litchralee

These little guys get beginners onto bikes.

Absolutely, 100%. In my dreams, the entry-level for e-motos would perfectly overlap with the mid- to higher-end of Class 3 e-bikes. It would basically be a two-wheel continuum where price and capabilities align in increasing fashion. From bicycles to e-bikes to e-dirtbikes to e-motos and beyond. I want this to be real one day, because it's the sort of progression that allows new riders to get started and work their way to whichever suits their fancy.

The only caveat I can think of is that safety education should also scale in the same way, but in the USA, the most comprehensive two-wheel safety course is for a motorcycle license, which means dirt bikers and e-bikers don't currently have the benefit of that training, unless they already had their motorcycle license. I do believe in "cross training" between the various two-wheel machines, but I don't know how the pedagogical consideration would influence things.

From the eminent, late Sheldon Brown, index shifters have to specify exactly what speed they are compatible with. So an index shifter marked for 10-speed would not be appropriate for a 7-speed cassette.

Indexed Shifters These need to have the spacing of detents ("clicks") to match the system they'll be used with. This usually goes along with the correct number of clicks -- though a shifter with an extra click also can work, as long as the spacing is OK. (Friction shifters have no compatibility issues, they work with everything.)

IIRC, 7/8/9 speed cassettes have the sprockets the same width apart, so an index shifter for 7/8/9 would simply stop at the correct maximum detent. But 10 speed cassettes had to squeeze more sprockets into the same total width, so the width between each is narrower. Thus, a 10 speed index shifter moves the cable a shorter distance, to be compatible. I believe your question #1 is answered in the negative.

For your question #2, I didn't really think friction shifters had any continuing use-cases. Indeed, even indexed shifting is giving way for electronic shifting, although that's not going to be sensible for a 90s MTB. Unless you're adamant about friction shifting, you might consider the upgrade to indexed shifting.

For #3, I can't quite imagine what the manufacturer means by a "Friction transfer mode allows the shifter to switch from index to friction mode on demand". I can't find any further information, and I'm puzzled how that would even work.

As for the stops, an indexed shifter will stop at its highest and lowest numbers; the cable would be adjusted until shifting is reliable into and out of the highest and lowest sprockets; the shifting distance between numbers is not adjustable. There are also stops on the derailleur, one beyond the smallest sprocket (tallest ratio) usually marked with an "H", and one beyond the largest sprocket (shortest ratio) marked with a "L".

The H stop prevents the chain from shifting off the end of the cassette. The -- IMO, more important -- L stop prevents the derailleur from colliding with the spokes of the rear wheel. In motion, this can cause the wheel to lock-up but more likely will rip the derailleur and assemblage from the frame, causing significant damage. With proper adjustment, this should never happen unless the derailleur was already bent from some other incident. Sometimes a spoke protector (the so-called "dork disc") is added to prevent catastrophy, but again, any well-maintained bike in normal service will not have its derailleur collide with the spokes.

So while index shifters will have stops that should duplicate the same stops on the derailleur, friction shifters may vary. I suppose you could have no stops on the friction shifters and rely solely on the derailleur stops, but that sounds like trouble: the force applied by the lever of a friction shifter can potentially overwhelm the small set-screw of the derailleur limit. Pushing hard on that lever could warp the derailleur, with all attendant damage.

While technically correct, I feel like the headline should have mentioned that these two new models are aimed at the off-road market. As in, electric dirtbikes.

And while I am indeed thrilled that prices are pushing downward, I'm still not sure if $4200 is going to substantially move product, at least not without convincing buyers of the unique benefits with going electric. A cursory web search shows that 125cc dirt bikes are in the 7 kW class, but can be bought new for $3500. So the gap is definitely closing, but it's still notable.

I do wonder if they plan to go even smaller, into the 3-4 kW class, which would roughly be the realm of 50cc or 80cc. That would definitely be an off-road only category, and is more atuned for kids. Or perhaps adults wishing to leisurely cruise around dirt tracks. It's also a category where low-duty cycle (ie one season only) and short range are most common, and the immediate benefit of electric is not having to stabilize two-stroke fuel over the winter. An electric dirtbike that can sit in a shed but ready to use when pulled out three times a year, is the sort of product that suburban buyers might appreciate.

In a lot of ways, it follows the same trend of hobbies or necessities being developed by a community of the most devoted (eg ham radio, BBS/forums, electric bicycles) which then get taken/co-opted by investors and salespeople until the community is barely involved at all, and is actively harmed by commercial interests.

In the case of ham radio, commercial radio stations stood on the backs of brilliant engineers at Marconi as well as experimentalists doing odd things that were then refined. Things would be alright, until the commercial entities found that the allocated spectrum for ham radio would be "of better use" for privately-operated communications networks or whatever. Those "high frequency" bands that were considered junk compared to long wave? Taken away and only a narrow slice given back for the experimenters to hone their craft, yet again. As a side note, early wireless networking used the then-junk band of 2.4 GHz, because that's what microwave ovens used. But today, the 2.4 GHz band is probably the most important and congested band in the world, precisely because all manner of consumer and industrial devices around the world use it. Early computer and radio hobbyists were responsible for making that happen.

The rich history of BBS systems led to modern web forums, but then led to things like Facebook groups where it's a requirement to sign-in to read, let alone engage in the discussion. The Fediverse is more aligned to independent web forums (using a common protocol) than it is to a monolithic social media platform.

And then electric bikes. Or initially, motorized bicycles, which were a new concept when brought to the USA from Sweden in the 70s, as a solution to the oil crisis. That trend quickly faded, but left a group of hobbyists dedicated to homebuilt two-wheel mobility within a narrow yet still legal framework to run on the road. Who could have predicted that the advancement of lithium ion cells -- documented well by the flashlight community, btw -- would set off a renewed passion in electric motorized bicycles, which ultimately gave us commercially-produced ebikes with massive uptake? In Germany last year, the number of ebikes sold exceeded the number of acoustic (read: conventional) bicycles. What do these initial hobbyists have now? Mostly burdensome regulations because a small number of shoddily-built commercial ebikes went bang too often. And now a homebuilt ebike is viewed with great suspicion despite not accounting to much of the total population of ebikes at all.

Can you tell what some of my hobbies are? :)

I can only hope that right-to-repair legislation in some US States and the EU will aid the situation, but it might still be a while.

The YouTuber BigClive observed through dismantling many so-called disposable vape pens that they tend to have new, high quality, high amp cells, paired with decent or good charge controllers. He posited that this is to prevent them from going bang in people's faces, which would be quite bad.

Around my area, I still find discarded vape pens in bike lanes or road shoulders, so I'm continuing to collect them. Although I never imagined stringing them together into a battery pack for an ebike haha

My guess is that reading tomes like this is useful as a vocal exercise and can be a way of "getting one's name out" for aspiring vocal talent. After all, what better way to showcase voice work on a resume than to point to examples online? As for the exact tome, it doesn't really matter for this purpose but might as well also contribute to the wealth of human media.

Generally speaking, exercises should not cause pain when performed with good form and not grossly overloaded. There can often be soreness post-exercise but pain during the movement is not at all expected.

Your question does request alternative exercises, but seeing as the bench press is a popular compound movement targeting the upper body, I think it may be important to identify exactly why there is pain rather than moving to a different compound or isolation exercise.

Without further info, all I could recommend is to try lower weights on the bar, or even no weight, if that results in the pain subsiding or going away. Regarding form, this Instagram video may be useful: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C-GdEHBRVm7/

When I see "Xitter", I think it might be pronounced Exeter, like the town in southwest England. But that feels like an undeserved slight against the good people of Devon and England.

In summary, Denver's ebike rebate experiment was inspired by utility rebates from other regions, was stupendously successful, flattered by emulation in other jurisdictions and the State of Colorado itself, to the point that the city might recast its program to equitably incentivize low-income riders, as well as focusing on other barriers to riding, such as poor infrastructure. The experiment has paid off, and that's before considering the small business boost to local bike shops and expanding the use of ebikes for transportation in addition to recreation.

With that all said, I want to comment about the purported study which concluded that ebike rebate programs are less economically efficient than electric automobile rebates. Or I would, if the study PDF wasn't trapped behind Elsevier's paywall. I suppose I could email the author to ask for a copy directly.

But from the abstract, the authors looked to existing studies which originally suggested that ebike rebates are less efficient, so I found a list of that study's citations, identifying two which could be relevant:

• E-bikes and their capability to reduce car CO2 emissions (Phelps et al, 2021, open access)
• Impacts of e-bike ownership on travel behavior: Evidence from three northern California rebate programs (Johnson et al, 2023, open access)

The first study looked at ebikes in England -- not the whole UK -- and their potential to displace automobile trips, thus reducing overall CO2 emissions. It concluded that increased ebike uptake would produce emissions savings faster than waiting for average automobile emissions to reduce, or from reductions in driving by other means, as a means to slow the climate disaster. This study does not analyze the long-term expected emissions reduction compared to cars, but did conclude that ebikes would produce the most savings in rural areas, as denser cities are already amenable to acoustic cycling and public transport.

The second study looked at a year of how new ebike owners changed their travel behavior, for participants from three California jurisdictions offering incentives, two in the San Francisco Bay Area and one along the North Coast. The study concluded that in the first few months, most riders used their ebike 1-3 times per week, but towards the end of the study period, most riders reduced their use, although the final rate was still higher than the national average rate for acoustic bicycling. The study found that at its peak, ebikes replaced just a hair above 50% of trips, and thus concluded that the emissions saved by displacing automobile trips was not as cost effective as emissions reduced through EV automobile incentives. They computed the dollar-per-co2-ton for each mode of transportation.

So it would seem that the original study looked to this second study and reached a similar conclusion. However, the second study noted that their data has the caveat of being obtained from 2021 to 2022, when the global pandemic pushed bicycling into the spotlight as a means of leaving one's house for safe recreation. It would not be a surprise then that automobile trips were not displaced, since recreational bicycle rides don't compete with driving a car from point A to point B for transportation.

Essentially, it seems that the uncertainty in emissions reduction is rooted in variability as to whether ebikes are used mostly for recreation, or mostly for displacing car trips. But as all the studies note, ebikes have a host of other intangible benefits.

IMO, it would be unwise to read only the economic or emissions conclusion as a dismissal of ebikes or ebike rebates. Instead, the economics can be boosted by focusing resources for rural or poorer riders who do not have non-automobile options, and the emissions savings can be bolstered by making it easier/safer to ride. Basically, exactly what Denver is now doing.

I get that the weight pales in comparison to the rider or cargo. But a lighter bike -- electric or otherwise -- comes with some quality of life improvements. There's the extra redundancy where a dead ebike is still ridable if it's light enough or has sufficiently low rolling resistance. Then there's transporting the bike, whether by bus, car, or just hitching a ride if the bike is dead or damaged.

My experience at university -- where an ebike would have been phenomenally useful back then -- involved hauling my acoustic bike up two flights of stairs daily. At 15 kg, that was doable. 25 kg is starting to push things. And my current ebike at 40 kg would be infeasible unless I decide to really work on my deadlift.

But I agree that there's a point where ebikes are Good Enough(tm) given the constraints of technical and economic feasibility, as well as what consumer demand looks like; all consumer products tend to do this. We've reached an equilibrium in the market -- which isn't bad at all as it means more bikes available to more people -- but I just hope the industry continues to push the envelope to welcome even more riders.

Someone out there will have all the preconditions for a short/medium distance ebike commuter, where they can replace a car drive or waiting for three buses, down to just a single bus and a modest ebike ride to their final destination.

Irrespective of the model variant chosen, the weight is stated as 26 pounds or 12 kilograms. Such a low weight can only be achieved, particularly on an e-bike, with a carbon frame, and the fork is also made of the material.

Is this actually true though? I'm not a mechanical engineer, and while I do know that material properties necessarily influence the realized design, I can't quite see how swapping out an aluminum or steel frame for a carbon fiber frame is going to save any more than maybe 2-5 kilograms max.

My cursory examination of the popular ebike models suggests the current average weight is around 25 kilogram. I would posit that the higher weight for run-of-the-mill ebikes compared to this €5800 model is more likely due to: 1) overbuilt, stock frame designs in errant anticipation of offroading or hitting potholes faster than an acoustic bicycle would be subject to, 2) a lack of market demand for pushing the weights down, since the motor can compensate for the loss of performance, and 3) if a bicycle of any type is going into the mid four figures, of course it would use premium, lighter components than other cheaper manufacturers.

What I'd love to see is a teardown of a commercially available $2k range ebike to see how much the frame really weighs. The motors and batteries can't really be reduced without substantial electrical or chemical engineering, but frame design is well within the remit of bike manufacturers, and I think it behooves them to not overbuild the frame. Ebikes deserve to be equally hauled up a flight of stairs, or onto a bus, or just onto a bike stand. And it's not like acoustic bikes can't get up to ebike speed going downhill, and their frames generally hold up just fine.

To be clear, I'm mostly talking about conventionally shaped bicycles versus conventionally shaped ebikes. It would be apples to oranges to suggest that a cargo ebike should weigh only as much as an acoustic commuter bike. For a cargo bike, payload capacity is a major consideration and so would warrant an appropriately sized frame. But the weight discrepancy between an equally capable cargo bike and cargo ebike should not exceed that of the motor, battery, and ancillary components.