New posts

ebikes on the Shore

May 16, 2019, 8:59 a.m.
Posts: 183
Joined: Feb. 16, 2013

Posted by: FLATCH

Why would we assume that no  e bikers would do any maintenance. I’m sure there would be a number who would or already do. I’m certain all acoustic riders do their share of maintenance , right?

And why is it assumed that most e bikers will be nubes. Again, poor argument.

I don't think anyone's assuming that no ebikers do maintenance. It may sound that way from some of the hyperbole slung around this thread (from both "sides"), but I doubt that's actually what anyone truly believes.

That said, I think it's reasonable to assume that since one of the huge selling points for ebikes is that you can squeeze a decent ride into a small amount of time, a lot of those ebike riders are those who don't have the time to fully commit to the community based activities that crucially carried on in the background. I think it's also safe to assume that the ease with which new riders can get out into the sport through ebikes, will result in a higher % of inexperienced riders on that equipment. I've certainly noticed it through my experiences on Fromme and Seymour. You can rent a bike, zip up to the "Famous Shore Trails" in 20 minutes, and flail around for an hour. Just my experience, but through simple observation, I'd say at least 70% of the ebikers I've seen on legitimate trails are pretty new.

May 16, 2019, 9:22 a.m.
Posts: 203
Joined: Dec. 6, 2017

I think it's critical that a decision be made either way, sooner than later. I don't think it's fair to everyone involved to let this linger on.


 Last edited by: Ouch on May 16, 2019, 12:15 p.m., edited 2 times in total.
May 16, 2019, 9:05 p.m.
Posts: 135
Joined: March 1, 2017

Posted by: BigFoot

Posted by: FLATCH

Why would we assume that no  e bikers would do any maintenance. I’m sure there would be a number who would or already do. I’m certain all acoustic riders do their share of maintenance , right?

And why is it assumed that most e bikers will be nubes. Again, poor argument.

Again? He didn't say they didn't do any maintenance, he was implying that there do their fair share but should do 6x what they would normally do.

Yep. Maybe forgo one of the Mischief hotlaps and pick up a spade.

May 17, 2019, 5:43 p.m.
Posts: 2201
Joined: Feb. 4, 2007

Posted by: RAHrider

Posted by: norona

Posted by: FLATCH

Norona, do you have anything to say about the Norco?

It is a 630 watt/hr battery so 130 watt/hrs more than mine but that is not much when I can swap one out and have 1000 watt/hr. You also don't need a carbon frame since it saves 1 pound or less on a 50 pound bike. Rumour is there will be a 1000 watt/hr battery in their next generation but all of them will be bigger which is awesome, battery tech is improving everyday.

One day, they may even have a combustion engine version that goes several hundred kilometers on a small tank of fuel and doesn't require you to "assist" the engine with your own pedaling and also has more than one horsepower! Imagine......the possibilities.....

People need to give their heads a shake. If you keep upgrading your emoped, at some point you might as well buy a motorbike. What was that you recommended? Getting as much travel as possible and don't worry about the frame weight? Sounds like a motorbike. I wish people would just accept that emopeds are more dumbed down motorbike than bicycle. I am not upset that people like riding emopeds, just the same as I am not upset that people like their motorbikes. But, motorbikes are not welcome on my trails.

Another dumb comment by someone who can’t ride a moto, I have a moto, a Trials bike, and this is different. But I get how u don’t get it.

May 17, 2019, 5:46 p.m.
Posts: 2201
Joined: Feb. 4, 2007

Posted by: BigFoot

Nice pic, but you couldn't make it up that trail without a battery?

Come I will show you. We can rent a bike, you follow me and I will pay for your rental. Sounds like an easy win for you.

May 17, 2019, 5:48 p.m.
Posts: 2201
Joined: Feb. 4, 2007

Posted by: trumpstinyhands

Posted by: BigFoot

Posted by: FLATCH

Why would we assume that no  e bikers would do any maintenance. I’m sure there would be a number who would or already do. I’m certain all acoustic riders do their share of maintenance , right?

And why is it assumed that most e bikers will be nubes. Again, poor argument.

Again? He didn't say they didn't do any maintenance, he was implying that there do their fair share but should do 6x what they would normally do.

Yep. Maybe forgo one of the Mischief hotlaps and pick up a spade.

What makes u think I have not done trail maintenance? I have been at this for 35 years so I have been quite involved. Is your ignorance your best quality or your worst?

May 17, 2019, 5:48 p.m.
Posts: 2201
Joined: Feb. 4, 2007

Posted by: Ouch

I think it's critical that a decision be made either way, sooner than later. I don't think it's fair to everyone involved to let this linger on.

Already been made class 1 e-mtb are classified as mtb. 🤙

May 17, 2019, 5:51 p.m.
Posts: 2201
Joined: Feb. 4, 2007

Posted by: taprider

Posted by: norona

Ya man, have fun, only a week, you have not even discovered the radness yet, about three weeks on it and your world will open up even more, ...

e-biking is equivalent to dumbing down technical trail features

Quite the opposite really. And even more technical climbing up tech trails. Again the door is open to come challenge.

May 17, 2019, 5:59 p.m.
Posts: 2201
Joined: Feb. 4, 2007

Posted by: trumpstinyhands

Posted by: BigFoot

Nice pic, but you couldn't make it up that trail without a battery?

If I'm putting 2 and 2 together correctly from that photo, he also shuttled up some of it :D A buddy was moaning about a couple of E-bikers shuttling up to where I think that photo was taken because they didn't stop and give him a lift LOL..... As for carrying a spare battery? WTF! We were only just ditching packs a year or so ago and now we are carrying spare batteries? Ha ha ha haha haah ahaaha haaha hahahah a ha etc.......

Nope I ride from home ride up hit hanging, mis, pix and have a coffee at gondi and ride rog all the way down and hit plunge up and sot on the way home, I also Trials ride that loop and ride up habric, so no shuttle here, and ya maybe u can’t carry 6 pounds but I can and do , 40 km in under 2 hrs, yes and thank you.and I am giggling but mostly at the same fruit loops on here wasting time at work making up the dumbest shit imaginable, on different type of two wheels that you can’t or don’t even ride. Now that is laughable.

May 17, 2019, 7:35 p.m.
Posts: 2067
Joined: April 25, 2003

Yeah it’s an exciting new segment of motorcycle, that’s for sure.

May 17, 2019, 9:41 p.m.
Posts: 1781
Joined: Feb. 26, 2015

Lol this thread is epic.

May 18, 2019, 4:42 p.m.
Posts: 740
Joined: Aug. 14, 2003

Posted by: norona

Posted by: Ouch

I think it's critical that a decision be made either way, sooner than later. I don't think it's fair to everyone involved to let this linger on.

Already been made class 1 e-mtb are classified as mtb. 🤙

Not entirely correct. Class 1 e-mtb are classified as Class 1 e-mtb, and are thus prohibited from a limited set of riding areas such as Lord of the Squirrels, and certain private land trails managed by the Kootenay Columbia Trail Society/ KCTS (due to issues with insurance liabilities). There may be other areas added to this list as land-owners, insurance bodies, and wildlife managers take stock of emtbs and what they entail. Important to consider that it doesn't matter if these groups are correct in any assumptions they make regarding emtb, only that they have the power to influence restrictions. So I would think how you present yourself matters more than ever.

The recent decision on provincial recreation trails is a progression and really did help clarify some important issues, but there is still lots to figure out.....especially for clubs that have insurance and liability at stake. Of course, I would expect that people interested in promotion of emtbs would be very active in helping sort these things out.

As for riding UP tech trails, that sound great....assuming they are uphill tech trails. Of course, riding up downhill trails (designated as downhill primary on Section 56 permits) seems like a questionable idea, given the potential for conflict or collision with downhill riders. It is one thing for a downhill rider to see and avoid a hiker, but quite another to prepare for and avoid riders coming uphill toward them. Who gets the right of way?...the uphill emtb rider with his or her thumb on the boost button, or the downhill rider committed to their line? Surely ensuring safety and harmonious trail interactions takes precedence over espousing the virtues of a technology without consideration of the implications of its use. This (uphill downhill on the same trail) is an example. I have heard repeatedly that "emtbs are mtbs" yet at the same time they can be used in very different ways, have very different capabilities, and are assigned a distinct classification by the province that "acoustic" mtbs do not share. There is an established flow of traffic that has thus far served our trails and users well, and if that is to be upended by introduction of a new classification of vehicle, it should be discussed.

I will note that neither of the mentioned points aim to belittle emtbs or those that ride them, and are not calling for restrictions. Instead, they are simply what myself, and apparently some others see as legitimate concerns that should be addressed in order to maintain harmonious trails and access. I am really interested in hearing some good ideas and input on these, and less interested in more marketing of all that is great and rad.

I would think that the most vocal of the emtb promoters would have some thoughtful ideas for these matters, and would want to avoid stooping to engage others in name-calling. I mean, it is only going to be harder to win over either customers or allies by dismissing concerns as "the same fruit loops on here wasting time at work making up the dumbest shit imaginable" while not contributing to a thoughtful conversation about legitimate concerns. So I pose it to you Norona, three questions:

1) How do you think we should we manage the intersection of uphill emtb traffic and downhill (emtb and mtb) traffic on downhill primary trails. By this, I mean trails that ordinarily, the vast majority of people would not ride up, but which become suddenly climbable with the addition of a battery and motor?

2) Are you, or any sellers or makers of emtbs making progress with or contributing to the discussions with the insurance companies and private landowners who have concerns about emtbs? Clearly we don't want such liabilities hanging over the heads of our clubs or the security of our trail access, and clarification would likely lead to more successful integration and ensured access. For example, KCTS is in a real pickle with the recent provincial decision, and want to take steps to integrate ebikes for all their positives, but remain hamstrung by insurance and liability impasses. Do you have thoughts on this?

3) What is your analysis of the recent provincial decision on recreation trails? Specifically, do you have any thoughts on challenges associated with enforcement of appropriate types of equipment and trail access (pg 10 on the policy)... What do you think needs to happen (and what needs to be avoided) during the stated "test period" of 2018 to 2021 (pg 11) for this policy to roll into an enduring state of trail access that works for everyone?

Personally, I like the policy, but I note it remains wide open for significant policy adjustment depending on how things roll for the next few years. I also think it misses a few things (such as point #1).


 Last edited by: cerealkilla_ on May 18, 2019, 5:30 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
May 18, 2019, 5:46 p.m.
Posts: 143
Joined: May 13, 2014

Posted by: cerealkilla_

Posted by: norona

Posted by: Ouch

I think it's critical that a decision be made either way, sooner than later. I don't think it's fair to everyone involved to let this linger on.

Already been made class 1 e-mtb are classified as mtb. 🤙

Not entirely correct. Class 1 e-mtb are classified as Class 1 e-mtb, and are thus prohibited from a limited set of riding areas such as Lord of the Squirrels, and certain private land trails managed by the Kootenay Columbia Trail Society/ KCTS (due to issues with insurance liabilities). There may be other areas added to this list as land-owners, insurance bodies, and wildlife managers take stock of emtbs and what they entail. Important to consider that it doesn't matter if these groups are correct in any assumptions they make regarding emtb, only that they have the power to influence restrictions. So I would think how you present yourself matters more than ever. 

The recent decision on provincial recreation trails is a progression and really did help clarify some important issues, but there is still lots to figure out.....especially for clubs that have insurance and liability at stake. Of course, I would expect that people interested in promotion of emtbs would be very active in helping sort these things out. 

As for riding UP tech trails, that sound great....assuming they are uphill tech trails. Of course, riding up downhill trails (designated as downhill primary on Section 56 permits) seems like a questionable idea, given the potential for conflict or collision with downhill riders. It is one thing for a downhill rider to see and avoid a hiker, but quite another to prepare for an avoid riders coming uphill toward them. Who gets the right of way?...the uphill emtb rider with his or her thumb on the boost button, or the downhill rider committed to their line? Surely ensuring safety and harmonious trail interactions takes precedence over espousing the virtues of a technology without consideration of the implications of its use. This (uphill downhill on the same trail) is an example. I have heard repeatedly that "emtbs are mtbs" yet at the same time they can be used in very different ways, have very different capabilities, and are assigned a distinct classification by the province that "acoustic" mtbs do not share.  There is an established flow of traffic that has thus far served our trails and users well, and if that is to be upended by introduction of a new classification of vehicle, it should be discussed. 

I will note that neither of the mentioned points aim to belittle emtbs or those that ride them, and are not calling for restrictions. Instead, they are simply what myself, and apparently some others see as legitimate concerns that should be addressed in order to maintain harmonious trails and access. I am really interested in hearing some good ideas and input on these, and less interested in more marketing of all that is great and rad.

I would think that the most vocal of the emtb promoters would have some thoughtful ideas for these matters, and would want to avoid stooping to engage others in name-calling.  I mean, it is only going to be harder to win over either customers or allies by dismissing concerns as "the same fruit loops on here wasting time at work making up the dumbest shit imaginable" while not contributing to a thoughtful conversation about legitimate concerns. So I pose it to you Norona, three questions:

1) How do you think we should we manage the intersection of uphill emtb traffic and downhill (emtb and mtb) traffic on downhill primary trails. By this, I mean trails that ordinarily, the vast majority of people would not ride up, but which become suddenly climbable with the addition of a battery and motor?

2) Are you, or any sellers or makers of emtbs making progress with or contributing to the discussions with the insurance companies and private landowners who have concerns about emtbs?  Clearly we don't want such liabilities hanging over the heads of our clubs or the security of our trail access, and clarification would likely lead to more successful integration and ensured access. For example, KCTS is in a real pickle with the recent provincial decision, and want to take steps to integrate ebikes for all their positives, but remain hamstrung by insurance and liability impasses. Do you have thoughts on this?

3) What is your analysis of the recent provincial decision on recreation trails? Specifically, do you have any thoughts on challenges associated with enforcement of appropriate types of equipment and trail access (pg 10 on the policy)... What do you think needs to happen  (and what needs to be avoided) during the stated "test period" of 2018 to 2021 (pg 11) for this policy to roll into an enduring state of trail access that works for everyone?

Personally, I like the policy, but I  note it remains wide open for significant policy adjustment depending on how things roll for the next few years. I also think it misses a few things (such as point #1).

Wonderful post.  I have a few things to add, and Norona, listen up....

In the past, under NORBA and most every other mountain biking club, you ALWAYS yielded to the uphill on the given fact they were "given er" up.  I suppose the ebike takes the effort part of that out of the equation, so if you are on an ebike and going uphill, they I don't have to yield, nor would I since you can easily stop and start with no effort.  So don't expect any courtesy and don't think ebikes aren't easy to spot (or hear).

Given the fact in the province of BC, to be specific, the fire danger every spring/summer is getting worse or more severe, I wonder how the land managers and the government to be sure are going to think about a bike with a battery powered system that provides an ignition source.  With a regular bike you could reasonably rule out such risk unless the person has a lens, lighter, flint or other, but this could apply to all outdoor users.  Ebikes by very nature have an electrically charged device and a circuit, which could either short out, or the battery fail, and in either case cause a fire.  Think about that point for a moment Norona.  Would you want a major forest fire on your hands due to your new toy?  I don't get that fear from my Chromag...

Lastly, just to make this post brief, consider the fact that an ebike could make for a longer ride in the backwoods.  As with anything, the battery can fail.  Like lights.  What do you suppose would happen if some noob went for some "epic" ride only to find the battery assistance failed, and the spare battery (if one) didn't work either due to some electrical issue.  I am assuming that the fix is something only a shop could do or the manufacturer.  So now you are 20k+ out in the backwoods thinking you could easily get back home in no time (more importantly, no effort) and now you have to hoof, pedal and grunt every km when you couldn't do it in the first place.  I wonder when the first lawsuit will be filed on something like this...of course the bike manufacturer would most likely win....but there is always precedent.  

The more problems you solve, the more you create.  

But from my point of view, there was no problem to being with......so why add problems?  Believe me, if some ebike starts or is the cause of a fire some year, maybe this year, I don't even want to think where this is going to go.  And since carbon fibre is the new shit for frame material, which is combustable, unlike steel, aluminum or titanium.......in my opinion it is just a matter of time.  Look how many fires are started from the most innocent or small of sources.....

God...I hope I don't have to regret saying this.

May 18, 2019, 6:10 p.m.
Posts: 183
Joined: Feb. 16, 2013

Fantastic post cerealkilla. Unfortunately, it seems like Dave is mostly interested in replying to the "low hanging fruit" posts, and not engaging in the issues that make this topic so complex. The "Whatever makes me smile, I cover way more ground than before" standpoint is just self serving.

May 18, 2019, 6:16 p.m.
Posts: 18
Joined: Dec. 16, 2018

Posted by: blackfly

Posted by: cerealkilla_

Posted by: norona

Posted by: Ouch

I think it's critical that a decision be made either way, sooner than later. I don't think it's fair to everyone involved to let this linger on.

Already been made class 1 e-mtb are classified as mtb. 🤙

Not entirely correct. Class 1 e-mtb are classified as Class 1 e-mtb, and are thus prohibited from a limited set of riding areas such as Lord of the Squirrels, and certain private land trails managed by the Kootenay Columbia Trail Society/ KCTS (due to issues with insurance liabilities). There may be other areas added to this list as land-owners, insurance bodies, and wildlife managers take stock of emtbs and what they entail. Important to consider that it doesn't matter if these groups are correct in any assumptions they make regarding emtb, only that they have the power to influence restrictions. So I would think how you present yourself matters more than ever. 

The recent decision on provincial recreation trails is a progression and really did help clarify some important issues, but there is still lots to figure out.....especially for clubs that have insurance and liability at stake. Of course, I would expect that people interested in promotion of emtbs would be very active in helping sort these things out. 

As for riding UP tech trails, that sound great....assuming they are uphill tech trails. Of course, riding up downhill trails (designated as downhill primary on Section 56 permits) seems like a questionable idea, given the potential for conflict or collision with downhill riders. It is one thing for a downhill rider to see and avoid a hiker, but quite another to prepare for an avoid riders coming uphill toward them. Who gets the right of way?...the uphill emtb rider with his or her thumb on the boost button, or the downhill rider committed to their line? Surely ensuring safety and harmonious trail interactions takes precedence over espousing the virtues of a technology without consideration of the implications of its use. This (uphill downhill on the same trail) is an example. I have heard repeatedly that "emtbs are mtbs" yet at the same time they can be used in very different ways, have very different capabilities, and are assigned a distinct classification by the province that "acoustic" mtbs do not share.  There is an established flow of traffic that has thus far served our trails and users well, and if that is to be upended by introduction of a new classification of vehicle, it should be discussed. 

I will note that neither of the mentioned points aim to belittle emtbs or those that ride them, and are not calling for restrictions. Instead, they are simply what myself, and apparently some others see as legitimate concerns that should be addressed in order to maintain harmonious trails and access. I am really interested in hearing some good ideas and input on these, and less interested in more marketing of all that is great and rad.

I would think that the most vocal of the emtb promoters would have some thoughtful ideas for these matters, and would want to avoid stooping to engage others in name-calling.  I mean, it is only going to be harder to win over either customers or allies by dismissing concerns as "the same fruit loops on here wasting time at work making up the dumbest shit imaginable" while not contributing to a thoughtful conversation about legitimate concerns. So I pose it to you Norona, three questions:

1) How do you think we should we manage the intersection of uphill emtb traffic and downhill (emtb and mtb) traffic on downhill primary trails. By this, I mean trails that ordinarily, the vast majority of people would not ride up, but which become suddenly climbable with the addition of a battery and motor?

2) Are you, or any sellers or makers of emtbs making progress with or contributing to the discussions with the insurance companies and private landowners who have concerns about emtbs?  Clearly we don't want such liabilities hanging over the heads of our clubs or the security of our trail access, and clarification would likely lead to more successful integration and ensured access. For example, KCTS is in a real pickle with the recent provincial decision, and want to take steps to integrate ebikes for all their positives, but remain hamstrung by insurance and liability impasses. Do you have thoughts on this?

3) What is your analysis of the recent provincial decision on recreation trails? Specifically, do you have any thoughts on challenges associated with enforcement of appropriate types of equipment and trail access (pg 10 on the policy)... What do you think needs to happen  (and what needs to be avoided) during the stated "test period" of 2018 to 2021 (pg 11) for this policy to roll into an enduring state of trail access that works for everyone?

Personally, I like the policy, but I  note it remains wide open for significant policy adjustment depending on how things roll for the next few years. I also think it misses a few things (such as point #1).

Wonderful post.  I have a few things to add, and Norona, listen up....

In the past, under NORBA and most every other mountain biking club, you ALWAYS yielded to the uphill on the given fact they were "given er" up.  I suppose the ebike takes the effort part of that out of the equation, so if you are on an ebike and going uphill, they I don't have to yield, nor would I since you can easily stop and start with no effort.  So don't expect any courtesy and don't think ebikes aren't easy to spot (or hear).

Given the fact in the province of BC, to be specific, the fire danger every spring/summer is getting worse or more severe, I wonder how the land managers and the government to be sure are going to think about a bike with a battery powered system that provides an ignition source.  With a regular bike you could reasonably rule out such risk unless the person has a lens, lighter, flint or other, but this could apply to all outdoor users.  Ebikes by very nature have an electrically charged device and a circuit, which could either short out, or the battery fail, and in either case cause a fire.  Think about that point for a moment Norona.  Would you want a major forest fire on your hands due to your new toy?  I don't get that fear from my Chromag...

Lastly, just to make this post brief, consider the fact that an ebike could make for a longer ride in the backwoods.  As with anything, the battery can fail.  Like lights.  What do you suppose would happen if some noob went for some "epic" ride only to find the battery assistance failed, and the spare battery (if one) didn't work either due to some electrical issue.  I am assuming that the fix is something only a shop could do or the manufacturer.  So now you are 20k+ out in the backwoods thinking you could easily get back home in no time (more importantly, no effort) and now you have to hoof, pedal and grunt every km when you couldn't do it in the first place.  I wonder when the first lawsuit will be filed on something like this...of course the bike manufacturer would most likely win....but there is always precedent.  

The more problems you solve, the more you create.  

But from my point of view, there was no problem to being with......so why add problems?  Believe me, if some ebike starts or is the cause of a fire some year, maybe this year, I don't even want to think where this is going to go.  And since carbon fibre is the new shit for frame material, which is combustable, unlike steel, aluminum or titanium.......in my opinion it is just a matter of time.  Look how many fires are started from the most innocent or small of sources.....

God...I hope I don't have to regret saying this.

And if I ride my Emtb backwards in the forest , would it sound like Satan?😈⚡️

Forum jump: