E-Assist on Steroids

17 Responses to “E-Assist on Steroids”

  • BikeOmaha says:

    It may be a bike, but all he has invented is a gas pedal that keeps you in shape. It’s just a motorcycle that looks like a bike. The bike is not human powered.

    Neat idea for excercise while driving your automobile though.

  • Alan says:


    I agree, but I got a kick out of it anyway.

  • Cezar says:

    At some point you go beyond e-assist and become pedal-assist

  • Helton says:

    A little dangerous with the pedals if you have to go on fast curves, hitting the floor with the pedal I mean, because if you stop pedaling as you do on a regular bike, the “bike” will slow down… Or not?

  • Scott says:

    The inventor is a crack-up! The vehicle, however, is not carbon-zero as stated by the narrator. This is something almost universally overlooked by people reporting on electric transport: The battery charge has to come from somewhere! Much of the time these electrons are coming from coal-fired plants, i.e. carbon nightmares. Still, the overall load is quite a bit less than conventional internal combustion as far as I understand it.

    At $40,000, this is only an amusing story. Never know where it might lead, however.


  • Mike says:

    The inventor is a complete riot. He looks just like Kevin Nealon playing the role of “enthusiastic German inventor.”

  • Surly Dave says:

    You come off one of those at 80km/h in shorts and boat shoes, you’re going to learn a lot more about bone splints and skin grafts than most people want to find out.

  • Doug R. says:

    I LIKE IT! Ratman wants one! It is just missing the “Norton” badge on the side panel!!!!!

  • doug says:

    I’d ride it … if I could afford it.

    I laughed out loud every time the inventor spoke. I wish he was my buddy.

  • David says:

    $40,000.00!?!? Holy SH*T. I thought my velomobile was expensive.

    Half Bicycle? Very cool but I wouldn’t even call it 1/4 bicycle. Huge carbon foot print but I wouldn’t mind taking one for a spin just for grins and giggles.

  • Brent says:

    On the carbon footprint issue of electric vehicles vs. bicycles, I might recommend this thread at Tesla Motors Club:


    As much as I tried to argue with his conclusions, I think he’s on to something…

  • doug says:

    Of course, he specifically mentions that he ignores production and disposal costs of the car.

    Which, I imagine, are immense. How many miles would you have to drive to “work off” that cost that the cyclist doesn’t?

    And let’s not forget all the food the driver has to eat, just to stay alive, which in wouldn’t be any more than someone just commuting to work and back.

  • Scott says:

    I’d hazard a guess that the production and disposal carbon-costs (and a host of REAL pollutants!) are astronomical compared to a bicycle. Since these must be factored in to make any kind of valid comparison in terms of carbon footpint, this guys calculations are pretty worthless. And, as Doug mentions, he writes as if the Tesla driver does not eat!

    Now, where’s my bicycle?


  • Brent says:

    “And let’s not forget all the food the driver has to eat.”

    Sure. Good point. But the cyclist, all else equal, has to eat more than the driver. Driving, as a human activity, burns something like 100 calories an hour, while cycling is much greater, somewhere around 500. The 400 calorie difference has to come from somewhere!

    Humans don’t use fuel all that efficiently — Wikipedia puts it at around twenty percent — while electric motors use electricity very efficiently, at around ninety percent. I think that difference explains the puzzle in a sentence.

    In the case of the electric bicycle at hand, I’d think that the CO2 emitted in production isn’t an order of magnitude greater than that emitted in bicycle production, but probably something closer to double. As such, all else equal, it’s probably more carbon efficient to ride the electric bike, long term, than to pedal it. Not that I’m going to stop pedaling, of course…

  • Kenneth says:

    Ehh, but the car driver needs some fitness training unless he wants to get fat, which means he has to burn calories in the gym – probably the same amount as if he was cycling instead of driving.

    If he doesn’t exercise, he gets obese, which leads to all kinds of bad conditions and ends up costing lots of energy (build more hospitals, doctors and nurses drive to the hospital, produce more medicine etc etc).

    Now start stomping on those pedals! :-)

  • Brent says:

    “Ehh, but the car driver needs some fitness training unless he wants to get fat…”

    Sure. The argument says nothing about public health, just carbon emissions. There are lots of other reasons to want people on bicycles. But I will say this, if you’ve ever been on a diet, you discover really quickly that fatness is less about fitness and more about “fedness.” Eating less is ninety percent of weight loss; exercise is the, uh, icing on the cake.

  • Phil says:

    The inventor is the best part of this video! Is it just me, or does he sound like Hans and Franz from SNL. I’d love to hang out with him. He’d make everything seem heeeee-larious!

© 2011 EcoVelo™