E-bikers sweat three times less than regular bike riders, finds Shimano study

RobD wrote:

I guess the study wasn't really to show that Ebike riders sweat less (which nobody would be surprised at) but the degree to which they sweat less. As someone who sweats a lot when cycling, not having showers at work is one of the reasons why I don't commute all the way from home, the difference an ebike makes would potentially make would make me consider one and moving from being a two car family to a single car family (or at least using my car less).

How fast do you cycle or more accurately at what intensity do you cycle going into work? You'd be surprised at the difference in sweatage if you ease off the pedals somewhat and in most built up areas it doesn't cost you much time at all as you're as likely to hit the anchors and other slower riders make up the time whilst you're waiting at lights, junctions etc.

You find pretty much the same when you're in a motor around town, it barely makes a difference if you're trundling at 20-25mph and eventually you'll catch up the gnomes doing 35-40mph.

Paul_C wrote:

can the 'snobby' roadies please step away from their keyboards...

 

I'm 61, with a heart condition. My e-bike is the only way I can still carry on cycling to and from work... plus we don't have showers. If e-bikes dweren't available, I'd be yet another car on the road...

No one is questioning the usefulness of an ebike, merely the usefulness of the study...

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

In other news, sitting on your arse watching telly and eating doughnuts makes you fatter and less happy...

I wanna see a graph for that (+ squirrels) and a peer reviewed paper before I'm even remotely swayed by your statement

James Walker wrote:

Isn't this called e-sweat?

Battery acid.

nnahler wrote:

Three times less is not 300% less.

Three times less means a third as much and therefore 33% or if you prefer, 67% less.

Umm, ok.

Doesn't mention such % in the article though

EDIT: I see roadcc have changed the title

HarrogateSpa wrote:

I prefer the English English, which would be 'ordinary' or 'normal' bike. Then we could keep using 'regular' to mean the opposite of 'irregular'. I think the battle is lost, though.

With my embarrassed apologies for being a tedious & pedantic knob:

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny-farthing (My bold):

“Although the name "penny-farthing" is now the most common, it was probably not used until the machines were nearly outdated; the first recorded print reference is from 1891 in Bicycling News.[4] For most of their reign, they were simply known as "bicycles". In the late 1890s, the name "ordinary" began to be used, to distinguish them from the emerging safety bicycles”

An 'Ordinary'

HarrogateSpa wrote:

On topic, there's some hope that e-bikes will bring about mass cycling - appealing to people who don't want to do much exercise on a particular journey, or in general.

I hope for this too. I read a piece of research recently (can't remember where so can't provide a link) that a good number of people who say that they'd love to cycle, but don't because it's dangerous/sweaty/theft-prone etc are, im reality, just lazy, and would be only too happy to swing a leg over an eBike.