But is it even an e-bike?

Sorry for the link to The Telegraph.

It looks like 1000s of e-cargo ‘bikes’ are heading to London and upsetting The Telegraph, probably adding to the anti-cycling feelings that seem prevalent at the moment

The manufacturers seem certain that they’re bikes but I think that’s stretching it a bit .

What do folk think, is this a great idea that’s going to help reduce fossil fuel usage or a potential nightmare?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/08/half-ton-electric-bike-poses-latest-threat-to-londons-pedes/

Paywall bypass: https://archive.is/KCTfk

Clearly taking the piss, just look at it.

The legally-required pedals are not connected to a chain or a sprocket. Instead they send an electrical signal to the motors, with the speed of pedalling being linked to the power delivered.

Definitely.

But I see how these folks are trying to innovate within existing legislation.

What do folk think, is this a great idea that’s going to help reduce fossil fuel usage or a potential nightmare?

Both? Depending where it is ridden. On a cycle path it would be somewhat problematic but on the road less so. Although it does blur into the wider argument about if, for example, a cbt for mopeds should allow commercial use.

It seems to be a classic case of Goodharts law and how people will try to game a system.

This is the website for them, with further details.

https://www.cityshuttle.co.uk/

That is an electric vehicle, not a bike.

I’d prefer it to a delivery van.

Great idea. Lighter vehicle, less energy to shift it around.

Will def cause issues though – the first time one of those is involved in an accident (presumably uninsured, because bike), there would be a hastily-concocted law to reclasify them.

As above. Not an e-bike.

“The legally-required pedals are not connected to a chain or a sprocket. Instead they send an electrical signal to the motors, with the speed of pedalling being linked to the power delivered.”

Compared to

“An EAPC must have pedals that can be used to propel it.”

https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules

As the pedals only send a signal to the motor they are not propelling the bike.

A cop out from govt  though.

“A Department for Transport spokesman would only say that it was up to police and the courts to make a decision, while both the Home Office and the Department for Housing and Communities, which oversees some council traffic enforcement powers, refused to comment.”

.https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/half-ton-electric-bike-poses-latest-threat-to-london-pedestrians/ar-BB1nRY0K

It’s designed for inner cities. Unfortunately all British city roadways were designed around the horse, so aren’t really wide enough to carry pedestrians, cyclists, and motor vehicles like passenger transport(buses)  personal transport(cars/taxis) as well as these large and slow moving E-trucks.

I’d rather be hit by one of those than a normal truck or van.

I think it’s a stretch to imagine that they’re going to make the roads less safe than the vans that they’ll replace.

I also think that people, rightly, won’t see them as bicycles.

It can’t be a bicycles it’s got lots more wheels than required.

The legally-required pedals are not connected to a chain or a sprocket. Instead they send an electrical signal to the motors, with the speed of pedalling being linked to the power delivered.

.. it’s called a ‘series hybrid’ and a valid EPAC format if it meets the power and speed cut off parts of the EPAC regs. The pedals are linked to the rear wheel electronically rather than by a chain. Chain or electronic link, they don’t move if you don’t pedal. Disengaging the crank from the wheel in this way can have layout advantages for a cargo bike.

Assuming it’s at least pretending to observe regulations, you’re never getting that above 15mph. Imagine the abuse the drivers/riders will be getting on a continual basis. High staff turnover, I suspect.

Interesting:

EU Commission publishes statement on legality of chainless Series Hybrid e-bikes 

Some of the wording used in quotes there seems to imply that for a vehicle to qualify, the act of pedalling must contribute to the propulsion.

I think that developments like these are great, but calling that an electrically assisted pedal cycle is stretching a loophole that will eventually be closed. Hopefully by bringing in a classification that’s appropriate. In any case, if cycle lanes end up being filled with hordes of these things then I can see them being quite unpopular!

Relying to myself here. Clarification that yes, these kinds of things do have a generator attached to the pedals:

EU Commission finally confirms: Series Hybrid Cycles are EPACs excluded from L-category

Quote

I’d rather be hit by one of those than a normal truck or van.

Quote

But vans can’t access cycle paths

But vans can’t access cycle paths

Someone hasn’t ridden in a city

I think the issues with the 250W continuous power definition is finally being exposed.

Despite concerns that the half-ton, electrically-propelled, articulated vehicle is not a bike, Keith Jones, Cityshuttle’s founder argued: “It’s predominantly a small, articulated truck… it’s got pedals, and it’s got a 250 watt motor. So it’s a bike. And that’s it.”

What everyone always conveniently leaves out is that a 1000W continuous power motor is also a 250W continuous power motor.  However, a 240W continuous power motor is not a 250W continuous power motor.

The regulations say that for something to be classed as a 250W continuous power motor it has to be run at 250W for a period of time (30 minutes, I think but I could be wrong on the exact amount of time) and after 30 minutes the temperature of the motor has stabilised.

I don’t know what the history of the power requirement is, but if I had to guess I’d say that the idea was to stop people making contraptions that can haul half a ton but still be classed as bicycles.  The manufacturers somehow managed to convince the regulators that continuous power was a maximum power limit like peak power.  It isn’t.  Continuous power has nothing to do with limiting the output of the motor.

New regulations are needed now, or at least a discussion about what we are actually trying to achieve with ebikes as a society and then shape the regulations around those goals.

Clearly taking the piss

Damn straight! It’s every Londoner’s right to be mowed down by either an innatentive hi-vis wearer, playing candy crush while driving a 3 ton transit or a Cabby too busy sharing their opinions to look ahead of their 2 ton person mover (now nice, quiet and electric)…

Honestly who cares? It’s London, and the people getting flustered are Tory rag writers.  On everyone’s list of things to GAS about some startup in that there Laaarndan, that will doubtlessly spunk some VC money and quietly die is way down the rankings.

My average car commute speed in London is less than 12mph, I imagine they’ll rarely hit 15mph as they can’t filter.

Plenty of e-assist rickshaws about in the centre already, I suspect none are legal.

All part of businesses attempting to engage with net zero targets.

I’m not sure what the risk is? Will they be attempting to use the cycle network, that could be exciting for the wrong reasons.. Assume that they will be able to use bus lanes.

The manufacturers somehow managed to convince the regulators that continuous power was a maximum power limit like peak power.  It isn’t.

The manufacturers didn’t convince regulators of anything. The continuous rated power test in the ISO standard that apply to EPACs is taken from an IEC standard for electric motors, various editions of which pre-date E-bikes by decades.

We often refer to max output but that is wrong – it’s maximum continual rated power when the motor is not heating up and yes they can peak at 500W or even 1000W but not for long and the controller will override it. How that shorter-term higher W output matters when the max speed the assistance can be provided is 25kph I’m not sure – all that happens is you can get that load up to speed a bit faster or have enough torque to get up a steeper hill (or simply not slow to a crawl on a 7-10% gradient).

I don’t know what the history of the power requirement is, but if I had to guess I’d say that the idea was to stop people making contraptions that can haul half a ton but still be classed as bicycles.

Cargo bikes are intended to be within the EPAC class. There are some different testing requirements but the powertrain specs are the same. Personally I don’t see the problem with EPAC load carriers.

Honestly who cares? It’s London

Because lots of people live there and this won’t be confined to London any more than LTNs and bus lanes and rideshares and dockless bikes were.

I think these things will be a good thing in the long run. I am not worried about then when they’re moving. The difficulty is when 4 of them are parked in a bus lane or across a pavement or anywhere else that’s going to be a problem but enforcement is difficult…

….reg plates for “commercial” bikes anyone?

….reg plates for “commercial” bikes anyone?

Define ‘commercial’ in an enforceable way … and reg plates for bikes and e-bikes is a non-starter. As is managing pavement parking generally. Perhaps clamping of offenders whatever the vehicle type is all that can be done , if there were the resources to do that. All in all e-cargo bikes should reduce congestion even if some of that is simply spreading it about.

The pedals are linked to the rear wheel electronically rather than by a chain. Chain or electronic link, they don’t move if you don’t pedal.

the pedals here a simply a throttle, by the manufacturers own admission. Just a different implementation than the norm. There’s no “assist” happening. It clearly doesn’t meet the definition of “EAPC”.

Not to say they don’t have some merit, but shouldn’t be allowed to be categorised the same as an e-bike due to a “loophole”.

The manufacturers didn’t convince regulators of anything. The continuous rated power test in the ISO standard that apply to EPACs is taken from an IEC standard for electric motors, various editions of which pre-date E-bikes by decades.

Pretty sure we’ve been through all this before. I’ve listed the relevant documents and quoted the sections related to evaluating continuous power and nowhere is there any requirement or test that establishes if you run a motor for 30 minutes it’s temperature has not stabilised.

According to the specifications, the only way to fail this rest is if you try to use a motor that is not able to handle the provided power, ie a motor that is too small.

If you tried to sell a bike with a 150 watt continuos power motor it would fail while a 2000 watt continuous power motor would pass easily.

Part of my job involves reading IEC documents and making sure our products meet the requirements. The other part is to manipulate things so the products don’t have to meet certain requirements.

This really feels to me like one of those cases where manufacturers managed to manipulate things in their favour when the regs were first being written.  It happens all the time in all industries so I don’t know why it’s so unthinkable it could happen here.

the pedals here a simply a throttle, by the manufacturers own admission. Just a different implementation than the norm. There’s no “assist” happening. It clearly doesn’t meet the definition of “EAPC”.

I suppose you could see pedals as a kind of rotational throttle here but throttles aren’t something you have to carry on rotating. It does meet the definition of an EPAC because there is assistance (turn the power off and you’re going nowhere), the speed of the rear wheel is proportional to the pedal rotation and it’s only applied when the pedals are turning. An EPAC doesn’t have to be chain or belt driven, that’s just a carry-over from motorising conventional bikes. It could be shaft driven or use another form of direct connection to the crank such as an electrical connection. Rather than a loophole it’s within the scope of the EPAC regs, it’s not what some are used to seeing as a conventional e-bike but they’ve been around for over 10 years.

Great idea. I dont see the problem. Surely this is exactly how city centre deliveries should be done. Im impressed that they have clearly read and understood the legislation and done something innovative in the space. Got to be better than a 2 ton electric delivery van.

I think as long as they stay on roads and not cycle paths then things like these are a good idea.  Less vans on city roads is a good thing for all concerned. And there are far too many cars driving around London than there needs to be for a city with such a good public transport infrastructure.

As long as they’re forced to stay within the speed and power restrictions then they’re going to be safer than all the vans and lorries that currently seem to make a sport of killing cyclists and pedestrians.

I imagine there will be some haphazardly rushed legislation pushed through soon enough to ruin this though. 

Presumably much of the Tory owned rag driven furor is down to the difficulty in revenue generation & frustration that folk get around it. Lets face it, if they had a way of taxing bicycles, they would be taxing bicycles. Much as they’d tax fresh air, walking, sleeping. The ruling classes have one agenda & that is their greed through enslavement.

the pedals here a simply a throttle, by the manufacturers own admission. Just a different implementation than the norm.

Arent the pedals on a normal ebike just a throttle. Pedal harder or faster and the engine works harder. All they have done is take the chain away and using electronics tell the motor how hard to work.

ebalance bikes exist and are available in the uk. They are classed as ebikes despite them literally having a twist or push button throttle and no pedals.

Pretty sure we’ve been through all this before.

Yep : )

I’ve listed the relevant documents and quoted the sections related to evaluating continuous power and nowhere is there any requirement or test that establishes if you run a motor for 30 minutes it’s temperature has not stabilised.

It refers to heat variation per hour. If a 2000W continuous power motor has the current to it limited so it runs at a stable temp at 250W and no higher W the bike would pass the test.

I think where we got to last time is that you felt that left things open to tampering to unlock that motor power potential and that’s another point – maybe, but there are clauses on anti-tampering etc.

ebalance bikes exist and are available in the uk. They are classed as ebikes despite them literally having a twist or push button throttle and no pedals.

Kill or maim a pedestrian while riding one and you’re likely to end up trying to argue you weren’t riding an uninsured non-roadworthy motorcycle.

Arent the pedals on a normal ebike just a throttle. Pedal harder or faster and the engine works harder. All they have done is take the chain away and using electronics tell the motor how hard to work.

No, on an ebike you’re always delivering power to the wheels. The motor only assists with additional power. In this case, 100% of the power comes from the motor, and regardless of how hard or fast they pedal, non will ever come from the rider. I don’t know the wording of the regulations but I don’t see how that can ever be classed as ‘assistance’.

On a whole, it looks a reasonable idea and the outrage is all a bit ridiculous, but there surely needs to be a different classification for a half ton, entirely motor driven vehicle.

“In this case, 100% of the power comes from the motor, and regardless of how hard or fast they pedal, non will ever come from the rider.”

Some power does come from the rider – a series hybrid uses a dynamo at the crank to generate current that is transferable to a battery and then the rear wheel. It’s not very efficient and the dynamo output is way lower than the average battery drain rate, but technically the pedal power is assisted by the battery.
It’s not really that different to riding a crank speed sensor managed hub motor ebike – take the chain off or just shift into lower gears and turn the pedals over ‘slack chained’ and you still get assistance that will power you along the flat at close to 25kph, since the motor engages when it senses crank rotation.

It refers to heat variation per hour. If a 2000W continuous power motor has the current to it limited so it runs at a stable temp at 250W and no higher W the bike would pass the test.

Yep, that’s where I am.

The question I’m left asking then is why is there a motor power limit at all?  I can only assume that the idea was so that people wouldn’t end up riding around in half ton vehicles that were limited in speed to 15.5 mph and didn’t have a hand throttle.

I’m then left wondering if the input from the manufacturers was to make the power limit continuous rather than peak.

Because at the moment 250 W is a minimum rather than a maximum.  Like I said, if you tried to sell an ebike with a motor that could only do 240W continuous power then it wouldn’t be allowed.  It is not a power limiting regulation and really I can’t see what it is supposed to be limiting.

I don’t think the idea of heavy pedal powered delivery vehicles is bad thing.  The opposite, in fact.

I just think that when people are saying things like this:

Despite concerns that the half-ton, electrically-propelled, articulated vehicle is not a bike, Keith Jones, Cityshuttle’s founder argued: “It’s predominantly a small, articulated truck… it’s got pedals, and it’s got a 250 watt motor. So it’s a bike. And that’s it.”

It’s really starting to stretch the limits of credibility when it comes to the 250W and being disingenuous with the regulations does not help convince anyone.

“if you tried to sell an ebike with a motor that could only do 240W continuous power then it wouldn’t be allowed”

250W CRP is max allowed, not a min or a target?

as long as they stay on roads and not cycle paths

What’s the problem with them being on cycle paths?

What’s the problem with them being on cycle paths? i

Size.

Cycle superhighways are pretty congested but due to the small footprint of a normal two wheeled bike, the different speeds of cycle traffic can pass each other.

They are too big a footprint to fit in many junctions and turnings, they also won’t pass through the anti terrorist measures on bridges or between bollards or restricted width paths.

They’re not a bike :)

250W CRP is max allowed, not a min or a target?

The test is to apply 250w for 30 minutes at which point the temperature must have stabilised. If you tried that test with a motor that was too small it wouldn’t be able disipate the heat quickly enough and the temperature wouldn’t have stabilised.  Which would mean it failed.

The whole idea of limiting the motor power comes from ICEs where the power is limited by the capacity of engine.

With an electric motor the limit comes from the ability of the battery to deliver amps at a given voltage (with the ability of the motor to disapate heat being a secondary consideration).