|
Originally Posted by alan s
(Post 18903776)
The TdF is a bicycle race. That's why they don't allow doping or motors. It's not a technology race to see who can create the most effective drugs or the most powerful or efficient motors. There are limits to everything, and adding an electric motor to a bicycle, whatever you end up calling the machine, means it is no longer a bicycle. Therefore, someone riding such a machine is not engaged in bicycle touring. Perhaps there needs to be a new definition for that activity, and I'll leave it up to those who do it to come up with something. Just don't call it bike touring.
|
This thread should have either been shut down or re-directed to the proper sub-forum ("Electric Bikes") as soon as it was launched.
|
Originally Posted by axolotl
(Post 18904116)
This thread should have either been shut down or re-directed to the proper sub-forum ("Electric Bikes") as soon as it was launched.
|
Not my cup of tea. Seems to make everything more complicated. However. Throttle or pedal assist? Range? Charging where? 50 lb? bike with no charge pedaling up a hill? Plus gear. Seems one would be restricted to just go form charging outlet to charging outlet. And would seem to me, to defeat the purpose of touring. To go, unencumbered by my own power, where and when I want. My take anyway. I would rather take a touring motorcycle with 2 bags. YRMV.
|
Originally Posted by Leebo
(Post 18904155)
Not my cup of tea. Seems to make everything more complicated. However. Throttle or pedal assist? Range? Charging where? 50 lb? bike with no charge pedaling up a hill? Plus gear. Seems one would be restricted to just go form charging outlet to charging outlet. And would seem to me, to defeat the purpose of touring. To go, unencumbered by my own power, where and when I want. My take anyway. I would rather take a touring motorcycle with 2 bags. YRMV.
No throttle, as that would make it into a moped, pedal assist with less than 350 watts as that is still a bicycle, a bicycle with E-assist. IMO. Range, well that mostly depends on how much assist you use, if you use all the assistance available at the start of every day and the battery was fully charged, I would get about 30Km on my bike. but if I pedal normally and use the assist only when "needed" I could go 180 KM the wife could go about 120Km... Charge by/with solar panels, so you don't need to go where there is power. My bike weighs about 40Lbs and can be ridden, pedalled without the motor on just like a regular bike so yes I could pedal it up a hill without using the E-assist. My set up has re-gen and that can/does help with charging, it can increase range by abut 15% Going unencumbered under ones own power is great. :thumb: But sometimes one needs some assistance and that can enable one to go and do what one wants to do too... ;) |
Originally Posted by 350htrr
(Post 18904129)
No, it is in the right forum, because it's about touring, just like ultralight touring, CC touring, supported touring... JMO
|
Originally Posted by alan s
(Post 18904321)
Except that bike touring is done on a bicycle, whereas leg-assisted motor bike touring is not.
|
Originally Posted by 350htrr
(Post 18904355)
If I went 100Km a day and the motor actually did 51KM of those 100KM I would agree with you, I would be riding a leg assisted motor bicycle... Seeing as the most work the motor can put out is 30KM worth per charge, I would say that by doing 100KM a day it is the motor that is assisting me, with me putting out 70KM worth of effort... ;)
In fact, it would probably be more efficient to generate electricity with your legs, rather than applying power directly to the rear wheel. That way you wouldn't have to pretend you were pedaling. You would actually be charging the battery with your legs. Add regeneration and solar, and you could probably do a decent job keeping your batteries charged. |
Originally Posted by 350htrr
(Post 18904313)
Those are all good points. :thumb:
No throttle, as that would make it into a moped, pedal assist with less than 350 watts as that is still a bicycle, a bicycle with E-assist. IMO. Range, well that mostly depends on how much assist you use, if you use all the assistance available at the start of every day and the battery was fully charged, I would get about 30Km on my bike. but if I pedal normally and use the assist only when "needed" I could go 180 KM the wife could go about 120Km... Charge by/with solar panels, so you don't need to go where there is power. My bike weighs about 40Lbs and can be ridden, pedalled without the motor on just like a regular bike so yes I could pedal it up a hill without using the E-assist. My set up has re-gen and that can/does help with charging, it can increase range by abut 15% Going unencumbered under ones own power is great. :thumb: But sometimes one needs some assistance and that can enable one to go and do what one wants to do too... ;) |
Originally Posted by alan s
(Post 18904401)
Using your example, out of the 100 km, let's say half is downhill and half is uphill, If you are using a motor to ride up 30 km, then 30% of your total ride (60% of the uphill portion) is powered entirely by motor, and 50% of your ride (downhill) by gravity, leaving a measly 20% of actual effort. So yeah, it's a leg assisted motor bike, no matter how you slice and dice it. Your legs are supplementing the motor, not the other way around.
In fact, it would probably be more efficient to generate electricity with your legs, rather than applying power directly to the rear wheel. That way you wouldn't have to pretend you were pedaling. You would actually be charging the battery with your legs. Add regeneration and solar, and you could probably do a decent job keeping your batteries charged. The problem with going only uphill is the battery will get depleted faster, thus instead of the 30Km assistance that I can average on a regular road every 100Km, I would only get about 10Km of assistance, thus I would have to pedal 40Km uphill without assistance on a 40Lbs bicycle instead of a 20Lbs bicycle... :roflmao2: Now according to my calculations that would end up with a total of 10% assistance per 100Km instead of 30% I would normally get... :rolleyes: That worse case scenario actually makes the E-Assist bike more like a regular bicycle, Good job bud. :thumb: |
Originally Posted by 350htrr
(Post 18904817)
Great example there bud... So, let's go with it... 50%uphill & 50%downhill... Can't get any worse than that. :thumb:
The problem with going only uphill is the battery will get depleted faster, thus instead of the 30Km assistance that I can average on a regular road every 100Km, I would only get about 10Km of assistance, thus I would have to pedal 40Km uphill without assistance on a 40Lbs bicycle instead of a 20Lbs bicycle... :roflmao2: Now according to my calculations that would end up with a total of 10% assistance per 100Km instead of 30% I would normally get... :rolleyes: That worse case scenario actually makes the E-Assist bike more like a regular bicycle, Good job bud. :thumb: |
Originally Posted by alan s
(Post 18904855)
You're changing the numbers to suit your argument. Not surprising, given the challenges you face in making your case.
EDIT; And that's why the wife and I can, tour with an E-Assist bicycle, we, put in most of the effort... If we didn't put in the effort, the farthest we would go an a charge is about 30Km if we didn't pedal... It's just how it works, it's "almost" the same as normal riding a 27 speed compared to a single speed, if you don't put in the effort you won't get far, even with the help of 27 gears. :p |
Originally Posted by 350htrr
(Post 18904911)
Not at all, it's you who don't/doesn't know how E-Assist works and how people use it. there's' a big difference in range, riding "normal" roads and riding uphill only as in your scenario... ;) Same with speed, if I want to ride 32Km/Hr on "normal" roads I can. But only for 30Km... If I slow down to my regular speed I can go 100Km+ on the same charge. It just works that way somehow... :p
EDIT; And that's why the wife and I can, tour with an E-Assist bicycle, we, put in most of the effort... If we didn't put in the effort, the farthest we would go an a charge is about 30Km if we didn't pedal... It's just how it works, it's "almost" the same as normal riding a 27 speed compared to a single speed, if you don't put in the effort you won't get far. :p |
Originally Posted by alan s
(Post 18904962)
What are normal or regular roads? What is regular speed? All these vague terms lead me to believe you are hiding something.
If I asked you how fast and how far, you can normally go, you could say 15MPH and 30 miles average per leg or 40 MPH down some hills and 40 miles per leg, or 5 MPH up some hills and 20 miles per leg... Pretty vague if you just gave me the first number, but still correct. What's the real number? That would depend, wouldn't it? ;) |
Originally Posted by seeker333
(Post 18903970)
"It hurts no one" - right, the internet and electronic video games hurt no one, except for the hundreds of millions of children, teenagers and adults who now spend all their leisure time indoors in the air conditioning, only 10 steps away from the refrigerator and microwave oven, basically sitting on their asses and overeating their whole lives. Kids hardly go out to play anymore, grownups never leave their computers or TVs. In this same fashion, ebikes will divert a significant portion of conventional bicycle users to the effortless alternative.
"pollution free" - electricity does not originate from that plug in the wall. It must be generated by hydroelectric, nuclear, fossil fuel, wind, solar or geothermal. In USA, 67% of electricity is generated by the burning of coal, natural gas or petroleum. The generation of this electricity from fossil fuels directly results in 30% of total carbon emissions in the USA. This trend will continue for the foreseeable future due to the vast reserves of natural gas produced from hydrofracking, whose proponents insist doesn't significantly impact drinking water quality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ApZkNsXfJE So ebikes - what harm could they do? There's a whole ideological stance here that I don't get but people are entitled to their beliefs. I don't think their beliefs should dictate who can and can't post in a forum though. In the link I provided earlier the designer discusses the front wheel/crank which has what he calls "Planetary Gearing" starting at 5:58. This device provides a 4:1 mechanical advantage over conventional cranks at next to no input cost (paraphrasing his words). How is this different from an E assist bike which also uses a mechanical advantage to gain an increase in output with less input? The rider puts in 100watts of effort and derives 400watts driving his rear gears. I guess, through my employment, I see the benefit in being inclusive and allowing people to start where they are on the spectrum outweighing any benefit derived from excluding compensatory techniques. I see people trying to regain what we assume to be normal function all the time (and none of them got there by riding E bikes btw). For all the drama about young people becoming lazy I think the E bike is pretty far down on the causal scale. In fact I rarely (if ever) see a young person riding an E assist bike much less doing self supported cycle touring so E assist self supported touring is what I think they call a red herring imo. Another avenue worth exploring is the distance an E bike would allow someone to travel during a set period of time vs what they could achieve unassisted. From my perspective time is the determinate factor in how long or far I can tour. When I planned my next tour I actually had to cut my travel plans in half. I wanted to ride across Canada but could not afford to take 8-10 weeks to do so. If the infrastructure existed, I might be able to do an E assist tour across Canada in the same time it will take me to tour only Western Canada. If my goal is to see the country and not challenge myself to pedal every inch of it unassisted, the E bike concept might allow me to achieve that goal. What do I want to do when I tour: grind out every mile, or take pictures, see sights, feel close to nature, visit new places... all possible on an E bike. Would I be cheating or not bike touring? No more in my mind than someone who travels farther and faster than I do by using a custom made carbon fiber road bike and a credit card to eat and stay in hotels along the way. I think those accepted touring techniques create a disparity equal to an E assist self supported bike. |
I thought touring cyclists were a little more laid back.
Soon you'll all be riding with powermeters and having a minimum number of kJ output today to qualify for real 'touring', whatever that is. |
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
(Post 18905570)
How is this different from an E assist bike which also uses a mechanical advantage to gain an increase in output with less input?
A motor is providing power. It's pushing your bike. You're being moved by power beyond what your body is putting into the pedals. If you're providing 100W, and you engage an assist and drop your power so that you're providing 50W and the assist is providing 50W, you're burning energy at a lower rate, but you won't spend more time burning energy at that lower rate in order to get to a destination a given distance away; just as much power is being delivered to your wheel, so you aren't going any slower. |
Originally Posted by seeker333
(Post 18903970)
"It hurts no one" - right, the internet and electronic video games hurt no one, except for the hundreds of millions of children, teenagers and adults who now spend all their leisure time indoors in the air conditioning, only 10 steps away from the refrigerator and microwave oven, basically sitting on their asses and overeating their whole lives. Kids hardly go out to play anymore, grownups never leave their computers or TVs. In this same fashion, ebikes will divert a significant portion of conventional bicycle users to the effortless alternative.
"pollution free" - electricity does not originate from that plug in the wall. It must be generated by hydroelectric, nuclear, fossil fuel, wind, solar or geothermal. In USA, 67% of electricity is generated by the burning of coal, natural gas or petroleum. The generation of this electricity from fossil fuels directly results in 30% of total carbon emissions in the USA. This trend will continue for the foreseeable future due to the vast reserves of natural gas produced from hydrofracking, whose proponents insist doesn't significantly impact drinking water quality: So ebikes - what harm could they do? |
Originally Posted by DropBarFan
(Post 18905781)
e-bikes would probably reduce pollution & energy use by replacing cars for commuting. One car's energy use could power huge # of e-bikes; far outweighing reg bikers who switch to e-bikes.
The big problem with this theory is that the main reason more adults don't ride bikes is not because of the physical exertion required, or the occasional necessary shower, rather they are afraid some cager will kill them. Go around one day and survey reasonably healthy adults (assuming you are USA), the overwhelming response is close to "somebody'd run me over". |
Originally Posted by HTupolev
(Post 18905733)
A mechanical advantage (in the simple kinematics sense of "gearing") doesn't allow you to gain an increase in input with less output. I mean, it sort of does in the sense that your legs won't be operating inefficiently... but you still don't have any more power to work with than what your body is providing. If you gear down while keeping equal cadence, you will burn energy at a lower rate, but you will spend more time burning energy at that lower rate in order to get to a destination a given distance away.
A motor is providing power. It's pushing your bike. You're being moved by power beyond what your body is putting into the pedals. If you're providing 100W, and you engage an assist and drop your power so that you're providing 50W and the assist is providing 50W, you're burning energy at a lower rate, but you won't spend more time burning energy at that lower rate in order to get to a destination a given distance away; just as much power is being delivered to your wheel, so you aren't going any slower. Again, my point being, if you exclude some sort of ideological aversion to using E assist, there are many many examples where technology acts to create an uneven playing field in cycling. In competition we may limit those but in touring what is the motivational factor to limit new ideas? I personally haven't seen the need for CF seat posts but that's just me at this point in time. My perspective certainly should not be used to limit exploration of the use of exotic materials in bicycle construction. Nor should the idea of "doing it all myself" be used to to limit the exploration of E assist and associated technologies in touring. While some questions (mainly to do with how the motor works) might not be relevant to conventional tourers other questions could have a direct bearing. How would we know if we reject the idea out of hand by excluding any discussion? It's a bit of a "head in the sand" mentality that needn't exist as it does nothing to further conventional touring in any way. I don't think traditional touring needs protection from E bikes. E bikes don't take away from traditional bikes - they just provide another offshoot like bike packing rigs and trike recumbents do. |
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
(Post 18905890)
I don't pretend to know what planetary gearing is as described in the video but it seemed to provide an advantage in propulsion that no "conventional" bike would have.
http://i.imgur.com/khe0nKG.jpg On the webpage it says one of their prototypes did 133KPH and in the video they are attempting 5+KPH for a 1 hour duration. edit: To be clear here, I'm not really objecting to e-bike touring, just analyzing the arguments. |
Originally Posted by HTupolev
(Post 18905901)
A planetary gear system is just a way of providing a gear ratio. A 4:1 planetary gear like used on that velomobile is just like chucking an extra stage on a chain drivetrain with a 60-tooth ring and 15-tooth cog. Alternately, imagine your bike, but quadruple the tooth count on each of your chainrings.
http://i.imgur.com/khe0nKG.jpg What enables those sorts of speeds is it being very aerodynamic, as a recumbent with a fairing. Quadrupling the ratio with a 4:1 planetary gear is done so that the cyclist doesn't spin out at high speed. The rider works less hard to achieve the same results. |
Originally Posted by elcruxio
(Post 18901986)
Since the last thread on the subject spiralled into unpublishability I thought it might be a good idea to start a new one a bit stricter limits and a more useful subject beginning.
As some of you may know, I'm currently touring Middle Europe and have seen quite a bit of E-bikes on the way. It would seem that Europe is RIFE with e-assist bikes and a vast majority of bicycle tourists which we've passed use E-assist bikes. I'd even go as far as to say the future of bicycle touring lies with e-assist bikes. In all honesty I've already started planning the execution of a potential e-assist tourer. I'll limit the discussion to EU-law e-assist bike specs which means: - max motor power of 250 watts (I don't really agree with the power limit as for example for cargo bikes a high torque 500 or even 750 watt engine would be much more useful, but that's another discussion on a whole different board) - gradual assist cutoff when the speed of 25km/h is reached - pedal assist only so no movement or assist without pedaling. Different parts of the world may have different specs, but in general when speaking of e-assist bikes we're talking about bikes which are roughly in the same realm of possibilities. If you want to discuss bikes outside these limits, go somewhere else (this is mainly for luddites) So, what can e-assist then do for touring? Some of the things I've noticed are 1) Tires There are discussions of touring tires, tire weights, suppleness, width, aerodynamics etc. Most of it has to do with durability, speed and ride quality. Using an E-assist basically removes some of the factors completely, as in the weight and speed components. With e-assist the weight or width of the tire is a nonissue in terms of speed so one doesn't need to limit onesself to a narrower tire in hopes of more speed or a lighter tire in hopes of easier climbing or better acceleration (although in touring the whole acceleration thing is null anyways). The best example I've seen in this regard was an E-assist fatbike used for touring. I wouldn't usually even consider a fatbike for road touring, but the e-assist completely changes the game and actually makes the fatbike probably one of the best tourers out there, if the geometry allows for it. 2) other comfort gear Building upon the above point, it would be quite plausible to tour on a full suspension fat tired mountain bike as it wouldn't matter nearly as much that some of the pedaling forces are being eaten by the suspension system. How one would mount racks on a full squish is an interesting dilemma, but I think someone would be able to think that up (they make them for motorcycles, so why not for bikes as well) 3) accessibility This was discussed in the previous thread but from what I've witnessed on this tour, I believe I'd be seeing a lot less people touring if it wasn't for the e-assist option. It allows for comfort seeking people and older people to get out there and even ride the more challenging routes which would otherwise be completely barred for them. I see nothing but good sides to this as more tourists pretty much means more and better infrastructure as the people living off bike tourists will demand it. And make no mistake, people getting out with e-assist bikes are still getting excercize as the motor is for assist only. If you've not tried it you can't really comprehend it. 4) speed, distance and gear weight. I'll wrap this up, quick, but who wouldn't want to travel more per day, faster, better against head winds, worry less about elevation and worry less aout gear weight. Basically pack what you want within reason and go where you want. I know some people here think that elevation and all that needs to be earned somehow and I just think "why?" My own potential system may have to wait though as I'm not a fan of many of the current systems. The worst but somehow most popular system seems to be the Bosch BB mounted engine, which is in a good spot weight distribution wise but also creaks like the devil when putting some real force into the pedals. Also, makes the bike useless with conventional BB systems so a no vote for that. A rear wheel engine might be good, but puts the weight rearwards where there's already usually too much weight. A front wheel engine might be the ticket though. 1. Fat bikes, Fat tyres, fat........you see where this is going. 2. People already tour with suspension and front racks, I've seen them. 3. There's nothing more accessible than cycle touring, you can tour on virtually any bicycle as people have been doing for generations. 4. 'Who wouldn't'? Lots, me included. 'My own potential system...' Doesn't matter where you put the 'engine', if it isn't sitting (most of the time) on the saddle it's a virtual motorbike. |
Originally Posted by Caretaker
(Post 18905999)
All I can say is there must be a huge disparity between 'middle Europe' and the rest of the continent because while I do see the occasional Ebike ommuter they still constitute, in my experience, about 0.1% of the touring community that includes many from Northern Europe.
1. Fat bikes, Fat tyres, fat........you see where this is going This comment says rather a lot about you and your opinions. Live and let live, eh? Or maybe not... 2. People already tour with suspension and front racks, I've seen them. 3. There's nothing more accessible than cycle touring, you can tour on virtually any bicycle as people have been doing for generations. |
'My own potential system...' Doesn't matter where you put the 'engine', if it isn't sitting (most of the time) on the saddle it's a virtual motorbike. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:20 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.