People for Bikes: Progress on Ebike Laws in the US

[Phil Agur]

I'm opposed to the eBikes laws currently adopted in California.

The dealers are pretty happy with all classes of product being defined as up to 750 watts. That makes it easy to reconfigure inventory on the fly to be a type 1, 2, or 3 but it doesn't serve the cycling community well at all. I want the type 1 definition taken down in both power and speed so a pedal-assist only eBike only performs in a humanly possible manner. Even professional team cyclists can't sustain 750 watts for very long.

I recently watched a GCN challenge video showing a monumental climb road bike vs Mountain eBike. It was not a fair comparison at all but the road bike was equipped with power meters giving insight into what fit humans can actually do.

The road rider was looking to produce just over 250 watts and commented about being drained pushing 287 watts. Leave the type 2 and type 3 alone serving utility and commuter markets but let's get a little daylight in the sport cyclist spec. If 287 watts will climb the Col De La Madone then 250 watts of boost is huge in a pedal-assist only format eBike. We want eBikes that are light well-performing bicycles first with an efficient very moderate boost motor that cuts off boost at bike trail speed limits or just below. Let's give lightweight, 250-watt, long-range type 1 eBikes room to breath.

 

[tomjasz]

NO MORE RULES. I’m firmly against more of a nanny than the restrictive federal limits. 250W will NOT haul my groceries and cargo. Some of us use bikes to avoid riding in cages. Power output of an acoustic has no relevance here.

 

[Phil Agur]

Then you ride a Type 1? I went through a whole discussion locally and the eBike rider was very dug in on no more rules until he revealed he'd built a custom 1500 watt motorbike that went 36 MPH. Since his unit didn't qualify as an eBike at all he really didn't have any skin in the game when it came to Type 1 definitions.

 

[tomjasz]

Never type 1. They do not serve my needs. Many days I CAN'T pedal. Here in MN the limit is 750W and 20MPH. I have 250W, 350W, 750W, and 1000W motors. All the faster motors dumbed down to run 20-25MPH max. So here come the snobs telling me how I should ride and giving me limits on power? No throttle? NO!

Sorry, I'm happy to have California do whatever. My folding BBS01B 250W 36V would qualify as a type 1.

 

[tomjasz]

Let's give lightweight, 250-watt, long-range type 1 eBikes room to breath.

I'm struggling, honestly confused, trying to understand just what that means? Type 1 is hard to find? You don't like users with a throttle? Someone is going to fast on a shared trail for you? No insult or sarcasm intended. I just hear someone, apparently a healthy rider, that's happy with a mild assist. And now I should be? Or am I completely off here?

 

[Phil Agur]

The current type 1 definition is 750 watts, no throttle (that's type 2) with a 20 MPH cut off.

Mine is an Orbea Gain F30 which is a 250 watt eBikemotion drive with a 20 MPH cut off. This is a flat bar hybrid. They didn't publish the F30's weight but it's drop bar aluminum frame stable mate is listed as 30.5 lbs. The more exotic carbon fiber M30 Gravel bike comes in at 28lbs.

No one in California is enforcing any eBike rules, but it would simplify the buying process greatly if there was a sensible entry level definition. There's been some big pedestrian vs bike crashes locally. So far not eBikes but there was an 11 million dollar judgement recently against a pedestrian who caused a tandem to crash on our multi use (bike) trail. I'm concerned if it had been an eBike capable of exceeding the posted speed limit they would have said the eBike was speeding changing the outcome. If that happens I'd also expect a backlash against eBikes using the trail from at least one of the agencies administering it use.

Much of the trail is posted no motorized vehicles but it's accepted for now an eBike (within the eBike definitions) is not a motorized vehicle. Having a type 1 designation that fits in the performance window of a "normal cyclist" would be something to defend not having a complete ban.

 

[scottonabike]

Check out this video I did at their annual eBike summit. Has some great info about the direction they're planning on going for 2020.

 

[Phil Agur]

Sadly, a 3Kw motor on a Walmart bike IS dangerous. No one is being " mamby-pambies". These ill-advised builds are what will bring more regulations and get all the press. Not unlike OSHA, Dumb rules, mostly common sense rules, with BIG fines, because common sense ain't so common.

California is very clear. All bikes with motors are mopeds and must be inspected and registered with the DMV as a motor vehicle unless they fit within the narrow definition of an ebike. They even list mopeds on their eBike classification chart so you can see where everything else goes.

 

[Phil Agur]

California is very clear. All bikes with motors are mopeds and must be inspected and registered with the DMV as a motor vehicle unless they fit within the narrow definition of an ebike. They even list mopeds on their eBike classification chart so you can see where everything else goes.

 

[tomjasz]

Funny, and most of the high speed bike and scooter sellers are in California. Luna even posted videos of bikes AND scooters at 40mph PLUS!

 

[Dewey]

Funny, and most of the high speed bike and scooter sellers are in California. Luna even posted videos of bikes AND scooters at 40mph PLUS!

Yep, and Juiced bikes in CA tested the waters 2 years ago with an unlimited “off road mode” on their CrossCurrent which they still labeled with a Class 3 sticker, when I pointed this out in an email to the CA Office of the Attorney General they were not interested in enforcing their own ebike law, so as a result for 2020 Juiced are introducing a 30mph “Hyper” variant of their scorpion model using heavy duty moped components that looks identical to the Class 3 variant. It’s the refusal to enforce at the point of sale that undermines the 3-Class ebike regulations.

 

[Phil Agur]

I don't take exception to very fast or powerful eBikes. By the numbers, I rode a 70,000 watt (gas-powered) two-wheeler that covered a 1/4 mile in 10.25 seconds and ended my Silicon Valley commute dropping out of a 120 MPH wheelie for years. So who I'm I to talk?

What I take exception to is meeting folks my age (pushing 70) being talked into heavy overpowered eBikes that quickly become a detriment to getting out and riding for them. That's why I'm pushing to pare off the type one definition rolling down both power and speed. You can get a 30.5 lbs aluminum-framed eBike that does a no drag disconnect when off. Put some decent low rolling resistance street tires on it and it gets lighter and riding it becomes a very close experience to its non-eBike stablemate. I have a friend who purchased a 28-pound carbon eBike while having a health issue that now rides it while off. He rides 40-60 miles daily, but he's a 100,000-mile plus lifetime kind of guy. Another friend purchased the classic 750-watt tank (60 plus pounds) with no attempt to design efficiency and walk-assist. When he couldn't handle the weight he gave up on riding. He found more weight and more power was more limiting.

If there was a type of definition tailored for use on Class 1 bicycle trails (paved 10 foot wide, not adjacent to a rode) it would be easy to guide seniors, like me, toward a class of eBikes that serves their needs. Mine, an Orbea Gain F30 actually watches my heart rate and if I start to overexert it will notch the boost up on its own.

If I could adjust the cut-off speed down by boost level it would be perfect. When I hit a headwind, a rise, or a steep hill my speed would fall under pre-set cut-offs turning boost back on. On the flat, I can exceed the trail's 15 MPH speed limit without any assist. Since it only cuts off at 20 MPH it becomes fussy to manually turn it on and off constantly as conditions change.

 

[Browneye]

I'm confused...I thought that's what Class1 was - easy riding, speed limited, pedalic. They are still very popular in CA, likely sell the most since that's what you get from the 'big-3'.
And you're claiming that bikes are running over pedestrians on bike paths?

 

[Phil Agur]

I'm confused...I thought that's what Class1 was - easy riding, speed limited, pedalic. They are still very popular in CA, likely sell the most since that's what you get from the 'big-3'.
And you're claiming that bikes are running over pedestrians on bike paths?

They were easy riding, speed limited, pedalic. Now the laws have been changed so unless you hunt out an import all they are selling is 750 watts on a heavy assembly and the speed was bumped up as well beyond easy.

In the area I ride in there was recently an 11 million dollar judgement in a pedestrian vs cyclist accident but it was the reverse of what you were thinking. The judgement was against the pedestrian for being on the wrong side and trying to correct that at the last second causing the crash.

The only other pedestrian vs cyclist crash I'm aware of the pedestrian was in the right place but instead of letting the cyclist resolve the head on meet as required they crossed to the other side, stepping in front of a second cyclist to close to stop.

We consider Easy Riding to be 10-12 MPH and have a 20 mile ride just for that. It's not unusual to for a (new to cycling) guest to find it challenging. IMHO, type 1 should have a lower cut off than 20. I think dealers have driven the changes that make a type 1 & type 2 identical except for the twist throttle that can be a dealer option.

 

[tomjasz]

I'm confused...I thought that's what Class1 was - easy riding, speed limited, pedalic. They are still very popular in CA, likely sell the most since that's what you get from the 'big-3'.
And you're claiming that bikes are running over pedestrians on bike paths?

Hopefully this left coast rating system stays there...

 

[Mass Deduction]

I'm opposed to the eBikes laws currently adopted in California.

The dealers are pretty happy with all classes of product being defined as up to 750 watts. That makes it easy to reconfigure inventory on the fly to be a type 1, 2, or 3 but it doesn't serve the cycling community well at all. I want the type 1 definition taken down in both power and speed so a pedal-assist only eBike only performs in a humanly possible manner. Even professional team cyclists can't sustain 750 watts for very long.

I recently watched a GCN challenge video showing a monumental climb road bike vs Mountain eBike. It was not a fair comparison at all but the road bike was equipped with power meters giving insight into what fit humans can actually do.

The road rider was looking to produce just over 250 watts and commented about being drained pushing 287 watts. Leave the type 2 and type 3 alone serving utility and commuter markets but let's get a little daylight in the sport cyclist spec. If 287 watts will climb the Col De La Madone then 250 watts of boost is huge in a pedal-assist only format eBike. We want eBikes that are light well-performing bicycles first with an efficient very moderate boost motor that cuts off boost at bike trail speed limits or just below. Let's give lightweight, 250-watt, long-range type 1 eBikes room to breath.

Isn't a road rider producing 250w and a motor using 750w an entirely different calculation? One is rating power output, and the other part of the measurement of power consumption? Isn't 750w on an e-bike more akin to the number of calories the road rider burned, eg. part of the measurement of energy consumed by the motor rather than a measurement of the force the motor generated? I felt the GCN video failed to understand this distinction. But it's entirely possible that I'm the one who's in the wrong, and I'm ready to be educated if so!

When it comes to power draw, I am again reminded that a 10 watt LED lightbulb produces a lot more light than a 60 watt incandescent lighbulb. Ditto with e-bikes, where newer generations of e-bike motors are doing more with less wattage. Since it's a stark example, I like to cite the upgrade from the Shimano E6000 motor to the Shimano E6100 motor, where torque went up 20% yet range also went up 25% (all on the exact same battery), but there are other examples from other companies we could cite just as easily. In that example the new motor was delivering more power despite using less electricity (hence the range improvement). So average wattage usage went down, but power/torque delivery went up. More torque per watt.

So I think the wattage usage of an e-bike motor, and the wattage output of a cyclist using a Powertap, are not related things at all.

As to your point about the class system, I was surprised that they didn't leave a place in the class system for 25 km/h bikes (class 0?) because millions of those are sold around the world, and it occurs to me that some companies might want to offer them for sale for the reasons you specified. That said, one of the most popular modifications people talk about when it comes to derestricting e-bikes is swapping from 25 km/h to 32 km/h. *shrug*

I find 32 km/h something I can hold relatively easily on a nice lightweight muscle bike, but I recognize that's highly variable from one cyclist to another. I therefore feel that a class 1 or class 2 bike is moving at a human-powered speed. I don't think I've ever been passed by a class 1 or class 2 e-bike when I was using a nice lightweight muscle bike.

Class 3 on the other hand, you've got a serious point there. Only a tiny percentage of extremely powerful cyclists on very lightweight and extremely expensive bikes could come anywhere close to matching a powerful class 3 bike.

 

[Mass Deduction]

Hopefully this left coast rating system stays there...

This is in use by 24 out of 50 U.S. states already: https://peopleforbikes.org/our-work/e-bikes/

So-called "model legislation" (fully embracing the 3 class system) has been passed by states as diverse as California and Texas. This is far from a "left coast rating system". That doesn't mean you have to like it, but with many of the very populous, and many of the geographically very large, states already on board I think the ship has sailed. For better or for worse.

For better if you ask me, I wish we had that degree of legislative clarity in Canada. I think the 3-class system sets out good regulations for insurance-free e-bikes.

 

[Dewey]

This is in use by 24 out of 50 U.S. states already

The BPSA/People for bikes mentioned recently the 3-class law is in place in 23 states, and they are going to lobby another 14 state assemblies in 2020: Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Virginia.

 

[Mass Deduction]

The BPSA/People for bikes mentioned recently the 3-class law is in place in 23 states, and they are going to lobby another 14 state assemblies in 2020: Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Virginia.

Perhaps California marks the 24th then. Interesting to know which ones are next on their lobbying list. I wonder why those ones? With 26 to choose from, why are those the top remaining targets for them?

 

[Mass Deduction]

[…]
We consider Easy Riding to be 10-12 MPH and have a 20 mile ride just for that. It's not unusual to for a (new to cycling) guest to find it challenging. IMHO, type 1 should have a lower cut off than 20. I think dealers have driven the changes that make a type 1 & type 2 identical except for the twist throttle that can be a dealer option.

The part that surprises me is that most e-bikes cannot be set to a lower top-speed than their maximum. Maybe I want to set a lower top speed to get longer range on a long e-bike trip, for example. On a muscle bike I used to average about 19 km/h over an 8 hour ride. So I'd be perfectly happy with a 25 km/h ride like that. BUT, I don't want to be limited to 25 km/h all the time, hence the need to set the bike down to that. I understand them not letting people increase maximum speed however they wish, but not letting them *reduce* the maximum speed? Seems wrong, somehow. I guess they're worried that letting people change top speed even to lower it would be opening a pandora's box?

It's just so strange to me that you'd have to de-restrict a bike to *reduce* the top speed. So weird.