Were You Moving Away From E-Bikes, What Traditional Bicycle Would You Buy?

[PSm]

Both have benefits and shortcomings. It depends what you seek from your riding experience. I still enjoy both and hope that I can continue to ride both.

For Stefan, the ebike has improved his fitness to the point where he may be able to expand his riding experience to include unassisted cycling. I think that is great and I am happy for him.

For the record, I think that this has been a good and relevant topic. Thanks Stefan.

This. Lots of riding with my single speed e-bike improved my fitness enough that I can ride and really enjoy a traditional single speed.

I just have more options and capabilities now, depending on what I feel like doing. Now I just need a bigger garage for all the bikes

 

[AvalancheRun]

This. Lots of riding with my single speed e-bike improved my fitness enough that I can ride and really enjoy a traditional single speed.

I just have more options and capabilities now, depending on what I feel like doing. Now I just need a bigger garage for all the bikes

I’m in the same boat. 500 miles per month on my ebike improved my biking fitness to the point where I prefer lower PAS, and even off completely.

At this point, I’ve pretty well learned the ebike market. The SL market is tiny, just a few bikes. But now that I’m focusing more on analog gravel or XC there are a million bikes to choose from. Back to square one!

 

[Prairie Dog]

@Prairie Dog: Why didn't you tell me about Scott Metrix bikes? A very interesting ride!

In their words, Scott describes the Metrix as a hyper commuter. The bike doesn’t appear on the radar as much as some of its more popular-known rivals but I would say that it’s a sleeper of a ride. Oddly enough the 10 hasn’t been seen much on the road lately and has been relegated as a proverbial garage queen. The latest carbon iteration hasn’t changed significantly spec wise (Shimano 105) better altered internal cable routing for a cleaner look but the biggest change came when Scott reconfigured the front/rear to accommodate beefier 40C Schwalbe G-One All Round tires. My 2019 Metrix is barely capable of accommodating 35C tires and is currently riding on 32C SK Gravel Kings. The carbon wheels were swapped over to my wife’s CD Synapse in exchange for her alloy hoops but otherwise the bike remains relatively stock. I took it out for one last spin yesterday on local terra firma before it gets broken down and packed for shipment overseas where it will call home for an undetermined length of time.

If I were to transition to an analog gravel bike today, the Addict Gravel might be a strong contender even if it was available in alloy form. As expected, much of the DNA from their road race bikes has been passed down to the gravel version.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

As I can read the specs, the latest Metrix 10 has a Gravel Addict Endurance carbon frame! I am a little bit surprised with the choice of Shimano 105 drivetrain but that's not a deal breaker. At this moment, it is a sad time when there are hardly any bicycles for sale, as the new models are to arrive yet.

I spoke with a Scott dealer in my neighbourhood and he said "city or gravel" when I asked of the Metrix. Need to see the bike in person!

 

[Rexlion]

My advice: stick with the bike you have. Buying something else just to shed a handful of kg will not make enough difference to matter. However, if you come across a bike that feels as good or better, and you have enough money, and if you enjoy owning more bikes, I guess you should go ahead and buy it. But when you hit the occasional too-steep-to-be-fun hills, you'll reevaluate which bike to take along.

Personally, my preferred acoustic bike is the sort you would not like: upright seat position, wide swept-back handlebar, a crank-forward design comfort bike. It's a Trek Pure Sport.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

My advice: stick with the bike you have. Buying something else just to shed a handful of kg will not make enough difference to matter. However, if you come across a bike that feels as good or better, and you have enough money, and if you enjoy owning more bikes, I guess you should go ahead and buy it. But when you hit the occasional too-steep-to-be-fun hills, you'll reevaluate which bike to take along.

Personally, my preferred acoustic bike is the sort you would not like: upright seat position, wide swept-back handlebar, a crank-forward design comfort bike. It's a Trek Pure Sport.

It is a very good advice, thank you!

I was on a 46 + 6 km unassisted Vado SL ride today. It was a tough workout! As if it was not blowing at 30 km/h from my outward leg direction, I added 1.1 kg of ballast in the form of the Range Extender/cable. I thought I might need some assistance upwind but no, could do the trip entirely on my own leg power. When I got onto the first gravel segment, I realized it was not the Diverge EVO that was wrong on my demo ride! It was me to be the wrong person to ride the Diverge There, upwind and on gravel, I rode at ridiculously low speed of 11-12 km/h yet did not switch the assistance on.

The calories burnt figure post ride was really satisfying! So I'm going to ride my Vado SL unassisted at all times until the Winter cold forces me to make use of the motor help. Several months of workout must bring its fruit unless it is my medical condition that really prevents it!

Yes, that would be Vado SL. Any new traditional bike must win my heart and legs first!

The camera is facing the strong headwind.

 

[ava1ar]

So I'm going to ride my Vado SL unassisted at all times until the Winter cold forces me to make use of the motor help.

Honestly I don't understand this at all - looks like someone is just showing off. There is pretty much no difference in physical effort / calories burned between regular bike and good torque-sensing ebike. If someone can put i.e. 160W being in HR Zone 2 75-80% of 30km ride, he/she can do it either on regual bike or ebike with most noticeable difference of time and speed (in favor of ebike of course). On my ebike I can do it in 1 hour averaging around 30-32km/h or spend 30 more minutes and do it on regular bike riding much slower and with less fun. Why do I choose regular bike over ebike?
Yes, I understand the difference in bike handling, weight, noise, etc. however these are have nothing to do with more exercise or better fitness when riding regular bike at all. Just a myth.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Honestly I don't understand this at all - looks like someone is just showing off. There is pretty much no difference in physical effort / calories burned between regular bike and good torque-sensing ebike. If someone can put i.e. 160W being in HR Zone 2 75-80% of 30km ride, he/she can do it either on regual bike or ebike with most noticeable difference of time and speed (in favor of ebike of course). On my ebike I can do it in 1 hour averaging around 30-32km/h or spend 30 more minutes and do it on regular bike riding much slower and with less fun. Why do I choose regular bike over ebike?
Yes, I understand the difference in bike handling, weight, noise, etc. however these are have nothing to do with more exercise or better fitness when riding regular bike at all. Just a myth.

Your reasoning is almost correct! However, there are factors, which you seem not to have taken into the equation:

• An unassisted ride is slower, so a longer time to travel for the same distance is needed. Longer travelling time with the same effort means more calories burnt
• An unassisted ride can be as slow as the rider attempts to work harder to ride reasonably fast. That is the fitness function. I need to stress out my improved fitness comes from low assistance rides, especially on Vado SL
• Any climb requires a considerably higher effort from the unassisted rider as the whole energy to gain elevation must be provided by the rider's own body.

See the hard data:

An almost totally unassisted ride. The data come from the e-bike meters.

An assisted ride, full power e-bike.

• The second (assisted) ride was 67% longer than the first (unassisted) one
• The elevation gain on the assisted ride was 382% greater than for the unassisted ride
• The assisted ride time was 13% longer vs. the unnasisted ride
• The weighted average leg power was 5.3% higher on the assisted vs. unassisted ride (I was motivated by strong traditional riding mates).
• The calories burnt figure was only 9.9% higher on the long assisted ride vs. the shorter unnasisted ride.

Careful analysing of the data as above clearly indicates it is the ride time that affects the calories burnt with the elevation gain being the second most important fitness factor. The motor has just equalized both rides! Now fancy how many calories would be burnt if the ride #2 were unassisted... (My friends have completed a similar ride on Sunday and one of them burned 3,100 and the other 3,800 kcal riding traditional bikes for a similar distance, elevation gain and the average speed).

The e-biker motto: "With an e-bike, you are riding faster, farther, and more frequently" is true. However, riding a traditional bike means:

• The bicycle can be very lightweight and easily carried
• A very lightweight bike handles well in rough terrain with less vibration
• The ride is silent
• No range anxiety
• You can travel very light
• You can compete with traditional cyclists.

The last point is my ultimate goal for June 15th, 2024.

Of course you are right: e-bike is more fun! Also, you do not want to stay for a long time in the cold that's why I said being assisted during cold weather is essential to shorten the time spent outdoor!

 

[mschwett]

@Stefan Mikes the only thing that truly matters when determining calories is time and average power. not weighted average - average. you’ll see that the relationship between time, average power, and calories is fixed. your assisted ride had a couple percent lower average power, offsetting some of the higher time. specialized uses a fairly simple formula with assumptions about the efficiency of the human body to translate watt hours into calories

(225 minutes * 87 watts) / 1,168 calories = 16.76 watt minutes per calorie.

(254 minutes * 85 watts) / 1,284 calories = 16.81 watt minutes per calorie.

really, all you need to know is watts and hours, or watt hours. afaik the bike (or strava!?) doesn’t take anything at all else into account when determining calories if you have a power meter. if you don’t have a power meter, it does a lot of other very, very inaccurate math to estimate calories, making the calorie estimates of an e-bike ride completely nonsensical!!

 

[Mr. Coffee]

I would clarify that if riding in gentle terrain, the effort of riding an ebike at low levels of pedal assist approximates riding a much lighter non electric bike. So I'd expect on flattish terrain that the calorie outputs per hour in both cases would be pretty close.

On rides with more elevation gain the answer is much more complicated, but you'll likely expend fewer calories per unit time climbing with the ebike than climbing with an acoustic bike.

Again, this is all very approximate and there are a lot of things that might swing the equation one way or the other.

 

[indianajo]

I've been thinking about an airnimal joey. https://airnimal.co/products/joey/sport/#.Y9spZRzMJIc
Folding, 24" wheels, lighter and more compact than a montegue which has 29" wheels. 11 speed 29 lb with 1.5" tires, disk brakes. Folded it might fit in a Greyhound bus overhead rack. I want to travel. Greyhound can get me 25 miles from what I want to see, but if I take a taxi to destination I'll get motion sickness. Plus my destinations are so far out good luck in getting a taxi to come back out and pick me up. I'm not going to a sports stadium downtown.
The only car rental agency in my town has moved to a location inaccessible to pedestrians or bicycles. Too dangerous. The sidewalk ends 4 blocks away then there is a deep ditch right next to 60 mph traffic. If I owned a car I wouldn't need to rent one.

 

[mschwett]

I would clarify that if riding in gentle terrain, the effort of riding an ebike at low levels of pedal assist approximates riding a much lighter non electric bike. So I'd expect on flattish terrain that the calorie outputs per hour in both cases would be pretty close.

On rides with more elevation gain the answer is much more complicated, but you'll likely expend fewer calories per unit time climbing with the ebike than climbing with an acoustic bike.

Again, this is all very approximate and there are a lot of things that might swing the equation one way or the other.

i do think people overestimate the impact of the weight of an e-bike, simply because it feels so heavy to get moving. but once you’re moving, it’s negligible. the drag of an upright seating position and the big tires are much bigger factors! in your rolling hill example, it definitely depends on how rolling the hills are - if they’re steep enough to require braking, the heavier bike will take much more energy, directly proportional to weight, pretty much. if there’s no braking, and speeds on descent are relatively low (<25mph) the heavier bike gives back a lot of the energy required to climb in the descents.

i did a pretty extensive comparison of the data from my creo, ridden with assist off, and my aethos, on a hilly loop route that i rode maybe a hundred times. one bike weighs 14lb, the other 28. at the same average rider power, the difference was almost completely proportional to the total weight difference (200 vs 214, or 7%, because most of the ride in terms of time was spent climbing and the descents were very, very fast, primarily governed by drag, braking, and fear!

 

[Stefan Mikes]

really, all you need to know is watts and hours, or watt hours. afaik the bike (or strava!?) doesn’t take anything at all else into account when determining calories if you have a power meter. if you don’t have a power meter, it does a lot of other very, very inaccurate math to estimate calories, making the calorie estimates of an e-bike ride completely nonsensical!!

Mark, if you look at the data, the cyclist's effort based on the power meter is given in kJ above (Total Work). You can compare the kJ if you like. This value is measured and proves what I said. The more motor assistance the less of the rider's contribution into a ride on the same route and at the same riding conditions. Agreed?

BLEvo (which you do not use and I hardly use it now) tells you the rider's contribution into a ride in %. Typically, my big Vado required me to input from 25-33% into a ride at significant assistance. Vado SL was providing around 50% of contribution. It has changed since I started reducing the assistance.

i did a pretty extensive comparison of the data from my creo, ridden with assist off, and my aethos, on a hilly loop route that i rode maybe a hundred times. one bike weighs 14lb, the other 28. at the same average rider power, the difference was almost completely proportional to the total weight difference (200 vs 214, or 7%, because most of the ride in terms of time was spent climbing and the descents were very, very fast, primarily governed by drag, braking, and fear!

I agree to the above. I think a skinny rider gets the most benefit from riding a superlightweight bike.

There is also another factor, which needs to be taken into account: it is the acceleration gain (you need a lot of energy to accelerate from the dead stop to the cruising speed!) However, we can neglect it here as an e-bike compensates its heavy weight with the motor, and I think it is what Mr. Coffee wanted to say related to the rides on the flats. On the climbs, the e-bike wins!

 

[mschwett]

Mark, if you look at the data, the cyclist's effort based on the power meter is given in kJ above (Total Work). You can compare the kJ if you like. This value is measured and proves what I said. The more motor assistance the less of the rider's contribution into a ride on the same route and at the same riding conditions. Agreed?

yes, of course if you ride the same distance with the motor on and providing assistance, you’ll do less work…. but ONLY because you’ll be riding for less time. the only thing which affects how much work you are doing (and how many calories you burn) is how hard you pedal and how long. if i ride at 200w human power for one hour on my aethos, and then pedal just as hard, at the same 200w on my creo in turbo, i will burn the same number of calories. the only difference will be that on the aethos i’ll cover 18 miles and on the creo i’ll cover 24.

the average watts multiplied by time is the actual measurement, and from it kJ and calories are derived. nothing else matters in understanding how much work the rider is doing where it becomes complex is the question of how far and fast that’ll take you!! for people who meter their rides by distance, not time, any contribution of the motor will reduce the amount of work they’re doing. for people (like me) who say, i have an hour (or three) free, i will ride at my tempo pace for an hour, the amount of work will not be affected by the motor.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

i will ride at my tempo pace for an hour, the amount of work will not be affected by the motor.

Totally agree!

Now, going back on topic. I will have up to 24 hours to complete a, say, 130 km ride in difficult terrain, no assistance. An easy cake on a traditional bike provided I am fit enough, prepared to ride technical singletracks (including the sand), ready to handle traps set by the organizers, and above all, climb some hills (or walk the bike uphill)

I just feel riding unassisted makes me better prepared, and, eventually, I might rent a bicycle for the race instead of buying it!

 

[Captain Slow]

Not hypothetical for me. I bought a Specialized Aethos and I have my eye on a Specialized Roubaix. It was a Trek Domane until I saw the new Roubaix, which I like more.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Not hypothetical for me. I bought a Specialized Aethos and I have my eye on a Specialized Roubaix. It was a Trek Domane until I saw the new Roubaix, which I like more.

Can I presume you are a lightweight person?

 

[ava1ar]

The more motor assistance the less of the rider's contribution into a ride on the same route and at the same riding conditions. Agreed?

No, I don't agree. You are missing one important factor here, which is air resistance. On regular bike you hardly can reach the speeds where this became a noticeable factor (unless you are very fit cyclist), but on ebikes this factor plays a very important role (especially is you really ride fast: > 30km/h). In this situation added power of the motor will automatically mean faster speed and more air resistance, which will put additional load to your legs. And unlike the hills case you mentioned, air resistance is there through the complete ride!
It might be not be applicable for you if you are slower rider, but during my commute I usually average around 19-20mph (which is around 30km/h) and wind resistance is a huge factor. I recently started riding in a way so I am spending about 75% in HR Zone2 and what I noticed, I can't reach more than 25mph on straights in Sport mode (240% assistance) without getting my heart rate go over 145. Working on my fitness now and as you see to do this I don't need regular bike or turn off the motor - quite opposite, I turned it on to higher assistance mode and just ride faster!

 

[Stefan Mikes]

In this situation added power of the motor will automatically mean faster speed and more air resistance, which will put additional load to your legs.

It is an incorrect interpretation of true assumptions. Given the average power of your legs plus your motor power, you can reach some speed until all resistances including the air drag get in the balance and you cannot ride any faster. It is not that you can set some target speed and work harder to get at it. The resulting speed is the outcome of the power input in the bike and all resistances countering it, with air drag and elevation gain being two biggest contributions in the resistance.

The air drag is as strong a factor limiting your bike speed as your increased leg input will not bring any significant speed increase at high speed unless you increase the motor assistance. Yes, with the mid-drive motor your hard pedalling will squeeze more power from the motor but you won't be able to maintain the increased leg power for a long time.

You mentioned the 240% assistance. It means that the motor adds 240 W to your 100 W leg power. Your contribution in the ride is only 41.7% then.

 

[ava1ar]

You mentioned the 240% assistance. It means that the motor adds 240 W to your 100 W leg power. Your contribution in the ride is only 41.7% then.

My contribution is 100W in this case, exactly the same contribution I will do on regular bike, but riding way way slower. I am not gaining/loosing any noticeable amount of watts when I switch bikes.

Yes, with the mid-drive motor your hard pedalling will squeeze more power from the motor but you won't be able to maintain the increased leg power for a long time.

This is the point. The torque sensor does the scaling of your effort, but won't work instead of you. So you can build your fitness on ebike as good as on regular bike. And be faster / ride further off course!