Re: E-Biikes are not bicycles

Am Thu, 26 Sep 2024 14:32:51 -0400 schrieb Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>:

On 9/26/2024 10:27 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

Am Tue, 24 Sep 2024 08:23:03 -0400 schrieb Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>:
 

On 9/23/2024 8:47 PM, sms wrote:

On 9/23/2024 8:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
<snip>

...
 
 

Sorry, not buyin' it. Not to mention the fact that taking someone off an
e-bike and telling them they have to pedal is one way to completely put
them off cycling, regardless of the proper gearing.

 
That makes no sense. Someone who has switched from a bicycle to an
E-bike has already essentially given up on cycling, regardless of how
some clueless politicians twist the laws to treat low-powered mopeds
like bicycles.

>
Of course it makes sense, You missed my point which was in response to
SMS stating "The entire eBike industry would collapse if people found
out that with proper gearing there is usually no need for an electric
motor and batteries." (maybe because you snipped it?)

I snipped it because I wasn't commenting on that, but commenting on your
statement quoted above.

[...]

I also disagree that e-bike users as a rule have given up on cycling.

First of all, that's not a rule, it is a fact.  Somebody riding a
motorized bike isn't using an bicycle.  I outlined some of the
consequences.   Of course gaining competence, specific capabilities and
strength by riding a bicycle takes time, and while loosing that strength
and capabilites takes time too, losing strength goes a lot faster than
gaining it.  As a rule, if somebody switches to an e-bike, he or she
becomes dependent on it in the long term; if they even started cycling,
as becomes the case with children in this country, they start to become
addicted straight away. 

>

 
 

I'd suggest you go
out on an E-bike for an hour and ride some hills. You'll get a good
sense of why "with proper gearing there is usually no need for an
electric motor" is a rather myopic comment.

 
 
This statement alone proves that e-bikes are not bicycles.   A bicycle
that gives a weak rider the power of a Tour de France athlete is not a
bicycle, but a motorcycle.  It does not have the essential
characteristics that distinguish a bicycle from a motorcycle.

>
Your opinion is duly noted as just that - your opinion.

It isn't just an opinion. I'm describing a development, a mechanism, and
their consequences, which are quite visible, when you look around. You
are just stating an opinion.

>

 
A bicycle is driven by the person sitting on it, that determines how it
is ridden. For a great part, this depends on how much power that person
can deliver and for how long, both short term, for looking at a single
ride, and in the long run.
 
This isn't a static relation. Quite the opposite, how hard you exercise
your muscles while cycling and how long you train your cardiac system
influences how much you gain - or lose - in strength and endurance.   A
motorized bicycle, on the other hand, makes most of this unnecessary, as
it reduces these constraints and incentives to almost nothing.  All that
remains is the illusion of riding a bike.

>
Youir opinion is duly noted as your opinion

That is getting lame.


--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions