Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Mountain Biking
Reload this Page >

motor vehicles and mountain bikes had the most impact

Notices
Mountain Biking Mountain biking is one of the fastest growing sports in the world. Check out this forum to discuss the latest tips, tricks, gear and equipment in the world of mountain biking.

motor vehicles and mountain bikes had the most impact

Old 03-07-21, 10:46 AM
  #51  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Not mountain biking

Happy Feet is offline  
Likes For Happy Feet:
Old 03-08-21, 09:14 AM
  #52  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Central Wisconsin
Posts: 4,601
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2965 Post(s)
Liked 1,167 Times in 763 Posts
Happy Foot...

I think you are being too one track minded here and all you keep focusing on is downhill gravity riding and how an e-bike would be good for getting back to the top of the hill instead of being hauled back up in a truck or chairlift. While I can somewhat maybe agree with you on that for the downhill riding...I think the real issue being discussed here, which you are missing, is e-bikes used on trails where you have to pedal a lot. Repeatedly going to the top of the hill and coasting back down IS NOT trail riding. That's Enduro/Downhill riding where the bike practically pedals itself.

That video you posted doesn't shown anyone pedaling down Whistler. As I noted above...they are coasting downhill. Your video proves my point on that.

Also...the Trek bikes you posted above (Trek Super Caliber) are Cross Country race bikes. Those bikes aren't even meant for the downhill riding you keep referring to. So posting them to try to make some sort of point about riding at the downhill bike park was useless.

DMC...I'm sure the increased heart rate has to do with the thrill and adrenaline rush from enduro riding.

Last edited by prj71; 03-08-21 at 09:20 AM.
prj71 is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 09:35 AM
  #53  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by prj71
Happy Foot...

I think you are being too one track minded here and all you keep focusing on is downhill gravity riding and how an e-bike would be good for getting back to the top of the hill instead of being hauled back up in a truck or chairlift. While I can somewhat maybe agree with you on that for the downhill riding...I think the real issue being discussed here, which you are missing, is e-bikes used on trails where you have to pedal a lot. Repeatedly going to the top of the hill and coasting back down IS NOT trail riding. That's Enduro/Downhill riding where the bike practically pedals itself.

That video you posted doesn't shown anyone pedaling down Whistler. As I noted above...they are coasting downhill. Your video proves my point on that.

DMC...I'm sure the increased heart rate has to do with the thrill and adrenaline rush from enduro riding.
I don't think it's being one track minded as much as showing a concrete real life example. I fully agree that my example is regional but it illustrates that one can't make blanket statements about a form of riding. My though on e-mtb is: It depends... I look at it in logistical terms. What I don't do is judge someones motivation for riding a certain way just because it's not "my" way.

I've ridden in other areas, on trails that could take e-mtb use, trails that could not, and many trails that are degraded and eroded just by regular mtb use. Where is the ban against mtbs in that case? The reality is e-mtb is going to make off road riding more popular by opening it up to, or extending the capacity of, riders who might not have otherwise considered it. That is happening, it will happen. Whether that's because of age, infirmity or just choice. IDK or care. Not my call to make but.. those riders will need to be considered one way or the other. We can be proactive or reactive or hide out heads in the sand, however, at some point they will have numbers, advocacy and want access in the same way we want access. Morally, and usually legally, we have no grounds to deny it. Most areas current mtbrs ride in isn't actually owned by those riders. In some cases its occupied by default, in others right of way is ceded, in others it's managed by a park or granted governance over by an association. All of those things can be sought by e-mtbrs too. They can make associations, lobby, occupy.

As to pedalling downhill. I defy you to stand on a soap box and tell all those riders, and anyone really who are doing DH or feeriding that they are not mountain biking - which is what you said. I also do XC but really have to drive 3 hours to get to good areas for that. But that is just one discipline of several in mountain biking. Locally we are primarily down hill with some choosing to ride uphill trails but many others seeking various mechanical assists. No one says they aren't mountain biking.

I think you look at your unique local and personal situation and project it upon the whole genre and user group. There are many types of mtbing, and many use groups/motivations.

As to the pics of the bikes posted. I didn't do that to prove a point about downhill parks. You misconstrued that in an attempt to invalidate. It was to show there was very little difference between manual and e assist models and that they were more bicycle than motorcycle. I stand by that point.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 03-08-21 at 01:05 PM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 02:45 PM
  #54  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Central Wisconsin
Posts: 4,601
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2965 Post(s)
Liked 1,167 Times in 763 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
It was to show there was very little difference between manual and e assist models and that they were more bicycle than motorcycle. I stand by that point.
They are not motorcycle, but should not be in the same category as non-motorized mountain bike either. That little thingy on the bike that generates power using electricity is called a motor.

Almost all trails in the U.S. are on lands that have been designated for "recreation" in some way. Often times (especially with state or local lands) the lands are designated as "non-motorized" recreation. For recreational purposes, a motor is a motor is a motor when talking about e-bikes There is no amount of newspeak that changes that. On top of that, in places where the local MTBers or cycling club applies for grants to build/maintain those trails, there might be additional legal reasons e-MTBs could not be allowed on existing trails...For instance, if the club raises money with a grant that is for "non-motorized activities".

Last edited by prj71; 03-08-21 at 02:50 PM.
prj71 is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 02:50 PM
  #55  
Senior Member
 
DMC707's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
Posts: 5,390

Bikes: Too many to list

Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1764 Post(s)
Liked 1,121 Times in 744 Posts
Originally Posted by prj71

DMC...I'm sure the increased heart rate has to do with the thrill and adrenaline rush from enduro riding.

Going downhill at speed is a full body beat down. At the racing levels, adrenaline rushes or thrilla are few and far between. Most guys are long past that stage in their riding career. John Tomac himself once said that downhill was a more severe workout than cross country, with higher heart rate spikes —- But just not spread out over 2hours like a cross country race

Different sport, but alsoone where the athletes are worked to the max is motocross, with heart rates routinely in the 180’s. I had a cycling colleague once question that because after all, the motorcycle must be doing all the work
DMC707 is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 06:47 PM
  #56  
Advanced Slacker
 
Kapusta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,188

Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2749 Post(s)
Liked 2,516 Times in 1,422 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
"...Finally, there is argumentum ad hominem. This occurs when you direct your argument to the prejudices and instincts of the crowd, of the mob, rather than dealing with the real issue(s)".
The Principles of Argumentation: https://www.csun.edu/~hcpas003/argument.html

I suppose I could have said "straw man" instead: "It is a serious error to use the "straw man" tactic--falsely portraying opposing facts or arguments as so foolish, stupid, lightweight or crazy that you can sweep them away with a rhetorical wave of the hand. It is also an error to rely totally on ethos to make your argument by using an "ad hominem" attack--painting anyone who opposes your argument as doing so in bad faith".
How to Refute Effectively. How to Do Refutation in Classical Format

That would cover this: "It has been looking to me like there was a glimmer of hope to get mountain bikes allowed in certain wilderness areas. I think the E bike evangelists may put the nail in that coffin for good".


But of all the things to discuss regarding my post; that's the extent of your reply? No answer as to how the two forms of transportation differ in terms of rider effort (truck/chairlift rides up hill vs e-mtb)? No comparison of various forms of environmental impact between the two? No argument about which creates more noise or air pollution or impacts wilderness areas more? I put several examples forward that deal directly with the thread topic that could be challenged or countered. Tell me how throwing a mtb in the back of a truck and driving up the access road so you can ride down the single track is better physically or environmentally than riding up the same access road on an e-mtb.

For reference, here's the real road being discussed at a real mtb trail system, similar to many other systems in the region: https://www.trailforks.com/trails/ve...-service-road/

----------------------------------------------------

Personally, I think down the road it would be best to develop a hybrid system of main trails specifically designed to resist erosion for mixed e-mtb/manual mtb use and other more fragile trails designated as manual mtb only. Some what similar to front country and back country camping. Many people riding e-mtbs probably don't want to tackle back diamond runs anyway. This gives the general public off road access and dedicated pedallers some protection from over use erosion.

The erosion issue isn't just from the "e" aspect either. Many trails get trashed by becoming too popular or from poor riding habits. Mtb will probably become more popular now with the "e" component opening up access for many and the concern would be those newer riders not understanding or observing etiquette. Making front country trails designed to resist damage would be a good preemptive move. Banning e-mtbs will work about as well as banning mtbs has worked in the past. Once enough of their numbers build they will drive the agenda. My opinion is its better to set the agenda ahead of time by considering them in the equation.
Which is it? Straw Man or Ad Hominem? They are completely different things.

You still have not shown where I made an Ad hominem attack. That would involve attempting to discredit YOU (independently of this argument), and then using that to discredit your argument by association. I have not attacked you, only your ideas, and I have addressed them directly. Throwing some extra colorful language regarding what I think of the idea does not change any of this.

As far as Straw Man.... What is the straw man, here? The example you gave is not a "straw man" argument. I gave a reason why I think it is dangerous and counterproductive to MTB access to be claiming what you are claiming. It explains WHY I am bothering to take the time to argue the point that a motor IS a fundamental distinction. Explaining why a claim (in addition to being incorrect) has negative consequences is not a straw man argument. Are you thrown off by the "evangelist" dig? That does not make it a straw man argument, and besides, take that out and the argument is the exact same argument: collapsing the distinction between motorized and non-montorized bikes is going to make Wilderness access harder. If you want to argue that is not true, then do so, but dismissing that as a "straw man" argument is an incorrect use of that term. Or don't argue it, if you don't want to. It is not essential to the point that was initially being debated (is a motor a fundamental distinction).

As far as your point about trucks and roads....If you want to share your thoughts on the "truck vs e-bike on a dirt road" thing, fine. But I am not obligated to follow you down that off-ramp. You made what I consider an illogical comparison, and I have been using logical arguments to counter. Then part way through you start demanding that I engage you on a completely unrelated topic. I don't even necessarily disagree with the point... I just don't have much of an opinion on it or find it all that relevant to what we were debating.
Kapusta is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 07:45 PM
  #57  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by prj71
They are not motorcycle, but should not be in the same category as non-motorized mountain bike either. That little thingy on the bike that generates power using electricity is called a motor.

Almost all trails in the U.S. are on lands that have been designated for "recreation" in some way. Often times (especially with state or local lands) the lands are designated as "non-motorized" recreation. For recreational purposes, a motor is a motor is a motor when talking about e-bikes There is no amount of newspeak that changes that. On top of that, in places where the local MTBers or cycling club applies for grants to build/maintain those trails, there might be additional legal reasons e-MTBs could not be allowed on existing trails...For instance, if the club raises money with a grant that is for "non-motorized activities".
I agree that in many places there has been a distinction between motorized and non motorized use because the alternatives were very stark in comparison ie. a bicycle vs a dirt bike or jeep/4x4. The comparison was could be measured as quiet non motorized vs noisy internal combustion engine and relatively slow bicycle speeds vs 60mph plus and again as relatively light bicycle vs heavy motorized vehicles. Anyone who rides in a mixed use area gets what a difference there is between the two extremes.

I think e-mtbs, on the other hand, are so closely related to bicycles in terms of noise, relative speeds and weight that the line between non motorized and e motor equipped will create a far closer comparison. This already plays itself out in my area. we have e-mtbs riding the same areas as manual mtbs and the only way you can tell them apart is that they seem to go uphill with relatively less effort. We have a non regulated mixed use right now.

I also think that the advocacy for mtb trail access traditionally has been for the non motorized variety because there was no alternative mode. It was bicycle or gas powered dirt bike (that had no pedals). Now it is bicycle or very similar bicycle (often a version of the same product line) with e assist and the user groups are closely aligned. It gets a lot harder to defend allowing access to one but not the other.

Now, that is not to say there can't be issues, and I'm not arguing an unrestricted free for all approach, but if I were looking to create new areas for mtb expansion in wilderness areas, as the OP article discusses, I would be proactive and include a plan to create some trails for mixed use to manage what is sure to be increasing pressure from those users for access. At the rates that e-bikes are becoming popular within the cycling umbrella those users will soon become a major advocacy group to be reckoned with.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 03-08-21, 09:35 PM
  #58  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by Kapusta
...a. I gave a reason why I think it is dangerous and counterproductive to MTB access to be claiming what you are claiming. It explains WHY I am bothering to take the time to argue the point that a motor IS a fundamental distinction ...b. collapsing the distinction between motorized and non-montorized bikes is going to make Wilderness access harder. If you want to argue that is not true, then do so ... c. Or don't argue it, if you don't want to. It is not essential to the point that was initially being debated (is a motor a fundamental distinction).

d. As far as your point about trucks and roads....If you want to share your thoughts on the "truck vs e-bike on a dirt road" thing, fine. But I am not obligated to follow you down that off-ramp. e. You made what I consider an illogical comparison, f. and I have been using logical arguments to counter. Then part way through you start demanding that I engage you on a completely unrelated topic. I don't even necessarily disagree with the point... I just don't have much of an opinion on it... g. or find it all that relevant to what we were debating.
I have removed the stuff that doesn't matter so the topics can more easily be determined in a way that can be discussed. Bolding is mine

a. This is a discussion forum. Discussing a topic is not "dangerous", it is the raison d'etre for being here and civil discussion merely illuminates the issues at hand.
b. The difference is already collapsed, as manufacturers have now created e-mtbs that closely resemble manual mtbs. I didn't do that - I am only acknowledging it exists. Using terms like "motorcycle" only acts to diminish ones own POV as archaic, hyperbolic, prejudiced and insincere; especially when combined with sentences like this: "I'm all for some sort of handicapped tag for people who "need" assist." Do you really believe you will have any influence over the dialog with e-mtb users when you approach the subject like that? They will dismiss it as curmudgeonly.
c. I have steadily been making the case that e-mtbs are a growing part of the mtb landscape and will need to be considered in the future. Trying to pretend they can be ignored as iligitimate only alienates one from being part of that discussion. I prefer to be part of it.
d. The truck/chairlift/e-mtb comparison is a real life, concrete example of how motors of various sorts are used by a large segment of mountain bike riders in my region. Anyone who does that sort of riding knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's not a "thing" or "off ramp". But by all means, list your own region and how bikes are used but don't complain that I am providing context to the discussion so we aren't talking in vague, generalized or idealized terms.
e. You only call it illogical because you cannot easily refute it. A poor attempt to dismiss in order to avoid that reality.
f. Please explain those logical arguments. I'm all for reasoned debate if there is something to discuss.
g. Of course it's relative to the discussion. In this region, this is how e-mtbs are used. Considering them as a subset of how mtbs seeking access to wilderness areas will be used is what will need to be considered going forward. You can't turn back the clock.

If I were going to create a new mtb area I would envision a mixed usage access route and several trail systems specifically designed to handle mixed usage along with other more fragile manual only trails. This gets the whole user group on board and creates a stronger unified advocacy voice instead of creating factions and infighting. Because it is comprehensive in design it also would be better seen as understanding and addressing the new and emerging paradigm of modern mtb use in wilderness areas and its potential pitfalls. Those pitfalls IMHO, aren't e in nature but rather user population pressure from increasing overall popularity ie. how to create systems that can handle the ever increasing numbers of riders that a popular activity attracts.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 03-08-21 at 09:40 PM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 03-09-21, 09:36 AM
  #59  
Advanced Slacker
 
Kapusta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,188

Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2749 Post(s)
Liked 2,516 Times in 1,422 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
b. The difference is already collapsed, as manufacturers have now created e-mtbs that closely resemble manual mtbs. I didn't do that - I am only acknowledging it exists. Using terms like "motorcycle" only acts to diminish ones own POV as archaic, hyperbolic, prejudiced and insincere; especially when combined with sentences like this: "I'm all for some sort of handicapped tag for people who "need" assist." Do you really believe you will have any influence over the dialog with e-mtb users when you approach the subject like that? They will dismiss it as curmudgeonly.
.
A few things to unpack here (since you brought up some logical fallacies)

First we have ad populum fallacy. (majority opinion is truth). Sort of a "resistance is futile" argument, as presented here. But it is not even an effective use, as clearly not everyone agrees with this.

Then we have argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority). Not only is this a flawed argument under the best of circumstances, but who it the authority you are appealing to here? Bike manufacturers? Bike manufacturers are now the authority on how e-bikes are classified by government agencies and perceived by the public? Does this apply to all industries, or just for bikes?

While it is not a logical fallacy per se, I am at a loss to understand what issue you have with my advocating for making accommodations for the disabled. I would have thought this was just commonly accepted decency. Apparently not.

Finally, since some of your comments to me regard what you consider a dismissive and insincere attitude on my part I should point out that my initial response to you was to a post in which you started off by calling people with a certain point of view curmudgeons.

Last edited by Kapusta; 03-09-21 at 10:05 AM.
Kapusta is offline  
Old 03-09-21, 10:09 AM
  #60  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by Kapusta
A few things to unpack here (since you brought up some logical fallacies)

a. First we have ad populum fallacy. (majority opinion is truth). Sort of a "resistance is futile" argument, as presented here. But it is not even an effective use, as clearly not everyone agrees with this.

b. Then we have argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority). Not only is this a flawed argument under the best of circumstances, but who it the authority you are appealing to here? Bike manufacturers? Bike manufacturers are now the authority on how e-bikes are classified by government agencies and perceived by the public? Does this apply to all industries, or just for bikes?

c. While it is not a logical fallacy per se, I am at a loss to understand what issue you have with my advocating for making accommodations for the disabled. I would have thought this was just commonly accepted decency. Apparently not.
Why why why... why not just make an argument to debate instead of conflating everything with rhetorical mumbo jumbo?

a. Majority opinion? That's what happens now on this forum when the majority of manual mtb riders make fun of or dismiss the use of e-mtbs. All I am saying is that this will change when the numbers shift and those riders also begin to flex their collective clout. It's not an appeal to anything. Just an observation.

b. Appeal to authority? Sorry, I'm just making some points on an internet discussion forum. There is no authority here other than the mods. I'm not even really advocating - just pointing out some emerging realities.

c. Really, do you expect anyone to believe that bit about labeling e-riders as handicapped was sincere. From my POV just another attempt to denigrate that stems from a misguided world view that suggests the only valid reason for riding a certain type of bicycle is infirmity.

Seriously. Not interested in debating these off topic things forever. Remember, you were the one who didn't want side bar distractions earlier. Do you have anything about wilderness access and how mtbs, as they are now developing and being used, will impact that?
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 03-09-21, 10:38 AM
  #61  
Advanced Slacker
 
Kapusta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,188

Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2749 Post(s)
Liked 2,516 Times in 1,422 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Why why why... why not just make an argument to debate instead of conflating everything with rhetorical mumbo jumbo?
You are the one that first brought up logical fallacies, not me.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet
b. Appeal to authority? Sorry, I'm just making some points on an internet discussion forum. There is no authority here other than the mods. I'm not even really advocating - just pointing out some emerging realities.
Appeal to authority right here (look it up).......
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
The difference is already collapsed, as manufacturers have now created e-mtbs that closely resemble manual mtbs. I didn't do that - I am only acknowledging it exists.
That fact that it is an ineffective appeal to authority does not change what it is. Manufacturers disguise them to resemble normal bikes, so we must believe they are.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet
c. Really, do you expect anyone to believe that bit about labeling e-riders as handicapped was sincere. From my POV just another attempt to denigrate that stems from a misguided world view that suggests the only valid reason for riding a certain type of bicycle is infirmity.?
Now THAT is an insincere argument you just made. I most certainty DID NOT label e-bike riders as disabled, and think you are smart enough to know that perfectly well. I pointing out just the opposite (that most are NOT disabled).

Last edited by Kapusta; 03-09-21 at 10:48 AM.
Kapusta is offline  
Old 03-09-21, 12:23 PM
  #62  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
c. Really, do you expect anyone to believe that bit about labeling e-riders as handicapped was sincere. From my POV just another attempt to denigrate that stems from a misguided world view that suggests the only valid reason for riding a certain type of bicycle is infirmity.
Originally Posted by Kapusta
...Now THAT is an insincere argument you just made. I most certainty DID NOT label e-bike riders as disabled, and think you are smart enough to know that perfectly well. I pointing out just the opposite (that most are NOT disabled).
Not interested in the rest but here's your words. Basically, label recreational e-mtb riders as handicapped or otherwise there is no valid reason for riding them.

Originally Posted by Kapusta
I'm all for some sort of handicapped tag for people who "need" assist.

But expanding access to the disabled is not at all what the burgeoning e-bike market is about. Of the ten or so people I now know who ride e-bikes, not a single one is not capable of pedaling a normal bike.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 03-09-21, 12:40 PM
  #63  
Advanced Slacker
 
Kapusta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,188

Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2749 Post(s)
Liked 2,516 Times in 1,422 Posts
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.

Last edited by Kapusta; 03-09-21 at 01:28 PM.
Kapusta is offline  
Old 03-09-21, 12:42 PM
  #64  
Advanced Slacker
 
Kapusta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,188

Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2749 Post(s)
Liked 2,516 Times in 1,422 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Not interested in the rest but here's your words. Basically, label recreational e-mtb riders as handicapped or otherwise there is no valid reason for riding them.
You are looking at a black wall and calling it white. Your mis-characterization of what I said is dishonest and completely insincere.

I am deeply regretting the time I have wasted on this.

Last edited by Kapusta; 03-09-21 at 12:51 PM.
Kapusta is offline  
Old 03-09-21, 02:13 PM
  #65  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Ok.
I've reread what you've said several times and still can't make sense of it but can feel the emotionalism with which it's written. To me it's more philosophical than practical and I'm not that interested in jousting philosophies.

All I can say is I ride regularly on local trails with both manual mtb and e-mtb users and none of these doom and gloom predictions or fears have come to fruition. All riders get along and co exist. I fear getting mowed down by a reckless younger immortal rider bombing a run than a reckless e-mtb rider. Most of the latter are older, more cautious, courteous and there are usually props and regard given for riders who are cranking manually uphill. I also see how e-mtbs could assume the role that truck ferrying currently fills with no negative impact and even see an improvement over the currently accepted practice by mtbrs in terms of traffic, noise and exhaust.

Those are facts. That's what I experience.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 03-09-21, 02:20 PM
  #66  
Advanced Slacker
 
Kapusta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,188

Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2749 Post(s)
Liked 2,516 Times in 1,422 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Ok.
I've reread what you've said several times and still can't make sense of it but can feel the emotionalism with which it's written. To me it's more philosophical than practical and I'm not that interested in jousting philosophies.

All I can say is I ride regularly on local trails with both manual mtb and e-mtb users and none of these doom and gloom predictions or fears have come to fruition. All riders get along and co exist. I fear getting mowed down by a reckless younger immortal rider bombing a run than a reckless e-mtb rider. Most of the latter are older, more cautious, courteous and there are usually props and regard given for riders who are cranking manually uphill. I also see how e-mtbs could assume the role that truck ferrying currently fills with no negative impact and even see an improvement over the currently accepted practice by mtbrs in terms of traffic, noise and exhaust.

Those are facts. That's what I experience.
Really? All you got was emotionalism?.

So when you say that a motor is just another tech advancement, similar to disc brakes or suspension, that is being practical When I present arguments why that’s not true that’s being philosophical.

OK, got it.

I knew I was probably wasting my time.

Last edited by Kapusta; 03-09-21 at 02:24 PM.
Kapusta is offline  
Old 03-09-21, 02:45 PM
  #67  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by Kapusta
Really? All you got was emotionalism?.

So when you say that a motor is just another tech advancement, similar to disc brakes or suspension, that is being practical When I present arguments why that’s not true that’s being philosophical.

OK, got it.

I knew I was probably wasting my time.
Yes.

All you've done is compare them to motorcycles and then expanded on the well worn and frankly out of date bike vs motorcycle debate. I am rejecting both premises as, in my real life experience, none of those boogeyman have come to fruition. They aren't motorcycles and the trails I ride haven't become a scene from "The Wild One".
You've presented no practical observations, just generalizations based on a particular philosophical bent.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 03-09-21 at 02:49 PM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 03-10-21, 08:28 AM
  #68  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Central Wisconsin
Posts: 4,601
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2965 Post(s)
Liked 1,167 Times in 763 Posts
A little older but great article...

https://www.singletracks.com/mtb-col...-satan-mostly/
prj71 is offline  
Old 03-10-21, 09:31 AM
  #69  
Advanced Slacker
 
Kapusta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,188

Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2749 Post(s)
Liked 2,516 Times in 1,422 Posts
Originally Posted by prj71
A little older but great article...

https://www.singletracks.com/mtb-col...-satan-mostly/
Not sure I go for all his arguments, but he totally gets the trail access issue. In that regard, I like that the article links to the STC's take on this: Those guys know about trail access issues and understand the issue here.
Kapusta is offline  
Old 03-10-21, 09:52 AM
  #70  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by prj71
A little older but great article...

https://www.singletracks.com/mtb-col...-satan-mostly/
An old opinion piece written by someone who is obviously biased against them. Example:

It’s true that what mountain biking is is different for everyone who participates in this great sport of ours, but in my mind, these Satan-spawn contraptions will destroy the soul of mountain biking if we let them.

Not balanced and many arguments made are avoided by simply dismissing the premise. Example:

One common argument made for ebikes and how they make the ride easier is that they’ll allow people with handicaps to ride who couldn’t otherwise. I call BS on that argument. Not only do you still need all of your faculties to control the bike, but there are plenty of badasses out there who mountain bike without an arm, with an injured or partially-amputed leg–you name it, a mountain biker has probably overcome that injury.

This, in particular, describes everone who rides Whistler or ferries a bike up an access road, as I have been describing:

Isn’t the desire to skip the difficult challenge of the climbs, so we can enjoy the sweet reward of the descent as soon as possible, so symptomatic of our fast food, instant gratification culture? Perhaps ebikes aren’t the problem, then. Perhaps they’re simply the solution that a bunch of lazy wannabe riders have been begging for because they don’t want to endure the pain of the climb.

He then makes this interesting statement which is false. In my experience mtbs and horses do not mix well regardless. Horses really don't like moving bikes on narrow trails. The "e" is irrelevant.

Arguing that mountain bikes should have access to Wilderness does not carry the risk of removing any current user groups, aka equestrians and pedestrians, from their current use of those wilderness trails.

This however, is probably the best (worst) comment. Basically, he doesn't want any more mountain bikers. He's in, the others can stay out. If you need assistance give up the activity. He should try that schtick at the Paralympics some time. Total selfish dick quote:

One final common argument for ebikes is that these contraptions, since they do make the climb easier, will help our sport to grow and help more people to enjoy mountain biking. I’ve already argued that we don’t need any more mountain bikers, and if we have to cater to laziness and sloth in order to attract more people to the sport, than I would doubly assert that we don’t need those people in our sport or our industry. Let them keep doing whatever they were doing before–not everyone needs to be a mountain biker.

Laziness and sloth... I'm a rehabilitation assistant who works with people who have impairments every day. This "they don't need to be there" attitude is totally reminiscent of the days when people argued you didn't need to create wheelchair access for buildings or graded curbs on sidewalks. He's all for protecting his little patch of heaven, which is ok I guess, if not very self-centered and limiting. Others see the bigger picture and choose to advocate for access for a larger group. That's really where the battle lines are drawn - how wide your world view is.

But thanks for the link. It's easy to see where some people on forums who espouse such sarcastic and inflammatory rhetoric get it from; almost verbatum in some cases.

Last night I went for a ride. At the top of the hill I saw an older guy sitting on a bench with an e-mtb. Because of this discussion I asked him how he liked his bike.
He said: Good enough I guess. I wouldn't be here without it.
I said: Cool and rode on.

It's too bad that some would spend so much time judging whether that guy ought to be riding his bike on that hill and what his motivations or alternatives ought to be. Just like me he was out doing his thing.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 03-10-21 at 09:56 AM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Likes For Happy Feet:
Old 03-10-21, 10:38 AM
  #71  
Advanced Slacker
 
Kapusta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,188

Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2749 Post(s)
Liked 2,516 Times in 1,422 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
Yes.

All you've done is compare them to motorcycles and then expanded on the well worn and frankly out of date bike vs motorcycle debate. I am rejecting both premises as, in my real life experience, none of those boogeyman have come to fruition. They aren't motorcycles and the trails I ride haven't become a scene from "The Wild One".
You've presented no practical observations, just generalizations based on a particular philosophical bent.
Straw man argument. You are arguing against something I never said. What exactly are the "Boogeymen" you think I was referring to? Where did I claim your trails would become a scene from the wild ones?

Last edited by Kapusta; 03-10-21 at 10:41 AM.
Kapusta is offline  
Old 03-10-21, 12:43 PM
  #72  
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 706 Posts
Originally Posted by Kapusta
Straw man argument. You are arguing against something I never said. What exactly are the "Boogeymen" you think I was referring to? Where did I claim your trails would become a scene from the wild ones?
if there are no problems why are you arguing against them?

​​​​​"I'm against e mtbs - I never said there were problems with e-mtbs".

What's the issue with them then exactly other than they are motorcycles for lazy people?

This my point. Generalizations without any specific examples. Just be afraid of the boogeyman which, in my experience, has turned out to be unfounded fear and prejudice.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 03-10-21 at 12:51 PM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 03-10-21, 03:12 PM
  #73  
Senior Member
 
mtnbud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Salem Oregon
Posts: 1,029

Bikes: 2019 Trek Stash 7, 1994 Specialized Epic 1986 Diamondback Ascent 1996 Klein Pulse Comp, 2006 Specialized Sequoia Elite

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 412 Post(s)
Liked 514 Times in 286 Posts
Originally Posted by UniChris
You really should quote something like that in context:



So yeah, Elk don't grok things that go fast on wheels, they're pretty wary of people but horses kinda make sense to them.

Overall an interesting article about some challenging realities - the mere presence of people, people on wheels, and much of it devoted to the unique issues of people on motorized things.
Agreed! - I'd have a hard time saying horses have less impact on trail conditions than mountain bikers after seeing first hand what horses do to the trails in Central Oregon. Mountainbikers do scare elk on the other hand.
mtnbud is offline  
Old 03-10-21, 03:48 PM
  #74  
Advanced Slacker
 
Kapusta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,188

Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2749 Post(s)
Liked 2,516 Times in 1,422 Posts
Originally Posted by Happy Feet
if there are no problems why are you arguing against them?

​​​​​"I'm against e mtbs - I never said there were problems with e-mtbs".

What's the issue with them then exactly other than they are motorcycles for lazy people?

This my point. Generalizations without any specific examples. Just be afraid of the boogeyman which, in my experience, has turned out to be unfounded fear and prejudice.
I am not “against eMTBS”. Nor have I made such a blanket statement.

My issue is not making a distinction between them and normal bikes.

And the issue I have about not making a distinction has to do with trail access issues for mtbs.

I think they should be allowed on some mtb trails, but the decision needs to be made based on what they actually are: motorized.

I have said all of this already.

Last edited by Kapusta; 03-10-21 at 05:58 PM.
Kapusta is offline  
Old 03-10-21, 04:04 PM
  #75  
Jedi Master
 
kingston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Lake Forest, IL
Posts: 3,724

Bikes: https://stinkston.blogspot.com/p/my-bikes.html

Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1759 Post(s)
Liked 488 Times in 313 Posts
Is there a max watts for e-bikes on trails? Seems like a couple hundred watts wouldn't be that big of a deal, but KTM makes an e-bike with 18 kW, which seems like too much for a mountain bike trail. Who gets to decide what the cutoff is? How does it get enforced?
kingston is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.