One more time I'm going to explain the HR727 ebike definition

Ken M

Well-Known Member
Many on EBR claim that by advocating the federal definition for a "low speed electric bicycle" (LSEB) as a bike for state use regulations I'm advocating unsafe crazy speeds that would result in less access for ebikes. Let's examine that scientifically to see if they know what they are talking about.

The federal definition per specified constraints limits the motor power alone to what can sustain a 170lb rider at 20mph on a level surface (interestingly that is around 340W of sustained motor or human power on an upright bike). That is not crazy fast and allows a handicapped person the right to own a throttle-assist ebike and achieve a speed up to 20mph using the motor alone. None of us should object to that. Right? Even the class 1 trail zealots should be OK with this. Sadly those trail zealots don't want class 2 throttle-assist ebike on trails because they claim increased damage (a nice fabrication with no data to back it up).

Obviously, that would be easily achieve with assist cut-offs at 20mph as advocated by the 3-class system, but that is NOT required per the federal LSEB definition. It's the easy way to do it....not the best way.

The CPSC has clarified (per request from People for Bikes) that that power level can continue to be provided above 20mph so long as the additional speed generated is by rider power/effort. So lets assume a good rider can sustain an additional 250W (ie a total of 250+340 or 590W). Because of the impact of aerodynamic drag above 20mph that results in a speed of 24.7mph but that a high level of power for a rider to sustain. Realistically lets drop that rider power to 150W so the total is now 490W. That results in 23.2mph.

Now everyone keeps saying I'm advocating crazy speeds but this is what I'm advocating because they don't take the time to understand the relationship between power and speed. Certainly the local trail managers and politicians don't because they would miss an episode of Duck Dynasty or Keeping up with the Kardashians (I'm politically balanced).

By the way that is why most people that buy an EU rated 250W class 3 / speed pedelec have to really work hard to achieve 28mph (in fact most need a bit of downhill to do so).

If you read and understood this data it become pretty clear that it made no sense to create classes when the definition in HR727 limited motor alone to 20mph and good riders may sustain a speed under 25mph with significant effort. All the confusion to claim that states needed ot parse this for "use" ... that is total BS. It just is and I'm not trying to insult anyone but they don't understand the relationship between power and speed.
 
Last edited:

RunForTheHills

Well-Known Member
Region
USA
Maybe I should post Qanon updates for you guys to keep you interested.
Keeping it bike related, "best saddle", "best chain lube", and "hub drive vs mid drive" are always good bets for a lively thread. You can only say so much about the legal definition of an ebike before people start to tune you out. Personally, I like the topics with pictures the best. It is hard to go wrong with bike porn.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
Keeping it bike related, "best saddle", "best chain lube", and "hub drive vs mid drive" are always good bets for a lively thread. You can only say so much about the legal definition of an ebike before people start to tune you out. Personally, I like the topics with pictures the best. It is hard to go wrong with bike porn.
Seriously....Here's the thing...sadly the definition and use regulations of ebikes play a huge role in what we are able to purchase and use legally. I understand no one wants the "techy" information on what the definition in HR727 means but if they give a crap about the future adoption rate of ebikes maybe some will pay enough attention to ensure we strive for the most effective regulations possible and not support poorly conceived "use" regulations like the 3-class legislation.

I have read the responses that I'm just a nut pushing for crazy fast ebikes to be state "use" compliant as a bike which is so far from the truth is just nonsense. I am advocating that the federal definition of a LSEB as a bike guide the state "use" regulations as is still the case in many states and was working fine in many states that abandoned it because lobby money pushed the 3-class legislation with the false claims is was about clarity and safe "use."
 

RunForTheHills

Well-Known Member
Region
USA
Seriously....Here's the thing...sadly the definition and use regulations of ebikes play a huge role in what we are able to purchase and use legally. I understand no one wants the "techy" information on what the definition in HR727 means but if they give a crap about the future adoption rate of ebikes maybe some will pay enough attention to ensure we strive for the most effective regulations possible and not support poorly conceived "use" regulations like the 3-class legislation.

I have read the responses that I'm just a nut pushing for crazy fast ebikes to be state "use" compliant as a bike which is so far from the truth is just nonsense. I am advocating that the federal definition of a LSEB as a bike guide the state "use" regulations as is still the case in many states and was working fine in many states that abandoned it because lobby money pushed the 3-class legislation with the false claims is was about clarity and safe "use."
If you are passionate about increasing ebike adoption and not just legal verbiage, there are a lot of other topics you could bring up that affect ebike adoption: Improving bicycle infrastructure and building more MUPs and cycling lanes, the lack of techs and bike mechanics willing to work on ebikes, bicycle helmets, multi-mode commutes (bringing ebikes on to trains and busses), etc. You don't have to be so laser focused on one very dry topic.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
If you are passionate about increasing ebike adoption and not just legal verbiage, there are a lot of other topics you could bring up that affect ebike adoption: Improving bicycle infrastructure and building more MUPs and cycling lanes, the lack of techs and bike mechanics willing to work on ebikes, bicycle helmets, multi-mode commutes (bringing ebikes on to trains and busses), etc. You don't have to be so laser focused on one very dry topic.
I tend to believe infrastructure trails adoption while I do understand that pro-active infrastructure can help drive sales. As for bringing on trains and busses, I think a good ebike provides personal urban mobility that should dramatically reduce the need to use mass transit systems (I think last mile bike like the folding Brompton are best for bringing on mass transit).

I'm laser focused on the regulations because I do believe they are the primary element that can help or hurt adoption. I went "technical" because so many were accusing me of promoting rediculous fast ebikes to be legal for "use" as a bike in all states and that is not accurate. I provided concise technical information to illustrate what is a LSEB per the federal definition which few seem to understand....most riders / people don't even know there is a federal "low speed electric bicycle" definition going back to 2002.
 

RunForTheHills

Well-Known Member
Region
USA
Well, you can post what you want. I think you missed my point. It is not that people disagree with you, but that they get tired of you making the same point again and again. You obviously love ebikes as much as anyone else on the forum and are knowledgeable about other aspects of ebikes, but I have only ever seen you post on this one topic. Admittedly, I have only been on the forum for less than a year.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
Well, you can post what you want. I think you missed my point. It is not that people disagree with you, but that they get tired of you making the same point again and again. You obviously love ebikes as much as anyone else on the forum and are knowledgeable about other aspects of ebikes, but I have only ever seen you post on this one topic. Admittedly, I have only been on the forum for less than a year.
You are right....I have kind of focused on this because after researching the history of both HR727 and the 3-class legislation I realized that Dr. Currie used his political capital from being a CEO in the defense sector to establish an early definition of an LSEB as a bike to get them away from the NHTSA and get it approved by both the house and senate. He developed an early ebike called the EV Warrior and realized the regulations needed to be pulled from NHTSA to the CPSC such that they were regulated as a bike (that deserves or respect and support even if maybe it was partially motivated by his business efforts). It was just fine for 12 years and then along came 3-class legislation that was not about clarity or safety that ignored Currie's work and intent. It was drafted by a few people in room with a Bosch executive guiding the effort. Yes I'm passionate about this subject but 100% of all bikers should be against the 3-class legislation in my opinion - it was a step backwards in multiple ways. That is just what I believe. I do try to remain open minded but the counter arguments have been strange or just attack the messenger oriented - like I can only ride this trail because of class 1 and you're going to take that away from me. That is nutty.
 

Ebiker01

Well-Known Member
My op. is that , this matter is the foundation of ebiking , and those ebike/bike laws history are quite important to bring relevance to where and why we r here. At least someone is doing something, serious research and informing us on what's going on. Nobody forces anyone to re read the same topic.

Q -why none of u guys complain to Bosch for all those ebike limitations and regulated motors ?? Pretty soon, there will be a license needed , reg., and insurance.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
My op. is that , this matter is the foundation of ebiking , and those ebike/bike laws history are quite important to bring relevance to where and why we r here. At least someone is doing something, serious research and informing us on what's going on. Nobody forces anyone to re read the same topic.

Q -why none of u guys complain to Bosch for all those ebike limitations and regulated motors ?? Pretty soon, there will be a license needed , reg., and insurance.
Thanks. I honestly don't think the regulations even matter because enforcement is pretty lax but to rely on that is foolish.

My main goal was to just get riders to know there was a federal definition congressionally approved in 2002 and it makes good technical sense when you understand the details (it was written by a PhD electrical engineer and not a tech clueless politician). The 3-class legislation was drafted by a few bike advocates at People for Bikes in a room with a Bosch executive. I'm sorry but I would not expect good legislation to result and it clearly didn't and I'm still have my fingers crossed that the CPSC preempts it in every state as the expressed preemption clause essentially mandates them to do give that 3-class is more stringent and also has multiple examples of interstate commerce impact that all but get ignore because so many claim states have the right to regulate "use" which they 100% but not to just redefine a regulated product to whatever they dream up in a room one day.
 

Ken M

Well-Known Member
I got interested in this. I have general question,

Does the state require registration for ebikes? At where you guys live.
In my home State, class 3 is allowed on State and Federal property.
Inserted pic are the rules on Federal property

It's about practicing good riding etiquette
regardless if your bike is above class 3 level.
Registration fee for ebikes on Hawaii is reasonable.
It will increase though because ebikes are becoming more popular form of transport.
One of the primary reasons I support the federal "low speed electric bicycle" legislation over the state 3-class legislation is that it very specifically defines a compliant ebike as a just another bike. While the states would still have the right to require "bike" registration and even insurance they would have to do it on all "bikes" which is a lot harder for it to pass as bikes were always left alone as kind of transportation for the poor.

For most of us an ebike at best can supplement owning a car - can't really replace. So if the states put registration and insurance requirements on them it makes owning them for urban mobility harder to financially justify.

You are correct that it's about good riding etiquette. So many on this forum believe that if a compliant ebike assists above 20mph they are always going at that speed. That is like thinking the speed of bike riders going down a long downhill section of road is the speed they are always riding at. The bottom line is the assist limits don't actually limit the top speed an ebike will achieve....they just give some local regulators and some others a warm and fuzzy feeling that they are limiting ebikes to a safe speed limit.

I noticed that the new concept ebike from BMW has a "geo-fencing" feature that would allow the bike to auto-switch between modes depending on the trail/path/road it's on. That is something a lot of people on this forum will support but imagine if they proposed that on cars. My guess is they would hate it.