US forest service official stance on e-bikes on trails- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 518
  1. #1
    Gamers local 2112
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    894

    US forest service official stance on e-bikes on trails

    See the attached files. E-bikes not allowed on any trails where motorized vehicles are excluded. E-bikes are considered motorized vehicles.

    US forest service official stance on e-bikes on trails-ebike01.jpgUS forest service official stance on e-bikes on trails-ebike02.jpg

  2. #2
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,970
    Was this ever in question? Both the USFS and BLM have had that stance for a few years now.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Legbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,564
    Just common sense.
    Formerly Travis Bickle

    Team Robot. "modulation is code for “I suck at brake control.” Here’s a free tip: get better."

  4. #4
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Thankfully we still have these places.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Pedal-assist bikes such as the Levo, Haibike and others are not "self-propelled" and are outside of the definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth in the letter. Under the letter, e-bikes that are throttle operated or can otherwise be operated without pedal assist, fall within the definition. Pedal-assist bikes, which are not self-propelled, are not "ebikes" under the definition set forth in the statute.

  6. #6
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Pedal-assist bikes such as the Levo, Haibike and others are not "self-propelled" and are outside of the definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth in the letter. Under the letter, e-bikes that are throttle operated or can otherwise be operated without pedal assist, fall within the definition. Pedal-assist bikes, which are not self-propelled, are not "ebikes" under the definition set forth in the statute.



    Good luck with that in Federal Court, I'm sure the Judge will be thoroughly impressed with your knowledge of federal law.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  7. #7
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Pedal-assist bikes such as the Levo, Haibike and others are not "self-propelled" and are outside of the definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth in the letter. Under the letter, e-bikes that are throttle operated or can otherwise be operated without pedal assist, fall within the definition. Pedal-assist bikes, which are not self-propelled, are not "ebikes" under the definition set forth in the statute.
    Read it again. Actually, I don't think you've read it yet.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Pedal-assist bikes such as the Levo, Haibike and others are not "self-propelled" and are outside of the definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth in the letter. Under the letter, e-bikes that are throttle operated or can otherwise be operated without pedal assist, fall within the definition. Pedal-assist bikes, which are not self-propelled, are not "ebikes" under the definition set forth in the statute.
    That's not how the statement reads. According to the USFS, if it has a battery, it's motorized (assuming the document is authentic).

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Good luck with that in Federal Court, I'm sure the Judge will be thoroughly impressed with your knowledge of federal law.
    I'm sure a judge would, given that I am a lawyer...

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Good luck with that in Federal Court, I'm sure the Judge will be thoroughly impressed with your knowledge of federal law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pisgah View Post
    That's not how the statement reads. According to the USFS, if it has a battery, it's motorized (assuming the document is authentic).
    Read the definition...no mention of battery in the definition of "motorized vehicle."

  11. #11
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Read the definition...no mention of battery in the definition of "motorized vehicle."




    Well, you can be the test monkey then since you're so sure.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  12. #12
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    I'm sure a judge would, given that I am a lawyer...
    Well, you are certainly acting like one. There is a reason lawyers are some of the most disliked people, I believe even more than used car salesmen from what I've read. Don't you have an ambulance to chase?
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Well, you can be the test monkey then since you're so sure.
    I'd have no problem with that....

  14. #14
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    I'd have no problem with that.... I am that sure.

    When can we expect to see you in the news?
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    Well, you are certainly acting like one. There is a reason lawyers are some of the most disliked people, I believe even more than used car salesmen from what I've read. Don't you have an ambulance to chase?
    You mean "acting like one" because of my reading comprehension? Or by understanding what laws and regulations actually say? If that's what you mean by "acting like one", I'll take it.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    When can we expect to see you in the news?
    Well, heck... I was gonna take out my standard mtb for tonight's ride...But all this talk is making me want to take out the Levo instead! I'll think of ya'll while I'm riding!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    And by the way.... to anyone reading this string... I'm not YOUR lawyer, and the aforementioned statements are not meant as legal advice.

  18. #18
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Well, heck... I was gonna take out my standard mtb for tonight's ride...But all this talk is making me want to take out the Levo instead! I'll think of ya'll while I'm riding!



    Wouldn't want to strain yourself. When are you going to be in the news in your civil disobedience experiment?
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  19. #19
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Common man, commit.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  20. #20
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Fixing to set back emotorbikes 20 years.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Wouldn't want to strain yourself. When are you going to be in the news in your civil disobedience experiment?
    Hahaha! Honestly, I don't get all the hate for the pedal-assist bikes. But hey, I don't get a lot of things.. so it's all good.

  22. #22
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    You mean "acting like one" because of my reading comprehension? Or by understanding what laws and regulations actually say? If that's what you mean by "acting like one", I'll take it.
    By your way of ignoring what something says and trying to twist it to say what you want it to say and thinking you have some brilliant argument to prove your "case".
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    By your way of ignoring what something says and trying to twist it to say what you want it to say and thinking you have some brilliant argument to prove your "case".
    I'm certainly not ignoring what the regulations say. I'm disregarding a particular interpretation. It's not brilliant argument, and it's not my case. I'm simply reading the regulations, is all. But as I said, I'm not your lawyer, or anyone's lawyer here. I'm just "a lawyer." You can choose to read it and have it mean whatever you would like.

  24. #24
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Hahaha! Honestly, I don't get all the hate for the pedal-assist bikes. But hey, I don't get a lot of things.. so it's all good.
    The shame is, guys like you are what generates the hate for pedal-assist bikes with your "it's not really a motor so I can ride wherever I want" attitude. I feel sorry for legitimate eBikers who just want to ride their bikes where motorized vehicles are allowed.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  25. #25
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    The Mall in D.C. would be a great venue for you to put this to a test.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  26. #26
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    I'm certainly not ignoring what the regulations say. I'm disregarding a particular interpretation. It's not brilliant argument, and it's not my case. I'm simply reading the regulations, is all. But as I said, I'm not your lawyer, or anyone's lawyer here. I'm just "a lawyer." You can choose to read it and have it mean whatever you would like.
    So yes or no, does a pedal assist eBike have a motor?

    I'll be in my local NFS headquarters next week and I'll ask for clarification for you.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    The shame is, guys like you are what generates the hate for pedal-assist bikes with your "it's not really a motor so I can ride wherever I want" attitude. I feel sorry for legitimate eBikers who just want to ride their bikes where motorized vehicles are allowed.
    I never said "it's not really a motor." And I didn't say I can ride it wherever I want. I reiterated the definition...of a "motor vehicle" as per the definition, is literally a "self-propelled" vehicle. Pedal assist bikes are not "self-propelled."

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Well, heck... I was gonna take out my standard mtb for tonight's ride...But all this talk is making me want to take out the Levo instead! I'll think of ya'll while I'm riding!
    You are a great example of why lawyers are perfect for ebikes.

    poster child for how ebikes should be treated!

  29. #29
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,094
    oops, double post
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  30. #30
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    I never said "it's not really a motor." And I didn't say I can ride it wherever I want. I reiterated the definition...of a "motor vehicle" as per the definition, is literally a "self-propelled" vehicle. Pedal assist bikes are not "self-propelled."
    "Ebikes have a motor, thereby are self propelled"
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  31. #31
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Maybe he's a mediocre lawyer?
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  32. #32
    I didn't do it
    Reputation: Mookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    9,461
    The FS memo is clearly using the term ebike in the spirit of what most people think of when referring to an ebike, i.e. a pedal assist bike with a motor. The authors are also mistakenly using the term self propelled to describe the pedal assist aspect of ebikes. The FS will have to rework this to avoid any confusion going forward.
    Let's eat Ted
    Let's eat, Ted
    Remember, commas save lives

  33. #33
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Pedal-assist bikes such as the Levo, Haibike and others are not "self-propelled" and are outside of the definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth in the letter. Under the letter, e-bikes that are throttle operated or can otherwise be operated without pedal assist, fall within the definition. Pedal-assist bikes, which are not self-propelled, are not "ebikes" under the definition set forth in the statute.
    Good argument. By that logic, motos aren't self-propelled either, since you need to use your wrist to turn the throttle. And jeeps - you must press the gas pedal. So I guess they should all be allowed too.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    "Ebikes have a motor, thereby are self propelled"
    The regulations generally prohibit "motor vehicles" from using the trails. The regulations then define "motor vehicles" to mean vehicles that are "self propelled."

    The letter author asserts that having a motor makes a vehicle "self-propelled" But the letter author makes that assertion without citing to a definition of "self-propelled." The CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) cited by the letter author do not contain the definition of "self-propelled" as far as I am aware.

    In the absence of a regulatory definition, one can appropriately look to common usage of the term "self-propelled." For example, Miriam Webster (an often used dictionary) contains an applicable definition: self-propelled = "containing within itself the means for its own propulsion." Pedal-assited bikes do not "contain within itself the means for its own propulsion" = Not "self-propelled."

    Now, maybe other sections of the CFRs (Code of Federal Regulations) have a definition for "self-propelled" that I am not aware of. It's certainly possible. But the letter author doesn't cite to the definition. Absent a citation to the contrary, the author's definition of "self-propelled" is, in my estimation, inconsistent with its common usage and inconsistent with trusted literary sources.

    Also, I'm not suggesting that the regs couldn't be changed to make clear that pedal-assisted bikes are prohibited, if that is what the USFS wanted. I'm only asserting that the rationale set forth in the letter doesn't hold water in my estimation. Further, I'm very certain that regardless of my view, the USFS can always enforce laws as they interpret them. And regular citizens like you and I can challenge those determinations if so desired (provided one has legal standing to do so).

    But,as with anything on the internet, ymmv.

  35. #35
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post

    In the absence of a regulatory definition, it is considered appropriate to look to common usage of the term. Miriam Webster (an often used dictionary) contains an applicable definition: self-propelled = "containing within itself the means for its own propulsion." Pedal-assited bikes do not "contain within itself the means for its own propulsion" = Not "self-propelled."
    And if we go with your interpretation, motos aren't self-propelled either, they are 'wrist assisted'. Jeeps are 'calf/foot assisted'.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Maybe he's a mediocre lawyer?
    I might be.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post
    And if we go with your interpretation, motos aren't self-propelled either, they are 'wrist assisted'. Jeeps are 'calf/foot assisted'.
    Ahh... the slippery slope argument. Yes. You might be right.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Mookie View Post
    The FS memo is clearly using the term ebike in the spirit of what most people think of when referring to an ebike, i.e. a pedal assist bike with a motor. The authors are also mistakenly using the term self propelled to describe the pedal assist aspect of ebikes. The FS will have to rework this to avoid any confusion going forward.
    From my perspective, I disagree the author is "clearly" using the term e-bike to mean a pedal assist bike in the spirit those of us on this board perceive it. But I agree it's certainly possible and maybe even probable that the author meant e-bikes in the form of pedal assist bikes. And I also agree that if that's what they meant, the author would have to rework their guidance.

  39. #39
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Ahh... the slippery slope argument. Yes. You might be right.
    I'm not sure if you're really agreeing with me or being sarcastic.

    If you think I'm making a spurious argument, draw the line then - what objective, quantifiable, legally unambiguous criteria differentiates between a motor which actuates when you pedal, vs. a motor which actuates when you twist a throttle with your wrist?

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post
    Draw the line then - what objective, quantifiable, legally unambiguous criteria differentiates between a motor which actuates when you pedal, vs. a motor which actuates when you twist a throttle with your wrist?
    No, I wasn't being sarcastic at all (indeed, I'm hoping to have meaningful conversation, and you seemed willing to particiate). I don't think it's spurious at all.

    I don't think it would be too hard do in the regs. Indeed, you and I could certainly put our heads together do it ourselves.

    But focusing on that may obfuscate the real issue, in my estimation...

    Now, humor me here, please.... and give this some thought: The letter author basically says e-bikes have a motor, and because they have a motor, they are by definition "self-propelled." and because they are self-proplled, they are motor vehicles. Essentially, what the letter author's logic leads one to conclude is anything with a motor must be a motor vehicle. That we can agree on, correct?

    But..... if the regulation author really meant what the letter author asserts, then why didn't the regulation author simply define a "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle with a motor, period"? That would have been so easy, direct and clearly support the letter author's point. Why did the regulation author go and use the term "self-propelled"?

    Standard legal interpretation requires that the words be given meaning: We can't ignore the use of the term "self-propelled" as the letter author, effectively, does. And one has to assume (legally, in the absence of contrary evidence) that the regulation author wouldn't include words within the regulation that are essentially meaningless. So, "self-propelled" has to mean something beyond "a motor" in this context. Indeed, the structural definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth the regulations precludes such an interpretation. One can't simply conlcude, as the letter author does, "if it has a motor, it's a motor vehicle." The regulation author could have done that, but, for whatever reason, chose not to.

    Look, I understand folks don't like e-bikes. And folks here are certainly entitled to call me a d-bag or whatever. I'm probably all of that, to be honest. It's all good. But I'm always up for discussion!
    Last edited by AGarcia; 05-24-2017 at 12:37 AM.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Procter View Post

    If you think I'm making a spurious argument, draw the line then - what objective, quantifiable, legally unambiguous criteria differentiates between a motor which actuates when you pedal, vs. a motor which actuates when you twist a throttle with your wrist?
    And to follow up here's an example of a more objective, quantifiable and (relatively) unambiguous definition for "pedal assist" bikes found in the federal Consumer Protection Safety Act:‘‘ For the purpose of this section, the term ‘low-speed electric bicycle’ means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph."

  42. #42
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,094
    And that is the problem with lawyers in the US. You have to hire a lawyer to try to plug every single possible way another vulture, I mean lawyer, could possibly find to claim a loophole in what you are trying to do. They just create more work for themselves without adding any benefit to the general population. Just like all the class action lawsuits where in the end, the corporation pays a huge fine, which is then almost all taken by the lawyers, and then the corporation raises their prices to cover the cost and the consumers who were supposedly being harmed end up paying more.

    Yes, I do realize that there are good lawyers, some are friends of mine.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  43. #43
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    And to follow up here's an example of a more objective, quantifiable and (relatively) unambiguous definition for "pedal assist" bikes found in the federal Consumer Protection Safety Act:‘‘ For the purpose of this section, the term ‘low-speed electric bicycle’ means a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph."
    Sure sounds like self-propelled to me.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Well, what else can I say? Maybe I'm truly mediocore, as stated above. And maybe I am wrong. Carry on.

  45. #45
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Well, what else can I say? Maybe I'm truly mediocore, as stated above. And maybe I am wrong. Carry on.




    You did insinuate that you were going to be the test case, when may we expect to see this in the news?
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  46. #46
    I didn't do it
    Reputation: Mookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    9,461
    Somebody better call Saul and get this sorted out.
    Let's eat Ted
    Let's eat, Ted
    Remember, commas save lives

  47. #47
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    You could get some sympathy from me (and even support) by saying something like "well, hey, trail X is wide open, has no hikers, and is directional. It's crazy that I can't ride an e-bike on it, it wouldn't hurt anything. Let's let the local land managers/local riders make the calls!"

    There is the concern that full on moto riders will use the same argument in places, of course (and in fact they have, unsuccessfully, many times). But that's another issue.

    The "it's really a bike so I'll do whatever I want" thing is going to just get bans expanded, however. It turns people off who would otherwise be neutral or even friendly to e-bikes and makes you seem like a jerk. Nobody likes loophole-jumpers (assuming there is actually some kind of loophole here, I'm not very interested in the semantics of the letter).

    Advocate for common sense trail access (where it makes sense) and drop the lawyer schtick. You're doing your future self no access favors.

    -Walt

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoePAz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5,520
    Why is this so hard to understand eBikes have motors that generate forward motion. They are motorized. Those motors maybe measured in the hundreds of Watts vs tens of HP and they may only work when you move your feet, but they still have motors.

    Until such time as the government choose to create a special class of vehicle definition for this they are motorized just the same as motorbikes. Now we can argue about "what a low powered e-bike is" and how it may impact trails and user conflicts, but what is not arguable is they have motors and therefore are motorized, and not allowed on "non-motorized" trails.

    Pretty simple and despite the fact that some can "slide by" and not get caught does not change things one bit.
    Joe
    '18 Specialized Epic 29", 19' Vassago Optimus Ti SS 29", '19 Ibis Ripmo, XC, AM, blah blah blah.. I just ride.

  49. #49
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,017
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    No, I wasn't being sarcastic at all (indeed, I'm hoping to have meaningful conversation, and you seemed willing to particiate). I don't think it's spurious at all.

    I don't think it would be too hard do in the regs. Indeed, you and I could certainly put our heads together do it ourselves.

    But focusing on that may obfuscate the real issue, in my estimation...

    Now, humor me here, please.... and give this some thought: The letter author basically says e-bikes have a motor, and because they have a motor, they are by definition "self-propelled." and because they are self-proplled, they are motor vehicles. Essentially, what the letter author's logic leads one to conclude is anything with a motor must be a motor vehicle. That we can agree on, correct?

    But..... if the regulation author really meant what the letter author asserts, then why didn't the regulation author simply define a "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle with a motor, period"? That would have been so easy, direct and clearly support the letter author's point. Why did the regulation author go and use the term "self-propelled"?

    Standard legal interpretation requires that the words be given meaning: We can't ignore the use of the term "self-propelled" as the letter author, effectively, does. And one has to assume (legally, in the absence of contrary evidence) that the regulation author wouldn't include words within the regulation that are essentially meaningless. So, "self-propelled" has to mean something beyond "a motor" in this context. Indeed, the structural definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth the regulations precludes such an interpretation. One can't simply conlcude, as the letter author does, "if it has a motor, it's a motor vehicle." The regulation author could have done that, but, for whatever reason, chose not to.

    Look, I understand folks don't like e-bikes. And folks here are certainly entitled to call me a d-bag or whatever. I'm probably all of that, to be honest. It's all good. But I'm always up for discussion!
    You missed the second highlighted sentence in that section.

    Read it again:
    Name:  NFS ebike.PNG
Views: 3663
Size:  105.3 KB

    New technologies that merge bicycles and motors, such as e-bikes, are considered motor vehicles under 2122.1 of the TMR.
    That is very clear to me. Why are you having trouble with this? The law applies to self propelled vehicles and vehicles that merge bicycle and motor technology such as pedal assist. It does not matter what someone wants to call it, the law is clear that if there is a motor of any sort in play, then it is a motorized vehicle and thus not allowed.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  50. #50
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    All the semantic gymnastics make it easy to want to dislike emotorbikes.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sfgiantsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,161
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    No, I wasn't being sarcastic at all (indeed, I'm hoping to have meaningful conversation, and you seemed willing to particiate). I don't think it's spurious at all.

    I don't think it would be too hard do in the regs. Indeed, you and I could certainly put our heads together do it ourselves.

    But focusing on that may obfuscate the real issue, in my estimation...

    Now, humor me here, please.... and give this some thought: The letter author basically says e-bikes have a motor, and because they have a motor, they are by definition "self-propelled." and because they are self-proplled, they are motor vehicles. Essentially, what the letter author's logic leads one to conclude is anything with a motor must be a motor vehicle. That we can agree on, correct?

    But..... if the regulation author really meant what the letter author asserts, then why didn't the regulation author simply define a "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle with a motor, period"? That would have been so easy, direct and clearly support the letter author's point. Why did the regulation author go and use the term "self-propelled"?

    Standard legal interpretation requires that the words be given meaning: We can't ignore the use of the term "self-propelled" as the letter author, effectively, does. And one has to assume (legally, in the absence of contrary evidence) that the regulation author wouldn't include words within the regulation that are essentially meaningless. So, "self-propelled" has to mean something beyond "a motor" in this context. Indeed, the structural definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth the regulations precludes such an interpretation. One can't simply conlcude, as the letter author does, "if it has a motor, it's a motor vehicle." The regulation author could have done that, but, for whatever reason, chose not to.

    Look, I understand folks don't like e-bikes. And folks here are certainly entitled to call me a d-bag or whatever. I'm probably all of that, to be honest. It's all good. But I'm always up for discussion!
    And this is why everyone hates lawyers. Maybe you should file a class action. It has a motor and is a vehicle
    I'm sick of all the Irish stereotypes, as soon as I finish this beer I"m punching someone

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    656
    It funny how self-defeating you all can be: a guy who might very well be an attorney and seems to be a MTBer, comes on here and points out a possible loophole in what appears to be a poorly written official document that would allow the worst of all possible outcomes that you all could imagine, and what happens? Instead of thanking him for his diligence, you jump all over him. Instead of possibly seriously debating him as adults and clarifying the issue he raised, you pile on with insults. (Replace the word "lawyers" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" in a previous post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017.) The guy even bent over backwards to be polite and mature about the whole thing, reaching out to anyone who might respond with actual debate to very little response.

    And to think the mods jumped on me for being provocative and impolite, but let this treatment of someone pass as if it never happened....... Is it the guys choice of career that makes it all OK? If so, what other jobs is it open season on these days........

  53. #53
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,017
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodlandHills View Post
    It funny how self-defeating you all can be: a guy who might very well be an attorney and seems to be a MTBer, comes on here and points out a possible loophole in what appears to be a poorly written official document that would allow the worst of all possible outcomes that you all could imagine, and what happens? Instead of thanking him for his diligence, you jump all over him. Instead of possibly seriously debating him as adults and clarifying the issue he raised, you pile on with insults. (Replace the word "lawyers" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" in a previous post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017.) The guy even bent over backwards to be polite and mature about the whole thing, reaching out to anyone who might respond with actual debate to very little response.

    And to think the mods jumped on me for being provocative and impolite, but let this treatment of someone pass as if it never happened....... Is it the guys choice of career that makes it all OK? If so, what other jobs is it open season on these days........
    Perhaps you can point out specific posts where anyone posts any hate speech against homosexuals or those of Jewish heritage.... I did not see it.

    I just went back and re-read all the replies to AGarcia, and the worst comments made were that lawyers are some of the most disliked professionals and one person compared a lawyer to a vulture. Not exactly hate speech. No one was using personal insults(something that is moderated here).

    I would like to point out that your comment is off-topic and contributed nothing to this discussion.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,454
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Hahaha! Honestly, I don't get all the hate for the pedal-assist bikes. But hey, I don't get a lot of things.. so it's all good.
    Bikes don't have motors. Motorized bikes have motors and ( wait for it) are considered a motorized vehicle. Hmmm, just like the wording in the document.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    I would like to point out that your comment is off-topic and contributed nothing to this discussion.
    Gotta disagree, I think his post was completely relevant and I happen to agree with him. Weird but true.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,454
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Well, heck... I was gonna take out my standard mtb for tonight's ride...But all this talk is making me want to take out the Levo instead! I'll think of ya'll while I'm riding!
    Telling. " going to take out my standard mt bike tonight" The one without the motor?
    The other side with their lawyer has already taken note of this. I'm sure.

  57. #57
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodlandHills View Post
    It funny how self-defeating you all can be: a guy who might very well be an attorney and seems to be a MTBer, comes on here and points out a possible loophole in what appears to be a poorly written official document that would allow the worst of all possible outcomes that you all could imagine, and what happens? Instead of thanking him for his diligence, you jump all over him. Instead of possibly seriously debating him as adults and clarifying the issue he raised, you pile on with insults. (Replace the word "lawyers" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" in a previous post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017.) The guy even bent over backwards to be polite and mature about the whole thing, reaching out to anyone who might respond with actual debate to very little response.

    And to think the mods jumped on me for being provocative and impolite, but let this treatment of someone pass as if it never happened....... Is it the guys choice of career that makes it all OK? If so, what other jobs is it open season on these days........




    There is no loop hole , which was pointed out. But that little bit of trivia doesn't fit your agenda of being the disruptive token motorbiker does it?
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    You missed the second highlighted sentence in that section.

    Read it again:
    Name:  NFS ebike.PNG
Views: 3663
Size:  105.3 KB

    No, I didn't miss it. I read it. Carefully. I also read Section 212.1 of the TMR. Carefully.

  59. #59
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodlandHills View Post
    It funny how self-defeating you all can be: a guy who might very well be an attorney and seems to be a MTBer, comes on here and points out a possible loophole in what appears to be a poorly written official document that would allow the worst of all possible outcomes that you all could imagine, and what happens? Instead of thanking him for his diligence, you jump all over him. Instead of possibly seriously debating him as adults and clarifying the issue he raised, you pile on with insults. (Replace the word "lawyers" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" in a previous post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017.) The guy even bent over backwards to be polite and mature about the whole thing, reaching out to anyone who might respond with actual debate to very little response.

    And to think the mods jumped on me for being provocative and impolite, but let this treatment of someone pass as if it never happened....... Is it the guys choice of career that makes it all OK? If so, what other jobs is it open season on these days........

    Someone chooses to be an attorney, they do not choose to be Jewish or gay (though some will argue otherwise) so that is not a valid comparison. And I was the one that referred to lawyers as "vultures", I tried to temper that by explaining that I was referring to lawyers who look for loopholes rather than following intent and those that file class action lawsuits for their own profit rather than the good of the damaged (and you can add patent trolls as well); I may have not done a good job in that. I did feel that AGarcia was arguing a loophole and yes, I did poke him.

    AGarcia actually PMed me and he and I had a polite exchange.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    And, yeah. It does feel like personal attacks. And it's sad to me that the moderators here add to it (or at least fail to curb it). But I've seen happen so many times on this section of the forum to anyone that appears to support e-mtbs. So it's expected, really.

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post

    AGarcia actually PMed me and he and I had a polite exchange.
    Very true.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    149
    I am a newcomer to this particular forum, but I have spent lots of time on many others, and one thing that seems to be consistent across every forum is that some people are incapable of remembering that there are actual human beings on the other end of every discussion. You can disagree vehemently with someone else's opinion without treating them like shit – and I suspect in most cases if it was an in person discussion the tone would be somewhat different.

    Not always, though. Some people are assholes in real life, too.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,454
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    And, yeah. It does feel like personal attacks. And it's sad to me that the moderators here add to it (or at least fail to curb it). But I've seen happen so many times on this section of the forum to anyone that appears to support e-mtbs. So it's expected, really.
    This is the e bike forum. Not the pro e bike forum. Positive, differences of opinion can be voiced for meaningful conversation. Sometimes, sometimes not. Come with thick skin and facts, not agenda and attitude. That usually works better. That said, AGarcia, you plan to ride the Levo, get a ticket and then contest it? Best of luck and keep us posted. Or maybe not until it is settled. Lots of other eyes watch here I would guess.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,368
    Has this document been challenge in court recently?

    Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,073
    HTF can you read the highlighted area and not understand that according to the rules, e-bikes are motor vehicles? You must be friends with the orange faced orangutan and believe in fake news
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    I'm certainly not ignoring what the regulations say. I'm disregarding a particular interpretation. It's not brilliant argument, and it's not my case. I'm simply reading the regulations, is all. But as I said, I'm not your lawyer, or anyone's lawyer here. I'm just "a lawyer." You can choose to read it and have it mean whatever you would like.
    US forest service official stance on e-bikes on trails-e-bike-rules.jpg
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Gotta disagree, I think his post was completely relevant and I happen to agree with him. Weird but true.
    Even a broken clock is correct twice a day........

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    Perhaps you can point out specific posts where anyone posts any hate speech against homosexuals or those of Jewish heritage.... I did not see it.

    I just went back and re-read all the replies to AGarcia, and the worst comments made were that lawyers are some of the most disliked professionals and one person compared a lawyer to a vulture. Not exactly hate speech. No one was using personal insults(something that is moderated here).

    I would like to point out that your comment is off-topic and contributed nothing to this discussion.
    If you actually read my post, in parentheses I suggest that readers go back to a previous post and REPLACE the word "lawyer" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" and then scan the post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017. I never suggested the words you tried to put into my mouth as is clear to anyone who read my full post.

    Kudos on trying the Kill the Messenger Response, though, it's usually successful here.

    In the end though, isn't irrational hate speech, still hate speech, no matter why one feels that way and to whom directs it? i.e. If a person hates someone else for how they make a legal living without knowing anything else about them and freely expresses that hate, what does that say about that person? And why isn't it discouraged when it occurs......?

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    HTF can you read the highlighted area and not understand that according to the rules, e
    Because what you are highlighting and are focusing is not actually "the rules." What you are highlighting focusing are an individual's interpretation of the rules, not the rules themselves. And I'm asserting that the interpretation is unsupported.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    This is the e bike forum. Not the pro e bike forum. Positive, differences of opinion can be voiced for meaningful conversation. Sometimes, sometimes not. Come with thick skin and facts, not agenda and attitude. That usually works better. That said, AGarcia, you plan to ride the Levo, get a ticket and then contest it? Best of luck and keep us posted. Or maybe not until it is settled. Lots of other eyes watch here I would guess.
    Ok. Thick skin and facts. No agenda or attitude. Got it!

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodlandHills View Post
    Even a broken clock is correct twice a day........
    :-)

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Picard View Post
    Has this document been challenge in court recently?

    Sent from my SM
    I'm not aware of any legal challenges.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by krel View Post

    Not always, though. Some people are assholes in real life, too.

    Ha! True!

  73. #73
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,017
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodlandHills View Post
    If you actually read my post, in parentheses I suggest that readers go back to a previous post and REPLACE the word "lawyer" with the words "Jewish people" or "gays" and then scan the post to see how reprehensible it sounds in 2017. I never suggested the words you tried to put into my mouth as is clear to anyone who read my full post.

    Kudos on trying the Kill the Messenger Response, though, it's usually successful here.

    In the end though, isn't irrational hate speech, still hate speech, no matter why one feels that way and to whom directs it? i.e. If a person hates someone else for how they make a legal living without knowing anything else about them and freely expresses that hate, what does that say about that person? And why isn't it discouraged when it occurs......?
    I read your post and you are trying to insinuate that the 2 posts that mention lawyers in a slightly negative light are similar to hate speech, and that is just not the case.

    There is a re-occurring theme in the eBike forum on this site;

    User A is Pro-Ebike and makes some claims that are quickly disputed by users b-f.

    User A gets butt hurt because no one is buying the snake oil they are trying to sell and claims they are being attacked maliciously.

    User G is also Pro-Ebike and backs up A on their claims..... which are not claims of anything other than some valid discussion.

    I have seen this over and over again and many of the "user A" types argue with no facts to back up their claims. Eventually they stop posting here.

    From what I have Seen so far, AGarcia is trying to present an argument, is also not convincing anyone to see it his way, however he is not claiming that anyone is attacking him personally and hopefully as a lawyer understands that he is simply arguing against opposing counsel in a way.

    Why you decided you needed to come to his protection is beyond me, if you have a point to discuss regarding the wording of the Law that was posted in the very first post on this topic, please do so, if you just want to come in and try and claim that a few negative comments about a profession are similar in any way to racist or homophobic comments, please leave.


    I am sorry I have to be so harsh, but this particular forum seems to generate the most conflicts of any on this site.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  74. #74
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SuperModerator
    Reputation: Klurejr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    7,017
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Because what you are highlighting and are focusing is not actually "the rules." What you are highlighting focusing are an individual's interpretation of the rules, not the rules themselves. And I'm asserting that the interpretation is unsupported.
    How is that statement not actually the rules? It is pretty clear in that document that it is part of the rules.

    Here is the quoted section, BOLD is mine:
    Direction on eBikes was included in a response in the Federal Register notice for the final over-snow vehicle rule. The response states: "New technologies that merge bicycles and motors, such as e-bikes, are considered motor vehicles under 212.1 of the TMR."
    What I see here is a Rule is being discussed and the specifics for how it applies to e-bikes are being explained here.

    I honestly do not see how you are interpreting this to mean that it is not a rule, nor does it apply to e-Bikes on NFS land.

    It's very verbiage states it is a rule and that bikes of any sort with a motor on them are considered motor vehicles when on NFS land.


    FYI, you seem to be deleting the "end Quote" code when you are responding to users. I will go back and fix em for you.
    Ride Bikes, Drink Craft Beer, Repeat.

    Know these before you post:
    MTBR Posting Guidelines

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    From what I have Seen so far, AGarcia is trying to present an argument, is also not convincing anyone to see it his way, however he is not claiming that anyone is attacking him personally and hopefully as a lawyer understands that he is simply arguing against opposing counsel in a way.

    The way I see it AGarcia was only pointing out that the text might be interpreted differently in a legal sense than the way it appears to read. He didn't come across as either pro or anti-ebike to me but did seem to get attacked in several posts as if he were arguing for them.

    AGarcia may be wrong or he may be right but I don't understand why people are offended by his post, and even though many consider being an attorney a deplorable occupation they are necessary for lots of reasons, one of them being interpreting legal speak like the document in the OP.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Klurejr View Post
    How is that statement not actually the rules? It is pretty clear in that document that it is part of the rules.

    Here is the quoted section, BOLD is mine:


    What I see here is a Rule is being discussed and the specifics for how it applies to e-bikes are being explained here.

    I honestly do not see how you are interpreting this to mean that it is not a rule, nor does it apply to e-Bikes on NFS land.

    It's very verbiage states it is a rule and that bikes of any sort with a motor on them are considered motor vehicles when on NFS land.


    FYI, you seem to be deleting the "end Quote" code when you are responding to users. I will go back and fix em for you.
    Thanks for fixing the "end quote" my computer wasn't letting me do full quotes for some reason.

    In response to your question:

    Here is a link to the Rule 212. Within the rule, you will find the definition of the term "motor vehicle." https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/212.1

    Here is 80 Fed. Reg 4503, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201...2015-01573.pdf You will note that in this document (on page 4503), the author in the Federal Register is responding to questions by offering his/her perspcecitve on the meaning of the rule. But statements by an author indicating their understanding of the rule is not the same as "the rule." And my contention is that the author in the federal register got it wrong, because there is no evidence in "the rule" to support the assertion/perspective offered by the author in the Federal Register comments.

    Now, the comments may offer very persuasive evidence of the mindset of the USFS' intentions when drafting the rules. And it certainly can evidence their intention on enforcement of the rules. I've acknowledged that already in previous posts.

    And I'm not necessarily advocating for or against e-bikes here. I'm just demonstrating how a lawyer trained and practiced in the art of reading federal statutes and regulations interprets the rules. One can choose to consider that perspective, or not.

    And of course, as with anything on the internet, YMMV with regards to my statements. And I'm not anyone's lawyer on this forum or the lawyer of anyone reading this post.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    The way I see it AGarcia was only pointing out that the text might be interpreted differently in a legal sense than the way it appears to read. He didn't come across as either pro or anti-ebike to me but did seem to get attacked in several posts as if he were arguing for them.

    AGarcia may be wrong or he may be right but I don't understand why people are offended by his post, and even though many consider being an attorney a deplorable occupation they are necessary for lots of reasons, one of them being interpreting legal speak like the document in the OP.
    Thanks, Yes. I'm not advocating one way or the other. I hope that is somewhat evident. I'm trying to focus on the rules and the evidence supporting the rules. Not whether the intent of the rules are good or bad.

    My wife owns an e-bike, and I do have access to it should I decide I want to ride it (I have about 5 times in the past year). But frankly, I'm not bent out of shape by the rules one way or another. I'm just to trying offer the perspective that the evidence people are relying on may be faulty. And because of my experience and training, I figured I could offer perspective. I understand most folks on this forum may not care for the perspective, but there might be some that do. So I share.

  78. #78
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,733
    It's an interesting discussion, I think the statement was written by someone who knows nothing about ebikes which led to the slightly confusing language. I just got back from Moab where I saw joint USFS/BLM no ebike stickers on sign posts, so on the ground anyway, if your bike has an electric motor supplying power regardless of how you turn it on, it's a no go on non motorized.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    51
    can we get past all the tech-no discussion... Here is my take... I don't like E-bikes. However, I don't see they would cause the damage of a motorized bike aka Motor cycle. If you need to pedal them to get started, and is only an assist, whats the big deal with them on bike paths and the such. Are people worried about the speed they would have over standard chain driven gears?

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by jvbutter View Post
    Are people worried about the speed they would have over standard chain driven gears?
    I think this is a valid concern. Aside from that, I don't really see why they'd be a problem. If they go the same speed and have the same footprint as other bikes why would anyone care?

  81. #81
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by krel View Post
    I think this is a valid concern. Aside from that, I don't really see why they'd be a problem. If they go the same speed and have the same footprint as other bikes why would anyone care?


    But they don't go the same speed. A quote right from TREK, "ride farther, faster, and with less effort". See the problem? Overtaking speeds, uphill speed, closing speeds. Great for commuting, motorized trails etc. Not so great on non-motorized trails.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    But they don't go the same speed. A quote right from TREK, "ride farther, faster, and with less effort". See the problem? Overtaking speeds, uphill speed, closing speeds. Great for commuting, motorized trails etc. Not so great on non-motorized trails.
    Yup. The farther and less effort parts don't bother me, but the faster does. I suppose you could require tech that cuts the motor out above a certain speed, but you know for sure people would figure ways around that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    But they don't go the same speed. A quote right from TREK, "ride farther, faster, and with less effort". See the problem? Overtaking speeds, uphill speed, closing speeds. Great for commuting, motorized trails etc. Not so great on non-motorized trails.
    yea, ive been on the trails with the e-bikes... nobody went whizzing past me.... How is there overtaking any different than the buff guy / gal, that goes whizzing past me due to them being in more physical shape then me????

  84. #84
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by jvbutter View Post
    yea, ive been on the trails with the e-bikes... nobody went whizzing past me.... How is there overtaking any different than the buff guy / gal, that goes whizzing past me due to them being in more physical shape then me????
    There are pages and pages of arguments on this. The opposition argument is:

    1) Higher speeds, especially on flat and uphill. This not a about 'waaaa he went faster than me'. It drives more conflicts with other user groups and makes MTBs a big, easy target in city council/county parks meetings.
    2) Technology improving quickly, very easy to modify bikes and add throttles, remove speed limits, increase power above legal limits
    3) Will become increasingly difficult or impossible for rangers to differentiate between 'legal' e-bikes and 'illegal/modified' ebikes, and furthermore, between bikes and e-bikes
    4) Because of all the above, strong fear that hikers will use e-bikes to rally support and get all bikes banned. Motors allow anti-bike groups to appeal to emotions of both local authorities and other non-cyclists, and all reasoned arguments are ignored.

  85. #85
    Ebike Evangelist!!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    173
    Semantics aside, the Forest service has given guidance and direction on e-bikes which they and BLM currently use to enforce existing regulations for the use of e-bikes in areas under their purview. To wit:
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...emZXysP5tQz42A

    Which is not to say that the potential "loophole" AGarcia calls out does not exist, simply without standing and cause the FS's "interpretation" is the current stance of the Federal Gov.

    Good Luck challenging it in court as the FS seems very clear in their understanding, optics be damned.
    Advocates fight for electric bike trail use | The Columbian
    Unfortunately for her the regulations on OPMD are specific to designed for mobility and intended for indoor use. E-bikes meet neither qualification and therefore do not warrant ADA exemption to the TMR.

    Hiking is hard on my knees, my mtb helps me get around, those hiker only trails are discriminatory to my chosen mode of conveyance.

    And that is the overall gist in my opinion, other user trail conflict exacerbated by e-bikes potential covert nature leaves the land manager attempting visual discernment of class 1∼3. Due to the high speeds capable of class 3 in order to maintain safe use for all trail users it seems the FS made the sensible and rational choice to place all e-bikes firmly in the motor vehicle category.

    E-bikes challenge regulators and traditional trail users - News Columns | WyoFile

    Our common lands are just that, and none of us has a right to dictate to the managing entity how we access those lands, open to all. Accommodations for the disabled to prevent discrimination is appropriate, but that may take the form of a graded paved alternative trail that still provides equal access to all.

    The land is open to all, unfortunately we cannot reasonably expect access via our prefered mode simply because we wish it so.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    213
    All this aside, there remains thousands of miles of great BLM and Forest Service trails perfectly legal to ride ebikes on.

    Once again the greater speed thing comes up. The greater speed, if it exists, (depending on the ebike) is fully controllable by the rider, and if he is going too fast for the conditions it is reckless riding, no different then a downhill speeder endangering other trail users. You guys realize these ebikes just don't have an ON/OFF button, right??

  87. #87
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by portnuefpeddler View Post
    All this aside, there remains thousands of miles of great BLM and Forest Service trails perfectly legal to ride ebikes on.

    Once again the greater speed thing comes up. The greater speed, if it exists, (depending on the ebike) is fully controllable by the rider, and if he is going too fast for the conditions it is reckless riding, no different then a downhill speeder endangering other trail users. You guys realize these ebikes just don't have an ON/OFF button, right??
    Yep. Enjoy those Moto trails.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Actually they are not self-propelled.
    You have to pedal them

    They are popping up more and more.
    Hell my step father could really use in with having open heart surgery. It's hard for him to pedal up hills.

    Sounds like the US forest service should actually go ride on.

    I don't own one nor will I. I love the leg pain from pedaling. It the info posted is not correct.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Too Many .

  89. #89
    Occasionally engaged…
    Reputation: Ptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,668
    I said this elsewhere on the site and I don't think this perspective has been covered anywhere (yet) in this thread:

    "I like the “motorized / non-motorized “ distinction as a limiter on public lands. I also like the “non-mechanized travel in wilderness” rule. From a land and wildlife management perspective it’s about controlling the amount of human activity in fragile or rare ecosystems. Motors make it easier to encroach into remote areas. Mountain bikes make it easier to encroach into wilderness areas. If you make it harder or more time consuming for joe-public to get into the backcountry, the more effectively it can be managed. A current issue facing our local National Forest is the effort to close some roads and long-used but illegal routes for resource management reasons. Numerous comments have been made at the open meetings with the USFS and in local papers about the publics right of access, but what they're really arguing for is their right to drive anywhere. I see a similar theme here with motor-assisted bicycles, the "I'm no longer able to do it without a motor but I deserve the right to still be there so let me use my motor-assist bike to get there" argument. I don't think it's an inherent right to be able to get where you once did just because you age out of it. I realize I've aged out of some of my favorite backcountry epics, but I've made it a priority to find value in what I can still do (smaller incursions into the wilds). I encourage all to think about the bigger picture and not make it just about "you" -- it should be about the forests, wild life, and conservation. Okay, maybe I'm the one being selfish now, because I'm pretty sure that allowing motor-assists on bikes to access all that you can on a regular bike will just degrade our precious resources faster and I want my son, and then his son or daughter, to have the same opportunity to experience quality backcountry."
    "The plural of anecdote is not data." -- Attributed to various people in a variety of forms, but always worth remembering...

  90. #90
    My arm hurts a little
    Reputation: #1ORBUST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,471
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    Actually they are not self-propelled.
    You have to pedal them

    They are popping up more and more.
    Hell my step father could really use in with having open heart surgery. It's hard for him to pedal up hills.

    Sounds like the US forest service should actually go ride on.

    I don't own one nor will I. I love the leg pain from pedaling. It the info posted is not correct.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Road one for the first time last week. A rad bike rover or some bs.

    Friends dads bike.

    So much fun! I can't really see someone who likes bikes hating on them.

    Funny thread
    Hardtail downhill
    https://youtu.be/sXhWDoz7_CM
    Quote Originally Posted by SHIVER ME TIMBERS
    tresspassing, thievery and poaching is all part of a DH'ers life

  91. #91
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by #1ORBUST View Post
    Road one for the first time last week. A rad bike rover or some bs.

    Friends dads bike.

    So much fun! I can't really see someone who likes bikes hating on them.

    Funny thread
    Lots of stuff that I like to do (motos, shooting guns, building big bonfires) isn't appropriate on a multi-use trail. I agree they're great fun, for what it's worth.

    -Walt

  92. #92
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,733
    I have yet to see any rational behind the USFS/BLM stance on ebikes except that since it has a motor, it's motorized. We don't know if they've looked into them, haven't, are worried about impact or not.

    At a minimum, I would expect that like any other trail manager, they can't legally allow a motorized vehicle on non motorized trails, some lands when aquired come with deed restrictions that further tie their hands. They can't make exemptions, otherwise everyone who has a motor driven toy would argue that they should be allowed as well. Like other state and local municipalities, they could get around it, by writing legislation that says an ebike is no longer a motorized vehicle, but if you've ever dealt with the USFS, getting anything done can take ages and require significant political capital.

    It seems like the most obvious and possibly achievable outcome for ebikers to lobby for would be to have them reclassified and give the district rangers the ability to pick and choose where to allow them. You'd have to prove they should though, which is different than just claiming they should.

  93. #93
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryman View Post
    but if you've ever dealt with the USFS, getting anything done can take ages and require significant legal capital.



    Up to 20 years and 250 g's.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  94. #94
    Here, diagonally!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,096
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    Actually they are not self-propelled.
    You have to pedal them

    They are popping up more and more.
    Hell my step father could really use in with having open heart surgery. It's hard for him to pedal up hills.

    Sounds like the US forest service should actually go ride on.

    I don't own one nor will I. I love the leg pain from pedaling. It the info posted is not correct.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    IIRC Protor already covered this. But I'll try as well. My car has a pedal, yet I would consider it self-propelled. Regarding non-throttled e-bikes, the motors on some e-bikes are activated by cadence sensors. In that case you just need forward motion on the pedals to activate the motor. So in that case the e-bike can be ridden up to 100% self-propelled. Some have torque sensors, so the rider is always required to put in some % of the total energy used to propel the bike. That % is determined by the software the activates the motor. I'm willing to bet that you can set it to provide well over 50% of the power right out of the factory.

    So I guess we are getting into semantics here about what is considered self-propelled. 100%? More than 1/2? Any at all?

    Thankfully it appears the USFS is taking a reasonable stance here and we shouldn't have to worry about that. Also note that they are not doing a blanket ban on e-bikes and will consider expanding trail access for them. But they are making a distinction between them and pedal-powered bikes, which makes sense IMHO.
    Quote Originally Posted by noapathy View Post
    Is it blue on one side and white on the other or did you buy two of whatever that is?

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brent701's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by JACKL View Post
    IIRC Protor already covered this. But I'll try as well. My car has a pedal, yet I would consider it self-propelled. Regarding non-throttled e-bikes, the motors on some e-bikes are activated by cadence sensors. In that case you just need forward motion on the pedals to activate the motor. So in that case the e-bike can be ridden up to 100% self-propelled. Some have torque sensors, so the rider is always required to put in some % of the total energy used to propel the bike. That % is determined by the software the activates the motor. I'm willing to bet that you can set it to provide well over 50% of the power right out of the factory.

    So I guess we are getting into semantics here about what is considered self-propelled. 100%? More than 1/2? Any at all?

    Thankfully it appears the USFS is taking a reasonable stance here and we shouldn't have to worry about that. Also note that they are not doing a blanket ban on e-bikes and will consider expanding trail access for them. But they are making a distinction between them and pedal-powered bikes, which makes sense IMHO.
    Yeah.

    The one I rode you 100% had to pedal. The motor was just a assist. It's still technically human powered with electric assist.

    I saw one on a local trail moving at a good pace. To me kind of took the whole point of riding a bicycle on the mountain away. Lol


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Too Many .

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Pedal-assist bikes such as the Levo, Haibike and others are not "self-propelled" and are outside of the definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth in the letter. Under the letter, e-bikes that are throttle operated or can otherwise be operated without pedal assist, fall within the definition. Pedal-assist bikes, which are not self-propelled, are not "ebikes" under the definition set forth in the statute.
    If it's got a motor, it's a MOTOR cycle. Doesn't matter if the motor is gas or electric. Doesn't matter whether it engages with a throttle or a peddle stroke. Simple as that.

  97. #97
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,285
    Lets get one thing out of the way. Electric bikes have a motor on them. How you operate that motor doesn't matter. You can use your wrist, foot or legs. Because they have a motor on them they are banded from non-motorized trails and areas. They are not mountain bikes and we do not want ebikers jumping in with us on the fight for trail access. It is a completely separate issue that doesn't involve human powered recreation.

    That being said, I own an ebike and use it daily for all kinds of things that people usually use a car for. Ebikers need to form their own lobby group and fight for whatever access there heart desires. I won't oppose it in any way. Everyone deserves access to their recreational pursuits in a reasonable manner. Same goes for 4x4 or dirt bike riding.
    https://www.electricbike.com/10-fastest-ebikes/
    My wifes ebike. Yes it has throttle and pedal assist with brake regen.
    Last edited by alexbn921; 05-25-2017 at 05:42 PM.

  98. #98
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by alexbn921 View Post
    Lets get one thing out of the way. Electric bikes have a motor on them. How you operate that motor doesn't matter. You can use your wrist, foot or legs. Because they have a motor on them they are banded from non-motorized trails and areas. They are not mountain bikes and we do not want ebikers jumping in with us on the fight for trail access. It is a completely separate issue that doesn't involve human powered recreation.

    That being said, I own an ebike and use it daily for all kinds of things that people usually use a car for.
    A great and proper way to use an ebike!
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  99. #99
    My arm hurts a little
    Reputation: #1ORBUST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,471
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Lots of stuff that I like to do (motos, shooting guns, building big bonfires) isn't appropriate on a multi-use trail. I agree they're great fun, for what it's worth.

    -Walt
    I can't really see what the problem would be.

    Is faster on the up hill is the worry? I'd slaughter an ebike on the downhill. Would way rather run into me on an ebike then on my downhill rig.

    Just set up a mph speed limit and be done with it.

    They only go like 20 I double that on my regular bike

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by HIFat View Post
    If it's got a motor, it's a MOTOR cycle. Doesn't matter if the motor is gas or electric. Doesn't matter whether it engages with a throttle or a peddle stroke. Simple as that.
    Thanks for educating me.

  101. #101
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by krel View Post
    Yup. The farther and less effort parts don't bother me, but the faster does. I suppose you could require tech that cuts the motor out above a certain speed, but you know for sure people would figure ways around that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I don't care what you ride, the trail will always dictate your speed. And everyone is going to push their speed wherever they can. Speed doesn't cause accidents, riders cause accidents.
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  102. #102
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by #1ORBUST View Post
    I can't really see what the problem would be.

    Is faster on the up hill is the worry? I'd slaughter an ebike on the downhill. Would way rather run into me on an ebike then on my downhill rig.

    Just set up a mph speed limit and be done with it.

    They only go like 20 I double that on my regular bike
    You go 40mph on your bike? On a trail?

    FWIW, since you apparently haven't read the 10,000 times this has been covered, yes, on 2-way MUTs, closing speeds are a big problem. If DH riders are going 15-20 and uphill riders are going 5-8, great. If you increase the speed of the uphill riders to 15-20, on many trails you'll have problems.

    On one-way trails/flow trails/bike parks, I don't see any issues. No horses to scare, no hikers to get huffy, no 2-way traffic or closing speed problems.

    -Walt

  103. #103
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    I don't care what you ride, the trail will always dictate your speed. And everyone is going to push their speed wherever they can. Speed doesn't cause accidents, riders cause accidents.

    It's too simple to blame riders in all collisions, every situation is different and most of the time the circumstances are very dynamic. Sometimes trail designs are at fault. And the trail only dictates the speed of individual riders, some will be multiple times faster than others. Again, another oversimplification of a complex issue.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  104. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    I don't care what you ride, the trail will always dictate your speed.
    Strava results contradict that claim.

    I agree with the second part though, people do tend to push their speed when then can. Lots of times I can't though and usually it's due to oxygen depravation.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  105. #105
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Erm, the grade of the trail dictates my speed on the climbs, not (except in really rare cases) cornering traction or courage or "skill" writ large.

    So, it's a lack of power that means I can't go 20mph up a 10% singletrack climb. If you add more power...

    -Walt

  106. #106
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    I don't care what you ride, the trail will always dictate your speed. And everyone is going to push their speed wherever they can. Speed doesn't cause accidents, riders cause accidents.
    An XC bike on Racing Ralphs isn't going to go down a DH track like a DH bike on Minions.

    Cornering traction is a thing. So is suspension.

    You can ride with more of each with more available power.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Travis Bickle View Post
    Just common sense.
    US forest service official stance on e-bikes on trails-292fd04e96db9aea66ad66976e25b3dd87397fd247e6a16244a1276523fe6743.jpg

    +1 - motor + cycle = motorcycle

    So simple. So obvious.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  108. #108
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,285
    https://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/bid/6147999998.html
    found my new bike. ready to responsable ride my local trails.

  109. #109
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by JACKL View Post
    IIRC I'm willing to bet that you can set it to provide well over 50% of the power right out of the factory.
    Most oem pedelecs add @300% of your input in max assist up to what the motor is capable of, which is a little over 500w on a class 1.

  110. #110
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    I don't care what you ride, the trail will always dictate your speed. And everyone is going to push their speed wherever they can. Speed doesn't cause accidents, riders cause accidents.
    I don't know where you ride, but it's not often that the trail limits how fast I can ride on the uphill or flats, it's almost always my fitness or lack thereof.

    Yeah, I'll agree people like to ride fast, sometimes too fast for the situation, at least with bikes they're usually only doing that on the downhills.

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    A few weeks ago, I tried out my wife's Levo on a route I do quite often with my Stumpjumper FSR Evo 29 (Santiago Truck Trail to the Luge). On the flatter parts the ride, I could keep the Levo rolling pretty comfortably at the same pace I would be rolling with the Stumpy (usually around 15 mph), but working less hard to do it.

    On the toughest part of SST (Little Mustard section for those that are familiar), I normally pedal up with my Stumpjumper Evo 29 at about 4.4 mph (with significant effort...I'm fat). With the Levo, putting out about same amount of signficant effort, I pedaled up at about 10-11 mph. That's a LOT faster in relative terms; but not really what one would think is "dangerous closing speed" in my opinion. It was more like turning my 235lbs fat ass into a 150lbs whippet XC racer pace. Maybe a guy who's already an XC whippet can make a Levo go faster still... I imagine so. But I can't.

    On the downhill, I was significantly slower on the Levo than I am the Stumpjumper (about 20 seconds slower than the Evo 29 on an average 4 1/2 minute run). I was pretty surprised. I thought the low center of gravity and wider tires (27.5+) might make the Levo faster than the Stumpy... But it wasn't.

    All in all, it was an interesting experiment, and it's a cool bike. But I don't really feel the need to take it up to the Luge again. But I'll probably pull out the wife's Levo every once in a while this summer...maybe for a Sunday morning ride if I'm feeling crappy after too much drinking the night before, but still want to join friends for a ride (done that before.. and it worked out well).

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by brent701 View Post
    Yeah.

    The one I rode you 100% had to pedal. The motor was just a assist. It's still technically human powered with electric assist.

    I saw one on a local trail moving at a good pace. To me kind of took the whole point of riding a bicycle on the mountain away. Lol


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I thought the "point" was to have fun, get outside, see some scenery, get some exercise, and develop handling and balance skills. I do that every time I ride my ebike. You saying I have it wrong? Maybe I should just stay on the couch.

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    213
    It's all about impulse control, something lacking in some people. The oft expressed assumption here that a bike that is assisted and CAN go faster in some conditions, WILL go faster, in spite of line of sight restrictions, common sense, and safety concerns, is indicative of the nature of the people who constantly harp on this. Maybe THEY would, so they fear OTHERS will, it's an offensive line of reasoning for those of us who have the judgement and maturity to back the f*ck off a bit and not hit it full blast just because we can. Like yesterday, driving into town on the interstate, as I was passing what looked like a brand new Corvette, in my Prius........ I slowed a bit as I pulled along side him, paced him, and then punched it, leaving him behind (but never going over the 80 mph speed limit). That man would make a good ebike rider, he has impulse control, he refrained from smoking my ass, and that's part of why he has the dough to buy the thing in the first place.

    The one good thing is, that expensive as they are, the dumb sh*ts with poor impulse control will generally have screwed their lives up enough (credit card debt, DUI's, etc.) to not be able to afford a high powered capable ebike, much less get it together enough to take it on a technical single track. It's the Darwin principle in action!

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,789
    Quote Originally Posted by portnuefpeddler View Post
    It's all about impulse control, something lacking in some people. The oft expressed assumption here that a bike that is assisted and CAN go faster in some conditions, WILL go faster

    There are numerous threads here written by happy e-bikers who report being able to cover twice the ground in the same time as compared to a bicycle. I doubt all these posters are deadbeat thugs with maxxed out credit cards and a DUI.

    It's a tired argument, depending on your perspective they may only be a little faster but still, faster.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  115. #115
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Erm, the grade of the trail dictates my speed on the climbs, not (except in really rare cases) cornering traction or courage or "skill" writ large.

    So, it's a lack of power that means I can't go 20mph up a 10% singletrack climb. If you add more power...

    -Walt
    Walt, I'm sure you are fast, but nobody going 20mph on a 10% grade climb, singletrack to boot with ruts, rocks, winding etc. As stated the trail dictates the speed traveled. I never said everyone was going to be the same speed. You can only ride a trail so fast, regardless what you are pedaling.
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    You can only ride a trail so fast, regardless what you are pedaling.
    Sometimes true but many times not, power is often the limiter and anyone who rides bikes is well aware of that. I guarantee I could score a KOM on nearly every segment on my local trails if I could produce a few hundred extra watts.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  117. #117
    SS Pusher Man
    Reputation: mtnbikej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,543
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    A few weeks ago, I tried out my wife's Levo on a route I do quite often with my Stumpjumper FSR Evo 29 (Santiago Truck Trail to the Luge). On the flatter parts the ride, I could keep the Levo rolling pretty comfortably at the same pace I would be rolling with the Stumpy (usually around 15 mph), but working less hard to do it.

    On the toughest part of SST (Little Mustard section for those that are familiar), I normally pedal up with my Stumpjumper Evo 29 at about 4.4 mph (with significant effort...I'm fat). With the Levo, putting out about same amount of signficant effort, I pedaled up at about 10-11 mph. That's a LOT faster in relative terms; but not really what one would think is "dangerous closing speed" in my opinion. It was more like turning my 235lbs fat ass into a 150lbs whippet XC racer pace. Maybe a guy who's already an XC whippet can make a Levo go faster still... I imagine so. But I can't.

    On the downhill, I was significantly slower on the Levo than I am the Stumpjumper (about 20 seconds slower than the Evo 29 on an average 4 1/2 minute run). I was pretty surprised. I thought the low center of gravity and wider tires (27.5+) might make the Levo faster than the Stumpy... But it wasn't.

    All in all, it was an interesting experiment, and it's a cool bike. But I don't really feel the need to take it up to the Luge again. But I'll probably pull out the wife's Levo every once in a while this summer...maybe for a Sunday morning ride if I'm feeling crappy after too much drinking the night before, but still want to join friends for a ride (done that before.. and it worked out well).
    You were on a trail l that see very little foot/equestrian traffic. Do the same thing at Whiting on Saturday morning....and that 15 mph closing speed with lol get us kicked out. Santiago Oaks already has a problem with cyclists rolling up on equestrians too fast without acknowledging them..:.now you wanna increase the speed. It is a recipe for disaster. Most likely another reason OC Parks doesn't allow them.
    Bicycles don’t have motors or batteries.:nono:

    Ebikes are not bicycles :nono:

  118. #118
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    I'm sure you could. I'm not debating faster in certain areas. Go ride a Hyabusa through my downtown Main Street, now do the same on a moped. Same times, no? Ok, go ride a technical downhill or uphill on an ebike or mtb. Close speeds - yes. I know, I ride both regularly. Now, go ride some fire roads up and down. Faster on ebike? Hell yes. As stated, the trail dictates the speed traveled, along with other users on the trail. It's not like the pedal assist ebike is going to be mowing over everybody!
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    As stated, the trail dictates the speed traveled, along with other users on the trail.
    OK, e-bikes are much faster on fire roads yet the trail dictates the speed. If the trail dictated the speed wouldn't you be able to pedal up and down those roads just as fast? Honestly I don't care where you ride, maybe a tricycle would be the fastest on your trails but it's irrelevant to me. This thread is about policy that involves diverse areas.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  120. #120
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Gutch, with an extra 500W, I can just ride a full on 9" travel DH sled on the climbs, though, right? Even if the trail is kinda techy, all of a sudden I'm going to be able to HAUL up it.

    Additionally, we have lots of trails around here (aspen grove loamy singletrack) where you can easily hit 20 on the descent, and the only thing limiting your speed on the climb is power. This is actually pretty ordinary on a lot of trails in the western US. Powered climbing would be very, very fast.

    I don't have a problem with e-bikes climbing doubletrack either. As long as the ST is one-way DH, as I've stated before, I think they should be allowed. 2-way ST, no way.

    -Walt

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    149
    If people can go faster, some of them will, even if it's unsafe for themselves (ok with that) or unsafe for others (not ok with that.) it's consistent across every human activity I've ever seen - some people are going to push the limits at the expense of others' safety.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  122. #122
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Yes, if we just purely rely on everyone acting like an angel, well, we all know how that ends. There's a reason that motos aren't allowed on a lot of trails.

    Let me say it one more time: mountain bikes are unbelievably slow going uphill (on many moderately steep climbs I'm faster running), and that's a GOOD thing for trail access.

    -Walt

  123. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbikej View Post
    You were on a trail l that see very little foot/equestrian traffic. Do the same thing at Whiting on Saturday morning....and that 15 mph closing speed with lol get us kicked out. Santiago Oaks already has a problem with cyclists rolling up on equestrians too fast without acknowledging them..:.now you wanna increase the speed. It is a recipe for disaster. Most likely another reason OC Parks doesn't allow them.
    Honestly, I think holding 14-15mph up Borrego would be tough, but local fast guys can do it. I see several on Strava that can. So maybe it's possible if someone strong (not me) was riding the Levo. But then you assume that a person on a Levo is automatically not going to see an equestrian up ahead? What do you base that on?

    Since you seem to live/ride the same trails I do, how about we meet up sometime? I'll let you try the Levo. Maybe then you can form opinions based on fact, rather than assumptions.

    I'm serious. Actually, that goes for anyone in the area.

    I'd love to see if the Levo turns riders into raging and blind lunatic MTBers who can no longer see what's coming up the trail, have absolutely no self-control, and go about leaving death and destruction in their wake.

  124. #124
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,285

  125. #125
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by alexbn921 View Post



    Save yourself a click, they are regurgitating the very same things that are said here.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  126. #126
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    OK, e-bikes are much faster on fire roads yet the trail dictates the speed. If the trail dictated the speed wouldn't you be able to pedal up and down those roads just as fast? Honestly I don't care where you ride, maybe a tricycle would be the fastest on your trails but it's irrelevant to me. This thread is about policy that involves diverse areas.
    Yes, I ride an E-trike!, bought at Walmart for $200. Don't get butt hurt when I drop you!
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  127. #127
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    Yes, I ride an E-trike!, bought at Walmart for $200. Don't get butt hurt when I drop you!

    Why troll?
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  128. #128
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Why troll?
    How many E-bikes do you own? Thought so.
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  129. #129
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    How many E-bikes do you own? Thought so.


    Not that it has anything to do with the question of why you appear to be trolling the thread, right?
    Last edited by life behind bars; 05-26-2017 at 10:44 AM.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  130. #130
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    How many E-bikes do you own? Thought so.
    What does that matter? I don't own any. I'm sure ebikes are a lot of fun, I have no doubt of that. I also understand that low powered ebikes do not tear up trails. I also understand all of the issues of treating ebikes as if they had no motor.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  131. #131
    Life's a Garden, dig it!
    Reputation: chuckha62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,746
    Ahhh, the old, "Don't knock it til you try it" argument. Doesn't apply, but what the hell.
    "And crawling on the planet's face, some insects called, The Human Race..."

  132. #132
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    I've ridden a LEVO. I can go crazy fast on it. It's very fun.

    I have no interest in allowing anything like it on 2-way MUTs, and since they're already banned in the 2 places I spend most of my time riding (Park City and Moab), that's pretty much that. At this point I can't imagine those bans being overturned, the e-bike industry blew their chance already by not *starting* with advocacy and funds for trail building/improvements before selling any bikes.

    -Walt

  133. #133
    SS Pusher Man
    Reputation: mtnbikej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,543
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Honestly, I think holding 14-15mph up Borrego would be tough, but local fast guys can do it. I see several on Strava that can. So maybe it's possible if someone strong (not me) was riding the Levo. But then you assume that a person on a Levo is automatically not going to see an equestrian up ahead? What do you base that on?

    Since you seem to live/ride the same trails I do, how about we meet up sometime? I'll let you try the Levo. Maybe then you can form opinions based on fact, rather than assumptions.

    I'm serious. Actually, that goes for anyone in the area.

    I'd love to see if the Levo turns riders into raging and blind lunatic MTBers who can no longer see what's coming up the trail, have absolutely no self-control, and go about leaving death and destruction in their wake.

    Yeah, I'm local.

    I know how fast they can go. My wife demo'd a Levo. I saw how quickly she climbed up hill with little to no effort. I also know how fast she is on her own bike....and it was no comparison.

    I have also spoken with a few of the local riders I rode with that have demo'd them. All have commented on how fast you can go uphill on them. Have also spoken with the ranger at Oaks who demo'd one for a few days before they decided to not allow them.

    I'll continue to ride my non motorized bike.

    Also like Walt says above....they are not good on Multi User Trails.....since we have no bike specific trails here in Orange County, it means that all the trails are Multi User.
    Bicycles don’t have motors or batteries.:nono:

    Ebikes are not bicycles :nono:

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Yes, if we just purely rely on everyone acting like an angel, well, we all know how that ends. There's a reason that motos aren't allowed on a lot of trails.

    Let me say it one more time: mountain bikes are unbelievably slow going uphill (on many moderately steep climbs I'm faster running), and that's a GOOD thing for trail access.

    -Walt
    What makes slow climbing so good? And why doesn't the ability of regular MTBs to descend faster than eMTBs count as a negative in the overall comparison? If it's just that people have become accustomed to bikes being slow up and fast down, why can't they become accustomed something different? None of us were born able to judge closing speed when descending at 25mph while meeting a climber at 5mph, we Had to learn this skill. So, why can we learn to apply the same technique when meeting someone climbing at 15 instead of at 5?

  135. #135
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodlandHills View Post
    why can't they become accustomed something different?


    Why can't emotorbikers become accustomed to motorized trails?
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  136. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Why can't emotorbikers become accustomed to motorized trails?
    Why should I? My state and my local park district permit Class 1 eMTBs on MUTs, what's wrong with enjoying the freedoms my taxes pay for?

  137. #137
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodlandHills View Post
    Why should I? My state and my local park district permit Class 1 eMTBs on MUTs, what's wrong with enjoying the freedoms my taxes pay for?



    The predominant conversation here is not MUT's, why can't you figure that out?
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    There are numerous threads here written by happy e-bikers who report being able to cover twice the ground in the same time as compared to a bicycle. I doubt all these posters are deadbeat thugs with maxxed out credit cards and a DUI.

    It's a tired argument, depending on your perspective they may only be a little faster but still, faster.
    I didn't say they were not faster, you illustrate my point! I said that the speed is dependent on the operator. Using your logic, my Prius did indeed blow off the Corvette, as he MUST have been going as fast as he could, just like all ebikers, right? To this day, the faster bikes I've seen on the trails have been just that, not ebikes, mtbr's hauling ass downhill. I think I get it....you guys are just used to going as fast as possible all the time, and auto assume all other's must ride their ebike's that way.

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    The predominant conversation here is not MUT's, why can't you figure that out?
    So why did you ask me about becoming accustomed to motorized trails? And why can't you figure that the predominate conversation here is not motorized trails before asking me questions about them?

  140. #140
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodlandHills View Post
    So why did you ask me about becoming accustomed to motorized trails? And why can't you figure that the predominate conversation here is not motorized trails before asking me questions about them?



    Okay, I'll bite at the obvious troll. You initiated the exchange. More trolling from WoodlandMalls.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbikej View Post
    Yeah, I'm local.

    I know how fast they can go. My wife demo'd a Levo. I saw how quickly she climbed up hill with little to no effort. I also know how fast she is on her own bike....and it was no comparison.

    I have also spoken with a few of the local riders I rode with that have demo'd them. All have commented on how fast you can go uphill on them. Have also spoken with the ranger at Oaks who demo'd one for a few days before they decided to not allow them.

    I'll continue to ride my non motorized bike.

    Also like Walt says above....they are not good on Multi User Trails.....since we have no bike specific trails here in Orange County, it means that all the trails are Multi User.
    Anyway. I'll you out there sometime.

  142. #142
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodlandHills View Post
    What makes slow climbing so good? And why doesn't the ability of regular MTBs to descend faster than eMTBs count as a negative in the overall comparison? If it's just that people have become accustomed to bikes being slow up and fast down, why can't they become accustomed something different? None of us were born able to judge closing speed when descending at 25mph while meeting a climber at 5mph, we Had to learn this skill. So, why can we learn to apply the same technique when meeting someone climbing at 15 instead of at 5?
    Have you ever been a moto rider? I have. Closing speeds get crazy scary pretty quickly.

    If you want to imagine it, imagine a blind corner in a drainage where both directions are coming downhill. Many trail systems have a spot like that, and inevitably you have to go in and put in chicanes/chokes/speed control measures, because people head on into each other with a 30 mph closing speed and get hurt (or at least scare the living daylights out of each other).

    I have a lot of trail building and design experience. 30mph closing will not work on most existing trails. Full stop. You can design a trail where it's doable, but it won't resemble what we mostly consider "mountain bike" trails because it requires a lot of sight line stuff (taking out trees/parts of hills/etc) that most people would find unacceptable/unnatural.

    -Walt

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    583
    imagine if we ride like the trail is not a race track imagine if we have respect for other trail user imagine if we are not a strav rider imagine if we just want to ride n enjoy the trail imagine if we just want to enjoy the view imagine if we just want to ride .

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,558
    Quote Originally Posted by WoodlandHills View Post
    Why should I? My state and my local park district permit Class 1 eMTBs on MUTs, what's wrong with enjoying the freedoms my taxes pay for?
    "Y'all who have not poached can cast the first stone."

    https://youtu.be/L9sfRyn5EeM


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  145. #145
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by rider95 View Post
    imagine if we ride like the trail is not a race track imagine if we have respect for other trail user imagine if we are not a strav rider imagine if we just want to ride n enjoy the trail imagine if we just want to enjoy the view imagine if we just want to ride .


    Imagine National Forest single track devoid of motorbikes.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    583
    I am a open class state champion mx there is a time n place for every thing I am also a Hang 4 hangglider pilot I have done loops in my ww hp AT if you want to race sigh up pay your money and give it your best shot . Just not on a public trail don't care what you ride just ride the trail with respect for others .

  147. #147
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by rider95 View Post
    I am a open class state champion mx there is a time n place for every thing I am also a Hang 4 hangglider pilot I have done loops in my ww hp AT if you want to race sigh up pay your money and give it your best shot . Just not on a public trail don't care what you ride just ride the trail with respect for others .



    That's what we've been saying since the beginning of this nonsense, respect others. In this case by staying off of non- motorized trails. You know, the topic of this thread.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    583
    Thats my point there is no need for a ebike ban

  149. #149
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by rider95 View Post
    imagine if we ride like the trail is not a race track imagine if we have respect for other trail user imagine if we are not a strav rider imagine if we just want to ride n enjoy the trail imagine if we just want to enjoy the view imagine if we just want to ride .
    Sure, apply this same statement to motos. What happened? Human nature.

    More power, more speed, eventually there will be a problem. There's a reason motos (and mountain bikes) aren't allowed on some trails.

    Look, if we were all perfect, it would be fine. That's not the case, though, so we have limits on all kinds of technology.

    -Walt

  150. #150
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by rider95 View Post
    Thats my point there is no need for a ebike ban



    But there is in fact a ban in place and that's what we deal with in the here and now. If you feel that strongly about it you could form an advocacy group to represent your community as a has been suggested multiple times, just don't expect Mountain Bikers to do the heavy lifting for you.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Sure, apply this same statement to motos. What happened? Human nature.

    More power, more speed, eventually there will be a problem. There's a reason motos (and mountain bikes) aren't allowed on some trails.

    Look, if we were all perfect, it would be fine. That's not the case, though, so we have limits on all kinds of technology.

    -Walt
    I would be happy to come out to your trail n show how we all can use the same trail with respect to all trail users

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    396
    I've had many close calls with head on collisions between my regular mountain bike and other regular mountain bikers.

    I've never had any head on collisions while riding motos on moto single track trails with other moto trails. Why is that?

  153. #153
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Giant Warp View Post
    I've had many close calls with head on collisions between my regular mountain bike and other regular mountain bikers.

    I've never had any head on collisions while riding motos on moto single track trails with other moto trails. Why is that?
    Very different trail layouts, in general, and much wider trails that are considered "singletrack". In the west generally, moto trails also tend to be on wide open desert rather than in treed terrain, so sight lines are better.

    I'm a moto guy too and I think it would be fascinating to try to design a shared-use multidirectional trail for ~30-40mph closing speeds. I think you'd basically end up with something that looked a lot like a moto trail but with quite a bit more in terms of chokes/chicanes/deliberately tight radius turns to control speeds where needed.

    -Walt

  154. #154
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Giant Warp View Post
    I've had many close calls with head on collisions between my regular mountain bike and other regular mountain bikers.

    I've never had any head on collisions while riding motos on moto single track trails with other moto trails. Why is that?
    My experience is completely the opposite, all my close calls on motorized, shared use trails have been with motos. And by close calls, I mean both of us brushing past each other scared to death with me descending and them climbing on twisty tech trails. I've never had problems with other cyclists, runners or hikers on the same trails over 25 years. What's the difference? The motos are climbing at @ 10-15 mph instead of @ 3-6 and since everyone's on 4 strokes these days, you can't hear them anymore over the sounds you're making. The difference in closing speed is enough that when you slam on your brakes, you both skid past each other before stopping. Who's at fault in that situation? Both of us? Neither? We're both in control and not riding excessively fast or like idiots.

    I'd expect more situations like that with ebikes, partially because you can climb faster on one, partially because you can now climb trails that are nominally one way because they just suck to climb on a bike, or are near impossible. Neither issue is world ending, it's not like I think motos should be banned for the same reason, but I certainly think that like motos, the differences should be acknowledged and managed suitably.

    The argument that "they're just bikes" is what I find unreasonable, not ebikes themselves.

  155. #155
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Harry is probably talking about Jack's/Rampart Range stuff. I grew up riding on that when motos were still allowed on all of it, and I can attest that uphill (moto) vs downhill (mountain bike) collisions and close calls were constantly a problem. The motos actually preferred to climb a favorite mountain bike DH trail that is pretty much all in the trees, has a lot of blind corners, and is generally not fantastic in terms of sight lines. It sucked.

    I believe the motos since were kicked off most of those trails but I don't live there anymore (Harry?) Regardless, if you lived in Colorado Springs in the 1990s, you know what I'm talking about - and that was in days with much lower user density in the entire front range.

    There are a ton of (of course horrible shaky GoPro) videos of the trail on Youtube if you want to get a sense of it:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-zjua8eo5Y

    -Walt

  156. #156
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    Harry is probably talking about Jack's/Rampart Range stuff. I grew up riding on that when motos were still allowed on all of it, and I can attest that uphill (moto) vs downhill (mountain bike) collisions and close calls were constantly a problem. The motos actually preferred to climb a favorite mountain bike DH trail that is pretty much all in the trees, has a lot of blind corners, and is generally not fantastic in terms of sight lines. It sucked.

    I believe the motos since were kicked off most of those trails but I don't live there anymore (Harry?) Regardless, if you lived in Colorado Springs in the 1990s, you know what I'm talking about - and that was in days with much lower user density in the entire front range.

    There are a ton of (of course horrible shaky GoPro) videos of the trail on Youtube if you want to get a sense of it:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-zjua8eo5Y

    -Walt
    Jack's is currently closed to motos, due to an issue with fish, not behavior, they will regain access on 7/20 when another trail opens up. It's a problem there and also up in Jones Park. In the old days, I'd just stop here and there and listen since you could hear 2 strokes coming from a long way off.

    Since motos have been off of Jacks for @ 7 years, it's become heavily hiked, often by entire families, with little kids, dogs, the whole bit, which is somewhat terrifying considering the unrelenting downhill traffic. It'll be interesting once motos start riding it again since there's an entire segment of the mtb riding population who have never experienced two way traffic there. And, of course, it's busier than it was in the 90s, as well as smoother and faster.

  157. #157
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,285
    Question for you on moto legal trails. Zero has a full electric dirt bike. Just as fast and completely silent. I know they are trying to put noise generators on electric cars so people don't walk out in front of them. Do you think that they need some sort of bell or horn to warn other users. Maybe not a big deal now, but in 10 years you will see a lot of electric motors on the road and dirt. I wonder how they will be received by the moto crowd on 2 way trails.

    It would scare the shit out of me to come around a corner with a 40 mph moto in my face.

  158. #158
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    ^Good point. I think they are crazy for letting motos back after 7 years. That makes Ebikes look very friendly especially after hearing how families and everyone is enjoying them. I've personally never been to Colorado riding, but have always wanted to.
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  159. #159
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    ^Good point. I think they are crazy for letting motos back after 7 years. That makes Ebikes look very friendly especially after hearing how families and everyone is enjoying them. I've personally never been to Colorado riding, but have always wanted to.



    Considering the motorized nature of the trails, yeah emotorbikes are probably considered fairly benign.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  160. #160
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    ^Good point. I think they are crazy for letting motos back after 7 years. That makes Ebikes look very friendly especially after hearing how families and everyone is enjoying them. I've personally never been to Colorado riding, but have always wanted to.
    It's a long story, but they never should have been banned in the first place. It's the only singletrack link from town into USFS that's motorized, and the moto guys are a good user group, I don't think it's appropriate to take it away. It's literally surrounded by other trails that are far better suited and enjoyable for hiking, it's mostly people that don't know any better that end up on it. Unless a steep, scrambling hike while dodging bikes every minute or two is your idea of a good time.

    I have a bell on every bike I own, bells make for good user interactions. If I had an emoto, I'd sure have a bell like this that I could turn on when needed.

    About TIMBER Mountain Bike Bells - Mountain Bike Bells | TIMBER

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AGarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryman View Post

    I have a bell on every bike I own, bells make for good user interactions. If I had an emoto, I'd sure have a bell like this that I could turn on when needed.

    About TIMBER Mountain Bike Bells - Mountain Bike Bells | TIMBER
    I have one of those. They work well. And I bought a couple of these as christmas gifts a few of my mtb riding buddies. They're also really nice: https://www.spurcycle.com/collection...ant=4768636037

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LTZ470's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by rider95 View Post
    I would be happy to come out to your trail n show how we all can use the same trail with respect to all trail users
    Yes Sir, easily done, do it all the time...no issues...no problems...no worries...the sky is not falling...
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second rat gets the cheese...

  163. #163
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by LTZ470 View Post
    Yes Sir, easily done, do it all the time...no issues...no problems...no worries...the sky is not falling...
    LTZ, I pass by dog walkers with their dogs off leash in the National Forest near my home on a regular basis. I am polite and do not say anything about dogs are required to be leashed. It doesn't mean it is ok. So just because no one is calling you out does not mean they think it is acceptable.

    There are three things that steer people to do the right thing:

    1) their own conscience and what they think is right, this would include having consideration for others
    2) peer pressure
    3) fear of punishment

    Religion probably falls into all three of these.

    It is obvious you have no problem with #1. I think you originally came on this site thinking you could get support for #2; failing that you have fallen back on "no one I see on the trails says it is wrong so it is therefore ok". Hopefully #3 will catch up to you at some point.

    The thing is, just as you have justified your illegally riding on non-motorized trails, you can just as easily justify riding on trails like the below; you'll be careful, your bike won't cause damage, etc. Hopefully peer pressure will prevent you from doing so. I'm sure your inconsideration for others is quite apparent to the people who interact with you.

    US forest service official stance on e-bikes on trails-no_bikes.jpg
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LTZ470's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    LTZ, I pass by dog walkers with their dogs off leash in the National Forest near my home on a regular basis. I am polite and do not say anything about dogs are required to be leashed. It doesn't mean it is ok. So just because no one is calling you out does not mean they think it is acceptable.

    There are three things that steer people to do the right thing:

    1) their own conscience and what they think is right, this would include having consideration for others
    2) peer pressure
    3) fear of punishment

    Religion probably falls into all three of these.

    It is obvious you have no problem with #1. I think you originally came on this site thinking you could get support for #2; failing that you have fallen back on "no one I see on the trails says it is wrong so it is therefore ok". Hopefully #3 will catch up to you at some point.

    The thing is, just as you have justified your illegally riding on non-motorized trails, you can just as easily justify riding on trails like the below; you'll be careful, your bike won't cause damage, etc. Hopefully peer pressure will prevent you from doing so. I'm sure your inconsideration for others is quite apparent to the people who interact with you.
    Hope you are looking in mirror while you were writing this, one thing is garaunteed for sure, all you "purists" break laws everyday, of course those are "your" chosen laws to break and while shaking your finger elsewhere at someone else = self righteous hippocrits...so I would suggest: "Sweeping you own back porch"...I am going to ride and have a great time where ever I am at, not going to let you "purist" folks pi$$ on my leg and tell me it's rain...like I stated before not ONE issue no where with anyone this year at all...emtb's are coming and there is little you are any of these other purist clowns can do about it....put that in your pipe and smoke it...or choke on it...either or emtb's are happening...
    Last edited by LTZ470; 05-29-2017 at 09:05 AM.
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second rat gets the cheese...

  165. #165
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    [QUOTE=LTZ470;13187516]
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    ..



    Do you ride on trails that prohibit emotorbikes? A yes or no would suffice. TIA.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LTZ470's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    470
    [QUOTE=life behind bars;13187533]
    Quote Originally Posted by LTZ470 View Post




    Do you ride on trails that prohibit emotorbikes? A yes or no would suffice. TIA.
    Do you roll through 4-way stops and drive over the speed limit ever?...just a yes or no would suffice....
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second rat gets the cheese...

  167. #167
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,285
    I speed. but I don't roll stops. My speeding doesn't effect your ability to drive in any way. How about you? Are you threatening our access to mountain bike trails? That's where the anger is coming from. You are destroying our hard fought access and you don't even care. So what if mountain bikers loose something because your being an ass hat.

  168. #168
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426

    Do you roll through 4-way stops and drive over the speed limit ever?...just a yes or no would suffice....



    Actually, I obey the laws of the land. You haven't answered the question. Waiting.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  169. #169
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    [QUOTE=LTZ470;13187580]
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post

    Do you roll through 4-way stops and drive over the speed limit ever?...just a yes or no would suffice....
    That's not very comparable, as it's an example of a law that is universally bent. The comparable question would be if you were, say, Bobby Unser, and you're a really good driver and less likely to crash - so you should be allowed to drive any speed you want.

    The point isn't that anyone here is a jerk, or that old guys/gals nursing injuries are going to run down someone's kid. The point is that the technology *can* be used to ride like a jerk much more easily than a normal mountain bike - just like a full on moto - and as such it makes sense to consider carefully whether to allow it, because just like allowing bikes on trails at all, the potential for abuse has risen dramatically.

    -Walt

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LTZ470's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    Actually, I obey the laws of the land. You haven't answered the question. Waiting.
    Actually, I obey the laws of the land. You haven't answered the question. Waiting.
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second rat gets the cheese...

  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LTZ470's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    470
    [QUOTE=Walt;13187609]
    Quote Originally Posted by LTZ470 View Post

    That's not very comparable, as it's an example of a law that is universally bent. The comparable question would be if you were, say, Bobby Unser, and you're a really good driver and less likely to crash - so you should be allowed to drive any speed you want.

    The point isn't that anyone here is a jerk, or that old guys/gals nursing injuries are going to run down someone's kid. The point is that the technology *can* be used to ride like a jerk much more easily than a normal mountain bike - just like a full on moto - and as such it makes sense to consider carefully whether to allow it, because just like allowing bikes on trails at all, the potential for abuse has risen dramatically.

    -Walt
    Ahhh...so a law thats broke universally is accepted by all making it alright...like the guy said above, their trails have 15 mph signs and they are surpassed easily...so we can now pic and choose which laws we want to abide by...great, I think I will...
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second rat gets the cheese...

  172. #172
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by LTZ470 View Post

    Ahhh...so a law thats broke universally is accepted by all making it alright...like the guy said above, their trails have 15 mph signs and they are surpassed easily...so we can now pic and choose which laws we want to abide by...great, I think I will...



    Yeah, if you ever actually leave Resume Speed Texas. Troll on Opie.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  173. #173
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by LTZ470 View Post
    Hope you are looking in mirror while you were writing this, one thing is garaunteed for sure, all you "purists" break laws everyday, of course those are "your" chosen laws to break and while shaking your finger elsewhere at someone else = self righteous hippocrits...so I would suggest: "Sweeping you own back porch"...I am going to ride and have a great time where ever I am at, not going to let you "purist" folks pi$$ on my leg and tell me it's rain...like I stated before not ONE issue no where with anyone this year at all...emtb's are coming and there is little you are any of these other purist clowns can do about it....put that in your pipe and smoke it...or choke on it...either or emtb's are happening...

    Is this a "hippocrit" that you keep taking about:

    Name:  hippo-rides-a-bike.png
Views: 683
Size:  46.7 KBName:  hippo-rides-a-bike.png
Views: 683
Size:  46.7 KBName:  hippo-rides-a-bike.png
Views: 683
Size:  46.7 KBName:  hippo-rides-a-bike.png
Views: 683
Size:  46.7 KB

    You really might want to start consulting a dictionary.

    I do come to a complete stop at stop signs. I was speeding a little bit going to the trails this morning, I was ok with it, the other drivers were doing the same and the cop with the radar gun didn't seem to mind, either. Go ride your ebike past the land manager and see if she/he is ok with it.

    One thing LTZ has shown us, we need to speak up that we mountain bikers do not consider a bike with a motor to be a bicycle and we do not want them to be lumped in with us when making any consideration for trails, they need to stand on their own as a low powered motorized vehicle. I'll be in my local NPS office next week and I'll be sure to share this with them.
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  174. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LTZ470's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    I don't care what you ride, the trail will always dictate your speed. And everyone is going to push their speed wherever they can. Speed doesn't cause accidents, riders cause accidents.
    Gutch, this makes way too much sense for this thread, you are over their comprehension level....but how very true it actually is in REALITY out on the trails....

    ...as we have witnessed over and over and over and over and over and time and time and time again....and disregarded again and again and again....
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second rat gets the cheese...

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,991
    Quote Originally Posted by AGarcia View Post
    Pedal-assist bikes such as the Levo, Haibike and others are not "self-propelled" and are outside of the definition of "motor vehicle" as set forth in the letter.
    They know exactly what they are talking about. The term ebikes is used throughout and everyone knows that most ebikes are pedal assist, I'm pretty sure they do. The type or percentage of power delivery is not defined, only that a vehicle with a motor has the capacity to propel itself to some degree and therefore qualifies as self-propelled.

    No exceptions what-so-ever are suggested for pedal-assist eBikes and I'm sure none are intended. You are making up things which are not there and trying to bamboozle everyone by twisting words. Which is pretty much all lawyers do I suppose?

  176. #176
    Cycologist
    Reputation: chazpat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by LTZ470 View Post
    Gutch, this makes way too much sense for this thread, you are over their comprehension level....but how very true it actually is in REALITY out on the trails....

    ...as we have witnessed over and over and over and over and over and time and time and time again....and disregarded again and again and again....
    Because I'm sure Gutch and LTZ have ridden all the trails (they have the map of the forest) and therefore, can make this observation. They've witnessed it over and over apparently.

    And I'm sure speed is never a cause of accidents with automobiles, the road will always dictate your speed.


    US forest service official stance on e-bikes on trails-car_split.jpg
    This post is a natural product. Variances in spelling & grammar should be appreciated as part of its character & beauty.

  177. #177
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: Harryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,733
    Quote Originally Posted by LTZ470 View Post
    emtb's are coming and there is little you are any of these other purist clowns can do about it...
    If you mean that people will disregard trails closed to ebikes and ride them anyway, I agree, some people will, just like people break other park regs all day long. If you mean that land managers will roll over and allow them simply because they exist, or the bike industry wants to sell them, and we can't influence that, you're very wrong there. It's not difficult to get the ear of the people who make the decisions if you've already got a relationship with them, like many of the people in this forum, or many of the people who read these threads. On the local level, it's not hard to sway policy, especially if you have numbers on your side.

    There's few places where I live where it's legal to ride emtbs on non motorized singletrack, with no changes coming in the foreseeable future, there's a reason for that, no one who has a voice wants that to happen. Forums like this and posts like yours are generally detrimental to advocating for increased emtb access, good job, keep it up.

  178. #178
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LTZ470's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    Because I'm sure Gutch and LTZ have ridden all the trails (they have the map of the forest) and therefore, can make this observation. They've witnessed it over and over apparently.

    And I'm sure speed is never a cause of accidents with automobiles, the road will always dictate your speed.


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	car_split.jpg 
Views:	267 
Size:	141.5 KB 
ID:	1139539
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    Speed doesn't cause accidents, riders cause accidents.
    I think you didn't read what Gutch actually wrote...
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second rat gets the cheese...

  179. #179
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LTZ470's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryman View Post
    If you mean that people will disregard trails closed to ebikes and ride them anyway, I agree, some people will, just like people break other park regs all day long. If you mean that land managers will roll over and allow them simply because they exist, or the bike industry wants to sell them, and we can't influence that, you're very wrong there. It's not difficult to get the ear of the people who make the decisions if you've already got a relationship with them, like many of the people in this forum, or many of the people who read these threads. On the local level, it's not hard to sway policy, especially if you have numbers on your side.

    There's few places where I live where it's legal to ride emtbs on non motorized singletrack, with no changes coming in the foreseeable future, there's a reason for that, no one who has a voice wants that to happen. Forums like this and posts like yours are generally detrimental to advocating for increased emtb access, good job, keep it up.
    emtbs are coming Harry...US forest service official stance on e-bikes on trails-download.jpeg
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second rat gets the cheese...

  180. #180
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by LTZ470 View Post
    I think you didn't read what Gutch actually wrote...



    As usual you only post part of the story, the part you missed

    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    I don't care what you ride, the trail will always dictate your speed. And everyone is going to push their speed wherever they can. .

    and was refuted, thoroughly I would add in short order. Stop being a Tool, you make all emotorbike riders look bad. Or, is that your intention? Because you sure are not doing them any favors.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  181. #181
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    BS. They're not coming anywhere except the rail trails and bike lanes unless the manufacturers and users make a more compelling case for them and explain how they're going to fit in.

    I mean, they're banned from both Moab and Park City (and effectively from St. George since it's mostly BLM/FS) here in UT. That eliminates all of the major riding destinations, unless you want to poach. There is considerable inertia to overcome if you want to overturn those bans, and posting/arguing here isn't going to help your cause much.

    -Walt

  182. #182
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LTZ470's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    As usual you only post part of the story, the part you missed




    and was refuted, thoroughly I would add in short order. Stop being a Tool, you make all emotorbike riders look bad. Or, is that your intention? Because you sure are not doing them any favors.
    I'm sure they are all big boys and can handle all this whining and crying and sniveling accordingly...lol..."Him rode an emtb on my trail"...sniff-sniff....you guys are pathetic...
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second rat gets the cheese...

  183. #183
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by LTZ470 View Post
    I'm sure they are all big boys and can handle all this whining and crying and sniveling accordingly...lol..."Him rode an emtb on my trail"...sniff-sniff....you guys are pathetic...


    All of assertions refuted time and time again. Your rants aren't even plausible anymore, you do more damage with each and every post. YOu make this far too easy.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  184. #184
    Ride Fast Take Chances :)
    Reputation: alexbn921's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,285
    How long before this thread gets deleted? No useful information and it's devolved into petty name calling.

  185. #185
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Honestly I think Francis made a mistake in creating this forum. It might make more sense to just have a dedicated e-bike site under the consumerreview umbrella. I feel sort of bad for the folks who just want to figure out how to get their cargo bike to go to the store more easily, or want to start bike commuting now that they won't have to kill themselves to get to work, or whatever. Then again, this is mostly a mountain bike site, and the mountain bike side of e-bikes is obviously more controversial.

    But hey, at least it's not the trail building and advocacy forum. Those folks *really* hate e-bikes. It's tame here!

    -Walt

  186. #186
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LTZ470's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    BS. They're not coming anywhere except the rail trails and bike lanes unless the manufacturers and users make a more compelling case for them and explain how they're going to fit in.

    I mean, they're banned from both Moab and Park City (and effectively from St. George since it's mostly BLM/FS) here in UT. That eliminates all of the major riding destinations, unless you want to poach. There is considerable inertia to overcome if you want to overturn those bans, and posting/arguing here isn't going to help your cause much.

    -Walt
    Agreed Walt only been to Utah a hand full of times, not somewhere I would take up a fight to ride...loved riding Coral Pink Sand Dunes and Sand Mountain...really enjoyed several trips to those to places and they had some great craft beer over Moab way...if I get back out there I might ride but would probably end up shooting more photos than riding to be honest...
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second rat gets the cheese...

  187. #187
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LTZ470's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    All of assertions refuted time and time again. Your rants aren't even plausible anymore, you do more damage with each and every post. YOu make this far too easy.
    I love easy peasy...my favorite...my life behind ebars....
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second rat gets the cheese...

  188. #188
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by LTZ470 View Post
    Agreed Walt only been to Utah a hand full of times, not somewhere I would take up a fight to ride...loved riding Coral Pink Sand Dunes and Sand Mountain...really enjoyed several trips to those to places and they had some great craft beer over Moab way...if I get back out there I might ride but would probably end up shooting more photos than riding to be honest...
    You are perhaps the only person who has ever complimented UT craft beer. Good lord, the beer here is almost universally awful, and it's actually *illegal* to have anything over 3.2 on draft! You can instantly make friends by having *Colorado* beer in your fridge...

    I've never heard of the rides you're talking about (unless you're talking about Little Sahara, which is maybe the worst place to ride a mountain bike/best place for an ATV I've ever heard of), but if you haven't been to Moab in the last decade or so it's well worth a visit. More new trails (good ones) than you can shake a stick at. The St. George area has gone sort of bananas too, it's a legit competitor with Moab for cold-season mountain bikers these days. And of course if you want to get your XC mileage on, we have 500+ miles of nice singletrack here in PC for the summer/fall. Check in at the UT forum if you're interested in more info, there are lots of great threads on where to ride (normal bikes, that is).

    -Walt

  189. #189
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LTZ470's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    You are perhaps the only person who has ever complimented UT craft beer. Good lord, the beer here is almost universally awful, and it's actually *illegal* to have anything over 3.2 on draft! You can instantly make friends by having *Colorado* beer in your fridge...

    I've never heard of the rides you're talking about (unless you're talking about Little Sahara, which is maybe the worst place to ride a mountain bike/best place for an ATV I've ever heard of), but if you haven't been to Moab in the last decade or so it's well worth a visit. More new trails (good ones) than you can shake a stick at. The St. George area has gone sort of bananas too, it's a legit competitor with Moab for cold-season mountain bikers these days. And of course if you want to get your XC mileage on, we have 500+ miles of nice singletrack here in PC for the summer/fall. Check in at the UT forum if you're interested in more info, there are lots of great threads on where to ride (normal bikes, that is).

    -Walt
    Yes Sir kept one of the beers in my fridge for 7 yrs just drank it last month...8% ABV...it was great...was riding ATV's and RZR when there last...yes sir Little Sahara contains Sand Mountain...Coral Pink Sand Dunes one of the most beautiful places you can ride ATV's...been there several trips...
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second rat gets the cheese...

  190. #190
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by chazpat View Post
    Because I'm sure Gutch and LTZ have ridden all the trails (they have the map of the forest) and therefore, can make this observation. They've witnessed it over and over apparently.

    And I'm sure speed is never a cause of accidents with automobiles, the road will always dictate your speed.


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	car_split.jpg 
Views:	267 
Size:	141.5 KB 
ID:	1139539
    I respect your knowledge of riding Ebikes. Did that corvette drive itself into a tree? Look, I ride legal, own many bicycles and have been riding well before the trek Y bike, so if you are seriously against Ebikes, I'd suggest spending your time protesting the manufactures. You may have more success than hammering on the .002% of the ebike crowd here. BTW, I've owned 4 vettes and never a scratch.
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  191. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,454
    Quote Originally Posted by LTZ470 View Post
    Hope you are looking in mirror while you were writing this, one thing is garaunteed for sure, all you "purists" break laws everyday, of course those are "your" chosen laws to break and while shaking your finger elsewhere at someone else = self righteous hippocrits...so I would suggest: "Sweeping you own back porch"...I am going to ride and have a great time where ever I am at, not going to let you "purist" folks pi$$ on my leg and tell me it's rain...like I stated before not ONE issue no where with anyone this year at all...emtb's are coming and there is little you are any of these other purist clowns can do about it....put that in your pipe and smoke it...or choke on it...either or emtb's are happening...
    Interesting perspective. Good luck with that. Lots of areas of the US have trail access issues near large population centers. Like the East coast for one. And laws that prevent motorized vehicles on multi use trails for one. Many other places like ME, out west say ID and such, wide open places with less people and more riding areas available. The laws will be enforced, a little peer pressure goes a long way. It's not about being a purist, it's about keeping the trails open for mt biking. Not likely to see the motorized ban lifted here in MA. Motos for the most part had access, abused the trails /trust and then got booted out. So no, not happening. At all. Bring your TX attitude up here in MA? Got a MA salute for ya and stick for your front wheel spokes, cheers.

  192. #192
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Quote Originally Posted by LTZ470 View Post
    Yes Sir kept one of the beers in my fridge for 7 yrs just drank it last month...8% ABV...it was great...was riding ATV's and RZR when there last...yes sir Little Sahara contains Sand Mountain...Coral Pink Sand Dunes one of the most beautiful places you can ride ATV's...been there several trips...
    That explains your perspective, I think. Come ride mountain bike trails sometime, you'll see it quite a bit differently. Wide open sand dunes on an ATV is not at all similar.

    -Walt

  193. #193
    10,000,000 Watts
    Reputation: Gutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    My trails are tight, rutty, rocky tech stuff. I'll say it again, the trail will always dictate the speed in which you can ride it. Will some guys ride it faster? Yes. Will some sections be faster? Yes. The speed difference between an ebike and mtb on these trails are negligible. My Levo cuts out at 17mph. If you can pedal it into the 20-30 mph range, UP or DOWN you are a stud and guarantee you ride your mtb as fast as you can.
    Mountain Bikers Do It Til They Bonk!

  194. #194
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    My trails are tight, rutty, rocky tech stuff. I'll say it again, the trail will always dictate the speed in which you can ride it. Will some guys ride it faster? Yes. Will some sections be faster? Yes. The speed difference between an ebike and mtb on these trails are negligible. My Levo cuts out at 17mph. If you can pedal it into the 20-30 mph range, UP or DOWN you are a stud and guarantee you ride your mtb as fast as you can.



    So effin what. You continue to set fire to a Straw Man, they are banned on non motorized trails in the N.F. and BLM lands, if you don't like it then go advocate for some access. In the mean time stay off trails that are closed to you.
    I ncredibly
    M yopic
    B ackstabbing
    A ssholes

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    My trails are tight, rutty, rocky tech stuff. I'll say it again, the trails I ride will always dictate the speed in which I can ride them.
    ^fify
    I brake for stinkbugs

  196. #196
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutch View Post
    My Levo cuts out at 17mph.
    A cheap and easy upgrade will fix that problem- https://www.ebiketuning.com/sx2-dong...urbo-levo.html
    I brake for stinkbugs

  197. #197
    Frame Building Moderator
    Reputation: Walt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,489
    Well, I've ridden all over the place. An e-bike (or a full moto) wouldn't make me much faster many places in New England. It would make me at least twice as fast (uphill) all over the west. Then there are some places in between, of course.

    The broad perspective is: e-bikes (as currently configured) will work ok on some trails and not on others. Your local trails may or may not be among the places they will work, and there's more than just trail design (there's user density, there's fire risk, there's access threats, etc) at play. The best way to advocate for e-bikes is probably to identify the traits that make a trail a good one for e-bikes, and then go advocate for access to those specific trails (ie, the Moab/Ahab thread).

    That will involve going to a bunch of public meetings and giving input to the BLM, USFS, local land managers, etc, though. Posting here is mostly (thus far) giving e-bikes a black eye as we repeatedly see people talking about poaching, modifying bikes, etc.

    -Walt

  198. #198
    Life's a Garden, dig it!
    Reputation: chuckha62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,746
    It seems to me that the whole E-Bike thing is sort of emblematic of our culture. Why does everything have to be easier? Some things are better because they are hard. The rewards seem sweeter when you have to put out more effort, don't they? I intentionally make my rides harder, not easier. Does that make me a "purist"? I don't know but I savor the rewards of the effort.

    Again, I think there is a place for E-bikes, but it's not every place a human powered bike can be.
    "And crawling on the planet's face, some insects called, The Human Race..."

  199. #199
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,454
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    A cheap and easy upgrade will fix that problem- https://www.ebiketuning.com/sx2-dong...urbo-levo.html
    30 mph, for the Levo. Never saw that coming. And the cats out of the bag now. Yikes. Or getting run over? Save the cats!

  200. #200
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LTZ470's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by leeboh View Post
    30 mph, for the Levo. Never saw that coming. And the cats out of the bag now. Yikes. Or getting run over? Save the cats!
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    A cheap and easy upgrade will fix that problem- https://www.ebiketuning.com/sx2-dong...urbo-levo.html
    "We ship to all countries in the world except to the USA and Canada."
    The early bird gets the worm, but the second rat gets the cheese...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. E-bike at Duthie, official stance on that?
    By rockcrusher in forum Washington
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-05-2017, 03:36 PM
  2. Official Yeti stance on 650b....
    By rideit in forum Yeti
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-22-2012, 03:41 AM
  3. Replies: 99
    Last Post: 01-05-2012, 09:25 PM

Members who have read this thread: 6

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.