First Look: The Cannondale Moterra Neo eMTB Lineup Gets Aggressive Angles & A Bigger Battery
Like the rest of the bike industry during Sea Otter week, Cannondale has been busy. Just yesterday, the brand announced its new Topstone Carbon gravel bike line - including a gravel bike with a Lefty suspension fork! - and today, it's time to talk about the updated Moterra Neo eMTB lineup.
The new Moterra Neo comes in both LT (long travel, of course) and non-LT versions, along with an alloy option. The Moterra Neo Carbon and Moterra Neo Alloy will sport 150mm of rear travel, with the Moterra Neo LT giving riders an extra 15mm of travel on its 165mm chassis.
The new Moterra Neo comes in both LT (long travel, of course) and non-LT versions, along with an alloy option. The Moterra Neo Carbon and Moterra Neo Alloy will sport 150mm of rear travel, with the Moterra Neo LT giving riders an extra 15mm of travel on its 165mm chassis.
Moterra Neo Details
• Wheel size: 29" (non-LT sizes M, L, XL) & mixed 29" F / 27.5" R (LT + non-LT size S)
• Rear travel: 150mm (non-LT) & 165mm (LT)
• Carbon & aluminum frame options
• Head angle: 64 - 65°
• Sizes: S / M / L / XL
• Chainstay length: 452-455mm
• Online: Moterra Neo & Moterra Neo LT
• Wheel size: 29" (non-LT sizes M, L, XL) & mixed 29" F / 27.5" R (LT + non-LT size S)
• Rear travel: 150mm (non-LT) & 165mm (LT)
• Carbon & aluminum frame options
• Head angle: 64 - 65°
• Sizes: S / M / L / XL
• Chainstay length: 452-455mm
• Online: Moterra Neo & Moterra Neo LT
It's worth mentioning, too, that the frame carries a lifetime warranty.
New for this edition is a handy flip-open charging port. There's also a sealed battery cover to protect against the elements.
Frame Details
Cannondale bakes quite a bit into the Moterra Neo frame. The frames, across all the builds, have sleek internal routing, including through an Acros integrated headset in the case of the carbon builds. The two top-end models, the Moterra Neo Carbon 1 LT & non-LT versions, also come with an integrated 1000-lumen Lezyne headlight, and the alloy bike has rear rack mounts and accessory bosses on the top tube.
All of the models have water bottle space on all sizes and use SRAM's UDH, plus - this isn't something I get to write often - are kickstand-compatible, with an 18mm two-bolt kickstand mount on each bike.
Proper frame protection makes the world go 'round. There's a skid plate below the bottom bracket, too.
The frame or complete bike weights aren't available, and Cannondale writes that "a sophisticated carbon fiber main frame keeps mass to a minimum. And since our engineers prioritized durability over gram-counting, confidence is built in." That could mean almost anything from "this frame is not exactly light but it's durable" to "we emphasized durability but the frame actually came out quite light," but we expect it to weigh somewhere in the typical long travel, long range eMTB ballpark, likely in the low to mid 50s poundswise, if I had to guess.
Cannondale built the Moterra Neo lineup with what it calls its Proportional Response, meaning that the bikes' kinematics are size-specific, with varied shock mount points and, to an extent, geometry, throughout the sizing range to keep the ride consistent across all the sizes.
There's a new flip-open charging port, and the battery cover is sealed to keep the elements out.
Motor & Battery Details
The system is built around Bosch's most powerful eMTB motor, the Performance Line CX, which provides up to 85Nm of torque and 250W of power. That's paired with Bosch's Powertube 750Wh battery to - in Cannondale's words - make "range anxiety a thing of the past."
All of that places the Moterra Neo, both non-LT and LT versions, firmly into the more power category in the emerging divide between the lightweight eMTBs that prioritize "normal" bike handling and those equipped with larger batteries and more powerful motors for longer, faster days - the unapologetically e eMTBs.
Moterra Neo Geometry
Moterra Neo LT Geometry
Geometry
The previous edition of the Moterra Neo sported a 66° head tube angle and a 75° effective seat tube angle, but no more. This time around, it has a 65° head angle at its steepest, with the 27.5" rear wheel taking an extra degree off the LT's front end for a 64° head angle. The effective seat tube angles on the non-LT and LT bikes, respectively, are 77° and 76.5°.
The rear end grows by 3-5mm, with the non-LT Moterra Neo's chainstays at 455mm in all the sizes except small, which gets 452mm chainstays. The LT has those short 452mm stays across the whole size range to match that smaller rear wheel. The head tube is also 5mm taller across the whole range compared to the 2020 bike, and the wheelbase gains a few centimeters in length, too.
Not to mention, the reach grows on almost all the sizes by up to 25mm, but actually shrinks on the small LT bike by 4mm compared to the 2020 Moterra Neo, meaning that the whole 2022 Moterra Neo range now has a massive 426-520mm reach spread to accommodate the vast majority of rider sizes.
Models and Pricing
Moterra Neo 3 - $6,500 USD
The least expensive of the line at $6,500, the Moterra Neo 3, comes with a RockShox Yari 150mm fork, a RockShox Deluxe Select shock, a primarily Shimano Deore drivetrain with an XT derailleur, and Shimano's MT400 series brakes.
Moterra Neo Carbon 2 - $7,250
The next step up in pricing comes in at $7,250 and is the Moterra Neo Carbon 2, which has a 150mm RockShox Lyrik Select fork, a RockShox Deluxe Select+ shock, a Shimano SLX drivetrain with an XT derailleur, and Shimano's MT500 series brakes.
Moterra Neo Carbon 1 - $7,250 USD
The flagship non-LT bike is the Moterra Neo Carbon 1, which will set buyers back $8,250 and comes with a 150mm RockShox Lyrik Select+ fork, a RockShox Deluxe Select+ shock, a Shimano XT drivetrain with that bonus XTR derailleur, and Shimano XT brakes.
Moterra Neo Carbon LT 2 - $8,250 USD
The LT lineup starts with the Moterra Neo Carbon LT 2 for $7,250, which uses a 170mm RockShox Zeb Select fork, a RockShox Deluxe Select Coil shock, a Shimano SLX drivetrain with an XT derailleur, and Magura MT5 brakes.
Moterra Neo Carbon LT 1 - $8,600 USD
Finally, we have the range-topping $8,600 Moterra Neo Carbon LT 1, the flashiest of the lot, with a 170mm RockShox Zeb Select+ fork, a RockShox Deluxe Select+ Coil shock, a full Shimano XT drivetrain, and SRAM Code RSC brakes.
All the Moterra Neos, non-LT and LT alike, use FSA's Bosch eMTB cranks and various four-piston brakes. The whole non-LT range uses 203mm rotors front and rear, while the LT1 comes with a 220mm up front paired to a 203mm rear rotor and the LT 2 has a 220mm / 203mm combo.
The new Moterra Neo line is on display on Sea Otter this week for those in the area. Learn more at cannondale.com.
Must Read This Week
106 Comments
For road bikes, it used to be weight and now it's aerodynamics. For mountain bikes, it used to be weight, then travel, then longer-lower-slacker. For e-bikes, most focus on power and energy, with little regard for weight or whether the bike has an engaging ride that still allows hopping, popping, and dynamic riding.
I share your concern that, left unchecked, e-bikes could drift in the direction of e-moto. The motor shown here creates a system with 4.4× the output of a human rider, a "more aggressive power curve", and a battery capacity sufficient for most riders to use maximum power for the entirety of typical rides. With companies such as Norco and Canyon offering 900 Wh batteries, and Rocky offering a 108 Nm motor and 1034 Wh with the range extender, this likely predicts the direction things are headed. A review of the Rocky noted:
"Coming out of the corner, the Rocky Mountain shoots forward with the slightest pressure on the pedal and encourages you to drift or wheelie out of the turn."
That's more than just mountain biking with some assist, and it's fair to question which trails are suitable for that sort of bike. If it's being used to self-shuttle by blasting up service roads, then of course there's no need to restrict power. I don't want to restrict assist because I'm a masochist or elitist, rather it's an issue of safety on two-way trails that were marginally safe for human-powered traffic and now have riders with over 5× the power.
Would usually laugh at anyone comparing ebikes to moto. I used to ride moto, no comparison. However, with these manufacturers going to more power and more battery then that line could blur. R-M-R, correctly quoted a Rocky Mountain review about their ebikes drifting underpower out of corners. Thats not cool IMO. Thats already too much power. The consumer will have to become the guiding force. Hopefully consumers vote by putting their money at bikes with more efficient motors and batteries that have an overall lighter form (Orbea, SL, etc.) and not at these over powered boats that are just going to create problems with mixed user trails.
As the level of assist increases, the significance of the human input decreases. If the assist is small - let's say 1% to make the situation extremely clear - the human is still doing essentially all the work. If the situation is inverted and the human is contributing only 1%, the human's contribution to the maximum available power is trivial; the human's role is just to modulate the throttle, and it would not matter in this extreme example whether the modulation is via twisting a grip, pressing on the pedals, or other means.
Obviously, the human's contribution to the total output of an e-bike is more than 1%. The human may be contributing less than 20% on the (current) highest-output Class 1 e-bikes, meaning the total output can be less than one-fifth human. The power applied by the human is not trivial, but it's not really what's making the vehicle move.
In my view, a reasonable threshold for distinguishing between low-output vs. high-output is when the vehicle contributes more than the human.
@TannerValhouli: That perfectly illustrates what's being said. With a low-output e-bike, where the input of the human is significant, the whole system gets faster (when pedaling) in proportion to the fitness of the rider. With a high-output e-bike, the rider can simply crank up the boost and the fitness of the rider becomes less relevant. Your point is an excellent illustration of how high-output e-bikes are starting to drift toward motorcycle characteristics* - and it certainly illustrates how they appeal to the same mindset. I'm not making a value judgement - whether these things are virtuous or not is irrelevant - I'm just illustrating the situation and opening a discussion of how such bikes could be classified for purposes of trail access.
@CSdirt: What I neglected to mention was that quote about the Rocky drifting out of corners was describing its climbing performance!
* To expand on that statement: I'm aware motorcycles have vastly more power. The similarities are the extent to which the fitness of the rider determines the speed, and whether the speed is limited by fitness or skill. For example, most human-powered riders could ride faster (when pedaling) if they were fitter, while the speed of a rider on the highest-output Class 1 e-bikes may be limited by their skill, meaning the machine has enough power to maintain the maximum speed at which that rider can negotiate the trail. I see those as significant differences in the relationship between rider, vehicle, and trail.
Yes, a motorcycle has an order of magnitude more power than an e-bike and I hope no one thinks an e-bike could clear arenacross triples after taking the inside line around a corner!
I added a footnote in my previous message to explain how high-output e-bikes change the relationship between rider fitness & skill, vehicle, and trail in such a way that the limiting factors on speed can - in some, but not all, situations - be more similar to a motorcycle trail riding situation than a traditional mountain bike situation.
You may still disagree. The more important point is the actionable outcome:
Even with only human-powered traffic, many two-way mountain bike trails have sections that would be sketchy for a descending rider to encounter a pedaling rider. If pedaling riders have 5× the power, sections that are already sketchy will become worse, and sections that are currently safe enough will become sketchy with increased closing speeds. We need to manage this situation, and there are limited options:
1. Extensive monitoring and policing of the trails. Obviously, no one wants this, and user "education programs" or "trail ambassadors" are expensive and intrusive.
2. Ride slowly. Riders with good fitness, high skill, or powerful bikes would be required to voluntarily ride below their capabilities. I hope we can agree this isn't a robust solution.
3. Rebuild existing trails and build new trails to accommodate new ways of riding. It's possible, but it would take years, not to mention more money and labour than is available.
4. Limit the types of assisted bikes allowed. We already restrict Class 2 and above e-bikes from most mountain bike trails - maybe there could be a Class 0 for low-output e-bikes. Even so, it is difficult to enforce and could create an unpleasant social dynamic.
5. Make most trails one-way. It would limit route options and eliminate the option to enjoy a trail in both directions, but it's the easiest to implement in areas with sufficient route flexibility.
As with most things, a combination solution is probably best. I think it's either #4 or #5, with a bit of #3 where necessary, such as environments with dense vegetation that limits sight-lines.
@norona: I'm aware that's how they work, and that's incorporated in my statements. The assist is proportional to the power (τω) of the rider. As more assist is available, the rider's power becomes a lesser fraction of the vehicle's power and serves as more of a means to modulate the vehicle's power.
Regarding the number of collisions happening: First, please keep in mind regional differences. The trails in your area (Squamish, according to your profile) are more frequently one-way and winch-and-plummet than in many other areas.
No one is claiming riders are hitting each other like a demolition derby. Near misses, close calls, last-moment evasive maneuvers, and annoyed riders are a frequent occurrence in my area - in the most popular trail network, it's rare to get through a single ride without something along these lines. Some areas are already at their limit and it's only a matter of time before collisions begin to occur between riders going uphill at several times the human-powered speed and riders going downhill at a speed that used to be at the limit of safety.
I have an ebike already. I have had it for 3 months and haven't ridden it on dirt yet. Only rode it briefly on the street. I am not wanting to ride it yet and always grab my regular bike. I know for sure that I won't be able to do my normal rides if I move to ebike too much. Strength and fitness will decrease for sure. I been riding for a long time and know that.
I'd also guess that there are a larger proportion of e-bikers who don't wrench on their own bikes, so they don't care about cables through the headset being a PITA.
For the record, I am never buying a bike with cable routing through the headset. That definitely won't come back to haunt me.
And don't let them dismiss it with Marketingspeak™ bullshit like:
At Brand X, we are customer-obsessed and passionate in our never-ending quest to deliver the ultimate product and value to our tribe. Our team of designers tirelessly listened to panels of core user groups to balance the needs of all riders by creating a premium line of authentic north-star products that surprise and delight all skill levels from Famous Destination A to Famous Destination B and perform at the highest levels of demanding competition under our WorldProTourCupSeries riders.
#Replacablebearingsain'tdead
Or should he have been working out more often so he could do it human powered. Maybe he shouldn't have had kids so he wouldn't need an ebike to get them to the top?
Orbeas=about 3 weeks.