How do you /n/erds feel about the weird direction China and friends have been taking ebikes? Do you think it's going to spread or effect the west?
It's kinda funny seeing people building this shit with useless shitty pedals just so they can say it's just an assisted pedal bike that means I can ride in bike lanes and don't need a license!
>>922248
That particular bike is stupid, but I think in general electric bikes are great for getting more people into riding their bikes for commuting. I love seeing the shit people put on bikes, too, like that one anon on here that modded the shit out of his bike to look like some kind of Batman bike.
Gas scooters with vestigial pedals for legal reasons are nothing new. It's a crap idea, but the legislators are to blame rather than the engineers. Now that batteries are better electric versions make more sense.
If you have one of these you are bad and should feel bad, and just get a real motorcycle already.
Fun fact: In many jurisdictions removing the pedals is illegal as you would be required to register and plate the thing. Even though that type of e-bike isn't intended to be pedaled, most of them being single speed.
>>922424
>If you have one of these you are bad and should feel bad
What about the people in places like China where owning a bike if you live in/near a city is almost impossible because the government don't like them?
They have a niche for asia.
>>922492
Oh, nothing wrong with electric scooters, or even electric highway bikes. Asian governments are trying to phase out those old mix gas two strokes because urban air pollution, and more power to them. Was referring to the vestigial pedals to pretend it's a bicycle and abuse MUPs. That has to stop, and they should just get a real license and a real bike already.
>>922248
>people building this shit with useless shitty pedals
That's not unique to China or even to e-bikes.
European mopeds also have vestigial pedals.
>>922571
bikefag detected, share the road homofag, those are bikes just like your gay roadbike
>>922617
Multi Use Paths aren't the road, they're full of dogwalkers and moms with strollers and motorized vehicles other than mobility scooters have no business being on them.
>>922618
you just think you deserve to ride your gay bike everywhere, that's a bike just like your gay roadbike is a bike, it can use roads and bikepaths
>>922619
It's illegal to ride motorvehicles in the MUP here though.
Mopeds, e-bikes and motorcycles all stay on the road.
>>922623
bikes have motors, they shouldn't be on MUPs either
also they should require license and registration
>responsible e-bike rider on MUP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEdETIjfngo
>>922627
>bikes have motors
Not according to definitions in the Transportation Act they don't, and MUPs expressly allow bicycles besides.
We did have licensing and registration for several years but it proved to be both uneconomical and far more trouble than it was worth.
Also the city wants to encourage strong numbers of cycle and mixed mode commuters to reduce traffic congestion and improve overall fitness, so licensing isn't coming back any time soon.
>>922642
An engine or motor is a machine designed to convert one form of energy into mechanical energy.
According to the literal definition of the word "engine" and "motor", bikes have motors.
Now if some legislative body wants to make an exception to this fact because of whiny cunts who think bikes deserve to share space with cars then that is another thing.
>>922786
>An engine or motor is a machine
People are not machines.
>>922796
The person isn't converting one form of energy into mechanical energy, the bike is converting the physical energy into mechanical.
>>922799
>the bike is converting the physical energy into mechanical.
u wut
>>922800
THE BIKE
IS CONVERTING
THE PHYSICAL ENERGY OF THE HUMAN
INTO
MECHANICAL ENERGY
>>922806
Do you consider gas to be an engine or motor? No of course not, it's just the fuel. The human fuels the bike.
It's really not that complicated, you're just being a dumbass.
>>922809
So you consider a bike to be an engine/motor, based on it converting mechanical energy into mechanical energy? That would be fine but you can't convert something into what it already is. An engine/motor has to convert another type of energy (for example chemical or heat) into mechanical energy. A person would qualify as this except they are not machines.
>>922813
It's converting HUMAN energy into MECHANICAL energy. A windmill converts WIND energy into MECHANICAL energy.
Are you dense?
>>922809
The human converts chemical from food into mechanical, the bike converts circular motion into linear.
The human is the engine, the bike is merely the mechanism for using that energy to produce linear motion.
>>922820
No. The bike converts human energy into mechanical energy. Humans aren't mechanical energy.
>>922826
gb2bed hitler
>>922832
Hitler was a wasteful jerk, he could've put all that burnt fuel to good use.
>>922826
Humans use their bodies to power bikes. Humans are not mechanical energy. A bicycle moves by mechanical energy. The bike is a motor by every sense of the word.
>>922866
>Humans use their bodies to power bikes
Humans use chemical energy in the form of food to power their body, were they machines they would be considered engines. Bikes are vehicles that are propelled by humans, you could consider it powered by if you want, but that does not make the human the energy or the bike the engine.
Think of it this way, replace the human with a petrol engine. Do you still consider the bike to be the engine, powered by the petrol engine? No, because that is just fucking stupid.
>>922874
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLMRCgaAYIM
Learn motherfucker
>>922876
Humans are not machines, but even if we humour you and pretend they are that then makes them the engine, not the bike. Cars are powered by engines, the car itself is not an engine.
Now if you're trolling this has been a fun little game, but if you're actually being serious then my best advice for you would be to stay in school, it might seem like boring crap now but it'll pay off in the future.
>>922879
>even if we
>we
Don't kid yourself. Look up the definition of a motor. Then try opening a book and reading about wind power, solar power and other forms of power. Then when you're done with that, try comprehending what human power would mean. Take the definition of a motor and the fact that bikes, the chain and gear system that is, converts organic human energy into MECHANICAL energy. Realize afterwards how the bike has a motor and it is not the human.
Go back to school kid.
>>922883
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_energy
>>922883
>Don't kid yourself. Look up the definition of a motor.
A machine that converts energy into mechanical energy. Humans are not machines and thus are not motors, and they are not fuel for bicycles and thus not energy and so bikes are not motors.
>Realize afterwards how the bike has a motor and it is not the human.
Okay, you've hooked me. What are you now considering to be the engine? Am I also correct in saying that you are not >>922820 , who stated that the human was the engine? I'm, starting to lose track of just how many idiots I'm talking to.
>>922786
A human powered bicycle is not a motorvehicle for the purposes of the law, and does not meet the definition of motorvehicle under the law.
Moreover, Multi Use Paths specifically allow bicycles to be used upon them, and also motorized mobility scooters, even if these technically have motors under the most shit-eating pedantic nitpicking that is humanly possible.
According to law, a bicycle is not a motorvehicle.
According to law, a bicycle is allowed on the MUP.
According to law, a moped is a motorvehicle.
According to law, a moped is not allowed on the MUP.
>>922915
>>922912
>>922903
>>922883
>>922879
Cars, motorcycles, and e-bikes are machines with an integrated powerplant - humans operate them, but all are capable of movement under their own power even if the human operator gets off the vehicle.
Bicycles, wheelchairs, and kick scooters are human-powered devices - take the operator's inputs away and they cannot propel themsevles forward.
>>922920
This should be true, but the law varies over jurisdiction. In OPs pic related, you see an electric step-through scooter with vestigial pedals. Everyone knows they are useless; if the battery lost charge it would be easier to push it. Their purpose is to qualify it as an "electric assist bicycle" so it can use bicycle infrastructure. Regulators are responding with "pedal-assist" laws that require force on the pedals to turn the motor on, speed limits above which the motor must turn off, and sometimes weight limits. You can imagine how high a priority enforcement is, but it does limit what you can buy at a retail store and might affect liability if you hurt someone.
I think there should just be a fairly low power limit (200w - 500w) with no other arbitrary technical restrictions. Would rather see stzvo spread around the world, because bicycles with no lights or reflectors on the road with cars is bullshit.
>>922915
>Humans provide the "one form of energy"
Humans are not a form of energy, in this situation. The energy source is chemical and powers the human, but because they are not machines they are not considered engines. The bike is simply a vehicle.
We can go back to the car analogy, the human is analogous to the petrol engine and the bike to the rest of the car (the chassis). You wouldn't consider a car with its engine removed to be an engine itself, even if by your retarded definition it converts the engine's source of energy into mechanical energy.
I get the feeling that you're not trolling and that you actually believe this shit you're saying, in which case I pity your stupidity and inability to learn.
>>922976
I think there should be a fairly high respect for the SI Brochure and no other arbitrary use of letters which may be confused with SI prefixes and unit symbols.
>>922976
>I think there should just be a fairly low power limit (200w - 500w) with no other arbitrary technical restrictions.
As an electrically assisted bike user (I don't know if you are) I'd rather see no power limit (or at least something like 1KW) and a speed limit for the motor cut off (the current 15MPH limit in the UK is fine, it's quite easy to pedal above that) so you don't have idiots going 30mph+.
I would be tempted to say pedal assist only too with no throttle, just so that we don't get people that are too lazy to pedal essentially using them as an unlicensed alternative to a scooter, but then there are times when I like to use my throttle (helping to pull away when in too high a gear to pedal or fucking about doing burnouts and donuts).
>All of these flagrant abuses of SI prefixes and unit symbols
Y'all need the SI Brochure.
>>923161
We don't actually do anything, he's just a child who thinks he's clever. Go ahead, ask him what the supposed abuse is. All he'll do is reply telling you to reread the SI brochure because he knows we've done nothing wrong.
>>922630
you could kill someone with that holy shit
>>923035
>We can go back to the car analogy, the human is analogous to the petrol engine and the bike to the rest of the car (the chassis). You wouldn't consider a car with its engine removed to be an engine itself, even if by your retarded definition it converts the engine's source of energy into mechanical energy.
No.
The human is the fuel, the power, the gas. The motor, gears, convert the human power into mechanical power.
You dense piece of shit.
>>923221
>The human is the fuel
No.
>the power
Sure.
>the gas
Gas is fuel, so no.
>The motor, gears, convert the human power into mechanical power.
The human power is already mechanical, you can't convert something into what it already is. If there's no conversion then there's no engine.
>You dense piece of shit.
I would be so embarrassed to be as dumb as you.
>>923231
>>The human is the fuel
Yes.
>>the power
Sure.
>>the gas
Yes.
>>The motor, gears, convert the human power into mechanical power.
>The human power is converted into greater more efficient mechanical power. Engines often do this with same forms of energy.
>>You dense piece of shit.
Still stands.
>>923233
No matter how many times you say it humans will never be fuel for bicycles.
>The human power is converted into greater more efficient mechanical power.
That doesn't make it an engine, and you're wrong. On level or uphill terrain more energy will be expended riding a bicycle versus walking over the same distance, the trade off is a bike covers the distance in a shorter time.
>>923176
>No space between the number and the unit symbol
>Using undefined unit symbols
>Nothing wrong
It's clear that you need to re-read the SI Brochure as much as anyone else.
>>922248
>>922576
>vestigal pedals
>>923269
Humans aren't machine, thus they are not engines. If they were then you'd be right, but they're not so you're wrong.
I for one welcome the chinese's push for electric bicycles. The price of hub motors have drastically gone down you can slap one on a good bicycle frame for very cheap. People forget they don't have to buy the shitty moped.
>>923352
Don't forget about those sweet sweet mid drive motors.
>>922576
>European mopeds also have vestigial pedals.
USA oldfag reporting in: the reason that many mopeds from 30-40 years ago had pedals was because they did not have a kick starter or electric start. the only clutch they had was a spin-clutch, so to start the engine, you would spin the pedals a couple turns. that would rotate the crankshaft of the engine to get the engine started.
the pedals were never meant for you to use to pedal the thing around like a bicycle. the pedal: rear wheel ratio was like 1:1, and those mopeds weighed ~100 lbs (~45 kg).
>>922920
>A human powered bicycle is not a motorvehicle for the purposes of the law, and does not meet the definition of motorvehicle under the law.
this depends on what country you are standing in.
in the USA there is no national-level law for motorized bicycles. And in most states, simply adding a motor onto a bicycle doesn't always technically qualify it as a "motor vehicle". In the USA, trailers are classed as "motor vehicles" yet they have no motors at all. :O
>>923094
>I would be tempted to say pedal assist only too with no throttle, just so that we don't get people that are too lazy to pedal essentially using them as an unlicensed alternative to a scooter,
what's wrong with not pedaling? do you have to pedal when you get on a bus or a train? why do you think those forms of transportation are any different than a motorized bicycle?
motorized bicycles in modern times are creations of bureaucrats--who made laws for owning motorcycles too complicated or expensive.
if the laws and restrictions for both end up the same, some of the people who would have used a motorized bicycle will go get "real" motorcycles instead
would you rather have drunken irresponsible people cruising around at 30 mph on a 30 lb motorized bicycle, or cruising around at 80 mph on an uninsured 350-lb motorcycle?
>>923602
>would you rather have drunken irresponsible people cruising around at 30 mph on a 30 lb motorized bicycle, or cruising around at 80 mph on an uninsured 350-lb motorcycle?
Neither, which is why motorized bicycles are illegal where I live
Not that anyone bothers to enforce this, we have to wait for someone important to be killed first
>>923602
>what's wrong with not pedaling?
>why do you think those forms of transportation are any different than a motorized bicycle?
There's nothing wrong with not pedalling, as I said I use my throttle sometimes, but these are electrically assisted bicycles and not electric motorbikes. Like I said I probably wouldn't end up implementing this rule if it were my choice, it was just a thought to make sure that these two categories of vehicle stay separate.
