No Bafang used by mainstream bike manufactures.

[m@Robertson]

... I do have a preference for the simplicity of a throttle. I just see the merits of keeping a bike simple and allowing programmers to decide the assist level based on sensor parameters (torque, speed, cadence, gear, hearth rate, slope, etc.) is at best a guessing game because they do not have a way to know exactly what assist the rider wants continuously. Their egos think they can achieve this but they can't. It's a fools errand but I'm not saying their are not merits to PAS systems (they can achieve more traditional bike-like feeling).

Thats fine but don't make the mistake of designing a product with that bias unless you also recognize you are cutting out a significant swath of your potential customer base, and that customer base is not confused about what they want or why. You're the one with the narrower vision. Which again is fine if you are a single rider deciding how you personally feel like riding.

The classic finger-wagging line of "why don't you just buy a motorcycle' is best answered by saying 'show me a motorcycle you can pedal'. Without being able to make that response, you don't have a good answer to the question.

Gearing of the bicycle remains critical. Not for the motor but for the rider. Again... speed is irrelevant. As a rider I'm happiest at around 65 rpm. If I am going on flat ground I want 65 rpm. If go up a gentle incline, I want 65 rpm. If I am going up a steep hill, I want 65 rpm. My speed at these different points is incidental to achieving my preferred cadence. This is not my idea its the common practice, varied by personal preference. The number changes but not the practice of maintaining a set cadence. Give someone gearing they have to ride at 40 rpms if they prefer 70 and that bike is a failure in that circumstance regardless of what the motor thinks.

I Hate Ebike Torque-Sensing (maybe you should too)

Well, I don’t actually hate it, but it is a technology rooted in cycling’s past, whose existence was created to market a product to legacy riders.

talesontwowheels.com

 

[mschwett]

You don't need a lot of gears to get that exercise. If you are comfortable say with a cadence range of 40-100rpm an ebike is probably OK with just 3 gears. If a human/rider was capable of say a 1000rpm then we'd have bikes with small front chain rings and large rear cogs to always magnify the torque to the rear wheel. There really is a lot to this subject but few ebike companies really talk about what are weaknesses to a mid-drive for urban mobility when using gearing optimized for the rider. One virtually every mopen or motorcycle you will see smaller front chain rings because that increases the torque to the rear wheel and the motor has no issue with powerband at the higher drive shaft RPMs.

this is wrong in so many ways. 40rpm?!? to efficiently use your muscles (which requires oxygen, thus also your heart and lungs) a much higher cadence than that is required. there is a reason that general purpose bikes used for touring, fitness, etc have a range of gearing to allow a cadence around 90rpm, plus or minus.

if you want a moped or electric motorcycle, just buy one. they are not the subject of this forum! the “disadvantages” you speak of are not disadvantages.

 

[AHicks]

I suppose I have a little different view. I ride an e-bike because I want some assist (help), in varying amounts, based on the conditions I'm in and how big a hurry I'm in. I can do this varying just the amount of power to the motor while using just a few gears. I'll say seven max. KISS!!

If YOU want more exercise, ride it in a taller gear and/or turn the power down. EZPZ......

 

[Dewey]

I Hate Ebike Torque-Sensing (maybe you should too)

Well, I don’t actually hate it, but it is a technology rooted in cycling’s past, whose existence was created to market a product to legacy riders.

talesontwowheels.com

Good blog post @m@Robertson , what are your thoughts on automatic gearing like the enviolo automatiq that let the rider set and keep riding at a preferred cadence while motors in the shifter alter the gear ratio depending on terrain?

 

[m@Robertson]

I suppose I have a little different view. I ride an e-bike because I want some assist (help), in varying amounts, based on the conditions I'm in and how big a hurry I'm in. I can do this varying just the amount of power to the motor while using just a few gears. I'll say seven max. KISS!!

If YOU want more exercise, ride it in a taller gear and/or turn the power down. EZPZ......

Yes thats what do as well. You tailor your assist level to the level of effort you want to exert, and vary your gears as a part of that process. But more gears are better for accomplishing this than less when you are focused on what keeps the rider happy and not what keeps the motor happy. Unquestioningly the motor needs fewer gears if we are deciding to prioritize what the motor wants.

Particularly in hilly terrain, if we are prioritizing the rider, there is effectively no change in the gear count as the right gear varies depending on the slope of the hill.

In Fresno, even then, I'm still good with maybe 5 gears (that many because of the steady, strong afternoon winds that effectively give me an unending slope depending on what direction of the compass I am heading) In Pacific Grove though, where essentially nothing is flat until you get down to the shoreline, I use the gamut.

what are your thoughts on automatic gearing like the enviolo automatiq that let the rider set and keep riding at a preferred cadence while motors in the shifter alter the gear ratio depending on terrain?

Honestly I have none since I don't have any experience with them. I will say I have an inherent distrust of machinery deciding for me what I want. But maybe its great stuff. I think if I take a technology leap its going to be a Kindernay and a belt. But that means I have a couple grand burning a hole in my pocket. Considering I just wrote my annual checks to the IRS and CA FTB today... there is zero chance of that happening anytime soon.

 

[Ken M]

Thats fine but don't make the mistake of designing a product with that bias unless you also recognize you are cutting out a significant swath of your potential customer base, and that customer base is not confused about what they want or why. You're the one with the narrower vision. Which again is fine if you are a single rider deciding how you personally feel like riding.

The classic finger-wagging line of "why don't you just buy a motorcycle' is best answered by saying 'show me a motorcycle you can pedal'. Without being able to make that response, you don't have a good answer to the question.

Gearing of the bicycle remains critical. Not for the motor but for the rider. Again... speed is irrelevant. As a rider I'm happiest at around 65 rpm. If I am going on flat ground I want 65 rpm. If go up a gentle incline, I want 65 rpm. If I am going up a steep hill, I want 65 rpm. My speed at these different points is incidental to achieving my preferred cadence. This is not my idea its the common practice, varied by personal preference. The number changes but not the practice of maintaining a set cadence. Give someone gearing they have to ride at 40 rpms if they prefer 70 and that bike is a failure in that circumstance regardless of what the motor thinks.

I Hate Ebike Torque-Sensing (maybe you should too)

Well, I don’t actually hate it, but it is a technology rooted in cycling’s past, whose existence was created to market a product to legacy riders.

talesontwowheels.com

I think what ebike manufacturers should do is have a base model with a throttle and allow the buyers to pay for extra costs of cadence- and/or throttle-assist. The buyers that only want a simple throttle assist benefit because they are not forced to buy what they don't want and those that want it will know the cost and they may change their minds and go with simple.

 

[retiredNH]

I think what ebike manufacturers should do is have a base model with a throttle and allow the buyers to pay for extra costs of cadence- and/or throttle-assist. The buyers that only want a simple throttle assist benefit because they are not forced to buy what they don't want and those that want it will know the cost and they may change their minds and go with simple.

Exactly what car mfgrs did some years ago - endless options available. Have you looked lately?

What, exactly, is your beef? That we ebike customers are too varied, that we don't want your one size fits all bike designed by engineers who don't listen to riders?

 

[Ken M]

Exactly what car mfgrs did some years ago - endless options available. Have you looked lately?

What, exactly, is your beef? That we ebike customers are too varied, that we don't want your one size fits all bike designed by engineers who don't listen to riders?

No real beef, I just think it's very difficult to have a program determine the assist level that a rider wants with accuracy so I tend to tend to think it's best to just provide the rider direct/immediate control via a throttle. The rider can still pedal with as much exertion as wanted.

 

[theemartymac]

I think the obvious answer to Torque vs Cadence is rather simple - BOTH!

Why should I have to choose, when it's easy enough for a bike to use both. A simple setting or button press to toggle between them, and I can choose to have the bike in cadence mode for easy cruising, or torque mode for exercise and/or 'boost' mode for passing/climbing, etc. Even a hybrid mode that starts smooth, has low output at low speed, and automatically increases at a set speed (set by me at will of course). Gentle and predictable when in mixed company with pedestrians, but a steady powerful assist when I'm up at cruising speed.

This need not be a tough choice. We have the technology - we can demand more!! lol

 

[HCooke]

My Pedego has both and a throttle also!

 

[AHicks]

Yes thats what do as well. You tailor your assist level to the level of effort you want to exert, and vary your gears as a part of that process. But more gears are better for accomplishing this than less when you are focused on what keeps the rider happy and not what keeps the motor happy. Unquestioningly the motor needs fewer gears if we are deciding to prioritize what the motor wants.

Particularly in hilly terrain, if we are prioritizing the rider, there is effectively no change in the gear count as the right gear varies depending on the slope of the hill.

In Fresno, even then, I'm still good with maybe 5 gears (that many because of the steady, strong afternoon winds that effectively give me an unending slope depending on what direction of the compass I am heading) In Pacific Grove though, where essentially nothing is flat until you get down to the shoreline, I use the gamut.


Honestly I have none since I don't have any experience with them. I will say I have an inherent distrust of machinery deciding for me what I want. But maybe its great stuff. I think if I take a technology leap its going to be a Kindernay and a belt. But that means I have a couple grand burning a hole in my pocket. Considering I just wrote my annual checks to the IRS and CA FTB today... there is zero chance of that happening anytime soon.

With enough power available, the right gear can be the one you are in. If pedaling becomes more difficult (and you aren't up for the extra exercise) an option to a gear change would be an increase in power.....

 

[m@Robertson]

I think what ebike manufacturers should do is have a base model with a throttle and allow the buyers to pay for extra costs of cadence- and/or throttle-assist. The buyers that only want a simple throttle assist benefit because they are not forced to buy what they don't want and those that want it will know the cost and they may change their minds and go with simple.

This is exactly the opposite of what the market has demonstrated it wants. Pedal assist first, throttle is secondary. You have a pattern of deciding what the world wants based on what you want, with never ending arguments to try and convince people their eyes/ears/brain are deceiving them.

 

[m@Robertson]

But this would confuse the Sh*t out of all those riders that believe in the 3 class regulatory system pushed by People for Bikes.

I think it makes perfect sense to have both and even a throttle option, but he they just didn't think about that when the drafted that bad legislation. Why they didn't just push the acceptance of HR727 is beyond me. Yes I'm goating anyone at PFBs to comment as I have for quite some time - I would just expect them to try to defend the 3-class system but just can't seem to get them to do it.

annnnnd here we go again. Shocker you found a way to worm your pet peeve into an entirely unrelated conversation.

 

[m@Robertson]

With enough power available, the right gear can be the one you are in. If pedaling becomes more difficult (and you aren't up for the extra exercise) an option to a gear change would be an increase in power.....

No it doesn't work that way. Again, speed (which is why you would go the route you are suggesting) is irrelevant to the equation given the cycling mindset. You are using power to maintain speed, which has the secondary benefit of maintaining cadence. But you are creating a host of problems by doing that, when if speed up a hill is expendable, there are no problems.

Effort has been increased and cadence decreased due to increased slope. The solution to that is entirely old school: shift gears. This increases cadence and decreases pedal effort, so your lets-say 60 rpm cadence at mild pedal pressure can be maintained. The more gears you have, the more precise your adjustment can be.

If we throw in mechanical benefits, and this is where the 'host of problems' comes in, shifting also makes the motor happier because you just reduced the lugging of that motor by increasing its allowed rpms. You have further benefited the system by reducing strain on the drivetrain.

Case in point: This one popped up in a user group just a couple of days ago. One of many. Cause: Lugging the motor up a (sandy) hill. Sure you can find ways to strengthen the drivetrain but no matter what doing that (lugging the little bugger) strains the bejesus out of it. Shifting to a bigger cog reduces that strain. This is a 30T front cog and the rider was on a big one in back so this was a major screwup on the rider's part. The motor literally tore the cog (and chain) apart.

So, yes you can solve these problems but they are problems that already have a perfectly workable solution that does the job both for the motor and the rider. They also coincide with what most conventional and even assisted riders want (remember... committed hi-po ebikers are a fringe group and not representative of the buying public). You'll need something like that Biktrix dual drive motor to make that solution viable in the real world... and for the near term at least its a unicorn. Even if its not. You will next have to change attitudes and learned behavior. This is why I think the mindset shift to cadence-based systems is going to likely take decades.

 

[m@Robertson]

I think the obvious answer to Torque vs Cadence is rather simple - BOTH!

Its already out there. The Cyc system uses torque at low rpms. Lets say you are at a standstill on a hill on a trail. What do you naturally do? Stand on the crankarm to get it going. Thats the time for a torque based response as cadence is near zilch. Then you get up and going. Cadence sensing then. And not the on/off kind. Its all automatically determined, too. I think if this is going to go mainstream it will be the big manufacturers hybridizing torque-based systems rather than the other way around.

 

[AHicks]

No it doesn't work that way. Again, speed (which is why you would go the route you are suggesting) is irrelevant to the equation given the cycling mindset. You are using power to maintain speed, which has the secondary benefit of maintaining cadence. But you are creating a host of problems by doing that, when if speed up a hill is expendable, there are no problems.

Effort has been increased and cadence decreased due to increased slope. The solution to that is entirely old school: shift gears. This increases cadence and decreases pedal effort, so your lets-say 60 rpm cadence at mild pedal pressure can be maintained. The more gears you have, the more precise your adjustment can be.

If we throw in mechanical benefits, and this is where the 'host of problems' comes in, shifting also makes the motor happier because you just reduced the lugging of that motor by increasing its allowed rpms. You have further benefited the system by reducing strain on the drivetrain.

Case in point: This one popped up in a user group just a couple of days ago. One of many. Cause: Lugging the motor up a (sandy) hill. Sure you can find ways to strengthen the drivetrain but no matter what doing that (lugging the little bugger) strains the bejesus out of it. Shifting to a bigger cog reduces that strain. This is a 30T front cog and the rider was on a big one in back so this was a major screwup on the rider's part. The motor literally tore the cog (and chain) apart.
View attachment 122335

So, yes you can solve these problems but they are problems that already have a perfectly workable solution that does the job both for the motor and the rider. They also coincide with what most conventional and even assisted riders want (remember... committed hi-po ebikers are a fringe group and not representative of the buying public). You'll need something like that Biktrix dual drive motor to make that solution viable in the real world... and for the near term at least its a unicorn. Even if its not. You will next have to change attitudes and learned behavior. This is why I think the mindset shift to cadence-based systems is going to likely take decades.

My point was regarding larger motors, which are generally run at what, maybe 10-15% capacity? How many watts are your BBSHD's generally pulling on the level?

Instead of changing gears, adding power to up the amount of power being used to even 30-50% of available power isn't going to hurt a darn thing from a load standpoint (mechanically or electrically), and that can be done while remaining at a relatively low rpm. Drag out the Grin chart and have a look.....

And I'm not insisting you ride this way! You ride any way you want. The point about dialing up the power rather than changing gears is only presented as a viable option to keep in mind. Do both if you like. Gear down AND power up! Whatever....

 

[m@Robertson]

My point was regarding larger motors, which are generally run at what, maybe 10-15% capacity? How many watts are your BBSHD's generally pulling on the level?

Almost nothing. I was looking at my Bullitt's display on the way in to work today and I was eating about 175w at a high cadence rate. Speed was right around 22-23 mph. Flat ground. I was about 4 cogs up into the 11 spd cassette for straight chainline. I have my HD set to pull up to 60% of power at higher cadence because if my cadence is fast that demonstrates I don't need the assist. High cadence for me is about 75, maybe 80 rpms. I'm more comfortable at about 60-65 with strong effort.

Coming off a stoplight though, I'm pegging the needle as I use throttle for about a two-one-thousand burst to get started. Since I'm already up into the cogs, I'm not worried about it. On that bike I get my top end from the 52T front chainring.

 

[Ken M]

annnnnd here we go again. Shocker you found a way to worm your pet peeve into an entirely unrelated conversation.

I deleted because I was wrong. Both a PAS torque and cadence hybrid system would be considered Class 1 or 3. But if a throttle is added the model would not be compliant to the 3-class legislation which is still not good for the industry in my opinion (seems to me there is no reason why an ebike with both a PAS system and throttle is not compliant.

 

[mschwett]

No real beef, I just think it's very difficult to have a program determine the assist level that a rider wants with accuracy so I tend to tend to think it's best to just provide the rider direct/immediate control via a throttle. The rider can still pedal with as much exertion as wanted.

that's why programs have options! a press of a button under the bar tape or on the bars can switch from assist which is 50% of rider input to 100% to 200% to 400%. said outputs can also be capped at a minimum or maximum. and it's still a bicycle, not an electric motorcycle.

 

[AHicks]

Almost nothing. I was looking at my Bullitt's display on the way in to work today and I was eating about 175w at a high cadence rate. Speed was right around 22-23 mph. Flat ground. I was about 4 cogs up into the 11 spd cassette for straight chainline. I have my HD set to pull up to 60% of power at higher cadence because if my cadence is fast that demonstrates I don't need the assist. High cadence for me is about 75, maybe 80 rpms. I'm more comfortable at about 60-65 with strong effort.

Coming off a stoplight though, I'm pegging the needle as I use throttle for about a two-one-thousand burst to get started. Since I'm already up into the cogs, I'm not worried about it. On that bike I get my top end from the 52T front chainring.

My point exactly. Turning up the power 1 or 2 PAS levels (as an option to downshifting) will still leave you with plenty of reserves, without tearing anything up or creating unusual wear, while maintaining your original speed and cadence level.

In fact, I've found this a really good option at low speeds/high loads to prevent stalling the bike with a missed shift.....