# Electric Bikes on MTB Trails



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

Saw another electric mountain bike on the trail the other day. It got me thinking, do I care about this? Am I going to start seeing a bunch of fat rich dudes (no offense to large or wealthy riders who pedal) who don't pedal ripping down our trails? Can someone give me some perspective here? Do I call the ranger 'cause the trail clearly states no motorized vehicles?


----------



## G0at (Aug 10, 2012)

If he was talking on his cell while sipping a latte, throwing the wrapper from his deluxe triple bypass lardburger on the trail, and/or being a regular ******, then I definately would call him in. If he was just out enjoying the trail, prolly wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

Do you have any local/state/whatever statutes that define what is a motorized vehicle and what is a bicycle?

Where I live, bicycles with low powered electric motors count as bicycles, as long as they only power you while you pedal and stop helping you by the time you hit about 15 mph.


----------



## NicoleB (Jul 21, 2011)

tell me more about these electrobikes. i've heard of electric shifting (is it really THAT hard to shift on your own?) but are they like those commuters that help you forward?


----------



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

NicoleB28 said:


> tell me more about these electrobikes. i've heard of electric shifting (is it really THAT hard to shift on your own?) but are they like those commuters that help you forward?


It was making him haul butt. I looked them up and found them on eBay for about $6k. They have a 5000 watt motor. That's seriuos.


----------



## ou2mame (Apr 23, 2010)

well... what about handicapped people who want to ride around in the trails? i've seen a few of those chinese motored mountain bikes in the trails around here. i think the man problem with dirt bikes and atvs is that they ruin the trail due to their weight, big tires, and high amount of torque. but if they're not spinning out ruining the trail, i really don't care. its not a pleasant sound to hear, a motor, but electric is silent so that's even better. i say live and let live.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)

RIVER29 said:


> It was making him haul butt. I looked them up and found them on eBay for about $6k. They have a 5000 watt motor. That's seriuos.


Sounds motorized to me. Way more power than I had when I was 15 or 16

(not my photo: just found one that looks just like what I had)









source: Helkama Raisu 83: heinäkuu 2010


----------



## LaLD (May 18, 2007)

Does it have enough tear up the trail? If not then no harm no foul.


----------



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

ou2mame said:


> well... what about handicapped people who want to ride around in the trails? i've seen a few of those chinese motored mountain bikes in the trails around here. i think the man problem with dirt bikes and atvs is that they ruin the trail due to their weight, big tires, and high amount of torque. but if they're not spinning out ruining the trail, i really don't care. its not a pleasant sound to hear, a motor, but electric is silent so that's even better. i say live and let live.


There are lots of ways for handicapped people to MTB without a motor.

It was hardly silent but quieter than a gas engine.

A 4000 or 5000 watt motor is plenty of power to pill out and I would add that the extra weight and speed could result in a lot of skidding. These would be controllable by the rider. I could ride my motorcycle down lots of trails and not do any damage if that was my only concern. It doesn't mean cautious motorcyclers should be on the trail either.


----------



## 2ridealot (Jun 15, 2004)

When one comes up from behind while I'm climbing and starts wanting by I will probably have a problem with it. May lead to trail courtesy issues...maybe others too. When the batteries die about 10 miles out it won't be so much fun as they beg human powered mtb'ers to save them.

How long until they have a 32inch wheel version at Walmart?.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

RIVER29 said:


> Saw another electric mountain bike on the trail the other day. It got me thinking, do I care about this? Am I going to start seeing a bunch of fat rich dudes (no offense to large or wealthy riders who pedal) who don't pedal ripping down our trails? Can someone give me some perspective here? Do I call the ranger 'cause the trail clearly states no motorized vehicles?


This was argues at length on the electric bike board.

I think they should be considered motorized for purposes of trail use.


----------



## ou2mame (Apr 23, 2010)

RIVER29 said:


> There are lots of ways for handicapped people to MTB without a motor.
> 
> It was hardly silent but quieter than a gas engine.
> 
> A 4000 or 5000 watt motor is plenty of power to pill out and I would add that the extra weight and speed could result in a lot of skidding. These would be controllable by the rider. I could ride my motorcycle down lots of trails and not do any damage if that was my only concern. It doesn't mean cautious motorcyclers should be on the trail either.


thats true, but having dirt bikes and mtbs next to each other is dangerous for many reasons. weight is an issue, people can get injured if somebody loses control of a dirt bike, and things like that. plus the speed issue. if the bike only goes 15mph, that's not terribly fast. my average pace is like 10 according to my gps at one of my trails, so if something was going slightly faster than me, i don't think i'd mind.

if your biggest concern is people needing help with dead batteries......that can be an excuse to not do anything there at all lol.. there's so many reasons i've seen people need help in the trails, whether its broken collar bones or flat tires.

i dunno... i'm on the fence about motorized bikes. as long as they don't do any damage, and don't hurt anyone else, i say whatever. if a motor's pushing a bike, or if you're pedaling it, its still a bike.


----------



## Shrewm (Aug 13, 2012)

I saw video posted a few months back of one of these things getting clocked going up hill on asphalt at 45mph. There is a 10,000 watt version that will do 55 and was supposed to be released in march. Do a youtube serach and you will find a lot of videos.


----------



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

This could be a non-issue, it could become something down the road. Either way I'm going to call the County that manages that trail and see what there stance is.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Wheeled vehicles are funny things. Any clown can get on a bike and do 25 mph. I takes a skilled rider to manage what happens when things go awry. That said, a rider who pedals out 5-10 miles and a rider who motors electrically out 5-10 miles may be very different riders.


----------



## 006_007 (Jan 12, 2004)

Do we want to go after the fat lazy shuttlers as well


----------



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

006_007 said:


> Do we want to go after the fat lazy shuttlers as well


I don't want to "go after" anyone, just have a dialogue.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

I would think that shame and ridicule would keep most of them off of the trails.


----------



## SpecializedWindsor (Jul 19, 2012)

Personally, I'd never use them. The human body is way more reliable than an electric bike motor, and who would want to spend that much $? To me, it seems like a foolish and rather lazy alternative to human pedal power. Electric motors are wonderful for cars and other large vehicles, though (assuming you can afford the high electric bill). 
Noise would be a concern for me and the wildlife. And yeah, it could certainly lead to trail courtesy issues.
I would call the ranger because it technically counts as a motorized vehicle. 
Around here, it's illegal to ride ANY motorized vehicle on the trails (you could wind up paying a nasty fine or getting sued). And because there are horseback riders that also use the trails, an electric motor would probably scare the daylights out of the poor horses.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

It'd surely change the experience but can't see why one would mind them. As long as they're not tearing stuff up badly. Guess it depends on how much power and added weight but could even be fun. I see electric assist is getting pretty popular in some places on commuters and whatnot.


----------



## Big Takeover (Feb 25, 2012)

I just saw a guy on a bike with electric motors this past weekend. I was going one way, he the other on a rocky piece of New England single track. When we crossed, I saw these crazy hubs on his bike and immediately turned around asked him to hold up a sec. I had to know what on earth I was looking at!

He was a heavy set, older gentleman. A nice enough guy who happily told me about his bike. Dual motors, front and back with the power button mounted up by the gear change. He rode it like a regular bike until he got to hills which he couldn't climb, at which point he'd hit the button for assistance. He claimed what was once a 10 mile limit for him he can now stretch out to 20 or 30. He certainly seemed pretty stoked to be out there.

From what I saw, this guy's riding wouldn't be a problem for anybody. He was traveling at normal bike speed. In fact, I would have never known it he was electrically assisted unless the motors had caught my eye.

Maybe that's a best case scenario for electric bikes out on the trails, but I was impressed with the guy's enthusiasm for "riding". Even though he claimed he could do 10 miles by himself, I'm not real sure he would be out there at all if it weren't for the motors.


----------



## huffster (Nov 14, 2011)

Live and let live...if its not effecting you, let it go. I wouldn't call the Ranger unless it started to cause some sort of real problem impacting other trail users. My $0.02.


----------



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

huffster said:


> Live and let live...if its not effecting you, let it go. I wouldn't call the Ranger unless it started to cause some sort of real problem impacting other trail users. My $0.02.


I think this is the way I'm leaning here too. Just took some time to think it through.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Land managers need a policy regarding these things, like the one mentioned earlier in this thread.

At which point does the electricity cease to be a simple assist feature and become the main power of the thing? When does it simply become an electric motorcycle?

The overpowered ones that can hit 50mph without pedal input are obviously excessive for use on singletrack trails but what is okay? Land managers need to consider these things and say yay or nay and set some boundaries.

I doubt they will become enormously popular anytime soon but if gasoline prices get too excessive for the moto crowd, electric mountain bikes will start getting more popular and it may become an issue that gets out of control where there are no boundaries in place for these things.

I can see a relatively low powered electricity assist being labeled as a mobility assistive device under the ADA. But a high powered motor being considered an electric motorcycle. How hard would that be for land managers to enforce?


----------



## bigtallbloke (Aug 24, 2012)

This is brilliant, how lazy do people get !


----------



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

I actually talked to a ranger at the trail head this morning, not making a stink, just asking what the county's rules are. He told me that nothing with a motor is allowed. It's doesn't matter if it's assist only. 

I don't see my self messing with someone riding one responsibly, and I don't mind talking to people on the trail about responsible use. I do wonder if these could gain popularity with people that just want to go faster... cross that bridge when I get there.


----------



## perttime (Aug 26, 2005)




----------



## ou2mame (Apr 23, 2010)

i want one lol


----------



## jaystein (Aug 23, 2012)

I think as long as the motor is 100% electric and doesn't tear up the trails then sure. It seems to me a little dangerous to just hop on a mountain trail on a motor, but hey I guess it's kind of dangerous anyway.

There are plenty of cement trails in Denver/Aurora that seems like a more appropriate place for an electric bicycle, imo.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

RIVER29 said:


> I actually talked to a ranger at the trail head this morning, not making a stink, just asking what the county's rules are. He told me that nothing with a motor is allowed. It's doesn't matter if it's assist only.
> 
> I don't see my self messing with someone riding one responsibly, and I don't mind talking to people on the trail about responsible use. I do wonder if these could gain popularity with people that just want to go faster... cross that bridge when I get there.


I think that's a reasonable position to take. it keeps the rules clear so managers don't have to check motor power or anything at the TH. But still the motors are getting smaller and such a bicycle is going to be much less obvious to a land manager. I could see some places engaging in a crackdown and potentially banning all bicycles if too many idiots get out there with the high powered machines and start causing trouble. Guys like the one mentioned in the OP will be unlikely to be noticed by most.


----------



## jaystein (Aug 23, 2012)

I just hope this doesn't get out of hand and we start seeing trail "cops" a lot more....


----------



## replicant (Apr 29, 2012)

EDIT: Shoulda read through the thread first. Weight/crashing/bad gotcha.

So educate me a little on the harm here? 

I understand a motorised bike is prohibited because of the emissions. 

An electronic assist motor however? 

If it's because these riders don't "earn" their spot on the trail by being lazy and taking advantage of progresses in technology hand me the tar bucket and sack of feathers right now.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

*The Erosion argument is so silly*

I mean really, THIS is erosion.








if someone wants to ride an electric bike instead of peddling good for them, nature is a wonderful thing, what is wrong with allowing others to love in a way of heir choosing?


----------



## keen (Jan 13, 2004)

This topic came up on my regional forum and got a bit messy. Bottom line they are not legal @ least on our local trails. Our local trails are already stressed due to multi use. Mountain bikers don't need anymore negative attention and it seems we would be lumped in w/ electric bikes in a bad situation.


----------



## Bill in Houston (Nov 26, 2011)

some old guy, no big deal. some stupid kids, now i can see them locking the front brake, hitting the throttle, and doing "burnouts", leaving a giant hole in the trail.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Bill in Houston said:


> some old guy, no big deal. some stupid kids, now i can see them locking the front brake, hitting the throttle, and doing "burnouts", leaving a giant hole in the trail.


Yea we wouldnt want kids to have fun now would we.


----------



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

An electric assist bicycle is a motorized vehicle.

If you think public and forest lands should change their access regulations then that is an entirely different debate. I for one am thankful for the relatively small amount of open country left that is not fouled with motorized contraptions. Let your legs and lungs determine how far you can go.

I don't hate those unfortunate enough to be physically handicapped in some way, and perhaps exceptions could be made.


----------



## sean2151 (Aug 25, 2012)

If it doesn't reck the trail and doesn't go that fast and it is assisting the person I'm okay with it but if they start allowing them to be raced, there will be a huge protest against it.


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

an electric motor on a bike to assist up a hill is fine but a bike that is run completely on a motor, whether gas or electric, is still a motorized bike and should have their own eingine. Last thing I want is when climbing a single track hill is a motor bike going by. Their are a lot of people, both teenager and adult alike, that would start to abuse the trails with these bikes given a chance.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Apropos nothing....I am not a luddite and have embraced advancing mountain bike technology but I have to draw the line at electric-powered anything on a mountain bike. At the very least and by definition a mountain bike is completely man-powered...otherwise it's a motorcycle. 

I include electronic shifting as something I will never touch. Man-powered or nothing.

Why, for that matter, do I want help climbing hills? Mountain biking is not my job and I'm not trying to make it easier or more efficient.


----------



## swingset (Oct 14, 2010)

Ailuropoda said:


> Mountain biking is not my job and I'm not trying to make it easier or more efficient.


So you ride a Walmart bike then? Didn't think so.

You probably have a nice, easy-rolling bike that's got all sorts of techology from wheels to driveline that make it easier or more efficient.

We all have our line of what we consider fun verses work. Not a bit bothered by people who want to go have fun on an electric bike. I think they're neat, honestly. Light, easy on the trails, zero emissions, quiet....what's not to like?

When I ride my motorcycle on the trails it's just for fun, I don't even think about the Amish aspect of having it do the work...because that's mostly a flawed argument anyway when we're talking about true offroad.

If you think you're not working your body to do ride a motorized offroad bike (electric or gas), I got news for ya....it's work. You go further and it takes more time to get the same workout, but there's a reason fat guys don't ride Supercross. It kicks your butt.


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

RIVER29 said:


> Saw another electric mountain bike on the trail the other day. It got me thinking, do I care about this? Am I going to start seeing a bunch of fat rich dudes (no offense to large or wealthy riders who pedal) who don't pedal ripping down our trails? Can someone give me some perspective here? *Do I call the ranger 'cause the trail clearly states no motorized vehicles?*


Yes. Unless it is a rider who is disabled in some way (fat slob who never met a buffet they could say "no" to is not a disability) and this helps them to be out and participating in the sport.

Did he come up behind you yelling STRAAAAAAAAVA!!!!!!!?


----------



## ihaveagibsonsg (Nov 29, 2010)

In California, a bicycle is defined as anything that powered by human power. If you live in CA I would absolutely call and complain. It's only a matter of time before there's electric style dirt bikes. Do those count too even though they can rip up and down but aren't operated with a combustion engine? 

I actually saw 2 guys riding electric "assisted" bikes up the steepest mountain in my area the other day. Sadly, I started after them and still beat them to the summit by quite a few minutes. They applauded me and told me I was insane and I responded "No, you guys are just lazy". I proceeded to rip down the mountain because their beach cruiser electric assisted bikes were no match for 160mm of terror.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

swingset said:


> So you ride a Walmart bike then? Didn't think so.
> 
> You probably have a nice, easy-rolling bike that's got all sorts of techology from wheels to driveline that make it easier or more efficient.
> 
> ...


But it's not a "bicycle" if it has a motor. It's a moped. Or a motorcycle. I repeat, I love technology and embrace it but electric motorized mountain bikes are not "bikes" per se.


----------



## Spinning Lizard (Nov 27, 2009)

A lot of mis-information here. I work at a shop that sells electric assist bikes. The largest watt they have in the US is 500. In the US, by Fed law, they cannot go over 20 mph. In know way do they produce enough power to be spinning out or hurting the trail. 

At first I was completely against them, but after seeing the people that buy these and their limitations, I am for them. Last month we sold 2 to guys in there late 70's that could not get up most hills anymore. It has changed their outlook and now they are riding everyday again. The large crowd still do not want them, still too much work.

Now outside the US that is a different story, they do have electrics doing well over 20mph.


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

Spinning Lizard said:


> A lot of mis-information here. I work at a shop that sells electric assist bikes. The largest watt they have in the US is 500. In the US, by Fed law, they cannot go over 20 mph. In know way do they produce enough power to be spinning out or hurting the trail.
> 
> At first I was completely against them, but after seeing the people that buy these and their limitations, I am for them. Last month we sold 2 to guys in there late 70's that could not get up most hills anymore. It has changed their outlook and now they are riding everyday again. The large crowd still do not want them, still too much work.
> 
> Now outside the US that is a different story, they do have electrics doing well over 20mph.


Great concept for public roads, paved bike paths etc. Pedal when you can and get a bit of a boost when you need it.


----------



## StiHacka (Feb 2, 2012)

STT GUY said:


> Great concept for public roads, paved bike paths etc. Pedal when you can and get a bit of a boost when you need it.


Exactly. If you want to enjoy nature and you are not fit for a bike, you can always hike.


----------



## StiHacka (Feb 2, 2012)

Blurr said:


> Yea we wouldnt want kids to have fun now would we.


Do you let your kids destroy public trails?


----------



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

Spinning Lizard said:


> A lot of mis-information here. I work at a shop that sells electric assist bikes. The largest watt they have in the US is 500. In the US, by Fed law, they cannot go over 20 mph. In know way do they produce enough power to be spinning out or hurting the trail.


So you are telling me this bike, which looks like the one I saw on the trail is impossible to get in the States (its available for pick up in Denver and ships to the lower 48 for $100) and that it's 4000 watt motor is intended to go only 20mph?

HPC XC-4 EXTREME ELECTRIC 26" BIKE BICYCLE - 4000W POWER SYSTEM & 21" FRAME | eBay

Someone is misinformed.

Edit: In the description it says: "Keep in mind, this type of power is way beyond the legal definition of an electric bike by federal standards. Legal top speed in most states for electric bikes is 20MPH. For this reason, this bike is considered for off-road use only!"* "Top Speed: 50+ MPH"*


----------



## Lateralus1082 (Jun 28, 2012)

Sounds like another case of trail police.


Electric bikes on MY trail?



NOT ON MY WATCH!


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Around here lots of places (certainly not all) are posted no motorized vehicles...

So basically they are already banned from the good high trials around here.

On the other hand not a priority for the wardens yet.


----------



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

Lateralus1082 said:


> Sounds like another case of trail police.
> 
> Electric bikes on MY trail?
> 
> NOT ON MY WATCH!


Obviously you haven't read this thread, my take on it is as long as the users are responsible I'm not making a stink .

My last response was just to point out that SOME of these bikes have the potential to do serious damage to the trail.


----------



## Lateralus1082 (Jun 28, 2012)

RIVER29 said:


> Obviously you haven't read this thread, my take on it is as long as the users are responsible I'm not making a stink .
> 
> My last response was just to point out that SOME of these bikes have the potential to do serious damage to the trail.


If you saw this bike rolling past you, would your immediate thoughts be "Man, this guy is going to damage my trail?!"










Max speed, 20 MPH. And I'm sure most of you have gone faster than 20 MPH on a certain trail. Battery won't last that long and you still need to recharge it by pedaling. What I gather from this thread is that 1/2 are cool with it and the other 1/2 are the elitists, but hold their tongues on these types of bikes. I don't care if a person uses it. It's their right and I'm not here to judge them.


----------



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

Lateralus1082 said:


> If you saw this bike rolling past you, would your immediate thoughts be "Man, this guy is going to damage my trail?!"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually it's not their right as those types of bikes are forbidden by law and if you read my last post you would notice the word SOME being capitalized. Get a grip!


----------



## Lateralus1082 (Jun 28, 2012)

RIVER29 said:


> Actually it's not their right as those types of bikes are forbidden by law and if you read my last post you would notice the word SOME being capitalized. Get a grip!


Do you have a link to said law?


----------



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

Lateralus1082 said:


> Do you have a link to said law?


I live in Larimer County CO, I'm sure it's somewhere in their rules of use online. Again, if you would have read this thread I actually asked a ranger what the county rule is, he could have lied to me but I doubt it.


----------



## Lateralus1082 (Jun 28, 2012)

RIVER29 said:


> I live in Larimer County CO, I'm sure it's somewhere in their rules of use online. Again, if you would have read this thread I actually asked a ranger what the county rule is, he could have lied to me but I doubt it.


so...you don't have a law.

Gotcha.


----------



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

Here, it's in the bottom left hand corner:
http://larimer.org/parks/bluesky_brochure.pdf


----------



## Lateralus1082 (Jun 28, 2012)

RIVER29 said:


> Here, it's in the bottom left hand corner:
> http://larimer.org/parks/bluesky_brochure.pdf


Fair enough.

One argument can be made that it is an electric assisted bicycle and is not in the same class as say a dirt bike or ATV. I'm sure that the park rangers would agree with that. I've seen electric bikes around the state park that I ride in and it has those same rules.


----------



## RIVER29 (Mar 12, 2012)

Lateralus1082 said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> One argument can be made that it is an electric assisted bicycle and is not in the same class as say a dirt bike or ATV. I'm sure that the park rangers would agree with that. I've seen electric bikes around the state park that I ride in and it has those same rules.


When I was researching the laws on this I found that CO state law says that electric assist bikes are banned from bike paths and trails unless marked otherwise or overridden by local law. You'll have to find that one on your own if you want to double check... I'm not arguing this anymore.


----------



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

Lateralus1082 said:


> so...you don't have a law.
> 
> Gotcha.


You don't need to be such an ankle biter.

Unfortunately, lack of common sense and ever increasing population dictate that we have laws covering *everything.* Here is one line in a govt. forest service manual on trail accessibility guidelines.



> Nothing in these guidelines permits the use of a motor vehicle on a National Forest
> System trail that is not designated for motor vehicle use.


There is lots more here if you care to read-

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/accessibility/FSTAG.pdf


----------



## sanjuro (Sep 29, 2004)

I work part time in an electric bike shop, and most of them of built for commuters.

They have 500-700 watt motors and the bikes weigh about 70lbs. In comparison, a pro cyclist puts out about 400 watts max and their bikes weigh about 15lbs.

However, there are a few which are more powerful. A popular commuter model is the Grace One, which has a 1.4kilowatt motor.










A Stealth Bomber has a 4.5kilowatt motor










In comparison, 1hp is about 750 watts, and the average 250cc dirt bike puts about 30hp.

FYI, the Grace One is about $8000, the Stealth Bomber $11,000. I don't think I am going to see too many on the trails.

But if I can handle dirt bikes, horses, and hikers (plus faster mountain bikers), I think I can handle e-bikes too.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Lateralus1082 said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> One argument can be made that it is an electric assisted bicycle and is not in the same class as say a dirt bike or ATV. I'm sure that the park rangers would agree with that


don't be so sure about that. all it takes is one vocal person to make a stink, or one irresponsible rider to cause a wreck by going too fast and the rangers will be forced to follow the letter of the regulations whether they like them or not.

look at how much effort rangers in popular places put into enforcing speed limits on singletrack. radar guns in the woods.

a motor is a motor.


----------



## swingset (Oct 14, 2010)

Ailuropoda said:


> But it's not a "bicycle" if it has a motor. It's a moped. Or a motorcycle. I repeat, I love technology and embrace it but electric motorized mountain bikes are not "bikes" per se.


I don't accept you as the arbiter of what is and what isn't a bicycle. Nor do I accept your version of what's worth doing and what isn't.

You're not that important.


----------



## dirigotrail (Aug 27, 2012)

Even around the techy Bay Area, I still have yet to see any e-bikes on the trail.


----------



## rebel1916 (Sep 16, 2006)

I strongly feel that some people need to get a grip. Trying for strava segments is gonna do more trail damage than these ebikes are. I reserve the right to make fun of them though.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

I don't really know what to say about this...


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

The E Bike crowd could lobby for their own trails, kinda like "earn you're turns". MTBing has enough access issues without having to contend with *motorized* interlopers, most of which have done little or nothing to help us gain trail access. Rather, these will most assuredly hasten the loss of an already precarious hold on what little trails we do have access to. I can already hear the pitter patter of the feet of the Sierra Clubbers rushing to mobilize against these. My two cents.


----------



## Spinning Lizard (Nov 27, 2009)

RIVER29 said:


> So you are telling me this bike, which looks like the one I saw on the trail is impossible to get in the States (its available for pick up in Denver and ships to the lower 48 for $100) and that it's 4000 watt motor is intended to go only 20mph?
> 
> HPC XC-4 EXTREME ELECTRIC 26" BIKE BICYCLE - 4000W POWER SYSTEM & 21" FRAME | eBay
> 
> ...


Actually if they can go over 20 mph they are considered an ATV. So the law would apply as to an ATV and if you were to use it on any road would require a license. For the under 20 mph ones they are still considered a bicycle.

Our shop does not or will not sell any that go over the 20 mph limit.


----------



## StiHacka (Feb 2, 2012)

AZ.MTNS said:


> The E Bike crowd could lobby for their own trails, kinda like "earn you're turns". MTBing has enough access issues without having to contend with *motorized* interlopers, most of which have done little or nothing to help us gain trail access. Rather, these will most assuredly hasten the loss of an already precarious hold on what little trails we do have access to. I can already hear the pitter patter of the feet of the Sierra Clubbers rushing to mobilize against these. My two cents.


^^^ This. $6k+ is a lot of money for a casual rider but there would be rentals and riders who would not give a shite about etiquette or sustainable trail use.


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

Lateralus1082 said:


> If you saw this bike rolling past you, would your immediate thoughts be "Man, this guy is going to damage my trail?!"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope...but be thinking.."wonder how many pounds of pot he's transporting in that seatpost.."


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

swingset said:


> I don't accept you as the arbiter of what is and what isn't a bicycle. Nor do I accept your version of what's worth doing and what isn't.
> 
> You're not that important.


Well God bless you, child. You don't have to accept anything I tell you. But a motor on a bike makes it a motorbike. I'm not a puritan or a zealot but at the very least we ought to define a bicycle as a vehicle that is completely human-powered.

Are one or two lightweight electric motorbikes on the trails going to bother me? No. But I live in ATV land and who's to say that electric ATVs won't now be allowed on the trails?


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

Ailuropoda said:


> Well God bless you, child. You don't have to accept anything I tell you. But a motor on a bike makes it a motorbike. I'm not a puritan or a zealot but at the very least we ought to define a bicycle as a vehicle that is completely human-powered.
> 
> Are one or two lightweight electric motorbikes on the trails going to bother me? No. But I live in ATV land and who's to say that electric ATVs won't now be allowed on the trails?


In Idaho they have great system of telling the difference between MTB and motos (allowed on many trails together) and ATV's, it's very simple they count the wheels. More than two...not allowed.


----------



## gnawbonelefty (May 16, 2005)

deleted


----------



## StiHacka (Feb 2, 2012)

gnawbonelefty said:


> In all , electric assist does serve a purpose. If someone feels they need it to make a ride worthwhile given their physical limitations, I would applaud them.


Where would you draw the line between an electric assist bike and one of the 50+mph ones or those you can see in the video above? People are going to ride them just like ATVs but on more fragile trails.


----------



## gnawbonelefty (May 16, 2005)

deleted


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

gnawbonelefty said:


> I wouldn't draw any lines governments do. see this wikipedia link for your locale.
> 
> Electric bicycle laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


I was sooooo in your corner right up until the light comment. Comparing a light to an electric assist is like comparing....well there isn't anything I can think of to use as an example that is equally dumb.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

G0at said:


> If he was talking on his cell while sipping a latte, throwing the wrapper from his deluxe triple bypass lardburger on the trail, and/or being a regular ******, then I definately would call him in. If he was just out enjoying the trail, prolly wouldn't worry about it.


This statement pretty much covers my view on this
is.


----------



## Mekaneck (Sep 2, 2012)

Weird idea to me.


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

gnawbonelefty said:


> I wouldn't draw any lines governments do. see this wikipedia link for your locale.
> 
> Electric bicycle laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


No an electric light isn't moving your bike, it's just light the path a little different then an electric motor.


----------



## gnawbonelefty (May 16, 2005)

deleted


----------



## StiHacka (Feb 2, 2012)

gnawbonelefty said:


> I'd hate for mountain bikers to become like all the groups that tried and are still trying to limit mt bike access, by becoming discriminatory of any type of cycling that is new or different just because it is different.


Tell me how riding a mtb frame with an electic motor doing 50+mph is "a new type of cycling"? Unless you draw the line somewhere, we will be treated by the new least common denominator. All the bolshevist environmental groups are salivating at the prospect of being able to throw mtbs in the same bag with motorized vehicles, this is like their dream come true.


----------



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

StiHacka said:


> Tell me how riding a mtb frame with an electic motor doing 50+mph is "a new type of cycling"? Unless you draw the line somewhere, we will be treated by the new least common denominator. *All the bolshevist environmental groups are salivating at the prospect of being able to throw mtbs in the same bag with motorized vehicles, this is like their dream come true*.


I think this pretty much nails it. No matter which side of the fence you are on politically mountain bikes currently enjoy privileged status because they are non-motorized.


----------



## gnawbonelefty (May 16, 2005)

deleted


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> I think this pretty much nails it. No matter which side of the fence you are on politically mountain bikes currently enjoy privileged status because they are non-motorized.


Catering the the Bunny Huggers is what has gotten us into the position we are in today, where we argue over how much erosion a friggin mtn bike tire might make on a trail, where we beg for land usage, and walk on eggshells while we still lose land, Absolutely Pathetic.


----------



## 50calray (Oct 25, 2010)

gnawbonelefty said:


> I've stumbled across this thread and realized there wasn't anyone posting who actually owned an electric assist bike, so I thought I'd chime in.
> 
> I have been riding mountain bikes for 25 years, I'm fortunate enough to live where there are miles of great trails out my back door. I had long been involved in trail advocacy and spent countless hours designing and building a trail system that is now classified as an imba epic.
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing your story :thumbsup:

I was amazed at the responces by members who even after reading your story, still seem to maintain a tough stance against electric-assisted bikes despite being disabled or not. I personally find electric bikes fascinating, would I own one, no, I'm more than able to move about under my own power. But I'm fascinated with the technology that would allow a disabled person the ability to experience bike riding that would otherwise not be able to do so. As for Fat and Lazy people, those people tend to stay at home eating pizzas while playing video games. An electric bike sounds simple but you're still having to work and put up with the same conditions as everyone else on a trail aka weather and bugs etc.

I think we should come down off our high horse a bit and acknowledge the fact that there I some practicallty to electric assisted bikes such as for disabled people. I further salute any over weight person hitting up the trails, whether it's crank or electric power. Now with that said, electric bike owners should work along side other bike riders in maintaining parks and trails.


----------



## motard5 (Apr 9, 2007)

Electric Assist Cycling is the wave of the future for commuting, so technology will continue to increase. Electric motors are become super light and powerful at a rapid pace. Eventually if they make their way into MTB's, they will tear up trails faster than just our legs will. 

Regarding off road singletrack, there should be a pretty clear cut line - its either human powered trails, or not. If a rider cannot ride singletrack designated for bikes w/o electric assist due to health issues, then they should be sticking to gravel/fireroads and paths.

E-assist is great overall though, as hopefully we will one day live in a world with a majority of people commuting and running errands on electric bicycles. Even off-road motorcycles will eventually evolve into hybrid zero emission rigs, with little to no sound.


----------



## gnawbonelefty (May 16, 2005)

motard5 said:


> Eventually if they make their way into MTB's, they will tear up trails faster than just our legs will.


do you have supporting evidence for this assertion? I'm guessing no, because it just isn't true. aside from the bike being 20lbs heavier, there is no more damage done, than if I were a 20lb heavier rider.

Regarding off road singletrack, there should be a pretty clear cut line - its either human powered trails, or not. If a rider cannot ride singletrack designated for bikes w/o electric assist due to health issues, then they should be sticking to gravel/fireroads and paths.
[/QUOTE]

why? Is there any good reason for this? 
I heard the same thing about mt bikes, when they first came out. We are now seeing the same baseless attitudes amongst our own. When working for trail access for mountain bikes our worst enemies always were people who classified themselves as cyclists. saying things like bikes can say the world but they'll destroy trails.

bunk! then bunk now.


----------



## Wasmachineman NL (Jan 31, 2012)

SpecializedWindsor said:


> Personally, I'd never use them. *The human body is way more reliable than an electric bike motor*, and who would want to spend that much $? To me, it seems like a foolish and rather lazy alternative to human pedal power. Electric motors are wonderful for cars and other large vehicles, though (assuming you can afford the high electric bill).
> Noise would be a concern for me and the wildlife. And yeah, it could certainly lead to trail courtesy issues.
> I would call the ranger because it technically counts as a motorized vehicle.
> Around here, it's illegal to ride ANY motorized vehicle on the trails (you could wind up paying a nasty fine or getting sued). And because there are horseback riders that also use the trails, an electric motor would probably scare the daylights out of the poor horses.


Yes and no, sure a electric engine isn't tougher than the human body, but what about electronic limbs and that sort of stuff? [Deus Ex, anyone?!:thumbsup:]


----------



## Wasmachineman NL (Jan 31, 2012)

Back OT: E-bikes should be only driven by people who have a license for it, Please start with that in Holland and keep the old people from the road, they cause more accidents than anyone else!


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Wasmachineman NL said:


> Back OT: E-bikes should be only driven by people who have a license for it, Please start with that in Holland and keep the old people from the road, they cause more accidents than anyone else!


Yea if only certain people were allowed to do certain things, only the strong should survive and only the wealthy should have fun!!!
And those pesky old people, I mean what can be done with undesirable people?


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

jaystein said:


> I think as long as the motor is 100% electric and doesn't tear up the trails then sure. It seems to me a little dangerous to just hop on a mountain trail on a motor, but hey I guess it's kind of dangerous anyway.
> 
> There are plenty of cement trails in Denver/Aurora that seems like a more appropriate place for an electric bicycle, imo.


It doesn't matter if its 100% electric, an electric motor is still a motor. Most bike trails have a "no motor" vehicle policy and this would be a violation gas or electric.



AZ.MTNS said:


> The E Bike crowd could lobby for their own trails, kinda like "earn you're turns". MTBing has enough access issues without having to contend with *motorized* interlopers, .


*+1* :thumbsup:


----------



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

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS
> The E Bike crowd could lobby for their own trails, kinda like "earn you're turns". MTBing has enough access issues without having to contend with motorized interlopers, .
> +1


+2:thumbsup:



> It doesn't matter if its 100% electric, an electric motor is still a motor. Most bike trails have a "no motor" vehicle policy and this would be a violation gas or electric.


Not sure why this is so hard to understand. What is the difference between an electric assist bike and a low powered gas bike (moped) with a really good muffler?


----------



## gnawbonelefty (May 16, 2005)

deleted


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

gnawbonelefty said:


> A moped makes sound an electric assist bike is quiet, a moped is primarily engine driven, an electric assist just assists. .


You made some interesting points that I was looking forward to reading further about but all your posted just got deleted


----------



## B-Mac (Oct 2, 2008)

Did someone reference the Holocaust in a thread about electric bikes??

I invoke Godwin's Law.


----------



## DavyRay (Apr 13, 2012)

deleted


----------



## JCON2009 (Sep 22, 2013)

I have a Stealth Fighter(69lbs and I'm 150lbs). It really does not impact trails anymore than any other mtb. There is no burn-out/rooster tail kind of power. I still pedal my a$s off all of the ride, and have to on steep up hills, but its like having super PED strength. Ok, maybe I ghost pedal on some inclines. Let me live

Even though I can do 32mph on flat street, I can't go any faster on the trail than non-E mtb due to all of those pesky trees, etc. What it does, is allow a 40yo, busy dad with badish knees to enjoy mtb'ing again.

My bike has a heavy hub motor. This looks nice to me:
Haibike Xduro AMT Pro 2014


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

This is only the beginning. Hybrid bikes that store energy from braking that look like and are as light as mountain bikes today will be coming in the future. They won't ride on batteries all day, but they will allow you to cover more ground, switch between electrical and human power, etc.


----------



## natrat (Mar 20, 2008)

JCON2009 said:


> This looks nice to me:
> Haibike Xduro AMT Pro 2014


that does look nice, no weight mentioned though. I kind of want one but i might feel like a tool at more serious places, but i would poach trails in golden gate park and it would be kind of a range extender on longer rides until it dies and then more like a boat anchor


----------



## RacerScott (Jul 7, 2013)

I got into mountain biking this year big time hitting trails in my area, mostly alone because all my friends are to lame to go. So I been doing my thing on the trails having a blast, when one of my childhood friend calls my and says he going to start riding the trails with me, he is getting a Motoped and he is excited about it!!!

What a D bag. I been busting balls getting in shape, in this guy who is in good shape, wants to ride bike trails on a dirt bike. I told him I wouldn't ride with him with that, and if he wants to ride drag out your 20 year old trek 7000 and lets go.


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

I feel lucky enough to live in an area where you cant ride the trails with anything powered other than human powered bicycles..


----------



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

Jayem said:


> This is only the beginning. Hybrid bikes that store energy from braking that look like and are as light as mountain bikes today will be coming in the future.


Why so pessimistic?


----------



## JoshieBoy1997 (Aug 26, 2013)

G0at said:


> If he was talking on his cell while sipping a latte, throwing the wrapper from his deluxe triple bypass lardburger on the trail, and/or being a regular ******, then I definately would call him in. If he was just out enjoying the trail, prolly wouldn't worry about it.


Funny as hell dude! :lol:


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

These E bikes will lead to the loss of trail access for MTBers, you can bank on it. It's not enough that we have to counter the often negative perception that some already have, now motorized vehicles cloaked as bicycles will add to that perception. The tree huggers and Sierra Club are sharpening their knives as you read this. As an aside, I find it to be insulting that MTBR promotes E-bikes in the name of revenues while speaking out of the other side of their proverbial mouths to promote trail access.


----------



## JCON2009 (Sep 22, 2013)

Americans. Do you guys hear yourselves? Gees some of you guys sound like simple haters/purest/"I would report them"whiners. Actually, kinda like Amish.

-Scare Horses-My bike is quieter than most freewheels
-Lazy- FU. I don't have to take a ski lift. If your only reason for dislike is that you are putty legs after an up hill, then....
-Too heavy-me and my bike are 220#

Don't knock it, until you try it. Keep your "Go Fast Muscle"/PED's. And my MANY tax $'s go to state an Fed trails too.


----------



## RacerScott (Jul 7, 2013)

Have you guys seen the KTM E-bike. That is the future. Imagine the backlash when those things try to hit the mountain bike trails. Haha, I doubt you would ever see that, but they are cool

First ever ELECTRIC-MX race at ZOLDER - YouTube


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

JCON2009 said:


> Americans. Do you guys hear yourselves? Gees some of you guys sound like simple haters/purest/"I would report them"whiners. Actually, kinda like Amish.
> 
> -Scare Horses-My bike is quieter than most freewheels
> -Lazy- FU. I don't have to take a ski lift. If your only reason for dislike is that you are putty legs after an up hill, then....
> ...


Sounds like someone didnt get the response they were expecting..

Id say go out and ride to relieve some of that stress.. but....


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

JCON2009 said:


> Americans. Do you guys hear yourselves? Gees some of you guys sound like simple haters/purest/"I would report them"whiners. Actually, kinda like Amish.
> 
> -Scare Horses-My bike is quieter than most freewheels
> -Lazy- FU. I don't have to take a ski lift. If your only reason for dislike is that you are putty legs after an up hill, then....
> ...


no motorized vehicles allowed on trails here...that ain't probably changing much...

The do give quite a bit of latitiude to crippled people though.


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

jeffscott said:


> no motorized vehicles allowed on trails here...that ain't probably changing much...
> 
> The do give quite a bit of latitiude to crippled people though.


One of my local trails has been making some of the trail system to Adaptive Mountain Bike Trails (Mountain Biking | Adaptive sports for anyone with a disability | Disabled Sports USA). They make some of the single tracks wider..

There is a local guy who lost both legs and uses a cycle which he pedals with his arms.. he still can ride, and still no electric assist...


----------



## JCON2009 (Sep 22, 2013)

So is that it? You just don't want anyone with a technical advantage riding on "'your" trails? Everyone should sweat just like you, right?

From the comments, I gather the haters have never seen one in person. Or they did, and didn't know it.

Guess I should I go back to Persimmons and leave my R1 at home too? Hickory sticks maybe?


----------



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

JCON2009 said:


> Guess I should I go back to Persimmons and leave my R1 at home too? Hickory sticks maybe?


Your analogy makes no sense in this context, seems more like a steel vs. carbon fiber argument. A better one would be your R1 vs. a golf ball cannon.


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

JCON2009 said:


> So is that it? You just don't want anyone with a technical advantage riding on "'your" trails? Everyone should sweat just like you, right?
> 
> From the comments, I gather the haters have never seen one in person. Or they did, and didn't know it.
> 
> Guess I should I go back to Persimmons and leave my R1 at home too? Hickory sticks maybe?





J.B. Weld said:


> Your analogy makes no sense in this context, seems more like a steel vs. carbon fiber argument. A better one would be your R1 vs. a golf ball cannon.


and I think thats why he doesnt understand. The guy sees this topic and joins the site with the intent on responding.. Since he isnt a cycling enthusiast, he simply doesnt get the culture.

It seems he is into golf, so your analogy might click in his mind..


----------



## JCON2009 (Sep 22, 2013)

For the record. I do own a Nerf football cannon(it's awesome).
I'm just saying.. If you can't hear me, 0 emissions, same trail impact, and the only place a speed advantage is felt is upline(my 10mph vs your ?mph) what's the biggie?

I do not wish to add any more fuel to the flaming. I'm on your team, and I didn't mean to came across like a d1ck.. I've ridden bikes all of my life. I had a PK Ripper when ET came out. I just got my ebike and love it. I didn't come to this forum to start fights. I was going to ask for suspension suggestions, and thought I'd do a search to make sure my question wasn't asked before. That's how I came to this thread to begin with. I had no idea there were such negative feelings toward hybrid bikes. I had 3 smudges on my "reputation before I knew it.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

JCON2009 said:


> what's the biggie?


It opens the door to 50 mph e dirt bikes, trail destruction and conflict with other user groups. And it most assuredly leads down the road to trail closures and exclusion of mtbs.


----------



## JCON2009 (Sep 22, 2013)

SandSpur said:


> and I think thats why he doesnt understand. The guy sees this topic and joins the site with the intent on responding.. Since he isnt a cycling enthusiast, he simply doesnt get the culture.
> 
> It seems he is into golf, so your analogy might click in his mind..


 Not at all(I was typing my response as you posted this I explained why I joined). You jumped me. Why? 
I've been riding for awhile. How old are you mr. super enthusiast ? I'm probably into lots of things that don't interest you(paintball, *, etc)


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

JCON2009 said:


> Not at all(I was typing my response as you posted this I explained why I joined). You jumped me. Why?
> I've been riding for awhile. How old are you mr. super enthusiast ? I'm probably into lots of things that don't interest you(paintball, girls, etc)


Why respond with backhanded insults? And don't complain about bad rep as long as you respond in that manner.


----------



## JCON2009 (Sep 22, 2013)

Dirty $anchez said:


> Why respond with backhanded insults? And don't complain about bad rep as long as you respond in that manner.


 You are right(finally


----------



## Ricko (Jan 14, 2004)

Dirty $anchez said:


> It opens the door to 50 mph e dirt bikes, trail destruction and conflict with other user groups. And it most assuredly leads down the road to trail closures and exclusion of mtbs.


This is exactly my concern, it's a slippery slope and if you allow access to small, low powered electric motorized bikes you are opening the door for the high powered E Bikes gain access. No motorized means NO MOTORIZED of any kind...zero tolerance!


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Dirty $anchez said:


> It opens the door to 50 mph e dirt bikes, trail destruction and conflict with other user groups. And it most assuredly leads down the road to trail closures and exclusion of mtbs.


No motorized access means NO MOTORIZED ACCESS. Sure, the mass market production ebikes don't really offer that much motorized assist most of the time, but there are already models and kits out there that lack the (legally REQUIRED) speed governor to limit them to reasonable speeds. I said it before in this thread and I'll repeat it:

Land managers need easy to enforce regulations. "No motorized vehicles" is a helluva lot easier to enforce than "No motorized vehicles that can exceed 20mph on flat, paved ground" or something equally convoluted. If ebike riders aren't idiots, they'll likely slip under the radar. But the first time someone with an ebike causes a serious incident or requires an evac, you'll bet land managers won't be so forgiving about that "no motorized vehicles" rule that they have been allowing you to bend.


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

JCON2009 said:


> Americans. Do you guys hear yourselves? Gees some of you guys sound like simple haters/purest/"I would report them"whiners. Actually, kinda like Amish.
> 
> -Scare Horses-My bike is quieter than most freewheels
> -Lazy- FU. I don't have to take a ski lift. If your only reason for dislike is that you are putty legs after an up hill, then....
> ...





JCON2009 said:


> Not at all(I was typing my response as you posted this I explained why I joined). You jumped me. Why?
> I've been riding for awhile. How old are you mr. super enthusiast ? I'm probably into lots of things that don't interest you(paintball, *, etc)


After that post, are you really wondering why anyone "jumped" you? Im in my mid-30s.. not that it matters, since intelligence doesnt correspond with age, post count, MTBR join date, etc...

and im into things other than biking too.. like motorcycles. Yet id never want anything motorized on a mountain bike trail.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

JCON2009 said:


> So is that it? You just don't want anyone with a technical advantage riding on "'your" trails? Everyone should sweat just like you, right?
> 
> From the comments, I gather the haters have never seen one in person. Or they did, and didn't know it.
> 
> Guess I should I go back to Persimmons and leave my R1 at home too? Hickory sticks maybe?


Seriously, Dude. This is a mountain bike forum. Suppose you went to a hiking forum and suggested that you're gonna' ride your Segway on the hiking trails and then got offended when the hikers pointed out that your recreational activity, while interesting and exciting to you, is not really hiking.

Similarly, eBikes are nice inventions but they aren't really bicycles in the traditional sense and as they can range from simple electric assist to essentially low-powered motorcycles it is not unreasonable for mountain bikers to question their use on trails.

I live in ATV land. People here work hard so they generally don't want to work hard for recreation and express their love of the outdoors by riding in the woods on motorized vehicles. There are plenty of trails where you can do this...how about taking your eBike to one of those?

As to not tolerating anybody with a technical advantage, the point of mountain-biking is to get out there and sweat a little, the amount of which depends on how hard you want to go. We have easy trails around here on which whole families may take their occasional Saturday ride on their department store bikes as well as steep, difficult trails that are challenging enough to intimidate regular riders. The price of admission is nothing but some sweat and effort; maybe if you can't climb steep grades for an hour you don't need to be on that particular trail.

Heck, why not just pave the trails, install elevators, and remove every possible challenge that would prevent some out-of-shape rider from completing his ride?


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

JCON2009 said:


> I have a Stealth Fighter(69lbs and I'm 150lbs). It really does not impact trails anymore than any other mtb. There is no burn-out/rooster tail kind of power. I still pedal my a$s off all of the ride, and have to on steep up hills, but its like having super PED strength. Ok, maybe I ghost pedal on some inclines. Let me live
> 
> Even though I can do 32mph on flat street, I can't go any faster on the trail than non-E mtb due to all of those pesky trees, etc. What it does, is allow a 40yo, busy dad with badish knees to enjoy mtb'ing again.
> 
> ...


Go someplace with shuttle runs?????????


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

Jayem said:


> This is only the beginning. Hybrid bikes that store energy from braking that look like and are as light as mountain bikes today will be coming in the future. They won't ride on batteries all day, but they will allow you to cover more ground, switch between electrical and human power, etc.


Sure they could be coming, but they still have to have a motor somewhere. This excludes them immediately from being CA legal. The rangers/land managers are not morons. They will know what is what by brand or other marketing hype. It's kind of funny that the thing that might make you go "wow" at the bike shop will also get you caught on a CA trail.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

JCON2009 said:


> So is that it? You just don't want anyone with a technical advantage riding on "'your" trails?


Where does your "technical advantage" and your rig becomes a motorcycle???

Keeping the propulsion "human powered" is just the best way to keep it a bicycle.

Now, if you have a device that can double the affects of gravity on my on the DH side, the cut it in half on the uphill side, I'm listening. The propulsion is still human, but you removed resistance to the propulsion (on uphill).


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

JCON2009 said:


> For the record. I do own a Nerf football cannon(it's awesome).
> I'm just saying.. If you can't hear me, *0 emissions*, same trail impact, and the only place a speed advantage is felt is upline(my 10mph vs your ?mph) what's the biggie?
> 
> I do not wish to add any more fuel to the flaming. I'm on your team, and I didn't mean to came across like a d1ck.. I've ridden bikes all of my life. I had a PK Ripper when ET came out. I just got my ebike and love it. I didn't come to this forum to start fights. I was going to ask for suspension suggestions, and thought I'd do a search to make sure my question wasn't asked before. That's how I came to this thread to begin with. I had no idea there were such negative feelings toward hybrid bikes. I had 3 smudges on my "reputation before I knew it.


Please do not go off about zero emissions......
Electicity you charged that thing came from where? The solar panel on your helmet?

Then we could talk about all the great stuff in the battery and what to do with it once it won't recharge.

So, when compared to the "standard" mountain bike, the ebike has more emissions before you even get to the trailhead.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

JCON2009 said:


> Not at all(I was typing my response as you posted this I explained why I joined). You jumped me. Why?
> I've been riding for awhile. How old are you mr. super enthusiast ? I'm probably into lots of things that don't interest you(paintball, *, etc)





Dirty $anchez said:


> Why respond with backhanded insults? And don't complain about bad rep as long as you respond in that manner.


Typically, someone who responds with "backhanded insults" cannot come up with a legitimate rebutal to your arguement.

So, if he/she insults you, you have won.

(It bugs them even more when they insult you and you go, "Cool" and smile with confidence knowing you won.)


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

Only p*ssies need motors other than OEM (the manufacturer being the deity of your choice).


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

I'm blown away by the number of people who think electric bike are ok on human powered trails. To me they are even less acceptable than horses and I hate horses.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

donutnational said:


> I'm blown away by the number of people who think electric bike are ok on human powered trails. To me they are even less acceptable than horses and I hate horses.


I resemble the remark, but I'm ok with horses.............just not their poop on the trail, or off the side of the trail. You see when I crash, my body is a horse poop magnet. If there's some, I'll crash there and roll in it for sure


----------



## ACB931 (Sep 24, 2013)

I guess I'm that ebike guy....while I have 2 human powered mountain bikes I also have an ebike. Now in my early 40's I found myself in a tough spot, 4 knee ops, 2 shoulder ops, low back lamenectomy and a titanium plate in my neck fusing 2 vertabra...X-Games stuff before it made you famous and bought you a house, we did for the fun! I can ride my pedal only, just not very far, so I was really limited by having to be careful not to get too far from home (btw I'm not fat and lazy, just have a lot of knee pain) so the ebike is awesome for me I can combine throttle and pedal to plan a nice bike ride. For the most part I will stay off the "no motorized vehicle" paths (wide enough for a car) that connect the towns in my area and stick to the sidewalks, but occasionally I do take the path, it is far more scenic and a little straighter shot between towns, thankfully I have not encountered anyone who cared that my bike has an electric motor. I think a big part of this is riding responsibly, I am rarely going more than 15mph and always pedaling, and I am often being passed, and I slow to a crawl around hikers and families of bikers with kids. The situation reminds me a little of the mid 80's when I switched from skiing to snowboarding after my first knee surgery, skiers HATED snowboarders.. We were going to ruin the hill, somebody was going to get killed by those lunatic snowboarders, we heard it all. Then, the hills started letting us in one night a week, Sunday's after 6pm till close, then weekdays only, then well, here we are today...I don't know how ebiking will play out, I have no plans to hit the popular single track track trails with my ebike, there are plenty of good options where I live, and it is a respect thing as well. I ride both human and epower bikes each week, they are both a blast for different reasons, I get a little sad when I see posts like "electric bike, whats the point" or other demeaning posts, but I try to remember everyone is entitled to their opinion.


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

The situation is in no way similar to the ski vs snowboard thing. It is similar to the snow machine vs. earn your turns thing.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

JCON2009 said:


> I had 3 smudges on my "reputation before I knew it.


Gee maybe it's because you leave rep like this ... "maybe I'll shove my battery up your P*ssy".


----------



## Gromov (Sep 11, 2013)

Seriously? That will make you the biggest douche if you call a ranger because OMG OMG OMG somebody has battery on their bike that helps them go uphill.


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

OhGee said:


> Gee maybe it's because you leave rep like this ... "maybe I'll shove my battery up your P*ssy".


:skep:


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Gromov said:


> Seriously? That will make you the biggest douche if you call a ranger because OMG OMG OMG somebody has battery on their bike that helps them go uphill.


You must mean, the biggest Douche is whomever decided to ride a motorized vehicle on a mtb trail putting our hard fought trail access at risk. Sometimes the entitlement attitude of e bikers makes me reconsider who the real Douchebags really are.


----------



## Gromov (Sep 11, 2013)

Dirty $anchez said:


> You must mean, the biggest Douche is whomever decided to ride a motorized vehicle on a mtb trail putting our hard fought trail access at risk. Sometimes the entitlement attitude of e bikers makes me reconsider who the real Douchebags really are.


In just trying to understand for myself why there's so much hate against ebikers here? 
Is it because of the fact that park authorities might consider it as motorized vehicle and ban everybody's access there?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Gromov said:


> In just trying to understand for myself why there's so much hate against ebikers here?
> Is it because of the fact that park authorities might consider it as motorized vehicle and ban everybody's access there?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2


No. It is because they ARE motorized vehicles and put OUR hard earned access at risk. No tolerance, zero, nada for motorized vehicles. That and the aforementioned sense of entitlement. And I will again point out the hypocrisy of MTBR promoting e bikes while at the same time promoting trail access for mtbers, you can't have it both ways.


----------



## Gromov (Sep 11, 2013)

How does it put risk to your hard earned access? 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Gromov said:


> How does it put risk to your hard earned access?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2


You have not comprehended the conversation or you are simply trolling, I suspect the later.


----------



## Derkson91 (Aug 14, 2013)

I think this debate will continue to rage on just as the wheel size wars continue rage on year over year. Ebikes seem to be an up in coming thing..for the most part...I know they have been around for awhile but if you look at the annual bike shows and such they seem to be a bigger topic year after year....and I think they are fantastic for specific purposes.....specifically for commuting. For Commuting to work and such...I think it is great, but I think the general idea and general feeling here when considering mountain biking and riding on trails on an Ebike completely defeats the purpose of mountain biking, I know my stating the obvious here but I also don't have a problem if I saw someone riding an Ebike on a trail.....mostly because I tend to give people the "benefit of the doubt" that there is probably a reason they are on an Ebike in the first place.....such as a health or medical reason...yet they love getting out and riding the trails. Honestly, if I lost a leg or something or had a medical condition and the only way I could fully enjoy the trails was by riding a battery operated Ebike I would go for it.


----------



## Gromov (Sep 11, 2013)

Dirty $anchez said:


> You have not comprehended the conversation or you are simply trolling, I suspect the later.


I'm not trolling honestly. I just want to understand how ebikes put your access rights to risk?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2


----------



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

Gromov said:


> I'm not trolling honestly. I just want to understand how ebikes put your access rights to risk?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2


KTM electric freeride bike-









I don't think it would be so hard to bolt a pair of pedals on this thing. There are places where motorcycles are allowed, and places where bicycles are allowed. You can debate all day long as to weather the two should be treated equally but right now they're not, and personally I am glad for that.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

Gromov said:


> I'm not trolling honestly. I just want to understand how ebikes put your access rights to risk?


A lot of mountain biking areas (such as the area I build in) are 'No Motorized Access'. This isn't because trail builders hate motorized vehicles or anything, it is because the impacts on trails are hugely increased by the weight and power of dirtbikes and ATVs. I wouldn't be able to maintain the trails and features that I do if I had to deal with the increased wear and trail damage caused by motorized vehicles, I just don't have that much time.

While I think E-bikes are a good thing (I would love to have an electric supermoto like the BRD RedShift), and at low power levels I don't think they would cause any more damage, they are technically motorized. This means that if they are officially allowed in a riding area, any motorized vehicles are allowed. If bike clubs condone e-bike use in their riding areas, motorized vehicle groups can argue that they should also be allowed access. A lot of people have worked very hard to get their riding areas protected so that they can build bike trails, and they are not going to want to compromise that.

It would be great if there was some sort of way to allow low power e-bikes on non-motorized trails, but this isn't really feasible. As NateHawk said on the previous page:



NateHawk said:


> Land managers need easy to enforce regulations. "No motorized vehicles" is a helluva lot easier to enforce than "No motorized vehicles that can exceed 20mph on flat, paved ground" or something equally convoluted.


Edit: If you need electric assist to ride because of a legitimate medical condition, I would say just buy something low powered that looks like a normal bike. Personally I'm not going to complain unless you're roosting it up, but don't expect it to be legal in non-motorized areas.

Edit2: I should also say that in my case mountain bikes losing trail access isn't an issue, so I can't specifically comment on that.


----------



## Gromov (Sep 11, 2013)

All right I think the problem here is with different understanding of what an ebike is. That orange KTM is definitely a no no. 

I actually rode a commuter ebike last night. Cube dealership has one for test drive. It just gives you a little push when you start and probably keeps helping you when you are spinning the pedals, that's all. Weight? Weights 6 maybe 7 kg more than it would have without the battery and the motor. 

But you cannot hold extra 7 kilograms against the ebikes because riders of regular bikes have much bigger difference in weight and you don't limit their access. 

Another thing that I can think of is that maybe folks here think that ebikes spin tires like enduro bikes kicking dirt, gravel and sand in the air destroying the surface and they don't, they are simply not capable of doing that.

However the way it's going I think there will probably be versions with more powerful motors that will have an impact on the trails and this will become an issue. I suppose there needs to be some sort of limit that would limit it to bikes below 500 watt motors for example. So I guess I now understand Dirty Sanchez's point. 

I'm actually pretty old school about bikes too and I bought my bike partially for fitness reasons but I wouldn't mind having an ebike in my fleet cuz they are fun.  



Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

Gromov said:


> ...I suppose there needs to be some sort of limit that would limit it to bikes below 500 watt motors for example...


Sounds pretty sensible, but probably easier said than done. The whole E-bike thing is a bit laissez faire at the moment.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

ACB931 said:


> I guess I'm that ebike guy....while I have 2 human powered mountain bikes I also have an ebike. Now in my early 40's I found myself in a tough spot, 4 knee ops, 2 shoulder ops, low back lamenectomy and a titanium plate in my neck fusing 2 vertabra...X-Games stuff before it made you famous and bought you a house, we did for the fun! I can ride my pedal only, just not very far, so I was really limited by having to be careful not to get too far from home (btw I'm not fat and lazy, just have a lot of knee pain) so the ebike is awesome for me I can combine throttle and pedal to plan a nice bike ride. For the most part I will stay off the "no motorized vehicle" paths (wide enough for a car) that connect the towns in my area and stick to the sidewalks, but occasionally I do take the path, it is far more scenic and a little straighter shot between towns, thankfully I have not encountered anyone who cared that my bike has an electric motor. I think a big part of this is riding responsibly, I am rarely going more than 15mph and always pedaling, and I am often being passed, and I slow to a crawl around hikers and families of bikers with kids. The situation reminds me a little of the mid 80's when I switched from skiing to snowboarding after my first knee surgery, skiers HATED snowboarders.. We were going to ruin the hill, somebody was going to get killed by those lunatic snowboarders, we heard it all. Then, the hills started letting us in one night a week, Sunday's after 6pm till close, then weekdays only, then well, here we are today...I don't know how ebiking will play out, I have no plans to hit the popular single track track trails with my ebike, there are plenty of good options where I live, and it is a respect thing as well. I ride both human and epower bikes each week, they are both a blast for different reasons, I get a little sad when I see posts like "electric bike, whats the point" or other demeaning posts, but I try to remember everyone is entitled to their opinion.


Wow, that's a lot of extra baggage in your body. Are you sure it's ok to be on any kind of mtb? A fall the wrong way could be significantly serious to you, but not for someone else. Take it easy out there.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

J.B. Weld said:


> KTM electric freeride bike-
> 
> View attachment 834669
> 
> ...


Yeah, baby,
I'm taking the KOM on Kennedy trail with that puppy. Where can I rent one and strap some pedals on it.


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

Sorry for all who got sick or hurt and can't ride anymore, but that doesn't mean I support your right to bring motorized vehicles on trails that are not open to motorized vehicles. I also don't support your right to bring snowmobiles onto mountains where they are not allowed so you can ski or snowboard on them since you can't climb them under your own power. But I guess I'm just a 55 year old elitist hater. Ride and climb as much as you can while you can and don't cry when you are no longer able.


----------



## vinnyl26 (Apr 3, 2007)

donutnational said:


> Sorry for all who got sick or hurt and can't ride anymore, but that doesn't mean I support your right to bring motorized vehicles on trails that are not open to motorized vehicles. I also don't support your right to bring snowmobiles onto mountains where they are not allowed so you can ski or snowboard on them since you can't climb them under your own power. But I guess I'm just a 55 year old elitist hater. Ride and climb as much as you can while you can and don't cry when you are no longer able.


Don't be a jerk

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## natrat (Mar 20, 2008)

vinnyl26 said:


> Don't be a jerk


:thumbsup:


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

vinnyl26 said:


> Don't be a jerk
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


I agree with Donutnational. I'll take it one step more and compare eBikes for those who can't handle pedaling to handicap parking. Sure, some people need it but the majority of people with handicap parking permits don't need them....and really should be encouraged to walk a bit for in my state, you can get handicap parking for being a disgusting tub o' lard.

Yeah, some people need an electric assist to ride a bike but the majority of people on electric bikes using them to "mountain bike" are going to be lazy, out-of-shape slobs who perhaps would be better served by slowly getting in shape to ride trails under their own power.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Well, since this conversation is headed for the bin, I'll throw both Hitler and Nazis into the fray.


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

I guess I'm just a jerk, but there's plenty of **** I can't ride, ski or climb. But I'm not asking for permission to bring a helicopter, motor bike or drill a bunch of bolts so I can. If this makes me a jerk so be it. In your twisted mind the wilderness act must truly suck since it prevents so many people from being able to access our beautiful wild areas.


----------



## Gromov (Sep 11, 2013)

donutnational said:


> I guess I'm just a jerk, but there's plenty of **** I can't ride, ski or climb. But I'm not asking for permission to bring a helicopter, motor bike or drill a bunch of bolts so I can. If this makes me a jerk so be it. In your twisted mind the wilderness act must truly suck since it prevents so many people from being able to access our beautiful wild areas.


You see, somebody has to give you a fair reason why riding an ebike makes you a jerk. People here for some reason are full of hate which by the way is not supported, nobody has given me a clear reason why ebikes on trails are so bad, besides hateful **** like lazy fat pu$$y riders.

Whats even sadder, is that since nobody can give me a clear answer I just get down-voted, but that just proves the point of folks having no arguments.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

There have been plenty of reasons given why ebikes shouldn't be
on the trails. You just don't care or haven't read them.


----------



## bolandjd (Jul 23, 2008)

E-bikes are awesome...on the road, on jeep trails, in ATV rec areas, anywhere motorized vehicles are allowed. But they need to stay off of trails where motorized vehicles are not allowed. I hope IMBA and other advocacy groups are getting in front of this before it becomes a problem. I feel terrible for people who have physical impairments preventing them from riding normal mountain bikes. Believe me, short of something bad happening to my wife or kids, not being able to mountain bike is probably my worst nightmare. But life isn't fair. Blind people can't mountain bike either. Sorry about that.


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

Thanks bolandjd, your much more articulate and less reactionary than me. To me the inherent value of motorless areas is reason enough to prohibit electric bikes. But apparently Gromov needs something that can be measured in watts or foot pounds.


----------



## natrat (Mar 20, 2008)

this would be sweet for single track and dh, legal of course


----------



## jugdish (Apr 1, 2004)

donutnational said:


> Sorry for all who got sick or hurt and can't ride anymore, but that doesn't mean I support your right to bring motorized vehicles on trails that are not open to motorized vehicles. I also don't support your right to bring snowmobiles onto mountains where they are not allowed so you can ski or snowboard on them since you can't climb them under your own power.  But I guess I'm just a 55 year old elitist hater. Ride and climb as much as you can while you can and don't cry when you are no longer able.


 Man, I must be a jerk as well.
+1


----------



## ej132 (Jul 31, 2013)

Natrat, what's the name of that bike? Or is it just a concept?


----------



## vinnyl26 (Apr 3, 2007)

jugdish said:


> Man, I must be a jerk as well.
> +1


Yep


----------



## ej132 (Jul 31, 2013)

I don't quiet understand all the hate for people using ebikes, they are not dirt bikes, they don't rip up the trail. Everyone is in everyone else's business these days. I'm just glad to see people out using the trails rather then not.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

ej132 said:


> I don't quiet understand all the hate for people using ebikes, they are not dirt bikes, they don't rip up the trail. Everyone is in everyone else's business these days. I'm just glad to see people out using the trails rather then not.


Because, they go against the basic "spirit" of mtn biking. You see a lot of the same feeling to shuttling. Hence, the phrase, "earn your turns"


----------



## vinnyl26 (Apr 3, 2007)

ziscwg said:


> Because, they go against the basic "spirit" of mtn biking. You see a lot of the same feeling to shuttling. Hence, the phrase, "earn your turns"


What makes you and expert on what is "mountain biking"?? As long as your on 2 wheels your good by me


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

vinnyl26 said:


> What makes you and expert on what is "mountain biking"?? As long as your on 2 wheels your good by me


This is a mountain bike forum. Many of us are experts on it. Generally, however, it is not a difficult concept to get a handle on: you essentially ride a bicycle on trails as opposed to the road, the only requirement being that you are riding a "bicycle," not some 75 pound behemoth with a motor and some decorative pedals bolted on so you can claim it's a bicycle.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

I ride on some local multi-use trails where they allow dirt bikes. No problems. It's their trail...but the turns and dips have been beaten into sandy pits that are almost impassable on a bike (I enjoy a good sufferfest every now and then) and I would hate to see even a third of that kind of damage done to our local mountain bike trails by quasi-motorcycles. Why not take your behemoth to a dirt bike/ATV trail?


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Ailuropoda said:


> Why not take your behemoth to a dirt bike/ATV trail?


The reason is "Taint". Taint a real motorcycle, taint a real bicycle. The throttle jockey's will just roost em and they aren't allowed on bicycle trails therefore making them pretty much a useless novelty.


----------



## ACB931 (Sep 24, 2013)

http://forums.mtbr.com/asset.php?fid=821686&uid=756098&d=1380319156

46lbs, most don't recognize it as an ebike...doesn't seem to do any more trail damage then my Giant Trance X-1 when I ride it on dirt, but as I stated earlier I do not take this on the single track mtb trails marked "no motorized vehicles" my mtb buddies who ride the local loops and like to work on lowering times for the loop with hard work would not appreciate me pedal assisting behind them for 12 miles.....it's a respect thing


----------



## kingsqueak (Jul 21, 2013)

Nanny state, nanny state.

I don't care if a guy has JATO packs strapped on his bike, if he's not running into people, so be it.

I find the electric bike sub-culture a bit odd myself, but I really don't care what people do with them as long as they are operating with common sense.

We're getting to a point where if something isn't explicitly outlined as "legal" people get all riled up. This is supposed to be a country where anything goes unless explicitly outlawed and outlawed in a case where something would truly affect public safety or the pursuits of life liberty, and happiness. We've drifted so far...


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

^Easy does it there pardner.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

So was this thread bumped recently because I remember it from way back. Please tell me it hasen't been alive all this time. I'm too lazy to scroll back some input please.


----------



## Mookie (Feb 28, 2008)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> So was this thread bumped recently because I remember it from way back. Please tell me it hasen't been alive all this time. I'm too lazy to scroll back some input please.


It was revived 4 days ago by some dude who apparently joined MTBR to sing the praises of electronic bikes.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

nwbikur said:


> It was revived 4 days ago by some dude who apparently joined MTBR to sing the praises of electronic bikes.


Ha,ha great! So now I have to go out and get an electric bike to keep up with the joneses.
What brand should I get? What kind of bars should I get on it? What kind of tires should I get? what color should I get or raw? Titanium chromoly carbon or aluminum? What kind of suspension for all mountain? What wheel size should I get? What bike shop will build such a beast?

Fock I've had it with this sport I can't keep up.


----------



## bolandjd (Jul 23, 2008)

nwbikur said:


> It was revived 4 days ago by some dude who apparently joined MTBR to sing the praises of electronic bikes.


There is a lot of buzz about e-bikes coming out of Interbike. Guitar Ted's spiel is what got me interested.


----------



## bolandjd (Jul 23, 2008)

ej132 said:


> I don't quiet understand all the hate for people using ebikes, they are not dirt bikes, they don't rip up the trail. Everyone is in everyone else's business these days. I'm just glad to see people out using the trails rather then not.


Its not hate, its physics. No, e-bikes are not the same as dirtbikes. But they _are_ heavier and go faster than normal bicycles, hence they cause more wear and tear on trails. Some mtb trails can probably handle it, and others can't. Many land managers are already wary about allowing mountain bikes; if e-bikes start showing up on those trails, they are guaranteed to get shut down. It varies jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction, of course.

If e-bikers want to access to trails where they are currently not allowed, they need to organize and lobby land managers the same as mountain bikers had to do back in the day (and still do!). For mountain biking, the key to trail access is cooperation with land managers and other trail users - same deal for e-bikes. I'm sure that e-bikers could join with mountain bikers in creating and maintaining properly constructed, sustainable, dual-use trails for mtbs and e-bikes. But the key is open cooperation, not poaching bicycle trails.


----------



## ej132 (Jul 31, 2013)

People keep saying this bohemians with pedals bolted on. I don't think you all understand that these are not pedal free machines. Most will not be able to complete a 10 mile trail with just turning the throttle, they are still bicycles.

Bolandjd, you response makes most sense here. And while I somewhat disagree with your opinion I see its point and value. It's just most of these ebikes are not a whole lot heavier the some of the fat bikes out today, and most who ride ebikes aren't shredding it up out there( I mean riding hard and fast) I guess what I see from my point of view is that some with full suspension bikes are much more aggressive on the trails than a heavier ebike could be.


----------



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

ej132 said:


> People keep saying this bohemians with pedals bolted on. I don't think you all understand that these are not pedal free machines.


So does an e-bike have to be green?









Or can it be a little mean?









Is there a certain power limit at which they become an em-cycle? Will there be an official at trailheads checking the wattage of each rig?

Can any e-bike supporter out there explain how an electric bike/cycle differs from an internal combustion powered bike (I realize they use different fuel)? If low powered electric (motor) bikes are allowed on restricted trails why not low powered internal combustion (motor) bikes?


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> Can any e-bike supporter out there explain how an electric bike/cycle differs from an internal combustion powered bike (I realize they use different fuel)? If low powered electric (motor) bikes are allowed on restricted trails why not low powered internal combustion (motor) bikes?


while not an ebike supporter, I can tell you in my state, state law groups all power assisted bicycles, either electric or gasoline, together.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

they are motorized, fuel doesn't matter. I have no problems with motorized recreation, but lets call a spade a spade.


----------



## ej132 (Jul 31, 2013)

Why does it matter if its ICE or electric? Only thing is the ICE will be louder but how far can you really hear a small engine? .25 mile at most.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

ej132 said:


> Why does it matter if its ICE or electric? Only thing is the ICE will be louder but how far can you really hear a small engine? .25 mile at most.


It matters not, motors are motors and they are precluded from using non-motorized trails. Pretty simple stuff really.


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

Dirty $anchez said:


> It matters not, motors are motors and they are precluded from using non-motorized trails. Pretty simple stuff really.


One would think but it seems to be hard to get through to some.


----------



## ej132 (Jul 31, 2013)

I was responding to J.B. Weilds post. It is pretty simple.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

bolandjd said:


> Its not hate, its physics. No, e-bikes are not the same as dirtbikes. But they _are_ heavier and go faster than normal bicycles, hence they cause more wear and tear on trails. Some mtb trails can probably handle it, and others can't.  Many land managers are already wary about allowing mountain bikes; if e-bikes start showing up on those trails, they are guaranteed to get shut down. It varies jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction, of course.
> 
> If e-bikers want to access to trails where they are currently not allowed, they need to organize and lobby land managers the same as mountain bikers had to do back in the day (and still do!). For mountain biking, the key to trail access is cooperation with land managers and other trail users - same deal for e-bikes. I'm sure that e-bikers could join with mountain bikers in creating and maintaining properly constructed, sustainable, dual-use trails for mtbs and e-bikes. But the key is open cooperation, not poaching bicycle trails.


Holy Crap! Here it is all in a nutshell. Mountain bikers have done the legwork to get access to trails for THEIR vehicles. E-bikers should do the same. Lobby, build, repair, maintain. Nobody should get a free ride on someone else's coattails.


----------



## ej132 (Jul 31, 2013)

Well if your on the not taking the "leg up" then we should all start out like cavemen. Idiocy. Should we all have to start new countries then steal the leg up of our nations creators?


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

So all of you are taking this thread seriously. Can't you tell when a when someone's trolling.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

ej132 said:


> Well if your on the not taking the "leg up" then we should all start out like cavemen. Idiocy. Should we all have to start new countries then steal the leg up of our nations creators?


Wut?


----------



## natrat (Mar 20, 2008)

ej132 said:


> Natrat, what's the name of that bike? Or is it just a concept?


concept, silly at that
good stuff , 2 wheeled bikes of all kinds Latest « derestricted


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Trail Ninja said:


> Wut?


Ha,ha Ninja too funny! So right out of left field comes this little gem of philosophy.


----------



## ej132 (Jul 31, 2013)

Thanks Natrat, thought it would be. Just a very cool visual hybrid of mountain biking and dirt biking.


----------



## rebel1916 (Sep 16, 2006)

@JCON2009 is the kinda interwebs tuff guy who makes threats in his weak ass, no power neg reps. Bark on little dog, bark on.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

You know whats funny slightly off topic here. The motorised bike in the bottom photo of JB Welds post above are all over the streets along coastal So. Cal. And the cops don't even bother with them. But take a dirt bike motorcycle or mini bike unlicensed on the street and they're all over it.

Back to topic.


----------



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

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> Back to topic.


Put pedals on it, then call it an e-something and you got yer-self a bicycle.


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

Can I put pedals on my jeep, call it a bike and take it on the trails?:skep:


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Someone please drive a stake through the heart of this thread.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

I'll just say that if/when I start seeing these on the trails, I will do what I can to get them classified as "motorized". Motors are motors. These have no business on non-motorized trails.

That's my $0.02


----------



## deke505 (Jul 29, 2012)

Dirty $anchez said:


> Someone please drive a stake through the heart of this thread.


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

OhGee said:


> One would think but it seems to be hard to get through to some.


Just need to beat it into them.....simple really.


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

kapusta said:


> I'll just say that if/when I start seeing these on the trails, I will do what I can to get them classified as "motorized". Motors are motors. These have no business on non-motorized trails.
> 
> That's my $0.02


It's more worth $4,000,000 as I also want to see the classified to what they truly are.


----------



## rogercor (Aug 28, 2013)

Take it easy there pilgrim,
Let me propose the following'
As an ebiker with MS, rheumatoid arthritis, etc i have far more in common with you than differences.

What I am after when I ride,
A good work out pedaling my bike in the great outdoors. Respect the trails and other riders, work with others to keep access to our outdoors. Have as little impact on nature as possible. Preserve these areas for future recreation.
I ride an ebike with only 350 watts power, couldn't damage a trail with it if I wanted too.
Top speed with me pedaling my ass off is maybe 20 mph on flat ground.
It is super quiet and you could not tell it was electric unless you were familar with this style bike. I have worked on trails and been active keeping trails open. Rode regular MTB until I could not do it physically anymore. Still ride with my wife who uses a standard MTB.
The addition of the electric motor allows me to keep up with her and go 20 miles.
What I don't want, noisy super fast bikes that put others in harms way, noisy anything that distracts from the outdoors.
I am after the same experience the regular MTb rider is after I just need a little assist.
Before you make up your mind go out and ride a regular powered ebike. Don't use these high powered monsters to compare, I have never seen one and don't want to see one on MTb trails.
You will find they are super quiet, safe, give a great workout, will not tear up any trails and are fun to ride.
Let's work together for our general well being, be realistic what an ebike really is, and let's enjoy our sport together.
RC


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

Power assist is not really part of "our sport." There are plenty of multi-use trails in my area where you can ride with other powered vehicles. 

Nobody hates you. It's just that if we allow you we open the gate to every eBike. Why are you special? Who else can make a case for using powered vehicles on trails and where do we draw the line?

I will say it again: the majority of people who will use powered bike are going to be people too lazy or out of shape to pedal up a hill. It's doesn't apply to you but there it is.

If you want to go out to the mountain bike trail bring a bike and muscles.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

rogercor said:


> Let's work together for our general well being, be realistic what an ebike really is, and let's enjoy our sport together.
> RC


Sorry, that is not possible. If one is allowed then all will have to be allowed. If you feel it necessary to ride dirt then you should start petitioning for e-bike only trails and start building. Otherwise, Non-Motorized Trails means just that, NO MOTORS! Again, its a simple concept that some of the e-bike crowd just doesn't seem to comprehend.


----------



## rogercor (Aug 28, 2013)

If one is allowed then all will have to be allowed. 

That is like saying allow one motorcycle on the roads have to allow all of them. Well off road motorcycles are not allowed etc. Certain motorcycles are not allowed on freeways etc.
In reality my bike is no different than yours, it will not go as fast, probably has fewer gears, weights more. Your bike can probably out perform my ebike so explain to me why it needs to be banned?
To say it is not possible will affect MTB more than ebikers in the future. In Europe they are selling like crazy and will soon take over the sales of MTB's. Why not use this large group of people to help your cause?
It is not impossible, I have overcome much bigger obstacles in my job and in the end got everyone working toward the same goal. There were people on the fringe of both sides that were upset but with the final outcome 98% were very happy.
RC


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

rogercor said:


> If one is allowed then all will have to be allowed.
> 
> That is like saying allow one motorcycle on the roads have to allow all of them. Well off road motorcycles are not allowed etc. Certain motorcycles are not allowed on freeways etc.
> In reality my bike is no different than yours, it will not go as fast, probably has fewer gears, weights more. Your bike can probably out perform my ebike so explain to me why it needs to be banned?
> ...


Ive said it before and ill say it again, you ebikers dont get it because you arent an actual cyclist.. you dont get the culture or lifestyle..

Your cycle is motorized.. and it doesnt belong on our trails. In many states/jurisdictions.. anything motorized on our cycling trails (and often on sidewalks and bicycle lanes too) are illegal.


----------



## rogercor (Aug 28, 2013)

Ailuropoda said:


> Power assist is not really part of "our sport."


Exactly it is a sport not a competition on every ride for every rider. The vast majority of people on the trails that I ride are not in a competition and could care less what you are riding.
Again how is your bike so different than mine?
Yours will go faster, is lighter and has more gears.
Your bike will outperform mine, mine is not louder than yours so why does it need to be banned? 
It sounds more like you are saying if you are fat, lazy and out of shape you are not allowed on our trails. Well that won't work.
I don't know anyone out of the 10 ebikers I have ridden with that are fat, lazy and out of shape. All are over 55, recovering from surgery or a bad disease and they are trying to continue what they use to do but can no longer accomplish. 
Embrace these people they are 100% after the same "experience" that you are after out on the trail. I am not talking about the 15 year old with a modified dirt bike that is out riding the bike trails illegally.
Please go check out an ebike I think once you ride one you will not be near as threatened.
RC


----------



## rogercor (Aug 28, 2013)

SandSpur said:


> Ive said it before and ill say it again, you ebikers dont get it because you arent an actual cyclist.. you dont get the culture or lifestyle...


I rode almost everyday from the time I was in high school until I was 40 and got MS.
My lifestyle was as a clyclist. I had 3 bikes, MTB, road and a home built. I rode around Lake Tahoe, road the sierra trails every summer for 25 years.
You may not consider me a cyclist but I do.
What makes me not a cyclist?
So I am starting to get this, a certain small number of you only want a certain type of "person" on "your" trails. It has nothing to do with the facts.


----------



## beshannon (Oct 14, 2012)

RIVER29 said:


> Saw another electric mountain bike on the trail the other day. It got me thinking, do I care about this? Am I going to start seeing a bunch of fat rich dudes (no offense to large or wealthy riders who pedal) who don't pedal ripping down our trails? Can someone give me some perspective here? Do I call the ranger 'cause the trail clearly states no motorized vehicles?


Fine with me, definitely better than the dirt bikes, motorcycles and go carts I see on my area trails


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

rogercor said:


> I rode almost everyday from the time I was in high school until I was 40 and got MS.
> My lifestyle was as a clyclist. I had 3 bikes, MTB, road and a home built. I rode around Lake Tahoe, road the sierra trails every summer for 25 years.
> You may not consider me a cyclist but I do.
> What makes me not a cyclist?
> So I am starting to get this, a certain small number of you only want a certain type of "person" on "your" trails. It has nothing to do with the facts.


Which fact? The one that e-bikes are motorized? Or is it the one that e-bikes are not allowed on non-motorized trails? There are plenty of places for you to ride your motorized bike so exempting them from the few trails that MTBers have left is small price. If you feel that you need more single track to ride on then get permission from the land managers and get to building it.


----------



## rogercor (Aug 28, 2013)

Your bikes are geared I propose that these fat, lazy people be banned from riding the true trails reserved for single gear bikes only. Fact, my bike is no more powerful than yours, at 250 watts where a true biker can generate 300 to 400 watts. What are you afraid of?


----------



## SandSpur (Mar 19, 2013)

rogercor said:


> Your bikes are geared I propose that these fat, lazy people be banned from riding the true trails reserved for single gear bikes only. Fact, my bike is no more powerful than yours, at 250 watts where a true biker can generate 300 to 400 watts. What are you afraid of?


the aholes that modify their ebikes for 1000 watts which are completely incapable of regulating trailside....

no different than the aholes that discovered if their doctor "certifies" their little yappy dogs as "service companion dogs", that they can fall under the umbrella of the disability act, which allows people that truly need service dogs..

If youre incapable of pedaling a bike without the use of a motor, then you are no longer fit into our category.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

rogercor said:


> Your bikes are geared I propose that these fat, lazy people be banned from riding the true trails reserved for single gear bikes only. Fact, my bike is no more powerful than yours, at 250 watts where a true biker can generate 300 to 400 watts. What are you afraid of?


Your strawman is not standing up straight. Afraid of? Nothing. Willing to keep up the fight for our hard won trails? Most certainly. Go ride with the other Motos.


----------



## Procter (Feb 3, 2012)

Hey rogercor,

With great respect, I'm sorry about your Ms, this terrible debilitating disease is no joke. But that isn't a reason why a motorized bike should be allowed on non-motorized trails.

To all who say its ok because 'they aren't that much more powerful' and 'they have short battery life', E bikes will get more powerful, and have more battery longevity over time, and it would be difficult to establish rules or thresholds for which bikes should be allowed. And even then, it would be impossible to police these rules at the trailhead. Furthermore the presence of ANY motors on trails gives a ton of ammunition to the fanatical anti-bike activists lobbying the officials at pick-your-local-open-space to close the trails to bikes or slow the progress of additional trail openings to bikes.

I am sorry to folks like Rogercor, but that's life. Keep em on motorized trails. There are tons of people with all sorts of disabilities who can't bike either, its tragic but part of life's journey.

Sent from (_redacted by nsa_)


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

rogercor said:


> Exactly it is a sport not a competition on every ride for every rider. The vast majority of people on the trails that I ride are not in a competition and could care less what you are riding.
> Again how is your bike so different than mine?
> Yours will go faster, is lighter and has more gears.
> Your bike will outperform mine, mine is not louder than yours so why does it need to be banned?
> ...


The fat, lazy, and out of shape are most welcome on the trails. Not only do I welcome them but I am an active "ambassador" for mountain biking, have a small fleet of inexpensive bikes that I lend to anybody who wants to give it a try, and I offer nothing but encouragement and good-spirits to anybody I encounter on the trail.

I was fat and out-of-shape after residency training and could barely make it up some hills that I don't even regard as hills nowadays but I didn't resort to a motorcycle.

I love cycling but I am not a snob about it.

But motors do not give you the same "experience."

To repeat, I am not against eBikes. I'm not against motorcycles or ATVs either. Just don't want them on the few non-motorized trails we have around here.

My bikes are different than yours because they are non-motorized. That is the crucial and non-trivial difference. I would go so far to say the difference is so critical that you really have no business posting on a cycling forum....it would be like my going to a Justin Beiber fan site to lavish praise on the Grateful Dead.

Nothing's stopping me from doing it and I'm not causing any harm but it would be perplexing to the Beiberites.

And I have no desire to ride an eBike for the same reason I have no desire to own or ride an ATV. It's not my thing and I'm into cycling, not motorcycling.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

rogercor said:


> I rode almost everyday from the time I was in high school until I was 40 and got MS.
> My lifestyle was as a clyclist. I had 3 bikes, MTB, road and a home built. I rode around Lake Tahoe, road the sierra trails every summer for 25 years.
> You may not consider me a cyclist but I do.
> What makes me not a cyclist?
> So I am starting to get this, a certain small number of you only want a certain type of "person" on "your" trails. It has nothing to do with the facts.


We only want bicycles on the trails. Nothing to do with the type of person. Don't try to make into a personal attack or some kind of discrimination thing.

I understand that you can't ride like you used to but that doesn't mean that the world must be re-arranged to accommodate you. As I get older women in their twenties are finding me less and less attractive but that doesn't mean I have an intrinsic right to date a 28-year-old girl.

I mean, I can get a hooker or a mistress but it's not the same thing.


----------



## rogercor (Aug 28, 2013)

"That is the crucial and non-trivial difference. I would go so far to say the difference is so critical that you really have no business posting on a cycling forum...."

Ok....
I only hope that all of our problems in the world are not dealt with by the manner displayed by this forum. Will not post again.
RC


----------



## cbr6fs (Apr 1, 2008)

If they're legal on the trails they're being ridden on then i can't see the problem.

If i wanted a E-bike, thought they were a reasonable solution and legal then i couldn't care a jot what a few holier than thou cyclists thought.

What they going to do scowl at me or write in caps on a forum 


Things change, 30 years ago hikers were outraged that many of us took our cycles off-road.
30 years on there is more often than not a reasonable compromise.

It will be the same with E-powered craft.
Some will be cautious and reasonable, others will abuse their rights and cause problems.
These few will spoil it for the majority of responsible owners and laws be bought in as a result, that's just society looking after itself.

If it's legal though i wouldn't worry about the arrogant opinion of a few cycling snobs :thumbsup:


----------



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

cbr6fs said:


> If they're legal on the trails they're being ridden on then i can't see the problem.


I really don't think anyone here is disagreeing with that statement, and speaking for myself that is entirely the point.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

rogercor said:


> "That is the crucial and non-trivial difference. I would go so far to say the difference is so critical that you really have no business posting on a cycling forum...."
> 
> Ok....
> I only hope that all of our problems in the world are not dealt with by the manner displayed by this forum. Will not post again.
> RC


Dealing with problems does not mean that we have to agree with you. Reasonable people may disagree but it does not follow that you are right and I am wrong.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

For those with health problems. What will you do when you are 10 miles
out on the trail and your 50 pound E-bike breaks or the battery dies? How
will you get back? And don't say it won't happen, because it will.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

John Kuhl said:


> For those with health problems. What will you do when you are 10 miles
> out on the trail and your 50 pound E-bike breaks or the battery dies? How
> will you get back? And don't say it won't happen, because it will.


Why that's what the search and rescue people are for, isn't it?


----------



## cbr6fs (Apr 1, 2008)

John Kuhl said:


> For those with health problems. What will you do when you are 10 miles
> out on the trail and your 50 pound E-bike breaks or the battery dies? How
> will you get back? And don't say it won't happen, because it will.


As long as they have already made contingency plans again i don't see that as being a problem.
Have you come across stranded E-bikers and your ride has been ruined because you stopped and helped them?

If not then it's pretty much a mute point.

What happens if one of our frames snap 10 miles into a ride?
I've had a mate stumble and break his ankle while out hiking in the middle of nowhere.
Stuff happens and when it does we analyse the situation and do what we can to come up with the best solution.

Sitting at home trying to come up with scenarios that might happen in a certain way at certain times in certain areas is ridiculous.
If a E-bike fails the rider will do exactly the same as we do and try and get back home as efficiently as possible.
No doubt there will be times when SAR are called, but then that's exactly the same case with MTB's and hikers so using that as a negative is pretty dangerous for those of us that like to roam in less populated areas.

IF there comes a time when E-bikers are making ridiculous amounts of calls to SAR's then that's a problem that will addressed.
As it is you may as well say "what will happen when pretty fairy's get electrocuted by those nasty batteries and motors" as this is just as much a made up problem.


----------



## crossracer (Jun 27, 2004)

Fat lazy out of shape riders allready mtn bike. They simply go to ski slopes and ride up on the lift and ride down. 

E bikes are quiet and innocuous, I have no problem with them on the trail, cause I believe that more people will do better if they get out into nature more. 

Now small motored bikes with gas engines? Leave them at home. 

Like it or not they are coming, might as well embrace it and deal with it over trying to ban them. 

Bill


----------



## bolandjd (Jul 23, 2008)

Its real easy. If you have an e-bike and want to ride it on a given trail, contact the park authority/land manager responsible for that trail and ask if e-bikes are permitted. If so, ride on and be happy. If not, respect the rules and ride somewhere else. And if you don't want to ride somewhere else, get together with other e-bikers and lobby for access like everybody else has to do.


----------



## crossracer (Jun 27, 2004)

Actually ran into a lady riding one if these bikes in middle run in Delaware. Stopped and talked to her and heard her story. She wants to just ride but being out of shape it wasn't possible, so she is using the boost to get herself up hills. She wasn't bombing the trails, she was a very nice trail user. I have no problem with people like that using the trails also. 

Bill


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

crossracer said:


> Actually ran into a lady riding one if these bikes in middle run in Delaware. Stopped and talked to her and heard her story. She wants to just ride but being out of shape it wasn't possible, so she is using the boost to get herself up hills. She wasn't bombing the trails, she was a very nice trail user. I have no problem with people like that using the trails also.
> 
> Bill


Of course not. But how do you keep the riff-raff out; meaning the 90 percent of eBike riders who look at their bikes as electric motorcycles? Someone commented in an earlier post that he really couldn't do more than 20 MPH on his eBike....but think about that. How often do you ride that fast on a trail. Hell, that's road-bike speed.

Sure, I can hit that speed on the downhills but generally 12 MPH feels pretty fast on our trails.

When I ride on the roads people sometimes yell, "Get on the sidewalk." Sidewalks are neither suitable nor safe for a 230 pound guy riding a bike at twenty miles an hour. Likewise, most mountain bike trails are not suitable for carefree riders zipping along at high speed that they didn't have to work for.


----------



## jhazard (Aug 16, 2004)

crossracer said:


> Fat lazy out of shape riders allready mtn bike. They simply go to ski slopes and ride up on the lift and ride down.
> 
> E bikes are quiet and innocuous, I have no problem with them on the trail, cause I believe that more people will do better if they get out into nature more.
> 
> ...


I've noticed many more "fat lazy out of shape riders" squished in to ill fitting pajama colored spandex and pedaling road bikes on the streets than I see on the lifts or trails, but whatever.

What ski slopes are you frequenting?

I've yet to encounter and e-bike on the trail. Not even sure what I'd think. "Cool" I guess. Not like I'd go rat on the rider or anything, but I'd wonder what the local rangers would think. I'm thinking, if a person is physically compromised so much that they can't pedal or maneuver a regular bike, I'm not likely to see one where I ride. Fat, lazy and out of shape are sort of prohibitive (if stereotypical) to techy or aggressive riding.


----------



## cbr6fs (Apr 1, 2008)

Ailuropoda said:


> Of course not. But how do you keep the riff-raff out; meaning the 90 percent of eBike riders who look at their bikes as electric motorcycles? Someone commented in an earlier post that he really couldn't do more than 20 MPH on his eBike....but think about that. How often do you ride that fast on a trail. Hell, that's road-bike speed.
> 
> Sure, I can hit that speed on the downhills but generally 12 MPH feels pretty fast on our trails.
> 
> When I ride on the roads people sometimes yell, "Get on the sidewalk." Sidewalks are neither suitable nor safe for a 230 pound guy riding a bike at twenty miles an hour. Likewise, most mountain bike trails are not suitable for carefree riders zipping along at high speed that they didn't have to work for.


Always find it strange when people form and express an opinion they have absolutely no experience of.

Not only are you complaining about a problem you haven't experienced, you're complaining about a problem that might not even exist.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

The two best ways to make sure MTB trails are used by MTBers is 1: help build them and 2: ride them. Both allow you to see what is going on and how to manage the issue. Trail workers get the chance to talk to trail users about things like behaviour on the trails and new users fall into the rhythm of the place if they have a pack mentality on show (not "pack" in the ripping you limbs off way).

If e bikes are an issue, they will be dealt with by the presence of MTB.


----------



## BigWheel28 (Jan 21, 2007)

It is really the bike that is causing problems?.... Or is it the riders with no respect for the trails or other users?

I ditto that shuttle riders and others who prefer to not work uphill are apt to be as bad or worse behavior than someone that chooses an electric bike.

I have ridden off road with electric bikes and it was interesting. I managed to keep min front for a few miles uphill on tight singletrack because I am in shape and could corner much smoother and recover my speed.

In the end the guy who rode the electric bike turned out to be a class a butthole with his attitude and that was my only takeaway issue.... bad person at the core!


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

LOL its all too funny I ride a E bike I was out riding the local trail 96st guy says to me that's a E bike its not allowed on our trails !, I point to the gravel pit across the st I say kid you see that company ??. I am retired from there and I rode these trails on my rock hopper back in the 90s, so my company donated this land for a MT bike park for us to enjoy .And for your info I got hurt badly working there and am now handicapped , I have no strength in my legs I can only stand or walk very short distances . But my desire to ride single track is so strong I just had to ride agene stop and think if the only way you could ride was on a Elec Bike you would too . I go to FL every yr for the supercross and love riding Santos and Alifa river my E bike has changed my life .


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

The guy who shows up on an ebike gets to haul the beer up the hill.

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Let us not hate on the E bike , I sold my car just ride a e bike now


----------



## ziscwg (May 18, 2007)

rider95 said:


> LOL its all too funny I ride a E bike I was out riding the local trail 96st guy says to me that's a E bike its not allowed on our trails !, I point to the gravel pit across the st I say kid you see that company ??. I am retired from there and I rode these trails on my rock hopper back in the 90s, so my company donated this land for a MT bike park for us to enjoy .And for your info I got hurt badly working there and am now handicapped , I have no strength in my legs I can only stand or walk very short distances . But my desire to ride single track is so strong I just had to ride agene stop and think if the only way you could ride was on a Elec Bike you would too . I go to FL every yr for the supercross and love riding Santos and Alifa river my E bike has changed my life .


You are a perfect exception for Ebikes. Something ADA related is fine IMHO.


----------



## rider95 (Mar 30, 2016)

Well thank you nice to hear the kind words its been ruff on here lol


----------



## rakerdeal (Oct 28, 2008)

Technology will continue to sell well and be sold to the biking community, and yes this includes a slow but steady e-bike world progression. More suspension; more power; faster; easier; and like our highways maybe even bigger and intimidating (read "safe"). it is all coming as it has in the past. The American way of doing things will dominate like it or not. I don't much like it myself. Too bad!


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

Self-driving is the new safe.... So maybe we will have self-riding eBikes


----------



## 1-track-mind (Aug 11, 2005)

rogercor said:


> Take it easy there pilgrim,
> Let me propose the following'
> As an ebiker with MS, rheumatoid arthritis, etc i have far more in common with you than differences.
> 
> ...


The silent majority speaks...that could be an autobiography.


----------



## Bjorn2Ride (Apr 4, 2017)

Ailuropoda said:


> Power assist is not really part of "our sport." There are plenty of multi-use trails in my area where you can ride with other powered vehicles.
> 
> Nobody hates you. It's just that if we allow you we open the gate to every eBike. Why are you special? Who else can make a case for using powered vehicles on trails and where do we draw the line?
> 
> ...


Buy the land. Post some signs.

Otherwise, good luck shutting out reasonable people from public land use. It's a losing battle. No one has been able to stop MTB poaching of hiking and horseback only trails. People have generally learned to coexist in a courteous manner.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Bjorn2Ride said:


> Buy the land. Post some signs.
> 
> Otherwise, good luck shutting out reasonable people from public land use. It's a losing battle. No one has been able to stop MTB poaching of hiking and horseback only trails. People have generally learned to coexist in a courteous manner.


 Or not. There is a clear and defined area for motos in MA. For the most part it has worked just fine.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Ailuropoda said:


> Power assist is not really part of "our sport." There are plenty of multi-use trails in my area where you can ride with other powered vehicles.
> 
> Nobody hates you. It's just that if we allow you we open the gate to every eBike. Why are you special? Who else can make a case for using powered vehicles on trails and where do we draw the line?
> 
> ...


So how bout folks that are into shuttling? Talk about lazy with a much bigger carbon footprint than any e-biker.

Do you shuttle bike at all ^^^^^^^^


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

leeboh said:


> Or not. There is a clear and defined area for motos in MA. For the most part it has worked just fine.


Not for moto riders - there isn't **** as far as legal trail goes on MA public lands.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

HacksawReynolds said:


> So how bout folks that are into shuttling? Talk about lazy with a much bigger carbon footprint than any e-biker.
> 
> Do you shuttle bike at all ^^^^^^^^


Speaking from experience (I've witnessed 3 different trails closed or partially closed to bikes because of the behavior of shuttle riders), yes, shuttling (meaning shuttling up something and riding your DH sled down) is generally incompatible with MUTs.

If we're talking Monarch Crest style XC rides that end lower than they start, different story, of course.

It's actually probably quite a bit worse than e-bikes for bike access overall, though the end result (people can get long travel bikes to the top with minimal effort) is similar. As of now, there are very few e-bikes, so it remains to be seen if they evolve into DH bikes with motors and cause problems.

-Walt


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> As a have stated previously, I would appreciate the local landmanager letting me and other Ebike supporters build Ebike type popular trails that mountain bikers would love to ride. If we were allowed to build those trails free of charge, I would ask that no mountain bikers would be allowed to ride these cool trails.


Bully for you, let us know when it's done.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Switchblade2 said:


> As a have stated previously, I would appreciate the local landmanager letting me and other Ebike supporters build Ebike type popular trails that mountain bikers would love to ride. If we were allowed to build those trails free of charge, I would ask that no mountain bikers would be allowed to ride these cool trails.


I'm sure your invitation will be arriving soon to your mailbox. Please be prepared to let them know how much money you need for equipment, engineering, etc so they can prepare the check for you.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> As a have stated previously, I would appreciate the local landmanager letting me and other Ebike supporters build Ebike type popular trails that mountain bikers would love to ride. If we were allowed to build those trails free of charge, I would ask that no mountain bikers would be allowed to ride these cool trails.


What's an ebike type popular trail? I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to understand what distinguishes an ebike trail from a normal one.

-Walt


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Walt said:


> Speaking from experience (I've witnessed 3 different trails closed or partially closed to bikes because of the behavior of shuttle riders), yes, shuttling (meaning shuttling up something and riding your DH sled down) is generally incompatible with MUTs.
> 
> If we're talking Monarch Crest style XC rides that end lower than they start, different story, of course.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your input, Walt ?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

We did a purpose built local shuttle run that's been in play for ages, but it's totally off the beaten track of any XC or hiking trails and is obviously a downhill specific trail that only someone who knows someone will ever end up on. Winds up in my buddy's yard next to his pool and BBQ. 2 minute party, for almost any type and level of rider.

Shuttle sessions can be a pretty damn good time IME.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yeah, to be clear - shuttling is fine with me, as is riding a chairlift, as is riding an e-bike or even a moto - on appropriate trails. 

That's pretty much *never* multi-use trails, though. If you are going to strap on pads and huck/shred the gnar, it should be on a directional, bike-only trail - no matter how you got to the top in the first place.

It's a bit baffling to me that e-bikes aren't allowed (in some places) on directional bike-only trails. Likewise it's baffling that they're allowed some places on MUTs with crowds and poor sight lines where even normal mountain bikes barely work. Local management of this kind of question is probably the best solution, where the folks who know the trail system can figure out where e-bikes fit in (or not) best.

-Walt


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Walt said:


> As of now, there are very few e-bikes, so it remains to be seen if they evolve into DH bikes with motors and cause problems.
> 
> -Walt


We'll see? There's little need really since the capabilites of a long travel, enduro type ebike are more than enough for almost all trails and riders. And, just as fast except in the garliest of the gnar.

The whole "ebikes are slower in (pick your location)" is hooey. They're only slower if the rider is slow.






Enduro vs E-bike





Where I live, DH bikes are rare on the trail since there are very few places you can shuttle where a DH bike wouldn't be a disadvantage, since the best shuttlable trails have significant climbing sections like you see on Monarch Crest. There's one trail in town (Jacks) I very occasionally do see them on, but they can only shuttle about 2/3rds of it and have to push up the rest. It'd be perfect for e-shuttling actually, but the push section is closed to motorized.

I don't care about chairlifts, car shuttles or driving your car to the grocery store, in the overall "saving the world" scheme of things, riding expensive mtbs or emtbs as a hobby is hardly altruistic, and isn't an appropriate argument either for or against ebikes on trails.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Switchblade2 said:


> As a have stated previously, I would appreciate the local landmanager letting me and other Ebike supporters build Ebike type popular trails that mountain bikers would love to ride. If we were allowed to build those trails free of charge, I would ask that no mountain bikers would be allowed to ride these cool trails.


 I'll just take the long plastic fake cover and put it on the downtube of my mt bike. Sort of a shoe on the other foot as it were. E bikes, no bikes, horses or walkers? I'll be waiting.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

slapheadmofo said:


> Not for moto riders - there isn't **** as far as legal trail goes on MA public lands.


Off the top of my head, Foxboro and Freetown state forest allow motos. I don't ride moto so I've never looked into it but I'm sure there are others.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

kpdemello said:


> Off the top of my head, Foxboro and Freetown state forest allow motos. I don't ride moto so I've never looked into it but I'm sure there are others.


Soooooooooo much moto riding available in mass it's silly. Plymouth county alone has hundreds of miles of it. It may not be "legal, but it's apparently not "illegal" either.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Switchblade2 said:


> As a have stated previously, I would appreciate the local landmanager letting me and other Ebike supporters build Ebike type popular trails that mountain bikers would love to ride. If we were allowed to build those trails free of charge, I would ask that no mountain bikers would be allowed to ride these cool trails.


Best post so far. As if people unwilling to pedal uphill are gonna show up for a trail build. Bwahahahahaaaha!


----------



## epic (Apr 16, 2005)

I saw tracks a few days ago from a moto on my local mountain bike trail. This dude had zero impact. As far as I'm concerned he can ride these trails any time he wants. It's obviously about the user, not what he is using.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^And about what the user is using is capable of. Motos turn mtb trails into moto trails, ebikes turn mtb trails into ebike trails. The heaviest or fastest user determines the lines after awhile.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Soooooooooo much moto riding available in mass it's silly. Plymouth county alone has hundreds of miles of it. It may not be "legal, but it's apparently not "illegal" either.


I was referring to legal. 
Yeah, there's lots of illegal/'grey area' stuff out there as well as a few private legal tracks. Lots of public land that used to allow them don't anymore; pretty much dried up when ATVs got popular, and when more whiny NIMBYs started moving out to the 'burbs.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Trails that were designed for motos that now exclude them due to noise would seem ideal for ebikes.

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

bsieb said:


> ^And about what the user is using is capable of. Motos turn mtb trails into moto trails, ebikes turn mtb trails into ebike trails. The heaviest or fastest user determines the lines after awhile.


And MTB'rs dumb down moto trails, e-bike trails, and MTB trails lol.😱


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

epic said:


> I saw tracks a few days ago from a moto on my local mountain bike trail. This dude had zero impact. As far as I'm concerned he can ride these trails any time he wants. It's obviously about the user, not what he is using.


One person doing one pass isn't going to do much, if any, harm but multiply that by a few thousand users over a decade and things will change. Those who use trails sensibly aren't the ones causing negative impacts. Guessing rates of impact follows something like the 80/20 rule (Pareto principle). 20% of the users cause 80% of the problem. Same goes for MTBs and E-bikes as well. Motos have the potential to cause a lot more damage given the increased power at the wheels, greater mass, and higher top speeds. Some of the same arguments apply to e-bikes in this case.


----------



## Osco (Apr 4, 2013)

*I finally saw an Ebike out on the trails !*

I laughed so hard It hurt !

Yep, he was a bit out of shape,
His battery dumped, bet he forgot to charge it up.
He was pushing that 50 pound motorbike up this long easy climb,
Head down and gulping air,

I'm not a total azz, I didn't laugh until I was way out of ear shot but 
I swear I didn't really see how close I was to that rider after two switchbacks, I think he heard me.

I gotta get me one of those one day,
When I'm just too old and weak to ride a mountain bike.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

An eBike discussion is usually about as productive as a discussion about abortion, or politics, or religion. People just can't seem to have a rational discussion without allowing emotions to run amok.

It is plainly obvious that many people (usually the anti-eBikers) have their minds made up and cherry pick data in order to support their opinion. Some cherry picked, yet out of context arguments, include:

-if it has a motor of any kind, it doesn't belong on non-motorized trails. This argument is legalistic, yet it fails to consider the legal definition of motorized vehicle.

-a 10,000W eBike can do 50mph! This argument of absurdio ad reductum uses the out of context extremes to argue a point for the whole. It's the same argument that gun control activists use when they try to ban a semi-automatic rifle by pointing to a fully automatic M-16.

-if a rider can't turn the pedals, then he shouldn't be on the trails. This argument is arrogant and exclusionary. Clearly, the purpose that one person rides for is not the purpose of the next guy. But the thing we all have in common is that we love to be outside enjoying that which nature provides.

-eBikes cause trail erosion. First of all, getting back to context, a class 1 eBike doesn't erode trails faster than a regular mountain bike. But that's a dangerous argument because hikers could argue that mountain bikers erode the trails faster than they do, so all MTBs should be banned. Truth is, erosion is natural. A good rainstorm will erode a trail quicker than a fleet of eBikes.

-there is a difference in speed between eBikes and MTBs, and that creates a hazard. But there is a difference in speed between a skilled MTBer and a new MTBer, yet we don't seek to ban skilled MTBers. There is also a difference in speed between an MTB and a hiker.



Bottom line is, many people have rational, reasonable points to make. But they are usually drowned out by the emotional ranters. If you have a point to make, great. But my suggestion is to honestly evaluate whether your point is rational or emotional before making it.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

There is another dangerous issue to consider. When people run around calling for banning eBikes, what they are doing is asking for government regulation. But let me offer a quick analogy.


Many years ago, I was an RC airplane enthusiast. I had a group of friends and we flew RC airplanes every weekend. There was a barrier to entry because of the cost and the skills required. Fast forward a decade and technology has developed such that RC aircraft are cheap and simple to fly. So, the government steps in and tries to use existing rules governing manned aircraft to regulate RC aircraft. This is much like the "motorized vehicle" argument that was clearly intended for dirt bikes and such. 

So, the knee jerk of government was to heavily regulate ALL RC aircraft, including the line of sight, skills requiring aircraft that I flew a decade ago with no intervention from government. Technology lowered the barriers to entry, so government felt compelled to regulate ALL.

eBikes are similar in that technology is lowering the fitness barrier to entry of our sport. So, government's first attempt is to regulate with existing rules (i.e. motorized vehicle restrictions). Next, we may see hyper regulation of ALL MTBers. The moral is, when you invite government into the tent, they aren't a well behaved lapdog that bans only what you think they should. Government's tendency is to overregulate everything. 

My concern is that people raising a stink for banning all eBikes is an open invitation for hyper-regulation of all MTBs. I think we should spend much more effort in refining classifications of eBikes before we ask government to step in and just ban everything. People will argue that it's not practical to distinguish a class 1 eBike from a class 3. But as a land manager, you could also argue that it's not practical to distinguish any eBike from a MTB, so they should all be regulated the same.

We are standing on a slippery slope here. We as a community should seriously consider what we want before making demands on government to ban anything.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> -if it has a motor of any kind, it doesn't belong on non-motorized trails.


Lots of people value non-motorized areas. For some they are treasures and it's not unreasonable that those people don't want to see the lines between motorized & non-motorized blurred. That doesn't necessarily mean they think that some trails currently designated as non-motorized areas shouldn't be considered for e-bike use, only that a sign saying "no motorized vehicles" should mean what it says.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> An eBike discussion is usually about as productive as a discussion about abortion, or politics, or religion. People just can't seem to have a rational discussion without allowing emotions to run amok.
> 
> It is plainly obvious that many people (usually the anti-eBikers) have their minds made up and cherry pick data in order to support their opinion. Some cherry picked, yet out of context arguments, include:
> 
> ...


 Do you get the meaning of NON MOTORIZED? Start there. Rational or emotional? How about start with the facts. Hmmm.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> There is another dangerous issue to consider. When people run around calling for banning eBikes, what they are doing is asking for government regulation. But let me offer a quick analogy.
> 
> Many years ago, I was an RC airplane enthusiast. I had a group of friends and we flew RC airplanes every weekend. There was a barrier to entry because of the cost and the skills required. Fast forward a decade and technology has developed such that RC aircraft are cheap and simple to fly. So, the government steps in and tries to use existing rules governing manned aircraft to regulate RC aircraft. This is much like the "motorized vehicle" argument that was clearly intended for dirt bikes and such.
> 
> ...


 There is no WE. The slippery slope is already there. E bikes are motorized vehicles, and need to be treated as such. To lump them in with mt bikes is the problem. Almost all states and land areas already have rules and regs concerning motorized vehicles. Gas, electric, battery whatever. They are welcome to ride where motorized vehicles are allowed. They are not banned from those areas. If you think they are sort of like mt bikes and should be allowed to access human powered trails? Well that is another issue. Refining classes of e bikes? There isn't any. For all practical purposes. How to tell by looking? You can't. Overrides and mods already exist. 250, 750, 3,000 watts look different? Nope. You ( or anyone) can't distinguish an e bike from a mt bike? I'll give you a hint, one has a motor. One doesn't. Mt bikes are already regulated in some areas and on some trails. E bikes need to forge their own way. Good luck with that. For now enjoy the jeep trails and other moto areas.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

leeboh said:


> Do you get the meaning of NON MOTORIZED? Start there. Rational or emotional? How about start with the facts. Hmmm.


This was beaten to death in a previous thread, but the short version is that the legal definition of motorized vehicle did not include class 1 ebikes. This was confirmed by an environmental attorney. Class 2 and 3 ebikes are motorized vehicles.

Remember, the term "motorized vehicle" was created long before ebikes were dreamed of.

That's rational. It reflects what the law actually says rather than what emotional people think it should mean.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> This was beaten to death in a previous thread, but the short version is that the legal definition of motorized vehicle did not include class 1 ebikes. This was confirmed by an environmental attorney. Class 2 and 3 ebikes are motorized vehicles.
> 
> Remember, the term "motorized vehicle" was created long before ebikes were dreamed of.
> 
> That's rational. It reflects what the law actually says rather than what emotional people think it should mean.


 It has a motor. Can't argue facts. And shouldn't. Part of the issue is that people confuse DOT rules with that of off road single track definitions of bicycles. There are "no" classes of e bikes. Sure, it might have a sticker and come from the factory in one configuration. The point is that every land agency, owner and regulatory body already has rules and regs concerning trail use for hiking, biking and motorized purposes. MA rider here. There are like 6 or so legal places to ride motos in the whole state. How's that e bike thing going in CA? I know they do have some test cases/trial runs out there. So you have lobbied, formed meetings, polled trail users and started an e bike advocacy group? So the " motorized " term was from the 60's ? when there were dirt bikes and jeeps and such. Then atvs. Now you have a 3-10,000 watt ( or so) electric dirt bike, atv or such( much more than an e bike) and say it doesn't apply to you? Look at it and see if it has a motor. Facts are facts.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> This was beaten to death in a previous thread, but the short version is that the legal definition of motorized vehicle did not include class 1 ebikes. This was confirmed by an environmental attorney. Class 2 and 3 ebikes are motorized vehicles.
> 
> Remember, the term "motorized vehicle" was created long before ebikes were dreamed of.
> 
> That's rational. It reflects what the law actually says rather than what emotional people think it should mean.


If you read the various legislations, you'll see that the laws defined class 1/2/3 ebikes as not being Motor Vehicles, which are a specific class of motorized vehicles,. They're still a motorized vehicle, but with the provision that they're allowed where bikes can go, to varying degrees depending on the state you're in, and the class. And depending what the local authorities have decided. So, if it a trail says "no motorized vehicles", ask, because there's no way to know.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> There is another dangerous issue to consider. When people run around calling for banning eBikes, what they are doing is asking for government regulation.


Actually, not banning them brings even more regulation.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Harryman said:


> If you read the various legislations, you'll see that the laws defined class 1/2/3 ebikes as not being Motor Vehicles, which are a specific class of motorized vehicles,. They're still a motorized vehicle, but with the provision that they're allowed where bikes can go, to varying degrees depending on the state you're in, and the class. And depending what the local authorities have decided. So, if it a trail says "no motorized vehicles", ask, because there's no way to know.


No... the point I made was that the regulations cited by USFS and BLM which defines a "motorized vehicle" does not encompass a class 1 eBike. As I have said before, this was confirmed by an environmental attorney. I really don't want to get into a legal argument with a bunch of people who aren't lawyers, but are emotionally charged. That goes nowhere. I'm just pointing out the fact that the thought process of "it's got a motor, it's a motorized vehicle" is oversimplistic and wrong.

But I think the larger point is being missed here. In the post where I mentioned the legal definition of motorized vehicle, I gave 5 examples of how people are emotional in their arguments rather than rational. Yet this is the only point that is cherry picked to argue. Even if I were wrong about the definition issue (and I'm not), I still have made the point about the hyper emotions surrounding this issue with the 4 other examples, and the dozens more that I could have stated. This issue is truly less about a rational exchange of ideas and more about saying "I'm right and you're wrong!" But I guess that was the point of my post in the first place.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

life behind bars said:


> Actually, not banning them brings even more regulation.


You may be making more of my point than you realize. I'm saying if you simply sit back on your MTB and shout "regulate all eBikes", your MTB will be swept up in that. As a community, whether you ride an eBike or not, we should be shouting "only regulate the classes of eBikes that are a significant departure from MTBs". A class 1 eBike is not a significant departure. A class 3 is. The community should educate themselves and form a rational opinion that is based on reality rather than conjecture so that our voices can be heard in unison. When we say "regulate eBikes", government land managers are not hearing ".... but leave MTBs alone!"


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> .... we should be shouting "only regulate the classes of eBikes that are a significant departure from MTBs".


That would be all of them.

My opinion based on conjecture and raw emotion.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> A class 1 eBike is not a significant departure.


It's still a departure and it still has the one thing that is inescapable. It might seem like an insignificant detail but other user groups are already pointing to it and using it in efforts to exclude ALL bicycles because someone decided that it was too hard to pedal a bicycle.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> You may be making more of my point than you realize. I'm saying if you simply sit back on your MTB and shout "regulate all eBikes", your MTB will be swept up in that. As a community, whether you ride an eBike or not, we should be shouting "only regulate the classes of eBikes that are a significant departure from MTBs". A class 1 eBike is not a significant departure. A class 3 is. The community should educate themselves and form a rational opinion that is based on reality rather than conjecture so that our voices can be heard in unison. When we say "regulate eBikes", government land managers are not hearing ".... but leave MTBs alone!"


Last time I checked bikes don't have motors. At all, Ever. E bikes are something else. And need to be treated as such. Motorized vehicles are already regulated. Significant departure? Umm yes. It has a motor. There are "no" classes of e bikes, stickers and how it comes from the factory, sure. After that, anything goes. And again, there is no WE. A clear line in the sand for division. You keep saying we are on the same team, not. It's like Red Sox and Yankees, not compatible. E bikes have to earn their own seat at the table, not motor up on the mt bikers coat tails. What is your e bike advocacy plan?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I have little to no problem with "class 1" type e-bikes being allowed on MTB trails in general.

But they are NOT mountain bikes and need to remain classified as a separate user group from mountain bikes, with the incredibly obvious defining feature being a motor.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

All the bull$#!t about, "This is going to happen, so we better work together..." or Class 1 vs class 3.... Or "Where is your data saying e bikes are more blah blah blah" are just attempts to cloud the simple reality to people who ride bicycles.


Does your cycle have a motor? 
If yes, then you are not mountain biking, you are motor biking in some form or another.
Conversation over.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

So much anger. So much vitriol. This bitterness will lead to no good for MTBers. 

I don't have an eBike, nor am I planning on getting one. But I do understand that once government managers start regulating... they always tend to over regulate. And the angry people here are offering the regulators an invitation to do just that.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

There was a time where people would say, "bicycles don't have gears". And there was a time when people would say, "bicycles don't have suspension". But those advances were absorbed. I still believe this is very much like the anger from the snow skier community once snowboards were introduced. eBikes are here and they are going to get more popular. We would all be far better off trying to find ways to live with them rather than being condescending towards them.


----------



## raisingarizona (Feb 3, 2009)

Came to this forum for some cool trail building stuff but I mostly got E-bike drama.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> But I do understand that once government managers start regulating...


Uhmm, they already do so please try to keep up.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> There was a time where people would say, "bicycles don't have gears". And there was a time when people would say, "bicycles don't have suspension". But those advances were absorbed. I still believe this is very much like the anger from the snow skier community once snowboards were introduced. eBikes are here and they are going to get more popular. We would all be far better off trying to find ways to live with them rather than being condescending towards them.


Okay, you voiced your belief, can we move on now?


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

Jim_bo said:


> There was a time where people would say, "bicycles don't have gears". And there was a time when people would say, "bicycles don't have suspension". But those advances were absorbed. I still believe this is very much like the anger from the snow skier community once snowboards were introduced. eBikes are here and they are going to get more popular. We would all be far better off trying to find ways to live with them rather than being condescending towards them.


Bikes for the last +100 years have always had one common theme: the human is the power source. Gears, suspension, carbon fiber, etc. haven't changed that fundamental concept. The distinction between bike/e-bike is more fundamental than ski/snowboard. It's a human power vs. motor issue.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

The difference is, the definition of a bicycle has always been that it is human powered. The definition did not say "single geared", "without suspension", etc. So while gears and suspension were new additions to bicycles, they did not go against the very definition of a bicycle whereas a motor does.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Bikes are human powered. Ebikes are powered by a motor. Motorized use is prohibited on human powered trails by most federal agencies. The attempt to appropriate mtb trails for motorized use won't succeed, and no one will build ebike trails. The "uninformed" who make the decisions can't get past the motor either. All our private land trail ROWs specifically prohibit motorized bicycles, the landowners demand it. They don't allow horses either, only hikers and human powered bicycles, with which they have no problem. Talk is cheap...


----------



## TSleep (Aug 1, 2016)

This is one issue Washington state got right, no ebikes on trails designated non-motorized


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

Live and let live. As long as they're not being a legitimate danger to others or damaging the trails who cares.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

FLYINW said:


> Live and let live. As long as they're not being a legitimate danger to others or damaging the trails who cares.


That's an unpopular opinion here.


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

Jim_bo said:


> That's an unpopular opinion here.


Yeah my opinions have been a bit unpopular with the establishment around here.


----------



## ki5ka (Dec 17, 2006)

raisingarizona said:


> Came to this forum for some cool trail building stuff but I mostly got E-bike drama.


I agree! A few months ago it was all about wilderness. I would really like this forum to be about actual trail-building and get the rest of these discussions moved over to "other". Perhaps then we might attract more people actually interested in discussions about building trails.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

ki5ka said:


> I agree! A few months ago it was all about wilderness. I would really like this forum to be about actual trail-building and get the rest of these discussions moved over to "other". Perhaps then we might attract more people actually interested in discussions about building trails.


Until recently, they were confined to the ebike forum but unfortunately, the site owner decided to move any ebike trail access threads to this forum.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^This is the trail building AND advocacy forum. Where trail builders and advocaters talk about whatever concerns them.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

bsieb said:


> ^This is the trail building AND advocacy forum. Where trail builders and advocaters talk about whatever concerns them.


And it's not exactly hard to avoid threads with 'Electric Bike' right in the title.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Rode one of these today. What's not to like??*♂
https://amp.bmc-switzerland.com/e-bikes/trailfox-amp-two.html


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> Even if I were wrong about the definition issue (and I'm not),


Actually you are only partially correct in your stated belief about the definition of a motorized Vehicle. You are also partially wrong about it.

* Some places have ruled that specific Class eBikes are not to be defined as motorized vehicles when it comes to vehicle code. This generally applies to use on the street.
* Some places have ruled that specific class eBikes are to be defined as motorized vehicles when it comes to vehicle code for street use.
* Some places have ruled that specific Class eBikes are not to be included in the ban of Motorized Vehicles on Multi-Use dirt trails.
* Some places have ruled that the Land Management Agencies have the final say if specific classes of eBikes are allowed on Multi-use trails.
* Some places have rules that specific Class eBikes are to be included in the ban of Motorized Vehicles on Multi-use dirt trails. (USFS being a primary example)

The reason posts like yours incite so much response is because you are speaking in absolutes about a subject that is not universally defined by absolutes. Stop intentionally string the pot with statements like the one I quoted. Keep doing it and I will consider your posts to be trolling and ban you from the site.


----------



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

HacksawReynolds said:


> Rode one of these today. What's not to like??*♂
> https://amp.bmc-switzerland.com/e-bikes/trailfox-amp-two.html


No doubt, bet I could nail all kinds of koms with that thing!

The other day as I was drifting through a braid around a corner whilst attempting to score a kom a thought came to mind, "I'm not sure Hack would approve of this."


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> No doubt, bet I could nail" all kinds of koms with that thing!
> 
> The other day as I was drifting through a braid around a corner whilst attempting to score a kom a thought came to mind, "I'm not sure Hack would approve of this."


It has the "e-specific geo, adjusted to the needs of the e-mountainbiker"

So that means.....?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Klurejr said:


> Actually you are only partially correct in your stated belief about the definition of a motorized Vehicle. You are also partially wrong about it.
> 
> * Some places have ruled that specific Class eBikes are not to be defined as motorized vehicles when it comes to vehicle code. This generally applies to use on the street.
> * Some places have ruled that specific class eBikes are to be defined as motorized vehicles when it comes to vehicle code for street use.
> ...


You know exactly what I'm talking about because you were knee deep in the discussion about the legal definition of motorized vehicle. I raised the point based on the plain language of the law and my point was confirmed by an authoritative source (an environmental attorney). The point of the legal definition has nothing to do with the points that you are making and you know it. So, ironically, it is you who seems to be trolling me.

My point was based in law and confirmed by an environmental attorney. Your rebuttal was based only in conjecture and your willingness to abuse your moderator authority in an attempt to silence people who state facts contrary to your opinions.

I have not used any personal pejoratives or an uncivil tone in any of my posts (despite the plethora of pejoratives and uncivil posts directed at me). So, if you think telling the truth is trolling, then feel free to abuse your moderator authority (again) and ban me (again). But you would do so only in the vain attempt to perpetuate ignorance of the actual law and how it applies to this controversial topic.

If you were anything akin to a reasonable moderator, you would admit that there is at least some legal basis for my opinion and that it has indeed been substantiated by the only attorney on this site who has made his legal opinion known. Then, you could invite others to either agree, disagree, our present a contrary legal opinion. That's the point of discussion forums... fully discussing issues, rather than just repeating ones that have popular acceptance.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> No doubt, bet I could nail all kinds of koms with that thing!
> 
> The other day as I was drifting through a braid around a corner whilst attempting to score a kom a thought came to mind, "I'm not sure Hack would approve of this."


Please please e nail every KOM you can find braid or not!!!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> there is at least some legal basis for my opinion and that it has indeed been substantiated by the only attorney on this site who has made his legal opinion known.


ANY issue you can find a lawyer to argue each side, doesn't substantiate anything. The fact that you don't own an ebike nor plan to get one but yet you go on a mountain biking site and continuously post ridiculous claims about ebikes makes you a troll in my book. "Telling the truth", nice try.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

chazpat said:


> ANY issue you can find a lawyer to argue each side, doesn't substantiate anything. The fact that you don't own an ebike nor plan to get one but yet you go on a mountain biking site and continuously post ridiculous claims about ebikes makes you a troll in my book. "Telling the truth", nice try.


There is a big difference between being a legal advocate and offering a legal opinion. So, are you suggesting for an expert legal opinion we should not ask an attorney?


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

Jim_bo said:


> There is a big difference between being a legal advocate and offering a legal opinion. So, are you suggesting for an expert legal opinion we should not ask an attorney?


He didn't suggest that. What are you talking about?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> There is a big difference between being a legal advocate and offering a legal opinion. So, are you suggesting for an expert legal opinion we should not ask an attorney?


Sure, if you want his OPINION. And that's all you'll get. And you know what they say about opinions.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> There is a big difference between being a legal advocate and offering a legal opinion. So, are you suggesting for an expert legal opinion we should not ask an attorney?


I'm suggesting that nobody cares what wannabe lawyers and their inflated egos have to say.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

chazpat said:


> Sure, if you want his OPINION. And that's all you'll get. And you know what they say about opinions.


They say everyone has an opinion. However, I was talking about a legal opinion, which is something very different. Only an attorney can offer a legal opinion. And so far, there has only been one.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> They say everyone has an opinion. However, I was talking about a legal opinion, which is something very different. Only an attorney can offer a legal opinion. And so far, there has only been one.


Please provide a link to this legal opinion.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> They say everyone has an opinion. However, I was talking about a legal opinion, which is something very different. Only an attorney can offer a legal opinion. And so far, there has only been one.


 " There can only be one" I too love the highlander.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> So much anger. So much vitriol. This bitterness will lead to no good for MTBers.
> 
> I don't have an eBike, nor am I planning on getting one. But I do understand that once government managers start regulating... they always tend to over regulate. And the angry people here are offering the regulators an invitation to do just that.


 No e bike? Just a wannabe lawyer speaking up for the downtrodden and oppressed?


----------



## raisingarizona (Feb 3, 2009)

I gotta say, I don't think they are gonna be a big deal to share the trails with.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

raisingarizona said:


> I gotta say, I don't think they are gonna be a big deal to share the trails that I ride. YMMV


fify


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

chazpat said:


> Please provide a link to this legal opinion.


It was the opinon of a lawyer, not a legal opinion, a very different thing. Until someone challenges the USFS/BLM's position, in court, and wins, it's all conjecture.


----------



## burtjason (Oct 31, 2015)

Just came across this thread....thought I'd chime in. I remember back in the 80's when mtbs were banned from almost all trails. Didn't seem fair. We paid taxes too. Let us have access to some. We could help build and maintain trails. In those days, there were no suspension. There was a natural limit on how fast you could go on rough trails. Personally, I'm not in favor of banning anyone from our nations trails as long as they don't affect other users (like undue trail erosion). I've never been on a peddle-assist e-bike, but they seem to be harmless. If speed is the problem, wouldn't it be more reasonable to ban suspension? Suspension allows for some pretty crazy speeds. The advantage for e-bikes is going up.....which are at fairly low speeds. Overall, I believe in sharing. Something that many elitist hikers didn't in the old days.


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

burtjason said:


> Just came across this thread....thought I'd chime in. I remember back in the 80's when mtbs were banned from almost all trails. Didn't seem fair. We paid taxes too. Let us have access to some. We could help build and maintain trails. In those days, there were no suspension. There was a natural limit on how fast you could go on rough trails. Personally, I'm not in favor of banning anyone from our nations trails as long as they don't affect other users (like undue trail erosion). I've never been on a peddle-assist e-bike, but they seem to be harmless. If speed is the problem, wouldn't it be more reasonable to ban suspension? Suspension allows for some pretty crazy speeds. The advantage for e-bikes is going up.....which are at fairly low speeds. Overall, I believe in sharing. Something that many elitist hikers didn't in the old days.


I don't see an issue with ebikes on mtb trails either but it seems like the elitist snobs would rather not share anything.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^Entitled trail consumers, with a big heaping scoop of naivete for emphasis.


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

Non-motorized means well non-motorized. So yes or no... does an eBike have a motor.


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

STT GUY said:


> Non-motorized means well non-motorized. So yes or no... does an eBike have a motor.


Don't give a rats ass if it does. It's still not a motorcycle, it's a toy just like a bicycle


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

FLYINW said:


> Don't give a rats ass if it does. It's still not a motorcycle, it's a toy just like a bicycle


Moped.


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> Moped.


Wouldn't even classify it as that.


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

What makes it not a motorcycle? I don't really have a horse in the race, just wondering where the line is drawn


FLYINW said:


> Don't give a rats ass if it does. It's still not a motorcycle, it's a toy just like a bicycle


Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## burtjason (Oct 31, 2015)

It doesn't have a throttle. It's not self propelled......you need to pedal to get a boost. I just don't see why this is such a big controversy. They are not loud and disrupt the peace. Full suspension would do more of that hurtling down a trail at break neck speeds with the potential to scare the sh*t out of hikers and horses. I don't have a horse in the race either. Just seems sooooo unbelievably petty to me. All should share.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

burtjason said:


> It doesn't have a throttle. It's not self propelled......you need to pedal to get a boost. I just don't see why this is such a big controversy. They are not loud and disrupt the peace. Full suspension would do more of that hurtling down a trail at break neck speeds with the potential to scare the sh*t out of hikers and horses. I don't have a horse in the race either. Just seems sooooo unbelievably petty to me. All should share.


More importantly, it doesn't damage natural-surface trails any more than any other bicycle.

I don't have dog in this fight either. I don't own an e-bike and don't have immediate plans to get one. But I think they're very interesting and as I get older, I can see the possibility of an e-bike in my future.

There are three main anti-e-bike arguments that I typically see trotted out here on this website:

No sweat equity. The e-bike rider isn't really "earning" the right to be on the trails with real mountain bikers because a motor is doing part of the work.
They can be easily modified or hacked to put out more power than they're classified and it's hard to tell if that's actually been done.
Trail access might be jeopardized in some areas because they have specified "no motorized vehicles". This is the basis for the often-frantic and dogmatic assertion that _all_ e-bikes are motor vehicles. Which of course is silly, but categorizing and negatively labeling something is a common tactic in trying to get it squashed either by public opinion or for purposes of anti-legislation.

The first two arguments are silly IMHO, but the last one might have some validity in some parts of the US on some trail systems. "Real" mountain bikers are afraid, rightly or wrongly, that e-mtbs on those trails will jeopardize trail access for all mountain bikers. That one is impossible to refute as a blanket statement because there are a huge variety of types of trail systems and management...public, state, local, private organizations, Federal. As a result, there are a huge number of rules about how can actually ride on those trails and with what kind of hardware. You just can't say that the access argument is silly because in a lot of places it's a very real problem. I think it's clear that those attitudes and rules will change as e-bikes become more popular, the technology improves, more money is invested by manufacturers, and as attitudes change. It's very, very rare that advancing technology doesn't ultimately overwhelm public attitudes opposing it. I'm pretty confident that the whole e-bike concept won't be any different.


----------



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

burtjason said:


> All should share.


All? Lots of atv owners say the same thing.

Sharing is caring.


----------



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

Cuyuna said:


> There are three main anti-e-bike arguments that I typically see trotted out here on this website:


#4: Lots of people place high value on motor-free refuges. You may not agree with that or understand it but that makes it no less true.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> #4: Lots of people place high value on motor-free refuges. You may not agree with that or understand it but that makes it no less true.


I do think it's silly, but you're right...it is very true. I'd be more impressed with the argument if it wasn't for the fact that e-mtb's are as silent as a legacy bicycle.


----------



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

Cuyuna said:


> I'd be more impressed with the argument if it wasn't for the fact that e-mtb's are as silent as a legacy bicycle.


I don't know what a legacy bicycle is but electric bikes aren't as silent as bicycles. Almost but not quite.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Access where I live will definitely be impacted if people just declare 'mountain bikes have motors now, deal with it', which seems to be about as far as many e-bike proponents seem to want to think it through.

I'm not bothered by e-bikes at all, just don't pretend that they're mountain bikes. There will definitely be a lot of flak coming at e-bikers trying to gain access in the northeast, I and most mountain bikers I know just want to be left out of it all. 

FWIW, a pedal activated throttle is still a throttle, a pedal activated motor is still a motor. No, they're not dirt bikes, but neither are they a bicycle.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Talk about ridiculous arguments, people think that just because people are buying ebikes that they will be allowed on trails. Where does this come from? Where I am from, we are fighting constantly for real mountain bikes to gain more access. There is no way that just because you buy one, trails will open.


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

I'd be willing to bet most people wouldn't notice an ebike unless they were going out of their way looking for them or the ebiker was drawing attention to themselves. I don't have any issue sharing a trail with anyone as long as they're not being a danger to others or damaging the trails.


----------



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

FLYINW said:


> I'd be willing to bet most people wouldn't notice an ebike unless they were going out of their way looking for them or the ebiker was drawing attention to themselves.


Admittedly I haven't seen that many of them yet but the ones I have seen I noticed from a long ways off because the speed appeared unnatural compared with the riders relaxed posture. I wasn't looking for them, just noticed something weird and then saw the motor as they went by.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> *I don't know what a legacy bicycle is *but electric bikes aren't as silent as bicycles. Almost but not quite.


Heh heh...it's what you and I (and sfgiansfan) are riding. You know...old-school bicycles...:lol:


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Talk about ridiculous arguments, people think that just because people are buying ebikes that they will be allowed on trails. Where does this come from? Where I am from, we are fighting constantly for real mountain bikes to gain more access. There is no way that just because you buy one, trails will open.


Time will tell...


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Cuyuna said:


> Time will tell...


Time will tell what? 
No trails have been opened in this area just because we own mountain bikes, or trucks or atvs or dirtbikes.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

FLYINW said:


> Wouldn't even classify it as that.


Actually, US Class 1-3 ebikes are treated like mopeds in much of the rest of the world, the EU specifically. Either because of higher power, higher cut off speeds, or both. It's not an apple to apple comparison with Europe.


----------



## railntrail (Jun 18, 2009)

Ahh so that’s how you can tell 🤣


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

Stay focused.... Does it have a motor?? Yes or no?


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

Plenty of "twist and go" eBikes that will go 25+ with no pedalling. The BLM and Forrest Service decided to ban then rather than try to regulate all the different classes.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

STT GUY said:


> Stay focused.... Does it have a motor?? Yes or no?


More relevant...does it have a throttle, or do you have to pedal it?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> More relevant...does it have a throttle, or do you have to pedal it?


Come on, you're smart enough to know a pedal assist still has a throttle. Just because it is controlled through the pedals does not magically turn it into a non-throttle. My car doesn't have a twist throttle, either.


----------



## armii (Jan 9, 2016)

RIVER29 said:


> When I was researching the laws on this I found that CO state law says that electric assist bikes are banned from bike paths and trails unless marked otherwise or overridden by local law. You'll have to find that one on your own if you want to double check... I'm not arguing this anymore.


» E-bikes are regulated like bicycles. The same rules of the road
apply to both e-bikes and human-powered bicycles.
» E-bikes are not subject to the registration, licensing, or
insurance requirements that apply to motor vehicles.
» Colorado designates three classes of e-bikes:
• Class 1: Bicycle equipped with a motor that provides
assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to
provide assistance when the e-bike reaches 20 mph.
• Class 2: Bicycle equipped with a throttle-actuated motor, that
ceases to provide assistance when the e-bike reaches 20 mph.
• Class 3 : Bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance
only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance
when the e-bike reaches 28 mph.
» Helmets are required for riders of Class 3 e-bikes under 21 years of
age. Persons under 16 years of age may not ride a Class 3 e-bike.
There are certain access restrictions for Class 3 e-bike riders.
» Local governments have the authority to restrict the use of e-bikes
under motor power on bike paths. When in doubt, check with your
town, city, or county for local rules and regulations.


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

This is a discussion pretty much about EBikes on non-motorized trail. So.. Does it have a motor? The answer to that question defines if its appropriate for non-motorized trails. )ou can deflect all you want and feign ignorance as well but it comes down to a single question. Yep.


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

Narcissism.


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

Mopeds


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

So it a 1500 Watt eBike with a turbo button capable of 30 mph cool with you? Plenty of them out here....


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Cuyuna said:


> More relevant...does it have a throttle, or do you have to pedal it?


Nope. Fake News. Pretend pedaling. Go away.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

chazpat said:


> Come on, you're smart enough to know a pedal assist still has a throttle. Just because it is controlled through the pedals does not magically turn it into a non-throttle. *My car doesn't have a twist throttle, either.*


Presumably, you don't have to pedal your car to make it go? E-bike doesn't go anywhere unless you pedal it.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

STT GUY said:


> Plenty of "twist and go" eBikes that will go 25+ with no pedalling. The BLM and Forrest Service decided to ban then rather than try to regulate all the different classes.


If it's a "twist and go" bike capable of 25+ m.p.h., Then it's not a class 1.

And you are wrong about BLM's motivation. The truth is, they have put very little effort into thinking about reasonable regulations for ebike. They simply took the position that they already have a decades old regulation for motorized vehicles that was originally intended for ohvs. So instead of being thoughtful and rational about ebikes, they just lumped them in with quads and dirt bikes. If you really think a class 1 eBike is inappropriate mixed with mtbs, then they are grossly inappropriate mixed with ohvs!


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

DaveVt said:


> Nope. Fake News. Pretend pedaling. *Go away.*


Heh heh. Pedaling is pedaling. It certainly doesn't appear that e-bikes are going away, especially based on the controversy that they increasingly generate here.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

STT GUY said:


> This is a discussion pretty much about EBikes on non-motorized trail. So.. Does it have a motor? The answer to that question defines if its appropriate for non-motorized trails. )ou can deflect all you want and feign ignorance as well but it comes down to a single question. Yep.


Your accusations of ignorance are ironic. Class 1 ebikes do not fit into the definition of "motorized vehicle" as per the CFR which BLM and USFS rely upon for "banning" ebikes from non motorized trails. So, while you argue the technicality of "does it have a motor? ", the legal technicality is that class 1 ebikes are not motorized vehicles.

Think of it like this, some high end bikes have electronic shift. That means, they have a motor. But using the brain dead, over simplification of, "does it have a motor? ", that high end mtb would be a motorized vehicle.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Cuyuna said:


> Heh heh. Pedaling is pedaling. It certainly doesn't appear that e-bikes are going away, especially based on the controversy that they increasingly generate here.


They may not be going away but they increasingly aren't going on single track either.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> They may not be going away but they increasingly aren't going on single track either.
> 
> View attachment 1207172


Apparently not around there. And not yet.....


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

Whine, gripe, ***** and cry all you want, change is coming whether you like it or not and ebikes are part of that.


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

not true..... Plenty of twist n go models out there. Do some research or stop feigning ignorance.


----------



## STT GUY (May 19, 2009)

I hope so.... I would love to see the eBike crowd do even ten percent of the advocacy and trail building the non-moped folks have!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> Presumably, you don't have to pedal your car to make it go? E-bike doesn't go anywhere unless you pedal it.


<sigh> we 've been through all of this several times. My car doesn't go unless I push the gas pedal. The more I push, the faster it goes. They could easy build a car that is throttle controlled by the rate at which you turn a crank with pedals, even multiplying your effort by X percent. And I guess, some people would claim it was no longer a car. I get that pedal assist is not 100% the same as a twist throttle no-pedal-necessary. But don't kid yourself here about what pedal assist is. They could just as easily have called it motor assist, but that would have messed up their marketing plan.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

chazpat said:


> <sigh> we 've been through all of this several times. My car doesn't go unless I push the gas pedal. The more I push, the faster it goes. They could easy build a car that is throttle controlled by the rate at which you turn a crank with pedals, even multiplying your effort by X percent. And I guess, some people would claim it was no longer a car. I get that pedal assist is not 100% the same as a twist throttle no-pedal-necessary. But don't kid yourself here about what pedal assist is. They could just as easily have called it motor assist, but that would have messed up their marketing plan.


I don't spend any time trying to parse semantics and labels and certainly am not going to argue about bicycle company marketing plans. The issue seems perfectly clear to me, although I don't have nearly as much at stake emotionally as many or most of you guys and don't spend as much time thinking about it. To me, the whole e-bike thing is what it is...and for me an entirely moot issue. If someone ever puts this on a ballot for me to vote on, I'll vote "yes", but I'm certainly not going to spend any time campaigning for it. The whole issue just doesn't affect me, partly because I don't ride one, partly because e-bikes are already legal everywhere I ride, and partly because by the time I'm likely to be looking to need or buy an e-bike, they're likely to be long-since legal in most/all places.


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)




----------



## railntrail (Jun 18, 2009)

Is it legal to ride a class 1 pedal assisted E bike on illegally built non motorized trails ? My outlaw trail building pal says no way but I say Hell Yes ! What do you guys think 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

railntrail said:


> Is it legal to ride a class 1 pedal assisted E bike on illegally built non motorized trails ? My outlaw trail building pal says no way but I say Hell Yes ! What do you guys think
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Is there really not enough pointless arguing without this?


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Jim_bo said:


> Is there really not enough pointless arguing without this?


I think you mean pointless _trolling_&#8230;


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

railntrail said:


> Is it legal to ride a class 1 pedal assisted E bike on illegally built non motorized trails ? My outlaw trail building pal says no way but I say Hell Yes ! What do you guys think
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Careful, outlaws don't always play nice.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Jim_bo said:


> Your accusations of ignorance are ironic. Class 1 ebikes do not fit into the definition of "motorized vehicle" as per the CFR which BLM and USFS rely upon for "banning" ebikes from non motorized trails. So, while you argue the technicality of "does it have a motor? ", the legal technicality is that class 1 ebikes are not motorized vehicles.
> 
> Think of it like this, some high end bikes have electronic shift. That means, they have a motor. But using the brain dead, over simplification of, "does it have a motor? ", that high end mtb would be a motorized vehicle.


How brain dead is it to say that a motor on a bike makes it not motorized. Think about for a second. That is your argument in all of this. That motor that you see, that makes my bicycle capable of world class speeds, is not there.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

sfgiantsfan said:


> How brain dead is it to say that a motor on a bike makes it not motorized. Think about for a second. That is your argument in all of this. That motor that you see, that makes my bicycle capable of world class speeds, is not there.


I'm not making an argument. I'm only recognizing the law for what it is rather than what you think it should be.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> I'm not making an argument. I'm only recognizing the law for what it is rather than what you think it should be.


Motor vehicle law doesn't really mean jack when you are discussing access to dirt. Good luck with that burning straw man.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

FLYINW said:


> Whine, gripe, ***** and cry all you want, change is coming whether you like it or not and ebikes are part of that.


 Umm, just because? Or what? All those hikers that dislike mt bikes are suddenly going to embrace motorized versions? Or the horse owners now want them going by faster? Or the laws will just change by themselves? Hmm. I'll keep waiting I guess.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

life behind bars said:


> Motor vehicle law doesn't really mean jack when you are discussing access to dirt. Good luck with that burning straw man.


You haven't even read my posts. I never mentioned anything about motor vehicle law. Not only are you trying to believe the law says what you want it to say, but you are also trying to believe that I have said things that you'd want to argue against.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Jim_bo said:


> You haven't even read my posts. I never mentioned anything about motor vehicle law. Not only are you trying to believe the law says what you want it to say, but you are also trying to believe that I have said things that you'd want to argue against.


Correct, I don't read your never ending rants. Until you can cite irrefutable proof you are just another ill informed wannabe lawyer. And I hate lawyers. And wannabe's.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

leeboh said:


> Umm, just because? Or what? All those hikers that dislike mt bikes are suddenly going to embrace motorized versions? Or the horse owners now want them going by faster? Or the laws will just change by themselves? Hmm. I'll keep waiting I guess.


The post of yours that I have read say something like the BLM and FS can't just ban them because the law says they are not motorized vehicles. That does not take in to account that they have fuc7ing motors. Brain dead AF and the BLM and FS can ban anything they want, like motors


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

sfgiantsfan said:


> The post of yours that I have read say something like the BLM and FS can't just ban them because the law says they are not motorized vehicles. That does not take in to account that they have fuc7ing motors. Brain dead AF and the BLM and FS can ban anything they want, like motors


That's not what I said. But that is what you wanted to read.

BLM and USFS rely on a legal definition from the CFR to define "motorized vehicle". From that, they have created a series of trail systems where vehicles fitting the legal definition of "motorized vehicles" are excluded. Therefore, vehicles that fit the legal definition defined in the CFR as "motorized vehicles" are not allowed on non-motorized trails. But class 1 eBikes are not encompassed in the legal CFR definition of "motorized vehicle". So, until BLM and USFS create new regulations, class 1 eBikes are not excluded from "non-motorized" trails. They can exclude them; they just haven't done so yet.

That's what I did say. Things I didn't say:

-I did not say BLM and USFS can't exclude class 1 eBikes 
-I did not advocate violating any law or regulation
-I did not say class 1 eBikes are bicycles
-I did not say they are more or less safe than an MTB
-I did not say that class 1 eBikes aren't motorized from a common sense perspective, I only said that they are not a motorized vehicle as per the CFR legal definition of motorized vehicle

It seems to me that anti-eBikers are so absolute in their commitment. They say things like: "If you don't like the regulation, then work to change it!!" Well, I have no problem with the regulations as they do not exclude class 1 eBikes. So, if anti-eBikers don't like that, they are the ones who should seek to change the regulations.

Anti-eBikers also love to rant: "if it's got a motor, it's a motorized vehicle! PERIOD!!" But when I point out that high end MTB's using electronic shift technology (such as Shimano's Di2) have motors in them and by the absolute standards set by anti-eBikers, it should be banned. But no anti-eBiker has the courage to stand behind his "it's got a motor" rant when confronted with this example of reductio ad absurdum. They all just go silent.

So, if you hate the idea of eBikes on your MTB trails on federal property, you should lobby for a change in the regulations. If you believe that "It has a motor, so it's a motorized vehicle", then I'll wait for you to explain how the electronic shift bikes aren't included in your broad sweeping generalization.

sfgiansfan, you should take a look at your own signature line. I'm sure its self-contradictory message was meant to be a weak attempt at humor. However, it seems that it well defines who you are and your self-contradictory stance against eBikes.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> Anti-eBikers also love to rant: "if it's got a motor, it's a motorized vehicle! PERIOD!!" But when I point out that high end MTB's using electronic shift technology (such as Shimano's Di2) have motors in them and by the absolute standards set by anti-eBikers, it should be banned. But no anti-eBiker has the courage to stand behind his "it's got a motor" rant when confronted with this example of reductio ad absurdum. They all just go silent.


They all go silent because it's a silly example, a Di2 servo motor does not propel the bike.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> Anti-eBikers also love to rant: "if it's got a motor, it's a motorized vehicle! PERIOD!!" But when I point out that high end MTB's using electronic shift technology (such as Shimano's Di2) have motors in them and by the absolute standards set by anti-eBikers, it should be banned. But no anti-eBiker has the courage to stand behind his "it's got a motor" rant when confronted with this example of reductio ad absurdum. They all just go silent.


You're like a flat-earther, or young-earther for that matter, wanting to debate those things with reasonable people and thinking that since no one bothers to engage, it must prove them right.

Nope, it just proves that you've come up with another idea that is simply too stupid to bother addressing.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> They all go silent because it's a silly example, a Di2 servo motor does not propel the bike.


But that's not the rant. The rant is that "if it has a motor, it is a motorized vehicle.. PERIOD!" The rant was never, "if it has a motor that propels the bike, then it's a motorized vehicle!". Now it seems that you are making exceptions for the absolute statement.

For the record, I don't disagree with you. I think you have made my point for me. Simply saying, "it has a motor, so it's a motorized vehicle" is clearly over-simplistic. It is not applicable in all situations. Hence, my point that the over-simplistic position is inappropriate when talking about federal regulations. You have to look at what the actual laws/regulations say. You can't just rely on what you think they should have said.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> But that's not the rant. The rant is that "if it has a motor, it is a motorized vehicle.. PERIOD!" The rant was never, "if it has a motor that propels the bike, then it's a motorized vehicle!".


It just seems so obvious that it doesn't require mentioning, only a lawyer would want further clarification.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> It just seems so obvious that it doesn't require mentioning, only a lawyer would want further clarification.


Or an internet wannabe lawyer.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Though I think it's a stupid argument, I'd be ok with banning all motors, including ones that shift gears. Last thing I want to have to worry about is if a battery is charged before and while I'm riding.


----------



## 786737 (Mar 13, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> It just seems so obvious that it doesn't require mentioning, only a lawyer would want further clarification.





slapheadmofo said:


> Or an internet wannabe lawyer.


Or an actual pedant.


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

Time to get a hot rodded ebike and go trail poaching with my big ass Bluetooth speaker just to piss you whiny ****ers off.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

As quoted from JimBo below:
"BLM and USFS rely on a legal definition from the CFR to define "motorized vehicle". From that, they have created a series of trail systems where vehicles fitting the legal definition of "motorized vehicles" are excluded. Therefore, vehicles that fit the legal definition defined in the CFR as "motorized vehicles" are not allowed on non-motorized trails. But class 1 eBikes are not encompassed in the legal CFR definition of "motorized vehicle". So, until BLM and USFS create new regulations, class 1 eBikes are not excluded from "non-motorized" trails. They can exclude them; they just haven't done so yet."

Here we go..........again. Per the travel management rule, and the OSV rule, e-bikes are motorized vehicles, and ARE excluded from non-motorized trails on NFS and BLM lands. Please STOP stating that e-bikes are allowed on non-motorized trails on federal lands.
https://tahoerimtrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/20160324ElectricBikesAndTrailManagement-508.pdf


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

I bet you didn't even read the document you provided a link to. Here is an excerpt:



> The Forest Service's Travel Management Rule (TMR) and E-Bikes: The TMR defines "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle which is self-propelled, other than.... E-bikes have a motor, thereby are self-propelled, and are not covered by the exceptions in the definition.


The TMR is self contradictory and over-simplistic. Having a motor in itself does NOT make a bike self-propelled. That is made clear by the example of the bike with electronic shifting. It has a motor in the derailleur, yet it clearly is not self-propelled. While the TMR definitions may apply to class 2 and class 3 eBikes, it clearly does NOT apply to class 1 eBikes. Therefore, as per the legal definition taken from 36 CFR 212.1, a class 1 eBike is NOT a motor vehicle and as such is prohibited from non-motorized trails.

So, again, for all of the anti-eBikers who like to argue, "if you don't like the regulations, lobby to change them." I would advise you, "if you don't like the legal definition of a motor vehicle, lobby to change it".


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> That is made clear by the example of the bike with electronic shifting. It has a motor in the derailleur,


So stupid it hurts.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> I bet you didn't even read the document you provided a link to. Here is an excerpt:
> 
> The TMR is self contradictory and over-simplistic. Having a motor in itself does NOT make a bike self-propelled. That is made clear by the example of the bike with electronic shifting. It has a motor in the derailleur, yet it clearly is not self-propelled. While the TMR definitions may apply to class 2 and class 3 eBikes, it clearly does NOT apply to class 1 eBikes. Therefore, as per the legal definition taken from 36 CFR 212.1, a class 1 eBike is NOT a motor vehicle and as such is prohibited from non-motorized trails.
> 
> So, again, for all of the anti-eBikers who like to argue, "if you don't like the regulations, lobby to change them." I would advise you, "if you don't like the legal definition of a motor vehicle, lobby to change it".


Well, here's a newer update, where they discuss both pedal assist and throttle controlled ebikes, and guess what....your Class 1 e-bike is banned, on non-motorized trails.

U.S. Forest Service
Briefing Paper
Date: February 15, 2017
Topic: Electric Bicycles (E-bikes)
Issue: Classification of E-bikes Under the Travel Management Rule (TMR)
Summary/Key Points
 E-bikes are motorized bicycles.
 E-bikes are growing in popularity, and their design and capabilities are rapidly changing.
 E-bikes travel at speeds of 20 to 28 mph, compared to pedestrians and non-motorized
bicycles, which typically travel at speeds ranging from 3 to 10 mph.
 The Forest Service is monitoring new technologies, visitor access and safety, social and
sustainability issues, and natural resource effects associated with e-bike use on NFS roads
and NFS trails.
 The TMR defines "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle which is self-propelled, other than (1)
a vehicle operated on rails; and (2) any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that
is battery-powered, that is designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for
locomotion, and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area." 36 CFR 212.1.
 This definition is consistent with the definition for a "wheelchair" in federal wilderness in
section 508(c)(2) of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12207(c)(2).
 E-bikes do not meet either exception to the definition of a motor vehicle in the TMR.
 Consistent with 36 CFR 212.1, the Forest Service is managing e-bikes as motor vehicles.
 The International Mountain Bike Association regards e-bikes as motorized devices.
 The Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Highway
Administration, and the nations of Canada, Australia, Europe, and South Africa regard ebikes
as motor vehicles.
 The National Park Service has not made a determination regarding e-bikes.
 Under the TMR, e-bikes may be ridden where motor vehicles are allowed, including on
National Forest System (NFS) roads open to all vehicles; NFS trails open to all vehicles;
NFS trails open to vehicles 50 inches or less; NFS trails open to motorcycles only; and
NFS trails open to e-bikes as a special designation.
 The Forest Service will use the information obtained from monitoring to reassess and, if
needed, adjust guidance for designating the use of e-bikes on NFS roads and NFS trails.
Background
E-bikes have been available for years overseas and were first used by commuters on roadways in
Europe. There are two basic types of e-bikes, pedal-assist and throttle-twist. On pedal-assist
e-bikes, the motor does not have to be on the entire time the bicycle is being ridden and can be
activated by pedaling to augment human power. Throttle-twist e-bikes are activated by twisting
the handle grip to propel the bike with or without pedaling. In addition to a motor, e-bikes have
a battery and a controller to operate specific options.
Contacts: Penny Wu, Travel Management Program Manager, [email protected]; Jaime Schmidt,
Trails Program Manager, [email protected]; Janet Zeller, Accessibility Program Manager,
[email protected].

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd563344.pdf


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> I bet you didn't even read the document you provided a link to. Here is an excerpt:
> 
> The TMR is self contradictory and over-simplistic. Having a motor in itself does NOT make a bike self-propelled. That is made clear by the example of the bike with electronic shifting. It has a motor in the derailleur, yet it clearly is not self-propelled. While the TMR definitions may apply to class 2 and class 3 eBikes, it clearly does NOT apply to class 1 eBikes. Therefore, as per the legal definition taken from 36 CFR 212.1, a class 1 eBike is NOT a motor vehicle and as such is prohibited from non-motorized trails.
> 
> So, again, for all of the anti-eBikers who like to argue, "if you don't like the regulations, lobby to change them." I would advise you, "if you don't like the legal definition of a motor vehicle, lobby to change it".


Look, they even cracked the door open for you:

_In addition, new trail riding opportunities for e-bikes on existing non- motorized trails may be considered and designated as motorized trails by administrative units and ranger districts under travel management planning efforts, based on special vehicle class designations in accordance with 36 CFR 212.55. These motorized trail designation changes would involve appropriate environmental analysis, public participation and designation decisions that, once established, will be reflected on updated Motor Vehicle Use Maps in accordance with the TMR._

So go ahead and illegally ride your ebike and claim it's ok because "the rules" didn't specifically call out class 1 ebikes as being excluded. See how well that helps your case in regards to the "public participation" aspect. As has been said before, a lot of you ebikers are your own worse enemies.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

When we get finished with all this ebike discussion Jim_boob, I would love to talk religion and politics with you.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

sfgiantsfan said:


> When we get finished with all this ebike discussion *Jim_boob*, I would love to talk religion and politics with you.


That's the thrust that your counter-argument is going to take?


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Cuyuna said:


> That's the thrust that your counter-argument is going to take?


There is no real counter argument to make. Any argument is not in opposition to me. It's in opposition to the plain language of the statute. So, since they can't argue against the statute, they result to personal insults and diversions.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

watermonkey said:


> Well, here's a newer update, where they discuss both pedal assist and throttle controlled ebikes, and guess what....your Class 1 e-bike is banned, on non-motorized trails.
> 
> U.S. Forest Service
> Briefing Paper
> ...


You're missing the point. The policy is contrary to the CFR. Therefore, it is unenforceable. So presenting a policy paper is irrelevant.

Here is the real test, the policy memo from USFS is more than two years old. Have you ANY evidence of anyone ever being prosecuted for riding a class 1 eBike on USFS non motorized trails? I don't think so. And the reason is simply because they know their policy is unenforceable. And an unenforceable policy is no policy at all.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

chazpat said:


> Look, they even cracked the door open for you:
> 
> _In addition, new trail riding opportunities for e-bikes on existing non- motorized trails may be considered and designated as motorized trails by administrative units and ranger districts under travel management planning efforts, based on special vehicle class designations in accordance with 36 CFR 212.55. These motorized trail designation changes would involve appropriate environmental analysis, public participation and designation decisions that, once established, will be reflected on updated Motor Vehicle Use Maps in accordance with the TMR._
> 
> So go ahead and illegally ride your ebike and claim it's ok because "the rules" didn't specifically call out class 1 ebikes as being excluded. See how well that helps your case in regards to the "public participation" aspect. As has been said before, a lot of you ebikers are your own worse enemies.


If the law doesn't define class 1 ebikes as motor vehicles, then riding them on non motorized trails is not illegal.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/btnf/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD507239
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ochoco/news-events/?cid=FSEPRD518315

Jim_bo - here's some more fake news for you.

This back and forth, here with Jim_bo, is exactly why this forum shouldn't go away. Maybe he's really an anti-ebike guy and he's trolling to make e-bikers look bad, crazy, whatever...and if so, he's talented. If not, then the Jim_bo's here aren't doing the e-bike crowd any favors by coming on here, and encouraging poaching. Either way, it paints a picture of the access issue and some of the attitudes prevalent in the ebike world. Keep posting dude. It must suck going through life feeling like a victim. You can keep hanging your hat on some b.s. personal interpretation of some definition, but I've put forth enough info in the last few hours to discount you completely. Keep shouting at the sky and blaming the inept system populated by ignorant people that don't have a clue about what they're doing - you're correct, everyone's wrong but you.

What you don't get, is that this non-motorized argument is more than about access and trail erosion. I've said this before here, and I'll say it again. A non-motorized designation of something, anything, represents an ethic, a value system, an intangible construct that people have chosen to adopt as their self imposed rules on how to interact with their surroundings. Its means something profound to people, and its important to them. E-bike violate that line, like porn....you know it when you see it. Nobody give as $hit about servo's in derailleurs, because they know its not making the bike go. Ebike motors do, you know it, and so does everybody else.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Wow, now ebikes are porn. I guess since the statutory argument fails and I haven't stooped to the level of personal attacks, attacking the character of the eBike seems inevitable.


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

Jim_bo said:


> If the law doesn't define class 1 ebikes as motor vehicles, then riding them on non motorized trails is not illegal.


They've got their collective heads so far up their own asses it's pointless to even talk to them.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

I just really don't understand the whole pretending to pedal thing. Sorry. Just can't get over that. Stop pretending to be mountain bikers. It's like, "Do you want to be a bad ass but are afraid of Motorcycles....yet you're too #ucking lazy to be a mountain biker? Well folks, your time has come. Pretend to mountain bike while enjoying the benefits of a motor bike. Fear not! This is a pussified motor bike that any panzy can ride without fear of all that goddam power and speed. EBiking. Mountain biking for pussified Dirt Bikers and Lazy-Ass wanna be mountain bikers. It's a community Bro!"
The end.


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

DaveVt said:


> I just really don't understand the whole pretending to pedal thing. Sorry. Just can't get over that. Stop pretending to be mountain bikers. It's like, "Do you want to be a bad ass but are afraid of Motorcycles....yet you're too #ucking lazy to be a mountain biker? Well folks, your time has come. Pretend to mountain bike while enjoying the benefits of a motor bike. Fear not! This is a pussified motor bike that any panzy can ride without fear of all that goddam power and speed. EBiking. Mountain biking for pussified Dirt Bikers and Lazy-Ass wanna be mountain bikers. It's a community Bro!"
> The end.


Sanctimonious jack ass.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

FLYINW said:


> Sanctimonious jack ass.


Oh god. Go back and look at your posts. This has gone on long enough. Lock this biatch up please. It's ****ing ruining the trail building forum. If this conversation doesn't belong in the EBike forum, it sure as $#!T doesn't belong in this one. Go away losers.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

DaveVt said:


> Oh god. Go back and look at your posts. This has gone on long enough. Lock this biatch up please. It's ****ing ruining the trail building forum. If this conversation doesn't belong in the EBike forum, it sure as $#!T doesn't belong in this one. Go away losers.


If you are so frustrated with the content of this thread, why not simply not open it? You seem to be so condescending about not understanding why people want to ride eBikes. Well, I'm wondering why you go into threads that frustrate you. Just stay out and you have no more frustration. It's easy!


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Jim_bo said:


> If you are so frustrated with the content of this thread, why not simply not open it? You seem to be so condescending about not understanding why people want to ride eBikes. Well, I'm wondering why you go into threads that frustrate you. Just stay out and you have no more frustration. It's easy!


Oh, I get why you people want to ride e bikes. You're lazy posers. This thread does not belong here. It has nothing to do with trail work or advocacy. It's about entitlement and laziness. Move along poser. Your bike has a motor. You're motorized. Done. Any conversation beyond that is politic. If you have an e bike and want to ride on your local trails spend your time gaining local access, but realize you will never be anything but a joke to actual Cyclists. Not sure why you want to weasel into a world where you will only be the butt of the joke. Nerfed up version of our world right here. Mountain Biking isn't for everyone. No matter how much you dumb it down. Why not just ride a dirt bike? They're super fun, and you won't be pretending to be something you're not.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

DaveVt said:


> I just really don't understand the whole pretending to pedal thing. Sorry. Just can't get over that. Stop pretending to be mountain bikers. It's like, "Do you want to be a bad ass but are afraid of Motorcycles....yet you're too #ucking lazy to be a mountain biker? Well folks, your time has come. Pretend to mountain bike while enjoying the benefits of a motor bike. Fear not! This is a pussified motor bike that any panzy can ride without fear of all that goddam power and speed. EBiking. Mountain biking for pussified Dirt Bikers and Lazy-Ass wanna be mountain bikers. It's a community Bro!"
> The end.


I'm sure there are many people who just don't understand why you drive the car that you do, or live in the city you do, or married the woman you did. But does that make your choices less relevant? I don't think so. I think your rant speaks far more about you, your ignorance of eBikes, and your intolerance of others who aren't just like you than it does about people who ride eBikes.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Jim_bo said:


> I'm sure there are many people who just don't understand why you drive the car that you do, or live in the city you do, or married the woman you did. But does that make your choices less relevant? I don't think so. I think your rant speaks far more about you, your ignorance of eBikes, and your intolerance of others who aren't just like you than it does about people who ride eBikes.


Blah blah blah blah blah. Your bike has a motor. The End. :thumbsup:


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

DaveVt said:


> Oh, I get why you people want to ride e bikes. You're lazy posers. This thread does not belong here. It has nothing to do with trail work or advocacy. It's about entitlement and laziness. Move along poser. Your bike has a motor. You're motorized. Done. Any conversation beyond that is politic. If you have an e bike and want to ride on your local trails spend your time gaining local access, but realize you will never be anything but a joke to actual Cyclists. Not sure why you want to weasel into a world where you will only be the butt of the joke. Nerfed up version of our world right here. Mountain Biking isn't for everyone. No matter how much you dumb it down. Why not just ride a dirt bike? They're super fun, and you won't be pretending to be something you're not.


If we were talking about trail access issues, I could understand the disdain for e-bikes (although it's a non-issue in this part of the country). But at the core of it, most of the argument is just pure, holier-than-thou sanctimony like this post. I don't ride e-bikes (so I guess that I'm an Actual Cyclist, huh?) but that level of smug self-righteousness is just really hard to understand.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Cuyuna said:


> If we were talking about trail access issues, I could understand the disdain for e-bikes (although it's a non-issue around here). But at the core of it, most of the argument is just pure, holier-than-thou sanctimony like this post. I don't ride e-bikes (so I guess that I'm an Actual Cyclist, huh?) but that level of smug self-righteousness is just really hard to understand.


This is reality. Stop being so easily offended by the truth. A bicycle is 100 percent human powered. Anything with a motor is motorized. The fact that there can be any discussion beyond that is an example of how we are failing as a society. There is no compromise here. We and MTBers have worked for access and built our trails for human powered recreation. Any dialogue beyond this basic reality is a perversion. Should EBikes be Allowed on MTB trails? No. They have motors. Done.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

DaveVt said:


> This is reality. Stop being so easily offended by the truth. A bicycle is 100 percent human powered. Anything with a motor is motorized. The fact that there can be any discussion beyond that is an example of how we are failing as a society. There is no compromise here. We and MTBers have worked for access and built our trails for human powered recreation. Any dialogue beyond this basic reality is a perversion. Should EBikes be Allowed on MTB trails? No. They have motors. Done.


If this is the best argument that comes from the anti-eBike crowd... I expect to see a lot of eBikes in the future and a lot of very sad eBike haters.

And one more thing. I think it's interesting how the anti-eBikers love to imply that eBikers and MTBers are different people. In fact, everyone I know who rides or owns a class1 eBike has been a MTBer for multiple decades. I know 70 year old eBikers who were riding MTBs before many of the people on this forum were born. So to pretend like MTBers built and gained access to trails and now the slothful, lazy eBikers want to come in and capitalize on that effort is wholly false and just a diversion from the fact that they have no substantial argument against class1 eBikes.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

DaveVt said:


> This is reality. Stop being so easily offended by the truth. A bicycle is 100 percent human powered. Anything with a motor is motorized. The fact that there can be any discussion beyond that is an example of how we are failing as a society. There is no compromise here. We and MTBers have worked for access and built our trails for human powered recreation. Any dialogue beyond this basic reality is a perversion. Should EBikes be Allowed on MTB trails? No. They have motors. Done.


Your strident, bitter intolerance and your insistence that your "reality" is the only _valid_ reality is the part that's so hard to understand.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Cuyuna said:


> Your strident, bitter intolerance and your insistence that your "reality" is the only _valid_ reality is the part that's so hard to understand.


Hard to twist this reality...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonmotorized
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/motorized
Now can this just go away from the "Trail Building" forum because it has nothing to do with Trail Building.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Cuyuna said:


> Your strident, bitter intolerance and your insistence that your "reality" is the only _valid_ reality is the part that's so hard to understand.


Hard to understand? What he is saying makes perfect sense and is extremely easy to understand, is that why you don't like it?


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

Cuyuna said:


> Your strident, bitter intolerance and your insistence that your "reality" is the only _valid_ reality is the part that's so hard to understand.


Alternative facts?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> If this is the best argument that comes from the anti-eBike crowd... I expect to see a lot of eBikes in the future and a lot of very sad eBike haters.
> 
> And one more thing. I think it's interesting how the anti-eBikers love to imply that eBikers and MTBers are different people. In fact, everyone I know who rides or owns a class1 eBike has been a MTBer for multiple decades. I know 70 year old eBikers who were riding MTBs before many of the people on this forum were born. So to pretend like MTBers built and gained access to trails and now the slothful, lazy eBikers want to come in and capitalize on that effort is wholly false and just a diversion from the fact that they have no substantial argument against class1 eBikes.


 The whole argument is the motor.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

leeboh said:


> The whole argument is the motor.


What about the motor? Do you argue that the motor on a class 1 eBike causes greater environmental impact than an MTB? Do you argue that it creates a safety hazard? Or are you like DaveVT and simply argue that you don't understand the appeal of eBikes, so therefore you reject them?


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> What about the motor? Do you argue that the motor on a class 1 eBike causes greater environmental impact than an MTB?


Yes.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> What about the motor? Do you argue that the motor on a class 1 eBike causes greater environmental impact than an MTB? Do you argue that it creates a safety hazard? Or are you like DaveVT and simply argue that you don't understand the appeal of eBikes, so therefore you reject them?


 Not legal where I ride. Appeal? I demoed one, way heavy, too hard to loft the front wheel. 10 pedal strokes I was doing 25 mph on a flat dirt road, yes seemed crazy fast.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> Yes.


Excellent. Provide your data to support your argument. And note that the USFS and BLM policies for eBikes has nothing to do with either environmental impact or safety.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> Excellent. Provide your data to support your argument.


Manufacturing and disposing of spent batteries and charging them causes additional environmental impact. Do you really need me to dig up data?

Also there are other environmental impacts I've already mentioned but you seem to be too close minded to acknowledge them, yet alone understand them.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

leeboh said:


> Not legal where I ride. Appeal? I demoed one, way heavy, too hard to loft the front wheel. 10 pedal strokes I was doing 25 mph on a flat dirt road, yes seemed crazy fast.


Don't know where you ride, but if it is BLM or USFS, then I think we have shown evidence that a class 1 eBike is not illegal. Additionally, if you rode a bike that was motor assisting you past 20mph, you were not on a class 1 eBike. But "crazy fast" is not a standard that policy should be based upon. You have to tie "crazy fast" to a substantial impact (i.e. environmental impact, safety, etc...) And then you have to provide data which shows that "crazy fast" does actually create an impact.

I have ridden with people on MTBs who were "crazy fast"... yet no one is trying to exclude them.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> ... if it is BLM or USFS, then I think we have shown evidence that a class 1 eBike is not illegal. .


It's not, and you haven't


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> Manufacturing and disposing of spent batteries and charging them causes additional environmental impact. Do you really need me to dig up data?


This is not an argument for restricting class 1 eBikes from MTB trails. This is an argument against producing eBikes as a whole. Sorry... but that argument has long since failed.



> Also there are other environmental impacts I've already mentioned but you seem to be too close minded to acknowledge them, yet alone understand them.


I haven't seen any data from anyone showing any evidence of environmental impacts of class 1 eBikes that are significantly in excess of MTBs. In fact, all the data from the studies I have seen show exactly the opposite... there is not significantly greater environmental impact for a class 1 eBike over an MTB. Sorry... but this is another failed argument.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> It's not, and you haven't


I see... now the argument is "nah uhh...."

Neither impressive nor persuasive.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> This is not an argument for restricting class 1 eBikes from MTB trails. This is an argument against producing eBikes as a whole. Sorry... but that argument has long since failed.


Somewhere there's a lithium mine where a mountain bike trail used to be.


----------



## ki5ka (Dec 17, 2006)

A call to action! 

I hereby pledge that every time I am tempted to respond to an inane conversation that has no useful content, I will RESIST that niggling urge and instead post something related to trail building and bury that post into oblivion.

 Are you with me mates!

Start by not responding to this post and respond to my next post instead. For a bit of added fun, include the words "trail" and "building" in your posts as a secret signal of solidarity


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> Somewhere there's a lithium mine where a mountain bike trail used to be.


There is only one lithium mine in the US, the Silver Peak mine in Nevada. It has been mining lithium since the 1960s, but it's presence long predates lithium production. The mine was there a long time before mountain bikes existed. So, no... there is not a lithium mine where a mountain bike trail used to be.

Most lithium is mined in Chile, Australia, China and Argentina. Furthermore, lithium production for class 1 eBike batteries is but a drop in the ocean of lithium demand. If the world stopped producing class 1 eBikes today, the decrease in lithium demand wouldn't even be noticed.

If you are going to make a real argument, you should try much harder.


----------



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

Jim_bo said:


> Most lithium is mined in Chile, Australia, China and Argentina.
> 
> If you are going to make a real argument, you should try much harder.


So, Chileans don't deserve mtb trails?

*a sense of humor has been proven to prolong life


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Jim_bo said:


> I see... now the argument is "nah uhh...."
> 
> Neither impressive nor persuasive.


I don't need come up with an 'impressive argument' as it's a simple and undeniable fact that the lands Lee is talking about are neither BLM nor USFS.

Duh.


----------



## Cornfield (Apr 15, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> *a sense of humor has been proven to prolong life


You got any real studies and/or data to prove that???


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

leeboh said:


> Not legal where I ride. Appeal? I demoed one, way heavy, too hard to loft the front wheel. 10 pedal strokes I was doing 25 mph on a flat dirt road, yes seemed crazy fast.


If you were doing 25MPH, it wasn't a Class 1 ebike.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Manufacturing and disposing of spent batteries and charging them causes additional environmental impact. Do you really need me to dig up data?
> 
> Also there are other environmental impacts I've already mentioned but you seem to be too close minded to acknowledge them, yet alone understand them.


Ban Di2? Ban headlights? Ban bike computers?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

honkinunit said:


> If you were doing 25MPH, it wasn't a Class 1 ebike.


 There are no classes.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> Don't know where you ride, but if it is BLM or USFS, then I think we have shown evidence that a class 1 eBike is not illegal. Additionally, if you rode a bike that was motor assisting you past 20mph, you were not on a class 1 eBike. But "crazy fast" is not a standard that policy should be based upon. You have to tie "crazy fast" to a substantial impact (i.e. environmental impact, safety, etc...) And then you have to provide data which shows that "crazy fast" does actually create an impact.
> 
> I have ridden with people on MTBs who were "crazy fast"... yet no one is trying to exclude them.


 MA is where I ride. Thread title, " e bikes on mt bike trails" No motorized vehicles allowed for the most part where I ride. Try, not legal. I don't need a study, impact statement, policy review, or " data". No atv's no dirtbikes no motorized vehicles. No matter how you want to try to twist the word " motor" About the only fed land this far east is probably wilderness( no mt bikes) or something like a national wildlife refuge ( no nuthin' there) I think it may have been a haibike 500 watt hub drive? Whatever. No classes exist except on paper. imho.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

In this state, (Minnesota), "electric-assist" or "pedal-assist" bicycles are statutorily considered bicycles and allowed anywhere bicycles are allowed, including all state trails, either paved or natural-surface (mountain bike trails). They are defined as having:


2 or 3 wheels
A saddle and fully operable pedals for human propulsion
An electric motor that is:
1,000 watts or less,
incapable of propelling faster than 20 miles per hour
If an e-bike doesn't meet that "pedal-assist bicycle" definition, it's classified as a "motorized bicycle", for all practical purposes a motor vehicle.


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

DaveVt said:


> Oh god. Go back and look at your posts. This has gone on long enough. Lock this biatch up please. It's ****ing ruining the trail building forum. If this conversation doesn't belong in the EBike forum, it sure as $#!T doesn't belong in this one. Go away losers.


More condescending than anything.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> In this state, (Minnesota), "electric-assist" or "pedal-assist" bicycles are statutorily considered bicycles and allowed anywhere bicycles are allowed, including all state trails, either paved or natural-surface (mountain bike trails). They are defined as having:
> 
> 
> 2 or 3 wheels
> ...


Minnesota Statute 85.015, Subdivision 1(d) and Statute 85.018, Subdivision 2(d):

Generally electric-assisted bicycles may operate like bicycles do, unless otherwise posted.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> I haven't seen any data from anyone showing any evidence of environmental impacts of class 1 eBikes that are significantly in excess of MTBs. In fact, all the data from the studies I have seen show exactly the opposite... there is not significantly greater environmental impact for a class 1 eBike over an MTB. Sorry... but this is another failed argument.


Studies? There's only one that I know of.

https://b.3cdn.net/bikes/c3fe8a28f1a0f32317_g3m6bdt7g.pdf

The Imba study in 2015 used an unamed ebike, so it's hard to know it's performance parameters except that they said it has a 350w motor. I'm not a historian, but in 2015, I don't know of any 350w middrives, so I'll assume it's a hub motor. Hard to know. Anyway, while it's certainly within the 750w upper limit, what would actually be useful is data using emtbs with 750w middrive motors, since that's what is allowed under the legislation, that's what people will sell and that's what some will ride. It's no more useful than a study using a 100w ebike, or 263w.

The story of impact is still being written as the equipment evolves, smart land managers do their best to look into the future when making policy choices that stay in place for years or decades, it's hard to say what emtbs will look like in ten years, how powerful they'll be or how they'll be ridden. Which is why my local ones are going to wait and see. 
For example, here are some 250w EU legal middrive specs:

2015 Bosch - 50% top assist, 60nm of torque

2016 Bosch - 300% assist, 75nm of torque

2019 Brose - 410% assist, 90 nm of torque
2019 TQ - on Haibikes, 120nm of torque

Obviously, motors are getting more powerful, and we haven't even seen 750w "legal" class 1 emtbs on the trails yet, so to make a blanket statement that "there is not significantly greater environmental impact for a class 1 eBike over an MTB. Sorry... but this is another failed argument." is a bit premature.


----------



## goodmojo (Sep 12, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> What about the motor? Do you argue that the motor on a class 1 eBike causes greater environmental impact than an MTB? Do you argue that it creates a safety hazard? Or are you like DaveVT and simply argue that you don't understand the appeal of eBikes, so therefore you reject them?


People have to build up skill to go fast and far on a mtb bike. ebike lets anyone go anywhere on a trail, too fast. Class 1 can go 20mph which is a dangerous speed when other trail users are involved. Bikes are easily modded so you cant tell if the bike is really limited to 20mph. So then you get people with ebikes going 30+ mph.

Ultimately erosion is caused by total miles traveled. Endurance defines the average amount people can ride. e bikes allow people to travel much further/faster in a session causing more erosion.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Harryman said:


> Studies? There's only one that I know of.
> 
> https://b.3cdn.net/bikes/c3fe8a28f1a0f32317_g3m6bdt7g.pdf
> 
> ...


So, you dispute the only existing study based on what you think a future study MIGHT reveal. I'm sorry... but that is a failed argument.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

goodmojo said:


> People have to build up skill to go fast and far on a mtb bike. ebike lets anyone go anywhere on a trail, too fast. Class 1 can go 20mph which is a dangerous speed when other trail users are involved. Bikes are easily modded so you cant tell if the bike is really limited to 20mph. So then you get people with ebikes going 30+ mph.
> 
> Ultimately erosion is caused by total miles traveled. Endurance defines the average amount people can ride. e bikes allow people to travel much further/faster in a session causing more erosion.


I tried counting the number of wild speculations in this statement, but I lost count. Sorry... another failed argument.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

chazpat said:


> Minnesota Statute 85.015, Subdivision 1(d) and Statute 85.018, Subdivision 2(d):
> 
> Generally electric-assisted bicycles may operate like bicycles do, unless otherwise posted.


Exactly. They're regulated just like bicycles.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Jim_bo said:


> I tried counting the number of wild speculations in this statement, but I lost count. Sorry... another failed argument.


Holy crap....you were up at 3 a.m. to keep trying to win at the internet. I really think you're just a mentally ill person. You are perpetuating what is the dumbest thread in the long history of these forums. Go away with your motorized junk.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> Exactly. They're regulated just like bicycles.


Except they can be excluded, so they are not regulated just like bicycles, notice the use of the word "generally". As I've said numerous times, I'm fine with ebikes on some trails but I do not believe they should just be declared the same as bicycles and automatically given access wherever bicycles are allowed. Too many variables when it comes to trails and trail users. It appears your state government realizes this as well and has thus included a provision that they may be excluded.

This is what I don't understand about so many of you who want to insist they are just bicycles. Do you really think you better understand the situation on all the mtb trails in the US than the people who manage those trails? Have you ridden my local trails?


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

chazpat said:


> Except they can be excluded, *so they are not regulated just like bicycles*, notice the use of the word "generally". As I've said numerous times, I'm fine with ebikes on some trails but I do not believe they should just be declared the same as bicycles and automatically given access wherever bicycles are allowed. Too many variables when it comes to trails and trail users. It appears your state government realizes this as well and has thus included a provision that they may be excluded.
> 
> This is what I don't understand about so many of you who want to insist they are just bicycles. Do you really think you better understand the situation on all the mtb trails in the US than the people who manage those trails? Have you ridden my local trails?


LOL. You can torture the semantics any way you wish to try to grasp a meaning that will allay your fears, but it's irrelevant.

Sure they're regulated like bicycles...in the same way that bicycles can be regulated by "local authority". Bicycles can be excluded too. It's legal to ride a bicycle (e-bike or legacy bicycle) on the sidewalk or in crosswalks for example...except when "otherwise posted" as being illegal to do so. The last line of _most _state statutes is "unless otherwise posted/regulated/banned by local authorities". The only exception I can think of is firearms...in that case it's not possible for local ordinances to supersede state law.

You may be opposed, but apparently no one in Minnesota cares how you feel. _Minnesota _has declared that E-bikes are regulated like bicycles. It works fine here. I don't know what the e-bike laws are in your state, nor do I really care....your state is your problem. It doesn't affect me a bit. I'm just telling you what the law and the attitude is in my state. How you process that information and what you do with it is your problem.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

dup


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

DaveVt said:


> Holy crap....you were up at 3 a.m. to keep trying to win at the internet. I really think you're just a mentally ill person. You are perpetuating what is the dumbest thread in the long history of these forums. Go away with your motorized junk.


Not everyone lives on the east coast.

Your quick jump to conclusions and and emotionally charged condescension is reflected in most of your posts.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

chazpat said:


> Except they can be excluded, so they are not regulated just like bicycles, notice the use of the word "generally". As I've said numerous times, I'm fine with ebikes on some trails but I do not believe they should just be declared the same as bicycles and automatically given access wherever bicycles are allowed. Too many variables when it comes to trails and trail users. It appears your state government realizes this as well and has thus included a provision that they may be excluded.
> 
> This is what I don't understand about so many of you who want to insist they are just bicycles. Do you really think you better understand the situation on all the mtb trails in the US than the people who manage those trails? Have you ridden my local trails?


I think you miss a bigger legal point. The statute you cited makes it clear the the default is to treat them the same as bicycles. You are correct that there is some room in the statute to allow a local authority to separate eBikes out, but the language in your statute would place the burden on that local authority for providing a compelling reason to do so. The statute you cited is far more in favor of eBikes than against.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> LOL. You can torture the semantics any way you wish to try to grasp a meaning that will allay your fears, but it's irrelevant.
> 
> Sure they're regulated like bicycles...in the same way that bicycles can be regulated by "local authority". Bicycles can be excluded too. It's legal to ride a bicycle (e-bike or legacy bicycle) on the sidewalk or in crosswalks for example...except when "otherwise posted" as being illegal to do so. The last line of _most _state statutes is "unless otherwise posted/regulated/banned by local authorities". The only exception I can think of is firearms...in that case it's not possible for local ordinances to supersede state law.
> 
> You may be opposed, but apparently no one in Minnesota cares how you feel. _Minnesota _has declared that E-bikes are regulated like bicycles. It works fine here. I don't know what the e-bike laws are in your state, nor do I really care....your state is your problem. It doesn't affect me a bit. I'm just telling you what the law and the attitude is in my state. How you process that information and what you do with it is your problem.


Yes, but ebikes can be excluded separately from bicycles, you seem to want to ignore that point and make it sound like whatever goes for bicycles always goes for ebikes. This is the second time when I've pointed out flaws in your semantics that you've then bailed with a "You can torture the semantics" type response rather than actually countering what I pointed out. And likewise, I don't really care what they do in Minnesota but don't pretend it is different than it is.



Jim_bo said:


> I think you miss a bigger legal point. The statute you cited makes it clear the the default is to treat them the same as bicycles. You are correct that there is some room in the statute to allow a local authority to separate eBikes out, but the language in your statute would place the burden on that local authority for providing a compelling reason to do so. The statute you cited is far more in favor of eBikes than against.


For once, I largely agree with you. Except the part of "place the burden on that local authority for providing a compelling reason to do so". Where does it state that? I just see that they can separate ebikes out.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

chazpat said:


> Yes, but ebikes can be excluded separately from bicycles, you seem to want to ignore that point and make it sound like whatever goes for bicycles always goes for ebikes. This is the second time when I've pointed out flaws in your semantics that you've then bailed with a "You can torture the semantics" type response rather than actually countering what I pointed out. And likewise, I don't really care what they do in Minnesota but don't pretend it is different than it is.


What goes for legacy bicycles here goes for e-bikes. Whatever you are torturing the regulations to try to say about regulating e-bikes separately, the fact is that they don't. They are regulated the same and have been since 2011.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

chazpat said:


> For once, I largely agree with you. Except the part of "place the burden on that local authority for providing a compelling reason to do so". Where does it state that? I just see that they can separate ebikes out.


I think you typically see only what you want to see. Only a very biased person would see the statute you cited as being negative towards eBikes.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> What goes for legacy bicycles here goes for e-bikes. Whatever you are torturing the regulations to try to say about regulating e-bikes separately, the fact is that they don't. They are regulated the same and have been since 2011.


Then why do they have "Generally electric-assisted bicycles may operate like bicycles do, unless otherwise posted." Sure doesn't sound to me like "What goes for legacy bicycles here goes for e-bikes"; most of the, yes. All of the time, no. I'm not torturing anything, I'm just reading the regulations and not leaving stuff out.



Jim_bo said:


> I think you typically see only what you want to see. Only a very biased person would see the statute you cited as being negative towards eBikes.


Wow, so you can just make up stuff that isn't there and if I point that out, I'm being negative toward ebikes? Talk about seeing only what you want to see, you're the one "seeing" anything about a requirement that "places the burden on that local authority for providing a compelling reason to do so". If I am not seeing this and it is there (actually written in a government document, not just your imagination), please point it out.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

chazpat said:


> Then why do they have "Generally electric-assisted bicycles may operate like bicycles do, unless otherwise posted." Sure doesn't sound to me like "What goes for legacy bicycles here goes for e-bikes"; most of the, yes. All of the time, no. I'm not torturing anything, I'm just reading the regulations and not leaving stuff out.


In Minnesota, electric assist bicycles are regulated as bicycles. That's the law, and that's the practice.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Jim_bo said:


> Not everyone lives on the east coast.
> 
> Your quick jump to conclusions and and emotionally charged condescension is reflected in most of your posts.


As is your mental illness. I now just have pity for you. Get some help.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> In Minnesota, electric assist bicycles are regulated as bicycles. That's the law, and that's the practice.


Ok, fine, you can ride your imaginary ebike wherever you like. Ignore any signs where it is posted that ebikes are not allowed since they are "regulated as bicycles" and just ignore Minnesota Statute 85.015, Subdivision 1(d) and Statute 85.018, Subdivision 2(d).

Wait, since you and Jim-bo do not actually own nor ride ebikes, are you guys just trying to make them look bad?


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

chazpat said:


> Ok, fine, you can ride your imaginary ebike wherever you like. Ignore any signs where it is posted that ebikes are not allowed since they are "regulated as bicycles" and just ignore Minnesota Statute 85.015, Subdivision 1(d) and Statute 85.018, Subdivision 2(d).


That's that point that you appear to be struggling with....there _*are *_no such signs. 1000-watt/20mph E-bikes are treated just like legacy bicycles on all state trails. If any agency _was _to put up a "no-ebike" sign on a state trail system then I'm sure no one would ride there, but there _are _no such signs. Nobody cares, least of all the State of Minnesota, Minnesota DNR, or the local Park Ranger. Now, bring your dog out off-leash and you'll have a problem. E-bikes...not an issue.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Cuyuna said:


> That's that point that you appear to be struggling with....there _*are *_no such signs. 1000-watt/20mph E-bikes are treated just like legacy bicycles on all state trails. If any agency _was _to put up a "no-ebike" sign on a state trail system then I'm sure no one would ride there, but there _are _no such signs. Nobody cares, least of all the State of Minnesota, Minnesota DNR, or the local Park Ranger. Now, bring your dog out off-leash and you'll have a problem. E-bikes...not an issue.


And all mountain bike trails are state trails? You've visited every mtb trail in the state? Not that it matters, you began this, uh discussion, with ""electric-assist" or "pedal-assist" bicycles are statutorily considered bicycles and allowed anywhere bicycles are allowed" and posted part of the regulations and I merely pointed out that there is more to the regulations and an allowance to differentiate them from bicycles. That's the point you seem to be struggling with.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> So, you dispute the only existing study based on what you think a future study MIGHT reveal. I'm sorry... but that is a failed argument.


I'm pointing out that the single study using a single 350w ebike isn't representative of what the law allows, and management decisions are based on what the law allows. The land managers I deal with don't find this study useful at all.


----------



## Jim_bo (Jul 31, 2011)

Harryman said:


> I'm pointing out that the single study using a single 350w ebike isn't representative of what the law allows, and management decisions are based on what the law allows. The land managers I deal with don't find this study useful at all.


That's fair enough. But you realize that the point you are making is that the land managers are making decisions based on no data at all.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Cuyuna said:


> That's that point that you appear to be struggling with....there _*are *_no such signs. 1000-watt/20mph E-bikes are treated just like legacy bicycles on all state trails. If any agency _was _to put up a "no-ebike" sign on a state trail system then I'm sure no one would ride there, but there _are _no such signs. Nobody cares, least of all the State of Minnesota, Minnesota DNR, or the local Park Ranger. Now, bring your dog out off-leash and you'll have a problem. E-bikes...not an issue.


So, you're saying that, without exception, electric cycles can go everywhere a mountain bike can go? All across the state? Because that is clearly not what the statute lays out and your inability to see that is obtuse. What about federal land?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Jim_bo said:


> That's fair enough. But you realize that the point you are making is that the land managers are making decisions based on no data at all.


Sure. Here at least, since they don't know the impact, they are waiting to consider allowing them until they do know. Someone making the decision to allow ebikes needs to sell it to whoever their boss is, and they'd like data to back it up. My org has looked into creating that study with a local engineering uni, but it's basially fizzled.

Many of the land managers I've spoken to were initially unaware that the ebikes they rode on a demo day are different than the ebikes they'd be allowing under the new laws.


----------



## FLYINW (Apr 26, 2016)

DaveVt said:


> As is your mental illness. I now just have pity for you. Get some help.


WOW sanctimonious and condescending. Aren't you a peach.


----------



## bingemtbr (Apr 1, 2004)

On a ride recently, I was passed by an e-bike(r) after work (6pm-ish). The trail is closed to ebikes and there are signs stating the trail is closed at every TH or entrance. The trail has very high use between 3pm-7pm from hikers, people walking their dogs, and mtbr's. The trail is in the shadow of neighborhood and middle school. I rode 15mi, my average pace was 11.5mph, and the ebiker passed me on a downhill. He came out of nowhere. All I heard was clicking noise that sounded like an electric rattlesnake. Once I realized someone was behind me, I slowed down, pulled over and waved him to pass me. Then I saw it was an ebike, the helmetless rider was wearing gym shorts and calve-high white socks. He laughed as he went by and was going without much pedaling. Part of me chuckled because I thought if he was using Strava, then all those precious KOMs were about to be destroyed (I dislike Strava). And then the other less reactive part of me thought, he's going to hurt someone--the trails don't have the visibility for that much speed and there are a ton of users. My best guess is he was easily cruising at 18-20mph without pedaling.

Not sure what this means for ebikes other than some douche-nozzle damaging their image.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^Same as hunters... their worst enemy is themselves, so they keep losing ground. I predict a lot of those state ebike approvals will be rescinded when they figure out what they actually did.


----------

