Forum menu
If I could, by virtue of magic, give you an extra 20% on your average speed across terrain, without taking away any sense of your own personal achievement, without inhibiting your sense of connectedness to the bike and trail, without it being illegal or detrimental the environment and without it adding weight to your bike, would that be a good thing?You can't though - that's the point.
I think this was meant to be a hypothetical question. I guessing GeeTee is going to quite clearly follow this up by saying improvements in the materials, suspension, tyres (tubeless) etc etc have probably all ready made a modern XC bike 20% more efficient off road than a early 1980's machine and no one is complaining about this.
For every bike that offers pedal assist there'll be ones which don't require pedalling - meaning more erosion as wheels spin up climbs.
Alex I pretty much agree with your post but surely once you've powered a bike you will be able to electronically help control the traction much like ABS in cars I dont see why an electric bike would have any more problems with erosion than a normal bike, if a weight issues can be resolved.
I've ridden one of the new pedal assist bikes (Giant) and it was brilliant. No faff.
I'd put one of those motors on my bike in preference to gears - comes to the same thing really - it's a mobility aid, and like gears a great benefit to the old and infirm.
I wouldn't hesitate to use one on a commuter bike.
I guessing GeeTee is going to quite clearly follow this up by saying improvements in the materials, suspension, tyres (tubeless) etc etc have probably all ready made a modern XC bike 20% more efficient off road than a early 1980's machine
Me too...and it's nonsense!
In answer to the OP's question - No, not ever on an mtb. Even knowing I've got a 20% power assist would ruin the point of it for me.
I'm not going to judge other for wanting it though. Seems like it could be a hoot, and plenty good for commuting.
A friend of mine arrived yesterday from Switzerland on a electric bike he designed and his company built and he rode all the way to Scotland. He's threatening to bring it up to my work at lunchtime for a wee lap of Arthur's Seat, I will report back later.
P.S is that you ??
Even knowing I've got a 20% power assist would ruin the point of it for me.
But are you OK with a 20% assist from a bike that is 30% lighter than it was 15 years ago, and 20% more effecient over rough terrain because you've got suspension etc etc?
Which is my main point: at what point does mechanical assistance stop being acceptable and why?
Which is my main point: at what point does mechanical assistance stop being acceptable and why?
what point - when it's a motorbike
why - because I already have purpose built motorbikes
20-30% increases - you are dreaming.
Which is my main point: at what point does mechanical assistance stop being acceptable and why?
Simple (have you been reading?) - when it's powered assistance.
But are you OK with a 20% assist from a bike that is 30% lighter than it was 15 years ago, and 20% more effecient over rough terrain because you've got suspension etc etc?Which is my main point: at what point does mechanical assistance stop being acceptable and why?
There's a big difference between something that makes things easier like suspension, and something that actively adds energy to your ride from external sources.
I think if the only thing that is powering you up a hill is the energy you are putting in, then it is fair game. There's a limit to how much suspension, tyres, drivechain etc. improvements can help you get up a hill, as when it comes down to it, you still have the constant factor of having to put in enough power to lift your body weight from ground level to the top of the hill. So essentially, whilst it is sometimes a bit easier getting up a hill on a different bike, there is still a certain level of achievement in getting up that hill for any rider or bike.
Once you put in a motor, then that limit is gone, so some people will be getting up the hills without putting in any effort, or without putting in enough effort to move their weight to the top of the hill. Which is fine for them, but really you can't in any meaningful way say that they cycled up the hill - at least to some extent they just sat on a motorbike while it cycled up for the hill for them.
Joe
But are you OK with a 20% assist from a bike that is 30% lighter than it was 15 years ago, and 20% more effecient over rough terrain because you've got suspension etc etc?
I agree with al - this is dreamworld.
I doubt bike were much heavier years ago - I know my bike now is heavier than the one I had then ( but a lot stronger)
20% more efficient? No way jose!
You know these days, being depressingly unfit, if I could add something that'd mean I could do a mtbing weekend without being completely knackered after the first day, I'd certainly consider it - that'd make it more fun for me.
Of course, it doesn't have to replace the effort - I'd still always ride my road bike unpowered and probably usually mtb the same but if it increases my enjoyment, then yes, it could be a good option.
Simple (have you been reading?)
All right all right, no need to get ancey! I wasn't trying to wind you up, just engage in a debate.
I have been reading, I think the debate is interesting and i think it's illuminated a very important fact which is we are all, to one degree or another, happy with mechanical forms of aid but the addition of power assist is likely to be a step too far for many people and it's all tied up with a sense of achievement we get from being 'self propelled'.
My enjoyment is almost entirely tied up with the experience of moving fast over rough terrain. But I do get a lot of fulfilment from doing that on a machine that is light and over which I have complete control and where the speed has come in large part from my bike handling skills.
I agree with al - this is dreamworld.
Fortunately people who push boundaries are happy to inhabit dreamworld because that's how you innovate. You take what is impossible and aim to get just short of it.
As for bikes not being light - what are you talking about?
My first bike, bought in 1991, weighed just over 32lbs. The equivalent bike now, for equivalent money, will weigh about 27lbs. Top flight race machines in 1991 were weighting around 27lbs and now weigh under 20lbs.
I think your figures are pessimistic GT, in any event they don't show a 30% weight reduction, and as for 20% greater efficiency, please!
Granted, dreamers may well innovate, but that's not the same as making up ridiculous figures to support your argument.
I said for [b]me[/b] geetee.
However, you're stretching the point somewhat. 15 years ago was the mid 90's and the bikes were, if anything, lighter then.
mid 90s bikes weren't lighter. My bikes weigh about the same now as then but back then they had very little effective suspension, narrow tyres, etc compared to now.
Cynical - you're right, a 5lb saving on a 32lb bike is only a 16% reduction, but a 7lb saving on a 27lb bike is a 35% reduction.
Improvments in the top end of bike performance has outpaced that at the budget end, but, then again, the price of top end bikes has similarly outstripped that of low end bikes.
In 1991, I remember that pretty much the most expensive bike you could buy was around £1500, which in today's money is only £2400. The most expensive bikes these days are getting on for twice that money.
There will be a time when bikes will have 150mm of travel and weigh 20lbs. I don't know when that will be, but I believe it will be some point in the next 50 years. Probably by then they will have other advancements included to which we can't even imagine just yet.
There are loads of trails that I ride that have gentle descents, descents that would be awesome if you didn't have to pedal like an absolute loon to get up to the sorts of speeds where they become a proper challenge.
There are plenty of rides I do where we don't do certain bits because it means 5 miles road ride up the valley and the same back.
Usually faster is better. Actually, always faster is better. For me something like this would come down to handling. I nearly said weight, but then realised my bike weighs almost 40lbs anyway. If I couldn't feel it, then strap as many batteries on as you like!
What's not to like?
indeed, shame this is gash though!
Top flight race machines in 1991 were weighting around 27lbs
Cynical you are rude.
Geetee - Sorry but as Al says, you are talking gash! I got my first decent mountain bike back in 1991, it was a 531 steel raleigh and weighed 25lb and (around a year later I bought a s/h aluminium cannondale that was quite a bit lighter. (pretty sure it cost £2000 new in '91 and it wasn't the highest bike in the canondale range).
Going back to the start - it's already in full swing
[url= http://www.electricmountainbikes.com/ ]Sparky[/url]
I have a friend that spots 'trends' - knowing I'm into bikes he asked me what I thought of electric bikes, and I told him that I just wasn't interested / it's not cycling / it's for oldies etc.
Then he delivered one to my house to play with and I haven't been off the thing since. It looks like a POS but is bloody marvellous to ride on the road. Off road though? I could have done with a motor doing the Beast a couple of weeks ago, but wouldn't have deserved my pint afterwards.
OK let's try to be a little more accurate with the numbers and take a benchmark bike from 1989 (I've been wrong with my dates, which I acknowledge)
Pace RC100, launched in 1989 and weighed 25.4lbs.
Compared to an equivalent race bike from today:
Scott Scale Premium which comes in at a shade under 20lbs.
Think it's a great idea I'd certainly have a go. Thought there were rumours of 'mechanical doping' in the last tdf?
GT72 20% so what? Amounts to say 3% at most of rider+bike weight.
I don't think the power:weight would be there for MTBing, but electric-assist makes sense for 'utility' biking on roads and bike paths.
For example, I ride a Yuba Mundo cargo bike to and from work. It's great even when loaded up with shopping, but it's hard work getting it uphill when loaded up. I can manage (riding a SS has made me strong like an ox), but it probably puts loaded-up riding beyond some people.
Luckily, there are clever people around, so you could buy a [url= http://clevercycles.com/products/stokemonkey/ ]Stokemonkey for your Xtracycle[/url].
I think the following quote from that page sums this up for me:
We don’t believe in replacing human power with electricity; we believe in replacing cars for work that even the strongest cyclists seldom if ever choose to handle without a car.
Thinking about it, and looking at http://www.electricmountainbikes.com/, I have to say I'm now feeling quite antagonistic towards the idea. If I met one of those bikes out on one of my trails, I'd probably be quite pissed off that it was there. Not even sure I can properly articulate why. I think it comes down to the cheating thing again. If I've pedalled my way up hill and down dale I feel like I've earned the right to be out there. If you've been pushed there by battery-power, you haven't.
It's a bit like when I meet MXers on the hills in places they're not meant to be. I'm not just annoyed because they're noisy and polluting and tearing up the countryside and that, it's also because they haven't really worked to get there - they're cheating. Obviously electric-assist bikes aren't anywhere near as "bad" as petrol-powered bikes, but I feel like they're closer to them than to pushbikes. Once you add a motor, you've crossed a line.
(I think this is different to uplift-assisted DH riding, that's just a different discipline, like you get in skiing. This would be like sticking little jet-engines on nordic skis or something...)
I always wondered how I was going to turn into one of those uncomprehending old people who shake their heads at the alarming and disappointing ways of youth. You know, like the way old red-socked bobble-hatted ramblers look at mountain bikers. Electric bikes might actually be a similar thing for me. Now get off my lawn. Damn kids...
It could be a good leveller for people who aren't lucky enough to be able to get as fit as others they wish to ride with, for whatever reason.
It doesn't necessarily mean the rider won't be putting in any effort, as the slowest rider on a group ride is often working a lot harder than the fittest ones in the group. It's all well and good saying get fitter but what if they have a disability, or very limited riding time, etc?
What about a bike that stored the wasted energy from braking and what is soaked up by suspension and tyres and made it available again through some kind of lightweight motor?
The gains would be less than having a battery but it would be in keeping with the ethos of a bike being powered by just yourself. The stumbling block of course is that we don't have the technology at present to make this feasable but who knows what will be possible in the future.
I dont think geetee is necessarily comparing like for like in the same manner as you. He's suggesting the sort of bike someone may have started out on in the past with say their current XC bike.
I would not be surprised if a cheap heavy bike from the early 90 is not at least 10% less efficient that a top of the range XC bike now a days.
That is fair comparison because we are comparing the same rider not the same bike and over the course of say rider mtb as a hobby for 20 years where has the extra speed come from rider or machine ?
I would not be surprised if a cheap heavy bike from the early 90 is not at least 10% less efficient that a top of the range XC bike now a days
here's a real life comparison for you, My allround hardtail (allround for me has to be capable of dirtjumping and DH as well as XC) hasn't really changed spec/performance wise in 15years.
1995 - 16" 4lb Alloy XC hardtail, built for jumping, dual slalom with 100mm Judys with whitebros cart and speedsprings, hope XC/121, XT, 50mm stem, 660mm riser bars, Avid juicys & flat pedals.
2010 - 14" 4.5lb Alloy DJ hardtail, built for jumping, 4X with 95mm Pikes coils, Hope ProII/XC/721(the rim that replaced the 121), Saint, 40mm stem, 660mm bars, XT Vbrakes & flat pedals.
performance wise there's little in it other than the tyres I run now being durable, even the difference in braking performance is
current bike is 30.5lb
1995 bike was 28lb
I currently weigh 14st and in 1995 was 12st so the slight overbuild is simply in line with what the bike has to endure now.
full sus has evolved massively in the last 15 years, XC hardtails, not really that much at all IMO.
1995 - 16" 4lb Alloy XC hardtail, built for jumping, dual slalom with 100mm Judys with whitebros cart and speedsprings, hope XC/121, XT, 50mm stem, 660mm riser bars, Avid juicys & flat pedals.
How is this a cheap bike from the early 90's ?
ah, sorry, so you meant something like a 40lb+ Raleigh activator Vs a 20lb GIANT Anthem X?
At least 10% you say? You might want to re-calibrate your performance measurig instruments? I'd say more like 20-50% over an enduro type event.
I obviously missed your point big time, what was your point BTW? 😉