The e-bike situation in China is very different from the US. These are people who are moving UP from human-powered bikes, or walking, to their first vehicle -- not buying them so that they can leave their car at home and feel the wind in their hair. Here's a photo of a very typical Chinese e-bike: http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00zsrEyYQIYOqo/Chinese-El...
As you can see, it has a second seat in the back for a passenger, and is built much more like a very lightweight motorscooter than a bike. The batteries are typically lead-acid, not lithium, so they are big and heavy, and probably don't give all that much range. I'm curious how people charge and store these vehicles, since most people in Chinese cities live in multi-story dwellings -- I guess they must lug the batteries upstairs with them at night?
The real reason these work in China is that in most of the cities I have been in, they make up 30 to 40 percent of the traffic on the streets at any given time, and so they become a force to be reckoned with in terms of traffic flow. That makes a HUGE difference in terms of rider safety, especially when compared with the US where drivers are often confused or surprised when they encounter a single cyclist mixing it up with eight lanes of car traffic moving along at 45 mph.
I think it's really admirable that China has been able to get a sizeable fraction of the population riding these silent, lightweight e-bikes, instead of polluting, noisy motorscooters or big, inefficient cars. However, I really question whether this model would ever fly in the USA.
Another huge reason is that China outright banned the use of gasoline powered motorcycles in many big cities; since the majority of people just can't afford a car, the only replacement they could have is electric bikes.
Maybe one day we'll also see gasoline powered personal vehicles be banned in the West ? I kind of doubt it, seeing how important the car is in our society, even though there is some progress towards it (see for instance the car-free days in Paris (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36243119), and I'm sure in other places as well)
> Another huge reason is that China outright banned the use of gasoline powered motorcycles in many big cities; since the majority of people just can't afford a car, the only replacement they could have is electric bikes.
Imagine how polluted the air in major Chinese cities would be if they didn't do this. For a counter example visit Karachi or Lahore and observe the air, both huge population centres that are full of small 2-stroke engined motorcycles and motor-rickshaws emitting blue grey exhaust everywhere.
This kind of ban only makes sense with dense electrical and infrastructure penetration. Good luck convincing people in the country to give up four wheel drive and switch to a vehicle where fuel cannot be stashed.
So in many countries, there's this thing called "park and ride", which allows people to park on the edge of the city and catch a bus in instead of driving their vehicles into the city. That's a more than suitable solution to the problem of people outside the city needing gasoline-powered vehicles while the city bans them.
Paris and SF maybe, but a nation-wide ban is a long long way off. Until electrics have power enough to move something akin to a fully loaded pickup truck 300+km, there will be a place for petro. Just look at the Fort MacMurry evacuation. Not many electrics could have made that drive. I doubt Tesla will ever sell many units in the Canadian north.
Ask them how those batteries deal with -40c. It's a problem ignored by nearly everyone.
And how many combustion engined cars crank at -40c without pre-heating? But indeed, there are a few places and uses where electrical cars are not the best solution. That does not mean, that in 90% of places and applications they are already a more environmental friendly alternative.
>> And how many combustion engined cars crank at -40c without pre-heating?
Plenty of them. In the last couple decades cold starts have really progressed. I think it's the developments in oil/lubricants that cling to metal surfaces. And the tighter tolerances that mean oils don't drain out of idle engines.
Plenty is not all - and interestingly, the nordic countries in Europe do have commonly electrical outlets at parking places. To preheat the engines. Luckily, this comes handy for the electrical cars too, as they can charge/preheat at those outlets.
Not so common now that cars start so much more easily. Thirty years ago when I moved to Norway they were quite common but already underused at the factory where I worked in Drammen (National Industri). Now it is mostly just a few parking spaces in each car public car park that have 16A 230V sockets for charging electric cars.
We have those in parts of Canada as well, though I don't remember anyone using them. I think cars have prettymuch just started could since my childhood.
The funniest thing I see around here (Norway) is people driving around in big SUVs (LandCruiser, Suburban, etc.) with just two seats installed, since then they can buy them much cheaper under the "workmans car" tax rules, which do not require that you're actually using your car for work.
>I'm curious how people charge and store these vehicles, since most people in Chinese cities live in multi-story dwellings -- I guess they must lug the batteries upstairs with them at night?
I charge mine downstairs together with a lot of other electric bikes. It costs me 30 RMB per month to charge. My neighbourhood is a typical Chinese one - i.e. not one of those fancy foreigner compounds.
My bike has a range of around 40-50 km depending on how many people are on the bike and how I drive it.
It doesn't look like the one in the picture you sent. More like a traditional motorised scooter - just with a battery. I paid 3000 RMB for it (new). It even comes with built in Bluetooth speakers, so I can annoy my fellow drivers on the street and people taking a stroll in the park with loud death metal music.
How people charge them depends on where they live and where they work. People who live in the modern pencil thin 30 story buildings you see on the news simply ride them into the elevator. Since they are electric and Chinese buildings usually have tile hallways (or bare concrete) this causes no problems. The shorter 6 story buildings do not have elevators, so people who live in these simply hang a cord out their window. Store owners will charge at work.
I happened to take a vocation in China now. I have a bike with a battery of 2.4 kg weight.So bring it back home to charge everyday is not a problem. Not every bike have small battery though.
Note the metal bar around the weak plastic housing, this protects it against falls and accidents. Notice also the fold-out passenger foot-rests. The seat opens to reveal covered storage space: many people use this to keep rain-covers of various types. Inside will be typically five to seven batteries, which last about a year with reasonably heavy daily use. Replacement is about USD$90-150.
I'm curious how people charge and store these vehicles
Most apartment/office blocks or shopping/entertainment areas have someone who 'minds' the vehicles against theft. They also provide power plugs for charging your batteries. At least around here, the fee for such a service is about 1-2元 per day (USD$0.15-0.30). Power is cheap in China... we have vast numbers of hydro-electric dams here in the south-west, and probably state subsidy.
Yes, almost no electric bikes in China have pedals, and they could perhaps be better described as scooters. However, they are universally called e-bikes.
Here in Brazil you see a lot of people moving from cars/bus to bicycles. I think a number of factors contributed to that:
First and foremost, following the commodities boom there was also a boom in car sales in Brazil, but not a boom in car lanes. Government is spectacularly inefficient around here, specially when it comes to building and maintaining roads. Traffic has worsen considerably in the last decade, and all attempts from most cities of creating new passageways and tunnels ended up in streets closed for construction for several years, the constructions being stagnated by the inherit inefficiency of our government and later on by the lack of money once the crisis hit. Here in Porto Alegre there are various of those constructions with no one working on them, just making traffic worse. The BRT project is half dead and buses need to get out of the bus lane where it's under reform and go in the middle of the cars then back to the bus lanes. There are at least four main access roads near the bus station closed for reform. Not to mention the new bridge of which the construction has been stopped, or the tunnels that for years do not progress. Anyway, that rant aside, the whole "green" vibe around bikes is probably a huge factor too. So you have this transportation which is clean, healthy, faster than a car in some parts of town, and relatively cheap. Then, cities started to "build" bike lanes (actually just paint part of the car lane adjacent to the sidewalk and call it a bike lane, which made traffic even worse). I think that turned what was an increase in the number of cyclists into a boom in the last years.
> Government is spectacularly inefficient around here, specially when it comes to building and maintaining roads.
It is around here, too, it's just that people go ahead and pay it anyway. For example, the Alderwood intersection for I5 and I405 took about 30 years to complete. They'd build one set of temporary ramps, then tear them down and build another, etc., etc., etc. You had to pay attention to the signage because it changed constantly, all over the place.
I think that shows the expensive cost of automobile infrastructure. The city couldn't get the tunnels and roads built, people were stuck in the city and they had no solution. In the end they resorted to painting car lanes as bike lanes, and that was that.
I commuted daily on a motorcycle in Saigon and it's not as dangerous as it is here in North America (well, sometimes it is, but mostly because of idiots riding drunk with no helmet while texting).
Everyone drives slower (~40km/h at most) and cars actively look out for motorcycles and make slow, smooth controlled changes in direction that everyone can anticipate.
Yeah I agree with that - traffic in Saigon looks initially completely disorganised in areas such as large junctions, but it really works well and is even safe for pedestrians. Its absolutely different to traffic in many other countries where the car is 95% of the traffic and the lowest speed anywhere is 60km/h.
This "motorcycle" can only do 40km/hr so it can't even reach the speed limit. A lot of e-bikes used in China are much faster than that. Safety there isn't the problem you'd expect because they often move in packs and drivers are slower and more cautious than in the west. Also, streets are built to accommodate them.
I don't really understand why this is a kickstarter. Just buy a well established e-bike brand with the specs you want.
I don't think you deserved downvotes for your original post, fwiw - it isn't particularly well argued, but it isn't offensive. On the other hand, your followup comment "Call it a terrible argument if you want, but you are wrong." does mark you as a bit of a jerk.
I didn't down vote but from a different perspective:
- Not being able to hear / audible warning is a terrible argument for many reasons
- The danger is understood, but that's because of a lack of training for all road users; no amount of visual warnings will mitigate the lack of education / training
I think the downvotes stem from the lack of critical thought portrayed by the comment? I can't really say - to me it doesn't add anything meaningful to topic at hand and detracts from the intent of the article itself without giving tangible reasons.
Before you go accusing folks on the internet; perhaps consider that they too might know a thing or two about the subject at hand?
And I was attempting to articulate why someone may have down-voted you by being overly critical; I didn't feel negatively towards your original comment either way.
People downvote stuff when they dislike the implications of something even if it's true, actually especially if it's true.
As to your point, a friend of mine has an electric motorcycle. He said that it's silent is scary because in traffic cars don't notice he's there. He has to always be on guard for people merging into his lane.
I don't think it would work in the US. Such models might replace the gasoline powered vespas that a small minority of people use. But a car is central to the lifestyle of most Americans: you go to work, get groceries etc.
That said, the more bicycle looking ebikes... I am very tempted to get one. They can be a fun way to explore the neighborhood. But I would still need a car for commuting to work.
> But I would still need a car for commuting to work.
And that sums up why the typical US mentality will continue to impede transportation progress. I can easily carry over a week's worth of groceries to cook three meals per day for two people in one trip on my motorcycle. I ride to work every day of the year in Seattle. It's kind of like, you know, living in pretty much any other country in the world where cars are correctly seen for the luxuries they are.
Having a scooter without saddlebags would be harder in that I'd probably need to get groceries twice a week, but the only things actually stopping such madness are snow and large families. I would doubt the need for a car to get work, though, if we could just use those forbidden things called school buses and public transportation.
It's a chicken+egg problem. I've considered riding a bicycle to work (it's only about 6 miles), but there are busy streets without bicycle lanes (or even sidewalks), and drivers in the area are known to be actively aggressive against cyclists.
These things drive down the numbers of cyclists, which increases the general feeling that they aren't accepted, and that it's not worth it to cater to them.
> if we could just use those forbidden things called school buses and public transportation.
If they were available and timely? Sure. We have buses in my area. They come hourly. They aren't practical unless you have a lot of spare time, and each connecting bus compounds the problem. I can get to some nearby cities by train, but it's almost always more convenient, faster, and cheaper to drive there myself.
Cars will become a luxury instead of a necessity when those problems are fixed...and those problems will be fixed when cars become unnecessary for a reasonable quality of life.
I suspect a lot of it is pure population density. The US needs to make downtown areas pedestrian and bike friendly, and then allow high density development near the centre. That makes the bike lanes and the bus network self supporting.
In London there was a very big push to extend the bus network about 15 years ago, by the left-wing mayor (who had been given newly created powers). He also introduced a congestion charge for other vehicles. Both policies were quickly supported across the political spectrum. In central London few people use cars now, it is just far more of a hassle. The last mayor expanded bike lanes a lot, and now bike journeys are on course to overtake car journeys in central London.
The big development definitely helped to establish the network, but it happened on top of high density (in the number of people working in the centre, if not actually living there). And now we are getting much more housing closer to the centre.
If I lived in London (only part of the UK I've been to) or most cities in Europe, I doubt that I'd need to rely heavily on a car. Between the Tube and walking, we got where we wanted/needed without much hassle.
As an example closer in size to where I live right now: Heidelberg, Germany. Trains made it easy to get between nearby cities. Streetcars and such made it easy to get around within the city. Walking and biking were both pleasant and common. Population density didn't seem much higher than in my neighborhood, but useful businesses (groceries, bakeries, etc) were in easy walking distance from our hotel.
Also the intentional lack of parking. Even if I would get a car I wouldn't have where to park it (or it would be very expensive). The US mandates parking which prevents high density benefits and increases building costs.
The real problem is that the lane isn't wide enough for a cyclist and motor vehicle to travel side by side with the motor vehicle remaining in the same lane. When a bicycle lane is added despite that, it leads to a bicycle lane that's too narrow and vehicles will pass without leaving sufficient clearance (at least 3 feet).
> (or even sidewalks)
Riding on the sidewalk isn't safe (and in many jurisdictions, is illegal). Mixing unpredictable pedestrian traffic with cyclists is not safe, and the number of potential conflicts that cyclists have with motor vehicle traffic when approaching an intersection is far greater compared to riding on the road and following traffic rules.
Also having to slow or stop for each driveway and intersection will significantly lengthen the time of the trip.
> The real problem is that the lane isn't wide enough for a cyclist and motor vehicle to travel side by side with the motor vehicle remaining in the same lane.
If that were true, it would be the real problem. As it is, even though there is space, cars frequently ride the shoulder. Most of the streets around here are pretty wide.
> Mixing unpredictable pedestrian traffic with cyclists is not safe
A problem, in theory...but not much of one with the low volume of foot+bike traffic around here. People here love their cars.
Meh. The streets of Beijing are even busier, the motorist even more aggressive, most of the bike lanes have become parking for cars, and it still seems to work.
A lot of people do things that I wouldn't consider doing myself and live in conditions that I'd (strongly) prefer not to, given reasonable alternatives. If my area were like Beijing, I wouldn't live here. If it were like, say, some parts of Tokyo or various cities in Europe, I wouldn't have a problem.
Imagine if no driver could see you, or they pretended not to see you. They aren't aiming at you specifically, but they refuse to acknowledge your existence.
If you are in Mississippi redneck country...ya, you aren't going to bike their. But most cities should be ok.
You've highlighted Seattle as if it's an example of a terrible place to rely on a motorcycle, but I'd take the rain over snow, ice, and sub-zero temperatures.
I'd be fine with my commute for most of the year. Having to get to work in the winter makes a pretty good case for a car though. And unless there's a bike/motorcycle that will turn into a car for three months of the year, I'm sticking to the one that works year round.
This past winter I actually rode several times in below freezing temperatures. I definitely wasn't comfortable, but I wasn't particularly prepared for it. Single digit and below... yeah, I'll forgive you if you can't take a bus. Short term leases would be on my mind if that were the case for me.
Like I said, though, snow on the road is a good stopping point for the average driver – car or motorcycle.
Due to the economy I'd love to ride a gas-powered bike and for the environment's sake would gladly take an e-bike instead. But I live in a city with 50%+ humidity and 80+ degree weather most of the year. It's brutal to be out in the sun and stopped in traffic; Texas doesn't allow lane splitting.
All that aside the reason I take public transportation instead of risking a bike is my fellow drivers. We've had several hundred wrecks with our 7.5 mile long at-grade light rail. What chance do I stand on a bike when most people down here drive trucks or SUVs and can't avoid a flipping train? It's frustrating.
The only trouble I have with motorcycles is the safety aspect. My parents were involved in an accident on a two wheeler. I myself have been involved in a rather serious accident but luckily the car took almost all the damage and I escaped with minor whiplash. Its also why I would never drive a coupe other than for pleasure. Statistically, the amount of driving involved with living in most American cities makes it rather likely that one will be involved in an accident.
Apologies, I don't mean to question your lifestyle. I'm merely expressing one of my biggest concerns with driving. Of course the best solution is to not have to drive so much.
There are three people in my household. Between us, we drink 30-40 (depending on the week) 2L bottles of soda a week, as well as a couple of 12-packs of soda cans, maybe an 8-pack of gatorade/powerade, and 15-20 half liter bottles of water. Food is not the largest part of what we bring back from the store.
There are a lot of opportunities lost when you can't carry more than, well, you can personally carry. The "white cheddar mac & cheese" brand that everyone in the house likes as a meal base is on sale? With a car, I can easily choose to just buy 40 of them to throw under the counter to last us for the next two months. Without a car, I can't take advantage of sales like that.
With a car, I can decide to suddenly throw clothes in a suitcase and drive to Florida or Delaware (I live about halfway between those). Without a car, such things would have to be planned well in advance.
With a car, I can drive 3 hours to Atlanta to pick up a monitor arm with my two friends in the car for company.
With a car, I can go to the home improvement store and pick up lumber so my friend can build a nice gaming table for D&D days.
Is a car a luxury? Sure, from the perspective of 1920. So are 4K screens and guest bedrooms and mini-fridges and king-size beds and neighbors whose walls are not your walls, but that's not a reason to feel as though people should reject any of those things.
What you are describing is 100% the contrary of my daily life and of what I aspire to become in the future.
No wonder that I am more than happy with a good bicycle and a yearly ticket for all public transportation in my country. Of course, I don't own a car.
I drink tap water, no "white cheddar mac & cheese" but as many fresh vegetables / meet / cheese as possible (ok, and lot of pasta).
If I want to go to Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Vienna, Rome, London or Berlin there is a (more or less direct) train every two hours. Just buy a ticket over the internet, print it, and jump on the train (And while I wonder where Delaware is and why I would want to go there, I can take my laptop with me and keep on working during the whole ride to Paris).
I need a monitor arm? Just choose one in the internet shop and it's delivered tomorrow morning at my doorstep. Or I can pick it up later in the afternoon at the delivery place 10 minutes from here.
If I want to go and play table tennis with my friends, there are public parks where we can meet... Basketball? Checked. Football (you would probably call it soccer)? Even easier. Want to have a swim together? In the lake or in the river in summer or in a public pool if it's cold.
No 4K screen, no mini-fridges, no king size bed, no cold walls... but i agree a real guest bedroom would be nice!
Owning a car is for me just unpractical. And for the few times a year I would need one, I can find alternative solutions or book one through car sharing.
It gets to the point where I wonder if owning a car or not shapes your life in such different way or different choices in life makes you own a car (or not)...
I don't disagree that there are lots of places in which a car is less practical, and where there are a lot of services which make up for that, at least mostly.
I have lived without a car for periods of my life, and done a lot more walking, and scheduled my life around public transit time. A Thursday afternoon train of thought upon being asked if I want to go to an event with work friends in 2009 in DC might have gone like: Hm, it looks like the last line back leaves station B at 12:30AM, and so to connect with that I could take the yellow to B from A at 11:55PM... no, that one arrives at B at 12:20, so if it's a little late I won't be able to get on the 12:30 from B... let's see, the next earlier leaves at 12:05AM, and if I get on the train at A at 11:30PM then I'll still have only 10 minutes leeway, but I can just take the 12:30AM train if I miss the 12:05AM. I need to get to B a little early because when I was there late last year they'd locked one entrance at 10PM and I might have to walk a few more blocks to the other side. So, best case I leave the event to walk to station B at 11:00PM and arrive home about 12:30AM... the event starts at 10PM, so an hour and a half of transit to spend an hour there and miss the second half... "Hey, everyone; I'm just gonna head out. You guys have fun, though."
Automated shared cars will probably completely change this. As long as I can walk out of my house and get in a vehicle and go exactly where I want to go without waiting, considering schedules, making connections, or stressing constantly until I'm safely on the last one about missing a connection and being late, I don't care about whether I am taking "public transit" or my own car.
At least we have the pasta in common. ;)
You probably do not want to go to Delaware at all; it was the first place that came to mind because I went there recently, and Florida (which apparently you do know...) is about the same distance south. I should have used Orlando / Disney World and Philadelphia, perhaps, for better name recognition.
> No 4K screen, no mini-fridges, no king size bed, no cold walls...
Well, my point was more separation than temperature... :)
> It gets to the point where I wonder if owning a car or not shapes your life in such different way or different choices in life makes you own a car (or not)...
I would argue that both are true. In many places one could live, a car is an enormous asset. In places without good infrastructure or with very high costs, a car might well be more trouble than it's worth. But owning a car will give options which weren't available before, so in that sense it shapes your life as well.
Just counting the bottles, soda intake in your household works out to 3350cc/day*person, on average. If you're not exaggerating, you have a very unhealthy habit.
Most of it is accounted for by two of us. My typical fluid intake is around 6000cc/day, including soda, coffee, bottled water, and tap water. The myfitnesspal site claims 2L of Coke Zero has 70 C, which would imply that a total (after coffee creamer) of ~200 C a day just from soda consumption. Apart from that it's just slightly acidic salt water, so I don't think I'd characterize it as "very" unhealthy. Perhaps "somewhat". :)
> we drink 30-40 (depending on the week) 2L bottles of soda a week, as well as a couple of 12-packs of soda cans, maybe an 8-pack of gatorade/powerade, and 15-20 half liter bottles of water
WTF?? That's a very unhealthy amount of sugar. Why would you buy bottled water?
There's no sugar in any of that. Or, trace amounts. It's all "zero" and "diet".
I buy bottled water for two reasons. The reason I started buying it was that I wanted to drink more water and less of everything else (I was using a ketogenic diet and there's some question about whether some artificial sweeteners cause an insulin response, and to what degree that would partially defeat the point of the keto diet).
Most of the time during most days I'm in front of some screen or another, with a glass of Diet Mountain Dew or Coke Zero nearby, and I only really pay attention to the drink when I have it in hand and notice that it's empty, whereupon I get up and refill it. This process keeps me drinking enough not to be dehydrated during the day (much more than enough, obviously), but if I don't do this, then I will at first be distracted by not finding my nearby drink, which pulls me out of whatever I'm working or playing on. This would be fine if it happened every thirty minutes, but it happens basically as soon as I stop thinking about it, which is difficult to work through. After I've adjusted to that, or if I'm in an environment in which I don't expect a drink to be nearby, I have the opposite problem, where I can sit in the same position typing and mousing for far too long. So, having a drink nearby prevents dehydration and soreness, by keeping me drinking unconsciously and prompting me to get up and walk around every thirty minutes or so.
Now, at this point you are probably thinking, "No problem! Just fill the glass with tap water and everything's the same!" In practice, however, that turned out not to be the case. For whatever reason, I was unsuccessful at training myself to drink water this way. Instead, I would find myself dehydrated and stiff with a full glass of water nearby.
At some point about five years ago, though, I found that if I had a small bottle of water (a half-liter, say) instead of an open-top glass of water, I drank that automatically and only noticed when it was empty. So, rather than fighting whatever part of me is uninterested in open glasses of water, I just bought a bunch of 0.5L bottles. Since I just put them next to my desk, I don't actually get up to refill anything, but drinking one every 45 minutes or so will force me to get up and walk in any case, so it's all good.
At first I spent some time refilling these bottles rather than buying new, but it was more trouble than it was worth: trying to train myself not to toss them, trying to be gentle (they're quite fragile), washing, filling, and drying them, keeping track of one or more containers (the plastic they come wrapped in is not a reusable container), and worst of all, keeping track of whether I need to do a refill or will run out during an upcoming stretch of work... I'm willing to pay a few bucks a week to just not have any of that.
So, I still do some of that, but have returned to drinking a lot of soda, as I mentioned, rather than 12-16 0.5L bottles every day. A 12-pack of them lasts me several days, now.
The other reason I still buy them is that sometime while I was drinking them almost exclusively I got in the habit of keeping one or two by my bedside, which solved the wake-up-with-dehydration-headache problem I had for the previous ~20 years, without any further conscious attention.
> Since I just put them next to my desk, I don't actually get up to refill anything, but drinking one every 45 minutes or so will force me to get up and walk in any case, so it's all good.
I don't understand. You do walk, or you don't walk?
> At first I spent some time refilling these bottles rather than buying new, but it was more trouble than it was worth: trying to train myself not to toss them, trying to be gentle (they're quite fragile), washing, filling, and drying them, keeping track of one or more containers (the plastic they come wrapped in is not a reusable container)
That's easy. Refill each one a few times before throwing it out. Don't wash it, and don't have multiple to keep track of.
> and worst of all, keeping track of whether I need to do a refill or will run out during an upcoming stretch of work...
But you run out and need a refill with soda or disposable bottles too. How is that a negative of refilling water?
> That's easy. Refill each one a few times before throwing it out. Don't wash it, and don't have multiple to keep track of.
It takes quite a bit longer to refill one of these, due to the mechanics of pouring into a neck. I can refill a widemouth class from a 2L bottle on autopilot while mostly still thinking about the problem that was at hand, but I have to devote much more attention to refilling a half liter bottle, and I'm inevitably going to spill some on the outside of the bottle anyway, which means drying the bottle, which means either using a paper towel or a cloth towel, but using a cloth towel means I need to have just washed the bottle or I'm dirtying a towel which can't be used to dry clean clean dishes, now...
A refill of soda, or just grabbing a new half liter bottle and twisting the cap, can be done without much conscious attention. See above for the much more involved process of refilling a half liter bottle. :)
If you're going for a walk, then the 10 second difference in pour times shouldn't matter.
How about a bottle with a lid that screws off for fast spill-free filling?
(I'm still utterly baffled that you can drink soda from a glass but not water from a glass. Have you tried a colored glass that looks like it has soda?)
Good points about critical mass and safety. The general traffic situation in Beijing is more chaotic than in London, but I would feel less safe on a scooter in London.
Re: charging:
- some people charge them at work, by using long extension cables
- lithium batteries are getting more popular, and this cuts the weight by more than 50%
- yes, when I used to ride an electric scooter (a vespa-style one, not the type in your pic) I would lug my battery up and down 5 flights of stairs, not just for charging, but also because the lithium battery is worth more than bike
> I'm curious how people charge and store these vehicles, since most people in Chinese cities live in multi-story dwellings -- I guess they must lug the batteries upstairs with them at night?
Yep, you carry the battery up to your apartment each night, or just take your bike up. I really wonder how people with those Tesla Model S's I'm seeing all around manage, since parking is so difficult and its usually on the street.
Are you in SFBA? If so, many tech companies have free (or subsidized) charging stations on their corporate campuses -- so people are recharging at work rather than at home.
I work for Microsoft in Beijing, we are pushing for charging pylons in our garage now; we just did a renovation and completely forgot that!
They should really figure out home charging also, however. The problem is that most people don't buy parking spots in their apartment garages, and even if they did the garages don't have pylons and there isn't much will to put them in. Having to drive to work to charge is a bit of an issue on the weekend! But I guess the people that own Model S's are rich since they are around $120K here, maybe they all have villas in Shunyi or other places in the suburbs.
Pretty serious MTB/cyclocross racer here that's done a lot of trailbuilding and trail advocacy: a lot of dudes are scared that offroad ebikes are going to kill access to hard-won trails. It's a not-unfounded fear as motorized bikes are pretty dang close to motorcycles in most people's eyes.
That said, I'd love to have an ebike! I have a 26 mile one-way commute (that's a 30 minute train ride) but every once in a while I ride my road bike in. I arrive sweaty and have to clean up in the bathroom. Not ideal. If I had an ebike, I could ride in assisted without sweating all over the place and then on my commute home, turn the motor down and get a workout in.
Long time cyclist and bike shop owner here. I recently put an electric hub motor on an old DH bike and have been riding local trails. I have to admit, I did not expect the push back that I have received from cyclists. I get trolled, called names and targeted all because I like to ride my ebike on the trails. Funny thing is, nobody else seems to care. Only other cyclists.
Those other cyclists will be the ones who will loose access to the trails. After two difficult decades of finding a balance between hikers and bikers on the trails these new breed of trail ebiker destroy the hard found compromise. As sooner as ebikes are forbidden on trails as better.
It varies slightly by state, but many places you can have up to 750-1000 watts and up to 20mph unassisted on flat ground and still have a bicycle, meaning no license or insurance requirement. You'll typically pedal close to 20mph on flat ground. I find these limits to be reasonable.
Well bikes are a little bit self limiting which helps. Me an average biker can do 20 mph for a while. Buddies who race can cruise 24, 25mph all day. But they also have really good reflexes.
Normal guy first day on the bike and 75 pound overweight? He does about 12mph. Throw him on an ebike and he can do 30mph or more (depends on the speed regulator).
Overall I am very split on ebikes. Love seeing more guys on bikes. The more bikes, the more cars expect them, the more bike friendly laws, etc. On the other hand, biking is pretty cool. ebiking is more like motorcycling.
I beginning to see a few on the local multi-use trail (where motorized vehicles are banned). One even has a giant fairing and looks more like a tuk-tuk or e-car than a bicycle.
Right now, there are few enough that it's not a big problem. But, the tuk-tuk e-bike is larger than a normal bike, so it's hard to pass (or make a pass) and will do more damage in a collision. Some of them are faster than the average road bike - I've seen several hybrid-style e-bikes cruising at close to 20mph with the rider soft-pedaling.
You've hit the nail on the head. To a lot of people (myself included), they're more like electric motorcycles.
I don't really care if people choose to ride them, but there are already designated trails that allow motorized access, and poaching mountain bike trails is going to ruin it for everybody.
25kmh with pedaling (you can go faster, but the engine will stop assisting at that point) and 6kmh on just engine.
I keep seeing videos on /r/ebike and similar from USA where some yahoo has ordered engine and battery from Ebay or China that can push the thing way into motorcycle range.
I'm also a cyclist, and I don't really care what other people do. However, my view is that if the trail allows other motorized use (dirt bikes, ATVs, etc.), it should also allow electric bikes. If the trail does not allow other motorized access, it should also be closed to electric bikes. I'm sure it's only matter of time before trailhead signs and regulations catch up.
As you probably know, mountain bikers already struggle to get access to a lot of trails. Zipping around even faster is a sure fire way to lose access.
Access is explicitly allowed in my region. I'm not going to stop riding because some cyclists are worried. If the law changes, I'll have to reconsider my position.
I remember my college theology class - we discussed how laws are often created in an effort to reflect and communicate community values. I find it interesting that someone would insist that laws are more important than the values being communicated by their "neighbors". If anything, I would think such feedback is a more valid expression of community values.
websitescenes did write that only cyclists are bothered, so the values being communicated by the community at large don't seem to conflict with the law.
Not sure what you're asking but I'm just saying that I ride on trails because it's currently allowed and fun. When and if the law changes I'll reconsider.
Out of curiosity, how stealth is your setup? And when you get flak, are you running in pedal assist mode, or throttle only? In my case, I've got a smaller (geared) hub motor on the back, you wouldn't know it was there unless you were looking for it (hides nicely between the gear cluster and the disc brake). The only obvious ebike sign is the large battery (shaped like a water bottle, but sized more like a long 2-liter bottle)
A co-worker of mine is an e-bike fanatic who builds his own hardware. He has street bikes that will go up to 40 mph. (He also does a massive trail ride on his regular MTB almost every morning, and road bikes on the weekends).
Once or twice, he did the commute into work using Strava as his speedo ... needless to say, he got some fairly negative feedback when he accidentally claimed the KOM (king of the mountain) on a bunch of routes, blowing away the second-best time. He has since learned about how to use Strava in private mode...
In my state that's a motorcycle, and illegal to ride on the street without a license plate and insurance. It'll be the same way most everywhere soon, I expect.
Probably true where I live, too -- but first a cop would have to (a) care, then (b) notice, then (c) actually catch him in the act of exceeding the speed limit ...
If only it was enforced. These electric scooters are really dangerous on the rather narrow and already congested bike lanes in montreal.
Note that I used the term electric scooters. I have nothing against regular bicycles with electric assist. That is, a vehicle with a reasonable weight (40-50 lb) allowing people to got at reasonable bicycle speeds (20 km/h is the max on most city bikepaths here) without exerting themselves. But people doing 30 km/h on a busy narrow bikepath on a 200lb vehicle is just unreasonable.
If the bike infrastructure made sense for these vehicles, it'd be another story. But at the moement and for the foreseeable future, the infrastructure is barely adequate for regular bicycles. The roads would be a way better alternative. I'm all for seeing more cars replaced by electric scooters in urban cores. Of course, winter is a big problem in montreal.
No need to go private, Strava has an 'ebike' option in you can choose. I use strava when I commute on my ebike and it's nice to track overall/combined miles without dirtying non-assisted results.
I had a pretty strong knee-jerk reaction to the electric mountain bike proposition initially. We're not really seeing the trails get overcrowded with them though, and I don't expect that any time particularly soon. With regular mountain bikes already costing an insane amount, I don't think any regular riders will risk it until prices become reasonable. I guess the weight requirements can be lessened though, which could help the cost.
I always assumed dirt bikes tore the hell out of trails (and some do), but what surprised me was trials bikes - with low pressure and good riding style, these actually have far less impact that your typical mountain biker (or hiker), even on sensitive moss/loam. With luck, we could have a similar situation with ebikes, perhaps even semi-automated.
My initial reaction I think was more disgust that untrained, out-of-shape people would be clamouring on my favourite trails en-masse, wrecking it in short order. That's a pretty exclusive/elitist opinion though, and doesn't make my athletic endeavours any less worthy. Plus that no e-bike is going to make descending shore-style trails any easier (probably the opposite).
Hopefully these things can evolve in a way that's inclusive, sustainable, and respectful to all trail users. Personally, I'd just like a little re-gen from my brakes :)
And for commuting, I think they're just about perfect. Once I have a long commute again, I'll probably nab one.
I'm a road cyclist, and one of the most fun things I've ever done was racing an e-bike up a long (~8km) climb. E-bikes here are limited to 250W, which made it pretty fair. He'd blast the flatter parts, and I'd try to hang on, and then on the steeper parts the extra weight of the ebike slowed him so I'd catch up again.
I used to regularly troll the semi-serious club rides on my recumbent, beating them on the flats, crushing them downhill, and pedaling like mad to keep up on the uphill battles. Just me, no motor onboard. But I've been thinking about buying one of those pedal assist e-bike rear wheel kits and putting it on my folder for commuting to work on recovery days rather than drive. They look dead simple, just need to make a bracket for the reaction arm and battery pack. Also, much cheaper than a decent quality e-bike would cost (new).
eBikes are sincerely a great alternative to cars for me. I've been using an electric bike (Stromer ST1) for about 3 years now in LA and Boston. It makes perfect sense for these cities.
The total cost of ownership is way below a car, due to the low cost of Uber, other people with cars, insurance and gas. In high traffic and hard parking cities like LA and Boston, I get to my destination faster. And though a bicycle is almost 7x as dangerous per mile ridden, I travel much less—maybe 1,000 miles a year instead of the 15,000 I did by car. While the weather is a problem in Boston sometimes, some gloves and a warm coat tide it over well. Besides, who wants to drive in a snowstorm? Overall, the experience holds up to close scrutiny.
Conversely, I am pretty much subsidized by other people's vehicles. And in LA, I nonetheless still owned a $1,000 Toyota with a $50/mo insurance and low hundreds in parking tickets to keep it outside. While that ownership was only a small part of time, it was necessary.
eBikes I think can really effectively complement ride sharing and car sharing. It will save everyone money. And as more people adopt them, the danger of biking will decline through changes in infrastructure like bike lanes and lower speed limits.
Ironically, probably the least persuasive thing is pointing out how the Chinese adopt eBikes. Americans don't want to emulate Chinese anything. It needs to seem cool, organic, high class. Besides, a $3,500 eBike won't break when you come to a fast stop the way a $500 eBike conversion will. Better to keep it safe and expensive than mass manufactured and dangerous.
What's your source on the claim that bicycling is 7x more dangerous than driving a car?
Most sources put it around 2.5x more dangerous than driving, and I'd wager most of those deaths come from inexperienced riders who don't know the traffic laws as applied to bicyclists.
Fatalities Per Mile
Motor Vehicle Travel.................... Bicycle Travel
Most sources put it around 2.5x more dangerous than driving, and I'd wager most of those deaths come from inexperienced riders who don't know the traffic laws as applied to bicyclists.
Unsure about deaths, but it turns out that more experienced cyclists are actually more likely to be injured, even taking into account that experienced cyclists generally ride more.
I can't find the paper now, but [1] shows a similar finding:
accidents were associated with.... cycling experience (curvilinear association)
That's interesting. Your comment jogged my memory on a study of how automobile drivers act around bicyclists based on drivers' assumptions about the appearance or perceived level of experience of the cyclist.
According to the research, overtaking vehicles drive closer to better equipped cyclists (wearing a helmet, reflective vest...) than a woman with long hair and no helmet.
"The implication," Walker says, "is that any protection helmets give is canceled out by other mechanisms, such as riders possibly taking more risks and/or changes in how other road users behave towards cyclists."
most of those deaths come from inexperienced riders
Similar things can be said for driving, in that motor vehicle accidents are concentrated in certain segments of the population, (and people having unlucky interactions with those segments.)
Though this niggle of the statistics is more of an issue with bicycling statistics because the bicyclists who know more or less what they are doing get lumped in with the accident rates of people like the "DUI bicyclist" riding home after dark with no lights into oncoming traffic, or terrible tragedies of people driving carelessly through neighborhoods and running over little kids on their bikes.
Then consider, even if we had statistics showing moderately higher injury/death rates for comparable travel styles with a bike opposed to a car, the overall mortality rates in the bike vs car cohorts would no doubt be reversed because of the physical activity vs sitting factor, and likely lower stress levels of the cyclists. Physical activity tends to reduce stress.
Conversely, I am pretty much subsidized by other people's vehicles.
Where are you getting that from? Car specific taxes generally don't even come close to paying for roads, especially the roads bicycles are likely to be using. In the US its actually far more likely that you're subsidizing them than the other way around.
I think most of the cost of local roads is paid for from regular taxes. Not to mention that the capital and maintenance cost of roads depends very heavily on the weight of the vehicles using it. cough trucks cough Freeways are very expensive because the DOT requires them to be able to carry commercial trucks[1].
[1] Santa Clara country, paid to extend HWY85 out of their own pocket and as a result, trucks are banned. Last time I drove it, it was still seemed in good shape after mumble twenty years. Compare with HWY880 though Oakland CA. Always being worked on, always broken up.
The question is also, how dangerous would biking be, without the car related accidents? If there were proper biking zones, not bike paths, lanes, but streets reserved for biking and pedestrian purposes, how dangerous would biking still be? And that does not take into account the health differences because of the beneficial effects of biking.
> Conversely, I am pretty much subsidized by other people's vehicles
Why would you think that? The usual estimation for road wear is a fourth power law: scaling of road damage is axle load raised to the fourth power.
You on your bike may be 100kg on 2 axles, or an axle load of 0.05T. A model S has an axle load of 1T (2T over 2 axles), which means a Model S generates 160000 times the road wear a bike does. Incidentally, a loaded 18-wheeler (36T, 5 axles) generates ~1 billion times the road wear a bike does (and ~6700 time the tesla's)
Only 7x dangerous? I assumed it was like 100x... Is that 7x incidents or serious injury? It would also be interesting to see it expressed in hours rather than miles.
You don't usually walk next to traffic; where I live, if you bike anywhere for transportation it is next to dangerous idiots driving death machines (Texas).
I rode a manual bike for several years, and bought an e-bike about a month ago for my 25-mile (round trip) commute. It's been amazing. I still get cardio (albeit not as much), I don't have to change in my lycra, don't have to shower when I get to work, and the commute is actually faster than driving (the 101 sucks). I'll still do the occasional ride on my old bike, but it's mostly e-bike now.
Do these really sell for $6K+? I'd love to have an electric assist option for my 30 mi round trip, but the cost is a tough pill to swallow... $3K I'd do in a minute.
Stromer ST1 is about that much. ST2 doesn't buy you much more tbh, it has a GPS and theft protection, little bigger battery. $3k actually seems to be the magic number where ebikes are good. Also, as others have said, building your own is a cheaper option. At 30mi you would likely want to charge at work (I do anyway, it's easier on the battery).
Also, FWIW, I was debating a second car (married w/kids) or the bike, and am 100% satisfied with my bike and the price I paid for it
These ebikes are a clever hack. In China they skirt motorcycle laws. In the US they can make use of bike paths. You can make good time and your commute is generally the same duration regardless of traffic. At least, that's true in Silicon Valley.
Last I checked (a few years ago) pedaling the ebikes is like pedaling a tank. Batteries and motors a heavy bike make. So you're using the motor and there's not a lot of cardio happening.
I ride my bike because I want to live longer/better. I don't think you get that with these, but there's definitely a niche for them.
It all depends on how you build the bike. I just converted a nice road bike by adding a geared rear hub motor. The geared motors (vs. direct drive) have a freewheel built in so they don't slow you down when pedaling (direct drive hub motors have a cogging effect when there is not electricity). And a geared motor is smaller, therefore less weight. In fact, I still road the bike normally after putting the hub motor on, since I had to wait another couple weeks for the battery to ship.
And, you can get the same cardio per unit of time (if you want) on an ebike as a regular bike. You just go faster, therefore further. And since you have a bit more speed, and you aren't required to do a major workout on every trip (so you don't have to change into cycling clothes), you end up using the ebike for a lot more trips -- therefore getting more exercise overall.
In my case, I have a 25 mile commute -- no way to make it in time on a regular bike. But an ebike makes it no problem. And I still get a decent amount of exercise (basically the difference between going for a very long walk vs running a sprint, so a different type of exercise), and on the weekends I give it my all (and just rack up more miles).
I see a ton of these every time I'm out on my bike commuting here in the valley. My first reaction is "how the eff is that guy riding so fast" then I realize he MUST have an assist because it's a more casual looking rider on a more upright style bike, he's still pedaling but just FLYING.
Ehhh, unless you see the motor, he might just be pounding along with his own two legs. I ride year round so I'm in pretty good shape for biking but I still occasionally get smoked (uphill) by some guy on a MTB with a seat that's too low and sporting a rusty orange chain.
I commute via ebike 6 miles round trip. I still sweat. The main advantage for me is that I have much better acceleration, can cruise at 20mph without a ton of effort, and can climb the steep hill I live on at 10-15mph instead of 5mph.
I like that I can use leg power and get some exercise on the way to work in the morning, then in the evening I can just cruise home on battery power and not get sweaty.
If you're male, consider that long-term bike riding can cause infertility, erectile dysfunction, and prostate problems esp. depending on the saddle you use.
A long wheelbase (crank behind the front wheel) and a more upright riding position is perfect in city traffic. On my commuter, my eye level is about even with drivers in crossover vehicles.
OK, that's closer to what I thought. I was kind of thrown off by the previous comment, which I read as implying "there are things besides 'saddles' that you can use".
I drive an electric motorbike/scooter in Saigon. It's bigger than the ones this article is talking about; 6 batteries, 1800 watts, 80km/h top speed, 100km distance.
It's been great except for what it's doing to my electric bill and the fact the batteries are lead acid. Hoping to convert to LiPo in a couple of months.
To charge it, I have to bring it in the elevator of my building which is fine though it is the size of an actual gas motorbike and way heavier because of the batteries.
It can only do that on a full charge and the bike shakes a bit too much for comfort. But traffic in Saigon rarely goes above 30km/h anyways. When I have free charge of the road, I average about 55km/h.
My ebike maxes out around 1400W -- that's an actual measurement made with a power meter -- and the fastest speed I've ever seen is 56km/h (and that was with a tailwind). And this is with relatively fast tires (not racing tires, but smooth road tires) and a big fairing!
Given the same tires and aerodynamics, the difference in top speed between 1400W and 1800W is the cube root of 1800/1400, or 1.087 -- you can go 8.7% faster. That gets you to 61km/h. And I bet your aerodynamics and tires are both worse than mine.
So something is out of whack here. My guess is it's a combination of things. Most speedometers in cars read high, many by as much as 10%. So let's say you were really doing 72km/h. Maybe with a full battery you're really getting quite a bit more than 1800W. For my bike to do 72km/h would take at least (72/56)^3 * 1400W = 2800W. It sounds a bit unlikely that you could really get that much, but who knows, it depends on your controller and motor. (You'd think they would have rated it higher, though, if it could really do that.) To really get 80km/h would take over 3800W.
1) That is changing, as the hard core cyclists begin to realize that more bikes on the road period means more demand for proper cycling infrastructure (or at least have roads that aren't bicycle hostile -- give me more than an inch beyond the white line).
2) As it gets more popular, hopefully more education will happen. In many cases, you have a seldom used sidewalk that runs for miles next to a bicycle hostile road. Is that a sidewalk or a multi-use path?
3) State laws are catching up -- see the new classification system that California passed (different regulations based on pedal assist vs. throttle, max speed, power, etc). They seem to have struck a decent balance.
Well sure I assumed that it's actually a sidewalk, but there's no reason to be authoritarian. If there really aren't any pedestrians around then cyclists really aren't harming anyone. If one is cycling on the sidewalk and sees a pedestrian, one simply hops off the bike and walks it until the pedestrian is out of range.
Sidewalks are a lot more dangerous for bikes than you might think. The problem is cars have expectations on how fast people approach and will often assume an area is clear based on walking speed. Further even low speed collisions with pedestrians can easily send a rider into traffic.
One might err in assumptions about what I think. Parent had "seldom used sidewalk that runs for miles next to a bicycle hostile road". Obviously that is different from a regular grid of streets, where no one should cycle on the sidewalk. As soon as crosswalks appear get your ass in the street. Even in the situation the parent described, however, the presence of one pedestrian makes it a sidewalk again so no cyclist will ride and no low speed collisions will occur.
Totally agree... This is where the e-bike diverges.
Casual peddling on the sidewalk is one thing, zipping around at nearly 20 mph changes things.
Right now fast bikes are the province of serious people in spandex. When some overweight IT dude like me is moving like Lance Armstrong, that's a different story!
I ride 20 miles a day in Minneapolis on my e-bike.
My biggest fear is when we will ruin it for everyone. There just isn't the proper infrastructure for them. Bike paths around here have 10mph speed limit signs and are mostly mixed use. Not enough connecting roads have bike lanes.
It will grow wildly popular once a cheap US based lithium battery supplier appears (Tesla/Panasonic).
Exactly, e-bikes are an odd tweener. They don't mix well on bike paths if you're bombing along at 20 mph, and in a lot of places people still just don't feel safe riding anything with two wheels on public roads.
I don't see a lot of people who aren't already comfortable cycling to work (though maybe preferring to get there faster and with less sweat), going out and buying an e-bike.
That was one of the issues with Segways as well. A lot of people (understandably) didn't want them on sidewalks. But they weren't really suited for roads either.
Likewise kick scooters. Fast and quiet enough to make pedestrians think "you are like a bike and I should treat you like one," but in fact far too slow for roads and unexpectedly agile on sidewalks.
Basically, all the vehicles that sit in the intermediate gradients of speed/acceleration are in a position for their simple existence to offend everyone else.
E-bikes have become increasingly popular in the Netherlands, where they share the cycle paths just fine with conventional cyclists. (the mopeds and scooters that blast along the same paths recklessly are another story, however)
e-bikes in the EU are limited to 17 mph, and quite low wattage, so it's not really an issue being in bike lanes, as long as you're decent about it. In the US a lot of them seem to be basically motorbikes.
Tons of people rolling around Seattle on these long ebikes with some cargo and a couple kids on the back. I love it! Although anecdotally, ebike riders are much more likely to ride way too fast and pass dangerously close on trails.
Yeah, laws about the lightweight end of the spectrum in powered transportation came into being when we were talking about noisy, polluting two-strokes. They make little sense in the context of lithium ion batteries and silent brushless DC motors.
People can bicycle at 20mph too using their legs. On paths and lanes where these things are banned.
Common sense wattage restrictions (I have seen 1hp or 750W as a threshold, for example, and apparently parts of Europe do 250W limits) are perfectly feasible.
Apparently federal law on imports dictates that the class of 'low-speed electric bicycles' is defined by a maximum of 750W and 20mph, which is a surprisingly appropriate envelope - about as much as you'd want out of a single-rider passenger bicycle with a heavy rider or cargo in a hilly city.
That's part of the EU recommendation for classification as an assisted bicycle (pedelec) rather than an electric moped (e-bike): 250W maximum continuous rated power, assistance-only (user must be pedalling for engine to engage) and progressive cutoff to 25km/h[0] (so the cutoff starts earlier, at 25km/h or above there's no assistance)
Actually, from what I've been following, pedal assist is ok, it is only a throttle that is not legal. I.e., you have to be peddling for the bike to move, and the motor adds in a bit more power.
Not as much as you'd think. NYC is (by USA standards) notoriously law-ignoring, both in the sense of people ignoring rules and of law enforcers not bothering to enforce them -- ESPECIALLY any rules or laws related to traffic.
(This isn't a good thing. A poorly enforced law is a great vector for discrimination.)
They're bikes. Good to get from a to b like any other bike.
During my daily commute from and to work I think about one in ten I pass / pass me is an electric motor supported bike. It seems that mostly elderly people are riding them, but more and more people under 50 are using them as well.
Note that e-bikes here are normal bikes with an electric motor to assist the cyclist to keep a (slightly faster than) normal pace. Personally, I dislike the e-bikes who behave like mopeds/scooters and go 30km/h or more because they're dangerous. Especially on bike path given the difference in speed between regular cyclists and these electric monsters.
We see them frequently here in Hamilton, Ontario and it's quite unfortunate - culturally, theyve ended up on the bottom rung of society. Idealists bike, pragmatists drive, so e-bikes are the domain of drunks and the unemployable.
The perfect low-cost solution to traffic carbon emissions and we hate the people who use it. Expect the same in USA.
I believe e-bike (along with the quantity) is one of the secrete that contributes to the huge eCommerce success in China.No media mention or notice that yet. The cost of the last mile delivery makes a big difference, the competition is flatten along with the whole China, the market is extremely efficient.
I lived in China, and I can say that ebikes is a cultural thing. The way that people navigate, the average age of bikers who ride the ebikes, and the way people navigate cities is not found in the US.
I'm an American living in China and I used to own one of these. Here are my thoughts that I wrote down a while ago:
Why e-bikes are the next big thing
Like a car, they offer cheap on-demand transit to your exact destination. Unlike a car they do not support long distances, heavy loads or more than 2 people, but often those features are not needed by the urban commuter. Furthermore they lack many of the drawbacks of a car; getting stuck in traffic, the need for parking, the need for insurance, licensing requirements, high fuel requirements etc. Furthermore an e-bike is a signifigantly smaller investment than a car. Having it lost, stolen or damaged poses less of a personal risk to your finances. Unlike a classical bike, e-bike's do not require the user to be in shape or even exert effort to operate. Thus we see that in the personal transport market, e-bikes represent the best of both worlds for the urban commuter. We can see proof by demonstration that in the right conditions they can be enormously popular (China). Why haven't they taken off all over the world yet?
1. Topography. They are generally not powerful enough to go up steep hills. Sadly this rules out San Fransisco which would otherwise be
quick to pick up on an eco-friendly trend.
2. Weather. In the cold winter with icy roads these vehicles are unpleasant to drive. A 40 km/hr wind chill on top of 0 degrees will make you sick. The Chinese have invented a sort of bike apron/jacket that helps with this but although it is an unfashionable solution. For this reason the bitter North East and flat-but-frigid Mid West probably wont take to them (ruling out the otherwise perfect market of New York).
3. Regulation. These vehicles neither qualify as motorcycles nor bicycles and thus are often ambiguous or de facto illegal in many parts of
the states.
I think point 3 is a huge mistake. If the US is serious about green technologies, deregulating e-bikes would be a huge boon.
Further thoughts: People initially think e-bikes are unsafe. That is because of historisis. If e-bikes developed before cars then most traffic would be e-bikes for the practical reasons cited. If most traffic were e-bikes then they would be seen as enormously safe. In general they do not have the momentum to seriously damage pedestrians or other e-bike users. It is actually cars that are the dangerous vehicles. Furthermore if most traffic were e-bikes then the throughput of a given road would go up because about 4 to 5 e-bikes can easily drive in the same space currently used by a car. This effect is partially canceled by the fact that e-bikes are slower than cars, but within a city driving speeds are only about 30-50 km/hr anyway. The amount of parking space available in the city would also go up for similar reasons.
A friend of mine builds his own e-bikes and they're incredible. He made a very stylish one, with big tires, that makes him meet lots of people who want to know where to buy one :) He made another one with a suitcase-sized battery pack and tremendous power (20kW) just for fun, but it's fugly with its big boxy battery :) I should have taken pictures :)
In the Netherlands they are considered to be for old people, since they only use them. Especially in cities with a high student population people prefer to use some old rusty bike because bikes often get damaged and/or stolen in here. When I was visiting Copenhagen I was jealous of the infrastructure and your true love for quality bikes. I wish we had some cycle chic[1] instead of being proud of arriving sweaty and exhausted at work.
Also, the bikes in the bike share program for copenhagen has a small electric motor in it to assist you. You still need to pedal, but it can make the difference between showing up sweaty and showing up fresh.
The Chinese bikes look (are?) completely different though. They look like Vespa scooters with a small trunk for storing stuff and I think they have a bigger battery. The e-bikes in Copenhagen are standard bicycles with a small battery and engine added.
I'm a year-round bike commuter in the upper Midwest. I also use my bike(s) for errands, recreation, etc., though I own a car for longer trips.
These days I'm seeing a growing number of e-bikes on paths that were designed as bike infrastructure but are multi-use. My view is that they'll be OK so long as the behavior of the riders doesn't get out of hand, which we'll find out when the accident statistics start to pile up in bigger cities. For now they're relatively few in number, and the riders tend to be quite courteous.
I'm supportive if it increases demand for bike infrastructure and awareness of bike safety.
> Electrics “finally have legs to be able to take off in the U.S.,” because cyclists are feeling safer on the roads, battery and motor technology is improving, and retail prices are dropping, says Todd Grant, president of the National Bicycle Dealers Association.
I like the idea of bikes. I want to ride them on bike trails. But I wouldn't ride it on the streets in suburbs, for example. It it just not worth the risk to me. It would take considerable infrastructure rebuild, bike lanes, better planned intersections, etc before I would consider riding a bike.
In countries where the car is dominant, one of the most important factors is safety. Cars can easily kill someone on a bike, scooter or motorbike just by running into them from behind, e.g. if the bike is stopped at lights, and the car driver is not paying attention behind them. In a car the most you'd get is whiplash.
I like the idea of banning motorbikes, but it is probably impossible to ban american-freedom-harley-wake-the-whole-neighborhood lifestyle in US.
IMHO ebikes are not less safe. You can manually pedal faster than most ebikes, and just because their average moving speed is higher, that does not make them intrinsically less safe.
Make it expensive to own and park a car, and make it a challenge to drive it in towns and cities, then absolutely ebikes will become popular in the USA. But if the above is true, then regular bicycles will still be MUCH more popular than ebikes - as they should be.
Mr Money Mustache recently posted a writeup for a conversion for about $1000. I think you could do the same conversion for less if you source your kit and battery cheaper- these same kits sell for less on ebay.
Just get some smooth tread tires that will be better for pavement travel.
2.2 miles takes about 40 minutes to walk.
On a bike and mostly flat terrain, 10-15 minutes max.
Unless the commute is a steeply graded 2.2 mile slope the motor seems overkill and providing little if any benefit to travel time or enjoyment. Wouldn't you rather get to work with a little endorphin rush?
Maybe ride the route first after work or on a weekend to show yourself you can do it. But after a commute or two you will quickly see it's nothing and likely want to ride even further.
Indeed knobbly tyres and MTB-style frames are one of the worst things to have happened to non-leisure cycling in the UK.
People buy a cheap MTB from Halfords, use it casually a few times out with the kids and then try commuting on it perhaps as part of a Cycling Week. After a couple of attempts it goes back into the garage.
Outside Oxford and Cambridge, traditional road-going non-racing frames are quite rare.
So-called hybrid bikes seem like the most commonly sold bike in north america. Flat bars, 700c wheels, mid-thin tires (32-40 mm), geometry either can be somewhat sporty or more laid back.
Just wish more would come with accesories useful to most utilitarian cyclists. Fenders, lights, racks/baskets, and chain guard. Man, chain guards are so hard to come upon in NA, I really envy european bikes for that. I suspect for most peopl it's #1 reason for not cycling in regular/work/office clothes
In the US, folks buy older, non-suspension mountain bikes, and convert them to commuting use by adding street tires and whatever other accessories they desire (rack, fenders, etc.). The result is a fairly comfortable, utilitarian bike, that's not a theft magnet.
The biggest expense is usually the battery -- the one I got (700 watt hours) was about 500 (with shipping), and it can get me from 30 - 60 miles (hard throttle only vs. taking it easy and pedal assist). Lunacycle is now selling a small size pack that is about 1/2 the capacity of min (about 300 watt hours) for $230, plus $30 shipping, and you will need a charger (another $35 - $70).
A decent hub motor kit starts off at around $350 from a reputable vendor, you can either put on a front or rear hub motor. I've heard good things about the Golden Motor's magic pie kit (and variations) -- this is a direct drive from $325 to $375 or so, but since it is direct drive I would put it on the back wheel myself. The only front wheel conversion I would do would be a geared motor.
What's holding me back is what I read about batteries, how fragile they are and how they self destruct if you don't keep them plugged in all the time. Is this still true?
Individual cells are usually fragile (as in, you can dent or puncture easily). However, they are usually protected by their enclosure.
If you are talking about lithium cells, then you should not drain them completely. Which means that they should be kept with some charge. But, unless you intend to keep them stored away for months at a time (and maybe even then) you should be fine.
There's also that fact that, when people think about batteries, they think about laptop batteries. Those are optimized for power density above all else. They are not the only type of cells available.
I'm not worried about safety, I'm worried about having to buy a new battery every year (at a cost of >$500) because I would use an electric bike only 6 month a year at the most, and it would destroy itself during the time I'm not using it, or if I forget to charge it for a week or two, etc.
A lot of delivery boys use them here in NYC. I don't like riding among them because they are quiet, and go faster than any man-powered bicycler can conceivably go. They're kind of a hazard.
Everyone in Tel Aviv uses them--ordinary people use them to get to work. They make a lot of sense, especially in places with good weather and bike lanes (though there are many tricky places to ride bikes in Tel Aviv too because of the traffic and motorcycles!)
Probably not. It's really safe to ride a bike in China anywhere at anytime. Many cities in the US you'd be subjecting yourself to random beatings by strangers.
As you can see, it has a second seat in the back for a passenger, and is built much more like a very lightweight motorscooter than a bike. The batteries are typically lead-acid, not lithium, so they are big and heavy, and probably don't give all that much range. I'm curious how people charge and store these vehicles, since most people in Chinese cities live in multi-story dwellings -- I guess they must lug the batteries upstairs with them at night?
The real reason these work in China is that in most of the cities I have been in, they make up 30 to 40 percent of the traffic on the streets at any given time, and so they become a force to be reckoned with in terms of traffic flow. That makes a HUGE difference in terms of rider safety, especially when compared with the US where drivers are often confused or surprised when they encounter a single cyclist mixing it up with eight lanes of car traffic moving along at 45 mph.
I think it's really admirable that China has been able to get a sizeable fraction of the population riding these silent, lightweight e-bikes, instead of polluting, noisy motorscooters or big, inefficient cars. However, I really question whether this model would ever fly in the USA.