What determines and assists hill climbing capacity?

[PP100]

It depends on the controller system some use speed control while others use current control. Systems with speed control one will invariably not notice any difference in power as max current is supplied in any assist level, though max assist speed in each level will be different.
Where as current control delivers more current with each increase in assist level which is noticeable more so on inclines, the max assist speed in each assist level is the same.

Ok, is there any obvious way of knowing which is more likely used when looking at a bike? Do lower end bikes tend to have one type? ie is one more expensive?

 

[Nealh]

Quite often crappy speed control systems tend to be on cheap bikes that only use a low, medium and high display settings or simply 1,2 or 3.
Sometimes you have to scour the specs to see if there is any indication .

 

[sjpt]

Quite often crappy speed control systems tend to be on cheap bikes that only use a low, medium and high display settings or simply 1,2 or 3.
Sometimes you have to scour the specs to see if there is any indication .

Also I think the crappy speed control ones are also likely to have crappy square wave controllers; which will be similarly hidden in the specs (or not even there at all?).

 

[WheezyRider]

You don't need high power, high volts or high current to climb steep hills. You need torque, which you can get with relatively low power.

I converted a Bromtom with a tiny Q85 motor and a 14 amp controller at 36v. It could drag an all-up weight of 110kg up my 14% test hill without pedalling. That bike would be happy doing an Alpine tour, even with its 3-speed Sturmey Archer gears, though you might want to carry a spare battery or two.

here's the owner, forum member Andyfthesouth, enjoying it in the Brecon Beacons:
View attachment 38076

Looks nice. Most e-bikes will get you up a hill eventually, but it's whether it will get you there at 25kph or 10 kph. If you want to do 25kph uphill, that's where the extra volts come in handy.

 

[WheezyRider]

Not true, we are safer in a car.

Even if I take the highest claimed figure for people regularly cycling, 8% of the population, which is demonstrably not true, there's some 24% more cyclists killed. This comment on the government statistics illustrates:

"The vulnerability of people walking and cycling, who have a fatality rate more than 20 times that of someone in a car, highlights the urgent need for action to address the dangers of motor traffic, as the Government seeks to encourage more people to choose to walk or cycle."

DATA:

Well over 45 millions are carried routinely in our some 30 million cars and they suffer some 46% of the annual road deaths of circa 17,500. i.e. some 8050 deaths. Even with the low count of 45 million car occupants that's one death per 55,900.

3% of the population claim to cycle regularly and they suffer an average of about 110 deaths annually. That's one death per 18,100.

9% of the whole population, nearly 1 in 10, would have to cycle as regularly as people use their cars with no increase in deaths for the cyclist death rate to as low as that of car occupants, and we are not remotely near that rate of cycling nationally in normal times. We may have been a bit closer to that due to the Covid-19 crisis, but no doubt much of that will disappear as people get back to work and the winter weather arrives.
.

I agree with you and disagree with you at the same time.

(I think your numbers of deaths on the roads ~17,000 is a bit high if you are talking about the UK, although I agree for cyclists, it's about 100 killed each year in the UK. Are you including the seriously injured too in the 17,500 figure? )

The raw figures for road deaths in 2018:

Knowledge centre

The road safety charity. For safe and healthy journeys

www.brake.org.uk

1784 deaths: 99 cyclists, 777 car occupants, 456 pedestrians, 354 motorcyclists, and I assume the remainder are from coaches, buses and lorries.

So more car occupants die each year on the road than cyclists, from the raw data. But people travel more by car than by bike in the UK. The question is then relative risk and how this is calculated. Do you do this by mile? By number of trips? How do you get a representative estimate? How does it vary by region and urban vs. rural? How does it vary by age of the cyclist? Depending on the model you use and the assumptions you make, you can draw many different conclusions.

Also, by your argument, you would also never walk anywhere, due to the number of pedestrians that get killed each year standing on pavements by cars. So you'd have to go everywhere by car in order to be "safe".

However, their are many other risks associated with driving.

Health is affected by lack of exercise and this can cause early death. Pollution from cars also kills many thousands more each year than from collisions. Not to mention deaths that occur due to climate change brought on by CO2 from cars.

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has looked at bringing all these factors together into a comparative statistic.

I do agree that 100 cyclists killed each year and about 17,000 seriously injured is far far too high and this is only going to be reduced by driver education, reduction in speed limits, effective enforcement and the creation of a transport infrastructure that is centred around people and not cars (ie walking and cycling).

 

[flecc]

I agree with you and disagree with you at the same time.

(I think your numbers of deaths on the roads ~17,000 is a bit high if you are talking about the UK, although I agree for cyclists, it's about 100 killed each year in the UK. Are you including the seriously injured too in the 17,500 figure? )

The raw figures for road deaths in 2018:

Knowledge centre

The road safety charity. For safe and healthy journeys

www.brake.org.uk

1784 deaths: 99 cyclists, 777 car occupants, 456 pedestrians, 354 motorcyclists, and I assume the remainder are from coaches, buses and lorries.

So more car occupants die each year on the road than cyclists, from the raw data. But people travel more by car than by bike in the UK. The question is then relative risk and how this is calculated. Do you do this by mile? By number of trips? How do you get a representative estimate? How does it vary by region and urban vs. rural? How does it vary by age of the cyclist? Depending on the model you use and the assumptions you make, you can draw many different conclusions.

Also, by your argument, you would also never walk anywhere, due to the number of pedestrians that get killed each year standing on pavements by cars. So you'd have to go everywhere by car in order to be "safe".

However, their are many other risks associated with driving.

Health is affected by lack of exercise and this can cause early death. Pollution from cars also kills many thousands more each year than from collisions. Not to mention deaths that occur due to climate change brought on by CO2 from cars.

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has looked at bringing all these factors together into a comparative statistic.

I do agree that 100 cyclists killed each year and about 17,000 seriously injured is far far too high and this is only going to be reduced by driver education, reduction in speed limits, effective enforcement and the creation of a transport infrastructure that is centred around people and not cars (ie walking and cycling).

The 17500 was a mistake of course, it should have been 1750 deaths and I didn't intend to include any injuries.

With 3% regularly cycling and 30 million cars in regular use, the true deaths ratio is 1 cyclist per 20,000 and one car driver in 37,000.

Include all the car passengers and toddlers carried on bikes in the ratio of deaths and that make cars even safer, as I maintained. Car travel is much safer.
.