Workcycles E-Fr8′s? Really?
Tweet
This is how stable a Workcycles Fr8 stands on the Massive Rack. Photo by Tom Resink, who also built these bikes.
Yes, we are asked constantly whether we’ll build a Fr8 or other Workcycles bike with electric assist. The answer is basically yes and no. By no means are we philosophically opposed to the idea of adding a motor to our bikes. We are however very much aware of the many downsides so we generally advise against it unless the need is clear.
For handyman firm Buurtklusser in hilly Nijmegen the need for some help was very obvious. This particular Fr8 will have its Massive Rack frequently loaded up with 100+ kg of cargo and the giant newspaper panniers filled with packages. How would you like to pedal uphill with a total weight of 250kg? In case you’re curious check out their blog at Trapkracht.nl (“Pedal Power”)
Further these bikes will be operated by professionals so we’ve a pretty good chance they’ll be used appropriately and maintained properly. That’s very different from sending special bikes out into the wild with customers who may not have the skills for (or interest in) maintaining them, nor a suitable workshop in the area to turn to when necessary.
Advantages of electric assist:
Economic disadvantages of electric assist:
Subjective disadvantages of electric assist:
A similar bike was built for landscaping firm Gaia Hoveniers, also in Nijmegen. This bike will tow a huge and heavily loaded Surly trailer.
The assist system in these bikes uses a heavy-duty, torque oriented, Crystalite motor in the front wheel fed by a hefty set of 36 volt Lithium Ion batteries. The motor’s operation characteristics can be tuned via a computer which is necessary for such a specialized application. A mini transformer allows the bike’s standard B&M LED lighting system to run from the motor’s battery and the battery and wiring harness have been neatly tucked away. Aside from the giant front hub the system is essentially invisible. Our electric systems are powerful, as robust as can be and no, not at all cheap. Just for reference these systems added about €1800 (including VAT) to the cost of these bikes and each few years a fresh battery pack of at least several hundred euro will be required.
Our usual favorite Shimano rollerbrakes have been replaced on these bikes by the very powerful and reliable Magura HS33 hydraulic rim brakes. Why no disks? A rim is essentially a very, very big disk.
The gearing is via a NuVinci infinitely variable hub which are proving to be very tough and pleasant to ride. It’s great in combination with the electric assist. I’ve had one in my own Fr8 for about half a year and really like it. In fact gear hubs just feel kind of weird to me now.
All of Workcycles electric assist systems are custom installations. Because regular, specialized maintenance is necessary as well as the not infrequent tuning or warranty issue we only offer these systems to customers within the Netherlands.
Email This Post
October 21st, 2011 at 16:42
Out of curiosity, are there innovations that you feel could come on the scene in the next 5 to 10 years that make you think “yeah, I could build ‘standard’ e-assist Fr8′s with THAT technology”? Like, crank motors, battery innovations and/or standards, things like that?
I’d entertain the notion of buying a pedelec if they weren’t all so dang ugly. Fat aluminium hunks of crap design. The only nice-looking e-bike I ever saw IRL was the Urban Arrow I tried chasing across Sarphatipark last time I was in Amsterdam, but that’s not the same kind of beast.
October 21st, 2011 at 21:20
nicolas,
It’s not really any technology we’re waiting for to build more electrically assisted cargobikes. It’s more that we’ve found it very difficult to source reliable, good working, decent looking equipment compatible with Workcycles bikes and their uses.
A crank motor has the advantage of running through the rear gear hub to provide a more useful range but then it also brings along its own host of disadvantages: far bigger potential compatibility problems in the future, having to build special frames etc. Also the crank motors are mostly going to be built by big firms with their eyes on the mass market, not niche players like us. Thus few crank motors will offer the features and adjustability we need. I mentioned in another post that I spoke to Bosch at Eurobike last year. The sales guy actually turned around and walked away when I told him we build just a couple thousand bikes per year.
The batteries now offer sufficient power density to go quite far on a battery of moderate weight. Unfortunately they’re unreliable, demanding of their users charging habits and extremely expensive.
October 22nd, 2011 at 13:40
The European Cyclists’ Federation, Coliped and Colibi oppose a change in EU regulation which would permit two-wheelers with pedals and motors with higher than 250w output to be exempt from type regulations used for scooters and motorcycles… so – let’s be clear – are you saying that strict adherence to the law would make it possible to build this bike?
See http://www.bike-eu.com/news/brussels-continues-to-obstruct-bigger-e-bike-motors-5295.html
October 22nd, 2011 at 13:41
possible = impossible
October 22nd, 2011 at 21:32
Todd,
Yes strict adherence to that law would make these bikes technically illegal except the EU has done little to define exactly what the limits mean. An electric motor isn’t like an internal combustion engine that simply creates a certain amount of torque at a given rpm under certain atmospheric and temperature conditions. The electric motor, especially one like this Crystalite that runs at well below capacity can be fed with more or less current by a controller. Practically any parameter of its operation can be adjusted in the software.
But if one “tunes” the motor to operate at a constant output of more than 250W after frictional losses and some enforcing body were to measure that output on a dynamometer it would be declared illegal. It’s not difficult to do. The police in Amsterdam measure the power output of scooters on portable dynamometers; I saw one the other day at a roadblock near our home. Of course if the police were to get busy with such activities it would be even easier to circumvent the laws with a hidden limiter switch. IN any case I think we’re a long way from anybody actually caring what e-bikes are doing unless it’s one of those super fast German beasts.
October 22nd, 2011 at 22:40
The problem is that the consumer who does not want to manipulate anything and does not know how – and would feel it is bad, etc. – is limited by the current regulation. As I have said before, all this means is that only “bike hackers” will be able to get an advantage.
I don’t know how type-exempt two-wheelers get measured in the distribution system. One 250w bike is obviously going to be faster or slower than another one.
ECF and partners want the existing (limiting) law because they believe too-high powered “bicycles” will threaten others on bike paths. The question is what will these people do otherwise? Will they drive cars, scooters (allowed on paths in NL) or do something else? It is important to remember that the typical private automobile can go way over the speed limits of most countries. This is actually good because a vehicle which starts to feel a little sketchy at 200km/h will feel stable at 130km/h. But most of these vehicles are driven at the limit (if there is good enforcement) + 10 to 20 extra km/h. So then, should it be a matter of local enforcement rather than an umbrella regulation on tuning?
October 24th, 2011 at 08:27
Hehe, loving this! “if e-bikes are outlawed, only outlaws will have e-bikes! You can grab my e-bike from my cold, numb fingers! (cos I forgot my gloves this morning)”
October 24th, 2011 at 08:43
That pretty much sums it up, or maybe more specifically:
“If outlawed e-bikes are actually checked and enforced, only outlaws will have outlaw e-bikes!”
October 24th, 2011 at 14:27
Now finally you use a Magura HS33! When i ordered my FR8 you refused
to exchange the rollerbrake with an Magura HS33..
Great!
October 24th, 2011 at 23:16
Matthias, We only use the Magura rim brakes on Fr8′s in combination with the electric motor. Otherwise there’s no reason to do so.
October 25th, 2011 at 12:29
Does any know how the ECF, Coliped and Colibi square their opposition to allowing more powerful electric motors on bicycles, limited to the 25kph max assistance speed, with the fact that many people want more powerful assist up hills, if for example they are above average weight, or are carrying substantial cargo? How can these organisations support such a one-size fits all solution? If the motors are speed limited, how do such bicycles threaten regular bicycle riders on paths any more than the currently permitted electric bicycles? It doesn’t seem logical at first reading, based on what’s been reported here.
October 25th, 2011 at 12:30
That should have been – “Does anyone know . . .”
October 25th, 2011 at 14:35
Mike, higher-output motors would allow greater acceleration plus also many paths have a user speed average closer to 15 to 20km/h. So my view is that output has to be increased but it is really torque that is the issue. So how can a bike differentiate between high torque needed to take a heavier load up a hill and a high torque either needed to avoid a collision, or just “for fun”?
October 25th, 2011 at 16:31
Mike, Todd,
It’s definitely a question of tuning the motor controls and gearing for torque or speed but so much of this can be invisibly controlled with electronics that it’s largely unenforceable. I think anybody with a basic understanding of how these systems work, and of what characteristics various user groups need can see that the current ruling doesn’t work. Its one size fits all approach just makes legal electrically assisted bikes impractical for all who fall outside the standard “consumer” market as it now stands.
But enforcing anything so invisible and easily modified here is a can of worms and further we all know that anything allowing more powerful e-bikes will be abused to create what are effectively fast and annoying e-scooters. So I have no easy answers here.
October 28th, 2011 at 14:49
I note that Todd Edelman’s last post has been edited. In the version I got by e-mail, he said he’d sent a message to ECF with the link to this discussion. Todd, did you ever get a reply? I totally agree that allowing higher torque is the issue – not higher speeds. That’s one reason why I’d only ever look at a crank-mounted motor, since they, I’m told, provide higher levels of torque and deliver the power through the gears, unlike hub motors. I must say that I guess the ECF staff don’t know anyone who is discouraged from cycling because of significant uphill stretches on their journey. I ride half way to work, then catch a bus to get past a river valley with a steep descent but then a long (less-steep but still a lot of work) uphill.
October 28th, 2011 at 20:38
Mike,
I edited Todd’s post at his request.
A hub motor can be tuned to provide pulling torque or speed, but generally not both, at least not yet. Since a crank motor drives through the gears it can have a wider useful operating range.
October 28th, 2011 at 22:05
Mike, Thanks. I have not had a reply from ECF. I think that they felt that they had two options: 1 – Conservative, 2 – Danger.
The debate has gone on for a long time – as all things regarding new proposed legislation – and I think it is almost certain now that the definitions and requirements for pedelecs will not change. I believe there was some argument that by keeping more restrictions on bicycles it would keep people driving, and that this would create more danger to cyclists than faster bikes. This would seem to be the case in places where bikes are not separated in different ways from motor vehicles. So then perhaps the unchanged law is biased towards places with better conditions for cycling, as they would not be affected so much by more cars as they would by faster bikes on the same infrastructure.
But also you can put yourself in the mindframe of an automobile lobbyist: If I were one I would definitely push for bicycles to be as non-competitive as possible.
Really, somewhere in the shadows is the Lord Palpatine http://bit.ly/sXAcxy of Mobility manipulating everything and us all.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:35
Hi Todd. Thanks for replying. To bad they didn’t deign to reply.
One thing though: in my understanding, this question of the impact of “faster bicycles” is moot. I understood that ETRA was pushing for the lifting of the 250W cap on motor output, while maintaining the “assistance up to 25kph” aspect of current law. This would allow the electric bicycle to better haul cargo or assist heavy riders up steep hills, but it would only produce somewhat higher speeds than the low speeds currently possible in such uses. You wouldn’t benefit from the extra power over flat terrain, except, as you said, for bursts of speed say in overtaking – but still not over 25kph assisted. Am I misunderstanding? Is the “faster” sense being used to mean “faster up to 25kph” than a similar bike with a 250W motor would have been? Is this the ECF’s “faster bikes in the same infrastructure argument?
Also, have you ever seen the ECF’s formal response to the ETRA proposal? Is it online?
October 29th, 2011 at 11:05
Mike, ECF might still reply…
If you want to see precisely what they think I would search their website. I know that their website is being re-launched in about a week, and I don’t know if that will make this easier or harder.
Electric-assist is tuned to make bikes faster. This may mean that people going 18km/h will be going 25km/h, and so on, and they can get to that speed quicker. I think it could definitely increase problems on bike paths etc, but if you have to do the holistic analysis. Will it get more people out of cars? Will it increase fitness levels? By being a kind of “gravity insurance” – in other words by enabling an entire bike journey just by helping someone get up one long hill on this journey – does it increase safety in the big picture? I would tend to answer yes to all of these, barring further evidence. It gets complicated, e.g. a bus journey which becomes a bike journey is mainly about improving fitness and the intangible joy of independent mobility stuff, but a car journey which becomes a bike trip does all that plus nearly eliminates all that pollution and so on. So I would guess that it is electric assist cargo bikes which will have the most positive effect on the environment, maybe per bike. This does not mean that people in flat or nearly flat places need to replace their normal cargo bike with a pedelec cargo bike — unless it is substituting for a car…
November 1st, 2011 at 19:32
Todd. I have read further into the ECF position. Their argument turns on their view that 250W – the existing limit – is about equivalent to the power of a competitive athlete riding a bicycle. Going beyond that, they argue, takes bicycles from being human-powered vehicles to being motorised vehicles. Not sure what I think of this. I can see the point, but the reality is that I have a big hill and a lot of lesser hills on one stretch of my commute to work. Regular cycling leaves me in a sweaty mess. A 250W electric bicycle struggles to get me up the hill. I would like more power, but I don’t want to be forced to go through registration, licensing and be forced to wear a helmet and stay out of bicycle lanes. Can that circle be squared?
As for the speed argument, the difference between 18kph and 25 kph is well within the range of speeds you see every day for regular bikes – I’m not sure I see a huge security concern. And since current 250W bikes can already do 25kph on the bike paths, I’m really not sure why we’re talking about speed – even if electric bikes are tuned for speed instead of power – ETRA hasn’t proposed doing away with the speed limit for power assist.
I think more powerful electric bikes will become a solution for mobility, but we may have to look at making it easier to license them and to allow member states to create exemptions that make sense for their topographies.
November 1st, 2011 at 20:41
ECF is wrong and their arguments are going to slow the increase of cycling. There is more risk with all the motors on the bikes and so on but this is way more than compensated for by the increased amount of cycling created by a well-thought out pedelec scheme. Every car trip turned into a social pedelec journey creates as much safety as the inverse of probably 1000 anti-social pedelec journeys. Do you all follow?
I am going to see if there is a European organization supporting the rights of people of large/heavy stature, or any org which would have this group under their umbrella, and ask about taking this to the European Court of Human Rights. Let’s see how ECF responds to that!!
November 3rd, 2011 at 19:14
Todd – ETRA – the European Two-wheel Retailers Organisation has been leading a push for allowing a more powerful motor under the exemption from type-approval. They’ve put together an association that’s supporting their position. You might want to look at ETRA’s website for ideas relating to yours. Good luck with that. It sounds like someone should organise a public debate on the issue and invite speakers from ETRA, and the ECF. What would be a good forum for this?
Just FYI, type approval is the key issue at the Euro level. Luxembourg allows more powerful vehicles as long as their limited to 25kph under a definition that treats them like bicycles. But without exemption from type approval, no-one is going to build such a vehicle, as the costs make it uneconomic. Or so I understand.
November 24th, 2011 at 15:59
“Our usual favorite Shimano rollerbrakes have been replaced on these bikes by the very powerful and reliable Magura HS33 hydraulic rim brakes. Why no disks? A rim is essentially a very, very big disk.”
But isn’t it cheaper to replace a worn out disk than a rim? In rainy conditions and a bit of sand/grit, rims tend to wear pretty fast under braking, no?
Just curious as to your thoughts on this.
PS: did you hear about Ultramotor?
November 28th, 2011 at 04:17
Check this out! http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=MC0dK42wOOA
December 7th, 2011 at 16:38
‘Brussels’ Says Yes to More Powerful e-Bike Motors
http://www.bike-eu.com/news/brussels-says-yes-to-more-powerful-e-bike-motors-5478.html
December 12th, 2011 at 20:14
I have been searching for a really strong but short cargo bike for every day use.
But I need to climb steep hills and get off the bike with out tilting the frame to the side.
I also need to sit up straight because of my carpel tunnel syndrome.
See my blog for more info about what us worn out folks need.
December 15th, 2011 at 21:31
well I see that it is desirable to use a motor, but 250 kg is 551.155655 lbs and that is about the weight of a velomobile with large enough batteries to climb our hills…(16% grade) with only 100lbs over the average person.
I did a years worth of research to figure out that it is not realy possible to build a leagal machine like this.
Most hub motors are not viable for large weights, and the rest are illegal.
December 15th, 2011 at 22:03
In washington state the police told me that: “In the event of a serious collision involving an electric-assisted bicycle, it would then be properly tested and investigated for the aforementioned requirements.”
That means a law suit by the person that runs into you, even if it is not your falt.
December 16th, 2011 at 11:08
Prof.Prodromal,
You’ve done the research but we’ve actually built bikes that are being used daily with good results. I agree that a crank motor has a considerable advantage in having multiple ratios by driving through the gearbox (the rear hub) but if you choose a hub to do function effectively at just a narrow range of speeds it can work just fine. In that regard the demands of a transport bike and a velomobile are radically different. The velomobile both sucks going up hills AND can be ridden very fast on the flats or downhill. The transport bike, on the other hand, only needs assist going uphill and never goes faster than perhaps 15km/hr.
At least for now we’re only selling these bike in our own region so we needn’t be overly concerned with what the Washington State Police are treating them. But yes, if we begin selling them as production models throughout the world we’ll have to be much more attendant to the various regulations, laws, standards and liabilities.
December 16th, 2011 at 21:56
Could you please post some videos of the bike fully loaded climbing a 16% grade or at least 10%? Showing how SLOW it can climb the hills.
And please be sure to state the grade of assent.
But it should also show the bike with rider on the scales fist.
And I want to see a clear photo of how vertical he rider is on the bike. It looks like the crank is a bit far to forward to sit up straight.
Yes I rode my mtb for many years that way , but never could get enough power to the pedals.
December 16th, 2011 at 22:02
I hate word processors, they never get all the typos.
washing state allows 1200 watts but only 20mph.
December 17th, 2011 at 19:44
I forgot to mention the reason to show how slow it will climb the steep hills; It will demonstrate how low your gears are, and how little energy it uses.
Most people think about speed only, I am not interested in speed, I can’t stand it when people pass me just because I am moving at a reasonable speed. Usually carrying much more weight than they can possibly handle.
I think that you can sell these in Seattle right now, if you can demonstrate what good hill climbers they are , and how little energy they use doing it. Please show a Cycle Analyst meter when climbing the hill.
I hope you don’t have to go to the alps just for a steep hill.
January 25th, 2012 at 20:17
Are you aware that a motor must be run at peak effeciency RPM’s to get the stated HP ? That will take a very large gear reduction.
AC induction motors have a wider peak effeciency RPM but cost more.
January 26th, 2012 at 21:03
I think it would be best if you paid a mechanical engineer with experience in transmission design to build the prototype.
And just forget the use of the NuVinci hub gear, as it will only allow for a faster than legal speed. Also there is a minimum torque that the thing can take in.
I am thinking that you will need a tow or three stage gear reduction that goes back to large sprockets on the other side from the cassette sprockets.
February 21st, 2012 at 21:49
proper gear reduction is the key.
3000rpm at 24 volts x (firts stage 3″/9″) x (second stage 3″/12″ sprockets on the rear wheel) x 2074.71 circumference x 60minutes x .621504 mi/km= 19.3mph
February 21st, 2012 at 22:05
“crank-mounted motors, provide higher levels of torque” is not true, because the motor can not be slowed down to the pedaling rpm, with out loosing even more energy in the gear, it is not logical to tie into the drive train.
You must use a two or three stage reduction, directly to the rear wheel on the other side from the sprockets.
And with a 250w motor is will have to be a very slow gear, depending on the hill and weight.