Introducing the 2024 Santa Cruz Heckler SL eMTB

I agree that the increased impact due to more laps ridden on an ebike is a factor. HOWEVER, this statement can't be made without also acknowledging the big increase in mtb participants even before ebikes started to add to the mix. I can't speak for other areas, but there are far more new people riding on bikes in the S2S than there are on ebikes, so much so that the added wear and tear on the trails is primarily coming from new bikers and not ebikers. Whether that holds true in other areas I can't say. 

To your point though, that may change in the future, and you are definitely right that we need to be forward thinking and begin to accommodate for that change now than wait until the fire is raging to deal with it.

Yuuuuuuuupp!

I respect your love for pealing under your own power as I have the same/similar philosophy, but like Mike said, who knows what the future will hold. Personally I’d hate to see someone choose not to do something simply because one aspect of it doesn’t work for them.  Getting up the hill under one’s own power is only part of the mtb’ing experience. And to be clear, while that was a poke at you, it was not a malicious one. 

The introduction of e-bikes has not only been a sales/marketing experiment, but a social one as well. My main concern is that the fallout from drawing hard lines in the sand will create difficulties for all trail users further down the path.

“Getting up the hill under one’s own power is only part of the mtb’ing experience.”

@Mark, in my world one of the core tenants of mountain biking is that it’s self powered. 

Mountain bicycling is what I love to do for fun, fitness, recreation. I like it the way it is/was. 

Put another way, there are many situations where I would absolutely buy an e-bike for commuting, but I wouldn’t consider what I was doing “cycling” when I was riding it. 

———

For the record, E-MTBs, I’m not ignorant to what the products do. I’ve probably ridden more different E-MTBs than 99% of NSMB readers as part of my wrench-turning gigs. I’m a Luddite not an ostrich. 

Also, I celebrate mountain biking’s scofflaw roots. You want to go ride your trials moto on Fromme? I’m certainly not going to fink on you. Do it respectfully (if in doubt courtesy has the right of way) and leave no trace and I won’t even mug at you when you BRAaaaaaaaaP on by.

I just don’t like being treated like a moron and an asshole. Which is what brands, like Specialized “It’s You, But Faster” and a lot of folks have been doing since day one essentially ‘sneaking’ motors into the existing advocacy structure and riding culture by claiming that the addition of a battery powered ‘assist’ didn’t fundamentally change the nature of the vehicle and experience. 

Pro-plug-in folks are quick to tell Barry to f*** off when he refers to E-MTBs as “motorcycles” or “mopeds” but somehow classifying them as bicycles makes more sense? No, it’s just very convenient for the companies selling them and people who want to ride them. Stealth-E bikes are just another layer of that. E-Bikes are their own animal that didn't previously exist, not a moped and not a bicycle? Cool, I agree. 

Anyway, on the trail I’ve only had a couple issues - climbing single track - where e-bike riders were knobs and e-bikes were part of the problem (they wouldn’t have caught me without one) but for the most part (99.9%) I only have awesome interactions with all other trail users - dog walkers, hikers, runners, E-Bikers, etc. 

And, I couldn’t care less if you ride one and where you ride it as long as you yield courteously and give time or money, as you’re able, to support the folks maintaining the infrastructure you’re using. But I’d honestly have more interest in someone telling me about their newfound love of Pickleball than their epic E-MTB experiences. 

———

If I couldn’t mountain bicycle starting tomorrow, I’d layout a sweet frisbee golf course on Fromme. I’d get my CoreRat vest modified to carry disks and I’d have a little one-wheeled cart (tubeless 24” Minion DHF w/ CushCore. Dominion T2 brake with 160mm rotor) to lug my Yeti Cooler full of beer around.

Andrew - that's a fair statement. At least we can agree on the trail etiquette point, which in the big picture of the trail user community may be the most important point to consider.

At the last MTB tourism symposium someone pitched the idea of 1% for trail to come from the sale of bike related goods from the manufacturer and go into a trail fund. Would it work? would the cost just automatically get passed on to the consumer? We will probably never know because like the overworked non profits and dirty hippies we are, no one has yet acted on getting this off the ground. Though ORCBC did but a pile of money from the provincial government for a trails fund. we will see where that goes… I do have concerns of the government being the only major source of funding for trails. 

Adding more people to trails does not automatically add more capacity to to organizations managing the resource. One side of the coin is that getting more people on trails is a net good, the other is that more people = more problems.

Adrian - Super hard to get those things off the ground, and being in the woods with  a tool and your dog is way more fun. 

In the US, my state has something like that, basically an "REI-tax" on those sorts of outdoor goods.  But as the bill worked its way through legislature, it got amended so that applicants have to have conservation (or something along those lines) as a primary  mission. So, the whole effort ended up taxing bikes and ropes and such, but mountain bike and climbing clubs weren't really in a position to apply for the funds.

Plus, the state awards itself a huge chunk of the funds to acquire more land (even though it doesn't have sufficient funds to manage what it's got) and build "infrastructure" in parks that already have too much pavement and too many buildings.  So getting the pot of money is only half the battle.

My outsider, one-trick-pony take is that the way forward is to cut out at least some of the bureaucracy by going to a user fee (a.k.a. pay-to-play) model and funneling the money straight to the nonprofit doing the building and maintenance.  That's what we're in the process of implementing, but it was quite a trick to pull it off.

I am totally sympathetic to the argument that the government should provide trails to citizens free of charge.  And maybe in some parts of the country/world governments are well funded and progressive enough to spend money on high-quality trails, but not 'round these parts.  We knew the calvary wasn't ever going to come, and we were very fortunate to figure out a way to fend for ourselves.  

It was unique confluence of circumstances that allowed us to pull it off.  Unfortunately, not sure it's much of a model for others at the present time.

@DWMS. The provincial government is currently navel gazing on how to manage recreation and what a new management policy may look like. Having had an opportunity to participate in this, one of my take ways is that an attempt to implement a Pay to Play model is coming to mountain biking, at least to sanctioned trails. It exists in other recreation sectors and it has long been talked about, both pros and cons, in local advocacy, but there is almost no mechanism in place action it. No one at this point knows what it looks like, or if it’s a certainty, but my guess is that in the next decade we will see an attempt at this model.

I am not saying I agree with it. But it seems like there is an appetite with in government to try it.

Adrian - Here's my take, for whatever it's worth.

I know people have reservations about pay-to-play.  Somewhat tongue-in-cheek and full admitting the bike is an outlier, it's worth noting that we're having this discussion attached to an article about a $12,000 bike.

More reasonably, I'd agree that in utopia the government would fund the construction and maintenance of progressive, purpose-built trails.  Or that all the people that use those trails would voluntarily contribute.  And those may very well be the "right" solutions.

But within reasonable bounds, I'll almost always choose "effective" over "right."  I don't give anything back to the world by sitting in the corner being philosophically pure, sniping at those that aren't.  

In the US, the Recreational Use Statutes passed by most states somewhere around the 1960s create an obstacle to a user fee, but not a parking fee (fellow Americans, think about your experiences with fees on public lands and have an aha moment).  It's a dumb but valid legal distinction.  But if you're trail system doesn't lend itself to a parking fee, it's also a very troublesome legal distinction.

However, the RUS is antiquated and crying out to be overhauled, and there's potentially a way to do that doesn't involve the mountain bike community carrying the water.  Some efforts have already been made nationally.  Slow process, but have a call on Tuesday and hope to get news that there may be some movement.

Just to play devils advocate here and to put a BC lens on it. The biggest buzz word in land use planning right now is Accessibly. Now that can be taken to mean many things, but one of the main barriers to entry is cost. especially among low income families. I realize this is deeeeep in the comments about a $12000 ebike. Mountain bike trails have always been open to all non motorized users as no charge. if you want to gain advocates, get the hikers, dog walkers and trail runners on you side. they out number ebikers by several orders of magnitude. 

Historically trails were volunteer built and maintenance. That is not as true these days as it was, but still most trail development comes from provincial funding in one form or another. To take infrastructure which has either been developed by volunteers or by tax dollars and to add a user fee to it is problematic when viewed in terms of accessibility. 

again just playing devils advocate.

Adrian - You're absolutely right about the downside being accessibility.  Pay-to-play is definitely not without its drawbacks.  

I've been verbose enough without trying to add more nuance, but I should have said I think pay-to-play needs to be a much, much more common strategy to secure ongoing funding for nonprofits and trail systems.  But there are certainly going to be trail systems where it isn't a good strategy for a variety of reasons.

And you're right about foot traffic.  It's a huge mistake to ignore hikers and trail runners - not only because they need trails too, but also because, for the vast majority of trail systems in the vast majority of communities, that's where the money is.

In my area of the US, it's incredibly common for state parks and wildlife management areas to charge a parking fee or require a land use pass.  So the "tax dollars" argument isn't a very compelling one.  But that's certainly not the case everywhere.

Really enjoyed this discussion.  Thank you.

I don't know what you are saying, but if you are talking to me, please see above.

Cam, Barry, I think there’s a middle ground here.  Yes Barry is technically correct—eMTBs arguably don’t meet the strictest definition of a ‘bicycle’.  But two Federal US agencies (USFS and BLM) have concluded class 1 eMTBs are a special subset of motorized vehicles that land mgrs can treat as essentially a bicycle when it comes to opening certain trails.  And land managers can therefore treat it as different than a motorcycle.  So Barry it seems that given the name of NSMB, it is appropriate for NSMB to review eMTBs.  Endless semantic discussions about the grey area class 1 emtbs occupy, and the word ‘Bicycle’, seem inherently doomed.   I’m not up to date on Crown land mgmt…

"Motor + cycle = motorcycle." - This isn't the 'gotcha' you think it is. 

eBike opponents say this like it is some sort of immutable wall of words that can't be defeated. They then bury their head in the sand and act like it wins every argument about eBikes when in reality it just exhibits the repeaters lack of nuance and consideration. "Everything is simple to the simple minded" comes to mind, maybe you should open yourself up to what people have to say, hear, and learn instead of just repeat the same tired, meaningless phrases that show a lack of understanding on the subject. 

And yes, you absolutely sound like Mike Vandeman, so do most of the NIMBY aggro anti-eBikers out there. You can act like you are no different, but it's the same mentality wrapped up in a slightly more accepted form of ignorance.

It's also the same reason we can't have any meaningful discussion on eBikes, access, and their place in the world, because it's inevitably hijacked by monkeys throwing poo.

Abusing the writers? In what way? 

I'm making a point about the sport I love. And get dismissed by Cam, and compared to someone that apparently assaulted a mountain biker. 

Who's abusing who here?

And @Frorider

"have concluded class 1 eMTBs are a special subset of motorized vehicles that land mgrs can treat as essentially a bicycle"

That's quite literally my point. Do you base your life off of governmental definitions that are written by lobbyists? I certainly don't and your words above say it all. They are motorized vehicles, but somehow a legal loophole was created to allow them to be grouped into the bicycle category for land management. Still motorcycles in fact, practice and function.

the writers are trying to write articals most  of us want to read and Barry is  calling them insane, why do we have to debate the E-bike when its already here ?

I never see Barry make any contribution to the sport he claims  to love besides complaining about e-bikes

For those who don't like the E-bike content just don' t read it or  go away altogether

@Shinook it's interesting that this is always the response. That anyone who cares about this being a human powered sport is wrong and they must accept the motorizing of it. 

I ask where the subtlety is in putting the motor on in the first place? Do you ever ask yourself if you're destroying a sport 'so I get more laps'? Where is the discussion about hijacking a sport? Can YOU be subtle about that? 

You say this is why we can't have meaningful discussion about access for ebikes and their place in the world, sure, but you're stance is absolute same as mine. They are just the same as any bicycle to you, and while that's factually incorrect you hold to it. Subtlety? I think not. But I say they are unequivocally not bicycles so they don't belong in this world and you scream I'm wrong. I'm not changing this sport into motorcycles, you are. 

And @Cam I've commented a bunch on lots, and lots of other topics and give kudos for good thoughts, we'll written articles, etc. It feels like you can't see past your opinions about motorized recreation being = to mountain biking so you've written me off entirely. And to that point I think E-mobility for city use or in any way replacing cars is awesome. These are low powered motorcycles that don't require a license and in that mode they are the best! You paint me as one color, but it's your color blindness showing here.  

How about an article where each regular writer puts their thoughts down on WHY an emtb is or isn't a bicycle?

Cam took the bait this time, but he would be the first to say that we welcome dissenting opinions - always have. It's frustrating when those opinions are repetitive and lack nuance, but Barry has every right to be here and say his piece. If we didn't believe that, you're right that we could ban him, but that's not our style. Besides, it's always fun to have someone like him around to get people riled up.

And yes, Barry, your positive comments elsewhere are noticed and we appreciate you as a reader and for engaging.

@Pete Roggeman

Thats the thing, I'm not here to bait anyone. Just here saying what more than a few of us think about allowing motors into our sport. 

I do truly, really appreciate  your comments here, thank you for actual responses. 

It baffles me how much this feels like an upwards battle when to an outsider (because I do poll non-riders on this) they addition of motors makes most think you would then be riding motorcycle trail systems, NOT mtb trails. Why does saying 'bicycles don't have motors!' Feel like such a taboo? Is that actually a fringe belief? 

On the argument of 'how are you harmed by these?' I would ask the opposite, how are you harmed if these are indeed motorcycles? 

Really I hate the dishonesty. I hate that these are called 'bicycles' by anyone. That people are dumb enough to buy them for more than a Honda Africa Twin. You know, a real, high tech, road legal, ready to ride the world, dual clutch gearbox, navigation computer, etc, etc motorcycle, but this 'bicycle' costs as much and the reviewers justify that. Call these motorcycles, change the name of the site and I'll never protest ever again (unless you start reviewing whiskey and then I'll be happy, but heartily complain!).

I'm not sure how an eMTB has attenuated your experience on a bike Andrew, but I'm sorry to hear it. I don't think they had any impact on my riding before I rode one, but there were fewer of them in the wild back then. 

I'm comparing Barry to MV because his comments literally remind of MV's emails. He would drone on with the same rationalizations over and over again, not realizing he wasn't communicating anything new or novel and certainly nothing that would change the mind of a mountain biker. Their actions and motives may be different, but they speak the same language. I wasn't insinuating that BW was a lunatic like MW, but his approach is identical. 

I don't mind sensible pushback at all and when I hear it I'm happy to engage in a polite discussion. I'm done with BW however, and I don't know what you are referring to in his responses because I didn't read them. The old "eMTBs are motorcycles" chestnut is just so stale and unimaginative that it's not a discussion worth having.

Cam, I would submit that there's a lot more to the total mountain bike experience than riding a bicycle in the forest. By the significant cost of entry barriers and inter-compatibility alone, the motorization of mountain biking has been a significant change actor on the community.

Beyond that, I don't really have anything more to say than what I put above but I would like to highlight one of my points again, if I can be so obnoxious as to quote myself:

"There are still quite a few Barry-types out there, though increasingly feeling unwelcome, and I think that from trail access to content, it behooves folks riding and writing about e-bikes to be good winners and acknowledge that until very recently one of the tenets of this activity was that it was un-motorized."

My experience of riding or thinking or talking about mountain biking has not been impacted negatively by the fact that others ride eMTBs or that I do. 

I don't believe I have failed to acknowledge that mountain biking was once an exclusively human-powered activity, aside from people shuttling, or riding chairlifts, or planes or helicopters to get where they are going to ride. Or even a ferry. 

Mountain biking also used to be unsuspended and un-hydraulic. It used to be exclusively done on tires with tubes inside and there was nothing electronic aside from the odd bike computer. Once upon a time you could ride a downhill bike uphill, but that has been an exclusively motorized activity much longer than eMTBs have been around. All of those could be seen as 'change actors' as well. Many riders thought suspension would spell the end of mountain biking, along with disc brakes and yet it seems the sky remains where it's always been. 

None of this has any relationship to my desire to avoid a pedantic conversation that begins with "e-bikes are motorcycles," particularly when I have already beaten that dead horse with the person who dragged in the carcass. I'm sure BW is fine gent to talk to if the conversation doesn't turn to "ebikes are motorcycles" but in that circumstance, I will politely avoid engaging. And this is probably in the best interest of everyone.

@Cam, I’m sorry, I’ve never been able to wrap my head around the idea that motorizing mountain bikes is the same as adding disc brakes and suspension or that riding trails on e-bikes is just like helicopter shuttling discussions. 

I agree that politely avoiding discussions is not an issue.

Cheers,

[*edited to remove quotation marks | 9:28pst 2023/09/12]

Merely clicking an up arrow seemed inadequate to convey my appreciation for Andrew’s posts here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc

Pretty much my thoughts too, Andrew, but you put it so much better than I.  Not a fan of e-mtb, but I don't let e-bikes bother me. My ongoing concern is where the creeping motorization and lust for MORE! might eventually take us.

Salud, @SteveR,

To quote one of my favourite characters, at this point worrying about e-bikes "would be like worrying if the sun gonna come up." I've chosen to try and focus my energy on what's uniquely weird and wonderful about the human-powered mountain bicycling experience.

------

I feel disassociated from the evolution of the more-machine (more vert, more speed, more distance, more laps), and no one has a crystal ball. But, I have one industry prediction I'm quite certain of that I haven't noticed being shared anywhere else. It's my bet that over the next couple of years, all the major e-bike brands - Specialized, Trek, Santa Cruz & The PON Stars, SRAM - are going to get very heavily involved in trail advocacy.

No, not to guarantee continued access for E-MTB and Stealth-E rigs where mountain bikes are allowed, that's a given at this point. But rather to try and shut the gate behind them thus ensuring that mountain bike trail access - and 'mountain biking' as an activity - remains concentrated in the Class-1 e-bikes that benefit - in terms of range, speed, and rider effort - from the weight savings of expensive carbon frames, carbon wheels, Transmission drivetrains, etc.

The next MTB culture conflict isn't for me, it's for folks (and let's face it, brands) trying to choose a new line in the forest between motor-assisted-pedaling, pedal-assisted-motoring, vestigial-mini-crank-throttling, or "f***-it foot pegs."

------

The most surreal conversation I've overheard in a bike shop in years was two full-juice E-MTB owners ranting about a Surron owner they'd crossed paths with on local trails. Now, in my mind, a Surron of any output is very clearly not an E-MTB but trying to explain the difference to a Light Bee X owner is apparently not unlike the experience of trying to differentiate a Turbo-Kenevo from a Stooge in some circles.

Motors have been accepted in mountain biking since the dawn of mountain biking, that’s what an uplift vehicle is. So is a chair lift or gondola. You literally use a motorised device to turn some of the energy from its motor’s fuel tank or battery into potential energy stored in the bike and rider, which then provides the dominant power source for the bike as you ride downhill.

This same thing happened with skiing too, except skiing began cross-country, whilst MTBing actually started with downhill!

There’s also the strange attitude that it’s ok to drive a car to the start/finish point of your ride but not ok to ride an ebike - when my ebike rides are 99.9% from my house. It’s all very odd.

Well said a.funks.

The problem with your ebike comparison to a moped is that with a moped the primary mode of propulsion comes from the motor and they can be used without the pedals, whereas with an ebike the primary mode of propulsion comes from the rider and the bike won't move unless it is pedaled. So in talking about an ebike, no matter how much thou doth protest, a moped it is not.

If by 'dig into the system' you mean 'hover over the vote number'.  

But I do think North Shore Moped Bros .com has a nice ring to it.  I should land grab the acronym URL for that before its gone.

LOL. All users have access to that feature right from here - as mentioned above. Not a very deep dive. Give it a shot. 

Nice of you to chime in though!

Cheers back, Cam