Talk:Electric bicycle

Latest comment: 8 months ago by in topic Out of date

Split from Motorized bicycle edit

Per editor consensus, we have split electric bicycles into their own article. Since there are hundreds of millions of electric bicycles in use across the world today, most editors thought it appropriate to give them a space of their own.

Next, I would personally like us to start working on improving this article to the point that we can submit it as a Good article. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Ebikeguy (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

well, when Daimler, Benz and Maybach made the first 'motorcycle' they simply put a motor on a bicycle. the addition of the motor made it something else and the people who invented a bicycle with a motor called it a 'motorcycle' not a 'p-bike' (bicycle powered by petroleum) or any other variation on 'bicycle.' some early MOTORCYCLES were also pedal assist and a few even used electric motors, but none of them were labeled other than 'motorcycles.'
the term 'e-bike' or pretending a bicycle with a motor is still, somehow, a bicycle is just marketing hype. period.
now, given that you now know this, good luck on that 'good article' thing... (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pike Research Report edit

I disagree with the assertion that the Pike research report is necessarily non-encyclopedic. As long as it is identified and described accurately, I think that we should allow references to it. I thought Nudecline's edits were valid, and I would like to restore them with some editing to ensure NPOV. Thoughts? Ebikeguy (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also disagree. The scamper edition has deleted also the text "While electric two-wheel vehicles tend to be a lifestyle choice in North America and much of Western Europe, in the developing world they’re used more as primary means of transportation", that talks about nowadays transportation. On the other hands, the predictions includes a parameter, the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9.4%. --Nudecline (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball edit

Thanks for waiting for my answer. Several reasons justify the speedy reversal:
1. The whole text added to the lead that I reversed is word by word cut and paste from the provided source see here. This is blatant copyright violation. This reason by itself merits the speedy deletion of the whole text.
2. Please review the Wiki policy entitled Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, item #3, which prevent us from including extrapolation and speculative facts and events that will happen in the future . These are considered original research.The exception is those articles dealing with mainstream, peer-reviewed research forecasts, such as global warming and others related, where temperature forecasts are presented and these are based in mainstream science. Unfortunately market research about products in general does not to that category, nobody has checked (peer-review) the assumptions made for such predictions. To illustrate the point I will mention a case I am familiar with: mid and long-term forecasts of plug-in hybrid market penetration. There are dozens of such forecasts (Google if you don't believe me), several from reputable sources, some even academic, but some concluded that only die-hard enthusiasts will buy them and market penetration will be insignificant and increase very slowly; other estimate that by 2030 they will reach a 50% market penetration, while other forecast that by 2015 or 2020 or 2030 the market penetration will be only 5% or 10% or 15%. Each of these results depends on the assumptions, such future price of gasoline ($3 or $4 or $10/barrel), about peak oil, about how fast the price of lithium-ion batteries will fall, how much is going to be the market penetration of competing technologies (such as electric cars), you name it. Which one do you guys think is right? Nobody knows, your guess is as good as mine, crystal ball stuff indeed! That is why this type of material is considered speculation and does not belong to Wikipedia.
3. By the same token, I or anyone could delete the final part of the lead, regarding 2010 forecast of e-bike sales. I decided not to because I did not want to be that radical about this policy and considering that the projection is for the current year, which supposedly may have less uncertainty. Any way, in a few months will be deleted with the actual statistics become available. But feel free to remove that too.

Finally, I want to clarify that I am just trying to keep the green transportation articles as NPOV and objective as possible, and it is dificult, because most of the technologies are just emerging, there are no books to use as reliable sources, but there is a lot of speculation around, even in the specialized magazines and journals. I rather prefer to present historical data and in the particular case of e-bikes, what applies to conventional bicycles not always apply to the new electric ones, such as assumptions about who is using them and where. We have to be patient and wait until those new trends and patterns begin to emerge based on reliable sources.--Mariordo (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I respectfully disagree with invoking WP:CBAL here. The way I read it, WP:CBAL specifically deals with predictions and original research in the Wiki article, not in the referenced materials. Let me know if I missed something. That said, there still may be problems in that this is not a peer-reviewed study. I have ask a knowledgeable, helpful, and objective admin to chime in on this matter. He has always been very helpful in the past. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfectly fine with asking for advice. But the main point is not the peer-review objection, it is the fact that such predictions are full of uncertainty regardless of who does it, as the plug-in example illustrate.---Mariordo (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As always, I claim no expertise in the subject matter, so I'm simply commenting as an experienced editor. Much of the deleted material was inappropriate for other reasons than CBAL. Increasingly accepted as capable, even appealing is clearly pov; While electric two-wheel vehicles tend to be a lifestyle choice... is an unattributed copy of text that does not appear to have a licence compatible with Wikipedia, and is asserting a fact which doesn't appear to be supported by anything other than the Pike editor's say-so, so I'd chop that too.
So now to CBAL. Predictions in themselves are not necessarily unacceptable, the sentence prior to the contested material gives a referenced prediction for 2010, so is the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9.4% through 2016 acceptable? The source is not peer-reviewed, and we can't see the actual report and its data without parting with hard cash. Pike is a commercial consultancy. Would you consider its research on demand to be objective? If not, the prediction is worthless, but the fact that people are presumably prepared to pay for the report suggests that it has some credibility. Is it likely that the summary accurately reports the figure in the report — difficult to see why it shouldn't. CBAL is to deter editors from unjustified speculation, but if the US treasury or the Bank of England gave five-year financial predictions, you would accept that could be reported in an article (you are only reporting the predictions, not saying they must be right). Unless you do think that Pike is not competent or trustworthy within its area of practice, I'd say keep the prediction without the flim-flam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not have problem restoring that info, I do trust your experience. Nevertheless, I would prefer not to have it in the lead but instead in the country section, putting both market predictions together. Ebikeguy, go ahead and restored anyway you prefer. I can also do it but later today, it is your choice.--Mariordo (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that this report should not be referenced in the lead. How would you feel about my creating a "Martket Predictions" (or something like that) section after the "Experience by Country" section and putting both market predictions there? Ebikeguy (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Market predictions sounds great to me.--Mariordo (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC
Good work and consensus !!. Thanks to you all. --Nudecline (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bicycle as primary means of transportation edit

"While electric two-wheel vehicles tend to be a lifestyle choice in North America and much of Western Europe, in the developing world they’re used more as primary means of transportation". [1]. Can it be included in experience by country or in a another (new) section?. On the other hand, what about a cycling-oriented development article or include in a section in transit-oriented development (really, sometimes the transit and cycling developments are linked)?--Nudecline (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to see that statement, with supporting language, right beneath the "Experience by Country" header, before the first country-specific subsection. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Electric bike battery shanghai 2.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion edit


An image used in this article, File:Electric bike battery shanghai 2.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comparison of electric bicycles edit

A new article needs to be made called Comparison of electric bicycles, at present, the only thing we have now is a section of an article on electric scooters. See Electric_motorcycles_and_scooters#Comparison_of_select_production_residential_speed_electric_scooters_and_motorcycles However, a 55 MPH electric, 2-wheeled vehicle doesn't fall within a specifications of an electric bike, instead electric bikes are far less powerful. For example, the Yikebike attains but 15 MPH (see, and range is but 10-20 km so that's nowhere near that (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you think we need a new article, rather than including the comparison information in this article? Ebikeguy (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links edit

Here are a couple of external links that were recently posted:

These should either be integrated into the article or left off. A list of URLs is not encyclopedic. Jojalozzo 01:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definition of pedelec and e-bike edit

As I understand the sources, a pedelec is a bike that requires pedalling and is only assisted by the electric motor and an e-bike can operate on electric power alone. If that is so, then recent changes that modified "electric assist" for pedelecs to "pedal assist" are incorrect since a pedelec has electric assist and an e-bike has pedal assist. Jojalozzo 03:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The thing being assisted is the rider, therefore "pedal-assist" does not mean that the bike is being assisted by pedalling (i.e as the thing being assisted is the rider, not the bike) but that the rider is being assisted in his or her pedalling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Table comparing legal status between jurisdictions (countries) edit

I created a table comparing legal status between jurisdictions (countries), e.g. concerning speed and effect limits (after asking here and not getting feedback).

I think this improves readability and is useful e.g. when researching where to purchase suitable gear or where to plan a vacation.

Possible refinements:

Bjornte (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I question only one listing for the United States. There are 51 jurisdictions that can potentially regulate this devices: the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Then there are all the various territories, such as Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Each of these can have different laws and regulations. Wschart (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we remove all the textual paragraphs under Legal status? edit

Now that the table is made, can all the other text concerning legal status be removed from this article and incorporated into the article Electric bicycle laws? To me it seems we have unwanted redundancy between articles right now, and the text is partially of low quality and too verbose in my opinion. Bjornte (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: I haven't gotten any feedback on this subject. I therefore assume it's OK that I go ahead and remove the textual content and merge it into the main article Electric bicycle laws. Reply asap if I shouldn't. Bjornte (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Electric bicycle edit

Cyberbot II has detected links on Electric bicycle which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \barticles(?:base|vana)\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GeoOrbital edit

Would include a section about innovation and aftermarket kits, as GeoOrbital [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electric Mountain Bikes edit

The article seems very out of date, especially with regard to the examples of e-bike used. It doesn't even mention e-MTBs, the development of which has been rapid and astounding. Word is that for high-end bikes electric MTBs are outselling conventional ones and they are transforming the sport. They need more attention here, and should they have their own article? Stub Mandrel (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu edit

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rheaxx666 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rheaxx666 (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too many bikes edit

There is a moped article, a motorized bicycle article, an electric bicycle article and scooter article. Plus more articles for 'proper' bicycles and 'proper' motorcycle. I would like these articles to be consolidated where needed, improved, and linked. If a more experienced wikipedian can help. A reasonable voice (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promotional Tone in lead article. edit

E-bike use is growing in some markets, as they are seen as an eco-friendly and healthy alternative to cars, fossil fuel-powered mopeds and small motorcycles,[2][3][4][5] and a less physically intense alternative to conventional bicycles.[2]

The links for this section are both old and opinion pieces. While ebike usage has probably increased, newer information is likely needed. It is also written in a way that promotes ebikes. User:WikiDan61 I would be interested in your thoughts on rephrasing if you disagree about it seeming like a statement on a Trek bike ad? A reasonable voice (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The statements are also not supported by the articles. A reasonable voice (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Out of date edit

Some of the statistics are dreadfully out of date such as ebike use in 2008. (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]