# MOAB BLM nixes eBikes



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

The BLM classifies them as motorized and, therefore, not to use the non-motorized trails. Go here and scroll to the top of the page:

MTB Race News: Moab Builds New Trails and BLM Bans E-Bikes on Trails


----------



## chuckha62 (Jul 11, 2006)

Excellent! They took a stand.


----------



## expatrider (Feb 1, 2005)

Awesome! IFH those things.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

FWIW, this is how the whole Mountain Bike Advocacy thing started back in 1987. Trails were just closed, in EBRPD and Joaquin Miller, to mountain bikes out of hand. The Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay was formed and helped to turn that around.

It's been an uphill battle ever since.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Berkeley Mike said:


> FWIW, this is how the whole Mountain Bike Advocacy thing started back in 1987. Trails were just closed, in EBRPD and Joaquin Miller, to mountain bikes out of hand. The Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay was formed and helped to turn that around.
> 
> It's been an uphill battle ever since.


Good thing there's not an E-Mountain Bike Advocacy group that can be consulted before these bans are put into place! Ban them everywhere, before they get organized!

I'm still puzzled about how on Earth the bans will be enforced/successful, especially as e-MTB's start to look more and more like regular mountain bikes.


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

Empty_Beer said:


> I'm still puzzled about how on Earth the bans will be enforced/successful, especially as e-MTB's start to look more and more like regular mountain bikes.


If I see one of these monstrosities on a non motorized trail I will be happy to help with enforcement of the ban and I hope other mountain bikers would react the same way they would if they saw me riding my yz 250 in a closed area. Contacting the authorities, taking pictures and public humiliation would be a good start.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Pedelecs are exactly like regular MTB to other trail users. The motor and battery adds about 15 pounds to the bike so I'm not sure if that would be a fun bike to ride in Moab anyway. We need agility there. Still, stupid to ban something that has no physical impact other trail users.

Pedelecs make no more noise than regular bikes, especially mine, must be pedaled to operate at all, don't exceed 20 mph, and physically appear similar to a regular MTB. Their effect on the rider is like a tail wind, that's all.

Other types are more like motorcycles and should be banned. 

The above link doesn't link to this topic.


----------



## d-bug (Mar 18, 2005)

donutnational said:


> If I see one of these monstrosities on a non motorized trail I will be happy to help with enforcement of the ban and I hope other mountain bikers would react the same way they would if they saw me riding my yz 250 in a closed area. Contacting the authorities, taking pictures and public humiliation would be a good start.


Awesome, now we're starting to talk like Sierra Club hikers that don't want bikes on trails.
Such hypocrisy.
I wonder if this is how MV got his start...


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

We have trails all over the West that were blazed by dirt bikers that they share with us. Downieville! Cannell! Slick Rock Bike Trail! Thunder Mountain!

We can't share trails with ebikes that have no additional effect on other users and trails?

I prefer to be more open minded...


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

jmpreston said:


> I prefer to be more open minded...


I prefer to be more realistic, motorized vehicles have no place on non motorized trails.
If I get a quieter pipe and keep my yz under 20mph can I play on your trails? I could probably get a handicapped placard for it if that would make you feel better.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Motor used to equal power and noise. It no longer means that. Get with the future.

A heart pacemaker is an electric motor of sorts. We must keep those off the trails of course!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

d-bug said:


> Awesome, now we're starting to talk like Sierra Club hikers that don't want bikes on trails.
> Such hypocrisy.
> I wonder if this is how MV got his start...


The similarity ought to teach us something about us...and them.


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

I like bikes on trails, I don't like motorcycles on non motorized trails and I don't care if it's an electric motor or a gas one.


----------



## Carl Hungus (Nov 29, 2005)

Empty_Beer said:


> I'm still puzzled about how on Earth the bans will be enforced/successful, especially as e-MTB's start to look more and more like regular mountain bikes.


This.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Berkeley Mike said:


> The similarity ought to teach us something about us...and them.


We had HOHA. Now we have HOBA.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

This is like the hiker fight over lugged soles vs non-lugged boot soles in the 60's. Jeez...


----------



## John Svahn (Dec 13, 2011)

Serious question, and wearing my land manager hat here. Never seen one of these e bikes. Is it possible to roost through an uphill corner with these?
Thanks


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

donutnational said:


> If I see one of these monstrosities on a non motorized trail I will be happy to help with enforcement of the ban and I hope other mountain bikers would react the same way they would if they saw me riding my yz 250 in a closed area. Contacting the authorities, taking pictures and public humiliation would be a good start.


How are you harmed, or how is your trail use experienced lessened if an ebike rides next to you, or passes you uphill (or the rare case DH)? No one is going to be faster on tech or most DH with 15-20lbs added to their bike or person.

The slight wizzing of the motor as it goes by?

A 2 smoker 250 is not pleasant to anyone, other than the rider. They make that annoying weed wacker chainsaw 2smoke noise. My thumper 250 and 570s roar and smell like gasoline as I roost by.

There's even a second angle in that the ebikes might go further than us into the back country and ride trails out there, away from us, and while out there perhaps do some weed/growth control on the trail via trail use. All the riders here know that each year, the backcountry trails in Coe get grown over due to lack of use. Only the strongest riders get out there, and they're the ones weed wacking and pruning as they go.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

@John, yes or no, depending on the ebike. They are not all the same. Look up pedelecs. These are ebikes you have to pedal. They are as quiet as mountain bikes and max the rider out on level ground at 20 mph / 25 kph.

Uphill they only give the rider a "tailwind" according to what I'm reading. (I'm in the market for a standard trail bike at this time.)

I'll go to Sea Otter and ride what's available there. I ignored them before.

Enforcement of pedelecs is easy. If the riding the bike sounds and behaves as a motor bike then it is a motor bike and ban the bastards. If it has no significant impact on users greater than regular MTB's then there is nothing to enforce. Manufactures can create smartphone apps with the qualifying models so rangers have additional reference if necessary.

I want to try to talk Midpen into testing the bikes at say El Corte de Madera and make an evaluation based on research and knowledge, not dumb emotion.

We should draw the line at the problem, traditional motor impacts, not the means.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

John Svahn said:


> Serious question, and wearing my land manager hat here. Never seen one of these e bikes. Is it possible to roost through an uphill corner with these?
> Thanks


A pedal assist bike might slip the rear wheel. An ebike with throttle maybe can roost, depending on trail and slope. Just guessing, since I haven't ridden one on trail yet.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

@rensho, a throttle would probably a good differentiator for enforcement. Thanks for the idea.

From what I'm readying it seems that an pedelec would have a more difficult time slipping a rear wheel than a traditional MTB.

Of course no one on this thread is a skid kiddie. Right?

We really need the manufacturers to come together and do demo days for us and land managers so we have an informed opinion based on experience.


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

jmpreston said:


> We can't share trails with ebikes that have no additional effect on other users and trails?
> 
> I prefer to be more open minded...


x2.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

Berkeley Mike said:


> The BLM classifies them as motorized and, therefore, not to use the non-motorized trails. Go here and scroll to the top of the page:
> 
> MTB Race News: Moab Builds New Trails and BLM Bans E-Bikes on Trails


whats the difference between an ebike and an electric motorcycle?


----------



## Carl Hungus (Nov 29, 2005)

iheartbicycles said:


> whats the difference between an ebike and an electric motorcycle?


The ebike is lighter?


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

I'm still no expert on this topic but another very lively thread got me into researching it.

eBikes is a broad category. Pelelecs (Pedal electric) is the lowest powered of these and must be pedaled to work at all. They are quiet. Those are the ones that we should be discussing as MTB.

There are higher powered ebikes with throttles and can be rode without pedaling. We probably all agree that those are not MTB. They will definitely impact other users and the trails with their power and speed. I don't know about noise.


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

jmpreston said:


> I'm still no expert on this topic but another very lively thread got me into researching it.
> 
> eBikes is a broad category. Pelelecs (Pedal electric) is the lowest powered of these and must be pedaled to work at all. They are quiet. Those are the ones that we should be discussing as MTB.
> 
> There are higher powered ebikes with throttles and can be rode without pedaling. We probably all agree that those are not MTB. They will definitely impact other users and the trails with their power and speed. I don't know about noise.


I agree that there's a difference between pedal assist and pure throttle - but the market hasn't yet caught up.

There are many "ebikes" that have throttles that don't require pedaling.

These bikes, to my mind are not sufficiently dissimilar from electric motorcycles.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

IMBA's original take on e-MTB's: https://www.imba.com/sites/default/files/motorized position-IMBA 2010.pdf
- Summary: E-bikes are cool, but shouldn't be on non-motorized trails... buh-bye.

IMBA's more recent position?: https://www.imba.com/resources/2014-summit/electric-mountain-bikes
- Summary: These e-MTB's are coming, we need to be proactive with management strategies, and make informed decisions based on research.

I don't think banning them will work well, and brushing them off as OHV's doesn't solve anything other than lumping MTB's even closer together to MX (to MTB hater's delight)... so I'm pleased to see IMBA appears to be mobilizing a bit more on this issue.

To iheartbicycles point, my real concern is when a good percentage of dirt bikes are electric... do they then qualify as a "silent sport", just like hiking, horseback riding and mountain biking? I worry that electric motos and e-MTB's will have the ability to get all wheels booted from many trails, because some will ruin it for all.


----------



## lidation (Jun 16, 2010)

I guess a lot of the resentment comes from the difficulty in differentiating eBikes and non-eBikes from Strava data. Once the eBikes become prevalent, the Strava data grant us no bragging rights any more.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Europe has MTB pedelec regs that make those bikes pretty much like any MTB. We need to work with land managers here to implement something like them. You can discover all this with a simple search.

This is the only retailer that I found with a simple search by they are in NY:
NYCeWheels - your place for Electric Bikes, Folding Bikes and Kick Scooters

I emailed them and asked if they know of any distribution here and if we can get demo bikes to evaluation with our land managers.

I assume no one on this thread would want to ride one but there are some retirement homes near me and they have buses to get the riders up to an open space preserve or the Demo.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Can we switch from saying ebikes to pedelecs?


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

jmpreston said:


> can we switch from saying ebikes to pedelecs?


no.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

jmpreston said:


> @John, yes or no, depending on the ebike. They are not all the same. Look up pedelecs. These are ebikes you have to pedal. They are as quiet as mountain bikes and max the rider out on level ground at 20 mph / 25 kph.
> 
> Uphill they only give the rider a "tailwind" according to what I'm reading. (I'm in the market for a standard trail bike at this time.)
> 
> ...


The main issue is always the same: path of least resistance and work. It's a lot easier for a land manager (not talking about John) to lump all electric bikes together and ban them than trying to figure out the difference between a pedal assisted bike (i.e. a bicycle with a really strong pro level rider on top) and an electric motorcycle.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

@zorg, as I've mentioned earlier, it appears to be easy to determine the difference. Enforcement doesn't seem to be an issue. The Europeans have worked that out already.

Of course they have a lot of lift assisted MTB  Those are very large e-systems.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

jmpreston said:


> @zorg, as I've mentioned earlier, it appears to be easy to determine the difference. Enforcement doesn't seem to be an issue. The Europeans have worked that out already.
> 
> Of course they have a lot of lift assisted MTB  Those are very large e-systems.


Yes, but 1) those are not litigious societies, and 2) they don't have that crazy belief in a "Wilderness that looks like the 19th century" illusion. Ultimately, people will ride them and they'll become accepted. It'll probably take 30 years. After all, we've been banned from Wilderness for 30 years, and this has still not worked itself out yet.


----------



## Motosc (Dec 19, 2007)

This is great news. I am sorry, but no matter what you call them, they are MOTORIZED VEHICLES. Not solely human powered. End of story. (I wish)


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Horses aren't human powered. Therefore they are motor vehicles much more than pedelecs. Trails closed to motorized vehicles don't require human powered.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Carl Hungus said:


> The ebike is lighter?


Ebike is almost 200lbs lighter than an elec moto.


----------



## Schril (Oct 28, 2010)

It's t-ball for mtb. So send them to dual purpose trails in d-ville, slickrock, etc...


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Motosc said:


> This is great news. I am sorry, but no matter what you call them, they are MOTORIZED VEHICLES. Not solely human powered. End of story. (I wish)


Seriously. Raise your hand and let's count who among us own more of the trails on earth than another...

We either all own equal share/rights, or we all own ZERO share/rights of the trail, exception are those that build and do trail work.

In the end, doesn't it come down to trail maintenance and what group/user type does how much, and which user group does most damage? As long as we humans can maintain some type of balance, the rest is a bunch of righteous panty twisting.

We ride in Downieville and come upon motos sometimes. We typically yield to them and within 20-30 seconds, they're gone. We continue bombing the DH and continue having a good time. Why must this be a problem?

I'm really surprised Moab of all places took this stance. Those trails are in the middle of nowhere. Jeeps and Hummers are pretty much allowed anywhere, and yet they're worried about an ebike that does 10-20mph uphill.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

@rensho while I second your thoughts Moab BLM seems to have banned ebikes from non-motorized trails. I want to contact them and see what research they did.

As I've brought up on another thread and this one. Motorized used to be a convenient way of defining the real problem - user conflict through noise, power, and trail damage. Pedelecs don't meet that criteria. They assist like gears and they are human powered, which isn't a criteria but for some people this seems to be an issue.

A pacemaker is a motor and doesn't inconvenience anyone. It assists the user, that's it. Pedelecs do the same thing.

This thread doesn't get into the ADA issues like an earlier one did but there is no way that land managers can prevent pedelecs except in dedicated Wilderness areas. The new Santa Clara County Open Space Authority's regs show that.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Motosc said:


> This is great news. I am sorry, but no matter what you call them, they are MOTORIZED VEHICLES. Not solely human powered. End of story. (I wish)


Wow, your judicious use of capitalized words totally won me over!!! So powerful, so convincing. [/SARCASM]


----------



## ronski (Jul 28, 2009)

jmpreston said:


> @rensho while I second your thoughts Moab BLM seems to have banned ebikes from non-motorized trails. I want to contact them and see what research they did.
> 
> As I've brought up on another thread and this one. Motorized used to be a convenient way of defining the real problem - user conflict through noise, power, and trail damage. Pedelecs don't meet that criteria. They assist like gears and they are human powered, which isn't a criteria but for some people this seems to be an issue.
> 
> ...


A Pacemaker is a timer that controls the firing of the motor (heart). It's no motor.


----------



## jms (Feb 4, 2006)

donutnational said:


> I prefer to be more realistic, motorized vehicles have no place on non motorized trails.
> If I get a quieter pipe and keep my yz under 20mph can I play on your trails? I could probably get a handicapped placard for it if that would make you feel better.


Agree.

Technology makes the world smaller every day. It's okay if there are places that are beyond our easy reach with the latest technological "crutch". Is there a better way to limit our impact on the planet than to require we travel without a motor in a few of the remaining wild places?

Sanity prevails.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

@jms - you are saying that bikes don't belong in wilderness. I'm neutral on that but many others think they do. Bikes are beyond any doubt a tech crutch. (I've been a backpacker around the world since 1961.)

@ronski - a pacemaker is a component of a motor, just like a spark plug. A spark plug isn't a motor. A pedal is also component of a motor. Sorry I didn't explain it better but my wife is serving martinis and wearing a tight tank top that says "Just add vodka".

For those who need to learn the English definition of motor:
Motor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Please keep putting down pedelecs because you are helping me refine my position. I don't want one now, I want a trail bike, but I may want one in ten years and I'm going to fight for the right to ride a bike with electric assist that doesn't impact other users. A thread here a couple of weeks ago pissed me off enough to get into this. I hate conservatism and reactionary thinking.

If a pedelec impacts other trail users "sensibilities" then so does black skin, Jewishness, gay marriage, etc. There are other psychological factors involved than a quiet and unassuming MTB.


----------



## jms (Feb 4, 2006)

jmpreston said:


> @jms - you are saying that bikes don't belong in wilderness.
> 
> If a pedelec impacts other trail users "sensibilities" then so does black skin, Jewishness, gay marriage, etc. There are other psychological factors involved than a quiet and unassuming MTB.


No, I'm saying "non-motorized" is a threshold, I prefer "we" didn't cross. Just as there are rivers "we" fish with barb-less hooks to minimize our [as a species] ever increasing footprint/impact on the world beyond our desires and pursuits. And whether it's a WASP, or a black, gay, Jewish, illegal immigrant twisting the throttle, it's the motor, not the operator I find objectionable.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

@jms - finding the motor rather than the actual issue objectionable is exactly the same as racism. I only judge performance / impacts / etc. A motor is not the problem on the trails. A motor in itself doesn't matter. We object to noise, smell, and too much power that is used by careless and self-centered riders. (Something like horses, heh?)

It used to be that motor = those attributes. It doesn't anymore. Motors can have none of those attributes. So noise, smell, and too much power needs a new label.

There was some MTB pitch about "longer rides..." not many years ago. We can rethink that.

Neanderthals were conservative thinkers ...

So are equestrians, and apparently some / many MTBers.


----------



## donutnational (Jan 18, 2013)

I rode yesterday afternoon and asked all 3 people I saw on the trail (2 bikers, one hiker) whether or not they felt ebikes should have access to non motorized trails. All said no. So my research based conclusion is that you are much more likely to meet ebike supporters on the internet than on the trail. I will continue my research today and report back later.


----------



## jms (Feb 4, 2006)

Carl Hungus said:


> The ebike is lighter?


And three times more expensive than a motorcycle, with a tenth the horsepower and range ........... brilliant marketing! ; )


----------



## jms (Feb 4, 2006)

jmpreston said:


> @jms - finding the motor rather than the actual issue objectionable is exactly the same as racism. I only judge performance / impacts / etc. A motor is not the problem on the trails. A motor in itself doesn't matter. We object to noise, smell, and too much power that is used by careless and self-centered riders. (Something like horses, heh?)
> 
> It used to be that motor = those attributes. It doesn't anymore. Motors can have none of those attributes. So noise, smell, and too much power needs a new label.
> 
> ...


Uhmmm, no. Using a false moral equivalency and name calling to discredit a divergent opinion is not "forward" thinking. : )


----------



## jms (Feb 4, 2006)

donutnational said:


> I rode yesterday afternoon and asked all 3 people I saw on the trail (2 bikers, one hiker) whether or not they felt ebikes should have access to non motorized trails. All said no. So my research based conclusion is that you are much more likely to meet ebike supporters on the internet than on the trail. I will continue my research today and report back later.


Good plan!


----------



## pizza (Dec 2, 2005)

there's an easy way out of this and I don't know if it's been mentioned already but anyway: 

If there's a trail you really care about (say braille), "sensible" design can effectively regulate the maximum speed at which a trail can be navigated, at which point I don't think it would matter either way. no, I'm not talking about off-camber turns and surprise tree stumps and other flow-interrupting features. it could be a pump-track style berm chicane that will get you high-sided if you try to blast through @ 30MPH.

Step downs are hard to ride backwards fast, ebike or not. Probably can't bunnyhop that 12" log either, at least on an ebike. Same for rocky chutes, ladder gaps and curvy skinny ladders. You could easily link up above-mentioned features to keep ebikes out. why not make trails e-bike- unfriendly and WAY more interesting to ride? who knows, maybe ebikes are just what we need to galvanize a movement towards a legit trail-builder movement in the bay. Old folks need not apply, there's always fremont older 

Anyway, one can dream...


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

@pizza, did you see that recent electric MTB video that was posted on some thread here? Looked like any regular enduro bike riding stuff like Braille.

I agree with more challenging trails in the SF Bay Area but it is pretty much impossible to organizer MTBers here to make it happen. I tried. Many others have. We couldn't even get much help from MTBers who ride the Midpen trails for electing an MTBer to the board - long a goal for us. Really discouraging.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Deore Plus*

While I'm generally against permitting eBikes, pedelecs or whatever to use "trails" in "our" area (NorCal?) the rest of the world especially Europe is pushing hard for "pedelecs" to gain acceptance.

(Even the World Health Organization thinks they're a good thing)

Reason: Anything that gets more people out of cars and also off regular moto's is a good thing.

Bosch is heavily invested in seeing this through; there are dozens of manufacturers using Bosch's technology---I can only guess what this guy is saying but he's sort of making sense:


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

jms said:


> Uhmmm, no. Using a false moral equivalency and name calling to discredit a divergent opinion is not "forward" thinking. : )


jms, name calling was not intended and sorry if you took it that way. I'm frustrated by conservative beliefs on several fronts and pedelecs is one of them. My reference to Neanderthals is regarding the results of conservatism, which means little or no change from existing behaviors and actions in this context. It was not meant in reference to you.

Human power assist devices are not motors in the traditional sense. Whether mechanical like gears or wheels or electronic they only assist us. However, human powered is not the criteria for any trail system that I've heard of, including in designated wilderness areas.

Taxpayers should get as much access as possible to our trails as long as the means do not have a significant additional impact on other users. Pedelecs qualify. Throttled bikes don't.

The definition of motor is changing. Will you ban hikers with electric assist knees or hips?

We should care about the results, not the means.


----------



## jms (Feb 4, 2006)

jmpreston said:


> We should care about the results, not the means.


True.

But there is a difference between innovation and progress:

While developing the hydrogen bomb was innovative, using it probably wouldn't be progress. So maybe conservatism gets a bad rap sometimes?

And with respect to electric assist for mountain bikes, what looks like progress to you, looks like 'deodorant' [for motorcycles] to me. : )


----------



## pizza (Dec 2, 2005)

jmp, I haven't seen that video. Been living under a rock for some time now, but in any case, all good points. Not too many friends of mtb in the bay, too much litigation/bureaucracy, not enough time to get our act together. I grew up near the Calabazas jumps and I've seen what happens when the greater public gets involved.

That said, my post was a little tongue in cheek (I mean, many people I've seen can't bunny hop a log, ebike or no, especially not those new to the sport) it's possible at the very least to design trails for minimum impact, i.e. no abrupt speed/direction changes. A nice, flowy, bermy trail is not out of reach and can make it irrelevant how fast your bike can go in straight line, or uphill. A motor will not help you corner any harder (either heavy, too much inertia or light, no extra grip). With that mindset we can make it possible, within reason, to make it more difficult for some douche with a motor to terrorize another rider. Trails like upper ridge trail in demo, though, I don't see any hope. too flat, too pedally. New demo flow trail, I don't see how an e-bike would really help anyway. Let's just make more of those. I'll help.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

How can an MTB that looks and acts like an MTB look like a motorcycle? Since when does "looks" become criteria for taxpayers to use their trails?

Pedelecs are just bicycles. They don't affect anyone other than the rider. They are harmless. I'm not all that libertarian but freedom of personal choice is a major part of American culture.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

@pizza, wife and I worked on the Demo Flow Trail  I would like to try a pedelec on it. That climb gets old. My lines on Braille would probably be fine on a pedelec but I don't bunny hop and have been riding bikes in the Santa Cruz Mountains since the mid-50's, true MTB's since 1988. I suspect that most riders don't want to ride such features but some pedelec riders are doing some amazing stunts.

I was at Rampage this year but didn't see Zink and the others on pedelecs 

eBike is too broad a term and includes motorcycles that can go over 200 mph. Bikes include motorcycles, also too broad. 

Pedal assist can't bomb down trails any faster than regular bikes. The assist ends at 15 mph / 25 kph. (I guessed at the conversion previously and wrote 20 mph. It is 15 mph.)

Pedelec designs are regulated by the EU to those parameters. They have to be pedaled to work at all, the assist can't work over 15 mph, they have to be quiet. Zip impact on anyone else.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

jmpreston said:


> How can an MTB that looks and acts like an MTB look like a motorcycle? Since when does "looks" become criteria for taxpayers to use their trails?
> 
> Pedelecs are just bicycles. They don't affect anyone other than the rider. They are harmless. I'm not all that libertarian but freedom of personal choice is a major part of American culture.


If this caption is real (an MTBR buddy sent it to me but I can't find info about the company), enforcement of banning Pedele-whatever-the-F-you-wanna-call-them ain't gonna happen without ALL bikes getting booted from some trails.









Jim - pretty good article that's getting to the gist of where my mind is on this topic: Ray Keener: What's a trail? | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News

"Maybe the terminology and the conversation change to protecting "natural-surface" trails? The current flat NO stance isn't going to hold. Better to stake out a more tenable position now than to be seen as absolutist, methinks."


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

@Empty_beer, thanks for the link. The problem remains terminology. eBikes is a broad category and that is the term he used. However, from what I've read so far pedelecs won't affect the tread any more than any other MTB. A 200+ mph ebike would.

He's right about all ebikes not being the same and to keep the throttled ones off "our" trails. However, he doesn't address pedelecs.

Thanks for the photo. Here is the site: ANNAD E-BIKE WOW! Amazing!

Their 33 pound full suspension MTB:
ANNAD E-BIKE

Does it really look like this bike is a villain? Does anyone see an energy source on that bike big enough to rip up trails or speed too much? Where is the hugely offensive "motor"?

I'm going to ask the Moab BLM and South SF Bay Area land managers to adopt the European regs and move on to real issues.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Europe's rules:

Article 1 (h) of Directive 2002/24/EC (European Union 2002) relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles legislation stipulates that the Directive does not apply to: “cycles with pedal assistance which are equipped with an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous rated power of 0.25 kW, of which the output is progressively reduced and finally cut off as the vehicle reaches a speed of 25 km/h, or sooner, if the cyclist stops pedalling”. As a result of this exclusion, member states classify these vehicles as bicycles.


In Europe these pedal assist bikes, called pedelecs around the world now, are just bicycles. However, a couple of issues:

1) The European Parliament is discussing increasing the power above 250 watts due to obese riders.

2) There is an emerging category of ebikes called s-pedelecs that have greater power and speed. They are being classified as mopeds.


I'm not sure power matters and I think the EU is exploring that. The speed cutoff is the guts of the law. If you want to go faster than 15 mph you'll have to use 100% muscle power. It seems that downhill a pedelec MTB with the usual gearing would be the same as a regular bike.


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

jms said:


> True.
> 
> But there is a difference between innovation and progress:
> 
> ...


John with thinking like that, we should have banned vulcanized rubber hiking boot soles because it allows hikers to get too far into our precious back country and disturb nature with fire rings and detergents into our rivers...

Don't get me started on TENTS, backpacks and bug spray!


----------



## rensho (Mar 8, 2004)

Rather than argue, perhaps we should realize that if our SOs and wives had electric assist on their MTBs, they'd VERY likely ride more, and more with us. I know my wife would ride a ton more trails with me if she could keep up, or be faster than me.


----------



## bizgnar (Nov 6, 2009)

for the love of god! think of our strava times!


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

@rensho, you nailed it! My wife rides all over the West with me but so many guys can't find a woman like that. There was a guy on the Utah forum recently whose wife can't climb far without some serious health issue. She wants to ride with him everywhere and probably could with a pedelec bike.

@bizgnar, I'm not into Strava but the bike is progressively less assisting as the speed increases to 15.5 mph / 25 kph so will that have any impact on times? Distance yes.


We can camp and bring wine to Mississippi Lake in Coe!



I read that solar charging is available.


----------



## eddanca (Dec 16, 2012)

I have a honda 650 dirt bike if "e"bikes get to go on the trails I should too !
If you can't get your own fat self up the hill then go HOME.


----------



## J-Flo (Apr 23, 2012)

This is going to be a significant issue and many lines must be drawn. But most of those lines have already been drawn or are about to be drawn. One set of lines involves how the ebike is classified under state vehicle codes -- is a license required to ride on the street? Must it be registered? Another set of lines involves whether ebikes are allowed on trails where "motorized" vehicles are currently prohibited. 

There are some strong arguments that at least the lower-power ebikes should not simply be banned everywhere that "motorized" vehicles are banned. But if allowing them to access "no motorized vehicle" areas would require a change in current rules (amending them to allow low-powered electric motor-assist bikes) then there appears to be a slim chance of that at least in the Bay Area. And forget about areas where bikes are currently banned, like Wilderness Areas. 

One of the significant problems of lumping bikes and ebikes (however defined) together is that it makes the battle for access much more difficult for all MTBers. If allowing MTB on a trail also means allowing some ebikes, it is more likely to be vigorously opposed. 

Another major issue is simply what it means to all of us riding in the wild areas to allow electric-motor-assisted people to reach the same spots. There will be more people on those trails, farther from trailheads, bringing a new set of concerns including: i) they will be in more trouble than we are when the bike breaks; ii) we lose some of the feeling of accomplishment and exclusivity we get from working under our own power to reach those spots (hikers have the same problem with MTB'ers); and iii) more traffic will create more problems most of the time (although in some places it would be better).


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

J-Flo, you sound exactly like hikers and equestrians. Look at your arguments.

NO, the battle for access will not be more complicated at all. That is speculation based on the perception that ebikes are different than regular bikes. Some are, ban them, some are just regular bicycles.

Jeez!


----------



## J-Flo (Apr 23, 2012)

jmpreston, I am afraid you either did not read my post or did not understand it. You assume I disagree with you on whether e-bikes should be allowed in many/some places, but that is not correct. My first point is simply that the issue has already been decided in most places, and getting access for e-bikes would mean changing the rules.

Also, I don't think it is realistic to suppose that adding e-bikes to the mix will not complicate access struggles. Perception, as you put it, is exactly the problem. People hear there is a motor and the game is over.

How would you define the difference between ebikes that should be banned and "regular bikes"?


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

J-Flo, your last paragraph is right out of the hiker opposition handbook.

The difference has been defined in this thread many times but to make it simple I'm thinking of trying this: A throttle. Pedelecs don't have them and more powerful ebikes do.

I'm getting hammered on various threads and platforms for being open to pedelecs and getting a bit sensitive. Sorry. I'm not going to stop though. In a decade I may want one and that choice is mine, not macho types who think that strength is some criteria for trail use. It isn't and never was. All citizens want and should get reasonable access to trails.

I understand the ignorance on this issue. Until a couple of months ago I ignored pedelecs at the bike shows and knew nothing about them. Now I do and they are just bicycles to everyone but the rider. No noise, not significant power that anyone could care about, no trail damage. A tempest in a teapot.

Interesting that so many on these threads protest ebikes and never ask questions. They are confidently ignorant and opinionated.


----------



## Naturally Aspirated (Aug 17, 2011)

So, what's to stop someone from modifying their e-bike/pedalec? You know it's inevitable that individuals and companies are gonna come out with lighter, faster bikes...


----------



## iheartbicycles (Mar 14, 2008)

Naturally Aspirated said:


> So, what's to stop someone from modifying their e-bike/pedalec? You know it's inevitable that individuals and companies are gonna come out with lighter, faster bikes...


I just read a note from Larry Pizzi, long time industry guy and current CEO of Currie Technologies - an "ebike company" as he calls it - and he supports the decision to ban ebikes in Moab.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Nothing will stop modifications but if the effect on other users is no different than a regular bike, it is quiet, not speeding, no significant trail damage, then none of us should care. Riders should be free to choose their equipment if there are no significant differences in use.

Recall the opposition to suspension MTBs many years ago? What if they won?

So what if they bike say Mag 7 at Moab just like the rest of us then kick our butts climbing out on Gemini Bridges Road, a road with car and truck traffic that is the final few miles of the journey and up in either direction?

Battery power can be easily measured by rangers. Of course that is only necessary if the encounter was created by bad behavior.

I was rammed from behind on Burcher Ranch Trail a couple of years ago by a guy on a regular MTB. Batteries on either bike wouldn't have made a difference. Jerks are jerks.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Do we hear the same resistance to electric shifting?


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

@Berkeley Mike, e-shifting? What the hell is that?!

Once everyone settles into pedelecs being just another bicycle I'm going to post my opinion of why 29er pedelecs are far better than 27.5's. Then the whole discussion will start all over again


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

It is proof that anything after fully rigid is lowering the bar so that anyone can be a mountain biker.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

Yeah, I remember when short skis came to the slopes in the 70's and all sorts of riffraff showed up. 

Before airline deregulation most fliers where cool people and well behaved. After dereg the bar lowered and the huddled masses deprecated the experience.

I don't think pedelecs will do that. They still need to be pedaled and rode with skill. What they do is allow riders who are somewhat handicapped or don't have time to stay really fit to enjoy the trails. Wives will join husbands. Single guys can find chicks.

Agencies can avoid the ADA lawsuits that are coming soon.


----------



## ronski (Jul 28, 2009)

jmpreston said:


> So what if they bike say Mag 7 at Moab just like the rest of us then kick our butts climbing out on Gemini Bridges Road, a road with car and truck traffic that is the final few miles of the journey and up in either direction?
> 
> .


Well, if you ride Mag 7 and exit via Gemini, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## jmpreston (Jun 9, 2004)

We've done Portal before 

There are crazy riders on Portal at night now. Watched them from our cabin at Moab Valley Resort.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

What they should do is let bikes ride in wilderness.

Less senseless prohibitions, not more.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

jmpreston said:


> Yeah, I remember when short skis came to the slopes in the 70's and all sorts of riffraff showed up.
> 
> Before airline deregulation most fliers where cool people and well behaved. After dereg the bar lowered and the huddled masses deprecated the experience.
> 
> ...


Yes.


----------



## shredchic (Jun 18, 2007)

jmpreston said:


> I don't think pedelecs will do that. They still need to be pedaled and rode with skill. What they do is allow riders who are somewhat handicapped or don't have time to stay really fit to enjoy the trails. Wives will join husbands. Single guys can find chicks.


Take your arguments to the land manager next time you want to advocate for opening up more trails to mountain bikes. I'd really love to see how that goes. Actually, please don't do that.

To the rest of your post about women/picking up chicks...

:madmax:


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

shredchic said:


> To the rest of your post about women/picking up chicks...
> :madmax:


I am not sure why you are upset about his suggestion that electric pedal assist bikes will help guys to catch up to chicks.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

Axe said:


> I am not sure why you are upset about his suggestion that electric pedal assist bikes will help guys to catch up to chicks.


Seems like girls would prefer guys that can ride bikes without a boost ...


----------



## TahoeBC (Apr 11, 2006)

E-bikes, like Viagra for those that cant get it up anymore.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

TahoeBC said:


> E-bikes, like Viagra for those that cant get it up anymore.


I've tried one, not the other.

Don't need either...


----------



## Motosc (Dec 19, 2007)

rensho said:


> Seriously. Raise your hand and let's count who among us own more of the trails on earth than another...
> 
> We either all own equal share/rights, or we all own ZERO share/rights of the trail, exception are those that build and do trail work.
> 
> ...


It is pretty simple, Downieville is mostly, save for a few trails (Sunrise, N Yuba PCT- where bikes are not allowed as well-) mixed use, meaning bikes, motos, horses, hikers, anyone can use the trails. It is the same in Moab, but there are more trails where motorized vehicles (which electric bikes are, the 'electric' refers to the motor on the bike) are not allowed, and they are taking the proactive and smart step to clarify that point.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*More Bosch Pedelec Porn...*

I don't care if I can't ride it most places; I still want one!










Santa???

The French are so so soooo far out in front; fat pedelec with fur anyone?










Please Santa please...


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Motosc said:


> It is pretty simple, Downieville is mostly, save for a few trails (Sunrise, N Yuba PCT- where bikes are not allowed as well-) mixed use, meaning bikes, motos, horses, hikers, anyone can use the trails. It is the same in Moab, but there are more trails where motorized vehicles (which electric bikes are, the 'electric' refers to the motor on the bike) are not allowed, and they are taking the proactive and smart step to clarify that point.


Interesting thing with Downieville is most of us go there and get gas-assisted up the trails aka 'shuttle'. That's because those trails are not really worthwhile if you had to pedal up to Packer. I've done it a few times and it was entertaining the first time.

We usually sit on our butts for two hours while we wait and take the shuttle to the top. I think it would be a good option if we could e-bike to the top and be pedaling the whole time. Keep in mind that an e-bike is not a throttle bike. One has to pedal to get the assist.

So maybe in time, folks will try the e thing over there.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*e-bike vs pedelec?*



francois said:


> I think it would be a good option if we could e-bike to the top and be pedaling the whole time. Keep in mind that an e-bike is not a throttle bike. One has to pedal to get the assist.


As jmpreston has tried to point out the term "pedelec" applies to the bikes that need to be pedaled to get the electric assist.

A pedelec is an e-bike but an e-bike is not necessarily a pedelec.

The definitions and naming protocols vary from nation to nation and from state to state.

BTW if I ever own a pedelec it will have a throttle; you just won't be able to see it


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

pliebenberg said:


> As jmpreston has tried to point out the term "pedelec" applies to the bikes that need to be pedaled to get the electric assist.
> 
> A pedelec is an e-bike but an e-bike is not necessarily a pedelec.
> 
> ...


Nobody really uses 'pedelec' anymore. In Europe, where this is all playing out, it's called e-bike and the definition is it cannot have a throttle. One has to pedal.

In the US, it's being sorted out as well. Same thing, no throttle, assist only. The e-bike is being defined this way because it determines what can use the bike lane on the roads.

fc


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

pliebenberg said:


> The French are so so soooo far out in front; fat pedelec with fur anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For the cro-magnon in all of us.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

francois said:


> Nobody really uses 'pedelec' anymore. In Europe, where this is all playing out, it's called e-bike and the definition is it cannot have a throttle. One has to pedal.
> 
> In the US, it's being sorted out as well. Same thing, no throttle, assist only. The e-bike is being defined this way because it determines what can use the bike lane on the roads.
> 
> fc


I've got to disagree here; e-bikes have traditionally had throttles (search eBay for "e-bike controller" and 95% of the units will need throttle input), the pedelec term is more recent to distance the low-powered "must be pedaling" machines from the more aggressive "could be pedaling" designs. BTW my first e-bike needed to be pedaled away from a stop but once rolling it was throttle-only.

E-bike is just too general a term (but may fit the most recent advertising schemes of bicycle manufactures because it sounds more cool than "pedelec"); a Google search of images for "e-bike" turns up a lot of this sort:


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Motosc said:


> smart step to clarify that point.


Do not see anything smart about a knee-jerk blanket ban.


----------



## Schril (Oct 28, 2010)

Frankly, if people pedaled more they most likely wouldn't need Viagra, Cialis, etc...


----------



## jms (Feb 4, 2006)

pliebenberg said:


> E-bike is just too general a term (but may fit the most recent advertising schemes of bicycle manufactures because it sounds more cool than "pedelec")


How about EMOped?


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Here's Electric Bike Action take on it. Just so we don't let the arguing die. 

Easy Motion Neo Jumper: Charged Up For Off-Road Use â€" Electric Bike Action

Here is the best part


> Is the Neo Jumper a mountain bike? Yes, but it is a cheater bike that could cause you problems depending on where-and how-you ride it. No doubt the thought of power-assisted dirt bikers zooming through the outback is something that any concerned cyclist ought to be worried about. Still, the irony of hearing opposition to off-road e-bikes from those in the knee-pad and full-face-helmet camp is pretty rich, as it has been these same types of riders who themselves have caused so much havoc with hikers and equestrians over the years.


----------



## Bokchoicowboy (Aug 7, 2007)

Lets simplify this access issue.

Access should be determined by the propulsion source.

From Propulsion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Propulsion is a means of creating force leading to movement. A propulsion system has a source of mechanical power (some type of engine or motor, muscles), and some means of using this power to generate force, such as wheel and axles, propellers, a propulsive nozzle, wings, fins or legs.


If you are 100% the propulsion source, then you get access to trails (singletrack).

If you are riding something that provides an assist or all the power, then you are confined to fire-road.

Think about it, this method keeps mountain bikes and hikers on singletrack and puts the other users (ebikes, equestrians, etc) where they should be, on the wider fire-road with it's better sight-lines and maneuvering space which are needed for such conveyances.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Bokchoicowboy said:


> Lets simplify this access issue.
> 
> Access should be determined by the propulsion source.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately this assessment omits gravity and BTW rule makers have long ago conjured "gravity-propelled devices" to include more things to be banned.

Uphill or down gravity works against those afoot; things on wheels are able to make full use of this mysterious force in the DH direction.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Graviton to the rescue


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Ban magnetism*

This is so brilliant I just wrenched my shoulder patting myself on the back:

Simply ban magnetism from all single track.

(How long until the riff-raff start to exploit the piezoelectric loophole?)


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

At first I thought, "Why should we, as mountain bikers, want to ban E-bikes for no good reason?". We have been banned from many trails for what we feel is no good reason. Now we want to impose the same discrimination on them as we have been subjected to? They don't make noise or exhaust smell. They are probably not any more of a hazard to us than regular bikes. They probably don't impact the trail tread any more than we do.

My fear is that as technology improves, ebikes will become more powerful and the line between bikes and motorcycles will become less and less distinct. The general public will just look at ebikes as "mountain bikes" and lump them all together in one category, making it easier to just ban all bikes from trails. The idea of just banning bikes that have less than a certain horsepower or have pedals attached, or some other criteria will probably not work well.

I think we are best off distancing ourselves from the ebike instead of welcoming it as just another mountain bike. We have enough access issues already-no need to complicate things any more.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

bpressnall said:


> At first I thought, "Why should we, as mountain bikers, want to ban E-bikes for no good reason?". We have been banned from many trails for what we feel is no good reason. Now we want to impose the same discrimination on them as we have been subjected to? They don't make noise or exhaust smell. They are probably not any more of a hazard to us than regular bikes. They probably don't impact the trail tread any more than we do.
> 
> My fear is that as technology improves, ebikes will become more powerful and the line between bikes and motorcycles will become less and less distinct. The general public will just look at ebikes as "mountain bikes" and lump them all together in one category, making it easier to just ban all bikes from trails. The idea of just banning bikes that have less than a certain horsepower or have pedals attached, or some other criteria will probably not work well.
> 
> I think we are best off distancing ourselves from the ebike instead of welcoming it as just another mountain bike. We have enough access issues already-no need to complicate things any more.


My sentiments exactly. Well stated, BP. But how do we distance ourselves from something that will look nearly identical to non-motorized bikes? How will banning them be successful if most people can't tell the difference between motorized and non-motorized? I fear that no matter how much we distance or welcome them, they will be the semantic game changer for us somewhere down the road, as the HOHA's will probably lobby to change "non-motorized" as the current delineation to "non-mechanized".... and finally succeed in ridding bikes from "their" trails.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

As it stands we're already screwed and this doesn't make things better.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

I guess the best way to distance ourselves would be through official stances from IMBA and the numerous bike and trail clubs.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

bpressnall said:


> .
> 
> My fear is that as technology improves, ebikes will become more powerful and the line between bikes and motorcycles will become less and less distinct.


500 W and no throttle. Why would it become less distinct?

It is the other kind of slippery slope. If we let them ban usage of public lands based not on actual measurable impact, but on perception and ideals, it will make it easier to ban regular bikes for wanton ideological reasons. No proof needed. Just claim it endangers some snakes or something.

Slippery slope is letting policy makers enact restrictions without justification.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Once again... this is exactly how we started our advocacy in 1987; a response to a blanket ban on our usage of trails for whatever reasons. It has taken 27 years to expose and confront the reasons through education and reality-based analysis.

During the campaign for an updated EBRPB Master Plan in 2011 we were approached by the local throttle twisters, great people, to align ourselves with them in common cause. No one on our board, former board, or membership, wanted to do that as an association with throttles did us no good. We would end up being painted with the same brush. Teasing away the differences simply confounded our mission which was difficult enough as it is.

So the question becomes; who is going to bat for machine-powered access. Who is going to bat to determine the difference between machine-powered and machine-assisted. Who is going to bat to make distinctions between assisted wheeled devices and bicycles as we seem to understand them to this point?


----------



## Sean Allan (May 4, 2005)

It's not a slippery slope if your at the table talking about it, pro or con. Not having an opinion and letting the powers that be make decisions before we can organize one way or the other is what most of the battles we face currently stem from. This needs to be dealt with soon and a firm stance needs to be taken. Personally, I don't want to see them on the trails I ride and I think that a majority of current allowed users of most trail systems would agree with that.

Ideological reasons will always be used, both for and against any new user group, it's human nature and it won't ever change. What you need to decide is whether you want to stand on the side of 99%( pure guess on my part) of trail users that likely don't want them allowed, or stick your chest out and stand up for the other 1%. I'm going to take my chances with the majority.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Sean Allan said:


> It's not a slippery slope if your at the table talking about it, pro or con. Not having an opinion and letting the powers that be make decisions before we can organize one way or the other is what most of the battles we face currently stem from. This needs to be dealt with soon and a firm stance needs to be taken. Personally, I don't want to see them on the trails I ride and I think that a majority of current allowed users of most trail systems would agree with that.
> 
> Ideological reasons will always be used, both for and against any new user group, it's human nature and it won't ever change. What you need to decide is whether you want to stand on the side of 99%( pure guess on my part) of trail users that likely don't want them allowed, or stick your chest out and stand up for the other 1%. I'm going to take my chances with the majority.


Short term thinking IMO. Let's see how everybody feels about it when they turn 70 and can't turn the cranks as hard as they can today.


----------



## Sean Allan (May 4, 2005)

Wishful thinking is wanting to do as you do now when your 70. You can't do everything for your entire life, no generation ever has. Personally, I plan on riding when I'm 70 and I won't care how hard I peddle, life doesn't always have to be about what's easiest. I'm way more worried about crashing at 70 as opposed to actually riding

Edit. I should add that I have no problem with them in current motorized areas, which includes a whole lot of the areas I ride in. State Parks(Ca.) will likely never be on board for allowing them but I have no problem sharing public lands with them where motors are allowed. I can see it being a bit more sensitive in areas that have no motorized access trails like the Bay Area.


----------



## SS Hack (Jan 20, 2012)

zorg said:


> Short term thinking IMO. Let's see how everybody feels about it when they turn 70 and can't turn the cranks as hard as they can today.


We could get more gears, walk or even stay in shape too. I lack the skill to go up El Cap, should I get an electric motor to help?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

zorg said:


> Short term thinking IMO. Let's see how everybody feels about it when they turn 70 and can't turn the cranks as hard as they can today.


I believe a poll is in order!

I'll get one going...


----------



## dirtvert (Jun 30, 2010)

70 (for me) = Slow riding or hiking or longboarding or golfing

I'm already trying to simplify my riding; the last thing I need to worry about is a motor!


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

In Mike Farrentino's Grimy handshake piece entitled electric sham in the December 2014 issue of Bike magazine he quotes IMBA founder (after founding BTCEB which went on with two other groups to found IMBA...arggggggg!) Michael Kelly. Kelly says that at 71 it is just no fun to climb anymore and he wants to ride into the future. He has been seen using pedal assist machine locally.

Mike, on the other hand says: 
"riding mountain bikes is about pedaling, locomotion under my own power. I will be a crusty old man, ifI live to be an old man, and I will consider the use of an electric assist as somewhere between smug entitlement and cheating."

Mike is one of those "steel is real" riders , critical of shuttling, with a sort of earn-your-downhills attitude. I cannot find his age but from photos, though he has lost hair, I don"t think he is much older than 50, tops. At my present age of 63 (Thursday after next) I will suggest that the body does a lot of aging in the next 13 years, a thing much easier to appreciate _after_ that 13 years.

That said, it becomes pretty clear to me that some day a pedal-assist may be the only way I will get to the top of the hill.

What pedal-assist means to me, then, is the same as a cane, a crutch, or a wheelchair. There is nothing wrong with any of those aforementioned devices; they promote essential mobility which, for me, equates with freedom. And I support the idea of access for people of limited mobility, though it needs to be negotiated in consideration for the access of other users. I digress...

Mostly though, I have no desire to be in a position to need _any_ of those devices. Such a day of reckoning will be a day of crisis and loss. I hope to god that day is far into the future. Apparently Michael Kelly has run that equation.

Hmmmm....just had a thought. Maybe we should qualify pedal assist users like they do with those Blue Disabled parking passes? But you know that there will always be guys who borrow their dad's and use them anyhow; scum bags!!!


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Let's have this discussion when you're 70 and see how you feel about it. Me thinks you'll change your tune.


----------



## Sean Allan (May 4, 2005)

zorg said:


> Let's have this discussion when you're 70 and see how you feel about it. Me thinks you'll change your tune.


Since you don't know me, and I do, I can assure you that you are quite wrong. As you are wrong about my initial post. I was simply stating that a stand needs to be taken, PRO or CON so that we get a spot at the discussion table. Waiting till land managers start making decisions is not the time to start trying to figure out where we stand as a user group, that's proven to be a bad strategy.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Sean Allan said:


> Since you don't know me, and I do, I can assure you that you are quite wrong. As you are wrong about my initial post. I was simply stating that a stand needs to be taken, PRO or CON so that we get a spot at the discussion table. Waiting till land managers start making decisions is not the time to start trying to figure out where we stand as a user group, that's proven to be a bad strategy.


You may well be the exception, but my hunch is that the vast majority will have a really hard time giving up riding up mountains after 30, 40 or 50 years of doing it.

I agree that we need to take a stand for the land managers. Based on this thread, it's pretty obvious that most would be against. It's obviously the path of least resistance (at least in the short run) and it's a "pure" approach. In that respect, HOHAs have conditioned cyclists really well.

In the long run, it's a mistake to be against electrically assisted mountain bikes:
- for the aforementioned self serving reasons 
- it won't get us any brownie point with the HOHAs and the Sierra Club to oppose e-bikes anyway (i.e. nothing to lose)
- and last but not least, I don't think that e-bikes will be visually distinguishable from regulars MTBs in 20-30 years. By then, the batteries and the motors will be sealed in the tubes, and nobody will be able to see them. So, what then? Ban all bikes because we can't tell one from the other?

Personally, when the time comes (hopefully in a long long time), I'll get an e-bike and will ride it just where I ride now, legal or not. I only have one life, and I won't waste it following inane rules...


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Sean Allan said:


> What you need to decide is whether you want to stand on the side of 99%( pure guess on my part) of trail users that likely don't want them allowed, or stick your chest out and stand up for the other 1%. I'm going to take my chances with the majority.


Judging by popularity of those bikes in Europe, and given the expected price decline, I would not make such an assumption about the split.

Everybody I know about who saw a pedal assisted bike was not annoyed by its presence whatsoever. That can not be said for loud and powerful motorcycles. Difference is obvious, and pondering to ideology will not help MTB access case.

Proof based usage regulations are the only thing that is in our interests.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Sean Allan said:


> Since you don't know me, and I do, I can assure you that you are quite wrong. As you are wrong about my initial post. I was simply stating that a stand needs to be taken, PRO or CON so that we get a spot at the discussion table. Waiting till land managers start making decisions is not the time to start trying to figure out where we stand as a user group, that's proven to be a bad strategy.


I look forward to pliebenberg's poll. That may give us an early look at the issue. Over time, though, and with discussion, I'm betting that things will evolve.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Axe said:


> 500 W and no throttle. Why would it become less distinct?
> 
> It is the other kind of slippery slope. If we let them ban usage of public lands based not on actual measurable impact, but on perception and ideals, it will make it easier to ban regular bikes for wanton ideological reasons. No proof needed. Just claim it endangers some snakes or something.
> 
> Slippery slope is letting policy makers enact restrictions without justification.


"As technology improves", was a key part of my wording. Higher wattage, throttles, more torque, etc-could all be in the future of ebikes. I have nothing against ebikes, but don't think they are going to help us as far as access to non motorized trails goes.


----------



## Sean Allan (May 4, 2005)

Axe said:


> Judging by popularity of those bikes in Europe, and given the expected price decline, I would not make such an assumption about the split.
> 
> Everybody I know about who saw a pedal assisted bike was not annoyed by its presence whatsoever. That can not be said for loud and powerful motorcycles. Difference is obvious, and pondering to ideology will not help MTB access case.
> 
> Proof based usage regulations are the only thing that is in our interests.


Fair enough, I'll give you 20% of the trail users on a given day, is that still a side you want to stand on, you'd at least outnumber the horsie folks... Lots of things in Europe are acceptable that would not fly here, not good or bad, just is.

Ask the folks in Marin or Boulder about proof based regulations. It would seem to be a good idea, but in practice it very seldom works in any kind of population center here in the US.

Once again, I'm not for or against them on an advocacy level. I just think that it needs to be talked about, a plan for dealing with it in place, and an effective strategy moving forward, whatever that plan is. Waiting for the land managers to come up with the solution is not a good strategy.

If I'm the odd one out on my desire not to share my current non-motorized trails with them then I'll have to accept the majorities opinion. My only hope is that consensus can be reached before either e-bikes are setback, or we as conventional MTB's are.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

bpressnall said:


> "As technology improves", was a key part of my wording. Higher wattage, throttles, more torque, etc-could all be in the future of ebikes. I have nothing against ebikes, but don't think they are going to help us as far as access to non motorized trails goes.


How does availability of higher wattage motors change the definition of a pedal assist bike that is based on maximum design wattage?

Yes, there will be people who can hack it. Most of people would not. Just like you can not buy many power tools in California that are no CARB compliant.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

My guess of how it's going to go down:
- most advocacy groups will want to be pure and emulate the HOHAs and vote against e-bikes. That way, we can keep the high road with other users.
- land managers, especially in the bay area, who have drank the kool-aid and are too lazy to figure out the difference between a pedal assist bike and a motorcycle, will be just too happy to ban e-bikes
- people will get older, e-bikes will become cheaper and stealthier. People will ride e-bikes everywhere (I know I will) despite the ban, and there'll be an outcry that cyclists can't police their own. We'll face new restrictions because it's too hard for the rangers to tell an e-bike from a regular bike, and that they may as well ban all bikes.

Nothing but a repeat of what we went through for the last 30 years.


----------



## Sean Allan (May 4, 2005)

Axe said:


> Yes, there will be people who can hack it. Most of people would not. Just like you can not buy many power tools in California that are no CARB compliant.


You may not be able to buy one, but I don't have a single piece of equipment that would pass an inspection from a CARB official( if one actually exists) because I yanked that **** off. I also idle my Bobcats for hours at a time......I think that is my fear, the natural progression of engineering and those that would tinker with it. I know for me, I have no fear of some octogenarian riding an e-bike, I do worry about an overweight 35 year old with minimal experience in the finer points of trail interaction riding an electric V 10 into the backcountry. If you think that this won't be the larger of the two demographics to use this technology then I need some of what your unicorn is smoking


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Sean Allan said:


> I do worry about an overweight 35 year old with minimal experience in the finer points of trail interaction riding an electric V 10 into the backcountry. If you think that this won't be the larger of the two demographics to use this technology then I need some of what your unicorn is smoking


Bingo.

And what will stop these e-bike enthusiasts from pedal-shredding frontcountry trails designated as non-motorized? Fist fights?


----------



## pizza (Dec 2, 2005)

zorg said:


> Nothing but a repeat of what we went through for the last 30 years.


We need to get more kids on MTBs. they'll be around longer than any of us to keep up the fight. If they're too intimidated at first (I know I was) by the physical demands of climbing or going long distance, the answer is simple:

Get them a pedelec


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

When developing young racers the wisdom that finally prevailed kept some very powerful but inexperienced racers in slower, shorter, less pressured classifications. This gave them time to develop the skills needed to keep from getting in over their heads. It also kept other racers at all skill levels safer, too. Ultimately the skills were developed and a quality racer was the result.

So now we propose to let anyone who has the power get out with the rest? Doesn't sound smart to me. Power and skill have a certain self-leveling effect.


----------



## jl776 (Nov 27, 2010)

zorg said:


> Let's have this discussion when you're 70 and see how you feel about it. Me thinks you'll change your tune.


How old are you? I'm 38 and I can clearly see a trend developing compared to when I was 28. I still like to rally the crap out of a good section of trail but I've had a few good diggers and I'm starting to think about consequences more..by the time I'm 70 it's pretty safe to say my priorities will be considerably different than they are now, and may have little or nothing to do with bikes. 
I guess my point is more than a few of us will not be interested in mt. bikes the way we are now-electric or not when were 70..so I wouldn't use the concept of helping old people get out on trails to support an argument for e bikes on trails. There will be a lot more low to mid age people taking advantage and (potentially causing problems) of a generous ruling on ebikes than people in their 60-70's.
The separation that mtb currently enjoys from motorized recreation is steadily eroding-the enduro scene, DH, bright pajamas and big 4x4's are already defining societies view of what this activity is about. E bikes seem very likely to further solidify an image that will not be helpful to us in the big picture.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Sean Allan said:


> You may not be able to buy one, but I don't have a single piece of equipment that would pass an inspection from a CARB official( if one actually exists) because I yanked that **** off. I also idle my Bobcats for hours at a time......I think that is my fear, the natural progression of engineering and those that would tinker with it. I know for me, I have no fear of some octogenarian riding an e-bike, I do worry about an overweight 35 year old with minimal experience in the finer points of trail interaction riding an electric V 10 into the backcountry. If you think that this won't be the larger of the two demographics to use this technology then I need some of what your unicorn is smoking


A fat 35 year old high on unicorn juice will take a pedal assist V10 into backcountry, and absolutely nothing terrible will happen. Drunk idiots are riding ATVs all over this fine country; observe the lack of chaos even in worst cases. Difference with the pedal assist bike would be - said fat idiot will not damage the trail or disturb anybody. He will just get bored most. Or maybe he will enjoy getting out and being able to see things and ride trails that are accessible only to fit few of us now.


----------



## Sean Allan (May 4, 2005)

Axe said:


> A fat 35 year old high on unicorn juice will take a pedal assist V10 into backcountry, and absolutely nothing terrible will happen. Drunk idiots are riding ATVs all over this fine country; observe the lack of chaos even in worst cases. Difference with the pedal assist bike would be - said fat idiot will not damage the trail or disturb anybody. He will just get bored most. Or maybe he will enjoy getting out and being able to see things and ride trails that are accessible only to fit few of us now.


You couldn't be more wrong. Ask any land manager in Nevada, Arizona or Utah and they will tell you ATV's and their growing popularity are the single biggest problem to most trail systems. Most motos think they are the scurge of the earth. You go ahead and live in your utopian world that has only pleasant 70 year olds riding them and not shuttle monkeys who now find they don't need the hassle of that shuttle van and can now make a run down any multi-use trail they want to on their 50 lb electric V-10's or their equivalent.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

Sean Allan said:


> You couldn't be more wrong. Ask any land manager in Nevada, Arizona or Utah and they will tell you ATV's and their growing popularity are the single biggest problem to most trail systems. Most motos think they are the scurge of the earth. You go ahead and live in your utopian world that has only pleasant 70 year olds riding them and not shuttle monkeys who now find they don't need the hassle of that shuttle van and can now make a run down any multi-use trail they want to on their 50 lb electric V-10's or their equivalent.


I am not sure what you are arguing about. Did you just equate ATV impact with ebikes? Because that was not the point at all; actually the opposite. So try again.

Scourge of the Earth. So much drama.


----------



## Bokchoicowboy (Aug 7, 2007)

When someone starts making an electric bike that looks like this, then I might be interested...until then no.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Axe said:


> How does availability of higher wattage motors change the definition of a pedal assist bike that is based on maximum design wattage?
> 
> Yes, there will be people who can hack it. Most of people would not. Just like you can not buy many power tools in California that are no CARB compliant.


I know nothing about "maximum design wattage". It seems like saying a bike is designed to have a 26" wheel, so bikes will never have bigger wheels than that.

Obviously, judging from your posts, you believe ebikes should be allowed on non-motorized trails and that bikes should also be allowed in Wilderness areas. You also believe that land management decisions should be based on measurable impact, not on perception or public opinion. Unfortunately, we can't force everyone to think the same way. We have to pick our fights wisely. We have enough problems with trail access for regular bikes already, but I already said that a couple times. Anyway Axe, thanks for your opinions and good luck to you.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Measurable impact has become our friend in advocacy as it has been used to demonstrate that past claims of destruction cannot stand the light of day. Yet it has taken 10-15 years of such studies to finally sway land managers in the face of political pressures from folks who our-positions us on the mtb access issue.

So what we end up dealing with is a sense of appearances. That sort of thing just rubs me the wrong way but it is how things work and we ignore that to our own detriment.


----------



## Axe (Jan 12, 2004)

bpressnall said:


> I know nothing about "maximum design wattage". It seems like saying a bike is designed to have a 26" wheel, so bikes will never have bigger wheels than that.


Is there a law that limits bike wheel size? If there was, no you would not be able to buy 29er' either.

Just like you can not by a car without a catalytic converter, you will not be able to buy something defined as a pedal assisted bicycle outside of certain design limitations. Called government regulations. On rare occasions it is a good thing.

But my main point is not that I do like e-bikes everywhere. I do not. I will not ride one as long as I can avoid it. My point is that any arguments we raise ourselves are the exact same type of sentiment based knee jerk unsubstantiated reaction that was used to ban regular bikes, and we should not perpetuate such approach.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

A good summary of this overall discussion thus far: Why We Shouldn't Hate on E-Bikes | The Cycle Life | OutsideOnline.com

And some discussion (and a poll!) from the UK: The beginning of the end for MTB e-bikes - Discussion | Dirt

Another vote from the 70 year old side of the issue:


----------



## rsilvers (Aug 23, 2015)

Wow. It is funny seeing this thread from 2014. Some people were still ignorant about eMTB back then. To be fair, the market was much less developed and the Turbo Levo and other normal looking bikes were not even out yet and more of them were home-made monstrosities.

Still, the discussion reminds me of this:


----------



## GoGoGordo (Jul 16, 2006)




----------



## KenPsz (Jan 21, 2007)

d-bug said:


> Awesome, now we're starting to talk like Sierra Club hikers that don't want bikes on trails.
> Such hypocrisy.
> I wonder if this is how MV got his start...


I brought this idea up months ago and oh boy did that start a fire storm.


----------



## zorg (Jul 1, 2004)

Someone did some googling to revive old arguments

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

zorg said:


> Someone did some googling to revive old arguments
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


Kinda blows me away that e-bikes have been mainstream for almost 5 years now. And I'm still riding a "home-made monstrosity".


----------



## iskjone (Sep 3, 2019)

Not surprised but also not too concerned. I think expecting universal access to everywhere is ludicrous. Yes, the whole world isn't your backyard. Deal with it.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

iskjone said:


> Not surprised but also not too concerned. I think expecting universal access to everywhere is ludicrous. Yes, the whole world isn't your backyard. Deal with it.


Never been to Moab, have you? There is no reason to ban ebikes on the already blown out BLM trails there.

It is only a matter of time. In the end, there may be a few BLM trails in Moab that remain off limits to ebikes, but at some point there will be enough pressure from visitors, hotels, and shop owners that most will be opened, especially if the Colorado BLM trails are opened. It looks like many of those will be opened in the next round of travel management plan updates, which are already in progress. If Phil's World and Fruita are open to ebikes, Moab will lose too much revenue. In ten years, when 20% of MTBs are ebikes, if a group from Denver or SLC goes on their yearly trip and ebikes are not allowed, they'll go elsewhere so their ebike rider can ride with them. Also, European visitors are a huge source of revenue for Moab, and they are already complaining about ebikes not being legal on most trails and especially about not being legal on the paved paths.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

KenPsz said:


> I brought this idea up months ago and oh boy did that start a fire storm.


to be fair d-bug brought this up 5 years ago. This is kind of a zombie thread.


----------

