ozzybmx
Active member
Haha... The law.
250w constant. They are all breaking the rules.
DJI is as compliant as the rest of them, they just make it possible for the end user to circumnavigate the speed limit.
Yet another 250w Nominal Groundhog day thread
- Thread starter ozzybmx
- Start date
250w constant. They are all breaking the rules.
DJI is as compliant as the rest of them, they just make it possible for the end user to circumnavigate the speed limit.
Words are important, the law actually states 250w nominal, not constant.
So motors can peak higher than that quite legally, the 250w relates to being able to generate that power continuously over a period of time.
The other stipulations are pedal assist to max 25/32/45kMh (or whatever your local laws state obviously) and it can only assist whilst the rider is actually pedalling, ie no throttles.
All bikes can be derestricted in some way, just some more easily than others, as you say.
Bosch/DJI/Shimano/Brose etc all sell legally compliant e-bikes wherever they sell them, it’s people that subsequently break the law, not the bikes.
European Union definition
Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the council, which replaced 2002/24/EC on 1 January 2016 but is substantially the same, exempts vehicles with the following definition from the requirement for type approval: "pedal cycles with pedal assistance which are equipped with an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous rated power of less than or equal to 250 W, where the output of the motor is cut off when the cyclist stops pedalling and is otherwise progressively reduced and finally cut off before the vehicle speed reaches 25 km/h [15.5 mph]". This is the de facto definition of an electrically assisted pedal cycle in the EU. As with all EU directives, individual member countries of the EU are left to implement the requirements in national legislation. The EU specification does not require a helmet to be worn when riding this class of bicycle.[37]
European product safety standard EN 15194 was published in 2009. The aim of EN 15194 is "to provide a standard for the assessment of electrically powered cycles of a type which are excluded from type approval by Directive 2002/24/EC".[38]
*Maximum continuous means it can peak higher in short periods and that's what the motor does, less than a second between each peak you won't notice it when you pedal.
Also the cut of don't do it 100% at 25km but starts slowly and decrease the power to zero at 26/26.5 km but this is different from brand to brands, some cut off immediately at 25km other doesn't.
My Levo 4 goes to zero assistance at 26.4 km.
Last edited:
ozzybmx
Active member
- Thread starter
- #5
There is not a legal ebike on the market that you can feel your 250w as you propel yourself to the peak 750/1000w.
They have all exceeded and played on the max cont guidelines, Bosch, Giant and Avinox (the 3 bikes I currently have) blast 250w out of the ballpark on the first pedal stroke.
ctcampbell
New Member
Right, but you still have to run a cable; instead of the sensor that goes on the valve which doesn’t need a messy cable. What am I missing?
All the bikes are legal if they have a motor capable of a continuous 250w (note not constant, that’s different). They are allowed to legally exceed 250w for short periods as long as the nominal or rated power isn’t above 250w.
bmwpowere36m3
Member
I guess there's the letter and intent of the law... 250W nominal, but if manufactorer can produce a motor to "burst" for "short" periods of time to 10,000W... kind of defeats the purpose of the law.
If DJI can output 1000W 99% duty cycle, then is it really 250W nominal... just making up numbers. How is 250W actually rated or tested. Short is ambiguous language and maybe that's a failure of the law as written.
I'm all for the power we have today, so I'm not looking to limit that. However manufacturers are certainly finding ways to push what's legal via power and user-configurable class rating.
If DJI can output 1000W 99% duty cycle, then is it really 250W nominal... just making up numbers. How is 250W actually rated or tested. Short is ambiguous language and maybe that's a failure of the law as written.
I'm all for the power we have today, so I'm not looking to limit that. However manufacturers are certainly finding ways to push what's legal via power and user-configurable class rating.
sethimus
😠 Donald Duck 😠
750w of bosch tuning vs. 750w of avinox tuning will still feel completely different so what’s the point?
bmwpowere36m3
Member
I agree, maximum power or nominal/continuous needs better definition... for example:
Bosch CX-R running 30 min is outputting consistently over 500W... so how does that make it 250W "nominal" or continuous.
Bosch CX-R running 30 min is outputting consistently over 500W... so how does that make it 250W "nominal" or continuous.
750w is 750w. Would just need a standardized test.
Now if Avinox wants to have their motor deliver 750 watts with 5 watts of input, that's another topic.
I agree, maximum power or nominal/continuous needs better definition... for example:
Bosch CX-R running 30 min is outputting consistently over 500W... so how does that make it 250W "nominal" or continuous.
The EN standard, here in the UK anyway, is as much a consumer protection standard as anything else, ie if the manufacturer says it’s a 250w motor then it must be able to provide at least 250w for 1 hour without overheating or cutting out etc.
I’m not sure in what scenario the above graph was generated, I’m assuming some kind of dyno/test rig, but if that were a real world scenario then even your 800Wh battery would be flat in well under an hour, and I can’t ever remember doing that on any of my e-bikes even climbing continuously.
The other thing is, any e-bike has a motor controller which also has a part to play in the 250w continuous/rated compliance, it knows what’s been going on and can dial back motor output over time to comply.
Whether or not they all do that I don’t know, but there are some good sites and videos out there that explain it better than I have.
A motor capped at 250w would be tragic, so I for one I’m glad they go into the ‘more than’ area when required whether it’s a ‘grey zone’ or not.
I think all that most jurisdictions are bothered about is the legal assist speed limit, that’s the thing they want compliance with. Whether assist is capped at 25kMh per hour with 250w or 500w available, I doubt they much care.
Plummet
Flash Git
25kph limit would suck. I'm not even sure i would bother with e-bikes if they tapped out at 25kph.
bmwpowere36m3
Member
I 100% agree in the sense an old brushed 250W nominal rated motor is NOT what we want. Capping maximum power output, support ratios and/or speed will help to protect everyone (businesses, people, access).
Its a double-edged sword and after watching the Bosch CX update launch video by Alex... it makes sense. They [legacy manufacturers] all have been playing in the grey area, knowing the "limitations" of the law. If we take Bosch's word for it, they've been "raising" the issue with advocacy groups for some time. At the same time, these brands have steadily raised the output capability of the motors with time.
DJI/Avinox came out and broke status quo, so to speak. At the time of their launch, I believe, the US already imposed the 750W max cap on Class I and Austria dropped the 600W peak and the EU was back at the "250W" nominal.
Even 750W seems arbitrary... 1 horsepower, what does that mean for a person. Other than the fact motors at the time of the US legislation were peaking around 700-750W.
Some of this is reactionary and protecting their business, but the underlying message I believe to be true. That some consistent and appropriate rules would benefit MOST folks/governments/industries.
bmwpowere36m3
Member
I'd still ride an eMTB since I'm never climbing more than 12-14 mph on my current EP801 for proper steeps/goods... that's ~ 2x as fast as my meat bike. We have the 20 mph limit in the US and it only crops up on flatter paved/gravel segments. Never a problem on trail. With any real climbing, I've always been power limited (600W) and not speed.
I have never had much interest in the "power" issue. The riding I enjoy is powered by gravity...ie downhill.........I rarely need to pedal so how much power the motor has is not relevant to me except when climbing back up to the head of the trail, or on a technical climb; but then traction and control is more important than outright power. For the same reasons the cut off speed does not affect me.
In my case most downhill runs ( mostly in forests) are fairly short hence the climb is also short but I understand it is very different for folk that have genuine mountain territory where a ride often starts with a long climb..albeit often on a gravel track and non technical.
A lot of motors now have sensors that determine of a bike is climbing, ascending or on the level. In that case it should be possible to set both power and max assist speed dependant on those criterea. That might be a development that meets both rider and reguatory authority requirements?? Just a thought
In my case most downhill runs ( mostly in forests) are fairly short hence the climb is also short but I understand it is very different for folk that have genuine mountain territory where a ride often starts with a long climb..albeit often on a gravel track and non technical.
A lot of motors now have sensors that determine of a bike is climbing, ascending or on the level. In that case it should be possible to set both power and max assist speed dependant on those criterea. That might be a development that meets both rider and reguatory authority requirements?? Just a thought
Be careful what you wish for!
We definitely do not want to provoke the EU lawmakers into redrafting the rules.
It's the imprecise definition of what 250W actually means that allow us to ride the way we do. If it was "better defined", then it may end up as a maximum of 250W! Well defined and precise, but who the hell wants that!
The current definition does us all a favour, almost as though whoever drafted it was a far-seeing ebiker.
For example, the 25kph max speed is precise and exactly defined. None of us like it.
bmwpowere36m3
Member
Be careful what you wish for!
We definitely do not want to provoke the EU lawmakers into redrafting the rules.
It's the imprecise definition of what 250W actually means that allow us to ride the way we do. If it was "better defined", then it may end up as a maximum of 250W! Well defined and precise, but who the hell wants that!
The current definition does us all a favour, almost as though whoever drafted it was a far-seeing ebiker.
For example, the 25kph max speed is precise and exactly defined. None of us like it.
Its bound to happen and foolish to believe that existing rules will remain with the widespread proliferation of e-bikes and the "bending" of rules whether its power and/or class. Unfortunately illegal e-moped/motorcycles are drawing too much negative attention and accidents are on the rise. Everyone just associates them with e-bikes...
I also don't believe, they would go backwards and set a hard cap at 250W. The most realistic scenario is somewhere near where we are today.
Certainly in the EU and to an extent in the UK the primary political interest is in promoting cycling as an alternative to a car for both ecological and health reasons. That means the focus is largely on commuting and leisure riding on cycle ways; as per a recent consultation in the UK the authorities there was also a focus on the need for more power for cargo bikes. We/emtb riders are just a sideshow. The EPAC regulations originally.....and still...were only primarily governed by 2 things. The first was to create clear water between an electrically assisted cycle and a moped. Failure to have achieved that would result in a huge additional demand on licencing authorities, age caps etc. Second was the main demand from the cycling associations lobby, to avoid the need for Type Approval. The latter is the primary reason both power and Max assisted speed had to be regulated.
None of that took any account of mountain bike riders needs or desires. Until and unless mtb is considered as a specific entity in the regulations none of the above will change much.
None of that took any account of mountain bike riders needs or desires. Until and unless mtb is considered as a specific entity in the regulations none of the above will change much.
Be careful what you wish for!
We definitely do not want to provoke the EU lawmakers into redrafting the rules.
It's the imprecise definition of what 250W actually means that allow us to ride the way we do. If it was "better defined", then it may end up as a maximum of 250W! Well defined and precise, but who the hell wants that!
The current definition does us all a favour, almost as though whoever drafted it was a far-seeing ebiker.
For example, the 25kph max speed is precise and exactly defined. None of us like it.
Nobody is mentioning the other legal loopholes, that cheapo Chinese bikes are using in the EU:
- Assist: There is no limit, so you can sell a bike with 1000% assist, where the pedals are just a circular throttle.
- Overrun: It's cool when Bosch does it 0.5s to get you over that rock garden, it is not cool when Chinese bikes have 10s overrun, where you see riders touching the pedals every now and then to ride motorcycle on cycling infrastructure.
I would be fine with a second category of ebike, that needs no registration, but cannot ride cycling infrastructure or trails.
But to consider it a BICYCLE, we need better rules. I would be fine with 100000000 Watts, if it cannot do more than 100% assist
- Assist: There is no limit, so you can sell a bike with 1000% assist, where the pedals are just a circular throttle.
- Overrun: It's cool when Bosch does it 0.5s to get you over that rock garden, it is not cool when Chinese bikes have 10s overrun, where you see riders touching the pedals every now and then to ride motorcycle on cycling infrastructure.
I would be fine with a second category of ebike, that needs no registration, but cannot ride cycling infrastructure or trails.
But to consider it a BICYCLE, we need better rules. I would be fine with 100000000 Watts, if it cannot do more than 100% assist
I tend to agree with the thrust of your first paragraph. This is why we need interested bodies (cycling organisations, and or the manufacturers (like Bosch for example) to lobby the law makers and counter the bad press. I believe that this is what Bosch are trying to do at an EU level albeit with a huge dose of self interest.
However, I am not as confident as you are in your second paragraph. I don't know where CT is but European beauracrats have a way of gold plating any regulations. They will add layers of requirements, be very specific (nightmare) and will most definitely NOT have the needs of mountain bikers in their minds whilst doing so.
According to rumors, it was Bosch that 4-5 years ago went in front to stop the motor to be chipped/manipulated since many did it including myself with the famous Speedbox and EU didn't like it therfore Bosch worked tight with EU to stop the possibility to chip their motor.
Don't know which generation it was on my bike but it was in early 2018 so probably G2.
Again it's rumors.
Don't know which generation it was on my bike but it was in early 2018 so probably G2.
Again it's rumors.
@Polar I don't know either, but I would not be surprised. Bosch is a massive company.
I used to work for a large global company and they saw it as good business to be involved on all sorts of influential bodies. For example, they promoted the benefits of pet ownership to grow the population of pets to increase the size of the market. They invested in the design of pooper scoopers to assist responsible dog ownership and to minimise adverse regulations emerging. They supported the education and experience of Veterinarians in all sorts of ways, so that they were more likely to recommend our specialist diets for sick or old pets. There are many many things that support and promote the business other than just "foot hard to the floor" selling.
The last thing Bosch want is new regulations that would inhibit the growth of their market. I do not blame them for trying to control the narrative.
I used to work for a large global company and they saw it as good business to be involved on all sorts of influential bodies. For example, they promoted the benefits of pet ownership to grow the population of pets to increase the size of the market. They invested in the design of pooper scoopers to assist responsible dog ownership and to minimise adverse regulations emerging. They supported the education and experience of Veterinarians in all sorts of ways, so that they were more likely to recommend our specialist diets for sick or old pets. There are many many things that support and promote the business other than just "foot hard to the floor" selling.
The last thing Bosch want is new regulations that would inhibit the growth of their market. I do not blame them for trying to control the narrative.
I guess that one needs to better understand, "basic elements of passive safety" in regards to "Mountain" biking. I assume that In safety language, passive safety means features that help you avoid danger without active intervention.
My first question is, how does maximum speed help to avoid danger while riding on a mountain or on trails. And secondly how additional power adds to safety. When you say passive safety, do you mean the ability to accelerate out of trouble or maintain flow? I’m curious where you see the biggest safety gains in real riding.
I do find the speed limitation inconvenient and wish I could ride at a faster pace occasionally, I would like to think that the ability to continue to share trails and have access to all aspects of mountain resources, limitations could help to insure the continued blessing of the communities that allow our access.
On what do you base that. In your experience what is the problem with that additional 250 watts? And conversely why not limit to 500 watts
