Are there any 'non-shopping' styled bikes...?
- Thread starter DDmouse
- Start date
DDmouse,
Are the kalkhoff bikes (other models have front suspension, but thats the men's frame style) too Grandad like? They'd be more durable and better suited to uneven/cobbled roads than hub motor bikes too (ok, that sounds far too sensible, but no-one wants their bike to break, do they?).
Or how about the Izip street etc. 'enlightened' bikes? They look a bit more like MTBs, and with hidden 'in-frame' battery and very small hub motor quite inconspicuous as electric bikes.
Otherwise, if the more 'sporty' looking bikes like Torq, Forza or Wisper are not modern enough, you could fit a kit to your bike of choice as you say, but I expect the motor, batteries, controller & wiring will mar its looks somewhat, aswell as being a bit messy - what sort of speed, range & power assist ratio do you want, and how hilly is your terrain? The batteries for ebikes can be quite heavy, and fitting them is one of the biggest problems with conversion kits. Could get quite pricey too, buying kit & bike.
Stuart.
Are the kalkhoff bikes (other models have front suspension, but thats the men's frame style) too Grandad like? They'd be more durable and better suited to uneven/cobbled roads than hub motor bikes too (ok, that sounds far too sensible, but no-one wants their bike to break, do they?).
Or how about the Izip street etc. 'enlightened' bikes? They look a bit more like MTBs, and with hidden 'in-frame' battery and very small hub motor quite inconspicuous as electric bikes.
Otherwise, if the more 'sporty' looking bikes like Torq, Forza or Wisper are not modern enough, you could fit a kit to your bike of choice as you say, but I expect the motor, batteries, controller & wiring will mar its looks somewhat, aswell as being a bit messy - what sort of speed, range & power assist ratio do you want, and how hilly is your terrain? The batteries for ebikes can be quite heavy, and fitting them is one of the biggest problems with conversion kits. Could get quite pricey too, buying kit & bike.
Stuart.
Last edited:
Efficiency
I'm a little puzzled why it is suggested that shopping style bikes, or bikes that give a 'stately' riding position (to give them a kinder description) are more efficient than more 'trendy' or sporting designs. Most touring and racing bikes position the rider so he/she is leaning forward to reduce wind resistance and in what seems to be an ergonomic posture. I'm not convinced that the same is true for most electric bikes (although haven't tried many). MTBs can suffer from loss of energy in the suspension and knobbly tyres but otherwise follow the general style of touring or racing bikes.
I also don't think it can be due to the weight of the motor or strength required. Whilst a lightweight racing bike might not cope with a large weight swinging about high up on a carrier, most mountain bikes are pretty sturdy and designed to take some punishment.
Maybe the designers of electic bikes are mainly aiming at cyclists who wish to put in relatively little effort and are happy to sit upright as on a Dutch bike. But i think there are many others (particularly enthusiasts on thsi forum) who want to put some effort in and use the electric power to increase their speed or range but still want an efficient riding position. Equally, they prefer a sporting style to an elegant (or in some cases downright ugly) style.
Having looked at the range of electric bikes avialable, I thought the Ezee Torq looked reasonably acceptable but when i showed the picture to my wife she just laughed and asked why i wanted such a dreadful looking bike (apologies to all the Torq owners but that's her opinion!). Hence my reversion to looking at kits for converting an existing bike....
Steveu
I'm a little puzzled why it is suggested that shopping style bikes, or bikes that give a 'stately' riding position (to give them a kinder description) are more efficient than more 'trendy' or sporting designs. Most touring and racing bikes position the rider so he/she is leaning forward to reduce wind resistance and in what seems to be an ergonomic posture. I'm not convinced that the same is true for most electric bikes (although haven't tried many). MTBs can suffer from loss of energy in the suspension and knobbly tyres but otherwise follow the general style of touring or racing bikes.
I also don't think it can be due to the weight of the motor or strength required. Whilst a lightweight racing bike might not cope with a large weight swinging about high up on a carrier, most mountain bikes are pretty sturdy and designed to take some punishment.
Maybe the designers of electic bikes are mainly aiming at cyclists who wish to put in relatively little effort and are happy to sit upright as on a Dutch bike. But i think there are many others (particularly enthusiasts on thsi forum) who want to put some effort in and use the electric power to increase their speed or range but still want an efficient riding position. Equally, they prefer a sporting style to an elegant (or in some cases downright ugly) style.
Having looked at the range of electric bikes avialable, I thought the Ezee Torq looked reasonably acceptable but when i showed the picture to my wife she just laughed and asked why i wanted such a dreadful looking bike (apologies to all the Torq owners but that's her opinion!). Hence my reversion to looking at kits for converting an existing bike....
Steveu
I've been looking at the amount of power needed to move a bike recently, using the online power calculator here: Bicycle Speed And Power Calculator. The results are interesting.
For a speed of 15mph on level ground with no wind, an upright "roadster" style bike needs 167 watts, of which 46 watts is needed to overcome rolling resistance and 121 watts is needed to overcome aerodynamic drag. A fairly fit, non-athlete, can generate about 80 to 100 watts continuously, perhaps double this for a short time.
For the same conditions, a drop handle bar "racing" bike, with the rider in the dropped position, needs 88 watts, of which 33 watts is rolling resistance and 55 watts is aerodynamic drag.
For the same conditions, my short wheelbase recumbent needs 77 watts, of which 39 watts is needed to overcome rolling resistance and 28 watts is needed to overcome aerodynamic drag.
It's no wonder that recumbents are banned from international cycling competitions.
Taking this to extremes, the power calculator above also allows a streamlined velomobile trike to be modelled. Under the same conditions as above, such a trike needs 70 watts, of which 57 watts are needed to overcome rolling resistance and just 13 watts are needed to overcome drag.
At a power input of 200 watts, the velomobile trike will do nearly 29 mph on the level, with no wind.
Jeremy
For a speed of 15mph on level ground with no wind, an upright "roadster" style bike needs 167 watts, of which 46 watts is needed to overcome rolling resistance and 121 watts is needed to overcome aerodynamic drag. A fairly fit, non-athlete, can generate about 80 to 100 watts continuously, perhaps double this for a short time.
For the same conditions, a drop handle bar "racing" bike, with the rider in the dropped position, needs 88 watts, of which 33 watts is rolling resistance and 55 watts is aerodynamic drag.
For the same conditions, my short wheelbase recumbent needs 77 watts, of which 39 watts is needed to overcome rolling resistance and 28 watts is needed to overcome aerodynamic drag.
It's no wonder that recumbents are banned from international cycling competitions.
Taking this to extremes, the power calculator above also allows a streamlined velomobile trike to be modelled. Under the same conditions as above, such a trike needs 70 watts, of which 57 watts are needed to overcome rolling resistance and just 13 watts are needed to overcome drag.
At a power input of 200 watts, the velomobile trike will do nearly 29 mph on the level, with no wind.
Jeremy
Hi Steveu,
I think the distinction being drawn is between bikes well-designed for a given purpose and those only made to 'look' good: upright bikes are good to pedal (no suspension, narrow-ish slick tyres & good saddle-pedal distance) up to speeds where rolling resistance is dominant i.e. about 12mph, while racing bikes are more 'aero' oriented for higher speeds, while retaining the same basic pedalling efficiency by design.
Fashion mountain bikes may be less upright, but I think anyone would struggle to get to 12mph or beyond on the roads on one with needlessly energy sapping thick, knobbly tyres, dual suspension and poor pedalling efficiency due to bad geometry, so any forward leaning 'aero' benefit would be void!
.
I think even ebikes designed to go 15mph or so should allow the rider to take up a more aero 'tuck', if they want: many riders as you say would not consider that necessary or even desirable, but at least some such ebikes can be pedalled fairly efficiently and will not suffer huge sapping of rider or, more costly, motor power due to knobbly tyres, suspension & poor pedalling efficiency for example. We're lucky that some 'sporty' ebikes exist for perormance enthusiasts, while for others a more sedate/refined style is readily available.
The Torq for instance is (I think?) a sort of hybrid style, but does allow one to adopt a more aero position if one wants. Also 28" wheels, closely-spaced gears, no-suspension, good saddle-pedal distance and not over-wide or knobbly tyres all help make it good for pedal contribution, even at high speeds. It would be interesting to know what your wife considers a 'good-looking' bike, though a good bike is more important than the way it looks!
I think its best to decide how you want to use your ebike, then find one to suit which is adequately designed for the job (& then convince your other half!).
I agree that recumbents are more efficient on level roads, but though I've never tried one the lower visibility on roads and seemingly less efficient ride position for hills would put me off riding one, especially in cities!
Stuart.
I think the distinction being drawn is between bikes well-designed for a given purpose and those only made to 'look' good: upright bikes are good to pedal (no suspension, narrow-ish slick tyres & good saddle-pedal distance) up to speeds where rolling resistance is dominant i.e. about 12mph, while racing bikes are more 'aero' oriented for higher speeds, while retaining the same basic pedalling efficiency by design.
Fashion mountain bikes may be less upright, but I think anyone would struggle to get to 12mph or beyond on the roads on one with needlessly energy sapping thick, knobbly tyres, dual suspension and poor pedalling efficiency due to bad geometry, so any forward leaning 'aero' benefit would be void!
.I think even ebikes designed to go 15mph or so should allow the rider to take up a more aero 'tuck', if they want: many riders as you say would not consider that necessary or even desirable, but at least some such ebikes can be pedalled fairly efficiently and will not suffer huge sapping of rider or, more costly, motor power due to knobbly tyres, suspension & poor pedalling efficiency for example. We're lucky that some 'sporty' ebikes exist for perormance enthusiasts, while for others a more sedate/refined style is readily available
.The Torq for instance is (I think?) a sort of hybrid style, but does allow one to adopt a more aero position if one wants. Also 28" wheels, closely-spaced gears, no-suspension, good saddle-pedal distance and not over-wide or knobbly tyres all help make it good for pedal contribution, even at high speeds. It would be interesting to know what your wife considers a 'good-looking' bike
, though a good bike is more important than the way it looks! I think its best to decide how you want to use your ebike, then find one to suit which is adequately designed for the job
(& then convince your other half!).I agree that recumbents are more efficient on level roads, but though I've never tried one the lower visibility on roads and seemingly less efficient ride position for hills would put me off riding one, especially in cities!
Stuart.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone suggests that Steve, and certainly good sporty bikes are more efficient, hence my mention of Tour de France race bikes being close to the optimum.
It happens that due to their shape, good utility bikes tend to stray a bit less from the ideal in frame geometry terms than many MTB/Mountain bike designs. But of course there's good and bad of everything so there's few absolutes, though undoubtedly a larger proportion of MTB and mountain bikes suffer from poor design. As in the example I gave to Stuart, the geometry is often poor, sometimes truly awful.
Many electric bikes also suffer poor geometry due to the battery positioning requirements. When the battery is in the commonplace position behind the seat stem, designers often alter the frame proportions and angles to keep the wheelbase still fairly short, so we can end up with seat tubes excessively inclined forwards, bottom brackets in the wrong place, and saddles tending to be too close to the handlebars, or excessively long handlebar extensions. Rear frame tubes are low to allow battery access from between them with the crossbar drooped to match, so the very straight path from headstock to rear spindle makes the bike hard riding due to poor road shock dispersion in the structure.
Suspension as you acknowledge also affects efficiency, but on front hub motor bikes it can be unavoidable if there's to be an acceptable level of comfort. There's more on this in my suspension article in the technical section.
Wind resistance is a different matter though, not entirely a matter of the bicycle design, since riders can set themselves up for a lean forward position as I do, or prefer a very upright "Dutch" riding position. For some reason people seem to judge a bike complete with handlebars these days, but many years ago in the trade, they were very much an option to be changed according to a customer's wishes. That's still the case with the best cycle dealers, and one I looked at recently had 56 handlebar types in stock, so there's no need to buy an MTB just to get a lean forward position. Many utility bikes allow that to be set up without changing anything.
.
Last edited:
Crikey - talk about opening a can of worms!
I've always liked the idea of a recumbent but the hilly route I do (please see route profile picture - hopefully) and the visibility required to 'make progress' through slow or stationary town centre vehicles means it doesn't suit me as a concept.
I'm coming down on the idea of a kit + urban bike (see Cannondale picture). Chuckable through traffic and shortcuts (always legal...) and hopefully the best compromise.
As for comments about not caring so much about what it looks like. Personally I like my 'toys' to make me smile when I see them. My motorbike hurts my neck, forces me into a crouch, can lose my licence in 2.7 secs, gets too hot in traffic, is geared for speeds that I never use etc etc but everytime I see it in the garage or use it I'm glad I didn't get the sensible commuter option with helmet box (and yes, I have got matching leathers !!)
Thanks again. It would be boring if everyone bought the same things....
I've always liked the idea of a recumbent but the hilly route I do (please see route profile picture - hopefully) and the visibility required to 'make progress' through slow or stationary town centre vehicles means it doesn't suit me as a concept.
I'm coming down on the idea of a kit + urban bike (see Cannondale picture). Chuckable through traffic and shortcuts (always legal...) and hopefully the best compromise.
As for comments about not caring so much about what it looks like. Personally I like my 'toys' to make me smile when I see them. My motorbike hurts my neck, forces me into a crouch, can lose my licence in 2.7 secs, gets too hot in traffic, is geared for speeds that I never use etc etc but everytime I see it in the garage or use it I'm glad I didn't get the sensible commuter option with helmet box (and yes, I have got matching leathers !!)
Thanks again. It would be boring if everyone bought the same things....
Attachments
I can't really think of a kit converted bike that really looks that 'good' when done though, DDmouse, so how will you get around that?
Stuart.
Stuart.
Sporty, well-designed e-bike
Co-op beat me to it. Everyone makes good points but when it comes down to it, are there any examples of sporty, well-designed e-bikes? of course personal taste varies. I'm seeing a Torq in the fleash tomorrow so can decide if I like it (even though my other half is not impressed). However, my suspicion is that I will still be looking at adding a BionX to my existing bike.
If anyone can suggest an e-bike sold complete that they think is sporty and well-designed (so it puts a smile on your face and are good to ride efficiently), please let me know!
For me, the large e-hub is not a major detraction from the design. Also, I think a curvy battery in place of a water bottle on the frame looks OK - certainly better than a weird looking a carrier waggling about on the back
As Flecc says, everyone makes different compromises according to their requirements. I like front suspension as its needed on bumpy tracks and i don't think it absorbs much energy on a smooth road compared to a nice curvy set of forks as found on a touring frame.
For rear suspension, I stick to a sprung seat tube which cushions me from the harshest bumps but probably does little on a smooth surface (I'm not aware of it flexing in response to pedalling action). My tyres are smooth in the middle and knobbly at the edges so drag on a smooth road is not too bad (although no doubt more than a slick tyre) but I still get some grip in mud.
The problem becomes intractable, however, if you also want to try to satisfy the taste of one's othjer half
Steveu
Co-op beat me to it. Everyone makes good points but when it comes down to it, are there any examples of sporty, well-designed e-bikes? of course personal taste varies. I'm seeing a Torq in the fleash tomorrow so can decide if I like it (even though my other half is not impressed). However, my suspicion is that I will still be looking at adding a BionX to my existing bike.
If anyone can suggest an e-bike sold complete that they think is sporty and well-designed (so it puts a smile on your face and are good to ride efficiently), please let me know!
For me, the large e-hub is not a major detraction from the design. Also, I think a curvy battery in place of a water bottle on the frame looks OK - certainly better than a weird looking a carrier waggling about on the back
As Flecc says, everyone makes different compromises according to their requirements. I like front suspension as its needed on bumpy tracks and i don't think it absorbs much energy on a smooth road compared to a nice curvy set of forks as found on a touring frame.
For rear suspension, I stick to a sprung seat tube which cushions me from the harshest bumps but probably does little on a smooth surface (I'm not aware of it flexing in response to pedalling action). My tyres are smooth in the middle and knobbly at the edges so drag on a smooth road is not too bad (although no doubt more than a slick tyre) but I still get some grip in mud.
The problem becomes intractable, however, if you also want to try to satisfy the taste of one's othjer half
Steveu
It's not so much the absorption according to road surface though Steve, more a matter of the energy it absorbs under high pedal loads as when hill climbing. The stronger the pedal thrust, the more energy is lost of course, and that's as true for e-bikes as for normal ones if the hill demands plenty from the rider. And that's just when we most want our energy to count.
That said, I'm a believer in everyone having what they like regardless. My interest is only in informing those who've grown mainly in the thirty years with mountain bike/MTB styles dominant and unaware of how that can detract from the cycling experience when those designs fall short. The majority of under forty year olds have never ridden anything else but very heavy rock bottom price mountain bikes and the like.
.
Here are the examples I know:
Biketech Flyer: S-Serie and T-Serie HS
Koga Miyata Tesla-S
Heinzmann Estelle Sport
Cybien Velox
Matra I-Step Runner
And that is something you can do with a kit: Velectris (i.e. Nine Continents) and Crystalyte
Hope it helps
Vita Electric in London said someone. Flyers are very expensive but they are now reducing the price: check also with a German or a French supplier.
Yes, it is Vita Electric in Hampstead, London, but the more powerful BikeTechs are very expensive here. They may change a bit as Leonardo said, but since their sales here are negligible and they compete with Gazelle and now the much lower price Kalkhoff, they may not bother, since a Swiss product is unlikely to be really competitive in a price fight.
.
.
I like the converter site mentioned by Jeremy. It shows that while there is a huge difference in the effort needed to propel a race bike or heavier road bike on the flat, there is much less difference between them when climbing a decent hill. It hurts, whatever unassisted bike you use. Explains why electric bikes are such a good thing!
That's because in hill climbing, weight is the dominant factor, and the dominant weight proportion by far is the rider, the same on any type of bike.
Pedalling to climb a hill is in fact just another form of weight lifting exercise, rolling resistance at low hill climb speeds and friction being very small contributors to the workload.
.
Flecc wrote:
Off road bikes need extra ground clearance so have high bottom bracket and pedals. But the saddle needs to be low enough for the rider to be able to get a foot down, so the saddle to bottom bracket distance is immediately compromised by those conflicting requirements. In competition off road, the rider compensates by standing on the pedals and therefore corrects the relationship, but if such a bike is used on road journeys with the rider sitting on the saddle, they are stuck with legs being too bent all the time to exert maximum thrust power, so their performance is reduced.
So this is why I have always had trouble-riding sit-up and beg bikes and I have always liked mountain bikes. Nice one flecc - Never thought about it. Being short in the legs means this type of bike is a better fit for me - horses for courses, as they say
Off road bikes need extra ground clearance so have high bottom bracket and pedals. But the saddle needs to be low enough for the rider to be able to get a foot down, so the saddle to bottom bracket distance is immediately compromised by those conflicting requirements. In competition off road, the rider compensates by standing on the pedals and therefore corrects the relationship, but if such a bike is used on road journeys with the rider sitting on the saddle, they are stuck with legs being too bent all the time to exert maximum thrust power, so their performance is reduced.
So this is why I have always had trouble-riding sit-up and beg bikes and I have always liked mountain bikes. Nice one flecc - Never thought about it. Being short in the legs means this type of bike is a better fit for me - horses for courses, as they say
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
