Ridenfool

I think the tow rating is lower on later models too, if that makes any difference.

I had a Forester for a few years. After owning an Impreza for several years. Both were great for MTB trips. The AWD will get you places you wouldn't expect to drive to, and through rain, snow, etc. if need be. Subaru have changed their drivetrain since then, Better mpg, but I have no experience with anything recent. Might check if there are still discounts for IMBA members. If so, join Austin Ridge Riders for IMBA benefits.

That helps to understand your experience, thanks! The power output isn't more or less because it is a lower weight bike. Most weight savings will come from carrying a smaller battery. Though I expect motors to continue to have higher power/weight ratios as the technology improves (same power from smaller motor), they will always be governed by the software. Available power will be determined by the max output of the motor, with the ability to limit this further by the Mode selected for operation. Most e-mtbs will have from 3-5 modes to select across a range of power output levels. These can usually be configured via a phone app to provide a variety of combinations based on % of total power, and to avoid exceeding a chosen % of what the battery can deliver. This way the rider can vary how they use their bike for any specific ride distance, elevation gain, etc. in order to conserve battery and/or get more of a workout. I'd like to think that most e-mtb riders don't leave it in max power mode all the time. I certainly don't do that. Being able to add a little help from the bike has me riding a lot more, and riding like this would be a markedly different experience than what you shared. Next time you have a chance to try one out, ask about how to switch between modes to select lower assist levels. One guy I ride will will select to ride without assist at all through flatter sections of Rocky Hill while winding through the trees. As with anyone experiencing new technology for the first time, I think if you had been provided a short briefing on the handlebar mounted control buttons you might have come away with a different perspective. Happy trails

It would be interesting to know more about this. What defines a "high power" e-bike in this example? Was it a throttle bike, rather than pedal assist? Maybe a pedal assist that is not Class 2? Or, was this effect from riding a Class 2 in the highest assist mode only? If what you describe is relentless power coming on when it isn't necessary, that can likely be managed by selecting lower power settings on a Class 2 emtb. The thing I like about riding the Turbo Levo is how it rides like a normal mtb in the Eco and Trail modes. For each of these modes I have customized power delivery in the software to better suit my riding style. It is very rare that my bike sees Turbo mode selected (highest power). When it is used, this will be because I have reached "soup-sandwich" state and run out of meat-sack battery on a tough ride and just want to get to the beer at the trailhead before I collapse. 😰 I tend to ride like what AB described above, often enjoying negotiation of technical lines over powering through them. Unlike many people I have ridden with over the years, I enjoy riding smooth rather than fast. Things like KOM scores, lap times, and improving average riding speed has never been something to "work on" for me. I don't want a pickle, I just wanna ride my mountain bicycle. Though there are plenty of people who do like to chase the rabbit, and that's just another way to ride. When this type of rider takes an e-mtb for a ride, I expect some might want to open 'er up and see what it's got by running at highest power. This will not work very well in the tight stuff at all. The only finesse issues I face on an e-mtb are the same as I've had on a standard bike. Mostly from geometry, as my height makes for a longer wheelbase and I prefer a slacker head tube angle. I've been trading tight handling for downhill stability long before e-mtb was a thing. I know that with your frame-building background you know about all that stuff.

You are still talking about climate change. A topic that I haven't touched upon and have little knowledge of. The transition to renewable energy is something I do follow, and mining for battery materials falls into that category. I took the time to read your links. Have you taken a look at the Tony Seba videos? This presentation addresses the basis for my perspective for the near and far future. If you insist on continuing a discussion we should at least be on the same topic. Take fifteen minutes and watch the first of the five-part series. There are disruptive technologies that are converging. The most active are in the realms of renewable power, artificial intelligence, and genetics related medicine, among others. These are converging and complementing aspects of each other, accelerating the overall rate of change. (robotics should be mentioned as well) This has nothing to do with the climate change point of view, though there are certainly applications of these technologies that might help in that regard, this is not the reason for these technologies existence nor for their rapid development. Like all other disruptive technologies that have come before, these will result in profound changes to how people live. For instance, consider what happened with the advent of the steam engine, telegraph, automobile, radio, microwave oven, the internet, smart phones, computer graphics, etc. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of examples where new tech replaced the old ways over a very short time period. This sort of disruptive change is represented in history through the industrial age into the information age. They all share common factors that can be applied to disruptions on the horizon. Only, these disruptions are likely to be more significant as they will change how we view the cost of energy (which is the most significant portion of the cost of everything), and, how we solve difficult problems using AI, and, use the advantages gained in energy and AI to extend/enhance the human condition by mastering our own genetics. The world is transitioning toward a future of abundance. For info on this convergence from another perspective check out, https://www.ark-invest.com/big-ideas-2024 The e-mtb is an example of a disruptive technology. What will be its effect over the next decade?

Granted, these headlines you offer are clearly designed to evoke an emotional response, but, reading the actual articles beyond the headline reveals that there are a wealth of projects working to provide the raw materials needed to bring about this massive change to how we harness renewable energy. Which will lead to dramatic positive changes to the world around us. So, you can cherry pick the dramatic, emotion-filled headlines and poo-poo on the bright future before us. This won't change the fact that each of these arguments already has solutions to the stated problems in the works. What is so challenging about focusing on how these challenges have been met, and will be met going forward? This method you use (or, which was used on you) of levering emotional triggers puts those employing them in the same boat with those who used their influence and concern to disproportionately represent the immeasurably small impact that mountain bikes may or may not have on Golden Cheeked Warbler habitat. All in order to sway the public opinion to support the closure of trails. The Harvard article didn't indicate when it was written. Still, the fact that EV battery related mining only accounts for a portion of 0.0004% of all metals mining, the overall impact is minuscule in comparison to similar effects which can likely be found throughout the metals-mining sector, particularly in the smaller markets. Even if demand increased by 6 times by 2040, as the article guesses it will, this would apply to the tiny amounts of metals that goes directly into EV batteries. Many of the battery materials are by-products of larger mining operations. Of those battery metals, Cobalt seems the one with the worst reputation. So, we should stop buying products with Cobalt in their batteries, right? There is more Cobalt going into phones, laptops, and other Lithium-battery-powered consumer goods than there is going into EVs, so we should probably start by boycotting those products first, if we want to influence the industry's mining sources. Right? References in the Harvard link to rare earth magnet uses didn't account for recent moves by manufacturers who are eliminating them from use in their motors. Innovations like this could significantly reduce the impact if this use imparts a negative effect on rare earth magnet demand over the coming years. The Earth.org article is from 2020. It did include this important and hopeful quote in a section toward the end. "As with most processes, rare-earth metal extraction can be done without causing extensive harm to the environment. " But you wouldn't know that if you just grabbed the first links you could find in a search and pasted the links in a reply. Did you take the time to read any of them? If you had, you might have then mentioned the parts that were significant to you in each one, to go along with the link. Regarding the ips-dc.org and the ccev.gov links, I'm in agreement that such practices need to be addressed. As was pointed out in the Earth.org link, including their reference to a Harvard study (which school you linked above) and a Purdue study on methods to obtain these minerals more cleanly. Here's the quote from that article. "For example, Harvard University has proposed an innovative clean method using only mildly acidic solutions to separate out the metals from the earth. Researchers at Purdue University have found a clean, low-cost approach that removes rare earths from waste coal ash that need to be recycled." So, for that tiny amount of mining that is done to provide minerals necessary for building a hopeful future, there are already ways to achieve that goal which are being implemented, and, there are organizations which are at the forefront of stopping the exploitation and damage done by those mines whose methods are unethical and inhumane. This in no way casts a shadow upon the mines where the minerals are being mined cleanly, ethically, and without causing harm. Does it? What about extraction of Lithium from seawater? This could eliminate mining from the ground completely. https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/lithium-from-seawater Have you drawn a line in the sand that prevents learning enough about both sides of any subject to make an informed decision based upon logic and reason? I don't have an emotional tie to data. This allows for the flexibility to adapt to new information in order to form an opinion without the emotional baggage of concern over being right or wrong. Rarely has taking an emotional side in a fact-based study been useful toward reaching a conclusion. (One exception being the study of how emotion interferes with the logical processing of data,, as is being pursued here.) 😁

What is your agenda? You can't seem to carry on a conversation that stays on topic. Rather than provide references to support your arguments, you continue to drift off on tangents unrelated to the topic at hand. To be crystal clear, the discussion began regarding the impact of mining for battery materials. You have consistently tried to derail this while alluding to a wide variety of topics which do not follow or contribute to the discussion. (this behavior is what the term 'non sequitur' refers to, in case you aren't familiar with it) non sequitur /nŏn sĕk′wĭ-tər, -too͝r″/ noun An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it. Any abrupt and inexplicable transition or occurrence. Another Latin term that would apply to your responses is 'ad hominem' ad hominem /hŏm′ə-nĕm″, -nəm/ adjective Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument. "Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives." Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason. Of or relating to ad hominem. These being Latin terms brings to point just how long people have been using such techniques to derail or deflect an argument, rather than debate in a straight-forward manner. For instance, posting links to entertainment pieces (news/documentary/etc.) are not the same as providing a reference to the actual research the entertainment piece claims to be based upon. At the very least, doing so would demonstrate how you have invested time into confirming these things before using them as a basis of a counter argument. Offering specific reference to original work would represent an opportunity for others to review the work, and may provide evidence of peer review or other data to demonstrate the validity of the concept by applying the Scientific Method. scientific method noun The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, & developing theories that match known data from repeatable physical experimentation. A method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses. Do you have facts to contribute to this discussion about the impact of mining for battery materials? If not, what is the purpose for employing non sequiturs, ad hominem attacks, and avoiding the application of logic? Those are the tools routinely used to manipulate people's sentiment with emotion, when the manipulator cannot prove a point in a way that stands up to closer scrutiny. Your .sig quotes George Orwell's "1984" and yet you employ the very tactics he wrote to warn us about.

No need to apologize. I'm just glad that you can admit to your problem. That's the first step. There should be some group you can join to help you break away from this cult. Their persuasive and emotion-invoking video art seems to be designed to cultivate new members using the standard psychological triggers employed by many others over the years. Good luck on your road to recovery.

Getting back to the mining concerns, a search turned up this comprehensive presentation from Denmark covering the results of several independent mining and resource studies from the EU, GB, and the US. The content provides a fact-based perspective that may astound anyone with concerns over negative effects of mining for battery materials. This is an eye-opener. One tidbit to ponder, precious metals mined for batteries (Lithium, Cobalt, etc.) make up 0.0004% of the amount of metal being mined on Earth.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Another is,,,, Finally, we are making progress! All the pieces of the puzzle appear to be coming together. (what many might call hope for the future) Clearly, you have no solutions to offer for making the future a bright one, and a tendency to make a grand show of passing on the wisdom you have gained, from what appear to be dubious sources, at best. Any view that provides a confirmation bias is quickly parroted without having made an attempt to verify from sources with more of a factual origin than those from the entertainment segment playing upon the emotions. (including mainstream "news" media, which have routinely, and honestly, defended themselves as being a form of entertainment whenever they are sued for misrepresenting the facts) "If it bleeds, it leads" right? Do you have any other non sequitur responses to offer in an attempt to avoid accepting the information I've offered showing how progress towards a better future is being made? None of these changes will happen tomorrow. In the long game you have to notice each of the steps as they are being achieved. People who are expecting instant gratification will almost always be disappointed with having to wait while the world turns. More people should determine with some accuracy if they are part of the solution. If one's focus is mostly about finding reasons we can't have nice things, what does that make them a part of?

This is your response when an abundance of facts are presented that conflict with logically perpetuating a misguided narrative? You ask questions. I provide answers. You lash out with non sequitur responses. Interesting method toward integrating a reality that doesn't support your beliefs.

First of all, I wasn't having a conversation about ships and planes. You are who took it down that path. But, let's take a look. Regarding your claim above, it may be that the biggest polluters per vehicle are aircraft and freighters. They are, after all, the largest vehicles. Simple physics tells us that will be true. But, they are NOT the biggest polluters when total carbon emissions are viewed as a whole. A quick search turned up how the transport sector makes up about 20-25% of annual carbon emissions on the planet. Of the transport emissions: Road Travel accounts for about 75% Aircraft account for only 11.6% though unstated, this leaves 13.4% to cover everything else in the Transport category. Tractors, Ships, and other vehicles not on the road or in the air. Per: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport Google is your friend, if you were to take a moment to fact-check your skewed resources. For instance, there are already electric aircraft in production that operate competitively for domestic travel. They are beginning that transition to electric. Nobody can push a button to make it happen instantly, but, it will happen faster than most realize. https://aviationacrossamerica.org/news/2022/03/03/electric-planes-are-coming-sooner-than-you-think/ https://spectrum.ieee.org/electric-airplane Transoceanic Aircraft will have to wait until battery technology reduces the weight per energy-stored ratio to a point that the battery requirement leaves enough useful load for intercontinental flight to be profitable. They are getting closer all the time. As for shipping over the sea, These applications are certainly in the works, and an easier challenge than are long-distance aircraft. Here's a link about an existing container ship that is electric and autonomous. I'm sure a smart fellow could dig up plenty more projects underway in a quick search. https://electrek.co/2021/06/08/meet-the-worlds-first-electric-autonomous-container-ship/ Also, keep in mind that Tesla's Megapack battery storage system is shipping container sized. So, once set up for electric propulsion it would be easy-peasy to drop into existing container slots however many Megapacks are needed and hook up the jumper cables. Considering how the above-linked container ship article mentions it using the battery equivalent of 300 Tesla cars, I don't think it would take more than just a few Megapacks to get the job done. It is only a matter of time for nearly all industries to be transitioned to electric by the convergence of the disruptive technologies which will eventually replace the need for fossil fuels. The thing to focus on is how this transition is already in progress. The cost savings for going electric will continue to go down as economies of scale in production are realized. Historically, such transitions happen on an S-Curve when charted. See the Tony Seba link earlier for an excellent presentation of the details. For example, when transitioning from mostly horse and buggy use to mostly automobile use the transition happened in about ten years. It was so fast that the prior industry supporting horse and buggy collapsed. Same with other similar transitions. Wired phone to Smart phone, Radio to TV, introduction of the microwave oven, the personal computer, and how the internet disrupted previous technologies. Such transitions will be driven more as a matter of operational cost reduction, convenience, and directly realized benefits than they will be about environmental concerns. In the case of electrification, carbon emission and toxic gas reduction are just a nice bonus that comes with it.

I find the entertainment value of conspiracy theorists to be somewhat limited due to their penchant for taking things out of context. But, whatever floats your boat. Sometimes you just have to look outside to see what is actually happening in the world, instead of following the endless gospel of such entertainers who thrive on generating controversy on YouTube by preying upon people unwilling or unable to fathom a greater depth toward verifying such claims. You do realize that they make their living based on people clicking on their content, right? The more outlandish the story, the more clicks from their culture of followers. Which might actually be a conspiracy in itself 😲, or, at least a very clever business plan. 🤑 As for a solar-powered car, it is a matter of surface area, or, the lack thereof, based upon the output of current PV arrays. There was a solar powered airplane that flew non-stop around the world. It had the wingspan of something like a 747 and the useful load of a Cessna. There is also the Aptera car going into production that can charge itself while sitting in the sun to gain a few tens of miles a day, and will also plug into any NACS charger. If you don't drive very much and can park in the sun it could go indefinitely without being plugged into the charger. Nobody is making any real effort to build a mass produced solar-powered car. Only to build electric cars that charge on a solar-powered source of energy. This would be the reference point from which to ascertain a practical context in order to validate your preferred source of information.

I've always suspected there was a connection between those entities and the Enquirer. I just figured it was the advertisers they shared influencing their hit-pieces. I had no idea they were subsidiaries. 😁 Thanks for the info. I'll avoid them in the future. /s Edit: For the sake of clarity, the "/s" indicates sarcasm. Oh, and none of what you have presented has anything to do with what I have presented. You seem to think I am some sort of champion for the environmentalist movement, or global worming (those poor worms), or some other faction that gets stirred up over their own virtue signalling. That isn't the case at all. I'm a geek that enjoys understanding technology and watching as the application of it leads to positive changes for the world we live in.

The Hail you say? 😁

If you must go on. Consider how nothing you have presented has in any way factually addressed anything I have presented. You have an opinion about the future, laced heavily with what you perceive as some sort of class war between yourself and the wealthy, the tech overlords, and other imaginary foes which must keep you up at night. None of which appears to be supported by anything more significant than headlines in the National Enquirer. I have presented links to supporting evidence about several things that have already happened and which exist now. They can be measured and evaluated in order to compare to the legacy alternatives which they are shown to be replacing at an ever-increasing rate. We are in a time of technological change, and have been for going on two hundred years. It is, and always has been, accelerating, at an exponential rate. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. 🤖

Well, it has always been popular among some people to believe in their feelings on a subject rather than employing the scientific method to verify. Best wishes for you in this struggle against the tide of actuality while facing the reality of an outcome unmoved by an emotional agenda.

My take is that fossil/synthetic/hydrogen (from fossil) and nuclear all have long-term consequences to deal with. Fossil fuel requires companies to keep drilling to keep going. Add in the destructive nature of fracking, toxic by-products going into the air during processing and use, and the wasted energy required to transport and convert crude into useful products, then to deliver, store, and dispense them makes the overall energy efficiency very low. Add to this how the engines in vehicles are very low efficiency as well, losing most of the combustion energy as heat, even the best ones, It quickly becomes a real head-scratcher once the electric alternative is measured beside what we have been doing for the past century. Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuels, but costs to build and maintain the facility is high and ongoing. Then, there is the waste disposal issue. How does it compare to alternatives? Instead, produce a solar panel and a battery, put the panel in direct sunlight, walk away. The panel just keeps turning an abundance of sunlight into very, very inexpensive electricity for decades. Which can be stored in the battery until needed. This energy can then be transferred into an electric car's battery with very little energy loss in the process. It can then power a car designed with fewer moving parts to fail, nearly zero maintenance by comparison, and it offers much better performance without putting toxic gasses into the air while in use. Sure, there will be mining required to transition to renewable energy. But, unlike with fossil and nuclear fuels, once the majority of Earth's needs are met by solar/battery installations, the mining tapers off. The batteries in use have long lifespans and when they are no longer functional, they are 98% recyclable into new batteries. Win, win, win.

It should be interesting watching as the disruptive technologies converging demonstrate the flaws in such a perspective. Grid scale solar and battery deployment have proven themselves around the world, regardless of subsidies. "Peaker Plants" that would have been spun up for high demand and in critical emergencies remain dormant, rather than being able to charge exorbitant rates. Battery storage can respond in milliseconds to trouble. This is how these systems have become the dominant choice for power in a scant few years in Australia, Europe, Pacific Islands, Asia, and the Americas. https://www.torquenews.com/video/tesla-big-battery-australia-pays-itself-25-years-huge-profit https://cleantechnica.com/2023/09/12/solar-power-europe-predicts-eu-will-reach-its-renewable-energy-goal-3-years-early/ https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/business/india-adani-green-energy-plant-climate-intl-hnk/index.html Regarding hail and solar panels. I was just reading about how it has been found recently that Solar panels oriented vertically, rather than horizontally, with panels facing both East and West actually produce more power than do those facing skyward and South. (Northern Hemisphere perspective) This offers several advantages, the least of which is that hail is unlikely to be a problem. They can be erected in place of a fence, they can have crops planted by tractor between arrays, they can more easily be installed and serviced, and they produce more power each day than horizontal systems. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/11/15/mysterious-higher-energy-yields-in-vertical-pv-systems/ https://spectrum.ieee.org/agrivoltaics Please, do explain in some detail just how this grift works? Provide detail that includes cost/benefit analysis for near and long term. This would be helpful to set straight all of those who studied the problem long and hard on every continent and came to the conclusion that this was the best option. I'm sure they will be grateful for the knowledge. Who is taken to the cleaners when the money spent on grid level energy projects creates near "free" energy going forward, as maintenance costs are minuscule in comparison to legacy power generation? Who was taken for a ride when renewables helped eliminate the EU's dependence upon Russian oil? Maybe the Russians? How are the Pacific Islands that have installed Solar/Battery systems to replace generators and no longer have to import expensive diesel in order to power them having the wool pulled over their eyes? And these synthetic fuels, do they require fuel or electricity in order to create them to then burn them, once, to make electricity? How is that more efficient than taking electricity from the sun and putting it directly into batteries from a source that works day after day after day? In the face of the abundant evidence to the contrary any such argument that these renewables are a scam appears to be completely unfounded. Lastly, for a comprehensive presentation on the convergence of disruptive technologies and how, historically, such disruptions always play out, watch this 5 part series. See if it offers a perspective that illustrates the path ahead.

Let me Google that for you... Texas surpassed California in 2023 as the state with the most Solar Energy Production https://www.ktbs.com/news/texas-surpasses-california-as-grid-scale-solar-energy-production-leader/article_55771e12-7467-11ee-8cf3-cf48685088c8.html Here's another article that mentions how Texas leads in Wind Power Production as well. https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/texas-unique-energy-industry-is-helping-the-state-become-a-renewables-leader/

There are plans. It isn't a grift. Repurposing the grid is already happening with the installation of local renewable power generation and battery storage. The costs to build a new battery + solar or wind energy production facility is on parity with the cost just to maintain an existing coal, natural gas, or nuclear plant of the same production capacity. That is something the folks who make money producing energy consider as a really good reason to replace their costly existing production facilities with this almost maintenance-free alternative. The lion's share of new power projects in the US are sustainable energy projects such as solar production supplemented by batteries to hold the energy until it is needed. Something the existing grid cannot do. Less chance of an outage when a fuel-based plant is unable to spin up to meet demand when the electricity is stored and waiting to be deployed. Because the grid will become less critical as local generation and storage grows, it won't be as much of a worry going forward. More and more residential and commercial new construction are including solar and battery installations. Retrofitting existing homes and other buildings is a growing business. Large scale energy projects with solar, wind, and battery dominate all prior methods in the current projects underway. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424

FTFY- added "Caliper" above, as the Rotor and Master do not follow a single standard. Also, handlebar clamp is not standard. Last time I was shopping for bars I bought the smaller diameter with a set of adapter shims, as it was 30% lower cost than buying the same bar with a diameter matching the stem on the bike. Granted, it has gotten better. For those who have dealt with this for long enough to learn the ropes it has become second-nature to take the steps to assure the right part is ordered. Still, for new people coming into the sport it can be frustrating having to wallow through all the minutiae just to make sure the part you receive is the part that will work. But, this is veering further off topic. Which was that a standard battery spec could lead to several significant advantages for the OEMs and their customers. Based upon reality, the complexities of the higher spec bicycle industry, and a long history of branded designs geared more toward finding their own way than collaboration, I won't be holding my breath waiting for this to happen. It is the nature of the beast.

A standard in common terms will enforce limits when applied. Though, as evidenced above, rarely is a standard likely to find total inter-compatibility across this industry, sometimes even within one manufacturer's offerings. Industry leaders can get together and agree on a standard if it makes sense to do so. Making sense covers a wide spectrum of qualifications that boil down to improving their margins. There has to be good reason for them to adopt a policy of doing something a certain way. Rarely does everyone in the bicycle industry agree. So, there have been hundreds of standards and overlapping designs through the years that rarely coalesce into any permanent standard. Two wheels and handlebars with controls seem to be something nearly all have adopted. Beyond that, it is a toss up as to what any particular bike might include. As stated in the last paragraph, Bicycles have always been very individual and prototype-ish. That is the nature of cutting edge technology. Bike tech evolves fairly quickly. So, there are lots of variations which we euphemistically call "standards" when they are each and all deviations attempting to offer some advantage gained by the change. Rarely is a change embraced or adopted by all, forever. That would be impossible in a dynamic industry where so many are trying to out-engineer each other to find a better way. This is great for us. We get fantastic new ways to approach old problems thrown at us faster than any single person would reasonably expect or be able to adopt. We just deal with what our bike has, until it is time to leapfrog into the next one with all its differences. This makes for variety, and variety is the spice of life. Variety, is also the only real standard that fully encompasses the bicycle industry. The spice must flow. For electric bikes, it might be possible for a standard battery to be adopted. This could lead to advantages for both the manufacturers and the consumers. Cost savings and competition would lead to making the best product for a lower price. Availability would be better. Services like battery swap locations might be a result. This sort of standard would be a significant departure from the norm in the world of high end, custom-fitted, leading edge bicycles that a modern mountain biker may currently select from.

How many "standard" freehubs are there? Which "standard" seatpost diameter does your bike have? Oh? Mine is the other standard. Handlebars have at least two "standard" mounting diameters. Drivetrains cover a plethora of the "standard" number of gears, shifter/derailer combos that cannot be mixed between brands, chains are in many varieties, an abundance of cassette mounting options, etc. Drivetrains require practically arcane knowledge in order to assure buying the part that will work. Brakes have at least two "standard" mountings for rotors, as well as proprietary brake/shifter combo mounts. Mineral oil or DOT? Axle types. How many unique ones are currently found in production based upon the "standard" dimensions? Buying a replacement rear wheel is very complicated due to all the options that must be accounted for. Freehub type, hub width, brake rotor mounting, rim width, wheel diameter, etc. Yes, the industry is "incredibly" standardized. 🙄 The rate of development in bicycles really does not lend itself to standardization in many cases. However, with batteries it might be possible to have two or three standard sizes based on a common dimension for mounting, and contacts, varying by amp hour capacity and which share a common firmware/BCM/communication/charging standard.

Lots of great feedback on the latest RH section. Also, the flooded section recently added has dried enough to be re-opened. Over the weekend RHR received a little over half an inch of rain. Trail surface should be fabulous out there now. My last foray onto Black Trac resulted in re-testing gravity and the effect of physics of motion when acted on by an outside force through recreation of the traditional handlebar/tree experiment. I'm happy to confirm this technique may still be utilized by riders wanting to renew their membership in the OTBSC (Over The Bar Scar Club). In appreciation for my enthusiastic exploration of natural laws my wife graciously created for me a very stylish and utilitarian sling for my arm. The bike is okay. 😁 In fact, I finished the ride and got the bike loaded, then, immediately began 12 ounce curls 🍺 as initial physical therapy is the key to a speedy recovery. It is now going on a week since the ride and the bike is still in the van. 🤔