Depressing thread to read on a supposed cycling forum, on many levels.
I think that maybe there are enough people who buy these bikes and then don’t use them, or don’t use them much, that they make up for the people who are actually using them for their intended purpose and keep breaking them. I suspect the ratio is enough to make it profitable for now.
Same thing going on with inflatable camping mats. Actually use them and the failure rate is unacceptable, but the few get warranty replacements, while the many doing their once or twice a year camping trip don't complain. Never mind the landfill. Markets, innit.
All I can say now on testing is I'm ok with how the testing standards define EU legal epacs and why there are anti tamper regs in the standards. It makes sense to me although there's certainly areas of the electronic engineering that I don't have good understanding of. The gist of the standards and epac spec is all ok (I'd like a 20mph speed limit but that's another topic).
Anyone is free to think I'm siding with some EU regs bike industry conspiracy if they like. I'm not going to try to convince otherwise.
I'm commuting by bike and train these days. I see the 'e-bike' lash-ups some people are riding, both loaded onto trains and pelting round ped urban areas - and they're quite simply unregulated electric motorbikes. They need confiscating and crushing. I don't want these tw£ts ruining it for responsible, non-driving e-bike riders like my sister.
Sorry, all this seems pretty obvious and basic stuff, the real problem, I suspect, is that most buyers see reliability as incidental rather than fundamental, so there’s no huge incentive for things to change. On top of that, the bike industry and media seems to live in a two-year bubble, where new bikes and technologies appear and disappear regularly with no thought as to what happens to them down the line.
As a "hater" this gives me some hope, that the hype machine will calm down once people realise they've been sold expensive toys with limited reliability and proper bikes will at least remain a thing while e-bikers recognise a functioning back up is better than an expensive but broken bike...
As I understand it, the fundamental problem is that these motors are not well sealed generally, so water gets in and causes bearing wear and failure primarily. On top of that, the original Brose motors at least, have sprag bearings that fail with heavy pedal strikes and finally, if water gets onto the circuit board, that too can fail.
All of this if fairly easy to fix. Better sealing, stronger gears, bigger bearings. The cost it comes at is weight and drag. As a manufacturer if your ebike offers two thirds the range of the competition at the same weight, even if you've fixed reliability, not enough people are going to buy it.
On shonky ebike spotting, saw a Deliveroo delivery guy at Leeds Train station the other day with his battery pack sellotaped to the underside of his downtube. I stared at for a while to fully understand what I was looking at.
Obviously deristricted 🙄
See, the daft limit is downright dangerous and can lead to being eaten by wolves
If this thread is morphing into motor failure, my 2p's worth...
A good number of ebike riders I see off road here in Germany where there are load of them, are cruising up hill, slow cadence in a small cassette gear. It's obviously possible but I reckon it drags max torque from the drive chain, stresses the motor and empties the battery quicker. After actually reading the manual for Brose motors, best support is given at 60-90 cadence, so spinning in lower gears is most efficient. I've changed my peddling style to match this and its increased the range and dropped the speed a little as I spend most time in eco. Last weekend was 76km and 1300hm with 45% of a 700w battery remaining.
The upside is it's perfectly possible to ride with bio bike riders, spinning along in eco.
As and when the motor needs a belt changing after looking at YouTube, a company called Performance Bearings will get the business as they seem to be able to improve and seal these motors to a high standard.
I think that maybe there are enough people who buy these bikes and then don’t use them, or don’t use them much, that they make up for the people who are actually using them for their intended purpose and keep breaking them. I suspect the ratio is enough to make it profitable for now.
Yep I’ve been wondering about this as one of the blokes in work had a pricy specalized mtb for an occasional commute between Bath and Bradford on the canal path a few days a week and it was eating motors under warranty whereas the 100% bio powered ones were doing it in all weather and were breaking far less, I suppose the number being used as a clothes horse helped the reliability numbers.
After actually reading the manual for Brose motors, best support is given at 60-90 cadence, so spinning in lower gears is most efficient
I just ride mine typically in the gear I'd be in on my non-e
As and when the motor needs a belt changing after looking at YouTube, a company called Performance Bearings will get the business as they seem to be able to improve and seal these motors to a high standard.
They're now Ebike Motor Centre. Same people rebranded. Really good service in my admittedly limited experience.
All of this if fairly easy to fix. Better sealing, stronger gears, bigger bearings. The cost it comes at is weight and drag. As a manufacturer if your ebike offers two thirds the range of the competition at the same weight, even if you’ve fixed reliability, not enough people are going to buy it.
I'm not sure you'd lose 1/3 of the battery range just by fitting adequate seals to the crank openings. On top of that, as far as I can see, no-one actually quotes 'range' figures, presumably because it's such a variable figure depending on rider weight, style, terrain, tyres and tyre pressures.
I can't subjectively tell any difference in motor range with upgraded seals and bearings from before, though swapping from a fast, quick-rolling rear to a chunkier one for winter did seem to have a noticeable impact. Then again, maybe that was just softer trail surfaces or colder temperatures impacting the efficiency of the battery.
A good number of ebike riders I see off road here in Germany where there are load of them, are cruising up hill, slow cadence in a small cassette gear.
Of course they are. They're turning the pedals, doesn't require much (if any) effort, they're going forward. I call it placebo pedalling. My sister was doing the same until I had to replace the mullered two smallest cogs on her cassette and explained why she needed to use the range of gears more rather than simply dialling up the e-assist. I think there's a big market in cheap, functional single speed e-bikes waiting to be tapped into for this kind of rider.
Brucewee
It won’t because that’s not the goal. The goal is to increase profits at the cost of the environment.
No it isn't the goal is to increase short term profits for the product line until whoever is profiting gets promoted and its someone else's problem.
If they made more money not screwing over the planet then they would.
Bosch/Brose/Yamaha etc. all are huge corporations and the bottom line is the bottom line.
If Bosch for example can make an extra 100M from ebikes over 80M over automotive ECU's then it makes sense but for those slithering up the greasy poles they just need to generate profit and revenue short term and move onto a new division before the shit hits the fan.
To a large extent its a game to them like the diesel emissions thing. [I've not looked into it but I'd put money Bosch and Brose were selling the firmware/ECU's to cheat and were also involved in setting the standards so they could manipulate them] Do not forget Bosch/Brose etc. are huge in automotive - they don't want to replace cars they want an additional revenue stream.
But none of it matters, because no one understands the regulations or gives a shit about them. Or about the Right to Repair.
We obviously give a shit... the problem is the regulations are what the manufacturers want them to be (meaningless and incomprehensible) and apologists and/or people who are profiting from the status quo want to pretend otherwise.
Look up the Bosch CX Race... where they have tweaked the rules to deliver more power if you pay the premium.
Read the Bosch link, it's straight up lies (not even making the effort to make it look like a mistake), I'm sure you'll find the same with every manufacturer because they can and the apologists will lie for them.
As you discovered the legislation is not written to be understood... good luck explaining it.
It's just easier to point out they are lying IMHO.
It's obvious and easy to show it's not illegal to derestrict a eBike.. any more than it's illegal to pick certain mushrooms or have them growing in your garden.
Right to Repair is really the crux IMHO.
The environment wins as a by-product and everyone EXCEPT the manufacturers wins.
I don’t want a derestricted ebike. I just want to be able to repair the shit I buy so that I don’t have to keep buying new shit.
"Spending is better than mending. The less stitches the more riches".
I think there’s a big market in cheap, functional single speed e-bikes waiting to be tapped into for this kind of rider.
+1. G-Tech got it fairly early on and sold loads. It was our priority when I was at Pure Electric, the first bike under their brand was a SS with a belt. Simple + clean. Enough torque off the line or for moderate hills, enough gear ratio for 60-70rpm at the cut off and that's it.
I've been in central Leeds, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester over the last couple of weeks and have seen a fair few ebikes, not seen any that have been ridden in a dangerous manor or above the speed limit. I have however seen thousands of cars, mostly spewing out noxious gases (enough to give me a sore throat and chest in Leeds).
After a bit of a think, I think derestricted ebikes would still be a lesser of an evil compared to what we already have.
I think the escooter will eclipse the ebike for sales and adoption.
They're cheaper, lighter, smaller and don't need to be pedaled.
I think this is the sad reality, although imagine this coming to your local Tesco carpark.....
Overtake London GIF by eSkootr Championship
I’ve been in central Leeds, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester over the last couple of weeks and have seen a fair few ebikes, not seen any that have been ridden in a dangerous manor
Fear of muggings?
I can't see scooters taking over tbh. You have to actually stand up on a scooter.
a Deliveroo delivery guy at Leeds Train station the other day with his battery pack sellotaped to the underside of his downtube.
I don't think there can be many non*e deliveroo bikes left in the middle of Leeds. They hang about on the corner of Briggate and Boar Lane, with some feats of bodge on display. But they clearly work and you don't see much pedaling going on. And if you can do your job sitting down why not? I am right now. And at a fancy standing desk and all.
As you discovered the legislation is not written to be understood… good luck explaining it.
It’s just easier to point out they are lying IMHO.
The EU product safety guidelines, the CE Machinery Directive and EN15194 (plus the battery regs if you want to get into detail) and EU regulation 168/2013 -had to google the number- covers type approval and what is and isn't an epac or a moped, etc. They aren't an easy read if you want to go into the details but it's all there. Proofed, tested, objections raised, revised, put into legislation and as far as I know, not containing any lies that anyone conversant with the content has spotted.
It’s obvious and easy to show it’s not illegal to derestrict a eBike.. any more than it’s illegal to pick certain mushrooms or have them growing in your garden.
The act of derestriction itself isn't illegal because you might use it on private land. Like growing magic mushrooms isn't illegal but preparing or distributing them is.
In non mushroom-influenced reality it's easy to see that by changing the spec from an epac to something with higher speed and/or twist-n-go (I assume that's the point of derestricting an epac ebike here) you've created a different product, a different type approval class, and it's now an electric moped or motorbike that's not had the relevant testing. If you pretend it's an e-bike and use it like an e-bike on the road, no helmet or plates etc, it's illegal. If you licence it and get all that moped stuff done it's not illegal but you've still got a road-going vehicle that isn't approved as safe - I think that would fail an MOT or fail under the Road Traffic Act but I'm not sure.
A custom road bike might not have full EN testing certs as it's a one-off (same basic rules for custom motorbikes) so you might be able to show your 'custom' e-moped is safe if you had a good technical file and could show you were qualified to make a declaration on it. Dunno, interesting angle. Gaffer-taped batteries might undermine that line slightly.
Proofed, tested, objections raised, revised, put into legislation and as far as I know, not containing any lies that anyone fully conversant with the content has spotted : )
I've provided links and quoted the relevant parts to show that they are misrepresenting Maximum Continuous Power several times (it was the part where everyone went, 'Huh, what are you talking about, I don't want to hear this, I want arguments about ebikers being dicks!').
It is not a relevant measurement in terms of limiting the power output of the motor. The question then is, why was it included and why is it still there?
I’ve provided links and quoted the relevant parts to show that they are misrepresenting Maximum Continuous Power several times
Continuous rated power is like Zone 2 for us, it's the brisk, efficient sustainable pace, not your threshold.
The electric motor industry uses EN60034-1 to test for 'max continuous rated power' and EN15194 references that for e-bikes, I assume because it didn't need to create a new test there.
It is not a relevant measurement in terms of limiting the power output of the motor. The question then is, why was it included and why is it still there?
It is relevant if you think about how much power a really heavily loaded epac might need. Also because EN15194 doesn't limit the max temporary power of a motor, it doesn't need to because doing so would restrict the usefulness of many forms of epac.
It does limit what the motor can put out over a longer period of time though, so though a Tern GSD goes uphill with 2 kids and a load of shopping, it's slow. We don't have cargo bikes under epac class with massive load capacity and batteries going at max 25kph speed all day up hills etc. Because a cargo bike with that kind of ability from say 750W or 1000W continuous rated power is really an LEV and that's a different type class.
Speed cut-off of the (general non-cargo) e-bike system is the limit of top-end output, max wattage output capacity of the motor itself over a short period is not the same as the 250W sustainable output rating that epacs are described by. If you limit speed and continual power you have a spec that allows flexibility for performance design between E-hybrid, E-cargo and E-MTB.
It does limit what the motor can put out over a longer period of time though
No it doesn't.
Nowhere in the standard is there a test that says, 'Run the motor above 250W for 30 minutes. Ensure temperature is still rising.'
If it does then please show me where.
Firstly, the motor testing spec (EN60034-1) is used for more than just the bike industry... so the tests are generic and are designed to show that the motors meet their specific ratings for the load-cycles required.
The test for Maximum Continuous Rating is there to demonstrate that the motor is capable of meeting it's rated power output when running continuously. That has been decided in this case to mean that it needs to stop getting hotter within 30 minutes.
For the Maximum Continuous Rating test in EN60034-1 that is all you need to demonstrate, it's there to ensure that when you buy any motor which says it's rated for 250W, it will be able to deliver that power.
Unfortunately I don't have access to the e-bike standard, so can't comment too much about that, but I can imagine it's worded in a way which states that the maximum power over a continuous period should be no more than 250W. There's a couple of pieces to that:
1) that whatever power is stated, it will need to meet the MCR test for that power in EN60034. This is to ensure that you get what you are sold in terms of power output.
2) that the motor controller will need to make sure that the power output over a continuous period will not exceed the 250W stated in the standard, and this has nothing really to do with EN60034.
Unfortunately I don’t have access to the e-bike standard, so can’t comment too much about that, but I can imagine it’s worded in a way which states that the maximum power over a continuous period should be no more than 250W. There’s a couple of pieces to that:
1) that whatever power is stated, it will need to meet the MCR test for that power in EN60034. This is to ensure that you get what you are sold in terms of power output.
2) that the motor controller will need to make sure that the power output over a continuous period will not exceed the 250W stated in the standard, and this has nothing really to do with EN60034.
Here's a copy of the ebike standard:
From section 4.2.14:
The maximum continuous rated power shall be measured according to EN 60034-1 when the motor
reaches its thermal equilibrium as specified by the manufacturer.
NOTE Thermal equilibrium: temperatures of motor parts do not vary more than 2K per hour.
In circumstance where the power is measured directly at the shaft of the electronic motor, the result of
the measurement shall be divided by 1,10 to consider the measurement uncertainty and then divided
by 1,05 to include for example the transmission losses, unless the real values of these losses are
determined.
That is the only reference made to motor power, as far as I can tell.
If it does then please show me where.
"'maximum continuous rated power’ means the maximum thirty minutes power at the output shaft of an electric engine as set out in UNECE regulation No 85"
is defined outside of EN15194 so you're right - EN15194 doesn't define max power over time explicitly (unless that reference to EN 60034-1 and thermal eq covers it - I don't have that to hand or understand motor testing enough to say).
EN15194 does enforce it though via application or reference to other standards and ime/tbh it's not that clear, tricky to navigate. I suppose EN15194 would be massive if it repeated all of the interlinked specs and regulations in the one document. It refers to a scope, tests and a spec, other regs define those in more detail. Since EN15194 is for complete bikes, for manufacturers and importers who aren't making the motors, that makes sense to me. Those making the motors would reference other regs inc the one quoted above.
There's a layer of detail behind EN15194. It's a maze and there are specialists who are full time on this stuff.
That definition of Max CRP is in the EU regs document that covers type approval. It states that products outside of the scope of type approval include 250W 25kph epacs, and EN15194 covers those non-type approved vehicles within its scope (p7).
The type approval regs document predates EN15194 2015, the version of the e-bike standards that was 'harmonised' under the Machinery Directive (Machinery Directive is CE mark related, CE applies to e-bikes so if you meet a harmonised standard you can CE mark). Before that iirc EN15194 2009 wasn't harmonised so you needed to use the Machinery Directive additionally, ie make sure you've referenced and meet all relevant legislation -inc the type approval regs- and then CE mark.
I think in essence in all this is that there is pretty much nothing stopping a manufacturer fitting a motor that is able to exceed 250W continuous, as long as the control system brings the whole e-bike to being within the limits for the exclusion of type approval.
In general the reasons why you wouldn't do that is cost and weight, however these have to be weighed up against design effort and expense if you need to produce e-bikes for different markets with different regulations.
So it is almost certainly cheaper for the bike companies to produce a single motor and controller unit, rated for the most powerful market, which they can produce on a single production line, and which is modified using software to meet the regulations for a given market. Which is pretty much what the auto industry does... even the point were engines can be identical, except for the software which dictates how much power they can generate.
The point where that becomes unrealistic will be where the larger motor makes a measurable impact on the 'performance' in a market which doesn't require that extra power...
(unless that reference to EN 60034-1 and thermal eq covers it – I don’t have that to hand or understand motor testing enough to say)
I linked to a copy of EN 60034-1 on the previous page. And, as funkynick said above:
The test for Maximum Continuous Rating is there to demonstrate that the motor is capable of meeting it’s rated power output when running continuously. That has been decided in this case to mean that it needs to stop getting hotter within 30 minutes.
For the Maximum Continuous Rating test in EN60034-1 that is all you need to demonstrate, it’s there to ensure that when you buy any motor which says it’s rated for 250W, it will be able to deliver that power.
and I agree with this.
I can see how this came about. Legislators said, 'We want limits on the speed and power'. The manufacturers got together and said, 'It's difficult to get around the speed limits, the best we can do is a tapered cut-off to get around the 25km/h limit so at least it'll be 27 km/h. Even legislators are smart enough to understand km/h.'
Then they turned to limiting power, 'Ah, this one's easy! These guys aren't engineers so we'll limit Maximum Continuous Power and they'll be happy. This way we can make motors that you can ghost pedal uphill all day long!'
This is the crux of the problem with current ebikes. If they were limited to a peak power of 250W, which is what I suspect legislators intended, then the top speed would be significantly limited naturally.
As it is, legal motors can quite happily pump out 3 or even 4 times 250W for as long as any climb is going to last. The only real limiting factor is the amperage the battery can supply and the ability of the motor to shed heat. Therefore, with all this power, a speed limiter becomes very necessary and getting around it becomes a real safety issue.
If manufacturers were serious about 'fixing' the safety issue they would limit the peak power.
@jameso, honestly, you're using a lot of words to say, 'I can't prove what I'm saying, but surely the industry wouldn't be that underhanded?'
jamsco
The act of derestriction itself isn’t illegal because you might use it on private land. Like growing magic mushrooms isn’t illegal but preparing or distributing them is.
Yet that is what Bosch state...
Tuning isn't just some trivial offence
Tuning is breaking the law, there's no doubt about it!
There are several lies on this corporate page.
This is classic FUD ... (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt
They aren’t an easy read if you want to go into the details but it’s all there. Proofed, tested, objections raised, revised, put into legislation and as far as I know, not containing any lies that anyone conversant with the content has spotted.
That isn't what I'm saying, what I'm saying is Bosch (for example) are a dishonest company who lie as routine.
I now checked what I guessed.. they were the ones facilitating "diesel gate"
Prosecutors in Germany ordered automotive parts supplier Robert Bosch GmbH to pay a relatively light $100 million fine in connection with its role the Dieselgate scandal that ensnared German automaker Volkswagen AG.
Bosch is alleged to have provided the technology that facilitated VW’s cheating on U.S. government diesel emissions tests. The parts supplier agreed not to contest the fine.
In a statement released by prosecutors in Stuttgart, Bosch "delivered around 17 million motor control and mixture control devices to various domestic and foreign manufacturers, some of whose software contained illegal strategies.” The devices allowed vehicles to emit more nitrogen oxides than allowed under regulations.
Bosch CLAIM they are being pushed by legislation... whereas I think a 20 Bn a year company is far more likely to be pushing for the legislation.
johnx2
I can’t see scooters taking over tbh. You have to actually stand up on a scooter.
You don't live on the 10th floor of a tower block with broken lifts 😉
In terms of something to get you to the shops/station/school/work etc. e-scooters have a lot of advantages.
By the way, just to give you an idea of how much easier enforcement would be if this had been implemented correctly, let's see what limiting peak power would look like.
For a start, forget the motor. Electric motors are unimportant in terms of power delivery. What we need to limit are the batteries.
For the purposes of this explanation, we're going to forget about power are the shaft (mechanical power) and focus instead on electrical power. Whatever limit you put on the battery is going to be a ceiling for mechanical power. Let the manufacturers figure out how to deliver that power more efficiently but they are not going to exceed it.
Now that we only have to worry about the battery, life becomes much easier. The peak power is simply the voltage multiplied by maximum amperage that can be supplied.
Anyone who wants to check the power output of a battery simply connects it to a load where the resistance is reduced until the BMS cuts the current. Voila, peak power.
250W peak power would mean people weren't able to tear around everywhere at 27km/hr and maybe old people in the Netherlands wouldn't be landing up in hospital quite so often. Instead, they're using 750W+ of extra propulsion which they simply don't need.
250W peak power would mean people weren’t able to tear around everywhere at 27km/hr and maybe old people in the Netherlands wouldn’t be landing up in hospital quite so often. Instead, they’re using 750W+ of extra propulsion which they simply don’t need.
Outside of the flat country??? 27kph is pretty easily achievable on a slight downhill with the motor turned off.
30kph is my target road speed on my non-E bikes when I'm cycling to/from the trails. At least one part of the reason for that is any slower and traffic is passing way faster.
Sort of regardless though... I'd probably rather get hit by an eBike at 27kph than a car or truck at the same speed?
Outside of the flat country??? 27kph is pretty easily achievable on a slight downhill with the motor turned off.
30kph is my target road speed on my non-E bikes when I’m cycling to/from the trails. At least one part of the reason for that is any slower and traffic is passing way faster.
It's achievable for you and me and pretty much anyone who has been riding bikes for any length of time.
It's not achievable by a 63 year old who hasn't ridden a bike in 20 years unless they jump on an overpowered ebike. Hence the issues they've seen in the Netherlands:
It’s achievable for you and me and pretty much anyone who has been riding bikes for any length of time.
On the flat yes... but outside of Holland its limited by brakes and common sense going downhill and bikes stop slower going DH than up.
Regardless of power I'd expect to see more accidents from 63 year old's that hasn’t ridden a bike in 20 years to take the caption on the photo
There are 22.5m bikes in the Netherlands – more than the 17.1 million people who live there.
I think its fair speculation that most of the younger generation were already cycling and the increased numbers of bikes is largely eBikes and largely older people.
sorry this link might break
https://www.statista.com/statistics/620866/sales-volume-of-new-bicycles-in-the-netherlands/
Number of sold e-bikes in the Netherlands increased
In 2019, the vast majority of bicycles sold in the Netherlands were were either city bikes or electric bicycles. That year, approximately 330,000 city bikes were sold, whereas the total sales volume of electric bikes had reached over 420,000. Over the last five years, the volume of sold city bikes decreased annually, while the number of newly sold e-bikes was growing fast.
I can't find a breakdown by age but it seems sensible that most of these extra eBikes were bought by older people and the primary driver was people who hadn't ridden a bike in 20 years?
If they were limited to a peak power of 250W, which is what I suspect legislators intended, then the top speed would be significantly limited naturally.
And the top speed would be limited at a different level for different people, some could hit 25kph on a 5% hill and others couldn't. Some would come to a standstill on a steeper hill. e-MTBs wouldn't work. ...some might be ok with that : )
@jameso, honestly, you’re using a lot of words to say, ‘I can’t prove what I’m saying, but surely the industry wouldn’t be that underhanded?’
I'm only showing how the regs work as far as I understand them and I'm sure my clarity could be better but I've tried to explain enough. It's not a simple system of regulation that's for sure. But it's pretty clear to me why limiting peak power isn't required or a good thing for epac design scope, and it isn't necessary in this topic as tampering Vs repair issues aren't solved by changing the current regs.
Now that we only have to worry about the battery, life becomes much easier. The peak power is simply the voltage multiplied by maximum amperage that can be supplied
Except transformers and dc-dc converters exist so the battery current and voltage can easily be increased before input to the machine/motor.
Yet that is what Bosch state…
Tuning isn’t just some trivial offence
Tuning is breaking the law, there’s no doubt about it!
If it's only used on private land it's not an offence. Bosch are just not giving people the get-out clause too easily (but I'm not missing their double standards re your points about diesel testing).
What I should have said is
The act of derestriction itself isn’t illegal
because you mightif you only use it on private land.
jamsco
What I should have said is
Not really, You're just a helpful bloke not a 20 Bn a year corporation with PR/Comms/Legal and marketing.
It's a multinational corp I expect to actually get it right... not deliberate FUD and the same page has more lies on it.
but I’m not missing their double standards re your points about diesel testing.
Bosch is just a random corporation in this... TBH the reason I picked up on this specific was trying to find their actual warranty.
(which I still didn't find) but after decades working in multinational corps I don't find anything exceptional...
This is EXACTLY how I expect multi-national corporations to act. They don't sit and wait for legislation they seize it and control it... they form cartels and offer the same low bars and they pay off and run the standards to benefit them.
The relevance of this is a multinational corp that is on one hand claiming its being pressured by legislation and on the other publishing lies (that support their "we are being pressured" claim).
