Is 250w enough power for modest speed up steep hills

[peterb]

Is 250 Watt enough power for a modest speed up steep hills?

Yes.

And, if you have the fortitude to pick through all the posts in this thread, the maths that demonstrates the truth of that is in here.

The “keeping-up on club runs” thing intrigued me. Do not clubs have runs at different speed bands? Ours certainly does, the lowest speed band being 10-12mph, and the highest about 20mph I think (I’m not into group road runs, so don’t pay close attention to that side of things). If so, why not move down a band or two?

It's a very small club and basically 2 groups. Fast, and steady - 12-15 mph. Most steady rides result in an average speed of 13-14mph, depends on route, hills etc. Even if your club group kept to an AVERAGE speed of 10-12mph there will be stretches where the speed is well above that. Cycling clubs in my area are few and far between.

[Nearholmer]

an AVERAGE speed of 10-12mph there will be stretches where the speed is well above that

Only downhill bits where gravity does the work.

I can see that there might not be enough people to run rides that slow in small clubs, but the way the one I belong to got big was exactly by running these rides, which are very accessible to new starters and people whose main focus is the social side. But then, there is a population of about 200k within a <30 minute bike ride of the usual start points, I guess in a very rural area things are different.

[PH]

You really don't get it. Many people are choosing E-bikes for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with their capabilities.

Please list the other reasons.

Cugel

No, I'd be here all night. Why would the list of reasons people choose E-bikes be any shorter or less varied than that for any other mode of transport? Do you apply this capability criteria to them all? maybe you think the thousands making short bus journeys every day are incapable of walking? How do you reconcile this idea with all the youth using E-scooters? Think outside the mindset where cycling means leisure and it's hard to see why someone wouldn't choose assistance,

The "fit cyclist" power benchmark is just a benchmark. Select another if you like. How about using the typical leg power of those who ride bikes to commute, who I regularly see going at 40kph and faster. For confirmation, stand on a London road during the commuting hours.

i don't need to select another benchmark, we already have one, that's where the 25kph cut off comes from. I don't recognise this idea of the norm being 40kph, are they really all that much faster in London, that hasn't seemed the case the few times a year I cross it from station to station. My couple of hundred km a week is usually well under 30, even on the flat, I am frequently overtaken, but not as frequently as I'll overtake others. The CTC groups I've ridden with easily accommodate those on E-bikes, they're not in any way disadvantaged by the assistance cut off.

You seem to be obsessed with dangerous cycling behaviour on shared paths. This is a result of inconsiderate mindsets, not motors. Plenty of non-motored cyclists on shared paths go about idiotically. Personally, I'm pretty much against shared paths for cyclists and pedestrians as they don't really mix well unless all involved are considerate ... which they ain't.
Cugel

Obsessed isn't the word I'd use, but I'm certainly concerned that the speed the majority of users are going at is comparable to those riding without assistance. We're at the start of a transport revolution, E-scooters are probably not the end product, neither do I expect it to be bike shaped. As the popularity of these light personal vehicles increases, so will the facilities to cater for them, not all of which are or will be shared with pedestrians. Speed differential is important, it increases the danger irrespective of the consideration, I want to see all these vehicles restricted to the 25kph of assistance we currently have for E-bikes.

[Carlton green]

Is 250 Watt enough power for a modest speed up steep hills?

Yes.

And, if you have the fortitude to pick through all the posts in this thread, the maths that demonstrates the truth of that is in here.

The “keeping-up on club runs” thing intrigued me. Do not clubs have runs at different speed bands? Ours certainly does, the lowest speed band being 10-12mph, and the highest about 20mph I think (I’m not into group road runs, so don’t pay close attention to that side of things). If so, why not move down a band or two?

It's a very small club and basically 2 groups. Fast, and steady - 12-15 mph. Most steady rides result in an average speed of 13-14mph, depends on route, hills etc. Even if your club group kept to an AVERAGE speed of 10-12mph there will be stretches where the speed is well above that. Cycling clubs in my area are few and far between.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be but I’m surprised that anyone gets dropped off of the back of a group ride and just maybe a word in the ears of club leaders is in order. A well organised run has a sweeper at the back who ensures both that nobody is left behind and that those that fall back, for whatever reason, are supported. A well organised ride stops occasionally such that the group can reform or gather together, and the leader can become aware of where the sweeper is or isn’t.

Yes, I do believe that 250 watts is enough. Well it’s enough if it’s used in the right way and as I understand things that seems to point heavily towards a low geared mid-drive that also makes good use of the bike’s gears.

[Cugel]

in cars. Should we limit the speeds of all cars (which, as you know, are motor-assisted) to 25kph because of the fast fools? I confess, I would quite like to do so.

That's an interesting response following your accusations of whataboutery upthread.

Jonathan

It's a direct transfer of your worry about e-bike motors causing an increase in speed-fools. If your concern about e-bikes is legitimate so is a similar concern about any motorised transport. The comparison, I think, illuminates a tendency to inflate a very small issue about a thing into a major issue, which then drives an excessive and pointless response to the thing.

A similar sort of inflate-the-dangers thinking goes on in the helmet debate. I like to transfer the cycling helmet thinking to other domains, such as going up and down stairs, to illuminate the fact that it's only when cycling that a teeny danger somehow drives an excessive response.

Limiting e-bike max speed; always wearing a cycling helmet - the result of risk-inflation thinking.

We could also explore the risk-deflation syndrome, such as driving about in cars in a careless manner because "accidents happen to other people" or because "I have ABS brakes". There are cycling equivalents, of course. Cycling madly down shared-use paths, for example, even with no e-motor! Now there's a case for limiting speed (of all bikes). How are you going to manage it if you can't just switch of a non-existent e-motor?

Cugel

[Nearholmer]

Of course it’s possible to cycle dangerously on a pushbike on a shared-use path, I’ve probably got carried away and done it myself once in a very blue moon, but the only real problem around here (and thankfully one of limited scope) is over-powered e-bikes, electric mopeds effectively, and I recall c30 years ago a spate of exactly the same problem with petrol mopeds, until the police cracked-down on it.

I think there’s something attractive to a certain irresponsible turn of mind about the whole business of acquiring and then tearing about on over-powered e-bikes. Of course, not all users of such machines fall into that bracket, there’s an old guy locally who uses a plastic-electric Harley-alike as a effectively a mobility scooter, but that doesn’t alter the fact that shared-use paths are for ‘human power emulators’, all it says is that responsible riders run human power emulator software between their ears ……. They don’t use the inherent capability of what they’ve bought, so they don’t need it.

[Biospace]

in cars. Should we limit the speeds of all cars (which, as you know, are motor-assisted) to 25kph because of the fast fools? I confess, I would quite like to do so.

That's an interesting response following your accusations of whataboutery upthread.

Jonathan

It's a direct transfer of your worry about e-bike motors causing an increase in speed-fools. If your concern about e-bikes is legitimate so is a similar concern about any motorised transport. The comparison, I think, illuminates a tendency to inflate a very small issue about a thing into a major issue, which then drives an excessive and pointless response to the thing.

A similar sort of inflate-the-dangers thinking goes on in the helmet debate. I like to transfer the cycling helmet thinking to other domains, such as going up and down stairs, to illuminate the fact that it's only when cycling that a teeny danger somehow drives an excessive response.

Limiting e-bike max speed; always wearing a cycling helmet - the result of risk-inflation thinking.

We could also explore the risk-deflation syndrome, such as driving about in cars in a careless manner because "accidents happen to other people" or because "I have ABS brakes". There are cycling equivalents, of course. Cycling madly down shared-use paths, for example, even with no e-motor! Now there's a case for limiting speed (of all bikes). How are you going to manage it if you can't just switch of a non-existent e-motor?

Cugel

I tend to agreement with your "inflate the danger" response, but there is some psychological change for some when powered along quickly by a seemingly tireless source, as we see in the belligerence and risk-taking of some motorists who, out of their car, may be very meek and mild people. Perhaps it's the belief there's a guaranteed escape away from the scene without detection which brings out a certain sort of mindset which was once more common in motorists when roads were less clogged and the chance of someone recording them on movie film or video was nearly zero?

"The strange emotional transformation that takes place behind the wheel, which may turn a usually serene person into an aggressive monster" is an excerpt of someone's review of this book analysing the psychology surrounding motor cars.

Perhaps headcam footage and the prosecution of illegal activity will vastly reduce the reportedly large amount of antisocial behaviour on powerful, unregistered e-bikes which we hear about.

[jois]

That's an interesting response following your accusations of whataboutery upthread.

Jonathan

It's a direct transfer of your worry about e-bike motors causing an increase in speed-fools. If your concern about e-bikes is legitimate so is a similar concern about any motorised transport. The comparison, I think, illuminates a tendency to inflate a very small issue about a thing into a major issue, which then drives an excessive and pointless response to the thing.

A similar sort of inflate-the-dangers thinking goes on in the helmet debate. I like to transfer the cycling helmet thinking to other domains, such as going up and down stairs, to illuminate the fact that it's only when cycling that a teeny danger somehow drives an excessive response.

Limiting e-bike max speed; always wearing a cycling helmet - the result of risk-inflation thinking.

We could also explore the risk-deflation syndrome, such as driving about in cars in a careless manner because "accidents happen to other people" or because "I have ABS brakes". There are cycling equivalents, of course. Cycling madly down shared-use paths, for example, even with no e-motor! Now there's a case for limiting speed (of all bikes). How are you going to manage it if you can't just switch of a non-existent e-motor?

Cugel

I tend to agreement with your "inflate the danger" response, but there is some psychological change for some when powered along quickly by a seemingly tireless source, as we see in the belligerence and risk-taking of some motorists who, out of their car, may be very meek and mild people. Perhaps it's the belief there's a guaranteed escape away from the scene without detection which brings out a certain sort of mindset which was once more common in motorists when roads were less clogged and the chance of someone recording them on movie film or video was nearly zero?

"The strange emotional transformation that takes place behind the wheel, which may turn a usually serene person into an aggressive monster" is an excerpt of someone's review of this book analysing the psychology surrounding motor cars.

Perhaps headcam footage and the prosecution of illegal activity will vastly reduce the reportedly large amount of antisocial behaviour on powerful, unregistered e-bikes which we hear about.

I think prosicutions would definetly help. The problem is it's unlikely to happen in anywhere near sufficient numbers for the miscreants in question to consider it to risky to undertake.

The local youths variously Wiz the round the street, the park the shopping precinct, everywhere on all manner of motorised " cycles " with seemingly no fear at all of being apprehended with no more protection than a ski mask

The police are not going to chase them. No helmet. If they did chase them it would need to be by bike they would need to do so till they ran out of fuel or get the helicopter out.

If they make it all the way home. There is little the police can do. They cant Id the rider , and they cant grab the bike if they get it into their house.

All the above is why it's been effectively decriminalised

[Jdsk]

Obsessed isn't the word I'd use, but I'm certainly concerned that the speed the majority of users are going at is comparable to those riding without assistance. We're at the start of a transport revolution, E-scooters are probably not the end product, neither do I expect it to be bike shaped. As the popularity of these light personal vehicles increases, so will the facilities to cater for them, not all of which are or will be shared with pedestrians. Speed differential is important, it increases the danger irrespective of the consideration, I want to see all these vehicles restricted to the 25kph of assistance we currently have for E-bikes.

That sounds right to me.

I mentioned above how limits can look arbitrary but still be appropriate. Simplicity and consistency are both desirable. This would provide those.

Jonathan

[Cugel]

Obsessed isn't the word I'd use, but I'm certainly concerned that the speed the majority of users are going at is comparable to those riding without assistance. We're at the start of a transport revolution, E-scooters are probably not the end product, neither do I expect it to be bike shaped. As the popularity of these light personal vehicles increases, so will the facilities to cater for them, not all of which are or will be shared with pedestrians. Speed differential is important, it increases the danger irrespective of the consideration, I want to see all these vehicles restricted to the 25kph of assistance we currently have for E-bikes.

That sounds right to me.

I mentioned above how limits can look arbitrary but still be appropriate. Simplicity and consistency are both desirable. This would provide those.

Jonathan

But if you're going to limit e-bikes to those speeds why don't you want non e-bikes similarly limited when the leg power of the rider is sufficient to propel them faster than 25kph? Surely its illogical to limit e-bike assistance speed if not non e-bike leg-driven speed? I find it hard to understand why you feel limiting the speed at which assistance is given is less dangerous than limiting the total power instead.

If my proposal is to limit e-bike power to that which brings the total power (leg + motor) at the wheel to 250 watts and no more, surely that's a sufficient limitation to ensure that e-bikes don't introduce speed-dangers that non e-bikes don't suffer from? It's a greater power limitation than that currently allowed. Why is a 25kph assistance limit regarded as some sort of safety enhancer when the e-bike (as well as the non e-bike) can still be propelled by the rider up to any speed he or she can manage?

What is the metric-informed logic around this 25kph limit that results in the opinion, "That sound right to me"?

Cugel

[jois]

Obsessed isn't the word I'd use, but I'm certainly concerned that the speed the majority of users are going at is comparable to those riding without assistance. We're at the start of a transport revolution, E-scooters are probably not the end product, neither do I expect it to be bike shaped. As the popularity of these light personal vehicles increases, so will the facilities to cater for them, not all of which are or will be shared with pedestrians. Speed differential is important, it increases the danger irrespective of the consideration, I want to see all these vehicles restricted to the 25kph of assistance we currently have for E-bikes.

That sounds right to me.

I mentioned above how limits can look arbitrary but still be appropriate. Simplicity and consistency are both desirable. This would provide those.

Jonathan

But if you're going to limit e-bikes to those speeds why don't you want non e-bikes similarly limited when the leg power of the rider is sufficient to propel them faster than 25kph? Surely its illogical to limit e-bike assistance speed if not non e-bike leg-driven speed? I find it hard to understand why you feel limiting the speed at which assistance is given is less dangerous than limiting the total power instead.

If my proposal is to limit e-bike power to that which brings the total power (leg + motor) at the wheel to 250 watts and no more, surely that's a sufficient limitation to ensure that e-bikes don't introduce speed-dangers that non e-bikes don't suffer from? It's a greater power limitation than that currently allowed. Why is a 25kph assistance limit regarded as some sort of safety enhancer when the e-bike (as well as the non e-bike) can still be propelled by the rider up to any speed he or she can manage?

What is the metric-informed logic around this 25kph limit that results in the opinion, "That sound right to me"?

Cugel

To be fair ebike speed isn't limited to 25 kph by the law of the land. Just generally by the laws of physics for which you can't really hold the government responsible

[Jdsk]

But if you're going to limit e-bikes to those speeds why don't you want non e-bikes similarly limited when the leg power of the rider is sufficient to propel them faster than 25kph? Surely its illogical to limit e-bike assistance speed if not non e-bike leg-driven speed? I find it hard to understand why you feel limiting the speed at which assistance is given is less dangerous than limiting the total power instead.
...

It's not a matter of what I want. It's a matter of what is achievable. The real world is like that.

One of the relevant questions, as discussed above, is how many devices will be travelling faster in shared use spaces. I want and expect to see a lot of eBikes I(and other powered devices) and if they aren't speed limited I expect that there will be a lot more conflict and "accidents". This is the question that I asked you upthread: what affect will speed limitation have on the number travelling fast in this setting?

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

I find it hard to understand why you feel limiting the speed at which assistance is given is less dangerous than limiting the total power instead.

In shared use spaces it's the actual speed that affects other people, not the total power.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

What is the metric-informed logic around this 25kph limit that results in the opinion, "That sound (sic) right to me"?

My comment was as much about a single limit covering all devices as about 25 kph.

Unfortunately the answer is only personal experience and observation of what happens in shared use spaces. And it being the current (!) limit.

As above, if better data become available than I'd happily change my mind. Are there any reports or studies that I've missed?

Jonathan

[peterb]

[

To be fair ebike speed isn't limited to 25 kph by the law of the land. Just generally by the laws of physics for which you can't really hold the government responsible

I assume you mean assisted speed? Limited by the laws of physics? How is it my Orbea Gain has an assisted limit in the UK of 15.5mph, yet exactly the same model of bike in the US has an assisted speed limit of 20mph?