Bicycle Power
View Full Version : Bicycle Power
According to yesterdays paper
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/when-is-a-bike-not-a-bike-when-its-electric/2008/06/15/1213468240544.html
I thought it was pretty cut and dried that 200watts was an auxiliary
power but apparently it is not that clear.
Does anybody know more about this issue (this is in NSW but the 200
watts is in the Australian Road Rules so presumably it applies to
every state)
Regards
Dinsy
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum - Lucretius
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:14:25 +1000, Dinsdale Pirana wrote:
> I thought it was pretty cut and dried that 200watts was an auxiliary
> power but apparently it is not that clear.
Unfortunately, the article didn't say how much power the electric
SCOOTERS have, which is realy the issue. I suspect they are over the 200W
as I have yet to see anyone actually pedalling them.
OTOH, I haven't heard of anyone with electric BICYCLE assist wheels having
a problem.
The moral seems to be if it looks like a bicycle, then it is treated like
a bicycle, if it looks like a scooter, then it is treated like a
motorcycle.
"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.06.16.23.34.59.92590@woa.com.au...
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:14:25 +1000, Dinsdale Pirana wrote:
> I thought it was pretty cut and dried that 200watts was an auxiliary
> power but apparently it is not that clear.
Unfortunately, the article didn't say how much power the electric
SCOOTERS have, which is realy the issue. I suspect they are over the 200W
as I have yet to see anyone actually pedalling them.
OTOH, I haven't heard of anyone with electric BICYCLE assist wheels having
a problem.
The moral seems to be if it looks like a bicycle, then it is treated like
a bicycle, if it looks like a scooter, then it is treated like a
motorcycle.
-----------
Yes, that's pretty much what
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/otherinformation/scootersminibikes.html
has me to believe.
T.
On 2008-06-17, Thomas Houseman (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> "terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.06.16.23.34.59.92590@woa.com.au...
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:14:25 +1000, Dinsdale Pirana wrote:
>
>> I thought it was pretty cut and dried that 200watts was an auxiliary
>> power but apparently it is not that clear.
>
> Unfortunately, the article didn't say how much power the electric
> SCOOTERS have, which is realy the issue.
No, but it does say the judgement was based on the fact that the
pedals were secondary to the motor, rather than the other way around
as the law dictates -- the motors must not operate without the pedals
turning around, otherwise it would be an (unroadworthy) *motor*bike.
The pedicabs I rode in Melbourne had sensors on the crank such that
you needed to make a revolution every couple of seconds (not
necessarily applying any force) otherwise the motor would turn off. I
came across a few workers pushing a bike up the hill because the chain
had snapped, so I advised them to get back in and just turn the pedals
slowly with the throttle engaged, and that was sufficient to get it up
the hill and to HQ (who's silly idea was it to put HQ at the top of
Ltl Collins?)
> I suspect they are over the 200W
> as I have yet to see anyone actually pedalling them.
You don't need to pedal when you've got 200W under your ****. 200W
will set you a good pace on the flat - at least 30km/h if the bike
isn't otherwise hobbled with a 20km/h governor.
> The moral seems to be if it looks like a bicycle, then it is treated like
> a bicycle, if it looks like a scooter, then it is treated like a
> motorcycle.
Stil, the law is an ****, and I wish we could get it changed.
--
TimC
Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:35:05 +1000, TimC wrote:
Thanks for the tipabout the interlocking.
> You don't need to pedal when you've got 200W under your ****. 200W
> will set you a good pace on the flat - at least 30km/h if the bike
> isn't otherwise hobbled with a 20km/h governor.
I'm more interested in how much **** it can lift up a hill side of what
inclination.
> Stil, the law is an ****, and I wish we could get it changed.
Agreed, but until joe public starts squeeling like a pig and pollie stop
listening to their lunch-a-lot mates and the vroom-vroom pipe suckers, it
ain't going to happen.
(I wonder how much prayer it would take for oil prices to rise another 10%)
"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.06.17.12.48.59.809636@woa.com.au...
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:35:05 +1000, TimC wrote:
>
> Thanks for the tipabout the interlocking.
>
>
>> You don't need to pedal when you've got 200W under your ****. 200W
>> will set you a good pace on the flat - at least 30km/h if the bike
>> isn't otherwise hobbled with a 20km/h governor.
>
> I'm more interested in how much **** it can lift up a hill side of what
> inclination.
>
>
>> Stil, the law is an ****, and I wish we could get it changed.
There is a lot on this on www.pigswillfly.com.au/?p=1372 and
www.pigswillfly.com.au/?p=1130. A crackdown (which seems to be due to cops
interpreting the law incorrectly) has been going on for about a year with
police in places like Wagga and other country towns getting tough on e bikes
of all sorts, unless they have a separate motor, ie not in the hub, and you
only or mostly use it uphill. At the same time there has been a review by
the RTA on what power level is appropriate. Review seems to dragging on. The
RTA wants scooter type e bikes to be registered but is prepared to lift the
power limit on ordinary e bikes, since 200 W is pretty arbitrary and most
other places have higher limits (750 in North America). Meanwhile there is a
flood of moped/scooter style e bikes, which blur the distinction between a
motor driven bicycle and a pedal assisted motorbike. Someone on the blog
says there is a diminishing return in speed with bigger engines and heavier
batteries so there is point about 300 W which is probably about optimum.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:04:18 +0000, Fractal wrote:
>>
>>> Stil, the law is an ****, and I wish we could get it changed.
>
> There is a lot on this on www.pigswillfly.com.au/?p=1372 and
> www.pigswillfly.com.au/?p=1130.
Lots of the usual talking {:-), but I did pick up the bit about
"demountable", which would explain the problem with in-hub motors,
although for a "bicycle" you might be able to argue that changing a
complete wheel is well within the "nature of the beast". Not sure of
hstorical references, but many peeps here seem to have frame, group and
multiple wheels.
In-hub motors leave me cold really as when you actually read the specs
they are rather useless. Reading one a couple of nights ago that claims it
can do 600kph.
> A crackdown (which seems to be due to cops
> interpreting the law incorrectly) has been going on for about a year
> with police in places like Wagga and other country towns getting tough
> on e bikes of all sorts, unless they have a separate motor, ie not in
> the hub, and you only or mostly use it uphill.
Actually, seems that the problem was people wanting to sell stuff and
saying anything they could to get the sale and the regular collection of
gullible bunnies in the headlights(*). TANSTAAFL. I wonder if all those
people who purchased e-scooters could now return them for a refund under
the "unfit for purpose" criteria.
Anyway, what we need that we currently do not have easily available, is a
kit of left crank with cog, bolt on motor, electronic throttle and
multiple battery packs (24hr turn around for longer life) and home
recharger.
Now to find something less that the 90kg 70kw electric motors used by
electric vehicle enthusiasts. {:-)
> Someone on the blog says there is a
> diminishing return in speed with bigger engines and heavier batteries so
> there is point about 300 W which is probably about optimum.
The funniest post was that guy banging on about how wonderful and magical
LiPoly batteries are. Absolute scream.
Batteries can be summarised as follows;
Lead acid = lots of weight, 50% dead weight, but massive life cycles
NiCd = less weight, expensive, max two years life so live life to the max
in that time.
NiMH = less weight, more expensive, max two yrs, yadada, yadda,
LiFe = lot less weight, very expensive, liable to explode unless clamped
when recharging, only a promised longer life.
LiPol = lot less weight, very, very expensive, liable to burst into flames
when recharged (guess you have to factor in extra weight of fire
extinguisher as well ).
The major impediment to removing battery weight is your wallet.
Batteries, power and weight are really useless points to argue. It is like
arguing the specs of computers. BP&W only make sense when you are
discussing what you do with the bicycle and the terrain you are doing it
on. To me, 200watts on a flat terrain is very adequate and if you need to
carry groceries or head against the wind, then swap to a lower cog(**).
OTOH, if you were running a load bike carrying 500kg around Sydney, 2Kw
may be reasonable.
Also, old electronic design versus modern elecronic design can be a
big factor. It would also be handy to have some intelligence in
any legislation changes, aka if I could have a 1Kw motor at 20% duty
cycle, which would solve the hill climbing torque requirements (used on
trike =/= balance problem).
* I am not oppossed to e-scooter. Anything that gets motor vehicles off
the road and changes current motor vehicle usage is great in my opinion,
even bringing back Dobbin.
** bicycles = you exercise, e-scooter = nother lard ****.
On 2008-06-18, terryc (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> OTOH, if you were running a load bike carrying 500kg around Sydney, 2Kw
> may be reasonable.
>
> Also, old electronic design versus modern elecronic design can be a
> big factor. It would also be handy to have some intelligence in
> any legislation changes, aka if I could have a 1Kw motor at 20% duty
> cycle, which would solve the hill climbing torque requirements (used on
> trike =/= balance problem).
Flexibility in law? You've got to be goshing. You've noticed that
the law specifies that car headlights must be no more powerful than
~55W (from memory)? So expensive cars come fitted with HID lamps
which are 55W, but 3 times brighter[1]? You'd think the law would
specify brightness in terms of candelas, but no, that would require
the law not to be an ****.
[1] And riceboy gullible bunnies go out and buy Chinese made halogen
with blue paint coated (ie, dimmer than regular halogen) over the
bulb, sold as "XENON HID!!!! PLUG INTO YOUR NORMAL HEADLIGHT SOCKETS
WITH NO EXTRA CIRCUITRY REQUIRED!!!11!!"
--
TimC
"How should I know if it works? That's what beta testers are for. I only
coded it." (Attributed to Linus Torvalds, somewhere in a posting)
200 watts? Pffffta! My normalised power output from Sundays time trial was almost double that! :)
TimC <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> writes:
> On 2008-06-18, terryc (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> OTOH, if you were running a load bike carrying 500kg around Sydney,
>> 2Kw may be reasonable.
>>
>> Also, old electronic design versus modern elecronic design can be a
>> big factor. It would also be handy to have some intelligence in any
>> legislation changes, aka if I could have a 1Kw motor at 20% duty
>> cycle, which would solve the hill climbing torque requirements (used
>> on trike =/= balance problem).
>
> Flexibility in law? You've got to be goshing. You've noticed that
> the law specifies that car headlights must be no more powerful than
> ~55W (from memory)? So expensive cars come fitted with HID lamps
> which are 55W, but 3 times brighter[1]? You'd think the law would
> specify brightness in terms of candelas, but no, that would require
> the law not to be an ****.
Yes, from memory it specifies a 55W power *input* but made no reference
to the efficiency of the light. Over the years the bulbs have gone from
incadescents to halogens to HIDs. As you say, modern HID lamps have
higher power *output* a tighter frequency spread and a tighter beam
spread. (I haven't looked at the rules since about 1989 when I had to
convince a recalcitrant motor registry that the dim orange glow from my
mini was what 1969 incandescent head lights really looked like)
Me, I'd just love to get a 55W laser mounted as a head-light, I'm sure
if it was done right it could comply :-) "hey you, mister oncoming car,
you dip your lights, you *really* don't want me to turn on my high-beam
comes on...."
> [1] And riceboy gullible bunnies go out and buy Chinese made halogen
> with blue paint coated (ie, dimmer than regular halogen) over the
> bulb, sold as "XENON HID!!!! PLUG INTO YOUR NORMAL HEADLIGHT SOCKETS
> WITH NO EXTRA CIRCUITRY REQUIRED!!!11!!"
You left off the third "!"
And ya just gotta get the blue LEDs that go in the windscreen washer
squirters... and under the door handles, and on the end of the external
parcel shelf.
> TimC
Adrian
On Jun 18, 1:11 pm, terryc <newssixspam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
> Batteries can be summarised as follows;
> Lead acid = lots of weight, 50% dead weight, but massive life cycles
> NiCd = less weight, expensive, max two years life so live life to the max
> in that time.
> NiMH = less weight, more expensive, max two yrs, yadada, yadda,
Are you saying that the 10 year old NiCds in my electric drill aren't
actually working? Or the 5 yr old NiMh in my otther drill either.
Toyota are claiming they have not had to replace a set of batteriees
in a Prius yet. Some of those are 8 years old. What kind of batteries
do they have?
Theo
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:35:05 +1000, TimC
<tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote in
aus.bicycle:
>> Unfortunately, the article didn't say how much power the electric
>> SCOOTERS have, which is realy the issue.
>
>No, but it does say the judgement was based on the fact that the
>pedals were secondary to the motor, rather than the other way around
>as the law dictates -- the motors must not operate without the pedals
>turning around, otherwise it would be an (unroadworthy) *motor*bike.
There some 'vehicles' that I can understand could be stopped. For
example there are a number of kids in this area that have attached a
whipper snipper motor to their BMX drving the wheel through a foot
peg. Some of these motors are considerably over 200 watts, the brakes
are at best sus or non existant and the only way of stpping the motor
is by stalling it. This is without even mentioning the plume of smoke
they trail behind them.
On the otherhand there is an old fella driving about locally on an
expensive looking, unregistered electric scooter which as far as I can
see has no pedals at all - judging by his speed his motor is in the
range of 200watts. Clearly (?) this vehicle is not legal.
With the current coast of fuel perhaps almost any vehicle with a motor
of less than300/200 watts should be street legal provided they have
suitable brakes and lights
Regards
Dinsy
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum - Lucretius
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:57:07 +1000, gplama
<gplama.3b74pc@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in aus.bicycle:
>
>200 watts? Pffffta! My normalised power output from Sundays time
>trial was almost double that! :)
Good, can I atttach you to my rear wheel so I don't have to pedal?
Regards
Dinsy
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum - Lucretius
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:32:20 -0700, theo wrote:
> Are you saying that the 10 year old NiCds in my electric drill aren't
> actually working? Or the 5 yr old NiMh in my otther drill either.
Are they working like they always did?
If so, they would be the exception to the rule.
Not that I think the DIY use s really use.
> Toyota are claiming they have not had to replace a set of batteriees
> in a Prius yet. Some of those are 8 years old. What kind of batteries
> do they have?
Yes, but are they working like they always did?
The promise is there, but 8 years isn't 10 years which the tech claims.
They might turn out to be another canon sx laser engine, but I'm looking
for more than one example before I splurge my $$$$.
The law simply states that bicycles with motor assistance cannot have
more than 200 watts of power.,
It doesn't say anything about pedals.
It doesn't say anything about 'auxillary' power.
It doesn;t say anything about speed limits (they couldn't be enforced
anyway as bicycles aren't required to have speedometers).
It doesn't say what type of 'power', whether its brake HP or rated HP,
for instance. Most manufacturers take the most optimistic type : the
median rate of rated horsepower.
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
person <dsewizzrd@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The law simply states that bicycles with motor assistance cannot have
> more than 200 watts of power.,
>
> It doesn't say anything about pedals.
>
> It doesn't say anything about 'auxillary' power.
>
In NSW it says that bicycle is something that is designed to be
propelled by human power and it can have a motor as an auxiallary
power source.
The law may be different where you are, so you might want to say where
that is.
Zebee
from AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - SCHEDULE 99 (as quoted in the current
NSW law via austlii.edu.au)
"" bicycle " means a vehicle with 1 or more wheels that is built to be
propelled by human power through a belt, chain or gears (whether or
not it has an auxiliary motor), and:
(a) includes a pedicab, penny-farthing, scooter, tricycle and
unicycle, but
(b) does not include a wheelchair, wheeled recreational device,
wheeled toy, or any vehicle with an auxiliary motor capable of
generating a power output over 200 watts (whether or not the motor
is operating)."
Zebee
On 2008-06-19, person (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> It doesn;t say anything about speed limits (they couldn't be enforced
> anyway as bicycles aren't required to have speedometers).
Eh? Since when does not having a speedo qualify one to break the
speed limit? We don't have indicators either, but we are still
required to indicate right (but not left).
My new cargobike has a brake light :)
--
TimC
Some of us here are sysadmins, and network admins, and even Windows
admins. Clubbing baby harp seals would a socially acceptable step
*up*. -- butting on ARK
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:24:25 +1000
TimC <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
> On 2008-06-19, person (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> It doesn;t say anything about speed limits (they couldn't be enforced
>> anyway as bicycles aren't required to have speedometers).
>
> Eh? Since when does not having a speedo qualify one to break the
> speed limit? We don't have indicators either, but we are still
> required to indicate right (but not left).
One[1] of my motorcycles isn't required to have one either. (as it's pre
-82, I think that's the ADR that required them)
When I checked with the RTA they said that I didn't have to have a
speedo but the cops expected me to obey the speed laws.
When I honk the bent down Melville St of an evening I sometimes wonder
if they ever set up a speed trap there... Of course I'd frame the ticket!
Zebee
[1] well 3, but 2 of them have speedos.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:42:45 -0700, person wrote:
> The law simply states that bicycles with motor assistance cannot have
> more than 200 watts of power.,
Quote, link, url?
"The law simply states" .. it would be the first time.
"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.06.19.11.15.25.934342@woa.com.au...
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:42:45 -0700, person wrote:
> The law simply states that bicycles with motor assistance cannot have
> more than 200 watts of power.,
Quote, link, url?
"The law simply states" .. it would be the first time.
-------------
See thie third post in this thread from myself.
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
