mammal profile

It's interesting for sure, but just based on the geometry and material of a spoke, they sure wouldn't provide much support in compression. Further, the bottom ones wouldn't be in pure compression (bending forces as well) which would make them even more feeble, support-wise.

I'd love to hear more on it though. I'm sure there's some reasonable amount of "load sharing" going on between spokes.

I believe you are correct. Spokes have no strength in compression, so rider weight is supported by the upper spokes in tension (hense why the de-tensioned spoke in the picture didn't cause the wheel to fold).

Fully agree. I give Norco (or Owen Pemberton) a tonne of credit for starting to do this so long ago. Did Norco start that when Owen first arrived, or prior? Can't recall.

Great points. Most importantly for me: Your lower back and shoulders don't need to support your water and gear. Packs are great when needed, but getting away from them feels sooooo good.

You left out "Amaze-Balls".  I'd pay just to try it out and see if it works alright.

I saw that on a previous thread (probably posted by you). Looks like a great solution.

I've always wondered if Tashi was the Tashi Pea (aka Jaumbs) I know... This all but confirms it. May the Monz be with you - Love Neil.

That's a nice bag for your frame, works great in the GG. I'm looking to move from my pack due to my lingering shoulder injury. Without a pack on, the old shoulder feels way better.

Cool product. That list of friendly banter is solid gold though. And unfortunately, I now know what Bicycle Pubes is...

Because carbon doesn't fatigue, as long as it's bending within it's design envelope, repeated flexing should be fine. Good theory, but as always, it depends on the execution.

Posted by: andy-eunson

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: BeesIntheTr

For sure ease of access makes a difference, but who knows how much more often it will happen? That's where I think culture plays a big part. 

I agree that LOTS will probably see more ebikes, especially with Norona telling everyone they can legally go up there.

It is my understanding that the Ministry of Forests Land And Natural Resources has said no ebikes there.

I know that, at the very least, WORCA has taken that stance with their latest program (despite opening up a lot of their system to ebikes). I'd be interested to know if that was based on fundamental agreements or guidance from the Ministry.

Even last year when WORCA released their survey to user groups, trying to get a stance on how people felt on the matter... Lots of people's reactions were way over the top. A whole lot of "I'll ride my ebike all over Sproatt, there's nothing you can do to stop me".  I've heard they're considering a maintenance hut of sorts up there. Perhaps they'll use it for some tip-of-the-iceberg enforcement purposes.

Posted by: Kieran

I won't be buying one for a very long time but...

What if I buy an ebike and commute to my riding destination and never use my truck again for travel or as a shuttle option?

Does that entitle me to shred where I want? Is this a possibility in the future for a big number of riders in the Van area? Fewer vehicles on the road would be a good thing, right?

Well it certainly wouldn't address maintenance, conflict or access/permission issues... So no entitlement from where I stand.

Posted by: FLATCH

By your own statement trail organizations don’t seem to have much say as most areas are crown land.

What they wish and what is reality are two different things. I don’t see any grey areas.

You misunderstood me then, and saying most areas are on crown land is just another broad statement that doesn't capture the scope of the issue. Allowing the Orgs to act in accordance to their organization's best interests, and in accordance to agreements with Land Owner/Managers is the basis of what's allowed the amazing trail centers we now have, to grow and flourish. To me these relationships have been absolutely key in allowing growth in areas where there riding zones are in private land or mixed (private and crown, like KCTS).

If you're ( the royal You're) keen on short-circiuting this relationship by pointing to a preliminary legislation (which will be adjusted after the trial period), then that's "your" prerogative. I think it's harmful to the sport to turn a blind eye to the details of current legislation or down-play the established system of advocacy and maintenance. Assuming that "since they've sold 1000's of the things, it's reality" doesn't do justice to the issue, or give proper respect to the the Orgs that are only trying to manage their resources and agreements.

Trail Orgs, who act on the basis of their agreements with the Land Owners/Manager, have made bans. The closest examples are KCTS and UROC. Sure, KCTS is a bit handcuffed by the government regs, as some of their routes are partially on gov land and partially on private land, so it's sticky but ebikes are still currently banned from their system. UROC is a part owner of their land, and co-manage with the forestry company, who agreed to non-motorized use. You could also throw in WORCA and the Sproatt area.

Again, if you're expecting Land Owners to ban ebikes, it's not going to come in that form. If they can't manage this issue through the acting trail orgs (with whom they already have non-motorized agreements), they'll just ban all forms of bike access.

Posted by: Ouch

My understanding is it's been monitored, so a bit premature to say they're here to stay. Certain trail system have banned them and other have the legal right to implement bans as well.

That is correct. And I'll add that the worst justification, from my perspective, is the "Too bad, deal with it" line. That's been the company line all the way from the manufacturers, down to the dealers/renters, and trickled right down to many of the riders.

Posted by: FLATCH

But they are not self propelled. No input no forward progress. But I guess we've been over that.

Whether a throttle triggers a motor or pedal input, they're motorized. I don't care to argue this point further if it's unclear to you, but motorized/non-motorized is a very important distinction and not really debatable. And yes, that's been covered.

Sure, valid points (other than range changes with how many batts you carry). Motorized transportation then. I prefer not to group them together with mountain bikes, as those are self-propelled in my mind.

Im honestly not trying to belittle ebikes. I just think that's what they are. Motorcycles a pretty awesome, as long as they're used in the places they should. If people are offended with that term, they should probably come to terms with the different perspectives people have about this.

As for informing/educating, that needs to be done, that should also be provided by retailers. Currently nobody's taking on that responsibility.

WRT = with respect to. More science/math short hand than internet short hand, but it all blends together FWIW 😉

Posted by: FLATCH

Posted by: mammal

Posted by: FLATCH

again it comes down to education, consideration and respect.

trail orgs will need to get on board and accept e bikes or the issue will become very draining. i believe there will be a fair number of paying members who are or will be riding e bikes. i already see it.

e bikes may not be for everyone, but they are for many.

It's not about trail orgs "needing to get on board", it's about them needing to make the right decisions based on what they can manage and how. If in 4 years, 1/3 of the users are on ebikes, they'll need to consider themselves on the hook for 1/3 more maintenance due to the increase in average mileage for those users. Ask most orgs if they've got the capacity to keep their existing trail networks in reasonable condition in those circumstances... Probably not.

As for the climb/descent thing, sure being curtious with people is great, but it's one thing to stop and chat about etiquette when someone is cruising down a climb trail (good site lines, low technicality, lower speeds). It's another thing all together when you've got people cruising up a feature you literally can barely stop on once committed, and/or navigating at high speeds.

trail maintenance has always been an issue but it has always progressed and will continue to. why would anybody be "cruising" down a climb trail, makes no sense.and to your last point I think I've covered that.( hikers, unleashed pets)

If you had a little experience around these things,(I ride regularly with a friend who uses one) you would understand that you can't just cruise up technical features at any kind of speed or skill.

WRT people cruising down climbers, it happens frequently, and I used that as an example of a time that's convenient to use your "education" strategy. WRT climbing up descent trails or risky feature/areas, that was specifically referring to noronas picture and comments about his epic routes. If you think some people won't be taking the quickest way to the top, where before it wasn't physically possible, you're kidding yourself.