# An open letter to the forum: What are we promoting and why?



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I have made some "reports" and suggested changes in regard to the types of posts that appear on the E-Bike Forum. Specifically, threads that do not appear to support the purpose of the forum: "The eBike forum is not only for Pedelec bikes, it is for all eBikes"

What is a Pedelac?

"A pedelec (from pedal electric cycle) is a bicycle where the rider's pedalling is assisted by a small electric motor; thus it is a type of low-powered e-bike." Thank you Wikipedia.

So I ask you, members of MTBR, old and new, is this really what we have on our ebike forum or has it become something else? 

Should this forum be a place to talk about high horsepower e-cycles, hacking software to get more horsepower, and adding throttles so you don't have to pedal.

I'm an ebike owner, I support the approporiate use of pedal assisted bikes on trails.

My belief as a long time MTBR member is that this "organization" and it's members share a social/environmental/political responsiblity for the things you/us/they promote.

If MTBR leaves the barn door open, all manner of things can be said and done in the name of MTBR and it's members. In a sense, what we don't deny we are essentially approving.

In my ideal world, MTBR would use it's significant on line prescence to promote a single national policy for ebike use to include limits on power, requirements for pedal assist, and possibly some sort of licensure.

I do worry that ebikes will limit access. There are already many people opposed to mountain bike access, we have lost access to wilderness areas, even new conservations areas are more likely to restrict bike access to prevent environemental degradation.

If ebikes increase access and appear to be more destructive to the typical trail user, access to trails may become more limited. 

I believe that if you polled all MTBR members, giving them a range of choices, I do not think there would be many supporters of high powered, throttled, e-cycles.

I doubt that my plea will make a difference with MTBR, I am one person and my opinion matters little, but what we can do as a community is use our presence to guide this forum:

Avoid making excitatory and provocative posts
Avoid commenting to excitatory and provocative posts
Ask the moderator to take down threads and posts that are excitatory and provocative
Avoid making posts that promote hacks to increase power, throttles to reduce pedaling, or high powered e-cycles.
Avoid commenting to posts that promote hacks to increase power, throttles to reduce pedaling, or high powered e-cycles.

If we use this forum for good, it will promote the positive side of e-bikes, allow for greater engagement with e-bike critics, and reduce the liklihood that trail access will be harmed.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading.


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

Makes sense. 

Limit equipment discussions to class 1 and 2 e-bikes, which have 20mph limits under power. Lock others. It's not complicated. 

There will still be heated debates here on MTBR but it's a start.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

I personally think that if we could keep 15mph/250W limits and enforce them (and we could somehow keep people only talking about that here) that e-bikes could go basically everywhere without problems. 

The issue is that, as we've seen here, people are *very* interested in more power, more speed, etc. A significant number of people want to talk about that sort of bike. Not everyone wants an e-moto with pedals to make it look like a bike, but there are a lot of people out there who do - 5 minutes on endless-sphere will make the threads here seem tame. 

I'm not sure if it matters what MTBR does here. If software/hardware mods and higher power motors start making it to the trails, it's very very bad - since there's not much/no enforcement available, it will put land managers into a position of having to keep them out with blanket bans (either of all e-bikes or maybe all bikes period). That's quite literally what happened here - a bro-brah with a monster DIY bike pissed people off, and now Park City has a blanket e-bike ban. 

Will not talking about them here help? I don't know. MTBR is (mostly) able to police poaching/illegal trail talk, it wouldn't be that hard to prevent the modification/non class 1 discussions.

-Walt


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Above makes a lot of sense to be except that the "Class" system had to go through state legislature and the governor in CA (assume other states where it's been implemented too) and would take a lot to change IMO. Also, I don't have a problem with 28 mph for lanes contiguous with a road, although that's JMO.

Totally agree on not talking about illegal modifications & giving our adversaries ammunition.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

As well as Class 1 bikes are not Pedelecs, pedelecs strictly being 250w/15.5mph and Class 1 being 750w 20mph, so can US ebike riders talk about bikes that EU riders can't ride, even though they are legal to ride on some trails here?

Should discussions be limited to emtbs only or are commuter bikes OK where there is also a lot of interest? Then you'd have to allow Class 3/ S-pedelec. 

And in some states it's just 750w and whatever is fine. 

It's a mess really.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Awesome responses, please keep it coming, avoid conflict, aim for compromise, let's make this forum function as it was intended. 

I think we can set an example by moderating the debate as a group of interested persons.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yeah, the bottom line for me is that the EU standard 250/15.5 (I think?) should have been adopted for e-bikes here that are intended for trail use. The higher speed/power limits are a big problem for a lot of people.

People for bikes blew it big time on that. 250w/15.5mph gets you going a little faster than a pro if you *really* want to and you're kinda fit, but it's not going to appeal to shred-bro fullface guys, just to people who need some help getting up hills. 750w/20mph is a whole different kettle of fish.

Then again, there's the Lenovo. I don't know what on earth Specialized is thinking with that one, it's like a pre-made anti-e-bike (or just anti bike) advertisement already made for the Sierra Club. 

-Walt


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

EricTheDood said:


> Makes sense.
> 
> Limit equipment discussions to class 1 and 2 e-bikes, which have 20mph limits under power. Lock others. It's not complicated.


Not complicated? Seriously? By limiting it to only class 1 and 2 ebikes your limiting the conversation to pretty much those in California or places with similar laws. This would not relate with others in States that have different laws or say who are in a different country like Canada.


----------



## Bodhii (Nov 21, 2016)

I would divide the Ebike section into two parts and also maybe a third section
for research and development bike discussions?:

1. eMTBs including all Class 1 eMTB bikes, and all European class eMTB bikes. Trail access issues. ( Obviously, this will be the more hotly discussed venue) 
2. Road and street ebikes including class 1 & class 2 ebikes and including all European classes.


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

Bodhii said:


> I would divide the Ebike section into two parts...


Easier, make one section for all the ebike haters (sorry, there are no other words for the few that are here only to derailed the threads whatever the subject is).

Nevertheless, I'm all for this forum to be only 15/20mph speed limited ebikes.

Maybe having one thread for "unlimited" ebike is a possibility? Many forums here have "infinite" threads about one subject and it seems to work.


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

singletrackmack said:


> Not complicated? Seriously? By limiting it to only class 1 and 2 ebikes your limiting the conversation to pretty much those in California or places with similar laws. This would not relate with others in States that have different laws or say who are in a different country like Canada.


Yes, very simple.

Limit equipment discussions to e-mtbs that stop assisting past 20mph. These are the ones that stand a chance at (eventual) widespread legalization in multi-use trails.

The same bikes can be software limited for use in regions with lower power and speed requirements. A lot of discussion is often irrespective of the assist system. For example, if two bikes both use a Bosch system, the discussion will likely be focused on the mechanicals.

Yes, software can be hacked. Leave that out of MTBR discussions.

Ultimately, mods have discretion. This is a starting point. Open discussion clearly isn't working.


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

I demo'd a Levo today for the first time on an actual [legal] trail network. For the duration of the ride, I had it in both the middle and the max (turbo) power assist settings.

The middle setting was still above the 250w limit, but I'd imagine if the system were designed for 250w to begin with, it would have been half the weight and I would have actually preferred that. My biggest gripe is the 16+ lb weight penalty. Regardless, I'm sold on the system and will be getting a Kenevo to complement my "real" bikes.

I did play around on the 750w Turbo setting for a good portion of the time. Yes, it's blatantly "unfair" and is bound to bruise the egos of those who were fortunate enough to be born with superhuman genetics. Nevertheless, 750w turbo boost doesn't automatically give you Strava KOMs on every climb, for two reasons.

First, it still takes a significant amount of skill to tackle a technical, steep climb regardless of whether you're on an ebike or regular MTB. You're not going to roost your way up with both feet dragging in the dirt. You cannot hammer a tight switchback. Second, very much like flats vs hills, it takes a lot more concentration to deliver the same sustained effort when under assistance than when 100% man powered. Realistically, the sustained effort is less. The results would be different on a long fireroad, but that's never been the concern.

So with my first e-MTB ride out of the way, I can say that I don't really see what the fuss is about. Yes, I was much faster on the climbs, but not any faster than if I had been born with better genes capable of a 5+ watt/kg FTP. I'm still capable of much higher speeds in the downhill direction on the same trails, so from a safety aspect, zero change.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

EricTheDood said:


> So with my first e-MTB ride out of the way, I can say that I don't really see what the fuss is about. Yes, I was much faster on the climbs, but not any faster than if I had been born with better genes capable of a 5+ watt/kg FTP. I'm still capable of much higher speeds in the downhill direction on the same trails, so from a safety aspect, zero change.


You don't see what the fuss is about because trails and situations are vastly different depending on where you ride. I'm sure there are lots of trails where ebikes would not be a problem, but I'm also sure there are trails and situations where they would be. Does this make me a "hater"? No one has to answer that, I'm just pointing out that just because someone is concerned about issues with ebikes does not make them a "hater".


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Some people may have mis-understood the reasons why I posted several topics related to hacking and installing throttels etc, my point was exactly what the OP is asking. What is this site trying to promote with this forum? MTBR has a history of helping mountain bikers with useful information, ~some of that information could be considered hackish. MTBR introduced riders to home brew sealants, ghetto tubeless, 650b, 69er, even the 29er! Leaving the barn door open opens to door to many different interpretations of what should be discussed. IMO though, it's a bit premature to even include this topic on MTBR until the trail access issue is closed. Withing a clearly defined policy that everyone can understand you are opening the doors for ebike misuse and trail closures.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Mtbr represents the spectrum of mountain bike users. You are basically asking that the dh and single speed portion get shut down. Only xc and endure are real.
The same dinamic exists out on the trails with ebike users. Some are riding stock bikes, but a large enough user group is modifying them. There is no enforcement and when there is it targets other users too.
Ebike are great for lots of things. I use one everyday. It never sees the dirt though. Local law forbids access to all parks within 100 miles and mountains bikes are barley tolerated. Access is a fight and ebike bring a spotlight. Just my two cents.
I'm an electrical engineer, so I like to mod my kids power wheels and have all kinds of stupid fast rc cars, planes.
Edit
I think you should lobby for a low powered stock pedal only area of the ebike forum.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

EricTheDood said:


> I demo'd a Levo today for the first time on an actual [legal] trail network. For the duration of the ride, I had it in both the middle and the max (turbo) power assist settings.
> 
> The middle setting was still above the 250w limit, but I'd imagine if the system were designed for 250w to begin with, it would have been half the weight and I would have actually preferred that. My biggest gripe is the 16+ lb weight penalty. Regardless, I'm sold on the system and will be getting a Kenevo to complement my "real" bikes.
> 
> ...


Fyi

The levo, like the other mainstream emtbs being sold, are nominally rated at 250w, with a peak of 520w. You choose the percentage of assist you receive on top of what the system perceives your putting in, from 25% - 300%. A 750w ebike peaks at @ 1500w.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Harryman said:


> Fyi
> 
> The levo, like the other mainstream emtbs being sold, are nominally rated at 250w, with a peak of 520w. You choose the percentage of assist you receive on top of what the system perceives your putting in, from 25% - 300%. A 750w ebike peaks at @ 1500w.


My 160hp crv peaks at 160hp. Weird I know.
The new specialized motors are making close to 700-750 constant load watts. Peak is even higher. In another year they will all be over the legal limit, but will still be labeled 250w.


----------



## motocatfish (Mar 12, 2016)

Free exchange of ideas about ANY subject used to be the mantra of America.

Now endless arguments over whose definition of Politically Correct we must adhere to.

This is sad, and not the America I grew up in. :-(

Catfish ...


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

alexbn921 said:


> My 160hp crv peaks at 160hp. Weird I know.
> The new specialized motors are making close to 700-750 constant load watts. Peak is even higher. In another year they will all be over the legal limit, but will still be labeled 250w.


Agreed, lots of smoke and mirrors out there. You can get 3000w out of a 750w labeled motor.


----------



## Crankout (Jun 16, 2010)

I don't think that this website would necessarily be held liable for discussions about illegal hacks and what not. People are free to comment however they please, so long as it doesn't violate forum rules. 

i think that the users self-patrol, as witnessed in this subforum when users talk about the things that you mention.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

motocatfish said:


> Free exchange of ideas about ANY subject used to be the mantra of America.


That's simply not true despite your nostalgia for the golden age of the past.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

Good post. This forum should be for legal e-bikes only. No throttles, hacks/mods e-motos.

Pedal assist, ~250 watt bikes

Everything else should be moved or deleted I think. We have two new moderators and adding a third perhaps to help guide the forum. I think Nurse Ben should be a mod!


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Harryman said:


> Agreed, lots of smoke and mirrors out there. You can get 3000w out of a 750w labeled motor.


yup, if you look on youtube there's a guy who explains the concept really well. You can over volt a 750W motor to virtually whatever you want.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

fc said:


> Good post. This forum should be for legal e-bikes only. No throttles, hacks/mods e-motos.
> 
> Pedal assist, ~250 watt bikes
> 
> Everything else should be moved or deleted I think. We have two new moderators and adding a third perhaps to help guide the forum. I think Nurse Ben should be a mod!


All of the ebikes currently in production by major manufactures are over 250watts.
SPECILIZED
SHIMANO
SYNO-DRIVE
TDCM
IMPULSE 
BOSCH
YAMAHA
BIONX
XION
DAPU
BAFANG
PANASONIC

Not a single one is under 250 watts.

Did you know that both the 250w and the 350w Bosch motor are exactly the same? They both share the same internals, they both use the same battery & head unit etc.
Bosh also rates their 250 motors from 40 to 75Nm of torque at the same wattage and gear ratio. That's not even possible.


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

chazpat said:


> You don't see what the fuss is about because trails and situations are vastly different depending on where you ride. I'm sure there are lots of trails where ebikes would not be a problem, but I'm also sure there are trails and situations where they would be. Does this make me a "hater"? No one has to answer that, I'm just pointing out that just because someone is concerned about issues with ebikes does not make them a "hater".


You make a good point on a subject that should continue to be discussed.

What types of trails in particular do you think should be barred from ebikes?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

fc said:


> Good post. This forum should be for legal e-bikes only. No throttles, hacks/mods e-motos.
> 
> Pedal assist, ~250 watt bikes
> 
> Everything else should be moved or deleted I think. We have two new moderators and adding a third perhaps to help guide the forum. I think Nurse Ben should be a mod!


So, EU pedelec legal only?

That is awfully narrow, as well as putting blinders on to the reality of the ebike universe. EU ebike forums often have a sub for anything over 250w, which seems logical.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

EricTheDood said:


> Yes, very simple.
> 
> Limit equipment discussions to e-mtbs that stop assisting past 20mph. These are the ones that stand a chance at (eventual) widespread legalization in multi-use trails.
> 
> ...


Ok then, so as much power/torque as you want with a throttle is just fine as long as it is regulated to a max of 20 mph. Is that what you are saying?


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

Harryman said:


> Fyi
> 
> The levo, like the other mainstream emtbs being sold, are nominally rated at 250w, with a peak of 520w. You choose the percentage of assist you receive on top of what the system perceives your putting in, from 25% - 300%. A 750w ebike peaks at @ 1500w.


Thanks. I hadn't looked that closely into the motor specs but I will do so now that I'm getting one.


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

singletrackmack said:


> Ok then, so as much power/torque as you want with a throttle is just fine as long as it is regulated to a max of 20 mph. Is that what you are saying?


750 watts peak. I actually don't care for hand throttles. I think there's a safety issue if a user panics and unintentionally jams it with their hand. So I'd have no issue only discussing Class 1s, but some others have stated they're open to throttles.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

EU standard bikes are fine by me pretty much anywhere. 

-Walt


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Walt I have a diesel Volkswagen i'll sell you. Passes emissions with flying colors.
I approve of this ebike! He should be aloud to ride it on all legal trails.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

fc said:


> Good post. This forum should be for legal e-bikes only. No throttles, hacks/mods e-motos.
> 
> Pedal assist, ~250 watt bikes
> 
> Everything else should be moved or deleted I think. We have two new moderators and adding a third perhaps to help guide the forum. I think Nurse Ben should be a mod!


 Would it be helpful to have US and " other" country forums as well. Kiwis and Brits to argue with each other?


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

EricTheDood said:


> 750 watts peak. I actually don't care for hand throttles. I think there's a safety issue if a user panics and unintentionally jams it with their hand. So I'd have no issue only discussing Class 1s, but some others have stated they're open to throttles.


So do you beleive bikes Rated up to 750w or 1hp (and up to peak 1500 watts or 2 hp) with a throttle limited to 20mph stand a chance at being allowed on multi-use trails?

Edit: I just realized you said "750 watts peak", but these motors are not rated on peak power, but nominal. So if you want to make a "peak" cut off then you would need to have the way ebikes are rated changed, which I am sure will not be complicated, right?


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

AFAIK, electric motors are rated by what they can sustain without overheating when they are run constantly at full speed. Therefore, for better or worse, right or wrong, a 1000w motor can be run probably up to 4000w for a short period. That doesn't mean the manufacturers shouldn't be liable for doing a better job rating them. IMO (probably the minority), speed is a better way to govern e-bikes.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

Speed is a good way, and that is the only way they actual do it. The problem is that 20 mph up hill on a mountain bike is damn fast.
They can pass the speed test and have 5+hp with a limiter.
2028 Extreme 800Kv Brushless Motor
10hp for $230 and it's under 1lb. Just limit it to 20mph and your all good.
thermal load is closer to 750watts.
although I can print a 250watt sticker and slap it on so it legal just like they all do.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

a21, excellent point; it just seems like there's no perfect way to control the system except for the manufacturers to agree to comply, which might be a little difficult. What is surprising to me is that People For Bikes, a manufacturer's trade group, wasn't directed to push for the EU standards in the US since that would have allowed them to produce the same bikes for everyone and maybe make e-MTB's more palatable to individuals who make decisions where they can be used in parks etc in the US.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

alexbn921 said:


> All of the ebikes currently in production by major manufactures are over 250watts.
> SPECILIZED
> SHIMANO
> SYNO-DRIVE
> ...


Isn't the law 250 Watts? That's what Shimano 8000, Brose, Bosch are rated at.

I understand that rating is what they can sustain for the duration of the battery. Peak may be higher.

I see some 350watt ones for commuters and 27mph. Maybe that should be the upper limit. 350 watts, rated, sustained average.

Anyway, the key is to disallow the 1000+ sustained watt motors and above, specially with throttle.

Later, more subforums can be created if appropriate.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

What's everyone going to talk about? There's only a handful of posters here that have actually ridden them or own them!


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

EricTheDood said:


> You make a good point on a subject that should continue to be discussed.
> 
> What types of trails in particular do you think should be barred from ebikes?


If you read through a lot of these threads, you'll find riders discussing trails that they spent a lot of time getting mountain bikes allowed on (or permission to build such trails) and current opponents who would very much like to ban mountain bikes from trails.

Where I most often ride is a very urban metro area with heavily travelled trails, the fast majority of which are directional. These are mostly tight, twisty, rocky/rooty trails with a lot of ups and down and passing is not always easy and convenient, the trails aren't wide enough and very little straightaways. Sure, we do pass but with everyone heading in the same direction and at somewhat similar speeds, not nearly as often as you would think, especially on the advanced trails. Throw in ebikes that can climb much faster and there will be more passing. There is very, very little passing going uphill on these trails currently, it just doesn't work so well. This is a numbers thing, a handful of ebikes would not really be an issue. But as the percentage increased, it would be more and more of an issue.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

fc said:


> Isn't the law 250 Watts? That's what Shimano 8000, Brose, Bosch are rated at.
> 
> I understand that rating is what they can sustain for the duration of the battery. Peak may be higher.
> 
> ...


The ratings are a complete and total joke. The new specialized ebikes make 650-700 steady state and 1500 max. Then they print 250 on the side and no one questions it.

Watts rating should be max voltage x amps = watts. Just like every other electric device on the planet.

Right now ebike rating = max local law allows.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

I think we can all agree that every vehicle "type" and surface has a best practice; though I admit to struggling with the whole monster truck thing 

If we can classify trails as being appropriate to certain uses (pedestrian, horse, bike, moto), it would not be a stretch to specify ebike use by wattage or pedal assist requirements. 

If you were buying an ebike and learned that your favorite trails had a 250w power limit, you would think twice about buying a 500w ebike. 

I don't honestly think the manufacturers care about trail access; they are probably playing all their cards and waiting for the other shoe to drop, BUT they would care about impacts on sales.

The EU standard is solid, evidenced base, allows for reasonable use without creating too much mischief.

^this limit would garner the most support in the US because it minimize the abuse potential or perception there of.

Even Walt agrees


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

fc said:


> Isn't the law 250 Watts? That's what Shimano 8000, Brose, Bosch are rated at.
> 
> I understand that rating is what they can sustain for the duration of the battery. Peak may be higher.
> 
> ...


The "law" in California and several other states is 750 watts. 20 mph for classes 1 and 2 and 28 mph for Class 3.

Specialized is already pimping their 250 watt "nominal" Brose motors as being 530 watts.

I'll bet in another year or 2 they'll be at the 750 watt ceiling.

I guess you could start an "Euro" standard only forum.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

EU is too slow. 15.5 mph max is lame.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

Even many of the most ardent trail moped supporters on here admit that they aren't real bicycles. 

So rather than splitting hares and making arbitrary distinctions between different types of mopeds, why not just remove this sub-forum from MTBR entirely?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Smithhammer said:


> Even many of the most ardent trail moped supporters on here admit that they aren't real bicycles.
> 
> So rather than splitting hares and making arbitrary distinctions between different types of mopeds, why not just remove this sub-forum from MTBR entirely?


I'd like to keep track of who and who is not currently marketing emtbs (motorized mountain bikes) so members and consumers can keep track and choose who to support. Just to be clear, these are emtb which are designed to go offroad and not general purpose ebikes.

Major brands that are currently marketing emtb's
Specialized
Pivot
Commencal
Scott
Trek
Giant
Rocky Mountain
Lapierre
Cannondale
Felt
Kona
Orbea
Diamondback
Cube
Focus
Raleigh
Nicolai
Bianchi
Fuji
Mondraker
BMC
Canyon
Haibike

Here's your answer^


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Nurse Ben said:


> The EU standard is solid, evidenced base, allows for reasonable use without creating too much mischief.
> 
> ^this limit would garner the most support in the US because it minimize the abuse potential or perception there of.
> 
> Even Walt agrees


I think we would solve a lot of problems if that standard was adopted in the US, and it would be easier for manufacturers, too. And all the out of shape folks, old folks, injured folks, or folks who just don't like suffering could go mountain biking and not cause any problems.

But, as Gutch so eloquently puts it, "15.5mph is lame".

That's really the conundrum for e-bike advocates (and I consider myself one, as I have multiple friends/neighbors whose lives would be improved greatly if they could ride trails on them) - if the existing tech arms race/DH bikes with motors on them thing takes off, you can kiss access goodbye everywhere. Nobody is going to bat an eye at my 70 year old neighbor riding uphill at 8mph. A lot of people will freak about a bunch of 23 year olds on DH sleds in armor tearing around on MUTs at 20.

I've asked before, but I'll ask again. What on earth were People for Bikes thinking?

-Walt


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

fc said:


> Isn't the law 250 Watts? That's what Shimano 8000, Brose, Bosch are rated at.
> 
> I understand that rating is what they can sustain for the duration of the battery. Peak may be higher.
> 
> ...





Moe Ped said:


> The "law" in California and several other states is 750 watts. 20 mph for classes 1 and 2 and 28 mph for Class 3.
> 
> Specialized is already pimping their 250 watt "nominal" Brose motors as being 530 watts.
> 
> ...


What about adding a 750watt motor to a legit mtb. One can get a lot of peak power out of a 750 watt nominal motor. These guys get 2250 peak watts or 3hp.

Take off the motor easily and you got yourself a regular mtb making this more of a mtb than a Levo. Can this be discussed or would there need to be a special subforum for these?

FEATURES - Kranked Bikes


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I'm cool with 20. Even then on my old Levo it's hard to push it any faster. My Turbo S road bike goes 28 and that's a little easier to push to 30-35 but not as easy as a road bicycle.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> EU is too slow. 15.5 mph max is lame.


But see Gutch, that is one of the problems. There are plenty of people who think 20 mph max is lame and will want to up that and can easily do so. I was in a discussion with a guy on People for Bikes who was complaining that he is limited to 20mph on the bike paths because of mountain bikers. He used such "facts" as normal bike riders cruise along on the flats at 35mph so he should be able to also. When I gave him some links to real numbers, he declared that Tour de France riders hit 35 and they must train on bike paths so he should be allowed 35 mph, too (and this guy apparently is an engineer).

How can 15.5 mph be too slow? It's supposed to be pedal assist, that's a lot faster than most bicyclist climb; if you want to go faster, pedal harder.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Moe Ped said:


> The "law" in California and several other states is 750 watts. 20 mph for classes 1 and 2 and 28 mph for Class 3.
> 
> Specialized is already pimping their 250 watt "nominal" Brose motors as being 530 watts.
> 
> ...


Moe Ped (or anyone else that knows), what is the efficiency of these motors? I believe electric motors are highly efficient but I'm wondering how much they can be improved, i.e., higher output with the same wattage.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

But is it really?

If the purpose of pedal assist is to help a person overcome physical limitations, then why is it necessary for the ebike user to ride up hill faster than the average unassisted biker?

I don't ride uphill at 15mph and I consider myself a fairly fit biker.

Keep in mind that ebikes are trying to fit into an existing paradigm.

To avoid disrupting this paradigm we need to avoid confusing assisted bikes with motor powered cycles.

Yes, you may not get your cake and eat it too, but at least you'll preserve your privilege to use that ebike on trails.

Key word: Privilege.



Gutch said:


> EU is too slow. 15.5 mph max is lame.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

15.5 is too slow, period. How fast do y'all go on your mtb? It would be nice to at least match that speed. I dont know of anybody that can climb where I ride at 20 mph uphill on a 250w Pedelec, unless it's a fire road, and then who cares? Too steep and technical.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Nurse Ben said:


> If the purpose of pedal assist is to help a person overcome physical limitations, then why is it necessary for the ebike user to ride up hill faster than the average unassisted biker?


+1. I have no problem with ebikes doing what normal fit mountain bikers already do, but with less effort. The problem is that clearly many people don't feel the same way - which is why I predict they'll remain banned from tons of places, and probably get banned from more. All it takes is a couple jerks who want to go fast.

-Walt


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

chazpat said:


> Moe Ped (or anyone else that knows), what is the efficiency of these motors? I believe electric motors are highly efficient but I'm wondering how much they can be improved, i.e., higher output with the same wattage.


I wish I had access to a dyno and I'd do some tests. The few BLDC motors that I've seen charts on are in the mid 80's percent-wise. One mfg said 90% in their brochure but then their own product chart peaked at 84%. And this probably isn't allowing for losses in the motor controller and other wiring losses elsewhere. And then you add in a gearbox. If you had all these things as good as 90% their overall efficiency would be 73%. If all the bits are down at 80% efficiency the overall is a miserly 51%. The bike I've ridden the most by interpolating Strava data I'd guess is around 60%. I suspect the Brose and etc. motor systems are somewhat better than this based on ride comparisons.

The laws aren't real clear about how e-bikes should be rated; motor input or output, wheel brake horsepower etc.? Is the measurement taken at the leads coming from the battery or going to the motor? What about "power factor"? Or watts converted from BHP on dyno rollers?

And then pedelecs are even harder because you have to remove the cyclist from the equation. (This can all be done using power meters and such but who's going to QC mfg's claims?)


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Gutch said:


> EU is too slow. 15.5 mph max is lame.


Youtube is full of other people with the same sentiments. That's where you can find tons of videos on how to make your e-bike go faster.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Walt said:


> I've asked before, but I'll ask again. What on earth were People for Bikes thinking?
> 
> -Walt


I asked the lawyer at P4B who is in charge of crafting the legislation directly at a conference, "why didn't you just adopt the EU standards here" , and A) he looked confused, because he wasn't sure what they were, and B) his answer was because there were already companies here selling 750w ebikes.

I don't think they gave it much more thought than that.

Which IMO, is the worst thing they could have done if they wanted emtb access. Once young guys start riding "750w" nominal emtbs, access will start drying up.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

Gutch said:


> Here's your answer^


Plenty of ways to do that already. It's not really a response to my question. If e-bikes aren't actually bicycles, then why are they on here? Do we have a roller blading sub-forum? How about kite surfing?


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

What about moving the ebike forum out from under the "Classic Mountain Bike Forum" branch/heading?

Give ebikes their own branch below the "Classic Mountain Bike Forum" branch or under the "Regional Bike Trails and Rides Forums" branch and call it "Bicycles with Motors". Then you can have forums for:

Class 1
Class 2/Fed Law (below 750watt throttle ok)
Class 3
1000w
EU
Pedal Assist
Throttle Only
Trail Building and Advocacy
Embt specific parts: tires, chains, wheels, brakes, etc...
Embt computers/controls
Batteries and New Technology
How to get Higher Peak Watts from an under 750watt nominal rated motor
Charging Batteries
Electric Motor Repair
Embt Specific Accessories
Traveling with Emtbs / Embt car racks

One thing for sure is that there is nothing "classic" about ebikes and mountain biking.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

motocatfish said:


> Free exchange of ideas about ANY subject used to be the mantra of America.
> 
> Now endless arguments over whose definition of Politically Correct we must adhere to.
> 
> ...


This is absolutely the same America you grew up in. It is the previous generations that provided the soil for today's issues to take root. Free speech in the past was often code for racism, prejudism, and elitism. While I will agree that our society is too thin-skinned and lacks conviction, don't pretend that previous generations were without serious flaws.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I don't ever see a "ton" of access for any emtb. It will be spotty at best. The fact that they are motorized is a tough sell in a "non-motorized" atmosphere. Hopefully we all understand this. However, if a few trails are opened to emtbs everybody will self police and if you have a knucklehead on a 8000w machine, going way to fast, he will get reported and pushed out. The majority of emtb riders and mtbrs won't allow that bs.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

fc said:


> Isn't the law 250 Watts? That's what Shimano 8000, Brose, Bosch are rated at.
> 
> I understand that rating is what they can sustain for the duration of the battery. Peak may be higher.
> 
> ...


It really comes down to if you want to restrict the forum to discussions of legal ebikes, which varies widely depending on location, or if you want to restrict it to what you think is appropriate. Two vastly different things.

There are places in the US where 1000w and a throttle are perfectly legal for example. AFAIK, there's no place in the world with a specific class for emtbs, so it would seem illogical to treat them as such here.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Gutch said:


> What's everyone going to talk about? There's only a handful of posters here that have actually ridden them or own them!


So there is no point for an e-bike forum at all? Works for me.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Smithhammer said:


> Plenty of ways to do that already. It's not really a response to my question. If e-bikes aren't actually bicycles, then why are they on here? Do we have a roller blading sub-forum? How about kite surfing?


Well since every bike manufacturer is selling them at bike shops, then yeah. These manufacturers are what makes the site work. Do you understand this simple logic? Their is a beer forum, my bike shops have bars in them, but don't brew their own beer.


----------



## 786737 (Mar 13, 2015)

singletrackmack said:


> What about moving the ebike forum out from under the "Classic Mountain Bike Forum" branch/heading?
> 
> Give ebikes their own branch below the "Classic Mountain Bike Forum" branch or under the "Regional Bike Trails and Rides Forums" branch and call it "Bicycles with Motors". Then you can have forums for:
> Class 1
> ...


Add "Advocacy" to that list.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

^Added. Right after "Throttle Only"


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

Gutch said:


> Well since every bike manufacturer is selling them at bike shops, then yeah. These manufacturers are what makes the site work. Do you understand this simple logic? Their is a beer forum, my bike shops have bars in them, but don't brew their own beer.


Brilliant logic. Several of my LBS's sell skis and snowboards in the winter - should we have a sub-forum for that as well?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Cool, how many bike manufacturers make skis and snowboards?


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

Gutch said:


> Cool, how many bike manufacturers make skis and snowboards?


It isn't about what else some bike manufacturers may also make - it's about what is a bike, and what isn't. Get this crap off mtbr, IMHO...


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

singletrackmack said:


> What about moving the ebike forum out from under the "Classic Mountain Bike Forum" branch/heading?
> 
> Give ebikes their own branch below the "Classic Mountain Bike Forum" branch or under the "Regional Bike Trails and Rides Forums" branch and call it "Bicycles with Motors". Then you can have forums for:
> 
> ...


Class 2 are allowed throttles.

I believe "pedal only" should refer to regular bicycles.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

mountainbiker24 said:


> So there is no point for an e-bike forum at all? Works for me.


Where would you moan and groan if this forum wasn't here?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> Cool, how many bike manufacturers make skis and snowboards?


I think at least one makes skate boards 

We don't even have a road bike forum or a bmx forum. We do have a cyclocross forum and a commuter forum (close knit bunch in there).


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Fixed


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

Went on my second Specialized Levo ride today. It goes back to the shop tomorrow and I'm placing my order for the Kenevo. 

I had the bike in Turbo mode the whole time today. So much fun. 

I never exceeded 15.5mph on the climbs. If US laws had been written to align with those of the EU, I would've been OK with it. Shame.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

fc said:


> Good post. This forum should be for legal e-bikes only. No throttles, hacks/mods e-motos.
> 
> Pedal assist, ~250 watt bikes
> 
> Everything else should be moved or deleted I think. We have two new moderators and adding a third perhaps to help guide the forum. I think Nurse Ben should be a mod!


Uh, yeah, I kinda figured that with your recent posts on e-bikes, and this thread NB started, that was the plan.

I get it, the whole e-bike thing is gonna be huge, and there is a lot of money in it - for manufacturers, and websites as well. So you gotta figure out how to handle it. Anyway, I'm not into promoting mountain biking, much less e-bikes, so really can't help in that area. My line of thinking is that if you want to get into mountain biking, go for it. Same with e-bikes.

I think the whole idea of limiting the discussion of e-bikes to 250 watts, and more importantly the actual e-bikes themselves to 250 watts is futile.

I'd say overall I'm civil on this forum when treated the same. And in general you and NB are stand-up guys. But right now I feel like I'm listening to a sales job.

We've had 10+ years of NASTY arguments over wheel sizes, that I'd say have finally calmed down. I didn't see moderators protecting 29ers from being disparaged (barring the usual behavior prohibited in the forums). And all that was over nothing compared to sticking a motor on a bicycle.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

I like a lot of this thread.

It's been decided that e-bikes will be part of the conversation here, for better or worse. I think it's a good idea seeing how we're undeniably bedfellows to some degree. I wouldn't ever say I'm 'promoting' e-bikes, but after having non-bikers go to bat for us big-time during local access battles, I have a serious appreciation for the power of an open mind.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

JACKL said:


> Uh, yeah, I kinda figured that with your recent posts on e-bikes, and this thread NB started, that was the plan.
> 
> I get it, the whole e-bike thing is gonna be huge, and there is a lot of money in it - for manufacturers, and websites as well. So you gotta figure out how to handle it. Anyway, I'm not into promoting mountain biking, much less e-bikes, so really can't help in that area. My line of thinking is that if you want to get into mountain biking, go for it. Same with e-bikes.
> 
> ...


Don't think of it as a sales pitch so much as an attempt to moderate the discussion that's already happening.

If it's gonna happen, you might as well be part of the discussion. MTBR is an important on-line presence. I think mfgs are already paying attention.


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

alexbn921 said:


> The ratings are a complete and total joke. The new specialized ebikes make 650-700 steady state and 1500 max. Then they print 250 on the side and no one questions it.
> 
> Watts rating should be max voltage x amps = watts. Just like every other electric device on the planet.


Do you have an idea how an electric motor work?


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

Gutch said:


> 15.5 is too slow, period. How fast do y'all go on your mtb?


Slower.
25 km/h is too slow on the road but not on a trail.


----------



## eFat (Jun 14, 2017)

Gutch said:


> Cool, how many bike manufacturers make skis and snowboards?


Stöckli


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

Gutch said:


> Where would you moan and groan if this forum wasn't here?


I believe I have been very fair and well-behaved in this forum. You're the one making unfounded claims and assumptions.


----------



## NEPMTBA (Apr 7, 2007)

We have to restart somewhere. E-bikes are here to stay, let's show the world mtbr is a place to come and find info, and share positive stories.

I agree simple right now is better...
...I'm in


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

eFat said:


> Do you have an idea how an electric motor work?


yes.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

NEPMTBA said:


> We have to restart somewhere. E-bikes are here to stay, let's show the world mtbr is a place to come and find info, and share positive stories.
> 
> I agree simple right now is better...
> ...I'm in


I whole heatedly agree. The first step would be figuring out the laws and where e-bikes are currently allowed and eliminate the confusion so everyone is on the same page. Easier said than done due to a) ambiguous state regulations/laws and enforcement b) shoddy advertising by the e-bike lobby that encourages breaking rules to ride anywhere they think normal mountain bikes are allowed c) other interests that oppose mountain bike access to shared trail systems

Once those issues are settled I think you will see a more civil discussion on where to proceed from there.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Lemonaid said:


> I whole heatedly agree. The first step would be figuring out the laws and where e-bikes are currently allowed and eliminate the confusion so everyone is on the same page. Easier said than done due to a) ambiguous state regulations/laws and enforcement b) shoddy advertising by the e-bike lobby that encourages breaking rules to ride anywhere they think normal mountain bikes are allowed c) other interests that oppose mountain bike access to shared trail systems
> 
> Once those issues are settled I think you will see a more civil discussion on where to proceed from there.


This is a very good point. How can MTBR make a blanket statement that talk of "illegal" eBikes is not allowed, when the legalities surrounding them vary greatly by Location and trail/path/road access.

A Class 3 eBike might not be allowed on a MUT here in California, but it is most certainly allowed on a fireroad or a paved road here in California.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

fos'l said:


> a21, excellent point; it just seems like there's no perfect way to control the system except for the manufacturers to agree to comply, which might be a little difficult. What is surprising to me is that People For Bikes, a manufacturer's trade group, wasn't directed to push for the EU standards in the US since that would have allowed them to produce the same bikes for everyone and maybe make e-MTB's more palatable to individuals who make decisions where they can be used in parks etc in the US.


The difference between an EU 25km/hr pedalec and a US 20MPH pedalec is a ten second software load.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Um, Francis?

http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/cyclotricity-stealth-1000w-1057742.html

Not off to a great start so far...

-Walt


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Walt said:


> Um, Francis?
> 
> http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/cyclotricity-stealth-1000w-1057742.html
> 
> ...


What if it is in fact perfectly legal to ride that cycletricity stealth 1000w where he lives? Would that change whether or not we were off to a great start?

Again, nothing about ebikes and mtbs is "classic" so why is the forum for ebikes under the "Classic Mountain Biking Forum" branch?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

singletrackmack said:


> What if it is in fact perfectly legal to ride that cycletricity stealth 1000w where he lives? Would that change whether or not we were off to a great start?
> 
> Again, nothing about ebikes and mtbs is "classic" so why is the forum for ebikes under the "Classic Mountain Biking Forum" branch?


Well, first off, it's not - in the UK, bikes over 250W are managed as off-road motorcycles and not permitted, well, basically anywhere except MX tracks. Maybe post-Brexit they will amend that to allow anyone to ride anywhere they want, who knows. As of now, his bike is *completely* illegal.

If your point is that it's hard to tell what is legal and what isn't right now, that's definitely true. But 1000W and a throttle isn't legal basically anywhere.

-Walt


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Walt said:


> Well, first off, it's not - in the UK, bikes over 250W are managed as off-road motorcycles and not permitted, well, basically anywhere except MX tracks. Maybe post-Brexit they will amend that to allow anyone to ride anywhere they want, who knows. As of now, his bike is *completely* illegal.
> 
> If your point is that it's hard to tell what is legal and what isn't right now, that's definitely true. But 1000W and a throttle isn't legal basically anywhere.
> 
> -Walt


1000w max is not a problem when defining an ebike in Washington, Oregon, Montana, Minnesota, Kansas, Georgia and I think Arizona. Throttle doesn't seem to be an issue either.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yeah, that's a big problem!

-Walt


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Walt said:


> Yeah, that's a big problem!
> 
> -Walt


A big problem for whom?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Well, for people who want to ride e-bikes, really. Laws and regs differ everywhere. Would have made a lot of sense to adopt the EU standard. C'est la vie, that's 'Merica for you.

-Walt


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Nurse Ben said:


> Don't think of it as a sales pitch so much as an attempt to moderate the discussion that's already happening.
> 
> If it's gonna happen, you might as well be part of the discussion. MTBR is an important on-line presence. I think mfgs are already paying attention.


Sorry NB, my opinions are what they are, and not what anyone else wants them to be. I'm sensing more than a desire to moderate; it comes off to me like an organized plan to influence opinions and muffle or limit dissent. I hope I'm wrong about that. I'm 100% open to a logical discussion of the topic. It's been going on for quite a while; I've participated, and will continue to call it like I see it, for as long as that is allowed.

I don't disagree that MTBR is an important online presence. IMO it is THE place to share information regarding mountain bikes (and also to just hang out and shoot the bull), and I've never felt a need to look elsewhere.

I don't understand the significance of the statement "I think mfgs are already paying attention". I hope that is not what is driving this.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

Walt said:


> Well, for people who want to ride e-bikes on non-motorized trails really. Laws and regs differ everywhere. Would have made a lot of sense to adopt the EU standard. C'est la vie, that's 'Merica for you.
> 
> -Walt


Yes it would have, but we are stuck with ebikes of up to 1000w with throttle depending on location here in the states, but that doesn't matter because the issue is not power.

I was thinking now that there is talk about banning posts when a mod perceives the post is about an e-bike with too much power according to EU or Cali law and therefore would really be considered a motorcycle. What are mods doing when someone from say, Alaska posts something about any ebike since ebike are legally considered motorcycles in Alaska. Should that post be banned also?


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

JACKL said:


> Sorry NB, my opinions are what they are, and not what anyone else wants them to be. I'm sensing more than a desire to moderate; it comes off to me like an organized plan to influence opinions and muffle or limit dissent. I hope I'm wrong about that. I'm 100% open to a logical discussion of the topic. It's been going on for quite a while; I've participated, and will continue to call it like I see it, for as long as that is allowed.
> 
> I don't disagree that MTBR is an important online presence. IMO it is THE place to share information regarding mountain bikes (and also to just hang out and shoot the bull), and I've never felt a need to look elsewhere.
> 
> I don't understand the significance of the statement "I think mfgs are already paying attention". I hope that is not what is driving this.


Me thinks bear ? has spoken and revealed his true intentions.

http://forums.mtbr.com/e-bikes/why-ban-throttle-talk-1057627.html

Mtbr has a history of quashing dissent and catering to the will of the sponsors. Anyone remember a small company called Ibex bikes?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

singletrackmack said:


> Yes it would have, but we are stuck with ebikes of up to 1000w with throttle depending on location here in the states, but that doesn't matter because the issue is not power.
> 
> I was thinking now that there is talk about banning posts when a mod perceives the post is about an e-bike with too much power according to EU or Cali law and therefore would really be considered a motorcycle. What are mods doing when someone from say, Alaska posts something about any ebike since ebike are legally considered motorcycles in Alaska. Should that post be banned also?


That's the point of the whole discussion. IMO, if you're going to have an ebike forum, it should be warts and all, let people talk about anything ebike. If you pretend it's only old guys on 250w emtbs, it's a farce. Then you should rename it to the pedelc/Class 1 ebike forum and it'll be an empty wasteland like every other emtb forum. Ebike forums only thrive when it includes commuters, old dudes on bike paths, kit bikers and the like. The percentage of people who ride emtbs is small compared to all other kinds ebikes.

Would you also have to start banning over class 1 discussions elsewhere in the forum? Because there's usually several going on.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Harryman said:


> That's the point of the whole discussion. IMO, if you're going to have an ebike forum, it should be warts and all, let people talk about anything ebike. If you pretend it's only old guys on 250w emtbs, it's a farce. Then you should rename it to the pedelc/Class 1 ebike forum and it'll be an empty wasteland like every other emtb forum. Ebike forums only thrive when it includes commuters, old dudes on bike paths, kit bikers and the like. The percentage of people who ride emtbs is small compared to all other kinds ebikes.
> 
> Would you also have to start banning over class 1 discussions elsewhere in the forum? Because there's usually several going on.


While valid thoughts, that would also be the reason why ebikes shouldn't be on this site, does the site become "Mountain Bike and E-Bike Review"? Though the tagline (or whatever you call it) for the ebike forum is "Electric bikes for trails, commuting, road". Does the site start promoting as "all things ebike" and bring in lots of visitors that have no interest in mountain biking?

As I pointed out earlier, we don't even have a road bike forum; but I bet we have a lot more members who own/ride road bikes than ebikes. Personally, I think ebikes should be in Off Camber, just like Muscle Cars and other threads that are not actual bicycles and yes, Beer probably belongs there as well. Or as someone else suggested, split the forums into two, have a mountain bike side and an "other" side.

I think this thread has shown one of the big problems with ebikes here and why it makes a lot more sense to draw the line between - no motor | has motor - rather than trying to find a place within - has motor - and draw a line that can be distinguished where the laws vary and mods can easily be made to cross over the line.


----------



## Mt.Biker E (Mar 25, 2006)

chazpat said:


> While valid thoughts, that would also be the reason why ebikes shouldn't be on this site, does the site become "Mountain Bike and E-Bike Review"? Though the tagline (or whatever you call it) for the ebike forum is "Electric bikes for trails, commuting, road". Does the site start promoting as "all things ebike" and bring in lots of visitors that have no interest in mountain biking?
> 
> As I pointed out earlier, we don't even have a road bike forum; but I bet we have a lot more members who own/ride road bikes than ebikes. Personally, I think ebikes should be in Off Camber, just like Muscle Cars and other threads that are not actual bicycles and yes, Beer probably belongs there as well. Or as someone else suggested, split the forums into two, have a mountain bike side and an "other" side.
> 
> I think this thread has shown one of the big problems with ebikes here and why it makes a lot more sense to draw the line between - no motor | has motor - rather than trying to find a place within - has motor - and draw a line that can be distinguished where the laws vary and mods can easily be made to cross over the line.


And rename it MOPED. Ebike is purely a marketing gimmick and an attempt to rebrand to circumvent issues like we are seeing here.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

I don't see anyone being coerced to visit this forum or any other in MTBR. It has been stated repeatedly that this forum is here to stay. There are many other subjects; just select the ones that appeal.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

chazpat said:


> While valid thoughts, that would also be the reason why ebikes shouldn't be on this site, does the site become "Mountain Bike and E-Bike Review"? Though the tagline (or whatever you call it) for the ebike forum is "Electric bikes for trails, commuting, road". Does the site start promoting as "all things ebike" and bring in lots of visitors that have no interest in mountain biking?
> 
> As I pointed out earlier, we don't even have a road bike forum; but I bet we have a lot more members who own/ride road bikes than ebikes. Personally, I think ebikes should be in Off Camber, just like Muscle Cars and other threads that are not actual bicycles and yes, Beer probably belongs there as well. Or as someone else suggested, split the forums into two, have a mountain bike side and an "other" side.
> 
> I think this thread has shown one of the big problems with ebikes here and why it makes a lot more sense to draw the line between - no motor | has motor - rather than trying to find a place within - has motor - and draw a line that can be distinguished where the laws vary and mods can easily be made to cross over the line.


Agreed, I think FC is missing an opportunity in not starting up emtbr as a separate entiity, forums do best when it's a gathering of the tribe, and as is seen here and other forums I vist where ebikes are a subsection of a bike forum, there's a lot of contention, which I don't see going away for years in the US, if at all.

And yes, there's a lot of crossover with people like me who ride, mtb, gravel and road, I see familiar faces on rbr. If you think ebikes get piled upon here, you should see it there :eekster:


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

fos'l said:


> I don't see anyone being coerced to visit this forum or any other in MTBR. It has been stated repeatedly that this forum is here to stay. There are many other subjects; just select the ones that appeal.


Yes, but the discussion was in regards to what should and should not be allowed in the forum and Harryman mentioned it being everything ebike. I was mainly saying that that would not follow the current format of the site. It already seems to be an issue with ebikers coming in and starting up threads about their 1000W or greater ebikes with no clue of what the site is about and others coming in and arguing that their ebikes are bicycles, which you have acknowledged is not accurate.

So Harryman may be correct, unless the mods want to set up guidelines, which will rarely be read and we've already shown is difficult to do due to the variation in laws, and constantly be deleting threads.

I see you are now a mod, what do you think? Try to keep it legal talk, or anything goes?


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

I'm not the best choice for direction, but if choosing, I would keep it legal, which as Harry indicated is its own can of worms, then maybe have a separate area later for private land or off road areas. It's unusual in socal (I think) since we have fire roads that lead to great views and sometimes fantastic downhills, so there should always be places to ride an e-MTB. The DIY scene is a conundrum since there are no real guidelines except 750w max power, and 20 or 28 mph max depending on the type of trail.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

This forum does not need to be everything to everyone, there are other forums that can serve the needs of outliers. 

To avoiding extremes at either end of the spectrum and to appeal to the widest audience, there should be limits on what "fits" the format of this forum.

As a mountain biker first, I admit that some of the posts I've read on the forum were offensive. Specifically, posts that advocate high powered ebikes and ebikes that have throttles.

My wife rides an ebike, it is a pedal assist bike without a throttle. Until I became interested in getting her an ebike, I was strongly against the concept of pedal assisted mountain biking.

I now understand the benefits of assisted pedaling, but I think there is a very distinct line that should not be crossed.

As an MTBR member, I would like to see the forum set out firm guidelines and do their best to enforce these guidelines. 

MTBR can be the voice of reason as we embrace this new technology.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

I was an advocate of PAS-only until riding a production bike that had a PAS level where maximum power was provided no matter how hard or fast the bike was pedaled. Seemed easier than throttle control since ones hands could be firmly gripping the bars. Now, a bit of an enigma. Also rode a TWD production Class 1 bike and somehow the torque sensor got stuck. Wild ride up an 8 mile, 3000' ascent, and exhausted the 500 w-h battery.BTW, street legal fire road and hoot of a ride.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

3000 watts and 3 wheels. Somehow I'm okay with this on the trails.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

................


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

sfgiantsfan said:


> ................


Ahhhahaha. there he is.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

^good stuff! I think this forum should allow any form of an ebike, as long as it has an electric assist motor in a bicycle chassis. I don't think too many people on this site is very interested in mega wattage machines. I could be wrong, been many times 🤔


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

I don't think what any one of us considers an ebike or emtbs really matters, its really just how the law defines them that will allow access, and that's what matters.

There's legally defined ebikes in all their various configurations, and there's motorized bikes with pedals. That's about it.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

alexbn921 said:


> 3000 watts and 3 wheels. Somehow I'm okay with this on the trails.


+1 good for him


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Hypothetically speaking, what do you think would happen if emtb could go anywhere regular mountain bikes are allowed?

Do you think people would still ride regular mountain bikes at all if that were the case? Would more people ride emtb? Or would it be an even mix of riders? Or would emtb only represent a handful of riders? 

I can only imagine regular a Joe on their pedal only powered mtb riding along and getting constantly passed by other Joes on their ebike might finally have had enough and end up getting one themselves. Which would probably lead to other Joes wanting getting one not wanting to be left behind. Which could lead to pedal power only bikes to be in the minority. This is only a guess at what i can imagine happening, but fairly plausable imo. As powered bikes get cheaper due to economies of scale and cheaper parts from China this scenario gets a little closer to reality.


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

This scenario might happen. Or the emtb after a season might just move on to the next trendy thing with their bike sitting in the garage. 
I just don't quite understand pedal assist. I enjoy riding and going places under my own power. Getting faster and overcoming my own limits. I enjoy motorbikes and going fast. But what the hell is pedal assist. 
I don't understand why we complain about how much a mtb costs "I couldbuy a Honda for that much" and yet you will pay a surcharge to have a electric motor. Why not just buy a lighter bike. Or buy a moto?


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Yes, I think people would still ride regular mountain bikes, I know I would. But I could see me switching to only road riding if the trails get crowded with ebikes as passing would be an issue on most of the trails I ride and if I'm having to constantly pull over so someone on an ebike can get by, it will greatly change the experience. 

There are a couple of barriers to mountain biking, namely that it is somewhat difficult and tiring. A lot of people don't like difficult and tiring. So if the barriers to ebikes get lowered, namely price and access to trails, and these people can enjoy the fun of mountain biking without putting in a lot of effort, I think they will. Decent ebikes will stay expensive but if they see a market, expect cheap Chinese ebikes to start rolling in and expect "you mean I can ride trails without a lot of effort, hell yeah I'm in" folk showing up on the trails.

As was said earlier in this thread, if there was a way to ensure ebikes just behaved like real bikes and were just to help out the elderly, disabled or even family members enjoy mountain biking with their spouse/dad/mom on a real bike*, I don't think it would be a problem. But as one poster said (and he actually seems like one of the more reasonable ebikers around here), "15.5mph is lame"; I think most ebikers will be about zipping up the hill with the help of a motor rather than just getting some assistance while mountain biking.

A lot of people think things stay the same but they don't. How many people today know that cycling was once the number one spectator sport in the US?

*even this is a slippery slope as the elderly get older and people get weaker, and then they need more assistance. Where do you draw the line?


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

E bike vs e train ?


----------



## deuxdiesel (Jan 14, 2007)

As I rapidly age, I can no longer ski and snowboard like I used to be able to. I think ski areas need to groom and buff out their black diamond runs so I can still use them. This is what the whole "e-bike because people have disabilities" is like. Mountain biking is supposed to be difficult and challenging. We just need to admit that people want to ride faster and longer than their ability and are willing to buy fitness, and it is absurd to think that the tinkerers and tech-geeks won't come up with hundreds of hacks to blow past any standards of power.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

It's more like I want to ride an electric snow mobile around the ski resorts because I'm old.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

To propose that this forum should be limited to 250 watt pedelec bikes is absurdly naive.

If bikes-with-motors are discussed at all then my suggestion is to promote the Class 1-2-3 bikes as adopted by the California legislation.

If somebody wants to post a "wanted dead or alive" to call out scofflaws on 10kw machines that should be OK too. (Know your enemies)

That video of the guy racing the train makes me wonder if there isn't hidden throttles already; he only seldom pedals and I don't see his hands doing much either. Dude is totally why e-bikes (and by extension all bikes) get banned from bike paths. What a f*cker.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Don't have to be old, lazy or anything to enjoy an ebike. People buy them for different reasons, who cares?


----------



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

Moe Ped said:


> That video of the guy racing the train makes me wonder if there isn't hidden throttles already; he only seldom pedals and I don't see his hands doing much either. Dude is totally why e-bikes (and by extension all bikes) get banned from bike paths. What a f*cker.


¿ I don't get it it, looks like he's on a road riding an electric motorcycle. How does that get bikes banned from bike paths?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

^OK when I clicked on the link I got the full version that goes beyond the "public roads" edit. (BTW on the short version yes he's using a RH twist-grip throttle)

22 seconds in he's definitely on portions of what in this country would be considered a "path":









True he's mostly on track-side alleys but holy $hit he blows right past pedestrians, other bikers and how about the lady pushing a stroller?

Full version:






FWIW this appears to be one of those "Stealth-esque" bikes; the ones marketed with a "250 watt" mode.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

Moe Ped said:


> ^OK when I clicked on the link I got the full version that goes beyond the "public roads" edit. (BTW on the short version yes he's using a RH twist-grip throttle)
> 
> 22 seconds in he's definitely on portions of what in this country would be considered a "path":
> 
> ...


IF you need a key to make your "bike" rideable.....it's not a bicycle.


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

And no one yelled at him to slow down. One collision with a Equestrian and our trail network will be shut down. The problem is that we will be the ones put out.


----------



## richj8990 (Apr 4, 2017)

This is exactly why I'm thinking of a 250W front hub --- because it keeps the bike a mountain bike (albeit a front-heavy bike). You can easily take off the front wheel and put a normal front wheel on, and presto you are back to a normal mountain bike. You can't do that so easily with certain other configurations. I understand that mid-drives are better for climbing hills, etc., but if the motor integrates with the back cogs then is that really still a mountain bike? To me, the more the electric system is integrated into the mountain bike, the less the 'mountain bike' in the bike actually exists. Yes, front-drive hubs will add weight up front but that's a separate subject.

So I think part of the question for what MTBR is promoting is: are they promoting electric-assisted mountain bikes, where pedaling is the norm and pedelec or throttling is the exception, or 1000W electric bikes that happen to have knobby tires and can offroad? It's like a racecar that has bumpers and a muffler to sneak past the street-legal DOT laws. Again, do those high-powered gear-integrated bikes count as real mountain bikes? On paper mid-drive is awesome. In reality, for front or rear hubs it's not a huge difference from conventional mountain biking to pedal normally (as in 70-90% of the total miles ridden) and then have some extra power on tap from a non-gear integrated front (or rear) hub drive on steeper stuff. Or finishing the ride on electric power just to get back to home or the car 10 min faster. The majority of the ride is pedaled either way. It keeps it real has some would say, at least relative to the powerful e-bikes. Holding down a throttle on a 1000W mid drive and flying up a hill just doesn't seem like real mountain biking. 

So maybe there should be two subforums where one is dedicated to keeping the mountain bike a normal pedal bike for the majority of the ride, and adding a modest amount of assist, 250W or 500W limit and 20 mph limit, and then another dedicated to more Frankenstein experimental 750+ watt bikes that are complete overkill for dirt hill-assisted power. That would really help differentiate people looking for info. on how to get electric assist on their mountain bike for actually going mountain biking...


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

richj8990 said:


> This is exactly why I'm thinking of a 250W front hub --- because it keeps the bike a mountain bike (albeit a front-heavy bike). You can easily take off the front wheel and put a normal front wheel on, and presto you are back to a normal mountain bike. You can't do that so easily with certain other configurations. I understand that mid-drives are better for climbing hills, etc., but if the motor integrates with the back cogs then is that really still a mountain bike? To me, the more the electric system is integrated into the mountain bike, the less the 'mountain bike' in the bike actually exists. Yes, front-drive hubs will add weight up front but that's a separate subject.
> 
> So I think part of the question for what MTBR is promoting is: are they promoting electric-assisted mountain bikes, where pedaling is the norm and pedelec or throttling is the exception, or 1000W electric bikes that happen to have knobby tires and can offroad? It's like a racecar that has bumpers and a muffler to sneak past the street-legal DOT laws. Again, do those high-powered gear-integrated bikes count as real mountain bikes? On paper mid-drive is awesome. In reality, for front or rear hubs it's not a huge difference from conventional mountain biking to pedal normally (as in 70-90% of the total miles ridden) and then have some extra power on tap from a non-gear integrated front (or rear) hub drive on steeper stuff. Or finishing the ride on electric power just to get back to home or the car 10 min faster. The majority of the ride is pedaled either way. It keeps it real has some would say, at least relative to the powerful e-bikes. Holding down a throttle on a 1000W mid drive and flying up a hill just doesn't seem like real mountain biking.
> 
> So maybe there should be two subforums where one is dedicated to keeping the mountain bike a normal pedal bike for the majority of the ride, and adding a modest amount of assist, 250W or 500W limit and 20 mph limit, and then another dedicated to more Frankenstein experimental 750+ watt bikes that are complete overkill for dirt hill-assisted power. That would really help differentiate people looking for info. on how to get electric assist on their mountain bike for actually going mountain biking...


Yes but no; it will handle like $hit. Especially if the bike has front suspension. Google "un-sprung weight".

My first store bought bike motor was in a front wheel "pedal first" kit. It's gathering dust on a shelf out in my barn.

There's 2 things going on here; folks that want to ride mountain bikes and folks that want to ride bikes in the mountains. A huge spectrum and maybe the only thing in common is two wheels. (or is it 3?)

This is a mountain biking web site with a token e-bike forum.


----------



## Tommybees (Dec 25, 2014)

There are really two forums and bike classes to create and these are, 1. Peddle Assist and 2. eMotor . Both of these are valid, separate and philosophically different and need adult supervision. The definitions must be rationally created and not lobbyist based, which seems to be what is happening now. If not, everyone is gonna loose in the protracted hate fight that will ensue if the masses are not careful. And then next thing you know, MIDPEN is going to ban all 2 wheeled peddle machines. I haven't followed the Cal legislation closely so foregive me if I am chanting to the choir, but there is a dangerous slippery slope problem here. 

Fatbikes were the last bike industry fad, but they did not change the dynamics of trail use and so no harm done except for some folks wallets. Lots of money making forums around that. Now however, E anything has the potential to screw up mt bike access in general and that is what scares me. Starting with two forums allows discussions to have the two extreme POV's exist and then allow just the grey areas to get heated up with debate. For example, asking for more speed is putting things over the top, but is a grey area to debate. For me, I would say, just peddle the damn bike if you want to go faster than a 15.6ish mph cap, but know that ripping uphill on a singletrack trial at 30mph or downhill at 50mph does not do anybody any good. In the early 80's bikes were allowed on all trails (at least they were not excluded) and then over a few short year they were banned on these same trails. A lot of that had to do with the fact the there was no group or entity to have an argument with so the ban was easy. Raising the general speed limits on fireroads is a another battle, but single track mulituse access is what we are talking about here (I think?).

The EU seems to have a reasonable target at 250W (and should be peak power IMO) for Pedelec. The definition of assist is to, "provide supplementary support" (thanks Webster) and so it seems that the power of the motor should be LESS than what an average human puts out. Without quibbling the details, and as long as there are still peddles on the bike, doubling the power 250W human +250W motor =500W of useful power to the wheels could be rationally argued as being equivalent to a peddle bike in capability. Arguing for more power than that is stretching the concept and quickly could be defined as a motorcycle. And then arguing that such a machine should be allowed on non motorized trails is dubious....also not going to end well. And now we see commercially available things called mountain bikes at > 750W motors mounted on them and is really out of control. I think there will be more people jumping in on that discussion that will also not end well.

The weird thing is, if we were talking about 1000w 20cc gas engine, Ill bet everyone would call it a motorcycle - no? What about if the gas engine ran a generator that provide electric power to a mini electric assist motor? Gas is a lot lighter than batteries and you don't have to carry the dead weight after gas is used up (way lighter at that point). Maybe that's next big idea, Gasassit PedElec bikes! That would really piss off the hikers that drove by my house up to the top of the trail head to hike around. Surely they would complain because of all the "extra" pollution added to the environment as they hop back into their cars to drive home.

Carry on.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Partially because of the NorCal forum's http://forums.mtbr.com/california-norcal/ot-vietnam-war-documentary-1057778.html and partially because of Hugh Hefner's recent passing my thoughts drift to this absurd notion of censoring anything over 250 watts or heaven help us a throttle.

The tie in is the documentary's discussion of the famous full-frontal nude photograph of the Vietnamese girl who had just had her clothes burned off by napalm (the image told a story too important to be censored). 
Hefner's genius contribution is that he exploited what was obscene and what wasn't to build an empire.

The e-bike empire will be a little bit like Playboy; obscene to some but harmless titillation to others. Somehow I'd like to weave National Geographic into this also but I'll leave that up other's imaginations.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Moe Ped said:


> ^OK when I clicked on the link I got the full version that goes beyond the "public roads" edit. (BTW on the short version yes he's using a RH twist-grip throttle)
> 
> 22 seconds in he's definitely on portions of what in this country would be considered a "path"


I don't see anything in that video remotely related to mountain biking.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

richj8990 said:


> That would really help differentiate people looking for info. on how to get electric assist on their mountain bike for actually going mountain biking...


Once you add the motor, you are no longer mountain biking, you are e-biking.
Which is fine if legal on your trails (unlikely unless you've found a different place to ride from what you've posted about in the past), but NOT the same thing anymore.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

slapheadmofo said:


> I don't see anything in that video remotely related to mountain biking.


I volunteer at Henry W Coe SP in California. The park tentatively allows e-bikes for the time being. We have had folks with e-motos like in that video who want to ride there because it has a "250 watt" mode.

These are a serious challenge to mountain biking and need to be discussed.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

One of the only two vendors at Interbike (the other M1 Sportechnik which I didn't encounter) with high-powered bikes was a Russian-based company that had a monster bike which could be "detuned" to 750w. These represent one of the biggest threats to MTB and e-MTB access IMO. Have ridden MTB at Coe with my wife; great place even though the trails that we rode start downhill, so you need to ascend on the return. Since it's close to Specialized headquarters, guess they'll allow e-MTB's as long as there are no problems.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Moe Ped said:


> I volunteer at Henry W Coe SP in California. The park tentatively allows e-bikes for the time being. We have had folks with e-motos like in that video who want to ride there because it has a "250 watt" mode.
> 
> These are a serious challenge to mountain biking and need to be discussed.


Agreed. To both mtb and emtb.


----------



## motocatfish (Mar 12, 2016)

Moe Ped said:


> ...
> The e-bike empire will be a little bit like Playboy; obscene to some but harmless titillation to others. Somehow I'd like to weave National Geographic into this also but I'll leave that up other's imaginations.


Well now ... if this thread is going to drift into a BOOBS-posting frenzy, I better subscribe ... 

Catfish ...


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

chazpat said:


> I think this thread has shown one of the big problems with ebikes here and why it makes a lot more sense to draw the line between - no motor | has motor - rather than trying to find a place within - has motor - and draw a line that can be distinguished where the laws vary and mods can easily be made to cross over the line.


I think MTBR should draw a line, not because it is hard to differentiate between the various types of ebikes, but because MTBR is a mountain bike forum first, developed for mountain bikers and by mountain bikers for mountain biking.

We don't talk about motos, we don't discuss 4 x 4 mods, and we don't review OHV's.

The most palatable e-mtb is one that assists mountain bikers who do not have the physical stamina to ride unassisted and provides just enough added power to overcome physical limitations.

If you need a throttle and you need a lot of power, then ride a moto, OHV, or 4 x 4; and go to a forum where those issues are more relevant.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Nurse Ben said:


> We don't talk about motos, we don't discuss 4 x 4 mods


I do at times.
Cars, beers, cameras, videography, commuters, cargo bikes all have subforums.

When's the last time anyone here bothered to complain about a video camera review, just out of curiosity? I know where there's a big 'ol muscle car thread, nary a mountain bike to be seen. Who cares? It's a big forum. People talk about all kinds of stuff.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

slapheadmofo said:


> I do at times.
> Cars, beers, cameras, videography, commuters, cargo bikes all have subforums.
> 
> When's the last time anyone here bothered to complain about a video camera review, just out of curiosity? I know where there's a big 'ol muscle car thread, nary a mountain bike to be seen. Who cares? It's a big forum. People talk about all kinds of stuff.


True, but I don't recall discussions of muscle cars riding on mountain bike or other non-motorized trails.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

chazpat said:


> True, but I don't recall discussions of muscle cars riding on mountain bike or other non-motorized trails.


So we've established that it IS related mountain biking in some way then?



Listen, the powers that be here have decided that they want an e-bike forum. I totally get all the concerns with them, as you guys well know, and I realize how it feels a bit like a shotgun wedding. But seriously, is it really that big a ****ing deal if some dudes talk about them in a little corner of the internet? Not really.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

slapheadmofo said:


> So we've established that it IS related mountain biking in some way then?
> 
> 
> 
> Listen, the powers that be here have decided that they want an e-bike forum. I totally get all the concerns with them, as you guys well know, and I realize how it feels a bit like a shotgun wedding. But seriously, is it really that big a ****ing deal if some dudes talk about them in a little corner of the internet? Not really.


Then why is it a big deal if others feel it is ok to point out the negative impact they will have? We need to watch these guys like we watch the haters. They are as big a threat to REAL mountain bike access as the Sierra Club.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

How many times a day do you feel you really need to point it out to the same few people?


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Then why is it a big deal if others feel it is ok to point out the negative impact they will have? We need to watch these guys like we watch the haters. They are as big a threat to REAL mountain bike access as the Sierra Club.


It is okay to point out the negative impact. Just do it in a way that follows the same rules as every other forum: refrain from derailing or hijacking the thread.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Then why is it a big deal if others feel it is ok to point out the negative impact they will have? We need to watch these guys like we watch the haters. They are as big a threat to REAL mountain bike access as the Sierra Club.


Chances are the real threat is the manufacturer that makes emtb, you know, the same one you ride?


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Cross posted from throttle thread: 

A throttle is not pedaling, a throttle is used when pedaling is not an option either by choice, fitness, skill level, or other valid "reason".

I'm not judging people for using an ebike, I am an ebike advocate, my wife rides an ebike.

However, there are boundaries issues with adding an electric motor to a bike.

What I'm saying is that adding a throttle makes ebikes less palatable to non ebike supporters, leading to more disagreements and greater perceived risk of access disputes.

It is not hard to set limits on mountain ebikes that are acceptable to the majority of mountain bikers: pedal assist and limiting power to 250w.

You will have a very hard time selling the necessity of a throttle to trail users as throttles have an immediate correlation with motorcycles/mopeds/ORV.

If throttled, high powered ebikes become the norm, the liklihood of ebikes being disallowed on all trails other than ORV trails is nearly guaranteed.

If you really want to enjoy your ebike on anything but roads, ebike users and ebike mfgs would be best served by getting on this bandwagon and pushing this agenda.

I don't ride an ebike, so my only interest in ebikes is maintaining access for my wife to ride. If she can't ride singletrack on her ebike due to restrictions, then she will hike and I will continue to ride.

Even as an ebike advocate, if our local trail group met to discuss this issue, I would not vote for allowing throttled high powered ebikes, even if it meant that ebikes were no longer allowed on our trails.

I encourage you to think ahead, envision the possible outcomes, ask yourself what you want and what can you give up. 

There are few if any locales that will be required to allow ebikes on non motorized trails. It is easy to ban ebikes.

Just think about it.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Nurse Ben said:


> Cross posted from throttle thread:
> 
> A throttle is not pedaling, a throttle is used when pedaling is not an option either by choice, fitness, skill level, or other valid "reason".
> 
> ...


Even so, people will inevitably still will bring their throttle assist bikes to local trails as there will be virtually no way to tell them apart from non-throttle assisted bikes (class 1 bikes for those that live in California). Same goes for the limit on motors.

And if you look at our sport from an outsiders perspective, what will you see if emtb's are introduced to shared trails? All bikes will basically look the same to them, regardless if they have motors or not. To an outsider, a motorized bike will look the same as any other normal bike. To them, all bikes will be motorized.... Throw in a couple of bad apples which hot rod ebikes and you're looking at a blanket ban on all mountain bikes.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Nurse Ben said:


> It is not hard to set limits on mountain ebikes that are acceptable to the majority of mountain bikers: pedal assist and limiting power to 250w.


I'll respectfully disagree, at least where I live, mountain bikers who want any emtbs on the trails are in the minority. I know of one. Or org has received zero support for emtbs from our members. The majority do want ebikes legal though for bike paths etc.

I've done a lot of research on ebikes over the last couple of years, read a lot of interviews with ebike designers, talked to people at P4B & IMBA, talked to people who work for companies who make ebike components and there hasn't even been a hint of a rumor that Class 1/PAS ebikes will be anything but 750w/20mph in the US or that they will push for a new, separate class that is only 250w for emtbs.



Nurse Ben said:


> If you really want to enjoy your ebike on anything but roads, ebike users and ebike mfgs would be best served by getting on this bandwagon and pushing this agenda.


Completely agree, but I don't see it happening except at a very local level. You can sell it to your local land manager for example, and it'll last until 500w emtbs come out, or 750w. The guys who sell ebikes don't want to be restricted in what they can sell.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

@Harryman:

I think we agree more than you know. 

I know I'm preaching a pipe dream, the deal is done, Pandora's box is sprung..

The reality is that users want high powered, throttle ready ebikes, and so the industry will comply. As a result, trail access will be limited because it's nearly impossible to police users.

The industry is screwing themselves and their consumers by taking this approach.

I still think MTBR could be the beacon of reason, regardless of what the industry pushes.

It's really kinda sad.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Nurse Ben said:


> A throttle is not pedaling, a throttle is used when pedaling is not an option either by choice, fitness, skill level, or other valid "reason".
> 
> I'm not judging people for using an ebike, I am an ebike advocate, my wife rides an ebike.
> 
> ...


Yes, there is a difference in perception if you are moving up the hill without moving the pedals, vs. full pedaling / moving the pedals and letting the motor do most of the work / ghost pedaling. So if your goal is to make an e-bike look like it's a bicycle, then yes a throttle runs counter to that. Probably less than you think, but an eyebrow could be raised here and there.


Nurse Ben said:


> It is not hard to set limits on mountain ebikes that are acceptable to the majority of mountain bikers: pedal assist and limiting power to 250w.


Regarding pedal assist, please see question in the throttle assist thread about the definition of throttle assist and answer if you are able. We have had many discussions about limiting power to 250w. IMO it is hard, and not practical to enforce. I've stated why in detail when it has come up. If you know how to effectively enforce that, I'm open to hearing about it.


Nurse Ben said:


> You will have a very hard time selling the necessity of a throttle to trail users as throttles have an immediate correlation with motorcycles/mopeds/ORV.


I don't think anyone is trying to sell the necessity of a throttle. No one on here ever said it was a necessity. Yes, they do have that correlation. When you have a motor, a throttle is a way to activate it.


Nurse Ben said:


> If throttled, high powered ebikes become the norm, the liklihood of ebikes being disallowed on all trails other than ORV trails is nearly guaranteed.


You are convoluting the two, which is misleading. No matter how activated, if high-powered ebikes become the norm, they will likely impact access for whatever falls into that classification. But if 250w is enforceable as you seem to imply, it won't impact low-powered e-bikes. Throttles on 250w e-bikes won't be a big deal IMO. Yes, it will let people see them for what they are, but there won't be enough power to do anything alarming to most trail users.


Nurse Ben said:


> If you really want to enjoy your ebike on anything but roads, ebike users and ebike mfgs would be best served by getting on this bandwagon and pushing this agenda.


That's true. And frankly I prefer when people are straight up about promoting something. Although I think that is just the quick way to get onto all mountain bike trails, not the only way.


Nurse Ben said:


> I don't ride an ebike, so my only interest in ebikes is maintaining access for my wife to ride. If she can't ride singletrack on her ebike due to restrictions, then she will hike and I will continue to ride.


I ride with my wife too. Mostly paved paths, and then some trails I would call unpaved paths. It's fine. She can't keep up with me if I crank it up, and she doesn't want to. I'm willing to wait. That being said, I'm sure that the 2 of you riding wherever causes zero issues. I wouldn't bat an eye, legal or not. But I'm really skeptical of the e-bike or can't ride together proposition.


Nurse Ben said:


> Even as an ebike advocate, if our local trail group met to discuss this issue, I would not vote for allowing throttled high powered ebikes, even if it meant that ebikes were no longer allowed on our trails.


That's good, everyone concerned should have a voice and use it.


Nurse Ben said:


> I encourage you to think ahead, envision the possible outcomes, ask yourself what you want and what can you give up.
> 
> There are few if any locales that will be required to allow ebikes on non motorized trails. It is easy to ban ebikes.
> 
> Just think about it.


Here is the crux of this. I don't believe e-bikes should be allowed by default on what are currently classified as non-motorized trails, and you do. I think e-bikes could be a new and different subcategory of motorized vehicles, and if permitted on the trail, I will treat them with courtesy as I do other user groups, such as hikers. Frankly, I wouldn't chastise or report someone on an e-bike on a non-motorized trail as long as they were not causing any problems. But once you put a motor on it, it's not a bicycle, and IMO ultimately it will move onto a continuum from 250 watts to 1000 and beyond.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Lemonaid said:


> Even so, people will inevitably still will bring their throttle assist bikes to local trails as there will be virtually no way to tell them apart from non-throttle assisted bikes (class 1 bikes for those that live in California). Same goes for the limit on motors.
> 
> And if you look at our sport from an outsiders perspective, what will you see if emtb's are introduced to shared trails? All bikes will basically look the same to them, regardless if they have motors or not. To an outsider, a motorized bike will look the same as any other normal bike. To them, all bikes will be motorized.... Throw in a couple of bad apples which hot rod ebikes and you're looking at a blanket ban on all mountain bikes.


Blanket ban? C'mon. There are plenty of bad apples already and no blanket ban. Do you really think a community would accept a blanket ban on bikes? Look at the income revenue that would be lost. This is very extreme.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Gutch said:


> Blanket ban? C'mon. There are plenty of bad apples already and no blanket ban. Do you really think a community would accept a blanket ban on bikes? Look at the income revenue that would be lost. This is very extreme.


 Which community? The hiking, dog walking and horse community? The land managers, who in some areas hate mt bikers? And have to allow them begrudgingly? And need so little reason to throw them off? And what is this income revenue you speak of? The $ 5.00 to park at the state parks in MA? Some areas of the country and in some parks, mt bike access is tenuous at best.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

And when these people can point out that the biggest mountain biking site on the internet has a whole forum dedicated to motorized bikes on trails, that's pretty good ammunition for them to use against all mountain bikes. Hopefully this won't happen much but I bet it will happen.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

leeboh said:


> Which community? The hiking, dog walking and horse community? The land managers, who in some areas hate mt bikers? And have to allow them begrudgingly? And need so little reason to throw them off? And what is this income revenue you speak of? The $ 5.00 to park at the state parks in MA? Some areas of the country and in some parks, mt bike access is tenuous at best.


I'm guessing your area isn't a mtb designation? In other words, Do people travel to ride there and spend $ on lodging and entertainment? I'm sure you have great riding, but when you live in a VERY bike friendly area, establishments rely on this income. Can you see beyond MA?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Besides, as you've already pointed out- no way, no how in MA. Why are you concerned?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Gutch said:


> I'm guessing your area isn't a mtb designation? In other words, Do people travel to ride there and spend $ on lodging and entertainment? I'm sure you have great riding, but when you live in a VERY bike friendly area, establishments rely on this income. Can you see beyond MA?


E bikes got banned in Park City, which is pretty much the definition of a mountain bike destination/resort town. Why? Because a moron with an overpowered bike was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the folks who manage the land said, "no way".

I was actually consulted on this decision, because I'm a local trail guy and pretty involved with trail management/building/volunteering. My take was basically that 250w bikes were no threat to anybody, but there was no way to tell a 250w bike from anything else, and that they'd be unlikely to stay at 250w going forward.

I mean, it could get revisited. But we have a lot of people with a vested interest in keeping the trails safe and enjoyable for everyone (not least the tourists spending big $ to take their families on a hike at the top of the gondola).

The industry really needs to get out in front of this, and fast, if they want anything to stay open.

-Walt


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Gutch said:


> I'm guessing your area isn't a mtb designation? In other words, Do people travel to ride there and spend $ on lodging and entertainment? I'm sure you have great riding, but when you live in a VERY bike friendly area, establishments rely on this income. Can you see beyond MA?


 Also look beyond your community too.


----------



## #1ORBUST (Sep 13, 2005)

rlee said:


> And no one yelled at him to slow down. One collision with a Equestrian and our trail network will be shut down. The problem is that we will be the ones put out.


Downhiller in my town road up on a horse who bucked and went off a 100ft cliff.

Nothing happened as they don't blame accidents on the general public. If it happened every day/week maybe.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Walt said:


> E bikes got banned in Park City, which is pretty much the definition of a mountain bike destination/resort town. Why? Because a moron with an overpowered bike was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the folks who manage the land said, "no way".
> 
> I was actually consulted on this decision, because I'm a local trail guy and pretty involved with trail management/building/volunteering. My take was basically that 250w bikes were no threat to anybody, but there was no way to tell a 250w bike from anything else, and that they'd be unlikely to stay at 250w going forward.
> 
> ...


No doubt, was the jackass a local? Obviously they didn't "blanket ban" all bikes. That's the point I'm trying to make.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

leeboh said:


> Also look beyond your community too.


Your area is WAY more touchy than mine. I'm a little familiar with MA. Used to live in Woodstock VT.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Gutch said:


> No doubt, was the jackass a local? Obviously they didn't "blanket ban" all bikes. That's the point I'm trying to make.


Yes, he's a local guy who is a pro Baja truck racer guy. There is a bit of a hot rodder/car racer scene (inexplicably, there's nowhere to race/drive fast) here. Those folks aren't interested in 250w bikes... but oh man are they psyched about electric motos you can ride on the mountain bike trails. Big problem.

They didn't blanket ban bikes, but they blanket banned e-bikes. Not sure which you were referring to. This is a mountain bike town, so I would be pretty shocked if there was ever a true bike ban anywhere that's currently popular for bikes. But you never know, we had a trail made into uphill only this year due to jackasses on DH sleds.

-Walt


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Funny, just watched House Hunters on Park City! $$$$. Where I ride is more hippyish, mtn mannish kinda town. Very laid back and the riding is vast and un congested. That's the thing, if you're hammered with all facets of Trail swag, I could see where Ebikes would be feared more. No way is anybody going to track bike wattage. Speed enforcement is the only solution. Why don't the manufacturers donate a percentage of profit of every ebike sold to help fund new or maintain present trails and the enforcement of speed, at least more speed signs. I've never seen one anywhere in my life!


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Walt said:


> Those folks aren't interested in 250w bikes... but oh man are they psyched about electric motos you can ride on the mountain bike trails. Big problem.


It's an issue that is being completely ignored by the bike industry and community. It's impossible to say how much or if it will have a significant impact on emtb expansion, but it is real. I'm not trying to be alarmist either, it could well amount to nothing, but it's essentially a new user group on the trails who want a moto-lite experience. And, I know there has always been crossover between moto and mtb riders, but this is different.



> Stealth is rapidly amassing a cult following in the USA. As terrain for using petrol-powered trail bikes becomes even more regulated and controlled, the near-silent aggression of the Australian-made machines means they fly past park rangers and hikers, almost undetected.
> 
> "An increasing number of our buyers come to the brand for its market-leading technology, and I guess you could say that these are 'tech head' riders", said Stealth's founder, John Karambalis, "but we're beginning to attract a new dimension of fans, too, and they're the guys and girls who just want ride fast without gaining unwanted attention".


Texas Yamaha joins Stealth's USA Network | Stealth Electric Bikes

Which is the main reason to me to have this forum open to discussions of all legal ebikes and self proclaimed ebikes. To put the blinders on makes it impossible to be proactive regarding threats to access.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

These guys give our real Ebikes a bad rep.

"Bo’s experience is not dissimilar to most other Stealth dealers across the globe, and the customisable power outputs of each Stealth model ensure you can keep the rule-makers happy by switching down the power at the push of a button… only to switch it straight back up again when you’re off the open road."

I see your point Walt and Harryman. It's almost like they're trying to be sneaky poachy and don't care. As a Mtbr first and foremost, these frankenrigs do alarm me.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Gutch said:


> Your area is WAY more touchy than mine. I'm a little familiar with MA. Used to live in Woodstock VT.


 Absolutely. Lots more issues on the crowded east coast. More land, more trails, less people in the mt states and such. CA seems to be the test case here, will see what pans out in say the next 3 years or so.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Yes it happens, so it is a valid concern.

Even more important is the risk of never having access to newly developed trails, which happened to bikers in Wenatchee when land was donated to the Foothills conservancy and they said no bikes as a condition of transfer. Lots of bikers in that town...



Gutch said:


> Blanket ban? C'mon. There are plenty of bad apples already and no blanket ban. Do you really think a community would accept a blanket ban on bikes? Look at the income revenue that would be lost. This is very extreme.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Did Ebikes cause any of these blanket bans? If so, I stand corrected.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

Gutch said:


> Did Ebikes cause any of these blanket bans? If so, I stand corrected.


No, because ebikes are a new breed of bikes.

Ebikes increase the threat because they are motorized.

Is it denial or is it really that hard to understand how ebikes would be perceived as motos?

If you consider that just a couple of decades ago, all trails were pedestrian/horse or Moto built, the limits set on pedestrian/horse trails were specifically designed to prevent moto access.

If you really believe that bikes have more leverage than pedestrians and horse riders, you are delusional.

Bikers are a minority. As such, we need the support of other trail users. The only trail users supportive of ebikes are Moto's.

Yeah, not the best company to keep if you want single track access.

The party is already underway, more trails are being closed to ebikes every day, at some point the only ebike accessible trails will be moto trails. Then you will wish too late that a more reasonable approach had been used. Good luck gaining access once it's been lost.

This is why ebikes need an advocate like MTBR to toe a narrower definition of ebikes, to present a non threatening position that is most palatable to non ebike trail users.

We all lose out if ebikes offend other users.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Obviously I know what is what. You're rehashing old crap and adding your Nostradamus predictions. But whatever, the sky is not falling. I'm glad you explained to me the equestrian part. I just started riding and I now know where us bikers fit in the scheme of things...


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Nurse Ben said:


> No, because ebikes are a new breed of bikes.
> 
> Ebikes increase the threat because they are motorized.
> 
> ...


Also keep in mind, every area is different. As SHM pointed out in MA, hikers and horses love the bikers, because they maintain trails. I live in probably the best mtb destination on the east coast. I have NEVER seen or heard of one of the huge wattage Frankenbikes. I'm not saying they don't exist, they just aren't the masses.

You speak of ebike trails being closed down, where? There's so very few here in the US, that actually we will see more. MOST, NOT ALL EBIKERS I KNOW ARE CURRENT BIKERS AND HAVE GONE THRU THE SAME TRENCHES AS EVERYONE, SO GIVE US SOME F--G CREDIT. If you disagree with that, it's you that is delusional.

If the majority of ebikers are current/former bikers, do you honestly think they would act in a way to ban trails? Ebike rider behavior is not relevant.

You may ride in a delicate town with limited trails and or congested trails and may perceive the whole "emtb" thing differently than say myself.

This country has way larger issues to worry about than a very small percentage of Ebikes MAYBE being allowed on singletrack.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Gutch said:


> If the majority of ebikers are current/former bikers, do you honestly think they would act in a way to ban trails? Ebike rider behavior is not relevant.


We keep hearing from some of the ebikers here how they are greatly going to increase in numbers. I think the majority of mountain bikers will want to stay with a real bicycle and if the prices drop, I think you'll see a lot of ebikers who ride because it is no longer difficult and they like the idea of zipping around on trails with little effort. If it remains that ebikes are rare on the trails, they probably won't be an issue.



Gutch said:


> You may ride in a delicate town with limited trails and or congested trails and may perceive the whole "emtb" thing differently than say myself.


I wouldn't say delicate or limited but yes, congested trails where greatly increasing the need to pass will be an issue.



Gutch said:


> This country has way larger issues to worry about than a very small percentage of Ebikes MAYBE being allowed on singletrack.


While this is true, we're not really discussing an issue that would be dealt with by the same parties.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

^Agreed


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Nurse Ben said:


> This is why ebikes need an advocate like MTBR to toe a narrower definition of ebikes, to present a non threatening position that is most palatable to non ebike trail users.


I don't think what happens on MTBR makes one iota of difference to trail access for motorized vehicles. The people making those decisions aren't reading these forums.

My advice to people wanting motorized access to hiking & mountain bike trails is:

1. stop pretending it's a human powered bicycle and accept it's got a motor making it motorized.

2. stop pretending they can't be hacked to go faster than any classification system the manufacturers might want to use to sell these machines.

3. accept a totally distinct user group classification.

4. gather a coalition of like minded individuals and businesses in your area.

5. develop a plan that demonstrates how you see these machines fitting into your local trails and interacting with existing trail users.

6. address issues around enforcement of speed/power, trail maintenance, accidents, passing slower trail users, poaching of trails that aren't permitted, etc...

7. figure out who the decision makers are in your area and begin communicating your plan with them.

8. figure out who the key members of the other existing trail user groups are and start communicating with them and addressing concerns proactively.

9. attend public meetings and advocate for your point of view in a clear and polite way.

10. self-police other members of your user group who may decide to poach or do other things that harm your credibility/agenda.

If that sounds like a lot of work...that's because it is. Welcome to the world of trail advocacy.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

vikb said:


> I don't think what happens on MTBR makes one iota of difference to trail access for motorized vehicles. The people making those decisions aren't reading these forums.
> 
> My advice to people wanting motorized access to hiking & mountain bike trails is:
> 
> ...


Vik speaks the truth.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Vik's post should be made a stickie.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Moe Ped said:


> Vik's post should be made a stickie.


Gonna add it to the forum rules, it was a very good post.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Happy to be of service. While I am definitely not pro-motorized vehicles on trails I do think everyone living in an area should have an opportunity to express their opinion on an issue and be heard.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to vikb again._


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Excellent post, thank you vikb. Clear and to the point.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

Thank you vikb for your words of wisdom.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

vikb said:


> Happy to be of service. While I am definitely not pro-motorized vehicles on trails I do think everyone living in an area should have an opportunity to express their opinion on an issue and be heard.


In an ideal world... but unfortunately the things you're suggesting are not how things are happening.

Nearly all non motorized groups will rise to the occasion and strongly voice their opinions against ebikes. In part this response is due to preconceived notions and misinformation.

This is what's happened in WA recently, Evergreen crushed ebikes.

I do think MTBR makes a difference, perhaps it's not as big a difference as we'd like, but it is certainly more potent than nothing.

I agree that we should police ourselves, which is the basis for my initial post...problem is, we don't have any "reasonable" ground rules.

So back to square one: anything goes and arguing about access.

So sad. Another brother down.


----------



## bachman1961 (Oct 9, 2013)

Wow ! 
Well done everybody.

I've been gone a week (family trip / vacation) so I didn't see this subject in progression nor do I know anything about e-bikes but I'm impressed by the activity and participation. I've skimmed a lot of it and it seems pretty civil.

I won't be of any help in this but I do have a question somewhat related to post #13 by chazpat;

Since terrain and conditions or elevation and grade can be so demanding and different by area, does this factor into the talk of limiting power or speed to define what is a legit thread or post. IOW, will that mean some more demanding trail areas or mountainous communities will not be part of the discussion based on e-bike specs that better meet those needs (if there is such a thing) ?


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

It's my understanding that we can talk about ANY ebike til we're blue in the face, obviously it has zero impact (maybe) on trail access. As been pointed out LM don't really give a hoot what is posted here. It's also my understanding that high powered Frankenbikes with a throttle may be discussed, but not "encouraged." So, yeah as Nurse Ben put - back to square one.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Nurse Ben said:


> I do think MTBR makes a difference, perhaps it's not as big a difference as we'd like, but it is certainly more potent than nothing.


When I did an informal parking lot survey a few years back at a park with heavy MTB usage only half of the riders had ever heard of MTBR and of those only half followed MTBR. This is in NorCal where MTBR got it's start. So it's something but a user base of 1 in 4 isn't anything to brag about.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

Could you make a separate ebike forum and get this off mtbr so we can talk about mountain bikes here instead? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

stripes said:


> Could you make a separate ebike forum and get this off mtbr so we can talk about mountain bikes here instead?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Dude, you posted that in the ebike forum. If you mean a separate website; ain't gonna happen. It brings in revenue and this is a commercial enterprise.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

stripes said:


> Could you make a separate ebike forum and get this off mtbr so we can talk about mountain bikes here instead?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There is nothing about the presence of this sub-forum that forces you to read it nor keeps you from talking about mountain bikes. Don't like it, don't read it, move on with your life.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

vikb said:


> 1. stop pretending it's a human powered bicycle and accept it's got a motor making it motorized.


Legal definitions matter.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

AGarcia said:


> Legal definitions matter.


So does common sense.


----------



## singletrackmack (Oct 18, 2012)

AGarcia said:


> Legal definitions matter.


 Legal definition defines an ebike as a bicycle with a motor that can be powered solely by the motor. The definition of "motorized" is:

"equip (a vehicle or device) with a motor to operate or propel it."

Therefore ebikes are motorized vehicles. Like SHM said, common sense..

Federal law:
"The law defined a low-speed electric bicycle as "A two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph"


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

singletrackmack said:


> Legal definition defines an ebike as a bicycle with a motor that can be powered solely by the motor. The definition of "motorized" is:
> 
> "equip (a vehicle or device) with a motor to operate or propel it."
> 
> ...


While we're at it, a bicycle only has two wheels, three-wheeled vehicles are not bicycles. Shows you how smart the government is.


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

chazpat said:


> While we're at it, a bicycle only has two wheels, three-wheeled vehicles are not bicycles. Shows you how smart the government is.


Our government is super-smrt.

Prototypes of Trump's border wall are being built - Business Insider

:crazy::crazy::crazy:


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

AGarcia said:


> Legal definitions matter.


They do, and they vary everywhere. Country by country, state by state, city by city and park system by park system.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

Harryman said:


> They do, and they vary everywhere. Country by country, state by state, city by city and park system by park system.


Truth.


----------

