[_CJ]

Is a Covid reference like the new Godwin's law?

Godwin's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[PierreR]

Today's ride was twice as fast as I would have ridden on a similar non- e bike, I rode 20.3 miles and used 690 Whr. In fact I rode four times as far as I would have ridden a regular bike as well.
Terrain was flat, no wind, average speed was 7.8 mph, max speed was 10.8 mph. Max power draw was 982 watts peak
Conditions 6-10 inches of snow, no grooming, 32-35 degrees F. First fat bike tracks. Me and the bike was 310 pounds 3psi pressures Wazia 4.6" studded.

 

[Klurejr]

The words you use matter. When you word it this way, I can agree with you. An e bike can be twice as fast.
In fact there are times when I am going 4-5 times faster uphill than I would be on a regular bike. Like grade 24%. analog bike is probably 1 mph pushing it up. On the e bike its more like 5 mph. Range sucks
Deep snow ~1 foot deep. Pushing 1 mph, riding about 5-6 mph (Fat bike Wazia 4.6 studded at 3psi)

That has been my point from the beginning, I stated in my first post that I was not commenting that it was bad or good, just that it was factual. Some members are taking it as a troll or an attack. It is neither. But some of the users saying that to me also are saying that eBikes are only "slightly" faster on the uphills...... so you tell me why words don't seem to matter to those individuals. In my test I did not have a 24% grade to test, but I believe you when you state that an eBike is 4 to 5 times faster in that situation(1mph vs 4-5mph).

My goal is to get users to accept they are faster when ridden that way, and then move on from that point. It has been a very weird point of contention for years on this site. Just accept they are faster, and then figure out if that will play into access problems or not. In places like Jeffco where they already had dedicated directional and dedicated no-hiking trails where only bikes are on them I cannot fathom how a few eBikes would ever be a problem. On the trails where I ride I doubt any of the trail users on foot would know the difference or care because the places where there is heaver 2-wat Multi-Use traffic the trails have bad sight lines and anyone riding 15mph (the posted speed limit for the trails) would be a danger, motor or not. The area where I did my testing is about a mile further into the preserve and has almost zero foot traffic and eBike's wont pose a threat there.

 

[PierreR]

My goal is to get users to accept they are faster when ridden that way, and then move on from that point. It has been a very weird point of contention for years on this site. Just accept they are faster, and then figure out if that will play into access problems or not.

Only a moron would not realize that e bikes could be faster. Your sentence reads like thinly veiled bait to somehow get a confession into evidence to limit access. Nearly everything you have written in this thread including the title is passive agressive. Choose a different tone if that is not what you want to convey because that is how it's being taken.
"Can be faster" and "are consistently ridden faster", are two different things.

The real information on regulation is not the potential speed difference, but the actual in practice difficulties. Exceptions should never rule or we would outlaw corvettes because a few drivers will drive them 150mph on the freeway. So you're "trying to establish something obvious" but your passive agressive wording, throws up red flags as a straw man argument.


For what its worth I ride an e bike slower on single track than a non e bike. I don't need momentum to clear things. I can stop on a hill and restart, letting someone faster by without the penalty if I pull over and stop. On a regular mountain bike I keep hyping myself to push and I am loath to stop or slow down.

 

[Tama John]

I don't personally know any E-bikers who think that E-bikes aren't faster than bikes on ascents. It's quite obvious to me and that's why I have one. Super fun, just like my mountain bike is fun.

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me there is one member on here that feels that way. Your efforts to get users to "accept they are faster when ridden that way" is (imo) pointless. I don't see a significant group or institution that is refuting that E-bikes are not faster.

The wording of the title of this thread was bound to make this a contentious thread (draw some members like moths to a flame), and I believe you must have known that.

But again, maybe I'm mistaken.

 

[Klurejr]

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me there is one member on here that feels that way.

And every time this thread has died off and fallen off the radar in the past 2 weeks that same user brings it back to life again. He certainly thinks they are only slightly faster and has made it clear he will not accept they can be three times as fast. But he also started a thread complaining about not being able to communicate with younger people..... so I don't think anything that is not direct praise for eBikes will trigger him as being trollish, when it clearly is not.

 

[Klurejr]

Only a moron would not realize that e bikes could be faster. Your sentence reads like thinly veiled bait to somehow get a confession into evidence to limit access. Nearly everything you have written in this thread including the title is passive agressive. Choose a different tone if that is not what you want to convey because that is how it's being taken.
"Can be faster" and "are consistently ridden faster", are two different things.

The real information on regulation is not the potential speed difference, but the actual in practice difficulties. Exceptions should never rule or we would outlaw corvettes because a few drivers will drive them 150mph on the freeway. So you're "trying to establish something obvious" but your passive agressive wording, throws up red flags as a straw man argument.


For what its worth I ride an e bike slower on single track than a non e bike. I don't need momentum to clear things. I can stop on a hill and restart, letting someone faster by without the penalty if I pull over and stop. On a regular mountain bike I keep hyping myself to push and I am loath to stop or slow down.

I never said "consistently ridden faster". There are a number of eBike riders who have commented in this thread and other similar threads who did not take this as an attack. Maybe because you cannot hear my tone you have read my tone in the way you want to hear it?

And we do not outlaw corvettes, we set speed limits and then fine and punish those who break those laws, Corvette and Prius alike.

The same can probably work well in places like JeffCo where there is an active ranger presence. It might not work as well in places where someone can break those laws and get away with no punishment or fines.


I started this thread because of users on this site over the years who have made claims to the tune of "they are only slightly faster"(repeated in this very thread) or "they are not faster". I was told over and over again that my observation meant nothing since I had never ridden one. So I got the chance to ride one, and now I know that "not faster" and "slightly faster" are major lies. If I could afford one, I would get one today just so I could make all the climbs at as fast as possible of a speed because it was really fun to turn an uphill into the same sort of experience I get on the Downhill.

 

[Tickle]

I just like not suffering on the climbs, don't care about a speed contest

 

[DtEW]

The same can probably work well in places like JeffCo where there is an active ranger presence. It might not work as well in places where someone can break those laws and get away with no punishment or fines.

It's curious that you seem to think that the end goal of laws/regulations governing a shared resource is actually about control of an out-group's (relative to you) behavior, rather than prevention of exploitation of the shared resources, and minimization of conflicts between rightful users*.

* Which by default is everybody unless it is shown that a given group has an outsized deleterious effects on the resource and/or other users.

I think the moderator status is getting to you. This is control freak talk.

By this train of thought, no trails will work for mountain biking unless you can have a ranger posted at every substantial downhill to make sure those scofflaws can't, "break those laws and get away with no punishment or fines." I'm sure some of the more militant anti-MTB trail users' groups have made such an argument.

 

[Carl Mega]

* Which by default is everybody unless it is shown that a given group has an outsized deleterious effects on the resource and/or other users.

You do understand that motorized bicycles were/are prohibited and their inclusion is the change, right? The onus is on the petitioning user-group as they work through the process for change.

To hear some of the eBike arguments, you'd think they just got punted and booted off vs. being the first time ever that a motorized group is being considered for access in many of these areas. I do empathize a bit for old timer dirt bikers tho, they actually do have a claim of being kicked out - but decades before eBikes were dreamt up.

Man, some of these arguments. I read through a hundred or so public comments recently. Given the frequency, one that must have made the eBike ethers was "it's illegal ageism to deny eBikes!". As if, due to age, you are denied access to trails. Some people seemed to think they had a legal standing and made gesticulations to a law suit. With a presumed straight face, the claim was made that they couldn't ride as much as they were young thus illegal ageism. LOL..

 

[DtEW]

You do understand that motorized bicycles were/are prohibited and their inclusion is the change, right? The onus is on the petitioning user-group as they work through the process for change.

To hear some of the eBike arguments, you'd think they just got punted and booted off vs. being the first time ever that a motorized group is being considered for access in many of these areas. I do empathize a bit for old timer dirt bikers tho, they actually do have a claim of being kicked out - but decades before eBikes were dreamt up.

Man, some of these arguments. I read through a hundred or so public comments recently. Given the frequency, one that must have made the eBike ethers was "it's illegal ageism to deny eBikes!". As if, due to age, you are denied access to trails. Some people seemed to think they had a legal standing and made gestations to a law suit. With a presumed straight face, the claim was made that they couldn't ride as much as they were young thus illegal ageism. LOL..

As an older rider who has seen the decades of struggle for MTB access, it's amusing to hear a non-electric mountain biker make the, "we have seniority!" argument.

Slamming the gate behind ya, indeed.

 

[Carl Mega]

As an older rider who has seen the decades of struggle for MTB access, it's amusing to hear a non-electric mountain biker make the, "we have seniority!" argument.

Slamming the gate behind ya, indeed.

Is that your read? Do better.

Two points:

1) The change is being requested by eBikers. Thus...the process. Nothing to do with me at all as a cyclist at all. There are existing user groups and petitions for new ones. I don't make the rules.

2) Ageism is a laughable, absurd argument. "I can't be everything I was when I was young, thus unless you allow me SxS/motorized access - I'm crying illegal ageism".

Hilarious.

 

[Ducman]

If it is the speed difference that is the issue, then the same would be said for full suspension bikes going downhill compared to a rigid bike. E-banner are always moving the goal posts when they don't get their way.

 

[Carl Mega]

If it is the speed difference that is the issue, then the same would be said for full suspension bikes going downhill compared to a rigid bike. E-banner are always moving the goal posts when they don't get their way.

Yup, this tracks. Gravity and human power thresholds are the same as "motors" and wherever that technology will lead. Well reasoned. Maybe consult with the guy here who is talking 30mph on his rides?

Regardless, there is no doubt that over time increased speeds, in part, due to the capabilities of modern bikes has added to conflict issues. Maybe the next question should be: will plopping in more eBikes who can have a several fold speed increase help matters? Or is it deserving of consideration when developing a management plan? Further, should we open the conversation about how manage a problem that we already acknowledge we have. Glad you brought it up!

 

[.WestCoastHucker.]

If it is the speed difference that is the issue, then the same would be said for full suspension bikes going downhill compared to a rigid bike. E-banner are always moving the goal posts when they don't get their way.

don't go trying to make any sense of all of this. this is nothing more than a bunch of grown idiots trying to see who has the bigger d!ck...

 

[FJSnoozer]

I did 14mph at 230lbs and I was not giving it the beans, there was at least one more gear there and I could have pushed myself harder......

Again, I dont see a problem with that sorta speed on the particular part of the trail I was testing on.

I don’t think you are understanding me.

The ebike is not twice as fast as I am on a regular bike.

The slower you are as a rider, the bigger that difference will be, so yes, for a weekend warrior, they are likely twice as fast on their e bike.

But you can’t truthfully say e bikes are twice as fast, especially when you have a 300+ watt FTP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Klurejr]

I don’t think you are understanding me.

The ebike is not twice as fast as I am on a regular bike.

The slower you are as a rider, the bigger that difference will be, so yes, for a weekend warrior, they are likely twice as fast on their e bike.

But you can’t truthfully say e bikes are twice as fast, especially when you have a 300+ watt FTP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What percentage of ALL eBike riders have a 300+ watt FTP.... has to be way south of 30%.

 

[FJSnoozer]

What percentage of ALL eBike riders have a 300+ watt FTP.... has to be way south of 30%.

What does that have to do with anything?

E bikes aren’t 2x faster. Anyone can ride an ebike.

To answer your question The bell curve puts the average FTP below 250. People who ride bikes regularly have FTPs between 120-480 watts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PierreR]

Is that your read? Do better.

Two points:

1) The change is being requested by eBikers. Thus...the process. Nothing to do with me at all as a cyclist at all. There are existing user groups and petitions for new ones. I don't make the rules.

2) Ageism is a laughable, absurd argument. "I can't be everything I was when I was young, thus unless you allow me SxS/motorized access - I'm crying illegal ageism".

Hilarious.

Your first point is actually a good one.
Your second point shows you are nieve. Arguments that I though were totally absurd years ago eventually became mainstream in the now PC world. Don't bet that ageism argument cannot be pushed. Old people have money and connections. I don't bet against any absurd cancel culture arguments anymore.

As far as the guy that goes 30mph. I would only believe that on pavement, good gravel, or downhill and only with a purpose built commuter bike. Class three e bikes don't easily sustain 30 mph for long. Heat and battery sag is their enemy. An off the shelf mountain e bike? No way.(there are always exceptions with modified bikes and I am sure you can find one to prove me wrong. You won't convince me that they are common)

 

[DtEW]

You do understand that motorized bicycles were/are prohibited and their inclusion is the change, right? The onus is on the petitioning user-group as they work through the process for change.

Is that your read? Do better.

Two points:

1) The change is being requested by eBikers. Thus...the process. Nothing to do with me at all as a cyclist at all. There are existing user groups and petitions for new ones. I don't make the rules.

You seriously don't remember when the MTB/MTBer was the change whose access to the shared resource was argued to be secondary to that of hikers/equestrians, given the latter's status as "traditional" trail users? You think any of us swallowed that bullshit?

The reality is that the status quo deserves no special veneration over that of change. But time-and-again, people with a vested interest in the status quo have tried to pretend that it does. It's just sad that a mountain biker would reframe the same "seniority" argument that was once used against all of us... now to define an out-group on the basis on aesthetics (meat-powered vs. not-purely-meat-powered), rather on the basis of actual impact on the shared resource and other trail users.

I mean, you do remember that was the mountain bikers' argument in favor of access, right?