EU Regulation 168/2013 on the type-approval for the L-category does not exempt pure electric vehicles (‘EVs’) from ‘functional’ OBD requirements (except for L1 and L2). Apart from the exemption from the Type VIII test. Nevertheless, the text of the Regulation is ambiguous and contains inconsistencies when it comes to this topic.
The text of Annex XII of Regulation 44/2014 clearly indicates that only vehicles with combustion engines were considered during the drafting of that regulation.
To solve this issue the European commission had created a task force consisting of the Commission, member states and stakeholders, including LEVA-EU. The objective is to achieve a common interpretation of Regulations 168/2013, 44/2014 and 3/2014 on the topic of OBD and to eventually make the Regulation clearer.
It is obvious that all OBD requirements related to emission control systems and emission thresholds do not apply to electric L-category vehicles. The requirement to report the triggering of any operating mode, which significantly reduces engine torque would be applicable. Furthermore, there are relevant requirements related to access to OBD information, a connection interface, reporting on powertrain faults leading to significantly reduced torque and RMI.
LEVA-EU believes it is essential for electric L-category vehicle producers to be involved in this process and therefore calls upon them to contact LEVA-EU manager Annick Roetynck for further details and consultation: tel. + 32 9 233 60 05, email annick@leva-eu.com
There is no evidence that the maximum assistance factor 4 has any effect on the safety of speed pedelecs. And, the scope of Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 does not cater for the many variants of electric bicycles and the possibilities that exist to modify those vehicles. Those are the 2 main findings of TRL’s research into factor 4, carried out at the request of the European Commission.
At the Motorcycle Working Group meeting of 25 September, Ianto Guy has presented the findings of the TRL study into factor 4 for speed pedelecs. There is no evidence that the regulation of the assistance factor has any effect, either positive or negative on the safety of cycles designed to pedal in L1e-B.
This finding results from the analysis of the very few scientific papers on the issue. According to TRL, in their papers, Erik Gross and Bram Rotthier did not provide definitive evidence for or against the idea that the assistance factor has a direct effect on safety. They did however demonstrate that factor 4 allows for cruising speeds, which are significantly less than 45 km/h. That is the heart of the whole matter.
In 2013, factor 4 was proposed by CONEBI because the CONEBI members at that time believed that a cruising speed of + 30 km/h would serve three purposes. At a time when there were hardly any speed pedelecs on the market yet, they thought that 30 km/h would be sufficient to please those consumers who were looking for a slightly more sportive electric bike. Secondly, they believed it would be adequate to convince the authorities not to impose a moped helmet on the riders of these vehicles. And last but not least, it enabled them to bring a variation of their existing 25 km/h – 250Wpedelecs on the market without too much R&D effort.
Since then however, there are a few brands on the market who use a factor higher than 4, which allows their customers to achieve cruising speeds much closer to 45 km/h. It turns out that there is a market for such speed pedelecs, since the brands concerned are quite successful. Consumers are very well aware of the difference between the two different types of speed pedelecs, as appears clearly from the Belgian project 365SNEL. In this project, around 120 test riders have been commuting on a speed pedelec for 3 weeks. People tend to use a speed pedelec rather than a 25 km/h when they live further than 15 km away from work. Some of them commute over quite long distances. In those cases, a speed pedelec with a cruising speed of 30 km/h is not up for competition with a car, whereas a speed pedelec with at cruising speed of 40 km/h is.
TRL has also found that the current type-approval legislation obstructs the market development of speed pedelecs. TRL states: “The process of measuring assistance factor as part of the type approval process is difficult for manufacturers to comply with because there are very few test houses with the equipment required to undertake the relevant tests or a full understanding of how the Regulations should be applied.” This is exactly why LEVA-EU has been opposing factor 4: it is an unnecessary requirement, which results in unnecessary costs for companies who want to bring speed pedelecs to the market.
TRL also states: “The scope of Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 does not cater for the many variants of electrically assisted bicycles and the possibilities that exist to modify those vehicles. This has had the effect of permitting vehicles that do not comply with either the spirit or letter of the Regulations to be sold legally but then operated illegally on the road in the EU.” This is what LEVA-EU has been arguing consistently and incessantly: the current type-approval procedure for electric bicycles is an inaccurate law which does not ensure safe vehicles. Because the type-approval prescribed by this law is totally inaccurate, exceedingly complicated and incredibly expensive, many companies opt to skirt the law through a variety of solutions to get to higher speeds.
Based on this research, TRL formulated a number of recommendations. The principle recommendation which was welcomed most by LEVA-EU was: “Given that cycles designed to pedal are intended to have a very different character to other vehicles in the L1e-B sub-category it would seem appropriate to separate them into a sub-category of their own. (…)” And TRL concluded with this recommendation: “Given the limited maximum speed of cycles designed to pedal in L1e-B, consideration should be given to the appropriateness of national regulations that require cycles designed to pedal in L1e-B to use roads rather than purpose built cycle infrastructure. This perhaps requires a separate investigation to understand the potential conflicts that might arise from cycles designed to pedal being permitted to us cycle paths and cycles designed to pedal using roads.”
The European Commission is yet to release the full study. However, at the Motorcycle Working Group meeting they briefly commented and concluded: “We can assess the categorization of these vehicles and aim for a type-approval that facilitates these vehicles.”
The first draft of Regulation 168/2013 was issued in 2009. On this 10th anniversary, there is finally hope that the European Union will embark on the development of a technical framework for electric bicycles that is accurate, well-founded and accessible for all companies, big and small, who wish to bring electric bicycles, other than 25 km/h – 250W, to the market. Despite the fact that there numbers in Europe are still limited, it has already been clearly proven that these vehicles can make a significant contribution to making mobility more sustainable.
The RadBurro Electric Cargo Trike from LEVA-EU Member Rad Power Bikes received L2e-U type-approval and makes its European debut at two events in June.
UTRECHT, NETHERLANDS – There is a new mobility solution available in Europe – the RadBurro Electric Cargo Trike designed by Rad Power Bikes. The RadBurro is one if not thé first to be Whole Vehicle Type Approved under the L2e-U category, allowing for 1,500-watts of clean electric power instead of the standard 250-watts. The power, combined with a long-range battery, large carrying capacity, and maneuverable frame with flatbed, truck bed and cargo box configurations, makes the RadBurro adaptable for a variety of industries.
“We built the RadBurro to be a realistic, versatile, and affordable last-mile alternative that can help solve many of the transportation challenges that businesses and government programs face today,” said Teun Kruijff, European Commercial Specialist for Rad Power Bikes. “This type-approval means we can bring a powerful, proven solution to customers across Europe who are working to improve their operations and eliminate their carbon emissions.”
The RadBurro is one of three powerful solutions offered through Rad Power Bikes’ dedicated Commercial Division. Their fleet also includes the RadRhino Electric Fat Tire Bike and RadWagon Electric Cargo Bike, which are L1e-A category vehicles equipped with 750-watt motors, pedal assistance, on-demand throttle, and 40-72+km range per charge.
In the last MCWG meeting of 19 March, TRL presented a progress update on their research into the maximum assistance factor for electric bicycles in L1e-B. Their initial findings show that the current type-approval stands in the way of speed pedelecs and other e-bikes in the type-approval.
In the Motor Cycle Working Group (MCWG), the European Commission consults with member states and with stakeholders, one of which is LEVA-EU, on the type-approval for the L-category. This working group is the discussion platform for all amendments, corrections and changes to Directive 168/2013 and its 4 Implementing Acts.
For many years, first ETRA and now LEVA-EU have been arguing that this type-approval procedure is not suitable for electric bicycles. The procedure is originally written for mopeds and motorcycles. It is far too complicated, expensive and above all totally inaccurate for electric bicycles. It is very encouraging that the initial TRL findings appear to corroborate this position.
A selection of the most relevant TRL findings so far:
No definitive evidence has been found to support the notion that the level of assistance factor provided by a pedelec affects the safety of the vehicle in either a positive or negative way.
From a safety perspective the most important implications of differentiating ‘cycles designed to pedal’ from the rest of the vehicles in L1e-B is that their maximum mass is limited to 35 kg.
The requirements applicable to L1e-A and L1e-B categories do not make them attractive to manufacturers and users.
The current assistance factor test method fails to address the most common accident type, which occurs at low speed
During the meeting, TRL researcher Dr. Ianto Guy, added a few extremely relevant observations to his presentation. He stated: “We struggle to understand why in this Regulation a choice has been made to regulate power rather than torque. From a controlling point of view it is far more important to control torque than to control power.”
That was exactly the reason for ETRA, when the draft Regulation 168/2013 was discussed, to work for the abolition of the 250W limit applicable for the exclusion of electric bicycles from the type-approval. Had the argument been accepted, we would now not be stuck with the completely useless L1e-A type-approval for electric bicycles 25 km/h with more than 250W. These +250W bikes would also have been excluded from the type-approval. Therefore they would have come under the Machinery Directive and CEN TC 333 would have had the possibility to adapt EN 15194 to include +250W electric bicycles. What’s more, electric cargo bicycles would now not have been obstructed by this annoying limit and the new WG 9 in TC 333 could have developed a European standard for electric cargo bikes that helps instead of limits the market.
TRL also found that “the regulation of assistance factor is regarded as being important in differentiating pedelecs from mopeds but not in influencing the safety of the machine”. This view appeared to have been expressed by Bosch. It is exactly a secret that Bosch is one of the main supporters of factor 4. The TRL researcher added to this finding that it was very questionable whether type-approval should be used to define the design of vehicles. LEVA-EU has consistently argued that type-approval should only pursue safety and environmental objectives and should not pursue design limitations.
Two stakeholders in the meeting vigorously protested against the fact that in their view the TRL research was going beyond the scope set out by the Commission. Such reaction was foreseeable for ACEM, the Motorcycle Manufacturers’ Association. They dread the potential competition from electric bicycles for their traditional mopeds. As for CONEBI, who also protested against going beyond the scope, to date we fail to fathom this reaction. The current type-approval is clearly not in the interest of the electric bicycle sector. So why would an e-bike trade association protest against independent research that corroborates this conclusion and therefore paves the way for better regulation? In the meeting, the European Commission refuted the objections from both associations.
In the meantime, the research is still on-going and TRL are appealing for further stakeholder engagement. Should you have any observations on the maximum assistance factor and/or on the effectiveness of type-approval for electric bicycles, please contact:
Dr Ianto Guy – TRL Vehicle Safety and Technology Consultant
Email iguy@trl.co.uk – tel. +44 [0]1344 770 084 – mobile +44 [0]7436 270343
The European Commission has finally decided to appoint TRL to carry out the long awaited research into the type-approval requirement of a maximum assistance factor for speed pedelecs. LEVA-EU is welcoming this research and committed to giving TRL full support. Any company or research institute with relevant information is invited to contact TRL.
Speed pedelecs, i.e. electric bicycles with pedal assistance up to 45 km/h, must comply with the European, technical rules laid down in the Type-Approval for category L1e-B “mopeds”. These rules consist of hundreds of pages of text and are therefore extremely complicated. Furthermore, the rules have originally been written for mopeds and are therefore not accurate for speed pedelecs or for any other electric bicycles for that matter.
Thanks to ETRA, the European trade association for bicycles dealers, which ceased to exist in 2013, some parts of the text have been adapted to better accommodate electric bicycles in the Type-Approval. However one specific paragraph was introduced in the texts, which throughout the years has continued to cause controversy. Certain parties thought this paragraph was necessary to make a clear distinction between bicycles and mopeds.
As a result, the Commission introduced the following paragraph: “Cycles designed to pedal of vehicle category L1e-B shall have a mass in running order of ≤ 35 kg and shall be fitted with pedals enabling the vehicle to be propelled solely by the rider’s muscular leg power. The vehicle shall feature adjustable rider positioning in order to enhance the ergonomic posture of the rider for pedalling. The auxiliary propulsion power shall be added to the driver’s pedal power and shall be less than or equal to four times the actual pedal power.”
ETRA fiercely opposed that paragraph mainly because of the maximum assistance factor requirement. ETRA argued that there was no evidence what so ever to show that this maximum assistance factor was necessary to ensure the safety of speed pedelecs. The requirement was nothing but an unnecessary design limitation that hampers the technological and market development of electric bicycles in the Type-Approval. As a compromise, the Commission introduced in the texts the promise to have the maximum assistance factor four examined, based on scientific data and statistics on vehicles placed on the market. The Commission stated that this examination could potentially result in the review of factor four. That research has now been assigned to the British Transport Research Laboratory (TRL).
In the meantime however, the Belgian University KU Leuven also became involved in the matter of type-approval for electric bicycles. Professor Jan Cappelle and his PhD student Bram Rotthier found that the maximum assistance factor is not a legal obligation for speed pedelecs. The “cycles designed to pedal” as described above are not a separate type-approval category. Type-approval legislation does not hold any legal obligations for electric bicycles in L1e-B to comply with maximum assistance factor four. It only holds a legal obligation to test the auxiliary propulsion power on its maximum assistance. Strangely enough, this obligation to test for maximum assistance factor also applies to all vehicles in L1e-A, even though the requirement itself does not. LEVA-EU has asked the Commision repeatedly to eliminate this unneccessary test, which is a waste of companies’ money, but the Commission continues to refuse. They state that the test holds valuable information for the end-user. To date, we have not yet found the first end-user who knows what maximum assistance factor means.
If a speed pedelec complies with maximum assistance factor four, then the requirement for vehicle structure integrity is that the vehicle must be designed and constructed to conform with all prescriptions regarding strength and construction of front forks and frames as stipulated in standard ISO 4210:2014. This combined with the limitation of the weight to 35 kg, is the only practical consequence of the designation “cycles designed to pedal”. If the speed pedelec has an assistance factor higher than four, then it does not need to be tested according to ISO 4210:2014. Incidentally, the reference to this ISO standard itself has now become inaccurate since in 2017 a completely revised EN 15194 has been published. The ISO standard refers to conventional city bikes, the revised EN 15194 has specific requirements for electric bicycle frames and forks.
LEVA-EU has taken over the battle for accurate technical rules for electric bicycles from ETRA. LEVA-EU considers adequate technical rules the single most important condition to enable this sector to fully tap on the potential of electric bicycles and LEVs in general. LEVA-EU therefore very much welcomes the fact that the Commission’s promise of further research on factor 4 has now come to fruition. Obviously, LEVA-EU is giving TRL its full cooperation. It is however essential for TRL to hear as many testimonies as possible from companies involved in the speed pedelec business. So TRL has launched the following appeal:
For speed pedelec companies as well as speed pedelec component companies to provide TRL with information on
design philosophy of speed pedelecs e.g. the choice of assistance factor, powertrain configuration and control methodology
current usage profiles e.g. types of journeys undertaken, rider’s age and gender, whether journeys are conducted on cycle paths or highways
any issues encountered while riding e.g. collisions or incidents, interactions with other road users;
perceptions of the effects of assistance factor on safety e.g. issues with controllability or stability encountered while riding.
TRL also wishes to hear from anybody who has any research in the area of assistance factor and safety.
If you have any relevant information on the above mentioned issues, please contact:
Dr Ianto Guy – TRL Vehicle Safety and Technology Consultant
Email iguy@trl.co.uk – tel. +44 [0]1344 770 084 – mobile +44 [0]7436 270343
If you haven’t participated in the survey on electric range yet, please do so, the survey is ongoing . It only takes 5 minutes:
https://goo.gl/forms/YMvqvwtRbggY0pmw2
All electric bicycles, except those with power assistance up to 25 km/h and 250W, must comply with European type-approval (Regulation 168/2013). These electric bicycles, such as for instance speed pedelecs, come under category L1e.
Current type-approval legislation imposes a test for electric consumption. Electric bicycle manufacturers have to measure and report how much electricity the electric bicycle consumes but there is not limit value imposed.
However, the European Commission is asking for input on the possibility of introducing a legally binding test of electric range.
This survey, organized by LEVA-EU, is aimed at collecting the opinion of the companies who are directly concerned by this question, i.e. companies that produce, import and/or distribute electric bicycles.
Consequently, we invite all manufacturers, importers and distributors of electric bicycles and of electric bicycle components who operate in the EU to participate in the survey, which is here:
