You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Is this anti-tamper stuff actually being pushed by legislators or is it being used as an excuse by manufacturers. It seems to me it would be fairly easy to argue against given the only limitations on cars is an agreement by the driver not to use the loud pedal.
its a requirement of the law that in order to be classed as a pedelec and thus be used wherever push bikes can be used that the motor needs to stop assisting at a certain speed (about 15.5mph in uk, ~20mph in the US and some other locations), theres a load more other requirements in addition to the motor assist speed limit too ,such as the nominal 250w power output, the requirement that the rider has to pedal make the motor give assist etc etc - the law is quite technical.
SO the comparison with cars is not (yet) valid, as there is no legal requirement on manufacturers to prevent cars exceeding the speed limit .The time will come when cars ARE legally required to not exceed the speed limit on any given road though, and then I suspect the manufacturers of car will implement some kind of anti tamper system.
Also remember that whilst most people refer to an ebike speed limit, its not an actual outright limit on how fast the bike can go, it is just a limit on how fast it can go with the motor assisting, you can go as fast as you can pedal .
SO the comparison with cars is not (yet) valid, as there is no legal requirement on manufacturers to prevent cars exceeding the speed limit .
Yeah, but that's not what we are talking about.
Manufacturers are implying that they have to fit anti-tamper features because they are under pressure from legislators. My question is, are they?
Just because it is possible, with a deliberate action (ie, you can't do it accidently), to modify the product to make it illegal, is it up to the manufacturer to make sure the owner can't do that?
Car and motorbike manufacturers are not under pressure to add features to make sure the user cannot use the vehicle in an illegal way. In fact, the user has the option to use the vehicle illegally without so much as an automatic warning.
Manufacturers are implying that they have to fit anti-tamper features because they are under pressure from legislators. My question is, are they?
Manufacturers will be well aware that if they don’t prevent tampering, then the regulators will reclassify e-bikes as motorbikes, and then the party is over. Requiring a license and insurance would stop sales of most e-bikes overnight.
Yeah, but that’s not what we are talking about.
Manufacturers are implying that they have to fit anti-tamper features because they are under pressure from legislators. My question is, are they?
as per bensales - its in their commercial interest that they make it hard for people to derestrict.
Manufacturers will be well aware that if they don’t prevent tampering, then the regulators will reclassify e-bikes as motorbikes, and then the party is over.
I don't think that's true. I don't see any government that's just aching to ban ebikes. Quite the opposite actually.
De-restricting your ebike isn't something you can do accidently. It takes a deliberate act by the user to do it.
No other product is under pressure to put safeguards in place to stop the user from deliberately using the product illegally. At least, not that I can think of off the top of my head.
I think it's the manufacturers trying to actively work against the right to repair.
No other product is under pressure to put safeguards in place to stop the user from deliberately using the product illegally. At least, not that I can think of off the top of my head.
Speed limiters became mandatory on all new cars in the U.K. as of July 2022. At present the driver can switch the system off but potential that will change in the future. Next key date is 2025 where data from current use will be assessed.
I don’t see any government that’s just aching to ban ebikes
they wont ban ebikes as a whole, the regulatory framework that allows a bike with a motor to be used as if it were a pushbike will still exist, but they could (I think) argue that for example, the shimano e8000 does not apply the motor assist cutoff robustly enough and therefore bikes with that motor (sold from this point on) are no longer classed as pedelecs, but classed as mopeds/motorbikes and therefore need to comply with the law applicable to those types of vehicles.
Do you have any evidence that legislators are pressuring manufacturers to fit anti-tamper measures because all this sounds like conjecture?
People buying and using ebikes make a lot of sense to most governments (at least those not embroiled in bitter culture wars). The buying of ebikes is good for the economy and the using of ebikes is good for the general health of society. While there has been an increase in accidents in places like the Netherlands (with legal ebikes) there's no evidence that the health benefits of general use doesn't outweigh the injuries due to accidents.
Unless you can provide evidence governments are pushing anti-tamper features, it seems much more likely to me that this is just manufacturers trying to discourage repair and encourage replace for obvious reasons.
BruceWee
Manufacturers are implying that they have to fit anti-tamper features because they are under pressure from legislators. My question is, are they?
The rest of what they are saying ^^^ are lies so I assume they are lying.
Rather the opposite seems true that they are the ones pushing for legislation that allows them to bypass Right to Repair and locking to their systems.
This is a bit like printer manufacturers claiming they need to prevent 3rd party inks being used in case someone prints illegal material and to some extents its copying the model except printers are subsidised (probably) by essentially locking you into the ink.
It's a lot like printers because the motors are designed to fail and be non maintainable and repairable and this suits them just fine.
As 3rd parties develop repair solutions the motor manufacturers are going to be able claim this bypasses their security and could mean someone has the potential to break the law (even if they don't).
I just find it ironic that cars are sold with the ability to break any speed limit, often multiple times over, and the only speed restriction* is a solemn promise by the driver not to.
Removing the voluntary (250kph) speed limiter isn't illegal... or difficult. Insurance is going to be sky high and unless you are racing on tracks it's pointless IMHO. (I'd say even on the autobahn) however many cars are protected because they are sold with optional extras fitted but locked out.
Do you have any evidence that legislators are pressuring manufacturers to fit anti-tamper measures because all this sounds like conjecture?
Yes, they are. Ability to adjust the output over the limits is a type approval fail and the gist of that will cover most adjustments made to the firmware that controls speed and power.
No other product is under pressure to put safeguards in place to stop the user from deliberately using the product illegally. At least, not that I can think of off the top of my head.
I think it’s the manufacturers trying to actively work against the right to repair.
Really, it's not. Products that go on public roads have stringent regulation and e-bikes classification as 'a bike' ie can go where a bike can go is something that the govt and industry are working to protect. The UK bike industry body is signed up to a plan to monitor tampering ease and basically be responsible for themselves. Surons don't help our cause and neither do bikes that are converted easily into a suron-alike. There's also govt legislation coming in that covers vehicle tampering generally, this is all the way it's going.
The industry does have a responsibility to make sure a product that is tested to one class of vehicle (epac 250W) isn't easily adapted to another class that it's not tested to. That's probably about consumer safety and product liability as anything regulatory. Some e-bikes have been sold with wink-nudge mentions of upgrade software etc and they've been pulled up on it.
It's no conspiracy to prevent repair but it may make repair harder and I 100% agree that e-bike components need to be more serviceable. There's a law in France on repairability and I hope e-bikes are brought into it (not currently) and it's adopted here. It's an evolving market that's for sure.
Surely it's possible to make ebikes more secure AND serviceable. They could encrypt data sent by the sensors, and compare cadence to measured speed to check if it's a "possible" gear ratio to prevent some hardware derestriction with planetary geared magnets, but also sell spare parts, electronic boards, clutches, gears and bearings etc.
I think the emtb market may be in for a rough ride soon. Lots of people who've taken up the hobby have not worried about motor/battery replacement or servicing cost as they've sold on the bike within 2 years at inflated post-COVID prices. Well all thats ending now. There are loads of emtbs up for sale for too much money 2nd hand and they just aren't selling.
The industry does have a responsibility to make sure a product that is tested to one class of vehicle (epac 250W) isn’t easily adapted to another class that it’s not tested to. That’s probably about consumer safety and product liability as anything regulatory. Some e-bikes have been sold with wink-nudge mentions of upgrade software etc and they’ve been pulled up on it.
The low hanging fruit there is to set a maximum wattage and/or a maximum torque. The current regulations regarding 250W continuous power are ridiculous because Continuous Power is a minimum power measurement (ie, a motor rated for 250W continuous power should be able to run forever without overheating).
On the one hand manufacturers are fitting anti-tamper measures (that also happen to get around Right to Repair) and on the other hand they are producing motors with peak torque way beyond 250W (I've heard some 'legal' motors pump out 750W peak torque).
Are legislators really so stupid that after 15+ years of ebikes they still haven't figured out what Continuous Power means or are manufacturers taking the piss in order to line their own pockets?
Are legislators really so stupid that after 15+ years of ebikes they still haven’t figured out what Continuous Power means or are manufacturers taking the piss in order to line their own pockets?
its not a continuous rated power , its a maximum continuous rated power, and I'm sure the legislators know exactly what it means and what the implications are for max power, which is why they've set it as they have.
its not a continuous rated power , its a maximum continuous rated power, and I’m sure the legislators know exactly what it means and what the implications are for max power, which is why they’ve set it as they have.
OK, so what does Maximum Continuous Power mean?
The link you posted doesn't define it. Every definition I've ever seen says it is the maximum power that can be delivered continuously, ie, it is a rating put on the equipment to ensure the reliability of the equipment.
In order to reduce the Maximum Continuous Power of an engine, you put a sticker on it giving a reduced Maximum Continuous Power.
If you want to increase the Maximum Continuous Power (assuming you haven't put an overly-aggressive safety margin in the first place), then you have to redesign the engine.
It is meaningless when it comes to limiting the power of an engine. Limiting the power of an engine is done by limiting the Peak Power.
Surely it’s possible to make ebikes more secure AND serviceable
I'm sure it is. It might need licensed diagnostics access etc. Not sure, electronics isn't my area.
OK, so what does Maximum Continuous Power mean?
It's a testing term. The max power output while the motor doesn't change load/heat characteristics over a set time, ie a stable max power rather than peak power.
It’s a testing term. The max power output while the motor doesn’t change load/heat characteristics over a set time, ie a stable max power rather than peak power.
Yes, I added a bit more in an edit.
It is a minimum, not a maximum, measurement and meaningless for limiting the power output of a motor.
OK, so what does Maximum Continuous Power mean?
https://ebiketips.road.cc/content/advice/advice/electric-bikes-and-uk-law-53#:~:text=I t's%20defined%20as%20%E2%80%9C'maximum%20continuous,that's%20above%20that%20250W%20ceiling.
see about about half way down this page.
more info here
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/maximum-continuous-rating
see about about half way down this page.
Your link just says what I've been saying.
Your e-bike must have a motor with a continuous rated power of no more than 250W. “Continuous rated power” is a phrase that gives manufacturers of drivetrain systems a bit of wriggle room in terms of how much assistance a motor will give in high-output mode as you dash away from the lights. It’s defined as “‘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”, in case you’re interested. Many setups will have a peak power output that’s above that 250W ceiling
UNECE regulation No 85 just means that after half an hour of running at 250W the motor temperature has stabilised.
A motor could have a Maximum Continuous Power rating of 3000W and it would still have a Maximum Continuous Power Rating of 250W.
If, on the other hand, the motor had a Continuous Maximum Power rating of 150W, after half an hour of running it at 250W the motor temperature would still be climbing or the motor would have melted.
It's a minimum power measurement.
You seem to be miffed @Brucewee that manufacturers are taking weak attempts to stop people derestricting ebike motors - and you are using the carnage and death that is cars to 'justify' your argument.
Frankly, if people derestrict their ebike motors they should be shot.
In the face.
🙂
jameso
Yes, they are. Ability to fit dongles etc is a type approval fail and the gist of that will cover most adjustments made to the firmware that controls speed and power.
Who proposed and wrote that ? ... A self appointed group given the ability to propose their own legislation and control the market.
Given the rest of lies they are spouting ^^ why would I believe them?
To pick an example: Claus Fleischer, Managing Director of Bosch eBike Systems and the above lies written in his name.
This is classic FUD...
There is a huge if subtle difference between pushing for and being pushed.
Whereas I am sure there are those who want to see eBikes limited/controlled etc. in governments there are others who want to encourage greener transport/health etc.. it's not "EVERYONE in government is more worried about e-Bikes going faster than Putin/COL crisis" rather CONEBI et al. have seized one narrative and are running with it.
Somehow people managed to get illegal e-scooters made legal if rented from an "approved" company. I think we all know how you get approved company status from the PPI fiasco.
That’s probably about consumer safety and product liability as anything regulatory.
So the same bike is "safe" in the US and other places but not EU/UK?
What next ... mandatory braking if we exceed 25kph going down a hill?
Do you really believe that why Shimano removed the ability to read battery health from the consumer or perhaps it was because their batteries were failing and consumers could claim? Do you think reading battery health using a 3rd party app (as it's been removed) is grounds to void the motor warranty with no proof anything was actually altered, merely a possibility it could have been?
It’s no conspiracy to prevent repair but it may make repair harder and I 100% agree that e-bike components need to be more serviceable.
Companies lobbying and forming cartels is not a conspiracy, it is what they do to maximise profits.
You seem to be miffed @Brucewee that manufacturers are taking weak attempts to stop people derestricting ebike motors – and you are using the carnage and death that is cars to ‘justify’ your argument.
Frankly, if people derestrict their ebike motors they should be shot.
No, read again.
Manufacturers are trying to get around Right to Repair in the name of preventing de-restricting their ebikes.
They are creating an issue where none exists in order to prevent people repairing their equipment and forcing them to buy new instead. That is what I am miffed about.
I don't believe just because it's possible to de-restrict an ebike people should any more than just because it is possible to break the speed limit in a car I think people should any more than just because it is possible to stab someone with a kitchen knife I think people people should.
It’s a minimum power measurement.
Its not, its a maximum - hence the word maximum in the definition. you need to also consider the timescale in the definition - I think its 30 minutes for an ebike motor.
to determine the max continuous power of an ebike motor , You keep increasing the power of a motor until it can longer sustain that power for 30 minutes without overheating/burning out/failing in some way/breaching other defined limits etc. SO an ebike motor is only allowed to produce a max of 250w continuously, if you ask it to output more than that it can do , but not for 30 minutes, maybe it can only produce 750w safely for 10 minutes before it risks failing.
A motor could have a Maximum Continuous Power rating of 3000W and it would still have a Maximum Continuous Power Rating of 250W.
it cant be both - in the above example the max continuous power rating will be 3000w.
If, on the other hand, the motor had a Continuous Maximum Power rating of 150W, after half an hour of running it at 250W the motor temperature would still be climbing or the motor would have melted.
correct if you have a motor with an MCR of 150w for 30 minutes , and you tell it to output 250w it wont be able to sustain this output for 30minutes safely, it might well deliver that power for 10 mins no problem, but if you asked it to deliver that power for 30 mins you would be shortening its life, exceed temperature thresholds etc
it cant be both – in the above example the max continuous power rating will be 3000w.
Nope, because if they tested a 3kW for Maximum Continuous Power at 250W it's temperature would be stable after 30 minutes and therefore it would have passed the test and the manufacturer could put a sticker on it saying 'Maximum Continuous Power - 250W'.
They could also, if they wanted, test at 3kW and if the temperature was stable after 30 minutes they could put a sticker on it saying, 'Maximum Continuous Power - 3000W'.
They don't run the motors at 251W and check that the temperature is still climbing after 30 minutes.
It's quite smart, really. Manufacturers can sell the exact same motor to different markets with different regulations and the only hardware they have to change is a sticker.
Nope, because if they tested a 3kW for Maximum Continuous Power at 250W it’s temperature would be stable after 30 minutes and therefore it would have passed the test and the manufacturer could put a sticker on it saying ‘Maximum Continuous Power – 250W’.
no, the test is to destruction/exceeding safe limits, so you cant just put a MCR for 30 mins of 3000w motor in a bike but only test it up to 250w and say its good, the test involves proving that it starts to 'fail' at powers over the 250w max.
edit : as an aside I can feel my bosch cx gen4 motor reducing power if I go up an especially steep hill, as if at the start its giving me say 600w, but then after a couple of mins, the power starts to reduce.
no, the test is to destruction/exceeding safe limits, so you cant just put a MCR for 30 mins of 3000w motor in a bike but only test it up to 250w and say its good, the test involves proving that it starts to ‘fail’ at powers over the 250w max.
You'll have to provide a link that says that, I'm afraid, otherwise I'm calling bullshit.
I'm honestly half expecting someone to prove me wrong one day because I'm struggling to believe that manufacturers have been able to get away with this bullshit for so long.
Ebike motors are covered by EN15194-2017 which handily can be found here:
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.
So then we go to EN 60034-1:
and section 4.2.1
Duty type S1 - Continuous running duty
Operation at a constant load maintained for sufficient time to allow the machine to reach thermal equilibrium
Nowhere in any regulation I've found says anything about running the motor above 250W to ensure it fails or that the temperature doesn't stabilise.
I think you're just going to have to accept that ebike motor manufacturers have been lying to us / not telling us the whole truth and legislators are too stupid and/or corrupt to do anything about it.
BruceWee
Manufacturers are trying to get around Right to Repair in the name of preventing de-restricting their ebikes.
They are creating an issue where none exists in order to prevent people repairing their equipment and forcing them to buy new instead. That is what I am miffed about.
Sort of.. they are certainly following the FUD playbook. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt)
I'm sure there are SOME people in governments want to ban/restrict eBikes... but there are others want to promote them and the vast majority are more worried about more important things.
CONEBI etc. have picked a model and are lobbying for their model.
Meanwhile illegal e-scooters are OK if you rent them from a government approved company.
Even then there are councils want to encourage them (and encourage police not to take action if being used responsibly) and others who outright want to have them seized and destroyed.
I've just found a battery for my Kenevo at Certini for £599, rather than the £840 that Spesh charge, so ordered one as a back up and range extender
Who proposed and wrote that ? … A self appointed group given the ability to propose their own legislation and control the market.
I edited my post so it wasn't about dongles, more about mods generally, but anyway - who said it? The government / Department for Transport.
There's a regulatory review on vehicle standards happening and e-bikes come under that as does any other road going vehicle.
You realise that a lot of things that affect bikes come from them being on the roads with trucks etc? This isn't some conspiracy theory by The Bike Industry. If you want to rail against something and look for conspiracies and all that, ask why cars are limited by user action enforcement and e-bikes have the product limited. Look into the petrochemical and automotive industries influences, follow the money. It'll keep you going for a while I reckon.
It is a minimum, not a maximum, measurement and meaningless for limiting the power output of a motor.
Are legislators really so stupid that after 15+ years of ebikes they still haven’t figured out what Continuous Power means or are manufacturers taking the piss in order to line their own pockets?
Continuous Rated Power is a maximum of sorts, the max continual output. The speed limiter (the electronics that can get hacked) takes care of the rest. Doesn't matter if you have 1000W, if you're not on a steep hill it'll cut off at 25kph just as a 300W motor will. As gradient increases the more power you need to hit 25kph. Power is work over time, you can have a peak output of >750W but the motor won't produce that continually. Epacs are limited by speed and continual power, not short-term power that accelerates you or drives a heavily loaded cargo bike up a hill.
So the same bike is “safe” in the US and other places but not EU/UK?
What I meant by consumer safety was that if you test and approve an epac within the EU+UK standards while knowingly making it possible to hit 50kph, but you've not had it tested as an electric motorbike, the product is no longer within tested and approved parameters and not known to be safe.
Nothing to do with national limits, all to do with what was the product tested for and approved for and what use it sees.
It’s quite smart, really. Manufacturers can sell the exact same motor to different markets with different regulations and the only hardware they have to change is a sticker.
You're almost right but the controller electronics also change. There are loads of EU epac e-bikes with 36V system 250W motors that can operate at 350W with a 48V system. The motor itself isn't the crucial part because the controller electronics manages power level from battery to the motor.
Hence the controller being the bit that's closed and the whole system being like car diagnostics or in the case of cheap bikes that don't use a full Bosch/Shimano/Bafang etc system, a box of electrics that someone who knows what they're doing can play with and may get a working 40kph bike from. Or a smoking motor or burned out battery.
Repair vs replace is a separate thing but your call on whether you go with the dark industry theories on all that. Government and EU regs say what's what there in many areas on repair and recycle or disposal costs that are largely with importers, or where they don't already for e-bikes they will do fairly soon.
You’re almost right but the controller electronics also change. There are loads of EU epac e-bikes with 36V system 250W motors that can operate at 350W with a 48V system.
That's one option. The other option is to just keep the voltage the same and replace the 500W sticker you use to sell it in the US with a 250W sticker when you want to sell it in Europe. You also have to change the config file in the controller from 20 to 15 for the different speed limit, but apart from that it's literally the same hardware. You could also limit the peak power if you were worried about someone testing the two side by side, I guess.
But it doesn't really matter, the point is that 250W Maximum Continuous Power is a meaningless number and I'm not sure if the reason it's still being used in legislation is stupidity or corruption (and the fact that getting hold of the relevant standards generally costs hundreds of Euros so they are assuming no one is going to read them).
The other option is to just keep the voltage the same and replace the 500W sticker you use to sell it in the US with a 250W sticker when you want to sell it in Europe. You also have to change the config file in the controller from 20 to 15 for the different speed limit, but apart from that it’s literally the same hardware.
The controller would have to adjust the current down if voltage was the same. The difference is only the continual rated power and max speed. As long as it's tested to relevant standards for the market (EN and the US class) all's ok.
But it doesn’t really matter, the point is that 250W Maximum Continuous Power is a meaningless number and I’m not sure if the reason it’s still being used in legislation is stupidity or corruption (and the fact that getting hold of the relevant standards generally costs hundreds of Euros so they are assuming no one is going to read them).
Basically you can't just keep upping the amps in a system without it warming up. The wiring, controller and battery are part of this Continuous Rated Power thing, the motor is tested for stable power level as part of a complete bike system. The scope of 'motor' has to cover a few configurations also.
If you have a 'motor' / system that runs in thermal equilibrium at 250W (Continuous Rated Power = 250W) it will have volt and amp figures to go with that wattage. Voltage is fixed by the battery so amps will need to go up if you run it at 350W. If the system isn't designed to run at the higher amps from the controller at the higher wattage it'll warm up (in terms of test spec) or not stay in equilibrium, failing the test. The motor itself may well cope with 350W all day but elements of the (250W rated) system will not be in a state that passes the 250W continual rated power test. If it stayed within test spec at 350W then it's not a 250W rated 'motor' in that bike, it's a fixed voltage system that will 'rate' at >250W , it will balance out to equilibrium at a higher current and higher wattage (as far as I understand it anyway - I'm not a test engineer or an electrician).
I think this is why julians says his e-bike will pull hard up a hill but in time on a long hill it slows down. Voltage, current and output watts have to balance up, also it has to stay below 25kph.
Way OT here anyway : )
The controller would have to adjust the current down if voltage was the same. The difference is only the continual rated power and max speed. As long as it’s tested to relevant standards for the market (EN and the US class) all’s ok.
That's why I said limit the peak power (which is measured at the shaft, not by multiplying the measured voltage by the measured current). Limiting the peak power will obviously be done by limiting the amps.
Legally, there is no reason for them to limit the peak power though, more just so that no magazine decides to test them side by side for some reason and go, 'Hang on...'
The motor itself may well cope with 350W all day but elements of the (250W rated) system will not be in a state that passes the 250W continual rated power test. If it stayed within test spec at 350W then it’s not a 250W rated ‘motor’ in that bike, it’s a fixed voltage system that will ‘rate’ at >250W , it will balance out to equilibrium at a higher current and higher wattage (as far as I understand it anyway – I’m not a test engineer or an electrician).
Did you read the links I posted? There is nothing in there about running the motor at a higher amperage and verifying the temperature isn't in equilibrium after 30 minutes (unless I've missed something in the documents in which case please quote the relevant part because, as I said, I still can't believe they've been getting away with this shite).
Therefore, a motor that has been tested at 350W and passed will also pass if it is tested at 250W. No part of the tests involve running the motor at higher than rated power outputs.
I think this is why julians says his e-bike will pull hard up a hill but in time on a long hill it slows down. Voltage, current and output watts have to balance up, also it has to stay below 25kph.
Any manufacturer who wanted to could fit a motor that would pull at 750W all day and still call it 250W motor. Of course, it would be larger and heavier but by exactly how much I couldn't tell you.
Saying that, at some point the bms is going to start complaining although most modern batteries can handle 20A continuous current, giving 720W, which, by the time it gets to the wheel, will be less. The 10 minute current is likely to be closer to 25A giving 900W to the motor.
if julians' power is reducing I would guess it was the BMS limiting the current rather than the motor. But again, this is not a designed in limit. This is just a limit imposed by what the hardware is capable of, plus a safety factor.
Or maybe they just decided it would be taking the piss a bit too much if riders could ghost pedal up 15% hills at 27 km/hr until their batteries ran out and decided to put a limiter in, in case someone noticed they're talking shite.
@brucewee - the right to repair doesn't apply to all products. It's very restricted to certain goods (electric motors in washing machines / white goods / TVs etc.) Ebike motors aren't explictly covered.
And frankly, even if it did (and it doesn't) I personally wouldn't give a monkeys - if they can stop idiots derestricting ebikes that trumps it IMO.
Please can we move the techno-eebery to its own thread and leave this one to bitching between eebers and neebers.
It was the highlight of my week reading the latest...
🙂
OK, I can understand the love/hate aspect. but what in Christs name are you squabbling about now.
And frankly, even if it did (and it doesn’t) I personally wouldn’t give a monkeys – if they can stop idiots derestricting ebikes that trumps it IMO.
It won't because that's not the goal. The goal is to increase profits at the cost of the environment.
It won't stop people de-restricting their ebikes. It will stop most people from repairing them.
OK, I can understand the love/hate aspect. but what in Christs name are you squabbling about now.
That the manufacturers are actively trying to eliminate the ability to repair ebikes so that they can sell more units.
They are doing this under cover of people de-restricting their ebikes which is complete bullshit given the fact that the Maximum Continuous Power of 250W doesn't exist in the way people think it does, and if they were genuinely interested in stopping people running around with motors that are too powerful they would seek to simplify and clarify the rules by limiting Peak Power and/or Torque.
But none of it matters, because no one understands the regulations or gives a shit about them. Or about the Right to Repair.
Planet's ****ed, basically, and no one gives a shit.
*If I see someone on a Ebike and they've no obvious disability, I'm going to assume they've only got one testicle or are undergoing hormone replacement therapy.
*joke!
If you want a derestricted Ebike that does 50mph then opt for the rear hub type. You can do whatever you want with those.
That the manufacturers are actively trying to eliminate the ability to repair ebikes so that they can sell more units.
They are doing this under cover of people de-restricting their ebikes
They're not doing it under the cover of preventing derestriction. For example The Shimano e8000 and ep8 motors have no antitamper/anti derestricting technology and they're still unrepairable .
Shimano have been making unrepairable motors for years, and I agree that seems to be their business model ,but it's not linked to derestriction.
Planet’s ****, basically, and no one gives a shit.
Nice rant but on past form I don't believe you do either...or rather only when it suits your narrative.
But yeah I'm more concerned when it comes to ebike power ratings of people blasting at high speeds in places where they shouldn't be..... I've been overtaken at high speed on the local shared path network by folk not pedalling while on my bike. Now the speed differential is low. Between me +them probably 5 or 10 mph. ..... But between walkers and then it is high more like 20......
That is a bit of a guns don't kill people, people do. I could blast past people walking at high speed on my pedal bike at 25mph but I don't because it is a stupid and inconsiderate thing to do.
If you want a derestricted Ebike that does 50mph then opt for the rear hub type. You can do whatever you want with those.
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.
Shimano have been making unrepairable motors for years, and I agree that seems to be their business model ,but it’s not linked to derestriction.
Yes, but as the calls for Right to Repair grow stronger and legislation is brought in to force manufacturers to make repairable products Shimano and Bosch are going to be pushing for ways to exempt their products and de-restriction controls is a handy stick.
Not sure why you think they are doing this out of a concern for everyone's safety. If they were then they would be pushing to limit torque and peak power.
Nice rant but on past form I don’t believe you do either…or rather only when it suits your narrative.
Ooh, nice non-specific attack on my character. How about you provide some details or **** off, there's a good chap.
On the repairability front, apparently the guy who started the Ebike Motor Centre - http://ebikemotorcentre.com - started off because he was an engineer and wanted to change a bearing in a Bosch, I think, motor and discovered that the original bearing had been specially machined from a standard size. He had to have a batch of the things made up, started selling them on eBay and it snowballed from there.
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. The secondary issue is that the motors aren't designed with user serviceability in mind, so when things do fail, you need to either use a specialist repairer or be patient and have the right tools and many of the components are hard to source.
To use the same Brose motors as an example, I suspect that Specialized simply doesn't have the leverage to fundamentally change the motor design and for Brose, there's no real incentive to do that. Motors fail, Specialized warranty the motors, they keep on selling motors and bikes. I'm not sure how this makes the process profitable, but maybe it explains why Specialized emtbs are so expensive.
I'm not sure how relevant restriction or derestriction is to any of this, for off road riding it's mostly irrelevant I think. What's really needed is for the motors to be properly sealed, properly robust and, for basic components - belts, crank bearings, sprag bearings to be easy to fit and readily available in the same way as, say, suspension parts are. I'm sure that's feasible, I'm less convinced that there's any real will to do this, not because there's an evil conspiracy, but because it's difficult and time consuming and expensive, so hey, less short-term profit.
As a parallel, I remember the early 2000s Rockshox forks, which regularly wore through their tube coatings in the Peak District because the seals / design weren't suitable for UK riding and which were, eventually, fixed. And on the serviceability front, the rear shocks which need pressurised nitrogen for a full refurb, but are at least capable of having seals changed by a home mechanic.
Fwiw, anecdotally, the motor repair guys mentioned above told me that every time there's a spell of really bad weather, they have a peak in stuff sent in for repair as motors fail. That's not about some sort of manufacturer conspiracy, it's about poorly designed for purpose motors. What's depressing is that so many e-mtbers seem to view motors as consumable items to be replaced under warranty rather than something that should be properly made in the first place.
I have a borrowed, post-long covid Levo atm, but I can't imagine buying one myself until we reach a point where motor failure becomes an exception rather than a regular occurrence. Likewise I think it's naive to think that battery cases will be standardised, but they should at least be designed for easy re-celling and circuit board replacement. You kind of think that we'll reach a point where four or five year old emtbs are going to be scrapped simply because the cost of the latest Specialized batteries say, is north of £1,000 - and yes, you did read that right, one thousand quid or more. You could buy a half-decent bike for that...
Finally, I think you have to accept that emtbs are a fundamentally different beast to road/utility ones by dint of the conditions they have to endure, which is a significant part of the durability issue. A motor that's fine for popping out on the road to do the shopping with isn't necessarily going to relish being regularly bathed in gritty Peak District trail slop or similar.
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.
@BadlyWiredDog
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.
I've been mentally playing around with the idea of an analog computer based solution using a 3-phase VFD motor (the kind you find in some washing machines which happen to be around 250W) and basic sensor solutions (for example, using motors being driven as speed sensors, a box with various resistors to determine what gear you're in, etc). Then using an analog circuit to determine the what voltage should be applied to what phase.
It would eliminate the need for printed circuit boards so would hopefully be more robust. Also, component faults could be tracked down using a multimeter and basic electronic skills. In addition, there would be no lag between your actions on the bike and the motor responding.
The issue, as far as I can see it, is that there would only be two boost levels, on or off. Almost certainly there are others I haven't thought of.
Like I said, it's an idea I'm playing around with since I became interested in analog computers but I'm not sure if I'll ever have the time to develop it.
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: