I own an ebike, and I use it for journeys that I wouldn't even consider taking an ordinary bike on. To be honest, I don't even think I'd ride an ordinary bike to the top of my road. It's a bit of a hill, and riding a bicycle up a hill without electric assistance is extremely unpleasant.
Ordinary cycling is just too tiring for non-cyclists to want to do. An ebike makes it workable.
But who is a cyclist if not somebody who uses a bicycle, thus making your statement tautological? I hadn't ridden a bike in years before I decided to use it for my commute, and now I love it.
I cycle 10km when going out to the bar, and I love the exercise. I put on headphones and listen to an audio book and it's my favorite thing to do. Granted, my city is built along a carless waterfront, so it's ideal for cycling, but I don't think cycling is too tiring. Maybe some people just don't like the effort, though.
Going uphill is my favorite kind of biking. Uphill, your speed is linearly proportional to your effort. On a flat road, it's proportional to the cube root of effort. So it's more motivating to work hard going uphill.
A more forward posture (which you get with dropped handlebars) and clip-in pedals help.
> Ordinary cycling is just too tiring for non-cyclists to want to do. An ebike makes it workable.
Although geography is a requirement for non-assisted cycling (ie. no big hills), it's ultimately a cultural matter.
Northern european countries largerly use bikes; there is no distinction between "cyclist" and "non-cyclist". Southern european countries, geographical factors being equal, use the bicycles much less.
"Travel-related activities of e-bikers who switched from cycling decreased by around 200 MET min/wk., while those switching from private motorized vehicle and public transport gained around 550 and 800 MET min/wk. respectively."
I have a cargo e-bike (Yuba Boda Boda) for taking my son to daycare (8mi each way, plenty of hills and stops) and if the records from my Apple Watch are at all accurate, it’s basically canceling out the extra weight of the burlier bike and passenger: heart rate stays in the same territory, travel time is about the same, etc. compared to my road bike (roughly 100lbs lighter).
For my wife, this was the difference between biking every day or not - her commute is a little longer and better served by transit so the hills on the way home after a long day were a disincentive.
What I've seen for heartrate profiles and whatnot (sorry, can't find a link easily), ebike riding gives you a more steady heart-rate that, on average, is quite similar to 'analog' cycling.
Intuitively, this makes sense; most people don't mind spinning the pedals with some moderate effort. What is discouraging is frequent start/stops and riding up hills or into headwinds. But, given the choice between pedaling and not, most people have no issue putting some work in.
One thing we have heard a lot is that it boosts confidence if there’s a stretch where you have to share the road and prefer to be going 20 in a 25 zone rather than 10-15. I think there’s a risk about riding too fast for your experience level but slow bikes inspire a LOT of bad driving in my experience.
Disclosure: I ride a conventional bike. I thought the gratuitous, divisive jabs against conventional cyclists were over the top. If e-bikes are a good idea, which I think they are, they should stand on their own merits as a technology.
Amusingly, with the proliferation of e-bikes, I actually find myself on the defensive about riding a conventional bike. People ask me why I haven't switched yet.
As an e-bike rider, whole heartedly agree. Getting people out of cars and onto any form of pedal power is a net benefit, there’s no reason to be divisive.
The only thing I worry about is people with poor bike handling skills getting an e-bike that suddenly lets them ride as fast as a pro cyclist with little effort. If you watch people getting on rented bikes at a tourist destination, you see a lot of wobbly riding. Plus the fat comfort seats that people use make it even harder to control a bike.
Pedal power ftw! If you enjoy your current bike, don't switch.
A good light bike can be quite a bit more enjoyable to ride than an eBike, I think eBikes really just enable super-commuting by bike for those of us with weak calves.
Complete agreement: cyclists should be big tent on this – or scooters – since everyone using a bike lane is someone voting for more and better infrastructure.
This is true for me. Since I have a e-mountain bike (a e-bike designed for offroad cycling), I sometimes bike up hills where I live just for fun and I would never have thought I would do this. The electrical support is awesome and a hell of fun. Then back at home I discover myself sweaty and tired.
I turn off the motor when biking around in the city (which is flat) so I don't get used to the boost. This is a trick I play on myself so I don't lose the fun.
> The survey took place from November 2014 to January 2017 in seven European cities: Antwerp (Belgium), Barcelona (Spain), London (United Kingdom), Örebro (Sweden), Rome (Italy), Vienna (Austria) and Zurich (Switzerland).
(From the linked study.)
This leaves out the Netherlands and Denmark, two countries with a well-established habit of riding bicycles and world-leading, exemplary infrastructure that focuses on cyclist and pedestrian safety.
I would love to know what the increasing popularity of e-bikes does here in the Netherlands, because as a casual observer it seems to me that a lot of people who use them hardly pedal at all; depending on battery power for what seems like the biggest part of the load.
While there are indubitably a good number of folk (elderly in particular) who can now stay mobile using e-bikes in a manner that stimulates using your muscles for much longer, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that there is a large group of people who uses e-bikes to stop using quite as much energy as well — to the detriment of their health. I.e., most people in developed countries don't meet the daily minimum of exercise; the Dutch habit of riding bicycles for almost anything that doesn't require distances over 10km keeps a lot of people on the healthy side of that requirement.
E-bike are attractive, because parking cars and mopeds is much more bothersome; bicycle racks are everywhere.
It depends, of course. If replacing most rides in a car, definitely better. If replacing rides on a non-electric bike, it still could be a positive if it encourages biking further and getting out more.
Would also love to see the study extended to those countries to find out.
If the Netherlands is not the flattest country in the world it's very close to it. Denmark is the same story. Either way, both countries are extreme outliers in this category. E-bikes remove the most daunting barrier to cycling for many people: the difficulty of hill climbs. So it makes sense to leave out the flat countries and focus on those with rolling hills and mountains.
> [...]it seems to me that a lot of people who use [E-bikes] hardly pedal at all; depending on battery power for what seems like the biggest part of the load.
As an immigrant to The Netherlands it seems to me the Dutch hardly pedal at all; depending on the flatness of the terrain to most of the work for them :)
That's a bit snarky, but I think there's a lot of truth to it. One reason the Netherlands and Denmark are so disproportionately bicycle friendly is their natural terrain and climate.
E-Bikes serve as an equalizer in that regard and encourage bicycle use. More people can now bike on days where it would otherwise be too hot or rainy (arrive soaked in sweat), too windy (ditto), or where the destination is too far away to arrive in a reasonable time on a non-assisted bicycle. Those people would otherwise have used some motorized form of transport.
Speaking about cycling. Something I don't understand about bikes and e-bikes is their price. Why are they so incredibly expensive? How come economies of scale haven't made them dirt cheap?
You can get a basic bike at a big-box store, or online, for between 100 and 200 bucks. If you attend to basic maintenance from the git-go, you can have a functioning bike.
As any smaller bicycle shop will tell you, these are not bikes, they're "bike shaped objects" and fairly dangerous due to the poor manufacturing. They're also really hard to ride due to their weight and high friction parts. You can get a decent bike for maybe 500€, in my experience. If you don't have enough money for that, you're far better of buying a used bike.
I definitely second this. Big box store bikes are generally very low quality, plus they’re assembled by people who work there, so they probably lack proper bike mechanic experience.
If you look closely you’ll see they may have the brakes incorrectly installed, the forks backwards, etc.
Indeed, final assembly is an issue with bikes, and a better shop will hopefully do a better job. Bikes are never fully assembled or tested before being shipped to the dealer or consumer. As a result, assembly and adjustment are beyond the control of the factory. This is true of virtually all bikes. My $500 bike was adjusted by the shop before I rode it home.
In my view, the practicality and enjoyment of cycling is vastly improved by having some basic maintenance skills, to the point where I consider it to be a pre-requisite.
Absolutely, even real bikes shops can mess up sometimes. I had them install a profiled 10 speed chain backwards one time.
And you don’t need many tools to do 90% of repairs. YouTube, bike coops, and your local bike shop mechanics (may need to be bribed with beer) are all good resources.
An amusing aside, I have a 1972 Schwinn frame with similar vintage parts on it. I can practically disassemble the whole thing with a couple of crescent wrenches.
Another issue is that they're not made to be repaired at all. If anything more than a tube breaks on it, then you'll likely be better off just buying another department store bike because the repair will either exceed the cost of the bike, or will be impossible because department store bikes don't always use standard components that a repair shop would even be able to order for you.
Hmm, are you sure you're not just being a snob? (I'm not saying you are, just wonder if you've asked yourself the question.)
I've bought only cheaper bikes for myself and kids (often second-hand cheap bikes too). Whilst in comparison a bike for twice the price is a joy, they're certainly functional and I've never had one that has the appearance of being dangerous, nor has proved dangerous in regular use.
You'll want to avoid cheap steel axles if you're doing jumps, and be aware of other limitations just like you can't enter a toboggan run on a plastic sledge.
I'm in the UK, I'd have thought in notoriously litigious USA that supermarkets would be extremely wary of being negligent wrt safety of products they're selling?
It's the same with anything you can buy though, TV, cars, bikes, laptops, shoes, chairs, &c. The low end is, well, the low end, it barely functions but is sufficient for most people.
Do you call cheap android phones "phone shaped objects" too?
You get what you pay for, a <$200 dollar bike will last you years, it'll be heavy, noisy, won't withstand abuse, will rust, but it'll get you from A to B just fine.
A cheap android phone is unlikely to break spokes while going down a bumpy road and killing me. The cheap bikes tested by the German Stiftung Warentest did that.
I'm not sure what you mean in regards to non-electric bikes. In my experience (living in U.S. cities), there's an extremely wide range that you can spend on a bike, from a hundred or so to extremes of multiple thousands. But you certainly don't need to spend thousands even if it's your daily commuter. One of the keys is that bikes are really really good at being refurbished; an old frame, if it's not in bad shape, can get cleaned and have new parts put on and be literally as good as new.
You should have no trouble getting a very reliable, pleasant ride in the sub-$1000 range from your local bike shop. That's certainly far far less than any other form of transport. It's probably even in line with a year's worth of public transit, and will last well more than a year.
If you know how to work on bikes, you can find some great ones secondhand. I got my girlfriend and old Bridgestone, and just had to give it a tune up, replace the dry rotted tires and brake pads, new cables and grips, and then put fenders and a rack on it.
What you call fenders for _cars_ we in the UK call bumpers; and they're like boat fenders, for allowing vehicles to bump without causing too much damage (they fend off the other vehicle).
But your bike fenders appear to be what we call "mud guards" which don't act as "bumpers" at all but instead prevent mud/water from spraying up.
Did I get that right, or do the "bike fenders" have some sort of anti bump facet to their design too?
Yes, I mean mud guards. On a side note, I really wish there were ones that were easier to install, it took me at least two hours since trimming the mounting wire is so time consuming.
Have they really hit that economy of scale point? It still seems like it’s at the niche point compared to the mature non-assist bike market – like cargo bikes or other not-uncommon but not yet highly-optimized markets.
This also matters because some of the components aren’t the same: for example, all of the e-bikes I’ve seen used disc brakes and many had heavier duty drivetrains due to the extra torque, so that part should be expected to be more like a mountain bike than a cheap city bike. As they become more common I’d expect those components to become cheaper with high volume.
Bikes are kind of a strange industry, at least in the US. Almost all of the big brands steadfastly refuse to embrace online shopping, so you’re paying at least a hundred or two for brick and mortar bike shops.
Second, cycling in the US is mostly for sport, so bike shops mostly sell road or mountain bikes, not utility bikes. And people who ride for sport are willing to spend a lot on this year’s new tech and lighter bikes.
If you want a cheap, reliable bike, buy used. Try to find an older chromoly steel mountain bike with name brand components, for example Bridgestone. It will have fender and rack mounts, and clearance for wide tires.
I work as a bike mechanic at one of the largest Specialized dealers in the US. A couple of times a week we have people that come in with bikes they bought from direct to consumer brands and attempted to assemble themselves. People regularly make serious errors when they assemble a bike themselves, and they're often dangerous and sometimes expensive to fix. Unless you're 100% confident in your bike mechanic skills, you'll likely spend all of the money you save buying online at your local bike shop to have them fix your own mistakes.
There’s always idiots, but there are probably tons of people who have BikesDirect or Canyons and just never go to bike shops because the experience is more often than not bad and/or intimidating.
Even with good bike shops, the experience of simple things like buying parts really sucks. I can’t search QBP, I have to ask an employee to do it for me.
A reasonable-quality battery pack for an ebike costs at least $400 at the retail level. That gets you about 600Wh with actual name-brand cells and a BMS that might last a few years or more. Add in a motor, controller, and incidentals, and it's at least a $600 premium for electrification. But most people like mid-drives (torque-sense pedal assist), so it's more like $800.
So far, the economics have only hit mid-market. No point in spending over a grand just to get a truly shit Walmart-tier bicycle. Instead, they go to $1,500 and you get something more balanced. Check out Rad-city for economical examples.
For conversions, $600 is about the current minimum for a 'reasonable' build. That's a $200 eBay hub-drive kit and a $400 name-brand-cell battery. $500 if you want a better build and individual-fuses on each cell (important for peace-of-mind if you're storing in an attached garage or something). $900 total if you want a decent mid-drive.
It will come down, but right now no one is leaving profit on the table. The batteries and electronics simply cost a fair amount.
> [...]$600 premium for electrification. But most people like mid-drives (torque-sense pedal assist), so it's more like $800[...]
I don't know about the US, but in the EU that "like" is a must-have, your bicycle isn't street-legal as a bicycle unless it's a pedal assist (pedelec). The cheap option of pressing a button to get power makes the bicycle an electric motorcycle or scooter, needing a license, helmet etc.
So part of why they're expensive in the EU & other markets is regulatory, a drive train that can smoothly mix motor and pedal input without being clunky is more expensive to make than an electric scooter.
I wonder how if this European study holds true in North America. The US and Canada have a regulation for maximum speed/power, but pedelec is optional.
In Canada it's pretty easy to build faster/more powerful e-bikes that break the laws without getting caught, though I'm sure off the shelf bicycles do adhere to the regulations. I ride a conventional racing bike myself, but I like e-bikes because having more cyclists and faster cyclists is a good incentive for making more bike paths.
The basic EU street legal setup is a cheaper magnetic sensor that just sees if the pedals are rotating and toggles the motor on/off. Torque sensor gets you continuously variable motor power, depending on how hard you pedal.
Article: "Users who reported any use of non-electric bicycle (including city bike, mountain bike or bike-sharing) but not e-bike were categorized as cyclists, those who did not report any bicycle use, as non-cyclists."
Aha! So, we're comparing mountain bikers and bike-sharers with e-bikes (which belong in the category of electrified city bikes). That alone should raise some informed eyebrows.
Kind of tells me they don’t understand how much effort and energy goes into mountain biking either.
I can only going mountain biking on weekends, but it’s far from a low effort activity, I’d be willing to bet that I expend more energy and get more exercise than someone who trundles around the city on an e-bike.
Another problematic bias from the article: "Respondents stating that they used an e-bike were categorized as e-bikers, independent of whether they also used a conventional bicycle."
So, since belonging to a group of bicycle use (leisure, sports, commute) is additive in the amount of exercise one receives, the e-bike group is automatically larger than the non-e-bike group.
To back up your point, in my city, most of the people riding e-bikes are food delivery people (Uber eats, Deliveroo etc), and I’m not sure it would be representative or correct to include them - most people don’t spend a large chunk of their day riding around in the same way.
E-bikes are a funny thing. Living in Seattle, they were everywhere. Having now moved to the flatlands of Chicago, I see more Ferraris than e-bikes. I’m a “conventional” cyclist but totally get the appeal of electricity in hilly terrain. Not everyone enjoys that kind of battle.
Having said that, the two (soon to be three) days I cycle the 30 mile round-trip to work leave me feeling great. Would recommend to anyone. Combined with riding Metra (our commuter trains) the other days, traffic becomes a spectator sport.
Looks like a pretty classic correlation != causation issue.
Yeah, may be true what they found. But may also be not very relevant. It absoltely doesn't say that getting an e-bike will make you exercise more.
Here's a theory what might be going on: E-Bikes are relatively expensive. So if you buy an E-Bike you're probably relatively determined to actually use it.
There are on the other hand plenty of people that own a cheap bike and use it very rarely.
There's no real reason not to do a proper study on the question: Take a reasonably large number of volunteers, randomly assign them to "we give you a fancy bike" or "we give you a fancy e-bike" group and then measure their exercise and health levels.
There are situations where doing such a randomized trial is unethical or pracitcally impossible. Here it really is not. If someone's doing a study with observational data where you could do a randomized trial you should be skeptical.
Your trial sounds expensive, maybe 50 times as expensive as the version where you just talk to people, for the same statistical power. So that's at least one reason not to do it.
And you still end up measuring something different from what you want. Just as in your theory about people committing to use their e-bike more when they've spent a lot of money on it, people behave differently when you give them things for free.
> Your trial sounds expensive, maybe 50 times as expensive as the version where you just talk to people, for the same statistical power.
It is, especially if you do it with proper statistical power. Though I'm deeply convinced that it would do science a lot of good to do fewer more expensive, but meaningful trials instead of more meaningless ones.
Your concern is somewhat valid, as you can't "blind" the test, but by using similarly priced bikes you could at least cancel out a price bias. Still there might be a "new tech" bias towards e-bikes. But then we're at "this is the best we can do" and there are limitations of how good we can study things. The study quoted above is not even near trying to do that.
"E-Bikes are relatively expensive. So if you buy an E-Bike you're probably relatively determined to actually use it."
Seems like you have the blueprint for the "perfect" counter-study: compare e-bikers only to people who spent about as much on a conventional bicycle and you select for moderate fitness nerds who will routinely output more power than e-bike and e-biker together and spend many hours per week training. The results will go through the roof in favor of conventional bikes! Utterly skewed, but nominally apples to apples.
I think the simpler explanation is that the most common way people get access to an ebike is through things like Jump bike, and people who use those bike sharing services are often using it to commute places. They will probably end up spending far more time biking than someone who drives to work, but has a bike they use on the weekend recreationally.
> But if you ride a pedal-assist e-bike, which is pretty much the only type of e-bike that is legal across Europe, then you can take comfort in knowing that you’re likely getting just as much exercise than if you were on a pedal bike
Pretty sure that isn't implied by the study. Even if e-bikers get more exercise than cyclists, that doesn't mean switching to an e-bike causes you to get more exercise, the study didn't show causation. I ride recreationally, for a fixed amount of time. If I switched to an e-bike, I would just work less hard during that time, and get less exercise.
69 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 147 ms ] threadI can see how it being easier causes people to take the bike out more than the would ordinarily.
Ordinary cycling is just too tiring for non-cyclists to want to do. An ebike makes it workable.
I cycle 10km when going out to the bar, and I love the exercise. I put on headphones and listen to an audio book and it's my favorite thing to do. Granted, my city is built along a carless waterfront, so it's ideal for cycling, but I don't think cycling is too tiring. Maybe some people just don't like the effort, though.
A more forward posture (which you get with dropped handlebars) and clip-in pedals help.
This is a feature in a sport, but a bug in a transportation method.
Although geography is a requirement for non-assisted cycling (ie. no big hills), it's ultimately a cultural matter.
Northern european countries largerly use bikes; there is no distinction between "cyclist" and "non-cyclist". Southern european countries, geographical factors being equal, use the bicycles much less.
"Travel-related activities of e-bikers who switched from cycling decreased by around 200 MET min/wk., while those switching from private motorized vehicle and public transport gained around 550 and 800 MET min/wk. respectively."
For my wife, this was the difference between biking every day or not - her commute is a little longer and better served by transit so the hills on the way home after a long day were a disincentive.
Intuitively, this makes sense; most people don't mind spinning the pedals with some moderate effort. What is discouraging is frequent start/stops and riding up hills or into headwinds. But, given the choice between pedaling and not, most people have no issue putting some work in.
Amusingly, with the proliferation of e-bikes, I actually find myself on the defensive about riding a conventional bike. People ask me why I haven't switched yet.
A good light bike can be quite a bit more enjoyable to ride than an eBike, I think eBikes really just enable super-commuting by bike for those of us with weak calves.
I turn off the motor when biking around in the city (which is flat) so I don't get used to the boost. This is a trick I play on myself so I don't lose the fun.
(From the linked study.)
This leaves out the Netherlands and Denmark, two countries with a well-established habit of riding bicycles and world-leading, exemplary infrastructure that focuses on cyclist and pedestrian safety.
I would love to know what the increasing popularity of e-bikes does here in the Netherlands, because as a casual observer it seems to me that a lot of people who use them hardly pedal at all; depending on battery power for what seems like the biggest part of the load.
While there are indubitably a good number of folk (elderly in particular) who can now stay mobile using e-bikes in a manner that stimulates using your muscles for much longer, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that there is a large group of people who uses e-bikes to stop using quite as much energy as well — to the detriment of their health. I.e., most people in developed countries don't meet the daily minimum of exercise; the Dutch habit of riding bicycles for almost anything that doesn't require distances over 10km keeps a lot of people on the healthy side of that requirement.
E-bike are attractive, because parking cars and mopeds is much more bothersome; bicycle racks are everywhere.
I also get to bike alongside the canal as part of my commute, whereas before it was a mere glimpse through the buildings and trees from the roadside.
I would not be biking without my eBike, Seattle's hills are too extreme for people who don't have strong chevrolegs.
Would also love to see the study extended to those countries to find out.
I think Belgium ( Flanders) is close enough. A lot of bike riding here too
I've biked on both, ~300 km.
As an immigrant to The Netherlands it seems to me the Dutch hardly pedal at all; depending on the flatness of the terrain to most of the work for them :)
That's a bit snarky, but I think there's a lot of truth to it. One reason the Netherlands and Denmark are so disproportionately bicycle friendly is their natural terrain and climate.
E-Bikes serve as an equalizer in that regard and encourage bicycle use. More people can now bike on days where it would otherwise be too hot or rainy (arrive soaked in sweat), too windy (ditto), or where the destination is too far away to arrive in a reasonable time on a non-assisted bicycle. Those people would otherwise have used some motorized form of transport.
If you look closely you’ll see they may have the brakes incorrectly installed, the forks backwards, etc.
In my view, the practicality and enjoyment of cycling is vastly improved by having some basic maintenance skills, to the point where I consider it to be a pre-requisite.
And you don’t need many tools to do 90% of repairs. YouTube, bike coops, and your local bike shop mechanics (may need to be bribed with beer) are all good resources.
I've bought only cheaper bikes for myself and kids (often second-hand cheap bikes too). Whilst in comparison a bike for twice the price is a joy, they're certainly functional and I've never had one that has the appearance of being dangerous, nor has proved dangerous in regular use.
You'll want to avoid cheap steel axles if you're doing jumps, and be aware of other limitations just like you can't enter a toboggan run on a plastic sledge.
I'm in the UK, I'd have thought in notoriously litigious USA that supermarkets would be extremely wary of being negligent wrt safety of products they're selling?
Do you call cheap android phones "phone shaped objects" too?
You get what you pay for, a <$200 dollar bike will last you years, it'll be heavy, noisy, won't withstand abuse, will rust, but it'll get you from A to B just fine.
You should have no trouble getting a very reliable, pleasant ride in the sub-$1000 range from your local bike shop. That's certainly far far less than any other form of transport. It's probably even in line with a year's worth of public transit, and will last well more than a year.
But your bike fenders appear to be what we call "mud guards" which don't act as "bumpers" at all but instead prevent mud/water from spraying up.
Did I get that right, or do the "bike fenders" have some sort of anti bump facet to their design too?
This also matters because some of the components aren’t the same: for example, all of the e-bikes I’ve seen used disc brakes and many had heavier duty drivetrains due to the extra torque, so that part should be expected to be more like a mountain bike than a cheap city bike. As they become more common I’d expect those components to become cheaper with high volume.
Second, cycling in the US is mostly for sport, so bike shops mostly sell road or mountain bikes, not utility bikes. And people who ride for sport are willing to spend a lot on this year’s new tech and lighter bikes.
If you want a cheap, reliable bike, buy used. Try to find an older chromoly steel mountain bike with name brand components, for example Bridgestone. It will have fender and rack mounts, and clearance for wide tires.
Even with good bike shops, the experience of simple things like buying parts really sucks. I can’t search QBP, I have to ask an employee to do it for me.
So far, the economics have only hit mid-market. No point in spending over a grand just to get a truly shit Walmart-tier bicycle. Instead, they go to $1,500 and you get something more balanced. Check out Rad-city for economical examples.
For conversions, $600 is about the current minimum for a 'reasonable' build. That's a $200 eBay hub-drive kit and a $400 name-brand-cell battery. $500 if you want a better build and individual-fuses on each cell (important for peace-of-mind if you're storing in an attached garage or something). $900 total if you want a decent mid-drive.
It will come down, but right now no one is leaving profit on the table. The batteries and electronics simply cost a fair amount.
I don't know about the US, but in the EU that "like" is a must-have, your bicycle isn't street-legal as a bicycle unless it's a pedal assist (pedelec). The cheap option of pressing a button to get power makes the bicycle an electric motorcycle or scooter, needing a license, helmet etc.
So part of why they're expensive in the EU & other markets is regulatory, a drive train that can smoothly mix motor and pedal input without being clunky is more expensive to make than an electric scooter.
In Canada it's pretty easy to build faster/more powerful e-bikes that break the laws without getting caught, though I'm sure off the shelf bicycles do adhere to the regulations. I ride a conventional racing bike myself, but I like e-bikes because having more cyclists and faster cyclists is a good incentive for making more bike paths.
https://www.juicedbikes.com/pages/torque-vs-cadence-sensors
There was no correction for selection bias so you can’t make any assumptions.
For example; it’s likely that e-bike riders are older and have more spare time. How much would a regular cyclist exercise with the same spare time?
Aha! So, we're comparing mountain bikers and bike-sharers with e-bikes (which belong in the category of electrified city bikes). That alone should raise some informed eyebrows.
I can only going mountain biking on weekends, but it’s far from a low effort activity, I’d be willing to bet that I expend more energy and get more exercise than someone who trundles around the city on an e-bike.
So, since belonging to a group of bicycle use (leisure, sports, commute) is additive in the amount of exercise one receives, the e-bike group is automatically larger than the non-e-bike group.
How does this pass peer review?
- 365 e-bikers (2/3 of them from Antwerp and Zürich, only 20 from Barcelona, only 5 from London, only 18 from Örebro).
- 7212 cyclists.
- 1758 non-cyclists.
There are other things far more eyebrow-raising than the skewed sample.
> Categorical travel frequency data was converted into an average number of days per month.
> Trip distance was derived by selecting the fastest route returned by the Google Maps API
> Distances for multimodal trips were assigned to the main mode using the following hierarchy: public transport, car, e-bike, bicycle, walking
> Physical activity from active travel modes was almost the same in e-bikers and cyclists (1735 vs. 1656 MET min/wk., respectively)
Having said that, the two (soon to be three) days I cycle the 30 mile round-trip to work leave me feeling great. Would recommend to anyone. Combined with riding Metra (our commuter trains) the other days, traffic becomes a spectator sport.
Yeah, may be true what they found. But may also be not very relevant. It absoltely doesn't say that getting an e-bike will make you exercise more.
Here's a theory what might be going on: E-Bikes are relatively expensive. So if you buy an E-Bike you're probably relatively determined to actually use it. There are on the other hand plenty of people that own a cheap bike and use it very rarely.
There's no real reason not to do a proper study on the question: Take a reasonably large number of volunteers, randomly assign them to "we give you a fancy bike" or "we give you a fancy e-bike" group and then measure their exercise and health levels. There are situations where doing such a randomized trial is unethical or pracitcally impossible. Here it really is not. If someone's doing a study with observational data where you could do a randomized trial you should be skeptical.
And you still end up measuring something different from what you want. Just as in your theory about people committing to use their e-bike more when they've spent a lot of money on it, people behave differently when you give them things for free.
It is, especially if you do it with proper statistical power. Though I'm deeply convinced that it would do science a lot of good to do fewer more expensive, but meaningful trials instead of more meaningless ones.
Your concern is somewhat valid, as you can't "blind" the test, but by using similarly priced bikes you could at least cancel out a price bias. Still there might be a "new tech" bias towards e-bikes. But then we're at "this is the best we can do" and there are limitations of how good we can study things. The study quoted above is not even near trying to do that.
Seems like you have the blueprint for the "perfect" counter-study: compare e-bikers only to people who spent about as much on a conventional bicycle and you select for moderate fitness nerds who will routinely output more power than e-bike and e-biker together and spend many hours per week training. The results will go through the roof in favor of conventional bikes! Utterly skewed, but nominally apples to apples.
Pretty sure that isn't implied by the study. Even if e-bikers get more exercise than cyclists, that doesn't mean switching to an e-bike causes you to get more exercise, the study didn't show causation. I ride recreationally, for a fixed amount of time. If I switched to an e-bike, I would just work less hard during that time, and get less exercise.