proposed new law worse than the old

Positive discussion on ebikes and pedal assist bicycles

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby cachexian » Tue May 17, 2011 2:07 pm

Well, I have read it (a while ago) and I think that it is actually quite well reasoned. There's a lot of calculations about wattage produced by cyclists and the required amount of wattage for hill climbing including calculations for wind resistance.

I personally do NOT agree with the cap of 25km/h on the assist, nor do I agree with the insistence on pedalec control.

Cachexian.
Scott Sub 40 with 200W, 36v Ezee geared front hub motor
and...
Trek Madonne 3.1 driven by left leg and right leg
cachexian
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:39 pm

by BNA » Tue May 24, 2011 9:43 pm

BNA
 

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby algaematt » Tue May 24, 2011 9:43 pm

I think that it's a pretty crap law for a few reasons. The speed limit actually stops many potential electric bike riders from using one and instead burning up gasoline. Electric bicycles are not only for the elderly or infirm, they are for young fit regular cyclists too. A young fit cyclist can easily travel from 35-40km/hr on a flat road and hold this speed. If you have an electric bike restricted to 25km/hr then few young fit riders will ride one as it will just hold him or her back in many places. There are many instances when a young person would like to ride an electric bike too; getting to work with no sweat, after a hard day, getting home faster, relaxing healthy exercise, etc.. 25km/hr isn't slow but it's certainly not fast, 35km/hr would be a good maximum speed I believe. I've sold many conversion kits to people over the years and many young people opt for the higher powered motors (350 - 500W), this is because they want to enjoy riding and electric riding that matches their cycling ability. For elderly people 200W is perfectly adequate, as they've learned to enjoy the pleasure of life at a slower pace. Limiting the speed of an electric bicycle to 25km/hr is equally as stupid as imposing a law on regular cyclists to 25km/hr I feel.
Regarding the pedelec. This is a terribly foolish law to introduce too. It was introduced into European society as a means to differ between an electric bicycle and an electric scooter basically. The pedal activated systems are dangerous and hard to control. You never really know exactly when the power is going to kick in and usually they are activated by a few pedal revolutions - the starting is when you want the power mostly. The throttle is the best system to use, it offers unrivalled control of how much power to use; it's great for crossing busy streets, negotiating busy areas and to help you get the starting power up hills. Also, when riding on the flat it allows you to ride quite happily with no power and then give yourself power boosts as you want them. The pedal sensor is without doubt the worst thing about many electric bicycles. Throttles can come with thumb activation or twist grip activation - both perfectly suitable for anyone of any age.

Matt - Solar Bike
algaematt
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:37 pm

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby Joeblake » Tue May 24, 2011 10:03 pm

algaematt wrote:. Electric bicycles are not only for the elderly or infirm, they are for young fit regular cyclists too. A young fit cyclist can easily travel from 35-40km/hr on a flat road and hold this speed. If you have an electric bike restricted to 25km/hr then few young fit riders will ride one as it will just hold him or her back in many places.


Where does this happen? I'm able to crank my big recumbent trike to over 40 km/h and the motor won't take me faster than 24 km/h unassisted. And I'm 61 years old.


I've sold many conversion kits to people over the years and many young people opt for the higher powered motors (350 - 500W), this is because they want to enjoy riding and electric riding that matches their cycling ability.


That's very puzzling. What has their "cycling ability" got to do with a more powerful motor? If the motor enables them to travel more quickly, that's got nothing to do with "cycling ability".


For elderly people 200W is perfectly adequate, as they've learned to enjoy the pleasure of life at a slower pace.


Have they indeed? That seems to be making some rather unjustified assumptions. Have you ever been 60 years of age?


The pedal sensor is without doubt the worst thing about many electric bicycles. Throttles can come with thumb activation or twist grip activation - both perfectly suitable for anyone of any age.


Hear, hear.

Joe
To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy
Bertrand Russell
Many people feel their lifestyle has a high price, but they're quite cool with that .. as long as somebody ELSE pays the price.
Joeblake
 
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Lesmurdie WA

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed May 25, 2011 1:05 am

Without trying a pedelec, I am in agreement with algaematt about the shortcomings of pedelec - a manual control should be adequate and pedelec is inferior to manual control atm.

"But then", I think, "why are the regulators even considering the inferior pedelec now?" Simple - ebikes were introduced way back on the basis that they were power assisted bikes, not fully powered . But some users pretend otherwise and then find 200W is not enough to maintain the same speed uphill as they do on the flat. Here's a newsflash. Neither do those who ride without motors! Damn, apparently this is so imperative that I wonder why regular bike riders even bother to ride. Doh!

Hence regs relying on a technological fix like pedelec is pursued in place of policing rider behaviour towards the "assisted" intention as policing it is damned difficult. Most of those griping about the laws seem to be those that never wanted it to be pedal assisted, but rather an alternative scooter.

I disagree strongly with the limits that calchexian is happy with. But his argument does not fail on logic. He just wants to draw his line in a different part of the sand than I and he acknowledges this. But others make highly contentious aguements based on vaporous data or the denial of known data. Like, various generalisations on oldies and cripples, supposing that standards should be based on very specific uncommon individuals and narrowly defined exceptions. "Factoids such as "A young fit cyclist can easily travel from 35-40km/hr on a flat road and hold this speed" are only preaching to the converted. Yeah - Hold? How long? Or that 200W is a piddling amount of power that has buger all benefit. Broadly accepted data has been presented to give the lie to this. (I'll add another at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17786683)

There is no absolute argument on 200w vs 500, it is mostly a point in a continuum that some disagree with and others do not. But several have pointed out that holding a power of 200w is in the realm of only reasonably serious riders, at least for commuting times. Spurious arguments that deny data like this are a little insulting to the rest of us.

On the other hand, those that state that this need for an alternative to petrol guzzlers is already available, just not in the package that some want, are hard to fault. It is simple unemotional fact.

(When I was a ranked A-grade squash player and supremely fit, 30hrs per week of intense physical activity, basal pulse in the forties and all that, the day I held 35-40kph on the flat all the way to work was a rarity with absolutly everything going my way - and I'm talking about the morning, not battling the freo doctor on the way home. You don't get much flatter than Bateman to East Perth.)
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle
@Nov27 6,669km of 6,600. Rem -69 @-2.0/day. Time to review the target methinks.
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby cachexian » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:33 am

Hi Joe,

How long can you sustain 40kph? I'm impressed considering the additional drag that your solar setup would add!

I can hit 40kph easily enough but no way can I hold that speed. One thing that we can all be happy about is that the law is not trying to limit how much power we can output from our other two motors. :D So it's back on the bike for me for more training to increase the power and resilience of "left" and "right".

Cachexian.
Scott Sub 40 with 200W, 36v Ezee geared front hub motor
and...
Trek Madonne 3.1 driven by left leg and right leg
cachexian
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:39 pm

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby Joeblake » Fri Jun 03, 2011 10:24 am

cachexian wrote:Hi Joe,

How long can you sustain 40kph? I'm impressed considering the additional drag that your solar setup would add!



The 40 km/h I can only sustain for about a km or less, because I'm usually coming off a steep downhill run (max speed 78-79 km/h), and then have to negotiate either a hair pin bend or a T junction. I'm not sure that there's too much drag from the solar panel, because my max speed coming down the hill was pretty much the same before I fitted the panels. Adding the fairing (to the small trike) gave about a 1 km/h increase in speed on the same hill. I had a fairing on the big trike back in the early '90s (pre-electric motor) which gave me an increase of about 1 km/h on my average speed. In those days I lived on the "flatlands".

Joe
To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy
Bertrand Russell
Many people feel their lifestyle has a high price, but they're quite cool with that .. as long as somebody ELSE pays the price.
Joeblake
 
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Lesmurdie WA

China To Adopt EU Standards for e-Bikes

Postby alan101 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:29 pm

I viewed this assertion that China is going to speed limit their domestic ebikes to 25kmh with dismay, because it will inhibit innovation. A 75y old ebiker mate took a glass half full view, and said it would be great to have the giant Chinese ebike market add mass to uptake of the EU 250w/25kmh pedalec standard. I just ran this article past a lady I know who sells ebikes in China, and she replied: 'I have checked with my friends who take care of the domestic market and I was told that there is no such kind of policy come out. But when we have applied for the Chinese government CIQ check, if our products have the certification, they will trust more and take less time on taking the test on our products. That is true'.

There are millions of e-scooters in China (generally 48v with SLA batteries), and these need to be conceptually separated from the ebikes. Note the 40kg weight limit in China, and consider that in 2009 98% of their ebikes/scooters used SLA batteries (a 4kg Li-ion has same output as a 16kg SLA battery).

URL: http://www.bike-eu.com/news/5027/china- ... uni%202011

Partial quote from this article: 'China To Adopt EU Standards for e-Bikes; for Export Reasons?'

"HONG KONG, China – Is it because of big ambitions on rising exports of e-bikes to Europe? Fact is that the Chinese government wants all e-bikes made in the country to meet EU standards as from June 1, 2011".

"The end of May announced government plans are about phasing out e-bikes that exceed speed and weight limits published 12 years ago. These standards state that e-bikes can weigh no more than 40 kg and cannot go faster than 20 km (12.4 miles) per hour. However, the bulk of the estimated 120 million e-bikes in China have designed capacity of 30-40 kph and typically carry four batteries, which by themselves weigh at least 16-28 kg".

"Factories whose products do not meet the standards would be asked to close, while owners of e-bikes would generally be asked to stop using e-bikes that do not meet the standards. The government plans stirred widespread fears that more than 2,000 e-bike factories would close, affecting millions of users".

Incidentally, my 200w ebike does 34kmh pedal-assisted in Melbourne, after which I let the throttle go and crank on the bar extensions. Why would Australia want to take this capability down/backwards to 25kmh?! For middle and outer suburbanites and country people, the resultant longer trip time could make the ebike non-viable as a transport medium. What car or motorcycle maker ever aims to develop a slower transport medium to capture market share? I had a whisper from fed Dept of Infrastructure that we might see the new ebike legislation around Dec 2011. I have to say their lack of priority with developing this new standard is pathetic, given the urgency required to get a greenhouse gas abatement strategy going globally. This proposal has been around for a couple of years now, and still isn't up for public scrutiny or comment.
User avatar
alan101
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: China To Adopt EU Standards for e-Bikes

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:52 pm

alan101 wrote:Incidentally, my 200w ebike does 34kmh pedal-assisted in Melbourne, after which I let the throttle go and crank on the bar extensions. Why would Australia want to take this capability down/backwards to 25kmh?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGO3bt6YPKo&feature=channel_video_title
http://www.youtube.com/user/taypet21#p/u/51/xRDyStSLHvU
There are tools out there. Say's it all.


alan101 wrote:I have to say their lack of priority with developing this new standard is pathetic, given the urgency required to get a greenhouse gas abatement strategy going globally. This proposal has been around for a couple of years now, and still isn't up for public scrutiny or comment.

Understandable. The contribution that ebikes will make to reducing the nasties is not very great in the immediate turn. The take up has been slow so far and will continue to be so.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle
@Nov27 6,669km of 6,600. Rem -69 @-2.0/day. Time to review the target methinks.
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby jet-ski » Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:15 pm

Again, it's probably not worth repeating but you guys are talking about two different classes of vehicles.

There are vehicles that can be electric, pedal assisted and road registered. Ride those ones on the road as fast as they can possibly go.

Bikes that operate on Principle Shared Paths or Recreational Shared Paths, or in bike lanes on road, should be subject to restrictions.

As for all the bravado about maintaining 30kph-40kph on the flat.... if you do that on around pedestrians on a PSP/RSP then you are a tool. Overtaking people with a 20kph+ speed differential is dangerous, pedal powered or electrically assisted. If you ride at those speeds and don't slow down when you see peds, do yourself a favor and get on the road!
Xtracycle, Surly Long Haul Trucker, Bike Friday New World Tourist, Giant TCR, 9:zero:7
http://www.perthcyclist.net/blog
User avatar
jet-ski
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:51 pm
Location: Perth WA

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby nasigoreng » Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:51 am

how many chinese people get harassed for reducing emissions on peddle assisted bikes? and we are the lucky country hey!


welcome to the nanny state comrades!

it is a pushbike, just as others like peddling, there are some like me who don't.

I been riding bikes, probably more serious than most since bmx racing at 7 and I think the puritan attitude of some of the high And mighty attitudes of the greater cycling public a disgrace, just cause someone chooses to do something you dont agree with doesn't mean you should open your trap and put 2 cents worth of bs into the pot... a lot of cyclists without motors cause more grief than most peddle assisted bikes, even those noisy two strokes are less offensive than do gooders with nothing better to do than whinge... go shave your legs and vote the queens, I mean greens!
nasigoreng
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:49 pm
Location: on the rd.

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:14 am

nasigoreng wrote:how many chinese people get harassed for reducing emissions on peddle assisted bikes? and we are the lucky country hey!


welcome to the nanny state comrades!

it is a pushbike, just as others like peddling, there are some like me who don't.

I been riding bikes, probably more serious than most since bmx racing at 7 and I think the puritan attitude of some of the high And mighty attitudes of the greater cycling public a disgrace, just cause someone chooses to do something you dont agree with doesn't mean you should open your trap and put 2 cents worth of bs into the pot... a lot of cyclists without motors cause more grief than most peddle assisted bikes, even those noisy two strokes are less offensive than do gooders with nothing better to do than whinge... go shave your legs and vote the queens, I mean greens!


Troll alert. Do not take seriously and ignore it.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle
@Nov27 6,669km of 6,600. Rem -69 @-2.0/day. Time to review the target methinks.
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby Joeblake » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:29 am

Image

Warning! Warning! Danger!

:lol:

Joe
To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy
Bertrand Russell
Many people feel their lifestyle has a high price, but they're quite cool with that .. as long as somebody ELSE pays the price.
Joeblake
 
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Lesmurdie WA

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby nasigoreng » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:50 pm

a troll who was an etw on subs in the RAN so you wanna talk electricity or you wanna whinge... at 37 (30 yrs on a bike) I just chose not to grow up and become a bitter old cranky man, imagine if people worried what was going on in their own closets rather than worry what the neighbours are doing!

there sure are some real uptight attitudes in this joint, I bet your fibre plus farts stink more than mine cranky bastardo...
nasigoreng
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:49 pm
Location: on the rd.

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby nasigoreng » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:27 pm

sogood wrote:
stolennomenclature wrote:Does anyone else here share my opinion that this is worse than the current situation?

I don't.

It's one that provides sufficient power.


incorrect... like motorcycle licences the more "sensible" approach would be to calculate it roughly on riders weight, this is a fair compromise. every rum corps would be better at judging weight than guessing the output of motor.
nasigoreng
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:49 pm
Location: on the rd.

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby Joeblake » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:57 pm

nasigoreng wrote:a troll who was an etw on subs in the RAN



And now a self-confessed troll. :lol: :lol:

Joe
To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy
Bertrand Russell
Many people feel their lifestyle has a high price, but they're quite cool with that .. as long as somebody ELSE pays the price.
Joeblake
 
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Lesmurdie WA

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby nasigoreng » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:24 pm

deleted by mod - attack the idea not the person.
nasigoreng
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:49 pm
Location: on the rd.

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby Joeblake » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:37 pm

nasigoreng wrote: I just chose not to grow up.


Sometimes the obvious does not need to be stated ... :lol: :lol:

This a very welcoming (and wide ranging) forum, if you just give it a try instead of coming out with all guns blazing. Given your stated naval experience, you might make a useful contribution in this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=12141&hilit=Kayak


Joe
To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy
Bertrand Russell
Many people feel their lifestyle has a high price, but they're quite cool with that .. as long as somebody ELSE pays the price.
Joeblake
 
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Lesmurdie WA

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:26 pm

He may want to but he doesn't worry me, he shouldn't worry anyone else. The moderators will wipe him anyway.

Do not respond.

Post edited - correct approach is to report the posts (as were done) not to antagonise
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle
@Nov27 6,669km of 6,600. Rem -69 @-2.0/day. Time to review the target methinks.
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby nasigoreng » Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:50 pm

removed by mod Attack the person not the issue
nasigoreng
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:49 pm
Location: on the rd.

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby Nobody » Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:48 pm

nasigoreng wrote:removed by mod Attack the person not the issue
Attack the ISSUE not the PERSON. The mod must have been having a long day. :mrgreen:
Nobody
 
Posts: 6681
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Conspiracy theory - BV newsletter

Postby alan101 » Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:13 am

My last issue of Bicycle Victoria's 'Ride On' newsletter (June-July 2011) delivered by mail had a 2p article on EVS's work with AustPost ebikes. They've completed a 300 ebike trial, and are due to roll out 1000 AustPost ebikes nationally this July 2011, according to the article. The article mentioned that govt inaction on implementing the proposed 250w/25kmh EU standard in Australia is hurting the ebike retailers in Australia. I forwarded the artilce to Fed Dept of Infrastructure (DoI), mentioning this observation and pointed out that I'd told them this a year earlier.

I made a pdf of the 2p article, and sent it to a 75y ebiker I know. He replied, 'I bought the latest Ride but the article you sent me on page 54 an 55 had replaced with an article on Netti Bike riding Short. So that issue is not on the bookstands but it still refers to page and electric bikes on the front cover. Did Vic roads lay a hard word on them?'

It's interesting that for the trial they used 250w motors dyno-detuned to 200w. For the rollout they're using 200w motors. Rather an indictment on fed DoI's inability to lift ebike availability to a more worldly standard. What climate change?

So the Q is, did someone have a word with BV to get the ebike article pulled for newstand distribution?
User avatar
alan101
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Conspiracy theory - BV newsletter

Postby Joeblake » Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:40 am

alan101 wrote:I made a pdf of the 2p article, and sent it to a 75y ebiker I know. He replied, 'I bought the latest Ride but the article you sent me on page 54 an 55 had replaced with an article on Netti Bike riding Short. So that issue is not on the bookstands but it still refers to page and electric bikes on the front cover. Did Vic roads lay a hard word on them?'
...

So the Q is, did someone have a word with BV to get the ebike article pulled for newstand distribution?


I'd be looking for more evidence than that for a claim about someone "having a word". The way of things today, I'm sure if there'd been any such threats, it would have spread around the internet like a bushfire in a Victorian summer.

Were the pages individually date stamped, were there comparisons to the copies that other people received? What about copies in the local library(ies)? Are the "newsstand" copies printed at a different time to the subscription copies? Are the magazines bound or stapled?

I'd say there are MANY questions that need to be addressed before leaping to a conclusion of external interference.

From my experience one doesn't use a dyno to detune a motor. That's done by altering the controller, which governs the amount of power drawn from the battery. In any case, even if they WERE detuned, the motors would still be capable of pushing out 250 watts (and more). Electric motors are usually given a "spread" of power output, ranging from the continuous power which the motor can maintain indefinitely without stress, up to the peak power, where the motor output is raised considerably, but at the cost of possible burnout.

It sounds to me, from what little I've read here, as if Australia Post is making an attempt to remain within the letter of law, so that when the law is changed to reflect the higher wattage, the "detuning" is removed. It's a whole lot of fuss about nothing in my view.

Joe
To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy
Bertrand Russell
Many people feel their lifestyle has a high price, but they're quite cool with that .. as long as somebody ELSE pays the price.
Joeblake
 
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Lesmurdie WA

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby kris27 » Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:12 pm

The people in power to make new rules seems to be at least ignorant if not uneducated to high school level.
Take example:
Weight of electric bicycle + rider =100kg. (looks rider has body mass index less than 21, unusual in AU))
Climbing a hill at slope of degrees =10
Speed is constant = 10km/h
Test is in a vacum ( must be pretty rough for rider )
Friction does not exists. ( I never heard of that one).

Considering above conditions, the motor power required ~ 470 watts.
If you do not know how to derive the result - ask your teacher.

The only reasonable regulation seems to be the SPEED LIMIT - say 40 km/h, this is pretty fast for bicycle.
You may ask, why just speed limit? - Answer is very simple, no one has to argue about technical specs. of an electric motors, gears and what ever might be complicated technical peculiarities.

The other requirements like: breaks, lights quite understandable. Requirement for helmets - it is debatable as I never seen such a requirement while travelling around the World. The only 2 countries helmet is compulsory while riding a bicycle are NZ and AU. There is an evidence available that helmets can cause more problems during accidents than good. Stats in many countries show that the most common injuries are broken limbs. I would say helmets advisable for for children but not compulsory
By the way the World fastest e_bike see : http://www.pg-bikes.com/index.php#blacktrail-1

Have a nice biking day.
kris27
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:23 pm

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby Joeblake » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:10 am

Image

Joe
To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy
Bertrand Russell
Many people feel their lifestyle has a high price, but they're quite cool with that .. as long as somebody ELSE pays the price.
Joeblake
 
Posts: 12924
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Lesmurdie WA

Re: proposed new law worse than the old

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:59 am

Can't fault it Kris. I am impressed that you correctly used Sine whereas it would be too easy to use Tan function in your calcs (as I did in error after I reworked your calcs).

But methinks most here will not appreciate the significance of what you have just presented. Nevertheless, your line of reasoning is incontrovertible. (Unless someone wants to emmigrate to Luna where our rider would only require a paltry 76W.)

So, to make it clear to others. While this may be considered boring to some, it is of great significance to the argument. Classical (aka Newtonian) mechanics is not optional. It can't be dismissed if it does not suit your beliefs.

You appear to have rounded g to 10 which would gives you a requirement of 467W. Using 9.78m/s/s reduces it down to 456 which is what I will use to further develop your line.

Running the numbers then, in an ideal world (no losses of energy - friction, resistance, speed/kinetic, etc) the slope would have to max out at 4.24degrees. On a ten degree slope the rider would have to add in 256W. More realistically of course is that they sacrifice some velocity. A ten degree slope is a pretty mean and not common slope. However, without access to contour maps, I would hazard a guess that slopes above 4 degrees are not at all rare.

Of course, it could be argued that if they lose some velocity so what, so do regular cyclists. After all, we do not have a god given right to maintain our speed under all conditions. Those of us NOT using an e-bike do it all the time.

However, as the slope extends longer and longer the less-than-athletic rider will sacrifice so much velocity that they will eventually come to a stop before they got to the top of the hill. So geriatric Betty will,in some circumstances, need some more power.

Finally, some one has added some new content to the argument. This thread is NOT yet dead. :D
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle
@Nov27 6,669km of 6,600. Rem -69 @-2.0/day. Time to review the target methinks.
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Bicycles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


PM Issues
Known Bug - error message displayed when sending PM's caused by tapatalk. Read more


Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit