Frederick Bott
2 min readSep 9, 2022

--

I am guessing you are maybe a purist cyclist. I was too for many years too, though also a car driver until just recently when I got rid of my diesel 4x4 , and the caravan it towed, and motorised my twenty year old sit-up-and-beg, fully suspended, 22kg ladies commuting bike. Now it weighs 35 kg, and with me, 58 years old sitting bolt upright on it, we go like a permanently flat out olympic cyclist on an 8kg carbon fibre bike, even with a 40kg trailer, though not quite as agile :)

You gotta try it to believe it, and I hate to say it, but e-bikes are going to become the standard kind of bike, you will understand why after you get one, if you don't have one already :)

Personally I welcome car manufacturers into the cycling industry, it will bring no end of benefits to cycling.

That porsche e-bike looks simply scrummy to me. they've done a beautiful job of hiding the rear suspension, better than any I've seen on any bike of any kind before, as well as hding also the battery, motor, wiring, and all sensors. Love the 12 spoke wheels too. Beautiful job.

Thanks for you article, I especially agree with your paragraph on removal of profit motive, I think that is inevitable, much sooner than most realise.

Looks to me like Porsche are already on the path of art over profit :)

...(10 minute pause), actually, on studying the suspension, it appears to maybe have a design flaw, is this a concept bike or something in production?

It looks like torque acting on the cranks might translate to some compression force on the suspension, unless the motor and cranks are part of the rear swing arm, but the motor looks fixed to the main front end of the frame, not part of the swing arm, so tension on the chain will act to try to pull the rear swing arm up. That would result in some pretty poor and uncomfortable handling, and some horrible chain dynamics under high torque, bumpy conditions I think.

I take it all back, don't let Porsche in, if that is their best shot! :)

--

--

Frederick Bott
Frederick Bott

Responses (1)