Transcontinental travel and incredible numbers of e-bikes

[Jon in Sweden]

I apologise if that came across somewhat arrogantly. That wasn't the intention at all. I just ride with guys that are faster than me and I'm only a year back in the saddle after 15 years off.

What I very inelegantly was trying to say was that I think many people underestimate their own ability and that just because an electrically assisted bike is available, that perhaps it ought not to be the default choice?

Perhaps my perspective is a little warped though. I'm doing Vätternrundan (315km around Lake Vättern) in June with a very fit 64 yr old friend and he's expecting to complete it in 10-12hrs. It's easy to forget that not everyone enjoys the pain of lactate threshold!

Once again, it wasn't my intention to come across as elitist. I just worded it rather poorly. Sorry!

[PH]

The rough calculators suggest 25kph in benign conditions requires about 200 Watts (90kg rider, 20kg bike and kit)

200W sounds like a high figure for flat and smooth ground, with no headwind.

I came up with roughly 100W for 25km/h for me and my bike (77kg+15kg) on slick tyres, riding on the hoods, and that feels instinctively right.

I called them rough calculators with good reason! Here's the one I use:
http://bikecalculator.com/
90kg + 20kg, that's a fully clothed cyclist and a bike with a bit of kit.
25kph
5kph headwind, because there's rarely zero
On the hoods, because that's the closest to a hybrid flat bar position, though still possibly a bit lower.

160W with clinchers 210W with MTB tyres, touring/hybrid tyres are likely to be somewhere between.

[mjr]

My wife was wondering if their increasing popularity with younger folk fits in with wanting to appear eco-friendly but not crack too much of a sweat?

Or maybe they just want to be (rather than merely appear) eco-friendly. As you know, e-bikes are generally more eco-friendly than having to eat extra food to power a pedal-only bike further, because renewable energy production is more eco-friendly than most food production.

[PH]

What I very inelegantly was trying to say was that I think many people underestimate their own ability and that just because an electrically assisted bike is available, that perhaps it ought not to be the default choice?

Who says it is the default? It's what a lot of people are choosing, we don't know why they've made that choice, neither should they be expected to justify it to anyone else.

It's easy to forget that not everyone enjoys the pain of lactate threshold!

I'd suggest most people who cycle neither know or care what that is.

[Jon in Sweden]

I'd suggest most people who cycle neither know or care what that is.

It's maybe a pitfall of existing within the Strava bubble. You're generally only interacting with a certain niche within cycling.

I noticed you are from Derby. My hometown. I raced for Derby Mercury as a kid and now have a Mercian that I ride regularly over here in Sweden.

[Nearholmer]

160W with clinchers 210W with MTB tyres

I was using slick tyres and no wind at all (which I thought was the basis of this debate) which together make a lot of difference, much more so than the bike and rider weights

If you put in figures for real world wind, hills etc, it quickly becomes clear why only “trained” cyclists can maintain a 25km/h average ….. it needs considerable power! (The sort of power one gets from e-assist, interestingly)

An often overlooked factor in this tends to be how power naturally declines with age, which is easily visible as declining maximum heart rate. Even people who manage to maintain super fitness will experience this, although of course their heart rate and power are declining from much higher levels than ordinarily fit people, let alone people who are a bit unfit.

[Jon in Sweden]

160W with clinchers 210W with MTB tyres

I was using slick tyres and no wind at all (which I thought was the basis of this debate) which together make a lot of difference, much more so than the bike and rider weights

If you put in figures for real world wind, hills etc, it quickly becomes clear why only “trained” cyclists can maintain a 25km/h average ….. it needs considerable power! (The sort of power one gets from e-assist, interestingly)

An often overlooked factor in this tends to be how power naturally declines with age, which is easily visible as declining maximum heart rate. Even people who manage to maintain super fitness will experience this, although of course their heart rate and power are declining from much higher levels than ordinarily fit people, let alone people who are a bit unfit.

Cycle wattage calculator puts 25kph on the flat with no wind at 110w for me (I'm 104kg, 12kg bike). For reference, 34kph is about my maximum sustainable speed (for any distance) and that's 230w.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/sports/cycling-wattage

[rfryer]

For a real world number, I did a 20 mile ride on Monday with 1600ft climbing, 25km/h average speed, and averaged somewhere in the region of 157W to 166W (depending on how you choose to calculate it).

I'm 75kg, on a light non-aero road bike with power meter pedals, adopting aero positioning where I can.

[francovendee]

Having recently bought an ebike I have to say it transforms my cycling.
Yes I like it a lot but I can see it could be addictive, so much easier than a non-powered bike.
I'm only 80 so I tend to limit my use of it as I know my fitness level would reduce if I used it exclusively.
I agree that looking at someone on an ebike it's impossible to tell the state of their health but if everyone on an ebike has health issues then we are quite a sick species.

[Jon in Sweden]

For a real world number, I did a 20 mile ride on Monday with 1600ft climbing, 25km/h average speed, and averaged somewhere in the region of 157W to 166W (depending on how you choose to calculate it).

I'm 75kg, on a light non-aero road bike with power meter pedals, adopting aero positioning where I can.

Useful to know, thank you. That's a fairly hilly ride there, which explains the higher power numbers.

I wish I had a power meter, but I've got 6 bikes that I ride regularly (road summer, road winter, gravel, commuting/mixed road and gravel, MTB and town bike) and the idea of switching the pedals around each time I want to ride something different irks me! Plus, the expense.

Strava has estimated some of my rides in the high two hundreds, but that's largely down to me size. My watts per kilo figure is modest.

Having recently bought an ebike I have to say it transforms my cycling.
Yes I like it a lot but I can see it could be addictive, so much easier than a non-powered bike.
I'm only 80 so I tend to limit my use of it as I know my fitness level would reduce if I used it exclusively.
I agree that looking at someone on an ebike it's impossible to tell the state of their health but if everyone on an ebike has health issues then we are quite a sick species.

Kudos on your self restraint regarding using the assistance! It's hard not to sound patronising, but you're precisely the sort of person that should be considering an e-bike. Clearly very fit and well, but recognising that you're 80. I've tried to convince my 73 year old father to consider an e-bike (lifelong recreational cyclist) but he's really snobby about it and won't consider one.

I know obviously that you can't tell what a person's personal health issues are by simply looking at them, but the original point to this topic was that I was amazed just how many e-bikes are out there. As 80% or so of all the bikes I saw on cars were e-bikes it can't mean that 80% have health issues, surely?

[mjr]

As I posted earlier, maybe some just want a general more eco friendly option while they're wherever they're going. More eco than a car and even than a pedal-only bike.

[mattheus]

As 80% or so of all the bikes I saw on cars were e-bikes it can't mean that 80% have health issues, surely?

Blimey.

You don't give up, do you??

[PH]

160W with clinchers 210W with MTB tyres

I was using slick tyres and no wind at all (which I thought was the basis of this debate) which together make a lot of difference, much more so than the bike and rider weights

OK, I'll leave it at this - I think if those whose E-bikes are being noted on the back of cars were to swap them for non assisted bikes, it's unlikely they would be lightweight, slick tyre, road bikes. Whatever the wattage, the idea that most of these people could cycle on the flat at 25kph without breaking a sweat is false.

[Jon in Sweden]

As 80% or so of all the bikes I saw on cars were e-bikes it can't mean that 80% have health issues, surely?

Blimey.

You don't give up, do you??

Haha!

It's just a bit of a culture shock, is all. I did all my childhood cycling from 1997 to about 2000, and then a bit more up to about 2006. Then didn't touch a bike for 16 year. In that time, e-bikes seem to have become the dominant bike amongst leisure cyclists. I'm not sure I'm fully caught up yet!

[MelW]

We've just returned from a week in the UK and in doing so, drove 1100 miles in each direction to get from Sweden to England. Passing through Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium and France.

What was utterly remarkable (to me) is the sheer number of e-bikes strapped the backs of cars. I would say that at least 75% of all bikes being transported were e-bikes. I honestly hadn't realised just how popular they had become.

What I found all the more odd was that many of the people in the cars with e-bikes looked like they honestly would have been fine with a normal bikes. 20s, 30s, 40s, not overweight and driving through one of the flattest parts of Europe.

I fully support the use of e-bikes for those recovering from injury, of advancing years, transporting cargo (such as kids!) or those that live in very hilly areas. And a pethora of other reasons too.

I just don't understand though why they'd be so popular amongst young, seemingly able bodied people for cycling around flat places.

If nothing else, the cost difference would be sufficient to put me off!!

But then I was riding with a friend on Exmoor last week and I expressed that I'd quite happily do the opposite of downhilling. I love climbing, but hate descending, so would be delighted to get a lift to the bottom of the hill to go climb it again. I accept that I'm a little odd!

The sad fact is that many of those who own or ride an Ebike don't give a stuff about the damage that mining for the lithium or nickel does to the planet to make the batteries and motors that power their Ebikes, the harm that the mining industry causes to indigenous local communities or indeed the fact that most electricity is generated from fossil fuels. It doesn't surprise me that most are seen on the back of camper vans or large SUVs clearly fashion items or toys to be enjoyed at weekends or on holidays. The very same people who would think "Nah, I'll drive 1 mile to Tescos rather than walk or cycle."

Traditional cycling has not only been about the sense of achievement having powered yourself on your bike with all your own effort to get to A to B, but the knowledge that it was and still is a means of transport having an extremely low environmental impact. Sadly Ebikes and the mentality of those that ride or own them do not share this approach. They have totally corrupted traditional cycling from what it used to be for their own agenda. These people could have been prudent and made wise transport choices, they could have bought proper bicycles where you have to pedal all for yourself with no dirty great batteries or motors attached or built into a bike, but they didn't. They just don't want to put the effort in. Ebikes will be the next environmental disaster when their batteries and or motors are dead and the bikes are dumped causing even more environmental pollution. Sad.