I very nearly lost the will to live.
Not completely, of course, but I did lose the will to post. There was quite a good thread discussing E-Bike racing and it got trashed. Then someone enquired about the welfare of a poor chap in Cornwall and it turned into everyone bashing each other over the head with helmets.
It was about a week ago that I logged on, thinking it was time perhaps to summarise the e-bike racing thread and wrap it up. What I found was that someone had posted a semi-literate and offensive comment and that, despite appeals to drop it and get back on topic, this had turned into a two page argument.
Anyway, let's try to summarise the racing discussion. And please, if you want to discuss helmets, 50 cycles, open heart surgery or even whether the world would be a better place if I did lose the will to live - then start a new thread about it. This one is about e-bike racing.
E-Bike racing is indeed open to the charge that it is pointless. The biggest flaw is that some events have been set up so that a lycra on a non electric bike can beat a granny on an electric bike. But it ain't necessarily so....
An e-bike race can be conducted so that it is not pointless. Or so that it is valid, meaningful, productive, useful - whatever the parameter is that you wish to hold your yardstick against. But to achieve that some things are necessary.
1. Forget the idea that it will reveal which is the best bike to buy. That is what consumer tests are for; racing is different.
2. Organise it properly. It must cater for the serious racers. There is also a place for fun racers; ideally it should cater for both types of racer, but it must take the serious racers seriously. Ironically the way to make sure it is fun is to avoid treating it as only a bit of fun.
3. Configure the task properly. It must deal with the problem that a lycra on a non electric bike can sometimes be faster than a granny on an electric bike.
4. Resist the temptation to make rules. Or rather, for each rule think very carefully about the unintended consequences. For instance, every rule that makes the bikes more equal turns it a little more into a competition between rider power instead of motor power.
5. Accept that is doesn't actually prove anything. If it did try to prove something then it would just be argued over for decades to come. The benefit is actually in improving the technology and in generating publicity.
Now most of that is fairly straightforward and people can work out how to apply it. The difficult one, and the one that applies to e-bikes specifically is point 3. Given that a super fit rider can pedal faster than the average e-bike, how to make it a competition between the bikes rather than the riders. That is the issue that had a larger discussion and there were some solutions found.
Basically it divides into two situations.
First is the case if the bikes have to meet the current UK/EU street regulations and are restricted so the motor power cuts out above 15 mph. The difficulty here, and the thing that gets the laughing classes pointing their fingers and rolling on the floor, is that a lot of people can pedal an unpowered bike faster than 15 mph on the flat.
The answer in this case is simple. Don't run the race on the flat. Run a hill climb, preferably a long, steep hill climb. That way the motor power is more important than the rider power.
Another good competition for restricted bikes would be alternating hill climbs and descents. The bikes spend their time either climbing below 15 mph, where the motor power is more important than pedal power, or rolling downhill fast, where pedal power is less important than bike design.
The other case is if the bikes are de-restricted, or just not subject to the 15 mph rule. Then a competition on the flat, or with moderate slopes, can make sense. But only if the e-bikes can then outrun the lycras, so this means 30 mph+ racing. Its important to realise that the sort of bike that does well here is going to be different to the normal street legal bike - it won't be an off the shelf consumer product with the restrictor wires cut and taped over.
Anyway, there is food for thought, and it clearly is possible to run a good e-bike race. But I do believe there are two mistakes that must absolutely be avoided.
One is to insist on un-modified bikes. Leaving aside the practicalities of defining this, it completely nullifies the competition. The whole point is to do something better than your opponent, and if you can't make the bike better then it comes back to hiring a bigger lycra to ride your bike than the opposition can afford.
The other mistake is to combine street legal bikes and a flat course. I hope the discussion we have had here on this forum has explained why this cannot work - why that is in fact pointless. It is a fundamental flaw and it cannot be fixed by making rules about the bikes or by claiming that its only a bit of fun.
Nick
Not completely, of course, but I did lose the will to post. There was quite a good thread discussing E-Bike racing and it got trashed. Then someone enquired about the welfare of a poor chap in Cornwall and it turned into everyone bashing each other over the head with helmets.
It was about a week ago that I logged on, thinking it was time perhaps to summarise the e-bike racing thread and wrap it up. What I found was that someone had posted a semi-literate and offensive comment and that, despite appeals to drop it and get back on topic, this had turned into a two page argument.
Anyway, let's try to summarise the racing discussion. And please, if you want to discuss helmets, 50 cycles, open heart surgery or even whether the world would be a better place if I did lose the will to live - then start a new thread about it. This one is about e-bike racing.
E-Bike racing is indeed open to the charge that it is pointless. The biggest flaw is that some events have been set up so that a lycra on a non electric bike can beat a granny on an electric bike. But it ain't necessarily so....
An e-bike race can be conducted so that it is not pointless. Or so that it is valid, meaningful, productive, useful - whatever the parameter is that you wish to hold your yardstick against. But to achieve that some things are necessary.
1. Forget the idea that it will reveal which is the best bike to buy. That is what consumer tests are for; racing is different.
2. Organise it properly. It must cater for the serious racers. There is also a place for fun racers; ideally it should cater for both types of racer, but it must take the serious racers seriously. Ironically the way to make sure it is fun is to avoid treating it as only a bit of fun.
3. Configure the task properly. It must deal with the problem that a lycra on a non electric bike can sometimes be faster than a granny on an electric bike.
4. Resist the temptation to make rules. Or rather, for each rule think very carefully about the unintended consequences. For instance, every rule that makes the bikes more equal turns it a little more into a competition between rider power instead of motor power.
5. Accept that is doesn't actually prove anything. If it did try to prove something then it would just be argued over for decades to come. The benefit is actually in improving the technology and in generating publicity.
Now most of that is fairly straightforward and people can work out how to apply it. The difficult one, and the one that applies to e-bikes specifically is point 3. Given that a super fit rider can pedal faster than the average e-bike, how to make it a competition between the bikes rather than the riders. That is the issue that had a larger discussion and there were some solutions found.
Basically it divides into two situations.
First is the case if the bikes have to meet the current UK/EU street regulations and are restricted so the motor power cuts out above 15 mph. The difficulty here, and the thing that gets the laughing classes pointing their fingers and rolling on the floor, is that a lot of people can pedal an unpowered bike faster than 15 mph on the flat.
The answer in this case is simple. Don't run the race on the flat. Run a hill climb, preferably a long, steep hill climb. That way the motor power is more important than the rider power.
Another good competition for restricted bikes would be alternating hill climbs and descents. The bikes spend their time either climbing below 15 mph, where the motor power is more important than pedal power, or rolling downhill fast, where pedal power is less important than bike design.
The other case is if the bikes are de-restricted, or just not subject to the 15 mph rule. Then a competition on the flat, or with moderate slopes, can make sense. But only if the e-bikes can then outrun the lycras, so this means 30 mph+ racing. Its important to realise that the sort of bike that does well here is going to be different to the normal street legal bike - it won't be an off the shelf consumer product with the restrictor wires cut and taped over.
Anyway, there is food for thought, and it clearly is possible to run a good e-bike race. But I do believe there are two mistakes that must absolutely be avoided.
One is to insist on un-modified bikes. Leaving aside the practicalities of defining this, it completely nullifies the competition. The whole point is to do something better than your opponent, and if you can't make the bike better then it comes back to hiring a bigger lycra to ride your bike than the opposition can afford.
The other mistake is to combine street legal bikes and a flat course. I hope the discussion we have had here on this forum has explained why this cannot work - why that is in fact pointless. It is a fundamental flaw and it cannot be fixed by making rules about the bikes or by claiming that its only a bit of fun.
Nick
Last edited:
