Just before Christmas, I went to my LBS to order a frame bag, and I had a glance at the stock of new bikes. I immediately noticed that almost all of them were electric assist bikes, and they looked like decent ones where the motor assist goes throughthe drivetrain and gears rather than being in the front hub, which should make for superior hill climbing abiliy (and they are four figures in price). I enquired about the switch from conventional to electric bikes, and was told that this is the way the
Just before Christmas, I went to my LBS to order a frame bag, and I had a glance at the stock of new bikes. I immediately noticed that almost all of them were electric assist bikes, and they looked like decent ones where the motor assist goes throughthe drivetrain and gears rather than being in the front hub, which should make for superior hill climbing abiliy (and they are four figures in price). I enquired about the switch from conventional to electric bikes, and was told that this is the way the
Just before Christmas, I went to my LBS to order a frame bag, and I had a glance at the stock of new bikes. I immediately noticed that almost all
of them were electric assist bikes, and they looked like decent ones
where the motor assist goes through the drivetrain and gears rather than being in the front hub, which should make for superior hill climbing
abiliy (and they are four figures in price). I enquired about the switch
from conventional to electric bikes, and was told that this is the way
the market has gone, they are selling very few non-electric bikes, and if they didn't stock electric bikes, they would go out of business. There
used to be a bike shop which set up on the extreme east side of Horsham
town centre which didn't last very long before it folded, so it sounds
like there was some truth in what they said. Has anyone here noticed a similar trend in their area, that people are shunning conventional bikes
for electric assist?
Has anyone here noticed a similar trend in their area, that people
are shunning conventional bikes for electric assist?
Just before Christmas, I went to my LBS to order a frame bag, and I
had a glance at the stock of new bikes. I immediately noticed that
almost all of them were electric assist bikes... <snip>
On 04/01/2020 22:13, asrl07@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Just before Christmas, I went to my LBS to order a frame bag, and I
had a glance at the stock of new bikes. I immediately noticed that
almost all of them were electric assist bikes... <snip>
It's certainly a trend in NL, where e-bikes now outsell "normal" bikes.
Of course, in NL the market is dominated by sensible bikes for utility transport use, while in the UK it's still far more sport-centric.
However, IME UK shops are increasingly selling utility transport bikes,
and I expect that segment to take on a significant e-bike component, especially with people taking up cycling /because/ they can now Laugh In
The Face Of Hills and againsterly winds.
Of course, in NL the market is dominated by sensible bikes for utility >transport use, while in the UK it's still far more sport-centric.
However, IME UK shops are increasingly selling utility transport bikes,
and I expect that segment to take on a significant e-bike component, >especially with people taking up cycling /because/ they can now Laugh In
The Face Of Hills and againsterly winds.
Just before Christmas, I went to my LBS to order a frame bag, and I
had a glance at the stock of new bikes. I immediately noticed that
almost all of them were electric assist bikes, and they looked like
decent ones where the motor assist goes through the drivetrain and
gears rather than being in the front hub, which should make for
superior hill climbing abiliy (and they are four figures in price). I enquired about the switch from conventional to electric bikes, and
was told that this is the way the market has gone, they are selling
very few non-electric bikes, and if they didn't stock electric bikes,
they would go out of business. There used to be a bike shop which set
up on the extreme east side of Horsham town centre which didn't last
very long before it folded, so it sounds like there was some truth in
what they said. Has anyone here noticed a similar trend in their
area, that people are shunning conventional bikes for electric
assist?
are dangerous for cycling is the very slow speed of cyclists; cars are
much less likely to overtake dangerously if a cyclist is doing 20 MPH
than if he is doing 10 MPH, and the former requires moderate power
input from the rider from at least several Ebike systems, which is
infeasible if his knees give him hell when doing that because they
are too bent.
In article <h7onjgFdop4U1@mid.individual.net>,
Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
Of course, in NL the market is dominated by sensible bikes for utility >transport use, while in the UK it's still far more sport-centric.
However, IME UK shops are increasingly selling utility transport bikes,
and I expect that segment to take on a significant e-bike component, >especially with people taking up cycling /because/ they can now Laugh In >The Face Of Hills and againsterly winds.
It's worse than that :-( One of the consequences of the road-racers
having almost eliminated utility cycling is that UK cycle sizes are
now MUCH smaller that they used to be, and people are told that the
correct sizing requires very bent knees and a half crouch. That has
infected even specialist 'Dutch bike' shops, many of which do not
stock anything above the medium sizes, and give similar advice.
A hell of a lot of people can't handle that, and a hell of a lot more
can't ride far or deliver much power, which leads to the very common assertions "I must just be one of the people who can't cycle" and that
"I can't possibly cycle more than 2-3 miles". Ebikes may extend that a little, but not by much. Also, one of the main reasons that urban roads
are dangerous for cycling is the very slow speed of cyclists; cars are
much less likely to overtake dangerously if a cyclist is doing 20 MPH
than if he is doing 10 MPH, and the former requires moderate power
input from the rider from at least several Ebike systems, which is
infeasible if his knees give him hell when doing that because they
are too bent.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
In other news, I took a Birdy front wheel and new rim in for my LBS
to do. They looked very reluctant, and said they could do it for me
(I have had a good long term relationship with them), but they don't
usually do servicing/repair now, unless it is for a bike they have
sold. Unfortunately the new rim is a deep(er) rim, so the original
spokes cannot be used. They took measurements of the hub and inner
diameter of the rim, and advisem me on the correct size spokes to
buy, which I have done. I will have a go at replacing the rim myself
and if it takes too long to get it true, will take it to the LBS to
finish off.
Urban roads are not dangerous for cycling. This is one of the myths
thats puts people off even trying utility cycling. They feel dangerous
to some, but perception is not fact.
In article <h7onjgFdop4U1@mid.individual.net>,
Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
Of course, in NL the market is dominated by sensible bikes for utility >>transport use, while in the UK it's still far more sport-centric.
However, IME UK shops are increasingly selling utility transport bikes,
and I expect that segment to take on a significant e-bike component, >>especially with people taking up cycling /because/ they can now Laugh In >>The Face Of Hills and againsterly winds.
It's worse than that :-( One of the consequences of the road-racers
having almost eliminated utility cycling is that UK cycle sizes are
now MUCH smaller that they used to be, and people are told that the
correct sizing requires very bent knees and a half crouch. That has
infected even specialist 'Dutch bike' shops, many of which do not
stock anything above the medium sizes, and give similar advice.
A hell of a lot of people can't handle that, and a hell of a lot more
can't ride far or deliver much power, which leads to the very common assertions "I must just be one of the people who can't cycle" and that
"I can't possibly cycle more than 2-3 miles". Ebikes may extend that a little, but not by much. Also, one of the main reasons that urban roads
are dangerous for cycling is the very slow speed of cyclists; cars are
much less likely to overtake dangerously if a cyclist is doing 20 MPH
than if he is doing 10 MPH, and the former requires moderate power
input from the rider from at least several Ebike systems, which is
infeasible if his knees give him hell when doing that because they
are too bent.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
It's worse than that :-( One of the consequences of the road-racers
having almost eliminated utility cycling is that UK cycle sizes are
now MUCH smaller that they used to be, and people are told that the
correct sizing requires very bent knees and a half crouch. That has
infected even specialist 'Dutch bike' shops, many of which do not
stock anything above the medium sizes, and give similar advice.
Are you talking about frame size, wheel size, or both?
It's worse than that :-( One of the consequences of the road-racers
having almost eliminated utility cycling is that UK cycle sizes are
now MUCH smaller that they used to be, and people are told that the
correct sizing requires very bent knees and a half crouch.
A hell of a lot of people can't handle that, and a hell of a lot more
can't ride far or deliver much power, which leads to the very common assertions "I must just be one of the people who can't cycle" and that
"I can't possibly cycle more than 2-3 miles".
Having said that, frames generally are smaller these days but that's
because, thanks to Mike Burrows, they're compact and you can cover a
greater range of rider sizes with one frame just by extending the
seatpost and putting risers on the bars, much the same way as it works
for folders and other small-wheelers.
I've never come across any advice (including sports riding, and this
comes from reading the BC sports coaching manuals as I'm a L2 coach)
that encourages "very bent knees".
In article <h82u4pFhmvoU1@mid.individual.net>,
Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
Having said that, frames generally are smaller these days but that's >>because, thanks to Mike Burrows, they're compact and you can cover a >>greater range of rider sizes with one frame just by extending the
seatpost and putting risers on the bars, much the same way as it works
for folders and other small-wheelers.
That's bollocks. Firstly, while small risers have become available
in the past few years (and is IS a few), the shrinkage occurred LONG
before that. I have tried to do such extensions in the past, several
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:42:51 GMT, nmm@wheeler.UUCP (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
In article <h82u4pFhmvoU1@mid.individual.net>,
Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
Having said that, frames generally are smaller these days but that's
because, thanks to Mike Burrows, they're compact and you can cover a
greater range of rider sizes with one frame just by extending the
seatpost and putting risers on the bars, much the same way as it works
for folders and other small-wheelers.
That's bollocks. Firstly, while small risers have become available
in the past few years (and is IS a few), the shrinkage occurred LONG
before that. I have tried to do such extensions in the past, several
I dunno about your personal cirumstances, but to my knee, bending beyond
90 is Plain Wrong. I've seen quite poorly setup person/cycle
configurations struggling with the inefficient power to get up quite
trivial hills. But they won't listen!
Didn't it use to be 105-110% of inside leg? My basic start is heel on
pedal at bottom of travel. It rarely moves much from that.
On 14/01/2020 00:13, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
Having said that, frames generally are smaller these days but that's
because, thanks to Mike Burrows, they're compact and you can cover a
greater range of rider sizes with one frame just by extending the
seatpost and putting risers on the bars, much the same way as it works >>>> for folders and other small-wheelers.
That's bollocks. Firstly, while small risers have become available
in the past few years (and is IS a few), the shrinkage occurred LONG
before that. I have tried to do such extensions in the past, several
I dunno about your personal cirumstances, but to my knee, bending beyond
90 is Plain Wrong. I've seen quite poorly setup person/cycle
configurations struggling with the inefficient power to get up quite
trivial hills. But they won't listen!
Didn't it use to be 105-110% of inside leg? My basic start is heel on
pedal at bottom of travel. It rarely moves much from that.
In article <h82u4pFhmvoU1@mid.individual.net>,
Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
Having said that, frames generally are smaller these days but that's
because, thanks to Mike Burrows, they're compact and you can cover a
greater range of rider sizes with one frame just by extending the
seatpost and putting risers on the bars, much the same way as it works
for folders and other small-wheelers.
That's bollocks. Firstly, while small risers have become available
in the past few years (and is IS a few), the shrinkage occurred LONG
before that. I have tried to do such extensions in the past, several
times, and failed fairly dismally each time - once, I even put one
seat post into another! Secondly, that approach is CATASTROPHIC for
handling and safety - as a Moulton engineer said to me (though it was
no news), the wheelbase needs to increase pro rata to the CoG height (typically saddle height + some inches).
A lesser, but still significant, problem is that modern cables are
very often not long enough, which means that it's a much bigger job,
and not something that most people are capable of doing. I can assure
you that riding a bicycle with cables at full stretch is neither fun
nor safe :-(
The dire effect on braking efficiency is obvious, but only someone with
very good balance and reactions can ride something like that with any
degree of safety.
I've never come across any advice (including sports riding, and this
comes from reading the BC sports coaching manuals as I'm a L2 coach)
that encourages "very bent knees".
I have. Lots. And I have had shops refuse to set up test cycles for
me, including my local recumbent dealer, telling me that I need to
ride with my knees more bent. I have helped several people who have
been told "no, your saddle is at the right height - you need to increase cadence to stop knee pain", when that made it worse, by advising them of
the old rule, used when everyone cycled. Rather more said that the
'expert' must be right, they must be "just one of the people who can't
cycle" and gave up.
I've joined the growong list of people that *really* wish they'd
taken the lectric option for the Bullitt
http://www.larryvsharry.com/steps-ebullitt-technical-info/
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:17:52 +0100
Tosspot <Frank.Leake@gmail.com> wrote:
I've joined the growong list of people that *really* wish they'd
taken the lectric option for the Bullitt
http://www.larryvsharry.com/steps-ebullitt-technical-info/
Can't you just slap a mid-drive kit in the one you have?
on e-bikes, mainly ridden by the nouveau riche pensioners beggars
belief.
Still, Darwin will sort them out, as long as I'm not involved :-)
In article <qvfiam$7s5$1@dont-email.me>, Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
... Also, one of the main reasons that urban roads
are dangerous for cycling is the very slow speed of cyclists; cars are
much less likely to overtake dangerously if a cyclist is doing 20 MPH
than if he is doing 10 MPH, and the former requires moderate power
input from the rider from at least several Ebike systems, which is >infeasible if his knees give him hell when doing that because they
are too bent.
Sigh. With obvious 20 => 15 MPH correction, in the UK. My experience
and observation are that, while 20 MPH is safer, 15 MPH is still MUCH
better than 10 MPH, and the rider needs to expend more than 50 watts
even with a 2.5x assist to maintain that up even slight hills or
against headwinds.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Sigh. With obvious 20 => 15 MPH correction, in the UK. My experience
and observation are that, while 20 MPH is safer, 15 MPH is still MUCH
better than 10 MPH, and the rider needs to expend more than 50 watts
even with a 2.5x assist to maintain that up even slight hills or
against headwinds.
That model of motor power vs rider power isn't something I've come
across, on a couple of different types of e-bike motor. ...
An all-up weight of 140 Kg, a bottom gear of 20", a cadence of 60 RPM,
and a 25% hill is a torque of 87 nm and a power of 544 watts. I have
heard stories that they overheat when working hard at low cadences,
which makes dropping to 40 RPM a bit iffy.
That model of motor power vs rider power isn't something I've
come across, on a couple of different types of e-bike motor. We used
front hub motors on cargo bikes (finding that a bottom bracket motor
just destroyed chains/other components, presumably due to the large
torques that motor + rider could apply at low speeds), and the motor
happily provided lots of power up to the cutoff speed, and then none. So
on those bikes, 15 mph required 0 watts from the rider, 16 mph required
what felt like 300 W (not very aerodynamic with a large metal box on the back... ), and 20 mph was beyond my capabilities without a tailwind.
I would agree that on busier roads, 15 mph felt a lot safer (similar
to the car-bike interactions from riding a normal bike at 20 mph)
than the 10 mph I would tend to do on a non-electric cargo bike,
which did make me feel a lot lot vulnerable.
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:00:15 -0000 (UTC)
Nick Maclaren <nmm@wheeler.UUCP> wrote:
An all-up weight of 140 Kg, a bottom gear of 20", a cadence of 60 RPM,
and a 25% hill is a torque of 87 nm and a power of 544 watts. I have
heard stories that they overheat when working hard at low cadences,
which makes dropping to 40 RPM a bit iffy.
THe Bionx doesn't like low cadence. I don't know if it was designed
that way or if it is a limitation of torque sensing setups.
cadences, which is an engineering imbecility, as almost all such riders
An all-up weight of 140 Kg, a bottom gear of 20", a cadence of 60 RPM,
and a 25% hill is a torque of 87 nm and a power of 544 watts. I have
heard stories that they overheat when working hard at low cadences,
which makes dropping to 40 RPM a bit iffy.
THe Bionx doesn't like low cadence. I don't know if it was designed
that way or if it is a limitation of torque sensing setups.
From what I read, most electric assist motors are designed for high
If I do 70-80 up the hill it gives me heaps of help, if I grind up the
hill it gives me a lot less. Which is depressing. Luckily it is old
enough to have throttle as well so I can use that to add more go. If
I use throttle it gets me up a 1 in 5 with maybe a bit less weight all
up (say 120) than you.
In article <slrnr48nhv.i37.zebeej@gmail.com>,
Zebee Johnstone <zebeej@gmail.com> wrote:
An all-up weight of 140 Kg, a bottom gear of 20", a cadence of 60 RPM,
and a 25% hill is a torque of 87 nm and a power of 544 watts. I have
heard stories that they overheat when working hard at low cadences,
which makes dropping to 40 RPM a bit iffy.
THe Bionx doesn't like low cadence. I don't know if it was designed
that way or if it is a limitation of torque sensing setups.
From what I read, most electric assist motors are designed for highcadences, which is an engineering imbecility, as almost all such riders
are racers and similar, and ride at above 15 MPH. Almost all ordinary
riders (the ones who want assistance) ride at 60 RPM or below, for very
good reasons.
If I do 70-80 up the hill it gives me heaps of help, if I grind up the
hill it gives me a lot less. Which is depressing. Luckily it is old
enough to have throttle as well so I can use that to add more go. If
I use throttle it gets me up a 1 in 5 with maybe a bit less weight all
up (say 120) than you.
My day trip weight is about 120 Kg, but I tour with 135-140 Kg, and
the UK has lots of short stretches of above 25%.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 49:01:17 |
| Calls: | 6,648 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,330,096 |