Another class needed?

[jabberwocky]

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.....

Honestly, the thing thats going to cause throttle-equipped bikes access headaches isn't going to be other ebikers throwing them under the bus, its going to be other user groups and managers lumping them in with the moped/e-motorcycle crowd. Which isn't helped by the proliferation of those bikes. I totally agree that a Rad should absolutely be fine on almost all hard surface bike infrastructure; 20mph isn't out of line with max speeds of pedal bikes and for the most part people probably won't even notice that the bike is powered or has a throttle. Your average derestricted moped style bike (Super 73, Juiced scrambler, etc) that throttle to 30+mph? Not so much. Your average Bafang Ultra, which can often throttle to near 40mph? Certainly not. If those are what the general public on those trails think throttle bikes are, access is going to be much, much harder to sell. And one thing that the super high power ebikes have in common seems to be that they always have throttles, and are generally ridden throttle only.

 

[jabberwocky]

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).

Yeah, this. I think the best part about largely regulating ebikes with speed cutoffs is that motor power becomes less of a concern. A bike that peaks at 1500w but caps at 20mph isn't going to be any more of a conflict problem than a bike that peaks at 250w but caps at 20mph, but its way more useful for the things that really sell ebikes to the general public (hill climbing, load carrying, accelerating from stops, etc).

 

[AHicks]

Honestly, the thing thats going to cause throttle-equipped bikes access headaches isn't going to be other ebikers throwing them under the bus, its going to be other user groups and managers lumping them in with the moped/e-motorcycle crowd. Which isn't helped by the proliferation of those bikes. I totally agree that a Rad should absolutely be fine on almost all hard surface bike infrastructure; 20mph isn't out of line with max speeds of pedal bikes and for the most part people probably won't even notice that the bike is powered or has a throttle. Your average derestricted moped style bike (Super 73, Juiced scrambler, etc) that throttle to 30+mph? Not so much. Your average Bafang Ultra, which can often throttle to near 40mph? Certainly not. If those are what the general public on those trails think throttle bikes are, access is going to be much, much harder to sell. And one thing that the super high power ebikes have in common seems to be that they always have throttles, and are generally ridden throttle only.

Absolutely in agreement with the RAD type (geared hub) bikes.
The throttled Bafang Ultra can be capped at any speed you set. See your next post-

 

[AHicks]

Yeah, this. I think the best part about largely regulating ebikes with speed cutoffs is that motor power becomes less of a concern. A bike that peaks at 1500w but caps at 20mph isn't going to be any more of a conflict problem than a bike that peaks at 250w but caps at 20mph, but its way more useful for the things that really sell ebikes to the general public (hill climbing, load carrying, accelerating from stops, etc).

Precisely why I own an Ultra. One that's ridden no differently than much smaller bikes I own (throttle used only rarely). This bike was purchased to easily handle both my weight (300lbs) and the fact it's not going to be working it's guts out in the hilly area it's mostly ridden. This bike hasn't seen 20mph since it was new, and only rarely sees 15mph (unless coasting). Typical power in use while cruising something under 250 watts....

The ASSUMPTIONS made when bringing up this bike, based on what it CAN do, are incredible! It's sorta like assuming anyone riding one is going to behave like a jack ass from the time they swing a leg over to the time it's battery goes dead.....

 

[jabberwocky]

Downhill trails are not really indicative of anything. They are almost always directional, on private land and only used by people who know exactly what’s going on.

 

[mschwett]

Downhill trails are not really indicative of anything. They are almost always directional, on private land and only used by people who know exactly what’s going on.

yes, exactly. the whole “but any bike can go fast downhill” is a ridiculous red herring - the quantities of bikes going down big hills is inherently self limiting because it’s a lot of work to ride that same bike UP the hill and requires a pretty significant commitment to do so frequently. study after study shows the average speed of a non-e-cyclist is in the 15mph range. speeds way outside the 10-20mph range of most urban cycling requires different infrastructure and different rules. sidewalks are separated from bike lanes which are (ideally) separated from automobile lanes….

 

[m@Robertson]

This link bears repeating. I think he gets it exactly right in terms of speed differentials, how much they matter and how much all of this matters.

Particularly, he gets absolutely right the reasons so many people get it wrong with respect to ebikes and trails. I've cue'd up the video to that exact conclusion section, since its almost 10 minutes in. Item 2 of his 3 is easily the biggest issue overall and we see this attitude throughout even this forum; supposedly populated by the already-converted.

 

[mschwett]

This link bears repeating. I think he gets it exactly right in terms of speed differentials, how much they matter and how much all of this matters.

Particularly, he gets absolutely right the reasons so many people get it wrong with respect to ebikes and trails. I've cue'd up the video to that exact conclusion section, since its almost 10 minutes in. Item 2 of his 3 is easily the biggest issue overall and we see this attitude throughout even this forum; supposedly populated by the already-converted.

i'm not sure if that was directed at me, but trails are a completely different animal which i have no opinion on, not being a frequent user. the issues there are completely recreational and ecological impact has to be considered, hopefully by actual scientists and not NIMBYs or YIMBYs.

 

[m@Robertson]

i'm not sure if that was directed at me, but trails are a completely different animal which i have no opinion on, not being a frequent user. the issues there are completely recreational and ecological impact has to be considered, hopefully by actual scientists and not NIMBYs or YIMBYs.

No not really, but ... what impact, exactly? What measured impact? Not the fears given voice about how there just has to be some damage, but actual results? Its been long enough that it has been studied locally. I have seen some test periods - one in Colorado a few years back in particular - where the fears of both rider conflict and trail damage were found to be nonexistent during a trial period allowing ebikes. So... what studies? Its time enough to leave the hand-wringing behind and stick to only posting facts. If they exist they should be readily available to point to.

That video showing actual use - something we get far too little of versus lots of words on screens and pages - did a pretty good job of plainly, clearly illustrating how little difference there is in usage (environmental effect) from one type to the other. In particular the video of what a motorcycle does to a trail and how that compares to an ebike; making it abundantly clear the apples/oranges nature of the comparison.

 

[jabberwocky]

This link bears repeating. I think he gets it exactly right in terms of speed differentials, how much they matter and how much all of this matters.

Particularly, he gets absolutely right the reasons so many people get it wrong with respect to ebikes and trails. I've cue'd up the video to that exact conclusion section, since its almost 10 minutes in. Item 2 of his 3 is easily the biggest issue overall and we see this attitude throughout even this forum; supposedly populated by the already-converted.

Great vid, matches my experience very closely. Basically no difference between my normal trail bike and my eMTB downhill, large difference on steep climbs (with the caveat that the eMTB still isn't going very fast), biggest difference on gentle grindy climbs and long flat sections where you can max the assist.

No not really, but ... what impact, exactly? What measured impact? Not the fears given voice about how there just has to be some damage, but actual results? Its been long enough that it has been studied locally. I have seen some test periods - one in Colorado a few years back in particular - where the fears of both rider conflict and trail damage were found to be nonexistent during a trial period allowing ebikes. So... what studies? Its time enough to leave the hand-wringing behind and stick to only posting facts. If they exist they should be readily available to point to.

That video showing actual use - something we get far too little of versus lots of words on screens and pages - did a pretty good job of plainly, clearly illustrating how little difference there is in usage (environmental effect) from one type to the other. In particular the video of what a motorcycle does to a trail and how that compares to an ebike; making it abundantly clear the apples/oranges nature of the comparison.

Trail impact is one of those controversial things that gets argued about endlessly in the trail advocacy world. IMBA has commissioned some studies that show mountainbikers are about the same impact as hikers and less than equestrians. I would expect low speed ebikes to be similar. But there isn't a ton of data out there so land managers sometimes go with their gut.

The main thing mountainbikers have going for them on that front is they tend to be by far the most knowledgeable group about sustainable trail design, and (at least in my area) the most capable of getting volunteers out to build and maintain trail. IMBA literally wrote the book on sustainable trail design. My local IMBA affiliate does more than 10,000 man-hours of trail work per year. Land managers respect and listen to them. I'm fortunate that they have largely been supportive of eMTB access.

 

[m@Robertson]

The only actual study I have found was actually done by IMBA. It was in 2015 back when they were still anti-emtb. If you read the study, in the opening abstract they commit a rather telling sin in that they specify their pre-existing expectations for results. Something a proper researcher is never supposed to do. To their credit though, they admit that ebike trail damage is effectively the same for mtb's and emtbs.

Environmental Impacts from Mtn Bicycles, Electric Mtn Bicycles, & Motorcycles - American Trails

Our Mission is to advance the development of diverse, high quality trails and greenways. Through collaboration, education, funding, and communication, we help raise the value of trails.

www.americantrails.org

The first part of the Study's Conclusion, with emphasis mine:

This study found that the impacts from Class 1 eMTBs and traditional mountain bicycles were not significantly different, while motorcycles led to much greater soil displacement and erosion. Observations suggest that Class 1 eMTBs may lead to more displacement under certain trail conditions. More research is needed before conclusions can be drawn regarding the environmental impacts of Class 1 eMTBs as compared with traditional mountain bicycles.

I am highlighting the text in red as that sentence and the one that follows it are what I consider to be sour grapes. The study did not find what they wanted at the time so they had to toss in another two cents.

However, two years later in 2017 IMBA changed their negative position on Class 1 ebikes.

 

[jabberwocky]

The only actual study I have found was actually done by IMBA. It was in 2015 back when they were still anti-emtb. If you read the study, in the opening abstract they commit a rather telling sin in that they specify their pre-existing expectations for results. Something a proper researcher is never supposed to do. To their credit though, they admit that ebike trail damage is effectively the same for mtb's and emtbs.

Honestly, thats pretty mild. IMBA is half grassroots advocacy and half industry association, and a lot of their industry partners are companies like REI which lean much heavier to hikers than mountainbikers. Its created some weird opinions at times. I personally think IMBA frequently leans too heavily towards appeasing other user groups than actually advocating for mountainbikers, but thats just, like, my opinion man. Even their about face on class 1s likely came about because their corporate partners leaned on them.

On the list of things about IMBA that piss me off its somewhere in the middle. Their backstabbing of the STC in congress is still at the top. Been half a decade and I'm still really grumpy about that.

 

[tomjasz]

like REI which lean much heavier to hikers than mountainbikers.

Given REI's commitment to eBikes, now 33 models, I expect them to be shifting their focus.