Such as?

The phrasing from the “article” says this:

Regenerative braking recovers up to 25% of energy while integrated traction control prevents wheel slip. The TM-B monitors both wheels independently, adjusting power output in fractions of a second to maintain grip.

The only way I can parse this is if “power output” means the regen power. But even so, it explicitly says both wheels, and I can’t figure out how it would do that. Or perhaps “power output” also includes the dissipated heat from friction braking. Truly a strange statement to try to pick apart

I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the case, but which places allow that?

To call this an “article” would be charity gone too far. It’s basically a list of talking points, direct from the manufacturer.

But examining the merits for what it is, the first thing I noticed is that this supposedly has regenerative brakes on both wheels. That’s… a bit odd, seeing as there’s only one visible mid-drive motor. I can plausibly believe that the rear wheel is regenerative, since if their goal is fewer drivetrain parts, then eschewing the ratcheting freehub makes sense. But for the front, there’s nothing which appears to sink energy, apart from what appears to be a conventional disc brake. Is there a motor hidden in the front fork? Or an induction pickup in the brake caliper?

But more pressing than that, a fully “pedal by wire” ebike may run afoul of the definition of ebikes currently adopted in several states. In California, CVC 231 and 312.5 define a bicycle and electric bicycle, respectively. The latter mandates that an ebike must meet all the requirements of a bicycle, but is allowed to have a 750 W motor, and must have working pedals. The problem here is that “working pedals” in CVC 312.5 and “propelled … through a belt, chain, or gears” in CVC 231 can only reasonably be reconciled if the pedals are mechanically attached or linked to the belt, chain, or gears. Which has been the case for all legal ebikes… until this one.

As written, California law would put this two-wheeler into legal limbo. A District Attorney could certainly make a good legal argument that the Also TM-B is not an ebike, making it an unregistered motorcycle. If there is any functional, steady-state mode where the pedals can turn forward but not move the bike, AND the bike can run the motor without the pedals moving, I believe that would not meet the text of the law. The Legislature would have to change the definition to allow this.

As it happens, other reporting suggests that this has a 28 MPH (45 kph) max speed and also a throttle. That combination is not legal in California or anywhere else, as a Class 3 ebike.

Specifically for additional info, feel free to create a new post in this community (and possibly cross-post to !bikewrench@lemmy.world) so that people with knowledge can help you out.

The way to prevent rolling is to hold down a brake lever

You’ve reminded me that I need to do something similar but for my e-scooter. When folded up, it will try to roll away as the bus yaws or pitches. But my plan is to drill a hole through the bottom of brake lever housing, so I can push a bolt up that will jam the brake lever whilst engaged. And since the bolt is facing downward, it should fall out when I squeeze the brake, quickly putting the scooter back into action.

Welp, that’s an opsec / electronics / micromobility crossover that I wasn’t expecting at all.

BTW, in response to a certain comment, OTA updates for vehicles are not mandatory per UN R156 nor ISO 24089:2023. Those regulations specify that if an automobile is shipped with an OTA update capability, then the manufacturer must implement certain security measures to protect the OTA mechanism from attacks or manipulation. This is, quite frankly, common sense: a vehicle that is type-certified for sale should not have a way to render its type-certificate invalid, by way of something that is within the manufacturer’s control. A battery catching fire would definitely invalidate the type certificate.

If a manufacturer doesn’t implement OTA updates at all, then they obviously don’t need to comply with any of those requirements. That said, most automobile regulations don’t tend to apply automatically to motorcycles, so perhaps that’s why Zero Motorcycle dropped the ball. Still, it points to the problem that the regulation sought to address: OTA updates are badly engineered, result in harm that only accrues to the consumer, and there’s no accountability post-sale.

Agreed. Even carriers for full-sized motorcycles are more affordable than this one. And that’s precisely why I modified a motorcycle carrier to move my ebike around.

In the same way that torque/current-limited ebikes will cause less soil erosion in national parks – case in point, Tahoe National Forest in California now explicitly permits Class 1 ebikes on trails, once they had enough data to support that assertion – I would expect that an electric horse could also be tuned to limit its acceleration on tricky surfaces.

If time is of the essence, then wireless charging is even worse in comparison to wire conductors. Almost by definition, any stationary wireless charger laid into the ground is supplied by wires, so might as well have conductors all the way that are position-independent and free to use. A dangling USB C cable of any power capacity is going to be a more common standard for more people, while also being compatible with phones and other accessories.

Ok, but why wireless charging? The reason that wireless charging works for mobile phones but not automobiles is precisely one of efficiency: delivering only 60% of input power to a phone is fine because that’s only a few Watt-hours of loss, but is definitely not fine when it takes 100 kWh to charge a 60 kWh electric car battery. The wastage is catastrophically not worth the convenience if not plugging the car in.

Why then would we want wireless charging for electric cargo bikes, as pictured? Even for normal electric bikes, a bike shelter with USB C cords dangling down from retracting reels would be far superior, and provides weather protection and locking options.

The lawsuit (which the article has included a link to!!!) claims that Specialized’s website did not disclose certain fees (eg handling fee, battery disposal fee) prior to the checkout page, in violation of laws in both Virginia (where the plaintiff lives) and California (where Specialized is headquartered).

The suit was filed in the Northern District of California federal court, because: 1) a national class-action suit can only be filed in federal court, not state court, 2) both the lead plaintiff and Specialized reside in different (ie diversity) states, and 3) that court’s geographic district includes Specialized, as the defendant, and also is the presumed location where their website was designed.

In the early 1900s, horses were the original “mobile emissions” source of pollution, causing great consternation to anyone that happened to be in their wake at the wrong time. Yes, we have troughs that catch horse poo now, but still doesn’t perfectly mitigate the problem specific to horses.

And then there’s the issue of horses on surfaces: on dirt, their weight cause erosion. On pavement, they can injure their hooves, plus the sound of horseshoes at full gallop on asphalt must be deafening.

(I promise this isn’t a subtoot about automobile environmental impacts)

As an aside, in wilderness in America, where there is the most protection for the environment and anything mechanized (like bicycles) are prohibited, it is a bizarre historical exception that horse riding is permitted, in spite of the obvious degradation caused by trampling over everything. Wilderness is meant to be a nature-first place, but somehow it’s actually horseriders-first, then nature.

Please see my review of the Ninebot GL30P, here on c/micromobility, which I purchased after receiving advice from this community.

But my own sensibilities aside, it’s fairly capable with large – but still jarring – dips in the road surface, and does not bottom-out at sidewalk ramps or turning into driveways.

After 8 months of use, I can say that it has no issue with gentle slopes, although you may have to be in “drive” mode (the middle power mode), since “eco” (the lower power mode) is power and speed limited. I personally don’t use “sport” mode, since the thing will take off very quickly, and that’s too much of a handful for me.

Walking it off a typical curb, it doesn’t bottom out. But with no suspension (by default; I’m informed this is a not-uncommon upgrade that can be made), the drop is very jarring, so I don’t personally ride the scooter off a curb. But up or down a driveway cutout, it’s very smooth and I do that regularly.

Once again, shame on the editor for distorting what the author wrote, using a clickbait headline when the article can stand on its own. No, there is no “inconvenient truth” in the article, but rather a sober discussion of the fluid colloquial definitions of “moped” and “scooter”, as a result of technological change being much faster than the written language can adapt, all while legal language remains as tight (and impenetrable) as it’s ever been.

On that latter point, I will rehash what I wrote earlier:

In California, the largest motorcycle market in the USA, this would be regulated as a moped (CVC Section 406), since it is electric, has a motor less than 3 kW (4 HP in old money), and a top speed of less than 30 MPH (48 kph).

Riders wouldn’t need an M1 motorcycle license, but instead an M2 moped license would suffice. An M1 license allows riding anything that needs an M2 license, such as this moped. The process for an M2 is classroom instruction, and then a brief practical exam. There is no annual registration for mopeds, but there is a one-time plate fee, to obtain a plate from the DMV. There is no insurance requirement for mopeds.

A moped can be ridden in either traffic lanes and bike lanes (but not shoulders, which only bicycles are permitted to use). Whereas bicycles are obligated to use a bike lane when present (with a few obvious exceptions), a moped is not forced to use a bike lane. When riding in a traffic lane, a moped must keep to the right-most lane if slower than all other traffic.

This is all to say, California explicitly allows certain non-pedal, electric two-wheelers to be mopeds. But also the original, pedal, combustion two-wheelers are also mopeds. Rather than quibbling on definitions, this state would rather people go out riding.

If you have a question about your own ebike and not the Honda moped in the OP’s post, you should start a new post so that other people can try to answer.

That said, at least in California and many other states, 28 MPH is not allowed on a Class 2 ebike. Only a Class 3 ebike can do 28 MPH, but a throttle is not allowed on a Class 3. Class 2 tops out at 20 MPH.

In California, the largest motorcycle market in the USA, this would be regulated as a moped (CVC Section 406), since it is electric, has a motor less than 3 kW (4 HP in old money), and a top speed of less than 30 MPH (48 kph).

Riders wouldn’t need an M1 motorcycle license, but instead an M2 moped license would suffice. An M1 license allows riding anything that needs an M2 license, such as this moped. The process for an M2 is classroom instruction, and then a brief practical exam. There is no annual registration for mopeds, but there is a one-time plate fee, to obtain a plate from the DMV. There is no insurance requirement for mopeds.

A moped can be ridden in either traffic lanes and bike lanes (but not shoulders, which only bicycles are permitted to use). Whereas bicycles are obligated to use a bike lane when present (with a few obvious exceptions), a moped is not forced to use a bike lane. When riding in a traffic lane, a moped must keep to the right-most lane if slower than all other traffic.

IANAL, but all of this can be verified in the CVC. The result is that mopeds (a vestige of the 1970s oil crisis) could absolutely make a comeback if priced correctly, since ebikes already provide similar mobility.

$4,999.99 USD

single-armed front fork

not a foldable e-bike

airless tires

a SIM card

the ebiiGo app

Every single one of these design decisions – except the single front fork – seems entirely unjustified when taken together as a whole. This is not an ebike for actual use, but a technical demo, not unlike proof-of-concept automobiles that never make it to series production. But the reason those cars never see production is because they’re often exceedingly impractical, like when mechanical engineers go racing in concrete boats. They do it for the challenge and the lolz.

But unlike cars, the triumph of lithium ion batteries and cheap production costs means that ebikes like this can actually enter production. But should it have? I don’t think so. We are basically using time, energy, and resources to build instant ewaste. It’s the fast fashion problem, but with ebikes.

Stroads are best understood as a product of emergent evolution. That is to say, no thinking went into their development, except as incremental, thoughtless upgrades from what was probably once a rural country road.

The only good thing about stroads is that when they’re demolished and rebuilt properly, there’s usually enough room to build an express two-lane road, or two-way busway, or dual-track light rail line, plus room for adjacent frontage/access roads for local traffic.

The land and technology exists to build things properly, but often not the political and community will.

These remind me of a time when French shepherds walked on stilts to overcome swampy landscape.

The modern equivalent would be stilts to “walk over” lanes of stroads, since the stilts could land on the lane dividers and thus provide uninhibited, elevated urban travel. Just don’t fall.

I jest, but that would be a solving a real issue, where crosswalks at stroads take forever and a half.