hi- read with intrest your artical on home pageof the new chinese lithium bike tdeo12 it might be of interest for every one to know, it looks as if the bike is avaiable in Britain it is advertised as being the lightest electric bike in the world,19.92 kg-250v-10amp hr lithium battery- disc brake-six speed-looks a good price£949.Find it on the internet at Electric Bike Sales - Home
new lithium bike tdeo12
- Thread starter urstuart16v@talktalk.net
- Start date
It gains in having the suspension forks, but loses the hub roller brake and two extra gears, and is no lighter than the Torq in reality otherwise. If I took the carrier, full mudguards, front and rear lighting etc off the Torq to give the same spec, it would be virtually as light as this. Both have similar batteries and motors, but the Torq's 22 mph beats that one's maximum of 15 mph.
I think my Torq is still ahead.
I think my Torq is still ahead.
Last edited:
hi Flex a bit of a negative response ,your torq only does 22 mph because its deregulated ,so who is to say this bike can not be.You must have more money down south than up north because in my book, if indeed the bike is any good the saving of £250 over the torque is well worth having.It will be interesting to the cost of replacement batteries for it, and maybe use the cells as a replacement for my torqs,don't get me wrong i am very happy with my torq but the price of batteries is steep and the way i constantly fully discharge them on my bike rides means i do not expect them to last.
It's interesting that we are starting to see bikes being marketed with 250W motors. While the UK regulations say 200W maximum, Europe is 250W. I can't imagine anything other than a test case sorting that issue out, but it looks like companies are getting bolder following the EU regs.
Not negative Stuart, neutral judgement as you'll see.
I agree the purchase price is lower, but it was the spec I was referring to, and their claim of lightest bike. As it stands it's just a fine weather toy, no way for a commuter to carry foul weather gear, no mudguards and no lighting for the winter months, a very limited gear range and brakes that wear out the rims only, an important issue on electrics due to their greater weight, even this one. For the utility user it's equally useless, nowhere to attach panniers for shopping etc, and again the lack of proper mudguards a problem.
£949 for a Summer toy with limited spec, versus £1195 for a universally useful bike with a far more useful spec. To bring that bike to Torq spec would cost more than £246, so the Torq is better value for money. And it's as light, spec for spec. Hence my fair and neutral comment, a judgement based solely on the facts.
Have a look at all the Li-ion prices for 36 volt 10 Ah from various manufacturers and you'll see the £250 is not expensive for the eZee battery. I've seen up to nearly a thousand dollars!
I agree the purchase price is lower, but it was the spec I was referring to, and their claim of lightest bike. As it stands it's just a fine weather toy, no way for a commuter to carry foul weather gear, no mudguards and no lighting for the winter months, a very limited gear range and brakes that wear out the rims only, an important issue on electrics due to their greater weight, even this one. For the utility user it's equally useless, nowhere to attach panniers for shopping etc, and again the lack of proper mudguards a problem.
£949 for a Summer toy with limited spec, versus £1195 for a universally useful bike with a far more useful spec. To bring that bike to Torq spec would cost more than £246, so the Torq is better value for money. And it's as light, spec for spec. Hence my fair and neutral comment, a judgement based solely on the facts.
Have a look at all the Li-ion prices for 36 volt 10 Ah from various manufacturers and you'll see the £250 is not expensive for the eZee battery. I've seen up to nearly a thousand dollars!
Last edited:
From what i have read the EU issued directive92002/24/c stating electric bikes if below 250w no faster than 16mph,and the bike must stop when you cease peddling to bring all European legislation into line with each other.I was under the impression that Britain had to comply-or am i missing something! stuart
You're right Stuart.
The directive was passed on May 9th of the year in question and was mandatory on all member states with an order that they had to introduce it into their national laws within six months. The English civil service messed up it seems, since it was passed into our law on November 10th, one day late. Unfortunately, they forgot to also arrange the cancellation of our own law, so both were then in force and in conflict. Since then the Department of Transport has ruled that English law stands, but since the European law is also in force, we are able to cherry pick the selection of the provisions that suits each one of us, making us Europe's lucky ones.
The directive was passed on May 9th of the year in question and was mandatory on all member states with an order that they had to introduce it into their national laws within six months. The English civil service messed up it seems, since it was passed into our law on November 10th, one day late. Unfortunately, they forgot to also arrange the cancellation of our own law, so both were then in force and in conflict. Since then the Department of Transport has ruled that English law stands, but since the European law is also in force, we are able to cherry pick the selection of the provisions that suits each one of us, making us Europe's lucky ones.
Regarding no standard rack, I used to ride an MTB style electric bike. I've forgotten the name of the company (I'll dig it out) but I was able to buy a rack suitable for a dual-suspension bike. This got around the problem of having no standard rack mounting points and worked very well for the 5,000+ miles it was used. Plus it wasn't that expensive, about 25-30 quid if I recall.
I had the opportunity to test ride one of these over the weekend.
I managed 8 miles after a top up charge. would have gone further, but the left pedal crank dropped clean off in Piccadilly (right outside Itsu, believe it or not), the half way mark. so that meant i couldn't pedal at all for the last 4 miles. Battery felt like it was weakening, but hard to be scientific without a cycle computer fitted, so a proper test will have to wait until we can fit one and use up all the battery.
Other stuff:
ride quality - hard, frame feels stiff and front fork suspension doesn't mop up much, but could probably be adjusted. riding position is a bit strained as well, but could be just how i had it set up - a lot of strain on my wrists. it comes with a choice of two saddles and i have the more 'racey' one, which isn't comfortable but it doesn't numb either.
speed- felt quite nippy early on, much more power than the powacycle, but not as much as eZee bikes. managed to get up a gradient in kensington gardens without pedalling easily at beginning of the ride, much less so seven miles later. Very quiet motor.
gears - I think these are the cheapest Shimano do, SIS, and they slipped for a bit, but that righted itself - just before left pedal crank came off.
overall impression - the Torq feels like £1200 well spent. This bike doesn't feel like £995 well spent. It looks good, but feels a bit lightweight and range probably won't be anything special. These are, however, initial impressions and I hope to be able to report in more detail soon.
PS the one I tried was fitted with rudimentary LED lights, luggage rack, bell with (dodgy) compass, pump. And it comes with a handy toolkit, though not handy enough to let me tighten the pedal crank
Last edited:
In view of the comments above, I thought this might be of interest.
For some 22 years I kept Polonium 210 IN MY FLAT, and held a Home Office licence for that purpose. I bought the isotopes from the nuclear division of 3M in the USA under approval of the AEA and they were sent through the normal post with just the familiar black and yellow nuclear warning circle on them. The content could of course kill if taken through the digestive tract.
The licence was free and available to anyone who wanted it, and licence LG1/RAM 3214 was granted to me on 16-1-1973. My flat had to be inspected annually by Special Branch, the Fire Brigade and the Factory Inspectorate, though the latter declared no interest once they found out that my flat wasn't a factory within the meaning of the act. The Special Branch also lost interest after a while, but the local Fire Brigade maintained the ritual as a bit of a laugh since they didn't have a clue what they were supposed to be looking for. In 1995 the government decided to start charging annually for the licences, so as I had no particular need for the Polonium 210 at the time, I relinquished the licence.
In the 22 years of handling the isotopes I suffered no harm of course, and none of my neighbours died, though they might have done from shock had they realised what I had in the flat. Much of what's been reported has been hyped nonsense as usual, and some of the supposed "experts" who've been trotted out have been clueless.
The main use for these isotopes is for static elimination, and that was my usage. They are very useful at preventing static build up in newsprint presses where a build up of static combined with the speed of the paper roll can cause a catastrophic crash of the print run. Another valuable use is in static control where petro-chemicals are handled, the coratron electrical means of static control being potentially dangerous in those circumstances. It follows from those industrial uses that the Polonium 210 is easily stolen. The emission is of beta particles*(see below), which are electrons, fast but with only moderate penetrating powers. Polonium 210 is the last step in the decay chain of Uranium 238, it's half life 138 days and the decay being to lead 206, the stuff plumbers use.
I cannot see any advanced nuclear nation using this crude method to kill anyone, there are far more sophisticated means.
For some 22 years I kept Polonium 210 IN MY FLAT, and held a Home Office licence for that purpose. I bought the isotopes from the nuclear division of 3M in the USA under approval of the AEA and they were sent through the normal post with just the familiar black and yellow nuclear warning circle on them. The content could of course kill if taken through the digestive tract.
The licence was free and available to anyone who wanted it, and licence LG1/RAM 3214 was granted to me on 16-1-1973. My flat had to be inspected annually by Special Branch, the Fire Brigade and the Factory Inspectorate, though the latter declared no interest once they found out that my flat wasn't a factory within the meaning of the act. The Special Branch also lost interest after a while, but the local Fire Brigade maintained the ritual as a bit of a laugh since they didn't have a clue what they were supposed to be looking for. In 1995 the government decided to start charging annually for the licences, so as I had no particular need for the Polonium 210 at the time, I relinquished the licence.
In the 22 years of handling the isotopes I suffered no harm of course, and none of my neighbours died, though they might have done from shock had they realised what I had in the flat. Much of what's been reported has been hyped nonsense as usual, and some of the supposed "experts" who've been trotted out have been clueless.
The main use for these isotopes is for static elimination, and that was my usage. They are very useful at preventing static build up in newsprint presses where a build up of static combined with the speed of the paper roll can cause a catastrophic crash of the print run. Another valuable use is in static control where petro-chemicals are handled, the coratron electrical means of static control being potentially dangerous in those circumstances. It follows from those industrial uses that the Polonium 210 is easily stolen. The emission is of beta particles*(see below), which are electrons, fast but with only moderate penetrating powers. Polonium 210 is the last step in the decay chain of Uranium 238, it's half life 138 days and the decay being to lead 206, the stuff plumbers use.
I cannot see any advanced nuclear nation using this crude method to kill anyone, there are far more sophisticated means.
Last edited:
It's the Caesium-137 you really have to watch out for isn't it? Just as well it visibly glows so you can keep an eye on it.
Goiânia accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh well... I'm fascinated by this subject, but don't want to derail the thread any further!
Goiânia accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh well... I'm fascinated by this subject, but don't want to derail the thread any further!
Yes, I remember that case Tim, Caesium 137 hangs around very much longer than Polonium 210 of course. Just as well the latter is short lived, since heaven knows how much of it has been discarded rather than returned to processing. Like you, I've always been absorbed by the subject, they don't come much more interesting.
Last edited:
It is my understanding from the media that Polonium 210 is an alpha emitter. If my 1959 Bsc (Chem) has any bearing, these should be protons, positively charged hydrogen nuclei. Because of their relative mass, they are easily stopped by other matter and do not have the intrinsic energy to cause further fission in other materials. They would certainly help with static decay, as indeed any material with ionising emissions.
Polonium 218 and 214, seventh and tenth in the decay chain, are alpha emitters, and alpha particles are essentially Helium atoms, two protons. Polonium 214 then decays through Lead 210 and Bismuth 210 to Polonium 210, the latter three listed as beta emitters in the reference I'm currently looking at.
P.S. I've now found an extensive Wikipedia reference to alpha emission of 210 Po. Oddly enough, at the back of my mind when I wrote the above was the belief of alpha emission and I'd said as much to someone the other day, but not willing to trust to memory from over ten years ago, I checked the reference which gave me beta. So my memory hadn't let me down, the checking had! As you say though, effective in static elimination terms, and I can vouch for the polonium isotope's effectiveness in that.
The dud reference was in Scott W Heaberlin's* book on nuclear power, from the chart on page 86, this being to hand when I typed the above.
*nuclear inspectorate, involved in Three Mile Island and Chernobyl cleanups.
P.S. I've now found an extensive Wikipedia reference to alpha emission of 210 Po. Oddly enough, at the back of my mind when I wrote the above was the belief of alpha emission and I'd said as much to someone the other day, but not willing to trust to memory from over ten years ago, I checked the reference which gave me beta. So my memory hadn't let me down, the checking had! As you say though, effective in static elimination terms, and I can vouch for the polonium isotope's effectiveness in that.
The dud reference was in Scott W Heaberlin's* book on nuclear power, from the chart on page 86, this being to hand when I typed the above.
*nuclear inspectorate, involved in Three Mile Island and Chernobyl cleanups.
Last edited:
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
