Jump to content
IGNORED

The Second Sign of the Apocalypse


AustinBike

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, ATXZJ said:

For the love of god just tell us you own stock in tesla

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You come off as odd

My point is planes and ships burn the dirtiest of fuels. Ill concede on the total output of co2. Ultimately, other than nuclear there is no changing ship emissions. EV planes are so far off and the ship you posted hasn't had much going on in the last couple of years. It's not viable. Just like eclectic cars. That's why the public isn't buying them. Your EVs need fossil fuels to be charged. I'm sure most EVs are doing so now as we type. The fantasy that everyone in the world is going to live like you do is misguided and delusional. We are sandwiched between china and india  and followed by russia in emissions output. None of those countries GAF about what we think. Try and change any of that and see what happens. 

Practically half the overall emssions are created by transportation other than our cars & trucks. There is no way EVs will solve that. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1185535/transport-carbon-dioxide-emissions-breakdown/

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region

 

The first electric car was invented in the 1800s. Its taken this long just to be mediocre. 

Edited by ATXZJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own stock on green tech of a bunch of different types and it's done well by me but not Tesla.  My wife has 10 shares TSLA remaining (and we did very well buying/selling with the huge swings).
BTW, though PEC makes it an easy no-deal on on-site solar for me, they have a community solar program you can buy into.  I have that, and I try to charge our cars during the day mainly.  I personally hate Tesla the company, and I hate a lot of things about my car (I wanted zero luxury, all go like my MS3, manual seats, no power hatch, no heated wheel/seats, etc., no buttons, no hatchback, etc.)  My wife's IDF4 is actually pretty nice in a lot of respects.  We'll see how it does long term.  My son's Leaf is a hard to beat car for city driving.  One cool thing about Nissan is their packs are in sets of 8-cells, so if you get a bad cell, the dealer can replace the 8-pack and not the battery pack.  But really the power/drivetrains on EVs have proven very reliable in all sorts of platforms, just like on some hybrids.  Several people here at work love their Chevy Volt (series-electric plug-in hybrid).  Sad they stopped making them b/c that was on my list.  I considered the Bolt but there's a reason those are dirt cheap for very new cars.  They're strictly a city vehicle.  I really wanted a PVHEV Maverick.  That would have been perfect, and I told the dealer if they tell me they're making one in the next year (before my MS3 died) I'd buy one.  The F150 as a full houase battery back-up was super attractive, until I found out the system to make this happen would be $18k, and then you'd have to sign up for some Ford BS subscription.  F that.

Your worry about repair expense as a consideration is valid, but sometimes the most expensive repairs may be b/c the repairs are rare.  Back in the mid90's, my ex was convinced to buy a 1991 4-cyl Mustang b/c the parts were cheaper for it instead of a Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla.  Wanna guess how much trouble that 'stang was?  It sucked.  EVERY-F%#ING-SENSOR.... My 1996 Acura Integra GSR was passed onto its next driver  at 106k miles with the only failure being the plastic radiator tank at >90k miles.  The AC still had the original charge on it (good ol' Nippon Denso stuff!).  The engine still purred and loved to hit 7800 on the regular.

You're 100% right in looking at Toyota for reliability btw.  My logical car choice would have been a Prius PHEV...but I'm a self-respecting car guy 🙂

I watch Real Engineering too especially now that it's on Nebula with Berm Peak and Practical Engineering as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gCXv0XTOi0&list=PL2ir4svMoaYj48N0VWoic25P9LaU2wlbA&index=23

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ATXZJ said:

You come off as odd

My point is planes and ships burn the dirtiest of fuels. Ill concede on the total output of co2. Ultimately, other than nuclear there is no changing ship emissions. EV planes are so far off and the ship you posted hasn't had much going on in the last couple of years. It's not viable. Just like eclectic cars. That's why the public isn't buying them. Your EVs need fossil fuels to be charged. I'm sure most EVs are doing so now as we type. The fantasy that everyone in the world is going to live like you do is misguided and delusional. We are sandwiched between china and india  and followed by russia in emissions output. None of those countries GAF about what we think. Try and change any of that and see what happens. 

Practically half the overall emssions are created by transportation other than our cars & trucks. There is no way EVs will solve that. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1185535/transport-carbon-dioxide-emissions-breakdown/

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region

 

The first electric car was invented in the 1800s. Its taken this long just to be mediocre. 

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

Edited by Ridenfool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Ridenfool said:

 

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?

I apologize. It's not a religion. It's a cult

 

 

Edited by ATXZJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ATXZJ said:

I apologize. It's not a religion. It's a cult

 

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.

Edited by Ridenfool
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget. You were promised 620mile range teslas within two years in back in 2015. 

There's laundry list of empty promises and grift that techbros conveniently ignore. I guess I just lack "faith". 

Go ahead and keep supporting a regime with a long history of totalitarian behavior and human rights abuses. Social credit score? No thanks. Oh. And they are also the largest polluter in the world. #winning

https://chinadialogue.net/en/business/new-three-china-solar-cell-lithium-battery-ev/#:~:text=China accounts for more than,than 20% of electric vehicles. 

I don't see many green washers calling for downsizing the us military and cutting their budget. That would get their dick slapped in the renewed red scare world we currently find ourselves in. How much money does Elon receive from the GOVT again?

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2022/10/pentagon-climate-change-neta-crawford-book/

 

Let's not forget this little incident that I also don't hear the greenies calling for the end to conflict. In fact I just see yellow and blue flags on their social media. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-47290-7#:~:text=It is estimated that more,contributing to global warming1.

This EV BS is just a way to shift guilt and blame onto the public and not the real drivers of pollution. The ruling class will never change their ways, and will keep the plebs arguing about absolute nonsense while they line their pockets. 

It's all a grift and like any other organized religion, I'm not buying what they're selling. 

Edited by ATXZJ
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ATXZJ said:

Don't forget. You were promised 620mile range teslas within two years in back in 2015. 

There's laundry list of empty promises and grift that techbros conveniently ignore. I guess I just lack "faith". 

 

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

  1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
  2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
  3. 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

  1. Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.
    "Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives."
  2. Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason.
  3. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Edited by Ridenfool
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ridenfool said:

 

 

Do you have facts to contribute to this discussion about the impact of mining for battery materials?

 

You bet L Ron. 

https://hir.harvard.edu/not-so-green-technology-the-complicated-legacy-of-rare-earth-mining/

 

https://earth.org/rare-earth-mining-has-devastated-chinas-environment/

 

https://ips-dc.org/mapping-the-impact-and-conflicts-of-rare-earth-elements/

 

https://www.cecc.gov/events/hearings/from-cobalt-to-cars-how-china-exploits-child-and-forced-labor-in-the-congo

Oh and China bought those DRC mines 22 years ago. Thats a Pelosi/Crenshaw level of clairvoyance isn't it? Also, the fact that they now own mines in the USA with their record of environmental abuse should make your hair stand up. Correction. we SOLD them mines in the USA and our GOVT sold us out and permitted them. 

Here's the BEST part 

"IEA estimates that even if the whole world achieves all of its ambitious stated electric vehicle targets by 2030, the additional saved CO2 emissions over this decade will be 235 million tons. The standard climate model used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reveals that this will reduce global temperatures by only 0.0001C by 2100."

🤣

 

And before you run and cry mean stories by bad people 

https://www.energy.gov/ia/international-energy-agency-iea#:~:text=The IEA's energy analyses%2C international,are unique and highly regarded.

 

All of this diatribe is to expose the hypocrisy of the greenwashers and self proclaimned experts. If you really cared about climate change, you'd be screaming to end the wars, end the expansion of the us military industrial complex (that has been noted as  a massive contributor to pollution), and the end of conflict mining that results in immeasurable human suffering. But you aren't. You wont even acknowledge it. 

Why? You like the image of caring more than actually doing something. 

Typical

Edited by ATXZJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ATXZJ said:

You bet L Ron. 

https://hir.harvard.edu/not-so-green-technology-the-complicated-legacy-of-rare-earth-mining/

 

https://earth.org/rare-earth-mining-has-devastated-chinas-environment/

 

https://ips-dc.org/mapping-the-impact-and-conflicts-of-rare-earth-elements/

 

https://www.cecc.gov/events/hearings/from-cobalt-to-cars-how-china-exploits-child-and-forced-labor-in-the-congo

Oh and China bought those mines 22 years ago. Thats a Pelosi/Crenshaw level of clairvoyance isn't it?

Here's the BEST part 

"IEA estimates that even if the whole world achieves all of its ambitious stated electric vehicle targets by 2030, the additional saved CO2 emissions over this decade will be 235 million tons. The standard climate model used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reveals that this will reduce global temperatures by only 0.0001C by 2100."

🤣

 

And before you run and cry mean stories by bad people 

https://www.energy.gov/ia/international-energy-agency-iea#:~:text=The IEA's energy analyses%2C international,are unique and highly regarded.

 

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.) 😁

 

 

Edited by Ridenfool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Ridenfool said:

 

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.) 😁

 

 

You forgot something

"IEA estimates that even if the whole world achieves all of its ambitious stated electric vehicle targets by 2030, the additional saved CO2 emissions over this decade will be 235 million tons. The standard climate model used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reveals that this will reduce global temperatures by only 0.0001C by 2100."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ATXZJ said:

You forgot something

"IEA estimates that even if the whole world achieves all of its ambitious stated electric vehicle targets by 2030, the additional saved CO2 emissions over this decade will be 235 million tons. The standard climate model used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reveals that this will reduce global temperatures by only 0.0001C by 2100."

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?

Edited by Ridenfool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Singlespeeds are stupid. I'm going to buy a FS e-mtb and be done with it. What should I get?

See ya on the trails next week! Or rather, you'll see the back of me as a brap away.

[Edit: happy April 2.]

Edited by mack_turtle
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I just saw this on MTBR:

Quote

My fat tire mid drive ebike (500/1000/1500w) does great at what is was designed for (atv or fire road type trails at higher speeds).

However it flat out sucks on tight single track (under e-power). There is no precision for threading the needle type stuff. The only work around I can find is to gently apply brakes (turns off the motor's pedal assist) and pedal, but the bike is 70-80lbs and the gearing is too high for anything other than flat ground (unassisted), doubly so since you're dragging the brakes. Good luck making that steep sandy hill after a 90 deg turn at the bottom.

So I'm thinking either I should just give up on tight single track with this bike, or try to disable the pedal sensor or one/both of the brake sensors. That way I can either pedal without the bike "randomly" lurching when I don't want the motor, or I can drag the brakes to finesse it around a sharp corner (under e-power). Not sure if that might burn out the motor though?

I'm guessing the better quality, lower powered eMTB's either don't have this issue or they have better throttle modulation via torque sensing motors?

And for the record, I bought this bike as a work horse, not as a fun machine. But hey, if I can get it to do both...

This is an interesting take. I had not considered the "finesse" that you can get from a bike that is just not present with an e-bike. So much of my riding over the years has become much more about feeling the bike through tight obstacles, rock gardens, etc. My Orbea Occam is exceptionally adept at helping me finesse my way through features, to the point where I often tell people to give me a little space because I have the ability to slow a climb to insanely low speed to slips through the appropriate line instead of just getting a head of steam and trying to power up something. The singlespeed really taught me this skill but the Occam lets me literally track stand in the middle of a climb or a rock garden and sneak through with the least effort.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...