How i can increase max speed of my bike?

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

Not true Col. Raised it with you back in 2015:-
You didn't deny it in your response nor did you say anything about bikes being moved around etc.

Well your memory is better than mine. Maybe a RRP was made up and put on it, I don't remember. But it doesn't really change the point we were making and still do make. That it's not illegal to sell them, its just illegal to use them (or at least it was - its evolving now thanks to the work of some shops and brands).

 

[Wander]

Col, again you are missing the point. Not now discussing s-pedelecs. I used that to show that you seem to have a selective memory & a habit of changing the facts after the event.

 

[Ryan Yorke]

It seems odd that if somebody’s only concern was the banning of eMTB’s on trails they would bring up the issue with an inner city delivery cyclist...
Ignorance is no form of defence, it only proves incompetence. I’ve seen KTM use it on numerous occasions, most importantly when D8veh pointed out to him that his batteries were higher than the legal regulation voltages when fully charged.

 

[Ryan Yorke]

Usual schoolmasterish tone.
Your sussed mate.

I’m not sure what you mean, but it’s ‘you’re sussed mate’

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

Col, again you are missing the point. Not now discussing s-pedelecs. I used that to show that you seem to have a selective memory & a habit of changing the facts after the event.

I have a normal memory... You've selected one thing, that I don't remember and can't understand. Its a fact that we've never offered the sPedelec for sale, so there has never been a RRP. If you saw one at the NEC, I've acknowledged it was possible, but we don't sell them, so the number was irrelevant and quite possibly a mistake. I'm not sure what facts I've changed.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

It seems odd that if somebody’s only concern was the banning of eMTB’s on trails they would bring up the issue with an inner city delivery cyclist...
Ignorance is no form of defence, it only proves incompetence. I’ve seen KTM use it on numerous occasions, most importantly when D8veh pointed out to him that his batteries were higher than the legal regulation voltages when fully charged.

I don't make batteries, KTM don't make batteries. I've never claimed to be an electronics engineer. I run a company that sells many things, one of them is KTM, and part of that range is eBikes. I'm not arrogant enough to say that I know everything about everything we sell. I don't, and where I am ignorant I do try to change that, especially when there is a benefit do me, our customers or my company. However I'm not going to be able to know more than D8veh about electronics so I bow to his superior knowledge, but that doesn't mean he's always right. Just as I am not always right.

 

[Wander]

You've selected one thing, that I don't remember and can't understand.

It was to illustrate a habit of yours & the point I was making that your "My concern has always been about access for eMTB to land and events." wasn't the case. Your position started with the quotes made in my post #72 above.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

It was to illustrate a habit of yours & the point I was making that your "My concern has always been about access for eMTB to land and events." wasn't the case. Your position started with the quotes made in my post #72 above.

I have always been concerned about that. I've been riding and racing MTB since the late 80s. Access and liability for landowners and event organisors has always been an issue to me, even before there was eMTB. Granted when the tuning issue started to grow I just lumped it all together in an "its all bad" category. The quotes you've posted haven't said, I have no concerns about access etc etc. The more eMTBs there are the more this concern grows and the more important it gets. The more research I do and the more people I speak to the more my concern grows. So yes looking back at 2013-15 you might have found I wasn't as concerned, as eMTB wasn't as big an issue and I hadn't realised the potential damage that could be done.

 

[flecc]

I’m not sure what you mean, but it’s ‘you’re sussed mate’

And in similar vein about your posts:

It's Hijack or Highjack, never hyjack.
.

 

[flecc]

most importantly when D8veh pointed out to him that his batteries were higher than the legal regulation voltages when fully charged.

However I'm not going to be able to know more than D8veh about electronics so I bow to his superior knowledge, but that doesn't mean he's always right. Just as I am not always right.

Your batteries were never illegal Col.

The fact that when fully charged some could register slightly over the legal permitted figure was irrelevant. In law it is only the specification voltage that counts.

This legal position is similar to that of maximum legal motor assist power where only the 250 watt specified counts. The fact that all our motors can and do greatly exceed that has no legal relevance.
.

 

[Ryan Yorke]

And in similar vein about your posts:

It's Hijack or Highjack, never hyjack.
.

Touché

 

[Deleted member 4366]

I was going to start a new thread with this but i think its pertinent to this subject..
http://dailym.ai/2FNhDxr

Everything about that article is appalling. Woman steps out onto the road without looking while texting on a phone. Cyclist shouts to get her attention, but she doesn't hear. He tries to steer behind her and shouts again. She hears him, looks up, panics and steps backwards into his path. They clash heads, which kills her. Press goes nuts about dangerous cyclists.

We've discussed this before. It was just an accumulation of unfortunate circumstances. Unfortunately for himself, the cyclist broke the law by not having a front brake, so he was blamed. The police make a video to show that an inexperienced copper can't stop a fixie with no front brake as quickly as his experienced colleague on a bike with a front brake, and use it as evidence in the trial. Gullible jury knows nothing about fixies nor how stupid pedestrians mysteriously jump into the path of an oncoming cyclist whenever he tries to ride around them.

This was a wake-up call to anybody that doesn't comply with the rules. If you want to be sure that you will never go to jail, don't break the rules. At the time of that accident, thousands of cyclists were riding around with no front break, and they'd done it for many years. One guy came unstuck due to unfortunate circumstances.

Just like the missing front brake, there are thousands of guys riding illegal electric bikes. Eventually, one will come unstuck and have to go to jail. They have to weigh up that risk against the advantages of what they're doing. Maybe one guy, who's illegal bike was going a bit faster, didn't get killed or severely injured by being run off the road deliberately by a driver because he was going fast enough to keep out the way or not so slow to cause the deliberate assault.

There's no answer to these things and no need to panic. People should step back and look at the bigger picture.

We might as well start the helmet debate: "I've never worn a helmet and I'm still alive, so you don't need one. What's more, there's a guy down the road that was wearing one and he broke his neck in an accident because he was wearing a helmet." " I've always worn a helmet and I'm still alive, which, to me, proves that they're safer. What's more, I fell off and bashed my head on the curb, which stoved my helmet in, but I was OK - rather a new helmet than a new head."

 

[Deleted member 4366]

Your batteries were never illegal Col.

The fact that when fully charged some could register slightly over the legal permitted figure was irrelevant. In law it is only the specification voltage that counts.


.

Where did you get that from? I've never seen any document nor specification that says that. Is there one somewhere?

All would be solved if Colin had shown an EN 15194 certificate for that bike, which he should have, but he never showed it.

 

[flecc]

Where did you get that from? I've never seen any document nor specification that says that. Is there one somewhere?

The manufacturer has fitted a 48 volt specified battery in accordance with the law and that is all the law will be concerned with, not transient possibilities. And anyway, the voltage will dip and not be in excess after charging the moment the bike is in use with power applied, and that is the only time the law applies, when the bike is used.

No doubt the bike has a CoC too.
.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

All would be solved if Colin had shown an EN 15194 certificate for that bike, which he should have, but he never showed it.

Which bike? The sPedelec? Which we're not selling, but we do have COC for, but isn't classed as a bicycle by definition.

Or another one? You really think that because I haven't provided something, that I don't even remember being asked for that, you've uncover something KTM have missed?

 

[Deleted member 4366]

Which bike? The sPedelec? Which we're not selling, but we do have COC for, but isn't classed as a bicycle by definition.

Or another one? You really think that because I haven't provided something, that I don't even remember being asked for that, you've uncover something KTM have missed?

KTM with Panasonic hub-motor, like Erace 650P.Show us a copy of the certificate then.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

The manufacturer has fitted a 48 volt specified battery in accordance with the law and that is all the law will be concerned with, not transient possibilities. And anyway, the voltage will dip and not be in excess after charging the moment the bike is in use with power applied, and that is the only time the law applies, when the bike is used.

No doubt the bike has a CoC too.
.

There's no law on voltage AFAIK. You could claim legality if your bike complies with EN15194 but it only applies to bikes with voltage up to 48v. A Normal 48v 13S lithium battery, like the one in the KTM, is 54.6v when fully charged and will stay over 48v for half of its capacity. Non-compliance with EN15194 doesn't automatically make a bike illegal, but it can put you in a difficult position to try and defend.

 

[craiggor]

Isn't EN15194 self certifiable by the manufacturer ? Is there any test houses in the UK ?

Sent from my T1005 using Tapatalk

 

[flecc]

There's no law on voltage AFAIK. You could claim legality if your bike complies with EN15194 but it only applies to bikes with voltage up to 48v. A Normal 48v 13S lithium battery, like the one in the KTM, is 54.6v when fully charged and will stay over 48v for half of its capacity. Non-compliance with EN15194 doesn't automatically make a bike illegal, but it can put you in a difficult position to try and defend.

Any difficulty could be that of a prosecutor trying to show dynamic proof of over 48 volts in use under power in practical conditions, but that's purely academic since it will never happen.

As with the ability of motors to greatly exceed 250 watts, EN15194 would no doubt be granted for these nominal 48 volt batteries and probably has been, so the law wouldn't be involved on that account.

It's only the specification that would count in a court of law, the battery produced, sold and fitted as 48 volt. I'm confident that a senior court would regard that as complying with the spirit of the law and rule that any dispute attempted on a technicality as vexatious litigation.

The courts do not concern themselves with petty issues.
.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

I don't think you can self-certify to EN15194. Yes, there are test houses in the UK.