Less than a week to send your response to the DfT consultation on the electric bike regulations.

 

If, like me, you think keeping the power only mode is important to the electric bike industry in the UK, in terms of sales of electric bikes, please fill in the form and send it off.

 

The fact that the BEBA can't or wont back keeping the power only mode, makes it all the more important for you to have your say.

 

At this moment in time I have over 100 electric bike dealers who have supported me and have promised to send in a positive response.

 

If you dont want to fill in the form send me a PM and i will add your comments to my response.

 

Dan

 

 

 

Electrically assisted pedal cycles consultation

I just came across CTC's response to the consultation. There is a link to it here.

FWIW they are arguing for low speed throttle control to be retained.

 

Frank

I just came across CTC's response to the consultation. There is a link to it here.

FWIW they are arguing for low speed throttle control to be retained.

 

Frank

 

I don't understand what they are saying though:

 

CTC would prefer that the twist and go, non-pedelec electric bikes remain unregulated. Various CTC members have stated that they prefer having the ability to only use electric power at certain times and this change risks turning them away from cycling.

 

The ability to cycle without power applies to pedelecs and twist and go bikes alike.

.

Less than a week to send your response to the DfT consultation on the electric bike regulations.

 

If, like me, you think keeping the power only mode is important to the electric bike industry in the UK, in terms of sales of electric bikes, please fill in the form and send it off.

 

The fact that the BEBA can't or wont back keeping the power only mode, makes it all the more important for you to have your say.

 

At this moment in time I have over 100 electric bike dealers who have supported me and have promised to send in a positive response.

 

If you dont want to fill in the form send me a PM and i will add your comments to my response.

 

Dan

 

 

 

Electrically assisted pedal cycles consultation

 

Its important to keep power only as an option I'm sure - but it seems to me that it is even more important for the industry to achieve some sort of electrical standardisation. The anarchy of connections and battery dimensions is a real headache as far as I'm concerned, and is surely responsible for limiting growth in the field? The situation of not being able to purchase, for example, a 36v 10ah battery and expect that it can be easily and safely installed on every ebike by each practical user is foolish chaos isn't it?

 

I don't know if there are moves towards a more rational approach in this area?

The situation of not being able to purchase, for example, a 36v 10ah battery and expect that it can be easily and safely installed on every ebike by each practical user is foolish chaos isn't it?

 

I don't think it's that bad really when you compare the situation to say the mobile phone market... manufacturers have this pain in the arse habit of very slightly altering the dimensions of a battery when they slightly alter the revision/model number of a phone of theirs, not to mention ones like the iPhone which have the battery embedded in it.

 

Whereas different makes of ebike develop their own battery packs like the mobile phone industry do, they don't always change the battery design for different models of bike, eg Urban Mover's standard batteries are interchangable with most of their range (bar the 26v/36v voltage differences)

The main difference being one of scale, as the mobile industry is big enough to allow 3rd party manufacturers to make batteries for specific phones (iphone excepted of course ). In my view it would allow greater competition and necessitate faster development to have standard form factors for ebike power, which would only be of benefit to the end user.

 

Of course trying to organise this would be harder than being a cat herder .

Even if the whole industry had the fundamental desire, I think a standard battery would be a backward step, seriously restricting designs.

 

The same shape and size isn't suitable for the six mounting types currently in use:

 

1) In frame behind seatpost.

 

2) Thin profile carrier mounted type.

 

3) Within frame-triangle boxed type.

 

4) Bottle battery type.

 

5) Small handlebar mount. (Sun bicycles)

 

6) Motor integrated mounting. (Panasonic/Yamaha)

 

Nor are the connections standardisable. Some like 4 and 6 have charge and motor connections all in the one place, in the base on 6, on the bottle on 4 for example.

 

There's also a reason why standardisation would be undesirable at present, the fact that battery technology isn't settled, making fixing any parameters premature and possibly restrictive for new developments.

.

Ok, so why not have six standard form factors? Multiple standard sizes and shapes have served the PC industry well. I wasn't advocating an idea of all ebikes being the same, just a way of existing users adopting new technologies without relying on their bike's OEM choosing to use them*. This path would have the side benefit of being more environmentally friendly, as people wouldn't be as tempted to buy a whole new bike in order to take advantage of new developments.

 

As with a PC, an ebike is the sum of its parts, and I for one would much rather upgrade using compatible components, than consider the whole, perfectly good thing obsolete.

 

* and indeed the OEM remaining in buisiness.

Edited March 28, 201016 yr by Straylight

 

Ok, so why not have six standard form factors? Multiple standard sizes and shapes have served the PC industry well.

 

Certainly desirable for the reasons you've given, but still not advisable yet for the reasons I gave.

 

This standardisation was being proposed in this forum as long as three years ago and if standard form factors had been adopted then, LiFePO4 would have immediately brought the problem that the cells are larger for any given capacity and discharge factor, the standard forms then being inadequate for maintaining capacity.

 

It's very much easier in a huge industry like the PC one, but even there quite recent computers are impossible to upgrade properly without lashups, due to advances like Multicore CPUs, SATA, Express cards and USB3.

 

The most important thing is to achieve a recognised standard chemistry with fixed requirements, like the lead acid batteries used in cars which enable a standard range, but we are a very long way from that yet.

 

Of course it's possible for some groups to have standardisation, for example eZee, Wisper and some others could standardise a rear of seatpost connection system, but that wouldn't please all existing owners. It's to eZee's great credit that from the beginning they've had one connection and form system that fits all models over the years with all battery types as they've arrived, also including the new multi-battery option that can be fitted to their earliest bikes. The price of that to them is an inability to adequately compete in some markets like the e-folder one for example, the constraints of their universal battery standard preventing that.

.

It's very much easier in a huge industry like the PC one, but even there quite recent computers are impossible to upgrade properly without lashups, due to advances like Multicore CPUs, SATA, Express cards and USB3.

 

Where I take your other points, on this I have to disagree, as if you want to upgrade to say a quad core CPU, then you simply have to buy a new mainboard with it. Due to the industry's careful support of legacy standards, you don't also have replace all your existing peripheral devices, and your chassis. An example of this was the fact that 16bit ISA slots hung around on modern mainboards for years, though entirely superseded.

 

Apologies if you think I'm being pedantic .

No. I don't think that pedantic at all, your points are well made. However, I do think the concept of standardisation on PCs is a joke.

 

Hard drive connectivity: PIO 1 through 4, ATA 1 through 5, now SATA with SATA 2 threatened, more than one type per three years!

 

The card connection systems changed so many times that up to 3 or 4 types still have to be included as you say, seriously limiting the add-on scope for owners.

 

USB effectively made redundant all the computers on the planet, only to repeat that performance with USB 2 and now set to repeat it yet again with USB 3. Add on cards as a solution aren't adequate since the BIOS doesn't recognise them.

 

Memory cards in landfill in their many millions, the types having been changed so many times that no-one can remember all the incompatible versions.

 

Large format floppy, small format floppy, 1/4" tape, proprietary magnetic disc drives, CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD-RAM, Blue ray. Even on those the connection system are changing.

 

To me that's not far from the standardisation that we already have on e-bikes.

.

 

Much of that is backward compatible however, eg. you can still plug your USB 1 device into a USB 2 port, you just won't get the benefit of the new speed.

 

I agree about memory, and SATA..

 

But anyway, the whole analogy was to illustrate the silliness of the prospect of having to scrap a perfectly good bike, for want of a battery to fit it. It'd be like someone making a bike with 23&1/4" wheels, nobody would buy it no matter how good it was (well nobody with any sense ). We only put up with this due to limited options, and this naggingly feels like the tail wagging the dog in what should be a consumer driven marketplace.

Another real world example of such lunacy is the fact that there are three wiring configurations for something as simple as a brake cut-out switch, tell me that makes sense .

Another real world example of such lunacy is the fact that there are three wiring configurations for something as simple as a brake cut-out switch, tell me that makes sense .

 

No it doesn't, and it should be possible to decide which is the optimum for that and some other things. It's just batteries where I am certain that it's too early for useful standardisations, except possibly for the one case of the common rear of seatpost position when in combination with hub motors.

 

Even there I'm very reluctant to see it though. The outcome woukd be a range of junk battery suppliers with poor alternatives at very low prices, just giving e-bikes a bad name. That's just one of the reasons why I want to see the state of batteries more developed first, like the lead-acid example I gave on cars where they are all pretty good and value for money.

.

Where I take your other points, on this I have to disagree, as if you want to upgrade to say a quad core CPU, then you simply have to buy a new mainboard with it. Due to the industry's careful support of legacy standards, you don't also have replace all your existing peripheral devices, and your chassis. An example of this was the fact that 16bit ISA slots hung around on modern mainboards for years, though entirely superseded.

 

Apologies if you think I'm being pedantic .

 

I've moved my reply to The Charging Post, as it's only partially topical...

 

Rog.

surprised how quickly this thread got off the original topic. Should we fight to keep a twist and go element to ebikes.

surprised how quickly this thread got off the original topic. Should we fight to keep a twist and go element to ebikes.

 

From previous discussions as well, I think there is a consensus of "yes" with just a few happy with the idea of pedelec only, but also a feeling that it's probably hopeless to protest in the face of the perceived European juggernaut. I'm afraid I tend to think it's unlikely that we could get the intentions changed, but more for the reason that the government/civil service will just proceed with the easy option.

 

The thread subject wandered off into other threads too, particularly with regards to the need to retain throttles for disabled riders, but I cannot remember which threads those were now.

.

Apologies to all for taking the thread off at an oblique tangent:o I should have started a new one, or reprised my old one with regard to standardisation.

 

I think there's some confusion leading to mis-perception about the implications of the proposed change in the law. The way I read it, throttles will still be allowed, the pedals will simply have to be turning in order to activate them, and there is no requirement specifying the amount of effort the rider has to contribute. In effect this is only a minor change to the way that I, and I suspect most of us, ride anyway, so I personally don't have a problem with it.

 

There is also the benefit of having the 200/250w thing cleared up, which will save manufacturers from having to re-badge/re-spec the motors they use in the UK, relative to those they use in the greater EU. Along with the fact that bikes in current use will be unaffected, I feel that some comments with regard to the proposal have been somewhat overblown in their vehemence, sounding more like headiness from the Daily Mail(Mial? - couldn't resist) than rational objections.

 

I would, however, like to see an exemption made for the registered disabled, to allow throttle only operation.

Edited March 29, 201016 yr by Straylight

 

The way I read it, throttles will still be allowed, the pedals will simply have to be turning in order to activate them, and there is no requirement specifying the amount of effort the rider has to contribute.

 

There is a requirement that the power phases down as it approaches 25 kph/ 15 mph though, and many of our existing throttles don't work like that. It's noticeable that the pedelec bikes sold in the mainland EU e-biking countries never seem to have throttles, so there seems to be some vagueness on this point.

 

I agree though that there seems no rational reason why throttles within pedelec shouldn't be permitted, since they then merely act as power limiters.

.

There is a requirement that the power phases down as it approaches 25 kph/ 15 mph though, and many of our existing throttles don't work like that. It's noticeable that the pedelec bikes sold in the mainland EU e-biking countries never seem to have throttles, so there seems to be some vagueness on this point.

 

This is strange, as it's simply a case of how the logic in the controller works, so the part that phases down the power needs to take ultimate precedence. I understand though that the new Dapush Wispers include a throttle, and will be on sale in Europe. Maybe it's just how the fashion for pedelec design has evolved in the EU, to follow something more along the lines of the Panasonic model(in terms of their simplicity of use, rather than how they work) when using hub motors?

Edited March 29, 201016 yr by Straylight

It was I who diverted the thread somewhat..

 

Despite the objections raised, i'm not convinced that the ebike industry is a paragon of virtuosity that is operating completely in the interests of the enthusiast ebiker.

 

The point advanced by flecc regarding battery technological development currently being at a stage of incompleteness, with further changes being inevitable in the medium term, is a good one. But the same argument can be seen to apply to all new technologies can't it? And it certainly shouldn't be regarded as an excuse for any industry to continue with an irrational laizer faire approach which places the interests of ordinary battery cyclists behind those of the big corporations.

 

Although I'm only a recent participant in the ebike field, it seems quite obvious that some sort of regulatory standardisation could be applied which could benefit all of us. The current circumstance of a myriad competing manufacturers, each jealously guarding their own particular approach towards research and development is fantastically wasteful in so many ways, and cant really be seen to be in the best interests of consumers can it?

Not at all in the long term. Setting common standards for the basics would allow the mostly Chinese component manufacturers the chance to refine their products for a wider market, rather than creating bespoke units for individual brands, and also allow individual owners to tailor their machines to suit their individual needs and preferences with a range of compatible products.

 

An example from the 'normal' bike industry was when I bought my Velotechnik Speedmachine, there were a host of bespoke options to choose from to adapt the basic frame. So it can be done. Considering the cost of a premium brand ebike, I think the "off the shelf" approach simply won't cut it for long.

Edited March 29, 201016 yr by Straylight

 

The current circumstance of a myriad competing manufacturers, each jealously guarding their own particular approach towards research and development is fantastically wasteful in so many ways, and cant really be seen to be in the best interests of consumers can it?

 

I don't think this is any different in other industries though, companies compete and in technology areas from medical drugs to batteries, it's the research area where they compete for a marketing advantage. This could only change in a communist style totalitarian system, which from past experience stifles innovation and acts against the consumer. Lada cars?

.

 

An example from the 'normal' bike industry was when I bought my Velotechnik Speedmachine, there were a host of bespoke options to choose from to adapt the basic frame. So it can be done. Considering the cost of a premium brand ebike, I think the "off the shelf" approach simply won't cut it for long.

 

Our industry is still small though, and I think we should give credit to those companies who are endeavouring to widen choice.

 

Derby Cycles with the Kalkhoff range for example, several different frame styles, a choice of ancillary component quality levels, three different motor power options, two e-bike assist-speed limit options, throttle option, and all in a wide range of frame sizes from extra small to extremely large.

 

BikeTec add to that by going a bit further, adding a 50% larger battery option and an extra high power option.

 

Wisper have grown their range impressively and have now added the Alpinos for the larger riders, choices of rear or front motor bikes, and choice of battery types and capacities.

 

eZee have a choice of battery sizes and types now, also having an add-on kit for dual battery use.

 

These are all steps in the right direction, but only so much is possible in such a small industry.

.

I don't think this is any different in other industries though, companies compete and in technology areas from medical drugs to batteries, it's the research area where they compete for a marketing advantage. This could only change in a communist style totalitarian system, which from past experience stifles innovation and acts against the consumer. Lada cars?

.

 

Ha You pose some interesting issues flecc. I had a Lada for years. It did the job, at least as reliably as any other vehicle I have owned. OK, it wasn't exciting, it didn't exactly exhibit the 'pulling power' of your average Lotus, (a bit more space on the back seat though!), but as a 'people's' car it got my somewhat sedate vote. When the front wings finally corroded it was recycled to somewhere in deepest Soviet dominated eastern Europe. Its also worth remembering that its origins were in the capitalist Fiat 124 IIRC?

 

On your broader political point I don't really agree. Our recent experience of the free for all 'leave it to market solutions' in the form of the banking industry suggests that leaving business to its own unregulated whims delivers much for those who dominate and little (or worse) for those at the bottom of the heap.

 

It is surely reasonable for ordinary ebikers to expect that our interests shouldn't be submerged beneath the vested financial considerations of the market?

 

In my view, battery development needs a standardised and regulated approach - perhaps some planning and democratic involvement of those who actually use the bikes might help towards achieving a more rational industry.