We have a huge problem with ebikes

[Rob Rides EMTB]

Not sure that’s a great example, one manufacturers proprietary connnector becoming the standard in North America doesn’t change much for the rest of the world, just cars that will be sold in that market.

I was using that standard as an example where it simply makes things for consumers easier and more convenient. EV drivers in North America can now access the most vast network (Tesla's) regardless of which EV they drive. You cant possible argue that this is a bad thing / progress at least?

I'd think that its at least a good start. I don't follow EV charing standards that closely, but me and my wife have different EV's from different brands, but can share the exact same plug and charger at home (CCS) and at most charging locations in the UK.

In the ebike world, there's not a single standard, and we end up with dozens of different charging bricks that essentially do the same thing.

Similarly, you purchased an £8k bike last year, and next year somebody says ‘hey everybody, the new standard for chargers and batteries is X”, and your bike needs a Y?

Well, you can still use your 'Y' charger... It just means that your next bike will be able to use any standard charger with a new non proprietary design. Just like the previous gen iPhone. They still use lightning, but from this year, they will all use USB-C

Surely there has to be a point of progress at some point? Otherwise nothing changes.

And then 5 years later, something better comes along and there’s a new standard, and round we go again.

Honestly, if we had 5 years of standard now, sign me up. I'd happily vote to have 5 years of cross platform charging / cross compatibility battery use. This is an order of magnitude better than the current situation where every brand has their own proprietary design, charger, battery and software.

 

[G-Sport]

Agree completely! Standards can totally evolve as technology dictates.

A possible bolt pattern standard idea:
- Full Fat Motors
- SL power motors

The difference between the full power motors in size / weight / power output is pretty minimal right now. Most seem to be around 2.7 KG and share very similar physical properties and volumetric dimensions. I dont see a standard bolt pattern standard restricting innovation here. Also, standard bolt patterns will likely allow frame designers more freedom (in time and resource). There would be no need to keep adhering to motor OEM's slight variations.

This standard could obviously be changed as tech progress dictates. But no doubt we will reach a time (soon) where there's only so much progress that can be had with a full power motor and we reach the limits of physics.

Batteries are just long rectangular tubes that hold cells. All the manufacturers offer different sizes and fittings which is kinda pointless. Shimano EP800 and EP801 batteries are exactly the same size, dimension and port, but the EP801 battery does not work in an Ep800 system. This is ridiculous.

Some standards in other industries that have worked:

• HDMI (A joint venture between 7 companies including Sony, Panasonic and Toshiba)
• USB - C (Virtually every consumer electronic device now)
• PCI Express: (For computer expansion cards to work together)
• NACS: EV car charging standards (AKA the Tesla Plug) that most EV manufacturers are adopting for North America. Even Toyota, the worlds largest car manufacturer have agreed to use Tesla's car charging standard.

So this can for sure work in the bicycles industry. And it can still maintain innovation.

A single (or even a few) motor mount is very unlikely I think.
Gearbox options like Pinion's MGU are hopefully going to become the norm, and squeezing all this into the same space as just a motor is very restricting.
Intra-drive are trying to do this, but to get the space they need they have bulged out in front of the chainring which restricts its size AND they need some space between the mounts which isn't always available.
On the other end of the spectrum, asking Fazua or TQ to convert their small units into big lumps to fit a standard mount is possible, but negates a lot of the aesthetic appeal of their smaller form factors.

The charging standardisation is possible, fairly easy and very desirable. It allows ebike tourism to really flourish and makes ebikes a much more viable form of transport for longer journeys. It also offers the option of reducing battery size, which would reduce weight and cost significantly which are both great for increasing adoption.
Having a standard charging port also opens up the possibility of range extenders being (somewhat) universal which should reduce their cost through volume.


I don't see progress in batteries, motors or controllers slowing down. Just as one example; adding silicone to the Anode is going to boost battery capacity significantly in the near future, when this happens packs can shrink.

 

[Rob Rides EMTB]

Intra-drive are trying to do this, but to get the space they need they have bulged out in front of the chainring which restricts its size AND they need some space between the mounts which isn't always available.

Its not that different as far as I can see? In fact, it could be even less bulky than the shimano EP8 that it replaced?!

Intra Drive (using Shimano Bolt Pattern):

Original Shimano EP8:

 

[Rob Rides EMTB]

EDIT - I see what you mean, its a bit lot wider compared to EP8.

I do think though that its impressive they've managed to fit an entire MGU into the space / bolt pattern originally intended for an EP8.

 

[Tooks]

I was using that standard as an example where it simply makes things for consumers easier and more convenient. EV drivers in North America can now access the most vast network (Tesla's) regardless of which EV they drive. You cant possible argue that this is a bad thing / progress at least?

Well, is it progress? The NACS system just appears to be a smaller plug, and only matches the charge speeds of the current CCS2 connector (350kW) I don’t see what other benefits it brings. If anything, it’s an example of a dominant player imposing their proprietary standard on everybody else. The Tesla charging network is huge, but then so is Electrify America’s, I guess the latter will be very pleased they have to update/upgrade all 3600 charge points with a new connector plug?

Going on from the last time Tesla made a step change in charging sockets to (ironically) CCS2, they ended up fitting both connector plugs to the Supercharging network which hardly seems like progress.

I'd think that its at least a good start. I don't follow EV charing standards that closely, but me and my wife have different EV's from different brands, but can share the exact same plug and charger at home (CCS) and at most charging locations in the UK.

Yes, and this is a good thing, my wife and I both drive EVs as well, her Tesla and my VW both charge from one charge point at home, using the Type 2 socket, and both use CCS2 for out and about rapid charging.

A new standard of NACS connectors would only introduce complications and/or make the current situation worse.

But yes, I agree, a single charge socket and charging protocol for e-bikes would be a start, not that most people own multiple e-bikes or charge them when out and about.

It’s irked me for some time that my Focus and Specialized e-bikes use the same charge socket, but neither the Focus nor Specialized charger bricks work on both bikes.

I think going any further than that though will be difficult, as long as there are competing motor manufacturers at any rate. You can’t take the power electronics from my wife’s Tesla, fit them into my VW and expect it to work with the battery and motor etc etc, is it reasonable to expect bike manufacturers to make all those things standard and interchangeable as well?

I mean, from the video, this is all about keeping a not very old e-bike on the road by being able to stick a Bafang motor or something into an originally equipped Bosch bike and via some standards expecting it to work? I can’t stick a different motor into my Bosch washing machine and expect it to play happily with the power electronics fitted elsewhere, so why on an e-bike? I’m sure Bosch (amongst others) have worked very hard and spent a shed load of money to develop their e-bike systems to where they are, and I think it’s entirely reasonable to have the battery, motor and software as one entity to gain market differentation, ensure peak performance, and of course safety.

I think we’re somehow conflating innovation, natural obsolescence and ability to repair in this debate.

Standards won’t fix the last one, which is what I think most people care about, bike manufacturers just need to ensure there are spare parts and or assemblies available to keep their bikes running beyond the warranty period. In the past, before e-bikes, there has been the aftermarket to do that for them. Just like in the automotive world, if you want non-OEM manufacturers to make ‘pattern parts’ to support customers, you need to supply them with the data. If there’s a market, they will fill it, regardless of bolt pattern etc.

Electronics and software are the tricky issue, they render many things obsolete when they cease working properly. I’m not saying standards are worthless, but it won’t fix much that’s wrong with the e-bike world currently.

 

[G-Sport]

EDIT - I see what you mean, its a bit lot wider compared to EP8.

I do think though that its impressive they've managed to fit an entire MGU into the space / bolt pattern originally intended for an EP8.

View attachment 130207

Yes, it's definitely impressive. But this side bulge and their talk of needing space between the mounting holes which isn't available on some frames, hints at the difficulty that this "standard" imposed on them.

For me it is the charging port (and a common "handshake" protocol) that really stands out as an easy win for everyone. Very little restriction of design freedom for the designer or the system designer; lots of potential to open up the Alps etc to tourism with chargers at lunch stops etc; possibility of universal range extenders that resorts can loan out to visitors.

If the same open protocol and connector could be extended to the internal battery then there is also the possibility of rental batteries allowing people to fly with their bikes.

All these conveniences would only serve to increase the appeal and adoption of ebikes which benefits everyone (except the fossil fuel companies).

 

[G-Sport]

Well, is it progress? The NACS system just appears to be a smaller plug, and only matches the charge speeds of the current CCS2 connector (350kW) I don’t see what other benefits it brings. If anything, it’s an example of a dominant player imposing their proprietary standard on everybody else. The Tesla charging network is huge, but then so is Electrify America’s, I guess the latter will be very pleased they have to update/upgrade all 3600 charge points with a new connector plug?

Going on from the last time Tesla made a step change in charging sockets to (ironically) CCS2, they ended up fitting both connector plugs to the Supercharging network which hardly seems like progress.

Yes it is.
The NACS system uses a cooled cable, this is why the Superchargers have a cable that is half the weight and twice as easy to lift and fit as most CCS connectors. The weight and stiffness of the cable may not be important to most able bodied people but for anyone with limited strength etc it is.
Tesla now do the magic dock which either releases just the NACS connector or the adaptor too so it can charge anything.

Of course the biggest difference is that the Superchargers work 99.5% of the time and the competitors don't work 99.5% of the time...

 

[Tooks]

Yes it is.
The NACS system uses a cooled cable, this is why the Superchargers have a cable that is half the weight and twice as easy to lift and fit as most CCS connectors. The weight and stiffness of the cable may not be important to most able bodied people but for anyone with limited strength etc it is.
Tesla now do the magic dock which either releases just the NACS connector or the adaptor too so it can charge anything.

Of course the biggest difference is that the Superchargers work 99.5% of the time and the competitors don't work 99.5% of the time...

It’s all a bit moot though, as there are no plans to introduce NACS to Europe, as CCS2 is the standard, even for current European Tesla models. New cars will just comply dependent on which market they’re being built for/exported to, just like now. The new ‘standard’ just introduced obsolescence and expense for existing owners and charge networks though. It’s hardly ever a win/win seemingly.

Not sure how much experience you have of the UKs charging network, but as a frequent user of the Supercharger, Ionity, Gridserve and Instavolt networks, I find them to be all pretty close in terms of reliability.

The SuC network is cheaper (for Tesla drivers anyway) and has the best integrated back end, effectively plug and charge.

Interestingly, a ‘standard’ charging RFID card and/or way of accessing charge points has been on the wishlist of many UK EV drivers for years what with all the charge networks, closest we seem to have got is making contactless terminals mandatory for payment.

 

[G-Sport]

It’s all a bit moot though, as there are no plans to introduce NACS to Europe, as CCS2 is the standard, even for current European Tesla models. New cars will just comply dependent on which market they’re being built for/exported to, just like now. The new ‘standard’ just introduced obsolescence and expense for existing owners and charge networks though. It’s hardly ever a win/win seemingly.

Not sure how much experience you have of the UKs charging network, but as a frequent user of the Supercharger, Ionity, Gridserve and Instavolt networks, I find them to be all pretty close in terms of reliability.

The SuC network is cheaper (for Tesla drivers anyway) and has the best integrated back end, effectively plug and charge.

Interestingly, a ‘standard’ charging RFID card and/or way of accessing charge points has been on the wishlist of many UK EV drivers for years what with all the charge networks, closest we seem to have got is making contactless terminals mandatory for payment.

How is it "moot"?
This thread is about ebike standards. Rob raised the comparison of the NACS connector. Yes this "only" applies to the hundreds of millions of people in North America (at present) but it IS a standard that does promise to make North Americans' charging experience easier/better. And it is a GOOD standard that can support future development (eg. 800v already on the way)
Even in Europe and the rest of the world there are standards, they might be different but (generally speaking) with the use of an adaptor you CAN make a journey and have a reasonable expectation of being able to charge.
That is NOT the case for ebikes. You CANNOT take your ebike anywhere without the power brick and have a reasonable expectation of being able to recharge.
For most of us, carrying a 1kg+ charging brick on a ride is a massive turn-off, so "epic" expeditions are distinctly limited.

 

[Tooks]

How is it "moot"?
This thread is about ebike standards. Rob raised the comparison of the NACS connector. Yes this "only" applies to the hundreds of millions of people in North America (at present) but it IS a standard that does promise to make North Americans' charging experience easier/better. And it is a GOOD standard that can support future development (eg. 800v already on the way)
Even in Europe and the rest of the world there are standards, they might be different but (generally speaking) with the use of an adaptor you CAN make a journey and have a reasonable expectation of being able to charge.
That is NOT the case for ebikes. You CANNOT take your ebike anywhere without the power brick and have a reasonable expectation of being able to recharge.
For most of us, carrying a 1kg+ charging brick on a ride is a massive turn-off, so "epic" expeditions are distinctly limited.

It’s moot as NACS isn’t coming to Europe, and in a discussion about ‘standards’ I’m pointing out that we have very many standards even where it appears it’s a no-brainer to have one.

I’ve already said that a charging connector standard would be a good thing, why can’t my specialized charger charge my Focus bike with the same charge socket? No argument from me there.

USB-C phone charging connectors as standard, also a good thing, but you’re never going to be fitting an iPhone screen to a Samsung Galaxy or using the batteries between each, and I don’t see that equivalent happening for e-bikes either.

Standardise what’s sensible and practical, and then compel e-bike manufacturers to supply spares and repair information, like other manufacturers in other sectors have to.

They shouldn’t be getting away with it, standards or otherwise.

 

[B1rdie]

we should start by standardizing the side of the car you put the steering wheel, and then go on with temperature measuring, length and weight...
The ebike side of standardizing would be much easier, its such a small market... what about we agree not to buy any bikes for more than $5.000,00? this would force the industry to reduce their costs, by... standardizing!

 

[mike_kelly]

Sometimes a standard is established only when a dominate player bullies the industry. Most of the time, IMHO, a imperfect standard is better than a free-for-all. Tesla is an example. Other vendors jumped on compatibility because they did not want to have to build charging stations all over the US. Using Tesla's charging standard was just good business when being able to charge your EV is so important to being able to sell them.
In the "old days" Campagnolo dominated the market and as a consumer I had 30 years of standard bike parts. Vendors from all over the world made Campy compatible parts. It was a good thing.

 

[wenna]

Spare part availability and being able to service the motor myself takes the top spot on my wishlist for now.

 

[steve_sordy]

As @Tooks said: ......

I think we’re somehow conflating innovation, natural obsolescence and ability to repair in this debate.​

​

Standards won’t fix the last one, which is what I think most people care about, bike manufacturers just need to ensure there are spare parts and or assemblies available to keep their bikes running beyond the warranty period..........​

I agree with that!

 

[irie]

... EV manufacturers have to comply with right to repair legislation and they also have

As @Tooks said: ......

I think we’re somehow conflating innovation, natural obsolescence and ability to repair in this debate.​

​

Standards won’t fix the last one, which is what I think most people care about, bike manufacturers just need to ensure there are spare parts and or assemblies available to keep their bikes running beyond the warranty period..........​

I agree with that!

A so far unmentioned advantage of having 'standards' is that they are by definition open thus other manufacturers can design and market compatible parts. Unsurprisingly this is a freedom which proprietary motor/battery manufacturers are trying to dodge.

 

[Swissrider]

and

Many good points here and I echo the point about the ability to repair/maintain motors. It’s one I’ve made before in forums and in magazines. I can accept newer, better motors coming out - we want progress after all but I want my old motor to keep going. I know there are lighter motors than my 2018 Brose motor (replaced once) and 2017 Bosch motor but I’m perfectly happy with them provided they work. Any motorbike or car engine can be fixed so that it lasts almost indefinitely (example 1930’s classic cars). The same should be true of ebike motors. Shimano, to their shame are one of the worst offenders, making motors which are impossible to repair.

I can accept batteries will eventually die but I’m not sure high cost is due to profiteering. I guess it’s very expensive to make them in such limited numbers. I’ve done about 5000km on both Brose and Bosch batteries - less than £4 per ride. That’s a lot of fun for £4 and both batteries still work pretty well.

 

[mike_kelly]

The real problem is that ebike tech is in it's infancy. Change is almost constant. Until the industry reaches a plateau we will see bikes falling off the back and being obsolete. Manufacturers with supply chain problems are not going to stock a bunch of parts for a bike they know will be gone in 1 year. Many buyers will not want to keep their old heavy bike when there are new shiny full power lightweight bikes on the horizon.

 

[irie]

The real problem is that ebike tech is in it's infancy. Change is almost constant. Until the industry reaches a plateau we will see bikes falling off the back and being obsolete. Manufacturers with supply chain problems are not going to stock a bunch of parts for a bike they know will be gone in 1 year. Many buyers will not want to keep their old heavy bike when there are new shiny full power lightweight bikes on the horizon.

There's always something 'better' on the horizon.

 

[mike_kelly]

Protagoras of Abdera (l.c. 485-415 BCE) is most famous for his claim that "Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not"
Truth is relative

 

[steve_sordy]

There's always something 'better' on the horizon.

A nice red bike or a stealth black is always better than the eau-de-nil coloured bikes I have seen.

 

[RustyIron]

Eau de Nil?
I had to google that. It's a color "with a light-greenish hue, more saturated than celadon, less gray than sage. It has tan undertones and a cool bluish cast." Now I have to look up "celadon." It sounds like a large flying reptile that breathes fire and destroys Japanese cities.

 

[TCFlowClyde]

PPOP!

Acronym to maximal profits that resist standardization and stagnate innovation (eventually?) = Proprietary Products and Planned Obsolescence.

...pedal power to the people against punked products!

 

[irie]

Protagoras of Abdera (l.c. 485-415 BCE) is most famous for his claim that "Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not"
Truth is relative

Did they have eBikes then? Well, you learn something new every day.

 

[cappuccino34]

Every point so true. Poor spares availability and no upgrade path leads to huge waste and environmental damage. Manufacturers need to wake up and provide a clear upgrade Plath for their products.

Everything is available for the Polini Motor.

 

[irie]

Everything is available for the Polini Motor.

When the issue of "standards" is raised what inevitably happens is that the largest brands (such as Brose) oppose standards in order to protect their market share, and the smaller brands (such as Polini) support them because they see it as a way of increasing their market share.

 

[Swissrider]

reasonable

Actually, you CAN take your bike without the charger if you live in Switzerland. There are charging stations all over the place which consist of a box with an integrated charger and a cupboard with all the common cables. If there isn’t one for your bike there is a system to report this so eventually all cables will be there. Of course, it would be much simpler if manufacturers could agree on one standard connection to the bike (and at the same time get rid of some of the design faults in some sockets - poor positions, lack of waterproofness, covers that break etc). I can’t see how this would affect competitiveness.

 

[Tomblarom]

Its not that different as far as I can see? In fact, it could be even less bulky than the shimano EP8 that it replaced?!

Intra Drive (using Shimano Bolt Pattern)

Hey Rob, I do similar stuff:

Bosch Generation 2/3 frame to Bafang Ultra M620 motor (available):
- photos.app.goo.gl/PDb7xz4Mrpf3xrYR7


Shimano E6100/E7000/E8000/EP8 frame to Bafang M500/M600/M510/M560 motor (available):
- photos.app.goo.gl/DbCt7XYLLx23TqqR7
- Teaser for Shimano to Bafang M600 conversion

Bafang M620 frame to Bafang M500/M600/M510/M560 motor (available):
- photos.app.goo.gl/51LiUZA7fEoTbWLd6
- Conversion - Installing M500/M600 Motors in M620 Frame

Bosch Generation 2/3 frame to Bafang M500/M600/M510/M560 motor (planned):

Yamaha PW/PW-SE/PW-ST/PW-TE/PW-CE/PW-X frame to Bafang M500/M600/M510/M560 motor (planned):

Yes I do use 3D-printing for my kits, but thats the only way to costefficiently realize them. The ultimate goal is to have them professionally made, some day, but to get started its necessary to rely on 3D-printing as temporary solution I'm on my own and this is not a business, that be accomplished by myself. I do have a lot more plans and ideas, but for now I need to go step by step.

Cheers, Tomblarom

 

[Streddaz]

Hey Rob, I do similar stuff:

Bosch Generation 2/3 frame to Bafang Ultra M620 motor (available):
- photos.app.goo.gl/PDb7xz4Mrpf3xrYR7
View attachment 130615

Shimano E6100/E7000/E8000/EP8 frame to Bafang M500/M600/M510/M560 motor (available):
- photos.app.goo.gl/DbCt7XYLLx23TqqR7
- Teaser for Shimano to Bafang M600 conversion
View attachment 130614

Bafang M620 frame to Bafang M500/M600/M510/M560 motor (available):
- photos.app.goo.gl/51LiUZA7fEoTbWLd6
- Conversion - Installing M500/M600 Motors in M620 Frame
View attachment 130613

Bosch Generation 2/3 frame to Bafang M500/M600/M510/M560 motor (planned):
View attachment 130616

Yamaha PW/PW-SE/PW-ST/PW-TE/PW-CE/PW-X frame to Bafang M500/M600/M510/M560 motor (planned):
View attachment 130618

Yes I do use 3D-printing for my kits, but thats the only way to costefficiently realize them. The ultimate goal is to have them professionally made, some day, but to get started its necessary to rely on 3D-printing as temporary solution I'm on my own and this is not a business, that be accomplished by myself. I do have a lot more plans and ideas, but for now I need to go step by step.

Cheers, Tomblarom

This will be a realistic market fairly soon as Ebike get older and replacement part become fazed out. Of course, you need to swap the electronic controllers and in some cased the batteries, but it's not out of the question to do so.

 

[Hickey300]

I believe that standardizing ebike specific components will create better competition. A fork or shock or wheel or seat, can be as compatible as a motor or battery …but they can all fit!

Perhaps manufacturers will soon discover the benefits of standardizing e-bikes components to a certain extent. But whose gonna be left in the dust?

It would be nice for batteries at the very least.

 

[S13]

Im not a fan of motor bolt pattern and battery standardization. Some things just shouldnt be standardized. It hampers innovation. Apply standards where it makes sense, but in this case it doesnt make sense.

There is a reason why you cant fit an AMD cpu in an Intel system. There is a reason why you cant put Toyota motor in a Mercedes car. There is a reason why you cant put a Tesla battery in a VW car.
Some things are just integral parts and they are designed to work together. Your bike was designed and tested to work with a specific motor and battery.

While some motors may appear similar in size and could probably be bolted down with a similar bolt pattern, others do not. Look at the Dyname motor, or the TQ, or Fazua. And then Pinion comes a long with integrated gears and their motor will be completely different. In fact it is these types of unique motors that drive emtb innovation further.

The only outcome if you were to come up with a bolt standard at this point:



Like other people mentioned before, repairability is probably what we are looking for. Not so much interchangeability. For example, if your bike had a custom designed battery, but you could still easily swap out the internal cells, everyone would be happy. Right? Just use the standards where they already exist (like the standardization of cell sizes). Same applies to motor bearings. If you could easily swap those out, no problem either? Bearing sizes are also standardized.


One place where standardization on bikes does make sense would be the charging port. Im all for that.