Statement Regarding Potential CPSC Ebike Law Preemption of 3-class Legislation

[BEC111]

Yes, I have a class 1 as well. If you have the legs you can pedal any ebike faster than its motor cutoff, sure. But you're doing so at a huge handicap (extra weight and resistance). If you're someone who is capable of cruising on a class 1 at a meaningful faster speed than its cutoff, you're probably someone who would be equally capable of pedaling a non powered bike around those speeds.

No, the world hasn't decided that 28mph is too fast to be allowed (it is the limit for class 3 bikes which are made by most major mfgs and the fastest class of bikes that a majority of states allow). I definitely think that theres a consesus that 28mph is too fast for some places that normal bikes are allowed. I personally agree with that; I love my Revolt and think class 3s have a solid place in the ebike world, but I also think its unacceptably fast for some bike infrastructure. I do not agree that average speeds on a class 3 will fall within normal unpowered bike speed ranges (very, very few cyclists are averaging north of 20mph on anything).

Here are a few segments on the W&OD (MUP near me). Its probably about the most speed friendly multiuse path in the DC area (10ft wide, old railway so very straight and generally very flat). Both are slight climbs 1-1.5% and decently long (1.35 and 2.46 miles)

Belmont climb | Strava Ride Segment in Leesburg, Virginia

www.strava.com

In 181,453 attempts, the fastest average speed ever was 23.8mph.

New Clake's Gap Climb from Rt 7 Overpass | Strava Ride Segment in Leesburg, Virginia

www.strava.com

In 103,709 attempts, the fastest average speed ever was 22.3mph.
I'll note that both of those were very likely with a friendly tailwind (its a famously windy path and most KOM hunters try and time attempts to when they get a strong wind assist). in 10+years and over a hundred thousand attempts, the best unpowered cyclists barely beat class 1s max assist speed as an average.

I just think that "28mph is totally within the average speed range of non ebikes" is a huge exaggeration. Sure, a fit roadie can go surprisingly fast, and protour riders can go insanely fast. Average cyclist speeds on most paths is nowhere near even class 1s cutoff.

My MUP and rider speeds experience.

 

[Ken M]

It’s interesting that on your class 3 bike you apparently ride as fast or faster than an analog road bike user. My Vado SL is class 3, but I can rarely reach even the 28 mph cut off speed (need to be on a flat or decent with little to no headwind).

I am regularly passed by folks on road bikes, going as much as 10 or more mph faster. And one of my regular riding buddies rides an older analog hybrid as fast or faster then I go.

My usual average speeds are around 12-15 mph. On my previous analog bike the speeds were 10-14. For me, the “2X you” assist means I can easily ride 20 miles where before even 10 miles was a challenge. I think the whole speed based class metric is odd. Mostly because of the confusion about maximum assist speed with rider speed capabilities.

OTOH, it seems there is a typically American desire to not only go fast, but to surpass the limits of their vehicles by modification or acquisition of non-compliant machines. Hot rods and super cars today, thoroughbreds and chariots in the past.

The laws seem to be intended to deal with the e-cycling hot-rodders. It comes down to, “those darn kids”!

You are touching on the same points I have been trying to make. So many seem to think that it's just so easy to cruise at 28mph on a class 3 250W ebike but the rider has to provide significant dynamic power to achieve that and sustain that speed.

You also touched on that "those darn kids" everyone mentions riding around on super fast ebikes are not riding compliant ebikes. I don't want that to impact the product regulation debate because the federal definition addresses that via the power limiting constraints of 20 mph / 170 lb rider / Level Surface. Allowing the power level that would sustain 20 mph per those constraints is a clever way to ensure that "low speed electric bicycles" can be effective urban mobility solutions while keeping them in the traditional speed range of bikes. I do think riding an ebike can significantly increase most rider's average travel speeds but the top speed typical for most riders is not actually increased (no one seems to consider the difference of improved average speed and the top speeds achieved by most riders on a typical ride which is in the 28-32 mph range if just because of some decents and tail winds).

 

[jabberwocky]

It’s interesting that on your class 3 bike you apparently ride as fast or faster than an analog road bike user. My Vado SL is class 3, but I can rarely reach even the 28 mph cut off speed (need to be on a flat or decent with little to no headwind).

I am regularly passed by folks on road bikes, going as much as 10 or more mph faster. And one of my regular riding buddies rides an older analog hybrid as fast or faster then I go.

My usual average speeds are around 12-15 mph. On my previous analog bike the speeds were 10-14. For me, the “2X you” assist means I can easily ride 20 miles where before even 10 miles was a challenge. I think the whole speed based class metric is odd. Mostly because of the confusion about maximum assist speed with rider speed capabilities.

OTOH, it seems there is a typically American desire to not only go fast, but to surpass the limits of their vehicles by modification or acquisition of non-compliant machines. Hot rods and super cars today, thoroughbreds and chariots in the past.

The laws seem to be intended to deal with the e-cycling hot-rodders. It comes down to, “those darn kids”!

I'll note that the Vado SL is using Specializeds lightweight low assist motor. I'm riding a Giant Revolt, which uses Yamahas full power motor with more than double the peak assist torque as the SL (at the expense of more weight and power consumption).

It does really depend on the segment. I'd probably struggle to take the top spot on some of the flat ones, and any long downhill would be extremely hard. The less climbing on a segment the less of an advantage the ebike gives you, and the longer the segment the more advantage you get on an ebike because your average power output can stay really high. I have friends who are competitive roadies, and even on a slight uphill they could probably destroy me on the Revolt over a short enough distance because their sprint power is nuts. They just can't sustain it for very long, whereas I can stay at that power level while riding zone 2-3.

 

[J.R.]

When they told you no trottle ebikes where they referring to the more powerful off-road ebikes (more like motocross motorcycles than bikes) or truly CPSC compliant ebikes? It seems to be a common assumption that a throttle is utilized on the more powerful electric motorcycle-like ebikes. If like NY, they may have been reacting to non-compliant ebikes.

No one can understand any of the issues, except you. One of my bikes is a 500 watt Class 2 with throttle. Do your own homework to understand what regulators are saying and doing. I have tried to offer information. It's clear you don't believe me unless you agree with me.

Pennsylvania
"Electric Bike (E-bike) Use
Class 1 E-bikes are permitted on approved mountain bike trails and roads, provided they meet all the following standards:

1. Electric motor less than 750 watts
2. Fully functional pedals
3. Weight not exceeding 75 lbs.
4. Maximum speed less than 20 mph
5. Does not have capacity to be completely self-propelled (must be pedaled to engage electric motor)

Class 2 and 3 E-bikes are not permitted on approved mountain bike trails and roads in state forests."

Every Pennsylvanian lives within 25 miles of a State Park, forest or game land. That's a lot of land (big state) open to Class 1 ebikes.

 

[Asher]

You are touching on the same points I have been trying to make. So many seem to think that it's just so easy to cruise at 28mph on a class 3 250W ebike but the rider has to provide significant dynamic power to achieve that and sustain that speed.

I'll note that the Vado SL is using Specializeds lightweight low assist motor. I'm riding a Giant Revolt, which uses Yamahas full power motor with more than double the peak assist torque as the SL (at the expense of more weight and power consumption).

Exactly. Ken uses the Vado SL, a notably low power bike, to make a point about the maximum power of an ebike... And on top of that says 250w when the limit is 750w, which is plenty for 28+ mph on flats.

10/10 for Ken

 

[Ken M]

I

No one can understand any of the issues, except you. One of my bikes is a 500 watt Class 2 with throttle. Do your own homework to understand what regulators are saying and doing. I have tried to offer information. It's clear you don't believe me unless you agree with me.

Pennsylvania
"Electric Bike (E-bike) Use
Class 1 E-bikes are permitted on approved mountain bike trails and roads, provided they meet all the following standards:

1. Electric motor less than 750 watts
2. Fully functional pedals
3. Weight not exceeding 75 lbs.
4. Maximum speed less than 20 mph
5. Does not have capacity to be completely self-propelled (must be pedaled to engage electric motor)

Class 2 and 3 E-bikes are not permitted on approved mountain bike trails and roads in state forests."

Every Pennsylvanian lives within 25 miles of a State Park, forest or game land. That's a lot of land (big state) open to Class 1 ebikes.

I honestly don't disagree on the access issue or the perceptions on throttle-assist ebikes (that seems to have come from considering ebikes are motor vehicles...that's all I'm saying). I do question there was any data supporting that there is a difference on trails between class 1 and 2 (while that doesn't matter in reality it's something we should feel is an acceptable question on the access decision).

Did you notice that someone suggested that the class programming isn't really required to be present during 1st sale of the ebike? While that would remove the interstate commerce conflict, I would think you could at least see the problem with that opinion (as one argument counter...do you think any of the big drive system producers would allow buyers to download the programming after 1st sale - that access would likely trouble them).

On the information you sent this is just an observation. Is the maximum speed an obvious reference to top assist speed? There are some federally compliant ebikes sold on Alibaba that do not follow the 3-class system so I'm wondering how they are addressed in Pennsylvania (they must just be illegal to ride anywhere just like here in Colorado - keep in mind I literally own a Polaris Diesel and Izip Express that were compliant for use when I bought them and now they are illegal to use on any infrastructure in Colorado).

While I don't want to imply anything negative on anyone...I think there are issues that just seem to get ignored (trail access a valid concern but so are the potential conflicts of the CPSC federal definition and 3-class).

 

[Ken M]

Exactly. Ken uses the Vado SL, a notably low power bike, to make a point about the maximum power of an ebike... And on top of that says 250w when the limit is 750w, which is plenty for 28+ mph on flats.

10/10 for Ken

I know the 750W rating but that "full" power is not allowed above 20mph. Was that simulation result in MPH or KPH as I could not tell. I'd have to verify similution resutls but I do think that 750W will provide upwards of 30mph but again the question is does the federal definition allow full power above 20mph?

 

[Ken M]

Exactly. Ken uses the Vado SL, a notably low power bike, to make a point about the maximum power of an ebike... And on top of that says 250w when the limit is 750w, which is plenty for 28+ mph on flats.

10/10 for Ken

I accidentally referred to the Vado for not having a speedometer but it was the Creo that doesn't have one. The point was that not all class 3 speed pedelecs have a speedometer. In other words, It was an example of a major OEM top speed pedelec not complying with the state laws on 1st sale. But now some of you are saying that the entire 3-class system is something to be completed on the ebikes after sale. I guess I should not be shocked by any of the logic thru this forum thread but that is some good icing.

 

[Ken M]

General question: Minnesota requires ebrakes on all ebikes but even most of the big mid-drive brands drive systems don't even support ebrakes. I'm just wondering if anyone views that as a state regulation with interstate commerce impact. Is NY top throttle assist speed of 25mph an interstate commerce issue?

 

[kmccune]

Can someone tell Me what an Ebrake is? The Chinese -English translations and syntax confuse Me often? An Ebrake is not the same as "regen" is it( I love regen on these steep roads it saves the brakes and wind chill when it is cooler)

 

[McCorby]

I think they are referring to motor inhibitor brake switches. They are not needed on the “premium” mid-drives because they have no throttle and the power is instantly cut when pedaling stops. Many hub motors have them even if not equipped with a throttle because there is often a noticeable lag shutting power off when you stop pedaling.

 

[Ken M]

I think they are referring to motor inhibitor brake switches. They are not needed on the “premium” mid-drives because they have no throttle and the power is instantly cut when pedaling stops. Many hub motors have them even if not equipped with a throttle because there is often a noticeable lag shutting power off when you stop pedaling.

That was not the point. I was bringing up that Minnesota requires "motor inhibiting" brakes / ebrakes on all ebikes per there state law. The primary intent of this forum topic was to open a dialog on state "use" laws that I feel are clear violations of interstate commerce policy on something defined and regulated by a federal agency. We all benefit if the same ebikes can be nationally sold and used legally in every state but many people don't seem to want that. Strangely that is something People for Bikes stated was one of the goals of the 3-class legislation. Some claim each state has different situations such that unique ebike definitions are essential for use in that states (no one seems to ever justify it, except to say I don't care about trail access or the feelings of trail managers as if I'm the bad guy for feeling one definition for a "low speed electric bicycle" is best for the industry and insuring they remain as a "bike" for universal use).

The ebrake requirement is just an example I thought everyone would interpret as a violation. For some reason the states (obviously the ones that have adopted the 3-class legislation) feel they can each define what a compliant ebike is prior to 1st sale but the feds own the definition (have since 2002 on "low speed electric bicycles) and compliance thru 1st sale. There are plenty that make the claim 3-class was essential for clarity and safety for the implementation of ebike "use" laws but 20+ states still just use the federal definition (or less stringent) as a bike such that the decades old use laws are utilized for "use"/traffic regulation and that has been working fine (Oregon has the highest adoption rate and they have done this since 1997). I'm just kind of the messenger on this and have pretty much been hammered by many claiming they'll loose trail access if the CPSC preempts the 3-class legislation (pure speculation and it's not true in the 20+ states not using 3-class policy).

I understand that cadence-assist systems do have issues with the power not shutting down immediately when a rider stops pedaling (I've ridden a few ebikes with that issue and the inhibiting brakes do resolve it but not sure if it's that important for safety but I guess it could be if a powerful motor). I just avoid ebikes with cadence only assist systems.

 

[kmccune]

I think they are referring to motor inhibitor brake switches. They are not needed on the “premium” mid-drives because they have no throttle and the power is instantly cut when pedaling stops. Many hub motors have them even if not equipped with a throttle because there is often a noticeable lag shutting power off when you stop pedaling.

Thank you.

 

[Ken M]

Thank you.

Makes you wonder how many "illegal" ebikes are being ridden daily in Minnisota when pretty much non of the major mid drive systems have motor inhibiting brakes.

Again I bring this information to everyone's attention as a reason why the states are creating interstate commerce issues and the lawyers either don't care or they are not paying attention. Probably a combination of both.

 

[Nutella]

I'm not a fan of the Class system primarily since the differences between all three classes are imperceptible to the naked eye and impossible to regulate. It makes legislators and land manager feel better by dictating which classes are allowed where, but IME, users just ignore it all and buy what they'd like and ride them whereever. I'd guess that half of the ebikes I see on MUTs aren't "legal" ebikes, yet it's working out ok. The two class system in Europe is much better I think, mostly because it's really just a single class, there are heavy fines for selling something that isn't legal, and it's low enough power that no one needs to police it.

Anyway, this is an interesting academic discussion, but the only thing I see affecting future access is riders behavior, not how you define what they are riding.

For the record, PFB only wants to sell bikes and is fully funded by the industry, no need to make donations. https://www.bicycleretailer.com/ann...uppliers-association-one-unified#.YHC2nehKhaQ

 

[Ken M]

I'm not a fan of the Class system primarily since the differences between all three classes are imperceptible to the naked eye and impossible to regulate. It makes legislators and land manager feel better by dictating which classes are allowed where, but IME, users just ignore it all and buy what they'd like and ride them whereever. I'd guess that half of the ebikes I see on MUTs aren't "legal" ebikes, yet it's working out ok. The two class system in Europe is much better I think, mostly because it's really just a single class, there are heavy fines for selling something that isn't legal, and it's low enough power that no one needs to police it.

Anyway, this is an interesting academic discussion, but the only thing I see affecting future access is riders behavior, not how you define what they are riding.

For the record, PFB only wants to sell bikes and is fully funded by the industry, no need to make donations. https://www.bicycleretailer.com/ann...uppliers-association-one-unified#.YHC2nehKhaQ

Most think that the class system fixed a problem that didn't exist. 750W below 20mph and restricting power above 20mph was purposeful and was working great. Some powerful non-federally compliant ebikes were causing issues but that could have been resolved without creating a "class system." Leave it to an advocacy group to invent enforcement by stickers.

 

[J.R.]

Yep, the classes only opened up ~2 million acres of state land where I live that were closed to ebikes before. Land that all taxpayers in the state pay for and have a say in how it is used. Public meetings where all were welcome to express their opinions and concerns. Compromises were made by all... but that's not good enough. Let's go back to the old way where we ride in the street.

Here's the funny part, PA doesn't yet have the 3 class law. The 2014 law closely aligns with the CPSC definition, and it isn't working here. The law that banned all ebikes from paths, trails, MUP's. So the state uses the Class 1 description because its ubiquitous, but because the classes aren't codified in law, everywhere it states class 1 ebikes are allowed it has to define what a class 1 ebike is. That is likely to change, as the state legislature is debating the 3 class law now.

Pennsylvania eBike Regulations *Incl. eMTB

Pennsylvania officially legalized ebikes in 2014. This happened long before there were class designations. The law is simple, it essentially legalized class 1 & 2 ebikes. https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2014&sessInd=0&act=154&mobile_choice=suppress The...

electricbikereview.com

 

[ngl]

IMO the three class system is a unmitigated disaster, marketing applied to law instead of using some more sensible art as the basis for law, like oh, I dunno, physics. The difference between a class 1 and a 2 is basically who can ride the thing, so more or less codified discrimination against the disabled, that's just wonderful. The difference between 1&2 and 3 is a speed sensor limitation, which can and is being defeated by users on the 1's and 2's because it's a artificial distinction without a practical difference, which is not even available as a speed or access mode to disabled users at all. The ADA should sue the pants off these ebike companies, the AG's that adopted this legislation. The bike was a marvelous invention, and the ebike is a sea changing incremental improvement on that model that physically levels the playing field for *all* bicycle users young and old, able bodied or not. If the problem is speed, then make road style bikes, velomobiles, or basically anything that helps efficiency and saves energy illegal - or, perhaps more sensibly, put up speed limit signs and enforcement. If the problem is power or weight such as may be the case on soft trails, then a power or weight restriction makes *sense*. I seem to recall seeing weight restrictions on bridges for this reason. Logical. Fire the marketing director in charge of law writing and lobbying

My personal feeling is that for an all age, all user, all access bicycle the power limit doesn't need to be so high. I think we can make do with a 2nd tier cyclist pedaling for us or along side us at 250-350w. The way the CPSC did that trick with the 20 mph power limit is basically low-key genius though, because it accounts for power to weight variations that would occur for bikes intended for users of heavier tricycles that may have balance issues, etc. I have throttle bikes, cadence sensor bikes, and now just got a torque sensor assist bike. I don't want or need a throttle and I can say that I vastly *prefer* the torque assist, it is the best freaking thing since sliced bread! But also, my legs work. If they didn't, and I was rendered a second class cyclist because of some lobby group that was high on their own supply, I'd be pissed.

Ken, I have low hopes that the law can or will be made sensible in any way at this stage with the big money behind creating a new bicycle class system of have's and have-not's, but good effort!

 

[Ken M]

IMO the three class system is a unmitigated disaster, marketing applied to law instead of using some more sensible art as the basis for law, like oh, I dunno, physics. The difference between a class 1 and a 2 is basically who can ride the thing, so more or less codified discrimination against the disabled, that's just wonderful. The difference between 1&2 and 3 is a speed sensor limitation, which can and is being defeated by users on the 1's and 2's because it's a artificial distinction without a practical difference, which is not even available as a speed or access mode to disabled users at all. The ADA should sue the pants off these ebike companies, the AG's that adopted this legislation. The bike was a marvelous invention, and the ebike is a sea changing incremental improvement on that model that physically levels the playing field for *all* bicycle users young and old, able bodied or not. If the problem is speed, then make road style bikes, velomobiles, or basically anything that helps efficiency and saves energy illegal - or, perhaps more sensibly, put up speed limit signs and enforcement. If the problem is power or weight such as may be the case on soft trails, then a power or weight restriction makes *sense*. I seem to recall seeing weight restrictions on bridges for this reason. Logical. Fire the marketing director in charge of law writing and lobbying

My personal feeling is that for an all age, all user, all access bicycle the power limit doesn't need to be so high. I think we can make do with a 2nd tier cyclist pedaling for us or along side us at 250-350w. The way the CPSC did that trick with the 20 mph power limit is basically low-key genius though, because it accounts for power to weight variations that would occur for bikes intended for users of heavier tricycles that may have balance issues, etc. I have throttle bikes, cadence sensor bikes, and now just got a torque sensor assist bike. I don't want or need a throttle and I can say that I vastly *prefer* the torque assist, it is the best freaking thing since sliced bread! But also, my legs work. If they didn't, and I was rendered a second class cyclist because of some lobby group that was high on their own supply, I'd be pissed.

Ken, I have low hopes that the law can or will be made sensible in any way at this stage with the big money behind creating a new bicycle class system of have's and have-not's, but good effort!

Thanks!!! Great job adding information that bolsters the argument against 3-class. It's funny that I had actually thought about the handicap thing but your point that trails banning class 2 is actually discrimination and that alone should get the CPSC to preempt. You are correct that throttle-assist ebikes are considered mobility for the handicapped (the ADA ensured that motorized support for the handicapped could use infrastructure like sidewalks and paths, but sadly these class 1 trail believers are not thinking about he handicapped having the same trail access they enjoy). The fact that a trottle-assist and pedal-assist limited to the federal definition will not have any difference on trail impact is pure common sense (but if common sense was in play we'd all know that most trail damage occurs from erosion due to story run off).

If you read the tread you will notice that no one wants to discuss the "physics" or the interstate commerce issues they just want to throw out the false narrative that they only thing that got them trail access is the creation of Class 1....they ignore that the latest DOI order declared all 3 classes to be OK on all national land (leaving the national forests which will adopt same. What created the land manager bias against throttles was the thought that LSEB with throttles were essentially the same as motorcycles which is far far far from reality.

I think you and I came to the same conclusion on the federal definition. I literally thought when I first read it that it was either written by a very smart techinical person or was blind luck. We'll it appears that a PhD electrical engineer was involved and the spec provides flexible power below 20mph and limits power (per the constraints) above 20 mph in a very elegant way such that LSEB remain in the historical 3-sigma range of bikes. You will find no one wants to discuss the physics they just want to tell you that land managers are sensitive people that will ban all ebikes from trails if we go back to one LSEB definition.

If you read my precedence in the petition for preemption it honestly does put the CPSC in a difficult spot - they have to preempt or just declare classes voluntary for use after 1st sale and that their definition of LSEB is to be considered a "bike" and states are still allowed to "use" regulate them as bikes (no differences between any other bike so the land managers will just have to live with that).

 

[ngl]

pfft that trail access thing, that's laughable on its very face. Land managers aren't stupid people, but they respond to the same thing legislators do in this country. Money and power. Big bike hires big lobby who has the connections to make stuff happen, end of story. Land managers got stroked off by the right people who were hired for decent sums of money because they have subject matter expertise in convincing people to do things. This is America, not some land of logic and reason Big bike wanted product tiering and wanted a opened market to sell that artificial limits crap into to protect profits and margins. Just like a good salesman at a dealership can sell some schmuck any old thing if they are good at thier job. The US citizens just ended up getting sold a jalopy by PFB and industry hires. I read a good bit of the thread but come on, this is is like wrangling cats if I ever saw it, people aren't going to agree, and it doesn't matter if they do or not... All that matters is $$$$.

If you want to beat industry at thier own game, you probably need the same tools, shrewd PR and lobbyists that can sell a Cadillac law to replace the jalopy law *and* beat the industry players over the head with well crafted bad press simultaneously to get them to back down and let the law serve the people of this country. If my knee blows out again and gets wobbly, I don't want to lose access to my rail trails simply because bike companies sponsored laws that make a bike I could ride while recuperating illegal on the trails. But, that doesn't fit the bike marketers paradigm, so it is what it is. If the wrong people get involved on the disability side they'd want to do some placard BS too, because who cares that most people don't have access to the healthcare needed for temporary disabilities and injuries to be deemed "official" as long as some mobility company can get their hand in the cookie jar. This country is for sale to the highest bidder, and this is the result.