CLASS 3 E-BIKES, TAKE TWO

By Steve Bina

In the last edition of Bicycle Business Reporter, I wrote an opinion piece addressing issues concerning what’s known as Class 3 e-bikes. Not surprisingly, it generated some comments both for and against some of the points I presented. But I also believe some of the points I attempted to make were missed. Let’s try this again.

First, “substantial product hazard” is a serious legal term with real consequences for dealers, retailers, and insurers. That is the one overreaching point my article was attempting to make. Notice, I never said a Class 3 type product was illegal to sell, only that it was not, by federal definition, an e-bike. Telling a potential customer it is could lead to serious consequences.  

The crux of saying products referred to as Class 3 are not e-bikes was the overreaching premise of my article. 

Part of the rebuttal of my article is the 20-mph limit of Class 1 and 2 products. I admit I didn’t mention that limit was when powered solely by the electric motor. That’s true for Class 1 products. Speeds in excess of 20 mph can be achieved with more pedal input. I see e-bikes all the time here, and I will attest that almost everyone riding is applying pedal effort to achieve and maintain 20 mph. I’m not saying speeds in excess of 20 mph are not possible on a Class 1 product, only that the vast majority of users never exceed that speed. 

Class 2 products have throttles and are less dependent on pedal input to achieve 20 mph. The throttle activates the electric motor without any pedal input. As with a Class 1 bike, speeds in excess of 20 mph using additional pedal input can be achieved. Unlike Class 1 bikes, Class 2 bikes with throttles are much more likely to run at the 20-mph limit while not needing any pedal input.

It has been suggested that fit athletic cyclists on non-electric bikes routinely reach and sustain speeds in excess of 30 mph. Further, professional pelotons average around 28 mph on flat stages and 35+ mph on sprints. I can’t verify those speeds but have no doubt they are likely. However, those speeds achieved in professional pelotons are usually attained under race-controlled conditions on courses set aside for a specific event. The comment continues that even at those speeds non-electric bikes are not classified as a “substantial product hazard.” 

Yep, that’s true. On the other hand, non-electric bikes don’t have any speeds contained in their CPSC definition, so I submit this distinction and comparison are irrelevant. In addition, I don’t recall seeing a lot of fit athletic cyclists riding e-bikes. Most of the fit athletic cyclists got that way and stay that way on their non-electric bikes.

It has also been pointed out to me that the 40 percent increase in potential speed of a Class 3 product and doubling of kinetic energy is a matter of physics. That’s correct. It’s also correct that speed is just one component of kinetic energy. Weight, or mass, is another. The calculation of kinetic energy is;

Kinetic Energy = ½ mass x (velocity 2)

As noted above, speeds attained by fit athletic cyclists on human-powered road bikes average around 28 mph on level terrain and 35+ mph in sprints in professional pelotons, and at those speeds the road bikes are not classified as “substantial product hazards.” 

Most of those road bikes ridden by fit athletic cyclists weigh around 8 to 9 kilograms. I checked the Specialized website for weights of their e-bikes. The lightest I found was just over 12 kilograms, and they topped out over 28 kilograms. That would put the kinetic energy of many e-bikes at multiples of that of a rider on a road bike at 28 mph. I may be stretching it here, but a comparison between a professional road bike rider and a casual e-bike rider to make a point sounds a lot like comparing apples and oranges.  

I called the three-class e-bike system a bicycle industry fiction, created by a couple of bicycle industry trade associations. It has been pointed out to me that a number of individual states have adopted that classification structure. Those trade associations created the third class because the federal definition was specific enough to exclude products with motor-assisted speeds over 20 mph. Those manufacturers and distributors had faster products to sell, and they wanted those products to be labeled as e-bikes, so more clarity had to be established.

That kind of proves the point I attempted to make. Since federal regulations didn’t define electric bike products with assisted speed over 20 mph (and still don’t), the bicycle industry had to come up with its own definition so products that were already being produced and sold abroad could be sold domestically and called e-bikes.

Speed Pedelec is the European Union (EU) term for two-wheeled products, both electric and gasoline-powered, that can achieve max speed of 45 kph, or 28 mph. This essentially is the product category the aforementioned bicycle industry trade associations wanted to mimic and define as a class 3 e-bike. 

Speed Pedelec products typically have pedal assist, motor power/displacement limited to 50 ccs or 5 hp, and are subject to EU L1e-B vehicle regulation. In the EU, Speed Pedelecs are generally not treated as bicycles. That EU regulation places Speed Pedelecs in the same category as a two-wheeled moped. As such, they are required to be registered in the jurisdiction, to have a license plate, required lighting and signaling equipment, rear-view mirrors, an audible warning device (horn), and more.  

Additionally, riders of Speed Pedelecs must be at least 16 years old, have an automobile/motorcycle (AM) license, and carry third-party liability insurance.

This brings me back to domestic bicycle industry trade associations implementing their own product definitions so that similar products being sold abroad can be sold domestically as e-bikes. The cynic in me might think the definition was created specifically to shield higher speed e-bikes from the same type of regulation as noted above in the EU. By creating the classification “Class 3 e-bike,” the trade associations exploited the void in the CPSC 16 CFR 1512 regulation. Further, pushing individual states to implement the three-class system legitimized the regulation structure.

But that’s a silly assumption, right?    

As I wrote earlier, I don’t profess that Class 3 products are illegal, only that they aren’t and shouldn’t be called e-bikes.

I appreciate the feedback on my article and respect the views expressed. I agree the larger issue is out of class e-motos and electric motorcycles. Those products need further definitions and regulation most likely under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  

What I don’t agree with is any statement that suggests there is a recognized three-class regulatory system for e-bikes at the federal level. There isn’t. 

Contact Steve Bina: steve@humanpoweredsolutions.com