While bicycles were popular military tools in the two World Wars and later favoured by the Viet Cong to ferry supplies, their usage has been limited in the 21st century… that could be about to change, with a number of high powered electric bikes including a collab between QuietKat and Jeep being shown off at the world’s biggest arms fair in London this week.
> Find out all you need to know about e-bikes by visiting our sister site eBikeTips
iNews reports that several exhibitors at the controversial Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) show, a biennial defence and security trade exhibition held at London’s ExCeL Centre this week, were showing off military-optimised e-bikes that will likely prove most useful for special forces. It’s thought that all of the bikes on show have handlebar-mounted gun holders, and could be used to get behind enemy lines during combat.
iNews claims that Denmark, the UAE and one other European country that is a NATO member have purchased bikes already, and some of those were versions of the powerful Jeep E-Bike, made by QuietKat.
With huge tyres, a range of nearly 100km and 1000 watt motors, the military version of the Colorado-made Jeep/QuietKat bike has a portable solar panel for battery charging while on a mission, as well as the rifle holder. The UAE are currently testing it for desert combat, while it’s claimed that a folding version has been requested for Danish paratroopers. The FBI is also working with Jeep, but the Ministry of Defence haven’t confirmed if they have bought any military e-bikes for Britain’s armed forces.
Will there be an e-bike boom in the military to follow on from the huge increase in popularity amongst civilians? Bosch has predicted that half of the world’s bikes sold by 2025 will be electric, and it’s the huge increases in battery technology that is thought to be the reason why armies worldwide are beginning to see e-bikes as viable combat vehicles.
QuietKat’s Duncan Horner told iNews: “These bikes are really the SUV of e-bikes.
“They have been built very much with the needs of a military application in mind – the ability to be completely off-road, to carry heavy loads and be silent.
“It is ideal if you need to go those final miles where you can’t use a larger vehicle but still need the assistance of a machine.”
65 thoughts on “Military bikes make comeback in e-bike form, featuring handlebar-mounted gun holders”
I want one! The ability to
I want one! The ability to hold and aim a weapon would be particularly useful on UK roads.
Unfortunately most people
Unfortunately most people drive their weapons :-/
eburtthebike wrote:
Can I have a Bren gun on mine? The recoil pulls you forwards …
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jA7tcOC_2uQ
[I]”Well, that’s that busted. No, the BREN light machine gun does not pull forward on firing. It has to obey Newton just like everything else.”[/i]
The only way I could see this pulling forward was if the feet were constructed such that they resisted (dug in) the backwards recoil and then sprang forwards, like a ratchet. But of course mounted on wheels that could never be the case.
Sriracha wrote:
Having fired the Bren in both .303 and 7.62mm (LMG), there is a decided *feeling* that the weapon is pulling you forwards.
When you cock the weapon, you pull the working parts back on to the rats tail, which then compress the recoil spring and lock the parts onto the pawl of the trigger.
When the trigger is released, the parts fly forwards at a great rate, pick up a round from the magazine, slam the round into the breech, and the millimetric movement of the breech bock rocking on the carriage forces the firing pin into the striker plate of the cartridge.
As the round travels down the barrel, some of the gases are diverted back to the piston face (part of the block carriage), which pushes the parts back on to the rats tail.
(Which is why LMG require a blank firing adapter as there is insufficient gas to move the parts back properly when firing blanks).
The working parts flying forwards are totally discernable, even on rapid and full automatic, this probably produces the *feeling* of moving forwards, without actually doing so.
I’ll nod my head to the physics, and not say it’s wrong … 😉
I’ll nod my head to the
I’ll nod my head to the physics, and not say it’s wrong …
Good, because it isn’t. Small piece of metal flies out of the front at great speed, so the large piece of metal goes backwards at a much lesser speed. I have never fired any automatic weapon, and spent a month at Sandhurst never firing a live round at all.
wtjs wrote:
Unfortunately, I have fired quite a few, including the truly awful Stirling SMG, and the quite thrilling Browning 50 cal, both as vehicle mount and as a tripod mount. Wouldn’t want one on my bike though.
I can, categorically say, that the worse thing about firing any weapon in peace time and at a target, is having to clean the bloody thing.
wtjs wrote:
But it could still crab its way forward if there are reciprocating masses inside and the legs allow only forwards movement. A bit like those vibrating toothbrush head toys (hexbug). Just, not on a bike.
Sriracha wrote:
Yup When firing a Bren the working parts are heavy enough that when they fly forward after the recoil (which is certainly noticeable, but little different from any other similar callibre firearms) it feels as if the gun jumps forward. However as said that is after they have recoiled. So no, momentum is still conserved, no PhD at stake here.
Edit: What Oldfatgit said….
Oldfatgit wrote:
I want one! The ability to hold and aim a weapon would be particularly useful on UK roads.
— Oldfatgit Can I have a Bren gun on mine? The recoil pulls you forwards …— eburtthebikeThat’s good; I was wondering about fitting a rocket launcher. RPG perhap?
Oldfatgit wrote:
I want one! The ability to hold and aim a weapon would be particularly useful on UK roads.
— Oldfatgit Can I have a Bren gun on mine? The recoil pulls you forwards …— eburtthebike
All I know is that an airgun won’t help, unless you point it behind you. Maybe something like this – although it’s 50:50 – or even better a mini version of one of these which would help with heavy traffic.
Honestly thought that road.cc
Honestly thought that road.cc was better than uncritically celebrating military hardware.
Shame.
Dogless wrote:
“Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” It was wise then and it’s wise now.
I share your distaste for
I share your distaste for glorification of the military but I see no celebration here, just straightforward reporting of relevant bike-related news.
Well we would be in a pretty
Well we would be in a pretty poor way without any military
There’s no celebration here,
There’s no celebration here, just reporting on some news about bikes. I have described the DSEI show as ‘controversial’, which is true but might also give you a very mild flavour of my own personal feelings towards it. But that isn’t what the article is about.
Fair point Jack. Just
Fair point Jack. Just slightly jarring to see this sort of thing on a website I usually consider quite on point, morally.
I’d say even, what is admittedly, factual reporting of carryings on at the annual trade show for tools for maiming and murdering is essentially promotion and glorification.
Maybe next we could have a feature on the ‘top 10 bikes used by racist police forces’ or something.
Dogless wrote:
Already been done:
https://road.cc/content/news/trek-rejects-calls-stop-supplying-us-police-forces-274353
I see where your coming from,
I see where your coming from, I didn’t have to choose this story out of what was on our list yesterday but to me it jumped out as news that I thought people should be informed about, whether they vehemently disagree with the use of bicycles in the military or not. There is a lot of news we’d rather not write about such as the tragic passing of Chris Anker Sørensen we’ve reported on today, our aim is mostly to inform not endorse with our news coverage.
Buyer’s guides are a completely different kettle of fish however, so while I’m editor we’ll definitely not be doing a run down of the best police bikes!
Jack Sexty wrote:
Yeah, for sure, and understood. I like the editorial element of a lot of the original prices, which is why I spend more time here than on the ‘other’ sites. Road.cc has a bit more personality.
Dogless wrote:
It’s a cycling news site. I think you’ve mistaken it for the Guardian, or Huffington Post.
Jenova20 wrote:
It’s a cycling news site. I think you’ve mistaken it for the Guardian, or Huffington Post.— Dogless
Alas, Jack’s response above suggests there is an editorial approach. Sorry fella.
Whats wrong with celebrating
Whats wrong with celebrating the military and all they do to support the nation?
What am I meant to be
What am I meant to be celebrating sorry?
whilst serving for over 20
whilst serving for over 20 years, I’ve so far done flood defences , covered ambulance drivers, fire brigade strikes, distributing PPE to hospitals, conducting COVID testing, security and reception at the 2020 London Olympics, driving nurses and care workers living in remote areas to work during heavy snow.
you think all we do is fight wars? You ain’t got the first idea what the military do for this country.
if you want to hate the military for Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other conflict in recent history, remember WE don’t pick the fight. That’s the role of politicians. Politicians you probably voted for .
Smoggysteve wrote:
A specious argument. In signing up to the peacetime military (joining up in time of war is obviously a different matter) you agree to go to war wherever the politicians send you, regardless of the justice or morality of doing so. You can’t just absolve yourself of all culpability by saying you’re just following orders, you agreed to take those orders.
The British armed forces are
The British armed forces are predominantly a DEFENCE force. Protecting our borders and our nation from others. That’s what we joined up for. A sense of duty and wanting to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I guess you have no sense of duty to understand what that’s like. You’re probably happy to protest at the very things that allow you to live the very life you lead with the freedoms you take for granted.
When I joined up, the main effort was Bosnia and the surrounding Balkan’s region. Peacekeeping and deterring a nation guilty of atrocities like ethnic cleansing. Or do you believe we should turn a blind eye to these terrible acts?
Smoggysteve wrote:
Give it up. You’re arguing with the far left. The UK is always the bad guy in their eyes.
Jenova20 wrote:
Ah yes, the Far-Left™. Identifiable as anyone found disagreeing with the Far-Right®
Smoggysteve wrote:
Yep, bombing ten kinds of hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan certainly made us safer, didn’t it? How far away are our borders from theirs? Don’t give it a load of bull about duty, some people understand about moral duty, such as the moral duty not to slaughter others in order to enrich a few US oil barons.
Soldiers who fought in WWII were defending our rights and freedoms and I’m immensely proud of those in my family who served and in some cases died. The armed forces now are predominantly used as a tool of vested interests, and I care enough about them not to want brave men and women to be killed defending corporate profit under the cover of “the old lie”.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I’m still waiting for Tony Blair to face trial for war crimes
Smoggysteve wrote:
No sure that’s arguable. A significant proportion of recent military operations (especially when measured as spending) have been of a distinctly (rightly or wrongly) offensive nature.
Neither do I believe that you can say that all members joined up for those very specific reasons that you state (and I’m not suggesting that you personally didn’t) -my experience is that the army is not a homogeneous group, any more than, say, Muslims are.
I think it’s unfair of you to suggest that because someone doesn’t follow the same life path as you, or agree with you, that they don’t have a sense of “duty”, especially as you don’t define what that means to you, or ask what it means to them
The freedoms that we take for granted (your allegation, not mine) were not put in place by the armed forces, but have been hard-won over centuries usually by civilian action, often in direct opposition to the armed forces of the day – remember, the army doesn’t pick its fights, it fights where and who it’s told.
Lastly it would be a shame to take a falsely dichotomous view between criticism of military policy, and having empathy for members of the armed services. It is possible to do both.
By that logic, once you vote
By that logic, once you vote for a politician you agree to give them the power to start wars regardless of the justice or morality of doing so.
The ultimate responsibility therefore lies with the voters.
Rich_cb wrote:
Yes it does, not so much if the politician starts a war, because they may have given no sign that they intended to or indeed said specifically that they wouldn’t, but if they don’t punish the politician afterwards, vide T.Blair. However, that doesn’t preclude the concept of there being subsidiary responsibilities including for those who carry out the politician’s immoral or unjust orders.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Yes it does, not so much if the politician starts a war, because they may have given no sign that they intended to or indeed said specifically that they wouldn’t, but if they don’t punish the politician afterwards, vide T.Blair. However, that doesn’t preclude the concept of there being subsidiary responsibilities including for those who carry out the politician’s immoral or unjust orders.— Rich_cb
Of course the wars in Iraq had majority support from the Labour party , and almost unanimous support from the tories (not counting abstentions). With our parliamentary system it would have been enormously difficult for voters to punish the act of going to war, especially as it was not the only thing on voters minds, and with no AV or PR voting system to ensure that your vote is actually registered.
But no, politicians can’t pass the buck by saying “it was the voters wot let me do it” any more than squaddies can use the “just following orders” defence. Of course not, it goes completely against the right-wing value of “Personal Responsibility™”…..
I thought that the reason the
I thought that the reason the Iraq war had support was due to Tony Blair misrepresenting the Iraq military capabilites with the false 45 minute claim?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yes, that was a big part of it. Tory credulity (or maybe eagerness to bomb some foreigners) certainly helped . Seems that just shy of 40% of labour MPs were suspicious enough not to outright support the invasion, whereas only about 12 % of tories defied the whip (this time including abstensions). I thought the opposition were there to hold the executive to account…..
It’s reasonable to expect a
It’s reasonable to expect a soldier to refuse an illegal order but how is a soldier to know if a war is immoral or injust in advance?
Iraq was an example where the war was waged on false pretences.
The soldiers bear no responsibility for that.
That is entirely down to the politicians and the voters who empowered them.
Rich_cb wrote:
That was rather my point, soldiers in peacetime make a pledge blindly to obey the directives of politicians, that is a moral decision in itself, isn’t it? And therefore cannot be simply absolved by the “following orders” defence? In addition, aren’t politicians also empowered by soldiers as well as voters? Without soldiers having pledged to follow (lawful) orders in whatever circumstances, the politicians would find it rather hard to wage war.
In specific terms of Iraq, I think rather a lot of us knew it was illegal in advance, I seem to recall some fairly substantial marches about it. Don’t recall many soldiers refusing to go though.
It is a moral decision but it
It is a moral decision but it is less of a moral decision than that taken by the voters who elect the politicians.
If the Liberal Democrats had won the 2001 election then the moral outcome of the soldier’s decision would have been different.
The ultimate moral risk is taken at the ballot box.
Those who voted Labour in 2001 are far more responsible for the Iraq war than those who joined the military.
There are, of course, British
There are, of course, British politicians content to see the Government they are part of break the law.
UK minister confirms plan to break international law over Brexit – POLITICO
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-minister-confirms-plan-to-break-international-law-over-brexit/
Rich_cb wrote:
OOOh, doing really well until that last line. Had the tories not been so keen to play Churchill (Aaaaaw yesh), and voted against (and had the labour abstainees shown some integrity to go with their scepticism) there may not have been a war (for the UK at least). That makes those that voted tory every bit as culpable.
In fact 1/5 of labour MPs did vote No.
As only 2 tory MPs voted no (out of 180 odd), that makes, proportionally, more tory voters culpable for the war than Labour voters.
Unless, that is, the idea of direct moral responsibility of voters is silly …..
PS, for once agreed with your first 2 lines. Well done
PPS. Soldiers are also voters. Does that not at least even up their culpability with, er, voters?
Rich_cb wrote:
Seriously? The UK General Election of 2001 was on June 7, three months before 9/11 and before there was any sign that Britain would even consider becoming embroiled in Iraq or Afghanistan. Ought the voters have been able to predict that 9/11 would happen and that TB would change so bewilderingly in the aftermath?
That’s the standard you’re
That’s the standard you’re applying to members of the military.
If it’s unfair to expect voters to consider how the Prime Minister they’re voting to put into power might behave in a military crisis then it’s definitely unfair to ask soldier’s to consider the roles they may be ordered to carry out.
If you honestly think there’s
If you honestly think there’s any form of equivalence between a person voting for a Prime Minister who has shown no sign of or inclination towards being the warmongering liar he turned out to be and a soldier swearing an oath to obey all legal instructions from any leader, no matter how immoral or unjust they might be, without question then I fear there’s very little to be gained in our continuing this potentially interesting debate, and so I will bid you good day.
It’s directly equivalent.
It’s directly equivalent.
Soldiers usually sign up for 6 years in the UK IIRC.
A UK parliament is (up to) 5 years in duration.
How is a soldier signing up in 2001 (pre 9/11) any different to a voter choosing Labour in 2001?
Both are making a decision based on how they assume the Labour leadership will behave in certain situations over the next few years.
The voter may end up disappointed.
The soldier may end up dead.
That alone convinces me that the voter bears far more moral responsibility than the soldier.
Though in some cases (say, a
Though in some cases (say, a pandemic, for instance) the voter may end up dead too.
Rich_cb wrote:
The voter doesn’t go out and kill a load of people, including innocent civilian bystanders, on the government’s orders, they protest and change policy if they can and do their best, hopefully, to get rid of the government when the next election comes. The soldier, because of the pledge s/he’s signed, goes out and does the killing without question.
The voter has elected the
The voter has elected the government which, in your scenario, has apparently ordered the army to kill civilians.
The voter is responsible for the actions of the government they elected.
That’s democracy.
Rich_cb wrote:
It’s not just reasonable to expect, it is a requirement.
Interesting question about whether a soldier is culpable for participating in a war that was commenced illegally. I’d say probably not, otherwise every single combatant on the losing side in every conflict could be prosecuted. Even Waffen SS soldiers weren’t prosecuted wholesale except for taking part in specific provable crimes.
However, voters are not criminally culpable for the criminal acts of political leaders, and morally you’d have to identify that they cast their vote specifically to ensure that a particular policy was followed and that their vote was instrumental in ensuring that it was. In the case of Iraq, that wasn’t even on the horizon when voters brought the Blair govt back in. So good luck.
You realise you can do those
You realise you can do those things without killing people, right? There are other jobs out there that allow you to show ‘duty’, whatever that’s meant to mean.
If you mean some sort of patriotic duty to your country then yeah, I don’t care about showing that, because i don’t think the country I happened to be born in is any more worth ‘protecting’ or celebrating than any other.
I work with military officers
I work with military officers and most of them are rather bemused by this US-style fetishisation of the UK armed forces by a certain demographic.
My dad was in the forces, and
My dad was in the forces, and served in NI, Bosnia and Afghanistan. His attitude was always that it was a job, not some kind of calling.
I’m not sure I buy this ‘joining the army makes you morally culpable’ line – obviously there’s a chance you’ll be exposed to violence of one sort or another, and people might get hurt and die. I doubt many dedicated pacifists sign up – but does a nurse in Croydon bear some responsibility for the policy of charging migrants thousands of pounds for treatment administered by the NHS? Does a PCSO in Lancashire bear responsibility for a racist being recruited to the Met?
Whose military?
Whose military?
Smoggysteve wrote:
Celebrating the people that make up the armed forces wasn’t the criticism. Celebrating hardware though seems odd. Kind of a more environmentally sustainable version of a tank-wank
The Lockheed Blackbird is one
The Lockheed Blackbird is one of the coolest machines ever conceived. Fight me.
Top spot taken by the humble bicycle, IMO at least.
Compact Corned Beef wrote:
yeah okay, I’m conflicted, I’ll admit. I’m a badger of contradictions….
Chain and derailleur in the
Chain and derailleur in the (sandy) desert – does that work?
Sriracha wrote:
Yes, but not for long.
I hope they haven’t used the
I hope they haven’t used the same freehubs as Hunt, no sneaking around with those!
This story confirms what I
This story confirms what I have long suspected: there is no practical way to mount a chain case on the chain and/or seat stay for derailleur systems, otherwise they would have invented one for the military even though fashion conscious consumers wouldn’t buy it. I would!
The Swiss have had military
The Swiss have had military bicycles for over 100 years, with the original going for over 80, the last but one, while shockingly heavy, did have ceramic rim brakes.
XT 7 speed on that one, Alfine igh on the present. Moving from the above mentioned ceramic rims to discs, but magura hydrolics on both.
The Swiss military is very defensively minded. I don’t think they have invaded anyone for quite some time.
I even saw a documentary several years back when they were designing a more humane bullet.
At least the rider is wearing
At least the rider is wearing a helmet, i wonder if they do a MIPS version?
I’ve just read through the
I’ve just read through the comments and I’m a bit confused.
Now, I read an article about bikes being used by the military.
Not an article about the military.
Not a jingoistic support-our-boys article and not an all-soldiers-are-eeeevil article.
Did Jack change his text at some point after he published?
The text is always changing –
The text is always changing – it’s all about the intertextuality.