With bicycles weight and refinement is a huge issue so to get something nice you do have to use more premium materials and production techniques. If you forego low weight and refinement, there are plenty of Alibaba specials both in kit and kickstarter brand form, but if you want a 40lb middrive with 300-400w of power, 0.3-0.4kwh and a natural feeling torque sensing control, you need to open you wallet to the tune of $4k.
Motorcycles are also interesting because they're at most 1.5-2x as efficient as cars, especially on the highway (poor aerodynamics). They're small so people assume they're gas-sippers, but at 80mph a sportsbike is not giving you much more than 45mpg. A typical bike carries 3-ish gallons for an effective range of 150 miles. To give an ev motorcycle a comparable range, you're looking at close to 20kwh of battery. In China a kwh of NMC battery is said to be $120-ish, so you're looking at $2k in just battery, excluding drive unit, inverter/charger, thermal management. Conversely a motorcycle engine and transmission is typically a single unit, all bathed in the same oil and amortized over huge production runs, for a simple 80hp drivetrain, I wouldn't be surprised if the marginal cost of production is $2k for the whole thing.
My Vespa Sprint 150 gets ~100mpg around town. It cost ~$5000, much of which is a brand premium. 150cc scooters from other brands (Genuine, etc) are much less.
right, EV city scooters are arguably already doable, modulo annoying charging, since in places where you'd feel compelled to ride a scooter you'd be less likely to have dedicating parking with charging for it. Motorcycles though require more range to be useful, it's pretty typical to fill up at least once on every ride.
How realistic timewise is plugging e-bikes into plain old wall power ? Is it any improvement over trying to charge a e-car from wall power (i.e. all-night plus) ?
Depends on the battery size (which depends on bike weight).
For a pedelec (actual e-bike meant to be pedaled), wall charging with a brick/wall-wart works fine. That's how they all work, at least any that I've seen. Some have removable batteries to make that easier, but the high-end models tend to have the battery wedged into the down tube and not removable (with complete disassembly of the bike).
For an e-scooter or light e-moto, wall charging should work fine, but it won't be fast. YOu're looking at 3+ hours to charge. Fine for most commuters and running errands, but not suitable for a delivery vehicle - they'd have to hot-swap batteries (or complete bikes).
Not sure about large electric motorcycles - there aren't that many out there right now. I'd guess similar to e-scooters, just with an even longer 10-80 or 0-100 charge period.
conversely, running a firewall on something like ZFS also sounds like too much. Ideally I'd want a read-only root FS with maybe an /etc and /var managed by an overlay.
Sounds like overcomplicating in the name of simplification. ZFS is a good, reliable, general-purpose system; often the right answer is to just put everything on ZFS and get on with your life.
Problems like? I run zfs on 20gb VMs and a 100tb pool and I’ve never had a problem that wasn’t my own fault. I love root on zfs, you can snapshot your entire OS at a whim. The only other way to get that I know of is btrfs which genuinely does have well known issues.
Not an OP but I have similar experience with ZFS. Over 22 years of maintaining servers, I have had serious issues exclusively with ZFS.
My pool is there, but it doesnt want to mount no matter what amount of IRC/reddit/SO/general googling I apply to try and help it boot.
After it happened for the second time, I removed ZFS from the list of technologies I want to work with (I still have to, due to Proxmox, but without being fascinated).
I've been working with systems for a long time, too. I've screwed things up.
I once somehow decided that using an a.out kernel would be a good match for a Slackware diskset that used elf binaries. (It didn't go well.)
In terms of filesystems: I've had issues with FAT, FAT32, HPFS, NTFS, EXT2, ReiserFS, EXT3, UFS, EXT4, and exFAT. Most of those filesystems are very old now, but some of of these issues have trashed parts of systems beyond comprehension and those issues are part of my background in life whether I like it or not.
I've also had issues with ZFS. I've only been using ZFS in any form at all for about 9 years so far, but in that time I've always able to wrest the system back into order even on the seemingly most-unlikely, least-resilient, garbage-tier hardware -- including after experiencing unlikely problems that I introduced myself by dicking around with stuff in unusual ways.
Can you elaborate upon the two particular unrecoverable issues you experienced?
(And yeah, Google is/was/has been poisoned for a long time as it relates to ZFS. There was a very long streak of people proffering bad mojo about ZFS under an air of presumed authority, and this hasn't been helpful to anyone. The sheer perversity of the popular myths that have popularly surrounded ZFS are profoundly bizarre, and do not help with finding actual solutions to real-world problems.
> Over 22 years of maintaining servers, I have had serious issues exclusively with ZFS.
I've been using ZFS since it initially debuted in Solaris 10 6/06 (also: zones and DTrace), before then using it on FreeBSD and Linux, and I've never had issues with it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Not to be deliberately argumentative but still no concrete examples of zfs failures are shown, just hand wavey "I had issues I couldn't google my way out of". I've never heard of a healthy pool not mounting and I've never heard of a pool being unhealthy without a hardware failure of some sort. To the contrary, zfs has perfectly preserved my bytes for over a decade now in the face of shit failing hardware, from memory that throws errors when clocked faster than stock JEDEC speeds to brand new hard drives that just return garbage after reporting successful writes.
When it is treated as just a filesystem, then it works about like any other modern filesystem does.
ZFS features like scrubs aren't necessary. Multiple datasets aren't necessary -- using the one created by default is fine. RAIDZ, mirrors, slog, l2arc: None of that is necessary. Snapshots, transparent compression? Nope, those aren't necessary functions for proper use, either.
There's a lot of features that a person may elect to use, but it is no worse than, say, ext4 or FFS2 is when those features are ignored completely.
(It can be tricky to get Linux booting properly with a ZFS root filesystem. But that difficulty is not shared at all with FreeBSD, wherein ZFS is a native built-in.)
Linux takes more skill to manage than Windows or macOS, yet we all know Linux. zfs is _the_ one true filesystem, and the last one you need to know. Besides that, to know zfs is to have a deeper understanding of what a filesystem is and does.
I will admit though, to truly get zfs you need to change how you think about filesystems.
> conversely, running a firewall on something like ZFS also sounds like too much.
this makes no sense. firewalling does not touch the filesystem very much if at all.
what FS is being used is essentially orthogonal to firewalling performances.
if anything, having a copy-on-write filesystem like ZFS on your firewall/router means you have better integrity in case of configuration mistakes and OS upgrade (just rollback the dataset to the previous snapshot!)
my point was that if a hardware vendor were to approach this problem, they'd probably have 2 (prev,next) partitions that they write firmware to, plus separate mounts for config and logs, rather than a kitchen-sink CoW FS
yeah but what's the point? At this price point alibaba monsters are far more powerful and real bicycles far more bicycle-like. These will sell a 10-20k units and fade into obscurity like Van Moofs and other disruptive bicycles before them.
People typically don't buy big ticket goods from a company named "YACCEEZY" like you might see on Amazon or Aliexpress these days.
It's worth noting that Hyundai had a similar issue when it entered the US market. It was an uphill battle to market itself to convince people to spend thousands of dollars of money on a no-name car brand.
bikes are already highly "modular" in that outside of ebike motor systems you can swap most parts. Bikes like the Rivian in the article would only work if ruggedized and sold to fleets. As a consumer you'd just get something from Specialized at this price point since it won't be worthless in 2 years time.
Agreed that bikes do often exhibit some level of modularity. But attaching a front or back cargo rack or kid carrier gets pretty finicky pretty quick: most e-bikers tend to just buy the (often quite expensive) 1st party gear, because it'll actually fit right.
This bike seems to have only a single major modular system, but it comprises such a massive part of the bike: there's a big stem-post that attaches to the drive unit. Being able to swap that stem-post out for other things allows for really big changes, imo. You could build some really cool really neat different top-sides atop this bike, with really weird cargo or kid shapes.
I would love to see smaller level modularity too. I'm really impressed by the Bronco, and how they've clearly worked very hard to make it a "car as a platform", opening up as much space as they can for aftermarket parts & 3d printing people to build everything from cup-holders/interior fixing to body-panels (dunno the best link for this, but for ex: https://thebronconation.com/more-bronco-modularity-fender-fl...). I see Rivian / Also tapping that energy here in a way that moves far beyond what bikes today offer.
I'm more familiar with racks for front and back. And it feels like those people with a very random assortment of connectors rod-clamps and other assorted hardware are invaluable friends to have for a lot of these installs.
There's usually some kind of screw mounts somewhere, different bikes with different geometries need lateral positioning & control & it feels like >50% of the time what comes with the rack doesn't quite work.
It looks like most of these bike seats assume the bike already has some kind of rack installed. If there's already two horizontal bars ready to go then yeah it should be pretty simple to install: the hard parts done.
I feel like this debate over bikes are modular / no they are not is kind of silly. There is some part swapping, and some affixment points, but these come with great inconsistency across bikes and parts. But much more so than that, it feels like there's such a limited of reconfigurability for most bikes. There's the same bike underneath whatever you do, and the number of serious affixment points strongly limits how you can build up.
The Thule seat clamps to the seat tube. Every normal bike you'd actually trust to hold up a child has a round seat tube. Not the piece of junk in the article, of course.
If you put miles on your bike and ride hills, you'll spend way more time fiddling with an allen/torx on the inboard pad or the adjustment barrel on the cable as your pads wear. The bleeding procedure for hydraulics is for sure messier, but still very doable in 5 minutes. When you do have air in the system, pumping the lever a bit gives you back some braking function.
Article says their recurring cost is $17.5k, they'll spend at least that amount in terms of human time tending to their cluster if they have to drive to it. It's also a question of magnitudes, going from $0.5m/mo to $0.05m/mo (hard costs plus the extra headaches of dealing with cluster) is an order of magnitude, even if you could cut another order of magnitude it wouldn't be as impactful.
Motorcycles are also interesting because they're at most 1.5-2x as efficient as cars, especially on the highway (poor aerodynamics). They're small so people assume they're gas-sippers, but at 80mph a sportsbike is not giving you much more than 45mpg. A typical bike carries 3-ish gallons for an effective range of 150 miles. To give an ev motorcycle a comparable range, you're looking at close to 20kwh of battery. In China a kwh of NMC battery is said to be $120-ish, so you're looking at $2k in just battery, excluding drive unit, inverter/charger, thermal management. Conversely a motorcycle engine and transmission is typically a single unit, all bathed in the same oil and amortized over huge production runs, for a simple 80hp drivetrain, I wouldn't be surprised if the marginal cost of production is $2k for the whole thing.