MEATengines 2022...

Posted by: syncro

Likewise I think proper context is important. If there is a notable level of risk from an ebike battery spontaneously  combusting on the trails then I'd support a ban on that basis as I don't want to see our local trails burned down either.

It's not very hard to find battery fires that did not involved charging. These high capacity batteries have fairly delicate internal construction due to the need to get so much power into a small physical space. If a BroPed battery is damaged it might catch fire while being charged or it might catch fire while it's being stored or ridden.

This e-bike fire started a grass fire. Had the bike been in the forest it would have been a lot worse.

https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/01/16/bicycle-with-electric-motor-starts-fire-in-australia/

The key to fire safety will be to identify damaged batteries quickly and have some plan for what to do with them. The issue as I see it is that when someone buys a $10K+ BroPed and crashes into the rocks or the bike tips over into a creek/pond how are they going to feel about replacing an expensive battery? Are they going to first just see what happens or are they immediately taking that battery out of service, storing it outside and taking it to a professional who can assess the situation?

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: AndrewMajor

Posted by: syncro

Yes, but much of the concern being expressed (here) is that an ebike is going to burn down the forest.

Most battery fires happen during charging. This isn’t being debated anywhere.

Posted by: Vikb

The key to fire safety will be to identify damaged batteries quickly and have some plan for what to do with them. The issue as I see it is that when someone buys a $10K+ BroPed and crashes into the rocks or the bike tips over into a creek/pond how are they going to feel about replacing an expensive battery? Are they going to first just see what happens or are they immediately taking that battery out of service, storing it outside and taking it to a professional who can assess the situation?

This is a good point and should be addressed.

One thing that would help is if manufacturers had a very generous crash replacement/no fault battery swap program. They'll have to weigh the costs of cheap batteries for existing customers vs. the bad publicity/Gov't response if there are a notable number of fires.

Posted by: AndrewMajor

Again, no one is talking about banning anything except you.

We were having an adult discussion about bike shops being insured for the actual risks they're assuming along with reasonably associated branch conversations until you dumped word salad on it.

I was talking about comments on the forest burning down - not the shop fires. My comments about a ban were mine and support for one is if ebikes represent a real forest fire danger. Considering some of the shade thrown at e-mtbs tho, it seems a lot of people would be happy/okay with a ban on e-mtbs. 

For the record, I have never been for a ban or specific restrictions on ebikes, but I am also not against them. There needs to be good discussion on the topic in order to properly assess the risks and issues with them in order to figure out how to best manage them on the trails.

Posted by: Vikb

One thing that would help is if manufacturers had a very generous crash replacement/no fault battery swap program. They'll have to weigh the costs of cheap batteries for existing customers vs. the bad publicity/Gov't response if there are a notable number of fires.

Maybe someone in the industry can answer this as I only have small idea of battery costs, but considering how much the battery represents in the $7-20K price tag of one of these bikes it would seem that offering a generous crash replacement program would not be detrimental to their bottom line and could even be a selling feature as well. Unfortunately this probably means nothing for the lower end type bikes.

Posted by: syncro

…

Again, context. You dropped in and hijacked a conversation about bike shop insurance to talk to yourself about e-bike bans in the forest.

Have you considered starting a thread called “Syncros Thoughts On E-Bikes” or the like?

Posted by: AndrewMajor

Posted by: syncro

…

Again, context. You dropped in and hijacked a conversation about bike shop insurance to talk to yourself about e-bike bans in the forest.

Have you considered starting a thread called “Syncros Thoughts On E-Bikes” or the like?

I addressed the comments about ebikes burning down the forest which had been made before I posted. You're misconstruing my comments; my point was not about e-bike bans in the forest. You don't have to like my opinon, but at least be accurate it saying what it is.

Nope, I haven't thought about starting an ebike thread as there are already a few where ebike issues are being discussed.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: AndrewMajor

Posted by: syncro

…

Again, context. You dropped in and hijacked a conversation about bike shop insurance to talk to yourself about e-bike bans in the forest.

Have you considered starting a thread called “Syncros Thoughts On E-Bikes” or the like?

I addressed the comments about ebikes burning down the forest which had been made before I posted. You're misconstruing my comments; my point was not about e-bike bans in the forest. You don't have to like my opinon, but at least be accurate it saying what it is.

Nope, I haven't thought about starting an ebike thread as there are already a few where ebike issues are being discussed.

No, that’s not what you did.

In your typical JAQ style you dropped some out of context “context” into a conversation you clearly couldn’t be bothered to actually engage with and then proceeded to roll from there.

The comments are all still up if you want to go review them. You don’t get a pass.

My entry was based on the comments I saw about burning forests, initially the one that said not a forest yet, but a bike shop burned down. My "context" post came after having read the PB shop article and noticing that the bike in question originally had a faulty battery, it was sent out for repair, and then burnt up when being left on a charger overnight - which raises a number of questions. The context of that situation is quite a bit different than an ebike randomly catching fire while being ridden in the forest.  In my second post I specifically used the words "seems that" and "some comments" to indicate I was not referring to all of the comments. That post was also in response to Lynx's post, but I unfortunately didn't quote him. By the time I finished typing and posting it you had already replied. I then replied to your post with a quote. Maybe I could have been more specific there, if so my bad, but in typing it out it didn't seem that it was needed. I engaged with parts of the conversation that existed before I posted and also agreed with concerns presented by someone else re potential fires from an mtb crash after my initial post. Again, the ban comment is my thinking as a possible solution if ebikes present a legitimate risk of catching fire while being ridden in the forest.

I've re-read the comments and noticed there's one of yours I missed in the exchange while typing out replies, but it doesn't affect the conversation. I don't need a pass and am not asking  for one - I stand by what I said. If you or anyone disagrees with what I say I typically make a point of going back to re-read things to see if there's something I missed or something I've typed out incorrectly. I'll make adjustments if necessary. 

Anyway this horse has been beat, buried, exhumed and beat again. The only thing worth reiterating on my part is that I recognize that an e-mtb catching fire on a ride in the forest is possible, and that if it is a legitimate risk then I would be in support of rules to limit or eliminate this risk. I like pedaling bikes and being in the forest just as much as the next guy so I have a vested interest is seeing things continue to work for as broad an audience as possible.

I think you some of you might be overestimating the danger. ebikes are not the only batteries that take abuse and are subjected to water damage. Battery powered tools in construction have a pretty rough life too. Using the battery end of a dewalt as a mallet, accidentally dropping tools, working in the rain are all common. So is putting them on the charger in the tool trailer overnight. There's a lot of battery tools out there and they've been around for decades. I worked construction in the summers from middle school thru college, my dad was a builder. Battery safety wasn't something that's talked about much or ever by contractors, not that they're a careful bunch. A quick and far from thorough google turned up fires, but not a lot of evidence that it is super common. That being said, I know nothing about battery internals, maybe lithium ion tool batteries are different in some relevant way to ebike batteries so perhaps the comparison is invalid.

A tool to die for

Loved this article. It's funny how sometimes following all the steps could still leave you with an unfinished job. The best tool is common sense, or I guess a good feel for how tight is tight enough, maybe. But that comes with time and experience and a few bolts that go from righty-tighty to righty-loosey. Working on a car where the bolts are even harder to access than a bike, often there is no torque wrench that will fit, you or your auto mechanic just has to know.

A tool to die for - 

Reminds me of the following quote"

"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

Douglas Bader"

"A tool to die for" funny, as a professional bike mechanic for almost 40 years I do use a torque wrench (a Park beam type) but still back it up with a hand check. Even rotor bolts!