Extending the range of an electric bike...

[Paul Murphy]

"Stuart Millington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 03:06:13 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It's actually neither an electrically assisted bike nor a moped and it's a
>>grey area where trading standards haven't acted to stop such bikes being
>>sold here. In other parts of Europe electric bikes must be assisted and
>>not
>>capable of being fully self powered at any speed. For whatever reason the
>>UK
>>authorities seem to have a more relaxed view to "these things".
>
> Indeed. The /big/ gray area seems to be: "would the Police prosecute
> you for using one"?
>
>>See the Legal Things section at the bottom of this AtoB page for further
>>info http://www.atob.org.uk/questionselectric.htm .
>
> And that does not answer it - that's probably deliberate though ;-)

As these sorts of electric bikes have been sold in the UK for quite some
time alongside models which do require pedalling to get motor assistance, I
doubt any one person would be singled out (unless there was a serious
incident attributable to the bike not having to be pedalled). I think it's
more likely that if they decided to clamp down on this, there would be some
publicity and bike shops should be informed of options to make such bikes
comply. The police wont be prosecuting me because my electric bike requires
some pedalling in order to get motor assistance and I'd suggest potential
buyers go the same way.

Paul M

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Ziggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>
> Obviously they are more efficient otherwise buses and cars would use
> electric or
> some other conversion transmision.

You cant draw that conclusion because there's a very significant difference
between the operating environment trains have vs. road vehicles including
electric bikes.... hills vs. gentle inclines. If electric bikes only ever
needed to cope with the sorts of inclines trains do, then hub motor bikes
would meet most peoples needs perfectly adequately. With real-life steep
hills to contend with though, a crank drive system where motor power goes
through the main drivetrain gears is best.

Paul M

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Ziggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:59:32 +0100, "Niall Wallace"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
>>There are turbines in the HST, as part of the exhaust/induction system in
>>the form of Turbochargers.
>
> But as you well know that is not what he was refering to when he wrote
> "The HST
> 125s are diesel-electric turbines".
>
> The turbines are part of the diesel system whereas he is using
> 'diesel-electric'
> as an adjective to qualify 'turbines'. Complete nonsense!

I actually interpreted that quote as meaning the person knew there were
turbines in the trains, which there are but didn't know the correct
technical name for how they were used. The most important bit
'diesel-electric' is correct.

[Anorak off]
Paul M

 

[Ziggy]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:40:56 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Ziggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:59:32 +0100, "Niall Wallace"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
><snip>
>>>There are turbines in the HST, as part of the exhaust/induction system in
>>>the form of Turbochargers.
>>
>> But as you well know that is not what he was refering to when he wrote
>> "The HST
>> 125s are diesel-electric turbines".
>>
>> The turbines are part of the diesel system whereas he is using
>> 'diesel-electric'
>> as an adjective to qualify 'turbines'. Complete nonsense!
>
>I actually interpreted that quote as meaning the person knew there were
>turbines in the trains, which there are but didn't know the correct
>technical name for how they were used. The most important bit
>'diesel-electric' is correct.

So what you're saying is that he didn't really know what he was talking about
but decided to post anyway.

I find you interpretation odd, though.

On the logic you're using you could describe a turbocharged petrol engine as a
"petrol turbine" and a diesel-hydraulic locomotive as diesel electric on the
grounds that it 'has an electic motor', e.g in the fuel pump.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Paul Murphy <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:

> You cant draw that conclusion because there's a very significant
> difference between the operating environment trains have vs. road
> vehicles including electric bikes.... hills vs. gentle inclines. If
> electric bikes only ever needed to cope with the sorts of inclines
> trains do, then hub motor bikes would meet most peoples needs
> perfectly adequately.

If /any/ bikes only ever needed to cope with the sorts of inclines trains
do, they wouldn't need the electric motor in the first place ;-)

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The elder stoat leads, in all circumstances.

 

[Alistair Gunn]

Ziggy twisted the electrons to say:
> AFAIK it has never been attempted with a large diesel in the UK. The
> only large diesel transmision used other than electric was hydraulic
> and that was phased out in the mid seventies.

Phased out *in the UK* by the end of '77, still used in Europe AFAIK?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

 

[Ziggy]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:25:24 +0000 (UTC), Alistair Gunn <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ziggy twisted the electrons to say:
>> AFAIK it has never been attempted with a large diesel in the UK. The
>> only large diesel transmision used other than electric was hydraulic
>> and that was phased out in the mid seventies.
>
>Phased out *in the UK* by the end of '77, still used in Europe AFAIK?

No idea - I was refering to the UK.

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected],
> Paul Murphy <[email protected]> tweaked the
> Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>> You cant draw that conclusion because there's a very significant
>> difference between the operating environment trains have vs. road
>> vehicles including electric bikes.... hills vs. gentle inclines. If
>> electric bikes only ever needed to cope with the sorts of inclines
>> trains do, then hub motor bikes would meet most peoples needs
>> perfectly adequately.
>
> If /any/ bikes only ever needed to cope with the sorts of inclines trains
> do, they wouldn't need the electric motor in the first place ;-)

Good point, I might even be tempted into a bare bike if that was the case!

Paul M

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Ziggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:40:56 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Ziggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:59:32 +0100, "Niall Wallace"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>><snip>
>>>>There are turbines in the HST, as part of the exhaust/induction system
>>>>in
>>>>the form of Turbochargers.
>>>
>>> But as you well know that is not what he was refering to when he wrote
>>> "The HST
>>> 125s are diesel-electric turbines".
>>>
>>> The turbines are part of the diesel system whereas he is using
>>> 'diesel-electric'
>>> as an adjective to qualify 'turbines'. Complete nonsense!
>>
>>I actually interpreted that quote as meaning the person knew there were
>>turbines in the trains, which there are but didn't know the correct
>>technical name for how they were used. The most important bit
>>'diesel-electric' is correct.
>
> So what you're saying is that he didn't really know what he was talking
> about
> but decided to post anyway.

No, I've said what I interpreted it as above, loud and clear.

> I find you interpretation odd, though.

I find your spelling odd. Just because it's not how I'd choose to do things
doesn't mean I or other people won't clearly understand what you mean
though. Similarly some people may misinterpret your message but it's
different strokes for different folks.

> On the logic you're using you could describe a turbocharged petrol engine
> as a
> "petrol turbine" and a diesel-hydraulic locomotive as diesel electric on
> the
> grounds that it 'has an electic motor', e.g in the fuel pump.

No again it looks like you're attempting to put words in my mouth. My
statement was clear and quite specific. Attempting to extrapolate this into
something else serves no purpose.

Paul M

 

[Ziggy]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:37:49 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Ziggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:40:56 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ziggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:59:32 +0100, "Niall Wallace"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>><snip>
>>>>>There are turbines in the HST, as part of the exhaust/induction system
>>>>>in
>>>>>the form of Turbochargers.
>>>>
>>>> But as you well know that is not what he was refering to when he wrote
>>>> "The HST
>>>> 125s are diesel-electric turbines".
>>>>
>>>> The turbines are part of the diesel system whereas he is using
>>>> 'diesel-electric'
>>>> as an adjective to qualify 'turbines'. Complete nonsense!
>>>
>>>I actually interpreted that quote as meaning the person knew there were
>>>turbines in the trains, which there are but didn't know the correct
>>>technical name for how they were used. The most important bit
>>>'diesel-electric' is correct.
>>
>> So what you're saying is that he didn't really know what he was talking
>> about
>> but decided to post anyway.
>
>No, I've said what I interpreted it as above, loud and clear.

But you said he 'didn't know the correct technical name', and he clearly posted,
so taking those things together you must be saying that he posted when he didn't
know what he was talking about.

It could hardly be clearer.

>> On the logic you're using you could describe a turbocharged petrol engine
>> as a
>> "petrol turbine" and a diesel-hydraulic locomotive as diesel electric on
>> the
>> grounds that it 'has an electic motor', e.g in the fuel pump.
>
>No again it looks like you're attempting to put words in my mouth.

Not at all.

I'm just demonstrating that your interpretation is based on a logic that would
allow absurdities such as calling a turbocharged petrol engine a
'petrol-turbine'.

And it would!

 

[Paul Murphy]

Ziggy wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:37:49 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
>>> So what you're saying is that he didn't really know what he was
>>> talking about
>>> but decided to post anyway.
>>
>> No, I've said what I interpreted it as above, loud and clear.
>
> But you said he 'didn't know the correct technical name', and he
> clearly posted, so taking those things together you must be saying
> that he posted when he didn't know what he was talking about.
>
> It could hardly be clearer.

Again, that's your interpretation, not mine..

>>> On the logic you're using you could describe a turbocharged petrol
>>> engine as a
>>> "petrol turbine" and a diesel-hydraulic locomotive as diesel
>>> electric on the
>>> grounds that it 'has an electic motor', e.g in the fuel pump.
>>
>> No again it looks like you're attempting to put words in my mouth.
>
> Not at all.

I'm glad of that and I trust that you'll therefore accept what I've written
above as being my view.

> I'm just demonstrating that your interpretation is based on a logic
> that would allow absurdities such as calling a turbocharged petrol
> engine a 'petrol-turbine'.
>
> And it would!

My point is it doesn't serve any purpose to try and extrapolate that because
what's to say my train of thought will be the same for a different posting.

Can you accept the most important point I made previously which you snipped
out? Here, I'll put it back for you:

You wrote: > I find you interpretation odd, though.

To which I replied: I find your spelling odd. Just because it's not how I'd
choose to do things
doesn't mean I or other people won't clearly understand what you mean
though. Similarly some people may misinterpret your message but it's
different strokes for different folks.

Paul M

 

[Ziggy]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:25:45 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ziggy wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:37:49 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
><snip>
>>>> So what you're saying is that he didn't really know what he was
>>>> talking about
>>>> but decided to post anyway.
>>>
>>> No, I've said what I interpreted it as above, loud and clear.
>>
>> But you said he 'didn't know the correct technical name', and he
>> clearly posted, so taking those things together you must be saying
>> that he posted when he didn't know what he was talking about.
>>
>> It could hardly be clearer.
>
>Again, that's your interpretation, not mine..

Your interpretation (as stated by you) was that he 'didn't know the correct
technical name'. It is a documented fact that he posted.

Where is the room for interpretation?

>I'm glad of that and I trust that you'll therefore accept what I've written
>above as being my view.

He posted. You wrote that he 'didn't know the correct technical name'.

I accept that.

He posted without knowing what he was talking about.
>
>> I'm just demonstrating that your interpretation is based on a logic
>> that would allow absurdities such as calling a turbocharged petrol
>> engine a 'petrol-turbine'.
>>
>> And it would!
>
>My point is it doesn't serve any purpose to try and extrapolate that because
>what's to say my train of thought will be the same for a different posting.

Your train of though is irrelevant. There is an implied rule in your
interpretation that would, if it was accepted, allow such nonsense as 'petrol
turbine'.

Or refering to a straight diesel with mechanical transmission as a 'diesel
electic' just because it had an electric fuel pump.

Thus although your original interpretation was correct, it was only so based on
already knowing the answer, since you have no way of knowing if that is what the
poster intended.

>Can you accept the most important point I made previously which you snipped
>out? Here, I'll put it back for you:

No, because it's ridiculous.

Typing, for example, 'deisel electric' is not going to confuse anyone with two
brain cells. typing 'diesel electric turbine' is just typing nonsense and will
not enlighten anyone who doesn't already know 'the answer.

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Ziggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:25:45 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Ziggy wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:37:49 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>><snip>
>>>>> So what you're saying is that he didn't really know what he was
>>>>> talking about
>>>>> but decided to post anyway.
>>>>
>>>> No, I've said what I interpreted it as above, loud and clear.
>>>
>>> But you said he 'didn't know the correct technical name', and he
>>> clearly posted, so taking those things together you must be saying
>>> that he posted when he didn't know what he was talking about.
>>>
>>> It could hardly be clearer.
>>
>>Again, that's your interpretation, not mine..
>
> Your interpretation (as stated by you) was that he 'didn't know the
> correct
> technical name'. It is a documented fact that he posted.
>
> Where is the room for interpretation?

There's as much room for interpretation as there are different people to
interpret it.

>>I'm glad of that and I trust that you'll therefore accept what I've
>>written
>>above as being my view.
>
> He posted. You wrote that he 'didn't know the correct technical name'.
>
> I accept that.
>
> He posted without knowing what he was talking about.

Your words, not mine.

>>> I'm just demonstrating that your interpretation is based on a logic
>>> that would allow absurdities such as calling a turbocharged petrol
>>> engine a 'petrol-turbine'.
>>>
>>> And it would!
>>
>>My point is it doesn't serve any purpose to try and extrapolate that
>>because
>>what's to say my train of thought will be the same for a different
>>posting.
>
> Your train of though is irrelevant. There is an implied rule in your
> interpretation that would, if it was accepted, allow such nonsense as
> 'petrol
> turbine'.

You may think there's an implied rule, I'm telling you that's your
interpretation and what you've written above aren't my words, no matter how
much you want them to be.

> Or refering to a straight diesel with mechanical transmission as a 'diesel
> electic' just because it had an electric fuel pump.
>
> Thus although your original interpretation was correct, it was only so
> based on
> already knowing the answer, since you have no way of knowing if that is
> what the
> poster intended.

Incorrect, I made it quite clear that's my interpretation - just as your
interpretation differs.

>>Can you accept the most important point I made previously which you
>>snipped
>>out? Here, I'll put it back for you:
>
> No, because it's ridiculous.

Why? Do you not accept people can interpret things differently? That's all
this is about. If you want me to admit I'm wrong to interpret things the way
I did, that's not going to happen.


Paul M

Gotta go now Mark of Caine on Channel 4 is getting interesting!

 

[Ziggy]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:40:54 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>There's as much room for interpretation as there are different people to
>interpret it.

That says nothing. It implies that you can never say anything unambiguous.

>> He posted without knowing what he was talking about.
>
>Your words, not mine.

Simply logically rearranging a known fact and what you said.

>> Your train of though is irrelevant. There is an implied rule in your
>> interpretation that would, if it was accepted, allow such nonsense as
>> 'petrol
>> turbine'.
>
>You may think there's an implied rule, I'm telling you that's your
>interpretation and what you've written above aren't my words, no matter how
>much you want them to be.

I didn't say they were your words. I was just showing why your words were
absurd.

>> Or refering to a straight diesel with mechanical transmission as a 'diesel
>> electic' just because it had an electric fuel pump.
>>
>> Thus although your original interpretation was correct, it was only so
>> based on
>> already knowing the answer, since you have no way of knowing if that is
>> what the
>> poster intended.
>
>Incorrect, I made it quite clear that's my interpretation

We know it's your supposed interpretation. It's just that your 'interpretation
requires you to alread know the facts so is, in this circumstance, pointless.

>just as your
>interpretation differs.

I never tried to make an interpretation since what was written was nonsense.

>> No, because it's ridiculous.
>
>Why? Do you not accept people can interpret things differently? That's all
>this is about.

No it isn't.

> If you want me to admit I'm wrong to interpret things the way
>I did, that's not going to happen.

I've already told you, it isn't that your interpretation is wrong - it's just
that because you already knew the facts you could twist what was said it fit
them.

The salient point is that to anyone who was not previously aware of the facts,
"diesel-electric turbine" remains a nonsense.

 

[Paul Murphy]

Ziggy wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:40:54 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> There's as much room for interpretation as there are different
>> people to interpret it.
>
> That says nothing. It implies that you can never say anything
> unambiguous.

Well which is it, saying nothing or implying you can never say anything
unambiguous? You're contradicting yourself claiming it's both.

>>> He posted without knowing what he was talking about.
>>
>> Your words, not mine.
>
> Simply logically rearranging a known fact and what you said.

So if I rearrange what you say/write, will the outcome be the same as what
you say/write? The outcome would be my words and not yours.

>>> Your train of though is irrelevant. There is an implied rule in your
>>> interpretation that would, if it was accepted, allow such nonsense
>>> as 'petrol
>>> turbine'.
>>
>> You may think there's an implied rule, I'm telling you that's your
>> interpretation and what you've written above aren't my words, no
>> matter how much you want them to be.
>
> I didn't say they were your words. I was just showing why your words
> were absurd.

I'm glad you admit they were your words and not mine. As much as you'd like
me to accept my words were absurd, I dont believe they were.

>>> Or refering to a straight diesel with mechanical transmission as a
>>> 'diesel electic' just because it had an electric fuel pump.
>>>
>>> Thus although your original interpretation was correct, it was only
>>> so based on
>>> already knowing the answer, since you have no way of knowing if
>>> that is what the
>>> poster intended.
>>
>> Incorrect, I made it quite clear that's my interpretation
>
> We know it's your supposed interpretation.

No not a supposed interpretation, my interpretation and I'd like to see you
speaking for yourself.

> It's just that your interpretation requires you to alread know the facts
> so is, in this circumstance, pointless.

I'm sorry you feel my interpretation is pointless. It is nevertheless my
interpretation and it shows that your view isn't the only one.

>> just as your
>> interpretation differs.

I'm glad we agree on that.

> I never tried to make an interpretation since what was written was
> nonsense.

Of course you did, thats why you believed it to be nonsence.

>>> No, because it's ridiculous.
>>
>> Why? Do you not accept people can interpret things differently?
>> That's all this is about.
>
> No it isn't.

We disagree then.

>> If you want me to admit I'm wrong to interpret things the way
>> I did, that's not going to happen.
>
> I've already told you, it isn't that your interpretation is wrong -
> it's just that because you already knew the facts you could twist
> what was said it fit them.

How do you know the OP didn't already "know the facts" but just didn't know
(or remember) the word turbocharger?

> The salient point is that to anyone who was not previously aware of
> the facts, "diesel-electric turbine" remains a nonsense.

How do you know? There you go again attempting to speak for others. I'd like
you to speak for yourself.

Paul M

 

[Ziggy]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:05:25 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Well which is it, saying nothing or implying you can never say anything
>unambiguous? You're contradicting yourself claiming it's both.

The later. I meant 'nothing useful'.

>> Simply logically rearranging a known fact and what you said.
>
>So if I rearrange what you say/write, will the outcome be the same as what
>you say/write? The outcome would be my words and not yours.

Depends how you rearrange. There are valid ways and invalid ways.

>I'm glad you admit they were your words and not mine. As much as you'd like
>me to accept my words were absurd, I dont believe they were.

Your opinion to which you are entitled.

>> We know it's your supposed interpretation.
>
>No not a supposed interpretation, my interpretation ...

It's an interpretation only possible because you already knew the facts.

>I'm sorry you feel my interpretation is pointless.

Pointless because you could only make it by already being in posession of the
facts.

>> I never tried to make an interpretation since what was written was
>> nonsense.
>
>Of course you did, thats why you believed it to be nonsence.

No I didn't. As it was nonsense there was no point in making an interpretation.

>How do you know the OP didn't already "know the facts" but just didn't know
>(or remember) the word turbocharger?

Because in English we put the adjective or adjectival phrase *before* the noun
or noun phrase.

Even in the unlikely event that he'd forgotten the word 'turbocharged' if he had
the faintest idea what he was talking about he would have said "turbine
diesel-electric".

>> The salient point is that to anyone who was not previously aware of
>> the facts, "diesel-electric turbine" remains a nonsense.
>
>How do you know?

Because in English we put the adjective or adjectival phrase *before* the noun
or noun phrase ;-)

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Ziggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:05:25 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Well which is it, saying nothing or implying you can never say anything
>>unambiguous? You're contradicting yourself claiming it's both.
>
> The later. I meant 'nothing useful'.

Then it depends how the individual interprets the message.

>>> Simply logically rearranging a known fact and what you said.
>>
>>So if I rearrange what you say/write, will the outcome be the same as what
>>you say/write? The outcome would be my words and not yours.
>
> Depends how you rearrange. There are valid ways and invalid ways.

But your idea of what's valid may differ to other peoples - does that mean
we should all follow your way?

>>I'm glad you admit they were your words and not mine. As much as you'd
>>like
>>me to accept my words were absurd, I dont believe they were.
>
<snip>
>>> I never tried to make an interpretation since what was written was
>>> nonsense.
>>
>>Of course you did, thats why you believed it to be nonsence.
>
> No I didn't. As it was nonsense there was no point in making an
> interpretation.

The point has clearly gone over your head.

>>How do you know the OP didn't already "know the facts" but just didn't
>>know
>>(or remember) the word turbocharger?
>
> Because in English we put the adjective or adjectival phrase *before* the
> noun
> or noun phrase.

I aint no good at that English stuff sometimes ;-) maybe the poster is the
same (also addresses your later point)?

> Even in the unlikely event that he'd forgotten the word 'turbocharged' if
> he had
> the faintest idea what he was talking about he would have said "turbine
> diesel-electric".

Six of one and half a dozen the other.

Paul M

 

[Stuart Millington]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:23:14 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>As these sorts of electric bikes have been sold in the UK for quite some
>time alongside models which do require pedalling to get motor assistance, I
>doubt any one person would be singled out (unless there was a serious
>incident attributable to the bike not having to be pedalled). I think it's
>more likely that if they decided to clamp down on this, there would be some
>publicity and bike shops should be informed of options to make such bikes
>comply.

That's what I'd hope. But, given their propensity for occasionally
absurd prosecutions (like eating a KitKat whilst stationary in
traffic) I wouldn't be surprised if someone took the brunt of an
officer trying to hit a target.

>The police wont be prosecuting me because my electric bike requires
>some pedalling in order to get motor assistance and I'd suggest potential
>buyers go the same way.

Yep, and for older ones conversion should be possible. I've been
thinking about an optical rotation sensor on the pedal shaft to act as
an "interrupter" to the power control system. Such a thing should be
electrically simple. Reliably mounting the sensor for all-weather
conditions would be trickier.

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Stuart Millington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 06:23:14 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>As these sorts of electric bikes have been sold in the UK for quite some
>>time alongside models which do require pedalling to get motor assistance,
>>I
>>doubt any one person would be singled out (unless there was a serious
>>incident attributable to the bike not having to be pedalled). I think it's
>>more likely that if they decided to clamp down on this, there would be
>>some
>>publicity and bike shops should be informed of options to make such bikes
>>comply.
>
> That's what I'd hope. But, given their propensity for occasionally
> absurd prosecutions (like eating a KitKat whilst stationary in
> traffic) I wouldn't be surprised if someone took the brunt of an
> officer trying to hit a target.

Certainly owners of such bikes run that risk and even more likely if they're
involved in an accident, a lawyer acting for the other side might pounce on
the bikes legality.

>>The police wont be prosecuting me because my electric bike requires
>>some pedalling in order to get motor assistance and I'd suggest potential
>>buyers go the same way.
>
> Yep, and for older ones conversion should be possible. I've been
> thinking about an optical rotation sensor on the pedal shaft to act as
> an "interrupter" to the power control system. Such a thing should be
> electrically simple. Reliably mounting the sensor for all-weather
> conditions would be trickier.

If it's a more ready made solution you're after, I'd suggest contacting the
manufacturer/distributor. DIY solutions usually don't have the same
reliability or professional appearance. Alternatively some of the retailers
who specialise in electric bikes may be able to help.

Paul M

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Paul
Murphy ('[email protected]') wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> in message <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
> <snip thoughts on extending electric bike range>
>>> Any comments? Ideas?
>>
>> Dump the battery and the motor, and you extend the range immediately.
>> Next thing to dump is the overweight frame.
>
> I think Dave is looking for sensible ideas to meet his needs (although
> the battery DC to DC inverter does sound extreme). Clearly dumping those
> items you propose will leave him walking unless replaced.

He could always pedal. He would be /shocked/ how little effort it would
take, on a good bike.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Our modern industrial economy takes a mountain covered with trees,
;; lakes, running streams and transforms it into a mountain of junk,
;; garbage, slime pits, and debris. -- Edward Abbey