BOULDER, Colo. (BRAIN) — As the industry reacts to highly publicized fires, deaths and injuries related to e-bikes and electric mobility devices, and what the future holds, two trade groups and some leading experts find themselves on the sidelines. . Strengthen regulation of the fastest growing categories.
        The conflict involves each group’s position on the respective Underwriters Laboratories standards. Trade group PeopleForBikes supports a narrow standard that applies only to battery packs, while the National Bicycle Dealers Association supports a new, broader standard that covers the entire electrical system of an e-bike, including the motor and controller.
        No standard is mandatory. However, a series of fires involving electric vehicle equipment in New York City last year prompted the Consumer Product Safety Commission in December to “urge” the industry to adopt UL standards and obtain third-party certification of compliance. It is unclear how strongly the CPSC will support this requirement.
       But the announcement and the prospect of mandatory standards have prompted industry groups and others to learn more about CPSC’s views and ensure that CPSC listens to them.
        On December 19, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission sent an email to 2,000 e-bike suppliers urging them to comply with “applicable” standards, including UL 2272, released in 2019, and UL 2849, released in 2020. 2272 is the standard for hoverboard battery packs. Number 2849 covers batteries, motors, controllers and other components of electric drive systems for electric bicycles.
        On Jan. 4, PeopleForBikes held a video conference with CPSC staff, and the industry trade group urged CPSC to support UL 2271—something CPSC did not mention in its letter. 2271 is only suitable for electric bicycle batteries. PeopleForBikes argues that 2271 will be more likely to prevent the fires that sparked the CPSC’s interest in regulating e-bikes. While a full investigation into the New York City fires has not yet been completed, news reports and fire department statements indicate that many of the fires were caused by charging refurbished, DIY, or aftermarket batteries that are commonly used in e-scooters, rather than in electric vehicles. bicycles.
       The hour-long video call featured PeopleForBikes Policy Advisor Matt Moore, outside consultant Erika Jones, E-Bike Subcommittee Chairman Larry Pizzi, and several Trek and Specialized employees and consultants from those companies.
        Moore told the CPSC that 2271 (ideally coupled with minimal U.S. regulatory reforms called for by some in the industry) would address the root of the fire problem, while requiring the broader 2849 standard would increase costs for the bicycle industry without Aftermarket batteries will be used. cause of most fires.
        “In reviewing the issues with our team and industry experts, we believe UL 2271 is a good baseline standard that can be applied to all battery packs in all light-duty electric vehicles,” Moore told CPSC staff. “It is a standard that can be used in current and future mobile products.”
        “Our recommendation and request to CPSC,” he later said, “is that CPSC consider adopting UL 2271 testing and certification of electric vehicle battery packs as sufficient to demonstrate compliance of all electric vehicle equipment, including electric bicycles. believed that this standard should become a universal requirement for all types of micromobility batteries.”
        A PeopleForBikes representative later noted that 2849 is still a very new company and has not yet set up a laboratory to test a large number of products. They also note that compliance with Standard 2849 does not address safety concerns for aftermarket and refurbished or high-power e-bike batteries, some of which do not meet the CPSC’s current definition of an e-bike. They said they were prepared for future adoption of the 2849, but said the 2271 offered better value for money in the short term, reducing fire hazards.
       While CPSC staff didn’t reveal much at the meeting, one staff member said they thought testing the entire system was ideal to ensure that improper chargers, batteries, etc., did not pose a hazard.
       After the call, the NBDA and its partners made it clear that they still support the broader 2849 standard.
        “I think (UL 2271) is a good first step, but ideally we’d like to see 2849. That’s the only way to make sure the whole system is validated,” NBDA President Heather Mason told BRAIN. A
        Last July, the NBDA supported 2849 by issuing a statement advising dealers to require suppliers to provide certifications of compliance with all applicable standards. The statement quoted a Bosch E-Bike Systems employee as calling on all e-bike suppliers to adopt 2849. The statement also said that the NBDA is developing a registry of e-bike models that comply with the 2849 standard (see the registry below for more information). A
       Mike Fritz, an industry consultant who gives webinars and presentations on e-bike safety for the NBDA and other organizations, was one of those on the Jan. 4 call.
        “We believe full UL certification is appropriate and necessary,” Fritz told BRAIN. “Unlike PeopleForBikes, which reluctantly agreed to 2271.”
        Dealers should be able to assuage consumer concerns and answer consumer questions about the safety of e-bike batteries, Fritz said. Fully UL-certified e-bikes will add credibility to dealers, he said, adding that even the most certified batteries can fail if not handled properly. A
        Fritz and Jay Townley, partners at the consulting firm Human Powered Solutions, were members of PeopleForBikes’ e-bike subcommittee until December, when Pizzi sent them a letter saying their spots would be offered to other industry members.
        The layoffs follow a Dec. 19 letter from the CPSC and a subsequent PeopleForBikes conference call. But Fritz noted that this came after Townley was quoted in a Consumer Reports article as saying he was embarrassed that the industry had not responded more aggressively to battery safety. (Townley made similar comments about BRAIN in an article published last month.)
        During the CPSC conference call, Moore explained that 2849 would increase provider costs and reduce flexibility. Moore joined PeopleForBikes last year; He previously worked for a long time at QBP, developing bicycles and e-bikes.
        UL 2271 “becomes cheaper because you can cover multiple products from the same brand. If you’re testing a battery, you can use it on multiple bikes rather than testing each bike,” Moore said.
        He later added: “Many e-bike manufacturers choose to customize the drive system across all products to provide market differentiation and solve supplier problems.” Using only this system reduces the likelihood of making the motorcycle stand out from others.
        Adam Micklin, director of sales at e-bike controller supplier Accelerated Systems, said the 2849 requirement would be “very expensive” for brands that choose to bundle systems from multiple suppliers. Because Accelerated Systems does not make batteries or motors, its customers are these brands.
        “If a component of the system changes (due to availability, pricing issues, or end-of-life issues for an individual component), the bike brand will have to pay the additional cost of re-testing the “new” system with a replacement part. get UL certification,” he said.
       He said the introduction of 2849 would push more brands to adopt the system specifications of several major brands such as Shimano, Bosch and Bafang.
       ”These brands make great, reliable products, but they have very limited (if any) customization options per brand to create a bike with a design and feel that is truly their own. Bike brands will be forced to use the rides provided by the big companies. functions (parameters) that are not configurable,” Micklin said.
        Micklin, who has long been an active member of the PeopleForBikes committee, said Accelerated Systems fully supports the safe electric vehicle market. “The critical safety issues facing the electric vehicle industry today absolutely relate to batteries and chargers, and the right approach is for industry and government agencies like CPSC to regulate these issues,” he said.
        Fritz said the industry would be able to absorb the additional cost of $2,849. “Our position is that given the profitability of the e-bike industry over the past few years, this request is not excessive.” “
        Townley noted that the cost of obtaining UL certification is minimal for manufacturers producing bikes that meet the standards. The total cost to certify each system is about $25,000, he said. With depreciation on over 2,000 model units, that equates to $12.50 per bike. This does not include the cost of modifying a bike model’s electrical system to meet the standards, but this may not be an issue for most IBD suppliers, but will raise the bar for low-cost bike importers.
       Ibrahim Jilani of independent certification firm UL Solutions confirmed Townley’s findings.
        Last July, the NBDA promised to create a registry of UL-compliant bicycle models, but by December the list had become thin as manufacturers used various third-party certification labs and many had not responded to dealer inquiries. However, Mason told BRAIN in January that the NBDA would launch a database in which providers could select and add themselves.
        “It’s too difficult for my team to name all the brands,” she said. The custom format launched in early February and is available to NBDA dealers. It also records the supplier’s liability insurance certificate.

Statement: The picture and text come from the Internet, compiled and published according to public information, reproduced for the purpose of disseminating information, if there is any infringement or violation, please contact us to delete. If you need to reprint or quote the materials of this article, please indicate the source.