Kapusta

OK, you actually need arguments to explain why sticking a motor on a bike is a fundamental change to what the bike it, and not like disc brakes and suspension?

First, lets look at what has been historically agreed upon about what is a significant distinction.

Lets look at trail access and classification. One of the most basic and fundamental traits regarding what can and cannot be used on a trails is whether it has a motor. How many trails specify access based on the presence of a motor? To many to count. In fact, "Bikes" and "motorized vehicles" may be the two most often used distinctions to determine trail access. This has been widely accepted as a logical and fundamental distinction for years.

How many times have you seen trail access for bikes based on brakes design, suspension, shifting type, wheel size, tire width, or geometry? Zero? And why is that? Because it has been accepted that suspension, disc brakes, etc, do not meaningfully change what the bike is.

Now, I see you making the argument that this distinction is based on what "motorized" used to mean, and now that it means an electric bike and not just a gas powered dirtbike, that the distinction is not relevant. Well, you are assuming you understand all the reasons people made the distinction to start with. I would flatly reject the notion that it was simply due to the way they LOOK (as your repeated examples of the visual similarities of e Bikes to normal bikes would suggest).

No, it is not the way they LOOK, it is the FUNCTION. It is the function of the motor, regardless of how visible it is.

So are they significantly different in function? I would say yes, and in fact, many arguments being made for their adoption actually acknowledge how fundamentally different they are in function.

Lets look at the accessibility issue (they help older or disabled get into the wilderness). This clearly acknowledges that eBikes are a very different animal. Has anyone talked about suspension, disc brakes, 1x drive-trains, electronic shifting, or wheel-size getting people who were otherwise too weak to pedal very much out on the trails?

Another example is your own: E-Bikes replacing pickup trucks as a way to get people up the mountain. People have been shuttling for decades. Did suspension, disc brakes, electronic shifting, or new wheelsizes do ANYTHING towards replacing the function of the pickup truck (or chain lift) to get you to the top of the mountain? No. E-Bikes can do this becuase they share the single most important defining trait with a truck: a motor. Nothing else here matters. Take away the suspension, the gears, the disc brakes, the big wheels, and it still does the critical job that the pickup is doing, because all that really matters here is the motor.

So look, if you want to argue for the acceptance of motors on bikes for the benefits they can bring.... then do so. Some have merit it in some cases. However, you can't argue how much of a difference the motor makes, and then in the next breath claim that it is really no different.

You can't claim that an eBike is essentially a bike and not like other motorized vehicles, and then argue for their adoption based on their filling the roll exclusive to motorized vehicles.