Grant Petersen Has Lost It
 

Even when I disagree with Grant Petersen (and I tend to agree with him more often than not), his opinions are typically interesting, well thought through, and often amusing. His opinions are often well-informed also, which is why his recent anti e-bike rant is so disappointing and confusing. He clearly has not ridden an e-bike and seems bent on never doing so. Moreover, he's clearly strongly inclined to discourage others from riding e-bikes, or at least on changing existing legislation so that e-bikes would be re-classified as mopeds or motorcycles.


The blog piece is littered with endless contradictions, half truths, obscurantism and uninformed opinion passed off as fact. Be forewarned; this is Grant Petersen at near rock bottom. I'm going to give him a pass on this one. I tend to believe he was drunk or otherwise compromised when he wrote this piece. Sad that he didn't actually edit, re-write or simply delete this awful piece once he came to:


https://www.rivbike.com/blogs/peekin...-knothole/reno


TL, DR:


1. GP says he attended Interbike in order to open new accounts, but money isn't really important to him.


2. The declining popularity of Interbike means the industry is in peril ("oh no, support your local ripoff I mean bike shop!")


3. The Big Three (T, S, G) are baddies for not attending Interbike, but no big deal, Interbike was awesome anyway, except when it wasn't


4. helmets are cool (if you like them) but they suck otherwise


5. no one pedals an e-bike, the motors automatically "take over" kinda like sky net


6. bikes won't displace cars (DUH!)


7. Japanese components are awesome


8. Interbike is so small now he mentions and photographs two people at random for no reason whatsoever.


9. Cycling gear is dorky. A hard seam up your wazoo is a MUST!


10. Racing and competition are stupid. Buy a Rivendell and you'll go slower. A lot slower.

11. Anagrams are cool because, LSD

So, how many years have you been in the bicycle industry, as a manufacturer ?

Rivendell certainly has luddite tendancies, but your point makes no sense.

Certainly Rivendell's frames represent "product development". Note that they have many new frames and haven't just been making the Atlantis for 20 years. Also, he has his own "Silver" line of components. They design the "Sackville" bags. Nitto makes them numerous custom racks, stems and bars to their designs. They collaborate with Panaracer on tires under the "Jack Brown" label. Etc. Also, let's not forget that Peterson designed all of Bridgestone's classic 80's lineup. The XO, to take one example, had most of the ideas of modern gravel bikes in place thirty years ago. There's an entire cottage industry of modern brands like Crust, Surly/Salsa/All City or Jones that are heavily inspired by Peterson's work. The Rivendell aesthetic is central to Bicycle Quarterly, The Radavist and any number of PNW or California-style bike shops like Golden Saddle. You might not like his work, but Peterson has done and continues to do tons of product development and I would say he's more influential than ever right now.

Lots of Velo Orange components are polished versions of parts ,
shipped to other outlets selling black ones..

Peterson is simply stating that ebikes should be categorized as mopeds as they have a motor, just like gasoline powered mopeds do. Motor+pedals= Moped. I don't think he is nuts at all. I'd say he is likely ahead of the curve, again.

A bicycle is a human powered machine. E-bikes may be cool, they may be fun, bike shops may sell them but they are not bicycles.

This, +1000.

I do not understand why threads on these motor vehicles have been started here in General Cycling Discussion. There is an "E-bike" sub-forum on BF. That is where this thread belongs.

"E-bikes", whether the motor is activated by spinning some pedals or by twisting a throttle, are not bicycles, and riding on them is not 'cycling'. I disagree with many of Mr. Peterson's views, but on this point he is quite right.

I agree. I don't need to ride an e-bike to know I don't like what they represent - another way for already overweight and out of shape people to skirt any kind of exercise. I'm all for e-bikes being classified as mopeds, which is essentially what they are.

Seemed a perfectly reasonable post to me.

GP also derided suspension and later disc brakes as "motorcycle" gear with no place on bicycles. That means 100% of mtb's are not mtb's. They must be motorcycles as well.

Not to mention just about every single road bike above $1K has disc brakes. That means 100% of road bikes above $1K are not bicycles either.

Not to mention Trek and Specialized have multiple lines of bicycles with front or dual suspension. So Trek and Specialized are no longer bicycle manufacturers.

Trigger shifters and electronic shifting don't belong on bicycles either: any two wheeled vehicle with Di2 or ETAP are no longer bicycles by definition.

Actually, it's the other way around. You will burn at least twice as many calories on a non motorized bicycle. This means you will have to:

a. eat a lot more food and drink a lot more water. This means that a lot more trucks, ships and planes have to transport a lot more food and water since you are burning far more calories

b. burn more coal for your electricity since you will need to wash twice as many clothes or wash the same clothes twice as often.

In actuality then, ebikes save electricity by reducing food production and transport and save on pollution from washing and drying machines.

Also, you own and ride a carbon disc bicycle. But it's not really a bicycle. Disc brakes belong on cars and motorcycles, therefore you are no longer riding a bike. Not to mention carbon is bad for your health since it splinters and impales riders. All of this is true because Grant Petersen says so.

Uhh... I think you have really misrepresented GP in your synopsis. His blog post was quite even keeled IMO.

Here's a good example. You paraphrase Grant as writing:

What he actually wrote:

That's Will in his favorite helmet. He "sometimes" doesn't wear one, but he likes the look of this, and if you know Will you understand why. He is the Pro-tec helmet model perfectified.

Just one example of many. Once you do that your rant loses credibility

Dude, I couldn't care less about Grant Peterson. But trying to claim a real bicycle is worse for the environment because you drink more water? I mean, come on man :lol:

Not necessarily. Many people power their e-machines through their solar roofs and such.

I love my vintage steel bikes, and my carbon bikes. I even love my disc brakes and Di2. I've never been tempted to try an E-bike. I'm 69 years old, and take pride in BEING the motor. I know this thread is not really an E-bike or not thread, but in analyzing the OP's posted article, I'm on board with the E-bike as not a being real bike argument. I'm good with modern advances, as long as YOU are the motor. I've always found Rivendell a little quirky (OK, a lot quirky), but totally refreshing attitude. Several years ago, having completed a Solvang Century, I was watching other riders finish, to applause from the crowd. A guy came in on an Iacocca e-bike (remember them?) and he got booed. I almost felt sorry for him, but not that much.

Now, get off my lawn with your E-bike! 😉

While I'm not pursuing the ebike route, I can see where a lot of folks can use them to get out and ride when they otherwise would not have.
I'm NOT a fan of letting slavering, moronic bureaucrats and politicians dictate what I can put between my legs, or make me beg permission to do so.
The current power/speed limits listed for the U.S. could (being something of a devil's advocate just for the sake of this topic) be a boundary for non-licensed
bikes and "electric mopeds", and even carry the caveat that they be pedelecs requiring the rider to pedal for the motor to do anything.

Heck... I've always kinda thought it would be a neat way for cars to work. They'd still be powered, but the speed would be controlled by your pedaling.

As stated in this post, I don't have a dog in the fight otherwise, just tossing an idea out there. Of course, if an idea makes any real sense, the aforementioned pols and burs
will probably shy away and plug their ears.

ha ha, whutnow?
some impressive jumps to conclusions in your post.

GP is a man of strong opinions. He's not advocating violence against anyone for their choices, just stating his thoughts. No one else has to support nor agree with GP's thoughts if they think differently.

I'm beginning to think e-bikes were invented to give cyclists something to argue about :-) I own an e-bike but don't ride it much and it's just an expensive toy that I don't ride because it makes me lazy. However, if e-bikes allow less-able people to get out on bikes and, as long as they actually have to pedal to make them go, then they aren't completely evil.

The only qualitative difference between a bicycle and a motorcycle is that one is propelled by its rider and the other by a motor. So for me e-bikes are motorcycles.