Originally Posted by
big john
Let me just say that I am not a "naysayer" and I have nothing against e-assist or e-whatever as long as the rider is not a menace to others. Some of the analogies used here are dubious, however.
Me too. It looks like I might get a chance to do some riding in Europe this year, and by the wonder of e-bikes, my SO might actually go along and ride with me.
But the analogies offered here are nonsense. Exhibit 1: <removing those that are utterly irrelevant to cycling>
Originally Posted by
radroad
Narrow tires are cheating compared to fat tires.
Suspension is cheating.
Drop bars are cheating.
Aero bars are cheating.
Aero frames are cheating.
Aero wheels are cheating.
Shaving your legs is cheating.
I'm not sure what is meant by "cheating" here, but none of those items involves supplementing human power with a motor. Huge difference.
And as for this:
Originally Posted by
radroad
The levels of hypocrisy, ignorance and arrogance are reaching comical levels of ineptitude.
Just stop with the b.s.
You could have bought a bike with narrower tires, a suspension, drop bars, aero bars, aero wheels, and yes, you could have shaved your legs. But you didn't. You bought an ebike
because it had a motor that adds energy to the bike, not simply make best use of your own human energy.
There's no hypocrisy, ignorance or arrogance in making the choice to buy to buy one and arguing again and again that there is no fundamental difference between the two?
I have no dog in the e-bike fight and will probably avail my SO to the use of one in the near future. Who knows ... maybe I'll avail myself to one as well. But when I do, hopefully, I'll be self-confident enough to accept my decision for what it is, not pretend that is analogous to adding lower gears or higher pressure tires. It defies even a basic understanding of physics and is just not true, no matter now many times it is repeated.