micromobility - Ebikes, scooters, longboards: Whatever floats your goat, this is micromobility
Ebikes, bicycles, scooters, skateboards, longboards, eboards, motorcycles, skates, unicycles: Whatever floats your goat, this is all things micromobility!
"Transportation using lightweight vehicles such as bicycles or scooters, especially electric ones that may be borrowed as part of a self-service rental program in which people rent vehicles for short-term use within a town or city.
micromobility is seen as a potential solution to moving people more efficiently around cities"
Feel free to also check out
It's a little sad that we need to actually say this, but:
Don't be an asshole or you will be permanently banned.
Respectful debate is totally OK, criticizing a product is fine, but being verbally abusive will not be tolerated.
Focus on discussing the idea, not attacking the person.
view the rest of the comments
I don't ride MTBs, but I understand one of the more frequent issues on trail is to bump the derailleur against a tall rock or taking a fall where the bike lands on the starboard (right) side. Of the components on a bike with the least ground clearance -- tires, wheels, pedals, cranks, derailleur, chain -- the derailleur is unique in that if it gets damaged, that's potentially game over for the today. All the others can be banged to kingdom come and you can probably still ride on, or make quick repairs to limp back to the trail head.
The ebike before us doubles the number of failure points: two derailleurs. So now the bike is vulnerable to both port-side and starboard-side impacts. But then there's also the mechanics of the hub of consider.
To support two sets of sprockets, the hub ostensibly requires both sides to ratchet. I can imagine two ways to do this: 1) the port-side hub transfers torque across the barrel to the convention starboard-side ratchet, or 2) the port-side has its own ratchet.
The challenge with #1 is that the hub barrel may have to be reinforced to accommodate this torque. Yes, disc brake torques might already have reinforced the hub, but we're talking about substantial amounts of power beyond a normal bike. Moreso, the mismatched torque "path" between port- and starboard-side can cause lag, burdening one side over the other under hard acceleration. Automobiles have a similar issue known as torque steer.
But then we also have to consider if the single ratchet will survive the input power. With the expiration of the DT Swiss patent, the star ratchet is increasing in popularity, in part because its design does not concentrate forces into just three or six pawls and teeth. Pawl breakage is known to happen in acoustic bikes, so it stands to reason it's a substantial issue for high power ebikes. Supposing this bike uses a star ratchet, the matter of teeth doesn't disappear: how much teeth engagement is allowed? DT Swiss specifically designs a line of 24t (15 degree engagement) for ebikes because more teeth (eg 36t, 54t) would be too brittle under ebike power conditions. For MTB, fewer than 36t gives a "sloppy" feel when pedaling.
Solution #2 solves the torque and ratchet issues, by dividing power evenly to both sides of the wheel. Or does it? Two unsynchronized ratchets will not engage at the same time, worsened if there are fewer teeth. Under load conditions, very briefly, only one ratchet would transfer power while the other spins into engagement. That, to me, seems like a mechanical issue waiting to happen, if one ratchet dies without notice, causing the other ratchet to take on the full load, and it too dying shortly thereafter.
Finally, how does the rear brake disc attach if there's a sprocket set in the way?
I want to be clear that I'm not entirely writing off this ebike. It certainly is interesting as a machine, but it seems to have made design choices that either box it into really hard engineering problems or detract from the MTB experience in ways that reduce its appeal. Could they have overcome the mechanical issues? Yes, but great cost, great complexity, or great proprietary would be needed.