E-Bike racing is pointless - Discuss

[JohnInStockie]

I see what youre saying, but the race would be meaningless. We have power assisted bikes, and that means pedaling required. It would be almost impossible to draw any conclusions from such a test as this apart from which bike had the most powerful motor and lightest load.

Surely there is a point to test the bikes ridability too?

John

 

[Tiberius]

Surely there is a point to test the bikes ridability too?

John

Oh, I think that would get tested on the downhill section.

 

[JohnInStockie]

I think its more tricky than that Nick. I think the type of testing comes into it too. If you think about the 3 classifications we seem to have now (Hub geared - Chain Assisted - Light Assistance) or for examples (Wisper - Agattu - Cytronex), they are really quite different and work better in different situations.

A friend of mine has a Torq 1. He REALLY likes the way the assistance is provided on my Pro-Connect. I keep reminding him that he has the fastest ebike on the road, and doesnt have to pedal if he feels ill.

Neither bike would be as suitable to say a run from Manchester to Blackpool as the Cytronex would be with its true free wheel

Can you see what I mean?

John

 

[flecc]

I tend to agree with John on this, as I've always maintained the variables are too great for a competition to have meaning. The bike differences are large as John says, and when the even larger rider differences are added, the range of total difference of bike and rider combinations is immense.

Like me competing with this years Tour de France winner really, would anyone bet on me winning?
.

 

[Tiberius]

John, flecc,

I understand these points you are making. Bikes are different; they are optimised for different purposes and some bikes suit some riders better. But that in itself does not mean a race between them is automatically without purpose. If anything that might become its purpose - to run them all alongside each other in challenging conditions and see what happens.

My thesis here is that e-bike racing is possible and can be done properly. My first point was that it has to be treated as "sport", not as a substitute for consumer test reports, or a quest for fundamental meaning. If racing was ever expected to answer questions once and for all, then why are races always repeated?

The second point I argued was that if it is treated as just a bit of fun, rather than as properly organised sport, then it will descend into farce.

The third point was to address the charge that its always the big muscles and the lycra that will win, so the e-bike part is irrelevant. I hope I have shown that this by no means necessarily so. It is just unfortunate that a famous e-bike race seems to have been organised to ensure that outcome.

The real test for an e-bike race is not what it proves but things like this:
It attracts entrants.
It captures the imagination and gets publicity.
The participants and spectators don't feel let down.
The discussion afterwards is about what changes the team will make for next year, not arguing over this years results.
All these things are perfectly possible.

The one big charge of pointlessness levelled against e-bike racing was the one about rider power being all important. We can meet that one head on by configuring the competition properly. Surely all the other charges could equally well be directed against any other form of racing as well.

Nick

 

[flecc]

I loosely agree with much of that Nick, but my observation was merely on these competitions as a way of measuring either bike performance or rider performance. It measures the combination of bike and rider, but not in meaningful way for purposes of comparative judgement.

While all mechanically aided sports contain this problem to some extent, it's probably worse on e-bikes than anything else.

I really struggle to accept that it can have any real meaning other than satisfying those who wish to compete, but I totally accept that as an end in itself. After all, we have a world conkers championship.
.

 

[coops]

Actually, Nick... I'm rather warming to the idea!

After all, hillclimbing and ease of freewheeling are two big issues anyway with ebikes and this way both are included.

To level the playing field, so to speak, the bikes energy should also be made more equal - by battery capacity or weight for example - eg 3 Panasonic batteries = 2 Ezee batteries (approx 740Wh each) or 2 Panasonic = 1 Wisper (approx 500W) Whaddya think? not easy though, with all the different battery capacities, as has been said.

On a sufficiently testing course where total energy needed for distance and ascent is calculated to be no less than the total energy in the batteries, the different strengths of the bikes would be more balanced out...

Stuart.

 

[fishingpaul]

Electric bikes are mainly ridden by people who need some assistance,for whatever reason, be it age injury overweight or to arrive at work without sweating,why is it that when a race is planned young people that would normally ride a racing bike faster than an electric bike,suddenly become involved making a bike look much faster than it actually is.these events should show off the power of the bikes not the riders.

 

[Tiberius]

To level the playing field, so to speak, the bikes energy should also be made more equal - by battery capacity or weight for example - eg 3 Panasonic batteries = 2 Ezee batteries (approx 740Wh each) or 2 Panasonic = 1 Wisper (approx 500W) Whaddya think? not easy though, with all the different battery capacities, as has been said.

Stuart.

Hi Stuart,

That, of course, is one option. But don't forget the option of minimum regulation, its often better and certainly easier. Let the entrant work out his own trade-offs between battery capacity, motor power and weight. Its possible to have more than one formula that can be run within a competition.

Nick

 

[Tiberius]

Electric bikes are mainly ridden by people who need some assistance,for whatever reason, be it age injury overweight or to arrive at work without sweating,why is it that when a race is planned young people that would normally ride a racing bike faster than an electric bike,suddenly become involved making a bike look much faster than it actually is.these events should show off the power of the bikes not the riders.

Hi Paul,

This is exactly the problem we want to solve, and I'm saying that is possible to do just that.

Nick

 

[coops]

I'm with you, Nick, but I think one aspect of any race to create interest has to be good competition, no?

If riders could pile on as much energy as they like, then the most powerful bike will almost invariably win since I'm fairly sure the energy gain will tend to outweigh the weight penalty, which will actually be an advantage downhill . So I don't think self-regulation would work, and would also open the door to possibly ridiculous battery consumption!

A better and possibly easier way might be to measure total battery energy used over the course and combine that with the time to complete the course in a points system... but that would be difficult to do fairly & might just become effectively the same as saying either the most efficient or fastest bike wins...

At least a points 'cost' should be incurred on a per Wh basis, though that would then favour bikes with smaller battery capacity, which can minimise any excess 'cost' by more closely matching capacity used with that needed for the course...

I think if you want to make a fair race between very different bikes, it needs some further consideration which may in turn achieve the aim of attracting more interest too - a 'first past the post' format is simple but very dull and uninteresting and more likely to be subject to disagreement over the result, also may well be inapplicable to ebike racing on such dissimilar bikes.

If you haven't seen it, take a look at the Jurassic ebikes test, Nick, & see how it compares with your concept for a race.

Stuart.

 

[JohnInStockie]

But it IS bike and rider. Thats the whole point. Otherwise this would be the electric scooter forum. The minute you stipulate condtions for a test you apply bias thereby rendering the test pointless, for example....

Can you think of a situation when a Forza would be preferable to a Pro-Connect?

Can you think of a situation when a Pro-Connect would be preferable to a Forza?

If the answer is yes to both of these questions then its more or less impossible to judge anything, and its back to 'horses for courses' - a particularly apt term for this.

John

 

[coops]

I don't think Nick's intention is to remove the rider altogether John, thats clearly unrealistic, just reduce the advantage a stronger rider might have, to make it more about the bikes power.

Also, the aim seems to be to simply race, not to critically evaluate strengths or weaknesses, or make comparisons between bikes per se... so nothing needs to be judged in that sense.

In a way, the situations you describe where one bike might do better than another, if all are incorporated into a course, would actually make a better race!

I agree though that any course, however carefully planned, will favour one bike or another, so there's no point in starting with the objective that the winning bike is best: clearly the 'winning' bike is still simply the one which came first on the particular course or according to whatever criteria are decided to judge the race, and thats all.

Stuart.

 

[JohnInStockie]

I don't think Nick's intention is to remove the rider altogether John, thats clearly unrealistic, just reduce the advantage a stronger rider might have, to make it more about the bikes power.

Also, the aim seems to be to simply race, not to critically evaluate strengths or weaknesses, or make comparisons between bikes per se... so nothing needs to be judged in that sense.

In a way, the situations you describe where one bike might do better than another, if all are incorporated into a course, would actually make a better race!

I agree though that any course, however carefully planned, will favour one bike or another, so there's no point in starting with the objective that the winning bike is best: clearly the 'winning' bike is still simply the one which came first on the particular course or according to whatever criteria are decided to judge the race, and thats all.

Stuart.

I do agree with your final paragraph Stuart, I just think that its impossible to design a race to be unbiased, I mean you could probably design a track where a slow electric trike would be the likely winner (say uphill whilst pulling 2000Kg).

Thats why I said earlier that I thought certain mods should be allowed for speed racing, but even with all that, these are still bike and rider

John

 

[coops]

Yes, whichever way you slice it, its exactly 'horses for courses' as you said. The same thing happens in Formula 1 races, where circuits can favour certain cars or setups.

So long as those taking part for sport understand that then all well and good.

I think though I'd prefer events which aren't competetive or races, maybe aimed more at simply using ebikes to their limits in other ways, and which might stimulate ways they can be realistically improved.

Above all, it would be really good if cycling itself was more popular & understood, since many confusions about ebikes seem to stem from overlooking that they are bikes first and foremost.

Stuart.

 

[Tiberius]

John, Stuart,

Thanks for your comments. It is bike and rider, and it actually has to be bike and rider, there is no other way. Also, if the rider component were completely eliminated, then what sort of rider would want to enter? But we have to ensure the rider physical input is not a major factor.

There is a danger, or contradiction, in setting the rules, but it can be avoided once we recognise it. Each rule that is written about the bike moves the emphasis towards the rider. Every time we specify a detail, to make things equal, we make the bikes more equal, and therefore the rider contribution becomes more important.

The answer is not to regulate the detail, but the overall objective - specify the box but not the contents. Take the battery size and power issue. The temptation is to set limits on this, because we think it makes things "fairer". But why? The overall objective is to avoid two things: on the one hand a lycra with a light bike and no electrics beating the e-bikes, and on the other a monster machine that is more like a motorcycle.

The first is taken care of by a course that emphasises the advantages of an e-bike. The second is better tackled not by specifying anything about the battery, but simply imposing a weight limit. Suppose 40 kg max for bike and batteries for a long course and 30 kg for a short course. 40 kg is the UK limit anyway, and we might be getting close to it for the TofB stage.

Nick

 

[coops]

I see what you're saying Nick, but a fast powerful & light bike with up to 6 batteries & still under 40kg will still likely win every time (though not much fun to ride it!), so the 'race' will be fairly dull, akin to Ferrari/other dominating F1!... though that would depend on the course length, but unless its half as long again as TofB3 ie ~170 miles &/or extremely hilly, and you're willing to race over almost a full 12hrs ish, thats the way of it.

However I agree on your 2nd & 3rd paragraphs, and still say that a straightforward 'race' ie first past the post, won't be competitive on almost any course terrain, but what would make it more competitive and good for ebikes ie encourage efficiency & hence lower battery weight (which can be the single heaviest component of an ebike, bar the rider!) would be to specify 'within the box' of design of the race an account for energy used aswell as time taken: this could be done very easily by simply dividing the total energy either used (as measured at end) or carried (by either Wh or weight) by the time taken.

If you wanted, they could be kept separate - a 'prize' for first in time and a prize for first in energy efficiency (within a set maximum time - like the Tour de France).

What do you reckon?

Stuart.

 

[Tiberius]

Hi Stuart,

I have no problem with the idea of different formulas, whether they are run separately or together, or even on different courses. Its a good way of widening the field, and its also a good way of putting the entrants into groups that are going to create close racing.

But you have to be careful to make the formulas meaningful and simple, and you shouldn't do what I've seen elsewhere and use it as a way to give 120 prizes out to 120 entrants and make everyone a winner.

Now, an Energy Limited formula is a good one; it does at least push design in the right direction. But I'm not sure how well it fits inside another race; it might be better if it were run separately. There is no huge technical difficulty in limiting, or monitoring, battery energy, but it raises the danger again that the rider's input power becomes important, so that has to be eliminated. With hub motor bikes, we could remove the chains and then have a time, speed or distance challenge.

But then someone will turn up with a recumbent, or a scooter, or a 3 or 4 wheeled machine with no pedals, and say they can beat us. If we exclude them on the grounds that they are too different, then its an energy efficiency challenge without some of the best performers. If we allow them, then its not a bike competition.

The solution then is to have an electric vehicle competition, in which there is a class for upright bikes. Not such a bad idea really - now where was that link to the Jurassic challenge?

Incidentally, from what understood of the Jurassic challenge, the e-bikes came in ahead of the lycras (or rather amateur lycras on e-bikes beat professional lycras on non electric bikes). That outcome was not because of a set of special rules, but just by choosing a course, a long hill climb, where the e-bikes were allowed to show their best.

Nick

 

[flecc]

you shouldn't do what I've seen elsewhere and use it as a way to give 120 prizes out to 120 entrants and make everyone a winner.

Damn.
.

 

[coops]

LOL flecc!

Nick - I think different bike classes might be the best solution, and energy factors etc. could be used in addition if wanted. The reason I say that is, bikes using the panasonic system, for instance, will demand more rider input and probably climb more efficiently, but slower than many hub motor bikes, however a strong enough rider and geared up panasonic bike could still compete for speed with a gentler rider on hub bike, even on a hilly course like you suggest, which would defeat your object of bike not lycra power determining the result...

Could the class type system of ebikes as they now seem to be categorised, which John referred to (Hub geared - Chain Assisted - Light Assistance) be also used as classes in a race (at least for uprights - bents maybe will have their own subcategories), maybe run simultaneously for maximum 'fun' - though better not on a circuit route due to the mayhem that can cause!

Then you'd have something like hub bikes, chain bikes & geared up/sports bikes (& lycra!) categories... that might then be the difficulty - how to categorise bike/rider combos...

That would make more sense in terms of competition, though it still seems to me that the differences between bikes might be so minimal then that a slight rider advantage could decide it...

The Jurassic course was only 30 miles & most riders used only one battery, though involved around 900m ascent aswell as descent and a section of 18 or 20% IIRC, so very similar to what you propose & though not a race outright, the time goal was under 2 hours, which several bikes achieved, again IIRC.

Stuart.