Bonnell 775 6000 watts

[Overclocker]

6000 watts through bicycle chain and tires. seems like a high-maintenance bike...

 

[2old]

75 pounds; why bother with pedals?

 

[neptronix]

Looks like a CYC mid drive on a regular bike frame, with a custom battery.
Easy DIY project - why buy it?

Geometry of the bike is pretty weird. It'll have you pedaling on your heels instead of at least mid-foot. A strange choice that's intended to compress the wheelbase. But on a bike with 6kw, you want a wheelbase that's more like a motorcycle's.

 

[Chalo]

Geometry of the bike is pretty weird. It'll have you pedaling on your heels instead of at least mid-foot. A strange choice that's intended to compress the wheelbase. But on a bike with 6kw, you want a wheelbase that's more like a motorcycle's.

It's mindlessly imitative of so-called "progressive" MTBs that are designed and built to work on trails that were designed and built to complement the bikes. It results in a layout that doesn't work well in real world conditions. But it's fashionable, so that's what you get. It's like wearing bowling shoes everywhere, even though that's not what they're for.

 

[scianiac]

It's mindlessly imitative of so-called "progressive" MTBs that are designed and built to work on trails that were designed and built to complement the bikes. It results in a layout that doesn't work well in real world conditions. But it's fashionable, so that's what you get. It's like wearing bowling shoes everywhere, even though that's not what they're for.

I don't exactly get what the problem with the geometry is, it's mountain bike geometry with the presumed function you'll ride it on mountain bike terrain. Yeah it's less than ideal on the road, so is a road bike on a DH track. But I am curious Chalo what specific parts of the geometry you would say are fashion over function and how would you change them? I ask because while I mostly care about geo on my mountain bike I find most, but not all, of the modern MTB trends to be functional. Some I find to be overly suited to specific use cases, that is crazy slack bikes are not suited for tight terrain but I still want my bike way more slack than a standard or road bike. I find modern reach can be a bit excessive but still I don't want it short either. And probably just because how I ride I want more stack although stem spacers and taller bars exist and still I'm not talking about crazy high, just more neutral when standing and less super aggressive when standing.

As for the bike in the OP, eh I honestly don't get the idea behind the higher power CYC drives and similar. And I don't mean too much power, I mean it's just really poorly executed power. I used to like the CYC drives and almost bought one but looking and now riding the LR system, the CYC system and ones like it seem stupid. You're gearing down that motor to get to a cadence that is still a bit to fast to pedal but slow enough to torture the drivetrain which you then keep the derailleur to torture that poor chain even more. You end up with a system that has good power but everything is high strung and delicate all so you can pedal you're 6kw bike? If you want to pedal 500-1500W is just fine, if you don't use a large enough motor and a much more reliable reduction system so it's reliable. Don't build a bike that can do everything but poorly, realistically you'll probably only ride it on way the vast majority of the time even if can do both.

Also on chains, never had any issue with chains on my 5kw LR bike that is tuned to just insane torque but snapped chains several times on my 800w TSDZ2, it's not the chain it's how you use it, I mean there is a limit but it's highly dependent on chain speed, reduction, alignment, and derailleurs.

 

[Chalo]

MTBs that were intended for hiking tracks, have a configuration that is relatively close to that of a touring bike. Downhill bike developed a double-slack geometry for maintaining approximately normal steering and maneuvering while inclined downhill. Then when MTB riding wasn't about the trail, but about the constructed trail, the bike could be tailored for the artificial trail, and the trail could be tuned for the bike. Uphill seat angle and downhill head angle. Get on a street or a bike path, and it isn't doing you any favors.

 

[neptronix]

This would be pretty good geometry from an ebike standpoint - long rear, very slack fork. I just can't get over the fact that we don't have the wheelbase for the speed, and the seatpost angle forces you to pedal on heels, not using the forefoot.

A bike is designed to imitate the motion of walking, that's how you extract so much power out of the leg. Removing the motion of the ankle and foot muscles seems like something that would gimp pedaling it. Which is a strange choice for a bike that has a mid drive.

 

[Overclocker]

it's single speed, not really meant for much pedalling. i'm more concerned w/:

tires have to be 2-ply DH tires which are almost always tacky compound. you could probably wear out the rear in like 4 rides. then i'm not even sure if such tires are safe at 6kw



definitely looks like bicycle chain. even something like (unsealed) 420 chain can have a lot of elongation in just one muddy ride. then there's that rear narrow-wide sprocket which i hope is steel. it's going to wear together w/ the chain

 

[neptronix]

Oh.. here i was thinking that this mid drive would have multiple speeds.. which is the primary reason you'd chose a mid drive as the motor.

Yeah, pedaling the bike is an afterthought and seems to be not possible in the stock configuration.
So, offroad only.

I don't understand what the market for this is - it's $5.5k, if we want to compare it to a dirt bike
$3k of new bike, motor kit, and battery, and you can build a bike equal or greater. And you can even pedal it while the lawman is scoping you out..

 

[scianiac]

MTBs that were intended for hiking tracks, have a configuration that is relatively close to that of a touring bike. Downhill bike developed a double-slack geometry for maintaining approximately normal steering and maneuvering while inclined downhill. Then when MTB riding wasn't about the trail, but about the constructed trail, the bike could be tailored for the artificial trail, and the trail could be tuned for the bike. Uphill seat angle and downhill head angle. Get on a street or a bike path, and it isn't doing you any favors.

So more or less I agree but it's a matter of degrees (pun intended), I want my bike to be slacker than a touring bike but to a point and I think some modern bikes are past that point. They would be too extreme for the terrain I ride which is often very tight and technical and at low speed. Wish it was easier to try different geometries to find what performs best for my use case though.

Ah I didn't notice that bike has one gear, that both makes it better and worse. Like at that power level being not being able to pedal is fine, you just don't pedal and depending on how you are riding it (and your weight) you'll never need more power. But to get there you're gearing the motor down with a gearbox and then a 219 chain only to then not gear it down at all though the weaker bike chain? Like that 219 chain is barely even trying and that bike chain is under way more tension than it needs to be. They could have reduced the speed way less at the start and threw a massive rear cog on it for the final reduction and that bike chain would be at far far less stress for a given torque output. In gearing the motor less they could hve ditched the gearbox all together and spent it's weight on a larger motor for even less parts and more reliability. The system would be lighter, more reliable, more efficient and quieter. They took a mid drive that was designed to be pedaled even though it should never have been and then even took that away.