Perhaps the rules could or maybe should be changed to rule out ghost pedaling, but until they are ...............................

 

Why would you want to? For most people in the world an ebike with a throttle is the norm. It's the most logical, efficient, reliable and cheap way of controlling an ebike motor and is ideal in start/stop urban traffic and for those people who are frail or disabled and need greater assistance at times. Not that there is anything wrong with a pedelec system its just that should be just one option on the marketplace not forced as the only option by dire incompetent and corrupt legislation. However the legislation is mainly ignored in the UK and even across mainland Europe as unworkable and anti-consumer. I can't think of any legislation more ignored by so many from consumers to the road authorities themselves. Ghost pedalling is currently a legal alternative for those who want to follow the letter of the law however stupid that is because of dismal legislation.

 

Throttles are the best option on a ebike. You only apply power when you need it so it can massively extend range for example and help batteries last longer. For example you can ride everywhere you want to, and only on hills where you struggle do you apply the throttle its so easy to push yourself to the limits if you want to with a throttle and use it as a bailout option when you are struggling. That's the beauty of a throttle you determine exactly how much assistance it gives you and at what times which is far superior to a cadence or torque sensor and its how most ebikes are controlled in the world by preference. It's not something any fair or competent authority should legislate against.

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by Bonzo Banana

Why would you want to? For most people in the world an ebike with a throttle is the norm. It's the most logical, efficient, reliable and cheap way of controlling an ebike motor and is ideal in start/stop urban traffic and for those people who are frail or disabled and need greater assistance at times. Not that there is anything wrong with a pedelec system its just that should be just one option on the marketplace not forced as the only option by dire incompetent and corrupt legislation. However the legislation is mainly ignored in the UK and even across mainland Europe as unworkable and anti-consumer. I can't think of any legislation more ignored by so many from consumers to the road authorities themselves. Ghost pedalling is currently a legal alternative for those who want to follow the letter of the law however stupid that is because of dismal legislation.

 

Throttles are the best option on a ebike. You only apply power when you need it so it can massively extend range for example and help batteries last longer. For example you can ride everywhere you want to, and only on hills where you struggle do you apply the throttle its so easy to push yourself to the limits if you want to with a throttle and use it as a bailout option when you are struggling. That's the beauty of a throttle you determine exactly how much assistance it gives you and at what times which is far superior to a cadence or torque sensor and its how most ebikes are controlled in the world by preference. It's not something any fair or competent authority should legislate against.

I removed throttle from grandsons bike (Tongshen 250 w crank drive) primarily on safety grounds. I don't think anyone would likely face prosecution for having one, especially if it was the only issue... On a couple of occasions he fell off bike and throttle was pushed on.. There isn't loads of power but certainly enough to damage fingers in chain or cause some other problem.

I, m not convinced they are such a help over having to pedal. Suspect it might make you lazy... Riders should develop habit of being in right gear as they slow down and have ability to use pedal accordingly to set off. With modern motors, in right setting, in right gear the amount of torque required through pedal to move off is neglible.

Think rules arer fine.

Having feet on pedals should be a prerequisite for cycling.. With a throttle it isn't.

Any way , the bike is registered and on the road - now classed as a motor vehicle do they stamp a VIN number on the frame ? and the corresponding number on the documents .

I removed throttle from grandsons bike (Tongshen 250 w crank drive) primarily on safety grounds. I don't think anyone would likely face prosecution for having one, especially if it was the only issue... On a couple of occasions he fell off bike and throttle was pushed on.. There isn't loads of power but certainly enough to damage fingers in chain or cause some other problem.

I, m not convinced they are such a help over having to pedal. Suspect it might make you lazy... Riders should develop habit of being in right gear as they slow down and have ability to use pedal accordingly to set off. With modern motors, in right setting, in right gear the amount of torque required through pedal to move off is neglible.

Think rules arer fine.

Having feet on pedals should be a prerequisite for cycling.. With a throttle it isn't.

 

Most of what you said doesn't make a lot of sense. Many cadence and torque based sensors are set to power levels that assist all the time depending on your effort and settings. This is in contrast to throttles where you have full control so you can use them as infrequently or frequently as you like so could make you lazier but it could also make it much harder too hence the benefits of a throttle as you have full control. So you can equally make the case that a cadence or torque sensor makes you lazier and it is more difficult to keep changing power levels with those in traffic and less safe. All throttles should return instantly to the zero position and should not be active in an accident unless your hand is still rotating it for some reason. This is not something I've ever heard criticised about throttles before and seems like a stretch to me. Most throttle ebikes will have a on/off procedure and instantly unassist when released.

 

I take your point about being in the right gear etc but sometimes you are caught out by other things happening on the road etc. Generally safety is increased with a throttle. It gives you power exactly when you want and never has a difficult delay like cadence sensors and possibly torque sensors so increases safety at junctions. I remember reading on a forum of someone who had a mid-drive ebike and at a junction on a hill just as he was moving off and the torque of his motor peaked his chain snapped because the chain was under maximum load and he was left right in front of an car which luckily had time to stop. A throttle based hub motor ebike does not have that issue as even if the chain snapped (highly unlikely with a hub motor anyway) the hub motor would still do its job under throttle control.

 

The safety aspect of throttles I would say is much better than relying on sensors which create an extra complication and delays. However mid-drive is always going to be less safe than hub motors as its much more complicated and more likely to lead to component failure both in the motor itself and the drivetrain. Also because they put the battery under much higher current drain when at peak watts they lead to more battery fires at least for ebike kits where often people go cheap on a suitable battery for a mid-drive motor where as hub motors can get by with much lower Wh batteries typically.

 

So to me if you wanted maximum safety for an ebike it would be a hub motor based ebike with a throttle. Simple, reliable and full control and with much extended drivetrain life.

Any way , the bike is registered and on the road - now classed as a motor vehicle do they stamp a VIN number on the frame ? and the corresponding number on the documents .

 

Hi Plasman,

 

The stamped frame number is used on the Single Vehicle Approval doc as the VIN.

 

All the best, David

The throttle control is also a useful range extender enabling riders to access higher motor power very easily and effectively for a few seconds when needed, rather than leaving the bike on max power continuously.

 

Alex Bowden of eBike Tips writes…

 

“The thumb throttle is positioned between your hand and the main power controls and feels like nothing more than an awkward irrelevance when riding with the assistance level set to max. However, in levels one and two in particular, it really comes into its own. This is because it basically gives you easy, instant access to maximum assistance without having to shift up and down again with multiple button presses.’

 

All the best, David

For most people in the world an ebike with a throttle is the norm. - - - - - - - - - - - - its how most ebikes are controlled in the world by preference.

 

You keep repeating this but it is not true. The sale of no throttle pedelecs in the EU and EEC countries and Japan has long vastly exceeded their sales anywhere else in the world. The same no throttle law exists in a number of other countries as well. The main exception using throttles to only a limited extent is the USA where e-bikes are more leisure toys than transport and their sales are so low that their vast country is served by very few dealers.

 

I respect your right to have an opinion on the law, but it ignores the most important aspect, that bureacracy free pedelecs must remain bicycles and not become motor vehicles able to be propelled without pedalling.

 

As I've repeatedly explained to you, including just yesterday, there are classes provided to take care of that need for those wishing to have such vehicles. Namely L1e-A and L1e-B, the Low Powered Moped and S-class respectively. They should use those.

.

Most of what you said doesn't make a lot of sense. Many cadence and torque based sensors are set to power levels that assist all the time depending on your effort and settings. This is in contrast to throttles where you have full control so you can use them as infrequently or frequently as you like so could make you lazier but it could also make it much harder too hence the benefits of a throttle as you have full control. So you can equally make the case that a cadence or torque sensor makes you lazier and it is more difficult to keep changing power levels with those in traffic and less safe. All throttles should return instantly to the zero position and should not be active in an accident unless your hand is still rotating it for some reason. This is not something I've ever heard criticised about throttles before and seems like a stretch to me. Most throttle ebikes will have a on/off procedure and instantly unassist when released.

 

I take your point about being in the right gear etc but sometimes you are caught out by other things happening on the road etc. Generally safety is increased with a throttle. It gives you power exactly when you want and never has a difficult delay like cadence sensors and possibly torque sensors so increases safety at junctions. I remember reading on a forum of someone who had a mid-drive ebike and at a junction on a hill just as he was moving off and the torque of his motor peaked his chain snapped because the chain was under maximum load and he was left right in front of an car which luckily had time to stop. A throttle based hub motor ebike does not have that issue as even if the chain snapped (highly unlikely with a hub motor anyway) the hub motor would still do its job under throttle control.

 

The safety aspect of throttles I would say is much better than relying on sensors which create an extra complication and delays. However mid-drive is always going to be less safe than hub motors as its much more complicated and more likely to lead to component failure both in the motor itself and the drivetrain. Also because they put the battery under much higher current drain when at peak watts they lead to more battery fires at least for ebike kits where often people go cheap on a suitable battery for a mid-drive motor where as hub motors can get by with much lower Wh batteries typically.

 

So to me if you wanted maximum safety for an ebike it would be a hub motor based ebike with a throttle. Simple, reliable and full control and with much extended drivetrain life.

Motors do not snap chains, riders do.

The maximum torque a motor can exert (a legal one) pales into insignificance at side of a rider stood on a static pedal. I haven't a clue why you persist on this tack of rubbishing crank drives and insisting you need a throttle on a pushbike. I, m 67,a touch over weight, oner false knee and post 4 heart ops and not a gifted cyclist by any means, yet setting off, even on steepest hills on off road tracks is simply not even an issue to mention let alone complain about. Pedelecs with throttles are not pedelecs. They are mopeds or motorbikes.

I suggest you go and try a decent crank drive and perhaps then you, d see some sense in my earlier post? A throttle on any of crank drive bikes I, ve used would be superfluous and form bad habits, and it's illegal. We don't need them.

Perhaps it covers up some deficiency in hub drives?(ie, ability to dump current into a motor to compensate for limited gearing choices)

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by Zlatan

You keep repeating this but it is not true. The sale of no throttle pedelecs in the EU and EEC countries and Japan has long vastly exceeded their sales anywhere else in the world. The same no throttle law exists in a number of other countries as well. The main exception using throttles to only a limited extent is the USA where e-bikes are more leisure toys than transport and their sales are so low that their vast country is served by very few dealers.

 

I respect your right to have an opinion on the law, but it ignores the most important aspect, that bureacracy free pedelecs must remain bicycles and not become motor vehicles able to be propelled without pedalling.

 

As I've repeatedly explained to you, including just yesterday, there are classes provided to take care of that need for those wishing to have such vehicles. Namely L1e-A and L1e-B, the Low Powered Moped and S-class respectively. They should use those.

.

 

How is it not true. You have just added a load of extra conditions which are not applicable to what I have written. I said most people in the world use throttles with ebikes and as those markets are huge like China, India, most of Asia, South America, Africa, North America and many other countries 'most' would apply. Many of the Chinese ebikes we see in Europe are adapted to sell in Europe they don't have pedelec features when sold in China and most other markets. Ebike kits often have pedelec systems added which don't even work that well. Those voilamart kits work beautifully with a throttle but the basic implementation of the pedelec system means as soon as you rotate the pedals you dangerously get full power which is both dangerous and more damaging to the battery. The pedelec system is in minority use in the world and the fact you deny that shows just how warped your viewpoint has become.

 

Also from all the videos I've seen where a ebike is sold with both a pedelec system and a full range throttle in the USA for example there is a very high skew towards use of the throttle over or active with the pedelec system. I.e. the majority of ebike riders use throttle control.

 

The percentage of ebikes sold in the world with only a pedelec system is going to be very low. Even here in the UK a huge number of Chinese brand and imported from Asia ebikes come with a throttle control which you have to activate in the settings to get to work by a secret menu typically.

 

Remember a huge number of ebikes in the world are sold with basic controllers with litle logic and in India brushed motor ebike kits are huge sellers which are throttle only.

 

The only companies selling purely pedal assist/pedelec type ebikes seems to be European brands who are typically very high priced and only niche sellers in the US for example.

 

There is a statistic here that shows in China how much an average ebike costs compared to Europe and the US.

 

https://www.ebicycles.com/ebike-facts-statistics/

 

 

Ultimately readers will have to decide who is telling porkies and who is being factual. I completely stand by my comments that most people in the world use throttles with ebikes and most of those don't even have the option to choose pedal assist as not even fitted to their ebikes.

Motors do not snap chains, riders do.

The maximum torque a motor can exert (a legal one) pales into insignificance at side of a rider stood on a static pedal. I haven't a clue why you persist on this rack of rubbishing crank drives and insisting you need a throttle on a pushbike. I, m 67,a touch over weight, oner false knee and post 4 heart ops and not a gifted cyclist by any means, yet setting off, even on sterpest hills on off road tracks is simply not even an issue to mention let alone complain about. Pedelec with throttles are not pedelec. They are mopeds or motorbike.

I suggest you go and try a decent crank drive and perhaps then you, d see some sense in my earlier post? A throttle on any of crank drive bikes I, ve used would be superfluous and form bad habits, and it's illegal. We don't need them.

 

So lets gets this straight according to your logic. A mid-drive motor that could apply up to 5x the power of a weaker rider 100Nm vs 20Nm is not the cause of a chain breaking it is in fact the rider? Surely this is not debatable a mid-drive motor at peak up a hill can put huge additional strain on a chain compared to a conventional bicycle and the forums are full of people on mid-drive ebikes who have snapped chains and worn them down very quickly. I totally accept good practice and perhaps a shifting sensor here and there can improve things but compared to a hub motor ebike the hub motor works separately to the drivetrain so takes off a huge amount of strain/load on the drivetrain. So not only are chain snaps much less common than mid-drive motors they are much less common than even conventional bicycles.

How is it not true. You have just added a load of extra conditions which are not applicable to what I have written. I said most people in the world use throttles with ebikes and as those markets are huge like China, India, most of Asia, South America, Africa, North America and many other countries 'most' would apply. Many of the Chinese ebikes we see in Europe are adapted to sell in Europe they don't have pedelec features when sold in China and most other markets. Ebike kits often have pedelec systems added which don't even work that well. Those voilamart kits work beautifully with a throttle but the basic implementation of the pedelec system means as soon as you rotate the pedals you dangerously get full power which is both dangerous and more damaging to the battery. The pedelec system is in minority use in the world and the fact you deny that shows just how warped your viewpoint has become.

 

Also from all the videos I've seen where a ebike is sold with both a pedelec system and a full range throttle in the USA for example there is a very high skew towards use of the throttle over or active with the pedelec system. I.e. the majority of ebike riders use throttle control.

 

The percentage of ebikes sold in the world with only a pedelec system is going to be very low. Even here in the UK a huge number of Chinese brand and imported from Asia ebikes come with a throttle control which you have to activate in the settings to get to work by a secret menu typically.

 

Remember a huge number of ebikes in the world are sold with basic controllers with litle logic and in India brushed motor ebike kits are huge sellers which are throttle only.

 

The only companies selling purely pedal assist/pedelec type ebikes seems to be European brands who are typically very high priced and only niche sellers in the US for example.

 

There is a statistic here that shows in China how much an average ebike costs compared to Europe and the US.

 

https://www.ebicycles.com/ebike-facts-statistics/

 

[ATTACH=full]50531[/ATTACH]

 

Ultimately readers will have to decide who is telling porkies and who is being factual. I completely stand by my comments that most people in the world use throttles with ebikes and most of those don't even have the option to choose pedal assist as not even fitted to their ebikes.

 

Distortion, the Chinese don't ride the sort of pedelecs they mainly sell to us. They ride what are mopeds with circa 700 watt ratings with either no pedals or vestigial pedals that can only propel at very low speeds which they never use. They have also sent those to us but the takeup here has been very low. The same is true elsewhere in the orient where what are essentially mopeds are commonly seen with as many as whole families on board. Those are what pass as e-bikes in most of the orient, Japan being an exception to some extent due to their stronger law.

 

And in Africa and India** e-bikes scarcely exist. Once again you know next to nothing about the subject, seeming to think what you imagine is fact.

 

Why not stick to the subject, which is that there is no need to change the pedelec law when all needs are catered for with other laws.

 

While I understand you don't intend it, you are being very selfish. The pedelec law is a universal one to provide assistance for all cyclists needing it, which of course includes all the children who ride bicycles. In consequence many children in mainland Europe, especially the Netherlands, do ride pedelecs. So the safety aspects of the power and speed limits and how they are controlled by limiting within pedalling ability are important.

 

If you want an e-bike instead of a pedelec, just buy or create an L1e-A e-bike (Low Powered Moped) which is superior to any pedelec with throttle. Or, if like many, you want more speed and power to suit for your cycling, buy an L1e-B (S-class e-bike ).

 

Everyone is catered for, there is no need to mess with the excellent pedelec law. It is utterly pointless to rant as you are doing anyway, since the pedelec law will not change. It is indeed the only world standard in e-biking, with so many countries following it change is nigh on impossible now.

 

**Afrobarometer survey findings from 34 African countries show little progress in electrification. While experiences vary by country, on average access to a power grid improved by just 4 percentage points over the past decade. And even where connections to the grid exist, unreliable supply remains a major problem.

 

India currently reports 99.4% electrification, yet there are 304 million people who still lack access to electricity according to the recent draft of the National Energy Policy . In most countries, electrification means not only being connected to the grid but also providing homes and businesses sufficient electricity access to meet their daily needs. However, in India, the definition of electrification in rural areas, where most of the unelectrified population lives, has been detached from the actual supply of electricity to households.

.

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by flecc

So lets gets this straight according to your logic. A mid-drive motor that could apply up to 5x the power of a weaker rider 100Nm vs 20Nm is not the cause of a chain breaking it is in fact the rider? Surely this is not debatable a mid-drive motor at peak up a hill can put huge additional strain on a chain compared to a conventional bicycle and the forums are full of people on mid-drive ebikes who have snapped chains and worn them down very quickly. I totally accept good practice and perhaps a shifting sensor here and there can improve things but compared to a hub motor ebike the hub motor works separately to the drivetrain so takes off a huge amount of strain/load on the drivetrain. So not only are chain snaps much less common than mid-drive motors they are much less common than even conventional bicycles.

I, m 110kg, my chain snapping days are years behind me and were all on ordinary mtb. And, ofcourse, I, m not saying crank drives do not experience more chain wear than their hub counterpart but if you took the time to study the maths properly with your supposition crank drives snap chains you, d realise that particular issue is almost irrelevant. Folk on emtb snap chains not because they are crank drives but because of abuse and general hard use some emtb users put their bikes through. I, m around 240lb, standing with my weight on pedal, that translates to around 180ftlb torque, and it can be applied under shock, (ie panic). At times momentarily way more. That's the chain snapper not the essentially tiny motor at crank. The whole point of motor is to apply torque not in massive pulses (as in cycling) but as a much lower but constant figure. ie evenly over entire full rotation.

I,ve now done around 10,000 miles with emtb, 90% off road. Always highest setting,up and down hard Derbyshire climbs. Yet to snap a chain. Probably 5 chains worn out and 4 cassettes.?? Crank drives do not, categorically, snap chains. Its a silly rumour put about by hub drive advocates.

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by Zlatan

Crank drives do not, categorically, snap chains. Its a silly rumour put about by hub drive advocates.

 

Like our "single point of failure" obsessed member !

 

I've owned crank drive and hub drives front and rear, but the only chain I ever snapped was in my unassisted days, just using my own strength in hill climbing.

.

I, m 110kg, my chain snapping days are years behind me and were all on ordinary mtb. And, ofcourse, I, m not saying crank drives do not experience more chain wear than their hub counterpart but if you took the time to study the maths properly with your supposition crank drives snap chains you, d realise that particular issue is almost irrelevant. Folk on emtb snap chains not because they are crank drives but because of abuse and general hard use some emtb users put their bikes through. I, m around

 

I, m 110kg, my chain snapping days are years behind me and were all on ordinary mtb. And, ofcourse, I, m not saying crank drives do not experience more chain wear than their hub counterpart but if you took the time to study the maths properly with your supposition crank drives snap chains you, d realise that particular issue is almost irrelevant. Folk on emtb snap chains not because they are crank drives but because of abuse and general hard use some emtb users put their bikes through. I, m around 240lb, standing with my weight on pedal, that translates to around 180ftlb torque, and it can be applied under shock, (ie panic). At times momentarily way more. That's the chain snapper not the essentially tiny motor at crank. The whole point of motor is to apply torque not in massive pulses (as in cycling) but as a much lower but constant figure. ie evenly over entire full rotation.

I,ve now done around 10,000 miles with emtb, 90% off road. Always highest setting,up and down hard Derbyshire climbs. Yet to snap a chain. Probably 5 chains worn out and 4 cassettes.?? Crank drives do not, categorically, snap chains. Its a silly rumour put about by hub drive advocates.

 

 

You sound like me.

 

 

In my 15 years of riding emtb's etc, I have never

snapped a chain. The one exception being on my analogue mtb. If anyone was going to suffer from a snapped chain, I suspect that it would be me.

 

I would be curious to see the forum links for all of the ones that have.

i got 1000 miles on the chain i got now and still at 2,5 and change at 5.0 but i only killed 1 chain as the top fkn jockey wheel exploded and one of the power links snapped as i kept re using it

 

im still only on my 2nd cassette and use metal jockey wheels now but do make more noise but i got a axs gx to go on it now see if i can brake that multi shifting going 35mph

 

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by soundwave

For quite a while now any equipment used on any boats must meet minimum standards, and be certified as such. (with clear marking on equipment and relevant paper work.) This is both the case for new boats (definetely barges) and for any boat to pass mandatory boat safety inspections. (regs cover stuff like gas storage, fridges, cookers, electrical devices and stoves)

Individual builders (with relevant training) can self certify (or could when I was involved) certain requirements. (eg placement of gas cupboards) but items such as wood burning stoves must have past testing and be stamped accordingly.(I, d guess CO2 emissions)

Stove in question had no markings. (at time CE marks), and would have failed boat inspection.(was a new one but by letter of law irrelevant)

If anyone is using any stove on British waterways without markings, it should fail boat inspection. Boat examiners might turn a blind eye on older boats but certainly not on new ones, but I doubt it. Imagine some owner expiring through CO2 poisoning a week or so after boat safety test?? Somebody would go to prison.

One of jobs I often had to do when involved with refitting old barges was remove some dangerous, often a home made excuse for a wood burner. Rules around barges, boats are equally as strict as for housing, in fact probably more so and rightly so.

Nah, no requirement to meet emissions requirement on a boat that I can find.

https://www.boatsafetyscheme.org/stay-safe-advice/solid-fuel-stoves/new-stove-new-chimney/

I have a woodstove on my narrowboat that passes the BSS.

They have to be fastened down, correctly sited away from flammable surfaces, sufficient ventilation etc. etc. Test is due next month (4 yearly cycle) and I am confident it will pass

At home I have a clean burn stove that meets the regs you raise, it's great, free heat with free seasoned wood. However we have cut back on its use, now only use it when it's really cold, while it's the best form of heating in our house it puts out PM2.5 particulates which can be nasty.

Nah, no requirement to meet emissions requirement on a boat that I can find.

https://www.boatsafetyscheme.org/stay-safe-advice/solid-fuel-stoves/new-stove-new-chimney/

I have a woodstove on my narrowboat that passes the BSS.

They have to be fastened down, correctly sited away from flammable surfaces, sufficient ventilation etc. etc. Test is due next month (4 yearly cycle) and I am confident it will pass

At home I have a clean burn stove that meets the regs you raise, it's great, free heat with free seasoned wood. However we have cut back on its use, now only use it when it's really cold, while it's the best form of heating in our house it puts out PM2.5 particulates which can be nasty.

If you are fitting in your own boat (or a second hand one) I don't think RCDs (recreation craft directives) are enforceable.(or pertinent) At time I was fitting out and selling new boats. You will only have to pass your boat safety inspection (which I, d assumed by now would be at similar standards to RCD)

We had to fit only Stoves clearly marked with CE stamps of . (I had to remove two, which although we were told (and sold as) having been tested. Hence the issue.

I, d still be very wary in any boat with a Woodburner not CE marked (or its new British replacement?) or without proof of fitting by registered fitters. It's not a risk worth taking even if it passes boat safety inspection, which I, m not convinced it would.

What you are saying is you could fit a home made stove? You can't.

Not sure but I believe since Brexit RCD has changed name. When I was building barges we had a files of RCDs sent as they became statutory. I think it's RCF now. Stoves were covered.

 

Stoves must show an EN number. It was a CE mark when I was involved.

I never mentioned anything about emissions etc but I, d guess that's part of testing to get EN /CE markings.

 

Having said all that your own link says it must be an EN marked stove and be fitted to minimum standards (BS something or other)???? by registered professionals??

Edited March 6, 20233 yr by Zlatan

If you are fitting in your own boat (or a second hand one) I don't think RCDs (recreation craft directives) are enforceable.(or pertinent) At time I was fitting out and selling new boats. You will only have to pass your boat safety inspection (which I, d assumed by now would be at similar standards to RCD)

We had to fit only Stoves clearly marked with CE stamps of . (I had to remove two, which although we were told (and sold as) having been tested. Hence the issue.

I, d still be very wary in any boat with a Woodburner not CE marked (or its new British replacement?) or without proof of fitting by registered fitters. It's not a risk worth taking even if it passes boat safety inspection, which I, m not convinced it would.

What you are saying is you could fit a home made stove? You can't.

Not sure but I believe since Brexit RCD has changed name. When I was building barges we had a files of RCDs sent as they became statutory. I think it's RCF now. Stoves were covered.

[ATTACH type=full" alt="Screenshot_20230306_220610_com.android.chrome.jpg]50564[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH type=full" alt="Screenshot_20230306_220702_com.google.android.apps.docs.jpg]50565[/ATTACH]

 

Stoves must show an EN number. It was a CE mark when I was involved.

I never mentioned anything about emissions etc but I, d guess that's part of testing to get EN /CE markings.

 

Having said all that your own link says it must be an EN marked stove and be fitted to minimum standards (BS something or other)???? by registered professionals??

Rules don't say it MUST be fitted by a professional, only a recommendation. The illustration in your post only says that EN marked stoves are better, again no MUST. You are also presuming it's a home made stove, it's not. https://dowlingstoves.com/our%20stoves/little%20devil.html

While the stove came with the boat there is only the stove and hull below the gunnels left of the project I bought. Complete fit out after having a steel top welded on. I used the innards of a caravan for lots of it.

Rules don't say it MUST be fitted by a professional, only a recommendation. The illustration in your post only says that EN marked stoves are better, again no MUST. You are also presuming it's a home made stove, it's not. https://dowlingstoves.com/our stoves/little devil.html

While the stove came with the boat there is only the stove and hull below the gunnels left of the project I bought. Complete fit out after having a steel top welded on. I used the innards of a caravan for lots of it.

At end of day it's entirely upto you. Even the RCDs I was working under were directives and at time (around 2001) it was a new scheme and builders could self certify (even putting on their own CE numbers) but that was for only a grace period.

Trying to establish a firm and selling boats with guarantees( and doing things "as directed") is a different boat to working on your own boat....

I, ve fitted my own Stove in my house.. And not a "EN/BS/Kite Mark" in site... Did fit it according to all regs but... I think its still risky nowadays.

I personally don't think you, d pass safety inspection if Stove doesn't show some markings... And by time you, ve followed all the guidance (as in both our links) its probably easier to simply pay for it fitting.. And let them take risk. (that was especially case with RCDs)

We had fitted 2 stoves supplied by customers. Was a massive mistake. (neither had CE markings)

I, ve fitted probably 15 barges out, certain jobs I now wouldn't contemplate... Major 240v electrical, any Gas (except coupling up) and stoves... Not because I can't... Don't want the comebacks.. And legislation.

It can come back to bite you.

But boats have always been the individualists home builders saviour.. (we are about last country to not enforce compulsory certification for boat use).

So, make a good job of it and you, ll be fine..I would try and find some markings on stove tho, or have a word with local surveyor/boat tester.

Nothing wrong with caravan stuff. It's fine..

Good luck. Sounds a good project..

Edited March 7, 20233 yr by Zlatan

Well, a lot seems to have been posted here since mylast post. I can only say that my tardiness in replying is due to going on holiday and now in the full throws of having a new kitchen fitted!

 

Anyway, I promised all of those who contributed with advice to my original post an update so, here we go:

 

After reading your advice, I Emailed Wing and said that the bike wasn't fit for my purpose, i.e. riding it on the road and that he'd failed in his duty of care towards me as a customer in that, despite being aware that I wanted to ride it on the road, he never mentioned that it was illegal to do so. In fact, he actively encouraged me to do so. I received no reply so re-sent it the following day and again received no reply. I was on holiday at the time so it wasn't easy to do but none the less.

 

When I got home, there was still no reply, but I had an inkling that I was insured for legal expenses as part of my home contents policy and that proved to be the case. So, I phoned their legal helpline. The upshot of that conversation was that they agreed that I had a case and advised me to Email again quoting my Short Term Rights, rejecting the goods and asking for my money back.

 

After several days, he replied to my original Email saying that he'd just found it in his Spam Folder. He gave no response to my request for a refund but limited his response to the grounds for a refund that I'd quoted. He stated that "it wasn't his job to inform his customers of the law, they should find that out for themselves" he also insisted that the bike could be "easily modified to reduce the power and limit the speed". I was aware of the speed limiter at the time of purchase but didn't appreciate its relevance. My point would be that he was aware of my intention to ride on the road so, if it's so easy to make the bike road legal, why didn't he do that before I collected it? He also made the point that the bike was assembled to my specification, which is very twisted logic in that because I'd rejected two other bikes that he'd got in stock with 1000W motors, I was specifying that I wanted a 1500W motor!! Actually, I rejected the other two bikes because I didn't like their styling and said nothing about the size of motor on the model I was interested in buying.

 

There's more but I think you can get the drift from the above.

 

Following his reply, I again phoned the legal helpline and agreed to give him a final chance to respond positively and sent a further Email quoting my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and again requesting a refund.

 

One of the interesting points from my legal discussions is that you don't need to state your reasons for rejecting the goods provided that you do so within 30 days and quote your Short Term Rights under the above legislation.

 

He has responded by quoting his Terms and Conditions which relate to his interpretation of the legislation. According to him, he will only countenance a refund if the goods are faulty or not fit for purpose. He insists that the bike is fit for purpose. It'll be interesting to see what happens in a legal contest between his Terms and Conditions and Statutory Rights.

 

Where it's at now is that I've completed a claim form, submitted it to my insurers and am waiting for them to say if they believe I have a case and if they'll foot the bill for taking him to court if necessary. I should hear at the end of this week or early next.

 

If they turn me down, I'll have to sell it as I now have no confidence in it or the supplier so would be inclined to let him "make it road legal". Anyone interested in a nearly new 21 gear eMTB with just 8 miles on the clock? For use on private property of course!

P.S. I forgot to add that I'll put up another post and let you know the outcome. Thanks again for your help.

The issue is it is illegal to ride a 1000w or 1500w rated motor even if it is reduced in power , simply reducing the speed limit to 15.5mph doesn't reduce the power. So unless there is software and the display can reduce the current load it isn't feasible.

Your controller rating must be approx. 40a if the motor is 1500w rated.

 

Have you had a word with trading standards ?

Thanks for your reply. I'm sceptical of his claims to be able to easily make it road legal. As I said, if that's the case, why didn't he do it before I collected it?

I haven't spoken to Trading Standards but I might. The reason being that I had a problem some years back, referred it to them and it was a complete waste of time. I might reconsider though.

Thanks for your reply. I'm sceptical of his claims to be able to easily make it road legal. As I said, if that's the case, why didn't he do it before I collected it?

I haven't spoken to Trading Standards but I might. The reason being that I had a problem some years back, referred it to them and it was a complete waste of time. I might reconsider though.

My impression of situation is he can't possibly make it legal. The motor can not be capable of 250w or greater continously. No matter what you supply it with or by it is in itself capable of well over that.

It's a bit like the 125cc law. Even if you restricted a 250 to under 11kw its still a 250..???

Motor must be labelled "250w".. But thousands flaunt the law, which is where your seller is coming from.

Regarding the motor. If it is marked '1500w', or similar, it is ilegal - end of. To be legal it has to be marked/stamped 250w.

It would be interesting to know how the seller intends to 'easily make it road legal.

Even if controller output current is restricted to 6.9A (250w @ 36v) the motor would still be ilegal as well as bloody useless as a direct drive at this current would probably produce more heat and noise than motion.

So, as you'd stated it was for road use, then bike is not fit for purpose.