# My analog bike is in existential crisis



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

No, I'm not giving up my analog bike. I still like it, for specific trails. To me, analog is the only way to go downhill, I love that. But for the rest of the offroad (and onroad) stuff out there, this is what I feared before I got my e-bike conversion: that I'd start riding the e-bike more and more, and the analog bike less and less. That is exactly what's happening. 

After someone has ridden all of the local fire/gravel roads and trails dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of times, it just becomes a routine. It's the same old thing. Yeah, maybe you get a new tire, or a dropper post, or a new fork, and it's fun to see the difference...for a while. And then it's just the same old thing, over and over again. The e-bike has changed that dynamic. That's actually an understatement. Maybe one day I'll think the same thing about it too, but for now it turns a boring fire road or smooth hardpacked trail into something fun again. 

Since it's getting darker, I don't have time to drive far on the weekdays after work, so that crams everything into the weekend for a decent ride loop in sunlight. I dunno how you guys feel about this subject, but the e-bike is simply more fun and more rewarding on everything except downhill trails. It's more fun on pavement, gravel, fire roads, double track, everything except singletrack. And I was riding the non-singletrack stuff 80% of the time before I got the e-bike, so that ratio has not changed, it's just what bike is riding on it that has changed. So my fear came true: I'm favoring the e-bike over the analog bike; mile-wise it is probably 80%/20%. I really do want to ride the analog bike more, but I don't really like to ride downhill stuff in the dark, so until Spring rolls around, it's probably going to get one downhill loop a week and the e-bike will be for everything else. Because it's just more fun, period. Sorry I said it, it's true.

I'm riding all over the place on the weekdays after work near my home with the e-bike now. Well, actually, farther and farther away from my home...because I can now! I'm saving the analog bike for the weekends. I was originally thinking OK, one fun downhill loop on Saturday, and then one 'exploratory' easier trail on Sunday with the analog bike, then back to the e-bike on the weekdays. But I'm 30 minutes into my ride today on the analog bike, on a fire road, hoping to get up the hill to some new trails, and I'm like thinking, what am I doing on this bike? I felt like I was wasting my time, when I could have already been 1/2 way up that hill on the e-bike. Why do I have to force myself to ride the analog bike twice a week, when the e-bike is more fun on this easier stuff? Am I supposed to feel guilty or weird because I may end up riding the analog bike once a week and the e-bike 3-4 times per week? 

Just this Friday, I changed it up and went up a trail with steep sections on the e-bike. The trail is really broken up with chipped rocks. No way I could ride up it with my analog bike. But with the e-bike, it suddenly becomes a challenge: can I get all the way up the steep section? I almost did twice. It's challenging, when going up with the analog bike just doesn't even apply. Instead of walking the bike up that section, I'm riding up it, and it's fun! There are steep sections all over the place that I have yet to try on the e-bike. It's like a whole new sport now. 


Do you guys feel similarly, or do you ride the analog bike(s) more?


----------



## JackWare (Aug 8, 2016)

I get where you're coming from, I recently purchased a E Fat bike, as I want to explore longer routes that include a lot of climbing that I simply wouldn't be able to complete on my normal bike. So now I'm still feeling the effects of pushing myself but it's after 25 miles of remote new single track, with a grin on my face for every one of them. The normal fat bike will be used for flatter / easier / shorter routes that a group of friends tend to ride.
I'm also enjoying the learning curve of riding a heavier but assisted bike and managing my riding style to maximize the range,while thinking more carefully about the preparation, route planning and navigation.


----------



## x3DHD (Dec 26, 2012)

Word for word I feel the same. Still ride my analog bike about once a week but way more smiles per miles on the E bike. 

Great line “Because it’s just more fun, period” but you didn’t need to apologize for stating the truth!


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

No.

I think the term analog bike is too dumb fir words. This post, are you really that bored?



richj8990 said:


> No, I'm not giving up my analog bike. I still like it, for specific trails. To me, analog is the only way to go downhill, I love that. But for the rest of the offroad (and onroad) stuff out there, this is what I feared before I got my e-bike conversion: that I'd start riding the e-bike more and more, and the analog bike less and less. That is exactly what's happening.
> 
> After someone has ridden all of the local fire/gravel roads and trails dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of times, it just becomes a routine. It's the same old thing. Yeah, maybe you get a new tire, or a dropper post, or a new fork, and it's fun to see the difference...for a while. And then it's just the same old thing, over and over again. The e-bike has changed that dynamic. That's actually an understatement. Maybe one day I'll think the same thing about it too, but for now it turns a boring fire road or smooth hardpacked trail into something fun again.
> 
> ...


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Nurse Ben said:


> No.
> 
> I think the term analog bike is too dumb fir words. This post, are you really that bored?


He obviously has no clue as to what "analog" means, just like the person he picked it up from.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

chazpat said:


> He obviously has no clue as to what "analog" means, just like the person he picked it up from.


This might help.


----------



## LargeMan (May 20, 2017)

It feels like a different sport because it is.


----------



## levity (Oct 31, 2011)

analogue: something similar to something else in design, origin, use, etc.

Jack and x3 get it. NB and chaz don't, but for reasons known only to them (insecurity? just plain meanness?) insist on trolling the ebike forum. They miss/ignore the main points of rich's post and dwell on word usage for the sake of being negative (and/or a pathetic attempt to somehow feel better about themselves). One would think they'd have more useful and fun things to do.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

levity said:


> analogue: something similar to something else in design, origin, use, etc.


Are you trying to say that the ebike is the modern anologue to the bicycle? That is how the word anologue is used in the context you quoted. You wouldn't say "I like electric cars better than anologue cars"

"An analogue is the source from which an analogy is derived. Analogy is the thing you communicate, while analogue is the subject you are communicating about."

I think the term "analog" being used to describe a bicycle was a play on the old "analog vs digital", which still doesn't make any sense since in that respect both digital and analog singnals use electrical impulses and there is no electricity in a bicycle.

"The difference between analog and digital technologies is that in analog technology, information is translated into electric pulses of varying amplitude. In digital technology, translation of information is into binary format (zero or one) where each bit is representative of two distinct amplitudes."


----------



## JackWare (Aug 8, 2016)

I agree that the term 'analog' is wrong, I'm guessing it was used by a cycling journalist at some point and picked by others. However I read the whole of richj's post rather than worry about the first sentence.

This Youtube video sums it up;


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

LargeMan said:


> It feels like a different sport because it is.


1000x this.

If you like ebiking, that's great!

But it's not mountain biking.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I agree that in my experience, E-bikes are a "whole new sport". 

I don't have a problem with the "analog bike" term, personally, though since e-bikes already have a distinct name, it seems like you could just say "bike" and "e-bike" to distinguish them. Regardless, I knew what OP was trying to say, so no real problem.

-Walt


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

Analog = bicycle?


----------



## fleboz (Apr 22, 2015)

ebikes arent for me, but i'm glad my friend has one. he gets out way more now. I also see many more people on them in the 60+ age group. not ripping down single track, but getting out and enjoying life. 

"I think the term analog bike is too dumb fir words." that made my Monday am.


----------



## howardv (Nov 11, 2016)

Amen! Everyone's experience is different, this is why so many people don't understand e-bikes. Personally, I ride from home, I don't shuttle my bike by car to the trails. I have to ride dangerous and steep canyon roads to get to the trail head. Single lane, lots of obstacles on the side of the road, cars speeding past me with little room to spare. Lots of residents live up there and they hate cyclists taking up room on their precious roads. I now ride with a front and rear camera mounted to my bikes because hit-n-runs are rampant here in Los Angeles - not because I want to capture an epic trail ride. 

When I get to the trail head, I'm already exhausted. I see others parking their cars with their mountain bikes on the roof/rack. They all pass me on the trail because they're fresh, they didn't get tired from riding to the trail. It takes me about 2-1/2 -3:00 hours by the time I get back home. This is about a 25 mile round trip ride. I've done the same trails over and over for many years. 

With an e-mtb, I get through the dangerous canyon roads 2-3 times faster. Less time on those roads means less danger. And now I get to discover other trails. In the same 2-1/2 to 3 hour ride, I go about 40 miles. Distances not achievable with a regular (analog?) bike in the time frame. 

But I still enjoy my regular mountain bike. My rides are still 70% regular and 30% e-bike. Part of it may be that I feel guilty because of all the negative vibes, but I shouldn't. As the OP said, downhill single track is still more fun with a regular bike. I also enjoy the challenges. 

Then there are the hot southern California days. Temps in the 90's and the sun is beaming on the trails. No way I'm gonna make it up the trails in the heat. This is where the e-bike shines! Instead of sitting at home, I go riding up the trail. 

Everyone's experience is different. Some people are into serious mountain biking, where they discover new trails (by driving to them) and make a day's event out of it. To each his own!


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

richj8990 said:


> No, I'm not giving up my analog bike. I still like it, for specific trails. To me, analog is the only way to go downhill, I love that. But for the rest of the offroad (and onroad) stuff out there, this is what I feared before I got my e-bike conversion: that I'd start riding the e-bike more and more, and the analog bike less and less. That is exactly what's happening.
> 
> After someone has ridden all of the local fire/gravel roads and trails dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of times, it just becomes a routine. It's the same old thing. Yeah, maybe you get a new tire, or a dropper post, or a new fork, and it's fun to see the difference...for a while. And then it's just the same old thing, over and over again. The e-bike has changed that dynamic. That's actually an understatement. Maybe one day I'll think the same thing about it too, but for now it turns a boring fire road or smooth hardpacked trail into something fun again.
> 
> ...


I think you need a bigger bike, to get up that hill. It's going to get boring so keep adding more power.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I’ve been riding ebikes for awhile and they feel like the norm now. Just have fun, put a smile on your face- that’s all that matters. Ride whatever..


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

Yeah, I don't see the appeal myself. I slightly moreso do with motorcycles of various types, but not enough to ever own one I don't believe.

Powering it is too big a part of cycling for me.

But, whatever floats your boat is fine by me.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

I have a watch that winds up and runs. I consider it analog.
I have a battery-powered quartz watch that has hands. I consider it digital.

Calling a traditional pedal-powered bike "analog", would be silly were there no other types of bikes. Since there ARE other types of bikes and they just happen to be powered by electricity and include integrated circuitry, why would there be a problem calling them "digital", other than to somehow make one feel superior to others?

OP: do what you need to do to get the most enjoyment from your ride. Screw the naysayers!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

robbnj said:


> I have a watch that winds up and runs. I consider it analog.
> I have a battery-powered quartz watch that has hands. I consider it digital.
> 
> Calling a traditional pedal-powered bike "analog", would be silly were there no other types of bikes. Since there ARE other types of bikes and they just happen to be powered by electricity and include integrated circuitry, why would there be a problem calling them "digital", other than to somehow make one feel superior to others?
> ...


You're confusing mechanical/electrical with analog/digital.


----------



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

robbnj said:


> Calling a traditional pedal-powered bike "analog", would be silly were there no other types of bikes. Since there ARE other types of bikes and they just happen to be powered by electricity and include integrated circuitry, why would there be a problem calling them "digital", other than to somehow make one feel superior to others?


You could just call it a bicycle.


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> You could just call it a bicycle.


My bike self-identifies as an AH-64 Apache.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

TwiceHorn said:


> Yeah, I don't see the appeal myself. I slightly moreso do with motorcycles of various types, but not enough to ever own one I don't believe.
> 
> Powering it is too big a part of cycling for me.
> 
> But, whatever floats your boat is fine by me.


Thank you for having and posting a very respectable and clean opinion. Btw, I got tempted into an Adventure motorcycle and it is extremely fun.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

chazpat said:


> You're confusing mechanical/electrical with analog/digital.


Thank you, but I'm not. I'm just not being accurate to a microscopic level of detail.

When the OP used "analog" and "digital" within the context of his post, i had no difficulty understanding the meaning and intent.

The first time I heard someone talk about their "mancave" (a term I have come to loathe), I didn't really think they had carved a hole in the bedrock under their home and filled it with a bar, flatscreen monitors, pool table, etc.

When someone tells me they "pulled the trigger" and bought a new thing, I don't think that they actually pulled a trigger on a gun before making the purchase.

People do "bunny hops" on a bike that have no similarity to how a bunny hops, other than than that they leave terra firma, if only momentarily.

The English language is very fluid and doesn't require that words be used to their strictest definition (unless you want to be THAT person - "_ACTUALLY, it's only 'Googling" if you use the Google search engine...) _

an·a·log
/ˈanlˌôɡ/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity

dig·i·tal
/ˈdijidl/Submit
adjective
adjective: digital
1.
(of signals or data) expressed as series of the digits 0 and 1, typically represented by values of a physical quantity such as voltage or magnetic polarization.
relating to, using, or storing data or information in the form of digital signals.
"digital TV"
involving or relating to the use of computer technology.

A traditional bike is mechanical. Many parts (especially the drivetrain) are continuously variable, fitting fine within the definition of "analog".

An e-bike is electrical AND computerized, fitting fine within the definition of "digital".

If you want to go that route, an ebike is NOT a "bicycle" by the strict definition of "bicycle" any more than a moped is a "bicycle" or a motorcycle is a "push-bike".


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

robbnj said:


> Thank you, but I'm not. I'm just not being accurate to a microscopic level of detail....
> 
> A traditional bike is mechanical. Many parts (especially the drivetrain) are continuously variable, fitting fine within the definition of "analog".





robbnj said:


> I have a watch that winds up and runs. I consider it analog.
> I have a battery-powered quartz watch that has hands. I consider it digital.


Your not being accurate on any level. An ebike not only has the same mechanical parts as traditional bike, they have even more mechanical parts and more parts that are variable because they are also powered by a battery which is able to give out variable amounts of power, not just on/off - full power/no power.

An anolog watch has many moving parts while a digital watch (by definition) has zero moving parts.

If you have an ebike that has zero moving parts, then your analogy would make sense.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Is it just too confusing for some people to call and bike a bike and an e-bike an e-bike?

Weird...


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

tahoebeau said:


> Your not being accurate on any level. An ebike not only has the same mechanical parts as traditional bike, they have even more mechanical parts and more parts that are variable because they are also powered by a battery which is able to give out variable amounts of power, not just on/off - full power/no power.
> 
> An anolog watch has many moving parts while a digital watch (by definition) has zero moving parts.
> 
> If you have an ebike that has zero moving parts, then your analogy would make sense.


Arguing your point with inaccurate information is silly.

The battery IS an on/off item. The power is regulated by an external voltage/current regulator, in this case likely an ESC combined with some form of heat sink (to bleed off unused current). The battery is always able to deliver full voltage and amperage, regardless of what you need from it.

The ESC is a simple computer that uses a digital protocol to handle the work (i.e a "computer"). This is different from a "computer" that bolts to your bars to measure speed, distance travelled, heart rate, etc.
In the ESC's case the "computer" is used for control of the bike (regulating speed and maybe dynamic braking) and is this a part of the whole package.

Your watch confusion seems to be base don whether there are hands or not. Even with hands, a quartz watch is "digital" as the stepper motor is controlled by an electronic (digital) circuit that measures time based on discrete vibrations/oscillations of a crystal.

It doesn't matter if the output drives a stepper motor, or a secondary circuit that changes segments of an LED, LCD, flipping numbered tabs, or lighting up a nixie tube. If the timekeeping is based on that simple crystal circuit, then it's digital.

They could make a wind-up clock that flips numbers over to show the time. It wouldn't be a "digital" clock even if that's what the gen public called it. Conversely, gutting a wind-up Timex and installing a quartz mechanism behind the face and hands turns it into a digital watch. Remember: A photocopy is not a "Xerox" even if that's what the gen public always used to call it. Using Bing is not "Googling" even though "Googling" has become synonymous with searching the 'net.

This couldn't be much more of a tangent from the o/p if we tried, but that's how conversation seems to go, eh?

Digital watch, yes?

Nope. Purely mechanical.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I'm losing respect for everyone who is arguing about the digital/analog idiocy...

OPs post, regardless of your feelings about e-bikes, made perfect sense to me. Can we talk about something other than dictionary definitions?

-Walt


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

Give it up bro! ^^^

Bike

E-bike

We all get the metaphor!!


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

My post wasn't meant for ya! We posted at the same time. 


Walt said:


> I'm losing respect for everyone who is arguing about the digital/analog idiocy...
> 
> OPs post, regardless of your feelings about e-bikes, made perfect sense to me. Can we talk about something other than dictionary definitions?
> 
> -Walt


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Walt said:


> I'm losing respect for everyone who is arguing about the digital/analog idiocy...


When ya got nothing else, go to semantics!


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

You guys must be great at parties.

_"How ya doin'?"
"I'm good_" <walks away>


----------



## fleboz (Apr 22, 2015)

Agreed Walt! to get back to OP's question.



richj8990 said:


> No, I'm not giving up my analog bike. I still like it, for specific trails. To me, analog is the only way to go downhill, I love that. But for the rest of the offroad (and onroad) stuff out there, this is what I feared before I got my e-bike conversion: that I'd start riding the e-bike more and more, and the analog bike less and less. That is exactly what's happening.
> 
> For me the issue with ebikes (not ebike riders) is I not only still love to climb, but as I get older I have this underlying acknowledgement that time is more and more limited. I'm creeping up on 50 and father time is undefeated. The older you get the more you realize that disabilities, physical limitations, financial situations or life just happens sometimes. If an ebike is what gets you out, go for it. For me I still enjoy the pain of climbing and doing it under my own power, its very meditative for me. I understand many people still get a workout on an ebike, it's just not for me (yet). I'm also not a motor guy. I enjoy motorcycles and snowmobiles, but don't love them like I do biking or skinning to ski. That probably plays into it a little too.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

robbnj said:


> You guys must be great at parties.
> 
> _"How ya doin'?"
> "I'm good_" <walks away>


If arguing semantics is a highlight of your parties, your parties suck!


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> If arguing semantics is a highlight of your parties, your parties suck!


Heh, heh.

At my parties, people talk to each other, and conversation leads to conversation. Believe it or not, some people even start talking about one subject and it leads to another, and maybe another! I once got involved in a conversation about art that flowed all the way to furniture, and guns.

Mind blown.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

robbnj said:


> an·a·log
> /ˈanlˌôɡ/Submit
> adjective
> 1.
> ...


Look at your definition, especially the part I bolded. How do the parts of a bicycle use signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity? By your terms, an ebike would also be "analog" as it also has many parts that are "continuously variable".

While I agree that language is fluid, grossly misusing a term is poor communication imo. Just call a bicycle a bicycle and an ebike and ebike.



Walt said:


> I'm losing respect for everyone who is arguing about the digital/analog idiocy...
> 
> OPs post, regardless of your feelings about e-bikes, made perfect sense to me. Can we talk about something other than dictionary definitions?
> 
> -Walt


Actually, I think it's great to actually have some new discussion in regards to ebikes rather than the SOS that is normally posted, over and over and over.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

robbnj said:


> Heh, heh.
> 
> At my parties, people talk to each other, and conversation leads to conversation. Believe it or not, some people even start talking about one subject and it leads to another, and maybe another!


And when the conversation reaches the point of people endlessly arguing in circles around a dictionary trying to prove each other wrong, the party has definitely crossed the major suck line.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

Some people just thrive on being contrarian, living on the wrong side of the major suck line 

Riding a motor-assisted bike is no different to me than using a chair lift to get to the top of the hill and riding down. I don't ride with a group, never have. I don't go with group-think, never have. 
Why again are people so upset about this new technology?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

robbnj said:


> Why again are people so upset about this new technology?


Because of access threats. I like riding the lift and screaming down too, but those are one-way bike only trails (for the record, I support e-bike access on all directional bike-only trails).

On MUT, motors can bring in lots of new problems. IMO most of those are probably solvable, and they may not even materialize since this is early days, but the threat to trail access posed by e-bikes is certainly real, especially as they continue to evolve toward being indistinguishable at a casual glance.

-Walt


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

robbnj said:


> Heh, heh.
> 
> At my parties, people talk to each other, and conversation leads to conversation. Believe it or not, some people even start talking about one subject and it leads to another, and maybe another! I once got involved in a conversation about art that flowed all the way to furniture, and guns.
> 
> Mind blown.


? my parties have slight conversation like, oh **** are we almost out of Jack? And, "let's fire up the grill." I'm like an anolog *******! JK..


----------



## x3DHD (Dec 26, 2012)

Walt said:


> Because of access threats. I like riding the lift and screaming down too, but those are one-way bike only trails (for the record, I support e-bike access on all directional bike-only trails).
> 
> On MUT, motors can bring in lots of new problems. IMO most of those are probably solvable, and they may not even materialize since this is early days, but the threat to trail access posed by e-bikes is certainly real, especially as they continue to evolve toward being indistinguishable at a casual glance.
> 
> -Walt


Well said!


----------



## d-ron (May 23, 2011)

Dude, the preferred nomemclature is acoustic bicycle, juxtaposed with electric bicycle of course.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

Walt said:


> Because of access threats. I like riding the lift and screaming down too, but those are one-way bike only trails (for the record, I support e-bike access on all directional bike-only trails).
> 
> On MUT, motors can bring in lots of new problems. IMO most of those are probably solvable, and they may not even materialize since this is early days, but the threat to trail access posed by e-bikes is certainly real, especially as they continue to evolve toward being indistinguishable at a casual glance.
> 
> -Walt


Is it the speed capability that's the problem, or a concern that the trails will get too crowded when everyone realizes they can ride without effort and they run out to buy one (though it seems the ability to go farther/faster would mitigate that problem)?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

robbnj said:


> Is it the speed capability that's the problem, or a concern that the trails will get too crowded when everyone realizes they can ride without effort and they run out to buy one (though it seems the ability to go farther/faster would mitigate that problem)?


You can find those questions already discussed here ad nauseam, but it's mostly the former.

-Walt


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

Walt said:


> You can find those questions already discussed here ad nauseam, but it's mostly the former.
> 
> -Walt


It'll be a while before I get to read every thread on the forum and catalog the data in my brain.. I'll just freely admit that if speed is the concern, then some people need to be educated by those who know better.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

robbnj said:


> It'll be a while before I get to read every thread on the forum and catalog the data in my brain.. I'll just freely admit that if speed is the concern, then some people need to be educated by those who know better.


Another denier?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Walt said:


> I support e-bike access on all directional bike-only trails
> 
> -Walt


You're making the same mistake a lot of the ebikers make, assuming the trails and conditions around you are the same everywhere. Come ride the heavily traveled, narrow, twisty trails through the forests I ride and then tell me if you think adding ebikes traveling at higher speeds and increasing the need to pass is a good idea and good for the trails and sport. On some of the trails, ok, but I do not want the trails I ride going from narrow single track to blown out highways. There is one trail in particular that is heavily traveled by experienced and newer mtbrers. It is by far the widest trail around. The trails that require more pedaling are a lot narrower.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> Another denier?


Only within logical realms.

Some don't want people passing them on the trails going up. Would it be safe to assume that those people never pass anyone on the trails going up?

Some don't want people going faster than them on the trails flat or down. Would it be safe to assume they curtail their own speed to match the slowest rider on the trails?

To quote a post:"_Come ride the heavily traveled, narrow, twisty trails through the forests I ride and then tell me if you think adding ebikes traveling at higher speeds and increasing the need to pass is a good idea". _To me, this is a statement of "I ride the trails the correct way. No change should occur.
But what if someone doesn't like YOUR way, and maybe they demand you ride at 5MPH or not use a bike at all?

A skilled rider could probably double my speed on an uphill jaunt. It doesn't make me angry. Its seems some people DO get angry. Is it because the person going faster on an e-bike is doing it without the requisite hardship of training and skill-building?

Is the speed vs. skill THAT much of a concern? Think logically. Think Darwinism.
The person who can't handle the bike will solve that problem pretty quickly. Witness a friend of mine who took his whole family to the ski hill for their first downhill excursion. Son #1 immediately exceeded his capability and broke an arm on run #1.
Someone on an e-bike who exceeds their capabilities will not be riding too long. Or they'll build the skillset VERY quickly.

If the concern is other trail users complaining, what is their reference of complaint? What would they consider an appropriate speed? Would a pro rider pedaling at 20MPH be less dangerous than an e-bike rider at 20MPH?
Is it the speed, or just the fact that they don't want to share the trail?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Dude, I know you're new here, but save it for a necro-thread. It's been discussed, nobody's mind is going to be changed. 

-Walt


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

slapheadmofo said:


> Is it just too confusing for some people to call and bike a bike and an e-bike an e-bike?
> 
> Weird...


Right?


----------



## jeremy283 (Jan 22, 2017)

My dualsport motorcycle is pretty good workout on trails (not MTB trails). Only slightly more expensive than an e-motorycle/bicycle. I like the e-motorcycle/bicycle but at a couple grand for a slower motorcycle with with a throttle activated by pedal motion I cannot bring myself to have another wheeled object taking up garage space.

So I'll keep my motorcycle for fun and my bicycle for exercise/fun. No need to blend the two for me.

Lot's of gray areas with e-bikes.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

Walt said:


> Dude, I know you're new here, but save it for a necro-thread. It's been discussed, nobody's mind is going to be changed.
> 
> -Walt


No disrespect, but it's ALL been discussed.
This site (like many other forums) could be archived, shut down, and used as a searchable resource. That would certainly limit discussion. 
And ad-revenue.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Gutch said:


> ? my parties have slight conversation like, oh **** are we almost out of Jack? And, "let's fire up the grill." I'm like an anolog *******! JK..


 Jack? You need to expand your whiskeyness. Cheers.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

robbnj said:


> Some people just thrive on being contrarian, living on the wrong side of the major suck line
> 
> Riding a motor-assisted bike is no different to me than using a chair lift to get to the top of the hill and riding down. I don't ride with a group, never have. I don't go with group-think, never have.
> Why again are people so upset about this new technology?


 Not legal in many areas for one. My trails don't have chairlifts. Start there. Speed differentials too. Most of my riding areas ( MA) are multi use, hikers, kids , dogs etc.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Well, I can only drink Jack Fire, beer, and Sailor Jerry and Gingerale, anything else forget it.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

robbnj said:


> Is it the speed capability that's the problem, or a concern that the trails will get too crowded when everyone realizes they can ride without effort and they run out to buy one (though it seems the ability to go farther/faster would mitigate that problem)?


 No effort? Hmmm. All those ebikers keep saying I get the same workout with an e bike, but I can go a lot longer distances.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Gutch said:


> Well, I can only drink Jack Fire, beer, and Sailor Jerry and Gingerale, anything else forget it.


 Try this, get some George Dickel #12, another TN whiskey. 1 shot, 1/2 lime, ginger syrup, ginger ale, ice. But safer on a bike, not an e bike. ( not a derail) We could move this to the bourbon area too.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

leeboh said:


> No effort? Hmmm. All those ebikers keep saying I get the same workout with an e bike, but I can go a lot longer distances.


Maybe they do. 
Who gets more of a workout: the 1x rider who covers three miles in an hour, or the 21x rider who covers 12 miles in the same hour? A lot of variables to be considered.

On the obverse, what about the e-biker who uses the motor until dead and then calls it a day? They certainly get less exercise than the one who pedal-assists for the same ride. 
Variables.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

robbnj said:


> Maybe they do.
> Who gets more of a workout: the 1x rider who covers three miles in an hour, or the 21x rider who covers 12 miles in the same hour? A lot of variables to be considered.
> 
> On the obverse, what about the e-biker who uses the motor until dead and then calls it a day? They certainly get less exercise than the one who pedal-assists for the same ride.
> Variables.


21x? Do tell. Sounds fast.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

robbnj said:


> Maybe they do.
> Who gets more of a workout: the 1x rider who covers three miles in an hour, or the 21x rider who covers 12 miles in the same hour? A lot of variables to be considered.
> 
> On the obverse, what about the e-biker who uses the motor until dead and then calls it a day? They certainly get less exercise than the one who pedal-assists for the same ride.
> Variables.


 My only pedal assist is gravity. That and coffee. Other than that I'm pedaling always.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

robbnj said:


> Is it the speed capability that's the problem, or a concern that the trails will get too crowded when everyone realizes they can ride without effort and they run out to buy one (though it seems the ability to go farther/faster would mitigate that problem)?


As mentioned, both of those are very valid concerns and it also comes down to the fact that there is no practical way to regulate the power of the ebikes you intend to let on a given trail. Ebikes with +1500w of power look just like what they call a 250w class 1 ebike.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

mbmb65 said:


> 21x? Do tell. Sounds fast.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


huh?


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

Gutch said:


> ? my parties have slight conversation like, oh **** are we almost out of Jack? And, "let's fire up the grill." I'm like an anolog *******! JK..


Analog *******...I am claiming that as a good name for my new wave/country/elctro-noise band



d-ron said:


> Dude, the preferred nomemclature is acoustic bicycle, juxtaposed with electric bicycle of course.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


I am going to use this wording...



leeboh said:


> My only pedal assist is gravity. That and coffee. Other than that I'm pedaling always.


Same here, but replace coffee with Sobe Life Water


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

robbnj said:


> huh?


Do you mean a 7x3? That's like, really old. And people can average 12 mph on them? Crazy.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

robbnj said:


> huh?


#x is just referring to the front chainring(s). So 1x has one chainring, 2x has two chainrings, etc. It is not telling you how many cogs are on the cassette. So a 21x would be a bike with twenty one chainrings.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

chazpat said:


> #x is just referring to the front chainring(s). So 1x has one chainring, 2x has two chainrings, etc. It is not telling you how many cogs are on the cassette. So a 21x would be a bike with twenty one chainrings.


I think motor heads have a tough time with the finer points of self propulsion.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

mbmb65 said:


> 21x? Do tell. Sounds fast.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


4x as fast it appears.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

"Single speed versus 21 speed" is what I was trying to convey.
I'm old school. I didn't know 21 speed setup had been eliminated in biking.


----------



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

robbnj said:


> I'm old school. I didn't know 21 speed setup had been eliminated in biking.


Only since around 1987.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

My money would be on the single speeder to cover more ground and be faster than the guy on the 21 speed, both being on bicycles.


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

What a pathetic response to a cool post. Ridiculous to see the way "bikers" treat fellow bikers. We went through similar blowback during the hiker vs. biker battles of the late 1980's. I ride my motorcycle(and mtb) a lot and the rudest people on the trails are not hikers, not horse-riders, not casual bikers, not younger generation bikers... it's the hard core 35-55 year-old who think that their opinion matters more than others.


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

endurosquatch said:


> Cool story, bro.
> 
> p.s. "bikers"? That's a dead giveaway.
> 
> p.p.s. "ebikers" ≠ "bikers" That's what has you confused.


I don't own an ebike. Am I a different rider if I get one?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

str8line said:


> I don't own an ebike. Am I a different rider if I get one?


Yes. Short and simple.

It is classified as a motorized vehicle. They are typically relegated to OHV trails. Just because it looks like a bicycle does not make it one.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

Silentfoe said:


> Yes. Short and simple.
> 
> It is classified as a motorized vehicle. They are typically relegated to OHV trails. Just because it looks like a bicycle does not make it one.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Silent Foe. That's deep. You must be really cool. I've known a bunch of self-proclaimed guides over the years. Huge difference between them and a real guide. Real guides are humble.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

So today I did do an analog ride, 10.5 miles, great to get out in the pine trees a few last times before it starts snowing. It was mostly dirt road but the environment made it fun. Found a little 5 min downhill singletrack on the way back which was nice. But in the future I'll bring my e-bike down that road for sure, to go further and explore more. I originally thought the e-bike would be a scouting bike for new trails/fire roads, and then I'd ride the analog bike in that area. But now it's the other way around, I scout with the analog bike, to pave the way for further e-bike explorations. Weird how that worked out.

A few notable biker interactions:
Younger guy was walking his bike up as I went down; when I caught up with him again I asked if his bike was OK. He said yes but pointed to his right pedal. It was gone! He did a nasty pedal strike and it completely sheared off the pedal from his cheap 26".

2nd interaction --- on the paved road back to the car, three guys go down the 1st dirt road I tried that was a dead-end. I'm like...where are they going? Are they really going to jump the private property fence? I wanted to yell out hey where is the trail down there, but thought better and just biked to my car. 

3rd interaction --- three road bikers. YUCK. Said hello to all three, got one weak hi back. A-holes. I hope they pop their skinny-assed tires, all three of them.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

endurosquatch said:


> That doesn't mean you're old school. It just means that you're very, very ignorant about mountain biking.
> 
> Same for your example where a geared MTB rider covers 4x the distance of a SS MTB rider in an hour.


I would be happy to hear the explanation to reduce my ignorance.
Please include empirical data that would clarify the how and why. I learn and understand much better with that than with the "because everyone knows it" type of theory support.


----------



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

robbnj said:


> I would be happy to hear the explanation to reduce my ignorance.


Single speeders are generally among the fastest guys out on the trail, lack of gears definitely doesn't slow them down.


----------



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

richj8990 said:


> I hope they pop their skinny-assed tires, all three of them.


Even the one who said hi back to you? You need to let go of your hate for roadies, it's bad for your soul.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> Single speeders are generally among the fastest guys out on the trail, lack of gears definitely doesn't slow them down.


Oddly, someone posted this in another thread an hour ago: _"I haven't averaged over 25 mph on any pedally segment over 2 minutes ever since I ditched my 2x10. My 1x drivetrain holds me back greatly."_

I assume he's using the 1x term properly (unlike me). Maybe he should switch to single speed so he can be faster?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> 3rd interaction --- three road bikers. YUCK. Said hello to all three, got one weak hi back. A-holes. I hope they pop their skinny-assed tires, all three of them.


I'm waiting to see what str8line thinks of this one.


----------



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

robbnj said:


> Oddly, someone posted this in another thread an hour ago: _"I haven't averaged over 25 mph on any pedally segment over 2 minutes ever since I ditched my 2x10. My 1x drivetrain holds me back greatly."_


That's unusual IME. And yes, there's a good chance he'd get faster by spending some time on a ss.


----------



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

endurosquatch said:


> .
> 
> As far as empirical data, you can look at any race results if you're truly interested in educating yourself.


Exactly, the top single speeders aren't far off from the open pro class.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

robbnj said:


> I would be happy to hear the explanation to reduce my ignorance.
> Please include empirical data that would clarify the how and why. I learn and understand much better with that than with the "because everyone knows it" type of theory support.


First of all, someone riding a 21 speed bike would be on a very old bicycle so they are probably not an enthusiast whereas single speeders are usually hardcore mountain bikers. And in mountain biking, when you are descending, you often are not pedaling, so it makes no difference. When climbing, someone with gears is probably going to gear down and spin more while the SS has to muscle up with the gear they have, usually a higher gear than the person spinning so the SS climbs faster. If there are a lot of flats and the person on the gear bike is in shape, they would have an advantage but most mountain biking is more ups and downs than flats.

Picking up my new SS tomorrow!

(not saying I'm all that fast but still more than likely faster than someone on a 21 speed)


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

chazpat said:


> I'm waiting to see what str8line thinks of this one.




@Rich,

That makes you sound judgemental, man. You get upset at "purists" for not liking ebikes, but you critique roadies?

Also, not every cyclist is focused on saying hello, every time they see another cyclist. I'm friendly, and more importantly, respectful, and say hello even to the dogs I see. If someone doesn't do it back, it doesn't ruin my day, or I don't wish them ill.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

str8line said:


> Silent Foe. That's deep. You must be really cool. I've known a bunch of self-proclaimed guides over the years. Huge difference between them and a real guide. Real guides are humble.


I like being a fake guide. I'm the best fake guide ever. Fake guides can be all kinds of brash and over the top. We just make sh!t up as we go. Plus we get to charge extra. Especially for the self-proclaiming, which is not even a real word.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

richj8990 said:


> ...3rd interaction --- three road bikers. YUCK... A-holes. I hope they pop their skinny-assed tires, all three of them.





jcd46 said:


> @Rich,
> 
> That makes you sound judgemental, man. You get upset at "purists" for not liking ebikes, but you critique roadies?


Best part is that like 99% of all ebike are used exclusively on the road. :lol:


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

endurosquatch said:


> See, that's the thing.
> 
> Everyone who rides knows that "the 1x rider who covers three miles in an hour, or the 21x rider who covers 12 miles in the same hour?" is total nonsense.
> 
> ...


And there's the rub. 
Earlier int he thread, there were complaints about people who were being accurate in the use of language. I compare two different bikes/rider with and off-the cuff number, and it somehow becomes my "statement of fact" that a person on geared bike might do X miles in a given time while another might do Y miles int he same time.

To clarify: That part of my post that a rider on a geared bike will do 4x more travel. My statement actually had to do with not taking variables into account when comparing two dissimilar things (such as e-biking and regular biking), NOT an absolute comparison between the two.

An analogy would be the person who lifts 1,000 pounds of stone using leverage that only presents the weight as 75 pounds has done less work than the person lifting 100 pounds without assistance.

The person riding the SS for X miles may be doing the same work as the person riding the geared bike for X+Y miles because the gearing gives an advantage. Anyone who states the gearing doesn't provide an advantage would absolutely be the fool (either uneducated or no real experience in simple mechanics).

As for 21-speed bikes, I know they still exist. Regardless, I will change the reference to any "speed" that makes y'all comfortable. The FACT is that all other factors being equal, a multi speed bike will normally present less work to a rider going point A to B than a single speed unless the are both being ridden on a flat and the final drive ratio is identical between them. 
("Point A to point B" does not carry with it the discussion of who does it faster, etc. That's one of the variables I mentioned earlier.)

I will ask this of those who are in the know: If SS bikes are better and faster than multi-geared bikes, why haven't the manufacturers caught on (heck, why have they INCREASED the number of speeds over the years)? 
And why are those maniacs (a term of endearment) who do stuff like RedBull Rampage riding geared bikes? Wouldn't single-speed be far less likely to have mechanical issues due to fewer moving parts in the drivetrain (and be faster like the single-speed riders here)?


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

richj8990 said:


> 3rd interaction --- three road bikers. YUCK. Said hello to all three, got one weak hi back. A-holes. I hope they pop their skinny-assed tires, all three of them.


JCD and I can beat you on our analog road bikes and not say hi to you while doing it.


----------



## str8line (Apr 1, 2005)

chazpat said:


> I'm waiting to see what str8line thinks of this one.


I ain't down with assholes. It's ok to wish ill on them. But you need to be certain they are assholes. Like after they ignore you, look them in the eye and yell, "are you an asshole?!"


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

endurosquatch said:


> Those of us who are in the know realize that nobody has claimed that SS bikes "are better and faster than multi-geared bikes."
> 
> That's you making stuff up. Again.
> 
> Have you ever regularly ridden an actual mountain bike? If you have, you would be able to answer your question.


Making it up? Maybe read the posts in the thread before making a statement like that. Perhaps focus on the ones that state exactly what you claim they don't. Perhaps start with posts #71 and #79.

My first MTB ride was in 1997. When was yours?
By the way, my question about why the Rampage riders have geared bikes was more rhetorical than anything, aimed at those who claim single speed is better than geared.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I don't know why I'm even responding to this bizarre tangent, but FWIW, the guys in the Rampage run gears because their bikes are set up in such a way that chain growth, to at least some extent, is a side effect of the suspension compressing. You could easily run a single gear on those bikes (there is minimal pedaling involved save for a couple of quick sprints on most runs) but you'd still have to run some form of tensioner and chainguide system to keep the bike from dropping the chain. At that point you might as well just run a derailleur.

You can build a FS bike with zero chain growth a number of ways but none of them are popular for a variety of reasons (idlers are expensive to build, a bit inefficient, and weird looking, concentric pivots have horrible wheel path and squat, etc). 

I do plenty of DH runs on the big bike where I never shift, though. In theory SS would be fantastic for a lot of gravity riding. 

-Walt


----------



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

Maybe if I get a 100 speed bike I'll be 100x faster than a single speeder?



robbnj said:


> Making it up? Maybe read the posts in the thread before making a statement like that. Perhaps focus on the ones that state exactly what you claim they don't. Perhaps start with posts #71 and #79.


If you don't agree with post(s) 71 and 79 then it's clear you haven't been on many rides with ss mountain bikers. Again, check some race results if you aren't convinced.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

robbnj said:


> Making it up? Maybe read the posts in the thread before making a statement like that. Perhaps focus on the ones that state exactly what you claim they don't. Perhaps start with posts #71 and #79.
> 
> My first MTB ride was in 1997. When was yours?
> By the way, my question about why the Rampage riders have geared bikes was more rhetorical than anything, aimed at those who claim single speed is better than geared.


I have a feeling you quit riding some time shortly after 1997 as your knowledge of mountain bikes and mountain biking is very outdated. A lot has changed, a whole lot. I started in '94, quit in '99 and then restarted in 2006. I would suggest you hang out, read a lot and ride a lot before posting just based on how things were twenty years ago and on subjects you know little about. If you don't understand something, post a question in the beginners forum rather than boastful ones like your Rampage comparison to a bunch of experienced riders.

I agree with you about ss and gears when looked at in terms of physics. This is also why ebiking and cycling are not the same sport.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

endurosquatch said:


> I heard that all the Red Bull riders are going to be on URTs next year so they can run SS because it's the best and fastest setup for mountain biking.


A vintage-category Red Bull would be kind of awesome, actually. I can bring my LTS-team with the sweet Judy XL that I raced DH on in the 90s. 80mm of travel up front, Magura hydro (rim) brakes, it was siiiiick...

Of course, my bones are a lot easier to break than when I was 20, and 40 year old me isn't quite so brave, so that might be a bit of a problem.

-W


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Walt said:


> I do plenty of DH runs on the big bike where I never shift, though. In theory SS would be fantastic for a lot of gravity riding.
> 
> -Walt


Some of the fastest DH runs I've ever done were chainless, FWIW. Really makes you concentrate on getting and keeping momentum.

DH SS, oh yeah!


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

I'm glad I stumbled onto this thread. At least it didn't break down into some petty argument like last time I found myself in the e-moto forum...aw, geez. I guess it did. :lol:


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

Here's what I know, regardless of how long I've biked, when I started, when I stopped, my age, my physical condition: THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DO NOT CHANGE.

It is a FACT that a geared drivetrain (be it on a bike, on a car, a truck, a lawn tractor, a motorhome, a military tank) allows for more efficient use of power, provides more capability, can provide overall higher speed.

1. Efficient use of power: With "gear reduction" (via gears, pulleys, levers & fulcrums, etc), the same amount of work can be done with less expense in energy. 
2. More capability: It is a FACT that a single speed bike will be unusable on a given grade (up OR down), regardless of the strength, size, or capability of the rider. 
3. Overall higher speed: "Gear reduction" (see above) again allows for more efficient use of power. An "engine" (be it a human, an electric motor, a piston engine, etc.) produces the most power in a given range of its capability. Using gear reduction allows for the engine to operate within its peak power range over the course of varying final output.

Since some here seem to think biking is a land of magic not subject to the rules of physics, let's substitute a gas engine and a car for the rider & bike:
A car engine may produce peak horsepower and torque at 3,500 RPM. 
1. Take two identical cars. 
2. Put a single speed trans in one, and a 5 speed in the other. 
3. Make final drive ratios on both cars the same (allowing for the single speed to actually start rolling without stalling the engine).
4. Drag race the cars.

Post what you think the results of this hypothetical race would be.
Who wins the race? Which car is faster?


----------



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

robbnj said:


> It is a FACT that a geared drivetrain (be it on a bike, on a car, a truck, a lawn tractor, a motorhome, a military tank) allows for more efficient use of power, provides more capability, can provide overall higher speed.


Actually a single speed bike holds the world speed record for a bicycle. Also the world hour record. Single speed transmissions are the most efficient.

I get what you're saying, gears make a bike much more capable over varied terrain for most people and even I used to think that single speed riders would be at a disadvantage on the trail, until I rode with some fast ones and saw strava KOM's being taken down by guys riding them.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Aww man, are we back to drag racing our mountain bikes? 

robbnj, surely you realize how ridiculous it is to compare a proper mountain bike trail to a drag strip. If you are using your top gear on your 3x7 on the trails, you must be riding some pretty lame trails.


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

This thread is fun. I almost forgot that Rich created it.


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

chazpat said:


> Aww man, are we back to drag racing our mountain bikes?
> .


I remember those days...


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

endurosquatch said:


> No, that's just you making stuff up, again, and tilting up yet another straw man.
> 
> The only person that has claimed that ""SS bikes are better and faster than geared bikes" is this really clueless person calling itself "robbnj."[/FONT][/COLOR]


You should probably find someone who can read ALL of the posts to you.
I pointed out two of them by number, and there are more.

Maybe you think I have multiple logins and made the statements under pseudonyms so I could argue against myself.
That would be some very odd thinking on your part. Possibly professional help is needed.

SO, what's your take on the hypothetical race? Or will your answer fly in the face of your presumptive reality?


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

chazpat said:


> Aww man, are we back to drag racing our mountain bikes?
> 
> robbnj, surely you realize how ridiculous it is to compare a proper mountain bike trail to a drag strip. If you are using your top gear on your 3x7 on the trails, you must be riding some pretty lame trails.


Surely you realize how ridiculous it is that you can't differentiate between an analogy and a direct comparison of two things?
Heck, I even STATED it was an analogy.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

endurosquatch said:


> For the second time, neither of those posters claimed that "_SS bikes are better and faster than geared bikes" _You made that up.
> 
> They did comment about the typical prowess of *the riders* compared to your average mountain biker though.
> 
> ...


Your reading comprehension is obviously lacking:



chazpat said:


> My money would be on the single speeder to cover more ground and be faster than the guy on the 21 speed, both being on bicycles.


Again, what is your answer to the drag race hypothetical?

And a bonus question: Why does a world champion's bike have this cassette if a single speed setup would be so much more effective? Does the world champion just not know that single speed is better (or is it merely an overly complicated chain tensioner)?


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

richj8990 said:


> 3rd interaction --- three road bikers. YUCK. Said hello to all three, got one weak hi back. A-holes. I hope they pop their skinny-assed tires, all three of them.


Yes definitely. One weak hi? They should crash and burn.

Next time, don't say anything to them. Just hold your head up and zoom away on your electric motorized "bicycle".


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

I am on medication due to high blood pressure.....and I don't ride an ebike.

I ride a SS.....

In the last 4 years, I have ridden exclusively the SS: 7500, 5800, 4600, 4000 miles totally 30k' of climbing.

My climbing PR's.....have been on the SS. Many of my DH PR's....have been on the SS.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

endurosquatch said:


> You're really, really struggling here. It's gone from funny to tragic as you continue to flail.
> 
> While it looks hopeless that you'll catch a clue, I would suggest that you read chazpat's reply to you:
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/my-analog-bike-existential-crisis-1091272.html#post13872891


You missed the part where I said it could be any setup that provides more "speeds" than just one.
It could be three, it could be one hundred. The number is not what's most relevant, as long as it exceeds ONE. Think on a macro scale, not micro.

"Flail". Interesting term. Yet, no one has answered the hypothetical. No one has answered why geared setups haven't simply gone away if single-speed is the be-all-end-all.

Perhaps you will do it for them?

This sounds like someone with an axe to grind, but it's kind of funny (in response to someone who wonders why someone would ride SS.):
"Because they're.
a) mental
b) in possession of a holier than thou attitude
c) have a superiority.inferiority complex
d) because it's "trendy"
e) because they can't set their gears properly
e) all of the above"


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

robbnj said:


> You missed the part where I said it could be any setup that provides more "speeds" than just one.
> It could be three, it could be one hundred. The number is not what's most relevant, as long as it exceeds ONE. Think on a macro scale, not micro.
> 
> "Flail". Interesting term. Yet, no one has answered the hypothetical. No one has answered why geared setups haven't simply gone away if single-speed is the be-all-end-all.
> ...


"hypothetical" doesn't have dick to do with the reality that everyone but you seems to dwell in.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I take it that this is the token thread for ebikers and non ebikers to hate on each other.

Real solid work, just keep it in this thread and we’re golden.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> Actually a single speed bike holds the world speed record for a bicycle. Also the world hour record. Single speed transmissions are the most efficient.
> 
> I get what you're saying, gears make a bike much more capable over varied terrain for most people and even I used to think that single speed riders would be at a disadvantage on the trail, until I rode with some fast ones and saw strava KOM's being taken down by guys riding them.


Big sidetrack, but some people don't get it so, worth discussing. It's hard to fathom, but something surprising does happen when you have a tall gear and 2 options: Stand up and destroy yourself getting up the hill, or walk. Guess what: you destroy yourself many times, you get stronger.

I run 6 or 8 widely-spaced gears. I'm old and fat, and not a single-speeder. But keeping my lowest gear a major challenge makes me faster. Basically learned it from a single-speeder that passed me on the trail some years ago. Conversation at the trailhead ensued, and I was skeptical that my 10-speed / 3 ring setup made me slower. I just figured he was Superman to be able to ride an SS bike that fast going up. Found out later he was right.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

endurosquatch said:


> You are the only one that is claiming that SS is the be-all-end-all. That's your straw man.
> 
> Look, I get it. You bought a craptastic Proflex in 1997. You're still riding that same heap to this day. Based on your posts you haven't ridden much at all so you lack the context to understand what is being discussed. So you continue to make stuff up in a vain attempt to be "right."
> 
> ...


Interesting that you think the bike makes the rider, and not the other way around.
Do you drive a Porsche in the hopes it will balance the rest of your inequities?

Meet the challenge, oh keyboard warrior. Answer the question about the race. Answer the question about the world champs who use geared bikes.
Two simple questions. Two answers that will prove I know nothing about what I speak (or that I know EXACTLY what I am talking about).

Not one f****** thing I have posted has been "made up", so you can shove that idea back up the cavity from whence it flowed.

Walk the walk. Answer the two questions, and put this discussion to sleep.
Go.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

What is this thread even about, again?

-W


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Walt said:


> What is this thread even about, again?
> 
> -W


21x analog funny cars.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Walt said:


> What is this thread even about, again?
> 
> -W


A healthy dose of stupidity, and in the background some convoluted debate about what "mountain biking" is, and what it will become. The final answer is unclear. For some unknown reason, I *like* to suffer, so that tends to put me on the acoustic side of the fence.


----------



## tahoebeau (May 11, 2014)

Walt said:


> What is this thread even about, again?
> 
> -W


What is this *forum* even about, again? Looking at the threads with regular responses, it is sure as hell not to discuss ebike themselves.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Walt said:


> What is this thread even about, again?
> 
> -W


People with more time behind a keyboard than a set of handlebars trying really hard to sound like they know what they're talking about.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

It seems to be about an old dude digging holes. We just need to wait for him to get in it. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> "hypothetical" doesn't have dick to do with the reality that everyone but you seems to dwell in.


If your reality includes a belief that force multiplication is not a real thing, then you should share what alternate universe you're from.

I presume the bikes don't have cranks, the handlebars are 2" wide, and you just hand-tighten all of the hardware? It sure would save money on raw materials.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

I like yoga pants.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

robbnj said:


> If your reality includes a belief that force multiplication is not a real thing, then you should share what alternate universe you're from.


Bumblebees can't fly on paper and yet they do. 
Dedicated SS riders have a tendency to be very hard to keep up with in the real world.

Something is missing in your attempted calculations. In order to determine what it is, I suggest you ride strictly SS for the next 3-5 years. Maybe you'll figure out what that missing ingredient is then.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

Battery said:


> JCD and I can beat you on our analog road bikes and not say hi to you while doing it.


Remember I was on my analog mountain bike when I said hello to them. It just reinforces the stereotype that road bikers are arrogant. Most mountain bikers say hello back, most road bikers do not. If a road biker is riding alone, they might, but in a group, they would not dare to stoop so low to say hello to one of those inferior mountain bikers. It would disrupt their standing in the road bike pecking order hierarchy.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> Remember I was on my analog mountain bike when I said hello to them. It just reinforces the stereotype that road bikers are arrogant. Most mountain bikers say hello back, most road bikers do not. If a road biker is riding alone, they might, but in a group, they would not dare to stoop so low to say hello to one of those inferior mountain bikers. It would disrupt their standing in the road bike pecking order hierarchy.


Once again:

People with more time behind a keyboard than a set of handlebars trying really hard to sound like they know what they're talking about.


----------



## bronxbomber252 (Mar 27, 2017)

Deleted


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

richj8990 said:


> Remember I was on my analog mountain bike when I said hello to them. It just reinforces the stereotype that road bikers are arrogant. Most mountain bikers say hello back, most road bikers do not. If a road biker is riding alone, they might, but in a group, they would not dare to stoop so low to say hello to one of those inferior mountain bikers. It would disrupt their standing in the road bike pecking order hierarchy.


In all honesty, road cyclist don't always say hi to each other much less a mountain biker. We usually nod instead. Majority of the time, we are passing each other at variable speeds so saying "hi" doesn't always happen. Yesterday, I rode past dozens of road cyclists while trying to maintain a 70rpm pace for 30 miles on a nearly flat road. We didn't say hi to each other. We nodded instead. If I am on my drop bars, then saying "hi" definitely isn't happening.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 950sm07 (Oct 28, 2011)

richj8990 said:


> No, I'm not giving up my analog bike. I still like it, for specific trails. To me, analog is the only way to go downhill, I love that. But for the rest of the offroad (and onroad) stuff out there, this is what I feared before I got my e-bike conversion: that I'd start riding the e-bike more and more, and the analog bike less and less. That is exactly what's happening.
> 
> Do you guys feel similarly, or do you ride the analog bike(s) more?


It really depends on what type of ebike you have. I have a Commencal Meta Power and I'm faster with it on every downhill trails - and enjoying just as much - as with my Canyon Strive. This was my first season with the Meta Power and next spring I'm selling the Strive as I don't get much use of it. The ebike still won't be my only bike as I still have a short travel trail bike that I keep, but no need for the enduro...


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> Remember I was on my analog mountain bike when I said hello to them. It just reinforces the stereotype that road bikers are arrogant. Most mountain bikers say hello back, most road bikers do not. If a road biker is riding alone, they might, but in a group, they would not dare to stoop so low to say hello to one of those inferior mountain bikers. It would disrupt their standing in the road bike pecking order hierarchy.


Darn it! I rode gravel with a coworker and messed up and said hello (or at least nodded or gave a slight finger wave; on crunchy gravel on opposite sides of the road I didn't feel like yelling) to passing cyclists on road bikes and mountain bikes. There goes my street cred! We were all on reality bikes, btw.


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

Walt said:


> What is this thread even about, again?
> 
> -W


drag racing strawmen on 21x ebikes?



jcd46 said:


> I like yoga pants.


I like yoga shirts too

and my acoustic 1x10 rigid Krampus...which, by definition of all in this thread, means I sooooo don't know how to ride mountain bikes


----------



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

richj8990 said:


> Remember I was on my analog mountain bike when I said hello to them. It just reinforces the stereotype that road bikers are arrogant. Most mountain bikers say hello back, most road bikers do not. If a road biker is riding alone, they might, but in a group, they would not dare to stoop so low to say hello to one of those inferior mountain bikers. It would disrupt their standing in the road bike pecking order hierarchy.


I acknowledge other riders while on group rides all the time, haven't lost any cred yet. I usually give the motorcycle wave which doesn't require much energy. Don't matter what kind of bike they're on.

It does seem like more road bikers wave back than mountain bikers when I'm on the road bike. I don't begrudge anyone though, I think most people are just more comfortable in their own club.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

chazpat said:


> Darn it! I rode gravel with a coworker and messed up and said hello (or at least nodded or gave a slight finger wave; on crunchy gravel on opposite sides of the road I didn't feel like yelling) to passing cyclists on road bikes and mountain bikes. There goes my street cred! We were all on reality bikes, btw.


Believe it or not gravel types would probably love an e-bike more than any other bike rider, for exploring, and casual 20-30 mile rides and home in time for dinner. Not that they would (or should) give up their current bikes. An e-bike is just another bike in the garage, for certain purposes, certain trails/roads. It takes a few months to get used to them, their handling, climbing, etc., and to realize their full potential for riding. After the shock and awe of the e-power gets familiar, it just becomes another bike to do specific things on. It becomes a part of the stable, just like any other bike. It's just that in my case there are dozens of roads/trails up top on 800-1200 foot hills/mountains that I want to fully explore within a 2-3 hour period, and the e-bike is the only way to go for that.

I'm guessing gravel/XC riders would appreciate them the most, downhill/AM guys would like them the least. Just a guess, too early to tell how the real demographics will shake out.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> It's just that in my case there are dozens of roads/trails up top on 800-1200 foot hills/mountains that I want to fully explore within a 2-3 hour period, and the e-bike is the only way to go for that.


No, actually it's not.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

richj8990 said:


> Believe it or not gravel types would probably love an e-bike more than any other bike rider, for exploring, and casual 20-30 mile rides and home in time for dinner...
> 
> I'm guessing gravel/XC riders would appreciate them the most, downhill/AM guys would like them the least. Just a guess, too early to tell how the real demographics will shake out.


I'm glad you're so in the know about every group of riders. Please, elaborate oh wise one!


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

No ebike needed for gravel, that would make it a snoozer!


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> Bumblebees can't fly on paper and yet they do.
> Dedicated SS riders have a tendency to be very hard to keep up with in the real world.
> 
> Something is missing in your attempted calculations. In order to determine what it is, I suggest you ride strictly SS for the next 3-5 years. Maybe you'll figure out what that missing ingredient is then.


The bumblebee thing is a legend and nothing more. Probably not great to use it in support of your thesis.

As for me riding SS for three years: HUH? You're trying to introduce rider differences into a discussion of equipment.

When you compare two similar things against each other, all other variables must be the same. 
You don't compare an SS bike ridden by a pro to a geared bike ridden by a novice. 
You don't compare two different forks on the same bike and use completely different tires on each fork.

It's Analysis 101


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

chazpat said:


> We were all on reality bikes, btw.


"Reality bikes", I like this.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I just bought a SS ebike with a 74 tooth big ring, ready to drag!


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

jcd46 said:


> No ebike needed for gravel, that would make it a snoozer!


Coming soon to a bike shop near you: E-Gravel and E-CX bikes!


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

robbnj said:


> The bumblebee thing is a legend and nothing more. Probably not great to use it in support of your thesis.
> 
> As for me riding SS for three years: HUH? You're trying to introduce rider differences into a discussion of equipment.
> 
> ...


More like Hypothetical Internet Bullshit Slinging 101.

I go back and forth between SS and geared bikes regularly. So do a number of people I know. Typically, I end up moving faster on average on the SS on varying terrain. This holds true for most other actual riders (ie - not keyboard jockeys) in my experience. Certain types of riding (and riders) will lend themselves better to geared bikes, but for the vast majority of 'enthusiast' MTB type riding, the amount of ground a rider covers is not a function of how many gears they have, it's a function of that particular rider's fitness/motivation level.

I know the bee thing is old and debunked, but it is a perfect example of what happens when people try to come up with a conclusion but lack the comprehensive body of knowledge to get there accurately. Case in point...


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> More like Hypothetical Internet Bullshit Slinging 101.
> 
> I go back and forth between SS and geared bikes regularly. So do a number of people I know. Typically, I end up moving faster on average on the SS on varying terrain. This holds true for most other actual riders (ie - not keyboard jockeys) in my experience. Certain types of riding (and riders) will lend themselves better to geared bikes, but for the vast majority of 'enthusiast' MTB type riding, the amount of ground a rider covers is not a function of how many gears they have, it's a function of that particular rider's fitness/motivation level.
> 
> I know the bee thing is old and debunked, but it is a perfect example of what happens when people try to come up with a conclusion but lack the comprehensive body of knowledge to get there accurately. Case in point...


If your geared bike could achieve a final ratio that matched your SS bike's final, you're suggesting that you could ride faster on the SS? 
If so, that would be very interesting. Kind of like ten pounds of your bullshit being heavier than ten pounds of feathers.

BTW - What you typically end up doing has nothing to do with the mechanics of it all. As an adult, you should know better.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

robbnj said:


> If your geared bike could achieve a final ratio that matched your SS bike's final, you're suggesting that you could ride faster on the SS?
> If so, that would be very interesting. Kind of like ten pounds of your bullshit being heavier than ten pounds of feathers.
> .


Never has this conversation been about top achievable speed, drag race jokes aside. Try keeping up. Look up the definition of 'average speed' to start and go from there. Of course the same rider with the same end gear ratio on the same bike is going to top about the same speed. Duh.

But YOU were making that point that the same rider on the same bike would cover more ground with gears than SS. And I made a point about average speed over the course of an 'average' ride. In both those cases, experience and data show that both distance covered and average speed rarely have **** to do with how many gears you have.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Robb, can you remind us all what the purpose of arguing about singlespeeds/Red Bull/drivetrains from 20 years ago is? I'm not totally clear on that at this point.

-W


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> Believe it or not gravel types would probably love an e-bike more than any other bike rider, for exploring, and casual 20-30 mile rides and home in time for dinner. Not that they would (or should) give up their current bikes. An e-bike is just another bike in the garage, for certain purposes, certain trails/roads. It takes a few months to get used to them, their handling, climbing, etc., and to realize their full potential for riding. After the shock and awe of the e-power gets familiar, it just becomes another bike to do specific things on. It becomes a part of the stable, just like any other bike. It's just that in my case there are dozens of roads/trails up top on 800-1200 foot hills/mountains that I want to fully explore within a 2-3 hour period, and the e-bike is the only way to go for that.
> 
> I'm guessing gravel/XC riders would appreciate them the most, downhill/AM guys would like them the least. Just a guess, too early to tell how the real demographics will shake out.


Hmm, very small survey but&#8230;

You hate the idea of gravel bikes, and you bought/built an ebike.
I have a CX and enjoy riding it on gravel and have no intent of buying an ebike.



What are you basing this off of?


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

chazpat said:


> Hmm, very small survey but&#8230;
> 
> You hate the idea of gravel bikes, and you bought/built an ebike.
> I have a CX and enjoy riding it on gravel and have no intent of buying an ebike.
> ...


He wrote the book on cycling.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

richj8990 said:


> Remember I was on my analog mountain bike when I said hello to them. It just reinforces the stereotype that road bikers are arrogant. Most mountain bikers say hello back, most road bikers do not. If a road biker is riding alone, they might, but in a group, they would not dare to stoop so low to say hello to one of those inferior mountain bikers. It would disrupt their standing in the road bike pecking order hierarchy.


You sound judgmental, angry, and insecure.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Battery said:


> He wrote the book on cycling.


The very short one.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

Cycling for Dummies?


life behind bars said:


> The very short one.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Albeit, this thread is no longer about mtbs, I will say the SS speed, has a lot to do with the terrain they are riding. Granted SS riders are a freak of nature, I believe I have them handled in Turbo! Anyrate, let’s have a drink and move on..


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Gutch said:


> Albeit, this thread is no longer about mtbs, I will say the SS speed, has a lot to do with the terrain they are ridding. Granted SS riders are a freak of nature, I believe I have them handled in Turbo! Anyrate, let's have a drink and move on..


You seem to drink a lot.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

WTF

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

Silentfoe said:


> WTF
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Perfect name for this thread!


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Gutch said:


> Albeit, this thread is no longer about mtbs, I will say the SS speed, has a lot to do with the terrain they are ridding. Granted SS riders are a freak of nature, I believe I have them handled in Turbo! Anyrate, let's have a drink and move on..


Double single speed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

life behind bars said:


> You seem to drink a lot.


 Yup.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

chazpat said:


> I have a feeling you quit riding some time shortly after 1997 as your knowledge of mountain bikes and mountain biking is very outdated. A lot has changed, a whole lot. I started in '94, quit in '99 and then restarted in 2006. I would suggest you hang out, read a lot and ride a lot before posting just based on how things were twenty years ago and on subjects you know little about. If you don't understand something, post a question in the beginners forum rather than boastful ones like your Rampage comparison to a bunch of experienced riders.
> 
> I agree with you about ss and gears when looked at in terms of physics. This is also why ebiking and cycling are not the same sport.


As I stated, the toys can change but the rules of physics do not.
My old bike is a 24 speed. Go with "new" technology and make it a 28 or 32 or more speed if you wish. It doesn't change the fact of how gear reduction works and the fact that it makes things easier.

Pick a trail/loop that has a steep climb and a steep descent. At some up grade, the SS bike becomes unusable, and you're walking or hitching a ride. It's physics. At some down grade, gravity bests you and you spin out (probably a wash as far as speed is concerned). It's physics.

If the geared bike can ascend quicker but they both descend at the same speed, even a child could tell you the geared bike is "faster" (i.e. shorter elapsed time per lap, not max speed of the bike).

Perhaps people get confused or scared by my analogy of a cars and bikes because they do not understand the similarities between the two (engine=human, transmission=cogs/chain/pedals, together they make forward motion). Maybe because they think bikes work on some different plane of physics, maybe because they just can't grasp analogies.

They try to turn their failure to understand into an insult, but it merely highlights their shortcomings. It's common among those who don't understand something to try and cover by hurling insults. Frankly, it's childlike.

Yes I'm a new member here, but being a new member doesn't mean I have to accept BS from people who sling it. Having 100,000 posts under one's belt means nothing with regard to right or wrong info.

I'm gonna' go ride my bike before the aluminum frame expires due to the shelf life.


----------



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

robbnj said:


> Pick a trail/loop that has a steep climb and a steep descent. At some up grade, the SS bike becomes unusable, and you're walking or hitching a ride. It's physics. At some down grade, gravity bests you and you spin out (probably a wash as far as speed is concerned). It's physics.


Physics is also about power. Graeme Obree used to put his bike in the biggest gear and climb the steepest hills he could find @ ~10rpm.

I'm a pretty decent climber (I use gears) and when I go on rides with single speeders they can clean every climb that I can, and I can't (usually) drop them, even on descents. Hard to believe maybe but true.

What does gearing issues have to do with the op?


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> What does gearing issues have to do with the op?


(R)evolution of a discussion. I think I may have questioned why people get upset that an eBike can pass them on the trail.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

robbnj said:


> At some up grade, the SS bike becomes unusable, and you're walking or hitching a ride.


And now we've found out where you went wrong.

A SS bike can be ridden anywhere a multi-geared bike can.
There is zero reason it can't.

This seems to be a common misperception among some newer/less experienced riders.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

robbnj said:


> As I stated, the toys can change but the rules of physics do not.
> My old bike is a 24 speed. Go with "new" technology and make it a 28 or 32 or more speed if you wish. It doesn't change the fact of how gear reduction works and the fact that it makes things easier.
> 
> Pick a trail/loop that has a steep climb and a steep descent. At some up grade, the SS bike becomes unusable, and you're walking or hitching a ride. It's physics. At some down grade, gravity bests you and you spin out (probably a wash as far as speed is concerned). It's physics.
> ...


It seems that you're arguing with yourself.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> And now we've found out where you went wrong.
> 
> A SS bike can be ridden anywhere a multi-geared bike can.
> There is zero reason it can't.
> ...


If geared properly, I don't doubt that an SS bike can be used to climb just about any grade, and use gravity to come back down (don't even need a chain for that as Aaron Gwin and others can attest).

With gearing that allows you to ascend a 20% grade without stalling, and climb over fallen trees & up over rock ledges and such, at what point do your pedals become useless going downhill? 
At what point can you not pedal any faster on the flats?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

robbnj said:


> If geared properly, I don't doubt that an SS bike can be used to climb just about any grade, and use gravity to come back down (don't even need a chain for that as Aaron Gwin and others can attest).
> 
> With gearing that allows you to ascend a 20% grade without stalling, and climb over fallen trees & up over rock ledges and such, at what point do your pedals become useless going downhill?
> At what point can you not pedal any faster on the flats?


At what point do you take your self-proclaimed physics and engineering expertise and get to the bottom of this very basic stuff on your own?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

If I rode my 250w ebike up a 18% grade at 140bpm with two beers in my back pack, and halfway up I drank one, took a leak, and switched to Turbo, what gear would I be in and what would my resting HR be?


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> At what point do you take your self-proclaimed physics and engineering expertise and get to the bottom of this very basic stuff on your own?


At what point do you provide something relevant to a discussion other than conjecture, personal beliefs, and insults?

When someone wants to dispute facts in a discussion, I am more than willing to ask them to support those facts.
Feel free to tell me you can flap your arms real hard and go airborne. I'm very likely to ask you to provide some proof.
I can be skeptical.

If you don't like the discussion, no one is forcing you to be a part of it.



Gutch said:


> If I rode my 250w ebike up a 18% grade at 140bpm with two beers in my back pack, and halfway up I drank one, took a leak, and switched to Turbo, what gear would I be in and what would my resting HR be?


The purple one, and Tuesday.
Unless you drink Busch.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

At what point do you just drop it! Geez!


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

Gutch said:


> If I rode my 250w ebike up a 18% grade at 140bpm with two beers in my back pack, and halfway up I drank one, took a leak, and switched to Turbo, what gear would I be in and what would my resting HR be?


Depends. Do you hear banjos being played in the distance? If so, are they acoustic or electronic?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

robbnj said:


> At what point do you provide something relevant to a discussion other than conjecture, personal beliefs, and insults?


Not my or anyone else's fault that you didn't know what you were talking about and got all bent out of shape when people corrected you. 
Cry about it.


----------



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

robbnj said:


> At what point can you not pedal any faster on the flats?


At what point does the single speeder give up waiting on you and continue on his own?


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

jcd46 said:


> At what point do you just drop it! Geez!


Don't worry, Klurejr will come in, see that the thread has gone way off the rails, and close it.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

robbnj said:


> As I stated, the toys can change but the rules of physics do not.
> My old bike is a 24 speed. Go with "new" technology and make it a 28 or 32 or more speed if you wish. It doesn't change the fact of how gear reduction works and the fact that it makes things easier.
> 
> Pick a trail/loop that has a steep climb and a steep descent. At some up grade, the SS bike becomes unusable, and you're walking or hitching a ride. It's physics. At some down grade, gravity bests you and you spin out (probably a wash as far as speed is concerned). It's physics.
> ...


Ok, if you don't want to believe us. Then find out for yourself.

Take your 24 speed bike to some mountain bike trails, some real mountain bike trails, not just some flat path. Wait for someone to show up on a single speed. Tell them you are conducting an experiment and ask them to race you the 3-6 mile trail, or longer if you'd like. Record the results. Repeat for the next two weeks. Heck, if you come across another rider on 21/24 speed bike, have them join in. Report back with the results. You'll discover there are a lot more factors to this than just gears and that your drag race car example does not really apply to mountain biking.

Or just keep making yourself look more and more foolish. You'd be surprised how much some of the people here know about physics and engineering.

And I'm curious how "28 or 32 or more speed" bikes would come about. 4x7? 2x14? 3.11x9? Just more evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

richj8990 said:


> Don't worry, Klurejr will come in, see that the thread has gone way off the rails, and close it.


Too soon. No mention of awesome strap yet.

Oh noes, I just did!:eekster::eekster::eekster:


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

chazpat said:


> And I'm curious how "28 or 32 or more speed" bikes would come about. 4x7? 2x14? 3.11x9? Just more evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.


Lol. I was going to ask him the same thing, but quickly realized that it was a waste of time. It will be fun to see how he defers the question though.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

Why do electric cars have single speed transmissions? They must be slow


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> Why do electric cars have single speed transmissions? They must be slow


I still haven't seen Tron. Please don't ruin it for me.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Why do electric cars have single speed transmissions? They must be slow


Engineering and stuff. That's why.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

J.B. Weld said:


> Why do electric cars have single speed transmissions? They must be slow


Elon has magical powers.


----------



## str8edgMTBMXer (Apr 15, 2015)

noapathy said:


> Depends. Do you hear banjos being played in the distance? If so, are they acoustic or electronic?


wait...so according to this thread, if I play my electronic bass...i will be instantly faster?

Versus my acoustic bass?

Or people won't wave at me and say hi if I play my acoustic bass?

and the less gear I have, the more i will have to walk uphill and the cooler people will think I am, even if the guy in the band after me is a strawman with more gear...like a 4x10?

i think i am starting to get it...


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> Why do electric cars have single speed transmissions? They must be slow


How utterly silly to compare an electric motor (that can deliver max torque instantly and throughout a very wide RPM range, negating a NEED for gear reduction) to a human (who makes max torque in a narrow range of motion) pedaling a bike, or a car engine (that makes max torque at a certain RPM and has a narrow RPM range) propelling a car.
Why don't you toss in something equally inane like rocket propulsion?

If you desire so much to prove me wrong, at least try to use analogies that make sense . Better yet, skip the analogies and just prove me wrong.

If you know how to drive a car with a manual transmission, just go put in in 4th and leave it there for a day's worth of driving. Let me know how it works out for you.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

robbnj said:


> just prove me wrong.


You've been proven wrong over and over...if you have a new mistake you need corrected, articulate it. At this point, you've thrown out so much random crap, I'm pretty sure you don't even know what your original argument was.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> You've been proven wrong over and over...if you have a new mistake you need corrected, articulate it. At this point, you've thrown out so much random crap, I'm pretty sure you don't even know what your original argument was.


Except it's been done without anyone offering proof.
Which means it hasn't happened. Not even with the simplest hypothetical that I could offer.
Step up to the plate and prove me wrong, just on my simple hypothetical.

If you want to go for a two-fer, show me all of the single-speeders that were used to win the XC MTB World Cup (don't waste time mentioning races that are specific to single-speeders being won by a single-speeder).

If you can't prove your thesis, then it's really unwise to back it wholeheartedly.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

robbnj said:


> Except it's been done without anyone offering proof.
> Which means it hasn't happened. Not even with the simplest hypothetical that I could offer.
> Step up to the plate and prove me wrong, just on my simple hypothetical.
> 
> ...


"It is a FACT that a geared drivetrain (be it on a bike, on a car, a truck, a lawn tractor, a motorhome, a military tank) allows for more efficient use of power, provides more capability, can provide overall higher speed"

This is fundamentally wrong. The most efficient drive train is a single path chain line. Now when you add gears you are talking about something entirely different. Another fundamental flaw is discussing overall speed, one gear selected to use the available power is the most efficient. Now, go away.

Single Speed,


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

robbnj said:


> Except it's been done without anyone offering proof.
> Which means it hasn't happened. Not even with the simplest hypothetical that I could offer.
> Step up to the plate and prove me wrong, just on my simple hypothetical.


State it clearly then, as I'm sure no one at this point has any idea which it is you're talking about this time.

I assume you've accepted that you've been proven wrong wrt your original point that someone on a SS isn't going to ride as far someone on a geared bike, as well as your statement that there hills that can be climbed on a geared bike but not on a SS bike and your assumption that a geared bike will be climbed faster than a SS?

And this beauty of course:
"It is a FACT that a single speed bike will be unusable on a given grade (up OR down), regardless of the strength, size, or capability of the rider. "


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

robbnj said:


> Except it's been done without anyone offering proof.
> Which means it hasn't happened. Not even with the simplest hypothetical that I could offer.
> Step up to the plate and prove me wrong, just on my simple hypothetical.
> 
> ...


Problem there is that UCI most likely won't allow SS's and geared bikes to race together at the World Cup level.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

slapheadmofo said:


> At this point, you've thrown out so much random crap, I'm pretty sure you don't even know what your original argument was.


I sure don't. And I even asked. Was it that e-bikes are faster than normal bikes, or slower, or was that not even part of it?

Robb, if you're trolling, chapeau sir!

-W


----------



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

Muscles are fired by electrical impulses, not gasoline so the human body is more like an electric motor than an F-1 car, so it has a wider torque range than an F-1 car. Therefore my analog bike is in existential crisis. 

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

life behind bars said:


> "It is a FACT that a geared drivetrain (be it on a bike, on a car, a truck, a lawn tractor, a motorhome, a military tank) allows for more efficient use of power, provides more capability, can provide overall higher speed"
> 
> This is fundamentally wrong. The most efficient drive train is a single path chain line. Now when you add gears you are talking about something entirely different. Another fundamental flaw is discussing overall speed, one gear selected to use the available power is the most efficient. Now, go away.
> 
> ...


You are incorrect.
Again, put your car in 4th gear and drive it around all day in that one gear. Let us know how it works for you. Let us know your gas mileage achieved. 
You think an 80,000 pound tractor trailer get 8MPG because gear reduction is the least efficient way to get power to the wheels?


----------



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

No one ever said single speed bikes were faster than geared bikes. Some people who ride them are though.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> State it clearly then, as I'm sure no one at this point has any idea which it is you're talking about this time.


Sorry you couldn't understand the querie within my post. I'll quote them here without so many confusing words around them: _"Step up to the plate and prove me wrong, just on my simple hypothetical. (the drag race between a single speed car and a multi-speed car, both otherwise identical)

If you want to go for a two-fer, show me all of the single-speeders that were used to win the XC MTB World Cup (don't waste time mentioning races that are specific to single-speeders being won by a single-speeder)."_

Easy to prove I'm wrong with these two examples.
If you have the proof.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> No one ever said single speed bikes were faster than geared bikes. Some people who ride them are though.


Perhaps Chazpat can explain his reasoning


chazpat said:


> My money would be on the single speeder to cover more ground and be faster than the guy on the 21 speed, both being on bicycles.


----------



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

Exactly. Single speed riders tend to be badass so odds are good that they'll crush someone who's riding an ancient 21speed.


----------



## robbnj (Jul 19, 2013)

I'm going to just become a lurker on this thread though.

I enjoy a good debate, but some people seem quite upset that I am supporting my argument and have asked me to stop doing so.
I assume they have also messaged others who support an opposing argument.

I also have noticed that some people like debate but prefer to support their argument with insults, personal beliefs, logical fallacies, and just plain repetition of false "facts", hoping that they win by speaking the "loudest".

And that's no fun.

I welcome anything anyone wants to post to prove me incorrect, but I bid you adieu (and "chapeau" to mod Walt).


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

robbnj said:


> Sorry you couldn't understand the querie within my post. I'll quote them here without so many confusing words around them: _"Step up to the plate and prove me wrong, just on my simple hypothetical. (the drag race between a single speed car and a multi-speed car, both otherwise identical)
> 
> If you want to go for a two-fer, show me all of the single-speeders that were used to win the XC MTB World Cup (don't waste time mentioning races that are specific to single-speeders being won by a single-speeder)."_
> 
> ...


No one here has remotely said anything that disagrees with these latest statements you made. I sure as hell haven't. But of course, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the original statements/sentiments that people disagreed with.

The confusion stems from you completely abandoning your original arguments and instead just throwing out all sorts of wacky non-sequiturs and expecting others to take ownership of them. How about we stick to what people actually said themselves instead of you demanding people try to justify words YOU put in their mouths?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

One more time, Robb - what does this have to do with e-bikes? It must at *some* point have had some bearing on Rich's post about riding his e-bike more than his normal bike, yes?

-Walt


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

robbnj said:


> Perhaps Chazpat can explain his reasoning


I already did, way back in post #86:

http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/my-analog-bike-existential-crisis-1091272.html#post13872891


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Walt said:


> One more time, Robb - what does this have to do with e-bikes? It must at *some* point have had some bearing on Rich's post about riding his e-bike more than his normal bike, yes?
> 
> -Walt


At first, his argument was if people were against e-bikes because people riding them would typically cover more ground at a faster pace than people on real bikes, then people should also be against geared bikes because he hypothesized that people with gears would typically cover more ground at a faster pace than people on SS bikes. 4x was the number thrown out.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Ah, got it. What a truly bizarre argument. I can be against something that makes a bike faster without being against *everything* that makes a bike faster (ie, pneumatic tires, freewheels, etc). Being opposed to motorized bikes on no-motor trails doesn't mean you have to exclusively support wood-tired unicycle access. 

But ok. At least I (sort of) see where this came from now.

-Walt


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

robbnj said:


> Perhaps Chazpat can explain his reasoning


On a relatively flat surface, with some inclines/declines that a rider can get momentum down on the way back up, a singlespeed is generally faster than a geared bike. Because it's lighter and the rider is probably stronger on the singlespeed simply by riding it. If you get into hills though it becomes a very different story. I've seen exactly one singlespeed bike go down a hill, and he was basically at the bottom by the time I realized what he was on. I don't know if he actually tried to pedal up the hill or not, but I assume not, because he was geared pretty high.

Personally I don't understand the attraction to them but to each their own. I don't see a lot of anti-singlespeed trolls going into that forum like the anti-ebikers do here.


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

chazpat said:


> I agree with you about ss and gears when looked at in terms of physics. This is also why ebiking and cycling are not the same sport.


ebiking is more analogous to a young XC racer riding a MTB. So no, that XC racer is not exactly the same as a regular rider on a trail bike. But in the scheme of things, eMTB is the same sport as MTB, because XC racer on a MTB is mountain biking imho. Me on my eMTB like me being my 25 year old XC racer self again, but aged 51 (and, BTW, with open heart surgery scheduled for next year).

SS, trail, rigid antique XC race bike, lift-assist DH bike, offroad unicycle, class 1/2 eMTB, it is all just MTB.


----------



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

richj8990 said:


> On a relatively flat surface, with some inclines/declines that a rider can get momentum down on the way back up, a singlespeed is generally faster than a geared bike. Because it's lighter and the rider is probably stronger on the singlespeed simply by riding it. If you get into hills though it becomes a very different story. I've seen exactly one singlespeed bike go down a hill, and he was basically at the bottom by the time I realized what he was on. I don't know if he actually tried to pedal up the hill or not, but I assume not, because he was geared pretty high.


Why does it become a different story when you get to the hills?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

BCsaltchucker said:


> ebiking is more analogous to a young XC racer riding a MTB. So no, that XC racer is not exactly the same as a regular rider on a trail bike. But in the scheme of things, eMTB is the same sport as MTB, because XC racer on a MTB is mountain biking imho. Me on my eMTB like me being my 25 year old XC racer self again, but aged 51 (and, BTW, with open heart surgery scheduled for next year).
> 
> SS, trail, rigid antique XC race bike, lift-assist DH bike, offroad unicycle, class 1/2 eMTB, it is all just MTB.


The results may be similar but you could say the same thing about a dirt bike with that kind of reasoning. People age in all sports. That's why they have a master class in racing.

55 btw. Hope your open heart surgery goes well. Enjoy your ebike but please just ride it where it is legal.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> On a relatively flat surface, with some inclines/declines that a rider can get momentum down on the way back up, a singlespeed is generally faster than a geared bike. Because it's lighter and the rider is probably stronger on the singlespeed simply by riding it. If you get into hills though it becomes a very different story.


So you've determined this by crossing paths with exactly one SS rider in your life, who you only saw on a descent?

I guess it would make sense to defer to your opinion then, given your vast experience on the subject.

:skep:


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I’ve ridden with many SS riders and obviously they are very strong and stand quite a bit more. They are like stealth trail ninja’s- freakishly fast. It’s been my experience, that most rip hardtails.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I've always found I get more momentum going down big hills than small inclines. Weird.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

richj8990 said:


> On a relatively flat surface, with some inclines/declines that a rider can get momentum down on the way back up, a singlespeed is generally faster than a geared bike. Because it's lighter and the rider is probably stronger on the singlespeed simply by riding it. If you get into hills though it becomes a very different story. I've seen exactly one singlespeed bike go down a hill, and he was basically at the bottom by the time I realized what he was on. I don't know if he actually tried to pedal up the hill or not, but I assume not, because he was geared pretty high.
> 
> Personally I don't understand the attraction to them but to each their own. I don't see a lot of anti-singlespeed trolls going into that forum like the anti-ebikers do here.


One of the guys in my group rides SS, and you know what is like in SoCal. He is younger but he is a beast on that thing, also its rigid. Everyone else in the group is geared but he is usually one of the top 3 guys up the hill.

I tried it, but no way I'm in shape for that.


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

Rich inspired me to buy an e-bike. I read his best-selling book on cycling.

Here it is! 










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

chazpat said:


> 55 btw. Hope your open heart surgery goes well. Enjoy your ebike but please just ride it where it is legal.


valve defect they discovered. causing enlargement etc

ride where it is legal? Weird inappropriate comment. _Why don't you just ride where MTB is legal, dude_.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

BCsaltchucker said:


> valve defect they discovered. causing enlargement etc
> 
> ride where it is legal? Weird inappropriate comment. _Why don't you just ride where MTB is legal, dude_.


Sorry, didn't mean to insult you in any way. I guess I was just trying to say I'm ok with ebikes where they are currently allowed. I just don't think they are bicycles nor that they should be allowed everywhere bicycles are allowed for reasons I have outlined many times.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

BCsaltchucker said:


> ebiking is more analogous to a young XC racer riding a MTB. So no, that XC racer is not exactly the same as a regular rider on a trail bike. But in the scheme of things, eMTB is the same sport as MTB, because XC racer on a MTB is mountain biking imho. Me on my eMTB like me being my 25 year old XC racer self again, but aged 51 (and, BTW, with open heart surgery scheduled for next year).
> 
> SS, trail, rigid antique XC race bike, lift-assist DH bike, offroad unicycle, class 1/2 eMTB, it is all just MTB.


 One of these has a motor. Mt bikes don't have motors. Start there.


----------



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

I think I understand now, IME cycling is more fun when you have plenty of power on tap and not so fun when you don't, It's a great feeling to motor up a hill and still feel strong at the top, and to feel fresh and invigorated after a couple of hard hours on the bike instead of dusted and done. 

I ride a fair amount and am stronger on a bike than most riders, I don't mean to sound like I'm bragging but it's just a fact. When riding with other people who aren't as fit I can tell that they're definitely suffering more than me and consequently maybe not enjoying the ride as much. It's harder to have fun and be in the moment when you're dreading the next climb.

An ebike solves these problems without a time consuming and bothersome training schedule. Anyone can instantly feel how it feels to have as much (or more) power than Peter Sagan, and without having to suffer as much for it. 8 vs. 15mph is a huge difference on a bike, 8mph can feel like a plodding pace whereas 15 feels like you're really moving and can make an otherwise boring trail a lot more exciting. 

So IMO the reason Rich's analogue bike is in existential crisis is purely due to lack of watts. It's all about power and I have a feeling that most bicycles gather dust because their motor is lacking, and a weak motor makes cycling less fun. I think more people will replace their bicycles with ebikes in the future.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

J.B. Weld said:


> I think I understand now, IME cycling is more fun when you have plenty of power on tap and not so fun when you don't, It's a great feeling to motor up a hill and still feel strong at the top, and to feel fresh and invigorated after a couple of hard hours on the bike instead of dusted and done.
> 
> I ride a fair amount and am stronger on a bike than most riders, I don't mean to sound like I'm bragging but it's just a fact. When riding with other people who aren't as fit I can tell that they're definitely suffering more than me and consequently maybe not enjoying the ride as much. It's harder to have fun and be in the moment when you're dreading the next climb.
> 
> ...


Agree. That and it's just a same, but different sport. I think a lot of ebikers that used to ride moto and Mtb enjoy them. It's like a blend.


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

leeboh said:


> One of these has a motor. Mt bikes don't have motors. Start there.


last time I checks, no MTB can effect forward motion without some kind of 'motor' propelling it


----------



## BCsaltchucker (Jan 16, 2014)

chazpat said:


> I just don't think they are bicycles nor that they should be allowed everywhere bicycles are allowed for reasons I have outlined many times.


I can agree with that. eMTB don't belong where the trails are really flat. Around here they're steep as F and eMTB allowed everywhere MTB are, like most of the globe. One exception is at private ski hills, where they make money lift-assisting riders.


----------



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

BCsaltchucker said:


> last time I checks, no MTB can effect forward motion without some kind of 'motor' propelling it


Lots of ebikes can be propelled with a twist throttle and I'm ok with that. Pedal assist is just a different type of throttle imo.


----------



## hikerdave (Mar 8, 2006)

J.B. Weld said:


> I think I understand now, IME cycling is more fun when you have plenty of power on tap and not so fun when you don't, It's a great feeling to motor up a hill and still feel strong at the top, and to feel fresh and invigorated after a couple of hard hours on the bike instead of dusted and done.
> 
> I ride a fair amount and am stronger on a bike than most riders, I don't mean to sound like I'm bragging but it's just a fact. When riding with other people who aren't as fit I can tell that they're definitely suffering more than me and consequently maybe not enjoying the ride as much. It's harder to have fun and be in the moment when you're dreading the next climb.
> 
> ...


I replaced my commuter bike with an eBike because I can't tolerate shock and my mountain bike was too slow - my 150 watts gets me 12 mph on the mountain bike but the Electric mountain bike gives me 15 to 20 mph depending on how I set the assist. I know what it's like to be fit but it just isn't possible for me. I've ridden e-bikes legally on my local trails and the biggest difference is that once again I'm riding to the trail head.

On a steep grade the E-Bike doesn't get me much more speed - 50 watts per mile per hour on a 10 percent grade means 13 mph with me and the bike together, but without the electric assist I'd be going 3mph, which is just barely making it up the hill.

One time I climbed 3300 feet and 15 miles in 75 minutes, but that was 35 years ago when my joints were healthy. No chance of that happening again.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

This is why I keep coming back to MTBR.

To the OP, how do you know it isn't just exciting cause it is the new thing? How do you know the novelty won't just wear off and you get bored of the same trails? Not an argument for or against e-bikes.

Also analog bike is official the dumbest thing I have heard on here and that is really saying something.


----------



## figofspee (Jul 19, 2018)

It's pretty stupid how all these ebikers are basing their opinions on things like riding experience. The true ebike experience is whatever the mountain bikers who don't ride ebikes say it is, duh. I was going to ride my ebike today, but instead decided to check in on mtbr.com to see how my ride was.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> I think I understand now, IME cycling is more fun when you have plenty of power on tap and not so fun when you don't, It's a great feeling to motor up a hill and still feel strong at the top, and to feel fresh and invigorated after a couple of hard hours on the bike instead of dusted and done.
> 
> I ride a fair amount and am stronger on a bike than most riders, I don't mean to sound like I'm bragging but it's just a fact. When riding with other people who aren't as fit I can tell that they're definitely suffering more than me and consequently maybe not enjoying the ride as much. It's harder to have fun and be in the moment when you're dreading the next climb.
> 
> ...


Yes, it's about climbing most of all. When I look at my average watts without e-power it's 80-90. Climbing maybe it's 120. The top ten climbers on these level 4 hills that are in roughly 1/2 the places I go average around 160-225 watts. Their extrapolated heart rate is around 160-180 BPM, which is a lot if they are over 45. They are really in shape. I bike to have fun, not to get the most intense aerobic workout possible. I've also noticed on all bikes that if you get in a good 90-120 minute ride with some hills (analog or e-bike), you get the same endorphin rush at the end that you do with an intense 30 minute aerobic workout at the gym anyway. Same difference.

It's also about exploring more area in the same amount of time. Unless you are in really good shape, it's not easy to climb 1250 feet up and down twice in two hours and do it at a casual pace (I did that Sunday, two separate hills). With an e-bike, you can do it. Hikers and bikepackers may end up loving them later for this reason.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

93EXCivic said:


> View attachment 1224081
> 
> 
> This is why I keep coming back to MTBR.
> ...


I know it's exciting because I don't follow trends. If I followed trends I'd also have a plus bike and a full-suspension bike by now. Oh and a 15 lb road bike, and lycra, and all of that other crap. And let's not forget the trendiest of them all: gravel bikes. That ain't me buddy. E-bikes are not 'the trend' on MTBR, they are the anti-trend. The majority of the older riders here do not like them, if you have not read the 10,000 posts criticizing them.

Maybe the novelty will wear off. Until then, I have about 3000 miles of unexplored fire roads and trails to seek out in the dark corners of the county. And I guarantee you I will have a lot more fun on a fire road with an e-bike than with a normal bike. Riding an e-bike is like rediscovering biking all over again, it's a different level. If someone is perfectly happy on their normal bike, good for them. If not, they know what to try.

I agree that the term analog bike is dumb. I prefer to call them pedal bikes but that's not a common term. But don't worry, I'll continue to say dumb things for your entertainment lol.


----------



## jcd46 (Jul 25, 2012)

Rich, what kind of ebike do you have?

And what's with the hate for gravel?


----------



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

richj8990 said:


> I know it's exciting because I don't follow trends.


That doesn't make sense. Also ebikes are about as trendy as it gets in the cycling world right now.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> I don't follow trends.
> 
> I agree that the term analog bike is dumb. I prefer to call them pedal bikes but that's not a common term.




So you don't follow trends and you think calling a bicycle "analog" is dumb but you do so anyway because that is the trend. Got it.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

JB, your post is hysterical, way to spell it out 



J.B. Weld said:


> I think I understand now, IME cycling is more fun when you have plenty of power on tap and not so fun when you don't, It's a great feeling to motor up a hill and still feel strong at the top, and to feel fresh and invigorated after a couple of hard hours on the bike instead of dusted and done.
> 
> I ride a fair amount and am stronger on a bike than most riders, I don't mean to sound like I'm bragging but it's just a fact. When riding with other people who aren't as fit I can tell that they're definitely suffering more than me and consequently maybe not enjoying the ride as much. It's harder to have fun and be in the moment when you're dreading the next climb.
> 
> ...


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

richj8990 said:


> I know it's exciting because I don't follow trends. If I followed trends I'd also have a plus bike and a full-suspension bike by now. Oh and a 15 lb road bike, and lycra, and all of that other crap. And let's not forget the trendiest of them all: gravel bikes. That ain't me buddy. E-bikes are not 'the trend' on MTBR, they are the anti-trend. The majority of the older riders here do not like them, if you have not read the 10,000 posts criticizing them.
> 
> Maybe the novelty will wear off. Until then, I have about 3000 miles of unexplored fire roads and trails to seek out in the dark corners of the county. And I guarantee you I will have a lot more fun on a fire road with an e-bike than with a normal bike. Riding an e-bike is like rediscovering biking all over again, it's a different level. If someone is perfectly happy on their normal bike, good for them. If not, they know what to try.
> 
> I agree that the term analog bike is dumb. I prefer to call them pedal bikes but that's not a common term. But don't worry, I'll continue to say dumb things for your entertainment lol.


I didn't new as in a trend but rather as in new to you.

But I don't know lycra or full suspension is a trend since they have been around for quite a while.

As far as the analog thing, why not just e-bike and call a regular bike, a bike?


----------



## Battery (May 7, 2016)

My road bike is actually 16 lbs and lycra has its use for road cycling


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

richj8990 said:


> I know it's exciting _because I don't follow trends._ If I followed trends I'd also have a plus bike and a full-suspension bike by now.
> 
> ...But don't worry, I'll continue to say dumb things for your entertainment lol.


Your following the ebike trend, so yes, you obviously follow trends. Ebikes are one of the trendiest items for older and retired adults right now. Have anything else stupid to say for our entertainment?

"China is leading the way in the e-bike trend, with 47.6 million e-bikes expected to have been sold worldwide in 2018. But riders and manufacturers in Europe and the U.S. are hopping on this trend, too."

Why E-Bikes Are A Trend Worth Watching â€" Deborah Weinswig


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Just to beat up on you a little more Rich… 

I've seen you mock riders with "skinny" tires less than 2.4 as you bought wider and wider tires and now you're turning up your nose at plus bikes. Seems you have a range of about 3/8s of an inch that you find acceptable for mountain biking.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

chazpat said:


> Just to beat up on you a little more Rich&#8230;
> 
> I've seen you mock riders with "skinny" tires less than 2.4 as you bought wider and wider tires and now you're turning up your nose at plus bikes. Seems you have a range of about 3/8s of an inch that you find acceptable for mountain biking.


Anything else would be uncivilized.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

You do know this is is in the ebike forum, no?

Ask this question in an area of the site where people ride "analog" bikes, [who the Fock came up with that term?] well into their 70's and beyond.

Whats the average age group of you ebike crowd? I'm thinking most are in their 40's.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> You do know this is is in the ebike forum, no?
> 
> Ask this question in an area of the site where people ride "analog" bikes, [who the Fock came up with that term?] well into their 70's and beyond.
> 
> Whats the average age group of you ebike crowd? I'm thinking most are in their 40's.


lol, a little late to the "analog" bike party, DJ! Thread is almost three years old and Rich is long gone.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I can’t stand analog phrase also. Mtb- ebike. Done.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

chazpat said:


> lol, a little late to the "analog" bike party, DJ! Thread is almost three years old and Rich is long gone.


Shhh...he just finished winding his watch.


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

DIRTJUNKIE said:


> You do know this is is in the ebike forum, no?
> 
> Ask this question in an area of the site where people ride "analog" bikes, [who the Fock came up with that term?] well into their 70's and beyond.
> 
> Whats the average age group of you ebike crowd? I'm thinking most are in their 40's.


----------



## DIRTJUNKIE (Oct 18, 2000)

Lol, whatever!


----------

