u/Inciteful_Analysis

Every request for bike recommendations is inevitably met with replies suggesting customer service is the most important element of any selection. Is this really true? More important than cost, features, performance, comfort, reliability, and value?

Sure, I get it. Not everyone is capable of fixing their bike. But with a small investment in tools, a bike stand, and some patience, almost anyone can learn the basics that will cover about 98% of issues. YouTube will show you how to install, lube, and adjust chains. How to change tubes and tires. How to replace cassettes and derailleurs and fine tune shifting. How to bleed brakes and replace brake pads. Even how to upgrade your MTB fork.

In six years with over a half dozen ebikes, I've needed customer service once for a failed motor. Is it really worth paying 50% extra for what is perceived as better customer service or settling on a an inferior bike with mediocre components? Ride1up has some of the best offerings but many shy away for want of a convenient dealer.

Customer service has real value, particularly for novices. But does it get weighted too highly too often? Why isn't there more emphasis on being self-sufficient?

Please respond based on the bikes you personally own and ride, and not those of family members.

View Poll

NOTE: THERE IS A SEPARATE POLL FOR HUB DRIVE OWNERS.

Please choose the closest answer that reflects your longterm experience. For those breaking chains, how are you using your bike, and how often do you lube your chain?

PS - at the risk of seeming self-serving, I would ask that you consider upvoting this poll so we get a better poll sample.

View Poll

NOTE: THERE IS A SEPARATE POLL FOR MID DRIVE OWNERS.

Please choose the closest answer that reflects your longterm experience. For those breaking chains, how are you using your bike, and how often do you lube your chain?

PS - at the risk of seeming self-serving, I would ask that you consider upvoting this poll so we get a better poll sample.

View Poll

I'm going to try again to dispel misinformation and the trope that a mid-drive is always the better choice. (And no, this is not AI just because you see bulleted lists)

Advantages of a mid-drive:

• Better weight distribution
• More maneuverable on technical MTB trails
• Better climbing capability on steep hills
• Improved efficiency on hills
• More precise pedal feel
• Easier wheel swaps and tube/tire replacements

Advantages of a hub drive:

• Less costly
• Simpler design
• More reliable on flat ground operation (no overheating concern)
• Drivetrain redundancy
• Better throttle pairing and performance
• Less drivetrain wear

Applications where mid-drives shine:

• Mountain biking
• Steep hill climbing
• Premium feel where cost is not a concern (R&M, Gazelle, Specialized)

Applications where hub drives shine:

• Low-cost bikes
• Riding on mostly flat terrain
• Throttle intensive operation

If you are doing blue level (intermediate) and up mountain biking, you want a mid-drive. When dealing with gradients over 15% on a routine basis, you want a mid-drive. Between 10% and 15% is a gray area but leans towards a mid-drive. For an occasional gradient up to 10%, high powered hub drives work just fine. I would speculate that the decisive majority of US residents are not dealing with gradients over 10% on any regular basis.

The efficiency advantage of a mid-drive is dependent on the gradient. On flat ground, there is little to no efficiency gain with a mid-drive. In mixed use with some sizeable hills thrown in, you might see a 25% to 35% advantage per watt hour with a mid-drive. This advantage can climb to over 50% on steep hills owing to the use of drivetrain gearing.

While a mid-drive can have a throttle, it is a much different experience. The throttle response is toned down to avoid drivetrain damage. If you doubt this, watch reviews on the Velotric Discover M and Aventon Aventure M. You cannot effortlessly blast off from a stop to 20mph because you will need to change gears manually. If your chain breaks, your mid-drive throttle no longer works. There is no drivetrain redundancy as with a hub drive.

On folding or fat tire bikes, the pedal feel has already been negated. There is little benefit to precise pedal feel on a fat tire bike which has the feedback of a 1960s American car. A hub drive with a torque sensor does a pretty good job for most applications.

So please, stop saying mid-drives are always better without considering the specific application, terrain, and needs & priorities of the rider.

Not sure if this is legit. Claimed benefits are:

• Pedal speed independent of motor speed
• Mid drive level of pedal feel
• No need for torque sensor
• No need for cassette or derailleur
• Regen braking
• No drag coasting
• eCVT operation

Biggest downside mentioned, doesn't pair as well with throttle.

link to Grin source video:

https://youtu.be/OFjPJYMqb8Q?is=qlw2ejf6BJS62c9d

Since Detective Fusco has blocked me, let me state this here. If you buy bike products from Amazon sellers, there is a strong likelihood that the Shimano chain or Cloud 9 saddle you ordered is not authentic.

Buying from the lowest cost seller is a good way to get a knock-off product. If counterfeit, it is not up to the brand being ripped off to honor a warranty on a product they did not make and did not receive revenue for. Leaving a bad review on a counterfeit product only adds insult to injury. Any attempt to justify this and blame the brand being infringed upon is juvenile.

He brought this upon himself. To avoid counterfeit bike products, use established outlets like JensonUSA and Performance Bike when possible. Many times their prices are just as competitive and you aren't left wondering if you got the real McCoy or not.

This Detective Fusco is the same guy who repeatedly bitches about Aventon on the Aventon forum. Now I'll just assume he is in the wrong there too.

Sacramento County advises pestrians to use the left shoulder when it is accessible - "Joggers and walkers should stay on the dirt shoulder off the pavement to minimize the chance of an accident."

This actually makes complete sense. When you have dirt shoulders acting as dedicated pedestrian lanes, walking on the left gives you improved awareness without the numerous downsides of walking head on into cyclists sharing the same lane.

There is an implicit acknowledgement that walking into the path of bicycles can lead to an accident. Oddly, no specific instructions are provided to pedestrians if no shoulder exists.

Was this good policy of walking on the left when there are shoulders present negligently extended to the entire trail without thorough consideration?

In the US, most trail systems (MUPs) implement an All Keep Right policy. A few anomalies tell walkers to keep left and riders to keep right.

Which policy does your local trail system use and do you approve of it or dislike it. Share why or why not in comments.

For those not in the US (and driving on the left-hand side of the road), interpret All Keep Right as all traffic stays to the same side when not passing, whether foot or wheel. And Walk Left, Ride Ride as different assigned lanes for walkers and riders regardless of the actual lane assigned to each.

View Poll

I'm genuinely curious if runners/joggers prefer the Walk Left, Ride Right trail policy over All Traffic Keep Right. As a runner, do you keep left on Walk Left trails?

Do you believe the supposed decreased chance of being hit from behind by a cyclist is a worthwhile tradeoff to jogging around a blind corner directly into the path of an oncoming cyclist? Do you sometimes move to the outside of a blind bend in advance to mitigate the risk?

What follows is a comprehensive evaluation of the disadvantages (and advantage) of the Walk Left, Ride Right trail policy for optional reading. Not all of them apply directly to pedestrians but are still worth noting as what impacts cyclists can create a chain reaction that impacts others.

DISADVANTAGES OF WALK LEFT

1. Higher Closing Speeds
   •  The speed of the cyclist and pedestrian sharing a lane are now additive rather than subtractive increasing both the odds and the severity of a collision around a blind corner.
   • A cyclist travelling at 12mph and a jogger travelling at 4mph will now close the gap at a net 16mph instead of 8mph.
2. Decreased Situational Awareness 
   • When pedestrians keep right, they can often be spotted entering into a blind corner ahead of the cyclist; Or they are so far ahead that they have cleared the critical zone before the cyclist reaches it.
   • When pedestrians keep left, they appear with no advanced warning every time around an obstructed bend.
3. More Frequent Lane Changes
   • Cyclists encounter more oncoming pedestrians (due to speeds being additive) than same direction pedestrians.
   • More frequent lane changes are required when pedestrians keep left. Every lane change is an opportunity for a collision.
4. Forced Departure from Lane
   • If pedestrians walk right, cyclists can simply slow down and wait to pass when clear.
   • When pedestrians walk on the left, cyclists are forced out of their lane to avoid the oncoming pedestrian. Or both parties are forced to come to a halt.
   • Forced lane departures carry a much higher risk than carefully timed voluntary maneuvers, particularly when those forced departures occur immediately before a blind corner.
5. Pet Restraint More Difficult
   • Dogs should be kept on the outside of the trail.
   • When pedestrians keep left, pet owners must restrain their pet with their (typically non-dominant) left hand. This is suboptimal as most people are right-handed.
   • If pedestrians keep right, they can restrain their pets with their right hand.
6. Increased Chaos 
   • Oncoming traffic can be in both lanes even when no one is passing.
   • Insanely, both oncoming lanes of traffic can simultaneously have the right-of-way over the cyclist traveling in the opposite direction.

ADVANTAGES OF WALK LEFT

1. Cyclists Headed in Same Direction Assigned Different Lane than Walkers
   • It's assumed/claimed that this different lane assignment will reduce the odds of a walker being hit from behind by a cyclist.
   • This may be true (I've never seen any study confirming this), but risk still persists at some level if the walker strays out of his lane while being passed OR if a cyclist headed in the same direction is passing a slower cyclist using the left lane OR if the cyclist has poor lane discipline. Essentially it guarantees nothing.
   • Being able to see oncoming cyclists is not an actual advantage despite being frequently cited as such. Under both trail policies, walkers can see oncoming cyclists.

PS - I read the lengthy rules and do not believe I am in violation (but would not bet my life on it). I also believe due to the discussion nature of this post and lengthy background information, that it would be inappropriate in the daily questions section. A relevant search of the forum returned no results from prior discussions.

My prior post focused on one weakness of the Walk Left system -- forced lane departure. This post lays out all of the deficiencies of the Walk Left system (and singular benefit). I invite you to refute any of these claims -- they are numbered for easy reference. I'll make several stipulations in advance so there will be no need to restate the obvious in the comments:

• All trail users should exercise caution and reduce speed before a blind corner.
• In an ideal world, trails should not have visual obstructions, narrow widths, and sharp bends.
• No AI was used in this post; Keep comments on topic.

But the reality is, there are careless trail users, trail users who make mistakes, and trails that are narrow, have sharp bends, and blind corners. These substandard trail behaviors and trail conditions will negatively impact the safety under either trail system. But the selected trail policy must acknowledge these realities and mitigate the consequences as best as possible. A trail policy should attempt to prevent those who are exercising caution from being a victim of another trail user, not simply wash its hands of any collisions due to one party speeding.

DISADVANTAGES OF WALK LEFT

1. Higher Closing Speeds
   •  The speed of the cyclist and pedestrian sharing a lane are now additive rather than subtractive increasing both the odds and the severity of a collision around a blind corner.
   • A cyclist travelling at 12mph and a jogger travelling at 4mph will now close the gap at a net 16mph instead of 8mph. This results in a fraction of the time to take evasive action.
   • Around a corner this can be the difference between calmly braking and doing a panic maneuver that results in a collision.
2. Decreased Situational Awareness 
   • When pedestrians keep right, they can often be spotted entering into a blind corner ahead of the cyclist; Or they are so far ahead that they have cleared the critical zone before the cyclist reaches it.
   • When pedestrians keep left, they appear with no advanced warning every time around an obstructed bend.
3. More Frequent Lane Changes
   • Cyclists encounter more oncoming pedestrians (due to speeds being additive) than same direction pedestrians.
   • More frequent lane changes are required when pedestrians keep left. Every lane change is an opportunity for a collision.
4. Forced Departure from Lane
   • If pedestrians walk right, cyclists can simply slow down and wait to pass when clear.
   • When pedestrians walk on the left, cyclists are forced out of their lane to avoid the oncoming pedestrian. Or both parties are forced to come to a halt.
   • Forced lane departures carry a much higher risk than carefully timed voluntary maneuvers, particularly when those forced departures occur immediately before a blind corner.
5. Pet Restraint More Difficult
   • Dogs should be kept on the outside of the trail.
   • When pedestrians keep left, pet owners must restrain their pet with their (typically non-dominant) left hand. This is suboptimal as most people are right-handed.
   • If pedestrians keep right, they can restrain their pets with their right hand.
6. Increased Chaos 
   • Oncoming traffic can be in both lanes even when no one is passing.
   • Insanely, both oncoming lanes of traffic can simultaneously have the right-of-way over the cyclist traveling in the opposite direction.

ADVANTAGES OF WALK LEFT

1. Cyclists Headed in Same Direction Assigned Different Lane than Walkers
   • It's assumed/claimed that this different lane assignment will reduce the odds of a walker being hit from behind by a cyclist.
   • This may be true (I've never seen any study confirming this), but risk still persists at some level if the walker strays out of his lane while being passed OR if a cyclist headed in the same direction is passing a slower cyclist using the left lane OR if the cyclist has poor lane discipline. Essentially it guarantees nothing.
   • Being able to see oncoming cyclists is not an actual advantage despite being frequently cited as such. Under both trail policies, walkers can see oncoming cyclists.

The active transportation community frequently debates optimal trail etiquette for multi-use paths (MUPs). While standard roadway pedestrian design often advocates for walking against motorized vehicular traffic ("Walk Left, Ride Right"), translating this open-road vehicular logic to narrow, enclosed trail infrastructure introduces severe operational safety hazards.

Consider a common hypothetical scenario on a winding, hilly segment of a multi-use path. A severe head-on collision occurs on a blind bluff curve when an ascending cyclist moves toward the center axis to navigate around a runner, at the exact moment a descending cyclist rounds the corner from the opposite direction.An engineering and spatial analysis of this specific scenario reveals what can be termed the "Three-Lane Paradox"—a structural breakdown directly engineered by the "Walk Left" policy itself.

Infrastructure vs. Policy Constraints

Standard legacy MUP infrastructure typically features an 8-to-10-foot total paved width. This geometry physically accommodates exactly two travel lanes (4 to 5 feet per lane).

• Under an "All Keep Right" Policy: Traffic management operates dynamically via speed matching. When a faster user (a cyclist) approaches a slower user (a runner or walker) from behind in a low-visibility or steep-grade zone, the cyclist possesses a critical passive safety buffer: they can match the pedestrian's pace. The cyclist drops down to a walking pace, stacks safely behind the pedestrian within their designated lane, and defers passing until the sightline opens up. The center line and the opposing lane remain entirely clear.

• Under a "Walk Left" Policy: The option to match pace and stack behind the slower user is eliminated. Because the pedestrian is traveling head-on toward the cyclist within the same narrow lane, a physical standstill is eventually forced.

The Three-Lane Paradox

To break this policy-enforced logjam, one of the users must encroach upon the center axis. The system is structurally forced to squeeze three distinct moving entities (the oncoming pedestrian, the ascending cyclist, and the descending cyclist) into a two-lane physical footprint.

Around blind, horizontal curves carved into hillsides or bluffs, this creates a catastrophic spatial trap:

1. Forced Encroachment: The ascending cyclist is legally evicted from the outer shoulder by the oncoming pedestrian and must swerve toward the center line to clear the path.
2. Blind Maneuvering: Because the trail geometry features an obstructed sightline (due to terrain or vegetation at the inside apex), the ascending cyclist must execute this center-line encroachment completely blind.
3. Additive Closing Speeds: At the exact moment the ascending cyclist moves center, a descending cyclist rounding the curve carries gravity-driven momentum. Because the users are moving head-on, their closing speeds are additive rather than subtractive, stripping away the necessary perception-reaction time required to apply brakes.

Planning Implications

This scenario demonstrates that assigning default lanes based on travel mode rather than speed hierarchy creates an illusion of safety that fails in constricted geometries. On a wide open highway with a clear sightline, a motorist can easily straddle a center line to clear a pedestrian. On a narrow, winding MUP, forcing a cyclist to swerve center around a blind corner means the safety policy itself mandates a blind lane intrusion.

To mitigate these conflicts, urban planners and trail managers should reject "Walk Left" guidelines on MUPs. Managing traffic by a uniform speed hierarchy—where all users keep right and the overtaking vehicle bears the sole operational burden of timing the pass—preserves the center line as a predictable, clear space.

How does your municipality handle trail etiquette signage, and have you encountered resistance when trying to implement a uniform "Keep Right" standard on topographically complex paths?

Note on authorship: I developed the core spatial logic and structural arguments regarding the "Three-Lane Paradox" based on real-world multi-use path conflicts. I used an AI assistant to help refine the engineering terminology, format the technical layout, and polish the final prose for this forum.

It appears there was a two cyclist collision on the very blind corner I warned about earlier this week on September 21st of last year. It absolutely matches the description. If it's not the same one, it's a similar one in the same area near Folsom Bluffs.

Based on the eyewitness account (provided in the Reddit link), a female cyclist was descending around the blind bend while a male cyclist was ascending. The eyewitness was on foot. Assuming the eyewitness was following the Keep Left rule, we can infer he was descending the hill ahead of the female cyclist.

The eyewitness indicates the ascending cyclist moved over to make room for him...in other words moved towards the center of the trail. This would only be necessary if the eyewitness was descending and following Walk Left. This put both cyclists on a collision course.

The Walk Left insanity that forces cyclists out of their lane even when not passing appears to be a direct contributor to this collision setting the dominos in motion.

Every one of you that defended this dangerous and idiotic policy and mocked me for challenging it have some explaining to do.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/SWMtVU3A48WFEDWp6?g_st=ac

Following up on yesterday's survey where over 80% indicated their local trail rules advise all traffic to stay to the same side when not passing and had near unanimous approval.

In a handful of US locations, trail authorities advise walkers to keep left and cyclists to keep right.

Ostensibly walkers can see bicycles approaching them and aren't caught off-guard. This isn't precise. Walkers can always see oncoming cyclists and do not see cyclists approaching from behind regardless of the side they walk on. But by using different default lanes, the theory is cyclists are less likely to ram pedestrians from behind.

Even accepting that questionable assertion as true, there are numerous downsides to this split approach:

1. Increased closing speed makes a collision more likely around visually obstructed bends as the speed of the cyclist and pedestrian are now additive rather than subtractive. A cyclist travelling at 12mph and a jogger travelling at 4mph will now close the gap at a net 16mph instead of 8mph. This results in a fraction of the time to take evasive action. Around a corner this can be the difference between calmly braking and doing a panic maneuver.
2. Decreased situational awareness. When pedestrians keep right, they can often be spotted entering into a blind corner ahead of the cyclist; When pedestrians keep left, they appear with no advanced warning every time around an obstructed bend.
3. Cyclists encounter more oncoming pedestrians (due to speeds being additive) than same direction pedestrians thus more frequent lane changes are required when pedestrians keep left. Every lane change is an opportunity for a collision.
4. If pedestrians walk right, cyclists can simply slow down and wait to pass when clear. When pedestrians walk on the left, cyclists are forced out of their lane to avoid the oncoming pedestrian. Or both parties are forced to come to a halt. Forced lane departures carry a much higher risk than carefully timed voluntary maneuvers.
5. Dogs should be kept on the outside of the trail; When pedestrians keep left, pet owners must restrain their pet with their (typically non-dominant) left hand. This is suboptimal as most people are right-handed. If pedestrians keep right, they can restrain their pets with their right hand.
6. Increased chaos as oncoming traffic can be in both lanes even when no one is passing. Insanely, both oncoming lanes of traffic can simultaneously have the right of way over the cyclist traveling in the opposite direction.

If you take local multi-use trails, what are the trail rules and do you APPROVE or DISLIKE?

Trail policy can generally be divided into two categories: either all traffic keeps right except to pass OR walkers stay left and bikes stay Right.

This poll is intended for US residents. Thank you.

View Poll

After nearly 2200 miles, I've replaced the stock knobby 2.6" wide Kenda tires on my Velotric Summit 1. Went with a 2.1" XC tread that rolls beautifully on pavement but still has enough bite for offroad riding. The tire really complements the hybrid role of the bike much better. Although I'd recommend 2.25" to better optimize offroad capability.

The reduction in rolling resistance is amazing. On routes that would previously leave me with 35 miles of range, I'm seeing 42 miles. A 20% increase. It also shows up in assistance levels. PAS1 now feels like PAS 3 and PAS 3 feels like PAS5. Climbing steeper hills with relative ease.

The steering response is markedly improved as well. The front end doesn't feel as heavy and lumbering and the bike is just more fun to ride.

So in case you haven't figured out the point yet, if a 2.6" wide tire kills efficiency, range, acceleration, and steering feel, imagine what a 4" fat tire does.

If you have multiple ebikes, select the brand corresponding to the most expensive one.

Sorry, only 6 available poll choices so some brands had to be omitted.

View Poll