Aussie 200 Watt Limit Thread

[cj7hawk]

Hi Sunder,

What exactly are the errors? It would help if you details the claims to errors, so that I could accurate respond to them.

Thanks for your detailed reply.

I have to point out there are significant errors in fact in your reply which virtually invalidates all of your claims.
For example, you say:

Firstly, they confirm that several manufacturers of 200w bicycles all came within the limit, and the one tested was 149w.

However, you are incorrectly reading from the continuous power column, not the maximum power column in that table. Bikes with a throttle, which this one did, are measured by maximum power, not continuous power. You will note that after the "legal" restrictor was installed, the maximum power was 521.99w, down from an unrestricted 1267.69w, making it clearly illegal.

Actually, on Page 18, it clearly explains this.

"Although the power output from the restricted petrol-powered bicycle was less than the 200 watt limit, the restricting device that limited the power was easily removed, and once it was removed, the power exceeded 200 watts."

This is also mentioned elsewhere - so basically, it was not capable of producing more than 200 watts UNTIL they removed the engineering modifications to bring the engine into compliance... That's known as "tampering with the evidence" but hey, it was a hatchet job, not a court trial.

Also, the 1267.69kw model you spoke of was a moped, specifically an unrestricted model, which was acknowledged as already illegal under the law, so given it was a moped, and I'm referring to the legal class of PAPC ( Power Assisted Pedal Cycle ) - that makes what I said based on the document absolutely correct. It was also a completely different bicycle to the compliant one - although it was of a similar make and model chassis.

In this case, you've confused the test devices - this is not my error.

Further more:

1. The fact that an uncontrolled and dangerous stop could be shorter than a controlled stop was not hidden - The test was not to determine the absolute quickest the bike could stop. It was to compare petrol bikes with electric bikes in a like for like manner. That means both bikes have to stop from their maximum speed, without losing traction and therefore control. This meets the stated objective of the report, which was :

The purpose of the tests was to determine whether the petrol-powered bicycles met the definition of a power assisted pedal cycle, and to compare these with an electrically powered bicycle marketed as a power assisted pedal cycle of the “pedalec” variety.

And what I said was absolutely correct. The stopping distance of the Pedelec and the Petrol bicycle were equal when corrected for speed. Of course a bicycle at 19kph stops in less distance than one going 24 kph... The pedelec standard allows for 25 kph maximum speed - Or are you inferring also that ALL PEDELECS should be illegal because the standard would cause them to stop in the same distance that the petrol bike can stop in? Even with the bicycles at different speeds, they could have calculated an equivalent stopping distance for speed. They did not. Hence, they were dishonest in their approach to that test.

Put another way, the test confirmed that stopping distance was irrespective of the type of motor. So then why claim that the distance of stopping for the Petrol bike was dangerously far, when a Pedelec at the same speed would have the same stopping distance?

If you spotted a valid reason for that claim, please point it out to me, because I'm pretty sure they botched that as evidenced by their own results.

2. Illegal electric motorcycles were not within the scope of the test. See above. Specifically, there had been a number of deaths on petrol powered bikes, but no corresponding number of deaths on electric powered bikes:

Of most concern are standard bicycles fitted with petrol engines. A fatal crash in October 2013 involving a 14 year old boy riding one of these vehicles prompted the Centre for Road Safety to carry out a series of tests on a number of petrol-powered motorised bicycles.

You mean the kid trying to get away from police on his pushbike, who appears to have deliberately rode into oncoming traffic in an attempt to get them to abort the chase? That's just a truly tragic case, because the police just wanted to talk to him and weren't even pursuing him, but they hit the siren and he tried to get away... You can look it up. I really feel sorry for the kid's father, but the fact he was on a bicycle with a motor had no contributing factor... IIRC, they wanted to talk to him about wearing a helmet.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-09/14yo-boy-killed-in-bike-crash-after-police-stop/5010736
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/archive/index.php/t-64366.html?s=86ddded9a029f190661f93bd0c5a014f

To be blunt, their taking advantage of a kid's stupid mistake at relatively low speeds trying to get away from police is a pretty disgraceful thing to do. I know the father called for petrol bikes to be banned, but the guy was grieving. Give him his grief - but even then his calls were unbased.

As for illegal electric motorcycles? No - I was referring to those bicycles sold in NSW as PAPCs... Those that are supposed to be under 200w. So we're talking about what is supposed to be legal bicycles, not motorcycles. And yes, many of them, if they same laws were applied as they tried to apply them to petrol PAPCs would be illegal also, for the same reasons... This is a case of double standards of enforcement. They did test illegal motorcycles during their petrol bicycle tests, but those bicycles were already banned and were already illegal.

3. It is fully legal to coast on an electric bike. Either on a 200W maximum electric bike at any time, or a 250w continuous electric bike, if the motor cuts out while coasting.

I start losing you for much of the rest of your post - not so much that I don't follow, but more that I don't see your point. (E.g. There is a clause in the law called an "S10" - a reasonable and honest mistake. If a person had bought an advertised bike that said it was compliant with the law, and did not have the knowledge to suspect it was not compliant, they are considered to have made a reasonable and honest mistake, and have done it in good faith. I don't understand your point of splitting hairs between ignorant and good faith) However, I don't believe anything I've stated is a falsehood - at most a generalisation. As your post is riddled with errors, I can only assume that the perceived falsehoods stem from your miscomprehension.

No, what I said was correct. Yes, it's stupid, but it is correct. And it was driven by the same campaign against petrol PAPCs.

Ref:
PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 2007-08-09 FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
No. 146
TUESDAY 4 AUGUST 2009
*6858 ELECTRIC BIKES—Ms Katrina Hodgkinson asked the Minister for Roads—
Given that members of the Cowra community who own GiaCarlo electric bikes are continuing to receive differing and conflicting advice from the NSW Police Force, which appears to vary with the opinion of individual officers, and that this bike is still advertised by distributors as being legal to ride unregistered and unlicensed in NSW, will the Minister provide a definitive ruling as to whether this specific bike accords with the RTA regulations for not having to be registered?

Answer— I am advised: The RTA carried out a rudimentary assessment of a GiaCarlo electric bike last year. It was found that the width of the pedal crank does allow it to be pedalled like a pedal cycle. The leverage achieved over the short length of the pedal crank makes it very difficult to operate this machine in hilly conditions or for protracted periods of time. Most importantly, the motor is able to provide power to the driven wheel without the pedals being used, from starting off to travelling at cruising speed. The seat height is fixed and cannot be adjusted which limits the efficiency at which it can be pedalled and may not be suitable for some people though this may not be an impediment for others. Power-assisted pedal cycles that comply with the definition in NSW road transport legislation are exempt from registration and licensing requirements in New South Wales. The current review of the legislation regarding these vehicles is not intended to change this situation. Currently, a power-assisted pedal cycle is defined as a pedal cycle to which is attached one or more auxiliary propulsion motors having a combined maximum power output not exceeding 200 watts. A pedal cycle is defined as a vehicle designed to be propelled through a mechanism solely by human power. So, a vehicle can be considered to be a bona fide power-assisted pedal cycle if a person can actually pedal it without the use of the motor, the maximum power output of the motor does not exceed 200 watts, and the power assistance is provided to the pedalling process.

However, riders of power-assisted pedal cycles should be aware that they may be found to be committing an offence if they are observed by an enforcement officer to be operating the vehicle by the motor alone and without pedalling. This is in accordance with the NSW Supreme Court decision in Matheson v Director of Public Prosecutions that confirmed that a vehicle is not a bona fide pedal cycle if it is operated only by a motor, and is therefore not exempt from registration. By its method of operation, the GiaCarlo electric bicycle falls into this category.

Pretty cut and dried - isn't it. Look it up - there's been enforcement on it too - If you have a motor and you're seen moving and you aren't pedaling, then you're guilty and essentially the onus of proof would be on you to prove you were in compliance ( or that it was a Pedelec and not a PAPC and that it was legitimate in operation, since you were observed moving at speed without pedalling )... Sucks eh? I don't agree with it, but that's the law. Given that people sell kits to make pedelecs work without pedaling and they are VERY easy to retrofit, I'd say the police would have a valid reason to go after anyone not pedaling.

Whether they do or not? Well, I don't think it's common, but what I said was absolutely accurate. If you have documented proof to the counter, please provide it.

As for what I said about good faith? Good faith only lasts up until you have reason to believe otherwise. I'm not familiar with the circumstances, but you did describe the bicycle travelling at 70kph. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that counts as "reason to believe otherwise" at that point in time.

As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. A lot of people have died on petrol bikes, whereas they have not on electric bikes. There was an agenda - a clearly defined, and well argued agenda, and the people in parliament were convinced. That's not to say that politicians get it right every time - or even most the time. But how many petrol bike deaths have there been since the ban? I haven't heard of any. Again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: The new law achieved its stated objective - stop foolish kids and DUIs from killing themselves on dangerous bikes. The agenda was clear, the argument persuasive. I need nothing more. What's your agenda?

A lot of people haven't died on petrol bikes. Very few have. Accidents are rare and tend to involve unusual circumstances, where the bicycle may have been travelling at full speed ( 24 kph ) with someone in control who shouldn't have been travelling at that speed given the conditions, but otherwise, 25kph is considered a reasonably speed - or do you advocate pushing for 19kph limits nationally? Because a lot of non-cyclists have proposed exactly that and other speed limit for all bicycles.

An example of where petrol might have contributed ? Someone near me rode into a power pole in the middle of the night last year. They had no lights, the street had no nearby lights around the pole, it was painted with dark anti-termite treatment, and it was right in the middle of the cycleway, because the government saved money by putting the cycleway right down the powerpole line, with the power poles in the middle every so often.... Again tragic. And while you might make a slight case with that if he hadn't been travelling at motor speeds he might have survived - well, true, but I think that's pushing victim blaming a little too far.

And what you said about no deaths on electric was outright wrong... Just four months ago, someone in Victoria was killed on an electric bike - why? Because it was too quiet and he was doored. A noisy bike helps a LOT against being doored.

As for electric bicycles safety?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703657604575005140241751852 - People killed on Ebikes in china ( where they are more common ).
http://www.smh.com.au/drive/electric-bikes-push-the-limits-20110813-1irs9.html - NSW politicians defending Ebikes going 35 kph ( That's about 500w ) - Because "You can pedal that fast anyway"
http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/bicyclists/petrol-powered-bicycles.html - Confirms that 200w 27kph Electric bikes are fine ( compared to the 150w petrol bicycle they tested ).
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/motorist-paul-faulkner-convicted-and-fined-1200-over-cyclist-who-hit-car-door-and-later-died-20141209-1237z0.html - Electric bike rider killed. Very tragic.

My Agenda? Simply defending my right to ride a petrol-powered bicycle, as has been my right, since 1991, against a littany of mistruths by those with an agenda to take that right away, mainly I believe because they don't like the noise, but that's not considered a valid reason anywhere is it? So they try to convince people it's dangerous by foul means.

And when I went through where you claimed I was incorrect, I was able to demonstrate that my comments were spot on.... Every single time. If you can counter any proof I offer, please do. Sometimes I am wrong, but so far, every piece of evidence I've presented has been backed up by the facts.

Sunder, you're heart's in the right place and I know you're trying to avoid working me up, but what you are saying is just outright wrong and is the same sort of thing I hear from so many people who have no real experience with petrol PAPCs, so please don't propagate what you are saying - Petrol bicycles are no more dangerous than electric bicycles, and all the desire to ban petrol bicycles achieved was to screw up the laws in a way that exposes electric bicycles to possible future bans as well. We should be promoting as many ways to get around on bikes as possible, and petrol bikes are very effective for most people and not everyone lives within walking distance of where they need to ride to ( and not everyone wants to pedal - it's to the WA government's credit they realize this and have stated that it's legal to ride on the motor alone on a PAPC - they are also about to increase the power for PAPCs to 250w ).

But if you can present any valid argument as to why Petrol bicycles should be banned and Electric ones not, or even a valid explanation of any one way in which petrol bikes are significantly more dangerous than electric bicycles, then please present it. So far, the best argument made against petrol bikes that I've heard is that 2-stroke motors smell and make a noise that's unpleasant to some. Valid criticisms, but still not really grounds for banning.

As for me? Well, I did develop my own compliant petrol-powered bicycle that's legal in NSW and QLD... I did that by removing petrol components from all parts of the propulsion system, which puts it outside of the current bans... Effectively, it is an electric bicycle, and it's fully compliant with all state laws in all states. It just has a small generator to charge the batteries while it's running. Four stroke. Very quiet, no smell. Hey, even I can see the point in improving tech Besides, it does still fit my agenda because it fits my needs for more range and charging on-the-go -

Details here: http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=68164
So perhaps the buzzing sound will once again return to Sydney streets? Well, it doesn't quite buzz. Actually, it rarely goes about 4000rpm. But at least it has the range to get in from outer suburbs. Motor + Gen + Batteries cost about the same as a good block of Lithiums. I'm trying for 150km range per liter too, so it's greener than electric bikes, even when using petrol.

David

 

[Sunder]

Okay mate. It's clear we're having different arguments, the same way you're criticising the report for failing to prove something it never set out to prove.

You're free to push your agenda, but unfortunately, with your debating skill, I doubt you'll be able to convince me (or more importantly, anyone who counts) that the majority of petrol bikes sold can either have a maximum output of 200W, or meet EN 15194. The NSW Parliament was right to outright ban petrol bikes. It was the second state to do so, well after Queensland - expect more states to follow suit.

 

[Cowardlyduck]

David, you would do well to summarise your points so reading your posts is not a chore.

I have to agree with Sunder though, your arguing the wrong points, in the wrong place, to the wrong people.

Instead of getting hung up on the law, or inconsequential details, why don't you try justifying your position with outright logic...see if you can convince us that way.

Cheers

 

[cj7hawk]

Okay mate. It's clear we're having different arguments, the same way you're criticising the report for failing to prove something it never set out to prove.

You're free to push your agenda, but unfortunately, with your debating skill, I doubt you'll be able to convince me (or more importantly, anyone who counts) that the majority of petrol bikes sold can either have a maximum output of 200W, or meet EN 15194. The NSW Parliament was right to outright ban petrol bikes. It was the second state to do so, well after Queensland - expect more states to follow suit.

Sunder, you called me a liar and I demonstrated otherwise. You apparently have no idea what the facts and are just regurgitating mistruths you've heard elsewhere without so much as checking them.

You said petrol engines of suitable size couldn't be made to produce under 200w. I proved you wrong and built an engine that did so.
You said none of the NSW DoT tested petrol-bikes were under 200w. I proved you wrong as the test document clearly stated otherwise.
You misstated the facts as shown in the report. I corrected you. Several times.
You misrepresented the outcomes as delivered in the report with respect to braking. I let that slide, but you were wrong again.
You said People had been killed on petrol bikes and not electric bikes. I proved you wrong and demonstrated that deaths linked to electric cycles may be more likely.
You said there was no such thing as the "must pedal" rule. I quoted parliamentary documents and proved you wrong again.
You said the people in parliament were convinced. I demonstrated a reasonable case that they were mislead by fabricated evidence.

Sunder, pull your head in. This isn't a debate - you are just deliberately spreading misinformation about a topic which you infer doesn't concern you. If you want to contribute, then contribute. But when I point out almost everything you said is factually wrong and you only respond by criticizing my debating skills, then you are demonstrating that you're not concerned whether what you say is factual or not.

I'll leave it at that at this point, because the topic of Petrol bicycles in an Electric forum is borderline off-topic. They are relevant though because the NSW government has damaged the future of Electric vehicles in that state BECAUSE of the poor application of laws there around petrol bicycles.

Fortunately, at least within WA and most-likely other states, they are not following NSW's lead. That's a good thing for electric vehicles too, because every argument made against petrol powered bicycles so far has equal relevance to electic bicycles, so arguing against one only serves to damage the other.

David.

 

[cj7hawk]

David, you would do well to summarise your points so reading your posts is not a chore.

I have to agree with Sunder though, your arguing the wrong points, in the wrong place, to the wrong people.

Instead of getting hung up on the law, or inconsequential details, why don't you try justifying your position with outright logic...see if you can convince us that way.

Cheers

Fair enough. Perhaps I am arguing it like an asshole, but I get somewhat defensive when people start reposting things in an attempt to destroy something they aren't involved in, without trying to determine what is fact and what is not. Sunder is just reposting things he's heard and there's so much misinformation come out of NSW, it doesn't help things. It doesn't help that this is the same sort of crap posted to so many forums... It doesn't matter if it's all lies... If enough people believe the lie then the truth doesn't matter anymore.

I get that he's not an ass, but it's not his hobby that's being damaged by what he's talking about - it's mine, and the moves made in NSW do damage electric bicycle conversions, because they now have evidence that any converted e-bicycle travelling at speeds of 24kph is a danger... That kind of screws it up for electric bikes too.

Anyway, I'll pull my head in too. If you think they way I've gone about it isn't good then I'll take note and quieten down....

Thanks,
David.

 

[Sunder]

You said petrol engines of suitable size couldn't be made to produce under 200w. I proved you wrong and built an engine that did so.

Incorrect. You claim you have built an engine to do so. A claim is not proof. I can claim that I am a demi-god. You should rightly laugh at me. The consensus is, and evidence submitted to parliament is that it is not feasible to reduce commonly sold petrol bike engines to below 200w maximum power. The report makes this clear - unless you willingly misinterpret the difference between maximum power and continuous power.

You said none of the NSW DoT tested petrol-bikes were under 200w. I proved you wrong as the test document clearly stated otherwise.

You have not. The document very clearly shows the maximum power output in "legal" mode exceeded the allowable limit by >359w.

You misstated the facts as shown in the report. I corrected you. Several times.

I have not. You have misunderstood the difference between continuous power and maximum power and continue to do so.

You misrepresented the outcomes as delivered in the report with respect to braking. I let that slide, but you were wrong again.

I have not. The report is extremely clear. You are comparing total braking capacity. The report is comparing braking distance from maximum speed. The report was never designed to compare maximum braking capacity. In your desperation to prove that petrol bikes are safer, you have made calculations based on other provided information, to rubbish the report. That is intellectually dishonest.

You said People had been killed on petrol bikes and not electric bikes. I proved you wrong and demonstrated that deaths linked to electric cycles may be more likely.

I did not make a claim that people have not died on electric bikes. I simply said that a lot of people have died on petrol bikes, but there appears not to have been an equivalent number of deaths on electric bikes. Therefore giving an example of where a person has is not proving me wrong. You keep making these claims that I've said, or that the report said, but neither I nor the reports have made those claims.

You said there was no such thing as the "must pedal" rule. I quoted parliamentary documents and proved you wrong again.

I made no such claim, and therefore you cannot have proven me wrong. I said that there is no requirement to pedal for bikes under 200W maximum output, which is a correct claim. I said that you can avoid pedalling in bikes with a 250w continuous power, as long as the motor is not providing power while you are not pedaling. This is also a correct claim.

You said the people in parliament were convinced. I demonstrated a reasonable case that they were mislead by fabricated evidence.

You have not done so. You misrepresent the aims of the report and claim it is fabricated. Just because a report does not state evidence which may be true in support of your case, does not mean other evidence which is correct is "fabricated".

Sunder, pull your head in. This isn't a debate - you are just deliberately spreading misinformation about a topic which you infer doesn't concern you.

Presenting opposing points of view is a debate. However, in this debate, I am saying "A" and the report is saying "B", and you are saying "Sunder is saying C, and the report is saying D. C & D are clearly wrong, so Sunder and the report is clearly wrong".

Anyone can make up an argument and debunk it. You're not persuading anyone, and just accusing others of speaking mistruths where you are the only one doing it.

 

[Samd]

Dont we have actual data as to safety of ICE bikes vs electric?

I can think of several stinkbike deaths in Oz, and a guy in a coma in my own town. Wouldn't be hard to track.
I cant think of any ebike deaths (although a dooring comes to mind in Melb perhaps, but a dooring isnt particualr to an ebike I should think).

 

[cj7hawk]

You said petrol engines of suitable size couldn't be made to produce under 200w. I proved you wrong and built an engine that did so.

Incorrect. You claim you have built an engine to do so. A claim is not proof. I can claim that I am a demi-god. You should rightly laugh at me. The consensus is, and evidence submitted to parliament is that it is not feasible to reduce commonly sold petrol bike engines to below 200w maximum power. The report makes this clear - unless you willingly misinterpret the difference between maximum power and continuous power.

Fair enough - I have no proof of that.

You said none of the NSW DoT tested petrol-bikes were under 200w. I proved you wrong as the test document clearly stated otherwise.

You have not. The document very clearly shows the maximum power output in "legal" mode exceeded the allowable limit by >359w.

Page 12 clarifies that they tested it without the restrictor. Page 21 also states;
"Where limiting devices are not fitted, the power exceeds the 200 watt limit."

The exceed value ( maximum ) is based on removal of the limiting device. It could theoretically be higher, but the gearing would provide a natural limit based on torque.

You misstated the facts as shown in the report. I corrected you. Several times.

I have not. You have misunderstood the difference between continuous power and maximum power and continue to do so.

You misrepresented the outcomes as delivered in the report with respect to braking. I let that slide, but you were wrong again.

I have not. The report is extremely clear. You are comparing total braking capacity. The report is comparing braking distance from maximum speed. The report was never designed to compare maximum braking capacity. In your desperation to prove that petrol bikes are safer, you have made calculations based on other provided information, to rubbish the report. That is intellectually dishonest.

It's the same brakes... Bicycle brakes work as bicycle brakes do - that was my point. There is no possible way to say that the brakes are inadequate for petrol but not for electric.

Also, the report clearly defines the difference between emergency braking and normal braking in section 4.4

"For all the motorised bicycles, their maximum braking capacity was measured by applying the brakes with as much force as the rider was capable of generating. As this caused the petrol engines to stall, additional tests were done on the petrol-powered bicycles to control the braking without stalling the engines. This required the rider to depress the clutch before pulling the brake levers."

Emergency braking was when they just stopped, and the engine stalled. Normal braking was with relation to going through a complicated process of sequentially disengaging the clutch, then stopping after the clutch was braked. The braking force was at the "maximum" for all tests. ( ref: Section 4.4)

Now, if it's not an emergency braking situation, and you have plenty of time to stop, then it doesn't matter how long it takes to stop does it? Who cares if it's 100m if it's not an emergency. The simple facts of the document show that the petrol bicycle stopped in 4.6m from 24kph while the electric stopped in 4.95m from 19 kph. Ergo, the petrol powered bike stopped quicker and that was after they criticized the brakes as being "inadequate for the speed".

There is nothing intellectually dishonest in pointing that out.
There is nothing intellectually dishonest in pointing out that if it had been doing the claimed 25kph maximum speed, that the electric bike would have taken more than 8.6m to stop.
There is no ambiguity there. If you have to stop, you have to stop. The 24kph Petrol PAPC recorded the shortest stopping distance of any of the bikes. This was buried in the facts, but it was still recorded.

You said People had been killed on petrol bikes and not electric bikes. I proved you wrong and demonstrated that deaths linked to electric cycles may be more likely.

I did not make a claim that people have not died on electric bikes. I simply said that a lot of people have died on petrol bikes, but there appears not to have been an equivalent number of deaths on electric bikes. Therefore giving an example of where a person has is not proving me wrong. You keep making these claims that I've said, or that the report said, but neither I nor the reports have made those claims.

You said there was no such thing as the "must pedal" rule. I quoted parliamentary documents and proved you wrong again.

I made no such claim, and therefore you cannot have proven me wrong. I said that there is no requirement to pedal for bikes under 200W maximum output, which is a correct claim. I said that you can avoid pedalling in bikes with a 250w continuous power, as long as the motor is not providing power while you are not pedaling. This is also a correct claim.

As it cannot be proven whether the motor is providing power or not, it's entirely subjective to the police, which is what I pointed out - If they say you were not pedaling, but the bicycle was moving, then you'd have to a) prove the motor wasn't providing power while operating and b) prove that this was a defense. However I rechecked what you wrote, and in context, I admit what you said wasn't necessarily incorrect, though in practice, what I said is what is reflected in the media.

You said the people in parliament were convinced. I demonstrated a reasonable case that they were mislead by fabricated evidence.

You have not done so. You misrepresent the aims of the report and claim it is fabricated. Just because a report does not state evidence which may be true in support of your case, does not mean other evidence which is correct is "fabricated".

No, I claimed that the report was a hatchet job, intended to form the basis for the ban on the petrol cycles.
Aside from anecdotal evidence I have from speaking to people who were contacted at the time the report was created, here's some reasons I make this accusation.

* The petrol cycle could stop quicker than the slower electric cycle, so they modified the test to include sequential activies, then used this extra stopping distance as a justification to blame the bicycles inadequate braking capacity. There's no requirement that the engine not stop when braking... They are designed that way.

* They specifically avoiding testing electric PAPCs of similar output to the petrol PAPC, despite it being wholly relevant to the evidence ( they only wanted to ban petrol - not electric PAPCs, despite the performance of both being similar, and electric PAPCs outperforming petrol ones ) -

* They claim the maximum speeds of 43 kph is excessive for PAPCs, despite that being impossible for a PAPC, which they confirmed had a maximum of 24 kph. This is pretty disingenuous. Bicycles capable of travelling at 43 kph under power were already illegal in NSW and are motorcycles. No PAPC can travel at those kinds of speeds unless it's down a very steep hill.

Sunder, pull your head in. This isn't a debate - you are just deliberately spreading misinformation about a topic which you infer doesn't concern you.

Presenting opposing points of view is a debate. However, in this debate, I am saying "A" and the report is saying "B", and you are saying "Sunder is saying C, and the report is saying D. C & D are clearly wrong, so Sunder and the report is clearly wrong".

Anyone can make up an argument and debunk it. You're not persuading anyone, and just accusing others of speaking mistruths where you are the only one doing it.

I'm quoting from my opponents research. Pointing out the inconsistencies. Posting evidence when challenged. Aside from my unsubstantiated claim that I've also built such an engine, I've posted supporting documentation to back up every claim.

Anyway, I invited you to discuss, then argued with every comment you made and I should not have done that, so I apologize.

So I guess it doesn't matter if you disagree with my argument or otherwise - but please take this thought with you. Electric and petrol systems both use the same bicycles and bicycle components. The same frames, the same brakes, the same cables, etc. The only advantage petrol has over electric is range. Weight is comparable between the two, but in every other category, electric outperforms petrol. Power, Torque, Maintenance, Lifetime, etc... That means any attack on petrol takes away freedoms from users of both petrols and electrics. None of the reasons to ban petrol bicycles were centered around the power plant itself - It was all around the speed and the mechanical limitations of bicycles.

That alone is a pretty good reason to defend petrol bicycles. It's too late in NSW - I doubt things will change. It's not to late elsewhere.

David

 

[sn0wchyld]

You said petrol engines of suitable size couldn't be made to produce under 200w. I proved you wrong and built an engine that did so.

Incorrect. You claim you have built an engine to do so. A claim is not proof. I can claim that I am a demi-god. You should rightly laugh at me. The consensus is, and evidence submitted to parliament is that it is not feasible to reduce commonly sold petrol bike engines to below 200w maximum power. The report makes this clear - unless you willingly misinterpret the difference between maximum power and continuous power.

Fair enough - I have no proof of that.

You said none of the NSW DoT tested petrol-bikes were under 200w. I proved you wrong as the test document clearly stated otherwise.

You have not. The document very clearly shows the maximum power output in "legal" mode exceeded the allowable limit by >359w.

Page 12 clarifies that they tested it without the restrictor. Page 21 also states;
"Where limiting devices are not fitted, the power exceeds the 200 watt limit."

The exceed value ( maximum ) is based on removal of the limiting device. It could theoretically be higher, but the gearing would provide a natural limit based on torque.

You misstated the facts as shown in the report. I corrected you. Several times.

I have not. You have misunderstood the difference between continuous power and maximum power and continue to do so.

You misrepresented the outcomes as delivered in the report with respect to braking. I let that slide, but you were wrong again.

I have not. The report is extremely clear. You are comparing total braking capacity. The report is comparing braking distance from maximum speed. The report was never designed to compare maximum braking capacity. In your desperation to prove that petrol bikes are safer, you have made calculations based on other provided information, to rubbish the report. That is intellectually dishonest.

It's the same brakes... Bicycle brakes work as bicycle brakes do - that was my point. There is no possible way to say that the brakes are inadequate for petrol but not for electric.

Also, the report clearly defines the difference between emergency braking and normal braking in section 4.4

"For all the motorised bicycles, their maximum braking capacity was measured by applying the brakes with as much force as the rider was capable of generating. As this caused the petrol engines to stall, additional tests were done on the petrol-powered bicycles to control the braking without stalling the engines. This required the rider to depress the clutch before pulling the brake levers."

Emergency braking was when they just stopped, and the engine stalled. Normal braking was with relation to going through a complicated process of sequentially disengaging the clutch, then stopping after the clutch was braked. The braking force was at the "maximum" for all tests. ( ref: Section 4.4)

Now, if it's not an emergency braking situation, and you have plenty of time to stop, then it doesn't matter how long it takes to stop does it? Who cares if it's 100m if it's not an emergency. The simple facts of the document show that the petrol bicycle stopped in 4.6m from 24kph while the electric stopped in 4.95m from 19 kph. Ergo, the petrol powered bike stopped quicker and that was after they criticized the brakes as being "inadequate for the speed".

There is nothing intellectually dishonest in pointing that out.
There is nothing intellectually dishonest in pointing out that if it had been doing the claimed 25kph maximum speed, that the electric bike would have taken more than 8.6m to stop.
There is no ambiguity there. If you have to stop, you have to stop. The 24kph Petrol PAPC recorded the shortest stopping distance of any of the bikes. This was buried in the facts, but it was still recorded.

You said People had been killed on petrol bikes and not electric bikes. I proved you wrong and demonstrated that deaths linked to electric cycles may be more likely.

I did not make a claim that people have not died on electric bikes. I simply said that a lot of people have died on petrol bikes, but there appears not to have been an equivalent number of deaths on electric bikes. Therefore giving an example of where a person has is not proving me wrong. You keep making these claims that I've said, or that the report said, but neither I nor the reports have made those claims.

You said there was no such thing as the "must pedal" rule. I quoted parliamentary documents and proved you wrong again.

I made no such claim, and therefore you cannot have proven me wrong. I said that there is no requirement to pedal for bikes under 200W maximum output, which is a correct claim. I said that you can avoid pedalling in bikes with a 250w continuous power, as long as the motor is not providing power while you are not pedaling. This is also a correct claim.

As it cannot be proven whether the motor is providing power or not, it's entirely subjective to the police, which is what I pointed out - If they say you were not pedaling, but the bicycle was moving, then you'd have to a) prove the motor wasn't providing power while operating and b) prove that this was a defense. However I rechecked what you wrote, and in context, I admit what you said wasn't necessarily incorrect, though in practice, what I said is what is reflected in the media.

You said the people in parliament were convinced. I demonstrated a reasonable case that they were mislead by fabricated evidence.

You have not done so. You misrepresent the aims of the report and claim it is fabricated. Just because a report does not state evidence which may be true in support of your case, does not mean other evidence which is correct is "fabricated".

No, I claimed that the report was a hatchet job, intended to form the basis for the ban on the petrol cycles.
Aside from anecdotal evidence I have from speaking to people who were contacted at the time the report was created, here's some reasons I make this accusation.

* The petrol cycle could stop quicker than the slower electric cycle, so they modified the test to include sequential activies, then used this extra stopping distance as a justification to blame the bicycles inadequate braking capacity. There's no requirement that the engine not stop when braking... They are designed that way.

* They specifically avoiding testing electric PAPCs of similar output to the petrol PAPC, despite it being wholly relevant to the evidence ( they only wanted to ban petrol - not electric PAPCs, despite the performance of both being similar, and electric PAPCs outperforming petrol ones ) -

* They claim the maximum speeds of 43 kph is excessive for PAPCs, despite that being impossible for a PAPC, which they confirmed had a maximum of 24 kph. This is pretty disingenuous. Bicycles capable of travelling at 43 kph under power were already illegal in NSW and are motorcycles. No PAPC can travel at those kinds of speeds unless it's down a very steep hill.

Sunder, pull your head in. This isn't a debate - you are just deliberately spreading misinformation about a topic which you infer doesn't concern you.

Presenting opposing points of view is a debate. However, in this debate, I am saying "A" and the report is saying "B", and you are saying "Sunder is saying C, and the report is saying D. C & D are clearly wrong, so Sunder and the report is clearly wrong".

Anyone can make up an argument and debunk it. You're not persuading anyone, and just accusing others of speaking mistruths where you are the only one doing it.

I'm quoting from my opponents research. Pointing out the inconsistencies. Posting evidence when challenged. Aside from my unsubstantiated claim that I've also built such an engine, I've posted supporting documentation to back up every claim.

Anyway, I invited you to discuss, then argued with every comment you made and I should not have done that, so I apologize.

So I guess it doesn't matter if you disagree with my argument or otherwise - but please take this thought with you. Electric and petrol systems both use the same bicycles and bicycle components. The same frames, the same brakes, the same cables, etc. The only advantage petrol has over electric is range. Weight is comparable between the two, but in every other category, electric outperforms petrol. Power, Torque, Maintenance, Lifetime, etc... That means any attack on petrol takes away freedoms from users of both petrols and electrics. None of the reasons to ban petrol bicycles were centered around the power plant itself - It was all around the speed and the mechanical limitations of bicycles.

That alone is a pretty good reason to defend petrol bicycles. It's too late in NSW - I doubt things will change. It's not to late elsewhere.

David

^^this... the laws state an ungoverned max of X power... which is rather stupid in of itself given that a brushless motors controller is by any definition a governor of power - it does after all limit the current that flows through the motor and thus control both its torque and its power output. Remove the governor from a brushless motor and it will produce 0W. Does this mean a 20kw monster ebike is legal, just because its actual 'ungoverned' power is 0W? Technically... yes. As such it seems entirely reasonable to point out the huge, gaping holes in logic in these 'studies' and laws, as david has done here. I see no justifacation at all for comparing a 24km'h petrol bike to a 15km'h pedal bike.

cj7hawk,
your link claims many things without any references, such as this doosey
"Electric motors are designed to produce a continuous power output, which is the amount of
power they generate while they operate over a prolonged period."
no reference or definitions for things like 'prolonged period' - is this 30 seconds or 3 years? who knows? in what conditions? -20degC or 45degC in the sun? Ambiguity in these areas is extremely detrimental to the credibility of any study.

" The test was done twice for each motorised bicycle, and
the top speed taken as the average of the two readings."
the test should have been done twice - in the opposite direction. Its unlikely to make a major difference to the top speed but the point remains that these tests seem to have been done by people with either little knowledge or alternatively little care about the accuracy of their tests.

"As this caused the
petrol engines to stall, additional tests were done on the petrol-powered bicycles to control
the braking without stalling the engines. This required the rider to depress the clutch before
pulling the brake levers."
no justification as to why this is a problem during a emergency breaking situation.
No attempt at all (it seems) to ensure the breaks on each bike were of equal quality/tune/power - same goes for tires etc etc etc.
In fact, later in the document it states:
"The comparative quality of the brakes is shown by the fact that the heavier pedalec was
brought form top speed to a complete stop in less distance than the lighter motorised
bicycles doing the controlled stops, and the emergency stops"
This alone is justification to throw all subsequent results out of the window, particularly since no attempt is made to account for these differences at any point.


"As the pedalec had no throttle, the rider was required to mount it and pedal while on the
dynamometer. The rider pedalled as fast as possible without losing power assistance from
the electric motor."
Good luck justifying the power readings from a electric bike when there is nothing done to ensure the rider is not contributing to the power output. specifically at the test table it states:
"High peak power due to the rider's pedalling effort, possibly at the start of test"
The laws specifically state that the pedelec function can be disabled when testing the max/cont power outputs for a bike, yet for some reason they don't bother? why?

"The continuous power produced by unrestricted petrol-powered bicycles greatly exceeded
the 200 watt limit set by the regulations; see Table 6.2. "
so what? the unrestricted power of the ebike may well have done the same... but they didn't remove the restrictions on the ebike, the only justifacation (not mentioned, but can be guessed) is that it (might) be a bit harder than 5 min with a screwdriver.

"...the higher maximum speed of 46km/h would be outside the capacity of even elite cyclists."
"The maximum continuous travel speed of up to 43km/h far exceeds that capable of
being produced by even elite cyclists for prolonged periods..."
"On a racing bicycle, a reasonably fit rider can ride at 40 km/h (25 mph) on flat ground for short periods"
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
"The Belkin rider recorded an average speed of 45.7km/h over a distance of 152.4km" - in the tour de france.
not only are their terms again not defined (ie 'prolonged periods') but a simple google search can prove their claim completely false, unless of course by 'prolonged periods' they mean greater than 3.5 hours...


Calling this a hatchet job is being far to kind. This is a piss poor excuse for a study. Note, I dont like ICE pusbikes at all... if anything my bias is against ice bikes. But when you want to claim that a ICE bike is more dangerous because it was out braked by a bike with better quality brakes... well... thats as far as I really needed to read. This study is utter, vacuous crap. It has 0 citations. 0 definitions of key terms. 0 scientific basis. 0 attempt to eliminate variables like wind and the blody brakes of each bike. I'd put money on my putting those kits on my DH bike and stopping faster than any of them, in no small part due to 203mm rotors and very high end calipers. but apparently that doesn't matter, because reasons. The study could have made some (almost) valid points re the quality of components in many ICE kits etc... but even this would be marred by its many other shortcomings.

Sorry, but this kind of shit really gets on my nose. Holding up this study as somehow valid is just stupid, as this 'study' makes 0 attempts to eliminate even the most menial of variables, and openly admits to this shortcoming... yet goes on to still base its conclusions as if such variables didn't matter whatsoever. The fact that this is the basis for any governmental decision is (among plenty of other things) a glaring indictment of the quality of our government(s).

 

[Sunder]

Page 12 clarifies that they tested it without the restrictor. Page 21 also states;
"Where limiting devices are not fitted, the power exceeds the 200 watt limit."

The exceed value ( maximum ) is based on removal of the limiting device. It could theoretically be higher, but the gearing would provide a natural limit based on torque.

Mate, again, I can refute every single one of your comments in that post, but it's just before work and I'd rather just knock out a quick response to show how badly you're reading the report:



This table is from the report. In case it's not 100% clear, column three is the 48cc motor with the "legal" restrictor fitted, and column four is the same 48cc motor with restrictor removed.

Also if it isn't clear, bikes with throttles are measured on their peak power, and the peak power permissible for a bike with a throttle is 200w. All three petrol bikes were fitted with throttles.

Now tell me which of the petrol bikes in this table - which yes, does include the "legal" bike with the restrictor fitted passes that definition.

If your answer isn't "None of them", then you fail all table reading tests, and there's no point arguing with you.

 

[cj7hawk]

Page 12 clarifies that they tested it without the restrictor. Page 21 also states;
"Where limiting devices are not fitted, the power exceeds the 200 watt limit."

The exceed value ( maximum ) is based on removal of the limiting device. It could theoretically be higher, but the gearing would provide a natural limit based on torque.

Mate, again, I can refute every single one of your comments in that post, but it's just before work and I'd rather just knock out a quick response to show how badly you're reading the report:



This table is from the report. In case it's not 100% clear, column three is the 48cc motor with the "legal" restrictor fitted, and column four is the same 48cc motor with restrictor removed.

Also if it isn't clear, bikes with throttles are measured on their peak power, and the peak power permissible for a bike with a throttle is 200w. All three petrol bikes were fitted with throttles.

Now tell me which of the petrol bikes in this table - which yes, does include the "legal" bike with the restrictor fitted passes that definition.

If your answer isn't "None of them", then you fail all table reading tests, and there's no point arguing with you.

Sunder, as I pointed out, the report indicates that the peak power was a measurement they took with the restrictor removed and did in fact say so. The figure under 200w was the figure that was taken with the restrictor in place. I already pointed out which pages of the report identified that in prior posts.

But, just in case you don't get that, then consider this. With the reduction that that particular engine has, that it's going to be throttled at around 2000~2500 rpm, so won't have the power to provide torque after about 4000 rpm, and torque only decreases below the peak. That engine probably produces around 1nm at those kinds of RPMs, and has about an 18:1 or 20:1 total reduction - let's assume 20:1 since I have the same model and that's what mine is... So on a MTB, that's around 3800 rpm at the engine for the 24kph maximum speed... maximum... And it's producing 0.37nm of torque at that speed if we ignore transmission losses ( which increase with speed ) - really low power right.

So even if we ignore typical losses to the top-output speed of the engine at around 8000 rpm, and we keep the torque the same ( and in reality it will be zero ) that still only equates to around 300w, not 521.99 watts. Sure, if that was theoretically possible, it would exceed 200w, but it's nowhere close to 521.99 watts.

How about the other way? Well, let's drop to around where it would be throttled - say 2000 rpm... Now, we already know from graphs of engines that torque probably won't increase much at those speeds, but it does increase... But how much does it need to increase to support the claim?

Well, 521.99 (claimed) / 149w (measured at ~3858rpm ) multiplied by 3858 ( con power rpm ) / 2000 ( rpm estimate ) = around 6.75

So at lower speeds realistically, torque needs to increase by a factor of 6.75 or = 6.75 x 0.37nm which would be 2.5nm at around 2000 rpm...

Seriously, that's a VERY high figure to claim for one of those engines, even unrestricted. Change the numbers and it varies but it's still a very high figure for that kind of engine.

So, yes, when the report infers that the maximum engine power was measured with the kits removed, I kind of believe them on that one. Especially as the report does confirm that the electric absolutely creamed the petrol bikes with respect to low-speed torque ( and praises it for this ) compared to the petrol bikes that did not have any, and had to be pedaled to speed before engaging the motor, and these motors idle at higher speeds than that. ( Typical idle 2000 to 3000 rpm )

So look at it whichever way you want. One way, the report states something different to what you're claiming, with respect to how the figures were calculated and you're pointing at a number but ignoring how the report says it was calculated. The other way, the laws of physics don't appear to support the claim. Take your pick.

And in case you try to point out that the bike could be *made* to produce that power with modification, well, so can electrics... All it usually takes is a voltage increase. But we're talking about people who want to remain compliant here - so why would they deliberately modify their bikes to make them illegal? Don't forget that the argument progressed by the government was only about making the legal bikes illegal. The illegal ones were already illegal.

Regards
David

 

[cjh]

As it is peak power, not continuous power that is what the 200W limit is based on and the restricted engine in the table exceeded the 200W peak power limit it is illegal and the restricted engine's continuous power output is irellevent. Simple really.

 

[cj7hawk]

As it is peak power, not continuous power that is what the 200W limit is based on and the restricted engine in the table exceeded the 200W peak power limit it is illegal and the restricted engine's continuous power output is irellevent. Simple really.

If the engine was deliberately modified by the test staff so that the peak power would exceed the limit power, then the figure is not legally relevant to the 200w limit.

Simple really.

 

[cjh]

Where does it say that they did this for the restricted engine test results?

 

[cjh]

From what I read, they tested the 48cc engine in "restricted", "unrestricted" and "unrestricted & modified" form. In the restricted form it still exceeded the legal limit by more than 2.5 times.

 

[cj7hawk]

From what I read, they tested the 48cc engine in "restricted", "unrestricted" and "unrestricted & modified" form. In the restricted form it still exceeded the legal limit by more than 2.5 times.

CJH, If the engine was capable of producing 521.99 watts, under what circumstances do you honestly think it couldn't continue to do this, and that somehow the power would drop down to 149w while operating? ( and it's 3.5 times higher... ) - It's a petrol engine. If it could produce 521.99 watts, then that would be the maximum continuous power output in this situation -

David

 

[cjh]

Perhaps you are missing the point? The 200W legal limit is for maximum power, not continuous. Pedalecs have a 250W continuous power limit, not a maximum power limit. The continuous output of any petrol engine or electric assisted bicycle with a throttle for that matter is completely irrelevant in this case as this is not the way the law is written.

 

[Sunder]

From what I read, they tested the 48cc engine in "restricted", "unrestricted" and "unrestricted & modified" form. In the restricted form it still exceeded the legal limit by more than 2.5 times.

CJH, If the engine was capable of producing 521.99 watts, under what circumstances do you honestly think it couldn't continue to do this, and that somehow the power would drop down to 149w while operating? ( and it's 3.5 times higher... )

When there isn't sufficient resistance from the dynograph for the motor to generate the extra power. Same thing happens with electric motors. A 1kw motor that is wound for a top speed of 25km/h would probably not have a continuous power output of more than about 300w on flat ground. Up a hill, or on a dynograph designed to increase load however...

 

[cj7hawk]

From what I read, they tested the 48cc engine in "restricted", "unrestricted" and "unrestricted & modified" form. In the restricted form it still exceeded the legal limit by more than 2.5 times.

CJH, If the engine was capable of producing 521.99 watts, under what circumstances do you honestly think it couldn't continue to do this, and that somehow the power would drop down to 149w while operating? ( and it's 3.5 times higher... )

When there isn't sufficient resistance from the dynograph for the motor to generate the extra power. Same thing happens with electric motors. A 1kw motor that is wound for a top speed of 25km/h would probably not have a continuous power output of more than about 300w on flat ground. Up a hill, or on a dynograph designed to increase load however...

OK, I understand what you're saying, but you're talking about an electric motor and back-emf there -As the back-emf approaches the supply voltage of the motor without load, the speed won't increase, because there's no longer sufficient voltage difference across the motor terminals to drive the amperage. Under load, at the same speed, the back-emf drops off and the power output increases. That's normal for an electric motor, even in a PAPC ( 200w electric limit ). - And yes, for that reason, an electric motor that can output 200w will usually exceed 200w, so often it's enforced as a speed. Remember, the 200w limit was originally for petrol only - it was never intended for electrics, which is why they went with the EU standard instead of just raising the limit to 250w for everyone.

Petrol motors ( ICE motors ) don't have anything like back EMF. They only have internal losses which increase with speed. As such, they'll accelerate until the power the motor is producing is entirely consumed within the motor. These losses aren't considered in the power output - only any surplus power that the motor is producing.

So if the dynomometer isn't producing enough drag, then the net effect is that the motor will continue to accelerate until the combination of internal losses and the drag produced by the dynamometer are equal because there's no back-emf - this is critical to a dyno, because the faster the speed, the higher the power, so the ability of the dyno to reach equilibrium is critical to the measurement. Stability is an absolute requirement for dyno measurements because otherwise momentum loss from the test equipment, bicycle and engine would interfere with the results significantly.

This is why I say that if the dyno can measure the output, then the engine can maintain that output. It's not possible for the power output from an engine to increase under load, because the maximum torque of an ICE is relatively constant at any given speed, while electric motors can deliver more power to the motor and change their maximum torque based on the load that the motor is driving.

In understanding that, you will understand why I'm saying it's actually impossible for those results to have come from the same engine in the same configuration given ICE limitations.

Normally I'd accuse the testers of including bogus figures based on that, but as I said, they did infer in the report that the peak power came from the "modified" engine, not the compliant one.

Regards
David.

 

[cjh]

Normally I'd accuse the testers of including bogus figures based on that, but as I said, they did infer in the report that the peak power came from the "modified" engine, not the compliant one.

Regards
David.

Still don't see where in the report you are finding this? If that is the case then why are the peak power outputs of the "restricted" and "unrestricted" not the same? Not that it matters as they all exceed the 200W peak limit which is the only thing that counts. As far as I can see they talk about modifying the motor and they show separate results for it in its different forms.

On the plus side, if they are testing what is supposed to be a 250W continuous rated electric motor and it is only putting out around 75W continuous rated, perhaps we can get away with more powerful electric motors than we think we can :wink:

 

[Raged]

What it comes down to is... Dont ride like a dick and you wont have any problems. Everything is legal until you get caught.

 

[Sunder]

Still don't see where in the report you are finding this? If that is the case then why are the peak power outputs of the "restricted" and "unrestricted" not the same? Not that it matters as they all exceed the 200W peak limit which is the only thing that counts. As far as I can see they talk about modifying the motor and they show separate results for it in its different forms.

I'm going to give up on David. He seems to want to believe what he wants to believe, and ignores everyone else and chooses to believe the whole world is spreading mistruths, and he's the only one with the real truth. Usually we call people like that deluded. Of course, there is such thing as communal delusions, so there is always that sliver of hope.

On the plus side, if they are testing what is supposed to be a 250W continuous rated electric motor and it is only putting out around 75W continuous rated, perhaps we can get away with more powerful electric motors than we think we can :wink:

I suspect so. EN 15194 has a testing methodology for continuous power. It's fairly generous. You put 251w through the motor for an hour at 25*C. If at the end of the hour, the temperature is stable, it fails. If the temperature is still rising, it passes. If the motor melts itself before the hour is out, it also passes.

In theory, knowing that, you could specifically design a motor that can handle very high power ratings, but doesn't have the thermal mass or the heat shedding ability to be thermally stable at 251w for 1 hour. However, to prevent your motor destroying itself, you'd need to electronically control power to the motor depending on temperature. So on a cold day, you might be able to run 1kw indefinitely. On a warm day, it might let it get to 50*C internally, then cut power until it cools down. That would be totally legal, as it's only the motor under test. The controller can have all sorts of feature to improve performance while keeping it technically legal.

 

[cj7hawk]

Normally I'd accuse the testers of including bogus figures based on that, but as I said, they did infer in the report that the peak power came from the "modified" engine, not the compliant one.

Regards
David.

Still don't see where in the report you are finding this? If that is the case then why are the peak power outputs of the "restricted" and "unrestricted" not the same? Not that it matters as they all exceed the 200W peak limit which is the only thing that counts. As far as I can see they talk about modifying the motor and they show separate results for it in its different forms.

On the plus side, if they are testing what is supposed to be a 250W continuous rated electric motor and it is only putting out around 75W continuous rated, perhaps we can get away with more powerful electric motors than we think we can :wink:

It's scattered throughout the report - but they talk about how they removed it and retested it, and how they fitted a restrictor kit to a different bike - The whole report reads like a dogs breakfast, but the easiest reference to what they did is in section 6.4.1 where they talk about how they got such high figures for one of the models through modifications and how only electric motors are capable of producing peak power, so they modified the inlet manifold, drilling holes in it, optimizing airflow, etc. It's important to note they didn't falsify results - they just made sure they got the results they were looking for, whatever they had to do to get them.

And yes, their comments are of concern with respect to the fact that anything we build in Australia with an electric motor suffers this same "peak power" problem within the 200w range, and technically we will have challenges complying with EN 15194 for something we build - Schedule C is a bitch... I found a few legal-looking workarounds, but I'm going to get the DoT to rubber stamp them before I'll attempt to use them. Under EN 15194? It doesn't actually define peak power, so it doesn't really limit you - it just has to drop off as you approach 25 kph according to the requirements, until it's zero at 25 kph. Also, you can't exceed 250W but the test conditions there are kinda flexible and don't necessarily exclude higher power operation going up a hill or into the wind, which is useful, even if you do have to pedal to make them work. They also are a little dangerous and can add between 2 and 5 meters of full power - enough to override the rider - in an emergency and probably account for the increased Pedelec stopping distance, even from a low speed.

David

 

[sn0wchyld]

I suspect so. EN 15194 has a testing methodology for continuous power. It's fairly generous. You put 251w through the motor for an hour at 25*C. If at the end of the hour, the temperature is stable, it fails. If the temperature is still rising, it passes. If the motor melts itself before the hour is out, it also passes.

better than the test methods used in this 'study' - but still pretty poor, unless there's more to it than ive read so far... 251w how? at stall, or at no load? or loaded until it draws 251? from batteries, or after the controller? in open air, in still air, in sun, in a box? with the controller on the bike, or the controller supplied by them (the testers)? and how well tuned is the controller? and how do they define 'stable' (ie less than 1deg rise per min, or .1/min, or .01/min)?

Now I get that in many of the above questions im being a bit pedantic, but the point is that even the EN standards don't appear afaik define things well enough for really consistent tests (hook up a controller the wrong way to a motor with advanced timing in its halls and you'll get far more heat out of 251W than you will with it spinning the opposite way), and its worlds better than the study that was used as justification to ban ICE bikes in NSW. I agree that I cant find where it says the peak power from the 'restricted' engine was done without the restrictors (please site if you do david) but it doesn't stop the rest of the 'study' from being abject drivel, and a poor thing to base any decision off ...

 

[cj7hawk]

Still don't see where in the report you are finding this? If that is the case then why are the peak power outputs of the "restricted" and "unrestricted" not the same? Not that it matters as they all exceed the 200W peak limit which is the only thing that counts. As far as I can see they talk about modifying the motor and they show separate results for it in its different forms.

I'm going to give up on David. He seems to want to believe what he wants to believe, and ignores everyone else and chooses to believe the whole world is spreading mistruths, and he's the only one with the real truth. Usually we call people like that deluded. Of course, there is such thing as communal delusions, so there is always that sliver of hope.

Sunder, are you being a troll deliberately?

It says it in the section that defines what is in that graph you posted.... It's in english. What part of it don't you understand.

Section 6.3 - An examination of the engine components showed that to assist air flow into and out of the combustion chamber, further modifications could be easily performed by drilling additional orifices onto the air intake cover, and removing the muffler component of the exhaust, also using a basic screwdriver. These simple procedures increased the power provided by the engine, and as shown in Table 6.2, greatly increased the performance of the 48cc unrestricted petrol-powered bicycle, with its speed and power approaching that of a small motorcycle.

It's black and white. They modified the engines on the petrol bicycle to increase the maximum power as recorded in table 6.2... They state it right there!!!!! And they say it was recorded in Table 6.2 as you posted it.

Or are you trying to claim that because they talked about how this greatly increased the performance of the unrestricted bicycle that they only did it to one bicycle in that table?

Well, they clarify that in Section 6.4.1 - The continuous power produced by unrestricted petrol-powered bicycles greatly exceeded the 200 watt limit set by the regulations; see Table 6.2. Although the power output from the restricted petrol-powered bicycle was less than the 200 watt limit, the restricting device that limited the power was easily removed, and once it was removed, the power exceeded 200 watts.

What part of that don't you understand? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting what "Max Power" means?

Here they clearly state that the restricted petrol-powered bicycle was less than the 200watt limit UNTIL the restricting device was removed.

As for the different models, they are different bicycles. They got a bike that was a factory built 200w model. It complied with the law, until modified, exactly as stated in section 6.4.1 - And it was not so simple to modify that they worked it out on their own - The other two - an unrestricted 49cc and 66cc models were always non-compliant - however they did confirm that a purchased kit could make the 49cc unrestricted model compliant.



David