Pertaining to ebikes

[Linfitter]

The other day, puff, as I rode my bike, puff, up my usual steep hill with poor rolling assistance, puff, I thought that there were the odd occasions when an extra 50-100Watts of extra motor power wouldn’t come amiss and so I got to thinking why the legal limit in this country had been set at 200Watts a widely recognised underpowered rating especially when applied to the less than fit individual who was thinking of taking up cycling. I wondered why the rating had been set thus and by who and when and why and as I couldn’t recall ever, being an avid news reader and watcher, seeing anything relating to upcoming legislation regarding power assisted ‘push’ bikes decided to do a bit of research and this is what I found.

POWER-ASSISTED BICYCLES (Hansard, 10 March 1976)

[URL="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/...

Now I think you will be able to see that if for instance ‘Crank Drive’ push bikes could climb any hill regardless of rider weight at a speed that would make it practical as far as cycling was concerned the power rating would have been set even lower.

Why ‘power’ sensors only apply maximum power when maximum cyclist input has been applied and not the other way round which is what the less than fit and physically challenged really require.

Why ‘throttles’ apart from ‘walk alongside’ ones were never in the equation.

I think on reading the link if you weren’t sure on certain aspects of ebiking and its implications you will be after.

P.S

I hope I have done the Link correctly and if I have not could I impose on Mr Flecc to do it for me

Yours sincerely

Linfitter.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

The problem is that you've been riding the wrong bike. The 200w Powabyke Euro with SLA batteries and legal throttle can get you up fairly steep hills without pedalling.

A quick calculation says that 200w is sufficient to propel a bike and rider of total mass 100kg up a 12% slope at nearly 4 mph. If you pedal as well at a comfortable (for most) 100w, you'd go 6mph.

Much better to have more power though. Luckily noone's checking at the moment.

 

[amigafan2003]

I wondered why the rating had been set thus

Because they don't really care about cycling, certainly not ebikes, and the government thinks all it's citizens have to be baby sat and molly coddled lest they hurt themselves, so they picked a low arbitrary limit happ that ebike and normal cycles would be so close together in use and function as to be virtually indistinguishable - i.e. they didn't want to part from the normal way of things.

Also they seem overly keen on restricting the libierties of the many responsible riders in order to restrict the activities of the few irresponsible riders. I.e. they are legislating for stupidity.

Oh, and if ebkies were more attractive, then they'd lose tax revenue.

I'm sure I could come up with a few more reasons but it's all a farce so I just pay no attention to it.

And no, before anyone states the obvious - I didn't read the linked article - it's a Hansard so it's obviously a record of arguments from a bunch of overpaid, cheating, work shy, pretentious, "in it for themselves" MP's.

 

[flecc]

The link is broken but I can't correct it since all the tail end of the text is missing and I've no idea of it's end location. A Hansard search for EAPC (the e-bike regulations) brings up links to NATO's Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council.

If you can post the full correct link as text instead of trying to make it a link, I can help.

 

[flecc]

A quick calculation says that 200w is sufficient to propel a bike and rider of total mass 100kg up a 12% slope at nearly 4 mph. If you pedal as well at a comfortable (for most) 100w, you'd go 6mph.

Fine on such easier hills for a light rider like me who with an average well kitted e-bike totals almost 100 kilos. No good for heavier people and/or hills of up to double that steepness. A 100 kilo rider plus e-bike on a 25% hill needs about 900 watts total for 4 mph, so with 200 watts from a motor would need to pedal input some 700 watts, far beyond any average cyclist

So just as well the manufacturers interpret the law in such a different way, for with only a true 200 watts, there'd be no e-bike market.

 

[andy slow coach]

I hope I have done the Link correctly and if I have not could I impose on Mr Flecc to do it for me

I think this is the link...

 

[oigoi]

For me the idea of the 200w or 250w limit is a flawed concept. If an ebike had to be genuinely only able to produce that maximum power just about every ebike out there would be illegal. Makes a nonsense of having a limit in the first place. Why not just limit the maximum speed that can be assisted to and leave the power out of it?

 

[amigafan2003]

Why not just limit the maximum speed that can be assisted to and leave the power out of it?

Have you ridden a 4kw ebike - even one limited to 17mph?

I have and they should not be available as a retail item!

 

[103Alex1]

A 100 kilo rider plus e-bike on a 25% hill needs about 900 watts total for 4 mph, so with 200 watts from a motor would need to pedal input some 700 watts, far beyond any average cyclist

Yup - and there are a few of them near me, pretty much on the way to all my favourite spots ... Still, when this is waiting for you at the end of your ride pedal effort dosn't seem quite such a burden - though the audible cry of anguish lycra who had to stop on one of the hills behind a run of cars backed up at the passing place on the way there might easily lead one to believe otherwise

Pretty much perfect today - though I did like it better this day last year when it was 19 degrees !

 

[Linfitter]

Sorry Mr Flecc for being so late in replying but my Computer went into a permanent shut down loop. It needs cleaning.

Andy slow coach has posted the Link.

I do hope Amiga Fan reads it. The article by Mr William Whitlock shows that he is anything but an ignorant moran.

Thanks again for yours and Andy's help..

 

[GaRRy]

interesting read especially with the redefinition of a moped which came in 1977.

 

[AlMel]

What’s also interesting in the link is the reference to bicycle export sales. Britain was indeed a great manufacturer. What about now?

This report makes for dismal reading:
Welcome to COLIBI! (Click Dossiers- Facts and figures)

Britain is Europe’s second largest bicycle market (after Germany) with a country share of 18%. Yet it no longer makes them. It’s not as if the problem is Europe-wide; look at the performance of Italy, Germany and the Netherlands to name but the top three manufacturers.

It’s as if all the proud British marques of yore are now merely stickers decorating that which is made elsewhere.

Is the reason for this decline akin to what happened to the British motorbike industry- hoist by its own hubris? I vaguely recall seeing the boss of BSA (owners of the old Triumph company) interviewed in the late sixties. Speaking from behind a huge desk, he mocked with majestic disdain Japanese innovations such as electric starters. “Real motorcyclists do not require such things” I think he said. (Yes, Triumph lives again; but only thanks to a remarkable maverick businessman.)

What happened? What’s to be done about it?

 

[flecc]

I think this is the link...

Thanks Andy, well done finding it again.

 

[flecc]

For me the idea of the 200w or 250w limit is a flawed concept. If an ebike had to be genuinely only able to produce that maximum power just about every ebike out there would be illegal. Makes a nonsense of having a limit in the first place. Why not just limit the maximum speed that can be assisted to and leave the power out of it?

The European Parliament agreed and proposed removing the power limit completely, having just the speed and a weight limit. The weight limit would prevent ridiculously high powers of course so it was a wise move. However, the European Commission was unenthusiastic, so rather than hold up the legislative changes in hand, the parliament dropped the idea.

 

[oigoi]

Good article, well worth a read. Makes me think about the potential, what might have been, if the ideas had been capitalised on and developed, while we still had our manufacturing industry. Shame really. The UK historically has lead the way in innovation in so many ways, I think we need to rediscover that spirit. Nowadays people just think "pah the chinese can do it cheaper so why bother"

 

[flecc]

What’s also interesting in the link is the reference to bicycle export sales. Britain was indeed a great manufacturer. What about now?

This report makes for dismal reading:
Welcome to COLIBI! (Click Dossiers- Facts and figures)

Britain is Europe’s second largest bicycle market (after Germany) with a country share of 18%. Yet it no longer makes them. It’s not as if the problem is Europe-wide; look at the performance of Italy, Germany and the Netherlands to name but the top three manufacturers.

It’s as if all the proud British marques of yore are now merely stickers decorating that which is made elsewhere.

Is the reason for this decline akin to what happened to the British motorbike industry- hoist by its own hubris? I vaguely recall seeing the boss of BSA (owners of the old Triumph company) interviewed in the late sixties. Speaking from behind a huge desk, he mocked with majestic disdain Japanese innovations such as electric starters. “Real motorcyclists do not require such things” I think he said. (Yes, Triumph lives again; but only thanks to a remarkable maverick businessman.)

What happened? What’s to be done about it?

You've really answered your own question in essence, we are no longer able to run these sort of businesses, being far too small "c" conservative in all our attitudes. Just look at what happens when the things we know we need to keep up with the rest of the world and look after our futures are proposed. High speed rail lines, airport extensions, nuclear power stations, wind farms, Severn barrage, onshore oil exploration, shale gas and oil fracking, GM food production, the EU project, no matter what it is we object to absolutely anything that actually means making the slightest progress. Compare that to Victorian times when we just went ahead and did everything as soon as we thought of it.

Even when we reluctantly decide to do something, we make the job many times more difficult than it needs be, for example, we took 18 years to complete the most modern of our nuclear power stations, Sizewell B, when the rest of the world can do the same safely in four years. South Korea which is very dependent on nuclear energy to manufacture it's worldwide exports has built it's very safe nuclear power stations in as little as 2 years each, making us look truly pathetic.

We did do one thing on time better than many other countries performances, build the London Olympics facilities, but what a thing to pick to get right, something with no real economic benefit and huge unrecoverable costs!

All of which sums up Britain as a country now, small minded, stuck in a rut, complacent, looking wistfully at the past and only really wanting to do what is largely irrelevant, theme parks, games, tourism, exploiting our doubtful history. And while doing this, complacently telling ourselves that we are the greatest when we are so far from that. Two examples. First, the line of the song Rule Britannia which Britons so lustily sing, "Britons never never shall be slaves", when in fact we have lost on every significant historical occasion when we've been invaded. Second, the infuriating case of a national vote on what was Britain's greatest invention, the voted winner being Concorde, despite the protests of myself and many others. Concorde was of course a French conception, design and build with a French engineer in charge of the project in which we were the minority partner. We had a lot of design input in the wings and supplied the engines, both well done of course but hardly making it a British achievement. Both are examples of the way we continue to delude ourselves on our status, when in fact we are no longer a modern world country but one which will end up in the third world eventually if we don't come to our senses soon.
.

 

[AlMel]

Flecc: Agree with you on everything save two points: the only invasion surely was that of 1066? Also, viewed from abroad the Olympics were absolutely bloody marvellous!

Thinking of the idiots once in charge of BSA I’ve reflected on others I’ve actually known (in Britain, I'm afraid). They were not all like this, but far too many were: Company Directors concerned only with the size of their annual bonus, whose management style at best was paternal, at worst bullying. So often completely ignorant of what was happening on the shop floor. And a media that too often aids and abets them. Why have a TV programme showing how a sugarised peer browbeats, harasses and intimidates Apprentices? Why not instead describe how John Bloor built the new Triumph? Or explain how the few world class companies Britain still has, like Rolls Royce, manage to succeed?

Two things John Bloor and RR have in common: they plan ahead, a very long time ahead. And they pay a lot of attention to developing people. What did the idiots I’ve known have in common? An obsession with short term gain.

Maybe, together, in my case somewhat incoherently, we’re getting at what caused the mess. Oh, and encouraging corporate and individual greed fed off crazy levels of borrowing ten years or so ago.

Time for lunch.

 

[Kudoscycles]

You've really answered your own question in essence, we are no longer able to run these sort of businesses, being far too small "c" conservative in all our attitudes. Just look at what happens when the things we know we need to keep up with the rest of the world and look after our futures are proposed. High speed rail lines, airport extensions, nuclear power stations, wind farms, Severn barrage, onshore oil exploration, shale gas and oil fracking, GM food production, the EU project, no matter what it is we object to absolutely anything that actually means making the slightest progress. Compare that to Victorian times when we just went ahead and did everything as soon as we thought of it.

Even when we reluctantly decide to do something, we make the job many times more difficult than it needs be, for example, we took 18 years to complete the most modern of our nuclear power stations, Sizewell B, when the rest of the world can do the same safely in four years. South Korea which is very dependent on nuclear energy to manufacture it's worldwide exports has built it's very safe nuclear power stations in as little as 2 years each, making us look truly pathetic.

We did do one thing on time better than many other countries performances, build the London Olympics facilities, but what a thing to pick to get right, something with no real economic benefit and huge unrecoverable costs!

All of which sums up Britain as a country now, small minded, stuck in a rut, complacent, looking wistfully at the past and only really wanting to do what is largely irrelevant, theme parks, games, tourism, exploiting our doubtful history. And while doing this, complacently telling ourselves that we are the greatest when we are so far from that. Two examples. First, the line of the song Rule Britannia which Britons so lustily sing, "Britons never never shall be slaves", when in fact we have lost on every significant historical occasion when we've been invaded. Second, the infuriating case of a national vote on what was Britain's greatest invention, the voted winner being Concorde, despite the protests of myself and many others. Concorde was of course a French conception, design and build with a French engineer in charge of the project in which we were the minority partner. We had a lot of design input in the wings and supplied the engines, both well done of course but hardly making it a British achievement. Both are examples of the way we continue to delude ourselves on our status, when in fact we are no longer a modern world country which will end up in the third world eventually if we don't come to our senses soon.
.

When Cameron got into power,even with the Liberals,I had high hopes for him. He inherited a mess from the last lot,how they have the gall to even open their mouths these days-never mind telling us how to sort out the mess....note how Gordon Brown is nowhere to be heard.
Anyway,Cameron seems not to have the power to get anything through,which is a shame-I often wonder whether 'Yes Minister' is close to reality and the mandarins of Whitehall actually run the country,to suit themselves.
But do we deserve the work?....I have a simple injection moulding job,which would have normally gone straight to China,have sent it to three local moulders,five weeks later not even a response from two and the third wanted very high tooling costs and a piece price double the chinese quote. Have just given the job to the chinese,they threw in the tooling for free!....I am afraid that is what we are up against.
Previously,if you had an empty factory,earning no revenue,you paid no business rates. The Labour government restricted the timescale after which you paid rates and small units were exempt,the Tories said all empty commercial properties now pay rates.
I am in desperate need of more space,we have so many new ideas and have the cash to build a warehouse extension but I (and most businessses) are sitting back. You would have to be the village idiot to expand at the moment,the risk/reward ratio is just not there-its one thing to fail at a new project but to fail with a big business rates bill as a momento is just crazy. And the government wonder why we are not investing.
Theo Paphitis said the same last night on Question Time,he has the cash but will not invest until the government create the environment to make this attractive. Liam Fox had the right idea but was too radical,leave the EU,bring corporation tax down to 10%(he wanted it zero) and investment will flood into this country but until then we will slowly go downhill.

Kudosdave

 

[flecc]

Flecc: Agree with you on everything save two points: the only invasion surely was that of 1066? Also, viewed from abroad the Olympics were absolutely bloody marvellous!

1066 was far from the only invasion, for a start there were the Romans who ruled in Britain for almost 400 years to 401 AD. The takeovers by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes were invasions of a kind in their effect, amounting to the Celtic native Britons of the time giving up the country. The Celts themselves were a successful earlier invader, having migrated from northern Europe via Belgium into Britain. And of course we never successfully opposed any of the numerous Viking incursions. The only reason they didn't take over the country was they didn't want to, being content with the spoils of raids, but many of them did settle here without being driven out. To this day many of the fisherman of Shetland are able to converse with today's "Vikings" from Norway in their language, simply because their origins and dialect betray that they were originally of Viking stock, having effectively taken over those islands. The genetic evidence of DNA now shows us that there is an exclusively male contribution in many cases of these influxes, clear indication of invasion rather than peaceful migration of populations.

As for the Olympics, as I said we were successful, but I questioned the ultimate value of the enterprise.
.

 

[oigoi]

I was made redundant from my work as an engineer 18 months ago. The factory I work in was moved to Costa Rica because of lower labour costs. We contacted our mp but he showed no interest whatsoever in saving our jobs, nothing he could do, didnt even try. 130 jobs gone with subsequent impact on the local economy. There's little incentive for manufacturing companies to set themselves up in this country and until something changes it will remain that way