9,000 watt fatbike being used to capacity isn't likely to get more than a few hundred yards away from the trailhead unless he had an enormous weight and bulk of batteries, which would be kind of obvious.


Electric motor and battery technology is progressing exponentially, 10 years down the road what is be possible will probably be quite different than it is now.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

LyNx said:


> As to too bulky, lots of fatbikes have frame bags and a frame bag would be more than enough room to store more than enough battery life to get far enough into trails to cause trouble. How then at a glance, to someone who is not a biking enthusiast, do you tell it's not a normal fatbike?


How about you find us a pic of a stealth 9,000 watt electric motorbike that can be confused with a bicycle? It is a much bulkier thing, including the motor.

A typical assist e-bike has a Lithium Ion 36V 400Wh battery. That will take the bike about 50 miles on the flat, but only if the rider is pedalling as well, ie doing most of the work.

If it is hilly country such as you ride an mtb on you'd be lucky to get 15 miles, and again pedalling.

A 9,000watt motor is about 36 times more powerful than an assist motor, and would need a huge battery pack, not something that could easily be concealed.

If you can solve that problem of bulky batteries, you won't need to be complaining about trail access.

Instead you could be cooling your feet in a bucket of champagne on the French Riviera while nubile skimpily clad maidens hand feed you peeled grapes, for you would be the genius who has invented the usable electric motorbike.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> My old motorbike had me grinning ear to ear when I hopped on that thing too but it's totally irrelevant to this conversation IMO. I agree that their arrival here is inevitable and I have no problem with that, but hopefully the fight to have them classified in every respect as bicycles isn't yet over, and I'll ***** & moan about how wrong I believe that is until the fat lady sings.
> 
> Yes, there will be some crossover but I think that by and large manufactures view prospective buyers of e(mtb)bikes as a huge untapped market who previously had no interest in 'mountain biking'. The industriy strategy, including the benign and cute 'ebike' tag is nothing more than a smokescreen to obtain access to areas that now restrict motorized vehicles by redefining what 'motorized' means.


How is the fun factor (or grin factor as I called it) for cycling enthusiasts irrelevant to the conversation? Having also ridden many motorcycles over the years I am well aware of a myriad of grin factors produced, but none of them were the same grin factor provided by a pedal assist bike as the ones I got to try out earlier this year in Germany and Austria.

At least when I read the OP's initial post (Francois's post that is) with regard to Europe, I felt inclined to chime in on the opportunity I had to demo a few bikes - both on pavement and on dirt. Mainly, from Bikes & Boards in Schorndorf, Germany - a town where I was working on assignment for 4 months earlier this year.

Bikesnboards - Fahrräder -> Elektrofahrrad / Pedelec

There are a series of wonderful trails that climb up and out of Schorndorf for a solid 2 - 4 miles. I was there with my road/gravel bike outfitted with gravel tires to ride, commute, and train for the 4 months while working and had the opportunity to ride some wonderful trails, paths, roads, and fire roads. I usually did the climb up out of the town at least twice a week (with flatter rides on other days of the week) where my HR averaged 163-170 on my Specialized road/gravel bike during those long grinding climbs. That's the top end of Zone 4 for me. Many days, I would ride back down and do the climb again for a nice double interval workout session.

After seeing many e-Bikes being used for commuting/shopping in and around Schorndorf, on the fire trails up in the woods, and even by the Post to deliver the daily mail - I asked at the bike shop if there were any demo bikes available to rent or try out since their showroom floor was filled with various models of e-Bikes. What the heck? I figured while I was there it was worth the coin to give it a try for myself.

HR strap on the chest, that climb out of town for the 2-4 miles still had me pegged in the 160's with the pedal assist, although I was obviously climbing quicker thanks to being able to use a taller gear for the same effort as my normal bike. Descents were a wash as the pedal assist kicked off at the speeds I was going. And the bikes are heavy compared to my weight weenie XC race bikes. Regardless, major grin factor aboard the several I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to try. Totally legal and it was allowed to take those bikes on all of the trails where I did in that section of Germany. Obviously, I was able to take in more terrain distance wise in the same amount of time - take advantage of the pedal assist, and smile the entire time.

So the grin factor and the access to be able to use the e-Bikes on those trails remain relevant to the discussion.

Other applications are obvious - commuting, shopping (typical German shops almost daily and carries their groceries on the bike back home), and the town where I was living was very hilly an e-Bike outfitted with baskets is a great fit for those who need pedal assist to pedal back up the hill home with their groceries. For me, I didn't find the e-Bikes that I tried to be of any help on the flatter paved biking trails in the valley in terms of a training ride because I usually ride quicker than the 15.5 - 16 mph speed where the pedal assist kicks off. At that point, I was just cruising around on a heavy bike. However, at slower speeds, hauling a load, opening up the ability to go greater distances certainly is a value that I saw many Germans experiencing.

Bottom line - there is a market out there for various forms of e-Bikes throughout the world. It may not fit everyone's ideal or personal opinion, but they are here to stay.

I don't need one as a rider for my training rides or fun rides at this point in my life. Who knows what my back/neck/legs/lungs will say a few more years down the road and I still have the desire to go where I used to go?
I certainly could see having one available _now_ to help out with trail work and or course marking for XC races where I'm hauling around tools, marking stakes and running on empty as a race host getting an event ready the day before or day of where I have no legs left from all of the exhausting trail trimming and grooming work leading up to the event. However, that would only be if the e-Bike was legally allowed to travel on the trails in question.

The odd thing was I didn't get it back in the early 90's when my wife's cousin was one of the two original founders of ZAP. I couldn't understand why anyone would want or need an electric assisted bicycle. Here it is 20+ years later and my experience in Germany as well as seeing people enjoying cycling with the pedal assist bikes on pavement and dirt - I think I now "get it". You still have to pedal to get the assist and the market exists for those who so choose it.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

It won't stop at "assist" and everyone with more than 4 brain cells knows it.


----------



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

BruceBrown said:


> How is the fun factor (or grin factor as I called it) for cycling enthusiasts irrelevant to the conversation?


Because there are endless things that people find fun that aren't allowed in certain areas. You found ebikes to be more fun than motorcycles but many others would report the opposite. Should atv's be reclassified based on the fact that a lot of people have fun on them? It is irrelevant.

And it isn't that I don't 'get it', I can totally see the appeal and believe they have many legit applications. Commuting, dirt roads, gravel, designated trails, bike parks, etc. are all good, but why does it seem like most ebike enthusiasts are adamantly opposed to leaving some of it wild?


----------



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

tiretracks said:


> It won't stop at "assist" and everyone with more than 4 brain cells knows it.


yep^ Not to say that pedal assist isn't valid but it is also a red herring propagated by the industry to open doors.


----------



## kneecap (Dec 20, 2003)

You're probably right, too bad.
Seems like for every great bunch of riders there's bound to be a few bad apples that abuse common sense & courtesy.
I see lots of shuttlers & even the climbing crew flying down local multiple use trails with full on downhill bikes & gear. Look out hikers, kids & pets!

I think though, since good e bikes ain't cheep, probably wont see many in my area for some time.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Because there are endless things that people find fun that aren't allowed in certain areas. You found ebikes to be more fun than motorcycles but many others would report the opposite. Should atv's be reclassified based on the fact that a lot of people have fun on them? It is irrelevant.


You made an incorrect conclusion about my post. I did not say "more fun". I said..._Having also ridden many motorcycles over the years I am well aware of a myriad of grin factors produced, but none of them were the *same *grin factor provided by a pedal assist bike as the ones I got to try out earlier this year in Germany and Austria._

It's a vastly _*different*_ experience than a motorcycle. In any event, I simply did not say more fun.

Relevance?

They are allowed in certain areas of the globe. Mountain biking is not confined to the good ole US of A and these forums speak to a more global population. Yes, there are folks riding them on dirt legally in parts of Europe with various sorts of grins on their faces. The same riders that also ride their non-pedal assisted mountain bikes on dirt with a grin as well. It's a bike that must be pedaled to go forward. Bikes produce grins. Some grins are different than others.


----------



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

BruceBrown said:


> Relevance? Bikes produce grins. Some grins are different than others.


Exactly, and some bikes are different than others. Bikes with motors should be classified as such and not piggyback on mtb accessible trails under the guise of being 'pedal assist' only. That is a sham IMHO and the fact that ebikes happen to be fun does not change my opinion on the matter, and is entirely irrelevant to that particular issue.

ebike advocates- what is the problem with sharing some trails but not _all_ trails?

-a pretty good article/ Counterpoint: ?Motor+Bike=Motorbike? ? Marc Basiliere?s Take on E-Bike Trail Access


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> ebike advocates- what is the problem with sharing some trails but not all trails?


I'm an advocate and don't have any problem with them being restricted to moto legal single track trails, roads, etc. While there's not as much as non moto MUT, there's plenty of singletrack around here where bikes and motos get along fine.

The horse is out of the barn with these things, like them or not, they're not going to go away.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

EXCELLENT counter point by Marc. The biggest thing he points out and I've and loads of others have is the age/disabled angle that those who want to push the motor-bikes give, but check their web pages etc and it's a whole different story, as in the comments made by a guy who works in a shop that sells and pushes these things and the amount of people who bring them in to be "modified" for more power.



J.B. Weld said:


> Exactly, and some bikes are different than others. Bikes with motors should be classified as such and not piggyback on mtb accessible trails under the guise of being 'pedal assist' only. That is a sham IMHO and the fact that ebikes happen to be fun does not change my opinion on the matter, and is entirely irrelevant to that particular issue.
> 
> ebike advocates- what is the problem with sharing some trails but not _all_ trails?
> 
> -a pretty good article/ Counterpoint: ?Motor+Bike=Motorbike? ? Marc Basiliere?s Take on E-Bike Trail Access


----------



## Bmach (Nov 15, 2015)

The problem is, would mountain bikers stay off of ebike only trails? No they would not so let's just share. And instead of putting down some 70+ person on an ebike, you should be praising and encouraging them.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

Bmach said:


> The problem is, would mountain bikers stay off of ebike only trails? No they would not so let's just share. And instead of putting some 70+ person on a bike, you should be praising and encouraging them.


I don't think there is any problem with mountain bikers staying off of ebike only trails, since those won't ever exist. You should read the part in your shill handbook where it talks about not being too obvious.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Welnic said:


> I don't think there is any problem with mountain bikers staying off of ebike only trails, since those won't ever exist. You should read the part in your shill handbook where it talks about not being too obvious.


Lulz


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

1. CA state law effective Jan 1 draws a distinction between bicycles with engines and bicycles with motors. Low speed bicycles with motors are legally permitted wherever bicycles without motors are permitted. Agency managers are being guided by the unanimous will of both houses of the state legislature when they decide on policy as evidenced by the NPS allowing Class 1 eBikes full access to Santa Monica Mtns parklands.

2. Any arguments against access to public trails by eBikes can be countered by using IMBA and NORBA literature from the '80s and '90s and writing "e" in front of the word "bicycle". Your representatives already made winning arguments in favor of opening public trails to (e)bicycles many years ago.

3. The elitism, snobbery and condescension apparent in many of the posts on this subject will one of the most powerful arguments in favor of open access for eBikes in the minds of the general public. Demands to restrict access to public lands to an exclusive elite group will be a hard sell in 2016 and in the coming years of exploding eBike popularity. 

4. Road riders have been sharing their routes with eBikes for years with no issues, no hurt feelings and none of the childish petulance on display in this forum. How does the presence of an eBike on the public land you already share with other bikes, hikers and horses prevent you from also riding there? If the argument is that eBikes will allow "too many new people who are less fit than me" on to public lands, will that be accepted as a winning argument in the court of public opinion?

5. This whole issue is remenicient of skiers vs snowboarders: how did that one end up? Are snowboards still unwelcome at ski resorts?


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

WoodlandHills said:


> Road riders have been sharing their routes with eBikes for years with no issues, no hurt feelings and none of the childish petulance on display in this forum.


Likely to damage the roads are they? Faster than other road traffic are they?


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Interesting. You say they are allowed, yet the article I read says "...natural surface paths in parks and open space areas, like mountain bike trails, are not covered by the new law."

(From the online article in Bicycling magazine, 13-Oct.)

Seems to contradict your assertions.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

chuckha62 said:


> Interesting. You say they are allowed, yet the article I read says "...natural surface paths in parks and open space areas, like mountain bike trails, are not covered by the new law."
> 
> (From the online article in Bicycling magazine, 13-Oct.)
> 
> Seems to contradict your assertions.


That part doesn't fit his agenda. Its gone beyond him being a simple irritant to trolling.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

There is a very simple distinction between an assist e-bike and a motorbike.

A motorbike has a throttle operated by hand and power is available anytime.

The e-bike has no throttle, and power is available ONLY when the rider is applying pressure to the pedals.

Thinking about the mythical 9,000 watt assist e-bike, I'd like to see the person who could ride one. It's hard enough not flipping backwards on a 250 watt one on a steep climb.

Basically anything with a throttle is a motorbike.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Well, as others have stated... It's just a different method of engaging the motor assist; lever actuated, twist grip or pedal actuated. The distinction is still that it has a motor, regardless of how it is pressed into service.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> 1. CA state law effective Jan 1 draws a distinction between bicycles with engines and bicycles with motors. Low speed bicycles with motors are legally permitted wherever bicycles without motors are permitted. Agency managers are being guided by the unanimous will of both houses of the state legislature when they decide on policy as evidenced by the NPS allowing Class 1 eBikes full access to Santa Monica Mtns parklands.


Please post link to the actual law.

Is there a reason you won't?

Simply repeating your opinion doesn't make it true.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Mr Pig said:


> Likely to damage the roads are they? Faster than other road traffic are they?


 eBikes are faster than road riders, yet the roadies don't get their panties in a knot like you guys do.....


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

"Many have asked how this affects eMTB access on trails in city, county, and state parks. The important distinction is that this law applies only to the California Vehicle Code.

State, county and city parks are managed outside of the vehicle code, just as the federal land management agencies. "Bicycle path or trail, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail" is commonly used in the Vehicle Code, and is the preferred way to discuss path/trail access, even for paved or soft-surface bikeways.

In short, the Vehicle Code does not regulate trails in the State Parks. Trails are regulated separately by parks departments, which control access. This law does not clarify where eMTBs can be ridden on trails in city, county, and state parks."

The New California E-Bike Law & Electric Mountain Bikes | Electric Bike Report | Electric Bike, Ebikes, Electric Bicycles, E Bike, Reviews

"Class 1: A bike that must be pedaled to receive electric assistance and the motor has a cut off at 20 mph. For the most part, these bikes can be ridden on any paved surface where a regular bicycle is allowed.

Class 2: A bike that has pedals and a throttle with an electric assist cut off at 20 mph. They too can be used on any paved surface where a regular bike is allowed."

http://redkiteprayer.com/2015/10/e-bikes-have-class-in-california/

"The law does not prevent local authorities from further restricting e-bike use if necessary, and applies only to roads and bike paths governed under state and federal vehicle code; natural surface paths in parks and open space areas, like mountain bike trails, are not covered by the new law."

California Approves E-Bikes on Bike Paths | Bicycling

"Though AB 1096 permits various classes of e-bikes to ride in or on various bike paths and lanes (as indicated on the chart above), be aware of where e-bikes still may not be permitted to ride, unless specifically indicated in these areas:

Bike paths and roads that are not under federal or state vehicle codes (an example would be a bike path in a county park).
Natural surface paths in parks, like mountain bike trails, and open space areas."

Low Speed E-Bikes Given Bicycle Privileges |


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

"This whole issue is remenicient of skiers vs snowboarders: how did that one end up? Are snowboards still unwelcome at ski resorts?"

I suppose emotorized sleds will soon be welcome on ski slopes too? Get real dude, we're talking human powered vs. human assisted, which could be said of any motorized vehicle.

You're trying to put motorized vehicles on human powered trails to make some money, and you're playing the "old people" card. Anyone who can pedal an ebike can pedal a human powered bike, that's what gears are for. You make me ashamed to be old, acting like old people are all broke down by 70 and need to be helped. Older mountain bikers are just fine with human powered bikes, it's the busted up throttle twisters and late coming sedentary lifestylers who want the assist. I hear nothing but concern about "me" doing one last ride, and tough sh*t about what is left for the future, I've got my rights. Those of us who are lifelong trailbuilders know there is more to it than you are aware of. You are digging your own grave as far as I'm concerned, ebikes will quickly morph into their own genre, and the willingness of ebikers to build infrastructure will determine if their fad goes anywhere. I don't see much future for competition with assistive devices, so marketing is restricted to the lazy and infirm. Or maybe the governor will declare that they can be used in any bike race open to...


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

chuckha62 said:


> Interesting. You say they are allowed, yet the article I read says "...natural surface paths in parks and open space areas, like mountain bike trails, are not covered by the new law."
> 
> (From the online article in Bicycling magazine, 13-Oct.)
> 
> Seems to contradict your assertions.


 Not at all, land managers are being guided by the intent of the law: to encourage the adaptation of eBikes by making them the legal equals of bicycles. I agree that implementation is not mandatory just as you state above, but managers seem to be complying anyway as in my region. The intent of the legislature was pretty obvious.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

slapheadmofo said:


> Please post link to the actual law.
> 
> Is there a reason you won't?
> 
> Simply repeating your opinion doesn't make it true.


Bill Text - AB-1096 Vehicles: electric bicycles.

Does this make it true? Or is De Nile just a river in Egypt?

Please note that the law would allow a jurisdiction to prohibit access to eBikes if they should chose to do so. Thus the default position is to have open access unless specifically prohibited. Local agencies have taken a "wait and see" attitude: if there are problems they will deal with them as they arise, but public trails are still open to all bicycles (as defined by CA law).


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

Sign in the e-bike backer fantasy world:

This trail is open to:
Hikers
Horses
Bicycles
This trail is closed to:
ATVs
Motorcycles
Cars
Busses
Airplanes (taxiing on ground)
Trucks
Mopeds
Electric Skateboards
Bicycles with Gas Engines

Sign in the real world:


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

WoodlandHills said:


> Bill Text - AB-1096 Vehicles: electric bicycles.
> 
> Does this make it true? Or is De Nile just a river in Egypt?
> 
> Please note that the law would allow a jurisdiction to prohibit access to eBikes if they should chose to do so. Thus the default position is to have open access unless specifically prohibited. Local agencies have taken a "wait and see" attitude: if there are problems they will deal with them as they arise, but public trails are still open to all bicycles (as defined by CA law).


I found that, but what I can't find is where it mentions use in places not regulated by the state Vehicle Code (ie - mountain bike trails). Care to post the relevant text? And maybe explain how the Vehicle Code applies to trails the Vehicle Code doesn't apply to?

Or maybe realize that this isn't as much of a blanket 'equalization' as you first thought it was? Or are you still working through that?


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

slap- Well said, can't rep you or I would. We haven't gotten where we have in the mtb trail world without learning a lot of lessons about how the game is played. I have had the opportunity of working with some of the best strategic minds in the public trail building world I deal with, and this makes me realize how far we have come, and the level of sophistication we have achieved in the mtb trail world. If these ebike guys were smart they would come asking for advice instead of thinking they had pulled a fast one on us. In my area, I know our mountain as well or better than anyone, and could give good practical and workable advice to other user groups wanting to develop resources and infrastructure. We have had horse people try to move in on the bike trails in a very similar manner, and by blanket decree. It just doesn't work in the real world, and eventually they run into that wall and learn that lesson. We have been building purpose built mtb trails for a long time and it is very difficult to change that on paper without changing things on the ground... on public land, and depending where you are to a degree. That is why we started building mtb trails in the first place.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

slapheadmofo said:


> I found that, but what I can't find is where it mentions use in places not regulated by the state Vehicle Code (ie - mountain bike trails). Care to post the relevant text? And maybe explain how the Vehicle Code applies to trails the Vehicle Code doesn't apply to?
> 
> Or maybe realize that this isn't as much of a blanket 'equalization' as you first thought it was? Or are you still working through that?


 I don't need to point to any relevant text, I believe that the legal departments at the various land agencies did that for me when they decided to allow eBikes in their parks. It's a moot point: access is permitted. Every public entity that oversees the trails where I live made a policy decision to align their rules with the laws that apply everywhere else in the state. Having two different uniformed Rangers from two different agencies verify that my eBike was Class 1 legal before letting me proceed is a clear indication that Ranger training has kept up with the policy.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> I don't need to point to any relevant text, I believe that the legal departments at the various land agencies did that for me when they decided to allow eBikes in their parks. It's a moot point: access is permitted. Every public entity that oversees the trails where I live made a policy decision to align their rules with the laws that apply everywhere else in the state. Having two different uniformed Rangers from two different agencies verify that my eBike was Class 1 legal before letting me proceed is a clear indication that Ranger training has kept up with the policy.


Belief does not make it fact. These "Rangers" encountered you by your own admission, on a dirt road which are largely governed by the Motor Vehicle code. Unless you can post more than hearsay I contend that you are either an industry shill or a troll or both.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

You may well be perfectly legal riding the local trails you mention, as LMs are allowed to make that decision, or those particular trails my fall under the Motor Vehicle codes.
BUT that doesn't equal blanket access to all MTB trails, or anything close to it. As bsieb mentioned, you have a lot to learn.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

So, Woodland... Be honest, who do you work for that is paying you to push the ebike agenda?

As I have stated before, I have ridden an ebike. I liked it. It really did put a grin on my face. That doesn't mean it is the equivalent of my mountain bike and deserves the same access for it's rider.

edit: I went back a few pages and now see that Woodland built his/her bike. Makes me wonder, did he/she also get distribution/assembly rights for the kit? The push seems a tad incongruent to just be a casual rider.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

WoodlandHills said:


> eBikes are faster than road riders, yet the roadies don't get their panties in a knot like you guys do.....


Because everyone is allowed to ride on the road.

Getting passed by an e-moped, motorcycle, car, or semi truck has no bearing on my right to be there.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ericmopar (Aug 23, 2003)

Le Duke said:


> Because everyone is allowed to ride on the road.
> 
> Getting passed by an e-moped, motorcycle, car, or semi truck has no bearing on my right to be there.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Exactly. 
An E-Bike is just an electric scooter.
In fact, E-Bikes on pavement should be required to have headlight, tailight and blinkers.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

I heard that bears actively target and kill people on eBikes in preference to all other prey. It's what I heard, they are sensitive to bad vibes or something. 

Cougars don't do that yet but training is scheduled.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Ericmopar said:


> Exactly.
> An E-Bike is just an electric scooter.
> In fact, E-Bikes on pavement should be required to have headlight, tailight and blinkers.


I had a fat e-"bike" pass me when I was going 28mph+ on a road in Fort Collins, CO. Not just pass me, but blow past me and keep it up until he turned, way off in the distance.

Lots of strong dudes out there. No one strong enough to put out the power necessary to do that, though. Not by half. I'm not lighting the world on fire here, but I'm no slouch.

Now, people want to tell me no one will mod one of these bikes, and roost trails uphill, or out of (loose, damaged, vulnerable) corners?

I've already seen it on a road, by someone on what, prior to modification, was a fat bike MTB. Why do people think it won't happen?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Posted a poll in General...


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

I read an article on the California ebike law yesterday and in the comments section, an executive from Raleigh Bikes (Larry Pizzi, Sr VP Sales & Marketing) who helped push the bike agenda in California pointed out that the law **specifically** dealt with ebikes as they pertain to the California Vehicle Code and has **nothing** to do with singletrack access. Is that fight coming? Absolutely but some land managers (and even the BLM) have already banned them...such as in the MTB Mecca of Moab.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

WOW, admin already closed your poll, CANNOT believe how MTBR can be such an industry wh0re  As to WoodlandSHILL, please go away and try to pedal your BS elsewhere to less intelligent people that might fall for it. Unfortunately I can't give him any more -rep 



Mr Pig said:


> Posted a poll in General...


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

WoodlandHills said:


> I don't need to point to any relevant text, I believe that the legal departments at the various land agencies did that for me when they decided to allow eBikes in their parks. It's a moot point: access is permitted. Every public entity that oversees the trails where I live made a policy decision to align their rules with the laws that apply everywhere else in the state. Having two different uniformed Rangers from two different agencies verify that my eBike was Class 1 legal before letting me proceed is a clear indication that Ranger training has kept up with the policy.


What did they do to verify that your eBike was Class 1 legal? And did you do this riding in 2016 when this law goes into effect?


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Go quick and vote before the poll gets closed and prob deleted http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/do-you-think-mtbr-worth-trusting-996502.html


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

tiretracks said:


> Belief does not make it fact. These "Rangers" encountered you by your own admission, on a dirt road which are largely governed by the Motor Vehicle code. Unless you can post more than hearsay I contend that you are either an industry shill or a troll or both.


 The roads in question were behind barrier gates, closed to vehicular traffic, on park property and past the signs that say bicycles only. Evidently the Rangers think that a Class 1 eBike is the same as any other bicycle: thus the statement: "Class1? You're legal, go have fun.". I wonder how they got that idea?


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Welnic said:


> What did they do to verify that your eBike was Class 1 legal? And did you do this riding in 2016 when this law goes into effect?


 I stopped and talked to them in person to see if I was legal. I had called the park office earlier that morning and was told by the person there that I should go for a ride and ask the Ranger, so I did. He looked at my set-up, saw that I had no throttle and asked how fast I could go. I am a singlespeed and flat out I am geared for 20 mph so he said I was OK.
I started eBiking about three weeks ago, I've only gone about 150 miles, but all of that has been in the same two parks and the Rangers have seen me many times. I just stopped to ask this weekend after all the fuss here made me wonder if I really was OK. And I was.


----------



## syl3 (Apr 23, 2008)

Haha that's how the ebike industry works, in order to sell bikes worth 4000+ it pays people to promote singlespeed self-conversions bought from ali express. You guys are so good at spotting shills that half this place is made up of fake BD customers.

Back on topic, 5 more people tried my ebike this week and they were all super stoked to buy one. I am starting to think that i should work on commission


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> I stopped and talked to them in person to see if I was legal. I had called the park office earlier that morning and was told by the person there that I should go for a ride and ask the Ranger, so I did. He looked at my set-up, saw that I had no throttle and asked how fast I could go. I am a singlespeed and flat out I am geared for 20 mph so he said I was OK.
> I started eBiking about three weeks ago, I've only gone about 150 miles, but all of that has been in the same two parks and the Rangers have seen me many times. I just stopped to ask this weekend after all the fuss here made me wonder if I really was OK. And I was.


In another thread you mention that you are considering Ashland, OR, for retirement. Since eBiking is very important to you, you may wish to research what trail options would be open to you there. Obviously, the California law you have cited would not apply in Oregon.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

andytiedye said:


> In another thread you mention that you are considering Ashland, OR, for retirement. Since eBiking is very important to you, you may wish to research what trail options would be open to you there. Obviously, the California law you have cited would not apply in Oregon.


 Yes, I know that, but Ashland is a very good eBike town with a large and active eBike shop. Cargo bikes with power assist are common and when speaking with the owner of the eBike store I was told that there were many trails to ride in the mountains. I guess that any trail one can ride with a dirt bike one can ride with an eBike. I don't know the current situation regarding eBike access to MTB exclusive trails, but I would not be surprised if things changed in the next few years. While eBikes are now a niche in the bike business, I have read they are the fastest growing segment in the last year or so.

For some strange reason Baby Boomers love eBikes and have been buying a lot of them: politically active retired people are a good group to have on your side in any dispute with public agencies. If other states decided to classify low speed eBikes the same as CA it would not be the first time something started here, and spread to the rest of the nation. As I have said here before: once low-speed eBikes become common on our streets and in our garages the public will want equal access to bike trails and paths on dirt as well as pavement.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

chuckha62 said:


> So, Woodland... Be honest, who do you work for that is paying you to push the ebike agenda?
> 
> As I have stated before, I have ridden an ebike. I liked it. It really did put a grin on my face. That doesn't mean it is the equivalent of my mountain bike and deserves the same access for it's rider.
> 
> edit: I went back a few pages and now see that Woodland built his/her bike. Makes me wonder, did he/she also get distribution/assembly rights for the kit? The push seems a tad incongruent to just be a casual rider.


 If only.......

However, I did buy a BD SS fat bike for $399, a motor for $720 and a battery for $500. This gives me an eBike that has better performance and range than the $4500 Bosch factory eBike in my LBS for less than 1/2 the price.

What will you do in Xmas 2016 when Walmart is blowing these out the door for $999, or in 2017 when they are $599? By then an eBike will have twice the 30 mile range mine has today for 1/2 the price.

Every LBS in my area seems to have a few eBikes on the floor, usually right up front because new customers are always asking for test rides before they buy. Do you see that changing in the future and the LBS stopping selling eBikes and giving up that profit?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> politically active retired people are a good group to have on your side in any dispute with public agencies.


No doubt, unfortunately, you've also desribed the majority of the bike haters out there.



> once low-speed eBikes become common on our streets and in our garages the public will want equal access to bike trails and paths on dirt as well as pavement.


This is likely true as well, but it doesn't mean that they should or will. We don't allow motos everywhere either and I know all the motorcycle trail riders here wish they had much more access than they do.

I think if you ever had to deal with the realities of fighting for trail access, your envisioning of a future of ebikes being allowed everywhere might well be tempered.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

MA rider here. On almost all the trails I ride on, no motor vehicles allowed. Period. That's for the state run ( DCR) parks and forests. As well as for the conservation areas too. The electric motorcycles can go where they allow the ORV. Like maybe 3 or 4 places in the state. Mt bikers have had some great relationships with various land managers going back over 20 years. I see electric motorcycles making little headway.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Pro Bowling invades mountain biking, who'd a thought?


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

Summary:

1. It appears that in some states of the USA and in many European countries assistive e-bikes are legal to use anywhere an bicycle can go.

2. Despite all the anti assistive e-bike invective and frothing, we still have no factual information to suggest that they will have any greater impact on the trails than other forms of mtb.

Admission:

I have an iron in this fire. 

I have ridden an assistive e-bike, and I have a pretty good idea of their good points and negatives (of which the main one is weight). 

I see it as allowing a further step in my cycling as my capabilities decline. 

Once I'm too frail to ride my singlespeed, I'm going to seek some assistance from variable gears, and I feel that day is not far off. And once I find that too hard, then I will buy an assistive e-bike. Hopefully this will add another 5-10 years to my cycling life, and I will be grateful for that and for living in a country where elitist exclusionists don't "own" the trails.

This is my last comment in this thread. It's going round in circles now.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> 1. It appears that in some states of the USA and in many European countries assistive e-bikes are legal to use anywhere an bicycle can go.


It's more nuanced than that. At the state level, they are leaving it up to the land agents to decide, so at most, you can expect to have a patchwork of legal singletrack between City, County, State parks, BLM and USFS. And also within parcels. In Colorado where I live, none of those entities, including State parks, answers to the state government.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I think the fear is letting e-bikes on the trails is just opening the trickle that will eventually break the dam. These things will only increase in horsepower as battery technology improves. Once the horse power increase to a point, the dirt bikers will see that as justification that they should be allowed on the trails. Once that happens, the quad runners will think they should have access. Eventually the hikers will complain so much about getting run off the trails by motorized vehicles that the trails will be closed to all but foot traffic.

I think e-bikes are fine for dirt roads. 

> grateful for that and for living in a country where elitist exclusionists don't "own" the trails.

But where do you stop this? Are you ok with dirt bikes on the trails or are you an "exclusionists"? BTW, I've read a lot of your posts and I am a fan of yours so don't take this the wrong way!


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

What the pro e-bike people don't seem to get is that most are not against them, just do not want them classified as a bicycle with MTBs, because despite the fact that right now the current 250W bikes seems reasonable, it won't take much to mod these to twice that power and destroy trails. In a few years I can't even fathom the power and weight they'll be at, but Park Rangers & Jo Avg won't be able to tell the difference and MTBs will get blamed for all that and accidents will happen when they can reach speeds 4x greater than a human powered MTB and put down that much more torque.


----------



## Capt.Ogg (Jun 5, 2015)

Many here doesn't seem to understand that ebikes are built to laws and regulations, mainly to EU ones. They will be smaller and have better battery capacity, but they won't go up in power unless modified to do so. After that they are illegal ebikes, mopeds or motorcycles. If someone goes to the trouble of riding illegal ebike on the trails, what's stopping them doing it right now? No need to wait for the future.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

A ranger can tell the difference between a bicycle and a bicycle with an electric motor. If the trail is allows non-motorized vehicles only, then riding an electric bicycle of any kind on that trail is pretty blatantly illegal. But if it is a trail that allows, for example, Stage 1 e-bikes as defined by the new California law, then how is the ranger supposed tell if the bike is actually a Stage 1? They could ask the person and be told that it was a Stage 1 even though it had a 1000 watt motor when the limit is 750 watts. And then that person could post on here about how well the system works.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Except for a sticker, class 1 and class 3 ebikes can look identical. The legislation is really only to make people feel better, it is easily circumvented. I can't imagine ebikes at your local LBS will remain the same for long.

Interesting reading:

The Myth of Ebike Wattage - EbikeSchool.com

Bill Text - AB-1096 Vehicles: electric bicycles.

I ride bikes for fun, and fun generally means faster. If I rode ebikes, you can be certain I would try to get one that had the most power and longest run time. Like this, available now.

e-RAD 750 Watt Mid Drive Conversion Kit Review - ElectricBikeReview.com

Choice quotes from the review:



> This is all very exciting, especially because the 750 watt version featured in this review is also the most powerful (but still legal) option around.





> This kit is powerful and can be unlocked to go quite fast (hitting the upper 30's when using high gears).





> The eRAD kit is available in three sizes as mentioned previously and the 750 watt version covered here is at the top of the heap. It actually doesn't weigh more than the 500 watt version but it does switch to 48 volt power which peaks motor output at 1,300 watts. This is the same as HPC's 1300 watt motor but it's labeled as 750 because that's the nominal rating which adheres to legal restrictions.





> This is one of the only mid-drive systems I know of that even offers throttle mode and I love that it overrides pedal assist because that gives you a sense of control and maneuverability that's perfect for the trail. I often ride in the lower levels assist and then pull the throttle for extra juice when climbing short hills.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

This one was 9000 watts.


----------



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

Velobike said:


> Admission:
> 
> I have an iron in this fire.
> 
> ...


You may be done here but I'd like to point out the fallacy of this argument. If you grow too old and feeble to be able to handle trails with a standard mtb the _last_ thing you need is a motor that enables you to access trails that have technical features and drops. A motor will not compensate for decreased (human) motor skills.

At that point in life a low powered motor-bike and a smooth dirt road will be plenty of excitement, and there are lots of those available.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^And the frail body handle a 50% heavier bike? Right. :skep:


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

This is where I too will depart the discussion as I feel it has gone to the end of its logical course. As we are over 50, generally, we are approaching the period in life where we begin to let go of high risk behaviour and take a broader look at life. As the body becomes less able, the e-bike has great appeal and the likely riding experiences are going to pull back from full blown hard core MTB riding. This is the likely path for those of us in this forum. I rather think that some of you are more concerned about a different group of riders who are picking up on the thrill of power (throttle types). This is making the thread a bit hostile and confusing as it attacks a usually good group of otherwise like minded people.

My Rant for the day. Hope to catch up with you all elsewhere.

Eric


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

LyNx said:


> What the pro e-bike people don't seem to get is that most are not against them, just do not want them classified as a bicycle with MTBs,


I think this sums it up pretty well as far as my point of view. As long as I don't see any degradation of a trail, I could give a damn if you're out there. But if there does end up being any sort of issue with them, I sure as hell ain't willing to get consigned to sticking up for them just to maintain my own long and hard-fought access rights.

As long as nobody pretends e-bikes are the same thing as regular bikes, and that distinction is kept clear so mtb access never comes under the gun for issues that may arise from e-bike use, I say have fun, practice good trail etiquette, and establish yourselves as a responsible user group. Right now, e-bikes are a wild card. I'm going with a wait and see attitude, with some inherent reservations.

That's my official line anyway. 
As a long time crusty-ish mountain biker, I admit I'll always look at e-bikes the way Razor scooter riders are looked at by skateboarders and BMXers. No matter how cool the trick, you're still riding a ****ing scooter.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^Even razor scooters are totally human powered, a distinction that must be maintained. This is bigger than a style thing, this is an attempt to usurp and corrupt our human powered recreational infrastructure with what is arguably just the latest electric moped fad. I would not be so conciliatory at this stage of the game, this is for real.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

bsieb said:


> ^Even razor scooters are totally human powered, a distinction that must be maintained. This is bigger than a style thing,


Agreed, but lets not forget the importance of 'style' in sales.
Just like anybody over the age of 9 should be embarrassed to ride a scooter, anyone that doesn't have some pretty serious physical problems should be a bit embarrassed to ride an e-bike.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Velobike said:


> Summary:
> 
> 1. It appears that in some states of the USA and in many European countries assistive e-bikes are legal to use anywhere an bicycle can go.
> 
> ...


Elitist exclusionists? Hardly. We have a patchwork of land managers and different rules in every state and jurisdiction. We don't have a right to roam and access to any trail at anytime with whatever vehicle, motor or not. The EU is not the USA, different cultural and legal land use policies. Keep your iron in the fire across the pond. In most areas of the USA, there is a clear distinction between hiker/biking trails and motor/ ATV/ ORV trails and recreation areas. Clear. Maybe hard to understand if you are not from this area. We as mountain bikers are just trying to hold onto our tenuous access to our trails. A long hard fought battle for acceptance, not even over yet. Electric motorcycles are just that, they have a MOTOR. Do I need to speak slower? Old ,fat and lazy is not an excuse to circumvent the existing laws in place.


----------



## LadyDi (Apr 17, 2005)

slapheadmofo said:


> Agreed, but lets not forget the importance of 'style' in sales.
> Just like anybody over the age of 9 should be embarrassed to ride a scooter, anyone that doesn't have some pretty serious physical problems should be a bit embarrassed to ride an e-bike.


I have double replaced knees and I wouldn't consider an e-bike on trails. Heck, pushing up hills is my cross-training! Please, no e-bikes on U.S trails.


----------



## OldGringo (Oct 2, 2015)

Eric Malcolm said:


> As the body becomes less able, the e-bike has great appeal and the likely riding experiences are going to pull back from full blown hard core MTB riding. This is the likely path for those of us in this forum.
> 
> I rather think that some of you are more concerned about a different group of riders who are picking up on the thrill of power (throttle types). This is making the thread a bit hostile and confusing as it attacks a usually good group of otherwise like minded people.


Respectfully, I think you're (at least partially) wrong on both points.

#1 - We may tone down our riding a little & take fewer risks as we age (I'm 50 now) , but that doesn't make an e-bike more appealing. Take a poll (or just add up the positive vs negative in this & similar threads) & you'll see that very few here see an e-bike as a natural transition with age.

#2 - Most of the hostility comes from concerns about VERY SPECIFIC ACCESS. Yes, there's some concern that altered e-bikes could do more damage than a MTB, and there's some concern that the limits of power & torque will get pushed within class 1. But the biggest concern BY FAR is that e-bikes (and many of their new-to-the-sport riders) will unwittingly give new ammo to those who are constantly looking to take away hard-fought MTB trail access. Almost no one here cares that there is a growing market for e-bikes...its all about where they'll be used.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

OldGringo said:


> Take a poll & you'll see that very few here see an e-bike as a natural transition with age.


True. As I get creakier I want to keep peddling as much as I can to hold onto the last vestiges of fitness for as long as possible. The exercise is large part of why I cycle.



> Almost no one here cares that there is a growing market for e-bikes...its all about where they'll be used.


Right again. I don't want to get bullied off my nice single-track climbs by lazy clowns on e-bikes. And that's the danger. This generation is so lazy. They'd rather play Fifa on the TV than actually kick a ball and it's these same people who will delight in being able to go mountain biking without having to put in the effort. A whole new group of people will hit the trails without earning the right to be there.


----------



## syl3 (Apr 23, 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> Get off my lawn!!!


fify


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

syl3 said:


> fify


What does fify mean.

Incidentally, there is nothing inherently wrong with not wanting louts on your lawn ;0)


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Mr Pig said:


> True. As I get creakier I want to keep peddling as much as I can to hold onto the last vestiges of fitness for as long as possible. The exercise is large part of why I cycle.
> 
> Right again. I don't want to get bullied off my nice single-track climbs by lazy clowns on e-bikes. And that's the danger. This generation is so lazy. They'd rather play Fifa on the TV than actually kick a ball and it's these same people who will delight in being able to go mountain biking without having to put in the effort. A whole new group of people will hit the trails without earning the right to be there.


 Earning the right to be there....... An interesting approach to access to public lands.

"You are not worthy, you do not belong here. You are not allowed to come to these public spaces that your taxes support unless you do in a way that I approve. Those who do not meet the minimum physical requirements are not welcome."


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

WoodlandHills said:


> "You are not worthy, you do not belong here. You are not allowed to come to these public spaces that your taxes support unless you do in a way that I approve. Those who do not meet the minimum physical requirements are not welcome."


Not really. More like:

"If your loutish behaviour mucks up this great hobby for the the people who've invested years in it then I will happily hammer your baggy ass into the ground like a tent-peg!"


----------



## loopsb (Aug 9, 2004)

Intentionally obtuse


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

WoodlandHills said:


> Earning the right to be there....... An interesting approach to access to public lands.


Trails don't build themselves. Maybe E Bike supporters could build their own instead of feeling entitled to poaching them? Should be able to gleen some valuable insight into the MTBers viewpoint.


----------



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

Electric bikes are an enabling tool for sure, they enable people to circumvent existing laws which in turn enables corporations to boost quarterly earnings.


----------



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

WoodlandHills said:


> Earning the right to be there....... An interesting approach to access to public lands.
> 
> "You are not worthy, you do not belong here. You are not allowed to come to these public spaces that your taxes support unless you do in a way that I approve. Those who do not meet the minimum physical requirements are not welcome."


Damn straight^ but I weigh far too much to ride an electric motorbike, I'd crush that puppy! I fit just fine in my Hummer though..... public lands! Out of my effing way!!!


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

... get off my lawn ...


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

andytiedye said:


> ... get off my trail ...


FIFY, you're welcome!


----------



## Capt.Ogg (Jun 5, 2015)

tiretracks said:


> Trails don't build themselves. Maybe E Bike supporters could build their own instead of feeling entitled to poaching them?


I wonder what trails first MTBrs rode..

Back to the topic. I'm interested in all kinds of new transportation devices and I've been following some ebike groups and yes, ebikes seem to be good enabling tools for unfit people. They will actually get off the couch and start easy with ebikes. You know how it goes with exercise, start too hard and interest will die quickly. Mostly they are commuting or riding bike paths, but as they are getting fitter some might even try local trails.

E-mountainbike Magazine had recently a reader survey, and you get a pretty good picture of who buys e-mtbs (note: survey participants are almost all European).

You can read the latest issue free. They have also tested the latest bikes, good chance to read what these bikes are all about:
Viewer | E-MOUNTAINBIKE Magazine


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

That would be logging roads and animal tracks 


Capt.Ogg said:


> I wonder what trails first MTBrs rode..


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Capt.Ogg said:


> I wonder what trails first MTBrs rode..


Dirt roads and motorcycle trails and then guess what? We started building our own.


----------



## OldGringo (Oct 2, 2015)

loopsb said:


> Intentionally obtuse


Exactly. My compliments for summarizing our entire experience with Woodlands & his handful of sympathizers in a mere two words.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> Earning the right to be there....... An interesting approach to access to public lands.
> 
> "You are not worthy, you do not belong here. You are not allowed to come to these public spaces that your taxes support unless you do in a way that I approve. Those who do not meet the minimum physical requirements are not welcome."


 " You are not allowed to use a motor on a trail designated for hiker/biker access" It is illegal. Rules are for everybody, don't like them, change them. Or vote for someone who will. Welcome to the USA. Or just go to the EU.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

The interesting argument (aka Red Herring), is still the multiple gear argument. That somehow having gears is just like having a motor and therefore, if gears are allowed a motor should be. 

Seriously? You proponents can make that connection with a straight face? Oye!


----------



## Derek200 (Jun 16, 2015)

They should make a motorized mountain bike that has a sprayer, tank and sprayer motor on it for trail maintenance


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

What percentage of the people against e-bikes have ever actually ridden one? Close to zero. 

Enough said. Until you have ridden one, it is just your imagination and perceived bias, which means nothing. Riding a pedal assist ebike is EXACTLY like riding a non-assisted bike, it is just a little heavier, and goes uphill easier. Same sensations, same skills. Go ride a 35 lb MTB from the 80's, then jump on your 22 lb carbon hardtail. Wheew, the 22 lb hardtail is so much easier to pedal uphill. It is kind of like having...AN ASSIST! Wow. 

No difference.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

honkinunit said:


> What percentage of the people against e-bikes have ever actually ridden one? Close to zero.


I've never ridden an elephant but I don't want those on the trails either. Enough said.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I've ridden one. 

As explained a bunch of times already (and willfully ignored every time), it's not OUR perception that is the main problem for a lot of us, it's the perception of those that don't want any bikes on trails. Why should we now be put in a position to act as diplomats and apologists for motorized users in order to keep our own hard-fought access rights? Lots of effort has been put in to making sure the distinction between human powered and motorized is very clear in the minds of LMs. Please explain how e-bikes don't affect this in any way. 

Or just continue to pretend no one has brought this up and it's not a legitimate concern.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

slapheadmofo said:


> Lots of effort has been put in to making sure the distinction between human powered and motorized is very clear in the minds of LMs. Please explain how e-bikes don't affect this in any way.
> 
> Or just continue to pretend no one has brought this up and it's not a legitimate concern.


Don't hold your breath.


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

Mr Pig said:


> I've never ridden an elephant but I don't want those on the trails either. Enough said.


Mr Pig just won the internets!!

Quote Originally Posted by vadimhellbike View Post
I am putting my 2XL tires on two ebikes that can go up to 38mph, but I usually ride at 30-34mph. I am using Bud & Lou tires at 28psi for this task now and they do well at speed. Not the most practical tire choice, I know.

The motor supplier had to make custom axles (I circled the 190mm shoulder):

This was posted by an E Bike rider in another sub. Do I really want to be on the trails with this dude coming at me, wonder if he has the skill to handle it at such speeds?


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

bdundee said:


> Mr Pig just won the internets!!
> 
> Quote Originally Posted by vadimhellbike View Post
> I am putting my 2XL tires on two ebikes that can go up to 38mph, but I usually ride at 30-34mph. I am using Bud & Lou tires at 28psi for this task now and they do well at speed. Not the most practical tire choice, I know.
> ...


Oh come on! He can go 38mph and he's backing off to 30-34mph. Of course he's in control.



Mr Pig said:


> I've never ridden an elephant but I don't want those on the trails either. Enough said.


If it's open to horses, you can ride a donkey or a mule. Maybe it's legal to ride an elephant. I just talked to 6 people the other day and they said they would love to ride elephants on singletrack. One of them said his girlfriend wouldn't go mountain biking, but he thought she would really like riding an elephant.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

honkinunit said:


> What percentage of the people against e-bikes have ever actually ridden one? Close to zero.
> 
> Enough said. Until you have ridden one, it is just your imagination and perceived bias, which means nothing. Riding a pedal assist ebike is EXACTLY like riding a non-assisted bike, it is just a little heavier, and goes uphill easier. Same sensations, same skills. Go ride a 35 lb MTB from the 80's, then jump on your 22 lb carbon hardtail. Wheew, the 22 lb hardtail is so much easier to pedal uphill. It is kind of like having...AN ASSIST! Wow.
> 
> No difference.


Motor vs No motor. Very clear. I still ride my 32 lb mt bike from the 90's.


----------



## Big Fil (Nov 5, 2014)

No Motor Vehicles period. Can we throw DI2 in with that?:thumbsup:


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

Growing up it usually went something like this: hmmmm this thing needs a motor, Shane get some more beer, Fred find the biggest motor you can, and I'll get the torch and welder. Then the last hold my beer and watch this. $hit never ended well, fun though.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

slapheadmofo said:


> I've ridden one.
> 
> As explained a bunch of times already (and willfully ignored every time), it's not OUR perception that is the main problem for a lot of us, it's the perception of those that don't want any bikes on trails. Why should we now be put in a position to act as diplomats and apologists for motorized users in order to keep our own hard-fought access rights? Lots of effort has been put in to making sure the distinction between human powered and motorized is very clear in the minds of LMs. Please explain how e-bikes don't affect this in any way.
> 
> Or just continue to pretend no one has brought this up and it's not a legitimate concern.


Gee, I guess there might actually have to be some communication and education about the reality of ebikes. That's terrible.

Remember a long, long time ago (maybe five years) when cell phones didn't have cameras? Many, many public venues had bans on bringing a camera into the facility. Museums, sporting facilities, movie theaters, etc. But guess what? Pretty soon, every cell phone had a camera. The venues had to make adjustments. They had to allow cameras, but restrict their use.

Today, there are trails that are "non-motorized", but they accommodate people with motorized wheelchairs. If you see someone in a motorized wheelchair on a trail or boardwalk, do you run up to them and castigate and threaten them because the sign says NO motorized vehicles?

The same concept applies to ebikes. An ebike ridden as an ebike is meant to be ridden, is NO DIFFERENT than a mountain bike on the same trail. Zero difference. An ebike is not a motorcycle, never has been and never will be. There ARE electric motorcycles, but they are ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES, not ebikes. Rather than kneejerk bans, we should work toward accepting the usual enforcement of good behavior on trails, regardless of the type of bicycle.

Your argument boils down to this :"The people where I live are too stupid to tell the difference between an ebike and motorcycle, therefore, we must ban ebikes."


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

honkinunit said:


> Gee, I guess there might actually have to be some communication and education about the reality of ebikes. That's terrible.
> 
> Remember a long, long time ago (maybe five years) when cell phones didn't have cameras? Many, many public venues had bans on bringing a camera into the facility. Museums, sporting facilities, movie theaters, etc. But guess what? Pretty soon, every cell phone had a camera. The venues had to make adjustments. They had to allow cameras, but restrict their use.
> 
> ...


How frequently do you see a wheelchair shredding single track? I can't recall having ever seen one. That makes your argument even more so ridiculous than all the other diversionary nonsense that Ebike proponents throw out hoping it sticks.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^ honkinunit- And your argument boils down to "I'm too stupid to understand the difference between a motorized bike and a human powered bike, therefore I must be allowed to use the human powered trails on my motor bike.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

honkinunit said:


> Gee, I guess there might actually have to be some communication and education about the reality of ebikes. That's terrible.
> 
> Remember a long, long time ago (maybe five years) when cell phones didn't have cameras? Many, many public venues had bans on bringing a camera into the facility. Museums, sporting facilities, movie theaters, etc. But guess what? Pretty soon, every cell phone had a camera. The venues had to make adjustments. They had to allow cameras, but restrict their use.
> 
> ...


So, are you saying that e-"bikes" are an equivalent to a motorized wheelchair?

If so, do you believe that you are entitled to an ADA exemption, then?

If so, what is your disability?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

honkinunit said:


> Your argument boils down to this :"The people where I live are too stupid to tell the difference between an ebike and motorcycle, therefore, we must ban ebikes."


No, my 'argument' is that I know for a fact that there are people all over the place that are too stupid to tell the difference between a pedal bike and a full on motocross bike (or at least are willing to pretend they are if it fits their agenda).

I've spent a good few years of my life making sure that the people in charge of deciding where I can or can't ride a bicycle are well aware of the difference, which basically boils down to 'one has a motor, one is strictly human powered'. The amount of times I had to reiterate that point was ridiculous. Defining the activity as 'human powered' and 'passive' carry huge weight as far as access goes. E-bikes would never pass muster as far as this litmus test goes, which is why they can't be lumped in with actual MTBs.

Personally, I'm all done with sitting in meeting after meeting answering to nasty old pony-tailed hippies make all sorts of wild accusations and claims about MTB 'issues'. I've actually been on trails where supposed 'expert environmentalists' pointed to obvious ATV damage and tried to pin it on MTBs. Thousands of emails and hundreds of hours and meetings and trail walks and then years of trail work and maintenance later, I for one am not willing to go through all that again in order to defend the use of something I could care less about. I suggest e-bikers show some respect and appreciation for those that have been in the access trenches for a long time and created the infrastructure they're looking to start using by not acting like a bunch of entitled d-bags who don't care if they piss all over the MTB community's well-earned access situation.

I really don't care if you ride an e-bike, as long as it's got it's own separate definition in the rules. That way, you can spend your own time "communicating and educating" LMs about them without dragging me into it, or getting me screwed out of access if you don't do as good of a job as I did. Why the big fear of standing up on your own e-feet? Why do you feel the need to have to hide behind the skirt of MTB as far as access goes?

And please, stop with the disabled angle; it's total BS and you all know it. The law already provides for people with actual disabilities; they can use pretty much any vehicle they want almost anywhere they want. E-bikes are and have been legal for them to take almost anywhere for years and years.

I think it's sad how little a lot of people seem to know about trail access and advocacy. Everyone seems to think trails just happen, or some government agency shits them out all over the place. Totally clueless.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> I've ridden one.
> 
> As explained a bunch of times already (and willfully ignored every time), it's not OUR perception that is the main problem for a lot of us, it's the perception of those that don't want any bikes on trails. Why should we now be put in a position to act as diplomats and apologists for motorized users in order to keep our own hard-fought access rights? Lots of effort has been put in to making sure the distinction between human powered and motorized is very clear in the minds of LMs. Please explain how e-bikes don't affect this in any way.
> 
> Or just continue to pretend no one has brought this up and it's not a legitimate concern.


It really all comes down to this. I think ebikes are pretty cool, but there's no way that the presence of them on NON-MOTORIZED single track will make keeping that single track legal for bikes and do anything but confuse the issue when MTB groups have to lobby for increased access. Which they do, all the time. As well as put out fires caused by bikers already. It's a constant struggle.

For me, it's not about the impact of them today, I'll agree that it's minimal with the current bikes. But, it's already easy to build kit bikes that are "legal" under the current legislation that are more powerful than the regulations. It'll be worse next year and the year after that and ..... There's plenty of places for them that are appropriate already. You can even go to Crested Butte with your human powered bike buddies and ride some iconic mtb trails.

Grand Mesa Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests - OHV Riding & Camping:OHV Trail Riding


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Welnic said:


> One of them said his girlfriend wouldn't go mountain biking, but he thought she would really like riding an elephant.


Maybe if you saw his girlfriend it would make sense.


----------



## alphazz (Oct 12, 2012)

tiretracks said:


> Trails don't build themselves. Maybe E Bike supporters could build their own instead of feeling entitled to poaching them? Should be able to gleen some valuable insight into the MTBers viewpoint.


I don't know anything about Linden, but in Wyoming, most of the trails are old roads created by motorized vehicles where only in the last twenty years of this earth's history has it become ecologically bad to do anything more than walk, ride a horse, or in some cases ride a bicycle on.


----------



## OldGringo (Oct 2, 2015)

honkinunit said:


> What percentage of the people against e-bikes have ever actually ridden one? Close to zero.
> 
> Enough said. Until you have ridden one, it is just your imagination and perceived bias, which means nothing. Riding a pedal assist ebike is EXACTLY like riding a non-assisted bike, it is just a little heavier, and goes uphill easier. Same sensations, same skills. Go ride a 35 lb MTB from the 80's, then jump on your 22 lb carbon hardtail. Wheew, the 22 lb hardtail is so much easier to pedal uphill. It is kind of like having...AN ASSIST! Wow.
> 
> No difference.


Post that claims an e-bike is "EXACTLY like" riding a MTB & then proceeds to point out some of the differences makes me scratch my head a little. In the words of Cal Naughton Jr..."I'm a little confused by your tactics"


----------



## OldGringo (Oct 2, 2015)

honkinunit said:


> Remember a long, long time ago (maybe five years) when cell phones didn't have cameras? Many, many public venues had bans on bringing a camera into the facility. Museums, sporting facilities, movie theaters, etc. But guess what? Pretty soon, every cell phone had a camera. The venues had to make adjustments. They had to allow cameras, but restrict their use.
> 
> Today, there are trails that are "non-motorized", but they accommodate people with motorized wheelchairs. If you see someone in a motorized wheelchair on a trail or boardwalk, do you run up to them and castigate and threaten them because the sign says NO motorized vehicles?


Awkward transition from the cell phone camera analogy, but it was a decent attempt to lay some groundwork. Then you kinda fell apart by ignoring the real issues & trying to bring a protected class into a debate.


----------



## OldGringo (Oct 2, 2015)

NEMBA asks IMBA to clarify position on electric bikes - Mtbr.com


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

In this thread I learned:

There should be quotas for trail usage, since if e-bikes increase trail usage, it's bad....so if mountain biking picks up in your area it'll produce the same increase in trail usage, which is bad.

There should be speed limits on all trails to prevent trail conflicts, since apparently every e-bike user is going to be maxing it out and riding out of control and creating trail conflicts....like some mountain bikers do.

There should be a fitness limit on mountain bikers...since we certainly can't allow anyone to put down more than 300-400w of power because of possible trail damage.

A lot of people are really scared of being passed on the trail.

When I think about what I'd do if I found myself on an e-bike, it wouldn't be riding like an *******...mostly because I'm not an *******. Maybe the people who make the assumptions about what everyone else would do should take a look at themselves instead of projecting so much.


----------



## OldGringo (Oct 2, 2015)

richde said:


> In this thread I learned:
> 
> There should be quotas for trail usage, since if e-bikes increase trail usage, it's bad....so if mountain biking picks up in your area it'll produce the same increase in trail usage, which is bad.
> 
> ...


As many have tried to point out in this & other related threads, the real issue is MTB trail access. Lots of folks have fought hard to get & keep trail access and e-bikes could pose a threat to that. All other concerns are secondary and all the crap you "learned" is just you choosing to pick those things out of 400+ comments.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

richde said:


> In this thread I learned:
> 
> Nothing


FIFY. You're welcome!


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

OldGringo said:


> As many have tried to point out in this & other related threads, the real issue is MTB trail access. Lots of folks have fought hard to get & keep trail access and e-bikes could pose a threat to that. All other concerns are secondary and all the crap you "learned" is just you choosing to pick those things out of 400+ comments.


They pose the same risk as any other mountain bike.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

richde said:


> They pose the same risk as any other mountain bike.


Sorry, but you seem to have missed the point entirely.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

slapheadmofo said:


> Sorry, but you seem to have missed the point entirely.


No, every complaint lodged is exactly the same as for any other mountain bike. It's been pointed out numerous times.

The one missing the point is you.

At this point, I couldn't care less about ebikes...but if time and/or injury force me onto one in order to ride a typical trail, and it was legal, I'd do it and I know that I'd be less of a "hazard" on the trails than I am right now. Because, like I pointed out, I don't ride like an ******* now, so why would I turn into one in a future where I'm less capable than I am now?

Just because you NEMBA people have decided to institute a purity test because you'd be butthurt about people passing you on climbs doesn't mean that we all feel the same.


----------



## OldGringo (Oct 2, 2015)

richde said:


> No, every complaint lodged is exactly the same as for any other mountain bike. It's been pointed out numerous times.
> 
> The one missing the point is you.
> 
> ...


I don't belong to any MTB organizations. About all I can say for myself is that I've helped maintain a trail. However, much of the MTB trail access we have now is because of people & organizations that took the time to attend meetings, write letters, mark & maintain trails, etc. You don't have to support any of those people or organizations but it would be nice if you at least didn't speak against them.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

richde said:


> No, every complaint lodged is exactly the same as for any other mountain bike. It's been pointed out numerous times.
> 
> The one missing the point is you.
> 
> ...


It ain't about complaints, it's about the MOTOR. Quit talking **** about mtb people.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

richde said:


> No, every complaint lodged is exactly the same as for any other mountain bike. It's been pointed out numerous times.
> 
> The one missing the point is you.
> 
> ...


NEMBA? No Electric Motor Bikes Allowed? Where do we sign up?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

richde said:


> No, every complaint lodged is exactly the same as for any other mountain bike. It's been pointed out numerous times.
> 
> The one missing the point is you.
> 
> ...


Tough time with the ol' reading comprehension huh?
Oh well, can't fix stupid.
And feel free to go **** yourself, as long as you're insisting on being a presumptuous d-bag who doesn't even bother to consider what someone has actually said before rambling on about some unrelated BS.


----------



## richde (Jun 8, 2004)

OldGringo said:


> I don't belong to any MTB organizations. About all I can say for myself is that I've helped maintain a trail. However, much of the MTB trail access we have now is because of people & organizations that took the time to attend meetings, write letters, mark & maintain trails, etc. You don't have to support any of those people or organizations but it would be nice if you at least didn't speak against them.


I do belong to a MTB organization, and I do help maintain and even create trails, so you can start by getting off of your high horse.

When people are being stupid, they should be called out for it. Lodging the same complaints that are used about any other mountain bike is stupid.

In case you haven't been paying attention, NEMBA derp has been spammed all over this forum (and probably ever other forum they could find) demanding that IMBA come out against ebikes. If people took the trouble of looking at the IMBA position, they're neutral about it, in the same way that they're neutral about any other trail user group except when their interests align. IMBA doesn't want to unnecessarily limit other users in the same way that they wouldn't want other users to do the same. If (and/or where) laws allow ebikes to be used on trails, the interests would align, if they don't, they don't. Furthermore, the "I" in IMBA stands for "International," so since ebikes are legal in other countries, demanding that IMBA act as if it was "USMBA" is either flat out ignorance or simply an excuse to create a conflict for the sake of conflict...so they should be informed about their ignorance.


----------



## OldGringo (Oct 2, 2015)

richde said:


> I do belong to a MTB organization, and I do help maintain and even create trails, so you can start by getting off of your high horse.
> 
> When people are being stupid, they should be called out for it. Lodging the same complaints that are used about any other mountain bike is stupid.
> 
> In case you haven't been paying attention, NEMBA derp has been spammed all over this forum (and probably ever other forum they could find) demanding that IMBA come out against ebikes. If people took the trouble of looking at the IMBA position, they're neutral about it, in the same way that they're neutral about any other trail user group except when their interests align. IMBA doesn't want to unnecessarily limit other users in the same way that they wouldn't want other users to do the same. If (and/or where) laws allow ebikes to be used on trails, the interests would align, if they don't, they don't. Furthermore, the "I" in IMBA stands for "International," so since ebikes are legal in other countries, demanding that IMBA act as if it was "USMBA" is either flat out ignorance or simply an excuse to create a conflict for the sake of conflict...so they should be informed about their ignorance.


I give up brother...you ride on your way and I'll ride on mine.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

IMBA position referenced above...

"IMBA's informal poll of its affiliates in Europe, Australia, Canada, and 
South Africa were unanimous in agreement that e-Bikes are motorized and 
therefore when utilized off-road should be regulated as with other motorized 
off-road travel."

IMBA seems emphatic to maintain the distinction between ebikes and mtbs in the position paper.


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

bsieb said:


> IMBA position referenced above...
> 
> "IMBA's informal poll of its affiliates in Europe, Australia, Canada, and
> South Africa were unanimous in agreement that e-Bikes are motorized and
> ...


Their position seems pretty clear.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Whats your opinion on Handicap riders that need a e bike to ride???


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

There are legal exceptions for handicapped access and have been for a long time.It's a non-issue. Been covered in depth in a number of threads, including this one.

Basic facts and requirements of Department of Justice Rule on Other Power Driven Mobility Devices


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

rider95 said:


> Whats your opinion on Handicap riders that need a e bike to ride???


I think it should be the same as parking cars, they should be given badges that let them ride on trails that are otherwise closed to electric bikes.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

rider95 said:


> Whats your opinion on Handicap riders that need a e bike to ride???


If you follow this line of thought it leads to: trails should be paved and all obstacles removed.

chaz


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Mr Pig said:


> I think it should be the same as parking cars, they should be given badges that let them ride on trails that are otherwise closed to electric bikes.


That's pretty much how it works in the US. But they're not limited to e-bikes, they can take almost any vehicle they want almost anywhere they want unless land managers have proactively gone through the process that allows them to deny access.

I think you'd have to be a dick to want to deny handicapped use of e-bikes. 
But there's no shortage of ***** around.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

chazpat said:


> If you follow this line of thought it leads to: trails should be paved and all obstacles removed.
> 
> chaz


You obviously don't know any handicapped athletes.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> There are legal exceptions for handicapped access and have been for a long time.It's a non-issue. Been covered in depth in a number of threads, including this one.
> 
> Basic facts and requirements of Department of Justice Rule on Other Power Driven Mobility Devices


What I find scary in this:

In short an other power-driven mobility device is anything with a motor that can be driven, regardless of size or horsepower, if it is driven by a person who has a mobility related disability.

A person using an other power-driven mobility device may be asked to provide a "credible assurance" that the mobility device is required because of the person's disability. That credible assurance can be showing a valid, State-issued, disability parking placard or card, or other State-issued proof of disability, or if the person doesn't have any of those with them, they may simply say that the other power-driven mobility device is being used for a mobility disability.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Yup. Someone can show up with an ATV, say they're disabled, and hit the hiking trails.

There is a little bit of a hitch that works in our favor though ('our' as in strictly human-powered bikers). This access only has to be granted to trails that are designated as 'hiking' trails. Designated mountain biking or equestrian trails don't fall under this guidelines. So, ironically, someone wanting to use an e-bike as an OPMD must be allowed to access designated hiking trails, but can be excluded from designated mountain biking trails.

A trail can have only one primary designated use, though it can have multiple 'managed' uses. For example, a designated hiking trail may also allow biking and horseback riding as managed uses. Likewise, a designated 'mountain biking' trail will likely also have hiking as a managed use.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

Mr Pig said:


> I heard that bears actively target and kill people on eBikes in preference to all other prey. It's what I heard, they are sensitive to bad vibes or something.
> 
> Cougars don't do that yet but training is scheduled.


It's because their meat is marbled.


----------



## PinoyMTBer (Nov 21, 2013)

Boomchakabowwow said:


> not for me..YET.
> STORY:
> i grew up riding motorcycles. i went 8 years living in SF with no car, just a motorcycle. i carried some stupid stuff with that bike. mostly 600CC sportbikes. most notable..was a 10 foot long 2x4. like a joust..i rode down the street.  like an idiot.really, but i got it done.
> 
> ...


You're so right!


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

In the real world I have had nothing but good times with the e-bike movement around my parts. I have seen them help riders who could no longer pedal as they used to. Basically keeping them on the trails these riders are very happy to not have to give up their sport.

From a personal view they fit in between Moto and MTB for me.


----------



## rancher52 (Aug 16, 2019)

e=bikes are great tools as a 65 old disabled person I can travel the trails and enjoy life. Stop blaming e-bikes and blame a society of rude, zero respect and zero responsibility. Riding bike for 40 years theres plenty of rude pedal only cyclist.


----------



## Streetdoctor (Oct 14, 2011)

😂😂😂😂😂 so much hate here. E-bikes are legal almost everywhere in the front range. Never had anyone talk **** in person. My FTP is well over 300 and my VO2max is 60. Come at me bro 🤣 For some of us bikes are about having fun, and ebikes are fun.


----------



## Dirthugger (Mar 27, 2007)

To me theres a bigger problem with ebikes. If you are a person that believe in climate change and reducing carbon footprint but you bought an ev bike, then your hypocrisy is evident. Bicycles are the cleanest and healthiest form of transportation and now we simply added c02 emission because some people are too lazy to get fit? Please do your research on extraction of Lithium Brine and process of batteries not to mention disposal. So the next time you start complaining about climate change, you are a contributor to the problem. Its already bad enough that California is implementing another extreme decisions to phase out fossil automobiles. We cannot continue this path it is unsustainable.


----------



## Streetdoctor (Oct 14, 2011)

Dirthugger said:


> To me theres a bigger problem with ebikes. If you are a person that believe in climate change and reducing carbon footprint but you bought an ev bike, then your hypocrisy is evident. Bicycles are the cleanest and healthiest form of transportation and now we simply added c02 emission because some people are too lazy to get fit? Please do your research on extraction of Lithium Brine and process of batteries not to mention disposal. So the next time you start complaining about climate change, you are a contributor to the problem. Its already bad enough that California is implementing another extreme decisions to phase out fossil automobiles. We cannot continue this path it is unsustainable.


man if you're getting as nit-picky as ebikes then the rest of your life style must be dialed! Good for you if that's the case. That's a whole other can of worms you're opening... hopefully you didn't type that reply from your smart phone!


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

Dirthugger said:


> To me theres a bigger problem with ebikes. If you are a person that believe in climate change and reducing carbon footprint but you bought an ev bike, then your hypocrisy is evident. Bicycles are the cleanest and healthiest form of transportation and now we simply added c02 emission because some people are too lazy to get fit? Please do your research on extraction of Lithium Brine and process of batteries not to mention disposal. So the next time you start complaining about climate change, you are a contributor to the problem. Its already bad enough that California is implementing another extreme decisions to phase out fossil automobiles. We cannot continue this path it is unsustainable.





Streetdoctor said:


> man if you're getting as nit-picky as ebikes then the rest of your life style must be dialed! Good for you if that's the case. ... hopefully you didn't type that reply from your smart phone!


Holy thread resurrection Batman!

Oh no, no hypocrisy there, I'm sure. Charges their electronics using solar power. Vehicles probably run on bio diesel. I'm sure they don't have kids either... One of the worst things you can do to the planet.

Btw, I have a 3.6 kwh solar panel system. It generates quiet a bit of excess energy into the grid. I actually have a negative carbon footprint, so I get a pass, right?


----------

