For an overview of Harley Davidson’s systemic business issues, FortNine did a fantastic video [YouTube: How Harley Davidson Killed Itself, FortNine, 2020, 14:11] highlighting what went wrong. The condensed answer is a failure to ride the changing waves since the 80s.

That the most redeeming features and lineage of a Harley – which FortNine also covered [YouTube: Why Millions Buy Harley-Davidson Motorcycles, FortNine, 2021, 12:30] – can’t even carry-over to their electric lineup is summed up by the refrain “too little too late”.

That’s a good point about the flexing; I hadn’t thought about that aspect. My concern was more that the hinge in this case is being forced open by standing on it, putting metal in compression. Whereas a folding bicycle hinge or a door hinge has the force trying to tear the hinge asunder, with the metal in shear tension. If it does hold up, ostensibly it’ll be heavier than other designs would demand.

I’m also no mechanical engineer, so this should be taken with a grain of salt. It does seem awfully fascinating as an idea though, a folding longboard: cruising around with the benefit of a long wheelbase.

I’m no “board-er”, but I’m skeptical as to the structural integrity of a folding longboard, even before we get to the electric part. Have non-electric folding longboards existed? I wasn’t able to find any prior examples from a cursory web search.

More than a lot of things, I want to see an e-rickshaw taxi service in the city center near me, so I can go bar crawling in style. A car works for getting from A to B, but that’s hardly an experience: it’s just getting into a box and appearing at the destination. If I’m drinking in the city, I want to enjoy as much time on the town as possible.

To be abundantly clear, I don’t mean being churlish whilst in motion, but rather taking in the sights and the air while cruising along and cozying up with friends as a spirited rickshaw deftly ferries us through the shortcut via the fully-pedestrianized plaza.

A quick look on Google Maps shows that West Ontario St in Chicago leads to a 1 km (!) long on-ramp to Interstate 90, flying over the Chicago River. Once on the ramp, the next possible exit is Augusta Blvd, about 2 km away. Interstate 90 cuts a diagonal path through the rectilinear street layout of Chicago, so an equivalent route would necessarily be slightly longer. There is a sign at the on-ramp prohibiting “non-motorized traffic”, among others.

I can’t really endorse riding a bicycle on an urban freeway when it’s not designed or designated for such. But in the Western USA, we do have segments of freeway open to bicyclists, even in urban areas. Note: West Coasters and the federal govt say “freeway” for a fully-controlled access highway; East Coasters say “expressway”, but that means something else here in the west.

California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21960 authorizes the state DOT (CalTrans) to prohibit pedestrians, bicyclists, and a few other categories, provided that they post a sign. Although very typical, CalTrans does not default to posting these signs on every freeway, to avoid running afoul of a different provision disallowing the destruction of preexisting routes used by non-motorized traffic.

Common sections of freeway available to bicyclists are bridges where there is no other reasonable method to cross. As an example, the routing of Interstate 80 often followed that of old US Highway 40, meaning that a bridge that would have carried Highway 40 now carries the mainline Interstate. As a result, the preceding on-ramp must be opened to non-motorized traffic, unless a reasonable alternate route or facility is available. The absolute minimum is to simply permit bicycles onto the freeway.

Per CVC 21650, bicyclists on the freeway would have to use only the shoulder, although there’s technically a quirk if freeway traffic is moving very, very slowly, akin to the Chicago situation. In such a case, if a bicyclist can keep pace with or exceed the current flow of traffic, then all lanes are available on such a stretch of freeway that doesn’t prohibit cycling, subject to the usual requirement for slower traffic to keep right.

Freeway segments permitting bicyclists can be identified by a “no pedestrian” sign at the on-ramp, rather than the typical sign that would also prohibit bicyclists. The end of the segment is identified by a white sign on the freeway that says “bicyclist must exit”.

Direct link to CPSC press release: https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2024/CPSC-Warns-Consumers-to-Stop-Using-Unit-Pack-Power-UPP-E-bike-Batteries-Due-to-Fire-and-Burn-Hazards-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-and-Death

This is indeed a valid consideration. At the same time, ebikes open doors for people that maybe haven’t ridden a bicycle since childhood, and might not know the first thing about assembling – let alone maintaining – a bicycle made for transportation, rather than as a children’s toy. Throw in the whole (somewhat misplaced) concern over cheap batteries bursting into flames and it’s not totally outside reason why the Colorado government went in this direction. Encouraging/subsidizing local bike shops as part of the rollout of ebikes could be viewed as taking the long-term approach.

The Colorado Energy Office’s overview of the subsidy, along with what consumers need to bring with them to the bike store (eg Colorado ID and proof of residency): https://energyoffice.colorado.gov/ebike-tax-credit

For retailers, how the tax credit is handled on the back end, since even though the tax credit isn’t claimed until tax return time, it can offset the quarterly estimated taxes that most businesses pay: https://tax.colorado.gov/electric-bicycle-tax-credit

Taking all this info together, the Colorado program is good through 1 January 2033 at its stated subsidy level for an unlimited amount of ebikes, unless the state budget does not expect to grow by 4% in any year. In such case, the subsidy is halved for that year. See text.

I used to do the same, but I’ve had to be careful since if I don’t downshift completely, adding motor power will bend the sprocket and possibly throw the chain off entirely; I learned that from experience. As a result, I actually try to turn the power level down to zero if I know I’ve made an incomplete shift, pedal manually to complete shifting, then restore the power level.

From a California perspective, our Class 2 category allows for throttle-controlled ebikes, and these appear to be rather popular, in part because the pedal-assist feature of a Class 1 ebike is almost-always included in a Class 2 throttle ebike. But also – I’m speculating – that consumers like having the throttle as a backup: imagine a rider that pedals to their destination but leaves while tired and just wants to get home.

This isn’t a misplaced want, and it’s roughly analogous to the “everything car” that Americans desire but can never truly have: something that’s good for all scenarios.

A new development – and one which the legislation is only beginning to provide clarity for – is multi-class ebikes, allowing the bike to operate under different class regimes at different times. For example, an ebike which is speed limited to 20 mph (32 kph) when using the throttle but raises to 28 mph (45 kph) when pedal-driven. This would be a combination of Class 2 and Class 3, respectively.

I personally prefer at least 500 W on an ebike, which is approximately enough to hold 18 mph (30 kph) while climbing overpasses at freeway interchanges: these non-places are pedestrian and cyclist hellscapes, and riders need every advantage to assert a position.

Setting aside my complaints about American infrastructure, it’s worth clarifying that speed-limited power is most useful for hill-climbs and cargo bikes. I’m not exactly sure how often British motorway are crossed with steep overpasses, but I have to imagine the cargo bike category is ripe for expansion in the UK.

All that said, if the UK is going to update their regulations, I think a split approach can make sense: when the throttle is used, power is limited to 250 W averaged. When pedal-driven, power is limited to 500 W averaged. What averaging window to use is for them to decide, but this would account for brief bursts needed to avoid wayward obstacles and smaller hills. The public consultation does not seem to discuss raising the speed limiter for ebikes, so that’s a topic for another time.

Their product lineup is competitive, although I did have an issue a year ago where they shipped the bike to me, I put it together, then found that the electric assist would shut down in the middle of a ride. I ultimately returned the bike, although they did have to charge me for the return shipping (~$250).

Ultimately, I found for myself a different ebike, since I wanted something that would run at full Class 3 speeds for a while, which they didn’t offer at the time. I’d say it’s worth a shot if they have something you want, although maybe review their policy to see if the return charges have changed. Or if you can test ride from a local dealer.

At some point, we’ll have just reinvented wrestling, but with more implements.

Nothing could be more American than injuries in an increasingly outlandish manner. 'MURICA!

If there’s a way to attach a lacrosse stick to the other end, I think I have friends that would buy this. This could also propel – pun intended – a new sport into existence: power lacrosse, where everyone is on a skateboard. Think hockey, but with lacrosse, but with kick flips.

In all seriousness, I’m going to have to check how/if this is even regulated under local laws here. I’m not even sure the California Vehicle Code even handles a one zero? wheeled device that only periodically contacts the ground.

I’m always concerned/skeptical when I see a bike that permits a non-insignificant load to be placed behind the rear axle. My rudimentary understanding of bicycle dynamics suggests that in a curve, there is a frame of reference centered on the rear wheel’s contact patch. In a left turn, the front wheel, the frame, and the front half of the rear wheel are moving to the left – in the frame of reference – and the rear half of the rear wheel is moving to the right.

But also, in a left turn, a bike must lean to the left. So net-net, the front wheel and frame are moving leftward and also leaning left, and only half the rear wheel is leaning left but moving right. This mismatch works against the stability of the bike, but it’s small and so is generally ignored.

Putting a load behind the rear axle would exacerbate this mismatch, getting worse for taller or further-back loads – due to longer moment arms – or when heavier (more momentum against the lean). It’s not that less stability makes a bike unrideable, but it does mean oscillations can develop, potentially getting out of hand very quickly. Whereas hunting oscillation for a train carriage is unpleasant for the occupants, oscillations on a bike can throw the occupants off.

Maybe one day someone will develop a yaw damper for bikes, to actively compensate for lean stability at the rear.

As a reminder, different states have varying levels of regulation for mopeds. For example, California does require an M1 or M2 license, but doesn’t require insurance. And the “registration” is one-time only, to obtain a plate. Mopeds can use both through-lanes and bike lanes, and are permissible up to 30 mph (48 kph). Electric mopeds don’t even need the pedals that gas mopeds would require.

Now I did not get to ride the M1 but it seemed to have all the attributes required for a relatively comfortable 20-minute journey on public back streets - and it has the speed to put a lot of territory behind it in 20 minutes.

Ok, seems promising so far.

Bike paths would be the ideal environment for something of this speed, but there are many different local laws on power levels for bike path users … The wheelbase is long enough to give you 45 km/h (28 mph) stability

Oh, dear. At least in the United States, please don’t ride motorbikes on bike paths. Otherwise, this could be an interesting option to have in America. The “trunk bike” concept could find use-cases like where a sober driver arrives on bike to drive you and your car home after a night of drinking.

And of course, right when I finish writing that, here comes FortNine with a video critiquing the norms surrounding motorbike safety gear. It doesn’t substantially affect my opinion above, but it’s a worthwhile watch to put motorbike safety culture into perspective.

This was a worthwhile read, highlighting the motorbike safety posture (“all the gear all the time”) contrasted with the general lack-thereof for ebikes. At the same time, the article doesn’t come across as judgemental, and looks into the reasons why most motorbike gear doesn’t really make sense for ebikes, save for the product lineup mentioned in the article, which intentionally is low-key while ostensibly providing a degree of protection.

I would say the author is on-point, although once again an editor has sensationalized the title. I do not think every ebike rider – from eMTB trail running, to elderly e-trike, to adolescent Class 1 in-town runabout – needs to be wearing protective armor. As a matter of public policy, getting more people outdoors should be a priority, and we shouldn’t be scaring them off with the statistically low (but not zero) risk of injury. At the same time, some of these Class 3 ebikes do genuinely warrant protective armor. The level of armor needs to align with realistic risks.

To that end, my opinion is that Class 1 and 2 ebike riding does not need any more armor than what you would wear while riding an acoustic bike in the same situation. Going around town: probably don a helmet and just go. Downhill bomber run? Consider a full-face helmet, plus whatever else MTB folks wear.

For class 3 ebikes at full 45 kph (28 mph) speed, the covert armored clothing starts to look very appealing, and I will be looking into it later. I think using the class system as a rough gauge for how much armor to wear is Good Enough™, for balancing the public policy considerations in the United States. The public needs simple and easy rules of thumb, especially for Americans who would otherwise be apprehensive of these newfangled micro mobility devices. Other places with different infrastructure and safety cultures (eg Netherlands and helmets) will need to adjust accordingly.

$1700 list-price for a Class 3 ebike, and it comes with a torque sensor, 700 Wh battery, and a rear rack that isn’t offensive to standardized design? As well as a bike shop/dealer that’s nearby to me? That’s as good as sold, the next time I’m asked to recommend a competent commuter ebike.