# IMBA changes course....



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

They've seen the last of my money and I bet this will cause several chapters to bail. On the flip side, a bunch or people on this board might be happy. So the IMBA can't get on board with mountain bikes in "Wilderness" areas but now they're okay with motorized vehicles on MTB trails? All you need to do is follow the money. Now that Subaru bailed, Specialized and Trek are the main supporters of IMBA. If IMBA argued against bikes, Specialized and Trek may leave them high and dry. So much for integrity.

https://www.bikemag.com/news/imba-updates-e-mtb-position/

The topic of electric mountain bike (e-MTB) access to non-motorized trails is increasingly dominating the conversations of mountain bikers, land managers, trail users, the bicycle industry and others. IMBA recognizes this as a complex issue encompassing mountain biking culture, the access landscape and the passions and experiences of different trail users. All sides have valid, logical and emotional arguments to make, and IMBA is listening. IMBA has wrestled with the e-MTB issue at considerable length and will continue to do so as the landscape evolves. For the past three decades, IMBA has worked tirelessly for mountain biking and access to trails and this has not changed.

IMBA's Board of Directors updated its 2015 position on e-MTBs to now read:

IMBA is supportive of Class 1 e-MTB access to non-motorized trails when the responsible land management agency, in consultation with local mountain bikers, deem such e-MTB access is appropriate and will not cause any loss of access to non-motorized bikes. IMBA recognizes that changes in design, technology and the numbers of e-MTB users is evolving, and believes these bikes can be managed in a sustainable way for both the environment and other trail users.

"First and foremost, we advocate for access for traditional, non-motorized mountain bikes. IMBA does not advocate for access for e-MTBs. But, IMBA and mountain bikers need to be at the table for all conversations that discuss access for e-MTBs to non-motorized trails that are open to bikes," said Dave Wiens, IMBA Executive Director.

"Currently, the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are clear that they are managing all e-MTBs as motor vehicles. But for countless state, county, municipal and other parks and open space trails, there is much uncertainty and confusion. Our position reflects the importance of having local land managers and local mountain bikers involved in decisions to allow e-MTB access to non-motorized trails and underscores the importance of maintaining access for traditional, non-motorized bicycles. This topic is being driven by rapidly evolving technology and we recognize that everyone involved needs to be engaged, prepared for challenges and solution-oriented."

IMBA believes that e-MTB access to non-motorized trails that are open to bikes present both opportunity and challenge. If managed effectively, e-MTBs may increase ridership and stewardship of trails, along with other benefits. No management, poor management and/or misinformation, however, have the potential to jeopardize current and future access to trails that mountain bikers, local organizations and IMBA have pursued for the past 30 years.

As the recognized, national leader in trail access and sustainable trail design, IMBA is regularly asked for guidance on how best to manage the emergence of e-MTBs on local, state and federal lands by mountain bikers, local mountain biking organizations, land managers and the bicycle industry. IMBA occupies a unique position in this discussion, due to the trust it has established with these various stakeholders over the previous three decades, and recognizes there is significant work to be done in this space.

IMBA also believes that local access decisions (at the state, county and municipal level) are best made locally and is working with local mountain bike groups and land management agencies across the country to provide resources and guidance, as it has done for three decades. IMBA has also met with the leaders of federal land management agencies, most of which only allow e-MTBs on motorized trails, and is keeping them apprised of and educated on this issue.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

Word for word what People For Bikes have been pushing all along. Smh


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

> IMBA is supportive of Class 1 e-MTB access to non-motorized trails when the responsible land management agency, in consultation with local mountain bikers, deem such e-MTB access is appropriate and will not cause any loss of access to non-motorized bikes. IMBA recognizes that changes in design, technology and the numbers of e-MTB users is evolving, and believes these bikes can be managed in a sustainable way for both the environment and other trail users.
> 
> "First and foremost, we advocate for access for traditional, non-motorized mountain bikes. IMBA does not advocate for access for e-MTBs. But, IMBA and mountain bikers need to be at the table for all conversations that discuss access for e-MTBs to non-motorized trails that are open to bikes," said Dave Wiens, IMBA Executive Director.


Sounds reasonable... ?


----------



## Czar Chasm (Jul 19, 2012)

EricTheDood said:


> Sounds reasonable... ?


Anything less than "Death to all ebikes and ebikers" is unacceptable to the Hateful Old MTB Association. I can't argue against IMBA's reasonable announcement.


----------



## Troy Carter (Dec 7, 2016)

I donate to my local chapter and a couple others that I visit a couple times a year and will continue to do so. They, both IMBA and the local chapters, are still the biggest, best equipped organizations for our sport with or without ebikes. This is just a change to meet the current landscape of the world they now live in and may be needed to keep up even if that means it's money driven. I get that, and I'll keep donating.


----------



## smmokan (Oct 4, 2005)

EricTheDood said:


> Sounds reasonable... ?


So it's reasonable for them to publicly support land managers deciding to allow e-bikes on non-motorized trails, but it's NOT reasonable for them to support Wilderness land managers to allow access to mountain bikes on trails in the same manner?

IMBA is clearly pandering to the companies that pay them the most (so they can sell more e-bikes), and they're quickly becoming irrelevant. Screw them.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

Seems ok to me. I am ok with class 1 e bike access if done correctly, but as a mountain bike advocate, I am not interested in fighting for e-bike access. 

IMBA is clearly stating that E-Bikes (regardless of class) are a separate user group and do not fall under IMBA's advocacy efforts. 

I suspect this stance has a lot to do with Dave Wiens listening to the mountain bike advocacy leaders across the country.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

EricTheDood said:


> Sounds reasonable... ?





Czar Chasm said:


> Anything less than "Death to all ebikes and ebikers" is unacceptable to the Hateful Old MTB Association. I can't argue against IMBA's reasonable announcement.


I do agree and so do land managers I work with.

The rules vary by property where I'm at but this is something showing on my plate as a club leader and trail steward.

At one of these properties we don't let just anyone ride an e-bike. We do operate an outreach program that has a disabled vets part. We get people who can't be mobile in a conventional manner on skis on site skis. We accommodate people who are terminally ill. There are quality of life reasons for an e-bike.

The city I'm in has parks and rec rule where a medical determination would allow an e-bike.

I see it other ways. Over the past 3 years my wife's had periods of very serious trouble from cancer and a hospital mistake. One of our area trail builders and riding pals is terminally ill with cancer. My wife's doing well at the moment but my city's leaders feel and ordinances allow people in their circumstances to have special accommodation and access to the conservancy lands.

No one will see me supporting free range easy access to our trails with e bikes but for sure these special and appropriate circumstances.

IMBA is wise to support the local decision making. One size fits all rules don't always work so well. Local authority and decision making helps a world where people get along and can work together.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

WOW! Reasoned, intelligent responses, especially "bf". There's hope after all.


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

smmokan said:


> So it's reasonable for them to publicly support land managers deciding to allow e-bikes on non-motorized trails, but it's NOT reasonable for them to support Wilderness land managers to allow access to mountain bikes on trails in the same manner?


I'm not familiar with the latter part, but if they were able to change their position regarding e-bikes, maybe they're willing to change their position on supporting wilderness land managers.

Do you have any links that provide more info on that subject?


----------



## smmokan (Oct 4, 2005)

Here you go:

https://www.imba.com/resources/land-protection/frequently-asked-questions-wilderness-and-imba

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Interesting that they neglect to state the maximum wattage of Class 1 e-bikes in their position statement.

Happens to be the equivalent of one horsepower in many USA jurisdictions.

Not so easy to sell if spoken of in that manner.

Yes follow the money.


----------



## motocatfish (Mar 12, 2016)

k2rider1964 said:


> ...
> https://www.bikemag.com/news/imba-updates-e-mtb-position/
> ...
> IMBA's Board of Directors updated its 2015 position on e-MTBs to now read:
> ...


It is very refreshing to see IMBA take this eMTB-supportive stance. Some will always hate us, but its GREAT they are not in charge at this level!

YIPPEEEEEEEEEE!!! 

Catfish ...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

IMBA is on life support and will pander to whatever new sources of funding that they can find.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Good for IMBA. Most of our local races are IMBA sanctioned...this is another reason to join.


----------



## simenf (Nov 10, 2008)

I think this is a good move from IMBA to coordinate trail access efforts better.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

IMBLA is the future.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Moe Ped said:


> Interesting that they neglect to state the maximum wattage of Class 1 e-bikes in their position statement.
> 
> Happens to be the equivalent of one horsepower in many USA jurisdictions.
> 
> ...


 I thought we already allowed people to ride 1 hp horses on single track? 
I think that the non-riding voters and taxpayers will be able to understand that argument very well: we allow MTBs and we allow 1hp horses, so what wrong with 1 hp MTBs?


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

WoodlandHills said:


> I thought we already allowed people to ride 1 hp horses on single track?
> I think that the non-riding voters and taxpayers will be able to understand that argument very well: we allow MTBs and we allow 1hp horses, so what wrong with 1 hp MTBs?


Actually a horse can put out about 20 hp for a short length of time; the 1 hp standard had to do what a horse could do continuously for an 8 hour shift.

That being said, there's plenty of trails where horses aren't welcome plodding along even at 1 hp. E-bikes will be seen in a similar light.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Moe Ped said:


> That being said, there's plenty of trails where horses aren't welcome plodding along even at 1 hp. E-bikes will be seen in a similar light.


I doubt that that's true as a general statement, but I'm sure in some places some people will feel that way. I can't relate. Around here, talk horses on the singletrack and the first response is "horseshit". Talk e-bikes and you'll just get a shrug. In my observation, e-bikes are not nearly as intrusive as horses. In fact, I don't see them as any more intrusive than non-motorized mountain bikes.


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

The problem with emtbs are that they are basically a one trick horse. On paved bike paths they're are faster cheaper options. On motorized off road trails there's more powerful faster options without all the restrictions. The only way emtbs are to survive is by pretending they are the same as regular mountain bikes and attempt to usurp access through existing mountain bike access. Without access emtbs are basically dead. No one would but them. So if you're a company selling emtb what would you do? Buy influence in the biggest mountain bike advocacy group in the country and push legislation to categorize motorized bikes as regular bikes....


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

I really wish the total hatred to e-bikes overall would chill out. Same mentality of those that are keeping mtbs out of some places. And many of those mtbers going full hate against anything with a motor are often the same ones saying MTBs should be allowed here, there and everywhere. Kind of hypocritical isnt it?

E-dirt bikes have no place near us. Having demoed pedal assist a couple times now just for the heck of it, they are literally of 0 concern in their OE form. Only up side to them is you can carry speed on flats with less effort (unless your 100lbs, your still pedalling with effort to maintain top assist speed) and CLIMBING IS A BREEZE!!!

They handle like crap and life sucks you get caught in too high of gear at the wrong time.

But they are fun. I did smile and laugh the whole time.

The basic class 1 pedal assist is of NO ISSUES to anyone or anything. No reason they cant be on anything we are allowed on. 

And I was one in the beginning that was totally against them, till I rode one. The complaints are nothing more than fear of the unknown and lack of being open minded. If I could afford one, I would buy one for my wife so she could ride easy trails with us. Shell never be in physical shape to keep up with us (me and my boys) but her being able to join us would be cool.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Lemonaid said:


> The problem with emtbs are that they are basically a one trick horse. On paved bike paths they're are faster cheaper options. On motorized off road trails there's more powerful faster options without all the restrictions. The only way emtbs are to survive is by pretending they are the same as regular mountain bikes and attempt to usurp access through existing mountain bike access. Without access emtbs are basically dead. No one would but them. So if you're a company selling emtb what would you do? Buy influence in the biggest mountain bike advocacy group in the country and push legislation to categorize motorized bikes as regular bikes....


Yep. That's the ticket. Smart move if they can pull it off. IMBA lobbying legislators, Federal and State, can't hurt in incrementally getting natural surface trails available for class 1 e-bikes.


----------



## AGarcia (Feb 20, 2012)

RAKC Ind said:


> And I was one in the beginning that was totally against them, till I rode one. The complaints are nothing more than fear of the unknown and lack of being open minded. If I could afford one, I would buy one for my wife so she could ride easy trails with us. Shell never be in physical shape to keep up with us (me and my boys) but her being able to join us would be cool.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Kudos to you for giving them a chance.

Cheers!


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

RAKC, coincidentally, today my wife and I (on MTB's) saw a guy on MTB and wife on e-MTB riding together and having a blast.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Lemonaid said:


> The problem with emtbs are that they are basically a one trick horse. On paved bike paths they're are faster cheaper options. On motorized off road trails there's more powerful faster options without all the restrictions. The only way emtbs are to survive is by pretending they are the same as regular mountain bikes and attempt to usurp access through existing mountain bike access. Without access emtbs are basically dead. No one would but them. So if you're a company selling emtb what would you do? Buy influence in the biggest mountain bike advocacy group in the country and push legislation to categorize motorized bikes as regular bikes....


Hate to tell you, but my e-MTB's are great for errands and get me around town about as fast as in my car whether I'm on the bike path or road. That's a two trick pony at the 
least. One of them cost a total of $600 plus a bike I had laying around and goes 28 mph (of course, it can be ridden on the street or a bike path contiguous with a road only). There may be cheaper options if you don't include license and insurance.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

MTBers rather be unorganized angry internet picketers because their biggest organizing force and most influential voice changed their minds about "class 1 e-mtbs" after they learned more about them? xD

Also, RAKc, better be prepared to help your wife by lifting and carrying that 50 lb beast up, down, and over technical obstacles. DH definitely requires a good amount of upper body strength and a 50 lb bike can be a beast to handle; someone who can't even do 15 push-ups is expected to struggle with any trail with a group of football sized obstacles.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

RAKC Ind said:


> E-dirt bikes have no place near us.


Don't be a hater. If you are going to allow motors on mountain bike trails e-dirt bikes are your new reality. Yes you'll say I only agreed to pedal assist level X, but once motors are allowed there will be no practical way to stop them.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

vikb said:


> Don't be a hater. If you are going to allow motors on mountain bike trails e-dirt bikes are your new reality. Yes you'll say I only agreed to pedal assist level X, but once motors are allowed there will be no practical way to stop them.


This

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

vikb said:


> Don't be a hater. If you are going to allow motors on mountain bike trails e-dirt bikes are your new reality. Yes you'll say I only agreed to pedal assist level X, but once motors are allowed there will be no practical way to stop them.


Even if this slippery-slope argument weren't such a stretch, the reality is that an MX rider looking to shred MUTs at 60mph is going to do so regardless of whether it's allowed, and they won't need an e-dirtbike to do it. A 4-stroke will do just fine.

Some losers on ICE dirtbikes decided to ride some local trails after a recent wildfire, after the park had been closed to all users.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

EricTheDood said:


> Even if this slippery-slope argument weren't such a stretch, the reality is that an MX rider looking to shred MUTs at 60mph is going to do so regardless of whether it's allowed, and they won't need an e-dirtbike to do it. A 4-stroke will do just fine.


A 4 stroke will be so obviously not allowed they will get shutdown. I've done that myself with dirtbikers. What will happen is lower power electric dirtbikes will be produced because 1) you can't go 60mph on most MTB trails and 2) they'll be hard to police vs. e-bikes.


----------



## RAKC Ind (Jan 27, 2017)

Paranoia at its finest.

There's a lot of ways to stop them. Been done to MTBers caught poaching. Huge fines, bikes confiscated.

Funny this is class 1 pedal assist is legal in a lot of places. Illinois made them legal. State, county and city level all are accepting of pedal assist. 0 problems to report yet. No one here cares one bit about them.

Now touch the trail on anything more and look out. Local clubs have no problems helping police the trails, land managers and authorities have no problems jumping in, putting a swift and financially painful stop to it (fines arent nice for breaking any of the trail regulations).

Good source of income for said parks. 

And dirt bikes are being kept off the trails so how thats handled is working. Only difference is the sound. 

It can be done and the differences are obvious. The "trouble makers" your concerned with are pretty isolated, mainly to high population, highly attractive destinations where people have the money to be that stupid. 

So the rules on it should be on a "per case" basis. As documented on mtbr, some areas out west decided to be open minded, came back to bite them in the ass.

Doesnt apply everywhere. If people stopped being so closed minded and looked at things like the statement made by IMBA in full context (which seems to be hard for some to do) they basically say its a "per case" matter.

But seeing as a pedal assist vs and e dirtbike is something my kids could tell the difference, its really not that big of a deal. Stop trying to keep less able riders from enjoying trails. As long as its done responsibly there isnt a single problem with it. 

I would love to see the ones that are so against this tell a disabled veteran or officer that because they lost part of their leg and dont have the strength to pedal a trail unassisted to get off the trail, they have no right. Cause they and those before them are the reason you have your nice bikes and trails to ride them on.

There is a limit and I get the fear, god do I. Why I was so against it in the beginning. I was posting the same things as you guys. Then I stopped thinking selfishly and decided to have an open mind. Coming to realize I was way wrong and ways exist to keep the problems in check.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

RAKC Ind said:


> Paranoia at its finest.
> 
> There's a lot of ways to stop them. Been done to MTBers caught poaching. Huge fines, bikes confiscated.


Yes because it's easy to tell a guy on a bike is not hiking. It's much harder to ascertain that a guy on a motorized bike is on a legal one. Just like the e-bike manufacturers are going out of their way to stealth their e-bikes the folks making e-dirt bikes will do the same. For the same reason...if it's hard to identify it's hard to control.

You kids will not at a glance be able to tell if someone is on a legal motorized electric vehicle to think they will is ridiculous. The folks making the e-motos will go out of their way to make it hard for a LEO.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

The Santa Monica mountain trails, Santa Clara County and William Coe State Park (CA) allow Class 1 bikes and I haven't heard of any problems with "overpowered" monstrosities invading those areas. Also, the "Class" (1, 2 & 3) system has been in force in CA without any violations of the rules AFAICT. These theories about rampant violations don't seem to be holding water. Maybe because the e+'s are a bunch of law abiding riders..


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

fos'l said:


> The Santa Monica mountain trails, Santa Clara County and William Coe State Park (CA) allow Class 1 bikes and I haven't heard of any problems with "overpowered" monstrosities invading those areas.


For the same reasons e-bikes have not become a problem....they are rare to non-existent in most place...to date. The moto folks aren't going to be there immediately. E-bikes will establish and motos will follow. It takes a moment for marketing and product development to catch up with new opportunities.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

No roost, no noise, no issues...


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

RAKC Ind said:


> The basic class 1 pedal assist is of NO ISSUES to anyone or anything. No reason they cant be on anything we are allowed on.





RAKC Ind said:


> So the rules on it should be on a "per case" basis. As documented on mtbr, some areas out west decided to be open minded, came back to bite them in the ass.
> 
> Doesnt apply everywhere. If people stopped being so closed minded and looked at things like the statement made by IMBA in full context (which seems to be hard for some to do) they basically say its a "per case" matter.


So which is it?


----------



## stevenfallover (Jun 5, 2004)

fos'l said:


> The Santa Monica mountain trails, Santa Clara County and William Coe State Park (CA) allow Class 1 bikes and I haven't heard of any problems with "overpowered" monstrosities invading those areas. Also, the "Class" (1, 2 & 3) system has been in force in CA without any violations of the rules AFAICT. These theories about rampant violations don't seem to be holding water. Maybe because the e+'s are a bunch of law abiding riders..


The proof is in the pudding! Yes, proof that E bikes are really not an issue in practice.


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

vikb said:


> For the same reasons e-bikes have not become a problem....they are rare to non-existent in most place...to date. The moto folks aren't going to be there immediately. E-bikes will establish and motos will follow. It takes a moment for marketing and product development to catch up with new opportunities.


Your paranoia is simply incredible.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

If rare to non-existent means the 10-15 I saw on the bike trail one evening and the three I saw on the trails today, guess you're correct.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

fos'l said:


> The Santa Monica mountain trails, Santa Clara County and William Coe State Park (CA) allow Class 1 bikes and I haven't heard of any problems with "overpowered" monstrosities invading those areas. Also, the "Class" (1, 2 & 3) system has been in force in CA without any violations of the rules AFAICT. These theories about rampant violations don't seem to be holding water. Maybe because the e+'s are a bunch of law abiding riders..


So far, I tend to agree. We saw a few here until the ban hammer came down, now I haven't seen one in months. Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but so far we're not seeing poaching happen.

Of course, that ban came because of a DIY monsterbike, partially.

-Walt


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

vikb said:


> For the same reasons e-bikes have not become a problem....they are rare to non-existent in most place...to date. The moto folks aren't going to be there immediately. E-bikes will establish and motos will follow. It takes a moment for marketing and product development to catch up with new opportunities.


 Dude, you need to make up better claims because this one won't hold water. I saw ebikes every day last summer when I was on MY ebike in the Santa Monica Mtns. I didn't see any hopped up eMXers, but I did see a kid on a 4-stroke dirt bike get put into a police car. The Rangers caught him on the fire road and made him ride it to the parking lot where he had to wait in the car for his parents to come. We have been hiking and biking up there for years and have always seen one or two ICE bikes or cars on the fire road every summer when someone has left the gate unlocked, but allowing Class 1s on the trail has not made any difference in the past 2 1/2 years.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

To throw the cold water of reality on anecdotal claims along the lines of "I never see x causing any problems, so there aren't any", the only way to know would be to ask the people who would hear about them. If you want to hear horror stories about people behaving badly, or people lying about other people behaving badly, just get to know your local rangers and they'll open up about it. Not that I'm implying that the small number of emtbers out there are hooligans, because they are most likely not, just like every other user group.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't possible, just that I've seen some larger numbers of e-bikes at various times, but no problems. Also, haven't heard anything and would expect posts from "e-'s" if there were problems. We have a large contingent of individuals who despise e-MTB on a local forum and even they can't find anything to cry about.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

fos'l said:


> The Santa Monica mountain trails, Santa Clara County and William Coe State Park (CA) allow Class 1 bikes and I haven't heard of any problems with "overpowered" monstrosities invading those areas. Also, the "Class" (1, 2 & 3) system has been in force in CA without any violations of the rules AFAICT. These theories about rampant violations don't seem to be holding water. Maybe because the e+'s are a bunch of law abiding riders..


FWIW Santa Clara County Parks are allowing both Class 1 and 2 e-bikes.

It's Henry W Coe SP and the "W" stands for "Willard". Access there is still a gray area; the rangers prefer Class 1 only but nothing has been put in writing as of yet. When the dust finally settles (new park district being formed) Coe could go either way. If for no other reason than increased traffic e-bikes are increasing the wear and tear of Coe's trails (e-bikers tend to be "skid kiddies")

As far as scofflaw riding goes; at Coe e-bikers behave about the same as regular MTBers---probably because most e-bikers were MTBers first.


----------



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

smmokan said:


> So it's reasonable for them to publicly support land managers deciding to allow e-bikes on non-motorized trails, but it's NOT reasonable for them to support Wilderness land managers to allow access to mountain bikes on trails in the same manner?
> 
> IMBA is clearly pandering to the companies that pay them the most (so they can sell more e-bikes), and they're quickly becoming irrelevant. Screw them.


Sorry for the novice question. What is the issue with MTB and wilderness access? When you say wilderness are you referring to the Rubicon area by South lake Tahoe and other national forests that are not US parks? Are MTBs not allowed there in the wilderness? If so that would be stupid. I thought in the wilderness you can 4x4, MX and shoot guns. What's the deal with MTBs?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

https://www.fs.fed.us/managing-land/wilderness


----------



## Phantastic79 (Apr 5, 2017)

slapheadmofo said:


> https://www.fs.fed.us/managing-land/wilderness


Wow...thank you. Learn something new everyday. So these wilderness areas have no roads, or as few as possible. How are people supposed to visit them? Park you car at the border and walk the rest of the way? Have any of you guys visited a designated wilderness area?


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Phantastic79 said:


> Wow...thank you. Learn something new everyday. So these wilderness areas have no roads, or as few as possible. How are people supposed to visit them? Park you car at the border and walk the rest of the way? Have any of you guys visited a designated wilderness area?


No roads, no driving. You park your car at the border and walk, canoe, or kayak. In the winter, you ski or snowshoe. I've spent many, many days canoeing and hiking the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Phantastic79 said:


> Wow...thank you. Learn something new everyday. So these wilderness areas have no roads, or as few as possible. How are people supposed to visit them? Park you car at the border and walk the rest of the way? Have any of you guys visited a designated wilderness area?


Yeah, it's Wilderness with a capital W, a set aside chunk of land. Human powered access, or by horsey, no mechanical devices allowed at this time.

There's lots of wilderness areas around here.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

We've got a few in New England. 
I've hiked/backpacked some of them.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

k2rider1964 said:


> All you need to do is follow the money. Now that Subaru bailed, Specialized and Trek are the main supporters of IMBA. If IMBA argued against bikes, Specialized and Trek may leave them high and dry. So much for integrity.


This was my first thought, and my initial reaction was anger. When I thought about it some more, I got confused.

When it comes to class 1 emtb access, it sounds like what IMBA is saying is, "we'll go along with local authorities if they decide it is okay and it doesn't create problems for MTBs" which seems like a very moderate approach. However, I would prefer the IMBA to say, "these things have a motor. They don't belong on non-motorized trails."

I do like that they outright said, hey, we don't advocate for eMTBs, we advocate for MTBs and eMTBs are a separate class. However, I don't like this idea that the IMBA took this position to have a seat at the table when emtbs are discussed. You can still have a spot at the table and be against eMTBs on non-motorized trails.

In the end, this seems like a compromise position. IMBA gets to be pro-MTB, and not anti-anything. Being anti-anything creates enemies, and could alienate corporate sponsors. Okay, fine. I'm not super happy, but I'm not going to stop giving them my money just yet. Better to have a well-funded, powerful organization that is pro-MTB than a group that fractured over class 1 emtb access.


----------



## smmokan (Oct 4, 2005)

kpdemello said:


> When it comes to class 1 emtb access, it sounds like what IMBA is saying is, "we'll go along with local authorities if they decide it is okay and it doesn't create problems for MTBs" which seems like a very moderate approach.


Why couldn't they have said the same thing with regards to actual human-powered mountain bikes on Wilderness lands?

Go away IMBA, you're drunk and you've lost your way.


----------



## simenf (Nov 10, 2008)

Remember that post the wilderness access case there is a new president of IMBA, and that always means an adjustment of direction. Better, hopefully.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

smmokan said:


> Why couldn't they have said the same thing with regards to actual human-powered mountain bikes on Wilderness lands?


Agreed. I think it makes more sense though to advocate for this position within the organization rather than leave the organization.

I could be wrong but it seems to me that the IMBA has built a fair amount of influence and is a valuable asset in promoting and maintaining access. I'm not sure it makes sense to ditch the organization entirely just because I don't see eye to eye with every single position.


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

But the problem is, the nuanced response of IMBA towards ebikes immediately gets distilled down to articles with titles like this:

IMBA supports e-bikes on trails - BikeRadar USA

In my opinion, the damage is done, nuanced perspective or not, IMBA, from the publics' perspective, now supports e-bikes, and supports them on trails. Way to !#$&%$% go IMBA. I may continue to support the local chapters in my area, if an only if they take an active stance against e-bikes on non-motorized trails. If they don't, then there's no way I'm going to continue to support them, financially or through volunteer hours.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

When read the body of that article though it pretty accurately states IMBA's position, and even quotes the policy position. It also states at the bottom that IMBA is not really advocating for ebikes.

So while I agree the headline sucks, the article is accurate. But you know how it is - headlines produce clicks, and "IMBA Supports e-bikes" is a much more interesting headline than "IMBA is OK with ebikes if the local land managers decide to allow them in limited circumstances"


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

It appears that Bike Radar has also invented a new class of electric bicycles; that being "Class 4".

I wish they'd mention where this class exists.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

kpdemello said:


> Agreed. I think it makes more sense though to advocate for this position within the organization rather than leave the organization.
> 
> I could be wrong but it seems to me that the IMBA has built a fair amount of influence and is a valuable asset in promoting and maintaining access. I'm not sure it makes sense to ditch the organization entirely just because I don't see eye to eye with every single position.


 Even when they are pocketing the money the e bike makers are throwing their way?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

Moe Ped said:


> It appears that Bike Radar has also invented a new class of electric bicycles; that being "Class 4".
> 
> I wish they'd mention where this class exists.


AFAICT, in their minds. And, to be clear, they're not claiming they are ebikes, just addin a class # to electric moped/motorcycles.

"Finally, Class 4 is defined as a moped or motorcycle. These machines allow speeds greater than 45kph/28mph through pedal assist or throttle alone and the motors exceed 750 watts."


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Harryman said:


> AFAICT, in their minds. And, to be clear, they're not claiming they are ebikes, just addin a class # to electric moped/motorcycles.
> 
> "Finally, Class 4 is defined as a moped or motorcycle. These machines allow speeds greater than 45kph/28mph through pedal assist or throttle alone and the motors exceed 750 watts."


Fine, fine---Class 4 are mopeds, Class 5 are electric motorbikes (can't go on the freeways) and Class 6 are electric motorcycles.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

Oh and Class 7 would gas/electric hybrid motorcycles ( a la Prius).


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

I'm waiting for class 10, with an onboard fusion reactor


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

leeboh said:


> Even when they are pocketing the money the e bike makers are throwing their way?


Aren't most of the ebike manufacturers also MTB manufacturers? (e.g. Specialized, Giant Trek, Pivot, etc). Doesn't that make it hard to the IMBA to advocate a total ban on ebikes on non-motorized trails?

So the choice becomes whether to take a moderate stance on ebikes and accept industry money that can be used to advocate for MTB issues, or say no to that money, and have fewer resources to advocate for MTB issues?

I don't think there's an easy answer to that especially since I don't have the numbers on what IMBA gets from these manufacturers, nor do I know whether IMBA would lose most or all of that funding if they decided to take a stronger stance against ebikers.

I guess another big question is what does your average MTBer get from the IMBA? Would we be better off supporting only our local clubs without having them be associated with the IMBA?


----------



## watermonkey (Jun 21, 2011)

kpdemello said:


> Aren't most of the ebike manufacturers also MTB manufacturers? (e.g. Specialized, Giant Trek, Pivot, etc). Doesn't that make it hard to the IMBA to advocate a total ban on ebikes on non-motorized trails?
> 
> So the choice becomes whether to take a moderate stance on ebikes and accept industry money that can be used to advocate for MTB issues, or say no to that money, and have fewer resources to advocate for MTB issues?
> 
> ...


I suspect it has something to do with this...a very interesting perspective.
IMBA Declares War On Class-2 E-Bikes - Jimmy Mac On Two Wheels

With IMBA semi-advocating for Class 1 ebikes only, and those being the more advanced and more expensive type almost exclusively produced by the big manufacturers...read Specialized, Trek, Haibike (Accell group), etc., then IMBA is really really giving a boost to their new sponsors. These major sponsors would disproportionately benefit from the cheaper ebikes being regulated out of the emtb market. The conspiracy deepens.


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

watermonkey said:


> I suspect it has something to do with this...a very interesting perspective.
> IMBA Declares War On Class-2 E-Bikes - Jimmy Mac On Two Wheels
> 
> With IMBA semi-advocating for Class 1 ebikes only, and those being the more advanced and more expensive type almost exclusively produced by the big manufacturers...read Specialized, Trek, Haibike (Accell group), etc., then IMBA is really really giving a boost to their new sponsors. These major sponsors would disproportionately benefit from the cheaper ebikes being regulated out of the emtb market. The conspiracy deepens.


Yeah and IMBA's (preliminary) e-bike "study" went out of it's way to paint Class 2 e-bikes in a bad light in an addendum that reeks of bad science. Sure they admit to that particular test's faults but why even publish it then?


----------



## Lemonaid (May 13, 2013)

I wonder how they plan on "enforcing" the class designation of the bikes when they can easily be hacked from a class 1 bike to a 2, 3, 4 and so on and so forth.... The only way I would consider approving such a class designation is if it it was physically impossible to modify the vehicle without removing parts and adding new ones rather than with software limitations. Otherwise the class designation just lip service and design solely to skirt existing rules.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

kpdemello said:


> I guess another big question is what does your average MTBer get from the IMBA? Would we be better off supporting only our local clubs without having them be associated with the IMBA?


Depends on your local club, if they are an IMBA chapter, they get a cut of your IMBA dues, I think it'll be 50/50% now? I can't remember. They also possibly gain some clout with your local land managers if it's a new group, if they already have a relationship, it doesn't matter. They can also get access to grants, admin training, trail care crew, etc if they chose to take advantage of such things. I think it's a mixed bag for most chapters tbh. I always encourage people to donate directly, then your club gets 100% of it.


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

Lemonaid said:


> I wonder how they plan on "enforcing" the class designation of the bikes when they can easily be hacked from a class 1 bike to a 2, 3, 4 and so on and so forth.... The only way I would consider approving such a class designation is if it it was physically impossible to modify the vehicle without removing parts and adding new ones rather than with software limitations. Otherwise the class designation just lip service and design solely to skirt existing rules.


There's no point in worrying about the small % of folks who hack their ebikes because they're just as likely to poach trails even with a blanket ban in place.

JMHO.

As for manufacturers skirting around the laws or making their bikes easy to hack, don't underestimate the power of the civil court system. Lawyers are just waiting for a major manufacturer to do something stupid like that and filing a very lucrative class action against them for false advertising.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Harryman said:


> Depends on your local club, if they are an IMBA chapter, they get a cut of your IMBA dues, I think it'll be 50/50% now? I can't remember. They also possibly gain some clout with your local land managers if it's a new group, if they already have a relationship, it doesn't matter. They can also get access to grants, admin training, trail care crew, etc if they chose to take advantage of such things. I think it's a mixed bag for most chapters tbh. I always encourage people to donate directly, then your club gets 100% of it.


Ok I am a bit embarrassed to be this ignorant. I am a member of NEMBA and always thought NEMBA was related to IMBA (sub-group? Chapter? member? something like that?) and I was under the impression that NEMBA gave money to IMBA. Can someone educate me as to what their relationship is?

NEMBA's stance on e-bikes is exactly what I would endorse, that e-mtb's are essentially motorized vehicles and should be treated as such.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

kpdemello said:


> Ok I am a bit embarrassed to be this ignorant. I am a member of NEMBA and always thought NEMBA was related to IMBA (sub-group? Chapter? member? something like that?) and I was under the impression that NEMBA gave money to IMBA. Can someone educate me as to what their relationship is?
> 
> NEMBA's stance on e-bikes is exactly what I would endorse, that e-mtb's are essentially motorized vehicles and should be treated as such.


 NS Nemba guy. Zero affiliation. None. We are our own thing. VMBA( VT ) is their own thing as well. We have our own chapters ( 30?) and chapter officials as well the board of directors. Do we give $$ to IMBA? Maybe on the corp. level.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

EricTheDood said:


> There's no point in worrying about the small % of folks who hack their ebikes because they're just as likely to poach trails even with a blanket ban in place.
> 
> JMHO.
> 
> As for manufacturers skirting around the laws or making their bikes easy to hack, don't underestimate the power of the civil court system. Lawyers are just waiting for a major manufacturer to do something stupid like that and filing a very lucrative class action against them for false advertising.


 None of the majors or OEMs make or distribute eMTBs with over 350w, it is only places like Luna or Alibaba that would be open to such a suit and I doubt the recovery would be enough to tempt anyone.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

EricTheDood said:


> As for manufacturers skirting around the laws or making their bikes easy to hack, don't underestimate the power of the civil court system. Lawyers are just waiting for a major manufacturer to do something stupid like that and filing a very lucrative class action against them for false advertising.


Upgrading one's vehicle performance, whether it's bicycle, motorcycle, or car, is extremely common and that's likely going to be true of e-bikes as well. I _strongly_ doubt that there will ever be any concerted efforts to go after the mfgrs for the actions of the end user.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

WoodlandHills said:


> None of the majors or OEMs make or distribute eMTBs with over 350w, it is only places like Luna or Alibaba that would be open to such a suit and I doubt the recovery would be enough to tempt anyone.


Try that again.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bi...ed-turbo-levo-fsr-6fattie-e-mountain-bike?amp

250 watts average. Peaks at well over 500 and if you use the "turbo" button, you get 450 on demand.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

Silentfoe said:


> Try that again.
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bi...ed-turbo-levo-fsr-6fattie-e-mountain-bike?amp
> 
> 250 watts average. Peaks at well over 500 and if you use the "turbo" button, you get 450 on demand.
> ...


Not to argue, but an electric motor is rated by the power it can produce continuously without overheating. AFAIK, all electric motors are capable of multiples of that power in bursts or for short intervals.


----------



## hobbit (Apr 23, 2007)

Although there will always be those that will modify anything, I think that most experienced users of class 1 ebikes will leave them standard as IMO they provide too much assistance at full settings. After the first couple of rides on my Levo where I used the fastest Turbo mode, I now leave it in mid trail mode as it gives a nice balance of assist, range and workout.


----------



## Gutch (Dec 17, 2010)

I agree, Eco or Trail is preferred.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Silentfoe said:


> Try that again.
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bi...ed-turbo-levo-fsr-6fattie-e-mountain-bike?amp
> 
> 250 watts average. Peaks at well over 500 and if you use the "turbo" button, you get 450 on demand.
> ...


Not sure if you read that correctly or not, but here's a quote from the article:



> The average enthusiast cyclist puts out an average of 200 watts. The motor in Turbo mode adds another 250, for a combined 450 watts of total threshold power output.


The power rating is "nominal power". It refers to the maximum sustained power output over continuous use. Any mode that goes over the nominal rated power would require a time limit, or it would risk overheating. To my knowledge, the Turbo mode averages less than 250W; it may peak over 250W based on torque or cadence, but it likely has a minimum that's under 250W, and/or some type of overheat protection.

The article continues to put the amount of power into context. Summed up, they say that an average rider on an emtb, set to use max power, would generate about the same amount of power as a professional mtb racer's output (5W per kg). A KTM 4 stroke 250cc dirt bike with 43 HP has a power-to-weight ratio (225 lb bike + 150 lb rider) that's 37.5 times higher than the emtb. Compare the wattage difference in the motors, 32000W (43 HP) vs 450W (250W from motor + 200W from a rider), and you'll see how weight plays a role. Put a mtb racer on a 250W emtb, and they'd still be limited by things such as the trail's natural speed limits (ex. twists, grade reversals, obstacles), traction, and their own reaction speed.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Varaxis said:


> Not sure if you read that correctly or not, but here's a quote from the article:
> 
> The power rating is "nominal power". It refers to the maximum sustained power output over continuous use. Any mode that goes over the nominal rated power would require a time limit, or it would risk overheating. To my knowledge, the Turbo mode averages less than 250W; it may peak over 250W based on torque or cadence, but it likely has a minimum that's under 250W, and/or some type of overheat protection.
> 
> The article continues to put the amount of power into context. Summed up, they say that an average rider on an emtb, set to use max power, would generate about the same amount of power as a professional mtb racer's output (5W per kg). A KTM 4 stroke 250cc dirt bike with 43 HP has a power-to-weight ratio (225 lb bike + 150 lb rider) that's 37.5 times higher than the emtb. Compare the wattage difference in the motors, 32000W (43 HP) vs 450W (250W from motor + 200W from a rider), and you'll see how weight plays a role. Put a mtb racer on a 250W emtb, and they'd still be limited by things such as the trail's natural speed limits (ex. twists, grade reversals, obstacles), traction, and their own reaction speed.


No, I read it correctly. I reported what it says.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

FWIW, I'm a professional mountain bike racer (very occasionally, these days, but I'm still sort of that speed) and I can sustain a bit over 300W. I weigh 145#/66kg. So about 4.6 W/kg *not counting the bike*. If you include a ~12kg bike, that drops to 3.8 W/kg. 

If you put me on a 250W e-bike that weighs something like 20kg, total vehicle is now 86kg, and (let's say I'm now an average Joe and put out 200W) I've got 450W to play with. That's 5.2 W/kg, and indeed right in the same range as a motivated pro. 

But US e-bikes aren't limited to 250W. Class 1 is _750_. That means (assuming I am using current tech and don't care too much about range) I can operate a bike that's something like _11_ W/kg out on the trail. That's insanity - pro power DOUBLED. Not to mention the 20mph cutoff.

This is why I really think the US class 1 was a mistake. They should have done the EU 250w/15.5mph standard - which basically allows any random schlub to go pro speed uphill, but not really any faster. You might still have problems in some places on crowded trails, but there's no fundamental threat to the existing user experience. 750W/20mph is a whole different ballgame. 

-Walt


----------



## EricTheDood (Sep 22, 2017)

Walt said:


> But US e-bikes aren't limited to 250W. Class 1 is _750_. That means (assuming I am using current tech and don't care too much about range) I can operate a bike that's something like _11_ W/kg out on the trail. That's insanity - pro power DOUBLED. Not to mention the 20mph cutoff.
> 
> This is why I really think the US class 1 was a mistake. They should have done the EU 250w/15.5mph standard - which basically allows any random schlub to go pro speed uphill, but not really any faster. You might still have problems in some places on crowded trails, but there's no fundamental threat to the existing user experience. 750W/20mph is a whole different ballgame.
> 
> -Walt


The EU standard is 250W nominal/continuous, while the 750W Class 1 in the US doesn't specify. Absent of clarification, it's safer for the manufacturer to assume that the 750W is peak power, which apparently is what they've been doing.

The Specialized Levos are 250W nominal with just over 500W peak. The European models have identical hardware AFAIK. The difference is only in the software wrt to assist cutoff at 15.5mph vs. 20mph.


----------



## Mountie (Jun 12, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> IMBA is on life support and will pander to whatever new sources of funding that they can find.


I don't even live in States but I might send them some money...


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

Mountie said:


> I don't even live in States but I might send them some money...


I don't even own an e-bike but their stance prompted me to join.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Mountie said:


> I don't even live in States but I might send them some money...


Fails to grasp the "I" in IMBA.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Capt.Ogg (Jun 5, 2015)

Silentfoe said:


> Fails to grasp the "I" in IMBA.


Yes, they should drop the 'I'.


----------



## WoodlandHills (Nov 18, 2015)

Walt said:


> FWIW, I'm a professional mountain bike racer (very occasionally, these days, but I'm still sort of that speed) and I can sustain a bit over 300W. I weigh 145#/66kg. So about 4.6 W/kg *not counting the bike*. If you include a ~12kg bike, that drops to 3.8 W/kg.
> 
> If you put me on a 250W e-bike that weighs something like 20kg, total vehicle is now 86kg, and (let's say I'm now an average Joe and put out 200W) I've got 450W to play with. That's 5.2 W/kg, and indeed right in the same range as a motivated pro.
> 
> ...


 What do your power numbers look like for the average 210lb ebiker? Wouldn't an extra 75 to 80 lbs of rider weight change things?


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

WoodlandHills said:


> What do your power numbers look like for the average 210lb ebiker? Wouldn't an extra 75 to 80 lbs of rider weight change things?


Sure, happy to do the math for you. A 210# person (95kg) is going to end up with a 115kg total vehicle weight, give or take. At 250W assist, that's (assuming the rider puts out 200W, which is probably lowballing for someone that size, but we'll roll with it) 3.9 W/kg. Slower than a pro, very fit amateur speed. No problemo.

At 750W assist, our 210# friend is at 8.3 W/kg. Way, way faster than a pro.

I imagine you could find some Walter Hudson type who's morbidly obese and can barely move who would be slow on a 750W bike, but being realistic, he/she/it would break said bike long before speed was a problem.

Let me put this into perspective another way: on a non-technical 5% grade climb, if I'm going full gas, I'm on the verge of using my brakes for some corners. Give me significantly more power and the uphill starts to approach a downhill in terms of speed, bike handling, needing to be extra careful around blind corners, etc.

More speed is bad for interactions with other users. Period. The EU standard would be VERY helpful in gaining e-bike access, because it deliberately keeps e-bikes from being *faster* (or at least significantly faster) than normal bikes. Why it wasn't implemented that way baffles me, but c'est la vie.

-Walt


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

EricTheDood said:


> The EU standard is 250W nominal/continuous, while the 750W Class 1 in the US doesn't specify. Absent of clarification, it's safer for the manufacturer to assume that the 750W is peak power, which apparently is what they've been doing.
> 
> The Specialized Levos are 250W nominal with just over 500W peak. The European models have identical hardware AFAIK. The difference is only in the software wrt to assist cutoff at 15.5mph vs. 20mph.


I can clarify that for you. People4bikes, who represents the manufacturers (Bicycle Product Supplier Association) considers the US 750w to be nominal, I've never seen anyone ever presume otherwise. They adopted it into their legislation, just like the 20mph, because under the current federal legislation, there were manufacturers here already making bikes with 750w/20, almost exclusively class 2. You are correct that the emtb manufacturers are making EU legal bikes with just a software change for the assist cut off. Basically because that's where the market currently is, there's not enough here yet to justify building a different line, and there aren't integrated motors yet on the market with 750w except from Bafang. There's also the issue that 750w motors will eat standard mtb drivetrains, so there are enigneers working on solving that one. I have friends in the industry, so I hear things.....

Class 1 emtbs will be very different here in 5 years or so. My expectation is that some will appeal to those who want max power and torque and some will be designed for less power but max range.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

WoodlandHills said:


> What do your power numbers look like for the average 210lb ebiker? Wouldn't an extra 75 to 80 lbs of rider weight change things?


As you know, depending on who you ask, this is a 750w-1500w motor. 300lb rider though, he climbs faster than I do.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Harryman said:


> As you know, depending on who you ask, this is a 750w-1500w motor. 300lb rider though, he climbs faster than I do.


He says he's been on ebikes for 4 years. And he's still 300lbs. He also says he'd never have gone where he did without the ebike. Why? He would have just put in more effort.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## RickBullottaPA (Mar 4, 2015)

Moe Ped said:


> Actually a horse can put out about 20 hp for a short length of time; the 1 hp standard had to do what a horse could do continuously for an 8 hour shift.
> 
> That being said, there's plenty of trails where horses aren't welcome plodding along even at 1 hp. E-bikes will be seen in a similar light.


And my KTM 300 puts out 48 HP (35,000 watts or so) - thus the reason I don't ride it on non-motorized trails. My KTM eBike puts out 250 watts, and can't do any additional trail damage, won't scare orphans or bunnies, and won't turn me into a raving out-of-control lunatic (at least not any more than I could be pedaling fast).


----------



## LetsBeHonest (Nov 28, 2017)

IMBA has been under a tremendous amount of political and financial pressure to adopt an "industry-friendly" e-MTB policy. By digging in and understanding some of those pressures, it's really no surprise that they continue to attempt to "thread the needle" on policy issues. First, the announcement is truthful when they disclose that "IMBA's Board of Directors updated its 2015 position on e-MTBs". That's because public policy is solely approved by the Board and developed by the staff. The reality is that IMBA's members, chapters and chapter leaders have no established way to provide input on policy issues. Their "bikes in wilderness" policy was developed by a former Executive Director and approved by the Board with no member input too. That's not the way a membership association is supposed to operate, but IMBA's chapters and members have been letting them get away with it for a very long time. Second, since there was no straight answer to the question "How influential is the e-MTB industry in directing IMBA's work on the e-MTB issue"?, here is some truth: for over a year, People for Bikes, Shimano and SRAM have been actively lobbying the IMBA Board to adopt an updated e-MTB policy that was much more supportive. It's really all about increasing bicycle industry revenues through higher sales of e-bikes here in the U.S. Big surprise, right? After all, financial "contributions" to help rescue a near-bankrupt IMBA are at stake....


----------



## LetsBeHonest (Nov 28, 2017)

IMBA's New E-MTB position statement
Here's the rest of the e-MTB story pertaining to just one source of political influence on IMBA. Most mountain bikers will be surprised to learn that People for Bikes and the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association have been actively lobbying state legislatures to enact their model e-bike legislation. See https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/static.peopleforbikes.org/docs/Model eBike Legislation.pdf to read it. 
For the bigger picture, start with Electric Bicycles â€¢ PeopleForBikes and then click down to access much more information on e-bikes, including e-MTBs. For example, check out the "playbook to advocate for better trail access" designed for advocates wishing to gain better e-MTB access to trails at http://b.3cdn.net/bikes/0a8683b43fba1f4d2a_4zm6bg5j2.pdf 
Surely you knew about all this already because of the new Executive Director's pledge to be more open and transparent?


----------



## LetsBeHonest (Nov 28, 2017)

"How influential is the e-MTB industry in directing IMBA's work on the e-MTB issue"?, here is some truth: for over a year, People for Bikes, Shimano and SRAM have been actively lobbying the IMBA Board to adopt an updated e-MTB policy that was much more supportive. It's really all about increasing bicycle industry revenues through higher sales of e-bikes here in the U.S. Big surprise, right? After all, financial "contributions" to help rescue a near-bankrupt IMBA are at stake....


----------

