concerns with ebikes laws and ways to improve them

[Ken M]

There needs to be incentives for not using any motors at all.

Bikes are still ridden for leisure/recreation/fitness but transportation solutions do have time and efficiency components. Sure average ebike speeds are higher than traditional bikes but that is very very important when used for mobility. Also ebikes are the most efficient way for humans to go from A-to-B when total energy and calories are considered - as efficient as a full loaded passenger train. No one is trying to belittle you but you are saying some things that seem like intentional disinformation - you never want to appear to be a troll with a hidden negative agenda (ie propaganda in harmful).

 

[mschwett]

You clearly just don't like ebikes. A good rider on a traditional road bike can sustain a speed over 30mph on a level surface for at least a few minutes (….

absolute nonsense, and e-bike advocates need to stop using falsehoods to make their case.

it takes over 600 watts to go 30mph on level ground on a decent road bicycle. check the CAT charts for RACERS and you’ll see that this is sustainable for about a minute for a 75% category racer. for an amateur, enthusiastic and fit rider, more like 30 seconds. the average speed for enthusiastic recreational cyclists is 12-14 mph with extremely few sustained periods over 20mph.

unless you want to license, register, and insure cyclists and cycles, and build out an appropriate independent network of streets and paths suitable for whatever random vehicle you have in mind, e-bikes need to stay close to the performance envelope of a high level recreational cyclist. that means 15-20mph, not 25+, and it means 250w sustained, not 750.

you keep saying the same (often untrue or irrelevant) things over and over again, so please don’t bother replying.

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

View attachment 210514

You left out my row at the bottom.
;^}

What does the 1st (%) column refer to, and where can I find an explanation of this chart?

At 77, I can easily go WAY faster than anyone should on an MUP on a 40 lb, 250W, 35 Nm ebike with no throttle. For legal ebikes granted full access to public trails and bikeways, 750W of motor power, however measured, is more than enough.

 

[mschwett]

You left out my row at the bottom.
;^}

What does the 1st (%) column refer to, and where can I find an explanation of this chart?

At 77, I can easily go WAY faster than anyone should on an MUP on a 40 lb, 250W, 35 Nm ebike with no throttle. For legal ebikes granted full access to public trails and bikeways, 750W of motor power, however measured, is more than enough.

the first column is the percentile rank of athletes on cyclinganalytics - so if you read across from 90% basically 10% of athletes on that site can sustain 627 watts for a minute. so really we’re probably talking about 1 to 5% of the population, because anyone using a power meter and uploading to cyclinganalytics is by definition a pretty committed cyclist.

How does your cycling power output compare?

www.cyclinganalytics.com

 

[jabberwocky]

absolute nonsense, and e-bike advocates need to stop using falsehoods to make their case.

Its worth noting that Ken is not an ebike advocate, hes a zealot for the early 2000s CPSC ebike definition only, and cares about almost nothing beyond that.

 

[mschwett]

Its worth noting that Ken is not an ebike advocate, hes a zealot for the early 2000s CPSC ebike definition only, and cares about almost nothing beyond that.

but, but, but, dr currie!

 

[Ken M]

You are misunderstanding disagreement for a failure to understand. Fact is, people are pretty smart here insofar as discussion participants are concerned (although we concurrently prove our stupidity by trying to talk to the brick wall that never listens).

Years into this, the relevant legislation and regulations have been read and understood. The arguments you push have also been read, digested, understood... and rejected.

After all this time and all of these thousands of pointless words, you know this.

Really? I have read many threads and almost all seem to think the max ebike motor power is 750W. There is nothing in HR727 or the 3 class legislation that says that even though that is what non technical people believe both state. When the wattage of a motor is stated it's always a RATING...not a maximum. The guy that wrote HR727 was a PhD Electrical Engineer who would have inherently known this - the max wattage would have to be set by the design and programming of the controller. When Dr. Currie wrote HR727 he intended to allow more than 750W below 20mph to allow solutions like cargo ebikes. The NHTSA was not concerned about max power below 20mph - they were just not wanting to allow speeds above 20mph under motor alone.

In the same vein, HR727 does not set a max assist speed of 20mph. Read that again!!!! It just states the power above 20mph can not provide for speeds over 20mph on a level surface which means that level of assist can continue with higher speeds being enabled via rider power.

These are technical reality but I have read very few people commenting with this knowledge. This is not "rejectable" information - it's FACT if you understood engineering specifications.

 

[Ken M]

Its worth noting that Ken is not an ebike advocate, hes a zealot for the early 2000s CPSC ebike definition only, and cares about almost nothing beyond that.

You know that for years I said this current mess was going to happen because it was the intend of the 3 class legislation from People for Bikes. I stepped away for some time and have recently decided to engage again because what is going on is irrational and soon we'll end up with ebikes being back under the NHTSA with reguirement for VIN numbers, headlights, blinkers, etc. and use regulated with licenses, registrations, and insurance. WTFU...I'm the one putting myself out there to keep HR727 compliant low speed electric bicycles treated as bikes by state use laws which was exactly what was the case for many years before the 3 class legislation.

I'm a huge advocate of ebikes. I am a zeolot of HR727 approved in the early 2000s because it was written by a PhD Electrical Engineer that had political capital (Currie was CEO of Hughes and Delco) and knew the auto industry would see them as a threat. I have had a conversation with the Lawyer that worked with Malcolm Currie for years to get this legislation passed when few ebikes existed and the auto industry was really paying attention. He would know the intent of the bill and how challenging it was to get passed. The expressed preemptive clause is very rare and it was a statement to deny allowing states establishing more stringent definitions for ebike. Why don't you read some legal papers on a preemptive clause being used like that. Don't lecture me like I'm the troll when what I'm saying is true.