Tour of Britain – Stage 3 , eZee vs Kalkhoff

[50cycles]

Hi

Ian had 2 batteries linked up for the race on his luggage rack because one battery is not enough for 1 hour of use at that speed. He should have been disqualified on that basis, as one battery per race is allowed. But it was just a bit of fun so does not really matter.

Please get it over it and stop sounding so bitter.

We have the whole race on video with a clear picture and clear shot of a hidden battery wired up. If thats not cheating I do not know what is. The Kalkhoff clearly won and was plain to see for anyone at the event.

Best regards

Scott

[WALKERMAN]

Originally Posted by 50cycles

Hi

Ian had 2 batteries linked up for the race on his luggage rack because one battery is not enough for 1 hour of use at that speed. He should have been disqualified on that basis, as one battery per race is allowed. But it was just a bit of fun so does not really matter.

Please get it over it and stop sounding so bitter.

We have the whole race on video with a clear picture and clear shot of a hidden battery wired up. If thats not cheating I do not know what is. The Kalkhoff clearly won and was plain to see for anyone at the event.

Best regards

Scott

This 'race' event sounds more like it could turn into a medieval-type tournament with riders facing up to each other with swords, lances, etc.
I think I will withdraw my 'virtual' Pro Connect in case either of us gets hurt in the battles.

[flecc]

Originally Posted by WALKERMAN

This 'race' event sounds more like it could turn into a medieval-type tournament with riders facing up to each other with swords, lances, etc.
I think I will withdraw my 'virtual' Pro Connect in case either of us gets hurt in the battles.

I must admit that I don't think it will prove anything.

Wai Won is quite right to point to the higher power and greater battery capacity of his bikes, and though he is critical of A to B magazine, he should note that on every eZee bike test, they've reported consistently higher average speed on them than on any of the Panasonic unit bikes they've tested.

On those grounds alone the eZee bike should win if both bikes are standard and both riders of exactly equal ability.

On the other hand, the Panasonic unit bikes have markedly less rolling resistance than any internally geared wheel-hub-motor bike, so that provides some offset to the additional available energy of the eZee bikes.
In addition, the Panasonic design more cleverly enforces rider contribution of power, giving a further offset, so the eventual difference is not as great as might superficially be imagined.

So the conclusion is that the standard eZee bike has the fundamentally better overall performance, but the Panasonic unit bike gives a better pure cycling experience.

Not just theory but the conclusions of years of ownership and high mileages on both types.

Where "modifying" is concerned, the derestriction of an eZee bike has the primary objective of higher speed over the legal limit of 25 kph. Changing the rear sprocket on Panasonic unit bikes, although it also takes a small proportion of the power assist into illegality, has the primary objective of shifting the start of power phase down from 15 kph upwards to as much as 21.6 kph with a 16 tooth rear sprocket.
.

[Django]

Originally Posted by flecc

So the conclusion is that the standard eZee bike has the fundamentally better overall performance, but the Panasonic unit bike gives a better pure cycling experience

True, but then a normal bicycle would, on a priori grounds, give an even better pure cycling experience if that is what one is after. So why not ride a normal bike unless one wants to but physically requires assistance? (the 'Japanese grand mother' quip). For me, the 'fundamentally better overall performance' and the more flexible manner of power delivery of the Torq make it a far more attractive proposition.

[essexman]

Its a great fun idea but the suggested formats a bit silly. Give a bit more notice and open it up to all and sundry a la presteigne and make it shorter so the battery nonsense isnt an issue. I think the Brompton world championship or Smithfield Nocturnes are better models.

re The A2B comments. A2B gave the Torq a glowing reviews and consistently display its fast ride time. They are also very consistent that they think the Kalkhoffs, gazelles, spartas etc are better full on utility bikes that they prefer to ride as they are utility cyclists. Given the hilly terrain they constantly state their preference for bikes that can do hills well. A2B are bias, but they state the basis of that bias.

PS If the kalkhofs's are for Grandads (they are so Masculine with that Germanic feel), the Torq is for my Dad (Its a little middle aged isnt it?). Its not exactly a sleek utralight urban hybrid is it? Its a good bike, probably best in its class (does it have any competition? The wisper i guess. Dont care really) but its not cool or sexy.

PPS Stating my bias i agree with A2B. My kalkhoff roadster is the best practical bike i've owned (beating my dawes sardar and birdy touring). I dont own a sports bike. If i did it would weight about 8.5 kg and go like the wind.

PPPS Vive LeTour! Real racing!

[flecc]

Originally Posted by Django

True, but then a normal bicycle would, on a priori grounds, give an even better pure cycling experience if that is what one is after. So why not ride a normal bike unless one wants to but physically requires assistance? (the 'Japanese grand mother' quip). For me, the 'fundamentally better overall performance' and the more flexible manner of power delivery of the Torq make it a far more attractive proposition.

Of course Django, and why I always stress how different the systems and their aims are, and there's a division of preference in consequence.

There are many who want to continue with a pure bicycle, but want some assistance with circumstances, such as the severity of the hills, a minor disability, their age, or a simple desire not to arrive at work sweating etc. For them the Panasonic or Cytronex concepts are ideal.

I like both types but for different purposes, depending on whether cycling pleasure or power and performance are the priority.

Hence my point above that there is little point to a challenge, since it's like trying to say which is best between Cheddar and Edam. Both hard cheeses but different, the best being an individual's subjective judgement and not definitive fact.
.

[ElephantsGerald]

Originally Posted by flecc

Hence my point above that there is little point to a challenge, since it's like trying to say which is best between Cheddar and Edam. Both hard cheeses but different, the best being an individual's subjective judgement and not definitive fact.
.

I like Cheddar and Edam, although I'd prefer a good Cheddar to a bad Edam. I like Stilton too...

But seriously, ignoring the issues around rider input (or not), it seems to me that the biggest differentiator between Panasonic and Hub motors is the maximum average speed obtainable. From anecdotal reports (on this forum) its seems that the Panasonic gives a superior 'biking' experience in all respects except speed.

Would it be too much to hope for a Panasonic powered bike that could achieve higher average speeds? Are there technical reasons why this would not be possible?

IMHO a Panasonic powered bike that could achieve the same or better average speeds as a Wisper/Torq would be the ultimate best bike, no competition possible.

Regards,

Elephants

[stokepa31_mk2]

Originally Posted by ElephantsGerald

I like Cheddar and Edam, although I'd prefer a good Cheddar to a bad Edam. I like Stilton too...

IMHO a Panasonic powered bike that could achieve the same or better average speeds as a Wisper/Torq would be the ultimate best bike, no competition possible.

Regards,

Elephants

Hi Elephants. I have no trouble maintaining 20mph on the flat with an 18 tooth sprocket fitted to my panny which is the same as de-restrictin the torq and wisper. I think it is the ultimate. I own a Torq too but it is not derestrictable.

[Django]

Originally Posted by flecc

I like both types but for different purposes, depending on whether cycling pleasure or power and performance are the priority.

Originally Posted by ElephantsGerald

I like Cheddar and Edam, although I'd prefer a good Cheddar to a bad Edam. I like Stilton too...

But seriously, ignoring the issues around rider input (or not), it seems to me that the biggest differentiator between Panasonic and Hub motors is the maximum average speed obtainable. From anecdotal reports (on this forum) its seems that the Panasonic gives a superior 'biking' experience in all respects except speed.

Would it be too much to hope for a Panasonic powered bike that could achieve higher average speeds? Are there technical reasons why this would not be possible?

IMHO a Panasonic powered bike that could achieve the same or better average speeds as a Wisper/Torq would be the ultimate best bike, no competition possible.

Regards,

Elephants

For me (subjectively) the better bike would still be the Wisper/Torq. The delivery of power through the Panasonic system is, in part, counter-intuitive which detracts from the experience. Equally, that slight delay between human input and motor reaction reduces control and 'feel'; not a problem with a hub motor as the two inputs are physically dislocated. With a throttle you can add power as and when you want it, rather than when the machine wants to give it to you.

In other words the cycling pleasure as well as the power and performance are (for me) superior on the Wisper/eZee models.

[Django]

Originally Posted by flecc

Hence my point above that there is little point to a challenge, since it's like trying to say which is best between Cheddar and Edam. Both hard cheeses but different, the best being an individual's subjective judgement and not definitive fact.
.

I agree about it being subjective, but having a group of people spending the day cycling together on two different systems would be interesting as an opportunity to 'share notes' as well as a fun day out.

Perhaps Wai Won and David should swap bikes at ten mile intervals then report back their considered impressions. Despite (because of?) possible bias, it would be fascinating.