Posted by: syncro
Posted by: Ddean
I think what he means is that assuming that they cause no more wear per equal distance as a pedal bike, that because you're going twice as far there is in total twice the wear on the trails - same amount of wear on any specific trail but more wear overall due to distance traveled. Makes sense to me, although assuming equal wear per foot traveled is a generous assumption. More power should equal more wear.
Well there are two things not quite right with your statement. One is that there is no certainty that someone on a pedelec is going to travel twice as far as someone on a pedal bike - you're making the assumption they are, it's not a given. Second is the notion a pedelec will cause more wear simply because it has more power. On a downhill there is nothing to say a pedelec will cause more wear; just as Captain-Snappy says it depends entirely on the rider. When it comes to uphills a pedelec may actually cause less wear because it's easier for the rider to maintain speed and momentum on a difficult section where a rider on a pedal bike may lose traction and spin out.
I was explaining what the previous poster meant. I know that the distance is an assumption but I don't feel that its an unreasonable one given what people who have these things say - twice the distance per ride! A rough approximation backed up by anecdotal evidence. And more power causing more wear and tear is also an assumption, one that backed up by obviousness, but sure, I cant say that I have data to prove. Put MTB tires on a 400cc KTM and lets do that test?