Am Sun, 21 Apr 2024 11:11:47 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:

>On 4/21/2024 9:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/21/2024 6:52 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>>> Am Thu, 18 Apr 2024 21:04:42 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
>>> <roger@sarlet.com>:
>>>
>>>> Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> But thats beside the point. The point being,  giving a weak person the
>>>>> peak power and the endurace of a world class athlete is just a fancy
>>>>> way
>>>>> of describing the substitution of muscle power by motor power.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your wrong about the fact, too, and I've already mentioned that in
>>>>> earlier discussions. You ignore that humans have a power curve much
>>>>> different from a motor, even when accounting for that bicycle
>>>>> simulation
>>>>> done by its controller.  And you convently ignore that most humans
>>>>> aren't professional competetive cyclists.
>>>
>>>> No I didn’t professional cyclists produce way more power both peak and
>>>> continuous,
>>>
>>> So you are doing it again: you conveniently ignore that most humans
>>> aren't top level professional competive cyclists, by talking about what
>>> professional cyclists do and by ignoring what ordinary people can do and
>>> what these people do with e-bikes on the one hand, and with real
>>> bicycles, on the other hand.  But let's talk about that distraction, for
>>> a moment and lets mention in passing that some competetive professional
>>> offroad motorcyclists need more strength and endurance than your average
>>> cyclist on his bike.
>>>
>>> <https://theselvedgeyard.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/steve-mcqueen-husqvarna-011.jpg>
>>>
>>>> some beyond 2000 watts some just under, which is comfortably
>>>> above what a E bike can produce.
>>>
>>> So now you are not only equating your average cyclist to word class
>>> athletes, you are now cherry picking the best of the best in that group?
>>> "`Curiouser and curiouser!' cried Alice."
>>>
>>> But perhaps you are just confused about what a human power curve tells
>>> about how much power ordinary people can deliver over what time  span.
>>>
>>> In reality, a TdF athlete only spends about 140 W while riding in the
>>> peleton. Event the leader at the front rarely exceeds 245 W there.
>>>
>>> Source:
>>> <https://www.tour-magazin.de/profi-radsport/tour-de-france/tour-de-france-verstehen-wattleistungen-im-check-welche-leistung-bringen-die-profis-aufs-pedal/>
>>>
>>>
>>> | During a normal stage of the Tour de France, pro riders can
>>> | pump out around 230-250 watts on average, which equates to
>>> | burning about 900 calories per hour. But on some of the
>>> | harder stages they can average over 300 watts, or 1,100
>>> | calories per hour. Tadej Pogacar has a Functional Threshold
>>> | Power – an estimate of the power he can sustain for around
>>> | one hour – of around 415 watts. But for explosive one-hour
>>> | attacks on big climbs, some Tour riders have been known to
>>> | exceed an average of 500 watts. And in the final stages of a
>>> | sprint finish, sprinters can hit maximal efforts of over
>>> | 1,500 watts.
>>>
>>> from
>>> <https://www.alpecincycling.com/en/pro-peloton/from-body-fat-to-power-output-anatomy-of-a-tour-de-france-rider/>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sprinters sometimes accelerate to 65-70 km/h - once, in the final
>>> sprint, after they had saved their strength for most of the time with
>>> the support of helpers.  600 W in addition to your own 136 W (plus 340
>>> percent, remember?) is more than enough to accelerate an e-bike in no
>>> time to 25 km/h.
>>>
>>> My back-of-the-envelope calculation using 136 W and +600W shows an about
>>> fivefold power advantage for the e-bike.  Not much, you think, cars come
>>> with 50 to 250 hp, making not that much difference on the road? Think
>>> again.
>>>
>>> When I look at my power curve over the the past 12 months, that roughly
>>> amounts to sustained power over five seconds vs. sustained power over
>>> one hour, a factor of 720!
>>> A 70 kg cyclist on a 10 kg bicycle needs about 14 seconds in order to
>>> accelerate to 25 km/h. Adding a generous 10 kg for motor and batteries
>>> reduces that to less than three seconds, the actual quotient is  <21%.
>>> percent.
>>>
>>> To conclude this observation, which distracts from the actual point,
>>> even old and weak, but healthy cyclists are able to produce 140 W or,
>>> say, 2.2 W/kg for less than a half a minute, but people rarely do more,
>>> when it isn't necessary.
>>>
>>> You don't need 250 W, even for riding a heavy dutch type bicycle, 140 W
>>> is enough for doing 22 km/h.
>>>
>>> But what do I notice when looking at how average people actually use
>>> their e-bikes on flat ground? Those people ride their e-bikes with about
>>> 22 km/h, too!
>>>
>>> Adding another 500 $ or € to the cost of a better e-bike (say, 2500 €)
>>> is al lot more attractive than adding the same amount to a 500 €
>>> bicycle. Now that many modern e-bikes have got more power, lighter
>>> frames and better gears, people _still_ ride their e-bikes with about
>>> 22-23 km/h, just to not trigger the speed limiter.
>>>
>>> Unlike cyclists, e-bikers are not motivated or forced to adapt their
>>> speed to circumstances such as wind, incline or ground conditions. Why
>>> should you pedal more than 70 watts at a 4% hill, going 22 km/h? Easily
>>> done on a 25 km/h e-bike restricted to 250 W on paper.  How many
>>> ordinary people (not doing cycling as a sport) do you know who can
>>> sustain > 304 W for hours?
>>>
>>> Doing the same calculation on the lower end (flat ground) or the upper
>>> end (say, 20% grades) gives similar results, less than <40 W on flat
>>> ground, even 12 % with 22 km/h is doable, needing 175 W human power plus
>>> 600 W from the motor.
>>>
>>> Are you able to ride longer 12 % grade uphill with a speed of 22 km/h? I
>>> guess not.
>>>
>>> Of course, your average utility or leisure cyclist couldn't and wouldn't
>>> do that, either, not even when switching to an e-bike. He or she would
>>> do what I'd do (and actually tried as an experiment, as you perhaps
>>> remember from my previous answer to your question), I'd reduce the
>>> 120-130 W I'd need for riding 4-5 km/h uphill to those 90 W I can
>>> sustain for hours, let the motor add 340% ~ 306 W, doing an easily
>>> ridden 12 km/h there.
>>>
>>> But that's me. From looking at what people do who _are_ into ebikes I
>>> conclude that people are even more lazy, when given the choice they paid
>>> real money for. They reduce their speed to what they can do without
>>> having to learn to ride really slow, they slow down to about 8 km/h, now
>>> needing about 230 W only for those 12 %, spending  50-60 W human power
>>> plus 170-180 W from the motor.
>>>
>>> Just what they spend when going for a walk, even under extreme
>>> circumstances.
>>>
>>> Usually, e-bikes do what people usually do with motor vehicles, their
>>> cruising speed is limited mostly by regulations, not by the limits of
>>> their own endurance, muscle strength or cardio fitness. Motorists use
>>> all the power their motor and external energy source delivers, within
>>> the regulatory limits.
>>>
>>> Cylists, are lazy too, even more so, because they have to. Ten colories
>>> spent on needlessly accelerating and then braking are ten calories lost
>>> and not available when the gained speed could have been used for just
>>> rooling with speed for a while.
>>>
>>> Riding at your limit without overdoing is, getting strength and
>>> endurance is an art.  But even without all that sport science training
>>> methods, just _using_ your own power when all you have is that power,
>>> for getting around on a bicycle far and fast enough will get you more
>>> strength and endurance, on the long run.  This makes cycling more
>>> usefull and more enjoyable, at the same time.
>>>
>>> Adding a strong motor to a bicycle, as it is done with e-bikes limited
>>> to 25 km/h, eliminates most of that.  Arguing "but this still is
>>> cycling!!" is like selling electric wheelchairs to healthy people and
>>> pointing to the Paralympics to justify it.
>>>
>>
>> "looking at what people do who _are_ into ebikes I conclude that people
>> are even more lazy..."
>>
>> That's what I see as well.  Your post is well considered as an observer
>> of the actual situation now.
>
>Coincidentally, yesterday's the New York Times had an article about a
>young mother whose infant daughter died. The grief was overwhelming, of
>course. Her major point was that she coped largely through riding an
>eBike. Apparently her local terrain and conditioning or experience made
>a conventional bike too difficult for her.

I think it is a bit more complicated. You have to look at the sitution
as the result of a process, not as a momentary, isolated decision.

Before the advent of ebikes, people started cycling as a child, some
early, some a little bit later. Our two boys started cycling even before
elementary school. Some five year olds can do 50 km and enjoy it,
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/fahrten/urlaub/emsland1992.jpeg>
most children should be able to do that two year years later, if they
get the chance to learn it. The fascinating feature of cycling is that,
just like with walking and running, skills, the ability to assess and
handle their own strength comes with and by practice and intensity,
taking motivation and time. Skills, both mental and physical ones, grow
while and _because_ a child uses and trains his or her muscles, while
riding more often, faster, longer distances and while handling more
difficult situations needing and using more strength.

Giving a child an ebike, because handling a bicycle is too difficult for
her is like giving her a loaded firearm, because running away or asking
somebody for help is too difficult.

People are able to learn using a motorcycle or a car, without having
used a bicycle, ever. But even if you take into account the trend of
letting young people drive at an earlier and earlier age, we have so far
refrained from letting preschool children drive a car or a motorcycle.

Sensible people know that you can put children on bikes from a very
early age and why you should do this. The belief that a necessarily
long learning and strengh building phase can be cut out by starting with
an ebike on only deprives them of the chance of ever learning to ride a
bike properly. This is most obvious when considering children, but it
applies to adults, too.

>
>I take that to mean there are special cases out there, as always. (Tails
>of the normal curve.) And eBike riders can be enjoying the outdoors and
>nature.

People can also do this by driving a convertible with open top. Now even
electrically and with a little less noise and no smell. :-) Just don't
call this "cycling". It isn't.

>But I agree, most eBike riders seem to want to avoid actual
>exercise.

The person who quite early coined the term Pedelec for 25 km/h e-bikes
in the German-speaking world was a linguistics student who presented it
as a marketing term in her master thesis and explicitly linked it to the
message "cycling without effort".

Besides that, using a bicycle for utility purposes and getting around,
for example for commuting implies some excercise, whether you like it or
not, it's hard to avoid. On the other hand, using an 25 km/h ebike for
exercise that way is rather difficult. Most people live in urbanized
regions, regular utility trips are rather short and most often on flat
ground. Riding up to 25 km/h needs almost no effort with motor support,
but riding faster than 25 km/h has to be done without any motor support.
So what is it: exercising by carring a dead weight of about 6-8 kg while
riding fast, or not exercising at all by riding slow? Simply
transporting 7 kg of pebbles in the panniers would be easier and serve
the same purpose a lot cheaper. :-)

--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen