Just getting started

jszorady

New member
Local time
6:32 PM
Joined
Feb 19, 2024
Messages
12
Location
Timberlake Ohio
Hi all,
I'm 69 year old guy with health issues.
I have been looking at ebikes for about a year now,
and I'm getting close to pulling the trigger.

I'm leaning heavily towards the Mokwheel Basalt.
The only decision to be made is step over, or step thru.

Growing up in the 60's the step thru would be considered a girls bike.
If you were caught riding one as a male, you would be the subject of peer ridicule
for most of your pre-teen days.

My understanding is that this is no longer the case and the frame design is
strictly for easy mounting and standing. The gender issue is obsolete, although I
would still cringe a bit riding a step thru. My decision would be based on durability rather than
convienince. It seems to me a cross member in the frame would make the bike significantly
stronger. Am I wrong??

Jim
Timberlake, Ohio
 
I have both. My second purchase was the step thru. The step over is a real PITA if you have a load on the rear rack and may be a back pack on yourself. But you must find your own comfort zone.
I worry about the longevity of the step thru frame. But I am hard on my equipment. I expect it to die an early death regardless.
Steve
 
I had the same thought as you when I was looking... Do I really want a girl's bike, lol. But really it's irrelevant now. I see a lot of rental eBikes where I'm at (Daytona Beach) and I think they are almost all step through, regardless of who is riding it.

It might depend on how big you are too. I'm about 240, and I noticed that the step through bikes have a little triangle welded at the bottom of the frame, assuming for more support. So I also assume the step through frame needs more support, hence the extra part. I think the extra bar at the top of a step over adds to the rigidness or the frame. That probably was the thing that put the step over on top for me. Others, who more informed, might correct me on those assumptions.

BTW - I too lurked here for a month or so, soaking up the knowledge, before I purchased. I think it helped me in my decision of what to get.

I have a step over, Aventure 2 from Aventon. I'm happy with it.
 
Hi all,
I'm 69 year old guy with health issues.
I have been looking at ebikes for about a year now,
and I'm getting close to pulling the trigger.

I'm leaning heavily towards the Mokwheel Basalt.
The only decision to be made is step over, or step thru.

Growing up in the 60's the step thru would be considered a girls bike.
If you were caught riding one as a male, you would be the subject of peer ridicule
for most of your pre-teen days.

My understanding is that this is no longer the case and the frame design is
strictly for easy mounting and standing. The gender issue is obsolete, although I
would still cringe a bit riding a step thru. My decision would be based on durability rather than
convienince. It seems to me a cross member in the frame would make the bike significantly
stronger. Am I wrong??

Jim
Timberlake, Ohio
That's interesting, Jim.

The Vespa 50 I had regularly stolen from my older sister since I was 14 :cool: was absolutely fine although a step thru. Also the typical "tubone" (= large tube), and the Graziella, a sort of foldable bike, was a regular use among my friends.

An old "Graziella" from the '60s:
1712927266241.png


The "Oscar", a typical tubone from the same period:

1712927339343.png


How nice is to compare different way of lifes and culture... I wouldn't worry at all, Jim. Do whatever you want and forget about the others! ;)
 
Your choice of step-through versus step-over will only be judged by your age group.
It is hard to let go of lifetime biases.

The good thing is that most the people you will see on bikes are of the younger age group.
I am of your general age group. For vanity I got a step over. What people say about a loaded rear rack being tougher to step over is true.
I went with saddlebags on the rear rack. This allows me to haul a lot of stuff, but not have to raise my leg up and over gear stacked on top of the rack.

Vanity, they name is ooops, broken pelvis. (hasn't happened to me yet, but I know the risk).
Choose what is the most reasonable choice for you.
A bike you use LESS, due to challenges... is a less valuable bike.
 
I know what you mean, and I grew up in the 80s. Judging by pagheca's response, that step-through = girl's bike thing is an American bias. Probably was a marketing thing.

I'm 47 now and just bought another step-through. I don't mind any more if someone wants to try to shame me for having a "girl's bike".

FWIW - I wouldn't get a Mokwheel. Unknown customer service. Look at Lectric or Ride1Up or Trek or Specialized.
 
I agree with Smaug's statement. There was an old mantra in the tech industry: "Nobody was ever fired for specifying IBM".

I took a different route with all my bikes. If you have really solid mechanical and electrical skills, you can then explore other options.
If you have historically taken your car to the shop for repairs, then buying one of the bigger brand names with brick-and-mortar stores might be the best option for you.
 
Can you please explain to me what does it exactly mean, @addertooth ?
Ima nawt @addertooth but here are a couple links to look through..






 
Can you please explain to me what does it exactly mean, @addertooth ?
Pull up a comfortable chair, and let me tell you a personal story in which this "old saying" (mantra) came into play.
It was around 1981-1982. The job market was tough and I had relocated two-states away to find employment. I was hired by a physics lab in Tennessee. This organization did not have any Personal Computers (PC) in it. Everything was done on what people called a Mainframe computer (DEC PDP 11/8 and a DEC PDP 11/780). Every worker had a DEC VT100 text-only serial terminal as his workstation. I was their Digital and Microprocessor electronic Engineer. When anything digital needed designed or repaired, it came across my desk/bench.

This meant serial (RS-232) lines were ran hundreds of feet across the organization to connect those VT100 data terminal. They were a common victim of lightning surges. When lightning took out one of those VT100 terminals, it was my job to repair the lightning damage to the terminals. During this time we had a service contract with Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) to provide service and repair of all the equipment, but often the delay for them to fix the equipment was intolerable to all the PHDs who worked that facility. The maintenance contract for JUST the terminals was about $700 a year for EACH for each of the Dozens of terminals. Combined, it was higher than my annual salary. A high end personal computer from IBM, fully equipped was around $5000 in this time frame.

For my section of the lab, I had built the first PC in the entire facility with third-party aftermarket "clone parts". It had cost me about $1000 at the time. In the usual Government fashion, there was a committee in charge of monitoring and managing all computer purchases. But, as I had just bought "parts", this evaded the usual clutches of this committee.

The computer committee did not track parts, just whole systems. I could order enough "parts" to build dozens of computers and it would never cause a moment of concern. Building PCs back then was a VERY new thing.

I convinced the director of the facility that it was time to get serial terminals (with their expensive maintenance contracts) off the desks of the workforce, and instead, build IBM PC clones to perform all the tasks the VT100 terminals did, PLUS run software locally at each person's desk.

It was a risky move for me. If we had ran into problems, it would be the end of my career there. And yes, the director asked: "shouldn't we buy the REAL IBM PC, instead of building "clones" from third-party vendors?". I was taking a risk by promoting this approach, but it was a significant cost savings for the organization. I felt the risk was worth it. I also felt I could address any problems/limitations which were discovered.

But, in the end it all worked out, the clone PC's not only worked well, but it re-shaped how that organization worked. The physicists and engineers were no longer as dependent upon using the mainframe to do their calculations. That, and they could do actual "graphics" (charts/images) at their desks, and not just text. After the integration was complete, a nearby University made inquiries about how we had done the switch from mainframe to desktop computers. It was explained to them, and soon they started the migration as well. It would appear the idea was infectious.

Summary: A bold idea which had real risk was taken, I could have literally specified IBM to be safe. Ultimately, we used a source which cost 1/5th as much, and it turned out great. But, if it had gone badly, I would have been fired.

Hense: "Nobody was ever fired for specifying IBM". It is about risk versus cost savings (reward).
 
Pull up a comfortable chair, and let me tell you a personal story in which this "old saying" (mantra) came into play.
It was around 1981-1982. The job market was tough and I had relocated two-states away to find employment. I was hired by a physics lab in Tennessee. This organization did not have a single Personal Computer in it. Everything was done on what people called a Mainframe computer (DEC PDP 11/8 and a DEC PDP 11/780). Every worker had a DEC VT100 text-only serial terminal as his workstation. I was their Digital and Microprocessor electronic Engineer. When anything digital needed designed or repaired, it came across my desk/bench.

This meant serial (RS-232) lines were ran hundreds of feet across the organization, and were a common victim of lightning surges. When lightning took out one of those VT100 terminals, it was my job to repair the lightning damage to the terminals. During this time we had a service contract with Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) to provide service and repair of all the equipment, but often the delay for them to fix the equipment was intolerable to all the PHDs who worked that facility. The maintenance contract for JUST the terminals was about $700 a year for EACH for each of the Dozens of terminals. Combined, it was higher than my annual salary. A high end personal computer from IBM, fully equipped was around $5000 in this time frame.

For my section of the lab, I had built the first PC the entire facility had, from third-party aftermarket "clone parts". It had cost me about $1000 at the time. In the usual Government fashion, there was a committee in charge of monitoring and managing all computer purchases. But, as I had just bought "parts", this evaded the usual clutches of this committee.

I convinced the director of the facility that it was time to get serial terminals (with their expensive maintenance contracts) off the desks of the workforce, and instead, build IBM PC clones to perform all the tasks the VT100 terminals did, PLUS run software locally at each person's desk.

Those were the days!

The wild wild web! heh heh :)
 
Those were the days!

The wild wild web! heh heh :)
There was a lot of "doing things which were never done before" in this time period. The computer industry was very collaborative, with ideas being shared with no desire to get a patent/copyright. It was about growing the concept/horizon, more than profits. I had a rather congenial relationship with many chip manufacturers, and they would send me free products, provided I gave them engineering notes on how to implement their products. In some cases, I would tell them about problems with their products they were unaware of.

It was the golden days to be an electronic engineer. Digital and microprocessor electronics were in the infant stages of development. I eventually moved to being a computer and network engineer. The pay was higher, and the work was actually less complex. I still work in the industry today, but now wear the title SME (subject matter expert) on all things technology related. Often, my understanding of the root of all modern designs gives me an edge of "how things work" at their very core. This is something missing from those who graduated with engineering degrees many years later. Where I work now, they let the engineers pound on a problem. When an engineering team gets "stuck", they call me in to analyze the problem the engineers are having, and I nudge them onto the right path to solve the problem.

They realize I will retire in a few years. Already the organization is trying to scramble to figure out how to address the void my departure will create. They realize they can't just "train up" someone to perform an equivalent function. To do this, they will need someone with a 4-decade depth of knowledge. Anyone who fits that bill will be ready to retire as well.

I am no longer tempted to "specify IBM".
 
There was a lot of "doing things which were never done before" in this time period. The computer industry was very collaborative, with ideas being shared with no desire to get a patent/copyright. It was about growing the concept/horizon, more than profits. I had a rather congenial relationship with many chip manufacturers, and they would send me free products, provided I gave them engineering notes on how to implement their products. In some cases, I would tell them about problems with their products they were unaware of.

It was the golden days to be an electronic engineer. Digital and microprocessor electronics were in the infant stages of development. I eventually moved to being a computer and network engineer. The pay was higher, and the work was actually less complex. I still work in the industry today, but now wear the title SME (subject matter expert) on all things technology related. Often, my understanding of the root of all modern designs gives me an edge of "how things work" at their very core. This is something missing from those who graduated with engineering degrees many years later. Where I work now, they let the engineers pound on a problem. When an engineering team gets "stuck", they call me in to analyze the problem the engineers are having, and I nudge them onto the right path to solve the problem.

They realize I will retire in a few years. Already the organization is trying to scramble to figure out how to address the void my departure will create. They realize they can't just "train up" someone to perform an equivalent function. To do this, they will need someone with a 4-decade depth of knowledge. Anyone who fits that bill will be ready to retire as well.

I am no longer tempted to "specify IBM".

I lived those days of teaching and building for others.

Intranet to internet, so to speak. 2009 was another game changer for me when BTC was spoken about,then released onto the web.

Never stop learning mate! :)
 
Thanks for the interesting explanation and reminding me of the spirit of the times. I was a little confused by the term "specifying" instead of "buying". However, in Italy I have never heard about that expression, although I used an IBM XT to develop software. At the time I was working at the University of Rome and contributed to several experiments, in particular I designed the control and data acquisition system for a telescope mounted aboard a stratospheric balloon, designing the hardware (with some fairly innovative ideas to save power and protect the system from overheating or overcooling) and writing all the software. Before that system they had always used Nagra recorders. Since many of us here speak the same language :cool: , I was using too PC clones and "Burr-Brown" data acquisition boards. And no committee (which committee? :unsure:) ever asked me for anything. Actually we were just a bunch of students and researchers regularly working overnight and on the weekend.

The telescope was a prototype of a later system called BOOMERAnG, an Italian-American project that had a grea success in investigating geometry of the Universe and was launched years later from McMurdo Station in Antarctica. The two PIs were one from the University of Rome and one from Caltech but the telescope hardware was made entirely in Rome.

The problem was that, as usual, we had a REALLY minimalistic budget and so the only requirement was "save money". For example, since Fisher vacuum connectors cost a lot I made my own (many!) vacuum connectors by... pouring glue (Armstrong Epoxy) inside ordinary DB connectors ordered from the RS catalogue, to which I had already soldered the wires and already installed on flanges with o-rings to seal the box. :LOL:

May seem ridicolous but everything worked as expected since the very first flight, from Sicily to Spain.
 
Yep, I remember those old black epoxied cubes of electronics made by Burr-Brown. They also made some rather sexy Low-Noise amplifiers I made use of them for active filter designs. (butterworth and chebyshev mostly) Their early Digital to Analog Converters (DACs) were some of the best in the industry. I remember when they brought out their first 16 Bit DAC, as it was a huge step up from their initial 8 and 12 bit models. This was before they made entire boards for PCs. As I recall, we ended up buying a 24 channel 32 bit DAC board for a PC years later. It was installed in a Compaq 386-20 computer, for it's time that thing was a monster. The ISA slot DAC card put the expensive acquisition card running in the PDP 11/8 to shame in terms of channels and resolution.

We made some of our instrument cannisters as well. But our problem was the opposite. Some were for use down boreholes which could fill with water. Those early cannisters had to be able to resist water incursion for submersion of up to 200 feet. We eventually had to design one which could survive a half mile of submersion for another project. Back then, engineers were expected to be "multi-disciplinary". They were expected to span all the engineering fields (Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Chemical). It was a lot to know and be rather good at.

But, we have rambled on long enough about the "good old days", how 'bout those eBikes ;)
 
Back
Top