Aussie 200 Watt Limit Thread

[Sunder]

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,

Your inability to comprehend a well written report does not make it a dog's breakfast.

Here is an absolutely clear table of the results including all the alleged modifications and tampering they did.



They did the tampering, because there used to be a law that said that the bike should not have any switches to limit it to a compliance mode, neither should it be possible for an end user to modify the bike to exceed the specification on the compliance plate. Okay, I admit that without knowledge of that context, the reason for the tampering would appear to be a bias, but the report was aimed at law makers who would have known the law.

 

[Sunder]

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.

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.

It scares me that there is someone whose comprehension of English and reading tables is so poor, and these people can be so arrogant so as to accuse others of failing to comprehend basic English reports.

In my previous post, I have included table 6.2 that you reference. It is clear to anyone who can understand English and knows how to read a table, that the unmodified, still restricted motor produced a maximum of 521.99w with a continuous power 149.14w. After the removal of the restrictor and the modification, the continuous power skyrocketed to 970w. No maximum power was recorded, possibly because most bike dynographs cap out at 1kw.

Which part of this table makes you think that the maximum power of 521.99w refers to modifying the restricted bike?

 

[cj7hawk]

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,

Your inability to comprehend a well written report does not make it a dog's breakfast.

Here is an absolutely clear table of the results including all the alleged modifications and tampering they did.



They did the tampering, because there used to be a law that said that the bike should not have any switches to limit it to a compliance mode, neither should it be possible for an end user to modify the bike to exceed the specification on the compliance plate. Okay, I admit that without knowledge of that context, the reason for the tampering would appear to be a bias, but the report was aimed at law makers who would have known the law.

Well, they did the tampering and recorded the results in Table 6.2 just like they said they did.

I can see why they did it - they wanted to show that the bikes could be made non-compliant and that as a result, it would be difficult to police since police would have a hard time telling the difference.

That might have been an acceptable argument if it wasn't unilaterally applying the law, but the same is true of electric bikes, and in supporting the methods and the results that came out of the petrol bicycle testing, we're supporting the same arguments against electric bicycles, and there are people already using that to push for more regulation of electric bicycles already.



David

 

[cj7hawk]

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.

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.

It scares me that there is someone whose comprehension of English and reading tables is so poor, and these people can be so arrogant so as to accuse others of failing to comprehend basic English reports.

In my previous post, I have included table 6.2 that you reference. It is clear to anyone who can understand English and knows how to read a table, that the unmodified, still restricted motor produced a maximum of 521.99w with a continuous power 149.14w. After the removal of the restrictor and the modification, the continuous power skyrocketed to 970w. No maximum power was recorded, possibly because most bike dynographs cap out at 1kw.

Which part of this table makes you think that the maximum power of 521.99w refers to modifying the restricted bike?

Section 6.4.1 where they state exactly that. About the RES bike. As per the table.

But since you're suggesting otherwise, perhaps you can explain how else can you record a maximum power that's not possible to continuously produce?

David

 

[Sunder]

But since you're suggesting otherwise, perhaps you can explain how else can you record a maximum power that's not possible to continuously produce?

David

No English Skills, no Table Reading Skills and now no physics skills. *sigh*

Okay, at the maximum RPM of the motor, you're going to have a fixed speed in a particular gear, right? Power from a wheel = RPM x Torque. Since RPM is fixed (max speed of motor * gearing), then the power output is purely a function of torque. To get the maximum power, the dyno changes the resistive force, to figure out when the motor runs out of torque. To measure the continuous power, it probably uses some assumptions about how much resistive force is applied typically at that speed (a function of weight and wind resistance, neither of which a dyno could tell, but probably pre-programmed in). This would simulate how much power is genuinely generated at that speed, and is your continuous power.

 

[cj7hawk]

But since you're suggesting otherwise, perhaps you can explain how else can you record a maximum power that's not possible to continuously produce?

David

No English Skills, no Table Reading Skills and now no physics skills. *sigh*

Okay, at the maximum RPM of the motor, you're going to have a fixed speed in a particular gear, right? Power from a wheel = RPM x Torque. Since RPM is fixed (max speed of motor * gearing), then the power output is purely a function of torque. To get the maximum power, the dyno changes the resistive force, to figure out when the motor runs out of torque. To measure the continuous power, it probably uses some assumptions about how much resistive force is applied typically at that speed (a function of weight and wind resistance, neither of which a dyno could tell, but probably pre-programmed in). This would simulate how much power is genuinely generated at that speed, and is your continuous power.

OK, that wasn't too far of what they do, but from a technical perspective, it's incorrect. I can see better now why you can't see what I'm pointing out.

I know it's a bit like that for electric engines, but read what I said earlier about petrol engines. The dyno doesn't control the speed - all it controls is resistance. It changes the resistance and the throttle is set to maximum power. For a given resistance, it will go a given speed. You let the speed settle, take that resistance ( in newtons ) and multiply it by the speed ( in meters per second ) and you get Watts. That's what watts actually mean. 1 watt is 1 newton resistance at 1 meter per second.

Whatever the dyno records for a given resistance is plotted for speed and power, and the result is the dynograph. Where this line gets to the highest point, is the maximum power. That's all there is to it.

Dyno's do not care about wind resistance - That's dependent on many factors, especially the co-efficient of drag, which varies from vehicle to vehicle, and the surface are presented by the vehicle. In any event, dyno's can't figure that out and really shouldn't attempt to do so either - all they measure is the work done by a vehicle in watts.

This means that if the dyno measured 521.99w at any point, on the graph, then this is what would show as the maximum continuous power, because if the power isn't continuous, it can't be measured.

Now if I work off of the possibility that dyno's can cause results that you don't get normally in the real world - because if you set the resistance of the dyno too low ( eg, lower than what it would be in reality for a given speed ) then the dyno can run faster than the bike normally would in reality, which is what I think you're alluding to - and this has real-world parallels, such as getting a strong tailwind or going down a steep hill. This can cause an increase in power output, because if torque remains relatively constant, then it's multiplied by the higher speed, and the power output will be higher -

However, I already calculated the torque at ~3850 RPM, which is the maximum speed the engine normally travels at. Based on this, and on the fact that from there onwards, torque will only go down, even assuming no loss of energy from the system above this RPM, to give the readings claimed ( 521.99 watts ) the engine would have to be running at over 13500 RPM with near-perfect efficiency past 4000 rpm. If we correct for loss of torque based on typical curves, it would probably exceed 20,000 rpm to get that kind of power. In reality, even without restrictors and exhausts, it won't get to those kinds of speeds. Actually, with the restrictor in place, it would struggle to get to 5000 rpm.

You can do the calculations yourself. Reduction on the engine drive is 20:1 - You can take my word for it or look it up. The bike is a normal 66cm wheel size, IIRC, and you can work out what the RPM is at 24 kph, the recorded maximum speed where it only gave, based on their estimates, 149 watts.

This gives you the torque in nm. 0.37nm to be exact. Assume the same torque and work out what RPM is required to achieve a power output then of 521.99 watts. Your results should be the same as mine. If you want to cut corners, because we're assuming constant torque, just diving 149 into 521.99 ( you'll get 3.5 ) then multiply this by the engine RPM at 3850 rpm for 24 kph and you'll get the same outcome - 13500 rpm or near enough.

Because of this, I know the readings couldn't have come from the same bike in the same configuration. Either that, or one of the readings is incorrect, but that would also invalidate the results entirely.

But mostly, because that's what they said they measured in the chart in section 6.4.1 - Here's where I see it.

Anyway, it's not the first time I did those calculations. I had a similar problem in my own petrol PAPC in which, if there was a strong tailwind, I could end up going around 30 and accelerating, which wasn't good, so I redesigned the inlet manifold so it had a baffled intake with a 5.5 ~ 6mm inlet hole. That's a pretty small manifold for a 50cc motor. The result is it struggles to get to 24, and in a headwind/tailwind run, got around 22 and 26 respectively - Down steep hills it slows me, and it takes significant tailwind or steep hill to hit 30. I use a GPS to confirm, and the results all put me within the legal range, confirmed by DoT as acceptable. I have to pedal up hills, because it still loses too much low-end torque, but it works OK -

The problem with having a non-compliant bicycle isn't getting away with it - the problem is if you have an accident and they test the bike, or you can't demonstrate it was compliant... Then you end up in serious trouble.

David

 

[cj7hawk]

Just to make sure it's all in one post, this may help - Here's all the mentions of the restricted ( and restrict modified ) bicycle in the document... Every reference, except images and tables.

Mentions of the power output of the restricted models -

P1. although the restricted engine was under the maximum power limit, the restricting device could be easily removed or bypassed in less than five minutes.
P1. even if the engine is fitted with a restricting device, and their performance capabilities pose a high road safety risk. ( reference 24kph )
P4. Some of them are fitted with limiting devices in an attempt to restrict their power output to 200 watts and therefore meet the definition of a power assisted pedal cycle, but there is anecdotal evidence that the limiting devices can be easily removed or circumvented
P4. one with a 48cc engine fitted with a restricted device to limit its power to 200 watts;
P4. In addition, a restricting device was obtained for independent analysis.
P12. In addition to the tests on the standard motorised bicycles, the power limiting kit was fitted to the 48cc unrestricted petrol-powered bicycle, and the bicycle submitted to the speed test to compare in its performance with the dealer-supplied 48cc restricted petrol-powered bicycle.The kit was then removed, along with the muffler piece from the exhaust. The bicycle was re-tested in this configuration.
P18. The kit for limiting the power output from the petrol engines was found to consist of gaskets with smaller orifices to restrict intake and exhaust fluid flows, an air intake cover with more flow restrictions, and an exhaust pipe muffler with more restricted flow (see Figure 5).
P19. 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.
P21. Where limiting devices are not fitted, the power exceeds the 200 watt limit.
P21. Devices fitted to petrol-powered bicycles to restrict their power output to the 200 watt limit can easily be removed resulting in a motorised bicycle that does not comply with the definition of power assisted pedal cycle specified in NSW legislation.

There is not a single mention anywhere in the document of a test of the restricted bicycle that identified it did not meet the legal requirements, several mentions ( including the evaluation ) that suggest it did meet the legal standards and ALL references to that bike not meeting the standard also clearly stated that it was modified to do so.

That, and the above analysis, pretty much kills of any possibility of the graph being read in the way that was suggested, which was that the restricted bicycle failed to meet the requirement without being modified to do so.

Regards
David

 

[cjh]

The table with its notes can only be read one way irrespective of what may be in the rest of the report. The issue may be that whoever wrote the report did not fully understand the law with respect to when peak power and continuous power requirements to be met were applicable to which machines. With respect to the law, there was no need to provide continuous power readings for the petrol engines just as there was no need to provide peak power readings for the electric motor as the legislation does not reference them. They would only be there for interest sake due to running the same test cycles at the time. The author/s of the report would need to be questioned to get the answers as there are obvious contradictions between the table and the text of the report.

 

[Seven]

Unsubscribed, this used to be a decent thread

 

[Sunder]

Yeah, your interpretation of the table doesn't make sense at all. For example, if they were using the top row to show the most power they could get out of it by tinkering, why add the footnote about a spike in power when starting the bike from pedalling? (For the pedalec).

Anyway. The conclusion was clear - None of the bikes were legal, full stop.

Maybe I'm subject to this too - but you seem to be drawing very long bows - taking sentences out of context, and taking very weird readings of tables to support your point of view - even though I'm not the only one arguing against you. Your behaviour reminds me of this:

My wife (a psychologist) was involved in an Anti-vaxxer study a few years ago. They presented people who had declared their views on vaccinations, then gave them some research papers - some real, some false, and asked them to evaluate the quality of the studies. The length that anti-vaxxers went to in order to discredit pro-vaccination papers, or give credit to faked up anti-vaccination papers was amusing. Are you sure you're not doing the same?

 

[cj7hawk]

Anyway. The conclusion was clear - None of the bikes were legal, full stop.

Sunder, the report does not support your conclusion anywhere. There is no text anywhere in the document that says the unrestricted bicycle exceeded 200w, UNLESS THE RESTRICTOR WAS REMOVED. Then it tries to infer that because it can be modified to exceed the limit, that it's not legal for this reason, despite you already conceding that such is no longer law.

I'm drawing my conclusion from the charts, the explanatory notes, and the body of the document, which states, in six separate locations, that the restricted bicycle was under 200w as it was supplied.

You're drawing your entire conclusion from reading a single number in a chart. There isnothingelse supporting your conclusion. No single part of the documents supports your view, except the chart.

And you think I'm the one who is drawing a long bow?

Sunder, you appear to be deliberately trying to damage my hobby when it's irrelevant to you, based on a document where you're interpreting the entire outcome from a single unsupported number in a table. I'd love to just walk away from this, I really would. I honestly don't care what you do or believe if it doesn't affect me. But you're deliberately spreading crap about a subject on which you know nearly nothing, which does have potential to affect me - and I am not the only one who disagrees with you on the reports validity.

David.

 

[Sunder]

You're drawing your entire conclusion from reading a single number in a chart. There isnothingelse supporting your conclusion. No single part of the documents supports your view, except the chart.

Alright, How about I just rely on this:

Overall, the results of the tests and the assessment show that the petrol-powered motorised bicycles tested do not comply with the legal definition of power assisted pedal cycle, even if the engine is fitted with a restricting device

Page 1 - Executive Summary.

 

[cj7hawk]

You're drawing your entire conclusion from reading a single number in a chart. There isnothingelse supporting your conclusion. No single part of the documents supports your view, except the chart.

Alright, How about I just rely on this:

Overall, the results of the tests and the assessment show that the petrol-powered motorised bicycles tested do not comply with the legal definition of power assisted pedal cycle, even if the engine is fitted with a restricting device

Page 1 - Executive Summary.

The conclusion it came to based only the fact that the restricting device could be removed, by a suitably experienced person, with appropriate tools as stated in the conclusion, but what I said is still correct. The 521.99w reading was without the restrictor fitted, as the documents said, and you have not produced any evidence otherwise.

If that's the case, then every 200w electric bicycle in NSW is also illegal, because all of their restrictors can be bypassed even without tools. Instructions are all over this site. All you need to do is increase the voltage a little bit... As far as I've researched, there are no electric motor controllers anywhere that limit the upper voltage. They will take more power until they either burn out, or fail from overvoltage, but that would be way above the power level at which they are operated for sub-200w operation and way above legal power limits. In fact, most would have peak power that exceeded 200w even without modification.

I think you're being a little hypocritical there if you think 200w should still be legal even though almost every model out there could exceed the 200w maximum limit with their peak power, while a restricted petrol model cannot.

In any case, there was never any proof that the bike was not legal at the time. It was just the opinion of the author and held no legal basis. Please keep your electric under 19kph so you're not a danger on the roads.

Thank you.

David.

 

[Hyena]

I'm with Seven on this, it's all become too much to keep up with and skimming over it seems to be alot of invalid arguments.

Can we get a point form summary of what the last few pages of length back and forths are about ?

At a glance it looks to be cj7hawk arguing to the death that he should be allowed to ride his +/- 200w petrol powered bike.
My initial thoughts are "why would you even want those noisy, stinky, grotty horrible things when an ebike is superior in every way?"
The only benefit being the ability to travel greater distances on them with an easily topped up few litres of petrol.
Though I guess that makes me sound a little like one of the mtb purist douches that hates on ebikes largely "just because"
I guess I'm not personally worried about the ban because it doesn't concern me and in my experience it's only bogans and dead beats that own them anyway (gross generalization not including cj7hawk) but it does set a precedent and I guess they'll come for us next. As stated pretty much every motorized bicycle (electric or petrol, supposedly street legal or otherwise) is going to be over the limit. The difference is petrol bikes stand out, they create a racket that draws attention to their riders often not so legal behaviour, they annoy the public and ultimately it ended up getting them shit canned. Again I'm not aiming that at you cj7hawk but that's the general view of the public/police.

On the topic of the above, while I dont hang out at bars much these days I did drop in for a drink over the long weekend away and got chatting to the owner about ebikes. He said all the guys that lost their license for speeding and DUI used to come into the pub on their petrol bikes but since the ban they're all getting around on cheap ebikes now. A patron the day before had proudly announced that he was getting his license back the following week and instantly had 2 other guys offering to buy the ebike off him. The problem in banning stink bikes is that it forces that demographic onto ebikes and then their behaviour brings negative attention to ebikes in general.

 

[megacycle]

The length that anti-vaxxers went to in order to discredit pro-vaccination papers, or give credit to faked up anti-vaccination papers was amusing. Are you sure you're not doing the same?

It's now official policy, that we've all got the go ahead, to bend reality to suit our own agendas, we have our current role models in government, to thank.

 

[sn0wchyld]

..... The problem in banning stink bikes is that it forces that demographic onto ebikes and then their behaviour brings negative attention to ebikes in general.

^^^this
and then we'll have another equally vaccuous 'study' claiming that 200w bikes are massively dangerous and impossible/easy to keep under 200w, and then ebikes will go the same way as they have in NY. maybe not that bad... but when gov officials are making decisions based on studies as piss poor as this one then i remain very, very concerned.

 

[cj7hawk]

I'm with Seven on this, it's all become too much to keep up with and skimming over it seems to be alot of invalid arguments.

Can we get a point form summary of what the last few pages of length back and forths are about ?

Hopefully not adding fuel to the fire - I think Sunder and I got to the point of not agreeing while eliminating all remaining points to argue about. Perhaps better to leave that side of it alone so I'll leave a lot of the points out.

1. Someone posts that the WA Police say all petrol bikes are illegal. I counter this and post details that show petrol bikes are legal in WA ( Dept of transport documents ) and were even promoted for their range.
2. In responding to that original thread, I claim that the laws in NSW were to punish the innocent as what the guilty were doing was already illegal.
3. Sunder posts that NSW DoT tried to get a bicycle under 200w running on petrol and found it couldn't be done and says the post reminds him of propaganda.
4. I respond, posting the documents Sunder referred to, dispute almost everything Sunder said, then Sunder and I argue about what different parts of the document mean for two pages of thread.
4a. Positions did change on both sides during the exchange. I doubt either of us are likely to admit it.
5. Petrol bikes were banned and are still banned, and throughout I accused the NSW government people responsible of a hatchet job, which appears well founded.
6. In the end, I demonstrated that the restricted bike tested was genuinely under 200w as I originally said, and did qualify as a legal PAPC, however the document did express an opinion ( with weight ) that none of the p-bikes should be legal as they could be easily modified to exceed this power output. ( Tending towards Sunder's argument ). Whichever way that went is moot - the facts are that they were legal before the banning, and illegal after the banning, and my position was that I did not want incorrect statements leading to other states ( like mine ) considering following NSW.

As for what came out of the discussion of value - especially with respect to 200w ebikes.

a) Many ( even most ) of the claims made against P-bikes also have similar weight against E-bikes. The main claims that did the most damage were;
* The brakes on the best of bicycles aren't suitable for the speeds greater than the Pedelec could manage - listed as 19kph - which could be used against E-bikes too. 24kph is described as dangerous.
* Homemade conversions are of questionable safety and should be banned - Not good for us as we make homemade bikes.
* PAPCs ( 200w ) cannot exceed this value even as a peak power - Most e-bikes are current limited, but probably not enough to avoid peak values exceeding this. ( Petrol engines don't have "peak" power )
* If a bicycle can be modified to exceed this value without too much difficulty ( eg, adding a battery ) then the DoT document infers that they feel it should be illegal for this reason.
* Pedelecs have problems braking from full speed - likely because they can take between 2 and 5 meters to cut out the power ( which can be as high as 600w as measured ) depending on the configuration.
- Note - This is part of the EN15194 standard - 2m for non-brake-switch bikes and 5m for brake-switch bikes.
* This document was produced as a means to justify the ban on P-bikes, but is a huge threat to e-bikes as well, so probably should be discredited.
b) That the documents used as a basis to ban p-bikes might be used against e-bikes in the near future (eg, Royal australasian college of surgeons has already called for new helmet laws for e-bike riders this year because of dangerous speeds - eg, 19kph. )
c) The hoons that were on Petrol bikes to avoid suspended licenses, etc, all switched to e-bikes and are likely to cause similar issues for e-bike users/makers/developers.
d) EN15194 isn't so great for us because we can't build our own bikes that comply.
e) There's now a will to enforce the "Must always be pedaling" rule for all e-bike users. And it's completely subjective.
f) NSW Dept for Road Safety shouldn't be let anywhere near a word processor, much less to actually conduct safety tests - that should be left to qualified professionals like primary school kids.

I say (f) tongue in cheek, because even if the report is garbage ( and it is ) it still came from the DoT Center for Road Safety... And so a magistrate is going to have a similar position to Sunder's original position, right or wrong, and will know a heck of a lot less than Sunder did. Because of that, the report hangs over our heads like the sword of damoclese. If any of us have an accident and the police decide to take issue with us, or worse yet, someone sues us because they pull out and we run into them, they can use this report with reasonable chance of success to demonstrate that the e-bike wasn't legal. That puts the blame on us as then it can be argued the bike shouldn't have been on the road.

Discrediting the report won't bring back petrol PAPCs in NSW, but it might protect e-bike riders from having it used against them. To understand how, just read through it, consider that the p-bike in question was only 149watts and change the petrol PAPC for Electric PAPC and the section on "petrol fire" for "battery fire" and the report could be about e-bikes.

Regards
David

 

[Sunder]

5. Petrol bikes were banned and are still banned, and throughout I accused the NSW government people responsible of a hatchet job, which appears well founded.
6. In the end, I demonstrated that the restricted bike tested was genuinely under 200w as I originally said, and did qualify as a legal PAPC, however the document did express an opinion ( with weight ) that none of the p-bikes should be legal as they could be easily modified to exceed this power output. ( Tending towards Sunder's argument ).

Points 1-4 aren't in dispute but fall apart after that.

Unfortunately the report is ambiguous is one area - which David takes one way which I think is unsupportable, and I think is another way, which he thinks is unsupportable.

The report is trying its best to do a like for like comparison - and thus wants to compare an electric bike's continuous power with a petrol bike's continuous power - even though non-pedelec motorised bicycles are held to a higher standard under the law by using maximum power, not continuous power. So while the report does say that the bike "could" be legal, it's also clear that it is not. David takes the interpretation the other way - that it IS legal, but could be made so that it's not.

So it's not under debate whether the restricted petrol bike is less powerful than a permitted pedelec. The report is clear - it is. But that's irrelevant. It's not a pedelec and not permitted to use the more generous testing methodologies given to a pedelec. It's also clear that all three bikes that the DoT bought were illegal in unmodified form, and could be easily modified to be even more dangerous.

It's a good point that the loss of access to petrol bikes might drive people electrics, but watch what happens when someone comes on here and says "I've got $1000, want to go 70km/h for a 60km round trip to work". If they were going petrol, they would have just clicked "Buy it now" on eBay.

 

[Hyena]

t watch what happens when someone comes on here and says "I've got $1000, want to go 70km/h for a 60km round trip to work".

Sadly I get emails to this effect all the time. "Yeah I lost my license aye. I want something that goes 100km/hr with a 50km range - $500-1000"
When I tell them it's technically possible but it's really unsafe on standard bicycle components, frames etc and if you really want to do it properly you're going to be well north of $5000 for a purpose built high speed ebike with suitable brakes and suspension (and then obviously that's highly illegal to ride on the road). I invariably get a response along the lines of "yeah nah I dont want all that, I've got an old mountain bike I can use, it'll be right"

Again part of the problem with petrol bikes is they ARE cheap and easy to get a bit of speed from and so many of the people attracted to them for the temporary loss of license reasons want the cheapest possible way to get about which means strapping the biggest engine on the cheapest shittiest bike they can find.

The whole ban reminds me of this Jim Jefferies stand up routine on gun control.
Skip to 11:08 if you don't want to watch the whole thing (which is great)
He talks about the crack downs on guns, drugs, driving fast etc because of the people who to the wrong thing
http://www.break.com/video/jim-jefferies-on-gun-control-2755989

 

[cj7hawk]

Again part of the problem with petrol bikes is they ARE cheap and easy to get a bit of speed from and so many of the people attracted to them for the temporary loss of license reasons want the cheapest possible way to get about which means strapping the biggest engine on the cheapest shittiest bike they can find.

None of the petrol bikes tested went over 37 kph even though the manufacturers claimed higher speeds - While I've heard of 40-50 kph models ( and the report did discuss it ) the gearing is usually placed too early in the torque curve to overcome wind resistance at lower speeds, negating the value of larger cheap engines.

But I can imagine 1kW ebike kits getting to speeds of 40km/h and higher and parts seem cheap enough - The kits are only a couple of hundred dollars and the bikes? Well, $88 from Big W... That leaves a lot of money for the batteries and some wire to hook it all up. It's not that the petrol bikes were cheap that drove the market - it's that they were available and attractive to that demographic and most of them probably don't have an issue with spending $5000 and will usually just keep throwing more at it, which is more than enough. Younger people who frequently DD usually have a lot of disposable cash in the current economy. I have a first-hand account from a neighbor who works in a machine shop that one of his staff got done by the police for overtaking a police car on the freeway, supposedly at around 120kph - Not the smartest thing to do just weeks after losing his license.

Though it's not people at 70km/h + on roads that's the problem - they'll just kill themselves - it's people at around 40 on footpaths and cycle ways. Sooner or later one will hit a pedestrian and the media will take note. A quick check through ebay seems to confirm that you can get a cheap decent ebike for around $2000 ready made.

Give it a year and the market will respond.

David.

 

[Samd]

I'm with Seven on this, it's all become too much to keep up with and skimming over it seems to be alot of invalid arguments.

Can we get a point form summary of what the last few pages of length back and forths are about ?

+1

I seldom get on the sphere much anymore, but I stumbled back in to find two guys taking a dump in what used to be a great thread.
Suggest you take it outside fellas.

 

[sn0wchyld]

I'm with Seven on this, it's all become too much to keep up with and skimming over it seems to be alot of invalid arguments.

Can we get a point form summary of what the last few pages of length back and forths are about ?

+1

I seldom get on the sphere much anymore, but I stumbled back in to find two guys taking a dump in what used to be a great thread.
Suggest you take it outside fellas.

i (respectfully) disagree, at least to the idea that this is off topic. while this issue has been a bit of a shouting match between 2-3 people (and ive weighed in myself once or twice) the fact that changes to laws in our area can be made on such faulty (or outright shit) studies is of very serious concern. It's a bit burried now but i went though and found about a dozen areas in this study that were complete crap, and this poor basis for decisions on powered bike laws could well result in home-built ebikes (or even all ebikes) being banned outright .

 

[Sunder]

Meh. It's over now.

I think the one thing we can take from this though, is that very public bad behaviour and a couple deaths can easily get a product banned.

We know that almost no-one here has a fully compliant electric bike, (though some of us are pretty damn close) so keep your head down, enjoy the easy and cheap way to get around while it lasts.

 

[thewmatusmoloki]

and a couple deaths can easily get a product banned.

True, look what happened to the space shuttle program.

 

[Seven]

and a couple deaths can easily get a product banned.

True, look what happened to the space shuttle program.

Awesome