Sunder said:
I'm sorry that your bike - which is probably safer than many electrics on here - would not be legal in NSW. But you really literally are the 1% that is caught out by a sensible rule.
Hi Sunder,
I see you're trying to maintain a balanced post, and realize you made it in good faith, but I'm about to point out why you're in serious error in nearly everything you just said - and the problem I have is with comments like yours being so mainstream and based on both deliberate lies and mistruths as the result of a campaign against petrol bicycles that began in NSW and QLD. There are a lot of lies told about petrol bicycles and a lot of people believe them and re-propagate them.
Before I go through your points, I'll mention that petrol bicycles were not something that snuck in under the guise of legitimate electric bicycles as many believe. Petrol bicycles have existed since 1991 on Australian roads, and it's electrics that came in on Petrol bicycle laws - not the other way around - so there's a long history associated with legitimate petrol bicycles, and all the issues were solved more than 20 years ago, despite what some would have you believe.
OK, let's go through your comments.
I am trying to find the original link from the RMS (NSW's road authority) that basically said that every sample kit they bought that claimed was under 200W was in fact well over, and that they were unable to modify it so that it was under 200W.
Here's the links -
http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/downloads/motorised-bicycle-tests.pdf
http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/bicyclists/petrol-powered-bicycles.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=D_YbIvjiVDc
Some of the worst "research" I've ever seen, omits the researcher's names ( no surprise there ) and contradicts itself, and to say it's massively biased would even then be an understatement - It's an exercise that would be very accurately described as a hatchet job created through a series of straw man arguments that uses the following justification for banning petrol bicycles -
All bicycles are dangerous at speeds of 19kph and higher, and I doubt you'll find any valid reasoning within that document at all.
Firstly, they confirm that several manufacturers of 200w bicycles all came within the limit, and the one tested was 149w. They admit to heavily modifying this motor ( to produce power ) and achieved 521w ( modified ) however the Electric they tested against produced 596w STOCK. It also produced an average 74w, well under the "250w" it was rated at. This is a common issue with Pedelecs. None of the bicycles ( including the high-powered ones ) were capable of going faster than 37kph, including 66cc unrestricted models, which were ALWAYS motorcycles under the law, and this is well below what current 1kW Electrics ( conversion kits similar cost to petrol kits ) can do - at around 45kph.
Then they claim that the bicycles are dangerous by braking distance, by showing the Pedelec stops in 4.95m, while the petrol stops in 8.6m - However that was at 19kph and 24kph respective - Make corrections for the speed ( 5kph higher ) and the difference in distance, attributed to the quality of the brakes, was just 10cm difference ( assuming constant force braking, which is pretty reasonable ) - However they buried the fact that the Petrol actually could stop in 4.6m from 24kph in an emergency, and if you read it, they state they deliberately went through a process before stopping the petrol bicycle, so, in reality, it stopped shorter than the electric bicycle. This is all in the report. What's not in the report is that the model of pedelec chosen continues to produce power after you stop pedalling for a moment, and that as a result of this, it can't stop any shorter.
Finally they attack the "high speeds" attained by legal petrol cycles of 24kph, and mention that the brakes of an un-upgraded bicycle are not sufficient for this speed ( Front disc, rear calipers ) -
Now, at around 3 to 5kg, that's not a lot of weight to add to momentum for an adult travelling on a bicycle is it? This same report and the findings were used to justify these high speeds as dangerous, by pointing out that if a cyclist hit an elderly pedestrian at these speeds ( 24kph ) bones would break...
Notice we're still not talking about Electrics that never got banned? How fast are they ? 45 to 60 kph STOCK.. Still being sold in NSW the entire time, and although the testing team was aware of these bicycles they specifically turned a blind eye to them, and did not include them in the tests ( I spoke to people who brought this up while they were testing the bicycles ) -
So, End of report - Petrol bicycles stop faster than electric bicycles and legal ones don't go over 24kph. Stock Pedelecs exceed the legal limit by 600w and this is considered within the law.
OK, you're next point. The graph. Well, graphs like that take a lot of reading, and you need to be an engineer ( or to spend a lot of time with them ) to understand them.
Now, if you gear the bicycle correctly, then maximum torque isn't going to be achieved, because at around 24kph, you'll have as much wind resistance as you have thrust, so you'll hit equilibrium, however let's assume you have a strong tailwind or downhill section to counter that.... Well, coming from a background as a CAMS steward, I know exactly how that problem is solved in motors. You limit the intake aperture. That then causes something like this.
However I'll also point out that some commercial 25cc motors do include 200w within the maximum continuous operating power envelope, including an automatic clutch! So the argument that this isn't achievable is an outright lie - This is how it was done since around 1991, and it was legal back then and is still legal now in most states. In my case, the aperture for a 50cc motor is around 5~6mm dia - which ironically is similar to what a small model aircraft motor has... This solves the problem of pinching off the torque above the engineering gearing range of the bicycle. The result? a 200w maximum power engine.
You can also modify the exhaust and the throttle to achieve similar outcomes, and all will result in an engine engineered to a maximum of around 4000rpm and 200w output power. But modifying the inlet is a widely recognized and valid method of achieving this - it's also the most reliable way to do it - no electronics required.
Most of these motors weigh around 3~5 kg BTW - not 9kg as you suggest. The one I'm using at the moment ( 33.5cc ) has a maximum power output of around 1kW, but if geared according to manufacturer specifications, with direct shaft drive, includes 200w in it's maximum continuous power output envelope.
What you say about the low-end torque? That's pretty much correct, so it's an engineering task to maximize low-end torque, but essentially, direct drive petrol only really works well at full speed - around 18-24 kph. It might pull you up a hill at around 14, but any slower and it will stall. Those torques are out-of-envelope too and the motor isn't designed to handle them, but due to the low power will probably handle them OK anyway.
One advantage my new Electric-X petrol bicycle, which would be legal in ALL states in Australia, has is the electric drive system, while the petrol engine is a non-propulsion engine and doesn't count legally. As a result, even though it's underpowered and only has 125w of power... Still, it has massive torque from a standstill and can make a standing start just fine, and has fine enough throttle control I can navigate traffic baffles quite easily under power.
The law is good because it frees up police time from proving that 99% of the time, the bike is going to be illegal.
It's not a good law, because Petrol bicycles were the ONLY bicycles being brought in that were legal and tested to conform to Australian standards... Look into the history of why they brought in Pedelec laws - You'll find that the ones the government was using were OVERPOWERED. This is the reason for the law change - and it involves turning a blind eye to peak power too. Not forgetting of course that some of us don't want to have to pedal all the time. The new NSW laws go like this. YOU MUST PEDAL ALL THE TIME. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COAST. Heck, you can even coast on a normal bicycle, but get caught doing that on a Pedelec is now illegal ! Please explain to me how that's a good law? Please explain to me why you don't have to pedal a normal bicycle downhill, but if you don't pedal a powered bicycle it becomes a motorcycle? Because that's the guidance provided to police for prosecution.
Oh, and remember what I said about 200w electrics not ever being tested? Think about that too... The police are turning a blind eye to ALL powered bicycles, yet Petrol bicycles were amongst the most underpowered of the lot... And they are easy to test... Just do a test run with a GPS and you'll have a good approximation of the power within a few seconds. Don't pretend police can't do that - And once they know a bicycle is reasonably overpowered, then they could send it to a dyno and prosecute. Here's the truth - police have no intent to enforce power limits on any bicycle... And electrics produce a LOT more power than petrols, and are a LOT more difficult for police to test.
The reality is, a friend of mine bought a 2 stroke bike advertised as legal, and it went close to 70km/h. That's nearly 3kw right there. So a guy who in good faith thought he was compliant with the law, was fooled by a vendor. Fooled really, by a standard that is impossible to achieve. I think the RMS was extremely clear why the law is in place, and I 100% agree with it:
And if your friend bought a licensed 250cc motorcycle that really had a 2000cc engine in it, he'd be in trouble with the law too, but let's be clear about one thing. Your friend did not ride it in good faith. All legal guidance makes it clear a 200w bicycle won't usually go faster than about 25kph. If caught doing 70, and asked to explain by a magistrate why he thought it was compliant when a compliant bicycle should do around 25kph, I think they'd be hard pressed to demonstrate good faith, and at best could demonstrate only ignorance. Let's face it - at best, your good friend was fooled by the salesman - but once they knew how fast it went, they could have taken action to get a new bicycle, take it back or take other action. The only action they were not "in good faith" entitled to was to continue riding it, reasonably knowing it wasn't compliant.
The testing authorities pointed out that people were selling modified bicycles that could go faster - but there were already legal remedies to that, and they could have enforced the law through fair-trading and other avenues. But they didn't, because they had an agenda. There were plenty of people selling legal bicycles, and it wouldn't have been difficult to prosecute the few who weren't. But when you ask why, the "A" word keeps coming up. The people who tested the bicycles at NSW center for road safety were told about Electric bicycles having the same potential issues as petrol ones, but chose to ignore that... Agenda... Agenda... And in the end, their reports showed the petrol bicycle could stop in 4.6m and the Electric in 4.95... Notice the significant figures there? Even 4.95 should be 5.0... Agenda. Because they still claimed that the petrol bicycle was more dangerous based on a subjective evaluation of the speed from which it stopped ( 24kph ).
Now, as a direct result of this stupid legislation, Australia has a huge influx of 1kW electric bicycles to replace the petrols, with people riding them on footpaths at around 50kph... Perhaps you can explain why you think this outcome of the law is a good one? Because if you read the cycling forums, you'll find many people who have almost been cleaned up by some idiot who loses his license for DD, then rides an electric bicycle to work. My neighbor tells of someone in his work ( vehicle engineering ) who modified an electric bicycle after such an event and got caught overtaking a police car on the freeway.
Read the report. They blame everything else for the dangers of petrol bicycles. Backyard mechanics - like those who service bicycles - are dangerous. Brakes aren't designed for high speeds of 24kph. Motorcycles that look similar can only do speeds of 37kph and were illegal to begin with were also tested, and confused into the results. They point out that they managed to burn themselves on an exhaust, but I've never burned myself - I guess some bicycles aren't as well designed, but that's not a reason to ban them.
There is only one truth about the banning of petrol bicycles in NSW and QLD. Someone had an agenda, and was incredibly successful. They used the example of a kid on the run from police who road head-on into oncoming traffic - and because he was on a powered cycle, they blamed the powered cycle and failed to disclose all the circumstances of the accident.
So please don't keep propagating the falsehoods that you did - because all you're doing is turning public opinion based on deliberate lies in such a way that only those with legitimate interests will suffer.
Happy to discuss technical details - But please think through the comments you make before you make them. Having actually re-engineered a petrol bicycle ( including printing my own manifold ) and
:lol: 
