Heres some real world ebike motor data.

[Ken M]

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of argument or logic would know that your statement makes no sense. Saying things like "95% of riders..." hit a speed, then concluding that the riders want such speeds, or are comfortable with such speed is just bogus. Etc.
I stand by my previous thoughts. If you want a high powered bike so you can go fast, get licensed and insured for such a vehicle, one that can do a lot more damage at speed than a less fast vehicle. Thank goodness I live in an area where these high powered blunderbikes aren't found - they don't handle the terrain. At least I don't need to dodge 75 lb bikes flying out of control at me down hills...

That study result is real - there was a cumulative distribution of the top speed hit by riders on non-bikes on typical rides. On downhills the top speed of the majority (like over 95%) was around 28mph. It was not an average speed, just the top speed. If you just simulate what a long 6 percent downhill slope provides you will understand that a biker can just coast and hit a speed around 30mph or higher (many riders would be braking down that hill to keep their speed down). This is physics so it's not something debatable. So if that is REAL why is a 750W motor so bad in that if geared right it might provide that same speed potential up a slight incline with reasonable rider input?

Note: I just ask these questions because I don't think that most of those opposed to any assist past 20mph as being justified to be a motorcycle requiring insurance, licensing, and registration.

 

[Ken M]

Relevant danger to the public has nothing to do with the power of the bike or if the bike is able to accelerate going up a hill. WHO CARES? I have 2 bikes I'm pretty sure would/could be classified as "high performance", and I can count on one hand the number of times either has been under power going over 15mph. Going down hill is another matter, but still, 20mph is PLENTY fast enough here. Both of these bikes, even though they are very powerful, attract no attention because they are nothing special to look at, and only a very experienced eye would even be able to pick them out in a crowd. Point being, it's NOT the damn bike......

Relevant danger has WAY more to do with the rider. An idiot rider can raise as much hell on a 500w bike as he can on something 1000w+!!!

You seem to imply that 20mph is "fast enough" going down a hill on a bike. Do you understand that if that hill is over a 3 percent downhill grade that most riders would have to be braking the entire time down that hill to not go faster than 20mph. A 6 percent downhill grade results in speed around 30mph with no pedaling which is somewhat a common grade in many cities. People suggesting that bikes should not be allowed to go over 20 mph should be demanding that all cities eliminate any downhill with over a 3 percent downhill grade or demand auto-engaging brakes on bikes.

 

[Ken M]

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of argument or logic would know that your statement makes no sense. Saying things like "95% of riders..." hit a speed, then concluding that the riders want such speeds, or are comfortable with such speed is just bogus. Etc.
I stand by my previous thoughts. If you want a high powered bike so you can go fast, get licensed and insured for such a vehicle, one that can do a lot more damage at speed than a less fast vehicle. Thank goodness I live in an area where these high powered blunderbikes aren't found - they don't handle the terrain. At least I don't need to dodge 75 lb bikes flying out of control at me down hills...

The fact is that a 6% downhill grade will result in a coasting speed of 30mph on a mtn bike and a bit faster on a road bike with ZERO rider pedaling. That is a fairly common hill grade in most cities so bikers do coast down those hills and hit a top speed around 30mph unless you are suggesting that most just apply their brakes the whole way down or deploy a parachute to slow them down. If they are not comfortable at that speed they can apply their brakes but the study results do pretty much prove that most riders are OK at that speed range for at least some riding time. It does not mean they are averaging that speed which seems to be a confusion point with many that post on EBR.

Should someone living in a city with 6% downhill grades have to get licensed and insured because their coasting speeds are in the range you think is just too fast? Too many people just ignore the facts.

 

[AHicks]

You seem to imply that 20mph is "fast enough" going down a hill on a bike. Do you understand that if that hill is over a 3 percent downhill grade that most riders would have to be braking the entire time down that hill to not go faster than 20mph. A 6 percent downhill grade results in speed around 30mph with no pedaling which is somewhat a common grade in many cities. People suggesting that bikes should not be allowed to go over 20 mph should be demanding that all cities eliminate any downhill with over a 3 percent downhill grade or demand auto-engaging brakes on bikes.

Ken, as somebody that spends a lot of time in hills, I can tell you that you are preaching to the choir. If you allow yourself to build up a speed of 30mph going downhill, you are just inviting disaster. Bikes, any bikes, are not going to stop well once they get going that fast. On top of that, stuff can happen really fast at those kind of speeds, like a dog/kid/deer walking out in front of you. A bump/pot hole, even a rabbit or a squirrel can remove you from your bike at that kind of speed. It's for that reason I don't allow myself over about anything 25mph tops, and that's only with a clear field of view.

I'm not going to waste the band width explaining how to control your speed going down hill. I think if you haven't figured that out by now I'm wasting our time.

Do as you like, but don't believe for a second most people are going to endorse doing that.

 

[Ken M]

Ken, as somebody that spends a lot of time in hills, I can tell you that you are preaching to the choir. If you allow yourself to build up a speed of 30mph going downhill, you are just inviting disaster. Bikes, any bikes, are not going to stop well once they get going that fast. On top of that, stuff can happen really fast at those kind of speeds, like a dog/kid/deer walking out in front of you. A bump/pot hole, even a rabbit or a squirrel can remove you from your bike at that kind of speed. It's for that reason I don't allow myself over about anything 25mph tops, and that's only with a clear field of view.

I'm not going to waste the band width explaining how to control your speed going down hill. I think if you haven't figured that out by now I'm wasting our time.

Do as you like, but don't believe for a second most people are going to endorse doing that.

I'm not endorsing anything. I'm just pointing out the huge impact hills have on top bike speed. Everyone seems so freaked out about ebikes assisting beyond 20mph when a 6% hill results in a coasting speed of 30mph. Just a fact that is totally ignored. Seems to me that limiting ebike assist speed to 20mph is the same as saying no bike should be allowed to ride down any hill with greater than a 3% incline because that hill assists past 20mph.

Anyone that rides on 2 wheels understands the risks that brings. I road a 120hp motorcycle for 20 years and never had scratch. I went down on an icy wood bridge on a compliant 750W ebike and broke 3 cervical vertebrae so I know what a mistake can cost when on 2 wheels but I'm still going to point out the physics that make some of the arguments against ebikes assisting past 20mph look illogical. Wow...and I'm not even engaging on how stupid the Class 1 pedal-assist Class 2 throttle-assist segregation is (mind-blowing stupid but let's not go there again as I understand PFBs is so proud).

Listen. I point out the physics because I think so many do not understand what the historical non-ebike bike speeds have been. I know for a fact that some riders during the tour de france are nearing 70mph on downhill mountain passes (I think they recently made a certain tuck method illegal to limit how aerodynamic riders can get).

By the way a dog or deer can take down a motorcycle rider just as easily as a biker and I'm sure motorcycles spend a great deal of time over 30mph.

I enter these debates on ebike speed because I believe we need an effective human scale transportation solution more then we need to limit ebike assist speeds to 20mph. I'm certain the oil and auto industry were behind the 15mph assist speed limit in EU and then People for Bikes were turned into a lobby organization by the same powers to push the 3 class legislation.

 

[AHicks]

Not to be (too) mean, but the issue I see is you're overstating the obvious over and over again. I get you have an agenda, but geez......

 

[m@Robertson]

I understand your point about riding at traffic speed, but is there any evidence that doing so is safer? I suspect you'll find it's the opposite - the faster the biker goes, the more the risk of serious injury. But maybe not? IDK.

I do think being visible - bright clothing, proper reflectors and safety lights are far more important than riding "with the flow of traffic", but again, maybe not?

Regardless, my initial concern is still valid. The faster you go, the more kinetic energy you carry, which in turn can do more damage (harm) to yourself and to others. If a rider wants lots of power to move them faster, that threat should be tempered with proper licensing and insurance.

The determination has already long-since been made that a 28 mph electric-assisted bicycle is legally acceptable. That train has left the station. There isn't going to be a license/registration issue there. The caveat of the 28 mph limit is that such bicycles are not allowed on shared-use paths. You ride it on roads in the bike lane at 28 mph. And you have a helmet requirement. Done.

All this speeding out of control stuff is just nonsense. You ride at the speed that is safe which frankly can be 30 mph. The 28 mph limit is an assist limit, not a speed limit. the speed limit is never more than what is safe for conditions, or the road speed limit, whichever is less. If you are not comfortable at 28, by all means feel free to go slower.

And yes, its safer to ride with traffic near traffic speeds for the simple reason that your closing rates with 2-ton cars around you are MUCH slower. A relative crawl, even. Despite the increase in traffic volume, I am loads safer going 28 mph with vehicles traveling with me at 25-30 than I am when they can go 40. Just think about the amount of warning a vehicle has when I am merging into the main traffic of a street in order to make a left turn in the turn lane.

 

[m@Robertson]

Get people pedaling on bikes in the city - on the road - to do a job (get to work, go to store etc.) for six months. Put them on a bicycle made for the task rather than some recreational trail rider. Do that for awhile and then come back and post. We'd see a lot less huffing and puffing.

Too many neighborhood trail riders opining on something that is a different world than they know.

 

[Ken M]

Not to be (too) mean, but the issue I see is you're overstating the obvious over and over again. I get you have an agenda, but geez......

Obviously, I'm pretty passionate on the power/speed and regulatory aspects of ebikes. I don't have $millions$ to push regulatory capture like People for Bikes did to get the 3 class system adopted in so many states. I believe they had a hidden agenda while mine is simple and totally out in the open - I want HR727 that passed one vote short of both house and senate consensus to be the definition for a "low speed electric bicycle" to be use regulated as a bicycle (that was the intent as I have had conversations with the lawyer that worked with Malcolm Currie for 6 years to wrestle this product segment away from the NHTSA). For 12+ years HR727 was considered by most states as the "use" acceptance standard for ebikes (I understand that was prior to their rapid sales ascent).

 

[tomjasz]

I'm blessed to be able to cross town on 80% bike path. My 20MPH beats the Ms in her cage at 30-35.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Zumbro Street & East 7th Street to HyVee / Westgate Shopping Center

www.google.com

 

[Ken M]

Get people pedaling on bikes in the city - on the road - to do a job (get to work, go to store etc.) for six months. Put them on a bicycle made for the task rather than some recreational trail rider. Do that for awhile and then come back and post. We'd see a lot less huffing and puffing.

Too many neighborhood trail riders opining on something that is a different world than they know.

Yes Yes .... Far too many recreational trail / mtn. bikers keep throwing out opinions on ebike performance for urban use that they know nothing about. Many have said they feel their trail access could be taken away if the 3-class system was tossed out (HR727 intent was to define a Low Speed Electric Bicycle (LSEB) as just a bike for use regulation by the states (including trails - keep in mind people riding trails are very aware of safe riding speeds)).

The fact that the 3-class system requires that class 3 ebikes be harmonized with EU speed pedelecs is proof that People for Bikes did not have someone in the room actually thinking before moving forward with pushing the legislation. Requiring a class 3 ebike to be a pedelec and to only be used on roads and street bike lanes where all other vehicles have gas pedals or throttles makes ZERO sense (one thing you will never see is someone at People for Bikes defending that).

 

[Sweetwater]

Yes Yes .... Far too many recreational trail / mtn. bikers keep throwing out opinions on ebike performance for urban use that they know nothing about. Many have said they feel their trail access could be taken away if the 3-class system was tossed out (HR727 intent was to define a Low Speed Electric Bicycle (LSEB) as just a bike for use regulation by the states (including trails - keep in mind people riding trails are very aware of safe riding speeds)).

The fact that the 3-class system requires that class 3 ebikes be harmonized with EU speed pedelecs is proof that People for Bikes did not have someone in the room actually thinking before moving forward with pushing the legislation. Requiring a class 3 ebike to be a pedelec and to only be used on roads and street bike lanes where all other vehicles have gas pedals or throttles makes ZERO sense (one thing you will never see is someone at People for Bikes defending that).

I think you came to the wrong thread to put out your agenda.
Much of my riding is not on trails and I live in a mountainous area so I'm more than familiar with elevation changes and their results.
I'm a fairly big guy and thought the 28mph pedelec was what I needed.
Nope, I'd rather have the 20 mph cutout and be reminded of my speed.
And urban, suburban, rural ebikes have great access right now with the 3 Class system.
Yes, I know that there are now crossover bikes with throttles that ignore the 28 mph limit.
I don't like riding with them so I don't.
And I don't much care for the Bafanng approach of overpowering the 2 wheels they are attached to.
The ebikes they produce are heavy, not maneuverable and don't fit the areas I ride.

 

[Ken M]

I think you came to the wrong thread to put out your agenda.
Much of my riding is not on trails and I live in a mountainous area so I'm more than familiar with elevation changes and their results.
I'm a fairly big guy and thought the 28mph pedelec was what I needed.
Nope, I'd rather have the 20 mph cutout and be reminded of my speed.
And urban, suburban, rural ebikes have great access right now with the 3 Class system.
Yes, I know that there are now crossover bikes with throttles that ignore the 28 mph limit.
I don't like riding with them so I don't.
And I don't much care for the Bafanng approach of overpowering the 2 wheels they are attached to.
The ebikes they produce are heavy, not maneuverable and don't fit the areas I ride.

Why is favoring the 2002 HR727 some crazy agenda? The definition was written by a Phd Electrical engineer that understood the power / speed relationship better than me and everyone on EBR so I just think all us that want the best future for ebikes should consider understanding it and what the intent of the bill was.

That's fine if you want to ride around under 20mph everywhere but does that mean all other riders should be same. Is an ebiker going 28mph on a long commute really an issue (even if they are controlling the assist level via a throttle and not a PAS ebike)?

 

[AHicks]

Why is favoring the 2002 HR727 some crazy agenda? The definition was written by a Phd Electrical engineer that understood the power / speed relationship better than me and everyone on EBR so I just think all us that want the best future for ebikes should consider understanding it and what the intent of the bill was.

That's fine if you want to ride around under 20mph everywhere but does that mean all other riders should be same. Is an ebiker going 28mph on a long commute really an issue (even if they are controlling the assist level via a throttle and not a PAS ebike)?

On the bold, and your agenda in mind, please explain the relevance? Why in the world would throttle vs. PAS make any difference? Is this ANOTHER agenda?

 

[tomjasz]

I'm not endorsing anything.

Not worth engaging. It’s never about consensus rather about who’s right or who’s more insightful. Exactly what’s crazy about life these days. My way or the highway posters, yawn…

 

[Ken M]

On the bold, and your agenda in mind, please explain the relevance? Why in the world would throttle vs. PAS make any difference? Is this ANOTHER agenda?

If someone releases an ebike with a throttle that only function when the rider is pedaling is that a throttle or a PAS ebike? My only point is I have no clue why how the assist is regulated determines compliance for use by the 3-class system. I don't know of an example where a state has defined exactly what establishes a pedal-assist ebike. Is it anything that requires the rider to be pedaling?

I'm an engineer so my agenda is just having good regulation of a technology that should provide merits way beyond just trail riding for recreation.

 

[Ken M]

Not worth engaging. It’s never about consensus rather about who’s right or who’s more insightful. Exactly what’s crazy about life these days. My way or the highway posters, yawn…

I did not write or work on HR727. You bring up consensus ... that bill passed one single vote short of full house and senate consensus. It is the definition that was a close to consensus as any of us will likely ever see and yet I'm made out to be the bad guy on many EBR threads because I support it and so many have drank the 3-class koolaid. In debating this subject there is a right and wrong.

 

[d3drturner]

The 3 class laws are nonsense. On our bike path the speed limit is 15 mph. All of the plastic pants crowd on 13 lb carbon bikes are exceeding that limit continuously and dangerously, yet there is no enforcement. Why would it matter if a class 3 ebike is riding 10 mph on the bike path? Yet that is illegal. The law should be that you must be riding safely. If you're not, then you should be put in the stockade and then remedial training until you can learn to ride safely. There is some kind of belief in magic numbers. Look at a school zone for instance. The speed limit is 25 mph. If toddlers are wandering around, is it safe to even be driving 25? Probably not. 25 is the limit but 3 mph is more likely the safe speed. There once were prima facie speed limit laws, which meant that you could drive any speed that was safe, provided that you could prove that it was safe, if questioned. That reliance on rational thinking and evidence was removed because the justice system could not be bothered with weighing evidence. There was an appeals court case in Ohio: "1967, State v. Bratten, 14 Ohio App. 2d 93. Bratten, charged with traveling at a speed greater than was reasonably safe and proper (80 in 70 mph zone), provided evidence that the car was traveling in a manner which was reasonable and proper under the circumstances. Lower court ruling reversed and charge dismissed." That was the last of that. Enter the age of magic numbers aka "maximum limits." Now it's applied to ebikes with a nonsensical 3 class system. Sad but true.

 

[rich c]

The 3 class laws are nonsense. On our bike path the speed limit is 15 mph. All of the plastic pants crowd on 13 lb carbon bikes are exceeding that limit continuously and dangerously, yet there is no enforcement. Why would it matter if a class 3 ebike is riding 10 mph on the bike path? Yet that is illegal. The law should be that you must be riding safely. If you're not, then you should be put in the stockade and then remedial training until you can learn to ride safely. There is some kind of belief in magic numbers. Look at a school zone for instance. The speed limit is 25 mph. If toddlers are wandering around, is it safe to even be driving 25? Probably not. 25 is the limit but 3 mph is more likely the safe speed. There once were prima facie speed limit laws, which meant that you could drive any speed that was safe, provided that you could prove that it was safe, if questioned. That reliance on rational thinking and evidence was removed because the justice system could not be bothered with weighing evidence. There was an appeals court case in Ohio: "1967, State v. Bratten, 14 Ohio App. 2d 93. Bratten, charged with traveling at a speed greater than was reasonably safe and proper (80 in 70 mph zone), provided evidence that the car was traveling in a manner which was reasonable and proper under the circumstances. Lower court ruling reversed and charge dismissed." That was the last of that. Enter the age of magic numbers aka "maximum limits." Now it's applied to ebikes with a nonsensical 3 class system. Sad but true.

You're new, but this has been hashed over for years in this forum.

 

[Ken M]

You're new, but this has been hashed over for years in this forum.

Hashed over but there are still a those on this forum that defend the 3-class system regardless of how bad it is vs an LSEB as a bike as defined in HR727. d3drturner is dead right about path speed limits as being the correct way to address speed and not the brain dead assist limits promoted by People of Bikes with lobby money from the auto industry. No one that cares about the future of ebikes should support that bad legislation and just support HR727 LSEB as a bike to be "use" regulated as a bike by states as was intended. The bill passed one vote short of congressional consensus so the states spoke in 2002 what was acceptable and it was still working fine in most states before 3-class muddied the water.