1000w motor

[aqs]

problem solved

I have found it a great learning experiance since I started building e bikes for (off) road use living at the bottom of the mountains of mourn in N.Ireland (Ulster) one needs all
the power one can muster to do those trails. So never fear roool the streets are safe and I accept you may have reply a little hastly before you new all the facts,I can be a bit of a hot head myself at times beleive it are not!. Anyway the problem sloved by replacing battery with a 12c rateing lifepo4 batt witch can handle the 75 amp discharge max required hence I will be hitting those trails at 40 plus mph,so look out hikers and twichers here I come! yeee haaa! If anybody wants info on this system let me know and try not to get too winded.
Al.

 

[rooel]

"...hence I will be hitting those trails at 40 plus mph,so look out hikers and twichers here I come! yeee haaa! "

Well, I think that says it all, and straight from the horse's mouth too!

 

[Jeremy]

As far as I'm aware, there is no law limiting speeds on byeways or green roads. Certainly lot's of people get their kicks from riding horses, off road morotcycles and four wheel drive cars on them, so why on Earth shouldn't an electric bike rider do the same?

Many of us have hobbies that involve being out and about at speed, I fly microlights and a paramotor, for example and another contributor here races hovercraft.

Thankfully the vast majority of people are tolerant enough to not wish to stop others having a bit of fun.

Jeremy

 

[rooel]

I do not know what the situation is in Northern Ireland, Wales, or England but since the passage of the The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 we have had a much welcomed right of access by pedal cycle or on foot to a greatly increased number of off-road tracks (including many in towns and cities).

The Act established a statutory right of responsible access to land and inland waters for:

outdoor recreation,
crossing land, and
some educational and commercial purposes.​

The Access code lays out three key principles for responsible access which apply to both the public and land managers:

Respect the interests of other people: Be considerate, respect privacy and livelihoods, and the needs of those enjoying the outdoors.

Care for the Environment: Look after the places you visit and enjoy. Care for wildlife and historic sites.

Take responsibility for your own actions: The outdoors cannot be made risk-free for people exercising access rights; land managers should act with care for people’s safety.

None of that seems to permit "having a bit of fun" in the sense in which Jeremy appears to mean.

 

[aqs]

get off your soap box roool on your 200w whatever and get out more, I bet you your all in favour of i.d. cards and barcodes stamped on our butts!

 

[rooel]

Quite the contrary, aqs, but I am in favour of centralised route and speed tracking and monitoring of all motorised vehicles (other than legal EAPCs, of course), now a simple technical possibility with Sat Nav technology.

 

[Tiberius]

..... I am in favour of centralised ... tracking and monitoring ...

And you trust the authorities enough to even contemplate that?

If we step aside for a moment from the choice of language and the actual phrasing of some of the postings in this thread, might I politely offer the personal opinion that that is the most outrageous and nonsensical statement I have yet read on this forum?

Nick

 

[ITSPETEINIT]

Fun or just Furious

I am all for having fun - why does it have to be so fast and furious? Certainly it should not be at the expense of others who are enjoying the same amenity.
Maybe there will be better enforcement of the code one day.
I hope aqs has given up motoring in favour of his e-bike - not that I travel to Northern Ireland much, I should hate to share the same road with him in a motor car, even (particularly) where he is 'allowed' to travel at 60 mph.
In his most recent posting, celebrating speed over 'twitchers' and hikers, an apology for his appalling language was conspicuous by its absence.
Move over Rooel, I want to share you 'soap-box'.
Peter

 

[HarryB]

Sorry Harry. I wondered whether or not you had seen the "foul" posting judging by you comment. I withdraw any criticism of you either in fact or implied, unreservedly.
What you missed, by the way, was the ordinarily polite person's reaction to it when reading it - it was pure 'gutter language'. I was literally 'winded' when I read it.

Yes: I find when reading postings that I have to 'elect' for a certain interpretation because the subject of the matter is not clearly identified. I do it myself in my hurry to get down what I want to say - not reading it from the readers position.
Regards
Peter

BTW the irony of us misinterpreting each others posts was lost on me