Another class needed?

[antboy]

Okay so do you think we should add another ebike class?
Call it a Class 0, equivalent of European/Japanese class of 250W, 15mph?

Are Class 1 E-Bikes too Fast for Certain Trails? Some Think a Slower Class is Needed

With more than one type of electric mountain bike on the market today, some bikes might be more appropriate for certain trails than others.

www.singletracks.com

For the kind of bikes/trails being discussed in the SingleTracks article, it's a ridiculous direction to go.

They're talking about Class 1 bikes, and Jeff Kendall-Weed's recent video sums up my opinion, and it's appropriately titled...
"Why are we so afraid of eMTB?"

Long and short of that video is the following:
Climbing steep technical terrain, there's about a 3mph gain in speed (from 5mph up to 8mph)
For less steep, smooth climbs, there's a bigger speed gain from about 7mph to 15mph.
Downhill is irrelevant, because gravity.
On flat trails, a pedal bike can already exceed the 20mph limitation of a Class 1 motor. It's hard, but people do it every day.

Class 0 isn't really going to affect either of the uphill speed increases and will make them go SLOWER than even a marginally fit person on smooth flats.

As the article points out...

Perhaps most tellingly, a 2017 county survey found 65% of trail users were unable to detect the presence of a Class 1 e-bike vs. a regular mountain bike, speed differential or not.

And this is in 2017, when batteries were obvious, compared today's in-frame batteries, on bikes that look more like traditional pedal bikes.

Earlier in the article:

His group has a master plan for developing 25 miles of singletrack on the property with trails designated for riders of all abilities.

With this in mind, and thinking about a Class 0, will all 25 miles of single track have an enforced speed limit of 15mph, including for pedal bikes?

When you look at it this way, it's ridiculous on its face.

As @jabberwocky said earlier, people going uphill on traditionally down routes (because the tech makes it conquerable), and people using Surron-esque electric dirt bikes are issues that wouldn't be solved by telling someone with an Orbea Rise that their bike is too dangerous to ride this single track.

 

[kevinmccune]

For the kind of bikes/trails being discussed in the SingleTracks article, it's a ridiculous direction to go.

They're talking about Class 1 bikes, and Jeff Kendall-Weed's recent video sums up my opinion, and it's appropriately titled...
"Why are we so afraid of eMTB?"

Long and short of that video is the following:
Climbing steep technical terrain, there's about a 3mph gain in speed (from 5mph up to 8mph)
For less steep, smooth climbs, there's a bigger speed gain from about 7mph to 15mph.
Downhill is irrelevant, because gravity.
On flat trails, a pedal bike can already exceed the 20mph limitation of a Class 1 motor. It's hard, but people do it every day.

Class 0 isn't really going to affect either of the uphill speed increases and will make them go SLOWER than even a marginally fit person on smooth flats.

As the article points out...



And this is in 2017, when batteries were obvious, compared today's in-frame batteries, on bikes that look more like traditional pedal bikes.

Earlier in the article:



With this in mind, and thinking about a Class 0, will all 25 miles of single track have an enforced speed limit of 15mph, including for pedal bikes?

When you look at it this way, it's ridiculous on its face.

As @jabberwocky said earlier, people going uphill on traditionally down routes (because the tech makes it conquerable), and people using Surron-esque electric dirt bikes are issues that wouldn't be solved by telling someone with an Orbea Rise that their bike is too dangerous to ride this single track.

I know the trail bikes have pretty much destroyed the forestry road I try to ride on, the big problem is now its a registered part of the "Eastern Trail", I used to stop about 3 times during a ride to pick rocks now I do not bother.

 

[Flannel Guy]

My vote- ban/trash can all of the classes and come up with something that makes much more sense.

Let's try to get out of this box we seem to be stuck in. It's should be clear to most, in the end, it's just too cumbersome to get the job done in a manner that makes any sense at all.....

Speed bumps on the MUP trails?

Right. Like holding the rider responsible for the way they ride instead of the equipment based on specs of an of average weight rider x arbitrary nominal wattage ratings used for marketing position.

All of it needs enforcement, so enforce a speed limit in areas that speed is an issue. Make new trails and changes to existing to take the speed element out of the picture. If a trail is truly directional, them make sure signage reflects this. Otherwise share the trail and realize there are some are coming up as fast as some go down. Education needs to happen on both sides.

Mountain biking and snowboarding in the 90's all I heard from skiers and hikers were -you're going to ruin our trails. Never happened. Snow boarding gave a needed boost for the ski industry. Mountain biking expanded trail networks. Ebikes will do the same 10x as much.

 

[jabberwocky]

The glaring problem with the "no restrictions, just enforce behavior!" thing is its a complete non-starter for pretty much any non-road bike infrastructure. You're talking about trails and such that have existed for decades without allowing powered vehicles at all, and want to push unrestricted powered vehicle access and your solution to the incredibly obvious conflict issues is "the managing agencies also need to come up with and implement an enforcement regime to curb unwanted behavior".

Not gonna happen, ever. Its literally fantasy on the level of "government provides everyone with magical pegasus unicorns to ride to work".

 

[AHicks]

The glaring problem with the "no restrictions, just enforce behavior!" thing is its a complete non-starter for pretty much any non-road bike infrastructure. You're talking about trails and such that have existed for decades without allowing powered vehicles at all, and want to push unrestricted powered vehicle access and your solution to the incredibly obvious conflict issues is "the managing agencies also need to come up with and implement an enforcement regime to curb unwanted behavior".

Not gonna happen, ever. Its literally fantasy on the level of "government provides everyone with magical pegasus unicorns to ride to work".

I have to agree. Enforcement is expensive. The need for it one more reason e-bikes might leave a bad taste in the wrong person's mouth.

The idea of restructuring the class laws to totally de-emphasize throttles seems much easier and makes way more sense from where I'm sitting. Eliminate class 2 entirely.

If that doesn't work out well for EMTB trails, so be it. They can run whatever rules works for them. Let the other 98% of e-bike riders use some classes that make more sense.

 

[Tars Tarkas]

The glaring problem with the "no restrictions, just enforce behavior!" thing is its a complete non-starter for pretty much any non-road bike infrastructure. You're talking about trails and such that have existed for decades without allowing powered vehicles at all, and want to push unrestricted powered vehicle access and your solution to the incredibly obvious conflict issues is "the managing agencies also need to come up with and implement an enforcement regime to curb unwanted behavior".

Not gonna happen, ever. Its literally fantasy on the level of "government provides everyone with magical pegasus unicorns to ride to work".

Not sure how arbitrary classes of ebikes would address your issue. It sounds like you don't care what class ebike it is, if it has a mofor you don't want it on any non-road bike infrastructure. I don't know, maybe that's not unreasonable, but if that's what you're after, how does the 3-class ebike system help with that?

TT

 

[mschwett]

i kind of like the idea. a "no questions asked legal ANYWHERE a bike is" class would be useful. it's really what class 1 should be, but isn't.

practically speaking, in the united states i'm not sure how such a thing would be mandated or enforced. any jurisdiction could simply say no. the current system doesn't seem too terrible to me, except for the silly lack of clarity around the power ratings and general lack of signage/education about what's allowed where.

class 0 - <50lb total vehicle weight, only goes when pedaled, rider supplies at least 25% of the power, maximum actual peak power draw from battery 250w, no assist past 15mph

class 1 - only goes when pedaled, maximum actual peak power draw 750w, no assist past 20mph

class 2 - deprecated

class 3 - only goes when pedaled, maximum actual peak power draw 750w, no assist past 28mph

class 4 - maximum actual peak power draw 1500w, no speed limits, requires registration and insurance and a license to use on public roads.

any jurisdiction could choose to allow or deny any of the four classes anywhere they felt like, with the hope that some kind of federal incentive or model legistlation would exist to strongly discourage anyone from prohibiting class 0 bikes anywhere, and similarly i'd imagine very, very few jurisdictions would allow class 4 anywhere but on roadways.

IMO any of the above can have a button/lever/control which brings them to peak power regardless of cadence or torque. call it a throttle if you want. but your legs still have to be going around.

 

[jabberwocky]

Not sure how arbitrary classes of ebikes would address your issue. It sounds like you don't care what class ebike it is, if it has a mofor you don't want it on any non-road bike infrastructure. I don't know, maybe that's not unreasonable, but if that's what you're after, how does the 3-class ebike system help with that?

TT

I actually want ebikes (of some sort) allowed everywhere normal bikes are allowed, I just acknowledge that ebikes will have to accept some limitations on what an ebike actually is for that to happen. We want widespread access to trails and infrastructure that was designed with non-powered use in mind, so pushing for unrestricted speed/motor power/whatever is just gonna mean we won't get access to a lot of that.

The main thing the 3 class system has going for it is some level of granularity, which is an advantage when dealing with land managers and other user groups who aren't willing to accept throttles/higher speeds. I'd rather a path or trail system say "class 1s only" than just flat out not allow e-bikes because they think throttles will cause problems. Much access is incremental; getting that foot in the door is the most important step in any access discussion. Even only allowing class 1s is a step in the right direction because then coming back in a few years and saying "there have been no issues and other user groups are used to electric bikes now, so maybe its time to allow the rest of them" is a stronger argument.

 

[AHicks]

i kind of like the idea. a "no questions asked legal ANYWHERE a bike is" class would be useful. it's really what class 1 should be, but isn't.

practically speaking, in the united states i'm not sure how such a thing would be mandated or enforced. any jurisdiction could simply say no. the current system doesn't seem too terrible to me, except for the silly lack of clarity around the power ratings and general lack of signage/education about what's allowed where.

class 0 - <50lb total vehicle weight, only goes when pedaled, rider supplies at least 25% of the power, maximum actual peak power draw from battery 250w, no assist past 15mph

class 1 - only goes when pedaled, maximum actual peak power draw 750w, no assist past 20mph

class 2 - deprecated

class 3 - only goes when pedaled, maximum actual peak power draw 750w, no assist past 28mph

class 4 - maximum actual peak power draw 1500w, no speed limits, requires registration and insurance and a license to use on public roads.

any jurisdiction could choose to allow or deny any of the four classes anywhere they felt like, with the hope that some kind of federal incentive or model legistlation would exist to strongly discourage anyone from prohibiting class 0 bikes anywhere, and similarly i'd imagine very, very few jurisdictions would allow class 4 anywhere but on roadways.

IMO any of the above can have a button/lever/control which brings them to peak power regardless of cadence or torque. call it a throttle if you want. but your legs still have to be going around.

Love it! This is thinking that's moving from that damn box we have now that we seem to be stuck in! As written "only goes when pedaled" doesn't allow for throttles. In my world, that would need to include throttles in the lower classes at least. Even if there was a 15mph limit on bikes so equipped.

 

[AHicks]

I actually want ebikes (of some sort) allowed everywhere normal bikes are allowed, I just acknowledge that ebikes will have to accept some limitations on what an ebike actually is for that to happen. We want widespread access to trails and infrastructure that was designed with non-powered use in mind, so pushing for unrestricted speed/motor power/whatever is just gonna mean we won't get access to a lot of that.

The main thing the 3 class system has going for it is some level of granularity, which is an advantage when dealing with land managers and other user groups who aren't willing to accept throttles/higher speeds. I'd rather a path or trail system say "class 1s only" than just flat out not allow e-bikes because they think throttles will cause problems. Much access is incremental; getting that foot in the door is the most important step in any access discussion. Even only allowing class 1s is a step in the right direction because then coming back in a few years and saying "there have been no issues and other user groups are used to electric bikes now, so maybe its time to allow the rest of them" is a stronger argument.

This is where one of the bigger issues that I see lay. Who the hell says throttles have ANYTHING to do with higher speeds?? That's SO WRONG!!

Are we going to allow this kind of thinking across the board to allow for the occasional jackass when so many use the throttle just to get the bike moving or make it back on a trip where they've over extended themselves? That is complete total BS....

That thinking must change.....

 

[jabberwocky]

I have to agree. Enforcement is expensive. The need for it one more reason e-bikes might leave a bad taste in the wrong person's mouth.

The idea of restructuring the class laws to totally de-emphasize throttles seems much easier and makes way more sense from where I'm sitting. Eliminate class 2 entirely.

If that doesn't work out well for EMTB trails, so be it. They can run whatever rules works for them. Let the other 98% of e-bike riders use some classes that make more sense.

I could see combining 2 and 3; I suspect long term anywhere thats ok with class 3 will be fine with throttles as well. I do think an ebike class with no throttle and a lower speed cap is going to be necessary for eMTB access for a good long while though. Maybe we end up with a an eMTB class (no throttle, 20mph) and then a general class that combines pedal assist to 28 and throttle to 20. The caveat is I don't know how much general commuting infrastructure around the country has issues with throttles where a faster no-throttle class actually helps anything. Here in NoVA, as far as I know everything that allows class 3 allows 2 as well.

 

[jabberwocky]

This is where one of the bigger issues that I see lay. Who the hell says throttles have ANYTHING to do with higher speeds?? That's SO WRONG!!

They don't, agreed. Its definitely a sticking point with a lot of the general public though (including many members of other users of MUPs/bike lanes/sidewalks/whathaveyou).

I think it will eventually get to the point where people care a lot less and its less controversial to allow. The potential issue is going to be what people bring to mind when they think of throttled electric bikes. Is it gonna be Rad-style commuters or the unrestricted light-motorcycle style bikes? I suspect that most path users are much more willing to share space with one than the other.

 

[AHicks]

They don't, agreed. Its definitely a sticking point with a lot of the general public though (including many members of other users of MUPs/bike lanes/sidewalks/whathaveyou).

I think it will eventually get to the point where people care a lot less and its less controversial to allow. The potential issue is going to be what people bring to mind when they think of throttled electric bikes. Is it gonna be Rad-style commuters or the unrestricted light-motorcycle style bikes? I suspect that most path users are much more willing to share space with one than the other.

I would think it would be pretty easy to distinguish between these 2 types, no? I'm not sure why one would even bring up any thoughts regarding the other?

 

[Mr. Coffee]

These are observations, not opinions:

1. In Washington state the rules on e-bikes are based around the class system since 2018. Those rules have more or less worked and kept things peaceful. The short explanation is that class 1 and class 2 e-bikes are allowed in bike lanes and anywhere that regular bikes are allowed where there is an improved (e.g. paved or gravel) surface to ride on. Otherwise e-bikes are not allowed on bike infra. Local regulations can override those rules but AFAIK that hasn't yet happened.
2. In direct conversations with people managing trail access I hear over and over again that throttles are a deal killer. Whatever your opinion is you have to realize that getting widespread acceptance of throttles on a bicycle is going to be an uphill fight. In the end public opinion is going to settle this debate.
3. Three things I've noticed this year: more people on e-bikes, more people using e-bikes as scooters and not pedaling, and more complaints about people on e-bikes.

 

[antboy]

This is where one of the bigger issues that I see lay. Who the hell says throttles have ANYTHING to do with higher speeds?? That's SO WRONG!!

Are we going to allow this kind of thinking across the board to allow for the occasional jackass when so many use the throttle just to get the bike moving or make it back on a trip where they've over extended themselves? That is complete total BS....

That thinking must change.....

In the context of e-bikes on trails and land management issues, I'd say even a 20mph limited throttle is "worse" than a pedal assist that goes to 28mph.

It's not about speed, so much as it's a lot easier to "chew up the scenery" so to speak (and having done it at the beach, it's kind of fun as long as you're not ruining the landscape).

And in the real world, people off-roading with throttles (ATVs, dirt-bikes etc) love to fling dirt, and I think that's the root of concerns regarding e-bikes.

 

[jabberwocky]

I would think it would be pretty easy to distinguish between these 2 types, no? I'm not sure why one would even bring up any thoughts regarding the other?

Some are, some aren't. Just commenting that I think attitudes to ebikes will relax and liberalize over time making throttles and such less of a perception issue, assuming that the majority of what people are sharing mixed trails with are actually ebikes and not the increasingly popular off-road-use-only-wink-wink motorcyclish bikes that ignore petty legalities. I agree that theres no conflict difference between a class 1 and class 2 (speed cap is the same), but if the perception of throttle bikes is being shaped by bikes that exceed the speed/power caps I think that perception will persist for a much longer time.

 

[AHicks]

These are observations, not opinions:

1. In Washington state the rules on e-bikes are based around the class system since 2018. Those rules have more or less worked and kept things peaceful. The short explanation is that class 1 and class 2 e-bikes are allowed in bike lanes and anywhere that regular bikes are allowed where there is an improved (e.g. paved or gravel) surface to ride on. Otherwise e-bikes are not allowed on bike infra. Local regulations can override those rules but AFAIK that hasn't yet happened.
2. In direct conversations with people managing trail access I hear over and over again that throttles are a deal killer. Whatever your opinion is you have to realize that getting widespread acceptance of throttles on a bicycle is going to be an uphill fight. In the end public opinion is going to settle this debate.
3. Three things I've noticed this year: more people on e-bikes, more people using e-bikes as scooters and not pedaling, and more complaints about people on e-bikes.

So you're OK with the fact most hub bikes sold today (by far the most bikes being sold) are technically illegal on class 1 only trails/infrastructure?

 

[Mr. Coffee]

So you're OK with the fact most hub bikes sold today (by far the most bikes being sold) are technically illegal on class 1 only trails/infrastructure?

I said no such thing. My post had observations, not opinions. My being "OK" with something would be an opinion.

I said that under WA state law Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes were allowed on improved surface trails and bike infra. There is no "class 1 only trails/infrastructure" under WA state law and your comment has no relevance to my post.

If I were to share an opinion, it would be that I think if it takes throwing throttles and unrestricted e-bikes under the bus for e-bikes to be treated as bicycles and allowed most anywhere a bicycle is allowed that is a fair and reasonable price to pay.

If I were to share another opinion, I believe that the combination of obnoxious unrestricted e-bikes that are basically motorcycles, aggressive idiots on e-bikes, and people using their e-bike as a scooter is horrible PR for e-bikes and will inevitably lead to a backlash against e-bikes. Possibly including very broad regulatory bans against them in some locations.

 

[AHicks]

Apparently I'm a little weak on separating "opinions" from "observations".

"If I were to share an opinion, it would be that I think if it takes throwing throttles and unrestricted e-bikes under the bus for e-bikes to be treated as bicycles and allowed most anywhere a bicycle is allowed that is a fair and reasonable price to pay."

Yes, lots of thought regarding others in play here. It sounds a lot like throw 75% of the bikes in use today under a bus, so I can use mine the way I want to. You bet.....

 

[m@Robertson]

class 1 - only goes when pedaled, maximum actual peak power draw 750w, no assist past 20mph
...
class 3 - only goes when pedaled, maximum actual peak power draw 750w, no assist past 28mph

That chart includes a subtle change that would destroy ebike sales. Changing the rules to enforce peak power would effectively crush the power output of every class of ebike. They have to wink at the 250w peak limit even in the regulation-happy EU (which is why everyone shifted to measuring power in Nm a couple years back).

Pretty much *everyone* knows that a 48v-powered ebike peaks in the 1150-1200w range (54.6v x 25a = 1365w at a 100% charge, and I'm using the specs for a common manufactured ebike that has been sold for years). 1500w is not uncommon on 52v systems. The reality is that such power levels end up creating bikes that fall well within the speed parameters that are regulated, so nobody pays any attention to the actual power levels. Try and sell bikes that are half the power level that was once available and the marketplace will explicitly demand what has already been done implicitly: do away with how power is regulated now (which, again, everyone knows has no technical basis and is just window dressing). In terms of action, that translates to the gloves coming off and actual power limits being legislated.

Since that would entail lots of work and result in exactly the same situation we already have, my expectation is nothing will change since what is here now is already working well enough (let not the perfect be the enemy of the good).

The toothpaste is already out of the tube. Its not going back in.