Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies
at both ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies
at both ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies
at both ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html
But equally plenty of real world examples from cars to warships and there
are a few E bikes planned using this technology.
Which allows the generation power to run a more efficient rate, or double
up for more power and so on.
Roger Merriman
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e- assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both
ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html
On 18 Apr 2026 09:06:15 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Sounds great in theory:But equally plenty of real world examples from cars to warships and there
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies
at both ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html >>
are a few E bikes planned using this technology.
Which allows the generation power to run a more efficient rate, or double
up for more power and so on.
Roger Merriman
It has a battery, so it's an E-bike with a pedal powered charging
generator.
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/2026-icetrike-e-trike-pers
--
C'est bon
Soloman
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Thursday night I was driving around to find a sandwich shop that was open and a man 0on an electric scooter passed me. I accelerated up to his speed and he was moving over 25 mph on a scooter derigned for10 moh if e-bikes are using this much power they would be going over 30 mph. This absolutely dangerous to the kids buying these things qand have no training inthe rules of the road. There is a multiways stop sign up the block from me and there is a driver of a mini-van that NEVER stops at that sign.This is a clear and present danger to any cyclist oving in the opposite direction as I usually do.
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies
at both ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html
But equally plenty of real world examples from cars to warships and there
are a few E bikes planned using this technology.
Which allows the generation power to run a more efficient rate, or double
up for more power and so on.
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:That 98% number applied to chain drives is pure BS. That is a 1 to 1 straight connection with no tilt on the chain. Under normal riding comnditions it is more like 80%. Then there are rather large tire losses and if you're the sort of person that throws the bike back and forth on climbs, tire and chain losses multiply.
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e- assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both
ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html
I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article doesn't
make any claims about efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg-driven
chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98% efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force applied
to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes close to
98%. A fixed gear with a rider using an incredibly efficient pedal
stroke might hit 90%, but such efficiency is so incredibly rare that it
can be considered to be non-existent. In reality, us hacks are lucky to
see 40% efficiency, whereas pros are in the 60% range.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17545890/
It comes down to human biomechanics - i.e. the energy expended by the
cyclist actually making it to the rear wheels. We're sloppy in terms of
what we spend versus what we put into the pedals. That said, given the
same rider, I would doubt there would be much difference in efficiency between a sprung and freewheel chain drive versus the direct electric
system. But, I'm known t be wrong about such things, and often am :).
Fixed-gears are notably more efficient because you don't have the sloppy human biomechanics being exacerbated by the combination of a freewheel
and a sprung chain (same issue for derailleur vs single-speed with
freewheel and chain tensioner). The above-mentioned white paper used an
Lode Excaliber ergometer, so the inefficiencies introduced by the
derailleur are removed, but there is still the freewheel effect.
The only drawback to the Ice Trike seems to me to be the same complaint
about e-bikes - they're simply too fast for an inexperienced rider to
handle safely.
On Sat Apr 18 09:06:15 2026 Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Sounds great in theory:But equally plenty of real world examples from cars to warships and there
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies
at both ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html >>
are a few E bikes planned using this technology.
Which allows the generation power to run a more efficient rate, or double
up for more power and so on.
Thursday night I was driving around to find a sandwich shop that was open
and a man 0on an electric scooter passed me. I accelerated up to his
speed and he was moving over 25 mph on a scooter derigned for10 moh if e-bikes are using this much power they would be going over 30 mph. This absolutely dangerous to the kids buying these things qand have no
training inthe rules of the road. There is a multiways stop sign up the
block from me and there is a driver of a mini-van that NEVER stops at
that sign.This is a clear and present danger to any cyclist oving in the opposite direction as I usually do.
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both
ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html
I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article doesn't
make any claims about efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg-driven
chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98% >efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force applied
to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes close to
98%.
A fixed gear with a rider using an incredibly efficient pedal
stroke might hit 90%, but such efficiency is so incredibly rare that it
can be considered to be non-existent.
The only drawback to the Ice Trike seems to me to be the same complaint >about e-bikes - they're simply too fast for an inexperienced rider to
handle safely.
On Sat Apr 18 08:01:54 2026 zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article doesn't
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both
ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html >>
make any claims about efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg-driven
chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98%
efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force applied
to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes close to
98%. A fixed gear with a rider using an incredibly efficient pedal
stroke might hit 90%, but such efficiency is so incredibly rare that it
can be considered to be non-existent. In reality, us hacks are lucky to
see 40% efficiency, whereas pros are in the 60% range.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17545890/
It comes down to human biomechanics - i.e. the energy expended by the
cyclist actually making it to the rear wheels. We're sloppy in terms of
what we spend versus what we put into the pedals. That said, given the
same rider, I would doubt there would be much difference in efficiency
between a sprung and freewheel chain drive versus the direct electric
system. But, I'm known t be wrong about such things, and often am :).
Fixed-gears are notably more efficient because you don't have the sloppy
human biomechanics being exacerbated by the combination of a freewheel
and a sprung chain (same issue for derailleur vs single-speed with
freewheel and chain tensioner). The above-mentioned white paper used an
Lode Excaliber ergometer, so the inefficiencies introduced by the
derailleur are removed, but there is still the freewheel effect.
The only drawback to the Ice Trike seems to me to be the same complaint
about e-bikes - they're simply too fast for an inexperienced rider to
handle safely.
That 98% number applied to chain drives is pure BS. That is a 1 to 1 straight connection with no tilt on the chain. Under normal riding comnditions it is more like 80%. Then there are rather large tire losses and if you're the sort of person that throws the bike back and forth on climbs, tire and chain losses multiply.
Bicycles are the most efficient form of travel, but that is too overstated and none of the numbers can be trusted. Chain losses really climb if you use anything but a freshly waxed chain.
Am Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:01:54 -0400 schrieb zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article doesn't
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both
ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html >>
make any claims about efficiency.
That shouldn't prohibit one to comment about it.
Indeed it doesn't. Most probably because there isn't much
efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg-driven
chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98%
efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force applied
to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes close to
98%.
It wouldn't come close to 98% on the mechanics that drive the
generator of that "new chainless e-assist system", either. It's
an additional loss. It just doesn't matter.
Point is, if there isn't any real reason to avoid losses in a so
called "e-assist system", there won't be much engineering to
actually do so. Especially so, if there isn't any way to actually
feel or measure those losses. The motor in such e-assist systems
is typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite
some time, in comparison to what the driver has to deliver.
In fact, the pedals on these vehicles are a slightly stiff
version of the accelerator pedal in a car or the throttle grip on
a motorcycle, coupled with electronics that simulate the
behaviour of very strong rider on a lightweight bicycle - coupled
with electronics that simulate the behaviour of very strong rider
on a lightweight bicycle.
A fixed gear with a rider using an incredibly efficient pedal
stroke might hit 90%, but such efficiency is so incredibly rare that it
can be considered to be non-existent.
Doesn't matter, as long as as the generator of the vehicle in
question is operated the same way. In fact, greater losses are to
be expected, since the availability of ample engine power means
there is no longer any need to prioritize the efficiency of the
pedal drive.
[...]
The only drawback to the Ice Trike seems to me to be the same complaint
about e-bikes - they're simply too fast for an inexperienced rider to
handle safely.
That may well be true. I believe that the misconception created
by the illusion of riding a bicycle instead of a motor vehicle is
more harmful in the long run.
On paper, the engine of such vehicles delivers at most four times
the power the driver exerts. Since the human power curve is not
taken into account, the actual ratio of work expended to power
delivered might be significantly higher. Compare what you are
able deliver for five seconds to what you can for one hour. For
me, it's >530 W vs. 94 W.
Am Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:01:54 -0400 schrieb zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article doesn't
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both
ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html >>
make any claims about efficiency.
That shouldn't prohibit one to comment about it.
Indeed it doesn't. Most probably because there isn't much
efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg-driven
chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98%
efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force applied
to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes close to
98%.
It wouldn't come close to 98% on the mechanics that drive the
generator of that "new chainless e-assist system", either. It's
an additional loss.
It just doesn't matter.
Point is, if there isn't any real reason to avoid losses in a so
called "e-assist system", there won't be much engineering to
actually do so.
Especially so, if there isn't any way to actually
feel or measure those losses.
The motor in such e-assist systems
is typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite
some time, in comparison to what the driver has to deliver.
In fact, the pedals on these vehicles are a slightly stiff
version of the accelerator pedal in a car or the throttle grip on
a motorcycle, coupled with electronics that simulate the
behaviour of very strong rider on a lightweight bicycle - coupled
with electronics that simulate the behaviour of very strong rider
on a lightweight bicycle.
A fixed gear with a rider using an incredibly efficient pedal
stroke might hit 90%, but such efficiency is so incredibly rare that it
can be considered to be non-existent.
Doesn't matter, as long as as the generator of the vehicle in
question is operated the same way.
In fact, greater losses are to
be expected, since the availability of ample engine power means
there is no longer any need to prioritize the efficiency of the
pedal drive.
[...]
The only drawback to the Ice Trike seems to me to be the same complaint
about e-bikes - they're simply too fast for an inexperienced rider to
handle safely.
That may well be true. I believe that the misconception created
by the illusion of riding a bicycle instead of a motor vehicle is
more harmful in the long run.
On paper, the engine of such vehicles delivers at most four times
the power the driver exerts. Since the human power curve is not
taken into account, the actual ratio of work expended to power
delivered might be significantly higher. Compare what you are
able deliver for five seconds to what you can for one hour. For
me, it's >530 W vs. 94 W.
ThatrCOs clearly not the aim of the trike or indeed any E assist bikes, as >will use the batteries and motor to make it easier to ride.
On 4/19/2026 1:56 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:01:54 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article doesn't
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both
ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/ >>>>
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html >>>
make any claims about efficiency.
That shouldn't prohibit one to comment about it.
Exactly, which is why I asked him to explain. I didn't suggest he
shouldn't be commenting.
Indeed it doesn't. Most probably because there isn't much
efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg-driven
chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98%
efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force applied
to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes close to
98%.
It wouldn't come close to 98% on the mechanics that drive the
generator of that "new chainless e-assist system", either. It's
an additional loss.
Which is exactly the point
It just doesn't matter.
It does if the complaint is over efficiency.
Point is, if there isn't any real reason to avoid losses in a so
called "e-assist system", there won't be much engineering to
actually do so.
There isn't? Extending the range of a fully charged system by making the >system more efficient isn't a good marketing strategy? Someone should
tell Tesla.
Especially so, if there isn't any way to actually
feel or measure those losses.
"feel"...maybe not. "measure" - most definitely there is, quite easily
in fact, reference my previously linked article for human biomechanics
and Andrews linked EE articles on motor/generator efficiency.
The motor in such e-assist systems
is typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite
some time, in comparison to what the driver has to deliver.
Which would seem to imply it in has in fact been measured.
That may well be true. I believe that the misconception created
by the illusion of riding a bicycle instead of a motor vehicle is
more harmful in the long run.
That depends on the angle of your argument. If the point is to convince >someone that a e-bike/trike can be used in lieu of a car for certain
types of trips to reduce traffic congestion, save money on gasoline,
parking fees, tolls, etc, it's not a misconception.
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 19:24:55 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sat Apr 18 08:01:54 2026 zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article doesn't
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both
ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/ >>>>
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html >>>
make any claims about efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg-driven
chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98%
efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force applied >>> to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes close to
98%. A fixed gear with a rider using an incredibly efficient pedal
stroke might hit 90%, but such efficiency is so incredibly rare that it >>> can be considered to be non-existent. In reality, us hacks are lucky to >>> see 40% efficiency, whereas pros are in the 60% range.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17545890/
It comes down to human biomechanics - i.e. the energy expended by the
cyclist actually making it to the rear wheels. We're sloppy in terms of >>> what we spend versus what we put into the pedals. That said, given the
same rider, I would doubt there would be much difference in efficiency
between a sprung and freewheel chain drive versus the direct electric
system. But, I'm known t be wrong about such things, and often am :).
Fixed-gears are notably more efficient because you don't have the sloppy >>> human biomechanics being exacerbated by the combination of a freewheel
and a sprung chain (same issue for derailleur vs single-speed with
freewheel and chain tensioner). The above-mentioned white paper used an >>> Lode Excaliber ergometer, so the inefficiencies introduced by the
derailleur are removed, but there is still the freewheel effect.
The only drawback to the Ice Trike seems to me to be the same complaint >>> about e-bikes - they're simply too fast for an inexperienced rider to
handle safely.
That 98% number applied to chain drives is pure BS. That is a 1 to 1
straight connection with no tilt on the chain. Under normal riding
comnditions it is more like 80%. Then there are rather large tire losses
and if you're the sort of person that throws the bike back and forth on
climbs, tire and chain losses multiply.
Bicycles are the most efficient form of travel, but that is too
overstated and none of the numbers can be trusted. Chain losses really
climb if you use anything but a freshly waxed chain.
I haven't joined the waxed chain crowd. I use Finish line dry lube,
and if I get caught in the rain, I quickly apply finish Line wet lube
as I put the bike away. I use Finish Line applicators in both cases. I
run the chain around several times and then wipe down with a shop rag.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Am 19 Apr 2026 11:13:14 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
ThatrCOs clearly not the aim of the trike or indeed any E assist bikes, as >> will use the batteries and motor to make it easier to ride.
That goes without saying. It applies to every motorcycle. But if
you ask former cyclists whether e-assist bikes offer the same
fitness benefits as regular bikes, ten out of ten will say, rCLOf
course they do! I read it in the news!rCY
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 19:24:55 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>As ever you can over think these things, i have found that the wax lubes
wrote:
On Sat Apr 18 08:01:54 2026 zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article doesn't
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both >>>>> ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/ >>>>>
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html >>>>
make any claims about efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg-driven >>>> chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98% >>>> efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force applied >>>> to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes close to
98%. A fixed gear with a rider using an incredibly efficient pedal
stroke might hit 90%, but such efficiency is so incredibly rare that it >>>> can be considered to be non-existent. In reality, us hacks are lucky to >>>> see 40% efficiency, whereas pros are in the 60% range.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17545890/
It comes down to human biomechanics - i.e. the energy expended by the >>>> cyclist actually making it to the rear wheels. We're sloppy in terms of >>>> what we spend versus what we put into the pedals. That said, given the >>>> same rider, I would doubt there would be much difference in efficiency >>>> between a sprung and freewheel chain drive versus the direct electric >>>> system. But, I'm known t be wrong about such things, and often am :).
Fixed-gears are notably more efficient because you don't have the sloppy >>>> human biomechanics being exacerbated by the combination of a freewheel >>>> and a sprung chain (same issue for derailleur vs single-speed with
freewheel and chain tensioner). The above-mentioned white paper used an >>>> Lode Excaliber ergometer, so the inefficiencies introduced by the
derailleur are removed, but there is still the freewheel effect.
The only drawback to the Ice Trike seems to me to be the same complaint >>>> about e-bikes - they're simply too fast for an inexperienced rider to >>>> handle safely.
That 98% number applied to chain drives is pure BS. That is a 1 to 1
straight connection with no tilt on the chain. Under normal riding
comnditions it is more like 80%. Then there are rather large tire losses >>> and if you're the sort of person that throws the bike back and forth on
climbs, tire and chain losses multiply.
Bicycles are the most efficient form of travel, but that is too
overstated and none of the numbers can be trusted. Chain losses really
climb if you use anything but a freshly waxed chain.
I haven't joined the waxed chain crowd. I use Finish line dry lube,
and if I get caught in the rain, I quickly apply finish Line wet lube
as I put the bike away. I use Finish Line applicators in both cases. I
run the chain around several times and then wipe down with a shop rag.
are generally cleaner, ie no need to remove the gunk and some are okay even >in uk soggy conditions, the rained every day for month this winter perhaps >not so much, though okay for the commute as long as it was drizzle not >downpours.
But you probably do more cleaning than I and chains etc probably last fine, >mine tend to start sloppy shifting and hit the wear marks around the 3K
mark.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
Wolfgang Strobl <news51@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am 19 Apr 2026 11:13:14 GMT schrieb Roger MerrimanReally? CanrCOt think of any of the cyclists I know even the ones with E >bikes, who think that!
<roger@sarlet.com>:
ThatrCOs clearly not the aim of the trike or indeed any E assist bikes, as >>> will use the batteries and motor to make it easier to ride.
That goes without saying. It applies to every motorcycle. But if
you ask former cyclists whether e-assist bikes offer the same
fitness benefits as regular bikes, ten out of ten will say, rCLOf
course they do! I read it in the news!rCY
Am Sun, 19 Apr 2026 08:50:16 -0400 schrieb zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/19/2026 1:56 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:01:54 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article doesn't
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both >>>>> ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/ >>>>>
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html >>>>
make any claims about efficiency.
That shouldn't prohibit one to comment about it.
Exactly, which is why I asked him to explain. I didn't suggest he
shouldn't be commenting.
I'm not sure I understand.
E-*assist* formerly implied that a
motor assists the rider. In current times, it's mostly the other
way round, a rider assist a more powerfull engine.
But even in
that case, I'd expect that effienciy matters, at least a bit,
just like it does for real bicycles.
claim about efficiency, when obvious inefficiencies aren't
mentioned.
Indeed it doesn't. Most probably because there isn't much
efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg-driven >>>> chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98% >>>> efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force applied >>>> to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes close to
98%.
It wouldn't come close to 98% on the mechanics that drive the
generator of that "new chainless e-assist system", either. It's
an additional loss.
Which is exactly the point
It just doesn't matter.
It does if the complaint is over efficiency.
A rider of an e-bike has no reason to complain, as long as the
engine is able to deliver more power than necessary. Which is
usually the case.
Point is, if there isn't any real reason to avoid losses in a so
called "e-assist system", there won't be much engineering to
actually do so.
There isn't? Extending the range of a fully charged system by making the
system more efficient isn't a good marketing strategy? Someone should
tell Tesla.
I call bullshit. We are talking about E-Bikes, not about
powerfull cars sold by a company owned by a sociopath. Bosch will
gladly sell you an additional battery for your PowerTube 800 in
order to extend you mileage from 136 miles to 274 miles (that's
219 km and 442 km, in Europe).
Most people in Germany or Denmark own a bicycle. They ride about
500 km per year, on average. So a single charge is good for
about five months, on average, or for ten months, if they take
the DualBattery option, see the link below. Efficiency doesn't
matter anymore, for most people who ride those eBikes.
E-bikers usually don't care about weight, anymore, either. If
that weren't the case, you wouldn't see so many heavy electric
cargo bikes on the streets carrying no more than what would fit
on a lightweight touring bike with a rack.
Have look at
<https://www.bosch-ebike.com/en/service/range-assistant/>,
default values, then choose "DualBattery".
Especially so, if there isn't any way to actually
feel or measure those losses.
"feel"...maybe not. "measure" - most definitely there is, quite easily
in fact, reference my previously linked article for human biomechanics
and Andrews linked EE articles on motor/generator efficiency.
I call bullshit, again. We aren't talking about what engineers
are able to measure in a laboratory,
but about what people riding
ebikes acually are able to notice, if they care at all. These
e-assist systems are quite good at making the driver feel
particularly powerful, even though most of the power comes from
the engine.
The motor in such e-assist systems
is typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite
some time, in comparison to what the driver has to deliver.
Which would seem to imply it in has in fact been measured.
... by the manufacturer who made that claim in their ads. Your
point?
[...]
That may well be true. I believe that the misconception created
by the illusion of riding a bicycle instead of a motor vehicle is
more harmful in the long run.
That depends on the angle of your argument. If the point is to convince
someone that a e-bike/trike can be used in lieu of a car for certain
types of trips to reduce traffic congestion, save money on gasoline,
parking fees, tolls, etc, it's not a misconception.
My point boils down to the fact that that a motorcycle isn't a
bicycle. Don't know about the US of A, but in my country and
most of Europe people have been made to believe that eBikes _are_
bicycles and so have the same or most of the benefits as what
some people nowadays call "biobikes", i.e. bicycles that are
powered by the people riding these bicycles. In fact, a bit more
than a decade ago powerfull eBikes have been made bicycles by
law, in my country.
Most people now believe that riding a an eBike (e-assist)
delivers the same or even more fitness benefits than riding a
bicycle.
Scientific papers have been written that claimed that
people on average ride some five to twenty percent longer
distances, when switching from a bicycle to an eBike.
This is policy based evidence, IMO, obesity crisis be dammed.
The
automobile industry lobby is strong in my country.
E-bikes were originally marketed as a boon for the elderly and
then legally classified as bicycles. Nowadays, however,
advertising has long since shifted its focus to teenagers and
even children.
For young people who grow up with e-bikes, a seamless transition
from e-bike to first car is a given. Perhaps, in the US this is
the normal case anyway, but it hasn't been the case in most of
Europe, so far. Maybe that explains my point of view.
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 19:24:55 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sat Apr 18 08:01:54 2026 zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article doesn't
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both >>>>> ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/ >>>>>
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html >>>>
make any claims about efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg-driven >>>> chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98% >>>> efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force applied >>>> to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes close to
98%. A fixed gear with a rider using an incredibly efficient pedal
stroke might hit 90%, but such efficiency is so incredibly rare that it >>>> can be considered to be non-existent. In reality, us hacks are lucky to >>>> see 40% efficiency, whereas pros are in the 60% range.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17545890/
It comes down to human biomechanics - i.e. the energy expended by the
cyclist actually making it to the rear wheels. We're sloppy in terms of >>>> what we spend versus what we put into the pedals. That said, given the >>>> same rider, I would doubt there would be much difference in efficiency >>>> between a sprung and freewheel chain drive versus the direct electric
system. But, I'm known t be wrong about such things, and often am :).
Fixed-gears are notably more efficient because you don't have the sloppy >>>> human biomechanics being exacerbated by the combination of a freewheel >>>> and a sprung chain (same issue for derailleur vs single-speed with
freewheel and chain tensioner). The above-mentioned white paper used an >>>> Lode Excaliber ergometer, so the inefficiencies introduced by the
derailleur are removed, but there is still the freewheel effect.
The only drawback to the Ice Trike seems to me to be the same complaint >>>> about e-bikes - they're simply too fast for an inexperienced rider to
handle safely.
That 98% number applied to chain drives is pure BS.
That is a 1 to 1
straight connection with no tilt on the chain. Under normal riding
comnditions it is more like 80%. Then there are rather large tire losses >>> and if you're the sort of person that throws the bike back and forth on
climbs, tire and chain losses multiply.
On 4/19/2026 1:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 19 Apr 2026 08:50:16 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/19/2026 1:56 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:01:54 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-
chainless-pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked
inefficiencies at both
ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-
of-an-alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-
efficiency-d_655.html
I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The
article doesn't
make any claims about efficiency.
That shouldn't prohibit one to comment about it.
Exactly, which is why I asked him to explain. I didn't
suggest he
shouldn't be commenting.
I'm not sure I understand.
Andrew referenced two articles about efficiency in motor
drive drive systems in a comment about an e-trike. I asked
him to explain his position. Is that better?
E-*assist* formerly implied that a
motor assists the rider. In current times, it's mostly the
other
way round, a rider assist a more powerfull engine.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the tricycle in the
article doesn't move without rider input to the pedals.
You're arguing a different point.
But even in
that case, I'd expect that effienciy matters, at least a bit,
just like it does for real bicycles.
So which is it? Is it "I'd expect that effienciy matters" or
"It just doesn't matter"? You just completely contradicted
yourself in two consecutive posts.
-a So there is an implied
claim about efficiency, when obvious inefficiencies aren't
mentioned.
I call bullshit. The article doesn't mention anything about
efficiency, doesn't imply anything about efficiency. It's
marketing an e-trike without a chain drive. Period. You're
reading something into it that isn't there.
Indeed it doesn't. Most probably because there isn't much
efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses
in a leg-driven
chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on
the order of 98%
efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in
the force applied
to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never
becomes close to
98%.
It wouldn't come close to 98% on the mechanics that
drive the
generator of that "new chainless e-assist system",
either. It's
an additional loss.
Which is exactly the point
It just doesn't matter.
It does if the complaint is over efficiency.
A rider of an e-bike has no reason to complain, as long as
the
engine is able to deliver more power than necessary.
Which is
usually the case.
And I wasn't asking about an e-bike riders complaints. I was
asking Andrew to clarify _his_ complaint.
Point is, if there isn't any real reason to avoid losses
in a so
called "e-assist system", there won't be much
engineering to
actually do so.
There isn't? Extending the range of a fully charged
system by making the
system more efficient isn't a good marketing strategy?
Someone should
tell Tesla.
I call bullshit.-a We are talking about E-Bikes, not about
powerfull cars sold by a company owned by a sociopath.
Bosch will
gladly sell you an additional battery for your PowerTube
800 in
order to extend you mileage from 136 miles to 274 miles
(that's
219 km and 442 km, in Europe).
Putting in a bigger battery is a compensation for the lack
of efficiency, not making it more efficient. Companies
_like_ tesla would prefer efficiency over just stuffing in a
bigger battery (greedy sociopathic megalomania
notwithstanding).
Most people in Germany or Denmark own a bicycle. They ride
about
500 km per year, on average.-a So a single charge is good for
about five months, on average, or for ten months, if they
take
the DualBattery option, see the link below.-a Efficiency
doesn't
matter anymore, for most people who ride those eBikes.
E-bikers usually don't care about weight, anymore, either. If
that weren't the case, you wouldn't see so many heavy
electric
cargo bikes on the streets carrying no more than what
would fit
on a lightweight touring bike with a rack.
Have look at
<https://www.bosch-ebike.com/en/service/range-assistant/>,
default values, then choose "DualBattery".
Which again, is why I asked Andrew to clarify his position.
Especially so, if there isn't any way to actually
feel or measure those losses.
"feel"...maybe not. "measure" - most definitely there is,
quite easily
in fact, reference my previously linked article for human
biomechanics
and Andrews linked EE articles on motor/generator
efficiency.
I call bullshit, again. We aren't talking about what
engineers
are able to measure in a laboratory,
In fact, you did exactly that, right after you claimed it
couldn't be done. "there isn't any way to actually feel or
measure those losses" followed by "the motor in such e-
assist systems is typically capable of delivering a nominal
400% power for quite some time".
but about what people riding
ebikes acually are able to notice, if they care at all.
These
e-assist systems are quite good at making the driver feel
particularly powerful, even though most of the power comes
from
the engine.
The motor in such e-assist systems
is typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power
for quite
some time, in comparison to what the driver has to deliver.
Which would seem to imply it in has in fact been measured.
... by the manufacturer who made that claim in their ads.
Your
point?
No, by your response "the motor in such e-assist systems is
typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for
quite some time," you made a generic claim, you didn't
reference the article. For that matter, the point still
stands that such comparisons can be and are empirically
measured, so your claim "there isn't any way to actually
feel or measure those losses" is patently and demonstrably
false.
[...]
That may well be true. I believe that the misconception
created
by the illusion of riding a bicycle instead of a motor
vehicle is
more harmful in the long run.
That depends on the angle of your argument. If the point
is to convince
someone that a e-bike/trike can be used in lieu of a car
for certain
types of trips to reduce traffic congestion, save money
on gasoline,
parking fees, tolls, etc, it's not a misconception.
My point boils down to the fact that that a motorcycle
isn't a
bicycle.-a Don't know about the US of A, but in my country and
most of Europe people have been made to believe that
eBikes _are_
bicycles and so have the same or most of the benefits as what
some people nowadays call "biobikes", i.e. bicycles that are
powered by the people riding these bicycles.-a In fact, a
bit more
than a decade ago powerfull eBikes have been made bicycles by
law, in my country.
Most people now believe that riding a an eBike (e-assist)
delivers the same or even more fitness benefits than riding a
bicycle.
I call bullshit. I haven't read any article or advertisement
that claims equivalence, and I don't beleive the prevailing
opinion is that. Sure, some people _may_ think that, but
some people also believe trump is a fine moral upstanding
man and a great president.
Scientific papers have been written that claimed that
people on average ride some five to twenty percent longer
distances, when switching from a bicycle to an eBike.
Do any of those papers claim riding an e-bike holds the same
health benefits? I'd really love for you to post a reference
that makes such a claim.
This is policy based evidence, IMO, obesity crisis be dammed.
There's a policy to claim riding an e-bike offers the same
health benefits as a regular bike? Again, I'd really love
for you to post a reference that makes such a claim.
The
automobile industry lobby is strong in my country.
One would think they would be campaigning _against_ a far
cheaper transportation option then, rather than supporting
some implied claim that riding an e-bike offers the same
health benefits as a regular bike.
E-bikes were originally marketed as a boon for the elderly
and
then legally classified as bicycles.-a Nowadays, however,
advertising has long since shifted its focus to teenagers and
even children.
For young people who grow up with e-bikes, a seamless
transition
from e-bike to first car is a given.-a Perhaps, in the US
this is
the normal case anyway, but it hasn't been the case in
most of
Europe, so far.-a Maybe that explains my point of view.
You just seem angry. Try and relax. Maybe go for a bike ride?
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 19:24:55 GMT, cyclintom
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sat Apr 18 08:01:54 2026 zen cycle-a wrote:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-
chainless-pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked
inefficiencies at both
ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-
of-an-alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-
efficiency-d_655.html
I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The
article doesn't
make any claims about efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses
in a leg-driven
chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on
the order of 98%
efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in
the force applied
to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never
becomes close to
98%. A fixed gear with a rider using an incredibly
efficient pedal
stroke might hit 90%, but such efficiency is so
incredibly rare that it
can be considered to be non-existent. In reality, us
hacks are lucky to
see 40% efficiency, whereas pros are in the 60% range.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17545890/
It comes down to human biomechanics - i.e. the energy
expended by the
cyclist actually making it to the rear wheels. We're
sloppy in terms of
what we spend versus what we put into the pedals. That
said, given the
same rider, I would doubt there would be much
difference in efficiency
between a sprung and freewheel chain drive versus the
direct electric
system. But, I'm known t be wrong about such things,
and often am :).
Fixed-gears are notably more efficient because you
don't have the sloppy
human biomechanics being exacerbated by the combination
of a freewheel
and a sprung chain (same issue for derailleur vs
single-speed with
freewheel and chain tensioner). The above-mentioned
white paper used an
Lode Excaliber ergometer, so the inefficiencies
introduced by the
derailleur are removed, but there is still the
freewheel effect.
The only drawback to the Ice Trike seems to me to be
the same complaint
about e-bikes - they're simply too fast for an
inexperienced rider to
handle safely.
That 98% number applied to chain drives is pure BS.
No, dumbass, it isn't.
https://ceramicspeed.com/pages/chain-efficiency-vs-rider-
output#
"The chain efficiency ranges from an average of 92.1% at 40W
load to an average of 97.8% at 400W load. "
https://www.renold.com/upload/renoldswitzerland/ roller_chain_designer_guide.pdf
Page 3 - "Modern chain has features incorporated which
enable demanding
applications to be tackled with ease. These include high
wear and
fatigue resistance and transmission efficiency of around 98%."
That is a 1 to 1
straight connection with no tilt on the chain. Under
normal riding
comnditions it is more like 80%. Then there are rather
large tire losses
and if you're the sort of person that throws the bike
back and forth on
climbs, tire and chain losses multiply.
Which is why I wrote:
"a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98%
efficient"
Operative word "_can_"
Followed by
"In reality, us hacks are lucky to see 40% efficiency,
whereas pros are in the 60% range.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17545890/"
Try paying attention.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 19:24:55 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sat Apr 18 08:01:54 2026 zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e- >>>>> assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both >>>>> ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/ >>>>>
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html
I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article doesn't >>>> make any claims about efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg-driven >>>> chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98% >>>> efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force applied >>>> to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes close to >>>> 98%. A fixed gear with a rider using an incredibly efficient pedal
stroke might hit 90%, but such efficiency is so incredibly rare that it >>>> can be considered to be non-existent. In reality, us hacks are lucky to >>>> see 40% efficiency, whereas pros are in the 60% range.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17545890/
It comes down to human biomechanics - i.e. the energy expended by the >>>> cyclist actually making it to the rear wheels. We're sloppy in terms of >>>> what we spend versus what we put into the pedals. That said, given the >>>> same rider, I would doubt there would be much difference in efficiency >>>> between a sprung and freewheel chain drive versus the direct electric >>>> system. But, I'm known t be wrong about such things, and often am :). >>>>
Fixed-gears are notably more efficient because you don't have the sloppy >>>> human biomechanics being exacerbated by the combination of a freewheel >>>> and a sprung chain (same issue for derailleur vs single-speed with
freewheel and chain tensioner). The above-mentioned white paper used an >>>> Lode Excaliber ergometer, so the inefficiencies introduced by the
derailleur are removed, but there is still the freewheel effect.
The only drawback to the Ice Trike seems to me to be the same complaint >>>> about e-bikes - they're simply too fast for an inexperienced rider to >>>> handle safely.
That 98% number applied to chain drives is pure BS.
No, dumbass, it isn't.
https://ceramicspeed.com/pages/chain-efficiency-vs-rider-output#
"The chain efficiency ranges from an average of 92.1% at 40W load to an average of 97.8% at 400W load. "
https://www.renold.com/upload/renoldswitzerland/roller_chain_designer_guide.pdf
Page 3 - "Modern chain has features incorporated which enable demanding applications to be tackled with ease. These include high wear and
fatigue resistance and transmission efficiency of around 98%."
That is a 1 to 1
straight connection with no tilt on the chain. Under normal riding
comnditions it is more like 80%. Then there are rather large tire losses >>> and if you're the sort of person that throws the bike back and forth on >>> climbs, tire and chain losses multiply.
Which is why I wrote:
"a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98% efficient"
Operative word "_can_"
Followed by
"In reality, us hacks are lucky to see 40% efficiency, whereas pros are
in the 60% range.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17545890/"
Try paying attention.
I was paying very close attention showing tests of new chains with new lube and a straight pull, tell us nothing and your 40% number is equally unlikely. I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to clear the falacious numbers quoted everywhere.On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 19:24:55 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sat Apr 18 08:01:54 2026 zen cycle wrote:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e- >>>>> assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both >>>>> ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/ >>>>>
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html
I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article doesn't >>>> make any claims about efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg-driven >>>> chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98% >>>> efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force applied >>>> to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes close to >>>> 98%. A fixed gear with a rider using an incredibly efficient pedal
stroke might hit 90%, but such efficiency is so incredibly rare that it >>>> can be considered to be non-existent. In reality, us hacks are lucky to >>>> see 40% efficiency, whereas pros are in the 60% range.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17545890/
It comes down to human biomechanics - i.e. the energy expended by the >>>> cyclist actually making it to the rear wheels. We're sloppy in terms of >>>> what we spend versus what we put into the pedals. That said, given the >>>> same rider, I would doubt there would be much difference in efficiency >>>> between a sprung and freewheel chain drive versus the direct electric >>>> system. But, I'm known t be wrong about such things, and often am :). >>>>
Fixed-gears are notably more efficient because you don't have the sloppy >>>> human biomechanics being exacerbated by the combination of a freewheel >>>> and a sprung chain (same issue for derailleur vs single-speed with
freewheel and chain tensioner). The above-mentioned white paper used an >>>> Lode Excaliber ergometer, so the inefficiencies introduced by the
derailleur are removed, but there is still the freewheel effect.
The only drawback to the Ice Trike seems to me to be the same complaint >>>> about e-bikes - they're simply too fast for an inexperienced rider to >>>> handle safely.
That 98% number applied to chain drives is pure BS.
No, dumbass, it isn't.
https://ceramicspeed.com/pages/chain-efficiency-vs-rider-output#
"The chain efficiency ranges from an average of 92.1% at 40W load to an average of 97.8% at 400W load. "
https://www.renold.com/upload/renoldswitzerland/roller_chain_designer_guide.pdf
Page 3 - "Modern chain has features incorporated which enable demanding applications to be tackled with ease. These include high wear and
fatigue resistance and transmission efficiency of around 98%."
That is a 1 to 1
straight connection with no tilt on the chain. Under normal riding
comnditions it is more like 80%. Then there are rather large tire losses >>> and if you're the sort of person that throws the bike back and forth on >>> climbs, tire and chain losses multiply.
Which is why I wrote:
"a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98% efficient"
Operative word "_can_"
Followed by
"In reality, us hacks are lucky to see 40% efficiency, whereas pros are
in the 60% range.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17545890/"
Try paying attention.
Am Sun, 19 Apr 2026 08:50:16 -0400 schrieb zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/19/2026 1:56 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:01:54 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both >>>> ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/ >>>>
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html
I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article doesn't
make any claims about efficiency.
That shouldn't prohibit one to comment about it.
Exactly, which is why I asked him to explain. I didn't suggest he
shouldn't be commenting.
I'm not sure I understand. E-*assist* formerly implied that a
motor assists the rider. In current times, it's mostly the other
way round, a rider assist a more powerfull engine. But even in
that case, I'd expect that effienciy matters, at least a bit,
just like it does for real bicycles. So there is an implied
claim about efficiency, when obvious inefficiencies aren't
mentioned.
Indeed it doesn't. Most probably because there isn't much
efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg-driven >>> chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98% >>> efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force applied >>> to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes close to
98%.
It wouldn't come close to 98% on the mechanics that drive the
generator of that "new chainless e-assist system", either. It's
an additional loss.
Which is exactly the point
It just doesn't matter.
It does if the complaint is over efficiency.
A rider of an e-bike has no reason to complain, as long as the
engine is able to deliver more power than necessary. Which is
usually the case.
Point is, if there isn't any real reason to avoid losses in a so
called "e-assist system", there won't be much engineering to
actually do so.
There isn't? Extending the range of a fully charged system by making the >system more efficient isn't a good marketing strategy? Someone should
tell Tesla.
I call bullshit. We are talking about E-Bikes, not about
powerfull cars sold by a company owned by a sociopath. Bosch will
gladly sell you an additional battery for your PowerTube 800 in
order to extend you mileage from 136 miles to 274 miles (that's
219 km and 442 km, in Europe).
Most people in Germany or Denmark own a bicycle. They ride about
500 km per year, on average. So a single charge is good for
about five months, on average, or for ten months, if they take
the DualBattery option, see the link below. Efficiency doesn't
matter anymore, for most people who ride those eBikes.
E-bikers usually don't care about weight, anymore, either. If
that weren't the case, you wouldn't see so many heavy electric
cargo bikes on the streets carrying no more than what would fit
on a lightweight touring bike with a rack.
Have look at
<https://www.bosch-ebike.com/en/service/range-assistant/>,
default values, then choose "DualBattery".
Especially so, if there isn't any way to actually
feel or measure those losses.
"feel"...maybe not. "measure" - most definitely there is, quite easily
in fact, reference my previously linked article for human biomechanics
and Andrews linked EE articles on motor/generator efficiency.
I call bullshit, again. We aren't talking about what engineers
are able to measure in a laboratory, but about what people riding
ebikes acually are able to notice, if they care at all. These
e-assist systems are quite good at making the driver feel
particularly powerful, even though most of the power comes from
the engine.
The motor in such e-assist systems
is typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite
some time, in comparison to what the driver has to deliver.
Which would seem to imply it in has in fact been measured.
... by the manufacturer who made that claim in their ads. Your
point?
[...]Electric motors are all better than 80% efficiebt.Tesla exceeds 92$, But converstion from fossil fuels to electricity is in the 30% range. Solar cells NEVER make back their own cost and the efficienct of windmills at 35% is exaggerated.
That may well be true. I believe that the misconception created
by the illusion of riding a bicycle instead of a motor vehicle is
more harmful in the long run.
That depends on the angle of your argument. If the point is to convince >someone that a e-bike/trike can be used in lieu of a car for certain
types of trips to reduce traffic congestion, save money on gasoline, >parking fees, tolls, etc, it's not a misconception.
My point boils down to the fact that that a motorcycle isn't a
bicycle. Don't know about the US of A, but in my country and
most of Europe people have been made to believe that eBikes _are_
bicycles and so have the same or most of the benefits as what
some people nowadays call "biobikes", i.e. bicycles that are
powered by the people riding these bicycles. In fact, a bit more
than a decade ago powerfull eBikes have been made bicycles by
law, in my country.
Most people now believe that riding a an eBike (e-assist)
delivers the same or even more fitness benefits than riding a
bicycle. Scientific papers have been written that claimed that
people on average ride some five to twenty percent longer
distances, when switching from a bicycle to an eBike.
This is policy based evidence, IMO, obesity crisis be dammed. The
automobile industry lobby is strong in my country.
E-bikes were originally marketed as a boon for the elderly and
then legally classified as bicycles. Nowadays, however,
advertising has long since shifted its focus to teenagers and
even children.
For young people who grow up with e-bikes, a seamless transition
from e-bike to first car is a given. Perhaps, in the US this is
the normal case anyway, but it hasn't been the case in most of
Europe, so far. Maybe that explains my point of view.
On 4/19/2026 1:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 19 Apr 2026 08:50:16 -0400 schrieb zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/19/2026 1:56 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:01:54 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-chainless-pers-e- >>>>> assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both >>>>> ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency-of-an-alternator/ >>>>>
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html
I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article doesn't >>>> make any claims about efficiency.
That shouldn't prohibit one to comment about it.
Exactly, which is why I asked him to explain. I didn't suggest he
shouldn't be commenting.
I'm not sure I understand.
Andrew referenced two articles about efficiency in motor drive drive
systems in a comment about an e-trike. I asked him to explain his
position. Is that better?
E-*assist* formerly implied that a
motor assists the rider. In current times, it's mostly the other
way round, a rider assist a more powerfull engine.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the tricycle in the article
doesn't move without rider input to the pedals. You're arguing a
different point.
But even in
that case, I'd expect that effienciy matters, at least a bit,
just like it does for real bicycles.
So which is it? Is it "I'd expect that effienciy matters" or "It just
doesn't matter"? You just completely contradicted yourself in two
consecutive posts.
So there is an implied
claim about efficiency, when obvious inefficiencies aren't
mentioned.
I call bullshit. The article doesn't mention anything about efficiency, doesn't imply anything about efficiency. It's marketing an e-trike
without a chain drive. Period. You're reading something into it that
isn't there.
Indeed it doesn't. Most probably because there isn't much
efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg-driven >>>> chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of 98% >>>> efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force applied >>>> to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes close to >>>> 98%.
It wouldn't come close to 98% on the mechanics that drive the
generator of that "new chainless e-assist system", either. It's
an additional loss.
Which is exactly the point
It just doesn't matter.
It does if the complaint is over efficiency.
A rider of an e-bike has no reason to complain, as long as the
engine is able to deliver more power than necessary. Which is
usually the case.
And I wasn't asking about an e-bike riders complaints. I was asking
Andrew to clarify _his_ complaint.
Point is, if there isn't any real reason to avoid losses in a so
called "e-assist system", there won't be much engineering to
actually do so.
There isn't? Extending the range of a fully charged system by making the >> system more efficient isn't a good marketing strategy? Someone should
tell Tesla.
I call bullshit. We are talking about E-Bikes, not about
powerfull cars sold by a company owned by a sociopath. Bosch will
gladly sell you an additional battery for your PowerTube 800 in
order to extend you mileage from 136 miles to 274 miles (that's
219 km and 442 km, in Europe).
Putting in a bigger battery is a compensation for the lack of
efficiency, not making it more efficient. Companies _like_ tesla would
prefer efficiency over just stuffing in a bigger battery (greedy
sociopathic megalomania notwithstanding).
Most people in Germany or Denmark own a bicycle. They ride about
500 km per year, on average. So a single charge is good for
about five months, on average, or for ten months, if they take
the DualBattery option, see the link below. Efficiency doesn't
matter anymore, for most people who ride those eBikes.
E-bikers usually don't care about weight, anymore, either. If
that weren't the case, you wouldn't see so many heavy electric
cargo bikes on the streets carrying no more than what would fit
on a lightweight touring bike with a rack.
Have look at
<https://www.bosch-ebike.com/en/service/range-assistant/>,
default values, then choose "DualBattery".
Which again, is why I asked Andrew to clarify his position.
Especially so, if there isn't any way to actually
feel or measure those losses.
"feel"...maybe not. "measure" - most definitely there is, quite easily
in fact, reference my previously linked article for human biomechanics
and Andrews linked EE articles on motor/generator efficiency.
I call bullshit, again. We aren't talking about what engineers
are able to measure in a laboratory,
In fact, you did exactly that, right after you claimed it couldn't be
done. "there isn't any way to actually feel or measure those losses"
followed by "the motor in such e-assist systems is typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite some time".
but about what people riding
ebikes acually are able to notice, if they care at all. These
e-assist systems are quite good at making the driver feel
particularly powerful, even though most of the power comes from
the engine.
The motor in such e-assist systems
is typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite
some time, in comparison to what the driver has to deliver.
Which would seem to imply it in has in fact been measured.
... by the manufacturer who made that claim in their ads. Your
point?
No, by your response "the motor in such e-assist systems is typically
capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite some time," you
made a generic claim, you didn't reference the article. For that matter,
the point still stands that such comparisons can be and are empirically measured, so your claim "there isn't any way to actually feel or measure those losses" is patently and demonstrably false.
[...]
That may well be true. I believe that the misconception created
by the illusion of riding a bicycle instead of a motor vehicle is
more harmful in the long run.
That depends on the angle of your argument. If the point is to convince
someone that a e-bike/trike can be used in lieu of a car for certain
types of trips to reduce traffic congestion, save money on gasoline,
parking fees, tolls, etc, it's not a misconception.
My point boils down to the fact that that a motorcycle isn't a
bicycle. Don't know about the US of A, but in my country and
most of Europe people have been made to believe that eBikes _are_
bicycles and so have the same or most of the benefits as what
some people nowadays call "biobikes", i.e. bicycles that are
powered by the people riding these bicycles. In fact, a bit more
than a decade ago powerfull eBikes have been made bicycles by
law, in my country.
Most people now believe that riding a an eBike (e-assist)
delivers the same or even more fitness benefits than riding a
bicycle.
I call bullshit. I haven't read any article or advertisement that claims equivalence, and I don't beleive the prevailing opinion is that. Sure,
some people _may_ think that, but some people also believe trump is a
fine moral upstanding man and a great president.
Scientific papers have been written that claimed that
people on average ride some five to twenty percent longer
distances, when switching from a bicycle to an eBike.
Do any of those papers claim riding an e-bike holds the same health
benefits? I'd really love for you to post a reference that makes such a claim.
This is policy based evidence, IMO, obesity crisis be dammed.
There's a policy to claim riding an e-bike offers the same health
benefits as a regular bike? Again, I'd really love for you to post a reference that makes such a claim.
The
automobile industry lobby is strong in my country.
One would think they would be campaigning _against_ a far cheaper transportation option then, rather than supporting some implied claim
that riding an e-bike offers the same health benefits as a regular bike.
The ptoblem with e-bike efficiency is that bearing losses are pretty much the same for all e-motors. This makes small output motors less efficient than larger.E-bikes were originally marketed as a boon for the elderly and
then legally classified as bicycles. Nowadays, however,
advertising has long since shifted its focus to teenagers and
even children.
For young people who grow up with e-bikes, a seamless transition
from e-bike to first car is a given. Perhaps, in the US this is
the normal case anyway, but it hasn't been the case in most of
Europe, so far. Maybe that explains my point of view.
You just seem angry. Try and relax. Maybe go for a bike ride?
I assumed it was clear that the electrical pedaling system'sYou are absolutely correct but a 10% boost to the average rider seems like a heaven sent miracle,
power gain was more about marketing than moving the
vehicle. After weight and expense, the power gain is minimal
from the performative pedaling.
On 4/20/2026 5:10 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/19/2026 1:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 19 Apr 2026 08:50:16 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/19/2026 1:56 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:01:54 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches- chainless-pers-e- >>>>>>> assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at both >>>>>>> ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-efficiency- of-an-
alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor- efficiency- >>>>>>> d_655.html
I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article doesn't >>>>>> make any claims about efficiency.
That shouldn't prohibit one to comment about it.
Exactly, which is why I asked him to explain. I didn't suggest he
shouldn't be commenting.
I'm not sure I understand.
Andrew referenced two articles about efficiency in motor drive drive
systems in a comment about an e-trike. I asked him to explain his
position. Is that better?
E-*assist* formerly implied that a
motor assists the rider. In current times, it's mostly the other
way round, a rider assist a more powerfull engine.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the tricycle in the article
doesn't move without rider input to the pedals. You're arguing a
different point.
But even in
that case, I'd expect that effienciy matters, at least a bit,
just like it does for real bicycles.
So which is it? Is it "I'd expect that effienciy matters" or "It just
doesn't matter"? You just completely contradicted yourself in two
consecutive posts.
-a-a So there is an implied
claim about efficiency, when obvious inefficiencies aren't
mentioned.
I call bullshit. The article doesn't mention anything about
efficiency, doesn't imply anything about efficiency. It's marketing an
e-trike without a chain drive. Period. You're reading something into
it that isn't there.
Indeed it doesn't. Most probably because there isn't much
efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg-
driven
chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order of >>>>>> 98%
efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force
applied
to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes close to >>>>>> 98%.
It wouldn't come close to 98% on the mechanics that drive the
generator of that "new chainless e-assist system", either. It's
an additional loss.
Which is exactly the point
It just doesn't matter.
It does if the complaint is over efficiency.
A rider of an e-bike has no reason to complain, as long as the
engine is able to deliver more power than necessary. Which is
usually the case.
And I wasn't asking about an e-bike riders complaints. I was asking
Andrew to clarify _his_ complaint.
Point is, if there isn't any real reason to avoid losses in a so
called "e-assist system", there won't be much engineering to
actually do so.
There isn't? Extending the range of a fully charged system by making
the
system more efficient isn't a good marketing strategy? Someone should
tell Tesla.
I call bullshit.-a We are talking about E-Bikes, not about
powerfull cars sold by a company owned by a sociopath. Bosch will
gladly sell you an additional battery for your PowerTube 800 in
order to extend you mileage from 136 miles to 274 miles (that's
219 km and 442 km, in Europe).
Putting in a bigger battery is a compensation for the lack of
efficiency, not making it more efficient. Companies _like_ tesla would
prefer efficiency over just stuffing in a bigger battery (greedy
sociopathic megalomania notwithstanding).
Most people in Germany or Denmark own a bicycle. They ride about
500 km per year, on average.-a So a single charge is good for
about five months, on average, or for ten months, if they take
the DualBattery option, see the link below.-a Efficiency doesn't
matter anymore, for most people who ride those eBikes.
E-bikers usually don't care about weight, anymore, either. If
that weren't the case, you wouldn't see so many heavy electric
cargo bikes on the streets carrying no more than what would fit
on a lightweight touring bike with a rack.
Have look at
<https://www.bosch-ebike.com/en/service/range-assistant/>,
default values, then choose "DualBattery".
Which again, is why I asked Andrew to clarify his position.
Especially so, if there isn't any way to actually
feel or measure those losses.
"feel"...maybe not. "measure" - most definitely there is, quite easily >>>> in fact, reference my previously linked article for human biomechanics >>>> and Andrews linked EE articles on motor/generator efficiency.
I call bullshit, again. We aren't talking about what engineers
are able to measure in a laboratory,
In fact, you did exactly that, right after you claimed it couldn't be
done. "there isn't any way to actually feel or measure those losses"
followed by "the motor in such e- assist systems is typically capable
of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite some time".
but about what people riding
ebikes acually are able to notice, if they care at all. These
e-assist systems are quite good at making the driver feel
particularly powerful, even though most of the power comes from
the engine.
The motor in such e-assist systems
is typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite
some time, in comparison to what the driver has to deliver.
Which would seem to imply it in has in fact been measured.
... by the manufacturer who made that claim in their ads. Your
point?
No, by your response "the motor in such e-assist systems is typically
capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite some time," you
made a generic claim, you didn't reference the article. For that
matter, the point still stands that such comparisons can be and are
empirically measured, so your claim "there isn't any way to actually
feel or measure those losses" is patently and demonstrably false.
[...]
That may well be true. I believe that the misconception created
by the illusion of riding a bicycle instead of a motor vehicle is
more harmful in the long run.
That depends on the angle of your argument. If the point is to convince >>>> someone that a e-bike/trike can be used in lieu of a car for certain
types of trips to reduce traffic congestion, save money on gasoline,
parking fees, tolls, etc, it's not a misconception.
My point boils down to the fact that that a motorcycle isn't a
bicycle.-a Don't know about the US of A, but in my country and
most of Europe people have been made to believe that eBikes _are_
bicycles and so have the same or most of the benefits as what
some people nowadays call "biobikes", i.e. bicycles that are
powered by the people riding these bicycles.-a In fact, a bit more
than a decade ago powerfull eBikes have been made bicycles by
law, in my country.
Most people now believe that riding a an eBike (e-assist)
delivers the same or even more fitness benefits than riding a
bicycle.
I call bullshit. I haven't read any article or advertisement that
claims equivalence, and I don't beleive the prevailing opinion is
that. Sure, some people _may_ think that, but some people also believe
trump is a fine moral upstanding man and a great president.
Scientific papers have been written that claimed that
people on average ride some five to twenty percent longer
distances, when switching from a bicycle to an eBike.
Do any of those papers claim riding an e-bike holds the same health
benefits? I'd really love for you to post a reference that makes such
a claim.
This is policy based evidence, IMO, obesity crisis be dammed.
There's a policy to claim riding an e-bike offers the same health
benefits as a regular bike? Again, I'd really love for you to post a
reference that makes such a claim.
The
automobile industry lobby is strong in my country.
One would think they would be campaigning _against_ a far cheaper
transportation option then, rather than supporting some implied claim
that riding an e-bike offers the same health benefits as a regular bike.
E-bikes were originally marketed as a boon for the elderly and
then legally classified as bicycles.-a Nowadays, however,
advertising has long since shifted its focus to teenagers and
even children.
For young people who grow up with e-bikes, a seamless transition
from e-bike to first car is a given.-a Perhaps, in the US this is
the normal case anyway, but it hasn't been the case in most of
Europe, so far.-a Maybe that explains my point of view.
You just seem angry. Try and relax. Maybe go for a bike ride?
I assumed it was clear that the electrical pedaling system's -apower gain was more about marketing than moving the vehicle. After weight and
expense, the power gain is minimal from the performative pedaling.
On 4/20/2026 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/20/2026 5:10 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/19/2026 1:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 19 Apr 2026 08:50:16 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/19/2026 1:56 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:01:54 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches-
chainless-pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked
inefficiencies at both
ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and-
efficiency- of-an- alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-
efficiency- d_655.html
I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The
article doesn't
make any claims about efficiency.
That shouldn't prohibit one to comment about it.
Exactly, which is why I asked him to explain. I didn't
suggest he
shouldn't be commenting.
I'm not sure I understand.
Andrew referenced two articles about efficiency in motor
drive drive systems in a comment about an e-trike. I
asked him to explain his position. Is that better?
E-*assist* formerly implied that a
motor assists the rider. In current times, it's mostly
the other
way round, a rider assist a more powerfull engine.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the tricycle in the
article doesn't move without rider input to the pedals.
You're arguing a different point.
But even in
that case, I'd expect that effienciy matters, at least a
bit,
just like it does for real bicycles.
So which is it? Is it "I'd expect that effienciy matters"
or "It just doesn't matter"? You just completely
contradicted yourself in two consecutive posts.
-a-a So there is an implied
claim about efficiency, when obvious inefficiencies aren't
mentioned.
I call bullshit. The article doesn't mention anything
about efficiency, doesn't imply anything about
efficiency. It's marketing an e-trike without a chain
drive. Period. You're reading something into it that
isn't there.
Indeed it doesn't. Most probably because there isn't much
efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated
losses in a leg- driven
chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on
the order of 98%
efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in
the force applied
to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never
becomes close to
98%.
It wouldn't come close to 98% on the mechanics that
drive the
generator of that "new chainless e-assist system",
either. It's
an additional loss.
Which is exactly the point
It just doesn't matter.
It does if the complaint is over efficiency.
A rider of an e-bike has no reason to complain, as long
as the
engine is able to deliver more power than necessary.
Which is
usually the case.
And I wasn't asking about an e-bike riders complaints. I
was asking Andrew to clarify _his_ complaint.
Point is, if there isn't any real reason to avoid
losses in a so
called "e-assist system", there won't be much
engineering to
actually do so.
There isn't? Extending the range of a fully charged
system by making the
system more efficient isn't a good marketing strategy?
Someone should
tell Tesla.
I call bullshit.-a We are talking about E-Bikes, not about
powerfull cars sold by a company owned by a sociopath.
Bosch will
gladly sell you an additional battery for your PowerTube
800 in
order to extend you mileage from 136 miles to 274 miles
(that's
219 km and 442 km, in Europe).
Putting in a bigger battery is a compensation for the
lack of efficiency, not making it more efficient.
Companies _like_ tesla would prefer efficiency over just
stuffing in a bigger battery (greedy sociopathic
megalomania notwithstanding).
Most people in Germany or Denmark own a bicycle. They
ride about
500 km per year, on average.-a So a single charge is good
for
about five months, on average, or for ten months, if
they take
the DualBattery option, see the link below.-a Efficiency
doesn't
matter anymore, for most people who ride those eBikes.
E-bikers usually don't care about weight, anymore,
either. If
that weren't the case, you wouldn't see so many heavy
electric
cargo bikes on the streets carrying no more than what
would fit
on a lightweight touring bike with a rack.
Have look at
<https://www.bosch-ebike.com/en/service/range-assistant/>,
default values, then choose "DualBattery".
Which again, is why I asked Andrew to clarify his position.
Especially so, if there isn't any way to actually
feel or measure those losses.
"feel"...maybe not. "measure" - most definitely there
is, quite easily
in fact, reference my previously linked article for
human biomechanics
and Andrews linked EE articles on motor/generator
efficiency.
I call bullshit, again. We aren't talking about what
engineers
are able to measure in a laboratory,
In fact, you did exactly that, right after you claimed it
couldn't be done. "there isn't any way to actually feel
or measure those losses" followed by "the motor in such
e- assist systems is typically capable of delivering a
nominal 400% power for quite some time".
but about what people riding
ebikes acually are able to notice, if they care at all.
These
e-assist systems are quite good at making the driver feel
particularly powerful, even though most of the power
comes from
the engine.
The motor in such e-assist systems
is typically capable of delivering a nominal 400%
power for quite
some time, in comparison to what the driver has to
deliver.
Which would seem to imply it in has in fact been measured.
... by the manufacturer who made that claim in their
ads. Your
point?
No, by your response "the motor in such e-assist systems
is typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power
for quite some time," you made a generic claim, you
didn't reference the article. For that matter, the point
still stands that such comparisons can be and are
empirically measured, so your claim "there isn't any way
to actually feel or measure those losses" is patently and
demonstrably false.
[...]
That may well be true. I believe that the
misconception created
by the illusion of riding a bicycle instead of a motor
vehicle is
more harmful in the long run.
That depends on the angle of your argument. If the
point is to convince
someone that a e-bike/trike can be used in lieu of a
car for certain
types of trips to reduce traffic congestion, save money
on gasoline,
parking fees, tolls, etc, it's not a misconception.
My point boils down to the fact that that a motorcycle
isn't a
bicycle.-a Don't know about the US of A, but in my
country and
most of Europe people have been made to believe that
eBikes _are_
bicycles and so have the same or most of the benefits as
what
some people nowadays call "biobikes", i.e. bicycles that
are
powered by the people riding these bicycles.-a In fact, a
bit more
than a decade ago powerfull eBikes have been made
bicycles by
law, in my country.
Most people now believe that riding a an eBike (e-assist)
delivers the same or even more fitness benefits than
riding a
bicycle.
I call bullshit. I haven't read any article or
advertisement that claims equivalence, and I don't
beleive the prevailing opinion is that. Sure, some people
_may_ think that, but some people also believe trump is a
fine moral upstanding man and a great president.
Scientific papers have been written that claimed that
people on average ride some five to twenty percent longer
distances, when switching from a bicycle to an eBike.
Do any of those papers claim riding an e-bike holds the
same health benefits? I'd really love for you to post a
reference that makes such a claim.
This is policy based evidence, IMO, obesity crisis be
dammed.
There's a policy to claim riding an e-bike offers the
same health benefits as a regular bike? Again, I'd really
love for you to post a reference that makes such a claim.
The
automobile industry lobby is strong in my country.
One would think they would be campaigning _against_ a far
cheaper transportation option then, rather than
supporting some implied claim that riding an e-bike
offers the same health benefits as a regular bike.
E-bikes were originally marketed as a boon for the
elderly and
then legally classified as bicycles.-a Nowadays, however,
advertising has long since shifted its focus to
teenagers and
even children.
For young people who grow up with e-bikes, a seamless
transition
from e-bike to first car is a given.-a Perhaps, in the US
this is
the normal case anyway, but it hasn't been the case in
most of
Europe, so far.-a Maybe that explains my point of view.
You just seem angry. Try and relax. Maybe go for a bike
ride?
I assumed it was clear that the electrical pedaling
system's -apower gain was more about marketing than moving
the vehicle. After weight and expense, the power gain is
minimal from the performative pedaling.
I wouldn't call a %400 power factor 'minimal gain'.
On 4/22/2026 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/20/2026 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/20/2026 5:10 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/19/2026 1:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 19 Apr 2026 08:50:16 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/19/2026 1:56 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:01:54 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches- chainless- >>>>>>>>> pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at >>>>>>>>> both
ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and- efficiency- of-an- >>>>>>>>> alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-
efficiency- d_655.html
I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article
doesn't
make any claims about efficiency.
That shouldn't prohibit one to comment about it.
Exactly, which is why I asked him to explain. I didn't suggest he
shouldn't be commenting.
I'm not sure I understand.
Andrew referenced two articles about efficiency in motor drive drive
systems in a comment about an e-trike. I asked him to explain his
position. Is that better?
E-*assist* formerly implied that a
motor assists the rider. In current times, it's mostly the other
way round, a rider assist a more powerfull engine.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the tricycle in the article
doesn't move without rider input to the pedals. You're arguing a
different point.
But even in
that case, I'd expect that effienciy matters, at least a bit,
just like it does for real bicycles.
So which is it? Is it "I'd expect that effienciy matters" or "It
just doesn't matter"? You just completely contradicted yourself in
two consecutive posts.
-a-a So there is an implied
claim about efficiency, when obvious inefficiencies aren't
mentioned.
I call bullshit. The article doesn't mention anything about
efficiency, doesn't imply anything about efficiency. It's marketing
an e-trike without a chain drive. Period. You're reading something
into it that isn't there.
Indeed it doesn't. Most probably because there isn't much
efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg- >>>>>>>> driven
chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order >>>>>>>> of 98%
efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force >>>>>>>> applied
to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes
close to
98%.
It wouldn't come close to 98% on the mechanics that drive the
generator of that "new chainless e-assist system", either. It's
an additional loss.
Which is exactly the point
It just doesn't matter.
It does if the complaint is over efficiency.
A rider of an e-bike has no reason to complain, as long as the
engine is able to deliver more power than necessary. Which is
usually the case.
And I wasn't asking about an e-bike riders complaints. I was asking
Andrew to clarify _his_ complaint.
Point is, if there isn't any real reason to avoid losses in a so >>>>>>> called "e-assist system", there won't be much engineering to
actually do so.
There isn't? Extending the range of a fully charged system by
making the
system more efficient isn't a good marketing strategy? Someone should >>>>>> tell Tesla.
I call bullshit.-a We are talking about E-Bikes, not about
powerfull cars sold by a company owned by a sociopath. Bosch will
gladly sell you an additional battery for your PowerTube 800 in
order to extend you mileage from 136 miles to 274 miles (that's
219 km and 442 km, in Europe).
Putting in a bigger battery is a compensation for the lack of
efficiency, not making it more efficient. Companies _like_ tesla
would prefer efficiency over just stuffing in a bigger battery
(greedy sociopathic megalomania notwithstanding).
Most people in Germany or Denmark own a bicycle. They ride about
500 km per year, on average.-a So a single charge is good for
about five months, on average, or for ten months, if they take
the DualBattery option, see the link below.-a Efficiency doesn't
matter anymore, for most people who ride those eBikes.
E-bikers usually don't care about weight, anymore, either. If
that weren't the case, you wouldn't see so many heavy electric
cargo bikes on the streets carrying no more than what would fit
on a lightweight touring bike with a rack.
Have look at
<https://www.bosch-ebike.com/en/service/range-assistant/>,
default values, then choose "DualBattery".
Which again, is why I asked Andrew to clarify his position.
Especially so, if there isn't any way to actually
feel or measure those losses.
"feel"...maybe not. "measure" - most definitely there is, quite
easily
in fact, reference my previously linked article for human
biomechanics
and Andrews linked EE articles on motor/generator efficiency.
I call bullshit, again. We aren't talking about what engineers
are able to measure in a laboratory,
In fact, you did exactly that, right after you claimed it couldn't
be done. "there isn't any way to actually feel or measure those
losses" followed by "the motor in such e- assist systems is
typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite some
time".
but about what people riding
ebikes acually are able to notice, if they care at all. These
e-assist systems are quite good at making the driver feel
particularly powerful, even though most of the power comes from
the engine.
The motor in such e-assist systems
is typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite >>>>>>> some time, in comparison to what the driver has to deliver.
Which would seem to imply it in has in fact been measured.
... by the manufacturer who made that claim in their ads. Your
point?
No, by your response "the motor in such e-assist systems is
typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite some
time," you made a generic claim, you didn't reference the article.
For that matter, the point still stands that such comparisons can be
and are empirically measured, so your claim "there isn't any way to
actually feel or measure those losses" is patently and demonstrably
false.
[...]
That may well be true. I believe that the misconception created
by the illusion of riding a bicycle instead of a motor vehicle is >>>>>>> more harmful in the long run.
That depends on the angle of your argument. If the point is to
convince
someone that a e-bike/trike can be used in lieu of a car for certain >>>>>> types of trips to reduce traffic congestion, save money on gasoline, >>>>>> parking fees, tolls, etc, it's not a misconception.
My point boils down to the fact that that a motorcycle isn't a
bicycle.-a Don't know about the US of A, but in my country and
most of Europe people have been made to believe that eBikes _are_
bicycles and so have the same or most of the benefits as what
some people nowadays call "biobikes", i.e. bicycles that are
powered by the people riding these bicycles.-a In fact, a bit more
than a decade ago powerfull eBikes have been made bicycles by
law, in my country.
Most people now believe that riding a an eBike (e-assist)
delivers the same or even more fitness benefits than riding a
bicycle.
I call bullshit. I haven't read any article or advertisement that
claims equivalence, and I don't beleive the prevailing opinion is
that. Sure, some people _may_ think that, but some people also
believe trump is a fine moral upstanding man and a great president.
Scientific papers have been written that claimed that
people on average ride some five to twenty percent longer
distances, when switching from a bicycle to an eBike.
Do any of those papers claim riding an e-bike holds the same health
benefits? I'd really love for you to post a reference that makes
such a claim.
This is policy based evidence, IMO, obesity crisis be dammed.
There's a policy to claim riding an e-bike offers the same health
benefits as a regular bike? Again, I'd really love for you to post a
reference that makes such a claim.
The
automobile industry lobby is strong in my country.
One would think they would be campaigning _against_ a far cheaper
transportation option then, rather than supporting some implied
claim that riding an e-bike offers the same health benefits as a
regular bike.
E-bikes were originally marketed as a boon for the elderly and
then legally classified as bicycles.-a Nowadays, however,
advertising has long since shifted its focus to teenagers and
even children.
For young people who grow up with e-bikes, a seamless transition
from e-bike to first car is a given.-a Perhaps, in the US this is
the normal case anyway, but it hasn't been the case in most of
Europe, so far.-a Maybe that explains my point of view.
You just seem angry. Try and relax. Maybe go for a bike ride?
I assumed it was clear that the electrical pedaling system's -apower
gain was more about marketing than moving the vehicle. After weight
and expense, the power gain is minimal from the performative pedaling.
I wouldn't call a %400 power factor 'minimal gain'.
Huh? Nothing about a human is 400% of an LiIon battery pack.
On 4/22/2026 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/20/2026 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/20/2026 5:10 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/19/2026 1:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 19 Apr 2026 08:50:16 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/19/2026 1:56 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:01:54 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches- chainless- >>>>>>>>> pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at >>>>>>>>> both
ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and- efficiency- of-an- >>>>>>>>> alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-
efficiency- d_655.html
I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article
doesn't
make any claims about efficiency.
That shouldn't prohibit one to comment about it.
Exactly, which is why I asked him to explain. I didn't suggest he
shouldn't be commenting.
I'm not sure I understand.
Andrew referenced two articles about efficiency in motor drive drive
systems in a comment about an e-trike. I asked him to explain his
position. Is that better?
E-*assist* formerly implied that a
motor assists the rider. In current times, it's mostly the other
way round, a rider assist a more powerfull engine.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the tricycle in the article
doesn't move without rider input to the pedals. You're arguing a
different point.
But even in
that case, I'd expect that effienciy matters, at least a bit,
just like it does for real bicycles.
So which is it? Is it "I'd expect that effienciy matters" or "It
just doesn't matter"? You just completely contradicted yourself in
two consecutive posts.
-a-a So there is an implied
claim about efficiency, when obvious inefficiencies aren't
mentioned.
I call bullshit. The article doesn't mention anything about
efficiency, doesn't imply anything about efficiency. It's marketing
an e-trike without a chain drive. Period. You're reading something
into it that isn't there.
Indeed it doesn't. Most probably because there isn't much
efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg- >>>>>>>> driven
chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order >>>>>>>> of 98%
efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force >>>>>>>> applied
to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes
close to
98%.
It wouldn't come close to 98% on the mechanics that drive the
generator of that "new chainless e-assist system", either. It's
an additional loss.
Which is exactly the point
It just doesn't matter.
It does if the complaint is over efficiency.
A rider of an e-bike has no reason to complain, as long as the
engine is able to deliver more power than necessary. Which is
usually the case.
And I wasn't asking about an e-bike riders complaints. I was asking
Andrew to clarify _his_ complaint.
Point is, if there isn't any real reason to avoid losses in a so >>>>>>> called "e-assist system", there won't be much engineering to
actually do so.
There isn't? Extending the range of a fully charged system by
making the
system more efficient isn't a good marketing strategy? Someone should >>>>>> tell Tesla.
I call bullshit.-a We are talking about E-Bikes, not about
powerfull cars sold by a company owned by a sociopath. Bosch will
gladly sell you an additional battery for your PowerTube 800 in
order to extend you mileage from 136 miles to 274 miles (that's
219 km and 442 km, in Europe).
Putting in a bigger battery is a compensation for the lack of
efficiency, not making it more efficient. Companies _like_ tesla
would prefer efficiency over just stuffing in a bigger battery
(greedy sociopathic megalomania notwithstanding).
Most people in Germany or Denmark own a bicycle. They ride about
500 km per year, on average.-a So a single charge is good for
about five months, on average, or for ten months, if they take
the DualBattery option, see the link below.-a Efficiency doesn't
matter anymore, for most people who ride those eBikes.
E-bikers usually don't care about weight, anymore, either. If
that weren't the case, you wouldn't see so many heavy electric
cargo bikes on the streets carrying no more than what would fit
on a lightweight touring bike with a rack.
Have look at
<https://www.bosch-ebike.com/en/service/range-assistant/>,
default values, then choose "DualBattery".
Which again, is why I asked Andrew to clarify his position.
Especially so, if there isn't any way to actually
feel or measure those losses.
"feel"...maybe not. "measure" - most definitely there is, quite
easily
in fact, reference my previously linked article for human
biomechanics
and Andrews linked EE articles on motor/generator efficiency.
I call bullshit, again. We aren't talking about what engineers
are able to measure in a laboratory,
In fact, you did exactly that, right after you claimed it couldn't
be done. "there isn't any way to actually feel or measure those
losses" followed by "the motor in such e- assist systems is
typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite some
time".
but about what people riding
ebikes acually are able to notice, if they care at all. These
e-assist systems are quite good at making the driver feel
particularly powerful, even though most of the power comes from
the engine.
The motor in such e-assist systems
is typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite >>>>>>> some time, in comparison to what the driver has to deliver.
Which would seem to imply it in has in fact been measured.
... by the manufacturer who made that claim in their ads. Your
point?
No, by your response "the motor in such e-assist systems is
typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite some
time," you made a generic claim, you didn't reference the article.
For that matter, the point still stands that such comparisons can be
and are empirically measured, so your claim "there isn't any way to
actually feel or measure those losses" is patently and demonstrably
false.
[...]
That may well be true. I believe that the misconception created
by the illusion of riding a bicycle instead of a motor vehicle is >>>>>>> more harmful in the long run.
That depends on the angle of your argument. If the point is to
convince
someone that a e-bike/trike can be used in lieu of a car for certain >>>>>> types of trips to reduce traffic congestion, save money on gasoline, >>>>>> parking fees, tolls, etc, it's not a misconception.
My point boils down to the fact that that a motorcycle isn't a
bicycle.-a Don't know about the US of A, but in my country and
most of Europe people have been made to believe that eBikes _are_
bicycles and so have the same or most of the benefits as what
some people nowadays call "biobikes", i.e. bicycles that are
powered by the people riding these bicycles.-a In fact, a bit more
than a decade ago powerfull eBikes have been made bicycles by
law, in my country.
Most people now believe that riding a an eBike (e-assist)
delivers the same or even more fitness benefits than riding a
bicycle.
I call bullshit. I haven't read any article or advertisement that
claims equivalence, and I don't beleive the prevailing opinion is
that. Sure, some people _may_ think that, but some people also
believe trump is a fine moral upstanding man and a great president.
Scientific papers have been written that claimed that
people on average ride some five to twenty percent longer
distances, when switching from a bicycle to an eBike.
Do any of those papers claim riding an e-bike holds the same health
benefits? I'd really love for you to post a reference that makes
such a claim.
This is policy based evidence, IMO, obesity crisis be dammed.
There's a policy to claim riding an e-bike offers the same health
benefits as a regular bike? Again, I'd really love for you to post a
reference that makes such a claim.
The
automobile industry lobby is strong in my country.
One would think they would be campaigning _against_ a far cheaper
transportation option then, rather than supporting some implied
claim that riding an e-bike offers the same health benefits as a
regular bike.
E-bikes were originally marketed as a boon for the elderly and
then legally classified as bicycles.-a Nowadays, however,
advertising has long since shifted its focus to teenagers and
even children.
For young people who grow up with e-bikes, a seamless transition
from e-bike to first car is a given.-a Perhaps, in the US this is
the normal case anyway, but it hasn't been the case in most of
Europe, so far.-a Maybe that explains my point of view.
You just seem angry. Try and relax. Maybe go for a bike ride?
I assumed it was clear that the electrical pedaling system's -apower
gain was more about marketing than moving the vehicle. After weight
and expense, the power gain is minimal from the performative pedaling.
I wouldn't call a %400 power factor 'minimal gain'.
Huh? Nothing about a human is 400% of an LiIon battery pack.
Am 22.04.2026 um 14:32 schrieb AMuzi:
On 4/22/2026 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/20/2026 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/20/2026 5:10 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/19/2026 1:33 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sun, 19 Apr 2026 08:50:16 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/19/2026 1:56 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:01:54 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 4/17/2026 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Sounds great in theory:
https://cyclingindustry.news/ice-trikes-launches- chainless- >>>>>>>>>> pers-e-
assist-system-for-recumbent-trikes/
Out here in our actual world, we have stacked inefficiencies at >>>>>>>>>> both
ends of that electrical wire:
https://www.electricalvolt.com/losses-and- efficiency- of-an- >>>>>>>>>> alternator/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-
efficiency- d_655.html
I'm not sure I understand your complaint Andrew. The article >>>>>>>>> doesn't
make any claims about efficiency.
That shouldn't prohibit one to comment about it.
Exactly, which is why I asked him to explain. I didn't suggest he >>>>>>> shouldn't be commenting.
I'm not sure I understand.
Andrew referenced two articles about efficiency in motor drive drive >>>>> systems in a comment about an e-trike. I asked him to explain his
position. Is that better?
E-*assist* formerly implied that a
motor assists the rider. In current times, it's mostly the other
way round, a rider assist a more powerfull engine.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the tricycle in the article
doesn't move without rider input to the pedals. You're arguing a
different point.
But even in
that case, I'd expect that effienciy matters, at least a bit,
just like it does for real bicycles.
So which is it? Is it "I'd expect that effienciy matters" or "It
just doesn't matter"? You just completely contradicted yourself in
two consecutive posts.
-a-a So there is an implied
claim about efficiency, when obvious inefficiencies aren't
mentioned.
I call bullshit. The article doesn't mention anything about
efficiency, doesn't imply anything about efficiency. It's marketing >>>>> an e-trike without a chain drive. Period. You're reading something
into it that isn't there.
Indeed it doesn't. Most probably because there isn't much
efficiency.
Be that as it is, there are also un-compensated losses in a leg- >>>>>>>>> driven
chain drive. Yes, a chain drive _can_ be somewhere on the order >>>>>>>>> of 98%
efficient, but only when there are no inefficiency in the force >>>>>>>>> applied
to the drive gear. In reality on a bicycle it never becomes >>>>>>>>> close to
98%.
It wouldn't come close to 98% on the mechanics that drive the
generator of that "new chainless e-assist system", either. It's >>>>>>>> an additional loss.
Which is exactly the point
It just doesn't matter.
It does if the complaint is over efficiency.
A rider of an e-bike has no reason to complain, as long as the
engine is able to deliver more power than necessary. Which is
usually the case.
And I wasn't asking about an e-bike riders complaints. I was asking >>>>> Andrew to clarify _his_ complaint.
Point is, if there isn't any real reason to avoid losses in a so >>>>>>>> called "e-assist system", there won't be much engineering to
actually do so.
There isn't? Extending the range of a fully charged system by
making the
system more efficient isn't a good marketing strategy? Someone should >>>>>>> tell Tesla.
I call bullshit.-a We are talking about E-Bikes, not about
powerfull cars sold by a company owned by a sociopath. Bosch will
gladly sell you an additional battery for your PowerTube 800 in
order to extend you mileage from 136 miles to 274 miles (that's
219 km and 442 km, in Europe).
Putting in a bigger battery is a compensation for the lack of
efficiency, not making it more efficient. Companies _like_ tesla
would prefer efficiency over just stuffing in a bigger battery
(greedy sociopathic megalomania notwithstanding).
Most people in Germany or Denmark own a bicycle. They ride about
500 km per year, on average.-a So a single charge is good for
about five months, on average, or for ten months, if they take
the DualBattery option, see the link below.-a Efficiency doesn't
matter anymore, for most people who ride those eBikes.
E-bikers usually don't care about weight, anymore, either. If
that weren't the case, you wouldn't see so many heavy electric
cargo bikes on the streets carrying no more than what would fit
on a lightweight touring bike with a rack.
Have look at
<https://www.bosch-ebike.com/en/service/range-assistant/>,
default values, then choose "DualBattery".
Which again, is why I asked Andrew to clarify his position.
Especially so, if there isn't any way to actually
feel or measure those losses.
"feel"...maybe not. "measure" - most definitely there is, quite >>>>>>> easily
in fact, reference my previously linked article for human
biomechanics
and Andrews linked EE articles on motor/generator efficiency.
I call bullshit, again. We aren't talking about what engineers
are able to measure in a laboratory,
In fact, you did exactly that, right after you claimed it couldn't
be done. "there isn't any way to actually feel or measure those
losses" followed by "the motor in such e- assist systems is
typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite some >>>>> time".
but about what people riding
ebikes acually are able to notice, if they care at all. These
e-assist systems are quite good at making the driver feel
particularly powerful, even though most of the power comes from
the engine.
The motor in such e-assist systems
is typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite >>>>>>>> some time, in comparison to what the driver has to deliver.
Which would seem to imply it in has in fact been measured.
... by the manufacturer who made that claim in their ads. Your
point?
No, by your response "the motor in such e-assist systems is
typically capable of delivering a nominal 400% power for quite some >>>>> time," you made a generic claim, you didn't reference the article.
For that matter, the point still stands that such comparisons can be >>>>> and are empirically measured, so your claim "there isn't any way to >>>>> actually feel or measure those losses" is patently and demonstrably >>>>> false.
[...]
That may well be true. I believe that the misconception created >>>>>>>> by the illusion of riding a bicycle instead of a motor vehicle is >>>>>>>> more harmful in the long run.
That depends on the angle of your argument. If the point is to
convince
someone that a e-bike/trike can be used in lieu of a car for certain >>>>>>> types of trips to reduce traffic congestion, save money on gasoline, >>>>>>> parking fees, tolls, etc, it's not a misconception.
My point boils down to the fact that that a motorcycle isn't a
bicycle.-a Don't know about the US of A, but in my country and
most of Europe people have been made to believe that eBikes _are_
bicycles and so have the same or most of the benefits as what
some people nowadays call "biobikes", i.e. bicycles that are
powered by the people riding these bicycles.-a In fact, a bit more >>>>>> than a decade ago powerfull eBikes have been made bicycles by
law, in my country.
Most people now believe that riding a an eBike (e-assist)
delivers the same or even more fitness benefits than riding a
bicycle.
I call bullshit. I haven't read any article or advertisement that
claims equivalence, and I don't beleive the prevailing opinion is
that. Sure, some people _may_ think that, but some people also
believe trump is a fine moral upstanding man and a great president.
Scientific papers have been written that claimed that
people on average ride some five to twenty percent longer
distances, when switching from a bicycle to an eBike.
Do any of those papers claim riding an e-bike holds the same health >>>>> benefits? I'd really love for you to post a reference that makes
such a claim.
This is policy based evidence, IMO, obesity crisis be dammed.
There's a policy to claim riding an e-bike offers the same health
benefits as a regular bike? Again, I'd really love for you to post a >>>>> reference that makes such a claim.
The
automobile industry lobby is strong in my country.
One would think they would be campaigning _against_ a far cheaper
transportation option then, rather than supporting some implied
claim that riding an e-bike offers the same health benefits as a
regular bike.
E-bikes were originally marketed as a boon for the elderly and
then legally classified as bicycles.-a Nowadays, however,
advertising has long since shifted its focus to teenagers and
even children.
For young people who grow up with e-bikes, a seamless transition
from e-bike to first car is a given.-a Perhaps, in the US this is
the normal case anyway, but it hasn't been the case in most of
Europe, so far.-a Maybe that explains my point of view.
You just seem angry. Try and relax. Maybe go for a bike ride?
I think the confusion was with how to interpret "poer gain". Your idea
I assumed it was clear that the electrical pedaling system's -apower
gain was more about marketing than moving the vehicle. After weight
and expense, the power gain is minimal from the performative pedaling. >>>>
I wouldn't call a %400 power factor 'minimal gain'.
Huh? Nothing about a human is 400% of an LiIon battery pack.
was "the proportion of power that the human supplies", Wolfgang
interpreted it as "the proportion of power the engine supplies".
400%.
Am Wed, 22 Apr 2026 14:58:17 +0200 schrieb Rolf Mantel ><news@hartig-mantel.de>:
Am 22.04.2026 um 14:32 schrieb AMuzi:
On 4/22/2026 4:44 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 4/20/2026 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/20/2026 5:10 AM, zen cycle wrote
You just seem angry. Try and relax.
Maybe go for a bike ride?
Just by the way: That's the kind of cheap rhetoric you hear when
people run out of arguments.
But if itrCOs any consolation: A few days earlier, I had done the
trainin ride shown in the following diagram produced with Garmin
Connect.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20260417/karte.png> ><https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20260417/kreuzbergrunde.png>
I'm doing that when I like to do some outdoor training, but stay
near our home. This time only did nine times up a strait 12%
grade ascent covering 50 meters of altitude gain. I'm getting
old. :)
Today, my wife and I are going for an easier, but longer ride.
WerCOre both still somewhat recovering from broken bones and other
injuries, and werCOre doing everything we can to avoid having to
rely on motorized mobility aids. In addition to strength
training, this also means making sure we donrCOt lose our ability
to cover long distances by bike, even in hilly terrain.
I know that low-powered motor vehicles are good for some people--
with disabilities. But itrCOs wishful thinking to believe that
selling these vehicles to the general public is making them
healthier wonrCOt lead to an increase in disabilities, through
muscle loss or obesity. Around here, people mostly switched from
bicycles to e-bikes, not from cars.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 05:28:57 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
921 files (14,318M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,603 |
