# Should E-bikes be permitted on trails?



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Should E-bikes be permitted on trails?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

It's interesting to note that at 51 minutes in there has coincidentally been 51 views but only 9 votes.

Sort of means there's a lot of people in the "undecided" category. (or to frickin' lazy to vote)

And I'm surprised with the early "Yes" lead! (5 yes to 4 no as I type this)


----------



## Sean Allan (May 4, 2005)

This is pretty unscientific as I was just able to vote again......I voted both ways so a wash


----------



## PauLCa916 (Jul 1, 2013)

Myself I really had to think about this before I voted.
After much thought I figured who am I to deprive anyone from using public land key word being public.
I feel the same way about the Horse vs. Mountain bikes. 
I feel we have to share the trails if we like it or not.
Unless it's Private land then that's a different story.
Now I do have a selfish side of me that wants the trails all to ourselves with no horses or e bikes and everyone rides one direction but I know that's not right.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Sean Allan said:


> This is pretty unscientific as I was just able to vote again......I voted both ways so a wash


Hmmm???

Thanks for your "honesty" but you should vote your conscience. I wonder how often that double-vote glitch shows up? I've never had it happen to me.

Do you have a double identity? Do you have a double identity?


----------



## Menso (Jun 2, 2004)

Paul, that's just the kumbaya bay area attitude infiltrating your brain. In a lot of places around the world, single direction bike-only trails are a reality and do a fine job of eliminating perceived conflict and providing fun biking experience. Maybe it's not feasible here, and there is definitely a philosophical opposition to bike-only fun in California, even if built in parallel to existing hiking trails.


----------



## locoyokel (Mar 9, 2008)

Probably what we'd really want is 3 categories:

Yes 
No
It depends/Case-by-case

Obviously some stuff like Downieville is a no-brainer since (most) of those trails are motorcycle trails to begin with. Other stuff like Coe is so remote and low traffic that it would not likely have any effect (except maybe make it easier to tell the trail from a deer path if ebikes increased traffic a bit!). But a few abusive ebike riders at high traffic stuff like Fremont Older could easily get the whole place shut to all bikes. And perhaps the combination of heavier folks on heavier bikes might lead to increased trail degradation at steeper spots like Demo.

But it's also pretty obvious that ebikes are dead in the water when it comes to the opinion of many land managers and other user groups, and that support by the mountain biking community for ebikes could well end up closing areas to all bikes. So regardless of many of our (justifiably mixed) opinions, as a community we'd better come out against ebikes in general in order to avoid getting lumped in with motorcycles and banned outright.

So on that note, guess I'll go up and click "No"…although I don't really care that much either way...just because some land managers probably read these kind of polls.


----------



## Leopold Porkstacker (Apr 21, 2010)

No matter how many beers I drink, no matter how depressed my mental state is capable of becoming (have had some deep issues lately), I still cannot drag myself down to having something else motivating me forward other than my two legs.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Define e-bike.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Axe said:


> Define e-bike.


Here we go again!

I tried to craft a more comprehensive poll but the gods at MTBR wouldn't let a poll with more than 2 choices be created.

Besides a "not at all" choice I had 3 arbitrary "E-bike" categories to chose from:

Limited to the 250 watt "Euro" standard (must be pedaled aka "pedelec")

Limited to the 1000 watt "California" standard (could have throttle input)

Limited only by having functioning pedals and a storage battery as the electrical power source (one step below an electric motorcycle)​
If FC fixes the poll engine we could choose an "acceptable" power rating; 250, 350, 500, 750 and 1000 watt are the most common "standards" throughout the world.


----------



## starvingdavid (Oct 25, 2010)

I saw a guy on one for the Kennedy Thanksgiving day ride, it didn't look like much fun at all, but I guess its better than sitting on the couch.


----------



## CruzSS (Feb 5, 2004)

*So why stop at e-bikes?*

When bikes with motors are allowed on the trails where will it end? How big a motor? What fuel? Is the only argument against larger gas motors noise, or is it erosion? 
Why make people buy that expensive, but not all that capable, $8000 e-mountain bike when you can buy a Honda CRF150 for $5000 or a Chinese knockoff for less than $2000? 
So the issue for me is: Where are we going with this? 
Once you allow a motor-powered bike on the trail, people wanting larger motors (or cheaper options than electric) are going to lobby for their vehicle of choice. 
Keep the trails human-powered otherwise we will look back in 5-10 years and wonder where our bike access went.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

CruzSS said:


> Why make people buy that expensive, but not all that capable, $8000 e-mountain bike when you can buy a Honda CRF150 for $5000 or a Chinese knockoff for less than $2000?
> So the issue for me is: Where are we going with this?


Independent of the poll, this is a great question.


----------



## Hardtale (Sep 10, 2014)

^Torn on the question. If it was simply a matter of providing access for folks in need it would be pretty easy but the slippery slope cannot be ignored.

Regardless of how any regulations are worded, in my eyes modification is inevitable. The element that already gives ammunition to user groups opposed to mtb access could be a significant negative factor for those considering future access questions.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

E-bikes should be permitted on any trail that allows motorized access. No others.


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

Allowing e bikes on trails will lead to more bike miles on trails, more users and as such will lead to increased impacts and increased problems.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Old Ray said:


> E-bikes should be permitted on any trail that allows motorized access. No others.


All trails, including wilderness, should allow motorized and any other access that is non invasive and non destructive. 500w limit electric assist meets that definition. Horseback riding does not.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

donutnational said:


> Allowing bikes on trails will lead to more bike miles on trails, more users and as such will lead to increased impacts and increased problems.


Now remove e from your statement.

More people on trails is a great thing.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

Axe said:


> Now remove e from your statement.
> 
> More people on trails is a great thing.


Take motor from the front of cycle doesn't make a bike. A turd by any other name still smells like ****. Sadly, more people on trails means more A-holes on trails. The stories you hear from crowded trail systems such as the Bay Area are generally bad, especially regarding different groups of trail users. The stories from the folks that chime in from less crowded areas tend to be more cordial between user groups.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Use Survey Monkey for a better poll. I won't vote this one because I only want pedelecs on the trails.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Buzzaro said:


> Take motor from the front of cycle doesn't make a bike. A turd by any other name still smells like ****. Sadly, more people on trails means more A-holes on trails. The stories you hear from crowded trail systems such as the Bay Area are generally bad, especially regarding different groups of trail users. The stories from the folks that chime in from less crowded areas tend to be more cordial between user groups.


Would you be open to allowing these on remote trails that don't have daily users? Or is your mind shut on this?


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

I pose the question of how long will we keep the "trails" only "human powered"? 1000 years? 2, 4, 20000, 100,000 years? In 9 billion years, the sign at Skeggs will still disallow motos that created the trails and force mtbs to 15mph or lower?

In 20 years, when humans can wear exoskeletons and can walk/run/jump (and or allow handicaps to do same), will we stupidly still say no to 'motorized.

In 200 years when we have things like starwars jet bikes or B2TF hover boards, these too will be disallowed on trails? "so sorry, your device makes no noise and has no impact on the trails, BUTTTTTT, it has a motor, so you can't go on my trails...earn your turns and stuff. "if you can't climb up this hill on your own, you don't belong here...

In the end, there is no real reason to change with the times is there?
Connecticut enacts first speed-limit law ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/21/1901
Should have just kept things to 12-15mph everywhere...


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

starvingdavid said:


> I saw a guy on one for the Kennedy Thanksgiving day ride, it didn't look like much fun at all, but I guess its better than sitting on the couch.


Hopefully, his being on this didn't adversely affect your ride and enjoyment of the event.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Independent of the poll, this is a great question.


No, it's not. If you read the HOHAs, they use the same lame slippery slope argument and include bikes in their argument (i.e. first you let bikes in, then e-bikes, then motorcycles, then Mercedez 6x6...). The slippery slope argument is never a good one. It's used when one can't argue on the facts.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

rensho said:


> I pose the question of how long will we keep the "trails" only "human powered"? 1000 years? 2, 4, 20000, 100,000 years? In 9 billion years, the sign at Skeggs will still disallow motos that created the trails and force mtbs to 15mph or lower?
> 
> In 20 years, when humans can wear exoskeletons and can walk/run/jump (and or allow handicaps to do same), will we stupidly still say no to 'motorized.
> 
> ...


Let's cross the futurama bridge when we come to it, eh? 
Right now, in NorCal, you have a dedicated group of bike-haters salivating at the idea that a mtb group might advocate for e-bikes.

That is what's on the top of their Holiday wish-list, for sure.


----------



## Hardtale (Sep 10, 2014)

rensho said:


> "so sorry, your device makes no noise and has no impact on the trails, BUTTTTTT, it has a motor, so you can't go on my trails...


In the scenario you created I agree. Under existing technology, if the bikes could reasonably be limited to pedelecs I would agree as it seems there would be no additional impact. And more people on the trail, especially an under served segment of the community would be a generally good argument for gaining more access.

Unfortunately I cannot see a reasonable way of limiting the power of e-bikes and I fear more powerful (and more than likely modified) bikes will have a negative impact by anyone's standard, not only the standard of those already in opposition.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

rensho said:


> Would you be open to allowing these on remote trails that don't have daily users? Or is your mind shut on this?


My point was just because you call it something else doesn't change what it actually is. In this case, a motorized vehicle. So no, I'm not open to allowing them on non-motorized trails. 
Now that being said, I'll change the question a little an answer it again. Do I think they will have a huge impact and create user conflict in remote areas? No again. 
I just call a spade a spade don't like semantics games.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Buzzaro said:


> The stories you hear from crowded trail systems such as the Bay Area are generally bad, especially regarding different groups of trail users.


I ride and run on Bay Area, and only a few bits are actually crowded - maybe because too few people have endurance to make it out further away from the trailhead; and I do not hear any bad stories except for those completely made up by some equestrians and HOHAs. You can pedal a bit further and do not see any people for hours - in the crowded Bay Area.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

zorg said:


> The slippery slope argument is never a good one. It's used when one can't argue on the facts.


Yep.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Buzzaro said:


> My point was just because you call it something else doesn't change what it actually is. In this case, a motorized vehicle. So no, I'm not open to allowing them on non-motorized trails.


So you do not see a difference between a 500w pedal assist and and 40hp throttle motorbike? They are one and the same?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Here is the rub: independent of the rights for trails access, supporting motorized or assisted cycles on trails is a political mistake for mountain biking.

So we end up weighing some sense of fairness/equality or some proposed view of one's potential future need/desire, against the practicalities of the political situation.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Buzzaro said:


> My point was just because you call it something else doesn't change what it actually is. In this case, a motorized vehicle. So no, I'm not open to allowing them on non-motorized trails.
> Now that being said, I'll change the question a little an answer it again. Do I think they will have a huge impact and create user conflict in remote areas? No again.
> I just call a spade a spade don't like semantics games.


Not sure if the world works this way, nor does reality paint with such broad brushes.

A honda CRV is not a Trophy truck. They both have 4wd and a motor.

But thanks for giving me your mindset.

I ride out in death valley on moto every year. I get to places where some will drive their car or 4wd. The world did not end. Those folks got there via a different method than me. They sometimes don't pull over on dusty fireroads and I have to keep my distance for a longgggg time before I can pass. They were able to enjoy the world and remote locations on their own choice of transport. Some of these folks look like they enjoy a lot of food and couches, but they also got out to enjoy the remote hot springs and views, and that makes me very happy. It would be a sad day in our egotistical country that they don't belong there if they can't hike there.

I *challenge* the nay sayers to postpone their adamant opposition until they ride a 'pedelec', either on trail or street. Seriously.

It just seems that most folks on these ebike threads are thinking motorcycle...

To those that feel these will only get 'modified' to 4000 horsepower, do yourself a favor and look up some videos. You'll see how pathetic some 4000 and 8000 watt bikes are climbing up a hill. Obviously false wattage claims, but, it gives an openminded person what reality is and how 'worried' they should be. Keep in mind, more power = more weight = more battery = more weight = less range = more $$$. There is a reason why there isn't a 100hp dirtbike.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Here is the rub: independent of the rights for trails access, supporting motorized or assisted cycles on trails is a political mistake for mountain biking.
> 
> So we end up weighing some sense of fairness/equality or some proposed view of one's potential future need/desire, against the practicalities of the political situation.


True. Political expediency is nice, but it won't solve sh!t. What do we do when they're everywhere in a few years? D


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

zorg said:


> True. Political expediency is nice, but it won't solve sh!t. What do we do when they're everywhere in a few years? D


By the votes on this mtb forum, mtbers are going to call the authorities and perhaps do some citizens arrests on trails.
I can see it now, mtb'er puts down his bike in the middle of the trail and stands with arms stretched out to stop some woman on a pedelec going uphill at 8mph...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

rensho said:


> I ride out in death valley on moto every year.


But we aren't talking about Death Valley. As was suggested earlier, less densely used ares have less strife. the road to hell is paved with folks from different ares telling us how easy advocacy is where they are from and how we should use their same methods. Our situation locally is much more complicated; intractable by political conundrums.



rensho said:


> Not sure if the world works this way, nor does reality paint with such broad brushes.
> 
> It just seems that most folks on these ebike threads are thinking motorcycle...


Yet, whether the participants in such thread take this position or not, this is exactly the mindset of folks who oppose us. Yes, it has nothing to do with reality but it has traction non-the-less. That is why we have not allied ourselves with throttle twisters, again great folk with access rights with which we can relate, but political suicide for us. If we had a far greater political punch we could carry them on our backs but we don't and we can't.

I suspect that assisted mountain bikes may carry the same problem.


----------



## misooscar (Sep 22, 2008)

Pedelecs are a lot of fun, I have a Kreidler 29 hardtail with the Bosch pedal assist, just enough juice to make the 12 mile couple thousand foot climb up Mills Peak, using almost the full juice of 2 battery packs, it's a Kreidler model that I snagged on CL for $1800, IMO pedelecs should be allowed, no one besides my riding group could tell the difference.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> But we aren't talking about Death Valley. As was suggested earlier, less densely used ares have less strife. the road to hell is paved with folks from different ares telling us how easy advocacy is where they are from and how we should use their same methods. Our situation locally is much more complicated; intractable by political conundrums.
> 
> Yet, whether the participants in such thread take this position or not, this is exactly the mindset of folks who oppose us. Yes, it has nothing to do with reality but it has traction non-the-less. That is why we have not allied ourselves with throttle twisters, again great folk with access rights with which we can relate, but political suicide for us. If we had a far greater political punch we could carry them on our backs but we don't and we can't.
> 
> I suspect that assisted mountain bikes may carry the same problem.


This started with Moab, so I bring up Death Valley.

I know that you have more experience than I WRT access politics. I respect that.

I'll also point out, uselessly, how near useless the above strategy has worked for us in the bay area and perhaps CA.

Like a few on this board, I'm tired of caving to the norm. Tired of waiting for my turn on trail access. Tired of waiting for a bone to be thrown our way.

Was out on the Emma trail last weekend. Some COMPLETE mutha f'er was pushing an empty double wide jog stroller up from the trailhead. When he got to us, and others, he would stay in the middle of the trail and raise the front wheel. He did this to my buddy a few hundred yards behind as well. This is while I slowed down and said hi... In a perfect world, his nuts would have violently hit my sidis a few dozen times. Having spent some of my life hours helping build that trail, I despise douches like that. Yet, these are some of the people we are to suck for more trail access.

I understand logic has no point in trail access politics.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Therein lies the rub. Facts and reality are discarded for passion and perception...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

We are all tired of sucking it up and letting the clowns rule the day. Volunteer fatigue, trail a-holes, obvious inequities, spurious anti-mtb claims, intractable systems, lack of support, our-own causing conflicts, inching forward; the landscape of advocacy. It makes you just want to scream.

But we can't stop or _nothing_ will get done.

What seems to work is outlasting the bastids and replacing them with folks like us. What seems to work is covering our butts, trying not to make the same mistakes, the obvious mistakes, or shoot ourselves in the foot. None of this speeds anything up any more than you can speed up natural erosion but halts, delays, and undermines: one step forward, two steps back.

The work is hard enough without confounding ourselves with mistakes that pin us to the wall. I suspect that assisted bikes, potentially used by great people, will undermine our work and our progress, such as it is.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I must quote the friar fropma similar thread in the Trail Building and Advocacy forum:

"If I get an ebike will that let me jump to the next trend so I don't have to stop at fatbike? Cause I'm so close to a bad decision with the Mukluk 2 that if you tell me ebikes will be cool I'll immediately accept them and get on that bandwagon.

Or not.

Motor = motorized; human powered has a been a cornerstone of advocacy for the past 25 (30+?) years. I don't want to be the one that say,"y'know how we said human powered? Well, we really mean human powered with motor assist, but don't worry, they will have the same impact normal bikes do, which is similar to hikers and less than equestrians."

Yeah, I'm not going to make that argument."


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

zorg said:


> True. Political expediency is nice, but it won't solve sh!t. What do we do when they're everywhere in a few years? D


I don't have an issue with the number of folks on trails. The issue for me is the political cost for mountain biking of supporting machine powered cycles on trails where our access is always at risk.

Or...and I just thought of this...do we just throw ourselves under the bus, a blip in the progress of two-wheeled access. Are we, in the long run, simply the arcane forerunners of two wheeled access that had to expire so that assisted riding and more powerful motorized riding can succeed?


----------



## velojonthan (Feb 10, 2013)

I like to hike and mountain bike. The physical challenge and connection with nature is what draws me in. The solitude in the wilderness is the payment for my sweat.

I have no problems stating that I do not want to share the trails (single track) with people who can't get out there on their own. 

1) I'm proud of my ability to explore on my own power. I have put 20 years into this and I don't want to share with you if you aren't willing to do the work, much less be passed by an e bike on a climb or have to assist someone stuck with exhausted legs and battery. It's like 'Polara' self correcting golf balls. It's not the same game. Although ebikes and self correcting golf balls are very cool its not the game I have spent thousands of hours and donated thousands of dollars for access and trail construction. Therefore (For very selfish reasons) I feel great saying stay off my open space trails and go find some moto trails. 

2) The mountain biking community has came a long way gaining access to land and building new trails all over the USA. Often the reasons we don't have access to large areas of sweet single track are due to half baked ideas and a vocal (And ignorant) minority of trail users. I'm making no statements about the impact of ebikes on trails, only that our association as Mountain Bikers with ebikes is seemingly an ideal symbol for the vocal minority to take back decades of hard fought wins for access and impede current projects. If anyone can give a reason why that is not reason in itself to be against ebikes on single track you have probably not been riding consistently for more than the past 5-10 years. 


I take IMBA's stance that a mountain bike does not have a motor, and I will double my efforts over the next few years to support them financially. 

If you have a disability and you are riding with friends who will have your back, great, go for the ebike. Otherwise if I see you out there and you are not on the ebike for disability reasons I'm taking your picture with my phone and calling the Rangers. I have no problems being an a*hole about this.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

velojonthan said:


> I have no problems being an a*hole about this.


At least, we agree on something.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

Axe said:


> So you do not see a difference between a 500w pedal assist and and 40hp throttle motorbike? They are one and the same?


You do not see the similarities?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I have no problem reporting rude/unsafe riders or people making illegal trails in Joaquin Miller park. I guess it is all about where you want to draw the line.


----------



## Plim (Dec 8, 2004)

My default position is to let people do what they want. So if someone wants to ride an e-bike on a trail, my default position is to say sure. Have fun. Too often people try to disallow activities based on either no problems or flimsy "problems." We see this as mtn bikers all the time. 

That can change if an activity causes problems. I've no idea what problems e-bikes may cause, if any. I've paid no attention to them.

Hell, I've seen enough mtn bikers be irresponsible and put others at risk that I'd have no problem banning bikes from a number of local trails. And I bet if that were up for vote in this thread, the vote to keep trails bike-legal would be overwhelming.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

velojonthan said:


> 1) I have put 20 years into this and I don't want to share with you if you aren't willing to do the work, much less be passed by an e bike on a climb or have to assist someone stuck with exhausted legs and battery. It's like 'Polara' self correcting golf balls. It's not the same game. Although ebikes and self correcting golf balls are very cool its not the game I have spent thousands of hours and donated thousands of dollars for access and trail construction. Therefore (For very selfish reasons) I feel great saying stay off my open space trails and go find some moto trails.
> 
> Otherwise if I see you out there and you are not on the ebike for disability reasons I'm taking your picture with my phone and calling the Rangers. I have no problems being an a*hole about this.


Are you sure you're not an equestrian from Placer County?? 

Although, if you were, you'd say 40 years, not 20... and it'd be tens of thousands, not thousands.


----------



## Plim (Dec 8, 2004)

Buzzaro said:


> You do not see the similarities?


I can see a lot of similarities between a mountain bike and a 40hp throttle motorbike too. The presence of similarities shouldn't be determinative.


----------



## Menso (Jun 2, 2004)

I like to hike, run, and mtb on trails in the Bay Area. While actual collisions are rare, if not nonexistent, the perception of conflict due to relative speeds and misunderstanding of rider skills and braking technology is very very real.

The other day I was at the tail end of a massive 10 OSP, 12k ft, Midpenapalooza ride with Coldawg and SirKrameroy, jammin down Bella Vista Trail to Stevens Canyon. There were hikers on the trail, and I was riding at a very safe speed considering my skill level. Definitely under 15mph around any turn where I didn't have a line of sight. I have never in ten years and 10's of thousands of miles even come close to hitting anyone and never will, but I think a couple of those hikers thought they narrowly avoided death by biker that day and went home telling people about the two giant dudes who "barely" stopped in time. Colin and I talked about it after, and recognized that us being able to get up to those speeds and safely stop with twenty feet to spare seems perfectly reasonable to us and to any other mountain biker, but to a hiker it could seem like we panic stopped even though we were in full control.

I realized that when I go hiking or running, I intentionally go places that mtb'rs don't frequent. Even though I know I almost certainly won't come to bodily harm, truth is I don't trust y'all enough to hike/run without my head on a swivel on multi-use singletrack. Sharing sucks. There I said it. Even though I'm a pro mountain biker and want as many miles of trails open to bikes as possible, I feel like sharing trails on foot with a much faster moving group changes the user experience in a decidedly negative way.

Having e-bikes on multi-use trails will allow more people to go a bit faster. Faster uphill, carrying more speed into turns, carrying more speed into downhills (until they stop pedaling). And that means more hikers thinking they narrowly escaped death when a skilled rider stops 20+ feet from them. More worryingly, it will mean more unskilled riders going faster than they would under their own power, perhaps even changing the game from _perception_ of conflict to _actual_ conflict.

On remote trails, sure, let e-bikes on. I don't have my head stuck far enough up my strava profile's ass to care if someone goes 10% faster and snatches some internet burger king crowns. But on local trails, especially here in the Bay Area where there is a pathological, philosophical opposition to bike only trails, less riders going faster than they otherwise would is better.

If that frothing disdain for people having healthy outdoor fun subsides and Midpen/EBRPD/whatever allows parallel bike-only trails to be built next to existing trail alignment, or, *gasp*, on the empty cow pasture hillsides of the East Bay, then I see no reason not to allow e-bikes.

But that's not the case and won't be until the generation in power "retires", so let's keep what access we have.


----------



## KRob (Jan 13, 2004)

Old Ray said:


> E-bikes should be permitted on any trail that allows motorized access. No others.


This. It's not really a difficult decision in my mind. Motorized bikes should be allowed on motorized trails. Human powered bikes on non-motorized trails.

So before I can answer the poll I need you to define "trails".


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

Plim said:


> I can see a lot of similarities between a mountain bike and a 40hp throttle motorbike too. The presence of similarities shouldn't be determinative.


No but it should be considered just as much as the differences as Axe implied with his question.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

Menso said:


> I like to hike, run, and mtb on trails in the Bay Area. While actual collisions are rare, if not nonexistent, the perception of conflict due to relative speeds and misunderstanding of rider skills and braking technology is very very real.
> 
> The other day I was at the tail end of a massive 10 OSP, 12k ft, Midpenapalooza ride with Coldawg and SirKrameroy, jammin down Bella Vista Trail to Stevens Canyon. There were hikers on the trail, and I was riding at a very safe speed considering my skill level. Definitely under 15mph around any turn where I didn't have a line of sight. I have never in ten years and 10's of thousands of miles even come close to hitting anyone and never will, but I think a couple of those hikers thought they narrowly avoided death by biker that day and went home telling people about the two giant dudes who "barely" stopped in time. Colin and I talked about it after, and recognized that us being able to get up to those speeds and safely stop with twenty feet to spare seems perfectly reasonable to us and to any other mountain biker, but to a hiker it could seem like we panic stopped even though we were in full control.
> 
> ...


"Retires". Very good!


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Did I mention that I love e-bikes?

Did I mention that my vote is a solid "NO"?

Anyway the "NO's" have it but not by much of a margin if this was the kind of vote requiring a 2/3 majority.

Still really surprised by the massive percentage of none-voting/undecided viewers; almost 1000 views and well less than 100 votes.

(yeah sure this is an imperfect poll but you do the best with whats ya got)

In a democracy if you don't vote you ain't $hit!

Somebody somewhere is taking note of that huge # of undecided and is making plans...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

The attention of the discussions and the polls have made this pretty clear: fairness to all, earning one's ride, the potential need for such support as seen by future-thinking riders, mission creep, and political fallout confound simple yes and no.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Menso said:


> I realized that when I go hiking or running, I intentionally go places that mtb'rs don't frequent. Even though I know I almost certainly won't come to bodily harm, truth is I don't trust y'all enough to hike/run without my head on a swivel on multi-use singletrack.
> 
> On remote trails, sure, let e-bikes on. But on local trails, especially here in the Bay Area where there is a pathological, philosophical opposition to bike only trails, less riders going faster than they otherwise would is better.


Speed, longtime advocates will tell you, is the number ene complaint against mountain bikers. even Menso while on foot has sensitivity to this factor.

Suggesting that access of such machines in remote areas aligns itself with the the paradigm that trail conflicts are much less frequent in less densely populated areas, independent of speed.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Thinking of starting a new poll. 

What's the most divisive MTB issue?
- shuttling DHers
- 650b wheels
- Strava
- e-bikes


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Speed, longtime advocates will tell you, is the number ene complaint against mountain bikers. even Menso while on foot has sensitivity to this factor.
> 
> Suggesting that access of such machines in remote areas aligns itself with the the paradigm that trail conflicts are much less frequent in less densely populated areas, independent of speed.


One of the foreseeable problems that will surface with the inclusion of e-bikes is that they don't have the range to "go deep" where there are lower densities of trail users.

I crunched some numbers with regards to state-of-the-art e-bikes should they be permitted at Henry Coe SP; they'd be limited to a lap or two of the "front range" (which are the busiest) trails and increased traffic would certainly draw the ire of the hiker/equestrian communities. (which are currently "just" tolerant of MTB's @ Coe)

(The 2 e-bikes that were permitted at Coe earlier this year via a special event permit were shuttled to the Park's interior FWIW)


----------



## jxl118 (Jul 17, 2012)

I didn't vote there are too many issues involved for a simple yes/no. 

Personal view is yes ,I would have no issue allowing them if I was emperor and got to make all the decisions. Trails on public land should be open to as many ppl and uses as absolutely possible. Unfortunately I'm not emperor so I'm stuck dealing with other ppl having their own ideas ;-). In face of this reality, should MTB advocacy groups support ebike access? absolutely not. They were established to advocate for human powered access and should continue to focus on that mission. I hope that they don't fight against e-bike access because the same arguments that will be used to prevent their access could just as easily be turned against bikes in general.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

It will be important for advocacy groups to maintain the distinction of their emphisis on the priority of human power access as their traditional focus. Great care must be taken to craft responses to manage those who will attempt to drive us into a position where we are seen to support motorized access.

I am sure there will be those who try to take advantage of similarities in access goals, vehicles and such. Strong logical thinking will be required and organizations will need to be prepared.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

velojonthan said:


> I have no problems being an a*hole about this.


Nice.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> We are all tired of sucking it up and letting the clowns rule the day. Volunteer fatigue, trail a-holes, obvious inequities, spurious anti-mtb claims, intractable systems, lack of support, our-own causing conflicts, inching forward; the landscape of advocacy. It makes you just want to scream.
> 
> But we can't stop or _nothing_ will get done.
> 
> ...


Edumacate me Mike. Do you know of a case that we have outlasted one of these blue hair asses? Honest Q, as I'm not as close to this as you are.
I know we had a close election in Midpen for a Ward seat, this last round, which was awesome.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

I'm thinking an e-singlespeed would be cool to have.


----------



## TraxFactory (Sep 10, 1999)

F No


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

rensho said:


> Edumacate me Mike. Do you know of a case that we have outlasted one of these blue hair asses? Honest Q, as I'm not as close to this as you are.
> I know we had a close election in Midpen for a Ward seat, this last round, which was awesome.


In the EBRPD we were able to elect Whitney Dotson, pro-bike, after Nancy Skinner, horribly anti-bike, left. Throughout the administration of the EBRPD, and within its police forces, we have real mountain bikers.

As a result the new 2012 Master Plan is more accepting of our sport, even to the point of promoting it. The Baord has become more accepting of us as well. That we are also gray-haired now probably doesn't hurt.

New trails are being made for us and fire roads converted back to narrower track for our use. Ride loops are being designated on their maps from 30 routes we created and submitted at their request. We are back to working on their trails because they are trails we can ride.

I would love to say that this is a response to the dedication of the BTCEB, the dead bodies of our comrades strewn across old battle fields from mortal combat. Yet, entre nous, we just kept the doors open. As Michael Kelly once said, they can't say anything bad about you if you are at the table.

And we aren't going away.

Today, in another thread Menso, I recall him as NorCal High School Racer from Mitty in 2008, talked about the generations replacing the old. I think he is 25 or 26 now.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Buzzaro said:


> You do not see the similarities?


No. Low power ebike sounds, rides, smells like a bycicle. Not like a motorcycle.

Duck typing.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

Empty_Beer said:


> I'm thinking an e-singlespeed would be cool to have.


Only with 4" tires.


----------



## Hardtale (Sep 10, 2014)

One point that has expressed repeatedly is a relative lack of knowledge about what these machines are and what they are not. Undeniably though they are not strictly human powered so they should not simply be brought into the fold. Just like other groups it should be incumbent on the e-bike advocates to educate the establishment. That makes some, who were there in the beginning uncomfortable. For those folks you can at least reflect on and perhaps enjoy the fact that you are on the inside looking out.Perhaps you will be more open minded than those that you had to convince were.

With respect to what defines an e-bike, the capability and definition of what human powered vehicles are and what their capabilities (impact) will be is relatively finite when compared to vehicles with a motor. Motorized vehicles are subject to greater change over time as the technology continues to develop.

For those who suggested that others look at some videos of e-bikes, I immediately saw machines being touted as doing 50 mph on the road, another called the "Lamborghini" of mtb's and Xtreme and so on. Even on the trail they appeared to be capable of maintaining higher speeds than a strictly human powered bike could achieve. To be fair these were either larger than 250 w pedelecs or they had been modified, but that was the original point.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

What about fast riders on non-e-bikes? Should they be banned?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Jayem said:


> What about fast riders on non-e-bikes? Should they be banned?


They already are; the legal term is "speed limit".


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

pliebenberg said:


> They already are; the legal term is "speed limit".


Yeah, and we al know who eel that is adhered to and how hard it is to police.


----------



## Menso (Jun 2, 2004)

Jayem said:


> What about fast riders on non-e-bikes? Should they be banned?


We get faster with experience, and experience teaches me that if I want to go fast on popular multi-use trails, I should do it at night or midweek in the middle of the day. Basically everyone I ride with adheres to this. Getting on an e-bike and the added speed it enable skips that whole experience part.

I don't get this whole "It's only 250w" thing. Do any of you guys actually train with power? I'm 190 lbs, climbing like a mountain goat, and put out "only" ~400w for hour long climbs. If I could add even 100w to my riding, I would win the freakin' TdF, no joke. The average rider, especially a lighter person, can sustain 200w at most for a long duration. Accounting for the added weight of the battery and motor, "only 250w" can double most people's speed. From hundreds of hours of training, I can tell you that 300w on a flat road will sustain me at over 20 mph. And I'm a big guy, so it takes more power to go fast. I've even confirmed this by open throttling a 300w commuter e-bike. I understand that people don't ride full open throttle on these things, but I don't buy the "only 250w" argument.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

In developing riders in the East Bay over the last 25 years I evolved a saying:

First you climb 700 feet...

My local ride in Wildcat starts with a 350 ascent up a 15% paved hill. I call it The Price, as in, the price of admission. The Price can keep you on the sofa and it simply weeds a lot of people out.

The next ascent to the top of San Pablo Ridge is 500-700 feet and steeper. That weeds out more.

Our experience at what we do on dirt around here is largely a function of stamina, how we manage our skills at fatigue, how we measure our potential, mitigating all sorts of conditions. 

Further, we learn when and where we can ride with the least stress; crowds, animals, soil conditions, grades. 

Then there is stopping at speed, or varied grades and substrates. There is a lot that goes into being successful. I could go on.

The repeated experience builds a large volume of information about how to do things and get back safely. It takes years to develop all of that and it was in that framework that I instructed YMCA and NorCal kids.

Absent the effort, given free ticket without the price, the facility of riders will shift. It will change the nature of the experience. Whether that is a good thing or not is up to each one of us to decide.

for my part I hope that these e-riders are marginal additions to the trails. At the same time, though, it is the riders on the margins that create most of the challenges to access.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Last summer I was doing the Flume Trail with a couple friends. We were on that last climb before Marlett, which is no picnic for me. A 70 year old guy in jeans with a cig hanging out of his mouth and his grandson, who looked like a great video game player went by us laughing on e-bikes. We caught up to them a little later and they seemed nice but they could not have walked up that hill.

I had a vision of hundreds of people lined up on e-bikes to get on the trail in the future. I know it sounds selfish to some, but I don't want to ever see that again.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Menso said:


> I don't get this whole "It's only 250w" thing. Do any of you guys actually train with power? I'm 190 lbs, climbing like a mountain goat, and put out "only" ~400w for hour long climbs. If I could add even 100w to my riding, I would win the freakin' TdF, no joke. The average rider, especially a lighter person, can sustain 200w at most for a long duration. Accounting for the added weight of the battery and motor, "only 250w" can double most people's speed.


Yes, that would make me about as fast as you are without an electric assist.

I doubt it will change downhill speed appreciably, as it is mostly limited by bike handling skills - and that is where most of perceived conflicts happen. And I am sure a dude zooming uphill on a silent e-bike will cause less disturbance with hikers than a full face clad DH rider - who, undeservedly but what's you gonna do, in fact look menacing.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Menso said:


> We get faster with experience, and experience teaches me that if I want to go fast on popular multi-use trails, I should do it at night or midweek in the middle of the day. Basically everyone I ride with adheres to this. Getting on an e-bike and the added speed it enable skips that whole experience part.
> 
> I don't get this whole "It's only 250w" thing. Do any of you guys actually train with power? I'm 190 lbs, climbing like a mountain goat, and put out "only" ~400w for hour long climbs. If I could add even 100w to my riding, I would win the freakin' TdF, no joke. The average rider, especially a lighter person, can sustain 200w at most for a long duration. Accounting for the added weight of the battery and motor, "only 250w" can double most people's speed. From hundreds of hours of training, I can tell you that 300w on a flat road will sustain me at over 20 mph. And I'm a big guy, so it takes more power to go fast. I've even confirmed this by open throttling a 300w commuter e-bike. I understand that people don't ride full open throttle on these things, but I don't buy the "only 250w" argument.


Menso, it doesn't work that way. Yes the motor claims only 250w or 500w, but it doesn't net add to your ride with that much. FC was no faster climbing kenedy on his ebike than regular mtb.

I can't take a 500w ebike on the street and keep a constant 30mph either.


----------



## Hardtale (Sep 10, 2014)

If higher average speeds were just a switch away its not a stretch to imagine that there would be greater impact to the trails and more negative inter-actions with other riders and users.

Trying to keep and open mind here but having trouble seeing and up-side.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Hardtale said:


> One point that has expressed repeatedly is a relative lack of knowledge about what these machines are and what they are not. Undeniably though they are not strictly human powered so they should not simply be brought into the fold. Just like other groups it should be incumbent on the e-bike advocates to educate the establishment. That makes some, who were there in the beginning uncomfortable. For those folks you can at least reflect on and perhaps enjoy the fact that you are on the inside looking out.Perhaps you will be more open minded than those that you had to convince were.
> 
> With respect to what defines an e-bike, the capability and definition of what human powered vehicles are and what their capabilities (impact) will be is relatively finite when compared to vehicles with a motor. Motorized vehicles are subject to greater change over time as the technology continues to develop.
> 
> For those who suggested that others look at some videos of e-bikes, I immediately saw machines being touted as doing 50 mph on the road, another called the "Lamborghini" of mtb's and Xtreme and so on. Even on the trail they appeared to be capable of maintaining higher speeds than a strictly human powered bike could achieve. To be fair these were either larger than 250 w pedelecs or they had been modified, but that was the original point.


Yes, you did see claims and videos of 50mph. I'm sure 60 mph as a goal is achievable on the street. At what price, cost, and weight, as well as travel range.

To wit: They can extend a Nissan Leaf 10 ft and pack it with batteries and another motor. You'd get 1000mi range, and 2x the power, but at 4x the current price... Why do you think this product doesn't exist?


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Hardtale said:


> If higher average speeds were just a switch away its not a stretch to imagine that there would be greater impact to the trails and more negative inter-actions with other riders and users.


Riding horses is not human powered either, and it is proven to damage trails ten time over anything that an e-bike can master. Yet, it is allowed.

If they ban e-bikes, they should ban horse riding as well for the same reasons.


----------



## Hardtale (Sep 10, 2014)

rensho said:


> Yes, you did see claims and videos of 50mph. I'm sure 60 mph as a goal is achievable on the street. At what price, cost, and weight, as well as travel range.
> 
> To wit: They can extend a Nissan Leaf 10 ft and pack it with batteries and another motor. You'd get 1000mi range, and 2x the power, but at 4x the current price... Why do you think this product doesn't exist?


Just thinking long term. We are seeing electric vehicles do things not thought possible 10 yrs ago. Technology will continue to push the envelope whereas we humans have pretty finite capabilities in comparison.


----------



## Hardtale (Sep 10, 2014)

Axe said:


> Riding horses is not human powered either, and it is proven to damage trails ten time over anything that an e-bike can master. Yet, it is allowed.
> 
> If they ban e-bikes, they should ban horse riding as well for the same reasons.


You won't get an argument from me on that point.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Hardtale said:


> Just thinking long term. We are seeing electric vehicles do things not thought possible 10 yrs ago. Technology will continue to push the envelope whereas we humans have pretty finite capabilities in comparison.


Not sure I agree from the 2004-2014 toyota prius as a case in point, but i'll give you the statement.

Your point about humans vs bike progress is precisely some of our points here. I'd like to see a day soon where I can go 100mi from the trailhead and get back to the car in a long ride. Today, i can go 20mi from trailhead. 
Do we want to keep this the way it is? 20 years from now, we'll all ride bikes with 24 speeds and ride 10-20mi from the trailhead, head back to the car and go eat burritos? No progress at all?


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

Menso's story is pretty spot on with my experience of the trails and other users on them, even at lower speeds than he rides  (especially Bella Vista) - it kind of makes me wonder how often the proponents of e-bikes actually ride, or are required to ride on busy multi-use trails on the weekends? And how many of them have actually been involved in any sort of land use meeting? The perception of user conflict and danger from mtn bikers is already blown way out of proportion to reality, even without an electric motor.

Perhaps a place like Demo could eventually entertain such thoughts, since it is only ever frequented by mountain bikers. And I've often thought of what a waste of a climb Hihn's Mill is at the end of a long ride.... Who wouldn't want a little pedal-assist there, as the point of that place is the DH, not the climbs? But I don't know how well that would go over with the management. There is an added overhead for them. And really it's what the decision-makers think that matters. 

The bottom line is, sure *I* can share the trails with e-bikes. But access to singletrack for human-powered bikes is pretty difficult and hard fought in most places around the Bay Area. Lumping regular mtn bikes in with the added power, accessibility, user conflict potential, and maintenance load of e-bikes only sounds like a disaster for mtn biking advocacy. I don't think they should necessarily be banned everywhere, but they really should be in their own separate category of trail use.


----------



## dirtvert (Jun 30, 2010)

^^ I was thinking that Demo was the perfect argument against e-bikes! As it is, the climbing involved there is like a "qualifier" feature at a bike park. It weeds out people who may not have the skill for the rest of the park. Take that away and you have Walley World.

VV shredchic- Climbing ability definitely doesn't equal dh ability, but it does suggest a decent level of experience, skill, and etiquette. At least now you don't have beginners or (too many) weekend warriors out there because they can't handle the climbing. Giving people a free pass to the top would ensure that many of them wouldn't have the skillset required to get to the bottom--or get out of the way!


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

dirtvert said:


> ^^ I was thinking that Demo was the perfect argument against e-bikes! As it is, the climbing involved there is like a "qualifier" feature at a bike park. It weeds out people who may not have the skill for the rest of the park. Take that away and you have Walley World.


I don't think strong climbers are necessarily going to be skilled downhillers, or vice-versa. At least that's not how it usually shakes out. Sure, philosophically speaking, I agree with the ethos of being as well-rounded as possible in both and there are many who kill it in both, as anyone who is at the expert/pro level. But then there is the reality for most of us amateurs.


----------



## velojonthan (Feb 10, 2013)

shredchic said:


> The bottom line is, sure *I* can share the trails with e-bikes. But access to singletrack for human-powered bikes is pretty difficult and hard fought in most places around the Bay Area. Lumping regular mtn bikes in with the added power, accessibility, user conflict potential, and maintenance load of e-bikes only sounds like a disaster for mtn biking advocacy. I don't think they should necessarily be banned everywhere, but they really need their own category and be treated separately from human-powered mtn bikes.


Yes, exactly!

I think the poll should ask "do you think mountain biking should be associated with ebikes in any way if it means we are lumped together for trail access"

If I were in charge of all land access I would allow them as it would be rewarding to blow by people riding the things.

To the people who talk about progress, it's not progress. It's an altogether different sport. Imagine weight lifting with a hydraulic press, or the self correcting golf balls I mentioned earlier. Who cares if you went 100 miles or 10 it's your own personal journey that matters and your own progress in life and cycling.

Over the past 20 years my dad has lost over 100 lbs cycling and is likely alive today because of the sport. If we started over today he would defiantly have wanted to be on an ebike to spend time with me and bond. He did not have that option and it forced him off the couch and changed his life for the better.

An off-road ebike is closer to a slow electric motor-cycle than a mountain bike. A mountain bike is 100% self powered according to IMBA, UCI, and most importantly me?!

If you are into off-road ebiking that's great. Just don't try and pretend it is mountain biking.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

velojonthan said:


> Imagine weight lifting with a hydraulic press, or the self correcting golf balls I mentioned earlier. Who cares if you went 100 miles or 10 it's your own personal journey that matters and your own progress in life and cycling.


Imagine doing pull-ups with a little platform under your knees helping you out.. Oh, wait, that machine is in every single gym out there.

You sound like an arrogant elitist. There is nothing special about being able to pedal up a steep hill, and getting all sweaty is not the only reason to being there.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Last summer I was doing the Flume Trail with a couple friends. We were on that last climb before Marlett, which is no picnic for me. A 70 year old guy in jeans with a cig hanging out of his mouth and his grandson, who looked like a great video game player went by us laughing on e-bikes. We caught up to them a little later and they seemed nice but they could not have walked up that hill.
> 
> I had a vision of hundreds of people lined up on e-bikes to get on the trail in the future. I know it sounds selfish to some, but I don't want to ever see that again.


Early in the training season I do not allow new riders close together or very close to me. I enforce spacing, paying attention, focus, no overlapping. I

Those who are inconsistent at attending practice will create problems; staring at your feet, staring at your front wheel, uneven pacing, not anticipating stopping needs, using the wrong brake, stopping in the middle of the trail or gate, not managing fatigue, overestimating abilities, trying to keep up with better riders. The list is long and long-skilled riders lose sight of that fact because they do these things well as a matter of course, though you would be struck with the holes in rider skills. 

It takes time and practice. I value what it takes to do what we do. I do not take it for granted.


----------



## velojonthan (Feb 10, 2013)

Axe said:


> Imagine doing pull-ups with a little platform under your knees helping you out.. Oh, wait, that machine is in every single gym out there.
> 
> You sound like an arrogant elitist. There is nothing special about being able to pedal up a steep hill, and getting all sweaty is not the only reason to being there.


In my first post I tried to make it clear I am an arrogant elitist. The platform is more like shifting gears or taking a less steep trail/line. You are proving my point.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> In the EBRPD we were able to elect Whitney Dotson, pro-bike, after Nancy Skinner, horribly anti-bike, left. Throughout the administration of the EBRPD, and within its police forces, we have real mountain bikers.
> 
> As a result the new 2012 Master Plan is more accepting of our sport, even to the point of promoting it. The Baord has become more accepting of us as well. That we are also gray-haired now probably doesn't hurt.
> 
> ...


Thanks Mike. I'm glad EB is getting some justice for all the hard work. In the past few years, your area made MidPen seem pro bike! ;-)


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

rensho said:


> Not sure I agree from the 2004-2014 toyota prius as a case in point, but i'll give you the statement.
> 
> Your point about humans vs bike progress is precisely some of our points here. I'd like to see a day soon where I can go 100mi from the trailhead and get back to the car in a long ride. Today, i can go 20mi from trailhead.
> Do we want to keep this the way it is? 20 years from now, we'll all ride bikes with 24 speeds and ride 10-20mi from the trailhead, head back to the car and go eat burritos? No progress at all?


Riding 100 miles with a motor assist vs. on your own power is regression, not progress. The biggest obstacle to not riding as long as we'd like is between our ears.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

shredchic said:


> Riding 100 miles with a motor assist vs. on your own power is regression, not progress.


So, you never, ever ride to the trailhead in a car?

Obstacle between our ears is indeed the biggest one. So many people tried one of the local fireroad climbs.. and gave up on riding outside ever again.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

velojonthan said:


> In my first post I tried to make it clear I am an arrogant elitist. The platform is more like shifting gears or taking a less steep trail/line. You are proving my point.


No, it is not like having gears. It actually does help you move and enjoy exercise to the best of your abilities.

I do ride a single speed hardtail for probably 60% of my rides - I do enjoy the workout. But looking down on geared, full suspension, or otherwise assisted riders is blatantly stupid in my books.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

I think people aren't considering that when this future wave of (pedal assist) e-bike popularity hits, it's not just going to be cycling newbies and 70+ year olds. It'll be some of you and some of your friends, many of which will be early adopters. And all of you will likely ride the trails you currently ride today, versus head to OHV parks.


----------



## Menso (Jun 2, 2004)

rensho said:


> FC was no faster climbing kenedy on his ebike than regular mtb.


Serious question: what are you saying here? That ebikes don't make you faster? What's the point then? If I get on a bike and put out 400w, and the ebike adds 100w, due to the added weight I won't go 20% faster, but I sure as hell am going to go faster. At 5w/kg, a 100w boost is making you faster for every bit lighter it is than 20kg. And the ebike mechanisms sure as heck don't weigh 20kg... they add maybe 5kg? That's a big increase in power/weight for the rider/bike/emech system. It's not exactly rocket science.


----------



## Hardtale (Sep 10, 2014)

rensho said:


> Not sure I agree from the 2004-2014 toyota prius as a case in point, but i'll give you the statement.
> 
> Your point about humans vs bike progress is precisely some of our points here. I'd like to see a day soon where I can go 100mi from the trailhead and get back to the car in a long ride. Today, i can go 20mi from trailhead.
> Do we want to keep this the way it is? 20 years from now, we'll all ride bikes with 24 speeds and ride 10-20mi from the trailhead, head back to the car and go eat burritos? No progress at all?


You paint a nice picture, and I find the argument in favor particularly persuasive when the technology is applied to individuals who have been injured or have a disability. And who am I to say how access is used?

What I don't find persuasive is the idea that e-bikes are and will remain lower impact than regular bikes. You can point to regulation and that's fair but I suspect it will be ineffective. As I said before the effects of non-power assisted bikes is to a great degree self limiting and is, in any case, known. Not so with motorized. So as I understand the situation at this moment I think the negative political realities outweigh any benefit and I would not want to tie my current or future access rights to them.


----------



## Menso (Jun 2, 2004)

Axe said:


> Yes, that would make me about as fast as you are without an electric assist.
> 
> I doubt it will change downhill speed appreciably, as it is mostly limited by bike handling skills - and that is where most of perceived conflicts happen. And I am sure a dude zooming uphill on a silent e-bike will cause less disturbance with hikers than a full face clad DH rider - who, undeservedly but what's you gonna do, in fact look menacing.


Guess what we'll see more of if ebikes proliferate? Full face clad DH riders on local trails, since they won't have to work as hard uphill anymore. I personally don't have a problem sharing- most of my all time favorite trails are shared with dirtbikers (Downieville, Cannell, Just Outstanding, Sagebrush Safari course in SD), and I have had no bad experiences. But I can't support something that enables free speed on busy local trails.


----------



## velojonthan (Feb 10, 2013)

Axe said:


> But looking down on geared, full suspension, or otherwise assisted riders is blatantly stupid in my books.


Not looking down on anyone, I think e bikes are cool just its not mountain biking.

You are the one calling me names and making insinuations about my intelligence.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Menso said:


> But I can't support something that enables free speed on busy local trails.


That is what HOHAs say about bicycles. Any argument against thrown around here will be used directly against regular bikes.

And you still will be riding faster than anybody on a pedelec. Should we ban you?  How many times did you lap me? That should be illegal.

I support anything that lets people get out and enjoy it. Trails are not that busy.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

The only true argument I heard against e-bikes is that it's going to make advocacy harder, not because of facts on the ground, but because of the perception and more importantly the propaganda that the HOHAs will use. They've shown before that they will stoop as low as they can to ban us from trails.

The issue that nobody's addressing is that ebikes are coming and people will use them on bike trails (to Empty-Beer's point). My guess is that it'll be a trickle of users for years to come. Most of us won't use them because we don't need/want them, and the newbies won't buy them because it's at least $4-5K. But at some point, we'll start to see more of them.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

Axe said:


> So, you never, ever ride to the trailhead in a car?
> 
> Obstacle between our ears is indeed the biggest one. So many people tried one of the local fireroad climbs.. and gave up on riding outside ever again.


Why not just ride in your car instead of riding your bike? You can get up to 50mph with little to no effort! Progress!

You know, mountain biking is not for everyone. Neither is skateboarding, surfing or snowboarding or skiing or motorcross.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

shredchic said:


> Why not just ride in your car instead of riding your bike? You can get up to 50mph with little to no effort! Progress!


That is an option. I like options.

So how was your ride on your penny farthing down to Northstar?


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Hardtale said:


> You paint a nice picture, and I find the argument in favor particularly persuasive when the technology is applied to individuals who have been injured or have a disability. And who am I to say how access is used?
> 
> What I don't find persuasive is the idea that e-bikes are and will remain lower impact than regular bikes. You can point to regulation and that's fair but I suspect it will be ineffective. As I said before the effects of non-power assisted bikes is to a great degree self limiting and is, in any case, known. Not so with motorized. So as I understand the situation at this moment I think the negative political realities outweigh any benefit and I would not want to tie my current or future access rights to them.


I like how you're coming at this. This is why I suggest people try one before they cast a vote one way or another. You'll find the bikes are quite benign.
People keep thinking these give you a free ride...they're far from a free ride.


----------



## Menso (Jun 2, 2004)

Axe said:


> That is what HOHAs say about bicycles. Any argument against thrown around here will be used directly against regular bikes.
> 
> And you still will be riding faster than anybody on a pedelec. Should we ban you?  How many times did you lap me? That should be illegal.
> 
> I support anything that lets people get out and enjoy it. Trails are not that busy.


If someone goes faster than me without the ability to stop that I have, then they are being unsafe. And I effectively ban myself by limiting my fun rides to times and places where there aren't many people. I sound like a HOHA because that's who I'm worried about. As I've said above, I personally have zero problems with sharing trails with other wheeled users, even motos if the trail is wide enough with enough sight lines to let us past each other.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

I was really hoping that a slam-dunk consensus would have materialized during the course of this poll defining what the sport of Mountain Biking is; i.e operating a device that is _pedal powered and has two wheels_.

Simple.

A few folks "get it" but a huge majority (the "yes" people plus the undecided) wish to pollute what is otherwise a pretty basic concept.

E-biking (of any wattage) needs to get it's own thing going (as already has happened in Europe) or maybe hitch a ride with motorcycling advocacy.

How about a round of pneumatic bazooka golf anyone?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

What has been revealed is that the poll asked a loaded question about something pretty new. As such the poll question has worked more as a rhetorical tool than a meter.

More to come, I'm sure.


----------



## Entrenador (Oct 8, 2004)

Old Ray said:


> E-bikes should be permitted on any trail that allows motorized access. No others.


+2. Before long e-bikes will have their own forums dedicated to people showing off their mods - extra battery capacity, more output, etc. Anyone calling this motorized vehicle a bicycle either a) bought a really slow one, or b) has a vested interest in broadening the market.

Say no to electric motors. Say yes to klunking.


----------



## misooscar (Sep 22, 2008)

*mtbr=nimby*



Entrenador said:


> +2. Before long e-bikes will have their own forums dedicated to people showing off their mods - extra battery capacity, more output, etc. Anyone calling this motorized vehicle a bicycle either a) bought a really slow one, or b) has a vested interest in broadening the market.
> 
> Say no to electric motors. Say yes to klunking.
> View attachment 944423


bunch of spoiled brats


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Axe said:


> Imagine doing pull-ups with a little platform under your knees helping you out.. Oh, wait, that machine is in every single gym out there.
> 
> You sound like an arrogant elitist. There is nothing special about being able to pedal up a steep hill, and getting all sweaty is not the only reason to being there.


Wow. Arrogant? You definitely got that covered.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Okay... so if I have this right, we're going to distance ourselves from e-bikes by going all-in and advocating for banning them from non-motorized trails. But when they actually do show up on non-motorized trails, we will either pretend they aren't there, or we'll just tell hikers, equestrians and land managers that raise a stink that they aren't mountain biking and we already disassociated ourselves from them? Yeah, that'll probably work out just fine for us.

Hey, I'm not looking forward to or advocating for the "Age of E-Bikes", but I don't think anything we do can stop them from gaining in popularity... because people apparently like them and find them to be "fun". So unless we can get bicycle-only trails built, these e-bikes could be the beginning of the end for mechanized trail access (in my worst-case-scenario opinion). So what the F can we do about it over the next few years to make sure that doesn't happen?

No... these things won't get popular, especially once they are lighter and more affordable :skep:


----------



## jl776 (Nov 27, 2010)

shredchic said:


> Perhaps a place like Demo could eventually entertain such thoughts, since it is only ever frequented by mountain bikers. And I've often thought of what a waste of a climb Hihn's Mill is at the end of a long ride.... Who wouldn't want a little pedal-assist there, as the point of that place is the DH, not the climbs? But I don't know how well that would go over with the management. There is an added overhead for them. And really it's what the decision-makers think that matters.


Waste of a climb and who wouldn't want a little pedal assist? I disagree-not that I love that grind out of there. I don't mind, it's just part of riding at demo and is a natural barrier to big travel bikes. Take away the climb(s), via ebike or shuttle and the character of demo (or any riding spot) will change. I think you'd start to see bigger bikes there, and a different crowd. I like it the way it is. Please continue to climb out under your own power.


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

Axe said:


> So many people tried one of the local fireroad climbs.. and gave up on riding outside ever again.


Good, let them go back to the bowling allies, gyms and golf courses.


----------



## ssalinas (Mar 31, 2011)

Man so much hate for big travel bikes on norcal mtbr


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Empty_Beer said:


> Okay... so if I have this right, we're going to distance ourselves from e-bikes by going all-in and advocating for banning them from non-motorized trails.
> 
> View attachment 944446


There is little doubt in the inevitability of these motorized bicycles. Making this sport easier, making the fun more accessible, and marketing will insure that.

However, I do not suggest that we distance ourselves by going all-in to ban them. What I have been working out here is that we will continue to advocate for our access but not ally ourselves with motorized bicycles. As I have said earlier we are going to have to craft some careful language and have it at the ready to manage this issue and not allow people to include is in the motorized camp with its incumbent disadvantages.

As far as turning them in when they are seen on trails illegally, I doubt that this sort of thing is within the mtb character. We don't really complain to anyone about anything unless it is pretty serious; a rampaging loose horse, arsonists, someone illegally chopping down a tree.

Further, we don't tattle either; speeding or rude cyclists, idiots riding in environmentally sensitive areas, riding unsanctioned trails.


----------



## Plim (Dec 8, 2004)

pliebenberg said:


> I was really hoping that a slam-dunk consensus would have materialized during the course of this poll defining what the sport of Mountain Biking is; i.e operating a device that is _pedal powered and has two wheels_.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> ...


If the poll was should we define mountain biking as something pedal powered with two wheels and that the definition should exclude e-bikes, I wouldn't have a problem with that definition. That's not what you asked though.

Saying that I, someone who voted yes, is "polluting" a basic concept and that I don't "get it" is insulting and incorrect.

You asked if e-bikes should be permitted on trails. My answer is yes.
If you'd asked if horses should be permitted on trails, my answer would be yes.
If you'd asked if hikers should be permitted on trails, my answer would be yes.
None of those three things is a mountain bike in my mind.

By interpreting a yes vote as pollution and a statement that an e-bike is a mountain bike you are needlessly confusing the issue and muddying the waters.

Please be more accurate with language and refrain from insults so that we may have a more useful dialog.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Plim said:


> If the poll was should we define mountain biking as something pedal powered with two wheels and that the definition should exclude e-bikes, I wouldn't have a problem with that definition. That's not what you asked though.
> 
> Saying that I, someone who voted yes, is "polluting" a basic concept and that I don't "get it" is insulting and incorrect.
> 
> ...


No no no. This thread is not the place for rational thinking. This is all about passion, emotion and slippery slope argument! Please get with it.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

donutnational said:


> Good, let them go back to the bowling allies, gyms and golf courses.


That's where you will end up when trails are closed to bicycles due to arguments that you promote here.

Attitude like yours is the reason we are not getting more trails.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

JACKL said:


> Wow. Arrogant? You definitely got that covered.


But not an elitist. See the difference?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Plim said:


> If the poll was should we define mountain biking as something pedal powered with two wheels and that the definition should exclude e-bikes, I wouldn't have a problem with that definition. That's not what you asked though.
> 
> Saying that I, someone who voted yes, is "polluting" a basic concept and that I don't "get it" is insulting and incorrect.
> 
> ...


If you feel insulted so be it; not my intention (or was it???) but if you've followed this all the way through you'd notice it took me 4 tries to get a working poll posted due to MTBR website glitches. I had to dispense with such niceties as more specifically defining what an "e-bike" is and what is meant by "trails". To pose all the choices I wanted to offer I would have had to post 4 separate polls; I stopped with 2. You're free to create a poll of your own imagining. BTW when the website is misbehaving and you hit the "preview this poll" button the thread gets posted as-is and there's no calling it back.

So we have a poll asking a general question requiring a yes/no answer; I had hoped that most viewers here on MTBR would take it "with a grain of salt".

Yes my subsequent wording may seem harsh to some but I'm trying to draw out that "silent majority" to get off their a$$es and become more involved with issues of advocacy.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

Axe said:


> No. Low power ebike sounds, rides, smells like a bycicle. Not like a motorcycle.
> 
> Duck typing.


Air rifles don't sound or smell like gunpowder rifles but that doesn't make it ok to shoot someone with it.

E bikes have a motor
Quack quack


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

IMBA, in this 2010 Policy statement, made some pretty nice distinctions. They describe e-bikes as motorized, that mountain bikes should be classified as non-motorized and objecting to the term "mechanized" as applied to mouton bikes.

The encourage access for e-bikes where other motorized cycles are allowed as well as separate advocacy agencies.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

At least, I've learned something with this thread. Mountain bikers don't seem to be any more tolerant than the average HOHA. That saddens me. I thought that after 30 years of being screwed over by the haters, we would have learned to be better, but clearly that's not the case. I guess that sharing and accepting differences is not in the human genome (at least for most).


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

^ that is why I think HOHA's will love e-bikes. The bikes have the ability to divide and conquer us, with no help from them! We'll be fighting each other instead of paying attention to things sliding down the slippery slope that affect wheeled access. That John Par-something-or-other guy in Marin should start an e-bike advocacy group!


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Berkeley Mike said:


> IMBA, in this 2010 Policy statement, made some pretty nice distinctions. They describe e-bikes as motorized, that mountain bikes should be classified as non-motorized and objecting to the term "mechanized" as applied to mouton bikes.
> 
> The encourage access for e-bikes where other motorized cycles are allowed as well as separate advocacy agencies.


Thanks Mike!

If I would have attached this to the original poll things would have gone better.


----------



## Hardtale (Sep 10, 2014)

Berkeley Mike said:


> However, I do not suggest that we distance ourselves by going all-in to ban them. What I have been working out here is that we will continue to advocate for our access but not ally ourselves with motorized bicycles. *As I have said earlier we are going to have to craft some careful language and have it at the ready to manage this issue and not allow people to include is in the motorized camp with its incumbent disadvantages.*


Outright opposition does not sit well with me either considering that some of these bikes are probably pretty tame and may help some who really need it.

However if I was asked, I would draw the clear distinction between motorized bikes of any type and non-motorized bikes. Any other position invites confusion and has the potential to create situations where the non-motorized crowd is expected to answer for any issues that arise from motorized users. As far as I'm concerned they are a different animal. I would not want to answer for horses or atvs either.

Its up to the e-bike advocates to demonstrate that motorized bikes can peacefully co-exist w/o damaging the resources and for the land managers to manage if they are on the trails, legally or otherwise. Having said, if e-bikes were allowed I think I could go along and get along.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Old Ray said:


> E-bikes should be permitted on any trail that allows motorized access. No others.


BINGO! Seems pretty simple to me. When E bike start tearing up the MTB trails, they will close them to everyone.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Buzzaro said:


> Air rifles don't sound or smell like gunpowder rifles but that doesn't make it ok to shoot someone with it. k


And the winner of the most irrelevant analogy is...

Sound and smell are not the criteria that guns are differentiated with. Mode of outdoor transportation are certainly judged by that.

Pedelecs are nothing like a motorcycle. They are very much like a bicycle. Anybody who does not see that when they are in front of them is blind.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

zorg said:


> At least, I've learned something with this thread. Mountain bikers don't seem to be any more tolerant than the average HOHA. That saddens me. I thought that after 30 years of being screwed over by the haters, we would have learned to be better, but clearly that's not the case. I guess that sharing and accepting differences is not in the human genome (at least for most).


Bingo. How people do not see that the argue precisely as bike haters is.. Odd.

Remove the e from the ebike, and this thread is like reading park watch hate board.


----------



## Sean Allan (May 4, 2005)

I find it interesting from a sociology standpoint that for the most part those that are against the allowance of e-bikes on non motorized trails have been clear in their reasons and polite in stating so. Those rallying for the inclusion of e-bikes on the other hand have resorted to name calling and labeling the "non believers" as intolerant, stupid, arrogant, shortsided, and that we just don't "get it" among other things. Remember folks, the last resort to a losing argument is usually name calling and degrading language..... If this is your way of advocating for your cause, I'm pretty sure us non believers have nothing to worry about. So **** you you stupid d-bags(Completely kidding!)


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Axe said:


> And the winner of the most irrelevant analogy is...
> 
> Sound and smell are not the criteria that guns are differentiated with. Mode of outdoor transportation are certainly judged by that.
> 
> Pedelecs are nothing like a motorcycle. They are very much like a bicycle. Anybody who does not see that when they are in front of them is blind.


Agreed; a 250 watt pedelec is quite benign and looks very much like a bicycle but I (or any other e-head) can increase its power 10 fold and outwardly you won't be able to tell the difference. ('cept for the roost)

Watch me...

(Expecting rangers to be carrying dyno rollers in the back of their trucks now?)


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

pliebenberg said:


> Agreed; a 250 watt pedelec is quite benign and looks very much like a bicycle but I (or any other e-head) can increase its power 10 fold and outwardly you won't be able to tell the difference. ('cept for the roost)
> 
> Watch me...
> 
> (Expecting rangers to be carrying dyno rollers in the back of their trucks now?)


That sounds like rationalizing your own bias.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

zorg said:


> That sounds like rationalizing your own bias.


No; I'm explaining my bias---I think e-bikes are really neat but they're going to create a quagmire for gaining (or maintaining) bicycle access to trails.

Also giving out my opinion...


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

Axe said:


> And the winner of the most irrelevant analogy is...
> 
> Sound and smell are not the criteria that guns are differentiated with. Mode of outdoor transportation are certainly judged by that.
> 
> Pedelecs are nothing like a motorcycle. They are very much like a bicycle. Anybody who does not see that when they are in front of them is blind.


They are as much a motorcycle as they are a bicycle. They shouldn't be in the same group as bikes. 
Air rifles don't make a smell or sound yet still do the same thing as something that does. 
How about rail guns? Would that be relevant to you since they are electric and rifles are gas powered?
Electric powered cycles aren't differentiated by sound and smell either....it's the motor that makes the difference. You're the one saying it doesn't sound and smell like a duck so it must be a bicycle, not me. I'll tell you right now if someone had cards in their spokes I'd say they could ride wherever they want.

Actually let me clear something up. The question was asking if they should be allowed on trails. I guess I interpreted that to be asking if they should be allowed on horse/hike/bike trails. I really don't care if they're on motorized trails. I'm sure they're great I just don't they should be called bicycles or categorized as one.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

pliebenberg said:


> No; I'm explaining my bias---I think e-bikes are really neat but they're going to create a quagmire for gaining (or maintaining) bicycle access to trails.
> 
> Also giving out my opinion...


So, assuming electric assist bikes were legal, and you'd get one, would you go through the hassle of upgrading the motor, changing the electronics to get a mini motorcycle at the risk of getting a ticket and getting all e-bikes banned?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

What about if my dog pulls me? What if I hook up like 4 of them?


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Sean Allan said:


> I find it interesting from a sociology standpoint that for the most part those that are against the allowance of e-bikes on non motorized trails have been clear in their reasons and polite in stating so. Those rallying for the inclusion of e-bikes on the other hand have resorted to name calling and labeling the "non believers" as intolerant, stupid, arrogant, shortsided, and that we just don't "get it" among other things. Remember folks, the last resort to a losing argument is usually name calling and degrading language..... If this is your way of advocating for your cause, I'm pretty sure us non believers have nothing to worry about. So **** you you stupid d-bags(Completely kidding!)


From this thread I saw exactly the opposite.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Buzzaro said:


> They are as much a motorcycle as they are a bicycle
> .


That is an assertion based on a cherry picked criteria that you selected to try to justify a preconceived conclusion.

It is really very simple. The only reason to prohibit anything is its impact on other people freedoms. Such as quite enjoyment of unspoiled nature on public lands. Pedelecs are exactly like bikes in that regard. It is perfectly obvious. Motorcycles, including electric motorcycles, are not. All other differentiating factors and similarities are irrelevant.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

Axe said:


> That is an assertion based on a cherry picked criteria that you selected to try to justify a preconceived conclusion.
> 
> It is really very simple. The only reason to prohibit anything is its impact on other people freedoms. Such as quite enjoyment of unspoiled nature on public lands. Pedelecs are exactly like bikes in that regard. It is perfectly obvious. Motorcycles, including electric motorcycles, are not. All other differentiating factors and similarities are irrelevant.


Cherry picking? I've stayed with one single criteria and it's the one that when removed leaves you with a bicycle. You're the one that keeps insisting on what is and isn't relevant, up to and including how analogies can be applied.
Preconceived? I don't think there is any question of whether or not a motor makes something motorized. By the way, there's "freedom from" as well as "freedom to". Allowing things can impact freedoms too. Still fairly simple but it raises the reasons to two and makes it more of a slider bar than black and white. In fact, this country was founded on the freedom from concept. But I already know, that doesn't apply here to this situation


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

zorg said:


> So, assuming electric assist bikes were legal, and you'd get one, would you go through the hassle of upgrading the motor, changing the electronics to get a mini motorcycle at the risk of getting a ticket and getting all e-bikes banned?


Did you forget where you are? MTBR? How many people here did NOT upgrade their bike?  Get real, you will have more people making aftermarket power upgrades than people making 1x chainrings and wide handlebars.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Axe said:


> The only reason to prohibit anything is its impact on other people freedoms.


Yep, you nailed it. The long term effect of sneaking in motorized vehicles under cover as bikes is that more trails will be closed to mountain bikes. That affects many people's freedom to ride a mountain bike.

Its about being smart, not about being right.


----------



## Entrenador (Oct 8, 2004)

rensho said:


> I *challenge* the nay sayers to postpone their adamant opposition until they ride a 'pedelec', either on trail or street. Seriously.


~11 years ago, I borrowed an electric assist Zap cruiser from a friend that won it at a Giants game. Had it for about a year. The bike was probably over 40lbs without the motor and lead acid battery, and a whole lot more with it - steel rims, fenders, the works. The motor was attached just behind the saddle, and actually rubbed a roller onto the top surface of the tire (really). From a technological standpoint, it would have probably been state of the art in the late 70s. Not a fancy bike.

Was it fast as hell? No. Could it push me up a hill without me pedaling? Yes it could. Was it fun to ride? Sure. Battery tech has improved, bike tech has improved. Both are still improving. Call it what you want, but what I was riding was a moped, just like my old Puch 50cc only slower. Should anyone be riding these things on trails that are closed to motorized vehicles? Not at all.

I have nothing against the platform, or people wanting to profit from selling these. I wholeheartedly support electric bikes as a form of transportation where motorized vehicles are permitted, especially on city streets.


----------



## Entrenador (Oct 8, 2004)

rensho said:


> I'd like to see a day soon where I can go 100mi from the trailhead and get back to the car in a long ride. Today, i can go 20mi from trailhead.
> Do we want to keep this the way it is? 20 years from now, we'll all ride bikes with 24 speeds and ride 10-20mi from the trailhead, head back to the car and go eat burritos? No progress at all?


Maybe switching from carnitas to bean & cheese might help extend the range a bit.  Kidding, as I'm certain you'd drop me at will repeatedly on the trail. Partly kidding, in that when I'm fortunate to have the time and support to ride more, and I dedicate lifestyle to making fitness a priority, the progress & pride is in the increased range I can cover. Probably will never be 100mi on real trails, but I'm okay with that. And other times I'll regress and 15mi will feel like a big ride. As long as I feel like I've put in work, it's all good.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

CrozCountry said:


> Yep, you nailed it. The long term effect of sneaking in motorized vehicles under cover as bikes is that more trails will be closed to mountain bikes. That affects many people's freedom to ride a mountain bike.
> 
> Its about being smart, not about being right.


The long term effect of promoting prohibition of recreation that is not based on actual measurable impact will cause those restrictions extended to bicycles. It is already happening with those infamous snake arguments. No proof, just perception. 
See, I can make unsubstantiated slippery slope arguments too.

Ok, time to unsubscribe.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Axe said:


> The long term effect of promoting prohibition of recreation that is not based on actual measurable impact will cause those restrictions extended to bicycles. It is already happening with those infamous snake arguments. No proof, just perception.


Banning mountain bikes without any "measurable impact" is very popular sport in CA. I would say that past events are a good predictor for the future. You can consider it certain unless there is a good explanation why it would be different this time.


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

zorg said:


> So, assuming electric assist bikes were legal, and you'd get one, would you go through the hassle of upgrading the motor, changing the electronics to get a mini motorcycle at the risk of getting a ticket and getting all e-bikes banned?


I know eventually I would. Just like I've made improvements to my real bike. But I'll never buy one.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Gateway drug*



rensho said:


> I *challenge* the nay sayers to postpone their adamant opposition until they ride a 'pedelec', either on trail or street. Seriously.


I agree.

I've had 3 of the 250 watt machines; I'd hoped they'd be the methadone to a moto addiction I was trying to recover from. (3 because my family wanted in on the action)

250 watts sort of matches what I can do on a good day with my legs; perhaps satisfying but not at all exciting.

Not long before the tinkerer in me is asking "how much can this thing be boosted??? Let's add some more batteries! (in series of course)

Well the 24 volt controller just tolerated being bumped to 36 v and fried at 48 v.

The motor had no problem being run at 36 v but 48 v (with a new appropriately rated controller) was maybe good for a couple of minutes before starting to smoke.

Next step was new motors better matched to the new controllers. (see where this is going?)

Unlike a real addict I didn't start stealing to continue my e-bike habit; if I needed a moto fix I just went and rode my moto. Moto's are sooo much more cost-effective that e-bikes!

If I wanted to ride somewhere the moto wasn't allowed I'd hop on my MTB.

I guess I could also say that moto's were the gateway drug to MTB's for me. Not a bad thing.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

From the Trails Building and Advocacy Forum, Mark E:

"New e-bikes editorial posted to Outside's website -- a well-considered essay I think."

Why We Shouldn't Hate on E-Bikes | The Cycle Life | OutsideOnline.com

So what this article reveals is that the elements of the discussion here on MTBR hits the same arguments but is actually more civil.

How about that?!


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

pliebenberg said:


> I agree.
> 
> I've had 3 of the 250 watt machines; I'd hoped they'd be the methadone to a moto addiction I was trying to recover from. (3 because my family wanted in on the action)
> 
> ...


You sound like my twin!

I would for sure mod my ebike, spend a lot of money and break lots of things. All the while, keep riding my many mtbs and motos. Most people aren't like us.
They ride the same bike until something breaks or they lose interest. We all have friends and neighbors that have that same trek 8000 with vbrakes, or that 2003 fsr stumphumper.

Here is a same of a reasonable and well thought out 250w mtb. Notice the gentleman doesn't seem to be ruining our planet...nor killed any trail users with the extreme extra speed on the DH.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Jayem said:


> What about if my dog pulls me? What if I hook up like 4 of them?


I think here in the awesome bay area, no one is allowed to walk more than 3 dogs at a time. I'm sure that law was put in because someone complained that they didn't like the idea.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

zorg said:


> At least, I've learned something with this thread. Mountain bikers don't seem to be any more tolerant than the average HOHA. That saddens me. I thought that after 30 years of being screwed over by the haters, we would have learned to be better, but clearly that's not the case. I guess that sharing and accepting differences is not in the human genome (at least for most).


Well said Zorg. A+++


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> From the Trails Building and Advocacy Forum, Mark E:
> 
> "New e-bikes editorial posted to Outside's website -- a well-considered essay I think."
> 
> ...


That was good, Mike, and props to Jimmy Mac for quitting his job over this. He took a stand.
I hope he's doing well.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

From the definition of motor:

a machine, especially one powered by electricity or internal combustion, that supplies motive power for a vehicle or for some other device with moving parts.

Humans are motors. Electricity plays a part. I found nothing in definitions of motor that states that a motor can only be made of metal. By the way, other forms of biological motors are on the way.

All cyclists are using motors. That is how our machines move forward.

The only issue should be impact on other trail users, nature, and trails.

Pedal assisted bikes have no additional impacts. There are videos online to show this including one posted above.

However, pedal assisted bikes allow people with various medical conditions to enjoy trails on lands that they help pay for. Those who oppose pedal assisted bikes are self-centered and arrogant. They want help paying for the land and trails from all taxpayers but want to restrict usage to only people who meet some artificial standard of fitness.

I'm in the market for a new bike and I'm not considering pedal assist. However, I'm going to try to convince MROSD and Moab BLM to allow them for others who currently don't have a voice in MTB or the legal and political background to get on the trails if they chose. 

I want the right to make that choice someday.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> From the Trails Building and Advocacy Forum, Mark E:
> 
> "New e-bikes editorial posted to Outside's website -- a well-considered essay I think."
> 
> ...


That's a good, balanced, article.

In the Moab case, it wouldn't surprise me that the shuttle companies are behind the ban.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Eventually you're going to have a bunch of people who are to lazy to ride a mountain bike, out on our trails acting all moto like this stupid mother ****er. And the powers that be will have no choice but to ban them from the trails and only allow them in places where motorcycles are allowed. It's only time until they get even more powerful then this one. I'd laugh if this MFer fell right on the top of his head!


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

rensho, I can't think of a shuttle ride in Moab, or Downievile, that would be impacted by pedal assist bikes. I can envision my wife being much happier climbing Baby Steps, Amasa Back, the Portal Trail, and back up the Gemini Bridges Road after a great run down upper Mag 7 if we park at the top. Yeah, that may impact the Mag 7 shuttle slightly for a few of us but we're not using the shuttle on Mag 7 again anyway.

Mountain Cycle Shawn, that bike has a throttle. It is a motorcycle and we already have settled that issue on the trails. There are already established rules and policing. No need for further discussion about motorcycles.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

rensho said:


> I think here in the awesome bay area, no one is allowed to walk more than 3 dogs at a time. I'm sure that law was put in because someone complained that they didn't like the idea.


First off this is a really good example of lines being draw as discriminations with a common community. And there were no assassinations.  Let's keep this in mind.

Actually the multiple dog rules were based upon some pretty sound experience around the issue of dog control. Statistically, dogs and people walking dogs are the single biggest complaint-related problem in EBRPD parks.

It in spite of rules that allow dogs if under voice control, the folks who make those rules know full-well the futility of voice control and its limitations. Yet the dog walkers (who are equated with motherhood) are a large part of trail users and would only seem to tolerate such a rule as opposed to mandatory leashing as a lesser of two weevils.(Master and Commander: the far side of the world. 2003)

The same might be said of the 3-dog rule; it is a form which had support enough to pass. As most walk just one dog, support addressing multiple dogs was pretty easy to secure. (Again, a discrimination drawn within a community concerning its own. That said do you think civilian dog walkers would report pro dog walker with too many dogs? Do we report the average mtb speedster?) Its passage takes advantage of some notion folks have about professional dog walkers, defining the skills needed to manage numbers of dogs.

As an aside I see this, administratively as a thinly disguised support of a business which utilizes park land for its purposes, as with horse stables. So political support for dog walking business usage was an unspoken underpinning of support for equestrians.

What you end up with is a set of rules that really don't do the best with the problem but were the best rules that could be managed given the politics.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

jmpreston said:


> No need for further discussion about motorcycles.


jmpreston, I don't support this kind of direction. Of course this is your opinion based upon your assessment but telling people to stop talking about a thing doesn't work for me.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Berkeley Mike, endless discussions about settled topics, motorcycles, is unhelpful and keeps others from entering discussions. Should we bring in religion or ATV's or any other topic? Motorcyles are OT. Besides, anyone on this thread long enough knows that there is no MTB support for more motorcycle access. Why keep diluting the discussion with it?


By the way, while dog walkers are OT also I see packs of dogs on leashes on some South Bay trails like Almaden Quicksilver. There are way more than 3 and these professional dog walkers have permits. Really scary to come around a corner even at the speed limit and have a big pack of dogs spread across the trail. They have a major impact on other users. I'm not against them though.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

rensho said:


> You sound like my twin!
> 
> I would for sure mod my ebike, spend a lot of money and break lots of things. All the while, keep riding my many mtbs and motos. Most people aren't like us.
> They ride the same bike until something breaks or they lose interest. We all have friends and neighbors that have that same trek 8000 with vbrakes, or that 2003 fsr stumphumper.
> ...


Luv u bro

Here is a reasonable and well thought out s-pedelec. Next step up from the 250 W (legal in Germany and could be progarammed to be legal here) Notice that wheelspin seems to be a selling point.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

jmpreston said:


> Berkeley Mike, endless discussions about settled topics, motorcycles, is unhelpful and keeps others from entering discussions. Should we bring in religion or ATV's or any other topic? Motorcyles are OT. Besides, anyone on this thread long enough knows that there is no MTB support for more motorcycle access. Why keep diluting the discussion with it?


Because e-bikes have motors?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*No go at Coe*

Just got back from a meeting of the Coe Mountain Bike Patrol where we we making plans for another supported MTB outing in 2015.

The event last year was attended by a couple of pedelecs which were allowed under the special event permit.

Ain't gonna happen again. The rangers have re-visited the matter and decided that e-bikes of any sort aren't appropriate.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

rensho said:


> I think here in the awesome bay area, no one is allowed to walk more than 3 dogs at a time. I'm sure that law was put in because someone complained that they didn't like the idea.


Probably a cyclist that got wiped out by a leash. What a whiner too!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

jmpreston said:


> Berkeley Mike, endless discussions about settled topics, motorcycles, is unhelpful and keeps others from entering discussions. Should we bring in religion or ATV's or any other topic? Motorcyles are OT. Besides, anyone on this thread long enough knows that there is no MTB support for more motorcycle access. Why keep diluting the discussion with it?
> 
> By the way, while dog walkers are OT also I see packs of dogs on leashes on some South Bay trails like Almaden Quicksilver. There are way more than 3 and these professional dog walkers have permits. Really scary to come around a corner even at the speed limit and have a big pack of dogs spread across the trail. They have a major impact on other users. I'm not against them though.


jmpreston we disagree.

We cannot decide what is or is not concluded. Ultimately the thread itself decides that as it expires. Neither are we tasked with controlling this discussion. The resurfacing of aspects of the topic happens all the time as people come aboard anew or do not feel an issue settled convincingly or simply want to make a point in a belated fashion. That one ought to be more informed, followed the thread to the conclusions some have come to or feel very differently, or whatever, these are features of discussion.

We are not hear to debate or decide but to share ideas. That they may or may not be redundant, poorly informed, misguided or brilliant and insightful, or might have better contributed earlier, keeping discussion open and not directing people to silence is the rule of the day.

For my part I do not think motorcycles are off topic, nor is that of dogs either. Both reveal paradigms of sharing and park administration. These apparent diversions illuminate the discussion by analogy, through parallels to our topic. They also reveal attitudes.

And that brings me to another factor in our discussions. While we may want to hang on fact or analogy, the expression of attitudes are extremely valuable to appreciating who we are in the forum. While some maybe more welcome than others, as long as they aren't offending our basic rules they are a part of the fabric of the mtbr culture and effect us all.

As to that, one wonders if attitudes have become more well-informed opinions as the discussions has progressed. In the process of this discussion the poll has taken a more "no" view.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> jmpreston we disagree.
> 
> We cannot decide what is or is not concluded. Ultimately the thread itself decides that as it expires. Neither are we tasked with controlling this discussion. The resurfacing of aspects of the topic happens all the time as people come aboard anew or do not feel an issue settled convincingly or simply want to make a point in a belated fashion. That one ought to be more informed, followed the thread to the conclusions some have come to or feel very differently, or whatever, these are features of discussion.
> 
> ...


That was kick ass!

Do you guys really think that E bike without throttles won't become more powerful?


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

pliebenberg said:


> Just got back from a meeting of the Coe Mountain Bike Patrol where we we making plans for another supported MTB outing in 2015.
> 
> The event last year was attended by a couple of pedelecs which were allowed under the special event permit.
> 
> Ain't gonna happen again. The rangers have re-visited the matter and decided that e-bikes of any sort aren't appropriate.


Wow. How sad.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

jmpreston said:


> However, pedal assisted bikes allow people with various medical conditions to enjoy trails on lands that they help pay for. Those who oppose pedal assisted bikes are self-centered and arrogant. They want help paying for the land and trails from all taxpayers but want to restrict usage to only people who meet some artificial standard of fitness.


In that case allow pedal assist for people with "various conditions". In the same way that disabled people get dedicated parking spots that others cannot use. Those parking spots come from our tax money and we cannot use them, but you rarely find someone that objects it. Because it is used by people that actually need it. Its not a new concept to make exceptions and preferences for people that can proove they need them. Tried and trued formula. I have no problem if you can get a *pedal assist trail permit approved by a medical doctor and issued by a government agency* (like parking).

I would be interested to hear from someone in the know what is the percentage of people that use an ebike on the road and cannot pedal a regular bike due to medical conditions.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Eventually you're going to have a bunch of people who are to lazy to ride a mountain bike, out on our trails acting all moto like this stupid mother ****er. And the powers that be will have no choice but to ban them from the trails and only allow them in places where motorcycles are allowed. It's only time until they get even more powerful then this one. I'd laugh if this MFer fell right on the top of his head!


If you actually watched that video, I believe he does fall goind dh, without a helmet.

The bike doesn't seem much faster than me sprinting up a hill. He is definitely not any faster going DH.
The picture chosen for the video looks impressive, but the action in the vid is far from. 5000w of whatever will likely allow him to go about 3 miles. The laws of physics and electricity can't be bypassed.
I've read through and watched about 100 of these videos. So many of these guys strap on 1 or 2 x000 watt motors and then claim that's what they have. They have no clue their batteries can't source that much current, or that their hookup wire size have too much resistance at load.
It makes for great numbers, but the net result isn't all that impressive, nor damaging.

1hp = 745 watts.
A gutless moto is about 20hp. = 15,000 real watts at the crank.
My 250 dirtbike is reasonably strong at ~33hp = real 24,000 watts. With that much, yes I can roost what I want(I don't roost), and climb a steep hill and accelerate at will until traction is gone.
To worry about 500 watts or 2000 real watts on a trail is just pure silliness. We're talking 0.6 to 3 HP.

Those of you that are old like me remember the "moped". Those had 3-5 HP at the crank, and we ALL know ridiculously underpowered they were. Those that have ridden a Puch moped, imagine climbing a steep dirt hill in a Puch. You know you'd have to pedal like mad until you gave up.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

jmpreston said:


> rensho, I can't think of a shuttle ride in Moab, or Downievile, that would be impacted by pedal assist bikes. I can envision my wife being much happier climbing Baby Steps, Amasa Back, the Portal Trail, and back up the Gemini Bridges Road after a great run down upper Mag 7 if we park at the top. Yeah, that may impact the Mag 7 shuttle slightly for a few of us but we're not using the shuttle on Mag 7 again anyway.
> 
> Mountain Cycle Shawn, that bike has a throttle. It is a motorcycle and we already have settled that issue on the trails. There are already established rules and policing. No need for further discussion about motorcycles.


I'm not that well versed on the trails in Moab. Been there 2x a few years ago. I've shuttled via one of the companies to do Porc Rim or UPS. I think above that was still snowed in.
With the right ebike, I'd ride up that rather than shuttle up in a VW Bus for 30 mins.


----------



## hoolie (Sep 17, 2010)

I think those electric bikes, or electric motor-cycles should always be illegal on singletrack trails. Fire roads are probably better off without them too, as incrementalism is an issue in modern society. I vote NO on ebikes. I'm just one man.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

rensho said:


> If you actually watched that video, I believe he does fall goind dh, without a helmet.
> 
> The bike doesn't seem much faster than me sprinting up a hill. He is definitely not any faster going DH.
> The picture chosen for the video looks impressive, but the action in the vid is far from. 5000w of whatever will likely allow him to go about 3 miles. The laws of physics and electricity can't be bypassed.
> ...


Some of these bikes can go 45-50 mph on flat ground.


----------



## Sean Allan (May 4, 2005)

rensho said:


> To worry about 500 watts or 2000 real watts on a trail is just pure silliness. We're talking 0.6 to 3 HP.
> 
> Those of you that are old like me remember the "moped". Those had 3-5 HP at the crank, and we ALL know ridiculously underpowered they were. Those that have ridden a Puch moped, imagine climbing a steep dirt hill in a Puch. You know you'd have to pedal like mad until you gave up.


Your average Tour De France champion can't put out 450-500 watts for a sustained period of more than 30 minutes, so yes I worry about every day Freds that can outpower a TDF winner. 
You moped analogy forgets to take into account that they weighed closer to your modern 250 dirtbike than an MTB, it's all about power to weight ratio no matter what the vehicle. They also didn't have a gearbox/Derailleur. I've seen guys on e-bikes doing 45 miles an hour from a stoplight damn near as fast as I can get my truck there. Not trying to say what they were riding and they quite possibly were hotrodded, I was just surprised how damn fast they were.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

jl776 said:


> Waste of a climb and who wouldn't want a little pedal assist? I disagree-not that I love that grind out of there. I don't mind, it's just part of riding at demo and is a natural barrier to big travel bikes. Take away the climb(s), via ebike or shuttle and the character of demo (or any riding spot) will change. I think you'd start to see bigger bikes there, and a different crowd. I like it the way it is. Please continue to climb out under your own power.


I agree with you - I think why this discussion presses so many buttons is that if allowed, it does fundamentally change the character of the places we ride and the nature and identity of mountain biking, even. I'm not actually advocating for e-bikes at Demo here, but I am trying to keep an open mind and entertain the other point of view. I think the only way forward is to separate e-biking from mountain biking, it's just a different activity. Perhaps the two uses can co-exist just fine in certain situations, but that's going to be a fight that the e-bike enthusiasts are going to have to fight for themselves.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Sean Allan said:


> Your average Tour De France champion can't put out 450-500 watts for a sustained period of more than 30 minutes, so yes I worry about every day Freds that can outpower a TDF winner.
> You moped analogy forgets to take into account that they weighed closer to your modern 250 dirtbike than an MTB, it's all about power to weight ratio no matter what the vehicle. They also didn't have a gearbox/Derailleur. I've seen guys on e-bikes doing 45 miles an hour from a stoplight damn near as fast as I can get my truck there. Not trying to say what they were riding and they quite possibly were hotrodded, I was just surprised how damn fast they were.


Go try one Sean, the 250 and 500w. It aint the power you think.

Are you saying you're worried about people that can climb a hill a few mph faster than you? And you are a fast ass dude. I highly highly highly doubt that a joe blow with a 500w ebike can out climb you on a hill.

Do you think this gentleman with his 250w ebike can now outclimb JHK?





Are you saying that self preservation stops kicking in on the downhills when said people on on ebikes?

Sean, there is a reason why I'm am a fair bit slower going down most trails on a moto than on my mtb. Why would you think that is, given that i have the power of 50 TdF GCs under me? 50.

And yes, i've seen the videos of the all out modded bikes that can do 50 or 60mph on flat road(there is a top 10 list of fastest ebikes)? how is that relevant? Top fuel dragsters do 320mph in a 1/4mi, but how is that relevant to the honda crv?

I, of all people here understand power to weight ratio. Long live Colin Chapman.

this is my last reply on the topic. All I ask is people try one first, then form opinions.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

shredchic said:


> but that's going to be a fight that the e-bike enthusiasts are going to have to fight for themselves.


I think e-bike (pedelec) enthusiasts will be as apathetic about e-bike advocacy as most mountain bikers are about mountain bike advocacy. Most will just go ride... on their usual trails, except on e-bikes... like they used to do on mountain bikes (and occasionally still do... when their e-bike is in the shop).

I think we need to up the ante on trail etiquette and trail courtesy education for all modes of cycling -- in a BIG way -- in order to offset/fend-off the damage that e-bikes will very likely have on MTB access in the future. If people on two wheels would be courteous to other trail users, we shouldn't have issues about safety that affect access issues.


----------



## TraxFactory (Sep 10, 1999)

jmpreston said:


> All cyclists are using motors. That is how our machines move forward.
> 
> The only issue should be impact on other trail users, nature, and trails.


If your motor takes a dump and walks upright I'm ok with it..


----------



## Sean Allan (May 4, 2005)

rensho said:


> Go try one Sean, the 250 and 500w. It aint the power you think.
> 
> Are you saying you're worried about people that can climb a hill a few mph faster than you? And you are a fast ass dude. I highly highly highly doubt that a joe blow with a 500w ebike can out climb you on a hill.
> 
> ...


500 watts is exactly that, neither I nor 99.999 percent of the population can put out that type of power for more than a few minutes, so yes you would be able to out climb me, just like the couple of E-bikes in Auburn that have done the same thing to me. I don't need to try one to know that. That's not my problem with them. Were they only 500 watts? I have no idea, I doubt it since they were big bikes that were modded out to be e-bikes I think. I don't know and I don't care because regardless of regulations that will happen. That is my fear, not the 70 year old dude trying to get out more. My guess is the percentage of people over the age of 60 buying these bikes and adding to the trail use numbers will go up slightly if they are allowed, but that is such a low number as to be nearly inconsequential, just as their numbers are low now.

I'm worried about the guys on big bikes with big motors and the high power batteries that will certainly come on multi use trails and their effect on my access to those trails. You're a smart and thoughtful guy, you can't think that this won't be the biggest problem with this new technology. I have no problem with sharing use with them on a motorized trail system at all, in fact for most of the moto trails above Foresthill it would be the ideal weapon, but that's where I want them to stay.

Not to pick on you or your analogies, but as someone who has a 10 second truck in my garage, I've seen plenty of 9 and 10 second Civics. Not a CRV yet though.....


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Eventually you're going to have a bunch of people who are to lazy to ride a mountain bike, out on our trails acting all moto like this stupid mother ****er. And the powers that be will have no choice but to ban them from the trails and only allow them in places where motorcycles are allowed. It's only time until they get even more powerful then this one. I'd laugh if this MFer fell right on the top of his head!


They should throw in a free pair of Pedalec decals with every order!


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*He's Greek*



Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Eventually you're going to have a bunch of people who are to lazy to ride a mountain bike, out on our trails acting all moto like this stupid mother ****er. And the powers that be will have no choice but to ban them from the trails and only allow them in places where motorcycles are allowed. It's only time until they get even more powerful then this one. I'd laugh if this MFer fell right on the top of his head!


I finally watched this vid and went the related website. They're not representing this as a MTB per se; more as moto/car replacement. Get rid of ICE save-the-world believers. These guys are for real and I guess for Greece are state-o' art.

Their production models look like something I was prototyping and would be a little embarrassed to show in the public. Hose clamps and zip ties as structural fittings? Stacked washers???

My kind of people!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I believe that the British call that "bodging."


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Empty_Beer said:


> I think e-bike (pedelec) enthusiasts will be as apathetic about e-bike advocacy as most mountain bikers are about mountain bike advocacy. Most will just go ride... on their usual trails, except on e-bikes... like they used to do on mountain bikes (and occasionally still do... when their e-bike is in the shop).
> 
> I think we need to up the ante on trail etiquette and trail courtesy education for all modes of cycling -- in a BIG way -- in order to offset/fend-off the damage that e-bikes will very likely have on MTB access in the future. If people on two wheels would be courteous to other trail users, we shouldn't have issues about safety that affect access issues.


We can't even get bike only trails, so let's forget about e-bike trails in this century.  It's probably not going to be an issue for the next few years as I guess that adoption won't be very quick.

Opposition is not going to solve the issue though. Folks will buy the bikes and will go ride them. Ideally, the manufacturers should go to bat to get the issue settled. It should not be that hard to come up with a standard and a technical way to limit hotrodding (since that seems to be a point of contention here).


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

zorg said:


> We can't even get bike only trails, so let's forget about e-bike trails in this century.  It's probably not going to be an issue for the next few years as I guess that adoption won't be very quick.
> 
> Opposition is not going to solve the issue though. Folks will buy the bikes and will go ride them. Ideally, the manufacturers should go to bat to get the issue settled. It should not be that hard to come up with a standard and a technical way to limit hotrodding (since that seems to be a point of contention here).


I'll say that when we have bike-only trails as a regular thing then we can start to mention low-power pedelecs. (Could be never in NorCal) I'd be happy to share a bike-only trail with the pedelecs.

In the meanwhile ride them at any of the SVRA's like Hollister Hills or a county facility like Metcalf. Or get the OHV entry permit for Clear Creek. BTW I occasionally ride my MTB at HHSVRA and I've never had a moto rider stop and hassle me.

Fun fact; the motos are using Strava at HH (at least the last time I checked)


----------



## GuruAtma (May 17, 2004)

I saw someone with an e-bike climbing Lawndale in Annadel. I made a comment, something like "lucky, you get a motor to help you climb...". The rider told me that she had a degenerative muscle disease that prevented her from pedaling normally. I was like "Oh, well, um, carry on."

I suppose she had a good reason for an e-bike.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

So now we'll have everyone getting E bike prescriptions. It'll be like getting a prescription for weed. Hey doc, I have a hard time falling asleep once a month, I need to smoke weed everyday.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> So now we'll have everyone getting E bike prescriptions. It'll be like getting a prescription for weed. Hey doc, I have a hard time falling asleep once a month, I need to smoke weed everyday.


And I'm OK with that; where advocacy needs to go is that for those that are impaired there's some sort of ID (like a green/red sticker on a moto) that's plainly visible on the bike. How about a "Purple Sticker"? (ha-ha)

While on this analogy I'll segue into another one; lobbying for e-bike acceptance is like the slippery slope of advocating the legalization of recreational pot usage (pretty good chance for this eventually happening) but then at the same time advocating for eliminating restrictions on sales; i. e. you can sell pot in a convenience store right across from a junior high (ain't going to happen).


----------



## sjhiker (Apr 25, 2008)

Can one claim the "no dab up Kennedy" challenge if they use an e-bike?


----------



## Entrenador (Oct 8, 2004)

pliebenberg said:


> While on this analogy I'll segue into another one; lobbying for e-bike acceptance is like the slippery slope of advocating the legalization of recreational pot usage (pretty good chance for this eventually happening) but then at the same time advocating for eliminating restrictions on sales; i. e. you can sell pot in a convenience store right across from a junior high (ain't going to happen).


Both have their places in this world.


----------



## KRob (Jan 13, 2004)

Hardtale said:


> You paint a nice picture, and I find the argument in favor particularly persuasive when the technology is applied to individuals who have been injured or have a disability. And who am I to say how access is used?
> 
> What I don't find persuasive is the idea that e-bikes are and will remain lower impact than regular bikes. You can point to regulation and that's fair but I suspect it will be ineffective. As I said before the effects of non-power assisted bikes is to a great degree self limiting and is, in any case, known. Not so with motorized. So as I understand the situation at this moment I think the negative political realities outweigh any benefit and I would not want to tie my current or future access rights to them.


Well said Hardtale. Even if in their current state they have low impact and are "quite benign", you can bet that they will get lighter, faster, and more powerful in the future. I don't think we want to tie our future access rights to ebikes by accepting their weak, heavy progenitors on non-motorized trails now.



rensho said:


> Not sure I agree from the 2004-2014 toyota prius as a case in point, but i'll give you the statement.


2014 Tesla S does not = Toyota Prius. Very different machines with very different performance numbers. The Tesla (if they could get there production issues sorted) can do 0-60 in 3.2 seconds. It might take a long time before trickle down technology makes e-bikes as powerful as motorcycles and as light as mountain bikes and within the normal man's budget..... but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility in the next 10-20 years. You think hikers are going to tolerate that on non-motorized trails?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

No one wants to hear about the Electric Harley that sounds like a jet fighter. This is Pandora's Box.


----------



## JL de Jong (Dec 4, 2006)

I voted no for now, but in another 20 years or so I may want to use one myself.


----------



## Buzz Cut (Jan 16, 2007)

JL de Jong said:


> I voted no for now, but in another 20 years or so I may want to use one myself.


As an old bastard of 58. hell no. I will pedal up or push the damn bike and when I can't do that I will take up something else


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Buzz Cut said:


> As an old bastard of 58. hell no. I will pedal up or push the damn bike and when I can't do that I will take up something else


ODB, let's revisit this quote in 10 years and see whether that's still true.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Buzz Cut said:


> I will take up something else


Like E-bikes!


----------



## Captain_Hero (Dec 25, 2008)

No!
Unless it’s a trail that allows motorized vehicles. 

I had some idiot ride up behind me at Henry Coe last weekend, didn’t even warn me. the old dude was just stupid. hope he doesn’t get kicked off his bike next time.

No e-bikes on trails!
We might as well just pave the trails over with asphalt and allow cars and motorcycles up there. You know there will be electric rock crawler 4x4s soon….. Then what??? (ill buy one for sure!!! )


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Captain_Hero said:


> No!
> Unless it's a trail that allows motorized vehicles.
> 
> I had some idiot ride up behind me at Henry Coe last weekend, didn't even warn me. the old dude was just stupid. hope he doesn't get kicked off his bike next time.
> ...


Just out curiosity; were you on a bike or hiking? Which entrance?


----------



## Captain_Hero (Dec 25, 2008)

Hunting Hollow/Gilroy
I was on a bike
He passed me on Coit Road climb after the horse camp. Not sure if he went left towards China Hole or if he went right onto Coit road. Sunday 12/07 around 9:00-10:00am. 
My buddy was about 100 yards behind me, all of a sudden I head an electric buzz, veered right so I could turn around to see my buddy and the old dude he was right on me. I had to swerve so he wouldn’t hit me. He didn’t say a word the whole time, not even to my buddy. He was tall 6”ish and over 55 years old.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I ran across this from an email on e-bikes:

"The question of accessibility must be addressed: we should sympathize with those are, though time, injury or disability unable to pedal to the top of the hill. But all athletic sports are this way. Are runners allows to use Segways? Are climbers allowed jet packs? It's rough, but it's just life. "


----------



## Captain_Hero (Dec 25, 2008)

Hunting Hollow/Gilroy
He passed me on Coit Road climb after the horse camp. Not sure if he went left towards China Hole or if he went right onto Coit road. Sunday 12/07 around 9:00-10:00am. 
My buddy was about 100 yards behind me, all of a sudden I head an electric buzz, veered right so I could turn around to see my buddy and the old dude he was right on me. I had to swerve so he wouldn’t hit me. He didn’t say a word the whole time, not even to my buddy. He was tall 6”ish and over 55 years old.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Last Call*

The poll will be closing in 1 hour!


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Captain_Hero said:


> I had some idiot ride up behind me at Henry Coe last weekend, didn't even warn me. the old dude was just stupid. hope he doesn't get kicked off his bike next time. (ill buy one for sure!!! )


Just curious... would you have been as upset(?) if the guy rang a bell or called out?

Or were you also bothered that he either: A) passed you; B) was on an e-bike; and C) was breaking the rules against motorized vehicles on trails?


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I ran across this from an email on e-bikes:
> 
> "The question of accessibility must be addressed: we should sympathize with those are, though time, injury or disability unable to pedal to the top of the hill. But all athletic sports are this way. Are runners allows to use Segways? Are climbers allowed jet packs? It's rough, but it's just life. "


So, just because life has sucked for years, we should allow it to happen in the future even though we have a simple solution. Lame.

Should I use an e-bike tomorrow when I go out riding in the storm on muddy trails?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

It's no by a landslide!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

zorg said:


> So, just because life has sucked for years, we should allow it to happen in the future even though we have a simple solution. Lame.
> 
> Should I use an e-bike tomorrow when I go out riding in the storm on muddy trails?


Well Viagra is a solution for many, as life has changed for them. But I think that is different kind of solution with a culturally non-analogous problem. It has a very different political impact.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Well Viagra is a solution for many, as life has changed for them. But I think that is different kind of solution with a culturally non-analogous problem. It has a very different political impact.


If your e-bike lasts more than four hours, you don't need to see a doctor...


----------



## PauLCa916 (Jul 1, 2013)

zorg said:


> If your e-bike lasts more than four hours, you don't need to see a doctor...


I will most likely try Viagra before I try an E-Bike


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> It's no by a landslide!


Pretty solid victory for us "no" folks as far as the poll went.

The long-term prognosis not so much; with approaching 5000 views and only 145 votes (106 "no" to 39 "yes") there's a huge group out there who could change the direction of things if they stepped up.

Thanks to those who came out to comment one way or the other; Berkeley Mike was #200 as I started to write this comment.

Another thing I'll throw out in regards to the value of opinions rendered on MTBR; I once did a pseudo-scientific poll about MTBR in Coe's Hunting Hollow parking lot on a Saturday. I was waiting for late-arriving trail-work-day particpants to arrive so I asked every MTB'er passing through the parking area whether they were active on MTBR. (We had been using MTBR to good effect in recruiting trail work volunteer for the JDT project)

I forget the exact numbers but only around half of those I questioned (about 30 in total) had ever heard of MTBR; of those who knew about MTBR only about half were "active" enough to register and participate in the forums. Food for thought...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

pliebenberg said:


> only about half were "active" enough to register and participate in the forums. Food for thought...


 If that half vote the same way as the results of this poll indicate the outcome would still be the resounding no that it is. More food for thought.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Pyrrhic victory...


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

It is a reasonable sample, in my opinion. And one could argue that in 10-15 years, when pedal-assist e-bikes are sexier, lighter, possibly less expensive, and have longer lasting batteries, perhaps 1/3rd of "mountain bikers" will be using these contraptions on dirt. I still don't understand how banning them will keep them off all the trails we ride, especially if they look just like normal mt. bikes. I remain pessimistic about our access to non-motorized trails in the future, thanks to this technology.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Well banning muscle-powered mtb riders from trails doesn't seem to work, either.

I'll let e-bikers fight their fight but will not include them in mine for muscle-powered mtb.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

There has to be a better solution than "they aren't my problem"... cause they have a very good chance of being our problem. Thus, getting out in front of the issue with real strategies makes sense to me, before the occasional sightings become every day sightings. I think doing research on impacts (physical/social) is smart. Defining classes and standards of e-bikes is good too. Investing heavily in trail etiquette education would be important as well. This kind of stuff can be put together long before there is an "IeMBA" with any clout. Its more work for us, but I think we need to address all this in order to protect ourselves in the long run.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I can't tell you how many people come to me with ideas about what we should advocate for, how we should do it, and when. What is a much less frequent occurrence, I might even say rare, are people to step-up and execute.

What I tend to do is ask them to take the lead and offer suggestions for first steps. The usual response is to decline and expect me or my group to take their brilliance and put our forces to the task. We are already at our limits. Then the next person steps up with their ideas...and we get a reputation for not following brilliant ideas or doing anything. Rinse, repeat.

One of the challenges of expressing a political movement is the management of assets. It can seem simple to extract ideas, there are tons of them. What is wanted though, are people to step up to shape them to application, negotiate acceptance, and massage them to institutionalization.

Empty-beer (I do not mean to personalize but merely attribute) suggests _yet another idea_, complete with urgency, a sense of importance, and the obvious nature of its need. Yet our mtb community barely has enough for muscle-powered advocacy.

I would suggest that "you" form a group to collate ideas, perhaps from this thread and associated articles, and develop it into a document to describe the lay of the land. The group could work through it into a position. Key, though, is to figure out what the group needs to sustain itself through what will be a long process demanding huge amounts of time, dedication, travel, maybe even money.

Search out efficient ways to broadcast the ideas to bring it to the community to acquire support. Along the way you could continue the development, because people have lots of _great_ ideas (see above). Creat pathways to implementation and search out extant political groups, hope for their backing, and build your numbers and power base. Make a list of institutions who control the application of the ideas and bring it to the powers that be.

It is important to do this as soon as possible to get in on the early development of regulation. The other trails user groups are already at the table and have their influences in place. Be prepared too be set aside, refused, redirected, ignored, and criticized by your own.

Best wishes.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> It's no by a landslide!


Post it on Sierra Club website for even more dramatic results. Also remove e from e-bike. Same arguments anyway.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Axe said:


> Post it on Sierra Club website for even more dramatic results. Also remove e from e-bike. Same arguments anyway.


The Sierra Club loves e-bikes; just leave them in the bike rack at the trail head and continue hiking from there.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

pliebenberg said:


> The Sierra Club loves bikes; just leave them in the bike rack at the trail head and continue hiking from there.


Fixed.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Axe said:


> Fixed.


Yes; they feel that way also.

Here's one of those well-used bike racks:









More like probably never used:


----------



## Buzz Cut (Jan 16, 2007)

pliebenberg said:


> Yes; they feel that way also.
> 
> Here's one of those well-used bike racks:
> 
> ...


you do realize that by posting these and that sign you just gave MV an errection....


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Buzz Cut said:


> you do realize that by posting these and that sign you just gave MV an errection....


Hmmm, I didn't think those photos would be the least bit provocative to emm vee or his ilk. I took/posted those pix to illustrate the absurdity of "policymakers" trying to encourage the public to visit "parks" via bicycle (or e-bikes?) but then not to be able to use said bicycles once one has arrived. (separate racks for e-bikes?)

Pliny to the first caller who can identify the location; offer ends at midnight.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

pliebenberg said:


> Hmmm, I didn't think those photos would be the least bit provocative to emm vee or his ilk. I took/posted those pix to illustrate the absurdity of "policymakers" trying to encourage the public to visit "parks" via bicycle (or e-bikes?) but then not to be able to use said bicycles once one has arrived. (separate racks for e-bikes?)
> 
> Pliny to the first caller who can identify the location; offer ends at midnight.


Monterey bay?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Axe said:


> Monterey bay?


Pretty close but I want the name of the "park".


----------



## BushPilot (Aug 29, 2007)

Not all e-bikes are created equal. There are the electric motorcycle type which don't really belong on multi-use trails, then there are the pedal assist type that have to be pedaled via muscle as well and go no faster than a regular mtb, but could help decrepit seniors (most everyone someday), handicapped or fat asses get up hills for longer rides.


----------



## TraxFactory (Sep 10, 1999)

BushPilot said:


> Not all e-bikes are created equal. There are the electric motorcycle type which don't really belong on multi-use trails, then there are the pedal assist type that have to be pedaled via muscle as well and go no faster than a regular mtb, but could help decrepit seniors (most everyone someday), handicapped or fat asses get up hills for longer rides.


hmm...okay good point, but its still lots of gray area. Speaking of old and decrepit that Jack Singletrack guy has been spotted on CV trails on a pedal assist....


----------



## natrat (Mar 20, 2008)

BushPilot said:


> but could help decrepit seniors (most everyone someday), handicapped or fat asses get up hills for longer rides.


interesting point, poll same people in 20+- years and note results


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

*E-bikes Need to be a New User Group*

This is from ridenparadise in the Trails and Advocacy Forum:

If e-bike access is inevitable, it makes sense that it is identified as a *new user group.* (bold lettering mine. BM) Rather than try to limit something you are not part of, base the argument on history. Historically walkers, equestrians, MTB, orienteering etc have identified as and negotiated with land managers as identifiable user groups.

MTB should not become part of the argument for (or against) e-bikes and e-biking. MTB specific trails were designed and built for mountain bikes, not e-bikes or any other user, regardless of (dis)ability. If e-bikes have a future in the bush, then let e-bikers make that future on new trail for them and see where that goes.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

natrat said:


> interesting point, poll same people in 20+- years and note results


And that is a separate user group.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

BushPilot said:


> Not all e-bikes are created equal. There are the electric motorcycle type which don't really belong on multi-use trails, then there are the pedal assist type that have to be pedaled via muscle as well and go no faster than a regular mtb, but could help decrepit seniors (most everyone someday), handicapped or fat asses get up hills for longer rides.


As far as I know the classification is by power, not by how you trigger it (throttle or pedal assist). I also assume that further classification of electric motorcycles will be by power and not by switches. Putting pedals on an electric motorcycle does not make it a bicycle by today's rules.

Either way, the fact that a user group needs special assistance on the trail does not mean everyone should get a free ride. It means they have to be approved by a legal process, in the same way it happens in many other places in our society. Get a permit from your doctor.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

This from inside a local district. An unofficial, informed opinion:

"[We] have no policy on E bikes specifically, but, as a "motorized vehicle," they're currently not allowed on EBRPD trails. The only exception is for "mobility assistance devices," and we're not allowed to ask what someone's need for mobility assistance is. For example, "Fictitious Name Here" could probably get a pass as a senior citizen.

From a practical standpoint, unless we got complaints, I wouldn't think we'd be out in force to protect the public from a quiet bike that didn't look much different from the others. About five years ago, the Contra Costa Centre (at the PH BART Station) wanted us to allow Segway's and electric bikes on the Iron Horse and Contra Costa Canal Trails. We successfully beat that back then, but I suspect electrics aren't going away."


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Thanks for posting mike. Its only a matter of time until a kid on an e-bike runs into a pedestrian on a trail, and forces the guys in charge to create a policy.

Same with "we're not allowed to ask what someone's need for mobility assistance is". Once the law is passed they will be able to and also required to. Now they can't because its not defined. If someone is using a disabled only parking spot, he/she must show the permit. Should be the same case here.

I know most of us would like to see them as a separate group, but the reality is that other people do see us in the same group.
This is why we actively need to be involved in:

Complete separation of electric motorcycles from bicycles
Be clear that an electric motorcycle with pedals is a motorcycle and not a bicycle regardless of motor size
Clear classification of what mobility assistance is and how someone legally acquires it.
You don't want a grandma that cannot pedal 1 degree incline getting to the top on an electric downhill bike and doing road gaps on the way down.
But this is the idea many mountain bikers have on what they would do with e-bikes, and rest assured they will try to get any kind of permit from their doctor for that. This is why it is a ticking time bomb for us and we should keep them in a separate group with other motorcycles.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

CrozCountry said:


> [*]Be clear that an electric motorcycle with pedals is a motorcycle and not a bicycle regardless of motor size
> .


Low power pedal assisted e-bike is nothing like a motorcycle, not by a mile. We should strive that access decisions are made by considering actual impact, not perceptions or differences that do not actually affect other users. As that will come back to be used against regular bikes.

Once e-bikes are outlawed, they will say look, your pedal bike rides just as fast, just as noisy, annoys HOHAs just as much, looks the same, affects trails the same, let's ban it too.


----------



## mudncrud (May 6, 2010)

+1 for the No


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

CrozCountry said:


> Thanks for posting mike. Its only a matter of time until a kid on an e-bike runs into a pedestrian on a trail, and forces the guys in charge to create a policy.


There's an interesting situation in New York City where e-bikes have been banned from the city limits; they were off to a real good start and then restaurant T/O delivery riders started using them (upgraded from "regular" bikes) and injuries to pedestrians *on sidewalks* started to mount. (e-bikes heavier, faster and in some cases nearly silent)

Total ban unless licensed as a motorcycle. Can't even park one in front of your house. The e-bike lobby is trying to get pedelecs allowed. Worth following IMHO.

See story here: NYC Bans Electric Bikes (Again), Launches Bike Sharing System


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Axe said:


> Low power pedal assisted e-bike is nothing like a motorcycle, not by a mile.


Actually it is. You can rent an "E-bike" that has a scooter shape and no pedals. Because its less than 2hp you don't need a drivers license. You would not be able to tell the difference between it and a normal scooter if you saw them driving by.

Put pedals on it, it's still a scooter and not a bicycle.

And lets change the terminology, the new breed of e-bikes are "pedal assisted motorcycles" or "pedal assisted scooters". Not the other way around.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Pedal-assisted motorcycles*

The ^^^ post made a good point. It's a pretty blurry definition in real life as to what's a "benign" pedelec and an electric motorcycle that happens to have pedals. This video was posted at the companion thread I started the Trails and Advocacy forum:






Love to have one; if I did I'd be tempted to go for the KOM on Dogmeat but I have enough enemies as it is already.

Ronnie Renner being the "family man" that he is probably wouldn't think of blasting through a playground on his KTM (or whatever) but "it's OK with my e-bike".

What fun.

Ban motors. Period.

(see http://forums.mtbr.com/california-norcal/any-new-bikes-gotten-xmas-943349-2.html#post11662652 for my "new" vintage pedelec)


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Axe said:


> Low power pedal assisted e-bike is nothing like a motorcycle, not by a mile. We should strive that access decisions are made by considering actual impact, not perceptions or differences that do not actually affect other users. As that will come back to be used against regular bikes.
> 
> Once e-bikes are outlawed, they will say look, your pedal bike rides just as fast, just as noisy, annoys HOHAs just as much, looks the same, affects trails the same, let's ban it too.


I don't agree. For 30 years we have struggled to define ourselves outside of the histrionics and self-servicing distortions the antis have used to keep us out. And it is slowly working as the realities of our effect on trail use becomes clarified.And now we have electric motorcycle factions attempting to co-opt us into and implied support of them.

Nope, nope, nope.

To have things move in the way you suggest we would have to_ allow ourselves to be defined_ as similar to electric motorcycles.

Instead we need to define the argument. From word one we need to resist allowing ourselves to be connected in any way to the electric motorcycle, establishing the language we use to make that clear, and broadcasting these principles to land managers.

We need to not allow the pro-electric motorcycle marketers to co-opt our community to serve their interests.

We need to not allow ourselves to be pulled into arguments about ADA; that is a separate user group.

We need to push-back on all efforts of antis to define us with electric motorcycles at every turn.

We need to continue to represent our own human pedal driven interests and reinforce the distinction between our sport and entirely different user groups.

For political purposes we are not hikers, equestrians, or the physically challenged. While we might participate in any of those groups it has never been productive for us to alter out method by approaching from those sympathies. This situation with electric motorcycles is no different.

And the alliance with electric motorcycles has started even here with folks trying to blur the distinction between human-powered pedaling and electric motorcycles by using terms like "pedal-assited." Even the term "e-bike" attempts to ride the was of "e" acceptability; a modern nomenclature designed to promote some contrived sense of ultimate and immutable acceptance.

I don't buy it.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

From the Stealth Electric Bikes web site for the "Bomber" model featured in the above video there's this:

_"The Bomber Electric Bike
SPEED
« USA » Mode Engaged : 20 mph
« Competition » Mode Engaged : 50 mph

PERFORMANCE
Range : Up to 50 miles
Noise @ 50 km/h : 65 dB

POWER
« USA » Peak Power Engaged : 250 Watts
« Competition » Peak Power Engaged : 4,500 Watts

ELECTRICAL 
Motor Type : Brushless DC
Battery Type : LiFePO4
Battery Capacity : 1.5kWh
Recharge Time : 2 hours
Charge : Standard 110-240V

DRIVE TRAIN
Transmission : 9 Speed sequential gearbox

SUSPENSION
Front Travel Standard : 180mm
(upgraded : 200mm)
Rear Travel : 250 mm

BRAKES
Regen Braking : Magura MT2
Upgraded : Magura MT4 or Magura MT8

WEIGHT
Weight : 116 lbs (env. 53kg)

ECONOMY
Cost : Less than $.01/mile
Zero Emission"
_

*Notice the "USA mode-engaged"!*

So I don't know if that's done with a jumper, a switch or a software change but when in that "mode" it's just about a _pedelec_.


----------



## misooscar (Sep 22, 2008)

A 116lb pedelec doesn't sound like fun...But a 116lb dirt bike would be a hoot


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

CrozCountry said:


> Actually it is. You can rent an "E-bike" that has a scooter shape and no pedals. Because its less than 2hp you don't need a drivers license. You would not be able to tell the difference between it and a normal scooter if you saw them driving by.
> 
> Put pedals on it, it's still a scooter and not a bicycle.
> 
> And lets change the terminology, the new breed of e-bikes are "pedal assisted motorcycles" or "pedal assisted scooters". Not the other way around.


Those scooters you talk about are not regulation power pedal assisted ebikes. Nothing like it at all.
It is really that simple. Maximum design power under 500w and no throttle. Done. No controversy. All other examples do not fit.


----------



## 262741 (Jun 11, 2005)

Axe said:


> Those scooters you talk about are not regulation power pedal assisted ebikes. Nothing like it at all.
> It is really that simple. Maximum design power under 500w and no throttle. Done. No controversy. All other examples do not fit.


Give it a rest. Nobody cares that you are stoked about pedal assist.


----------



## Corey90 (Aug 2, 2014)

No motors on trails shared used or bike trails. Simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Whats the difference if the throttle is in your hand or under your foot? Its still a throttle.

@pliebenberg this bike is sick. I want one too.



> POWER
> « USA » Peak Power Engaged : 250 Watts
> « Competition » Peak Power Engaged : 4,500 Watts


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

Axe said:


> Those scooters you talk about are not regulation power pedal assisted ebikes. Nothing like it at all.
> It is really that simple. Maximum design power under 500w and no throttle. Done. No controversy. All other examples do not fit.


I agree with Axe, a 250W Pedelec with 15 MPH speed limiter and no throttle will have much in common with a mountain bike - similar power, speed, and behavior. Axe is logically correct in saying a properly limited pedelec is technically similar to riding a MTB on the trail. It provides a boost, but still within the wide range of human power capability. But people keep throwing up straw man examples that do not have these limits and thus more like motorcycles and then saying "see, that's not a bicycle!" Well yeah. This can go on forever.

And sure, some may modify and disguise pedelecs to get a throttle and more speed and power in violation of the law. But that's besides the point and nothing stops people from similarly violating the law now either.

Still, as Berkley Mike said, it's better that any e-bike or pedelec advocacy be well separated from the MTB advocacy. We already have enough problems in getting access and acceptance of bikes sharing trails with nature, hikers and horses. In that regards, making a clear delineation of MTB as having no motor makes sense for the purposes of our MTB advocacy and trail access.

So let the e-bike proponents fight their own separate battles under their own banner rather than co-op our MTB efforts to our detriment. Although I look forward to some common sense rules to allow properly limited pedelecs for all in the future, my feeling is that it's going to be a decades-long battle for limited access, just like it has been for MTB. And from indications in this survey, the MTB community might even be found on the other, blocking, side of this battle, just like what we fighting against now. But I hope not, if sensible rules can be found and promoted.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

Axe said:


> Low power pedal assisted e-bike is nothing like a motorcycle, not by a mile. We should strive that access decisions are made by considering actual impact, not perceptions or differences that do not actually affect other users. As that will come back to be used against regular bikes.
> 
> Once e-bikes are outlawed, they will say look, your pedal bike rides just as fast, just as noisy, annoys HOHAs just as much, looks the same, affects trails the same, let's ban it too.


 At this time, anybody who lobbies in favor of access for e-bikes, pedal assist or no, is working against bicycle access for the same trails.

If you do, and you are successful in getting attention for this cause you seem to represent, you will personally be responsible for the consequences.

The trail access issues for bicycles are just beginning to yield some results, and this would drop a bomb on all of that work. Regardless of any merit that your position may have, this is not the time to press it. I hope you can understand that.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

This from inside a local district. An unofficial, informed opinion:

"[We] have no policy on E bikes specifically, but, as a "motorized vehicle," they're currently not allowed on EBRPD trails. The only exception is for "mobility assistance devices," and we're not allowed to ask what someone's need for mobility assistance is. For example, "Fictitious Name Here" could probably get a pass as a senior citizen.

From a practical standpoint, unless we got complaints, I wouldn't think we'd be out in force to protect the public from a quiet bike that didn't look much different from the others. About five years ago, the Contra Costa Centre (at the PH BART Station) wanted us to allow Segway's and electric bikes on the Iron Horse and Contra Costa Canal Trails. We successfully beat that back then, but I suspect electrics aren't going away."


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

cornfish said:


> Give it a rest. Nobody cares that you are stoked about pedal assist.


Give it a rest. Nobody cares you are afraid of ebikes.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Old Ray said:


> At this time, anybody who lobbies in favor of access for e-bikes, pedal assist or no, is working against bicycle access for the same trails.


I disagree with this assertion. As I have already mentioned here, I do believe any regulations that are based on measurable impact are good for MTB, while any that are based solely on fear and perception of threat are not.

Personally, I do not and would not ride an Ebike in the foreseeable future. But would be glad to see more people getting out and riding.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

Axe said:


> I disagree with this assertion. As I have already mentioned here, I do believe any regulations that are based on measurable impact are good for MTB, while any that are based solely on fear and perception of threat are not.
> 
> Personally, I do not and would not ride an Ebike in the foreseeable future. But would be glad to see more people getting out and riding.


This is fine. Electric motorcycles/mopeds can lobby for their own access based on their measured impact.


----------



## TraxFactory (Sep 10, 1999)

BigLarry said:


> I agree with Axe, a 250W Pedelec with 15 MPH speed limiter and no throttle will have much in common with a mountain bike - similar power, speed, and behavior. Axe is logically correct in saying a properly limited pedelec is technically similar to riding a MTB on the trail. It provides a boost, but still within the wide range of human power capability. But people keep throwing up straw man examples that do not have these limits and thus more like motorcycles and then saying "see, that's not a bicycle!" Well yeah. This can go on forever.


As much as I dont want them on trails I ride, I agree with what you are saying mostly. We already have motopeds popping up on our local trails and those guys are dumping in 190cc motors....sucks.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Buzzaro said:


> This is fine. Electric motorcycles/mopeds can lobby for their own access based on their measured impact.


And we should let them, and not stoke fear and doubt. OMG, it has a battery. So does your cell phone.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

Axe said:


> And we should let them, and not stoke fear and doubt. OMG, it has a battery. So does your cell phone.


I'm not stoking fear and doubt. I never have. I've not made any claims to their impact on the trails aside from the possibility that more people on trails means more conflicts. I'm not even trying to say I don't want them on trails. I'm only trying to made clear that there is one important distinction, a motor. These need to be regulated that way and not associated with bicycles any more than motorcycles. Wow, comparing battery powered items? That's your new argument? Lets see, cars have cellular modems so they're the same as cell phones. Ok who's next? Let's keep this chain alive and see if we can get it to chickens and bikes are the same thing. I really want to take a chicken down culvert.


----------



## natrat (Mar 20, 2008)

Axe said:


> And we should let them, and not stoke fear and doubt. OMG, it has a battery. So does your cell phone.


live and let live, or in this case ride. This whole us vs them mentality is a bit much


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

Buzzaro said:


> I'm only trying to made clear that there is one important distinction, a motor. These need to be regulated that way...


Why is it the *technology* (motor) which is important, rather than the *impact*?

That's the same reason mtb's are banned from the PCT. Because it's simpler to ban a technology you can see (ooh, gears. ooh, motor) than the impact.

Now the technology may drive the impact (yes a bulldozer is more impactful than a barefoot runner) but why the anger without first looking at the reality?


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

mbmtb said:


> Why is it the *technology* (motor) which is important, rather than the *impact*?
> 
> That's the same reason mtb's are banned from the PCT. Because it's simpler to ban a technology you can see (ooh, gears. ooh, motor) than the impact.
> 
> Now the technology may drive the impact (yes a bulldozer is more impactful than a barefoot runner) but why the anger without first looking at the reality?


Because lots of folk like a simple binary world rather than a more complex nuanced one. Reality is of course never really binary...


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

mbmtb said:


> Why is it the *technology* (motor) which is important, rather than the *impact*?
> 
> That's the same reason mtb's are banned from the PCT. Because it's simpler to ban a technology you can see (ooh, gears. ooh, motor) than the impact.
> 
> Now the technology may drive the impact (yes a bulldozer is more impactful than a barefoot runner) but why the anger without first looking at the reality?


A couple things. First, I'm not angry. Second, the motor makes a clear line of distinction between groups. Just as a bicycle separates hikers, equestrians, MTB, motorcycles from all just being "trail users".


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

mbmtb said:


> Why is it the *technology* (motor) which is important, rather than the *impact*?
> 
> That's the same reason mtb's are banned from the PCT. Because it's simpler to ban a technology you can see (ooh, gears. ooh, motor) than the impact.
> 
> Now the technology may drive the impact (yes a bulldozer is more impactful than a barefoot runner) but why the anger without first looking at the reality?


Well stated. Looking at *technology* for permissible trail use rather than impact is what allows existing park regulations to allow shoes and hoofs but not wheels on our trails, even if the impact is the same or lower.

So many in this thread are falling into the same mentality we've been fighting for decades. Sad to see.


----------



## mudncrud (May 6, 2010)

BigLarry said:


> Well stated. Looking at *technology* for permissible trail use rather than impact is what allows existing park regulations to allow shoes and hoofs but not wheels on our trails, even if the impact is the same lower.
> 
> So many in this thread are falling into the same mentality we've been fighting for decades. Sad to see.


I see it a bit different.

An E-Bike has a motor. It is essentially a motorcycle since it does have a motor. A bicycle is entirely self propelled. The e-bike argument is an argument over how powerful of a motorcycle should be allowed on trails.

The bicycle argument is whether or not having an mechanical advantage should be allowed.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

Certainly, technology is important. But just saying "BLOCK ALL THE THINGS WITH MOTORS" is the same as saying "BLOCK ALL THE THINGS WITH WHEELS".

Why not first see what happens? I guess there's a reasonable fear that things with motors causing damage will be interpreted as things with wheels causing damage. 

(Now I have seen people with electric throttle bikes damaging trails; that's why I think they should be considered 'motorcycles' from that POV. But it's not because of the motor, so much as simply how I've seen them being used--the same way a motorcycle can be used, apply max power to the rear wheel to do various things.)


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Buzzaro said:


> A couple things. First, I'm not angry. Second, the motor makes a clear line of distinction between groups. Just as a bicycle separates hikers, equestrians, MTB, motorcycles from all just being "trail users".


Color makes a more visible "distinction", and has about as much actual effect as a low power assist.

Let's ban red bikes. They are an eyesore. They ruin my wilderness experience.


----------



## Corey90 (Aug 2, 2014)

Axe said:


> Color makes a more visible "distinction", and has about as much actual effect as a low power assist.
> 
> Let's ban red bikes. They are an eyesore. They ruin my wilderness experience.


A motorbike is a bike with a motor........e-bikes have motors, they should NOT be permitted on bicycle trails, they have motorbike parks/trails for them, they already have there place.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

A bicycle is a bike, as are motorcycles. They are all mechanical. That is the basis that hikers and equestrians have used against MTB. There is no difference between a motor and a regular bike's gears, brakes, etc. All just mechanical assist hardware.

A pedal assist bike is human powered and must be human powered. Motorcycles have throttles. A pedal assist bike is a bicycle. They have no additional impact trails or other users.

Amazing how some people still insist that a motor is a problem. BS. The problem is unsafe speeds, which all bikes can do, noise, and potential impact on trails. At one time a motor was the differentiator. Now a throttle is. 

We've spent decades trying to convince other trail users that MTB's have no significant impact on trails, are reasonably quiet, and speed can be controlled. The exact same argument can be made for pedal assist.

Some types of e-bikes are just bicycles. Europeans have this figured out.


----------



## Corey90 (Aug 2, 2014)

Axe said:


> Color makes a more visible "distinction", and has about as much actual effect as a low power assist.
> 
> Let's ban red bikes and people with sticks. They are an eyesore. They ruin my wilderness experience.


So just because a smart car has a small motor and size should it be permitted on a footpath?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Corey90 (Aug 2, 2014)

jmpreston said:


> A bicycle is a bike, as are motorcycles. They are all mechanical. That is the basis that hikers and equestrians have used against MTB. There is no difference between a motor and a regular bike's gears, brakes, etc. All just mechanical assist hardware.
> 
> A pedal assist bike is human powered and must be human powered. Motorcycles have throttles. A pedal assist bike is a bicycle. They have no additional impact trails or other users.
> 
> ...


So just because a smart car has a small motor and size should it be permitted on a footpath?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Corey90 said:


> A motorbike is a bike with a motor........e-bikes have motors, they should NOT be permitted on bicycle trails, they have motorbike parks/trails for them, they already have there place.


Have you been to a moto park? You can not ride a pedal assisted bike there. Just can not. 
While you can safely and discreetly ride it on MTB trails.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Corey90 said:


> So just because a smart car has a small motor and size should it be permitted on a footpath?


Are you seriously making that comparison?

But, yes, if it has an under 500w silent motor, requires pedaling and can fit on a single track, sure, why not.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

mudncrud said:


> I see it a bit different.
> 
> An E-Bike has a motor. It is essentially a motorcycle since it does have a motor. A bicycle is entirely self propelled. The e-bike argument is an argument over how powerful of a motorcycle should be allowed on trails.
> 
> The bicycle argument is whether or not having an mechanical advantage should be allowed.


And a bicycle is essentially a motorcycle without an engine according to the HOHAs. Flawed logic.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

jmpreston said:


> A bicycle is a bike, as are motorcycles. They are all mechanical. That is the basis that hikers and equestrians have used against MTB. There is no difference between a motor and a regular bike's gears, brakes, etc. All just mechanical assist hardware.
> 
> A pedal assist bike is human powered and must be human powered. Motorcycles have throttles. A pedal assist bike is a bicycle. They have no additional impact trails or other users.
> 
> ...


We're Americans. Who cares what eurotrash do or like. They're lazy by nature with their 6 weeks of vacation and 30 hour work weeks. They also brought us both world wars. We like wilderness and room to move.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Using a motor as a differentiator is obsolete. Smart cars have a version of a throttle and should not be allowed on trails, not because it has a motor but because:

1) It greatly impacts other trail users.

2) It damages trails.

3) It is relatively noisy.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

SS Hack said:


> We're Americans. Who care what eurotrash do or like. They're lazy by nature with their 6 weeks of vacation and 30 hour work weeks. They also brought us both world wars. We like wilderness and room to move.


Would you care to enlighten us with your vision of the rest of the world population? You seem quite worldly. I'm sure it'd be fascinating.


----------



## Corey90 (Aug 2, 2014)

SS Hack said:


> We're Americans. Who care what eurotrash do or like. They're lazy by nature with their 6 weeks of vacation and 30 hour work weeks. They also brought us both world wars. We like wilderness and room to move.


Us Aussies are the same mate ??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Corey90 said:


> Us Aussies are the same mate 👍👍


I am Russian who grew up under communist dictatorship. I could not even imagine back there that somebody would care to dictate to me what and how I can ride in the woods.


----------



## Corey90 (Aug 2, 2014)

Axe said:


> I am Russian who grew up under communist dictatorship. I could not even imagine back there that somebody would care to dictate to me what and how I can ride in the woods.


I really am truly blessed where I live!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

I have to say that this thread is fascinating. Most folks are arguing against pedelecs/e-bikes based on the presence of a motor and disregard completely the impact argument. Yet, we all argue, and presumably all e-bikes opponents, for the inclusion of bikes on trails based on their impact (or lack thereof) on trails. 

The lack of logic is puzzling.


----------



## mudncrud (May 6, 2010)

I disagree with the logic that it is impact vs motor. I can ride anything I want as long as it fits on the trail and I do not damage anything does not work. There is a very small possibility that you will ride your 500 cc KTM on the trail and not cause damage, but it is highly unlikely. I started of in the moto world and rode a ton of trails. The impact difference between motorcycle and bicycle is significant. There are not a lot of people that can put down 500 watts for any significant amount of time.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

This discussion is about e-bikes, not stupid nationalism. However, if the Europeans have solutions I'm interested. Same with any other group. Remember, for all the evil in Hitler he was smart enough to recognize the costs of smoking and banned it in Germany in the 1930's. 

It took us "really smart Americans" how long to figure it out? Something like a half a century later. And where was hand washing by doctors invented? And where were bacteria recognized? And on and on and on. Nationalism is stupid for lots of reasons.

So you conservatives should avoid washing your hands and require your doctors to avoid it also. This was a European idea that has saved millions of lives around the world.

Meanwhile back in reality, Europeans, and I think Aussies, have already addressed this issue, have workable laws and regulations, and that forms a basis for sorting out e-bikes in the U.S.



Privet AXE! Moiya zhena Russkaya. Ona iz Magadana. Ya robotal b CCCP i Rossiya 7 lyet i my zhili b Vladivostokye 3 lyet.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Axe said:


> I am Russian who grew up under communist dictatorship. I could not even imagine back there that somebody would care to dictate to me what and how I can ride in the woods.


But the woods are just another resource to exploit there like oil. We exploit the woods too, but we also have a long history of protecting and romanizing nature too. We have places set aside for non-motorized transport.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Just wait for the outcry when we have exoskeleton clothing that gives us great strength while riding! Commercial versions of what the U.S. Army is testing should be available in 5 years. Yep, they are a type of motor, do no trail damage, no noise, and are not more unsafe than bicycles are now. 

Arrogant, self-centered, purists will hate them, for a few years. Same old story.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

zorg said:


> Would you care to enlighten us with your vision of the rest of the world population? You seem quite worldly. I'm sure it'd be fascinating.


I think they're great. We just have a unique relationship with nature. Most of Europe was completely transformed hundreds of years ago. What they do in they parks doesn't apply to us. They don't copy our gun regs, right?


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

SS Hack, Russia has national parks, an American idea, and very good rangers to protect them. They are very protective of their other parks and wilderness. They invented smoke jumping to fight fires. You clearly don't know anything about Russia or how Russians love nature. Try reading some Russian poetry.

Russians are just getting into MTB. I've been teaching them in Moab and the Santa Cruz Mountains. Good bikes were very expensive there. Now they are extremely expensive.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

SS Hack, Europeans have the same relation to nature as we do. I've hosted at least dozens of them in Alaska and have been hosted in the Alps.

If you knew the subject you would know that forest lands and wild animals are re-populating Europe and Europeans love it.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

mudncrud said:


> I disagree with the logic that it is impact vs motor. I can ride anything I want as long as it fits on the trail and I do not damage anything does not work. There is a very small possibility that you will ride your 500 cc KTM on the trail and not cause damage, but it is highly unlikely. I started of in the moto world and rode a ton of trails. The impact difference between motorcycle and bicycle is significant. There are not a lot of people that can put down 500 watts for any significant amount of time.


I'd agree that 500W is a bit too much to be comparable with human power. I'm thinking the limit should be 250W for the reason you say, and many laws and definitions of pedelec indeed use this lower limit.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

A 500 cc motor is noisy and has an impact on other users and is therefore not qualified. It isn't part of this discussion. Straw man argument. 

As "getting smaller Larry" says, 250 W or so is just fine. Europe is thinking of raising it to 350 W based on experience. Certainly worth considering. However, no throttles. That is where the trouble starts.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

I mostly don't give a crap about this, but don't want to be left out of this lively debate.

So can someone tell me why pedal-throttled is an important distinction? Cars are pedal operated, right? Why is it a huge difference whether you use your feet or hand to operate the motor?


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

JACKL said:


> I mostly don't give a crap about this, but don't want to be left out of this lively debate.
> 
> So can someone tell me why pedal-throttled is an important distinction? Cars are pedal operated, right? Why is it a huge difference whether you use your feet or hand to operate the motor?


By pedal, we mean the speed is not controlled by a throttle, button, or lever by hand or foot or any other passive setting. Rather, one has to crank and turn the pedals round and round as usual to make your bike go. The motor then just provides a real nice "tail wind".

The definition of pedelec that is close to the same as a bicycle, and perhaps the only one with potential to be accepted on trails (at some long time in the future) has three limitations:

No throttle 
Power assist less than 250W (similar to what many on MTBR can sustain) 
No motor assist beyond 15 MPH (the speed limit at many parks already) 

People keep providing examples of cars and motor bikes that are way beyond these limits and saying "We don't want that!" Yeah, for sure. Not sure why this is still happening in this thread other than people want to find a way to upset themselves with something obviously improper.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

zorg said:


> And a bicycle is essentially a motorcycle without an engine according to the HOHAs. Flawed logic.


The HOHA's are already lumping electric bikes and mountain bikes together.

These are objections HOHA's used to ensure bikes were booted from the Shoshone NF in Wyoming, which is being managed like a Wilderness area, even though it is not designated Wilderness. Comments are from HOHA's in Oct. 2014.

Read and weep:








And from the Sierra Club:















These arguments, among others, recently helped ensure bikes would not be allowed in 3 areas of this National Forest, after the USFS had previously ruled in favor of bikes. These fcuking things have the ability to set us back to 1980. Argue all you want, "draw lines in the dirt", "separate us from them", but it won't solve anything when all HOHA's see are wheels.

Protect your current access fiercely. Good luck getting access to high value non-motorized areas in the future.


----------



## Corey90 (Aug 2, 2014)

BigLarry said:


> By pedal, we mean the speed is not controlled by a throttle, button, or lever by hand or foot or any other passive setting. Rather, one has to crank and turn the pedals round and round as usual to make your bike go. The motor then just provides a real nice "tail wind".
> 
> The definition of pedelec that is close to the same as a bicycle, and perhaps the only one with potential to be accepted on trails (at some long time in the future) has three limitations:
> 
> ...


And how doo we police somthing like this??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

Corey90 said:


> And how do we police somthing like this??


Same way we police it now.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

BigLarry said:


> By pedal, we mean the speed is not controlled by a throttle, button, or lever by hand or foot or any other passive setting. Rather, one has to crank and turn the pedals round and round as usual to make your bike go. The motor then just provides a real nice "tail wind".


Still not impressed by this distinction. I can put my bike in granny gear and pedal with near zero effort - and near zero acceleration. If that small effort triggers the motor I just don't see a big difference between that and a hand-throttle. Maybe there is more to it - is the torque output at the motor limited to a certain percentage of the torque applied at the pedals?

Regardless, I suspect it would be a simple matter to wire a bypass to provide full electric assist any time the pedals are moving forward.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

JACKL said:


> Still not impressed by this distinction. I can put my bike in granny gear and pedal with near zero effort - and near zero acceleration. If that small effort triggers the motor I just don't see a big difference between that and a hand-throttle. Maybe there is more to it - is the torque output at the motor limited to a certain percentage of the torque applied at the pedals?
> 
> Regardless, I suspect it would be a simple matter to wire a bypass to provide full electric assist any time the pedals are moving forward.


The e-bikes I've seen have adjustable assist. I hear e-bike riders say they usually put their assist at maximum, so they barely need to pedal. (Big surprise.) But if the output is still limited to 250W, it's the same as if you're riding hard. So the only impact to others is you aren't quite as sweaty and smelly.

You can bypass the throttle, but going up a mountain without peddling isn't going to be very stealth. Wait until you get your ticket for many $100s, bike impounded, and worse. Won't take too many times for that behavior to get expensive and old. Same with going over 15MPH. Radar guns are already out on the trails to spoil your fun. Any bike going uphill >15MPH is sure to get extra scrutiny besides the typical big $300 ticket, maybe a trip back to the Ranger's shop for "evaluation". And this is how it is now. It'd be the same if pedelecs were allowed.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

Empty_Beer said:


> The HOHA's are already lumping electric bikes and mountain bikes together.
> ...
> These arguments, among others, recently helped ensure bikes would not be allowed in 3 areas of this National Forest, after the USFS had previously ruled in favor of bikes. These fcuking things have the ability to set us back to 1980. Argue all you want, "draw lines in the dirt", "separate us from them", but it won't solve anything when all HOHA's see are wheels.
> 
> Protect your current access fiercely. Good luck getting access to high value non-motorized areas in the future.


I think most all of us here agree, even those pro-pedelec like me, that any MTB advocacy needs to be strictly defined as no-motors to prevent this sort of alarming diversion that will be jumped upon by the opposition. The reaction to any e-bike allowance whatsoever would be just like what you posted and we already see on this thread, with conjured images of motorcycles blowing people off the trail.

Any electric bike advocacy for sure needs to be done under its own banner, with MTB clearly distinguished as separate from them.

I understand IMBA's current position is just that: no motors on bikes, except where motorized vehicles are already allowed.

BTW, I 'm buying a new MTB, but the only electrics are in the new Di2 electronic shifters and derailleurs. I prefer to burn my own energy, as I have too much stored, and really enjoy the work out. But I don't mind if some other riders want a bit of electric "tail wind" or boost. Not my concern if kept to that level.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

jmpreston said:


> SS Hack, Russia has national parks, an American idea, and very good rangers to protect them. They are very protective of their other parks and wilderness. They invented smoke jumping to fight fires. You clearly don't know anything about Russia or how Russians love nature. Try reading some Russian poetry.
> 
> Russians are just getting into MTB. I've been teaching them in Moab and the Santa Cruz Mountains. Good bikes were very expensive there. Now they are extremely expensive.


Poetry is nice, but I'll let the massive illegal logging and corrosion speak for itself.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/...n-russias-vast-far-east-timber-theives-thrive


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

JACKL, 

Cars have a pedal connected to a throttle. A throttle controls engine output and vehicle speed. This arrangement allows for more torque and speed.

A pedal assist or pedelec bike does not have this arrangement so speed, and therefore impact on other users and the trails, is very limited. It actually works in reverse. The faster the bike travels the less assist is available. At 15 MPH there is no more assist. It fades away.


Most of the arguments against pedelecs on this thread have been as arrogant and self-centered as hikers and equestrians have been to us at times. They focus on some kind of "morality" of trail use determined by the commenter's personal feelings, not the actual impact on other users and trails.

Why should someone's feeling that riders must "earn their turns" be used to block user choice of bikes? 

If someone is paying the taxes to support the park, open space, whatever and their bike doesn't create additional noise, trail impacts, or safety issues then why is a pedelec even an issue? It is a tempest in a teapot.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

jmpreston said:


> JACKL,
> 
> Cars have a pedal connected to a throttle. A throttle controls engine output and vehicle speed. This arrangement allows for more torque and speed.
> 
> ...


Maybe we take a vote of tax payers in each county or district to ask is motorized bikes should be allowed? I know how my county will vote.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Beaverbiker,

The Europeans are using 250 watts as the maximum output for a pedelec and the power fades with speed. They provide a tail wind for those who need or want it but other than that pedelecs are the same as any other bicycle.

Lack of a throttle plus the 250 watt and fading assist restrictions are supposed to make pedelecs as safe as regular bikes on trails. 

The way around all this is to claim you have a disability and no land manager can ticket you on lower powered e-bikes anyway. They can only restrict bike use based on safety, not mode of transport.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

beaverbiker, you are correct but I haven't heard of any that are made that way. If users don't have to pedal then it is a motorcycle and that opens a bigger can of worms. If the main propulsion is pedaling rather than the motor then pedelecs fit nicely into the bikes allowed rules that are in place now. Once you cross into motorcycle territory then the discussion becomes much more complicated.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

I ignored the e-bikes at the Sea Otter bike festival last year but this year my wife and I want to try them and be more informed for the future. She has a new Yeti carbon bike and I want something like hers as my next bike, but you never know when a health issue will arise and pedal assist will let you continue riding the trails.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Whether electric bicycles should be allowed on trails can bee argued till the cows come home, no matter what the Euros have done. It has come down to "Is, to. Is not." "You are looking at them wrong...."

For me this says what is most important. From BigLarry:

"Any electric bike advocacy for sure needs to be done under its own banner, with MTB clearly distinguished as separate from them."

So maybe we need a different thread to get at what effects us most.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

beaverbiker said:


> Yea, definitely. And I think that's where I'm confused. The pedelec bikes that I've ridden around have their main propulsion method being the motor...but those might have been larger than 250w or even 500w. I just remember pedaling very lightly and was immediately doing 20mpg across a parking lot in my flip flops. I was blown away with how much power there was and how efficiently it seemed to work.


Seems like you tested one of the intermediate power pedelecs that can go above 15 MPH and maybe had 500W. The higher power and 20 MPH is appropriate for that intended commuting application on motorized roads, where there's no controversy and they can actually be a boon to the transportation efficiency environment. 
I'm thinking of lower limits (15MPH, 250W) for trail use to ever become accepted, as I suggested above.


----------



## mudncrud (May 6, 2010)

So basically you all want a 250 to 350 watt motorcycle to assist you because you cannot go fast enough on your own.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

mudncrud said:


> So basically you all want a 250 to 350 watt motorcycle to assist you because you cannot go fast enough on your own.


Well, I don't want one myself. But I'd say under 250W is appropriate for a nice boost on a trail, and the utility is not necessarily for speed (which is limited) but more for a bit less effort, less sweat, and longer bike trips.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

mudncrud said:


> So basically you all want a 250 to 350 watt motorcycle to assist you because you cannot go fast enough on your own.


While the tone of the comment is pretty smarmy, I think it addresses the root of electric applications.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

mudncrud said:


> So basically you all want a 250 to 350 watt motorcycle to assist you because you cannot go fast enough on your own.


I don't want any assist. But that doesn't mean plenty of people won't be getting these... and some will be your friends... and they will be riding trails they "are not supposed to be on"... and land managers will need to decide what to do about motorized bicycles on non-motorized trails. And this will likely happen before a respected e-bike advocacy organization is in place.

What would you do if you were a land manager?


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Empty_Beer said:


> I don't want any assist. But that doesn't mean plenty of people won't be getting these... and some will be your friends... and they will be riding trails they "are not supposed to be on"... and land managers will need to decide what to do about motorized bicycles on non-motorized trails. And this will likely happen before a respected e-bike advocacy organization is in place.
> 
> What would you do if you were a land manager?


I'd make them ride with other motorized bikes (aka motor-cycles). If they get super popular quickly, look for outright bike bans.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

beaverbiker said:


> Yea, definitely. And I think that's where I'm confused. The pedelec bikes that I've ridden around have their main propulsion method being the motor...but those might have been larger than 250w or even 500w. I just remember pedaling very lightly and was immediately doing 20mpg across a parking lot in my flip flops. I was blown away with how much power there was and how efficiently it seemed to work.


Just out of curiosity; what brand/which model were you trying out?


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

mudncrud said:


> So basically you all want a 250 to 350 watt motorcycle to assist you because you cannot go fast enough on your own.


Did you actually read what was said?


----------



## mudncrud (May 6, 2010)

Yes I read what was written.
No, it was not meant to be smarmy, but to the point. I do think it boils down to being able to go faster. 
Most people cannot sustain 250 watts for an hour and there is no way the average person will put in the time and effort to be able to lay down 350 watts for an hour let alone 30 minutes.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

mudncrud said:


> Yes I read what was written.
> No, it was not meant to be smarmy, but to the point. I do think it boils down to being able to go faster.
> Most people cannot sustain 250 watts for an hour and there is no way the average person will put in the time and effort to be able to lay down 350 watts for an hour let alone 30 minutes.


So lets just add a peddle activated throttle to a 500cc dirt bike and head out to the trails.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Empty_Beer said:


> I don't want any assist. But that doesn't mean plenty of people won't be getting these... and some will be your friends... and they will be riding trails they "are not supposed to be on"... and land managers will need to decide what to do about motorized bicycles on non-motorized trails. And this will likely happen before a respected e-bike advocacy organization is in place.
> 
> What would you do if you were a land manager?


I know that up-front I would want land managers to know that they were a separate user group of motorized riders.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I know that up-front I would want land managers to know that they were a separate user group of motorized riders.


Agreed. How are you going to help them distinguish a mountain bike from an e-mountain bike, and -- if trail etiquette somehow ends up in the toilet -- help ensure they do not lump us all together as "wheeled locusts" and make land management decisions regarding wheels, not motors?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

beaverbiker said:


> The fastest one that I rode was a Specialized Turbo S.
> 
> I kid you not...if you just lightly turn the cranks over you accelerate really fast. It's make it's super easy to pull wheelies at speed. If you threw tires with real tread on that you could be blasting the midpen fireroads easily.


I thought that might have been your ride; I've heard glowing reports from other riders. A fantastic commute bike so I'm told; Special-ed really did their homework.

"250 watt" nominal (continuous) rating but I've heard they actually peak at 700 watts. Also can be programmed for different top speeds. I think that model would be considered a "s-pedelec" in Europe.

No matter; USA standard is 750 watts and California is 1kW.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

mudncrud said:


> So basically you all want a 250 to 350 watt motorcycle to assist you because you cannot go fast enough on your own.


Yeah, and it's these same lazy ass people that will get our trails closed, because these things will get more powerful, to the point that they start to do a lot of damage to our trails.


----------



## mudncrud (May 6, 2010)

Empty_Beer said:


> Agreed. How are you going to help them distinguish a mountain bike from an e-mountain bike, and -- if trail etiquette somehow ends up in the toilet -- help ensure they do not lump us all together as "wheeled locusts" and make land management decisions regarding wheels, not motors?


You know they will lump us all together. There is no question about that. The equestrians will absolutely love this as will a number of hikers that I know.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

SS Hack said:


> So lets just add a peddle activated throttle to a 500cc dirt bike and head out to the trails.


You realize that you're displaying the same kind of bad faith argumentation as the HOHAs do when they oppose bikes on trail, don't you? If you have to exaggerate the facts to the point of complete distortion and fallacy, it's a sure sign that your argument is quite weak.

There are really only two issues against pedelecs (as defined by Larry above):
- HOHAs will seize on it to ban bikes from everywhere because they are fanatics and wilderness is their personal quest for religious purity. Puritanism is an integral part of this country after all. Anyhow, pedelecs will strenghten their argument that bikes=motorized vehicles.
- Some jackasses will mod their bikes to turn them into mini motorcycles.

Ultimately, as you've demonstrated so well, it seems impossible to have a rational discussion about the issue. I expect knee jerk reactions from land managers banning e-bikes, prodded by wildernuts and bikers afraid of losing access.

Frankly, it should be up to the industry to be proactive and sell the pedelecs to land managers. Their lack of involvement will probably kill the golden goose fairly quickly.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

zorg said:


> You realize that you're displaying the same kind of bad faith argumentation as the HOHAs do when they oppose bikes on trail, don't you? If you have to exaggerate the facts to the point of complete distortion and fallacy, it's a sure sign that your argument is quite weak.
> 
> There are really only two issues against pedelecs (as defined by Larry above):
> - HOHAs will seize on it to ban bikes from everywhere because they are fanatics and wilderness is their personal quest for religious purity. Puritanism is an integral part of this country after all. Anyhow, pedelecs will strenghten their argument that bikes=motorized vehicles.
> ...


I don't understand why some places on earth can't be left wild and if people can't get there without a motor too bad. I don't expect a tram to carry me up mountains. That's just my opinion. I think we just need to agree to disagree on this.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

SS Hack said:


> I don't understand why some places on earth can't be left wild and if people can't get there without a motor too bad. I don't expect a tram to carry me up mountains. That's just my opinion. I think we just need to agree to disagree on this.


HOHA version:
I don't understand why some places on earth can't be left wild and if people can't get there without a mechanical contraption (like a bicycle) too bad. I don't expect a tram to carry me up mountains. That's just my opinion. I think we just need to agree to disagree.

No problem agreeing to disagreeing. Just disappointed by the bad faith argumentation and hypocrisy displayed throughout this thread.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

What's HOHA?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

The mtb industry sells bikes that are far beyond the needs of riders simply by attractive advertising. The sell outside-the-envelope riding styles the same way. The don't have to be pro-active e about anything. All they do is sell the bikes and leave it to the riders to create riding venues and access.

Electric motorcycles are the same thing.

As to Empty_beer's:

"How are you going to help them distinguish a mountain bike from an e-mountain bike, and -- if trail etiquette somehow ends up in the toilet -- help ensure they do not lump us all together as "wheeled locusts" and make land management decisions regarding wheels, not motors?"

I am developing ideas that push-back on being lumped together and on any sort of policing. We do this by educating them about our position as a distinct user group and require that the policing be up to them. This can be done at the board level, with PR, with any ranger you see.

I am sick of getting beaten up because of other trail-user's cr*p! My park contacts are going to get that message from me at least.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

SS Hack said:


> I don't understand why some places on earth can't be left wild and if people can't get there without a motor too bad. I don't expect a tram to carry me up mountains. That's just my opinion. I think we just need to agree to disagree on this.


Some places can surely be left wild. Riding a bike, or even an electric bike on a trail does not affect that at all. The fact that there is a trail means that all possible "impact" already happened.

And what is the point of having unspoiled nature if one can not peacefully enjoy it and leave it just the way he found it? Bikes, or e-bikes, certainly allow for that.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

mudncrud said:


> Yes I read what was written.
> No, it was not meant to be smarmy, but to the point. I do think it boils down to being able to go faster.


No. I do not want a motor to go faster, nor does anybody who wrote in this thread.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

beaverbiker said:


> I still don't understand why not having a throttle makes a difference for inclusion. If you have 2 identical electrical motors why does it matter how the motor is triggered? If you've ridden a pedelec then you know how little pedal movement it takes to get those things jamming at high speeds.


You are correct in your understanding, I also think there is no difference. If anything, this loophole can allow motorized vehicles on the trails, and give more ammo to our opponents to ban us all, because now we are in the same group.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Axe said:


> Some places can surely be left wild. Riding a bike, or even an electric bike on a trail does not affect that at all. The fact that there is a trail means that all possible "impact" already happened.
> 
> And what is the point of having unspoiled nature if one can not peacefully enjoy it and leave it just the way he found it? Bikes, or e-bikes, certainly allow for that.


You can enjoy these places now, you just need to do a bit of work to get there. It's not all about trail impacts. I could easily ride a 500cc dirt bike at ECDM with less trail impacts than 75 percent of mountain bikers.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Axe said:


> No. I do not want a motor to go faster, nor does anybody who wrote in this thread.


Somehow I miss the sense of this statement. I don't mean to be insulting but it seems obtuse, or in genuine, or misunderstanding the lay of the land. Or perhaps it is a failure to acknowledge the consequence of more power and technology.

Way back in the old days, which for the short-attention-span-generation is about 2 years ago, over beers with IMBA's Tom Ward he put our plight pretty simply. It was a a comment about how we effect other trail users. He said, "The biggest problem we have is riding too fast." Speed is a basic desire in our riding.

Bridaling riders, gaining their cooperation, reinventing the image of mountain biker as an eco-friendly and considerate trail sharer as a counter to the industry's airborne, careening warrior, would do so much to improve our access. Yeah, that's going to happen.:madman:

Developments in mountain bikes have worked towards greater efficiency. Lighter weight, better suspensions, more effortless braking and shifting, grippier tires all allow a better use of our energy. And why do we conserve energy? We want to enjoy our riding more. While longer rides and greater comfort are clear advantages of the technological development of our sport, speed is the main benefit.

The effect of more power with an electric motorcycle suggests more energy at hand. The options are to go the same speed or slower or faster. Making a claim that the desire for more power is based upon a desire to go slower doesn't fly. So that leaves us with a desire to maintain the same speed or go faster. Based upon our tendency for speed... I mean, just look at what happens when you point the bike downhill.

So not wanting more power to go faster just doesn't wash.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

SS Hack said:


> You can enjoy these places now, you just need to do a bit of work to get there. It's not all about trail impacts. I could easily ride a 500cc dirt bike at ECDM with less trail impacts than 75 percent of mountain bikers.


For Hell's sake man, the MV argument?


----------



## mudncrud (May 6, 2010)

Axe said:


> No. I do not want a motor to go faster, nor does anybody who wrote in this thread.


I disagree. Assuming a 250 watt motorcycle. Most people put out 100 to 150 watts over an extended period of time. Some larger and/or more fit people will be up around 200 watts. So what you want to do is allow people to have a 250 watt motorcycle then add 100 to 200 watts of personal power. So what you have is folks out there putting out 350 to 450 watts which allows any individual to haul ass on rolling terrain. Their burst or sprint speed will be even higher.

Have you tried to sustain 15 MPH while riding trails? Seriously? This is what most people do on their road bikes.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

jmpreston said:


> JACKL,
> Cars have a pedal connected to a throttle. A throttle controls engine output and vehicle speed. This arrangement allows for more torque and speed.


With modern EFI cars you push on the throttle pedal and the computer gives you the power it "decides" is appropriate. And yes the torque and speed it gives you is much higher than an E-bike!


jmpreston said:


> A pedal assist or pedelec bike does not have this arrangement so speed, and therefore impact on other users and the trails, is very limited. It actually works in reverse. The faster the bike travels the less assist is available. At 15 MPH there is no more assist. It fades away.


Most modern cars are governed and won't exceed a pre-determined speed, so again it's essentially the same arrangement, but of course with a much higher speed limit.

As far as I'm concerned, what is important is the power capability of the motor and how it's governed. A 15-mph limit could just as easily be applied to a hand-throttle as pedals. It sounds like that is not being done right now though.

If the power level and speed governor are approved for a given trail, I say just let the rider operate the electric motor with a hand-throttle and pedal when they choose to apply power that way. No "token pedaling" needed. Seems like the pedal-activated motor requirement is just a smokescreen for bystanders so that they see the rider pedaling when going uphill and therefore it looks more like a standard bicycle.

People will find ways to bypass governors; it's the American way. On automobiles it's commonly done by purchasing a tuner for the ECM. It's been expressed in this thread that those folks will get busted pretty quickly. I'm skeptical of that, but we will see.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Illusions...*

I guess another way to look at this is that a _pedelec_ is a motorcycle that offers the illusion of being a bicycle.

That's fine but don't expect everybody to go along with the deception.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

mudncrud said:


> I disagree. Assuming a 250 watt motorcycle. Most people put out 100 to 150 watts over an extended period of time


You are missing the point. Its not about the power you put in the ground. This is mountain biking not dirt bikes. Many of us ride uphill to go downhill. If I didn't have to pedal uphill, or not get tired doing so, I would be riding 2.5" tires, 7 inches travel and full face helmet for the downhill.

That's the message you get from many of the new electric mountain bikes, effortless uphill so you can bomb the downhill. As said before the main problem is speed, and on downhill most of us can get plenty fast without pedaling at all assuming we are not spent from the climbs.

Look at some of the models you see already. It's not about an ordinary mountain bike with some extra help, it's a dual crown fork bike that you can ride without a lift ticket.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

CrozCountry said:


> You are missing the point. Its not about the power you put in the ground. This is mountain biking not dirt bikes. Many of us ride uphill to go downhill. If I didn't have to pedal uphill, or not get tired doing so, I would be riding 2.5" tires, 7 inches travel and full face helmet for the downhill.
> 
> That's the message you get from many of the new electric mountain bikes, effortless uphill so you can bomb the downhill. As said before the main problem is speed, and on downhill most of us can get plenty fast without pedaling at all assuming we are not spent from the climbs.
> 
> Look at some of the models you see already. It's not about an ordinary mountain bike with some extra help, it's a dual crown fork bike that you can ride without a lift ticket.


I thought you and mudncrud were making the same point but approaching it from different perspectives. FWIW I think you're both touching on valid points. The proliferation of pedelec MTBs would change the nature of the sport and I don't think in a good way.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Apologies to mudncrud and others if I misunderstood their posts!

I keep hearing that 250W ebikes are OK on the trail because it's close to human power. 250W will get a downhill bike to the top of the hill. Then turn off the motor, turn on strava, and imagine you are in whistler. 150W will do that to.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

pliebenberg said:


> I guess another way to look at this is that a _pedelec_ is a motorcycle that offers the illusion of being a bicycle.
> 
> That's fine but don't expect everybody to go along with the deception.


You're totally correct - rebranding is the first step to trying to gain acceptance. These contraptions will only work against access for people that can pedal. That said, I'm adding pretend pedals to my 2-stroke dirt bike and removing the grip throttle.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

pliebenberg said:


> I guess another way to look at this is that a _pedelec_ is a motorcycle that offers the illusion of being a bicycle.
> 
> That's fine but don't expect everybody to go along with the deception.


Bingo!!!


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

mudncrud said:


> I disagree. Assuming a 250 watt motorcycle. Most people put out 100 to 150 watts over an extended period of time. Some larger and/or more fit people will be up around 200 watts. So what you want to do is allow people to have a 250 watt motorcycle then add 100 to 200 watts of personal power. So what you have is folks out there putting out 350 to 450 watts which allows any individual to haul ass on rolling terrain. Their burst or sprint speed will be even higher.
> 
> Have you tried to sustain 15 MPH while riding trails? Seriously? This is what most people do on their road bikes.


What part of my statement that I do not want a motor to go faster on a bike on trail are you arguing with?

Yes, some people will ride slightly faster on a ebike (which is most definitely not a motorcycle as you insist on calling it). So what? They will not go appreciably faster, if at all on downhill. It is really not a problem at all. It is just a bicycle.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Deleted because of user error.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

SS Hack said:


> It's a motorized bicycle if it has a motor - no matter any feeble rebranding effort. Bikes are powered by people.


----------



## Corey90 (Aug 2, 2014)

Axe said:


> What part of my statement that I do not want a motor to go faster on a bike on trail are you arguing with?
> 
> Yes, some people will ride slightly faster on a ebike (which is most definitely not a motorcycle as you insist on calling it). So what? They will not go appreciably faster, if at all on downhill. It is really not a problem at all. It is just a bicycle.


How is a bike with a motor just "a bike"? A bike with a motor is convinently called a motorcycle! (Hence the name "MOTOR-cycle")

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

Axe said:


> Yes, some people will ride slightly faster on a ebike (which is most definitely not a motorcycle as you insist on calling it). So what? They will not go appreciably faster, if at all on downhill. It is really not a problem at all. It is just a bicycle.


They will go faster and they will go farther and those who like being alone under their own power in the wilds will have a harder and harder time doing so. Anyone who thinks that being able to descend without using their own power to ascend will not lead to more impacts (more descents on bigger tired bikes) is either a submoron or a lying e-bike proponent. If you want to ride a motorcycle (yes a bike with an electric motor is by all but the dumbest definition a motorcycle) buy one and ride it in an area legal for motorcyles. Riding an ebike on non motorized trails is poaching and should be treated the same way as riding a non electric dirt bike on the same trail.


----------



## bald dirt bag (Feb 9, 2014)

What happens when the battery dies, do you have to push it back like a mini bike when it runs out of gas??? Honestly I have never seen an electric bike off road, on sidewalks and streets but never someone trying to off road.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Axe said:


> They will not go appreciably faster, if at all on downhill. It is really not a problem at all. It is just a bicycle.


They will ride significantly faster down because they will shuttle a downhill bike to the top without pushing it.

Without a shuttle motor they will be on a trail bike.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

CrozCountry said:


> They will ride significantly faster down because they will shuttle a downhill bike to the top without pushing it.
> 
> Without a shuttle motor they will be on a trail bike.


Yeah, as if right now they are not shuttling their DH bikes in pickup trucks. On illegal trails in Santa Cruz.

Yet another FUD assertion.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Corey90 said:


> How is a bike with a motor just "a bike"? A bike with a motor is convinently called a motorcycle! (Hence the name "MOTOR-cycle")


Because anybody with functioning eyesight can see that a low power electric assist bicycle rides, smells, sounds, and behaves just like a bicycle and nothing like a motorcycle. 
It is how it acts, not any particular engineering feature it has. You do not like it and choose to lump it together with contraptions that are nothing like it for all practical purposes.


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

Axe said:


> Because anybody with functioning eyesight can see that a low power electric assist bicycle rides, smells, sounds, and behaves just like a bicycle and nothing like a motorcycle.


Anyone with a functioning mind will know that a fataxe on an ebike behaves nothing like a fataxe on a real bicycle. He can go farther and faster on a much more capable downhill bike than he could on a real bicycle. At Henry Coe I watched an ebike piloted by an old out of shape dude climb the hill out of Pacheco Camp toward Coit Lake at a rate that was astounding (until you realized he was riding a motorcycle).


----------



## bald dirt bag (Feb 9, 2014)

I suppose I do not see a lot of Whizzers and Mopeds riding down hill races in the future unless you are watching Jack "S" LOL. Just a funny picture in my head. I can't see electric bikes at present being anything more than a lazy mans source of transportation for the drunk guy who lost his license and needs a 12 pack. They are heavy and break easy, even the most tank minded free ride MTB guy is not going to give up all that performance and weight for a quicker uphill battle. The other factor is why ride a bike then, just get a dual 
purpose motorcycle and be done with it.


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

bald dirt bag said:


> I suppose I do not see a lot of Whizzers and Mopeds riding down hill races in the future unless you are watching Jack "S" LOL. Just a funny picture in my head. I can't see electric bikes at present being anything more than a lazy mans source of transportation for the drunk guy who lost his license and needs a 12 pack. They are heavy and break easy, even the most tank minded free ride MTB guy is not going to give up all that performance and weight for a quicker uphill battle. The other factor is why ride a bike then, just get a dual
> purpose motorcycle and be done with it.


Check out this ebikehttps://www.electricbike.com/conway-e-rider/ and some of the others that have been mentioned earlier. They are not mopeds.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

donutnational said:


> Anyone with a functioning mind will know that a fataxe on an ebike behaves nothing like a fataxe on a real bicycle. He can go farther and faster on a much more capable downhill bike than he could on a real bicycle. At Henry Coe I watched an ebike piloted by an old out of shape dude climb the hill out of Pacheco Camp toward Coit Lake at a rate that was astounding (until you realized he was riding a motorcycle).


This will just become a way to " buy skills and fitness" for people not willing to pull their weight. We'll get news stories about a guy from San Jose that runs out juice in the hills and nearly freezes to death a hundred yards from a trailhead because he can't get back. Americans always want a shortcut these days.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

SS Hack said:


> This will just become a way to " buy skills and fitness" for people not willing to pull their weight. We'll get news stories about a guy from San Jose that runs out juice in the hills and nearly freezes to death a hundred yards from a trailhead because he can't get back. Americans always want a shortcut these days.


There's already gas motorcycles and they can run out of fuel too. Whether or not people will or won't run out of fuel isn't up to others to regulate. Folks have to take care of themselves. Who cares why someone would want one? it's not important. Will these make motorized access to non-motorized trails more feasible? Sure it will, but hiding the sound from a motorized vehicle isn't much different than hiding the entrance to a secret trail or tracking locations of rangers. 
It's a motorized vehicle and needs to be regulated as one, that's all that matters.


----------



## bald dirt bag (Feb 9, 2014)

I have a Four Wheeler, Snowmobile and dirt bike if I feel lazy but want to ride. Really the stuff never moves, I enjoy riding my bike with all its simplicity. My KX 125 I have been rebuilding for about 10 years now and still have not finished it. I suppose for me the "bicycle" experience is much more satisfying and really the simple pleasure of going somewhere under my own power is a major part of the appeal.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

bald dirt bag said:


> I have a Four Wheeler, Snowmobile and dirt bike if I feel lazy but want to ride. Really the stuff never moves, I enjoy riding my bike with all its simplicity. My KX 125 I have been rebuilding for about 10 years now and still have not finished it. I suppose for me the "bicycle" experience is much more satisfying and really the simple pleasure of going somewhere under my own power is a major part of the appeal.


I think that this is on of the nicest ways to express the human-powered cycling experience and why folks like it. This is distinct from the experience of an electric motorcycle.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Buzzaro said:


> It's a motorized vehicle and needs to be regulated as one, that's all that matters.


Totally agree. I just think we'll see lots of blimps getting themselves into trouble on these and tax payers will pickup the retrieval costs.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Axe said:


> Yeah, as if right now they are not shuttling their DH bikes in pickup trucks. On illegal trails in Santa Cruz.
> 
> Yet another FUD assertion.


Thats an argument against e-bikes, not for them. The % of trails that you can shuttle today is tiny. The ebike will make every trail a shuttle ride.

The fact that they do that today illegally only means that there is a strong demand for that, and the e-bike will make it available to everyone everywhere, including people that don't want to break the law, or don't have groups that can organize shuttle riders.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I think that what this whole thread reveals is that the initial question begs too many much more fundamental questions. Whether they "belong". That is why the thread gets wonky and circular at best. Logical fallacies will do that to discussions. Better questions would be:

What is an e-bike?

Is calling a motorized mountain bike an e-bike just good marketing?

Does adding a motor to a bike make riding easier?

Does adding a motor to a bike make riding faster?

Is using a motorized cycle off-road really mountain biking?

Do you like the idea of motorized mountain bikes?

Will you ride a motorized mountain bike?

Do motorized bikes make problems for cycling?

Do motorized bikes make problems for mountain biking?

Does the fact that "Europeans", and resorts have processed the idea of electric bicycles mean anything to mountain bikers?

The list of questions doesn't stop there but they all have to be addressed before the issue of being allowed on trails.


----------



## mudncrud (May 6, 2010)

Axe said:


> What part of my statement that I do not want a motor to go faster on a bike on trail are you arguing with?
> 
> Yes, some people will ride slightly faster on a ebike (which is most definitely not a motorcycle as you insist on calling it). So what? They will not go appreciably faster, if at all on downhill. It is really not a problem at all. It is just a bicycle.


It has a motor, so yes, it is a motorbike. It is the rolling trails and the single track climbs that will cause the issues. Anyone not willing to see that is blind or has their head buried in the ground. Plus, as indicated earlier, for those that like to go down it allows them to have more bike so they can go down even faster. I do not see how anyone can argue against this.

It is the small percentage that will not cause problems. Most people that ride these things will just go faster. And having an extra 250 in many situations allows them to go significantly faster since that is double the power most of these folks would have on their own.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

@mudcrud Are your opinions based on actually riding various e-bikes? Any real data or just wild speculation like almost everyone is doing? Without decent data you shouldn't be accusing anyone else of being blind and having their head in the ground.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

jmpreston said:


> @mudcrud Are your opinions based on actually riding various e-bikes? Any real data or just wild speculation like almost everyone is doing? Without decent data you shouldn't be accusing anyone else of being blind and having their head in the ground.


What data do you need? Did you see the videos in this thread of bikes you can buy today? Full downhill bikes with a powerful motor and a "US Mode" that cuts it down to 250W. Great shuttle at 250W. I bet you that everyone that gets this bike will use it in full power still.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

CrozCountry said:


> What data do you need? Did you see the videos in this thread of bikes you can buy today? Full downhill bikes with a powerful motor and a "US Mode" that cuts it down to 250W. Great shuttle at 250W. I bet you that everyone that gets this bike will use it in full power still.


And modify it for more speed - but no worries as it's just a regular bike. The real problem are horses as we all know and hikers.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

jmpreston said:


> @mudcrud Are your opinions based on actually riding various e-bikes? Any real data or just wild speculation like almost everyone is doing? Without decent data you shouldn't be accusing anyone else of being blind and having their head in the ground.


So once one experiences the electric motorcycle, how we see and accept them has changes?

Sounds evangelistic.

That would certainly explain a distinction between mountain bikers and riders who want to allow electric motorcycles on trails. A lot like a PED and hard to give up, I expect.

It is a separate experience, a separate user group; that is so clearly demonstrated by this whole discussion.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

What I've seen and learned on this thread is that some e-bikes are motorcyles and some are just bicycles with a little power assist.

Much earlier in this thread I presented the results of European research, which was not wild speculation. 

"Bets" that anyone knows who and how various types of e-bikes would be used on American trails is not data. These are uninformed opinions / speculation.

There seem to be e-bikes that only assist a pedaler. This is what Europe has authorized for their trails. They don't impact the trail or other users. If that is true then I'm for freedom of choice for the riders and not in favor of some dogma restricting choice. 

Wife and I are going to ride the pedal assist bikes at Sea Otter this year so I have an informed opinion. 

Meanwhile, I would like to pickup a large Yeti SB95 carbon frame. No battery.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

Did anybody watch Renner's video? He rides his 4500W e-bike to trails right near his house. He can top 60 mph on it and it makes him feel close to God. 
That First Amendment stuff right there, baby. 
Land managers can't touch that.


----------



## mudncrud (May 6, 2010)

I have not ridden an electric motorcycle and whether it is 1500 watts or 250 watts, or whether is has peddles, or not, it is a motorcycle. Does it have a motor, yes or no? If it has a motor it is a motorcycle. What I have done is trained some with power, so I know how fit I am when I am putting out 125 watts for an hour and how fit I am when I am putting out 250 watts for an hour. That difference is significant.

What you propose is to set a baseline at 250 watts and try and convince people that with that 250 watts they will not go any faster and that they cannot really go that much faster with that 250 watts. From my own personal experience having some semblance of an idea of the difference of how fast I can go when being able to put out 125 vs. 250 watts, I disagree with what you are writing.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

jmpreston;11672417
Much earlier in this thread I presented the results of European research said:


> This is Northern California, not Europe, so philosophies are different and perfectly valid. As Ken Kesey said, "just because the French have piping on their pajamas doesn't mean they know everything."
> 
> Our history here runs deep and these "bets" speak of what drives us." These "bets" as you refer to them, are based upon local knowledge and experience. Their predictive value? I, for one, am not ready to write that off.
> 
> ...


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Keep in mind that the "250 Watt pedelec"...*

...is a reality in Europe but just a marketing ploy (so far) in the USA. The federal standard for e-bikes is 750 Watts and California is at 1000 Watts. 20 mph is the limit of motor assist in both instances. No requirement as to throttle input; whether by twist grip or pedal effort sensor.

Different Euro nations have minor stipulations to the EU directive but a good general specimen is Germany: 









25 km/h = 15.5 mph

Notice that the 500 Watt S-Pedelecs are considered as "mo-peds" and need a special license and insurance. (maybe a good idea for USA also but be careful what is wished for)

As an example of a variance in adaptation of the standard in the UK "Twist and Go" throttles are permissible (but only effective to 5 mph).

The definition of the "250-Watt" standard is where things get interesting. That's "maximum continuous rated power" or variously "maximum 30 minutes power". Really no limit to peak power; this is the "loophole" being judiciously exploited by manufacturers.

Also interesting in all this is that Cannondale is one of the leading e-bike system designers (teamed with Bosch for that unit) and they don't sell to the USA. (yet?)


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

I enjoy biking as a combination of fun and exercise, and I want both. So the only battery on my new bike being built now will be for Di2 electronic shifters, my GPS and GoPro. No electric power boost for me.

Still, I think there's been over-reaction to unfounded fears of "motorcycles on the trail". Yes, high power motorcycles as currently imagined would be bad, in spite of any revised label, and already banned. No debate on that and not the discussion here.

Not sure if pedelecs will ever be allowed on trails, but the _only _chance is within strict limits previously mentioned (250W, 15MPH, no throttle), making them similar to human power. And even then, acceptance may be years from now, if and when electronic power boost is sold in every bike store along side full suspension, disk brakes, gravity droppers, tubeless tires, and other MTB innovations that many of us have accepted as normal over the years.

As for 250W giving too much a boost, many here such as myself can sustain that level for hours. It still takes me 75 minutes to climb up the 4 miles, 2000' of Kennedy (at my size), versus the 40 minutes achieved by a few smaller riders. So 250W is not going to shatter the trails. As for smaller racers combining their human 250W on top of the electric 250W, there's still a 15 MPH limit in most parks, perhaps with applicability to both directions now - up or down. And that combined 500W output only happens if you really want to work really, really, hard, an attitude the electric boost will tend to dampen.

And according to jmpreston, pedelecs drop the assist gradually as the bike gets towards 15 MPH, so the boost won't allow record speeds. If you can't go above 15 MPH now without electric boost, you still won't. And double the power is not double the speed as air resistance increases as the square of speed, power needed as the cube! Note 2^(1/3)= 1.26, or a 26% speed boost for double the power if limited by wind.

And those who make their modifications for power, speed, or throttle, and start going uphill at 15 MPH will just call attention to themselves from the Rangers with all sorts of retribution, from big fines to bike confiscation. I don't think it will happen any more than high horsepower motorcycles happen on the trail today with existing bans.

And as for big DH bikes getting the top of trails easier by themselves with electric power assist, what about the big gasoline powered trucks and vans shuttling them to the top now? Isn't that even worse?

My suspicion is that a pedelec _under strict limits _will look in all ways like any other bike, but having your own tail wind. Some electrics are already stealth to make it hard to tell. But to the extent these bikes are operated similarly to a normal bike means it doesn't matter. They will get about as much attention as different color or wheel size. Bascially, it won't matter to anyone if they're electric or not. Factors affecting others on the trail will remain the same, such as respect for hikers in passing, stopping for horses, warning others of your approach, and other etiquette issues, electric bike or not.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Old Ray said:


> Did anybody watch Renner's video? He rides his 4500W e-bike to trails right near his house. He can top 60 mph on it and it makes him feel close to God.
> That First Amendment stuff right there, baby.
> Land managers can't touch that.


Its better than that. The bike has a "US Mode" that cuts it down to 250W, so it can be legal e-bike. Loophole built in.


----------



## chubmackerel (Sep 22, 2014)

No, e bikes are sorry excuses for off road motorcycles, last time I checked motorized vehicles were not allowed on mtb trails.e bikes are for lazy people......eh?


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

BigLarry said:


> And as for big DH bikes getting the top of trails easier by themselves with electric power assist, what about the big gasoline powered trucks and vans shuttling them to the top now? Isn't that even worse?


This is rare and limited to a very few places where you can get to the top with a truck. You can count those places on one hand. Its also a fraction of a fraction of riders that does that. Don't make it sound like something it isn't. Those roads were built for vehicles, its not like they ride pickup trucks on singletrack.

On the other hand, a motor on the bike will make every park in the bay area with very few exceptions a shuttle ride.


----------



## Bruce in SoCal (Apr 21, 2013)

Not too long ago, I would have supported e-bikes as the next development in MTBs. First, there were forks with shocks; then FS. Now power assist. And, it gave the elderly ( of which I will eventually be one) the opportunity to keep riding.

Now, however, I oppose them. Those who want trails closed to MTBs use e-bikes as an example of why all MTBs should be banned. Regardless of how powerful it is, there IS a motor. Yet, it will get taken onto trails marked "no motorized vehicles," they argue. And, they argue that it is hard to distinguish them from other MTBs.


----------



## Speed King (Nov 10, 2014)

No motors on bike/ped/horse trails.


----------



## rightsaid (Oct 22, 2014)

So how many mountain bikers who voted NO are also snowboarders who took exception to ski resorts banning them? In Australia we call that hypocrisy.


----------



## rightsaid (Oct 22, 2014)

beaverbiker said:


> Is a snowboard a ski with a motor?
> 
> I'll answer it for you...no.
> 
> ...


Different sport, same bias against people wanting to enjoy themselves using a slightly different method. Just as well the original hardtailer purists didn't get their knickers in a twist about those riders with those fancy suspension bikes. eh?


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

rightsaid said:


> Different sport, same bias against people wanting to enjoy themselves using a slightly different method. Just as well the original hardtailer purists didn't get their knickers in a twist about those riders with those fancy suspension bikes. eh?


Short answer is no. Let's bring this across a couple threads....
It's more like if bowhunters got pissed about people hunting with guns.


----------



## skyungjae (Mar 29, 2013)

I don't think e-bikes are a problem at all, so long as they do fall under the federal or state regulations which keep them defined as bicycles.

Anyone on a regular bike or an e-bike can ride like a jackass and ruin it for the rest of us. It's all about common courtesy.

Having been in the e-bike game for about 2 years, my regular bikes still far outnumber my one e-bike which is primarily used for commuting. The rare occasions I do ride my e-bike on dirt, nobody gives a damned because it's silent I'm not riding like an *******.

I share my trails with joggers, dog walkers, and horses. None of them even notice I'm being assisted.

I think the current regulations are fine. If a local jurisdiction deems e-bikes a nuisance, such as Moab, then go ahead and put a ban on them. However, I disagree with preemptive bans based on unjustified fears.

The whole e-bike restriction issue reminds me of the attempt to ban "assault weapons." Creating laws and regulation based on fears and assumptions rather than actual statistics.

That being said, if e-bikes become a problem, for whatever reason... then yeah, go ahead and ban them. At this point, I don't see the reason to.

Isn't the punishment supposed to come after the crime?


----------



## bald dirt bag (Feb 9, 2014)

Parks and recreation state " no motorized vehicles" simple plain text. Unless you are handicapped I think the rules in place should stand but I belive the US Constitution is still valid also ( silly me). But all this falls under a far more political debate, should we have a say if a electric bike can be used in a park YES, do we really get the opputunity to decide on this with a solicited vote NO. Things are all grey now and even if the popular vote is no electric bikes some yahoo in congress will think is is a good idea and push it through on another junk bill.


----------



## skyungjae (Mar 29, 2013)

bald dirt bag said:


> Parks and recreation state " no motorized vehicles" simple plain text. Unless you are handicapped I think the rules in place should stand but I belive the US Constitution is still valid also ( silly me). But all this falls under a far more political debate, should we have a say if a electric bike can be used in a park YES, do we really get the opputunity to decide on this with a solicited vote NO. Things are all grey now and even if the popular vote is no electric bikes some yahoo in congress will think is is a good idea and push it through on another junk bill.


It really depends on the local ordnance on what defines a motorized vehicle. The municipal codes posted under those signs usually state motorized vehicles are those requiring licensing. Legal e-bikes do not and are not considered "motorized vehicles" under California law.


----------



## bald dirt bag (Feb 9, 2014)

In IL. when they mean nothing motorized they mean it. Of course there are a lot less trails here and people invariably use dirt bikes and snowmobiles in state parks illegally and complaighn about getting arrested and having their stuff impounded. Once again causing more debate and political muck. What I can foresee happening is if electric bike end up being classified in the same group as MTBs trails will shrink due to increased damage and use of trails. I have seen the same issue with BMX and state boarding on the street. More bike and skateboard, now more restrictions limiting their use.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

skyungjae said:


> It really depends on the local ordnance on what defines a motorized vehicle. The municipal codes posted under those signs usually state motorized vehicles are those requiring licensing. Legal e-bikes do not and are not considered "motorized vehicles" under California law.


Not sure where you're getting your information; the DMV website has this to say:

_"A "motorized bicycle" or "moped" is:

A two or three-wheeled device, capable of no more than 30 mph on level ground, and equipped with:

- Fully operative pedals for human propulsion.
- A motor producing less than two gross brake horsepower and an automatic transmission.
- An electric motor, with or without pedals for human propulsion. (CVC §406(a))
Driver must have a motorcycle license (M1 or M2).

A "motorized bicycle" is also defined as a vehicle with pedals and an electric motor (not more than 1,000 watts) which cannot be driven at speeds of more than 20 mph on level ground even if assisted by human power. (CVC §406(b)).
If you operate a motorized bicycle which meets the definition of CVC §406(b), you:

- Must be 16 years of age or older.
- Must wear a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet.
- Are exempt from the motor vehicle financial responsibility, driver license, and moped plate requirements (CVC §12804.9).
A motorized bicycle is issued special license plates and identification cards, which requires a one-time $18 fee. No renewal is required."_

So while the lower power (less than 1000 W) don't require a DL or insurance or plating they're still a "motorized bicycle" as per CVC §406(b).


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

pliebenberg said:


> Not sure where you're getting your information; the DMV website has this to say:
> 
> _"A "motorized bicycle" or "moped" is:
> 
> ...


If you want to get all super "letter of the law" with this, that line of "20mph even if assisted by human power" could put most "motorized bicycles" into moped category too.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*See also:*

_"*Motorized Bicycles: Prohibited Operation*

21207.5. Notwithstanding Sections 21207 and 23127 of this code, or any other provision of law, no motorized bicycle may be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, unless it is within or adjacent to a roadway or unless the local authority or the governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over such path or trail permits, by ordinance, such operation.
Amended Ch. 373, Stats. 1979. Effective January 1, 1980."_

Pretty much covers it IMHO.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

There's going to be an influx of comments today, and the debate will start from the beginning again 




__ https://www.facebook.com/Mtbrcom/posts/10152973885128536


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Yeah, the land managers can allow what they want so the legal definitions aren't relevant for MTB.

Notice the date: 1980! Wow, things have changed for this topic! Now you can buy electric bikes that barely assist pedaling to ones that approach the speed of Teslas.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

CrozCountry said:


> Its better than that. The bike has a "US Mode" that cuts it down to 250W, so it can be legal e-bike. Loophole built in.


They are very circumspect about exactly how you transition the bike from "US" mode, to full-on shredder mode.

I'll bet it's a toggle switch or something like that.

Rener, becoming a dealer and all, is really shilling for this bike. Watching him ride it on the trails near hi home, I can just imagine the carnage somebody could produce with one of those things. 
I'm picturing that right now with the setting being my local preserve, where bikes have only been legal on dirt roads until a few years back.

Even now, the Gentry and the useful-idiot enviros are seething, praying for something like this to come along. They won't hesitate for a second to paint with a large brush if/when it does.


----------



## skyungjae (Mar 29, 2013)

pliebenberg said:


> Not sure where you're getting your information; the DMV website has this to say:
> 
> _"A "motorized bicycle" or "moped" is:
> 
> ...


I get my info from the same place you do. 

V C Section 24016 Motorized Bicycle Electric Motor Safety and Equipment Requirements

Motorized Bicycle Electric Motor: Safety and Equipment Requirements

24016. (a) A motorized bicycle described in subdivision (b) of Section 406 shall meet the following criteria:
(1) Comply with the equipment and manufacturing requirements for bicycles adopted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (16 C.F.R. 1512.1, et seq.) or the requirements adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (49 C.F.R. 571.1, et seq.) in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1381, et seq.) for motor driven cycles.
(2) Operate in a manner so that the electric motor is disengaged or ceases to function when the brakes are applied, or operate in a manner such that the motor is engaged through a switch or mechanism that, when released, will cause the electric motor to disengage or cease to function.

(b) All of the following apply to a motorized bicycle described in subdivision (b) of Section 406:
(1) No person shall operate a motorized bicycle unless the person is wearing a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards described in Section 21212.
(2) A person operating a motorized bicycle is subject to Sections 21200 and 21200.5.
(3) A person operating a motorized bicycle is not subject to the provisions of this code relating to financial responsibility, driver's licenses, registration, and license plate requirements, and *a motorized bicycle is not a motor vehicle.
*
(4) A motorized bicycle shall only be operated by a person 16 years of age or older.

(5) Every manufacturer of a motorized bicycle shall certify that it complies with the equipment and manufacturing requirements for bicycles adopted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (16 C.F.R. 1512.1, et seq.).

(c) No person shall tamper with or modify a motorized bicycle described in subdivision (b) of Section 406 so as to increase the speed capability of the bicycle.

Added Sec. 3, Ch. 804, Stats. 1995. Effective January 1, 1996.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d12/c1/24016


----------



## skyungjae (Mar 29, 2013)

There are local ordinances that specifically prohibit "motorized bicycles;" however, just because a sign says "no motorized vehicles" does not mean e-bikes are prohibited.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

skyungjae said:


> (3) A person operating a motorized bicycle is not subject to the provisions of this code relating to financial responsibility, driver's licenses, registration, and license plate requirements, and *a motorized bicycle is not a motor vehicle.
> *


Yeah well maybe; not a motor vehicle in regards to "Safety and Equipment Requirements" or "financial responsibility, driver's licenses, registration, and license plate requirements" is how I read this.

Perhaps a lawyer can step in and clarify? Anybody beaten a citation using this?

I suppose the fallout of all this will be that the DMV and other agencies will have to tighten up on their lingo and perhaps migrate the 1000 Watt standard to some other level.


----------



## skyungjae (Mar 29, 2013)

Well, I think that's where the other law comes into play. It's really up to the local government to regulate. Sort of like riding on sidewalks. It's not illegal in CA to do it, but it's illegal in certain cities and in specific areas where it's legal in cities.

Also, how regulations are applied are up to local authorities. The golden gate bridge does not allow motorized bicycles, including e-bikes, but they do allow you to ride them across if they're not powered on.

This begs the question whether or not it's okay to ride an e-bike w/o battery on trails where "motorized bicycles" are prohibited. There seem to be some nice e-mtb which are still very pedal-able w/o motor. I would think someone could ride it to a motorized bicycle prohibited trail, toss the battery in their camelbak, and ride it like a regular bike and be fine.


----------



## mudncrud (May 6, 2010)

BigLarry said:


> As for 250W giving too much a boost, many here such as myself can sustain that level for hours. It still takes me 75 minutes to climb up the 4 miles, 2000' of Kennedy (at my size), versus the 40 minutes achieved by a few smaller riders. So 250W is not going to shatter the trails. As for smaller racers combining their human 250W on top of the electric 250W, there's still a 15 MPH limit in most parks, perhaps with applicability to both directions now - up or down. And that combined 500W output only happens if you really want to work really, really, hard, an attitude the electric boost will tend to dampen.
> 
> My suspicion is that a pedelec _under strict limits _will look in all ways like any other bike, but having your own tail wind. Some electrics are already stealth to make it hard to tell. But to the extent these bikes are operated similarly to a normal bike means it doesn't matter. They will get about as much attention as different color or wheel size. Basically, it won't matter to anyone if they're electric or not. Factors affecting others on the trail will remain the same, such as respect for hikers in passing, stopping for horses, warning others of your approach, and other etiquette issues, electric bike or not.


I do not think most people can sustain 250 watts "for hours". I would like to see the raw power meter data. I do agree that guys that are 250 pounds can by nature put out more power. I know when I can put out 250 watts on the trainer for an hour I am toward the front of the pack. To try and insinuate that any Joe that can work his way up Kennedy can put out 250 watts "for hours" is definitely disingenuous. As in trying to argue that using a 250 watt motorcycle will not cause trail access issues for mountain bikes.

I have not tried to argue for or against these motorbikes. What I am arguing is, the argument that 250 watts will not make any difference in trail speed which is what I keep reading here. I have trained a bit with power so I just do not agree with what you are saying. I also have a few friends that have trained extensively with power and I have spent a fair amount of time discussing power numbers. 250 watts is not a baseless number, it is actually a decent barometer for base fitness. Of course this number has to go up or down based on body weight. But, physically I am a rather average guy.

I also think that those that are trying to argue that in the states, and especially in NorCal which is where this thread is located, that are arguing that 250 watt motorcycles will not have any effect on our access is not informed or is not being sincere. I have been to many of the access meetings in the Bay Area and we have plenty of issues without having to deal with this. It is not a matter of if this will be an issue, it is, how big of an issue it will be.

I have also ridden MTB in France and can say that there is no way they have the access issues we do. Comparing Europe to Norcal is like comparing a Tractor to an e-bike. They are different worlds and have nothing to do with each other.

You guys want "e-bikes" so you can go longer and faster but then you try and tell people, no really, 250 watts makes no difference and everybody that rides them will be responsible, so no one will ever know. Guys will be riding these and you will notice the purple bike and no one will be able tell that Joey is riding a 250 watt motor assisted bicycle, ever. I do not buy it, but I suppose someone will. May you always have a 250 watt tailwind.

Good Luck, Happy New Year and

Here's to sweat in your eye.


----------



## bald dirt bag (Feb 9, 2014)

A nitrous button on the handlebar, hmmm.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Nitrous button reminds me of...*



> (c) No person shall tamper with or modify a motorized bicycle described in subdivision (b) of Section 406 so as to increase the speed capability of the bicycle.


BTW the well known (to e-bikers) "speed capability" hack that works on 90% of e-bikes is to put a magnet on the chainring or a pedal arm and relocate the speed sensor to that location. (essentially turning the speed sensor into a cadence sensor) Leave a dummy speed sensor attached to the frame/fork if paranoid about getting hassled.

Unless one can manage a cadence of well over 200 the the speed sensor never sees what would be a wheelspeed of 20 mph.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

mudncrud said:


> I do not think most people can sustain 250 watts "for hours". .. I do agree that guys that are 250 pounds can by nature put out more power.


I agree that most riders probably put out perhaps 150 to 250W on one hour rides, depending on fitness and size. However, there's a large list of riders who all climb Kennedy much faster than me, although at half my size. They are also probably also putting out around 250W or more, as confirmed by some of their Strava segments I've seen. A large _and _fast guy like Menso is likely doing ~350W. Lance up Alp d'Huez time trial, with all the training and PEDs that money can buy, did 750W for the 45 minutes - probably the maximum of what humans can do. Running on a trainer generating ~250W, I'll be mid-pack at the gym. Maybe I'm just comparing to high performance guys? I have calibrated my heart rate to power at various gyms and commonly get readings of 270-300W at my typical hours-long sustainable HR of 140 BPM. I've confirmed my power output up Kennedy with standard physics (total energy = mass*g*height = Power*time), and get over 200W before any factors for wind, bike, or tire inefficiency. BTW, I also burn >850 calories/hour at my size - around 340 lbs with bike and gear. That nice calorie burn is why I don't want an e-bike myself.



mudncrud said:


> I have not tried to argue for or against these motorbikes. What I am arguing is, the argument that 250 watts will not make any difference in trail speed which is what I keep reading here. I have trained a bit with power so I just do not agree with what you are saying. I also have a few friends that have trained extensively with power and I have spent a fair amount of time discussing power numbers. 250 watts is not a baseless number, it is actually a decent barometer for base fitness. Of course this number has to go up or down based on body weight. But, physically I am a rather average guy.


Maybe I'm tainted by the higher performance numbers I've seen from the better riders, like on the Kennedy challenge. So I'm willing to agree the typical rider might be less, say in the 150-200W range? And then 250W might be more than average, but still comparable to that of higher performance riders already riding the trails around others without conflict.



mudncrud said:


> You guys want "e-bikes" so you can go longer and faster but then you try and tell people, no really, 250 watts makes no difference and everybody that rides them will be responsible, so no one will ever know. Guys will be riding these and you will notice the purple bike and no one will be able tell that Joey is riding a 250 watt motor assisted bicycle, ever. I do not buy it, but I suppose someone will. May you always have a 250 watt tailwind.


The added power might be noticeable in some situations, but not at all the same issue as running a high horsepower motorcycle on the trails. I'm not saying 250W is less than usual, but rather it's not that much more than average and comparable to higher performance riders already on the trail. Other factors like trail courtesy will remain larger issues.

For example, higher speeds than a 15 MPH e-bike limit are easily maintained downhill right now without needing an e-bike, but it's not an issue on the trail with proper courtesy.



mudncrud said:


> I also think that those that are trying to argue that in the states, and especially in NorCal which is where this thread is located, that are arguing that 250 watt motorcycles will not have any effect on our access is not informed or is not being sincere. I have been to many of the access meetings in the Bay Area and we have plenty of issues without having to deal with this. It is not a matter of if this will be an issue, it is, how big of an issue it will be.


I have also worked hard on getting trail access to various parks. I would also agree that we need to keep motorized bikes well defined as a clearly separate category from our MTB advocacy. The opposition just on this MTB-friendly thread is good example of the strong public resistance it would raise. As such, I don't see e-bike access to trails coming any time soon - maybe decades.

This thread is mostly thrashing out the threats of this new technical advance, real and imagined. I do believe MTB was in the same situation 40 years ago, when naturalists, hikers,and equestrians saw major threats from the new bike technology. Similarly, e-bike access might take also take decades to work out, with proper legal definitions, application of limitations and enforcement, and understanding of the public.



mudncrud said:


> Good Luck, Happy New Year and
> 
> Here's to sweat in your eye.


Oh, I sweat profusely, and enjoy the workout. But I use a skull cap to keep it out of my eyes, which burns like hell.

Happy New Year to you as well. I'm riding a lot now, and looking forward to getting much smaller and riding my new Bronson being built up now. I'm starting back up with longer Henry Coe rides too.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

pliebenberg said:


> BTW the well known (to e-bikers) "speed capability" hack that works on 90% of e-bikes is to put a magnet on the chainring or a pedal arm and relocate the speed sensor to that location. (essentially turning the speed sensor into a cadence sensor) Leave a dummy speed sensor attached to the frame/fork if paranoid about getting hassled.
> 
> Unless one can manage a cadence of well over 200 the the speed sensor never sees what would be a wheelspeed of 20 mph.


I'm sure it's fairly easy for those with technical skills to hack any of the e-bikes to bypass limits. Likewise, it's possible to make the bikes be more stealth and go on the trails right now, in complete violation of the law. You might have passed them and not known.

What will give them away is when they use that power. That's when they become noticeable, and until then not a problem anyway.

With e-bikes, large fines and other penalties such as impounds can be sufficiently severe to prevent smart hack guys from using them anything other than for occasional macho demonstrations.

Most cars on the road today can exceed legal limits by great margins. But most stay roughly near the limit to prevent the inevitable repercussions.


----------



## BikeIntelligencer (Jun 5, 2009)

Depends on how hard they are on the trails, which I don't have a feel for...


----------



## Stormf (Jan 24, 2009)

Are they going to do any harm or let those who originally started MTB still get to hill crests, as they will never lose the ability to descend?


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Stormf said:


> Are they going to do any harm or let those who originally started MTB still get to hill crests, as they will never lose the ability to descend?


They still normal bikes. It seems like younger people that envision being out of shape in old age are pushing for motorized bikes.


----------



## bald dirt bag (Feb 9, 2014)

I am old,out of shape and do not want a electric bike and at one time I was young.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

bald dirt bag said:


> I am old,out of shape and do not want a electric bike and at one time I was young.


Sounds like you have a bit of fortitude.


----------



## HEGGA (Feb 29, 2012)

It's not e-bikes that I'm worried about... It's people riding them. 

It takes time in saddle to build strength, skill and confidence to tackle technical terrain and steep climbs and descents. I'm sure allowing e-bikes on trails would enable a lot of people that have some sort of disability/health issues to experience mountain biking which is great, but it would also enable out of shape, love-to-take-shortcut, people to access and ride terrain way above their skill level. A lot of them will get in trouble fast(er than on regular MTB) and they will hurt themselves much worse then if they would take their time to get in shape and progress accordingly.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

^ I'll wager that most of the first big wave of e-mountain bikers will be current mt bikers who have skills but want some cheater power for various reasons. Noobs aren't suddenly going to be riding Pauley Creek, Big Boulder, etc. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

The issue of ADA and marginal cycling trail users have been raised. Yet those issues are peripheral at best. The larger issue is the effect of electric bicycles on traditional mountain bikers.

As a young man of 63 I have no wish to move to an electric bicycle. A good friend and founding advocate (one who can rightfully say the words "Back in the day...") is now 71. He says that the climbing has made the riding much less fun. He has been using an electric bicycle. Riding buds haven't said much. 

I mean, what can anyone say? If nothing else we protect our own. If nothing else we respect those who have earned their downhills. If nothing else we show up at the trailheads with our buds. If nothing else we roll, in spite of obstacles. 

And then there is the effect of age. What youth wants and think possible gets processed by the passing of years. What we might blithely achieve at one part of life becomes informed by experience and the natural process of life.

Some of us are closer to the end than the beginning. I know that my fastest and most powerful days of riding are behind me. Stamina and sharpness are subject to day-to-day life. My strength is my experience of 30 years on the trail and off.

However you guys draw the line, watts, throttle, we are still talking about the effects of motorized power.

That is not us, whether we think we might want it one day or not. We do not use motors no matter how marketing wants to super-coat things, no matter how they wish to pander to our foibles and fears, no matter how they try to bum a ride on our hard work.

That is different from whether they belong on trails.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Gary Fisher sees e-bikes as the future and makes fun of chicken littles.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

I understand the needs of elder riders and those requiring assistance, but want to make sure this does not become a loophole for everyone.

There is also a question of whether someone who is not physically fit to pedal a bicycle is fit to ride a mountain bike at all. Mountain biking is considered an extreme sport by most people, especially by insurance companies. If someone is more susceptible for medical conditions, is it wise to get them on remote trails where they may not be able to get out by themselves, have no cell reception (many trails in the bay area), and the only ambulance that can get there is a Helicopter?

This is why e-bike trail license based on assistance need should involve an overall assessment a medical doctor.


----------



## heatherjh1 (Feb 22, 2011)

My first thought was no entirely, but then I started thinking. 

Paved/cement might be okay if they are in control and riding safely. Some people probably ride faster than e-bikes as it is.

No for dirt trails. Imagine the horseback riders' reaction of it were allowed. That would never fly. Maybe only certain trails would allow it if at all.


----------



## heatherjh1 (Feb 22, 2011)

I agree.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

donutnational said:


> Anyone with a functioning mind will know that a fataxe on an ebike behaves nothing like a fataxe on a real bicycle. He can go farther and faster on a much more capable downhill bike than he could on a real bicycle. At Henry Coe I watched an ebike piloted by an old out of shape dude climb the hill out of Pacheco Camp toward Coit Lake at a rate that was astounding (until you realized he was riding a motorcycle).


Excellent argument. Bravo. What other ad hominem would you stoop down to?

You are in no way more convincing than Sierra club HOHA haters.

It is not a question of fitness or speed or whatever you choose to judge people on. It is a question of freedom and access for a low impact recreation. There is absolutely no sane or factual reason to restrict it - at least in no way more reason than there is to restrict regular biking.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

zorg said:


> Gary Fisher sees e-bikes as the future and makes fun of chicken littles.


I'm not sure how to value this statement.

Gary set up a market with no consideration for where such a sport would be conducted. And how has that worked for us?

I hear folks concerned that "we" get a prepared with attitudes and rules before thing get out of our hands.

The future of marketing wheels on trails? The inevitability of marketing electric bicycles? From one of the founders of marketing mountain bikes.

What is intended here? How were his perspectives helpful to our access?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I'm not sure how to value this statement.
> 
> Gary set up a market with no consideration for where such a sport would be conducted. And how has that worked for us?
> 
> ...


Why thou dost talk in circles? Crystallize your point in thine head and express it succinctly.

Most of us are lost after one sentence and want to follow.

fc


----------



## Corey90 (Aug 2, 2014)

Holy hell I'm confused 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

donutnational said:


> ... At Henry Coe I watched an ebike piloted by an old out of shape dude climb the hill out of Pacheco Camp toward Coit Lake at a rate that was astounding (until you realized he was riding a motorcycle).


An old, out of shape dude. Probably overweight and ugly too with the nerve to ride a bike.

C'mon, that's not very nice donut. Are we that entitled?

fc


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

francois said:


> An old, out of shape dude. Probably overweight and ugly too with the nerve to ride a bike.


Yeah, for a second I thought he was describing me, as I was also at that Henry Coe event with donut. And I even rode at "a rate that was astounding", but... on the slower side. So I'm safe.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

For the record, I'm not for e-bikes on the trails because of the difficult trail access issues on US soil.

But I do like the idea of getting more people on bikes. Kids, spouses, older, injured, dads, etc. The reason why Whistler thrives is because of the bike park and the ski lifts. What exists around it now is a massive network of trails and a powerful political and social force. The reason is they all grew to love riding.

I've ridden about 6 of these e-bikes and they are interesting. Their primary use in the US for now is commuting. No, they are not motorcycles. And no, they're not easy to hack and make jet powered. I'm technical and I looked in to it and it's a pain in the ass. 250 watts will get it to about 18 mph on flat ground. After that, you need to help... a lot. And no, they won't move if you do not pedal.

I'm pretty sure that most folks commenting and rooted in their opinion have never ridden an e-bike. There's just so many false assumptions going around.

They won't rip up the trails uphill and they will always be slower than enduro or downhill bikes going downhill.

Bike skill is an interesting proposition. The e-bike will be a toy/tool for the enthusiast (or rich) because they will be hella expensive. So we need not worry about the Walmart riders. It's like a shuttle ride or a ski lift but you will have to pedal, and you might like it. Descending and technical skill is gained through bike lessons and through repetition. So four runs down Downieville will make you a better tech rider if you took the shuttle (more then than the one run by the rider who climbed it).

One thing for sure, the e-bike is like water that gets in a crack in the the rock-solid mtb community. It will freeze and it will split our group as we continue to bicker.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

francois said:


> For the record, I'm not for e-bikes on the trails because of the difficult trail access issues on US soil.
> 
> But I do like the idea of getting more people on bikes. Kids, spouses, older, injured, dads, etc. The reason why Whistler thrives is because of the bike park and the ski lifts. What exists around it now is a massive network of trails and a powerful political and social force. The reason is they all grew to love riding.
> 
> ...


Judging by the results of the poll, I'd say that the majority of us recognoze the threat to access that ebikes present.

I've gor nothing against ebikes.....I watched Renners' video, and while his claim that somehow he feels a "spritual" experience while he's on anything with 2 wheels is sounding a bit specious,.......well,I'll admit I would like chance to ride that 4500W 'bike' that he sells, but NOT at at the risk of endangering the access to trails that I myself and scores of others have been active in obtaining over the last 20 years. I don't want our community to lose that hard-won access, such as it is, and I don't think that at least 3/4 of the mtbr community here does either.

I really don't think there _is_ a "crack in the rock" for the ebike-shills to expand , and damage our overall integrity. 
At least, I hope there's not.

So, while I admire the engineering and the potential for hella-fun that those 4500W monsters represent, I don't think there are more than 2 or 3 posters here who would really go to the extent of writing letters on their behalf to Barbara Boxer or the Sierra Club. I just don't think their desire to prevail includes a willingness to stab the rest of us, all of us, really, in the back.

In perspective, the 'bickering' you see here is very very small-scale, and I'm betting that it won't get any bigger.
Made for an interesting thread, though!.


----------



## willtsmith_nwi (Jan 1, 1970)

This is a false dichotomy. There is a 3rd category between bike and motorcycle ... e-bike.

In general, I don't think they are appropriate on "Mountain Bike" trails under the "human powered vehicle" concept. The rare exception I could see is for users with a handicap.


----------



## willtsmith_nwi (Jan 1, 1970)

Axe said:


> Riding horses is not human powered either, and it is proven to damage trails ten time over anything that an e-bike can master. Yet, it is allowed.
> 
> If they ban e-bikes, they should ban horse riding as well for the same reasons.


All 100% true. The issue is that the equestrians are entrenched users and often more affluent. They are hard to dislocated and MTBers are better off creating their own trails designated HPV (Human Powered vehicle Only).

Allowing an e-bike there would take away the HPV label.


----------



## Tracer650 (Nov 19, 2012)

willtsmith_nwi said:


> All 100% true. The issue is that the equestrians are entrenched users and often more affluent. They are hard to dislocated and MTBers are better off creating their own trails designated HPV (Human Powered vehicle Only).
> 
> Allowing an e-bike there would take away the HPV label.


But e-bikes are still human powered. You don't pedal and it don't move. What your talking about is an electric motorcycle. Let's be sure we are all clear there is a difference. Real E-bikes are pedal assist and don't have throttles. Anything else with a throttle and pedals should be considered an electric moped. Just a throttle and foot pegs then it's an electric motorcycle.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Needs better definition*



Tracer650 said:


> But e-bikes are still human powered. You don't pedal and it don't move. What your talking about is an electric motorcycle. Let's be sure we are all clear there is a difference. Real E-bikes are pedal assist and don't have throttles. Anything else with a throttle and pedals should be considered an electric moped. Just a throttle and foot pegs then it's an electric motorcycle.


Not true.

"E-bike" is a VERY broad general term and includes everything from "must be pedaled" (pedelec) to "no pedals" at all (e-dragster) . In the context of this poll (which was in response to other MTBR threads about e-bike usage in local NorCal parks) it was inferred to be the units that at least still sort of look like MTBs. The poll was supposed to look like:

*Should E-bikes be permitted on trails?

Not at all.

Limited to the 250 watt "Euro" standard (must be pedaled aka "pedelec")

Limited to the 1000 watt "California" standard (could have throttle input)

Limited only by having functioning pedals and a storage battery as the electrical power source (one step below an electric motorcycle)*​
The problem (as yet unanswered by MTBR staff FRANCIS) was that I couldn't post a multiple-choice poll; only a simple "yes/no". I did run a very similar poll _"Not at all/Limited to the 250 watt "Euro" standard (must be pedaled aka "pedelec")"_ with identical results (27%/73%) from fewer takers (51) but with very little comment (4). I won't post that link, let's let that sleeping dog stay sleeping.

The nascent term "pedelec" is part of law in Europe; really doesn't mean anything in the USA as of yet. In Europe it was part of the "green" movement to get people out of cars, out-of-doors and eat fewer kittens etc. (Which I whole-heartedly support BTW) Government and industry partnered and much was accomplished to these ends. Europe has about a 20 year head start on the USA but that's typical for matters with a social context (slavery, etc.)

The explanation below is about 10 years old and is from here Legal aspects of pedelecs










It's my opinion that the e-bike industry badly wants to get the Euro "pedelec" concept legislated here and are willing to gamble the "250 Watt" limitation (= no motor and can go anywhere "regular" bikes can go) as a foot in the door for unlimited trail/path access. (and a much broader marketing base) As in Europe, amendments allowing throttles and higher power will then be next on the agenda. Buyer beware.

I'll close with the warm and fuzzy "pedelecs are hybrids" to bring the Prius crowd on board.


----------



## Bruce in SoCal (Apr 21, 2013)

Tracer650 said:


> But e-bikes are still human powered. You don't pedal and it don't move. What your talking about is an electric motorcycle. Let's be sure we are all clear there is a difference. Real E-bikes are pedal assist and don't have throttles. Anything else with a throttle and pedals should be considered an electric moped. Just a throttle and foot pegs then it's an electric motorcycle.


There may be a difference, but it is too subtle to matter. The haters will either miss it or ignore it. Imagine you are making a pitch to a land manager who asks: "is there a motor?" If you say "no," someone will point it out. If you say "yes" the matter ends without you being able to explain it only assists the rider.

My other activity is sailboat racing. I can only imagine what would happen if someone used an electric motor to "assist" the wind to move the boat. Why are bikes different?


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

CrozCountry said:


> I understand the needs of elder riders and those requiring assistance, but want to make sure this does not become a loophole for everyone.
> 
> There is also a question of whether someone who is not physically fit to pedal a bicycle is fit to ride a mountain bike at all. Mountain biking is considered an extreme sport by most people, especially by insurance companies. If someone is more susceptible for medical conditions, is it wise to get them on remote trails where they may not be able to get out by themselves, have no cell reception (many trails in the bay area), and the only ambulance that can get there is a Helicopter?
> 
> This is why e-bike trail license based on assistance need should involve an overall assessment a medical doctor.


One could say the same about any outdoor activity.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Bruce in SoCal said:


> My other activity is sailboat racing. I can only imagine what would happen if someone used an electric motor to "assist" the wind to move the boat. Why are bikes different?


Exactly; well put!

Putting a motor on a bike makes it an entirely different sport.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

zorg said:


> One could say the same about any outdoor activity.


Yup. Why do we love to exclude. Are we that rad??

I biked in the Alps last year and there were folks on E-bikes. A couple took the bus from their house. There were also 4-year old and 75-year old hikers on the big mountains. They try to include all.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Bruce in SoCal said:


> There may be a difference, but it is too subtle to matter. The haters will either miss it or ignore it. Imagine you are making a pitch to a land manager who asks: "is there a motor?" If you say "no," someone will point it out. If you say "yes" the matter ends without you being able to explain it only assists the rider.
> 
> My other activity is sailboat racing. I can only imagine what would happen if someone used an electric motor to "assist" the wind to move the boat. Why are bikes different?


To many, you are just boating.

Skiers too sometimes climb a hill but often get assisted up.

Cyclists get a lift or a shuttle ride and it's not really the end of the world.

Now if you get a electric doping to counter the dopers in a road race, that will get a lot of YouTube views.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

zorg said:


> One could say the same about any outdoor activity.


True, this is why many outdoor activities and sports require certain fitness level. This is still not an argument why our local trails should be the winter escape for northstar refugees (IE shuttle runs)


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

francois said:


> Yup. Why do we love to exclude. Are we that rad??
> 
> I biked in the Alps last year and there were folks on E-bikes. A couple took the bus from their house. There were also 4-year old and 75-year old hikers on the big mountains. They try to include all.


They also have inns built all over the place. Europe doesn't have anything close to the remoteness of the American west or the history of leaving these places remote. Were either the 4 or 75 year old using their own legs or riding on an e-stroller/e-walker?


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

francois said:


> Cyclists get a lift or a shuttle ride and it's not really the end of the world.


Its not the end of the world because there is no risk to trail access. In our little pool there is a big risk. Same in the alps.

Shuttles make downhill bikes possible.
Shuttle motor on the bike (regardless of the throttle location) makes a downhill bike rideable anywhere. Same with protection, in northstar I use full face and chest. I don't take it on trails. If the motor takes me up, who cares, full armor, 2.5"+ tires, etc etc.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

CrozCountry said:


> Its not the end of the world because there is no risk to trail access. In our little pool there is a big risk. Same in the alps.
> 
> Shuttles make downhill bikes possible.
> Shuttle motor on the bike (regardless of the throttle location) makes a downhill bike rideable anywhere. Same with protection, in northstar I use full face and chest. I don't take it on trails. If the motor takes me up, who cares, full armor, 2.5"+ tires, etc etc.


Agreed on the second point that e-bikes make shuttling accessible everywhere (pedal shuttle).

Downhill bikes were first deemed the biggest threat to trail access as they were shunned everywhere they showed up. Even IMBA excluded them for a while. But now they are embraced as part of the family. Now a lot of people ride more capable All Mountain bikes and wear armor every day. It just takes a while for things to level out and get sorted.

E-bikes are kind of like the new downhill bike villains of old.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

SS Hack said:


> They also have inns built all over the place. Europe doesn't have anything close to the remoteness of the American west or the history of leaving these places remote. Were either the 4 or 75 year old using their own legs or riding on an e-stroller/e-walker?


All irrelevant facts to the matter at hand.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

SS Hack said:


> They also have inns built all over the place. Europe doesn't have anything close to the remoteness of the American west or the history of leaving these places remote. ...


Damn, you need to get out there.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

francois said:


> Damn, you need to get out there.


I have - Europe is just smaller. That's why my family left.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

SS Hack said:


> I have - Europe is just smaller. That's why my family left.


They are trying to rebuild it: http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2014-4-july-august/grapple/those-not-so-wild-europeans


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

francois said:


> Yup. Why do we love to exclude. Are we that rad??
> 
> I biked in the Alps last year and there were folks on E-bikes. A couple took the bus from their house. There were also 4-year old and 75-year old hikers on the big mountains. They try to include all.


I played baseball to pretty sophisticated degree. With teams you have to be vetted and practice together to make things work. You become comnditioned to speed, power, close contact, intimate timing and cooperation. You become accustomed to this all moving pretty evenly. It is not an accident, or done with magic or fond wishes.

A few years ago I was asked to do a photo article on a local college club. The Head Coach invited me to be on the field during play to shoot. I didn't give it a thought and walked out onto the field. I was not playing the game but looking for moments from a different point of view.

I'm here to tell you that baseball is not just a game that you "play." You have to be ready physically and emotionally. You have to be experienced, present, alert, and respectful of the other players around you. Otherwise people get themselves hurt or cause others to get hurt.

What is needed to perform safely demands a certain level of skill, acuity, awareness, and agility. I had forgotten just what it meant to be out there between the foul lines. Even with all of my experience and skill I had to think very carefully about how to make this work. I understood anew, the risk factor. People and things move fast and in many directions at once out there on the pitch. I was seriously challenged and actually found myself in danger once by a line drive.

Most traditional sports take place is pretty specifically defined, controllable setting; a pitch, a green, a field, courts, mat, pool. MTB on the other hand....

When I ran my mountain bike teams I was the only Head coach who actually cut riders from my high school teams. In a league with an ambient belief that the sport was for everyone I got heat for this. Yet my method was to keep in mind that we all depended upon each other to keep things moving safely.

The range of potential riders was really broad. It didn't take long to see who would ride with whom. Teams like Drake had huge numbers of volunteers an could support the very fastest and the very slowest. My teams had great volunteers but on mid-week days I would be alone with 10-20 riders.

In order to make that work there was a certain threshold of fitness, or a certain level of concentration below which we would not go. Show a lack of respect for that and a poorly prepared rider or overly ambitious erratic rider takes down another, or strands us in the middle of nowhere as the sun sets and the weather gets foul.

What I learned, and tried to teach new coaches, was how to spot, as early in the season as possible, the kids that would be able to make the equation work. What I discovered was not so much that the idea of vetting was resisted but the ability of certain personalities to deliver that message to a kid and their parents was most often the stumbling block.

That doesn't mean that I could not take the most primitive of athletes and give them chance but the the additional resources, both from the kid in terms of dedication and potential as well as adult support, had to be there. You guys have no idea how many thousands of miles I spent off the back with developing young riders; it is a very expensive proposition in personal effort an costly to the overall event.

My teams always had the highest safety record in the League and the highest percentage of races completed. So while our sport, our league, our mission wanted to invite everyone (remember the League was just getting started and_ anyone_ on a bike was needed to swell the numbers), practicalities conflicted with this. And that was a conundrum. So I developed this phrase:

"Everyone is welcome but not everyone can do this sport."

I guess my point is that there is nothing wrong with a requirement to enter the game. It is just a kinda tough to make that call. Some people can't/won't do it. I get that but it doesn't mean that the call ought not be made.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

OK, Berkeley Mike, I might as well be the one to ask you concerning your post above : what team?


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I founded the El Cerrito Racing Team in 2002 and was its Head Coach through 2007. I became Director Sportif holding that position through 2008, appointing a Head Coach I had trained. I took over the Albany High Cougars Mountain bike Team in 2008 and Directed that team through 2011 when I appointed another Head coach which I had developed. As you might expect in 2008 I was pretty busy with both teams.

During that time period I was active in defining the goals and methods which shaped NorCal and, subsequently NICA. I brought the NorCal Coaches Summit to Albany High in 2010. For the first time ever it took place outside of Marin. 

From 2008 through 2014 I Directed the NorCal sponsorship Program for the Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay which supports 10 teams, including one in Benecia. That program is now run by the former Head coach of the Miramonte Matadors.


----------



## Corey90 (Aug 2, 2014)

francois said:


> Agreed on the second point that e-bikes make shuttling accessible everywhere (pedal shuttle).
> 
> Downhill bikes were first deemed the biggest threat to trail access as they were shunned everywhere they showed up. Even IMBA excluded them for a while. But now they are embraced as part of the family. Now a lot of people ride more capable All Mountain bikes and wear armor every day. It just takes a while for things to level out and get sorted.
> 
> E-bikes are kind of like the new downhill bike villains of old.


E-bikes have a motor...........therefore are a form of motor bike.
U can't compare them to downhill bikes?? Downhill bikes are still 100% human powered.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Corey90 said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well, to be genuine they are pretty substantially gravity-assisted and human-aimed.


----------



## Corey90 (Aug 2, 2014)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Well, to be genuine they are pretty substantially gravity-assisted and human-aimed.


Haha aim down a steep as hell hill and hang on  my problem is the "hang on part" haha

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Well, to be genuine they are pretty substantially gravity-assisted and human-aimed.


In this case I think e-bikes would have lower impact than a typical resort and be a great alternative.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Corey90 said:


> E-bikes have a motor...........therefore are a form of motor bike.
> U can't compare them to downhill bikes?? Downhill bikes are still 100% human powered.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Bikes are a mechanized form of transport and should be banned from all Wilderness. Right? Sound familiar?

Comparing them to downhill bikes is not unfair. Have you ever seen a downhill bike go up a 2000 foot hill? An e-bike can run circles around it with the motor assist completely off. So that means the downhill bike needs assist to get up a hill.

fc


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

This harkens to a basic "earn your downhills" philosophy.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

SS Hack said:


> In this case I think e-bikes would have lower impact than a typical resort and be a great alternative.


Except now everywhere with a trail is a resort.....I guess eluding rangers in Marin just got easier eh?


----------



## Corey90 (Aug 2, 2014)

francois said:


> Bikes are a mechanized form of transport and should be banned from all Wilderness. Right? Sound familiar?
> 
> Comparing them to downhill bikes is not unfair. Have you ever seen a downhill bike go up a 2000 foot hill? An e-bike can run circles around it with the motor assist completely off. So that means the downhill bike needs assist to get up a hill.
> 
> fc


No they don't go up a 2000foot hill unless there pushing or pedaling..........not flying up it using a motor!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

Corey90 said:


> No they don't go up a 2000foot hill unless there pushing or pedaling..........not flying up it using a motor!!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


...or chairlift or truck


----------



## Corey90 (Aug 2, 2014)

But still not up the trails churning them up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

francois said:


> Comparing them to downhill bikes is not unfair. Have you ever seen a downhill bike go up a 2000 foot hill? An e-bike can run circles around it with the motor assist completely off. So that means the downhill bike needs assist to get up a hill.
> fc


Fc, are you saying it's easier to pedal uphill w/o the assist on a pedelec than on a DH bike? My area of doubt is if it would be anywhere near as fun and agile on the DH? They look heavy, clunky = hard to maneuver in the techy stuff and get up in the air. In my purely subjective opinion as a consumer, I think they look totally ghetto. I don't ever want one. I mean look at it - lame:

https://www.corratec.com/sites/defa...50b_performance_25_trapez_0.png?itok=vLu9sUGy

However, if say something as rad and DH-worthy as say a carbon V10 came with a pedal assist motor that was no bigger than a Di2 battery, that would be a game-changing, totally worthy (yet still scary from an access-perspective) innovation.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I founded the El Cerrito Racing Team in 2002 and was its Head Coach through 2007. I became Director Sportif holding that position through 2008, appointing a Head Coach I had trained. I took over the Albany High Cougars Mountain bike Team in 2008 and Directed that team through 2011 when I appointed another Head coach which I had developed. As you might expect in 2008 I was pretty busy with both teams.
> 
> During that time period I was active in defining the goals and methods which shaped NorCal and, subsequently NICA. I brought the NorCal Coaches Summit to Albany High in 2010. For the first time ever it took place outside of Marin.
> 
> From 2008 through 2014 I Directed the NorCal sponsorship Program for the Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay which supports 10 teams, including one in Benecia. That program is now run by the former Head coach of the Miramonte Matadors.


I think I get why you relate your coaching experience in team racing to us overall in the multi-use trail riding community.

I'm pretty sure that 75 % of us, plus or minus a few points, would agree.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Corey90 said:


> But still not up the trails churning them up


There will be less access conflicts around here if people do not drive shuttle pickup trucks up to access spots over private or quite residential roads. 
People skid and make brake bumps on the downhill. Ebikes will "churn" up nothing. That is where power limit comes in. 
If you follow your line of argument with land managers, you will end up prohibiting DH bikes. Assisted or not.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

Axe said:


> There will be less access conflicts around here if people do not drive shuttle pickup trucks up to access spots over private or quite residential roads.
> People skid and make brake bumps on the downhill. Ebikes will "churn" up nothing. That is where power limit comes in.
> If you follow your line of argument with land managers, you will end up prohibiting DH bikes. Assisted or not.


We don't have any real DH or freeridey trails that are fully legit here in the bay area. (Not even Pacifica would I consider to be fully legit). In effect, DH bikes are already indirectly banned.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

shredchic said:


> Fc, are you saying it's easier to pedal uphill w/o the assist on a pedelec than on a DH bike? My area of doubt is if it would be anywhere near as fun and agile on the DH? They look heavy, clunky = hard to maneuver in the techy stuff and get up in the air. In my purely subjective opinion as a consumer, I think they look totally ghetto. I don't ever want one. I mean look at it - lame:
> 
> https://www.corratec.com/sites/defa...50b_performance_25_trapez_0.png?itok=vLu9sUGy
> 
> However, if say something as rad and DH-worthy as say a carbon V10 came with a pedal assist motor that was no bigger than a Di2 battery, that would be a game-changing, totally worthy (yet still scary from an access-perspective) innovation.


Yup all Mtb ebikes now pretty much suck. They are more fun to climb than descend. They're better than 5 years ago though. Today, it's now dominated by 'Bosch' systems that add 15-20 lbs but at least don't add 10 lbs to the rear hub.

In about 5 years, they'll be better.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I founded the El Cerrito Racing Team in 2002 and was its Head Coach through 2007. I became Director Sportif holding that position through 2008, appointing a Head Coach I had trained. I took over the Albany High Cougars Mountain bike Team in 2008 and Directed that team through 2011 when I appointed another Head coach which I had developed. As you might expect in 2008 I was pretty busy with both teams.
> 
> During that time period I was active in defining the goals and methods which shaped NorCal and, subsequently NICA. I brought the NorCal Coaches Summit to Albany High in 2010. For the first time ever it took place outside of Marin.
> 
> From 2008 through 2014 I Directed the NorCal sponsorship Program for the Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay which supports 10 teams, including one in Benecia. That program is now run by the former Head coach of the Miramonte Matadors.


You posted 2 pages worth to say that not everyone deserves to mtb race??


----------



## Motosc (Dec 19, 2007)

francois said:


> Yup all Mtb ebikes now pretty much suck. They are more fun to climb than descend. They're better than 5 years ago though. Today, it's now dominated by 'Bosch' systems that add 15-20 lbs but at least don't add 10 lbs to the rear hub.
> 
> In about 5 years, they'll be better.


In the end, it doesn't matter how good/ bad they are because they are still a motorized vehicle, not a bicycle.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Motosc said:


> In the end, it doesn't matter how good/ bad they are because they are still a motorized vehicle, not a bicycle.


That was repeated incessantly in this thread, but nobody managed to explain why that is important aside from religious/emotional hatred issues, fitness superiority complex, or entirely dubious slippery slope arguments. Exactly like many feel towards your favorite non-motorized vehicle, which looks and acts exactly the same.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

francois said:


> You posted 2 pages worth to say that not everyone deserves to mtb race??


Deserve is not a word I used. Practicality and safety were the factors concerned. This all touches on the sensitive issue of access to the sport and the powerful feelings hooked up to it. It is not a simple issue.

I also described the effect of the number of volunteers on hand to support the breadth of riders. Remember that these are minors and we are charged with their care in our hands. No one is helped by a lack of supervision. Further, the effect of making such decisions was positive and helped to form at least an awareness of these values while building a team for the League.

And it is important to see these events in terms of other early season team development features. An informal sign-up sheet expressing interest in being on the team on a September School Club Day on the quad may yield 50 signatures. A first meeting after that at lunch time may yield 20-30 depending on whether you provide pizza. A parent meeting, discussing participation requirements, costs, rules and such, may yield 15-25. After a few weeks of easy practices, bike checks, equipping and such, you may have 3-9 new riders standing before you in January. So there are lots of ways that riders do not end up on the team.

What I have not yet described is the idea that certain of the team members might be held out of races because they weren't ready. Being ready means having the physical/technical skills needed and being ready between the ears. Again, hard decisions. However the effect of the presence of a poorly prepared racer on a course is not just a risk to them but to everyone on the course. These are powerful and highly charged events experienced by humans absent adult mental and emotional facilities. Working at very high output levels elbow-to-elbow challenges issues of faith, trust, and confidence.

It is pretty easy to keep a racer off the course _after_ a destructive event or poor sportsmanship. Somehow folks have no trouble with that. It is far better to make the call before the race, though. It is just trickier, demanding some pretty sophisticated observations and convictions.

I was also the first to suspend riders for lack-of/erratic/infrequent practice attendance or chaotic riding. In all cases I got calls from parents. One set of parents thought it was a great idea. Others fought very hard. My decades of working with teens and their parents held me in good stead, however, and what became clear was that circumstances within the family unit reflected the behaviors in front of me. That is usually the case.

Ultimately I got calls from the League President who, pretty diplomatically, inquired about the features of the events. It was not a challenge, really, but there was concern. What ends up happening is that once the League understood the principles of the decision and the ramp back to full participation I got full support. In the same vein, not keeping certain new applicants in the program due to lack of resources and safety concerns was understood.

I have just described that everyone takes such things seriously. As I said earlier, these decisions were not always met with support. These decisions don't make everyone happy. However, my record stands as a fact; not speculation, not shoulda-woulda-coulda.

And for that record over all those years of hundreds of riders trained (including coaches) hundreds of training rides, thousands of miles, and many, many thousands of rider hours:

2 not qualified for the team
2 suspensions
1 dismissed from the team

The El Cerrito Racing team started with 10 riders in 2002 and had 35 when I left the group in 2008. They are currently at about 15.

The Albany Cougars had and average of 10 riders when I started and continues to average 15 to this day.

Coaches i developed within these teams have gone on to support 3 other teams.

"Everyone is welcome but not everyone can do this sport."

"Deserve" is not a word I used.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

OK, Mike, thanks, I guess, for credentialing yourself as a mtb coach for us here, but still, what exactly does all of your fine service and credentialing have to do with e-bikes? 
I know, by Berkeley standards I'm probably immensely dense, but maybe I'm not the ONLY one here who is kinda baffled by your extensive postings..


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

Axe said:


> That was repeated incessantly in this thread, but nobody managed to explain why that is important aside from religious/emotional hatred issues, fitness superiority complex, or entirely dubious slippery slope arguments. Exactly like many feel towards your favorite non-motorized vehicle, which looks and acts exactly the same.


I think you're being pretty loose with the definition of "exactly". If they are, in fact, exactly the same then please explain why someone would spend an extra 2k on a bike that weighs an extra 20lbs.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Being baffled by my extensive postings is common. However the issues are not simple though people want them to be. Hence TwitterWorld and short attention spans and the terrible communication which results from them. Life is rarely defined by Haiku, except by the very best, and almost never by slogans, buzzwords, and off-handedness.

And I always recommend using the scroll key. 

Growth in this sport, and the requirements for executing it, are things I understand well. Elaborating their foundations, as opposed to popping off and skimming over the top, make the discussion meaningful and grounded.

My input talked about making hard decisions to keep people off of the trails. It strikes a nerve. Yet, as I described, there can be valid and verifiable reasons for doing so. This speaks to the next idea.

We are talking about electric bicycles which goes to factors of capability. Capability has been a key issue in this discussion. To a certain degree mtb has been self editing. In our neck of the woods if you can't climb you don't ride. Empower otherwise edited-out riders with electric bikes and things change. That is being debated; does mitigating capability cause problems?

Part of my elaboration is because I want to make a distinction. There are those here who simply dismiss the argument of limiting access as just HOHAism. There are those who are trying to use shame-on-you arguments, elitist monikers, and pleading the case for the disadvantaged. I am suggesting that it need not be seen that way and showed how that is done.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Buzzaro said:


> I think you're being pretty loose with the definition of "exactly". If they are, in fact, exactly the same then please explain why someone would spend an extra 2k on a bike that weighs an extra 20lbs.


Cost and weight are not part of "looks and acts" to an outside observer. I did not say "is" exactly the same, if you noticed.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Being baffled by my extensive postings is common. However the issues are not simple though people want them to be. Hence TwitterWorld and short attention spans and the terrible communication which results from them. Life is rarely defined by Haiku, except by the very best, and almost never by slogans, buzzwords, and off-handedness.
> 
> And I always recommend using the scroll key.
> 
> ...


OK....now I get it.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

Axe said:


> Cost and weight are not part of "looks and acts" to an outside observer. I did not say "is" exactly the same, if you noticed.


Ok I guess we will play the semantics game and I'll rephrase the question Alex.

Why would someone spend an extra $2k on a bike that doesn't perform as well due to its significantly higher weight? 
Seems relevant to me considering this discussion is moot if no one purchases these electric bikes. Cost and weight are how they act on the showroom floor right?


----------



## Corey90 (Aug 2, 2014)

Even if "e-bikes" don't damage the trails significantly more than any other downhill bike (or any bike for that matter) by letting them onto the trails is just opening it up to everyone, motorbikes included


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Buzzaro said:


> Why would someone spend an extra $2k on a bike that doesn't perform as well due to its significantly higher weight?


I have no idea, I would not. But I do know people for whom being able to actually ride up some local fire roads and cruise down on a slightly heavier bike would be very enjoyable.
My point is that we here can notice difference in front fork stanchion diameter and argue what is sufficient. For an outside observer - electric assisted bicycle is more of a regular bicycle than anything.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Corey90 said:


> Even if "e-bikes" don't damage the trails significantly more than any other downhill bike (or any bike for that matter) by letting them onto the trails is just opening it up to everyone, motorbikes included


Yet another slippery slope argument.

So by allowing people to own handguns is just opening it up to everyone to develop nuclear bombs.

And by letting bicycles onto trails, next thing they will drive bulldozers, right?

Heck, allow people to enter parks, and then they will bring children.


----------



## Corey90 (Aug 2, 2014)

Axe said:


> Yet another slippery slope argument.
> 
> So by allowing people to own handguns is just opening it up to everyone to develop nuclear bombs.
> 
> ...


Because a motorbike and a nuclear bomb are such similar arguments.........

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Corey90 said:


> Because a motorbike and a nuclear bomb are such similar arguments.....


It is the same type of an argument, yes. Enhanced for clarity.
Just like allowing handguns has nothing to do with permission of bombs and bazookas, allowing low power ebikes has nothing to do with allowing hundred times more powerful motorcycles.

..we are going in circles here; checking out for good now. My faith in humanity yet again diminished.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

shredchic said:


> However, if say something as rad and DH-worthy as say a carbon V10 came with a pedal assist motor that was no bigger than a Di2 battery, that would be a game-changing, totally worthy (yet still scary from an access-perspective) innovation.


Little bigger than Di2 battery, but other than that pretty close to what you want.




You guys should all keep in mind that those bikes are in their first incarnation, and in a couple of years they will be significantly better, lighter, stealthier etc.

As far as DH, you hardly see DH bikes on trails in the bay area. They do cause more damage just because of the speeds and protection riders use, that's before we mention wider and chunkier tires, more weight, etc.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

CrozCountry said:


> Little bigger than Di2 battery, but other than that pretty close to what you want.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That'll get our trails closed in a hurry!


----------



## Schril (Oct 28, 2010)

Exactly.


----------



## chubmackerel (Sep 22, 2014)

no, frackin no.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

CrozCountry said:


> Little bigger than Di2 battery, but other than that pretty close to what you want.
> 
> You guys should all keep in mind that those bikes are in their first incarnation, and in a couple of years they will be significantly better, lighter, stealthier etc.
> 
> As far as DH, you hardly see DH bikes on trails in the bay area. They do cause more damage just because of the speeds and protection riders use, that's before we mention wider and chunkier tires, more weight, etc.


Still rehashing this video? 

This battery is about 30 times the size and power of a Di2 battery. The motor is 5000 watts and is 20 times what is going to be legal in the US which is 250.

It's made in Australia (where they have no laws) and these are really e-motos just like a Zero e-motos in the US.

I know, it creeps into the e-bike discussion but that's why standards are being developed right now in Europe and the US on what is an e-bike.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

It does make a strong case for regulation of electric bicycle power.

Regulation about users seems a bit trickier.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Berkeley Mike said:


> It does make a strong case for regulation of electric bicycle power.
> 
> Regulation about users seems a bit trickier.


100% agreed.

The future of e-bikes on the bike lane or trail will be dependent on the regulation and industry policing of these mega watt mutants.

The US will behave but the Aussie and China manufacturers won't really care.

fc


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

francois said:


> Still rehashing this video?
> 
> This battery is about 30 times the size and power of a Di2 battery. The motor is 5000 watts and is 20 times what is going to be legal in the US which is 250.
> 
> ...


I think European standards are pretty well established already; USA obviously not.

*Did you not notice that Stealth USA is listing Renner's model as having a "250 watt USA mode"?*

What a joke. (Stealth's marketing ploy)

Since the USA Federal standard is already set at 750 watts why do you think 250 watts will be the "sweet spot"?

California's 1000 watt limit is a more pragmatic benchmark IMHO.


----------



## Motosc (Dec 19, 2007)

Axe said:


> That was repeated incessantly in this thread, but nobody managed to explain why that is important aside from religious/emotional hatred issues, fitness superiority complex, or entirely dubious slippery slope arguments. Exactly like many feel towards your favorite non-motorized vehicle, which looks and acts exactly the same.


It has nothing to do with any of that. It has to do solely with the fact that there are already rules/ laws that prohibit motorized vehicles from trails in state parks, county parks, ect., so I don't know why people are wasting so much energy on this, they are already banned. If you want to ride one, you are more than welcome to go to any OHV park, or open space where motorized vehicles are allowed to recreate.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Motosc said:


> It has nothing to do with any of that. It has to do solely with the fact that there are already rules/ laws that prohibit motorized vehicles from trails in state parks, county parks, ect., so I don't know why people are wasting so much energy on this, they are already banned. If you want to ride one, you are more than welcome to go to any OHV park, or open space where motorized vehicles are allowed to recreate.


You sure completely missed the point of the argument.


----------



## Motosc (Dec 19, 2007)

francois said:


> 100% agreed.
> 
> The future of e-bikes on the bike lane or trail will be dependent on the regulation and industry policing of these mega watt mutants.
> 
> ...


There already is regulation. Mopeds (gas or electric) are already allowed to use bike lanes if they are under 50cc (I don't know what the watt equivalent is). They are not allowed to use bike paths if there is a sign that says 'no motorized vehicles'. The same goes for trails in state, city, and county parks where 'motorized vehicles' are already prohibited. The rule already exists, you can not use electric bikes on these trails!

What is so difficult for everyone to understand?

If you want to ride these things on trails, go to Hollister Hills OHV Park, or somewhere like Downieville where the majority of trails are 'multi use', just stay off Sunrise where motorized use is prohibited.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I think a strong force in the argument attempts allow electric bicycles to overcome current effective restrictions. It is done in two ways:

1) Adjusting the name of the machine to give it a softer and less-threatening feel. (softening the beachhead.)

2) Building claims about the effects of power though lower power numbers. (Indices suggest a sort of control.)

The discussion struggles with enforcement along dimensions of recognition and rider ability. In the former case there seem to be no answers and the latter no one wants to touch.


----------



## skyungjae (Mar 29, 2013)

Electric Bike Action - February 2015

I'm with Gary Fisher on this one.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I just cannot see where Gary gets his take on advocacy and access. He didn't care about it as much as he cared about selling his bikes when this all got started. And he was not alone in this. Okay, fair enough; you can't do _everything_. Yet it was left to everyone else to deal with the friction and political work that needed to be done to have place to ride at all.

This sounds like the same thing. It is so clear that this is market and business driven. Electric bicycles are coming with all the synergy of marketing to customer's desires. Nothing wrong with that.

But who will fight for our access now that artificial power is added to the equation? Based upon history I doubt it will be the people who make the money on the new market.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I just cannot see where Gary gets his take on advocacy and access. He didn't care about it as much as he cared about selling his bikes when this all got started. And he was not alone in this. Okay, fair enough; you can't do _everything_. Yet it was left to everyone else to deal with the friction and political work that needed to be done to have place to ride at all.
> 
> This sounds like the same thing. It is so clear that this is market and business driven. Electric bicycles are coming with all the synergy of marketing to customer's desires. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> But who will fight for our access now that artificial power is added to the equation? Based upon history I doubt it will be the people who make the money on the new market.


I don't doubt for a second that Gary is salivating at the profits Trek will turn over from their e-bike sales. He'll finally be able to retire. 
And yes, when it came to advocacy work Fisher was MIA. He was busy selling bikes, making money.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

skyungjae said:


> Electric Bike Action - February 2015
> 
> I'm with Gary Fisher on this one.


Id have to say I'm with Jimmy Mac on that one. He did the right thing.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Old Ray said:


> I don't doubt for a second that Gary is salivating at the profits Trek will turn over from their e-bike sales. He'll finally be able to retire.
> And yes, when it came to advocacy work Fisher was MIA. He was busy selling bikes, making money.


My take is that as a merchant he will see things differently, not that he is selfish. The people who build cars don't build roads.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> My take is that as a merchant he will see things differently, not that he is selfish. The people who build cars don't build roads.


It wasn't my intention to imply that Gary is/was selfish.

It's just that he has "other priorities".


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Old Ray said:


> It wasn't my intention to imply that Gary is/was selfish.
> 
> It's just that he has "other priorities".


Making more money to buy hideous clothing? Maybe he just can't get up anymore (hills)? Call me when one single mountain bike "pioneer" does one single thing for trail access one single time.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Okay!

Pioneer Charlie Kelly has donated copies of his new book, Fat Tire Flyer, to be given away as Raffle prizes at our BTCEB Grand Lake showing of The Rise of Enduro on 2/11.

Sorry, all, I saw the opening and could not resist. I'll announce officially in another thread.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Old Ray said:


> It wasn't my intention to imply that Gary is/was selfish.
> 
> It's just that he has "other priorities".


I hear you. I was just trying to clarify my own position. As I reread it I saw that the nature of the comment is easy to misinterpret.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Okay!
> 
> Pioneer Charlie Kelly has donated copies of his new book, Fat Tire Flyer, to be given away as Raffle prizes at our BTCEB Grand Lake showing of The Rise of Enduro on 2/11.
> 
> Sorry, all, I saw the opening and could not resist. I'll announce officially in another thread.


I stand corrected ... should help a lot.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)




----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Old Ray said:


> I don't doubt for a second that Gary is salivating at the profits Trek will turn over from their e-bike sales. He'll finally be able to retire.
> And yes, when it came to advocacy work Fisher was MIA. He was busy selling bikes, making money.


Gary Fisher is just a Trek employee now and he won't see an extra cent whether Trek sells more e-bikes or not.

What he's really in to is getting more people to ride bikes, road or mountain. He mostly talks to City Councils and explains why building cycling infrastructure is important. There's a bunch of trail fundraisers too.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gar...7.4510j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8

He is really passionate now about getting more people to ride. And he does it worldwide. It's really interesting when you travel worldwide to get out of the trail access in-fighting that we're caught up in here in the Bay Area and the US. It just doesn't exist to this level in other lands. The commuting issue too is such a revelation in other countries. Soo good in some and backwards in others.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Other counties never have the conflicts we have - whether on trails or healthcare or otherwise. That's why what they do has no impact on our policies. Good to see Gary is out there - maybe he could take a minute and help us out in Marin for change.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

They have the conflicts just like we do. You just don't hear about them


----------



## ronski (Jul 28, 2009)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> They have the conflicts just like we do. You just don't hear about them


This is correct. One of the most militant encounters I've ever had was with a hiker in Zermatt. i say this after living in marin previously for many years, the home of Hoha's.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

ronski said:


> This is correct. One of the most militant encounters I've ever had was with a hiker in Zermatt. i say this after living in marin previously for many years, the home of Hoha's.


Crazy thing is I never have problems in Marin, even the time I didn't see that sign saying whatever it said.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

ronski said:


> This is correct. One of the most militant encounters I've ever had was with a hiker in Zermatt. i say this after living in marin previously for many years, the home of Hoha's.


HOHAs are everywhere. We just happen to have more of them in the states. Even then, they still represent a tiny fraction of all users.


----------



## ronski (Jul 28, 2009)

zorg said:


> HOHAs are everywhere. We just happen to have more of them in the states. Even then, they still represent a tiny fraction of all users.


Ya, the years in Marin led to very few bad encounters and most folks were friendly. But eventually you run into loudmouths like Connie or other knuckleheads. In a one week period I had a horse rider yell at me for not having a bell. I put a bell on that night. Later that week another horse rider yelled at me for using a bell. It was mere days later after that when a third rider yelled at us for talking to her horse. It was comical but very sad. After that, it took several years before someone else was nasty to us...


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

ronski said:


> Ya, the years in Marin led to very few bad encounters and most folks were friendly. But eventually you run into loudmouths like Connie or other knuckleheads. In a one week period I had a horse rider yell at me for not having a bell. I put a bell on that night. Later that week another horse rider yelled at me for using a bell. It was mere days later after that when a third rider yelled at us for talking to her horse. It was comical but very sad. After that, it took several years before someone else was nasty to us...


Wow! In 15 years of riding mostly around the east bay, I have yet to have a nasty encounter. Here and there, I've crossed paths with hikers who scowl, or mutter something under their breath, but that's about the rare extent of it. Connie, MVD and Parulis are just weird outliers. It may be that the nasty HOHAs are overrepresented online because they like to hog the debate to spew their vitriol (MVD being the poster child of online rants).


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

zorg said:


> Wow! In 15 years of riding mostly around the east bay, I have yet to have a nasty encounter. Here and there, I've crossed paths with hikers who scowl, or mutter something under their breath, but that's about the rare extent of it. Connie, MVD and Parulis are just weird outliers. It may be that the nasty HOHAs are overrepresented online because they like to hog the debate to spew their vitriol (MVD being the poster child of online rants).


Good feedback guys.

Bear in mind that trail conflict is not about person to person encounters. It is about the political battlefield where we have close to zero access to singletrack while the established usergroups own it all.

In Australia, Asia, and in Europe, heck even Eastern block, they're light years ahead of us.


----------



## ronski (Jul 28, 2009)

francois said:


> Good feedback guys.
> 
> Bear in mind that trail conflict is not about person to person encounters. It is about the political battlefield where we have close to zero access to singletrack while the established usergroups own it all.
> 
> In Australia, Asia, and in Europe, heck even Eastern block, they're light years ahead of us.


I don't know how accurate that is. I've flown to europevwith my bike several times to various countries. I've seen firsthand that they have access issues, and locals talk about issues. I dont know enough to say how it really compares, I'd want to shine a little more light on the subject to see if they are light years ahead of us. Of course "they" is a big target with numerous countries and ways of doing things. 
I also recall a trail called Angry Farmer in Verbier. I took a rowdier trail down so missed it, but those in our group that went that way met the nutcase.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

francois said:


> Still rehashing this video?
> 
> This battery is about 30 times the size and power of a Di2 battery. The motor is 5000 watts and is 20 times what is going to be legal in the US which is 250.
> 
> ...


That video is important, because I believe that in version 2.0 of those bikes you will see more bikes like this, DH bikes or bigger and not trail bikes. You will also see more bikes that easily work around the laws.

It comes with 250W limit to pass as an e-bike in almost every country, including most (all?) states in the US.

Made in Australia? So? It has "US mode" on the bike, as well as a US distributor, FMX star promoter, and US number for orders. Even has 110V charger.

Notice the specs:
SPEED
« USA » Mode Engaged : 20 mph
« Competition » Mode Engaged : 50 mph

POWER
« USA » Peak Power Engaged : 250 Watts
« Competition » Peak Power Engaged : 4,500 Watts


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I've ridden around North Vancouver and Victoria and some of the Islands. Canada has lots of room an flogging access. It is good where it is good but there are some very scary people. There are problems with too much and too little civilization.


----------



## Czar Chasm (Jul 19, 2012)

Hitler admired the early e-bikes, their electric rear hubs and battery holding pannier racks. Now that Godwin's Law has been invoked, can we go back to riding and talking about non-Nazi bikes?


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Dictators are pretty lazy. Is that a 29er?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

ronski said:


> I don't know how accurate that is. I've flown to europevwith my bike several times to various countries. I've seen firsthand that they have access issues, and locals talk about issues. I dont know enough to say how it really compares, I'd want to shine a little more light on the subject to see if they are light years ahead of us. Of course "they" is a big target with numerous countries and ways of doing things.
> I also recall a trail called Angry Farmer in Verbier. I took a rowdier trail down so missed it, but those in our group that went that way met the nutcase.


Sure they have issues. But they are nowhere near what we have. People there are free to access their mountains. And private property and closing off access to nature is shunned upon.

I was in Switzerland/etc and there are bikes and e-bikes all over the streets. E-bikes on the trails there is not much of an issue.

I've told a few people that we have night riding bans here and speed limits on the trails and they REALLY don't believe me.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Czar Chasm said:


> Hitler admired the early e-bikes, their electric rear hubs and battery holding pannier racks. Now that Godwin's Law has been invoked, can we go back to riding and talking about non-Nazi bikes?
> 
> View attachment 953384


I'm pretty sure that in reality that's a moped with a gasoline engine/transaxle semi-encased in the rear hub. Notice the muffler far side, also far side can be seen the fuel line and petcock. Oh, and the gas cap to the rear of the "battery case". Hitler knew that batteries should be saved for u-boats and torpedoes. Let's just invade Poland to get some gas.

Heil Hitler...

(joking)


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

CrozCountry said:


> That video is important, because I believe that in version 2.0 of those bikes you will see more bikes like this, DH bikes or bigger and not trail bikes. You will also see more bikes that easily work around the laws.
> 
> ...


That's an 80 lb. e-moto made for Aussies and they'll try to sell it where they can. It's been around for years and it's not really going anywhere.

What's going to happen to e-bikes is going to be the opposite I believe. Currently, they're about 20 lbs and they run 250 watts for about 25 minutes (if they could run on their own). They kind of suck to ride cause they're so heavy.

So they're gonna get lighter and run longer. 5-10 extra lbs, 100-200 watts, run one one hour. That would work a whole lot better for most.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

pliebenberg said:


> I think European standards are pretty well established already; USA obviously not.
> ...
> 
> Since the USA Federal standard is already set at 750 watts why do you think 250 watts will be the "sweet spot"?


I am not sure. In the end, I think we will follow Europe since they will spearhead all this technology. Most of our motor/drivetrains for now are gonna come from Bosch (250 watts) since they have the proven standard and a frame has to be made for the motor.

It'll prolly be 500 watts. It's so weird though that every state has their own watts limit and has jurisdiction.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

francois said:


> Sure they have issues. But they are nowhere near what we have. People there are free to access their mountains. And private property and closing off access to nature is shunned upon.
> 
> I was in Switzerland/etc and there are bikes and e-bikes all over the streets. E-bikes on the trails there is not much of an issue.
> 
> I've told a few people that we have night riding bans here and speed limits on the trails and they REALLY don't believe me.


That's funny, I just spent a few days there and didn't see one E-bike.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

francois said:


> Sure they have issues. But they are nowhere near what we have. People there are free to access their mountains. And private property and closing off access to nature is shunned upon.
> 
> I was in Switzerland/etc and there are bikes and e-bikes all over the streets. E-bikes on the trails there is not much of an issue.
> 
> I've told a few people that we have night riding bans here and speed limits on the trails and they REALLY don't believe me.


Once again, they don't fight about any of the stuff we do including heath care, high speed rail or trails. It's a different culture.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

SS Hack said:


> Once again, they don't fight about any of the stuff we do including heath care, high speed rail or trails. It's a different culture.


They don't fight, because they don't have a choice. That **** is rammed down their throats whether they like it or not. Why do you think people left there to come here?


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> They don't fight, because they don't have a choice. That **** is rammed down their throats whether they like it or not. Why do you think people left there to come here?


Talk about overly simplifying and grossly exaggerating the point. It's just different and Europe is a collection of many differing cultures. I came here because ladies were friendly and the climate nicer!


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Exactly right. They take what they given by their parental governments. Europe is great, but not always a good model for US.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

zorg said:


> Europe is a collection of many differing cultures.


 And the USA isn't? Again, why do you think people come here? It's for the freedom and choices we have. I mean ****, you can't even own a gun over there to protect yourself from terrorists that want to kill 12 people, including one cop on the street.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> And the USA isn't? Again, why do you think people come here? It's for the freedom and choices we have. I mean ****, you can't even own a gun over there to protect yourself from terrorists that want to kill 12 people, including one cop on the street.


Lots of European countries are actually pretty homogenized compared to America and share a like world view. They're used to big brother taking care of them and typically fall in line. Now, it's changing and many of the counties are being taken over by people that really like the way the world was in 800 AD - hence the horrible shooting. I'll take America with access problems or not.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

SS Hack said:


> I'll take America with access problems or not.


I agree!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Europe is definitely not here. Canada, in broad brushstrokes, sounds really nice but the healthcare system they have when it really comes down to delivery, can be very problematic. And we would never put up with their tax system. I have family there and have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in inheritance, sales taxes. 

And now we have trail sabotage in North Vancouver.

So just tossing out " it is so much better there" doesn't wash with me.

Same with California vs other states, or NorCal vs. SoCal. This is my home, warts and all. We do some fantastic stuff. It is just that mtb challenges here are really tough, just like any other sort of competition in our area. The people who hold the power are tough to dislodge.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

Woah! Where did this thread go? I just come here to read about bikes. (Yay bikes!)


----------



## ronski (Jul 28, 2009)

shredchic said:


> Woah! Where did this thread go? I just come here to read about bikes. (Yay bikes!)


21 pages on ebikes and you want more?


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

ronski said:


> 21 pages on ebikes and you want more?


Not necessarily, but it's way better than left v. right politics.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

shredchic said:


> Woah! Where did this thread go? I just come here to read about bikes. (Yay bikes!)


Part of the validation and acceptability of electric bikes seems to come ideas that other parts of the world are more advanced, better or a template for action or a demonstration of certainty or some such thing. There is thinking here that doesn't support those as an argument for electric bikes.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

shredchic said:


> Not necessarily, but it's way better than left v. right politics.


No left vs right that I know of - we were kicking around the idea that Europeans may have this all figured out as all users there hold hands and sign songs when they meet on trails.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

SS Hack said:


> No left vs right that I know of - we were kicking around the idea that Europeans may have this all figured out as all users there hold hands and sign songs when they meet on trails.


There was just a little gun totin' and flag waving. I'm not 100% serious, hence the  smiley.


----------



## mudncrud (May 6, 2010)

francois said:


> Sure they have issues. But they are nowhere near what we have. People there are free to access their mountains. And private property and closing off access to nature is shunned upon.
> 
> I was in Switzerland/etc and there are bikes and e-bikes all over the streets. E-bikes on the trails there is not much of an issue.
> 
> I've told a few people that we have night riding bans here and speed limits on the trails and they REALLY don't believe me.


Just do not litter in Switzerland or there will be issues. Also they have very strict recycling laws. I know a gal that lived there for 5 years. Most Americans would be screaming their heads off with their litter/recycling laws.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

You know the Swiss are pretty gun happy for Europeans.


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

SS Hack said:


> Making more money to buy hideous clothing? Maybe he just can't get up anymore (hills)? Call me when one single mountain bike "pioneer" does one single thing for trail access one single time.


Pretty freakin harsh. Gary has been plenty active over the years. I see Joe Breeze out in Tamarancho with garden tools. There is a photo in my book of some "pioneer" types working on a trail. If you read the original statement of purpose for NORBA, written in 1983, access was one of three major goals. Racing took over, and the access issue spun off into IMBA.

In Marin County the Bicycle Trails Council dates back to the '80s. This served as the model for several other local access groups.

I have appeared at any number of access related fund raisers over the last three decades. Maybe I haven't built enough miles of trail to satisfy everyone, but I'm working on it.


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

SS Hack said:


> You know the Swiss are pretty gun happy for Europeans.


Well duh, we've all seen the cheese


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Repack Rider said:


> Pretty freakin harsh. Gary has been plenty active over the years. I see Joe Breeze out in Tamarancho with garden tools. There is a photo in my book of some "pioneer" types working on a trail. If you read the original statement of purpose for NORBA, written in 1983, access was one of three major goals. Racing took over, and the access issue spun off into IMBA.
> 
> In Marin County the Bicycle Trails Council dates back to the '80s. This served as the model for several other local access groups.
> 
> I have appeared at any number of access related fund raisers over the last three decades. Maybe I haven't built enough miles of trail to satisfy everyone, but I'm working on it.


Yep, cheap shots were fired fo-sho.

You pioneers are role models.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

francois said:


> Yep, cheap shots were fired fo-sho.
> 
> You pioneers are role models.


Yet no increase in access ...


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I think it is really important to appreciate that the characterization of Gary's electric bike efforts simply refers to a merchants proclivity to focus on the business as opposed to access.

We have auto makers who create machines that top-out at over 150 mph. Our speed limits are nowhere near that. The product and the advertising tap into a desire but where do you use such a beast.

Bike makers produce these long travel machines and we have nowhere to ride them. They are produced because they sell, or marketing can convince people to buy them through some artifice of culture.

Support for electric bikes by marketing companies and merchants has its own ends. I don't think the where and when enter into the equation except as it effects sales. 

I suspect that such awareness steers energy towards existing mountain bike access efforts as if it were a natural fit. That is being distinctly elaborated on this thread and I don't think it the case. Like I said, I have had throttle-based access folks ask mountain biking to parter and it has been avoided for all of the obvious reasons. "But you guys want 2-wheels dirt access just like us..."...uh...nope.

On another point, some of Gary's message is simply to get-in on the ground floor or be left behind. I wonder if that was a lesson he realized when he first started to develop and market mountain bikes? As such his thoughts are less "visionary" than they are Business 101.


----------



## mudncrud (May 6, 2010)

SS Hack said:


> You know the Swiss are pretty gun happy for Europeans.


They also have legal drugs, no death penalty, favor reform/control over punishment and have strict firearm laws.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Berkeley Mike said:


> I think it is really important to appreciate that the characterization of Gary's electric bike efforts simply refers to a merchants proclivity to focus on the business as opposed to access.
> 
> We have auto makers who create machines that top-out at over 150 mph. Our speed limits are nowhere near that. The product and the advertising tap into a desire but where do you use such a beast.
> 
> ...


Love the oblique, highfalutin, grandiloquent prose. Not.

fc


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

mudncrud said:


> They also have legal drugs, no death penalty, favor reform/control over punishment and have strict firearm laws.


When you immigrate to Switzerland or move to a new town, they will assign you a parole officer. That person will pry into personal life, crime records, bank records and check in with you regularly to see if you deserve to live in that area. You will pay him a tax too.

That's my Swiss chez factoid of the day.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

francois said:


> Love the oblique, highfalutin, grandiloquent prose. Not.
> 
> fc


Why do you hate on literacy? I found Mike's post unusually short and to the point.

In regard to your comment RE e-bikes; _"In Australia, Asia, and in Europe, heck even Eastern block, they're light years ahead of us"_, they're light years ahead in _marketing_ however the innovation has had its roots in the USA and the Chinese have had e-bike component manufacturing sorted out for a long time now.

BTW what does pedelec-flavored Kool-Aid taste like???


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

pliebenberg said:


> Why do you hate on literacy? I found Mike's post unusually short and to the point.
> 
> In regard to your comment RE e-bikes; _"In Australia, Asia, and in Europe, heck even Eastern block, they're light years ahead of us"_, they're light years ahead in _marketing_ however the innovation has had its roots in the USA and the Chinese have had e-bike component manufacturing sorted out for a long time now.
> 
> BTW what does pedelec-flavored Kool-Aid taste like???


They're ahead of us in terms of trail sharing or trail access (not e-bikes).

In those countries, cyclists are legitimate user groups. Here in Marin, East Bay and Midpen areas, we are outcasts. We've made some strides recently which is good.

Other parts of the US are better. Areas like Bend - OR, Austin, Durango, Moab are leading the charge.


----------



## 262741 (Jun 11, 2005)

francois said:


> Other parts of the US are better. Areas like Bend - OR, Austin, Durango, Moab are leading the charge.


The big difference between those communities and the bay area is the local economy. Everyplace you listed has an economic motivation to have more people visiting their area. In the bay area there clearly is no economic motivation for the community to draw in more cyclists. The land managers feel no pressure to get more people to parks since they see plenty of access already.


----------



## mudncrud (May 6, 2010)

francois said:


> They're ahead of us in terms of trail sharing or trail access (not e-bikes).
> 
> In those countries, cyclists are legitimate user groups. Here in Marin, East Bay and Midpen areas, we are outcasts. We've made some strides recently which is good.
> 
> Other parts of the US are better. Areas like Bend - OR, Austin, Durango, Moab are leading the charge.


I think Tahoe might be working it's way into that list, as well as Oakridge. Portland is trying hard.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

francois said:


> They're ahead of us in terms of trail sharing or trail access (not e-bikes).
> 
> In those countries, cyclists are legitimate user groups. Here in Marin, East Bay and Midpen areas, we are outcasts. We've made some strides recently which is good.
> 
> Other parts of the US are better. Areas like Bend - OR, Austin, Durango, Moab are leading the charge.


The Bay Area is much more populated than the other places mentioned which always causes problems. Europe is pretty dense, so somehow they manage. It just boggles my mind why the birth place of mountain biking is so restricted. Is it because the early races were on fire roads? Maybe those were good enough for them since it was really about speed in the early days - like early downhill racing. Many old timers don't seem bothered by the access issue much.


----------



## mudncrud (May 6, 2010)

SS Hack said:


> The Bay Area is much more populated than the other places mentioned which always causes problems. Europe is pretty dense, so somehow they manage. It just boggles my mind why the birth place of mountain biking is so restricted. Is it because the early races were on fire roads? Maybe those were good enough for them since it was really about speed in the early days - like early downhill racing. Many old timers don't seem bothered by the access issue much.


That is easy. Lawyers. None of the nations mentioned are as willing to go to court as the US. In those countries if you screw up you are not as likely to win a suit if you are doing something stupid.

MTB was huge and California, then there were a bunch of law suits in the Mamoth area. Most all if not all that riding got shutdown. Pretty much every other area followed along.

The Kamikaze ceased to exist.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

So did riders get hurt and sue in Mammoth?


----------



## mudncrud (May 6, 2010)

SS Hack said:


> So did riders get hurt and sue in Mammoth?


Yes. Mammoth was on it's way and in some ways was the start, Whistler actually started after Mammoth but Canada did not have the same restrictions. Pretty much all the ski resorts in the US followed Mammoth. Some of the trails involved in the Mammoth fiasco were not sanctioned trails. Dig around there is quite a bit of info out there. Us old guys still remember John Tomac in a skin suit (on a MTB).


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

I go back with BC to 1982 and riders were barely ratting about on logging roads. Metro area had a only 1.2 million people.

Making trails and tricks on the North Shore started showing up in 1987-88. Who cared? Tons of room. Still only 1.5 million in the metro area.

Whistler was a destination ski resort. Getting more use out of the hill in the off-season was a no brainer. The Vancouver metro area, with a current population of about 2,000,000, is like an Island, a wonderful place, is in the middle of nowhere. BC is bigger than Washington, Oregon, and California put together and lives on logging and mining.

BC population density is 5 people per sq km, California is 95 people per sqkm.
California with only 45% of the area has 10 times the population.
California at over 2 Trillion dollars GNP is 10 times that of BC.

Historically Cananda has lived off of its resources. BC lives off of forestry and mining because they have lots of land and little else. Using their land to create money is nothing new. 

Anything they can do to bring people and spend money is going to work. Restrictions fall by the wayside to make money.

People flock here from all over the world, much faster than they leave. California, even without considering haters, has far more challenges to land use than BC.

Citing BC/Whistler as model is erroneous. A fantastic place but existing under very different circumstance.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

So, MA rider here. The state parks, private reserves and the conservation areas I ride in do not allow motor vehicles on their property. There are very few public areas in which to ride ORV in MA, maybe 3? So, no ebikes permitted. Ever ridden one or picked one up? Very heavy, like 40 -60 lbs. Most of the mt biking in this area is very technical, lots of rocks, rock gardens, roots and short punchy, climbs. Some bigger hills and mountains in the western part of the state. Can't imaging trying to loft a front wheel of an ebike over the many logs we have here on our trails. We too have our access issues in MA, but not to the extent as in CA. Speed limits?


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

^ Did you send that via Tapatalk from your brick phone?


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

mudncrud said:


> That is easy. Lawyers. None of the nations mentioned are as willing to go to court as the US. In those countries if you screw up you are not as likely to win a suit if you are doing something stupid.
> 
> MTB was huge and California, then there were a bunch of law suits in the Mamoth area. Most all if not all that riding got shutdown. Pretty much every other area followed along.
> 
> The Kamikaze ceased to exist.


Hey uh... I think the Kamikaze does still exist and you can ride it every summer....

Maybe you're getting Mammoth confused with Big Bear? They had lots of non sanctioned trails and quit the game until very recently after a law suit.


----------



## TahoeBC (Apr 11, 2006)

I always wanted to ride a bike in high heels, e-bikes make that possible!

Xtreme Warrior 750 Watt Electric E - Buffalo Fat Tire E - Bike - $1,695.00










Xtreme Warrior 750 Watt Electric E Buffalo Fat Tire E Bike | eBay


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

TahoeBC said:


> I always wanted to ride a bike in high heels, e-bikes make that possible!
> 
> Xtreme Warrior 750 Watt Electric E - Buffalo Fat Tire E - Bike - $1,695.00
> 
> ...


I'd like to take that model for a spin.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Are those shoes clipless?


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Empty_Beer said:


> ^ Did you send that via Tapatalk from your brick phone?


Hee, hee...

It's giving this thread a second wind. Everybody ready for round 2?


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

zorg said:


> Are those shoes clipless?


Yes. Yes they are.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

And the winner is....Empty_beer in the Your Wish Is My Command category!


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

New poll; "Should e-bikers shave their legs?"


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

pliebenberg said:


> I'd like to take that model for a spin.


I'm gonna do that. On my 90th birthday.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

TahoeBC said:


> I always wanted to ride a bike in high heels, e-bikes make that possible!
> 
> Xtreme Warrior 750 Watt Electric E - Buffalo Fat Tire E - Bike - $1,695.00
> 
> ...


I'm disappointed she's not doing yoga on the bike.


----------



## timetraveler (Oct 28, 2010)

Rode China Camp today and saw an older couple cruising down Bay View on a couple Ebikes. Going pretty slow down hill. Kinda torn between saying "Nice day for a ride. Good for you for getting out", or "Aren't those illegal on the trails and you're introducing another issue for detractors to get huffy about?". Think it was the same old guy (late 60's +) who passed me going up Gold Hill fire road a couple months ago. Could be part of the reason I'm resentful.


----------



## modbog (Jun 17, 2011)

Empty_Beer said:


> Yes. Yes they are.


those shoes make your feet look fat


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Better than ebikes, etrikes: https://www.electricbike.com/outrider-usa-electric-trike/


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*2013: Year of the Illegal Ebike*



zorg said:


> Better than ebikes, etrikes: https://www.electricbike.com/outrider-usa-electric-trike/


Gee thanks zorg; that article linked to this article https://www.electricbike.com/illegal-production-ebikes/ which was something I supected all along.

_"April 28th, 2013 In the last few weeks, Stromer and Specialized have announced new electric bikes that would be illegally fast by USA federal law. According to the USA government, for a motor bike to be classified as an ebike, it must be no more than 750 watts, and no faster than 20-MPH with no pedaling on flat ground with a 170 pound rider (read more on USA ebike law). Hats off to these companies for offering some fun bikes that are literally law breakers. Here is a list of 10 tips that will help you if you choose to ride one these illegally fast ebikes on the street, and want to get away with it without getting your beautiful new machine confiscated by the police.
Here is a list of 10 Illegal fast electric bikes:"_

Learned how the Stealth "Bomber" handles the 20 mph rule. (snip, snip)

And I'll report electricbike dot com's take on special ed:

_"This is an interesting one. This bike is pedal assist only, and has a modest 250-watt hub motor. Specialized claims it is not only illegal, but the worlds fastest production electric bike with a claimed speed of 28-MPH. I feel this bike without pedal assist ("throttle only" if it was possible) would not surpass 20-MPH and therefore is not illegal. I think the think tank at Specialized got together in a conference room&#8230;and the marketing guys said: "Lets build the worlds fastest production electric bike", the engineers said "we can do that!" and the execs said: "Let's not&#8230;and just say we did!" and the marketing guys said "We can do that too. " And the lawyer in the back of the room nodded his head. High Fives."_


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

pliebenberg said:


> Gee thanks zorg; that article linked to this article https://www.electricbike.com/illegal-production-ebikes/ which was something I supected all along.
> 
> _"April 28th, 2013 In the last few weeks, Stromer and Specialized have announced new electric bikes that would be illegally fast by USA federal law. According to the USA government, for a motor bike to be classified as an ebike, it must be no more than 750 watts, and no faster than 20-MPH with no pedaling on flat ground with a 170 pound rider (read more on USA ebike law). Hats off to these companies for offering some fun bikes that are literally law breakers. Here is a list of 10 tips that will help you if you choose to ride one these illegally fast ebikes on the street, and want to get away with it without getting your beautiful new machine confiscated by the police.
> Here is a list of 10 Illegal fast electric bikes:"_
> ...


Apparently Specialized bike is legal. Not that this really changes anything to the discussion.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

It all goes to the issue of a business's lack of concern for where such electric bicycles might find a place to be used.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Nice quotes from this website:


> "Clown Pedaling" means to pedal the bike as fast as you can at top speed to give the illusion that you are an incredible athlete who is actually pedaling your bike at that amazing speed.





> Put a misleading sticker on your ebike...
> Other good stickers are: "750 watts" or "250 watts" depending on what the laws are where you live.
> These stickers could give you great arguing points if pulled over the the police, and maybe help convince him that your ebike is within legal limits...even if it isn't.





> The Stealth Bomber comes from the factory with a jumper-wire on the controller that limits it's top-speed to 20-MPH. Remove that jumper, and it puts you in "off road mode" and transforms your bomber into a 50-MPH 5,000-watt beast.





> Learning to talk to the Police is mandatory for anyone who decides they want to ride on the margins of what is legal or not. Keep a copy of the vehicle code in your pocket. Have a prepared statement as to what you are going to say, and practice being respectful (which may be hard to do when you are suddenly and unexpectedly upset).


You see where this is going to


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

zorg said:


> Better than ebikes, etrikes: https://www.electricbike.com/outrider-usa-electric-trike/


I browsed around ebike.com......lots of articles about modifying standard e-bikes for higher performance, alright. Even wickedly fast as stock Stealth Bomber and Fighter.

These guys are not simply gonna use these things to "just help get to the top of the hill"........they're already rippin' the trails with them.
What a surprise!


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

The virus is growing in California...

Bosch opens office for e-bike division in California | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

Empty_Beer said:


> The virus is growing in California...
> 
> Bosch opens office for e-bike division in California | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News


E-bike-ola...


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

Old Ray said:


> I browsed around ebike.com......lots of articles about modifying standard e-bikes for higher performance, alright. Even wickedly fast as stock Stealth Bomber and Fighter.
> 
> These guys are not simply gonna use these things to "just help get to the top of the hill"........they're already rippin' the trails with them.
> What a surprise!


Anyone using these high powered motorized bikes to "rip the trails" in parks not sanctioned for motorized vehicles will soon find themselves in deep water and heavy consequences. That sort of damage is considered environmental terrorism in the bay area, and not tolerated.

These high power e-bikes can easily be caught no matter how clever the hiding of controls and hacking and stealth batteries or motors and so on.

It's simple. The rangers with radar guns already too frequently give tickets to those going over 15 MPH, for which we already complain as being over-enforcement. My expectation is those going over 15 MPH _*uphill *_or otherwise running extremely high speed and damaging trails will attract lots of attention, including many 911 calls from trail users. Penalties can include confiscation, perhaps investigation of the bike by an independent lab (who won't be dummies and paid for by fines), maybe needing a court hearing to get out of impound, if at all. And riders will have very big fines, maybe felonies and jail time too, depending on damage caused, which will be on their record with increase penalties for repeat offenses. I don't think the fun will last long for those trying to "rip the trails".

I expect to see about as many of the very high powered e-bikes on trails as I do motorcycles today. It happens, but not very often. And the book is tossed at them if caught, which is why it's rare.

The only way e-bikes can avoid wrath is to stay stealth. That means ride and operate like a normal manually pedaled bike. That might be possible with the much lower power pedalecs, but not the high power e-bike beasts.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Yeah, and we all know who well wheeled folk bridle themselves back.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

BigLarry said:


> I expect to see about as many of the very high powered e-bikes on trails as I do motorcycles today. It happens, but not very often. And the book is tossed at them if caught, which is why it's rare.
> 
> The only way e-bikes can avoid wrath is to stay stealth. That means ride and operate like a normal manually pedaled bike. That might be possible with the much lower power pedalecs, but not the high power e-bike beasts.


I agree with this. If someone is blasting around bike/hike/horse trails at 30 mph barely pedaling or just twisting a throttle, they're gonna get busted. It will probably take longer than for an actual moto that actually makes noise, but they'll get busted eventually no matter what.

I'd also wager that a competent mtber could whoop a competent electric biker down most descents anyways because of the lighter weight of their bikes.


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

Berkeley Mike said:


> Yeah, and we all know who well wheeled folk bridle themselves back.


As in "reigning" themselves in?


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

BigLarry said:


> Anyone using these high powered motorized bikes to "rip the trails" in parks not sanctioned for motorized vehicles will soon find themselves in deep water and heavy consequences. That sort of damage is considered environmental terrorism in the bay area, and not tolerated.
> 
> These high power e-bikes can easily be caught no matter how clever the hiding of controls and hacking and stealth batteries or motors and so on.
> 
> ...


I live in DFW Texas, and I've never seen a ranger or local police on any of the DORBA trails, so I guess that doesn't apply to my area. I'm sure they could be called out to investigate incidents and inspect bikes, but that would require additional resources.

I'm not worried about it around here at the current time as I've not seen one or heard of any sightings.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Not a single fcuk given to off-road implications yet. :skep:

BPSA initiative seeks model e-bike legislation in California, New York | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News


----------



## Old Ray (Sep 5, 2010)

Empty_Beer said:


> Not a single fcuk given to off-road implications yet. :skep:
> 
> BPSA initiative seeks model e-bike legislation in California, New York | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News


Fear not. the All-Knowing Invisible Hand of the Free and unfettered Market will make all necessary adjustments.

The alternative is just plain communism.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Fear not. The usual HOHAs will be sure to jump in during the process.


----------



## Captain_Hero (Dec 25, 2008)

E-Bike = Electric Moped


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

The plot thickens....

https://www.imba.com/news/electric-mountain-bike-study


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

Empty_Beer said:


> The plot thickens....
> 
> https://www.imba.com/news/electric-mountain-bike-study


Good link.

I suspect IMBA's environmental review will have neutral bias, as they are not necessarily in favor of e-bikes, much like most mountain bikers on this thread. And they wisely don't want to support that political baggage either. Actually, I'm surprised they're taking on the environmental review, which will be dangerous politically, no matter how well done scientifically.

Of interest in the story is the proposed classes of electric bikes based on the European definition.

So the Pedelecs we've been describing would be *Class 1*: <250W; <15 MPH; pedal driven (no throttle)
Same speed and power limitations, but with electric throttle is *Class 2*.
Electric Mopeds are all the way up at *Class 4*.

However, US Law now defines "Low Speed Electric Bicycles" as <750W, <20 MPH.

I suspect if electric bikes are ever allowed on trials, it will only be the Class 1 or Class 2 bikes that have similar performance to human power. (The IMBA study is only for Class 1 and Class 2, those with a chance of acceptance.) Thus the law needs to change to create these lower performance categories, like in Europe.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

This cannot be. Using science to deal with ebikes when we could simply use FUD.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

This bill labels them as a "low speed electric bicycle" vs. a "motorized bicycle". If passed, this could actually help with the concern I have about the semantics of "non-motorized trails".

AB 875 Assembly Bill ? INTRODUCED


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

Empty_Beer said:


> The virus is growing in California...
> 
> Bosch opens office for e-bike division in California | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News


I don't see an issue with this as those bikes appear to be designed for casual street use.

They "say" that they are expanding into mtb, but without any legal trails and other users telling them to get the hell out of the way, the bikes will likely stay on the street.


----------



## bdamschen (Jan 4, 2006)

ziscwg said:


> I don't see an issue with this as those bikes appear to be designed for casual street use.
> 
> They "say" that they are expanding into mtb, but without any legal trails and other users telling them to get the hell out of the way, the bikes will likely stay on the street.


Bosch makes mountain bike motors too, but I don't think they are the evil throttle twisting ebike people you are looking for. All of their motors require the rider to pedal and it takes that pedal input and uses it to control the throttle. If any type of ebike should be allowed on regular trails, that is the type.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Empty_Beer said:


> This bill labels them as a "low speed electric bicycle" vs. a "motorized bicycle". If passed, this could actually help with the concern I have about the semantics of "non-motorized trails".
> 
> AB*875 * Assembly Bill*? INTRODUCED


Very interesting. I guess if this passes then it is up to the local trail management to decide if "low speed electric bicycles" are allowed on the trails.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Empty_Beer said:


> The plot thickens....
> 
> https://www.imba.com/news/electric-mountain-bike-study





BigLarry said:


> Good link.
> 
> I suspect IMBA's environmental review will have neutral bias, as they are not necessarily in favor of e-bikes, much like most mountain bikers on this thread. And they wisely don't want to support that political baggage either. Actually, I'm surprised they're taking on the environmental review, which will be dangerous politically, no matter how well done scientifically.
> 
> ...





Empty_Beer said:


> This bill labels them as a "low speed electric bicycle" vs. a "motorized bicycle". If passed, this could actually help with the concern I have about the semantics of "non-motorized trails".
> 
> AB*875 * Assembly Bill*? INTRODUCED


I like the European class definitions. I think the low power stuff should be lower wattage like the European lower class ratings. 15mph should be more than plenty for an e-mtb.

The study, if done well, should help to shed some light on things. I anticipate the study showing increased environmental impacts with an increase in wattage, for one, with some baseline wattage not increasing impacts more than human-power alone. I am more interested in the social impacts the study will also investigate.

One thing all of this (the study, the European class structure) doesn't address is going to be regulation and enforcement. It's easy for trail users to call and report motos on a nonmotorized trail. It's kinda obvious. Land managers/LEO's don't necessarily have to be ON SITE monitoring use all the time, if users are good about reporting that kind of stuff. How are land managers/LEO's going to address different classes of e-bikes? It's not going to be easy for users to report problems, and there will be a lot of false reports simply because other users can't recognize a permitted class of ebike vs. one that's not permitted. There will probably also be many violations that go unreported for the same reason.

Are land managers going to have to go out and do equipment checks on mtb trails like they do at moto trails, to make sure that equipment is legal? A lot of them are already enormously cash-strapped. Especially in my state.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> One thing all of this (the study, the European class structure) doesn't address is going to be regulation and enforcement.


I don't know how it is in everyone elses neck of the woods, but I can guarantee zero enforcement in mine. Our local land agents are underbudgeted and few and far between, they have bigger problems to deal with than checking the wattage on an E-bike. It will never happen.

As far as peer pressure having a significant affect on enforcment, mmm, no. How many useless confrontations do you want to get into while out enjoying yourself? I'm not a cop and don't want to act like one.

If any class of Ebike is allowed, in effect all will be regardless of the specifics of any agreement. It'll be as effective as trying to regulate bike access by tire size. "Excuse me sir, you seem to have a tire that is over 2.2"..."


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Harryman said:


> If any class of Ebike is allowed, in effect all will be regardless of the specifics of any agreement. It'll be as effective as trying to regulate bike access by tire size. "Excuse me sir, you seem to have a tire that is over 2.2"..."


It is not enforced by checking wattage/tire sizes/etc on the trail. It is enforced by what is allowed to be sold in stores. Just like you can not buy a car without catalytic converter or airbags, or a toilet bowl that actually can flush your load in one try.
Yes, some people will hack it up, buy on the grey market, but most people would not. It is much easier to enforce in stores.


----------



## skyungjae (Mar 29, 2013)




----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

Axe said:


> It is not enforced by checking wattage/tire sizes/etc on the trail. It is enforced by what is allowed to be sold in stores. Just like you can not buy a car without catalytic converter or airbags, or a toilet bowl that actually can flush your load in one try.
> Yes, some people will hack it up, buy on the grey market, but most people would not. It is much easier to enforce in stores.


That is the first rung of enforcement. And I agree most buyers will not hack the bike.

On the trail, the enforcement is easy, simply by observed behavior, like going 20 MPH in the typical 15 MPH zone (especially uphill). The rangers do radar enforcement to various degrees in all the parks here in CA. They get good revenue (~$300/ticket) that helps support or even encourage their enforcement. They concentrate on areas with the most mixed trail traffic and complaints. As part of this enforcement, an electric bike going especially fast beyond typical expectations will be subject to closer investigation.

Hacked bikes with more power won't help much if they're always staying within the limits anyway. And if they use the illegal high power, they'll eventually be caught. Someone caught going uphill at 20 MPH without pedaling will be suspect to hacking. For extremely bad behavior, calls to alert the rangers may be made, even if the other trail users don't confront directly. Confiscation and checking by an independent lab can verify the bike legality. Threat of loss of a hacked bike, and the revenue to the parks from such impounds, can be effective in creating enforcement.

I don't think e-bikes will happen in public parks for a long time, maybe years or decades, as the e-bike proponents build the proper legal infrastructure and public perception. But I suspect it's possible to create reasonable laws that can be enforced as well, if done properly.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

BigLarry said:


> On the trail, the enforcement is easy, simply by observed behavior, like going 20 MPH in the typical 15 MPH zone (especially uphill). The rangers do radar enforcement to various degrees in all the parks here in CA. They get good revenue (~$300/ticket) that helps support or even encourage their enforcement. They concentrate on areas with the most mixed trail traffic and complaints. As part of this enforcement, an electric bike going especially fast beyond typical expectations will be subject to closer investigation.


Ha, you think? I haven't seen a LEO/ranger outside of the parking lot at any trail system in my state. Do you think they'll START doing it because of a regulatory change by adding classes of ebikes, in which certain types are defined legislatively as having access to nonmotorized trails? That's a laughable thought. From a regulation standpoint, they are prohibited from trails in my state. Yet, land managers still do nothing. There are so few of them in the wild, and even fewer of them have ever left pavement, it's not a concern. It's coming, especially with the ebike lobby building.

I agree with the earlier poster who said that if one class is permitted, all will effectively be permitted because without a corresponding increase to parks funding, and a hiring spree, nobody will be checking. I never suggested peer pressure would be effective. I simply meant people calling law enforcement when they witness a violation. That's easy to do when you see/hear a quad/dirt bike on a nonmotorized trail. How do you determine a permitted ebike class when the rider rides past, however? Trail users cannot. So either ALL ebikes will generate reports (false or not), or none will (can't see the wattage on these things, with even a good look). So from an enforcement standpoint, that means LEO's will ALWAYS have to be present to check people's equipment. Enforcement won't happen.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

Harold said:


> Ha, you think? I haven't seen a LEO/ranger outside of the parking lot at any trail system in my state. Do you think they'll START doing it because of a regulatory change by adding classes of ebikes, in which certain types are defined legislatively as having access to nonmotorized trails? That's a laughable thought. From a regulation standpoint, they are prohibited from trails in my state. Yet, land managers still do nothing. There are so few of them in the wild, and even fewer of them have ever left pavement, it's not a concern. It's coming, especially with the ebike lobby building.
> 
> I agree with the earlier poster who said that if one class is permitted, all will effectively be permitted because without a corresponding increase to parks funding, and a hiring spree, nobody will be checking. I never suggested peer pressure would be effective. I simply meant people calling law enforcement when they witness a violation. That's easy to do when you see/hear a quad/dirt bike on a nonmotorized trail. How do you determine a permitted ebike class when the rider rides past, however? Trail users cannot. So either ALL ebikes will generate reports (false or not), or none will (can't see the wattage on these things, with even a good look). So from an enforcement standpoint, that means LEO's will ALWAYS have to be present to check people's equipment. Enforcement won't happen.


Oh joy. Another e-bike thread!

Just building on your point, what really worries me is the land manager changing to rules to disallow both e-bikes and mountain bikes on the basis of being either too lazy or underfunded to enforce the difference. It's a possibility, especially if e-bikes become an issue with other (HOHA) trail users (who again, might not know the difference and just blame mountain bikers in general).

On the other hand, as I was descending a trail on public land where e-bikes are not yet permitted, another biker appeared suddenly from around a corner and we nearly collided. His rear wheel lifted slightly under the force of his braking. All was well, no harm done, but I wasn't expecting someone to be "climbing" so fast. I checked, and did notice the small motor. Perhaps e-bikes are more recognizable than we think.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

Harold said:


> Ha, you think? I haven't seen a LEO/ranger outside of the parking lot at any trail system in my state. Do you think they'll START doing it because of a regulatory change by adding classes of ebikes, in which certain types are defined legislatively as having access to nonmotorized trails? That's a laughable thought. From a regulation standpoint, they are prohibited from trails in my state. Yet, land managers still do nothing. There are so few of them in the wild, and even fewer of them have ever left pavement, it's not a concern. It's coming, especially with the ebike lobby building.
> 
> I agree with the earlier poster who said that if one class is permitted, all will effectively be permitted because without a corresponding increase to parks funding, and a hiring spree, nobody will be checking. I never suggested peer pressure would be effective. I simply meant people calling law enforcement when they witness a violation. That's easy to do when you see/hear a quad/dirt bike on a nonmotorized trail. How do you determine a permitted ebike class when the rider rides past, however? Trail users cannot. So either ALL ebikes will generate reports (false or not), or none will (can't see the wattage on these things, with even a good look). So from an enforcement standpoint, that means LEO's will ALWAYS have to be present to check people's equipment. Enforcement won't happen.


In CA where this thread is posted, I run across a LEO with radar gun every few months. And I ride in areas with weaker enforcement. So I'm not talking about anything new or different happening. The higher power class will be made obvious by the outlying nature of behavior, such as high speed up a hill, roostering, or such.

By the same token on inability to enforce, e-bikes may already be on trails. So formal approval of a specific class may not make much difference in that regard.

I agree it's important to make sure e-bikes are not lumped in the same category with mountain bikes, so our MTB access progress doesn't get dragged down by any battles the e-bikes should be doing on their own. I'm really surprised IMBA took on this review for that reason.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

This is posted in general


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

Harold said:


> This is posted in general


Hmm, must have been moved.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

BigLarry said:


> Hmm, must have been moved.





shredchic said:


> Oh joy. Another e-bike thread!
> 
> Just building on your point, what really worries me is the land manager changing to rules to disallow both e-bikes and mountain bikes on the basis of being either too lazy or underfunded to enforce the difference. It's a possibility, especially if e-bikes become an issue with other (HOHA) trail users (who again, might not know the difference and just blame mountain bikers in general).
> 
> On the other hand, as I was descending a trail on public land where e-bikes are not yet permitted, another biker appeared suddenly from around a corner and we nearly collided. His rear wheel lifted slightly under the force of his braking. All was well, no harm done, but I wasn't expecting someone to be "climbing" so fast. I checked, and did notice the small motor. Perhaps e-bikes are more recognizable than we think.


Yes boys and girls, "my" Norcal thread got moved here to the general forum. Not sure what the Mod's were thinking (can they?) but this thread did have some relevance to the Norcal forum as it was in response to a flurry of other threads about e-bikes showing up on local trails.

No matter; moving it here will give it a few more months of life.

I'll start another e-bike thread in NorCal when I get around to it.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

pliebenberg said:


> Yes boys and girls, "my" Norcal thread got moved here to the general forum. Not sure what the Mod's were thinking (can they?) but this thread did have some relevance to the Norcal forum as it was in response to a flurry of other threads about e-bikes showing up on local trails.
> 
> No matter; moving it here will give it a few more months of life.
> 
> I'll start another e-bike thread in NorCal when I get around to it.


Oh, sorry I gotz confused!


----------



## SeaBass_ (Apr 7, 2006)

MTB Trails are meant for able MTB Riders. Your access is earned through your commitment to the sport and your fitness. 

I don't plan to get an eBike, but if I did, the way I have to tinker with every car/truck/motorcycle/bicycle etc I've ever owned, I'd be looking up on the net to hack it for more power the second I had it in my garage!


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Kinda weird to move this thread - we have lots of issues that don't apply to other places, including way more trail use and more cranky hikers and NIMBYS.


----------



## SeaBass_ (Apr 7, 2006)

SS Hack said:


> Kinda weird to move this thread - we have lots of issues that don't apply to other places, including way more trail use and more cranky hikers and NIMBYS.


I take it NorCal would be great if it wasn't for the people? Looks damn pretty! 
I live on the edge of the Adirondack Park in Upstate NY. It's the largest park in the contiguous US.
We have 64 miles of legal trail within the 6 million acres that make up the park thanks to the hikers, equestrians, and NIMBY's. Your issues are our issues too.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

SeaBass_ said:


> MTB Trails are meant for able MTB Riders. Your access is earned through your commitment to the sport and your fitness.


That is an elitist attitude. There is nothing special about this style of recreation that has to be earned.


----------



## SeaBass_ (Apr 7, 2006)

Axe said:


> That is an elitist attitude. There is nothing special about this style of recreation that has to be earned.


In your opinion. Which I'm not too concerned about being endeared to.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Axe said:


> That is an elitist attitude. There is nothing special about this style of recreation that has to be earned.


There's something bad about being elite?


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Axe said:


> That is an elitist attitude. There is nothing special about this style of recreation that has to be earned.


The special part is pushing down on pedals to propel yourself forward just like hikers use their own legs to move forward.


----------



## RooHarris (May 11, 2011)

*E bikes in the JDSF and State parks here ...*

_So the Pedelecs we've been describing would be Class 1: <250W; <15 MPH; pedal driven (no throttle)
Same speed and power limitations, but with electric throttle is Class 2.
Electric Mopeds are all the way up at Class 4._

Larry et al:

Thank you for this discussion.

Recently, I had the opportunity to see my first e-bike and even ride one. It was the 250 watt model. Confining/policing the e-bike to the low wattage (250w Max) will be very difficult if not impossible. Therefore, JDSF and state parks have categorized them as "motorized" and not legal. At the moment, motorcycles are still terrorizing our woods. Not enough police power here to control this intrusion how the hell will they control e-bikes? Like the BLM in Moab, it is much easier to designate them as motorized and not legal on the trails there. I see their advantage for the disadvantaged, but must side with the purists (I'm one) and common good that they not be allowed on the trails. Sorry Michael.

The issue will be that they are coming and we may not have a say to their use in the future. Like the cellphone. Hells bells, even the bike magazines are gearing up new e-bike magazine divisions. Something wicked this way comes?


----------



## RooHarris (May 11, 2011)

SS Hack said:


> The special part is pushing down on pedals to propel yourself forward just like hikers use their own legs to move forward.


Exactly!


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

pliebenberg said:


> There's something bad about being elite?


Nothing. Bad is to expect that of others.



SS Hack said:


> The special part is pushing down on pedals to propel yourself forward just like hikers use their own legs to move forward.


But not the equestrians, who are allowed on those trails.


----------



## SeaBass_ (Apr 7, 2006)

So it's bad to expect someone to work at bettering themselves rather than to take the easy way out? Sad.


----------



## Aceldama (Jan 18, 2005)

shredchic said:


> Oh joy. Another e-bike thread!
> 
> Just building on your point, what really worries me is the land manager changing to rules to disallow both e-bikes and mountain bikes on the basis of being either too lazy or underfunded to enforce the difference.


I think this is dead on. Land managers and parks and rec enforcement isn't going to bother hunting down hacked e-bikes. If 'bikes' in general become a problem they will all be banned from the trails.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

SeaBass_ said:


> So it's bad to expect someone to work at bettering themselves rather than to take the easy way out? Sad.


Yes, it is bad to expect to share your beliefs from people with different circumstances - like injuries, or diseases or just different priorities in life.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

SeaBass_ said:


> So it's bad to expect someone to work at bettering themselves rather than to take the easy way out? Sad.


Now I bet you'll suggest we bring back PE for kids ...


----------



## skyungjae (Mar 29, 2013)

Mountain biking is for fitness purposes only. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

SeaBass_ said:


> So it's bad to expect someone to work at bettering themselves rather than to take the easy way out? Sad.


Tolerance ain't your strong point, is it?


----------



## skyungjae (Mar 29, 2013)




----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

skyungjae said:


> Mountain biking is for fitness purposes only. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.


Your statement might apply to stationary bikes, but it's WAAYYYY off when it comes to real bikes, of any type.

I've been riding mtbs since 1989 and have never, ever ridden for fitness, only for fun. Fitness is a by-product. If that's the only thing you're getting out of mountain biking, sorry, but you're the one that's doing it wrong.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Now that the thread was moved, we'll have a bunch more posts that prove we have two opposing options here and no one will ever convince anyone else to change their mind.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

This article seems to summarize the whole issue fairly well, from almost all sides. So newcomers (to this moved thread), if you don't feel like reading 600 posts, here are your clif notes:

The Electric Slide - Elevation Outdoors Magazine


----------



## skyungjae (Mar 29, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> Your statement might apply to stationary bikes, but it's WAAYYYY off when it comes to real bikes, of any type.
> 
> I've been riding mtbs since 1989 and have never, ever ridden for fitness, only for fun. Fitness is a by-product. If that's the only thing you're getting out of mountain biking, sorry, but you're the one that's doing it wrong.


My statement applies to the majority of cyclists in the United States. The big reason why the larger e-bike manufacturers (Giant, Trek, etc) aren't selling their e-mtbs here is because mountain biking is sooooo strongly correlated to fitness.

I just don't think the community is ready to share trails with their electric brethren.

I've had extensive experience with e-mtb (owning, building, selling, etc), and pedal assist only sucks compared to having a throttle. Having sudden power kick in on technical climbs is a recipe for disaster. With a throttle, you can give yourself power more efficiently and use it as a "tail wind" or a way to "flatten" the hills. Pedal assist is fine for a commuter rig, but dangerous on an e-mtb.

I have no hate for e-mtbs, I don't see why we can't share our trails with them, but I don't think the mtb community in the United States is simply ready for it.


----------



## cobraking (Aug 13, 2014)

I think it'll probably take an entire new generation of riders to be okay with it, as it seems most of the staunchest supports of preventing ebikes from joining the mtb trails are people who have been mountain biking for most of their lives. If someone picks up mtb today it's probably more likely that they wouldn't have too strong of a negative opinion on it. I doubt the sentiment towards e-mtbs will change anytime soon. Just my personal opinion.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

skyungjae said:


> My statement applies to the majority of cyclists in the United States. .


Your statement says that 'mountain biking is for fitness purposes ONLY'.

I've never known ANYONE that rides ONLY for fitness. I'll bet if you took a survey here, you might find 1 in thousands of riders that get nothing else out of mountain biking besides a way to exercise. Probably not even that many.

I think you need to re-evaluate your statement.

Sure, developing fitness is/can be one aspect of riding, but to say it is the ONLY aspect is ridiculous.


----------



## skyungjae (Mar 29, 2013)

Fine fine, drop out the Only. I too get a better work out at the gym in less time.

*Cycling, in general, has very strong ties to fitness in the United States.*

As stated in my previous post, that's a big reason why a lot of e-mtb is on hold. It has nothing to do with legality issues as the vast majority of them produce less than half the power of the federal definition.

You're not going to sell to a public who looks at an e-mtb and thinks, "doesn't that defeat the purpose?"

Statistical outlier's desires for e-mtbs to be sold in the US is not going to convince Giant to bring their Full-E or Trek to bring their Powerfly to the US.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

For me, MTB is combined fun AND fitness. It's exercise that I'm eager to do, rather than dread. E-bikes defeat that, and makes as much sense as e-weigh-lifting. But there is value in the assist for some - I suspect more for bike commuting rather than MTB. But there's many types of users and needs. 

I'm not going to be hypocritical in saying trails should be open for all users, as long as "all" is defined by being limited to human powered mountain bikes. I feel the MTB community is acting just like opposition by hikers and equestrians in seeking exclusion of others, based more on emotion and fear than reality. Hopefully some of the studies will help clarify the real impact. 

As for fears indicated on this thread I see so far: 
1. The guys on overpowered bikes (hacked or not) ripping up trails with the excess power. 
But nothing stops that now anyway (electric or gas), other than the rarity of such people and chance of getting caught. 

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

3. Electric Bikes will be lumped with regular MTB, and get both banned from parks with protests from managers and other users.
I have this fear too, and feel the ebike promotion should be done in separate organizations from MTB, and laws should not allow e-bikes to be grouped or piggyback on MTB access. So far, main e-bike opposition appears to be from MTB, not the other user groups that would cause access problems. But that opposition might come later. 

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


----------



## skyungjae (Mar 29, 2013)

I would equate e-bikes more with that pull up machine that helps you vs doing dead hang pull ups from a bar.

You still gotta work on an e-bike. A common saying of e-bikers is, "Same amount of exercise, twice the scenery."

There is the misconception that e-mtb requires no fitness and skill. I'd say you still need all the skills and perhaps less of the fitness?

Of the bikes I've ridden, it feels more like a stamina cheat in a game. You still feel like you're riding a bike, but you just don't get tired as fast.

That being said, another common saying among e-bikers is, "It's like juicing without the side effects."


----------



## cobraking (Aug 13, 2014)

A common saying among mountain bikers is, "keep e-bikes off of our trails, thanks."


----------



## skyungjae (Mar 29, 2013)

cobraking said:


> A common saying among mountain bikers is, "keep e-bikes off of our trails, thanks."


I hear "cheater" a lot too.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

skyungjae said:


> Statistical outlier's desires for e-mtbs to be sold in the US is not going to convince ... *Trek *to bring their Powerfly to the US.


Huh? Sounds like they are targeting 2017. They and others are waiting on the rules for eMTB's to be formalized, then its game on (discussed in the first 4 minutes if this vid).






I share shredchic and AgoAceldama's thoughts on the baby being thrown out with the bathwater if bikes with power become a problem.

I disagree with cobraking that it'll be a new generation that will accept these eMTB's. I think our very friends will be the early adopters... 15 years from now, I'll bet 15% of my MTB friends will have an eMTB in their quiver... for the days/rides they just don't want to work as hard.

While I think eMTB use with the standards discussed earlier will ultimately have little to no effect anywhere but on Internet forums, I do believe eMTB's have the ability to completely squash any chance we have at gaining reasonable access to desirable but currently off limits trails (Wilderness, etc.), simply due to a stronger, semantical defense of keeping certain trails and places "non-motorized".

Mostly, these discussions make many of us sound just like anti-bike hikers and equestrians.


----------



## SeaBass_ (Apr 7, 2006)

SS Hack said:


> Now I bet you'll suggest we bring back PE for kids ...


Let's not get draconian here....


----------



## SeaBass_ (Apr 7, 2006)

zorg said:


> Tolerance ain't your strong point, is it?


Of laziness? No.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

skyungjae said:


> I would equate e-bikes more with that pull up machine that helps you vs doing dead hang pull ups from a bar.
> 
> You still gotta work on an e-bike. A common saying of e-bikers is, "Same amount of exercise, twice the scenery."
> 
> ...


I don't believe there are enough "e-bikers" to have sayings. Mountain biking has been around long enough to have a few (like "earn your turn") but e-biking is still new and is not much of a sport anyway; bragging rights meaning nothing at all if your throttle helped you get up a difficult hill.

Big deal.

As for being a "stamina cheat," since they will be used on uphill sections and difficult flat sections I guess you can really feel the burn on the downhills.

Why not just walk up the hills that defeat your pedaling ability?

The confusion is equating ebiking with a physical activity like cycling. At its best it's more like motocross without the necessity of manhandling a 300-pound machine but at it's worst (and how most people are going to use their ebikes) it's like riding four-wheelers.

Nothing wrong with riding four-wheelers or ATVs but let's not confuse it with mountain biking. I ride on a lot of multi-use trails and I have no issues sharing with motorized vehicles. They do tend to beat the trails to pieces, however.

But most people riding ATVs would likely get winded quickly if they had to get off and walk a few hundred feet. It is not a fitness activity or a sport.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

skyungjae said:


> I would equate e-bikes more with that pull up machine that helps you vs doing dead hang pull ups from a bar.


This is silly. I recently started working out again (because mountain biking alone is not very good for general fitness) and I started with lighter weights and am progressing steadily to heavier weights.

The pull-up machine lets you start with essentially lighter weights. When I was a Marine I could do 25 dead-hang pullups but I could barely do one three months ago. Now I am up to six. This is nothing like riding an ebike...unless you're suggesting that you suck on the trails and are only using the ebike to assist you as you gain strength and will one day proudly ditch the ebike when you become a capable rider.

Mountain biking, I have decided, is not the best thing to do for fitness. Lifting weights, along with some judicious cardio, is a lot better for general fitness. And, it has improved my riding significantly...ironically with less riding.


----------



## skyungjae (Mar 29, 2013)

Ailuropoda said:


> I don't believe there are enough "e-bikers" to have sayings. Mountain biking has been around long enough to have a few (like "earn your turn") but e-biking is still new and is not much of a sport anyway; bragging rights meaning nothing at all if your throttle helped you get up a difficult hill.
> 
> Big deal.
> 
> ...


You should check out endless-sphere.com. You'll see that there are quite a few e-bikers out there. You're probably right about the US having a small number of e-bikers though. E-bikes have been around for a very long time. It's just until recently that batteries are light enough to put them on a trail rig.

Sure you can walk a bike up a hill, but that takes a lot of time. A lot of people simply don't ride because they don't have the time. An e-bike may solve that problem for them.

I find it interesting how people always try and compare e-bikes to dirt bikes. If you've actually ridden an e-bike, that falls under the legal definition, you'd know that it still requires pedal effort to climb at a decent speed. Going all motor on a climb would be similar to walking speed. An e-bike is more like a segway that looks like a bicycle.

Your daddy's golf cart ain't no Tesla.


----------



## skyungjae (Mar 29, 2013)

Ailuropoda said:


> This is silly. I recently started working out again (because mountain biking alone is not very good for general fitness) and I started with lighter weights and am progressing steadily to heavier weights.
> 
> The pull-up machine lets you start with essentially lighter weights. When I was a Marine I could do 25 dead-hang pullups but I could barely do one three months ago. Now I am up to six. This is nothing like riding an ebike...unless you're suggesting that you suck on the trails and are only using the ebike to assist you as you gain strength and will one day proudly ditch the ebike when you become a capable rider.
> 
> Mountain biking, I have decided, is not the best thing to do for fitness. Lifting weights, along with some judicious cardio, is a lot better for general fitness. And, it has improved my riding significantly...ironically with less riding.


You should check out Air Force Physical Fitness Training \| Pararescue Training by Rescue Athlete. It's pretty good site that has daily work outs. I haven't dropped down to my Corps weight, but I was able to get up to 23 dead hang pull ups. The most I did while in was 15.

Additional wattage from an e-bike doesn't equate to skill, but the rider may get more experience to become a better rider. More time on two wheels. I'll be honest, I started off with a Kona Stinky with a mid-drive ebike conversion, and it was my gateway drug. I now have a Bronson C, and it's all me. I would ride this over any e-bike out there available commercially or home brewed.


----------



## ssulljm (Sep 3, 2006)

MROSD Weighs in :
Other Power-Driven Mobility Device Policy
www.openspace.org/CGI-BIN/agendas_minutes/2015.04.14_R-15-63.pdf

VI. USE AND INQUIRY INTO USE OF OPDMD

Only individuals with a mobility disability may use OPDMDs on District lands. The
District may stop individuals who are using an OPDMD because all powered devices
except wheelchairs are prohibited under District ordinance.

OTHER POWER-DRIVEN MOBILITY DEVICES POLICY

The District shall not ask an individual using a wheelchair or OPDMD questions
about the nature and extent of the individual's disability. If a person using an
OPDMD states they are using the device due to a mobility disability the District may
ask them to provide credible assurance that the mobility device is required because of
the person's disability. The District shall accept the presentation of a valid,
state issued, disability parking placard or card, or other state
issued proof of disability as a credible assurance that the use of the OPDMD is for the individual's mobility
disability.
‐
In lieu of a valid, state issued disability parking placard or card, or
state issued proof of disability, the District shall accept as a credible assurance a
verbal representation, not contradicted by observable fact, that the OPDMD is being
used for a mobility disability. A "valid" disability placard or card is one that is
presented by the person to whom it was issued and is otherwise in compliance with
the state of issuance's requirements for disability placards or cards.


----------



## BigLarry (Jul 30, 2004)

ssulljm said:


> MROSD Weighs in :
> Other Power-Driven Mobility Device Policy
> www.openspace.org/CGI-BIN/agendas_minutes/2015.04.14_R-15-63.pdf


The chart at the end summarizing other south bay and CA policies is very interesting.

Most agencies (except CA parks) are now separately defining Electric Bikes specifically, with allowance for their long length, and generally permitting them on the trails for those with "disabilities". They are limiting the e-bikes to speeds of 15 MPH, but not discussing or limiting the bike power output, other than being electric not gas. This reduces the enforcement issue that was discussed.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

ssulljm said:


> MROSD Weighs in :
> Other Power-Driven Mobility Device Policy
> www.openspace.org/CGI-BIN/agendas_minutes/2015.04.14_R-15-63.pdf
> 
> ...


It's a pity this thread has been moved from the NorCal forum; this really is a local matter posted here.

No matter; I'll start another thread if you don't beat me to it. _Edit; it's here:_ http://forums.mtbr.com/california-n...e-bikes-disabilities-962447.html#post11895890


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

ssulljm said:


> MROSD Weighs in :
> Other Power-Driven Mobility Device Policy
> www.openspace.org/CGI-BIN/agendas_minutes/2015.04.14_R-15-63.pdf
> 
> ...


As easy as getting an Rx for weed.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I think I'll try to keep an open mind on these things, though my gut reaction is to cringe a bit. 

If they're ridden where they're legal and overall riders act responsibly as a user group, in an effort not to sound like the some of the anti-bike people I've had to deal with during the process of building public mtb trails, I can't really get myself indignant enough to put down somebody for finding them fun. 

As long as it's not hurting the trails or access, I dunno...I remember people saying that merely seeing a mountain biker in the woods would ruin their experience, children were going to be run down, fish were going to die, all sorts of crazy ****. I gotta try to NOT be those people at least.

But I definitely consider them motorized vehicles by default, and if they want similar access to what we mtbers enjoy these days, they've got a whole bunch of years of hard work to do to distinguish themselves from other motorized users. I personally don't think it would be smart at this point of mtb access groups to align with e-bikes in any way. Too many people have spent way too much time and effort getting people to understand that mountain bike use is completely different than motorized use for that to ever be a good idea. MTBers stand to lose a lot more than we gain in any sort of alignment like that. 

So yeah, keeping an open mind, but I see an uphill climb for them. But hey, if people are really into it and they pull their weight and put in the time and sweat equity like mtbers have done, whatever, do what makes ya happy. But please don't expect to ride in on the coat-tails of what mountain bikers have gone through to get access, and in the process, screw us. That angle I don't like whatsoever.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Reasonable MROSD policy but I'm only disabled during vertigo attacks. So what happens if I ride a pedal assist just in case I have an attack? 

Hey guys, if you haven't rode down Emma McCrary with a full vertigo attack you haven't experienced berms at their finest! Regular MTB is nothing compared to that experience!



The vertigo comes from my left ear and when riding with vertigo it is a huge struggle to steer the bike from going off the left side of the trail. I'm trying to improve that skill. Odd **** happens in life. Charge forward anyway.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

jmpreston said:


> Reasonable MROSD policy but I'm only disabled during vertigo attacks. So what happens if I ride a pedal assist just in case I have an attack?
> 
> Hey guys, if you haven't rode down Emma McCrary with a full vertigo attack you haven't experienced berms at their finest! Regular MTB is nothing compared to that experience!
> 
> ...


You may want to try riding the north side of the Grand Canyon, from top to bottom going west. It'll cure your problem!


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

There are over a dozen inner ear issues that can't be cured but do you have more info on this trail. Last week I was biking the St. George / Virgin area for 7 days and I bike Moab at least two weeks of the year.

Moab Cyclery is promoting some MTB festival on the North Rim in June. Is the trail you refer to related to that?

The Hurricane MTB Festival a couple of weeks ago was "modest" but nice socially.


----------



## natrat (Mar 20, 2008)

skyungjae said:


> I've had extensive experience with e-mtb (owning, building, selling, etc), and pedal assist only sucks compared to having a throttle. Having sudden power kick in on technical climbs is a recipe for disaster. With a throttle, you can give yourself power more efficiently and use it as a "tail wind" or a way to "flatten" the hills. Pedal assist is fine for a commuter rig, but dangerous on an e-mtb.
> .


I rode a pedal assist mtb the other day for the first time and i didn't like it. Even with more tolerant attitudes i don't know that emtbs would catch on anyway. It might be nice for burning up a long fire road but the heavy feel and lack of agility feels constricting. And you are right about a throttle being better. On a moto you can keep your body still and use throttle to move the bike around. With pedal assist you cant stand and when you slow to a crawl ,climbing or whatever , it only takes a little pedal pressure and the bike wants to take off so it seems hard to regulate. Sick commuter though.


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

Also did a parking lot ride recently and didn't like it at all. I much prefer throttle to pedal assist.

Pedals as a throttle is maybe a loophole to claim it's a bicycle, but that's it. With the pedal assist there is noticeable lag when the motor kicks in. It is hard to wheelie or do any power kick move because of the weight and the fact that the motor kicks in much later than you need it. It is basically good for a shuttle, but I wouldn't want this on when riding. That is not to say that they can't improve it, but at that point the bosch system seems like a shuttle assist, and feels like a 1.0 product.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

After experiencing about 30 years of mountain biking I am of the opinion that the new mountain bikers are not the same people who were riding in the 80s and 90s. I think the motivations were different as in the early days the things that had to be overcome were different and fewer succeeded. That is self-editing at a certain level.That said those who stick with it certainly create a quality experience and are an important part of the greater mountain bike community.

There were no "bike" trails. Everything was rigid and steel and five and six speed and cantos. What I had to do on a bike was very different than what I have to do now on a 24-pound dual-suspended 2X10 27.5 with tubeless tires. and hydraulic brakes.

Mountain biking, for better or for worse, is far more mainstream now. And so the sport, or should I say marketing, can cast a much broader net. The sport has been refined, some say tamed, repackaged, and formatted to appeal to and engage special groups. It embraces far more people.

Mountain biking is much easier than it used to be. And I'm glad of that and would never think of going back to the first bikes I road anymore than I would enjoy going back to a carbureted three-on-the-tree steel monster with drum brakes, ashtrays, and an AM radio.

Of course entry-level bikes are still entry-level but they are nine speed and frequently have hydraulic disc brakes with aluminum frames with better designed contact points and superior geometry. Further they are part of a portion of a line of products serving any number of mountain biking disciplines, sizes, and genders. When I bought entry-level it was the bottom of a line that consisted of four bikes, from one of four bike companies, all on the same frame with different components.

I'm thinking that just like with cars people enter into an experience that is simpler and easier. I learned to drive a stick and remember tuning my Triumph every two weeks, changing flats, keeping a leaky hydraulic brake system topped up with fluid, and a balky heater that blew fuses. The average car now is probably an automatic with climate control. When was the last time you had to change a flat tire or add any fluids? I think the only thing that really hasn't improved much on cars as windshield wipers: don't get me started.

I guess what I'm trying to get to is that mountain biking has a new baseline for entering and staying in the sport. It is a lot easier and simpler. E bikes are the next step. They will attract people who want mountain biking to be easier for any number of reasons including staying on the bike due to age/infirmity/disability, or just getting started. Whose to say that that's not okay?

However, there _is_ something about the price one has to pay to ride that becomes self editing. Any number of lessons can be learned by paying that price. As a longtime coach and developer of riders that value cannot be denied. I think there is something to the concept of "earning your down hills." It may only be in valuing the people you encounter as they're coming up the hill but that is a serious value. If you have never made that climb you don't know what it means.

I just wonder what that is going to do to the skill level of new entrants into the sport when they get out a bit further from the trailhead. My other concern has to do with old access issues and being lumped together with motorized e-bikes. Right or wrong, I simply don't like it.


----------



## Havinfun (Mar 18, 2015)

I read on the inter web somewhere that any argument that fills 50 pages actually finds the solution, no matter what the topic is or how many people post the same arguments. So, another 24 pages and we will know!

Keep it going!!!


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

I just say no.


----------



## Steve56303 (Jan 19, 2015)

The majority is almost always wrong, so it seems they should be allowed.


----------



## jp08865 (Aug 12, 2014)

No.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Steve56303 said:


> The majority is almost always wrong, so it seems they should be allowed.


So is bike theft good too, since most people are against it? Or maybe other crimes? Or how about polygamy?


----------



## Buzzaro (Jan 27, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> After experiencing about 30 years of mountain biking I am of the opinion that the new mountain bikers are not the same people who were riding in the 80s and 90s. I think the motivations were different as in the early days the things that had to be overcome were different and fewer succeeded. That is self-editing at a certain level.That said those who stick with it certainly create a quality experience and are an important part of the greater mountain bike community.
> 
> There were no "bike" trails. Everything was rigid and steel and five and six speed and cantos. What I had to do on a bike was very different than what I have to do now on a 24-pound dual-suspended 2X10 27.5 with tubeless tires. and hydraulic brakes.
> 
> ...


Yeah yeah, uphill in the snow both directions......


----------

