R-M-R

@gregnangatang: Possibly - and I love every weirdo who gets creative with their equipment - but let's not discount the riders! A few years ago, Wilson was one of few who hit a hot streak that made him, briefly, the fastest rider on the planet. Harnden has been at or near the top of the field in XC, CX, enduro, and DH. Both of them had it in them, so maybe it was the bike, maybe the rider, or probably a bit of both. Reminds me of when Mondraker experimented with super long and slack geometry (relative to their peers). My recollection is that Damien Spagnolo, in particular, would smash his prior career-best results whenever a course was especially fast or steep, but return to mid-pack placings when the bike was less advantageous. Maybe the Aon set-up is a clear advantage on some courses and a detriment elsewhere, or it could be a net benefit on every course. Either way, it's always exciting when an underdog gets weird with it and finds success.

@samchuk: Willing to write, but not read. Desire to feel, but not think. Need to reduce everything to black-and-white. "Common sense" over consideration. Okay, good luck.

@samchuk: It's not at all my intention. 1 W, 2 W - obviously that doesn't matter, nor was it meant to. The world is never so conveniently black and white and nuance is not muddying of the waters. [I]The point is to illustrate the difference between regulating based on what something is, versus what something does.[/I] I agree the "real world" is going in a problematic direction, but just because some bikes have excessive power for typical mountain bike trail networks is no reason to ban all motors. That's why I presented the thought experiment of a very low powered system - whether that's 1 W, 2 W or any number that's so low as to illustrate that it's possible for a motorized bike to exist - even with a throttle - that's not problematic. It doesn't matter that no such bike exists, it's to illustrate that a universal ban on motors is unnecessarily broad. It's possible that all e-bikes currently on the market have too much power, but even that isn't a reason to ban all possible implementations of motorized bikes because it's possible to allow a motorized bike that's not a problem. For example, if a bike had a maximum boost of 1:1 and a maximum power of - let's say 250 W, but it could be something different - that's a more like half a Tadej than 2+ Tadejs. If a rider wants to put out 100 W and the bike matches it, 200 W is well within the range of human-powered riders. Or 150 W x2 for a total of 300 W. Something along those lines. Or imagine a system with a throttle with a constant output of - let's say 150 W maximum. I would much rather share the trail with this configuration than an 8:1 boosted, 2000 W max bike without a throttle. No such bike exists, but that's fine; this is just a thought experiment to illustrate what could exist without being problematic. Again, I agree the power wars are taking e-bikes in a problematic direction and I understand the argument for banning most - perhaps all - current e-bikes, but I think motorized bikes can be non-problematic with appropriate restrictions on what they do, rather than what they are.

@hardcore-hardtail: Your definition of a throttle is correct, but I feel it's more important to look at the functional change. A throttle that applied a constant 1 W, for example, wouldn't significantly change the speed, distance, or trail impact, while some motors can operate without a throttle at more than twice the output described in this article and have dramatic functional impacts. This is why I favour consideration of the functional change, with the acceptance that clear and simple lines have to be created for regulation. @samchuk: Because it's possible for a motorized bike to to have a very small or very large impact on speed, distance, and trail erosion, depending on the characteristics of the motor. I agree the presence of a motor is a clear and simple place to draw the line for regulatory purposes, but it doesn't intrinsically capture the reasons for doing so. Of course I recognize that extremely low-output motors are rare and it may be impractical to differentiate between motor types, so it's a reasonable argument to use that as the determinant, but I'm optimistic we can be more sophisticated than that in finding a solution that better reflects the functional changes we wish to control.

@Alloypenguin: High-end 26" rims and tires are still available. I don't know who still prefers them, but don't worry, there is no end in sight for their ability to keep riding a 2010 bike with 71.5° seat-tube angle and 405 mm reach in size L. (And yes, those are actual geometry numbers from Santa Cruz.)

@Bro-LanDog: I dislike the current state of e-bikes as much as the next person, but even I won't take that position. What if the motor provides only 1% boost? Obviously, no such bike would ever exist, but no one would say the pedals are just throttle inputs. What if the bike provides 1,000,000% boost? Surely, any reasonable person would acknowledge the human input is trivial at that point. So, there must an intermediate point at which we say a line has been crossed. I propose 100% boost, the point at which the power is more machine than human. Even at that point, the pedals are more than just throttle inputs, but it provides a clear and easily understood rationale for a regulatory distinction.

@hamncheez: "The motor that changes everything." ... Including trail access policies.

@valleybreezer: Exactly. At maximum boost, rider input is one-ninth of the total power, or 11%. At what point do pedals become just an awkward throttle mechanism?

I haven't created a simulation of this yet, so just some quick takes: • Nice that Motion has used a non-proprietary shock this time. • As always, the friction should be super low, which is such a good starting point for suspension that minor imperfections can usually be forgiven, but major issues (if present) will always be major issues. • Low linkages (ex. this design, Trust) use short links, which make it difficult to impossible to maintain a consistent axle path, motion ratio, and anti-dive. I'm concerned about all these properties. I have no insight on the motion ratio or anti-dive at this time, but the description of the axle path is concerning, re:compliance ratio (the portion of the bump force vector that's aligned with the axle path). • Motion used higher than ideal anti-dive on their prior model; will be interesting to see if/how their thinking has changed for this model.

@HB208: That's especially true in women's athletics. Until fairly recently, there wasn't much emphasis on female-specific physiological science. Recent developments indicate muscle is such a scarce and precious resource for female athletes, relative to their male counterparts, that it's worth allowing considerably higher levels of body fat than the norms for male athletes if that's what's required for a woman's body to maintain the muscle, and women may exhibit a wider distribution of the ratio of muscle to fat. Obviously, everyone is different and "considerably higher levels of body fat" is still pretty darned lean; the point is that prior thinking had little more sophistication than to take the ideal male numbers and add a smidgen, which appears to have been an incomplete understanding of female physiology and may have caused particular difficulties for women whose bodies are on the high end of fat requirements to sustain ideal levels of muscle.