No? Windows also has its own graphics subsystem, compositor, and an even bigger set of user land UI/forms/controls libraries than Mac OS. It really is just a critical velocity / adoption / time thing, there’s nothing strongly technical separating Mac OS API/ABI translation from Windows ala wine.
Microsoft's business model regarding Windows is to sell an operating system capable of running on as many devices as possible.
Apple's business model regarding macOS is to sell as many devices as possible capable of running that operating system.
The former lends itself to intrinsic portability such that an independently derived emulation layer is possible (not easy, just possible), whereas the latter has the freedom of assuming device capabilities/features always present for any given release.
I don't agree that this particular trait of macOS makes an implementation at the layer WINE implements (full API+ABI) any harder or easier. Certainly, vertical integration makes OS porting (ie Asahi) and lower level emulation more difficult, since the hardware and firmware's contract with the OS is entirely proprietary and can be freely changed from revision to revision, but something like WINE operates many layers above this anyway.
There's a reasonable argument that the Win32 API was designed to be more stable than the Mac OS one and this makes WINE's task easier, but this sword is double-edged: while slow change is useful, backwards compatibility expands the Win32 API surface area, since each API also needs to continue to support every way it was ever wrongly used. With the continued proliferation of Windows UI frameworks and OS subsystems, it becomes difficult to argue that Windows is any easier than Mac OS would be to implement at an API layer.
I do think there is an argument to be made that Win32 was more straightforward and felt more tractable when WINE _started_, and therefore the project was able to scale with the problem space, while OS X started from a "larger" place and was therefore more daunting, but this again is a timing and traction argument more so than a purely technical one.
>> Apple's business model regarding macOS is to sell as many devices as possible capable of running that operating system.
> I don't agree that this particular trait of macOS makes an implementation at the layer WINE implements (full API+ABI) any harder or easier.
Here is my corroboration. Apple publishes XNU to the world in this repository:
https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu
There is no such publication of the GUI frameworks required by macOS programs.
> I do think there is an argument to be made that Win32 was more straightforward ...
I did not make that argument. Instead, the position I hold regarding Windows is:
... an independently derived emulation layer is
possible (not easy, just possible) ...
When an organizational goal is to sell devices, instead of operating system licenses, there is no need to engineer portability within the OS as the target hardware is well-known. This is a luxury MS-Windows never had, as its goal has been to run on as many disparate devices as plausible. Thus the "intrinsic portability" I referenced.
In fact, you have made my point for me:
> ... while slow change is useful, backwards compatibility expands the Win32 API surface area, since each API also needs to continue to support every way it was ever wrongly used.
I don't think this is new with LLMs (finding an exploit based on a few words offhand has always been a fun part of exploit development), but it's scaled and democratized to mass exploitation of low value targets. Backing exploit PoCs out of patches, commit messages, and random overheard or over-read sentences is a practice as old as vulnerability research. The difference with LLMs is that an explosion in actors "skilled enough" (human or not) has enabled sloppy / low-skill "exploit the whole Internet" actors in a way they weren't previously enabled.
I do agree with the author's ideas, though; most of these are things that should have been done much sooner, and I suppose it's good in a sense that there is a forcing factor now.
> Backing exploit PoCs out of patches, commit messages, and random overheard or over-read sentences is a practice as old as vulnerability research
True, but it used to take days or weeks of research, testing, and RE to get those PoCs.
Today the entire chain - reading commits, RE patch binaries, building exploit, scripting exploit scan, $profit - can be fully automated and happen in minutes or hours.
It seems like it could go either way to me in the US (not a lawyer, but someone who has a fair amount of experience in reverse engineering / fair use issues).
On the one hand, it is fairly clear that producing source code with the explicit goal of reproducing a 1:1 binary is in no way transformative, so that's out. This would be a really hard argument to even attempt.
On the other hand, these projects are mostly free, intended for owners of the game to play the original game on a different platform or in a modified format, and not likely to have a negative effect on the original work's desirability or value. And, the reproductions aren't complete and alone usually produce limited to no value to a consumer (usually, they won't start without the original game files). These are the other important factors considered in fair use determinations and generally go the way of these being OK.
So, it's hard to say. With reverse engineering and copyright in the US in general, context is crucially important; something that would be completely illegal for one purpose (ie - decompiling and recompiling a competitor's software to distribute it without a license or use it internally without purchasing it would be obviously illegal) could be OK for another one.
In a sane world, if brought before a court, the binary itself wouldn't have any protection unless hand authored. The actual creative work/human expression was the source code. The entire point of compiling is to strip that extra data out, leaving pure functional logic that doesn't even strictly match the source logic thanks to optimization.
Then a freshly written project would be completely different with no derivative elements at all; the only commonality between the two codebases is their functional elements. You can compile a decomp into the same binary, but that's only to prove functional equivalence. The intended mode would be with a modern compiler that completely rewrites the logic (it might even have to if it writes it for a completely different computer architecture, which describes every retro console game). Then neither the source nor the compiled artifact would match.
> The entire point of compiling is to strip that extra data out, leaving pure functional logic that doesn't even strictly match the source logic thanks to optimization.
I strongly disagree with this notion from even a conceptual (much less legal) level; the point of compilation is not to erase the algorithms the programmer implemented, just to optimize and implement them.
> You can compile a decomp into the same binary, but that's only to prove functional equivalence.
This is like saying that a translated book is only "functionally" identical to the original; there's a lot of precedent in copyright law for this not being the case, and I don't think any argument revolving around the transformativeness of the compilation process would fly at all.
A huge portion of the actual thing I write when writing a program does not exist at all in the compiled binary. Names, types, type parameters, etc. being big ones, but many types are also aliases for the empty struct, so their value doesn't exist at runtime either. Conversely, I can write _.map(_.map(_.map(f))) and have that turn into all sorts of looping and branching logic that I didn't write, and the meaning of which is basically "do whatever must be done to make the types work".
Programs as written are nothing like programs as compiled, certainly not as an expressive endeavor. Books don't have an analog. There's no point where we strip all conceptual meaning from the book and leave only the procedural algorithms the semantics demand. There's no point where we replace all the individual words with autovectorized versions, or where we automatically delete impossible sentences, or remove every layer of abstraction that the programmer put in there exactly for the ability to convey ideas.
> it is fairly clear that producing source code with the explicit goal of reproducing a 1:1 binary is in no way transformative, so that's out. This would be a really hard argument to even attempt.
Absolutely false. There are an infinite number of programs that will compile to the same machine code. Especially when an optimizer is involved. Discovering one of those is a creative process, transformative, and protected.
Using an LLM to do it for you? I wouldn’t touch that with a 10 foot pole. Seems too close to mechanical transformation to me.
Most of these projects carefully distribute only the source code representation of the binaries, for this reason, relying on the consumer to acquire / own the art assets and copyrighted material (logos, trademarks, etc.).
None of the original source code exists in these projects. It’s all created from scratch.
Copyright for this new code is owned by the person doing decompilation. No one knows how similar to the original it is or not, just that it compiles to the same output.
Edit to clarify: by not exist, I mean it is not publicly available.
A decompilation is not clean room, nor is it "created from scratch". If that was the case, you could just compile a program to remove the copyright, because the machine code doesn't resemble the source code at all either.
A reimplementation or a behavior-based clone is an entirely different legal world from decompilation.
The compiled binary is protected and the property of the original company. The source code written by people doing decompilation is owned by the people doing the decompilation. That source code can compile to a lot of different binary representations, just like a lot of code representations (infinitely many) could compile to the original binary.
In fact, the goal of most decomp not to produce the same binary, that’s just used as a validation.
It's not an obvious legal argument that it is not a derivative work of the compiled code or the original source code that produced that. Clean room reverse engineering is meant to give you a strong argument for that, and while it's not necessarily required to prevail against a copyright case (or actually sufficient) it's gonna make things harder if you don't. (All of this is made more murky because copyright is meant to only cover expressions of human creativity, and code is kind of a mix of creativity and mechanical details: the clean room approach is meant to separate out the mechanical details)
Also, If it is an unauthorized derivative work, as I understand it then it might not even qualify for copyright protection itself.
> Realistically, that sort of thing isn't useful as non-homogeneous architectures really suck for an application or OS to deal with.
I agree that if each core doesn't "support" the full ISA it's a huge pain (the one generation of Intel AVX-512-but-not parts were incredible), but that hasn't been common in years. Usually (and in this case, according to my reading) the small cores get a horrible slow/decoder-emulated implementation of every instruction, so that if you schedule on the "wrong" core you don't trap but just run really slowly instead.
Otherwise, heterogeneous architectures are the present and future of mobile and consumer desktops and have been for years. Desktop OSes are getting better and mobile OSes are just fine at scheduling across different core families (the higher level of abstraction everyone complains about in mobile apps actually helps a lot here).
Only server, as far as I know. Server is now either high-density E core (Sierra Forest) or low-density P core (Granite Rapids), but desktop and laptop are heterogeneous still; laptops are getting even more heterogeneous because they have P-Cores, E-cores, and Low Power Island cores.
Did Intel ever ship any heterogeneous server parts? I'm not aware of any, and it looks like even the Raptor Lake desktop silicon sold under the Xeon brand only had P-cores enabled.
The worst of Intel's processor core asymmetry was with Meteor Lake and Arrow Lake, where the two LP-E cores on the IO die had no L3 cache and really bad DRAM latency despite being directly adjacent to the DRAM controller, resulting in those two cores combined offering about as much performance as one of the E-cores on the CPU chiplet. And they used the same IO die across both generations, while updating the microarchitecture of the CPU chiplet, so things diverged even more. And because the performance of the LP-E cores was so bad, Windows wouldn't schedule any threads on them unless it was trying to operate exclusively on those LP-E cores with the CPU chiplet powered down entirely—but those two LP-E cores were still reported to software in the total thread count, so heavy multithreaded applications would launch two more threads than could actually be scheduled at once.
With Panther Lake, Intel still has three tiers of CPU cores, but the performance gap between E cores and LP-E cores is down to only about 10%.
There’s a technology fundamental driving the short form aspect too, current video models are all trained on <500 frame sequences and struggle to generate long shots. There are a lot of attempts in the literature to improve cross-generation coherence but there needs to be an architectural breakthrough or significant scaling improvement before longer continuous shots are practical. So you’d be making a really ADD feature film at the moment.
Android has a proprietary HAL on both ends; the userspace interfaces to drivers are not the same as on "normal" Linux for almost any devices (baseband, video acceleration although this is at least EGL based, cameras, sensors, audio DSP, hardware media codecs, etc.), so by the time you replace every component of the OS, you've just made AOSP without the useful security parts.
> The advantage being, we can manage packages using a regular Linux distro
It's much easier, more plausible, and more logical to sandbox a regular Linux package-managed distro inside of Android, which numerous solutions exist for.
This bike booster will probably come in at less than half the cost but the Bimotal kit is another option that doesn't have the tire wear issue, offers better performance, and the form factor is much nicer.
Wow, $2k? You could get a decent ebike for that money. And the installation doesn't look any easier than a hub motor... Only seems worth it if you already have an extremely nice bike. I think of friction drives as being aimed at budget-conscious commuters, not serious mountain bikers.
I think in nyc I'd prefer to lock my $100 dumper of a bike on the street and be able to take the expensive component with me, if this thing is as detachable as it seems
It may just be that I’m comparing to the Bay Area, but I’ve never been that concerned about bike theft in NYC. If you lock your bike with a good lock and leave it somewhere with plenty of foot traffic, it’s quite unlikely to be stolen. Most people don’t even bother locking the wheels! Just a U-lock through the frame.
In the linked page it shows the battery as easily removable.
If the potential thief , realizes the battery has been removed, "I think" it would sharply reduce?? the attractiveness of ebike theft to the thief ?
I was shocked by the price, too. I mean a motor and a battery can't be so expensive, especially such a "small" battery (300Wh).
That being said, having driven electric bikes for a while, here in France they're ridiculously limited in speed and power. 25km/h limit on flat land usually makes sense (except on long straight lines), but when you get climbing even slightly you get down to ~10km/h and have to provide more effort. I guess that's where the 750/1250W 70Nm unrestrained motor comes in handy, and if you live in a place with lots of small hills the choice is either that kind of motor or a car, not the 1000€-total Decathlon/Carrefour electric bike.
The whole European Union has that limit. Without it it's not an electric bicycle anymore, it's a moped or electric motorcycle, that sort of thing, and you have to register it, have a driving license and so on.
Switzerland lets 45km/h bicycles on bike lanes. The requirements are higher, but boy, do they dart through the city. They seem to make long commutes (or fast shorter ones) appealing to a lot of people.
Vienna bike-rider checking in.. we get those e-moped guys on our bike paths too, and they are becoming a real menace.
There is some sort of complacent attitude that results from, what is normally a road-only moped device, exploiting the privileges of the bike paths. I hope this law changes - I ride a 'normal' electric moped and motorbike also, so I guess I'm a bit biased, but I'd like to see those 45km/h limited e-mopeds classified for road only. It makes no sense to let them use the bicycle paths, in my opinion. They're road-ready, so let them stay on the roads.
do they enforce it? California has similar laws but they are not enforced. People ride 40mph (64kph) down bicycle trails and bicycle lanes. And, they still ride like most cyclists here, ignoring red lines, stop signs, and all other traffic laws.
The Romanian police is kind of lazy and does not enforce a lot of other things like cars or motorcycles using the bicycle lanes, cars parked on pedestrian crossings which hide pedestrians from drivers etc.
Though sometimes they take action.
They also organize prevention PR stunts where they check lots of people passing by.
In my experience the issue is one of torque, not of power. Most cheaper electric bicycles (including most Decathlon models) have a hub-mounted motor which cannot deliver power effectively at low speeds -> it stops assisting when you most need it. For hilly terrain you need a motor that's mounted on the crankshaft so that it can take advantage of the gears.
To compare: a tour de france runner outputs 400-500W on mountain climbs while keeping up to 20-25km/h. So a 500W motor (plus 100W power output from yourself) should be enough for smaller climbs!
My Koga has an Enviolo stepless bicycle automatic transmission, which frees me from thinking about shifting, so I can pay more attention to riding safely and effortlessly.
DonHopkins 44 days ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
Enviolo stepless bicycle automatic transmission (never manually shift again, accelerate while continuously shifting under load), with a carbon fiber belt drive (maintainance free, silent, never get grease on your pants or hands again), and Bosch Performance Line mid-motor (strong zippy performance from the geniuses who paid a €90 million fine for Dieselgate), plus GPS tracker with "recovery service" (required for insurance).
It's a dream bike, optimized for comfort and city riding, but Koga is not available in the US, though.
Here's an American bike that has similar features (not as nice as the high-end Koga Evia Pro Automatic though), the Harley Davidson Rush/CTY (step through model is easiest to mount/unmount/ride):
The Enviolo Automatic also come in a heavy duty version paired with high performance motors for bakfiets (cargo bikes), for 3-4 children, big dogs, and groceries:
Fair, they're ideal for city bikes, stop-and-go traffic, and the flat Dutch landscape where they're produced, where the biggest "mountains" you encounter are the bridges over canals. Their city model has 310%, trekking 380%, and the new utility hub has 400% gear range, which you can use on a normal bike, bakfiets, or speed pedelec.
Simple. There is this thing in psychology called "Cognitive Load". Automatic transmissions and continuous transmissions reduce it. That's why most people don't drive a stick shifted manual transmission car any more. It works the same for bikes.
Have you ever ridden a bike with a geared derailleur, and forgotten to shift into low gear at an intersection, or had to suddenly stop before you had a chance to shift into low gear, so it's more difficult getting started again?
Did you notice how it's impossible to shift while you're stopped, and how tricky it is to get it from high back into low while you're starting, especially up hill, and how you can't shift while you're applying force, so you have to push yourself forward instead of pedaling to get it rolling enough to downshift while gently pedaling without accelerating?
A continuous hub fixes those problems, and an automatic transmission shifts you into low when you stop (even if you're not moving), and smoothly and continuously shifts back up while you're accelerating, and the continuous hub allows you to apply power while it's shifting (note I didn't say "changing gears" -- it's continuous, and doesn't have gears. It has planets and fluid instead. It can shift while it's stopped, and accelerate while it's shifting.
You have a lot more important things to worry about when you're accelerating from a stop at a busy intersection than pushing off and shifting without applying acceleration and only pedaling forcefully once you've finished shifting into low gear.
If you're riding a bakfiets (cargo bike) with your kids and a dog in the box, then you definitely have things you need to worry about more than shifting gears, and because of the mass and precious cargo, it's even more important to be able to accelerate from a stop without performing a derailleur dance in the middle of a busy intersection.
It's a trick you have to learn just like using the parking break when starting a manual transmission car facing up hill. Manual transmissions have a much higher cognitive load in both cars and bikes.
This kind of stuff should be intuitive if you've ever ridden a bike with more than one gear, or driven a stick shift car. Sure it gives you "more control", but more control = higher cognative load, and you're probably not a NASCAR race car driver who needs to optimize for control.
If I stop in the wrong gear the most dangerous part is that I stopped, not that I'm in the wrong gear.
If I'm moving the bike by directly motivating the drivetrain with my foot, all this talk about "more control" feels very silly because I am already directly exposed to whatever is happening on the chain and at the wheels. I don't ride an ebike but because my tires are skinny I can definitely slip out if I start too fast in a low gear. The "fix" for that isn't to pick a different gear or rely on some fancy shifter to try and increase my mechanical advantage, it's to feel the tires slipping at my feet and just... pedal slower.
Ditto for going up hills. Is "the bike got hard to pedal" cognitive load or literal load?
I get the argument for riding a cargo bike but IME cargo bikes are almost always ebikes now because derailleur or not, not many people are going to accelerate quickly with kids and dog. Considering that fancy non-deraileur gearboxes cost nearly as much as cheap ebike conversion kits it seems like an uphill battle.
> Have you ever ridden a bike with a geared derailleur, and forgotten to shift into low gear at an intersection, or had to suddenly stop before you had a chance to shift into low gear, so it's more difficult getting started again?
Yes, it's an annoyance, not an insurmountable obstacle. If one is bothered by it, there's the hub gear, invented more than 100 years ago.
I have a heap of ebikes, all 250w and 25km/h limited. A Bosch performance line motor on a MTB going up a steep hill is effortless compared to a budget shimano motor where it can barely make it up no matter how much effort you put in to pedalling. Torque makes a big difference.
I’ll add that none of these motors are actually “250 W” in any meaningful sense. That’s just the nominal figure, the average power over something like 30 minutes. That’s why there are such differences between the lines and makes of e-bike motors, even though they’re all legal and within the 250W limit.
> but when you get climbing even slightly you get down to ~10km/h and have to provide more effort
I've ridden bikes with Bosch 65Nm motors and with a 80kg rider plus 20kg of cargo they're perfectly fine even up steep hills. As in 18kmph or more with only a moderate amount of effort from the rider. Your bike was really underpowered (50Nm?).
Not a single country in the EU limits a speed or power of the EV motorcycles. They do limit these vehicles to an appropriate places which are called "roads" and do require a proper vehicle license and registration. A person can ride their Suicide Killer 9000 Pro Max with any motor power and any speed in the whole EU area really, no problem. On. A. Damn. Road. Where. It. Belongs.
There's a big difference between an "ebike" and an electric motorbike.
Ebikes are pedal assist, power limited, and limited to only assist up to a certain speed. You can go as fast as you're able, but if you're above (commonly) 25km/h the motor won't help you. They're allowed anywhere you're allowed a non-assisted bicycle.
Electric motorbikes may be limited by the manufacturer in order to achieve a certain license class, but once you get past the low power classes, they're only as limited as their petrol cousins. They're only allowed on roads.
Any middle ground, including things that look like bicycles but don't require the rider to peddle, fall either into the "electric motorbike" category or into the "not roadworthy" category. Riding them without a proper license, insurance, and equipment is illegal.
Somewhat unfortunately, much of the press seems to want to class the non-roadworthy motorised vehicles as a special case of "ebike" rather than the general case of "motorbike".
(And to your first point: yes there are speed limits but it's fairly common for cars and motorbikes to be able to go much faster than the limit. In first gear, even, for motorbikes.)
Mountain bikes one level down from professional tier start at 6-8k. If I could pay 2k and get a nice electric bike from my nice muscle bike it would be a bargain.
However bimotal is not that nice - adding a motor to rear triangle alters weight distribution and adds unsprung weight. Also unlike actual nice MTB e-bikes it cannot use chain/casssete for gearing, so gearing is fixed at the factory. If you’re used to nice bikes you will want your ebike to be dialed in just right.
One place where it makes sense is as an alternative to shuttling on forest roads / lifts for downhill-focused riding. F you’re going strictly downhill you can move the motor to the backpack after finishing the climb to reduce unsprung weight. This opens up a large number of trails where forest roads are blocked to car traffic. It also allows dh riding on trail where motor bikes are prohibited.
Your existing bike hopefully fits you great rather than having to modify a low-mid grade ebike. Perhaps you don't have space for more bikes. Perhaps you want a bike made of good components that are easy to repair. It's a significant amount of money but there are absolutely reasons.
I have a ebike that cost ~1500 in 2018 and is probably comparable to what $2k would buy you these days. It's very heavy and while the drivetrain is repairable, there are important pieces of it that I would struggle to repair/replace if they died today.
I have a steel touring bike that's significantly lighter, has standard sized parts that can be repaired, replaced and upgraded (many of which I have already upgraded in the last 15 years) and fits me like a glove. If I didn't own an ebike and you asked me whether I'd rather spend $2k buying something like my ebike or adding a 750W motor to my Surly, I'd upgrade my touring bike.
It really depends on your standard for "good." Some people spend $5-10k+ on their mountain bike. If you're looking at getting an ebike of similar quality, then I could see this being an attractive alternative.
Bike equipment is ridiculously high margin. Motorcycles and mopeds are extremely common commuting vehicles in much of the world, yet i'm surprised motorcycles aren't more popular since they offer much more capability and are a better value.
Bimotal is removable after the installation: the motor and battery can both be taken off in under 30 seconds and you're left with just the cables and a specialized brake disc. I'd say that's its main differentiator. It is definitely more for premium bikes though and even then isn't for everyone.
As a mountain biker I don’t see the appeal of this. Yes, this rather expensive solution could transform my nice bike into a shitty e-bike, but the point of having a nice bike is to avoid a shitty experience.
A proper e-bike needs to be designed as an e-bike from the beginning.
Shuttling? Once you remove the motor and put it into a backpack downhill riding should be quite decent. Decent enough I think to make it worth it for the space and cash saved.
Look cool, but the screwholes mount on the bike frame are not designed for force in this direction (*pulling force*),
frame screwholes attachment are designed for *pushing force* (from the breaks).
Thus, I guess this solution would damage the frame.
About tire wear, I know a guy who did custom "Solex" type bike racing, with a small, friction drive petrol engine on the front wheel.
It was so bad that the rear wheel ended up getting bigger at the end of the race, as it picked up rubber deposited by the front wheel!
Keep it mind it was custom bikes though, the front tire just had to finish the race, they used a roller made of hard materials and knurled. I don't remember the reason, but it probably had to do with the fact their engines were quite a bit more powerful than traditional ones despite having the same displacement.
That made me question who this is for. Looks like it's only for racing bikes that have taken off the rear mudguard. And those bikes are typically used to exercise..
Which makes me wonder about the cleaning after it rained..
It depends what you use them for. I use one as my commuter. Most days I ride it with the motor set to just overcoming the added weight of the system plus my heavy backpack. That is uphill, against the wind both ways, of course. I only use more engine power when I have a bad day or am just done pushing hard. But I am on my bike, not in a car. Life is good.
On the flats, I get no benefit since the motor cuts off at my normal cruising speed of some 20 mph. It just feels like a solid bike in that mode, a bit heavy, of course.
I have taken it on a few regular non-commute rides as a test and must say it did not make me lazy or weak, or suffer less. Easy of riding is not me. In the end, it is the rider that makes the ride.
We get old boys in our cycling club that want to keep going out on the Saturday social ride.
I don't have a problem with them riding an eRoad bikes, I like that they can keep coming out with us, but like you say I wouldn't want to ride one myself.
Only commuter and bikepacking bikes have mudguards, almost nobody puts one on a mountain bike or a proper road bike, regardless of whether they’re electrified. This looks like it’s more for these “sporty” categories of bikes.
My experience is that if there’s water and mud on the ground, a fender doesn’t help much. Especially on a higher travel mountain bike (I ride 150mm of travel front and back) where you can’t get it close enough to the tire. After a while it turns into a gunked up rattling sagging mess. I’ve tried a few and ultimately stopped trying, even on an XC bike. I don’t meet people using them either.
If you see someone with mudguards on a road bike it's a sign they're a proper cyclist.
I don't think you're allowed to entry audax events without guards and you definitely won't be allowed on a club run without them. Getting a face full of oily road water for the guy in front is not exactly fun. Even small clip on "racing blades" will get you a sniffy look.
You must be from somewhere where winter means rain vs. large amounts of snow. I can see if you're doing a road ride with a group (where they often run tight) they'd ask for fenders. Here a road bike would be useless once winter hits.
That’s interesting. Our winters are often wet and annoying. You don’t see many roadies out there before at least February. To be honest, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a proper road bike with mudguards in the wild.
I suspect people who are enthusiastic enough cyclists that they're doing 20mph+ club rides even in the winter have separate summer and winter bikes.
And yes, once your winter 'proper road bike' has mud guards, tyres with treads, and an all-weather-riding design people might start calling it an 'adventure bike' or 'gravel bike' instead.
What I've noticed in my area is that people just don't ride on rainy days. If I'm at work and it starts to rain, someone will offer me a ride. It doesn't occur to people that a bike can get wet.
Bikes are sold without mudguards, and the aftermarket ones are flimsy and don't fit very well. (The steel ones that came with my 1983 Schwinn frame being the exception).
"Who this is for" is the great un-answered question in American cycling. The reason is that our biggest untapped market is people who don't ride at all. The marketing looks like lifestyle marketing: Here's what's wrong with cycling and how we solve it. Here's what you will look like.
Obviously, but many bikers don’t use it and would swap it for a motor if it’s an either-or choice. Bike rear racks are not that great, often. I haven’t used mine for the 8 years I’ve had the bike.
Only because there are so many targets to steal from. And by Asia you mean China, where E bikes are rarely very fancy and often the size of a moped (except for the ride shares, which are still bricks and GPS tracked). And judging by the noise level at the hotel I stayed at in Chengdu a couple of weeks ago, they definitely come with theft alarms.
"A team of Vidyadhar Nagar police arrested a bicycle thief and recovered 19 high-end cycles stolen from various neighborhoods in Jaipur Monday. DCP (North) Karan Sharma said that the accused, Rahil Swami alias Kabbu, is a resident of Old Vidyadhar Nagar and admitted to stealing over 50 bicycles." (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/police-arres...)
False. I recently saw a bike frame tied to a railing and there were not even wheels left. If it was not tied there would be no bike
They will even steal a helmet off a parked bike and that's way cheaper. Just look how many helmets are left on bikes in different parts of different towns (because there is literally no advantage to take your helmet anywhere other than for theft protection)
I'm curious what the implication of this blatantly false* statement is.
*At the very least, you have to worry about Jackie Chan "borrowing" your wheels for a wacky chase scene. Based on my knowledge of Hong Kong cinema, this must happen at least once per week. Dude is a menace and a fiend.
I had a gas powered goped that worked that way years ago. Had all those problems but it was fun. The second you hit any water the drive shaft would just spin against the tire.
A Skarper system [0] that drives through an adapted brake rotor sounds [1] like it is the way to go if really want [2] a well thought close to non-permanent conversion solution.
I remember back in the 90s some guys at my school fitted a whipper snipper motor to a 12” kiddy bike with a friction drive (I think it was a skateboard wheel fitted to the output shaft).
Yeah. I don’t see weather or theft addressed in this design.
I recall a wheel-mounted rotor system from a few years back that did address theft, tire-wear, and weather, but it suffered from far too little torque and very limited battery life.
It looks like their solution is to make it easy enough to install and remove you take it with you. My thought would be security bolts so the pool of thieves is at least limited to people with the right bolt head. Also it has a big battery built in so
That's a problem people already deal with in a lot of ways mostly by being better locked up than other more stealable bikes. Bikes being stealable isn't exactly a knock against this if you can take it off easily either...
Then maybe society should be improved upon so that a few dollars or a few minutes of "fun" or "street cred" isn't seen as such a boon to their life that people risk jail time for it.
The US tried "tough on crime" approaches, what has it resulted in? 25% of the entire world's prison population and it still has higher crime rates than its peer nations.
Nobody goes to jail for stealing bikes. Here, the cops will take a report but that's it. It doesn't get investigated. There's a very good chance any homeless person with a bike is in posession of a stolen bike but they don't even fish in that barrel.
That's right, people steal bikes because they are inherently evil and want to make baby Jesus cry.
I think it's ok to define "survive" as an addict who needs (<-also loosely defined) a fix.
You don't generally commit serious white collar crime, tax fraud or do crypto grifts to survive. For petty street crime, I don't really see any other motivation.
There are a lot of teenagers stealing bikes and other stuff for fun. It's common, and in many circles very "cool". Doesn't have to be inherent, really.
> Theft is solved by making society better, not worse.
Phew, good to hear. Here I thought it would be a hard and complex problem, with lots of unknown unknowns, difficult political compromises, a generation-spanning efforts and many potential solutions with uncertain outcomes, partially contradicting each other.
Instead, we just have to make society better. So, what's step 1?
Step 1 could be not turning the world into a an Orwellian nightmare and outlawing mass surveillance, from both government and private corporations.
And if you are still worried about theft in the mean time, you could try looking at wage thefts which has a value greater than all other forms of theft combined.
> Step 1 could be not turning the world into a an Orwellian nightmare and outlawing mass surveillance, from both government and private corporations.
That would make society better, I agree, but I don't see how that would lead to a reduction in theft, or crime in general.
> And if you are still worried about theft in the mean time, you could try looking at wage thefts […]
I'm not worried about wage theft, no. I am worried about theft of my personal property, though. And I notice that you haven't proposed any credible path to reducing it, beyond an incredibly generic "make society better", whatever that means and however you want to achieve that.
There's usually a fairly small number of criminals in the population and they have short careers. Otherwise, the whole enterprise of society wouldn't be viable.
So once you take them off the streets for a couple of years, or decades for the more hardened ones, it's fine. It has an added benefit of breaking criminal networks so the future adepts have no place to fence the stolen goods.
"It has an added benefit of breaking criminal networks so the future adepts have no place to fence the stolen goods" is probably the most naive thing I've ever heard.
I also think you have no idea how much it costs per prisoner per year.
I also think you have no idea how much harder it is for someone to get a job, housing, a partner, etc after they have a conviction. Or how much whatever life they had falls apart, which includes partners, friends, family. And guess what happens when you strip away all of someone's social connections? They lose that safety net, and are now dependent upon whatever society as whole provides. And in the US we have people saying "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" non-ironically, not realizing the whole fucking point of that phrase is that recovering from poverty in the US is extremely difficult.
That money is better spent on helping people who are not able to afford basic necessities, because that is why a lot of people commit property crime.
I suggest you actually open up some studies on this subject because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Or just open up a chart reflecting the economy over the decades and compare it with property crime rates.
The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world by both headcount and percentage of the population. How's that working for us? We have one of the higher property and violent crime rates among developed nations. Far higher than nations where criminals are imprisoned for rehabilitation, not to punish. Things like giving them a cell that looks like a bedroom, not pen in an animal shelter.
Prisons are full. We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. No cops, prosecutors, or judges are interested in putting a bike thief in prison. We've just decided it's an acceptable cost in our society. It's another reason that cycling is not a useable mode of transport in many places: if you don't have a secure/indoor place to put your bike at work or while shopping, it will get stolen. So you either ride bikes that you can afford to lose, which sucks if you have to go any real distance, or you drive.
Police here don’t even care to help if your car is stolen and you have GPS on it. Cameras and jail do nothing to help protect your property if the police refuse to work.
Aside from the fact that there's little to no actual evidence (not funded by flock cherry-picking, and doing a lot of extremely thin correlation/causation nonsense...
No, it's actually solved by providing social safety net programs and managing the economy to have entry level accessible jobs that pay a living wage. People steal because they run out of other options. The cost of flock contracts would be far better spent on food pantries, job counseling, emergency housing...
There is nearly zero correlation between the number of police and the amount of crime.
Cameras don't solve crimes, Flock or otherwise, unless the cops consider the crime serious. It is almost universal that cops don't consider bike theft serious. This is beginning to change in a few cities but not most.
From what I can tell, they are mostly fully occupied with dealing with emergency situations and domestic violence calls. There isn’t the resources allocated to searching for bikes. Especially when there often isn’t much to go off.
Making the search process easier makes locating stolen stuff becomes more of an office job that’s cheaper to do so the math works out better.
They could solve hundreds of stolen bike reports by just visiting the homeless encampments and running the serial numbers of every bike there. They arent interested, or think the optics are bad.
They will still steal your seat, lights, wheel, and any other bit they can get.
Sure you can use all number of locks, security bolts, and stripping the bike down yourself every time you leave it, but it’s sucks. You’d rather public spaces just be safe.
Yes that's the compromise we have had to live with. But some countries like Singapore and China are showing it is actually possible to just solve theft so you don't have to deal with your bike being stolen.
No idea, only played in low sec. There you shoot everyone. So it's kinda "safe" - no surprises, you expect everyone to try to kill you. Maybe except your own militia, and that's not always.
But the rule is good. Can't say I always adhere to it, but used to loose a lot of stuff , and thanks to the rule, many wasn't that expensive.
I learned this. I had what I thought was a pretty good lock, but the chain was cut very clean. The cut was almost perfect flat, so I assume they used a power tool.
UK has ton of cameras, still plenty of thieving. You're solving wrong problem by solution that WILL be used against you the second govt takes wrong(er) turn
I just got a new bike for my son (he's going to secondary school and needs a better bike), and was surprised to see how many kids' bikes came without fenders. What's up with that? Who wants a serious bike without fenders?
Of course most bikes still come with fenders, but that's also a major limitation for this device: you've got to remove your rear fender. Maybe this device acts somewhat as a fender, but the site says you can't use it in heavy rain, exactly when you need that fender the most.
Being cynical I would say it is yet another way to upsell.
Here in Germany if you want to get a cheaper bicycle, other than flea markets, usually they make you mount the pedals yourself, doesn't have fenders, lights might also be missing, depending on the offer.
Oddly in the UK pedals are a legally required to be included with any new bike sold. Well, technically it's pedal reflectors that are required, but they obviously need pedals to mount to.
Are you looking at performance road bikes? Fenders and lights are removed for weight savings, and for pedals there are multiple clip-in systems, you are supposed to install the pedals that match your chosen system.
If, however, they are doing that for commuter bikes...
I guess that’s the reason you don’t understand why bikes are sold without these things. €400 gets you a very, very, very low-end new bike, like just one step above “unsafe to ride”.
You often don’t get pedals on new bikes because you have your favorite pedals that work for you and anything that’s included with the bike goes straight to the bin, because it’s useless trash. You don’t get fenders, because you don’t usually use those on any kind of sporty bike. They’re heavy, they don’t usually work that well, they are often hard to use in bikes with suspension with longer travel or and they can rattle or simply break and fall off if you ride hard. You don’t get lights and reflective elements, because they’re heavy plastic crap that breaks and falls off. If you often ride at night, you probably own some kind of night gear, high powered LEDs, reflective stickers or spokes…
And obviously once that is the norm for “bikes” in general, then why not save a few cents on supermarket bikes.
> €400 gets you a very, very, very low-end new bike, like just one step above “unsafe to ride”
I don’t agree. After my last bike was stolen I decided to buy the cheapest Decathlon had to offer - 240 - for getting around town and there’s nothing unsafe about it. It’s heavy and has cheap components but everything works fine for light city cycling.
You’re probably right, I’d trust a cheap Decathlon bike not to be unsafe. But they’re really exceptional in this regard, most non-Decathlon gear at cheapest-Decathlon prices is trash.
I don't need to be educated on the increasing lack of customer service for anything below 2000 euros, having got my first bicycle in 1984, upgraded to a cycling one in 1986, had plenty of others since then.
And from all places I lived in Europe, only around here this upselling seems to be a thing.
I think it’s just “cheap bikes”. Nobody wants to work on or with cheap bikes. And bikes are getting more and more expensive (quite fast). A solid bike built with brand name components is quickly approaching 2000€.
“Cheap” meaning low-end, not actually cheap for people to buy with their salaries. Bikes are, unfortunately, surprisingly expensive nowadays, and the market isn’t doing great.
I wonder how good the lock has to be, or the break cables and wire frames cutter resistant, for it to be worthy of leaving alone while shopping on the city centre.
I live in the city considered to be one of the best to live in Europe. Bike theft is absolutely an issue here. I'm afraid to imagine what happens in other countries.
Looks like you can't have a passenger anymore either. I like to have my kid on the backseat of my e-bike.
I'm not in the market for this, but I am in the market for making my cargo bike electric. Having to slow down at a traffic light and then start from zero absolutely sucks. It goes very slow, it is rough, and you won't have time. I'd use it just for that specific use-case.
Conversion kits that add a front hub motor are relatively affordable and easy to install. Should work with most cargo bikes if you can find one that's compatible with your wheel size. Something like: https://swytchbike.com/
Also: I'd not recommend hub motors with cargo bikes. There is a reason all cargo bike makers switched away from hub motors. They're low-power and often not strong enough mechanically.
Yes, there’s no doubt that mid-drive motors are the ideal. But in most cases, it’s not realistic or affordable to install a mid-drive motor as a retrofit.
And not all hub motors are low-power. You can get Chinese ones with insane power output. (5000W! … just remember that Europe has strict power restrictions on e-bike motors.)
Here's my cargo bike: (non-e variant): [1]. The company got bankrupt a couple of days ago.
It has three wheels. Two smaller ones at front, one back. As such, I'd prefer to install the motor on the back. We do have that speed limit of 26 km/hour (my current e-bike has it as well), but since more force is required, the kit would need to know this as well.
I got it second hand, same as my e-bike. Otherwise, these aren't affordable for me. 6k EUR for a cargo e-bike is just insane IMO.
Also an owner of a non-electric Babboe. We looked at converting it to electric but very few companies would actually do it and the one that we finally got to give us a quote basically said it wasn't worth it. They would've had to replace the whole brake system due to the higher speed of an electric bike. We ended up just buying a different electric cargo bike.
I believe your story, the thing is... once my Babboe is driving, I can reach 20 km/hour. The problem is, it takes some time, and I'm fine with the 15 km/hour to 20 km/hour taking time or effort. I'm cool with staying at 15 km/hour as well. The problem is only after I am completely at 0 km/hour at a traffic light or stop sign, getting velocity. I wouldn't need better brakes there. Since I would never go higher than 20 km/hour electric, I wouldn't need better brakes. If they say I shouldn't go faster than 15 km/hour, I'll stick to that, no problem.
But for people who'd reach the max 26 km/hour, if they'd need better brakes, then if they reach such speed manually (going downwards, for example) would suggest my current brakes aren't adequate either. But I'm not interested in going from to 20 km/hour ASAP. I am interested in getting a little of help at 0 km/hour going forward. After that, the electric part can go off for all I care.
Swytch are great in marketing, not so much in engineering. Very proprietary system that keeps changing every year or so. We have one kit, but I'd not buy from them again.
Do they work with mountain bikes? As stupid as this sounds I like mountain biking but I don’t have stamina to climb up hills and then keep doing for a long time. I have an electric bike but designed for road
I'd be quite worried about breaking it in the not unlikely event of a crash, additionally it looks like it could quite significantly limit how low you could put your seat down on a mountain bike, so that would get in the way. Even if you got your seat down, it would add a significant amount of height above the tyre so you mighn't be able to move your arse far enough back to shift your weight property. It's also adding nearly 4kg weight relatively high up which probably isn't the end of the world but would be better if it wasn't so high up.
It says on the website it will fit hardtails but not full sus, and that it isn't recommended on knobby tyres due to performance which isn't ideal either.
I could be wrong on all of this but those are just the concerns coming to mind as another mountain biker.
When going downhill, any bumps which result in severe movement in the frame that bring the rear wheel closer to the saddle might be problematic, even without full suspension. Hard to say. I’m a road bike guy but I’ve definitely seen some forms of non-full suspension when working on mtbs which would result in that kind of movement.
I think the tyres would limit the power output most. Probably quite annoying to have no rear mudguard in anything but the driest conditions. You’d be spraying a lot of crap up at the motor (and probably your back).
Attaching and detaching it looks relatively simple, though - removing it for downhills doesn’t look arduous. You could probably 3d print a clip for the frame.
Given the likely reduced power, and that the spec seems to be saying ‘500w peak, but 250w is sensible’ - probably up to the user’s needs whether the hassle is worth the extra watts per kilo. For those without mobility issues or longterm injuries, it’s usually best to optimise the rider rather than the bike for that.
I feel like off-road climbing would necessitate really wide, sensitive speed variance that this motor is likely not great at supporting. It strikes me that you’d want more direct pedal feedback.
The lack of mudguard wouldn't be an issue, almost no mountain bikers fit them to their bikes. There may well be enough space in the frame without a bottle cage to attach it given it's incompatible with full sus bikes anyway, so that may not actually be an issue, could always shove it in a backpack afterall.
The biggest issue to me is the inability to put the seat all the way down given that's quite important, and obviously this won't work at all with a dropper post (which are fairly common nowadays), honestly actual ebikes are quite popular in the mountain biking scene at the minute and they seem like a significantly better fit to me.
I wonder how much torque the motor could put out though without putting a lot of wear on your (probably fairly soft material on mtb) tyres or slipping on knobby, possibly dusty/muddy, tyres; that itself might kill it off for offroad climbing.
> severe movement in the frame that bring the rear wheel closer to the saddle might be problematic, even without full suspension
Sorry but what? The only alternative to a FS frame is a hardtail. Where “hard” means that the rear wheel doesn’t move relative to the saddle. Your road bike is a hardtail.
If the rear wheel moves relative to the saddle, it’s full suspension (full meaning front and back)
Personally I also don't see the niche they serve. If I'm going far away I take a train or a car. I pretty much exclusively use my bike to ride to a nearby grocery store or do other close-by errands. If I'm doing short errands like this, I really prize being able to get on and off quickly and lock my bike up quickly. A device like this needs to be taken with you when you leave your bike to prevent theft. It's a whole nother step and a lot of extra weight
Fair enough. I guess I should've said the niche in my own life.
> That plus “already has a bike” is a massive market.
I imagine people who are elderly or differently abled would benefit more from an e-bike which is competitively priced to a bike + this device which will likely cost more than $1,000.
Pedal-assist electric rental bicycles are huge here in London.
It’s a relatively big city geographically, and it’s really nice to be able to do 5 - 10 miles in jeans and a long-sleeved shirt and not arrive at a social event in a sweat. The tube is really hot (high 30s!) in the summer and generally quite unpleasant (fleas in the upholstery!). So cruising around in the sun is a really big urban niche for rentals. Those that do lots of miles per day seem more likely to own e-bikes - delivery guys who probably average 50+ miles/day will absolutely feel the difference in their legs, and need to control their tiredness for their safety.
When I read your comment before the article I thought it was some sort of complicated contraption in multiple parts. Instead it seems pretty compact and easy to disengage. I’m not sure what you’re missing in terms of a niche either. Anyone who just wants to ride with less effort but use their existing bike?
People who already invested in an expensive traditional bike and want to have the option to add electric support to make trips easier and faster without having to deal with selling their current bike and buying an even more expensive e-bike.
There’s also the fact that many people have bike racks that are fine for traditional bikes but not the additional requirements necessary for some (most?) e-bikes such as weight and strength.
—-
Just because it doesn’t work for you and your specific worldview doesn’t mean others wouldn’t see value in it.
You mean ebikes in general? I use one to commute to work in good weather. It's 8km and I'd be quite sweaty and impresentable for my work day without electric assist. In the evening I'm happy to ride back home with minimal or zero assist as my shower's waiting for me once I arrive.
There's a bunch of motors installable instead of the bottom bracket. E.g. from Bafang. You just connect it to a battery and that's it. The controller's inbuilt.
Thank you. Amusingly the Bafang kit is unable to be shipped to NY or so Amazon says. I'll have to do a bit of research but this is a good starting point.
Chain moves side to side with gear changes, and adding extra chain tension with an extra drive sprocket could make the deraileur angry. Also, chain-tube geometry varies a lot. Not impossible, just more complicated than it might seem.
I ride an all-original 1970s steel-frame road bike, which seems like a prime candidate for this sort of product. I'm certain no sprocket-based design would fit it. I'd buy one of these if there was any way to lock it up.
Yes, but a tiny minority of bikes use those, and the product is meant to go on existing bikes. Also, even on hub-geared bikes (or single-speeds) you’d still need to switch to a longer chain or significantly move the rear wheel to be able to mount the powered sprocket in the right place, so that it wouldn’t skip.
Go ahead, sit down with a piece of paper and try to design it in a way that doesn’t prevent shifting, doesn’t skip under load, doesn’t require you to use a longer chain, works with rear suspension and doesn’t interfere with your legs.
With respect to 2), I don't think this should work architecturally even if the DRAM controller has knobs which can be accessed, because the guest's RAM should be encrypted with keys that can't be recovered in this way.
It's definitely a good research topic because there are a lot of moving pieces and having this kind of primitive might weaken one of them in a useful way, but at least at the top level, you couldn't just swap one guest's DRAM bank with another and get their confidential memory contents back this way.
reply