proposed new law worse than the old
-
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:39 pm
Re: proposed new law worse than the old
Postby cachexian » Tue May 17, 2011 2:07 pm
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.
and...
Trek Madonne 3.1 driven by left leg and right leg
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:37 pm
Re: proposed new law worse than the old
Postby algaematt » Tue May 24, 2011 9:43 pm
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
-
- Posts: 15575
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:04 pm
- Location: Lesmurdie WA
Re: proposed new law worse than the old
Postby Joeblake » Tue May 24, 2011 10:03 pm
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.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.
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".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.
Have they indeed? That seems to be making some rather unjustified assumptions. Have you ever been 60 years of age?For elderly people 200W is perfectly adequate, as they've learned to enjoy the pleasure of life at a slower pace.
Hear, hear.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.
Joe
Bertrand Russell
- ColinOldnCranky
- Posts: 6734
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm
Re: proposed new law worse than the old
Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed May 25, 2011 1:05 am
"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.)
-
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:39 pm
Re: proposed new law worse than the old
Postby cachexian » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:33 am
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. So it's back on the bike for me for more training to increase the power and resilience of "left" and "right".
Cachexian.
and...
Trek Madonne 3.1 driven by left leg and right leg
-
- Posts: 15575
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:04 pm
- Location: Lesmurdie WA
Re: proposed new law worse than the old
Postby Joeblake » Fri Jun 03, 2011 10:24 am
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".cachexian wrote:Hi Joe,
How long can you sustain 40kph? I'm impressed considering the additional drag that your solar setup would add!
Joe
Bertrand Russell
- alan101
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:46 pm
China To Adopt EU Standards for e-Bikes
Postby alan101 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:29 pm
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.
- ColinOldnCranky
- Posts: 6734
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm
Re: China To Adopt EU Standards for e-Bikes
Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:52 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGO3bt6Y ... ideo_titlealan101 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/user/taypet21#p/u/51/xRDyStSLHvU
There are tools out there. Say's it all.
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.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.
- jet-ski
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:51 pm
- Location: Perth WA
- Contact:
Re: proposed new law worse than the old
Postby jet-ski » Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:15 pm
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!
-
- 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 8:51 am
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!
- ColinOldnCranky
- Posts: 6734
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm
Re: proposed new law worse than the old
Postby ColinOldnCranky » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:14 am
Troll alert. Do not take seriously and ignore it.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!
-
- Posts: 15575
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:04 pm
- Location: Lesmurdie WA
Re: proposed new law worse than the old
Postby Joeblake » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:29 am
Warning! Warning! Danger!
Joe
Bertrand Russell
-
- 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 1:50 pm
there sure are some real uptight attitudes in this joint, I bet your fibre plus farts stink more than mine cranky bastardo...
-
- 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
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.sogood wrote:I don't.stolennomenclature wrote:Does anyone else here share my opinion that this is worse than the current situation?
It's one that provides sufficient power.
-
- Posts: 15575
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:04 pm
- Location: Lesmurdie WA
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.
Joe
Bertrand Russell
-
- 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 4:24 pm
-
- Posts: 15575
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:04 pm
- Location: Lesmurdie WA
Re: proposed new law worse than the old
Postby Joeblake » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:37 pm
Sometimes the obvious does not need to be stated ...nasigoreng wrote: I just chose not to grow up.
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
Bertrand Russell
- ColinOldnCranky
- Posts: 6734
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm
Re: proposed new law worse than the old
Postby ColinOldnCranky » Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:26 pm
Do not respond.
Post edited - correct approach is to report the posts (as were done) not to antagonise
-
- 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 5:50 pm
-
- Posts: 10330
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: proposed new law worse than the old
Postby Nobody » Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:48 pm
Attack the ISSUE not the PERSON. The mod must have been having a long day.nasigoreng wrote:removed by mod Attack the person not the issue
- alan101
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:46 pm
Conspiracy theory - BV newsletter
Postby alan101 » Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:13 am
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?
-
- Posts: 15575
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:04 pm
- Location: Lesmurdie WA
Re: Conspiracy theory - BV newsletter
Postby Joeblake » Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:40 am
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.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?
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
Bertrand Russell
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:23 pm
Re: proposed new law worse than the old
Postby kris27 » Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:12 pm
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.
-
- Posts: 15575
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:04 pm
- Location: Lesmurdie WA
Re: proposed new law worse than the old
Postby Joeblake » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:10 am
Joe
Bertrand Russell
- ColinOldnCranky
- Posts: 6734
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm
Re: proposed new law worse than the old
Postby ColinOldnCranky » Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:59 am
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.
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+10:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.