On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:32:58 +0200, Wolfgang Strobl
<news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:

>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. :-)

+1