Two motors?

[Jeremy]

We're both entitled to our view, flecc, so perhaps we should agree to differ.

My view is based on my own experience, plus, as many will have guessed, a certain detailed familiarity with the intricacies of the application of law and the workings of our judiciary. Yours is based on your own years of experience, of course.

One telling point is that I am unaware of any successful prosecutions, nor am I aware of any ebikes being confiscated and crushed by any UK authority. Being British, we just love to make up rules, beseech others to abide by things which are clearly daft and best of all, we have, as a national trait, the rather unpleasant habit of trying act as policemen to each other if we even get a sniff of some arcane and technical legal infringement by another.

Some also hate to be contradicted or even have their wisdom questioned, but perhaps it's best if I don't go there.

Jeremy

 

[flecc]

We're both entitled to our view, flecc, so perhaps we should agree to differ.

Agreed.

My view is based on my own experience, plus, as many will have guessed, a certain detailed familiarity with the intricacies of the application of law and the workings of our judiciary. Yours is based on your own years of experience, of course.

An unwise assumption Jeremy, since this "certain detailed familiarity" I share, having been involved in numerous defence cases, both in case preparation and research, and as a witness in most levels of court in this country, including the Old Bailey, the Chancery Division at the Law Courts in the Strand and appearances before Judges in Chambers.

One telling point is that I am unaware of any successful prosecutions, nor am I aware of any ebikes being confiscated and crushed by any UK authority.

With respect I can't see that as "telling", since it in no way demonstrates that it will not happen. Our prisons are full of people assuming they would never be caught.

Some also hate to be contradicted or even have their wisdom questioned, but perhaps it's best if I don't go there.

I mentioned clutching at straws, and this strikes me as desperation! As a scientist you are clearly used to determinedly arguing your position, so I think the boot may well be on the other foot on this occasion.

As someone familiar with the law and it's administration Jeremy, you know as I do that when a court has to interpret the effect of a law, it endeavours to determine the intention of the legislators, this referred to as the spirit of the law.

The spirit of the law on powered bicycles is so clear that I'm confident that your defence would fail if faced with a competent prosecution. That's why I'm arguing the point, it having nothing to do with having my wisdom questioned or being contradicted.

P.S. As an afterthought, I'd add that acting as an "unpleasant policeman" is entirely alien to me, all of my criminal court involvements being in largely successful defences against the police in cases and appeals. My concern here is the severity of the possible consequences to anyone advised that two motor use is legal, and I'm not prepared to take that risk with another.
.

 

[Jeremy]

I just knew you'd "bite" at that last point, Flecc! Sorry, I was simply doing a small experiment and you honoured me by responding entirely as predicted...........

I am confident that the judiciary, in the form of the local bench, would not behave in quite the draconian manner that many seem to think. The law is applied remarkably reasonably at it's lowest level, although to read some rather one-sided reports in the media one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

As for the rest, I'm not entering into a "I have more knowledge/experience etc etc" contest with selective quotes, as it's both futile and a faintly juvenile exercise. As I said before, we'd best agree to differ.

I have no doubt that you will have the last word on this, Flecc............

Jeremy

 

[flecc]

Only to agree with you Jeremy, both about local benches and the pointlessness of having an experience contest.
.

 

[Tiberius]

Flecc, Jeremy,

I really don't wish to question your legal experience, but it seems to have happened in a parallel universe, staffed in the main with good and honest people doing their jobs.

My own experience (both civil and criminal) is a sorry tale of venal solicitors, laughably incompetent barristers, downright dishonesty on all sides, judges who work on prejudice rather than the facts before them and magistrates who rubber stamp what the police tell them.

The only part of it that "does what it says on the tin" is the Legal Complaints Service.

You will forgive me if I doubt that a test case would result in anything that someone who understood electric motors would consider correct.

Nick

 

[flecc]

Flecc, Jeremy,

I really don't wish to question your legal experience, but it seems to have happened in a parallel universe, staffed in the main with good and honest people doing their jobs.

My own experience (both civil and criminal) is a sorry tale of venal solicitors, laughably incompetent barristers, downright dishonesty on all sides, judges who work on prejudice rather than the facts before them and magistrates who rubber stamp what the police tell them.

Nick

Only a very small parallel universe Nick.

I share your above experiences in various areas of the law and have many horror stories, but it doesn't have to be entirely that way. In my own case I teamed up with a dedicated and highly skilled Inner London solicitor specialising in criminal law, working with him over a number of years with very considerable success.

The whole story of why I did this is a long one, but suffice it to say that my engineering life, while always interesting, lacked the "buzz" that makes life exciting, and taking on the Metropolitan Police service head on provided that.

Chris the solicitor had the legal knowledge and connections that ensured we always enjoyed the best of suitable barristers working for us, while I had the contacts with those on the wrong side of the law, the resources and the inquiring mind to unearth the potentially effective defence areas and bring in the cases.

After years of doing this I ended on a triumphant note. Having won four cases against two Met divisions in a row, I was spotted at court on the fifth and last and respectfully approached by a police sergeant asking if I was involved in the defence. On my confirmation he returned to a police inspector for a conversation and a following phone call, after which the sergeant advised my defendant that the case was being dropped. It doesn't get much better than that, and my experience shows that good experiences at law are possible.

However, for most people without the right dedicated support, the experience all too often matches what you've expressed.
.

 

[essexman]

now that was a great thread

 

[Tiberius]

However, for most people without the right dedicated support, the experience all too often matches what you've expressed.
.

Hi flecc,

I rather fear that is the reality for most customers of the British legal system. You seem to have found someone to team up with who is interested in a little investigation - normally only seen in TV lawyers - and have the advantage of repeatedly tackling similar aspects.

My own contacts with the system have all been at different levels and on different topics so I was a beginner each time. I also found it extremely capricious. The first time I acted for myself the opposition tried to take advantage of it and the recorder slapped them down; the second time the district judge was so outraged at the impertinence that I was sunk before entering the room.

Being an expert witness is so much better than being a customer, and not only because you get paid instead of paying. They actually listen to what you say.

We've strayed off the original topic, but I hope forum readers are getting the message that its a potential minefield. Being technically correct is not all that matters.

Nick

 

[flecc]

Yes, I think that's a good example of just some of the problems with the system Nick. Of all the professions/trades/occupations, the law does seem to have a surprisingly high proportion of individuals who are incompetent, arrogant, selfseeking, and sometimes downright dishonest.

Unfortunately, even if that were not so, the system would still not work well. Few defendants would understand the system, many are inarticulate, and simple interviews are normally insufficient to mount effective defences. On occasions I would spend weeks and even months as a friend of a defendant, family and friends, even to the extent of employing one defendant, before uncovering some evidence absolutely crucial to the case.

Since the police and legal system have so much stacked in their favour, having all those involved therein at a high level of competence could actually stack things further against defendants, since the long term support that Chris and I gave to the few could never be given to the many. In fact police and previous defence incompetence was often our greatest ally in achieving acquittals.
.

 

[Fecn]

Out of interest - What's the regulations about off-road use. All of the steep uphills I have to tackle have bridleway routes. Would it be legal to use a second motor on them, or would the extra power mean that it was no longer classed as a bicycle and therefore not allowed on the bridleways at all ?

Maybe I should look at a 9-speed hub (no way I'm paying for a Rohloff at those prices) for the back wheel to get a bit of extra range out of the gears?

 

[Tiberius]

The Road Traffic Act defines a road simply as anywhere the public have access.

Combined with the right to roam legislation this could be taken as quite broad and cover a lot of places that are not tarmacced, that you couldn't possibly get to by car, are privately owned and which most people would think of as not part of the public highway.

Nick

PS. I'm still not convinced that 2 motors is automatically illegal for on road use. Two 250 W motors is the same power as one 500 W motor. There are bikes claiming legality with motors that could be described as more than 500 W, so it depends on the definition of power and whether you look at the system or the motor.

What is certain is that 2 motors is more likely to attract attention, and therefore more likely to be the test case.

 

[Fecn]

It would seem to me that if there is some precedent whereby Wisper can fit a 'derestrict' button, it would be reasonable for others to do the same and have a bike which can operate in two modes. - I doubt that the Wisper unrestricted button has seen a court case yet though.

 

[flecc]

That's right Fecn, these derestrict facilities are described by suppliers as "off road" or for use on private land, and never claimed to be for on road use in the UK or EU countries. This amounts to a self declaration by the suppliers that they are illegal on road, in itself seriously damaging any defence raised.

The Bridleways Act of 1964 is quite clear in defining bicycles as accepted with all motor vehicles excluded, and even tricycles and other cycles are omitted from the inclusions. However, Sustrans has obtained a prosecution waver for tricycles from the DoT.
.

 

[flecc]

PS. I'm still not convinced that 2 motors is automatically illegal for on road use. Two 250 W motors is the same power as one 500 W motor. There are bikes claiming legality with motors that could be described as more than 500 W, so it depends on the definition of power and whether you look at the system or the motor.

What is certain is that 2 motors is more likely to attract attention, and therefore more likely to be the test case.

My point was never that two motors was automatically legal though Nick. As Jeremy observed, the Sparc hub drive has two 100 watt motors.

My point was that with the motors we commonly use, i.e. putting two motors each declared by the manufacturers as being at or close to the legal rating onto one bike, is illegal.

I don't think Jeremy's defence of being able to declare differently as the bike creator would stand up, and as said above, in the case where a rating declared kit motor is added to a rating declared e-bike to make it a two motor bike, I'm certain that defence would have no chance.

Again as I said above, the important factor to me is the risk involved for the person I'm advising, and for that reason alone I will continue to advise it's illegal until it's proven beyond doubt otherwise.

I'm also certain that a test case held at the right level with examination of the spirit of the law involved would have no option but to rule illegality, since the combined motor ratings are so obviously a breach of legislators clear intentions.

All a prosecutor has to do is state the UK and EU legislators intentions to keep these vehicles as bicycles and avoid them becoming motor vehicles, to which end they determined a speed limit and maximum continuous power rating. With that accepted by the court, the doubling of that rating with two motors can only be read as defiance of the law.
.

 

[Footie]

Out of interest, does anyone know how the Wisper 'derestrict' button works?
Is it volt or amp restriction?
.

 

[Fecn]

If it's anything like the hub-motor bikes I have, it is likely that it simply disconnects the rotation sensor signal from the hub motor on it's way to the controller. That way, the controller never knows how fast the motor is going and won't cut the power.

 

[john]

All a prosecutor has to do is state the UK and EU legislators intentions to keep these vehicles as bicycles and avoid them becoming motor vehicles, to which end they determined a speed limit and maximum continuous power rating. With that accepted by the court, the doubling of that rating with two motors can only be read as defiance of the law.
.

I'm inclined to agree with that. I suspect that when the legislation was framed, "maximum continuous power" seemed to the legislators to be a convenient way to limit these bikes; probably not predicting the subsequent head scratching that would go on trying to work out exactly what that means

 

[Fecn]

I'm inclined to agree with that. I suspect that when the legislation was framed, "maximum continuous power" seemed to the legislators to be a convenient way to limit these bikes; probably not predicting the subsequent head scratching that would go on trying to work out exactly what that means

Maximum Continuous Power sounded very much like an engineering term to me, so I did some digging on motor specs and definitions and found the following.

Maximum Coil Temperature (Tmax)- The temperature at which coil failure is expected due to excessive thermal expansion in the wire or insulation failure (which happens at around 150-170C).

Maximum Power Dissipation - The continuous power losses of the motor when when the coil is at Tmax and the ambient temperature is at 25C (i.e. how much waste heat the motor can get rid of without breaking down.... So if you feed 250W into an 80% efficient motor then you have 50W of heat to get rid of.)

Continuous Current (IcTMax) - The coil current corresponding to the maximum power dissipation of the motor. (i.e as much current as the motor can use indefinitely in 25C ambient air without melting itself.)

Maximum Continuous Power - Amps * Volts for the required amount of power to make the motor operate just below breaking point.

This seems to all make sense to me. The motor has to be able to get rid of all the waste heat or it melts its internals (such as when people decide to up the voltages). The point at where it can no longer get rid of it's waste heat is the absolute most work it can be made to do. When you're at that point and you try to give it more work, it melts... When you give it less work, it cools down... and it is all measured at 25C in still air. - That is the maximum continuous power that can be sustained.

Now.. for peak power, you can really make up any number you want.. but somehow or other you have to be able to get rid of the heat. You've got a couple of kg of copper coils which can soak up heat when it's cold and this takes care of stop/stall states. However, when the motor is stalled, all of the energy is being fed into it is dissipated as heat and 250W heats up 2KG of copper coils pretty rapidly.

Does that make sense to anyone except me?

 

[iaing]

Maximum Continuous Power

Maximum Continuous Power sounded very much like an engineering term to me, so I did some digging on motor specs and definitions and found the following.

Maximum Coil Temperature (Tmax)- The temperature at which coil failure is expected due to excessive thermal expansion in the wire or insulation failure (which happens at around 150-170C).

Maximum Power Dissipation - The continuous power losses of the motor when when the coil is at Tmax and the ambient temperature is at 25C (i.e. how much waste heat the motor can get rid of without breaking down.... So if you feed 250W into an 80% efficient motor then you have 50W of heat to get rid of.)

Continuous Current (IcTMax) - The coil current corresponding to the maximum power dissipation of the motor. (i.e as much current as the motor can use indefinitely in 25C ambient air without melting itself.)

Maximum Continuous Power - Amps * Volts for the required amount of power to make the motor operate just below breaking point.

This seems to all make sense to me. The motor has to be able to get rid of all the waste heat or it melts its internals (such as when people decide to up the voltages). The point at where it can no longer get rid of it's waste heat is the absolute most work it can be made to do. When you're at that point and you try to give it more work, it melts... When you give it less work, it cools down... and it is all measured at 25C in still air. - That is the maximum continuous power that can be sustained.

Now.. for peak power, you can really make up any number you want.. but somehow or other you have to be able to get rid of the heat. You've got a couple of kg of copper coils which can soak up heat when it's cold and this takes care of stop/stall states. However, when the motor is stalled, all of the energy is being fed into it is dissipated as heat and 250W heats up 2KG of copper coils pretty rapidly.

Does that make sense to anyone except me?

I do not think it is an engineering term, rather a political one and therefore devoid of any meaningful definition. Hence none of the manufacturers or retailers knowing where they stand. Normal service as usual from the politicians, which is what keeps the lawyers in business

Iain

 

[flecc]

It is in this instance a political term, but not one to keep lawyers in business this time.

Quite simply, in any test case on using two 200 watt rated motors when the limit is 200 watts total, the term does not have to be defined, it only being sufficient to demonstrate that the limit has been exceeded, regardless of the meaning of the limit. That's fundamental to my argument in this thread, the fact that it's an easily read legal matter and in no way a technical one.

The manufacturers/suppliers have stated that the motor(s) are 200 watts each, so two of them break the law. No definitions are necessary since the manufacturers/suppliers have predefined the rating(s).
.