Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The changing face of cycling?
37 views
Skip to first unread message
asr...@yahoo.co.uk
Jan 6, 2020, 7:01:25 PM1/6/20
to
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?
Zebee Johnstone
Jan 6, 2020, 7:29:18 PM1/6/20
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sat, 4 Jan 2020 14:13:55 -0800 (PST)
last year, 2 of them within the last 6 months.
One of those is aimed pretty well entirely at delivery riders, the
others at commuters and MTB riders.
I don't see a lot of bikes on my commute but I see more ebikes now
than I did, not counting the delivery riders.
Zebee
asr...@yahoo.co.uk <asr...@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, 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?
The shop I got my trike electrified at has opened 3 new outlets in 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?
last year, 2 of them within the last 6 months.
One of those is aimed pretty well entirely at delivery riders, the
others at commuters and MTB riders.
I don't see a lot of bikes on my commute but I see more ebikes now
than I did, not counting the delivery riders.
Zebee
Timreason
Jan 7, 2020, 10:45:35 AM1/7/20
to
On 04/01/2020 22:13, asr...@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, 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?
>
It definitely is a trend around here (the Surrey Hills), which is
> 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?
>
perhaps not surprising as there are so many hills!
I bought my first ebike in 2000, a Powabyke Classic, with a rear hub
motor powered by three wheelchair-type lead acid batteries built into a
removable case. The machine was heavy, what with the strong steel frame,
batteries and metal geared motor. More like a moped than a bicycle, and
I sometimes referred to it as 'My moped'. It was throttle-controlled
rather than being a pedelec.
I had the Powabyke for 15 years, but with issues of the spokes
continually breaking, I eventually gave it up and got a Raleigh pedelec
instead, but regrettably with a front hub motor. I wish now I'd gone for
one with the bottom bracket mounted motor instead, since those are far
superior to hub motors. Well worth the extra £700 or so.
Back in 2000, it was very rare to see ebikes on the road, and I got used
to people looking as I drifted uphill, sometimes without even pedalling
at all. Now, they are commonplace.
That said, I've always had non-powered cycles as well, and do most of my
local journeys with them, choosing which to use according to
circumstance. (A 'ratty' old hybrid, if I'm going to have to leave it
chained to a lamppost, or a choice of Brompton or Dahon folder.)
Why electric? Well, for me as a utility cyclist (now getting older) it
is enjoyable to travel getting *some* exercise, without having gruelling
grinds up hefty Surrey Hills. My guess is that's it. People now want an
eco-friendly means of transport that is easy and convenient, but they
don't want to arrive all knackered and sweaty at their destination. For
utility cycling you want to be able to ride in fairly ordinary clothes
and not have to carry a change of clothing everywhere, etc. Most
cyclists, I suppose, are utility cyclists.
Tim.
Roger Merriman
Jan 7, 2020, 5:10:03 PM1/7/20
to
see that many in the flesh as you where but I’d say they are growing mostly
on the commute, mostly cheaper/cheerful end of the market.
Can’t say I’ve seen many at all out in the hills though.
Roger Merriman
Kim Wall
Jan 8, 2020, 7:30:21 AM1/8/20
to
On 04/01/2020 22:13, asr...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Has anyone here noticed a similar trend in their area, that people
> are shunning conventional bikes for electric assist?
I don't think that's the trend at all. Sure, a few existing cyclists
> are shunning conventional bikes for electric assist?
are adding an electric cycle to their collection, perhaps for the
commute or hauling cargo/children. A few more are switching to electric
to enable themselves to continue cycling in spite of age/disability.
But I reckon the majority of e-bike sales are to people who didn't cycle
before, either because they couldn't, or because it was [perceived to
be] too inconvenient.
(There's a similar rise in non-street-legal[1] electric mobility:
Scooters, skateboards and the like. These give a similar urban mobility
to a bicycle, but tend to be more convenient to store and carry,
especially in the student houses near me, which lack secure cycle storage.)
It's a growth market, and it makes sense that the retailers are catering
to it.
It's all good.
Kim.
--
[1] I think the rules need overhauling, so that such machines can be
regulated, rather than banned.
Peter Clinch
Jan 10, 2020, 2:45:02 PM1/10/20
to
On 04/01/2020 22:13, asr...@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>
> had a glance at the stock of new bikes. I immediately noticed that
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.
In Scotland there's now a government provided interest free loan to
spend up to £6K on e-bikes (per household, 2 capped at £3k each or 1
cargo or adaptive capped at £6K), and I imagine this will boost things
up here.
In Diundee the most recent bike shop (though now well established for a
few years) is "Electric Bikes Scotland". From chatting to the folk that
run it, it seems to be doing pretty well, and I'm seeing more and more
on my travels.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
NHS Tayside & Univ. of Dundee Ninewells Hospital & Med. School
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://medphys.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Tosspot
Jan 12, 2020, 10:18:03 AM1/12/20
to
On 09/01/2020 14:19, Peter Clinch wrote:
> On 04/01/2020 22:13, asr...@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.
I've joined the growong list of people that *really* wish they'd taken
> On 04/01/2020 22:13, asr...@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.
the lectric option for the Bullitt
http://www.larryvsharry.com/steps-ebullitt-technical-info/
<snip>
Tosspot
Jan 12, 2020, 11:26:40 AM1/12/20
to
which bike shops are expanding, I see the future as being electric.
I'm quite fine with them, but in the 'ole' days there was an effective
feedback loop with regard to speed and ability, eventually falling to
zero. There isn't anymore and the fuckwittery I've seen 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 :-)
Nick Maclaren
Jan 12, 2020, 11:43:16 AM1/12/20
to
In article <h7onjg...@mid.individual.net>,
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.
Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@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
>
>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.
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.
Nick Maclaren
Jan 12, 2020, 1:29:09 PM1/12/20
to
In article <qvfiam$7s5$1...@dont-email.me>, Nick Maclaren <nm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>... Also, one of the main reasons that urban roads
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.
>... 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
>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.
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.
asr...@yahoo.co.uk
Jan 12, 2020, 6:42:54 PM1/12/20
to
asr...@yahoo.co.uk
Jan 12, 2020, 6:43:05 PM1/12/20
to
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.
Tosspot
Jan 13, 2020, 2:12:43 AM1/13/20
to
and they don't distort as easily as larger rims. Be careful of the
spoke crossing. Having the cross over the valve *will* stop pump access :-(
Adam Funk
Jan 13, 2020, 5:30:13 AM1/13/20
to
On 2020-01-12, Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <h7onjg...@mid.individual.net>,
> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@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.
Are you talking about frame size, wheel size, or both?
> In article <h7onjg...@mid.individual.net>,
> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@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.
Nick Maclaren
Jan 13, 2020, 6:03:30 AM1/13/20
to
In article <fc5d0c86-ce4e-4874...@googlegroups.com>,
just perception, and it's backed by the statistics.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
<asr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>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.
I regret that they are, in a great many places. And, no, that's not
>
>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.
just perception, and it's backed by the statistics.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Nick Maclaren
Jan 13, 2020, 6:06:15 AM1/13/20
to
In article <vcttegx...@news.ducksburg.com>,
height and wheelbase.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
Frame size, of course. And NOT just the seat height, but handlebar
>>
>> 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?
height and wheelbase.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Peter Clinch
Jan 13, 2020, 9:48:16 AM1/13/20
to
On 12/01/2020 16:43, Nick Maclaren wrote:
> 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.
I got my first not-hand-me-down bike when I was 12 or 13 (late 70s) and
> 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.
it was "he'll grow in to it" sized. I did grow in to it, but not having
access to saddle height advice and having access to a set of spanners I
always worked out the saddle height for myself, using a system of
pushing it up until riding stopped being comfortable.
Years later I came across the current general Rule Of Thumb advice for
saddle height, and it just so happens that it works exactly the same as
my suck-it-and-see approach always did. Heel on the pedal and my knees
not quite locked out gives me a comfortable riding position, and it
doesn't require "very bent knees" and whether or not it needs a crouch
is entirely down to the handlebar style. If I'm on a hire bike in NL
I'll set the saddle that way (and this is usally something like a
Batavus Personal one-size-fits-most) and because of high, swpet back
bars I'll be bolt upright but if I'm on something sporty with lower,
more forward bars I'll be crouched. The frame size doesn't come in to it
much on the bikes I usually ride (my own main steeds are a Brom and a
Moulton TSR, both one-size-fits-most with a choice of bar options)
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".
I see no shortage of people with very bent knees, but this isn't because
of advice from sports riders, it's because they want both feet down when
they're stopped while sat on the saddle. And especially with an MTB,
with its higher bottom bracket, that gets seats too low. Getting
beginners (adults and children) to get their seats up (and this is
speaking as a cycle trainer as well as occasional sport coach) to a
height where their knees aren't stupidly bent is about confidence and
their want to be able to put 2 feet down when they stop, it's not some
plot by purveyors of sporting exotica. And in the years I've been doing
it I have, using nothing but standard, conventional advice, tried to
persuade dozens of folk to ride with a higher saddle, and *zero* to ride
with a lower one, and in no cases did any of them say "but this is where
I was advised to put the saddle", they'd all put it how they wanted it.
One of the reasons I like my Moulton and Brom is I don't have to come
off the saddle at junctions. On a Dutch cruiser with the seat set right
for me, I often do.
> 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".
are rationalisations. Cyclists are an outgroup, people aren't queuing up
to join it.
Nick Maclaren
Jan 13, 2020, 11:43:04 AM1/13/20
to
In article <h82u4p...@mid.individual.net>,
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 am talking about crotch to ground (with shoes on) plus 2-4", which
means that most people can cycle without bending their knees too much.
Yes, I do mean, that once they have been taught to cycle initially,
the NEXT thing they need to be taught is to rise up out of the saddle
when stopped, so that they can start raising their saddle to the right
level for them.
The reason is that, in all natural forms of locomotion (except perhaps
sprinting), the knee is straight and relaxed with the ankle extended,
and a lot of people need that to avoid knee damage and pain.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@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
>
>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.
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".
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 am talking about crotch to ground (with shoes on) plus 2-4", which
means that most people can cycle without bending their knees too much.
Yes, I do mean, that once they have been taught to cycle initially,
the NEXT thing they need to be taught is to rise up out of the saddle
when stopped, so that they can start raising their saddle to the right
level for them.
The reason is that, in all natural forms of locomotion (except perhaps
sprinting), the knee is straight and relaxed with the ankle extended,
and a lot of people need that to avoid knee damage and pain.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Kerr-Mudd,John
Jan 13, 2020, 6:13:15 PM1/13/20
to
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:42:51 GMT, n...@wheeler.UUCP (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
> In article <h82u4p...@mid.individual.net>,
> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@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
> In article <h82u4p...@mid.individual.net>,
> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@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
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!
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Tosspot
Jan 14, 2020, 1:24:42 AM1/14/20
to
pedal at bottom of travel. It rarely moves much from that.
Zebee Johnstone
Jan 14, 2020, 4:19:30 AM1/14/20
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Tue, 14 Jan 2020 07:24:30 +0100
I have it longer on the Brompton cos that just feels better.
People I have talked to who have bent knees always say they do it so
they can get feet down when they stop. I tell them they don't stop
often so better to set the saddle so riding is comfortable... Some are
too scared to but the one guy who did it immediately was boggled at
just how much better it was.
Zebee
Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Heel on pedal at bottom of travel was how I was told to do it.
>
> 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.
I have it longer on the Brompton cos that just feels better.
People I have talked to who have bent knees always say they do it so
they can get feet down when they stop. I tell them they don't stop
often so better to set the saddle so riding is comfortable... Some are
too scared to but the one guy who did it immediately was boggled at
just how much better it was.
Zebee
Nick Maclaren
Jan 14, 2020, 5:46:00 AM1/14/20
to
In article <h_-dnfMjFcEDw4DD...@giganews.com>,
trouble with sustained bending beyond about 50 degrees, but a LOT of
people can't handle as much as 90 degrees.
>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.
Towards the top of that, yes; that's the same as inside leg plus 2-4".
I have to add 5", because of my knee damage, but that's unusual. You
are using the modern length and, as I said, a lot of people's knees
can't handle that. The old rule was to start as you ride, and raise
the saddle until you were ankling effectively. With the pedals under
the balls of the feet, of course, as in the propulsive phase of all the
forms of locomotion we have evolved to do.
However, that's only the knee issue. The other two issues are equally
serious.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote:
>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!
My personal circumstances are damage from school, meaning that I have
>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!
trouble with sustained bending beyond about 50 degrees, but a LOT of
people can't handle as much as 90 degrees.
>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.
I have to add 5", because of my knee damage, but that's unusual. You
are using the modern length and, as I said, a lot of people's knees
can't handle that. The old rule was to start as you ride, and raise
the saddle until you were ankling effectively. With the pedals under
the balls of the feet, of course, as in the propulsive phase of all the
forms of locomotion we have evolved to do.
However, that's only the knee issue. The other two issues are equally
serious.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Peter Clinch
Jan 14, 2020, 10:45:45 AM1/14/20
to
On 13/01/2020 16:42, Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <h82u4p...@mid.individual.net>,
> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@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).
And yet, it's easy to buy a bike with swept back bars and an upright
> In article <h82u4p...@mid.individual.net>,
> Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@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).
seating position.
And yet people well over 6' can happily ride Bromptons, even the older
short wheel base ones like mine, with nothing more than a telescopic
seat post and the P or H extended bar styles.
> 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 :-(
stokers behind me on a 3m long bike. It had standard V-brakes and it
was no problem getting the cables, and it was no problem riding in
control including a daily does of trying to break the sound barrier down
a big hill on the school run with a roundabout at the bottom I *had* to
be prepared to stop at. I'm not sure how you manage to contrive such
terrible danger and steering problems, but I really think you're more at
the exception end of the scale than the rule end.
> 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.
the Thorn, with or without stokers.
>> 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.
years and never come across this, and amongst my fellow coaches and
trainers we routinely come across saddles we want to push up and have a
hard time persuading people to try for no other reason than folk worried
about getting feet down when stopped. On a teaching session with lots
of riders there isn't time for personal experimentation so we just use
the "rule of thumb", though in practice this is *always* raising the
saddle and it's very hard to persuade quite a lot of beginners to take a
saddle that high, no matter how much we point out it will make their
pedalling much easier. This is in-built resistance from clients, not a
devious bike-fitting plot.
Also amongst my fellow coaches and trainers, saddle height is regarded
as something where a rider needs to experiment to find what's best for
them. This is obvious from nothing more than the different degree of
ankling people use and the different sizes of feet.
I *have* seen bike-fitting places who seem absolutely sure that their
Magic Instructions work best for 100% of clients, though not being party
to the small print I don't know how flexible they are and in any case
these are very much not operations used by people giving cycling a try
and thinking they can't go more than a couple of miles. But even if you
take the standard "rule of thumb" and never go anywhere from that, that
doesn't give "very bent knees" and it does allow a fully straightened
knee while in the saddle at the option of the rider by dropping the heel
a little.
You do seem to bring out the worst in people when discussion turns to
saddle height: given my experience, including 15 years of teaching, is
entirely "start here, then experiment to find what works best for you" I
never cease to be amazed at the degree to which you seem to uncover such
rigid opposition.
Rob Morley
Jan 20, 2020, 10:23:10 PM1/20/20
to
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:17:52 +0100
Tosspot <Frank...@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?
Tosspot <Frank...@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/
Tosspot
Jan 21, 2020, 2:01:06 AM1/21/20
to
Jonesing for carry space for batteries :-)
Rob Morley
Jan 21, 2020, 2:01:39 PM1/21/20
to
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:15:12 +0100
Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote:
the fuckwittery I've seen
> 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 :-)
As pensioners aren't renowned for their breeding abilities I'm afraid
Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote:
the fuckwittery I've seen
> 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 :-)
it's too late for Mr. Darwin
Peter Ford
Feb 10, 2020, 11:48:23 AM2/10/20
to
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.
Nick Maclaren
Feb 12, 2020, 3:00:29 PM2/12/20
to
In article <a9e042a0-d3d8-4386...@googlegroups.com>,
Both Shimano and Bosch SAY they work like that. When I am closer
to buying one, I need to test whether they will enable me to get up
a steep hill. I am not totally confident of that. They CERTAINLY won't
enable me to do so at speed!
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.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Peter Ford <p3t3r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>>
>> 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. ...
Both Shimano and Bosch SAY they work like that. When I am closer
to buying one, I need to test whether they will enable me to get up
a steep hill. I am not totally confident of that. They CERTAINLY won't
enable me to do so at speed!
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.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Zebee Johnstone
Feb 12, 2020, 3:21:36 PM2/12/20
to
In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:00:15 -0000 (UTC)
that way or if it is a limitation of torque sensing setups.
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.
Zebee
Nick Maclaren <n...@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
>
> 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 way or if it is a limitation of torque sensing setups.
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.
Zebee
Kim Wall
Feb 12, 2020, 7:50:16 PM2/12/20
to
On 12/02/2020 20:21, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:00:15 -0000 (UTC)
> Nick Maclaren <n...@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.
AIUI, in an attempt to do the Right Thing, a torque-sensing system will
> In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:00:15 -0000 (UTC)
> Nick Maclaren <n...@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.
respond to both high torque and high cadence. As usual, the devil is in
the details, and if you find yourself spending a lot of time somewhere
in the middle, it can be rather frustrating.
Most electric assist users I encounter tend to be mashers, either
through disability or general muggle-cyclist pedalling style, and seem
to get on okay. I find my partner's Falco system doesn't do much in
response to my gear-down-and-pedal-at-~90rpm climbing style - if I want
it to help, I either have to stay in a high gear, or spin like a maniac.
Fortunately, it has a setting where the motor gives full power
(assuming crank rotation, up to the speed/power limit), in the style of
a non-torque-sensing system, which I use to good effect for occasional
cargo-hauling.
Kim.
--
Kim Wall
Feb 12, 2020, 8:00:28 PM2/12/20
to
On 10/02/2020 09:29, Peter Ford wrote:
> 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 think that's the difference between simply sensing that the cranks are
> 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.
turning (as most low-end systems do), and torque-sensing systems, which
(mostly) provide power proportionally to the rider's input. (Note that
both can be combined with a power level setting at the handlebars.)
Torque sensing is more complex (read: expensive), but gives a more
authentic 'cycling' experience. Conversely, a non-torque-sensing system
may actually be preferable for getting a sharp boost of power to help
the rider get above stall speed quickly when hauling cargo.
> 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.
road-sharing with motorists) was one of the findings of Rachel Aldred's
Near Miss Project research.
Kim.
--
Nick Maclaren
Feb 13, 2020, 4:28:15 AM2/13/20
to
In article <slrnr48nhv...@gmail.com>,
cadences, 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.
Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@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 high
>>
>> 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
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.
the UK has lots of short stretches of above 25%.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Roger Merriman
Feb 13, 2020, 6:24:26 PM2/13/20
to
Nick Maclaren <n...@wheeler.UUCP> wrote:
> In article <slrnr48nhv...@gmail.com>,
> Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@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 high
> cadences, 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.
I’d assume that would change, since EMTB are taking off, and thus more
> In article <slrnr48nhv...@gmail.com>,
> Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@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 high
> cadences, 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.
folks are climbing what would be unclimbable by mere mortals and by its
nature we talking steep, fiddly low speed high torque etc.
>
>> 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.
>
Roger Merriman
>> 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.
>
0 new messages