Pole Voima eMTB Passes EFBE TRI-TEST Gravity Cat-5

Dec 13, 2021
by Pole Bicycles  
Pole Voima E-bike in testing

PRESS RELEASE: Pole Bicycles

The Voima has a lot more going on other than the world’s first 190mm, CNC machined, and bonded E-bike. Considerable structural considerations have been made during the design process. When combined with our new manufacturing process, the result is an E-bike frame that can withstand the most demanding riding day after day.

As a testament to this, we’re so happy to say that the Voima E-bike has passed the rigorous EFBE test protocol. Here we talk in more detail to learn more about what goes into it and get a perspective of the phases the frame needs to pass.

Voima E-bike undergoing the most grueling and stringent test in the bike industry - EFBE TRI-TEST Gravity Cat-5

A Reference Point

First of all, why test?

Objective testing is the basis of the scientific method. Everything outside of that is more or less educated guesswork. Testing done scientifically in a controlled lab setting can validate the tested design, or point out possible shortcomings. This then helps define any potential need for further developmental work.

Can real-life riding conditions (over multiple years of intensive use) be replicated in a tightly controlled lab setting in just a few days?

Perhaps not. The forces and stresses that a frame and components are subjected to on the highest levels of riding are very, very hard to quantify. And according to the current understanding, no verified data exists on this front. What we can do though is to test the frame – or other components – according to the strictest testing protocol there is. And that’s exactly what we did.

The Voima E-bike frame was sent to EFBE Prüftechnik GmbH in Germany to go through the EFBE TRI-TEST GRAVITY (the TRI-TEST also comes in other standards) which is a test designed specifically for gravity bikes. The test consists of the following;

- Pedaling Forces Fatigue Test
- Vertical Force Fatigue Test
- Head Tube Fatigue Test
- Brake Load Fatigue Test
- Rear Axle Load Fatigue Test
- Lateral Load Fatigue Test
- Maximum Load Test Pedal Load
- Maximum / Overload Test Jump/ Drop Load

When going through the list it becomes obvious quickly that the full test forms pretty demanding procedures that the frame needs to withstand in order to meet the full criteria. Forces (the direction in which those are applied and the number of load cycles) depend on the test stage in question.

Let’s dive in to see what the TRI-TEST is all about!

The Test Procedure
Before going through the test details, it’s worth going over a bit of basic physics. Newtons are the units used when quantifying forces. To get a very simplified understanding of the situation, you can divide the number of Newtons by 10 to get a corresponding mass in kilos (assuming we are operating in Earth’s gravity field). For example, a force of 1200N would equal roughly a static mass of 120kg.

This is a seriously dumbed-down approach, but a simple calculation like this helps to put the forces used in scale when getting familiar with the testing protocol.

Let’s go through the test stages one by one to see what they entail. In all of the tests, the frame is mounted to the testing rig and the shock is replaced with a rigid member with the suspension set either to 30% (approximately around sag point) or 100% (full compression). A rigid dummy fork is used to connect the headtube to the testing rig to simulate the loads a suspension fork would encounter and transfer to the frame in real riding conditions.

A word of warning though! This section is somewhat technical. Feel free to skip it and jump straight to the conclusions if you wish…

Voima E-bike undergoing the most grueling and stringent test in the bike industry - EFBE TRI-TEST Gravity Cat-5

Pedaling Forces Fatigue Test
The test simulates stresses caused by the pedaling forces. Dummy cranks are attached to the bottom bracket at a 45degree angle from a horizontal line. A force of 1300N is applied to the cranks for 100 000 cycles with a frequency of 10Hz or less. The test is similar to that of ISO 4210-6:2014, 4.3, but the forces are greater.

It’s worth pointing out that the pedaling forces simulated are much more than just light spinning. A world-class sprint track cyclist might be able to produce a pedaling force of 1300N, but numbers of this range aren’t achievable by most riders.

Vertical Force Fatigue Test
In this test, the frame is mounted from the axles to the rig while a vertical force of 1300N is applied to the seat post with an insertion depth of 120mm. The loading parameters are nearly identical to the first test: 1300N, 100 000 cycles, and 2-5Hz.

This loads the seat mast area of the frame heavily, and everything below it. A similar loading in real riding conditions would most likely require a year’s worth of laps on a bike park – seated.

Head Tube Fatigue Test
As the name implies, the test is used to check the strength and fatigue characteristics of the headtube area. A dummy fork is used to mount the headtube while an alternating + 600N/-1200 N test force is applied at the front wheel axle, perpendicular to the steering axis. The rear axle 100,000 load cycles are used once again with a frequency of less than 10Hz.

Voima E-bike undergoing the most grueling and stringent test in the bike industry - EFBE TRI-TEST Gravity Cat-5

Brake Load Fatigue Test
This stage stimulates stresses caused by braking with a 203mm rotor. The frame is mounted to the rig from the rear axle and from the head tube with the aid of a dummy fork. An alternating horizontal force of +200N/-400N is applied to the disc brake rotor jig which in turn stresses the disc brake mount, simulating braking action.

Again, 100,000 load cycles were used with a frequency of 10Hz or less.

Rear Axle Load Fatigue Test
The frame is fixed to the rig from the bottom bracket and from the head tube with the aid of a dummy fork. A vertical force of 2100N is applied to the rear axle for 100,000 cycles with a frequency of 10Hz or less. As opposed to the previous tests, the rear suspension is set to 100%, to simulate a full bottom-out suspension scenario.

Voima E-bike undergoing the most grueling and stringent test in the bike industry - EFBE TRI-TEST Gravity Cat-5

Lateral Load Fatigue Test
The lateral load test simulates a situation in which the frame is loaded heavily in a lateral direction (meaning sideways). A prime example of a corresponding real-world situation would a high-speed berm where a change of direction happens very fast – something that the Pole EWS team does day in, day out.

The frame is mounted to the rig from the bottom bracket and headtube similarly as in other test stages, while an alternating sideways load of +-400N is applied to the rear axle for 100 000 cycles at 100% suspension travel.

Voima E-bike undergoing the most grueling and stringent test in the bike industry - EFBE TRI-TEST Gravity Cat-5

Maximum Load Test Pedal Load
The two most critical areas in frame design are the headtube and bottom bracket area. A sudden failure in either one of these areas can lead to dire consequences. This test verifies that the frame is up for the task when the bottom bracket is loaded heavily. A single-sided static load of 2500N at a lateral angle of 26degrees is applied to a dummy crank arm placed on the 6 o’clock position and then held for 10 seconds.

To pass this test, the frame must not show visible cracks, fractures, or permanent deformation at the point of application greater than 10mm.

Maximum / Overload Test Jump/ Drop Load
Finally, we have “the Big Case test”. The frame is once again supported by the dummy fork and a from the rear axle. The rear axle support fixture is placed 15degrees from the vertical to replicate a situation in which the wheelbase lengthens. A force of 6000N is applied vertically to the dummy crank arm mounted to the bottom bracket and held for 10 seconds.

The passing criteria are the same as in the previous tests, no cracks or deformation greater than 10mm should be observed. It does not end here though! After the test, the frame needs to withstand a force of 1000N applied in the same manner with no brittle fractures or other catastrophic failure modes.

Views: 5,059    Faves: 2    Comments: 0

It passed!
Passing the very demanding EFBE TRI-TEST doesn’t happen by coincidence. It requires either an overbuilt frame or smart engineering. We rely on the latter. First, the test in question is developed to test downhill bikes which gives some strong hints of its highly demanding nature. Very few enduro frames have been tested this way and even fewer E-bike frames have completed the grueling eight stages of the test. This gives the Voima E-bike a pretty prestigious status.

Thanks to the use of superior 7075 T6 aircraft aluminum, our self-developed, and all-new CNC machining procedure, the Voima E-bike is one of the few frames belonging to this unique club.

Our aerospace-grade aluminum has nearly 1.5-fold tensile strength compared to the weldable 6000 and 7000-series alloys. Besides the base material and the design, the bonding is more than adequately strong to cope with the high demands of modern gravity riding – and passing the EFBE TRI-TEST with flying colors is a testament to this.

Author Info:
polebicycles avatar

Member since Sep 5, 2014
16 articles

  • 123 5
 This article is like Kevin Hart apologizing to cancel culture for something he tweeted in 2010. Except it's Pole trying to prove to the PB comment section that they have strong frames.
  • 10 1
 I'd love to see the Evolink on this same test.
  • 11 3
 The big difference is that for Kevin Hart, time simply went on and culutural standards have changeed since thath 2010 tweet. But failing frames were never acceptable, simple as that. And Pole also has quite a history with failling frames, not just a single occurance.
  • 7 2
 Oh, also it was only two years ago, and they then tried to blame pinkbike for it, instead of owning it.
  • 6 0
 The internet can make anything sound bad. At the end of the day would you prefer your bike to have passed a standardized stress test or not? I would.
  • 2 1
 @WaterBear: of course. I was just making a joke. I just think that the timing of it is funny. Most bike companies don't release this information, we just assume that the bikes will be strong enough. Now you have reports of Pole frames braking, and the comment section tears them apart, THEN they come out with this report.
  • 2 0
 Wonder what a good PR consultant would say? Are they effectively repairing the brand image or are they just giving the whole broken frame fiasco fresh oxygen?
  • 1 2
 @dancingwithmyself: I would say the latter. If you apologize to cancel culture, it makes cancel culture feel like they have some power, even though they're a bunch of toxic losers. If you focus your bike business solely on pleasing the PB comment section, I don't think it does anything to promote the quality of the product, it just signal boosts the PB comment section into thinking that we had an effect on the industry, whey really it's just Pole showing a great amount of weakness by focusing on a "problem" (the PB comment section) that shouldn't be taken seriously. So yeah, it definitely gives the fiasco fresh oxygen.
  • 1 0
 @WaterBear: That statement just highlights your trust in the standardized testing. My question to you would be, do you trust they set the bar high enough for the results to translate to something meaningful in the real world?
  • 1 1
 @zion-i: Seeing that the frames are in fact breaking, even after passing this test, I don't think the test holds water. There is a saying: "anyone with a functioning brain can design a bridge that will get them across a river, but only an engineer can design a bridge that barely stands." Most bike manufacturers engineer their bikes, especially ones made for trail/enduro/dh, to be fairly bombproof, rendering the bare minimum test irrelevant, since the bikes are designed to be stronger than that. What Pole has done is engineer a bike that can just barely pass the test, but it's a test that probably doesn't reflect trail riding very accurately. I mean really, when was the last time you saw a bike move like that on the trail? So the test in and of itself probably needs to be reworked, which really just makes the company look worse for releasing this article, not only because they only released this data after they got shredded by the PB commenters, but also because the data released doesn't really prove anything.
  • 1 1
 @danielfloyd: I like that you don't know the difference between (valid) critique and cancel cultutre. But just throwing buzzwords out there, without knowing their meaning fits your nationality quite well.
  • 1 1
 @fred-frod: I know the difference, again, it was a joke to point out that they only released this data AFTER the PB comment section lit them up. I understand that broken frames are bad, and that they probably deserve all the criticism they get, but it was just funny that they released this article after the fact.
  • 2 1
 @danielfloyd: Yes exactly, the test sucks and proves very little.
The engineers got carried away, and got to close to that "line".
Everyone is just leaning way to far out of practical balance to reach some idea of "technical optimization"
Nothing in reality is optimal. These are not godman spaceships or airplanes, your building a bike to ride in the dirt.
  • 65 0
 Was one of the tests a huck-to-flat?
  • 11 0
 We all know how that would end....
  • 1 0
 Yes, it looks like one was
  • 5 0
 @TomasK: I love how one bike once breaks, and then we all get to just assume they are all garbage.

I clean snapped a chainstay on a spesh. both sides at once. does that mean we rightoff spesh!?

wait, I might be ok with this....
  • 1 0
 @conoat: coincidence. A while a go, me and my brother purchased Trek Scrathes (their 180mm FR bikes back in a day), within few months almost at same time chainstays on brothers and my bike developed cracks. My brother then upgraded to Session, where I have stuck with replacement Scratch frame and after a month or so snapped both chainstays clean day before my first ever race. So here's the thing, I am not making any assumptions, just making a hint on the fact that Pinkbike test bikes stays failed and that there are numerous customer reporting similar and other failures.
  • 1 0
 @TomasK: mine was a 2020 carbon bike. lol. clean snap, straight through both stays on a non-bottom out event.

makes you think
  • 69 6
 "Pole Voima eMTB Passes EFBE TRI-TEST"...

more like the Tri-to make the ugliest bike-test...
  • 12 27
flag RidleyRijder (Dec 13, 2021 at 14:50) (Below Threshold)
 Looks are in the eye of the beholder. I think it looks a bit like Orange bikes and you don't hear almost any complaints about how they look... I think the front triangle looks very nice and the rear, yeah there is that rear only a mother could love, but if it works, than why not. I mean Ellsworth is still going...
  • 45 2
 @RidleyRijder: If you don't hear complaints about how Orange bikes look, this must be your first visit to Pinkbike.
  • 4 3
 @reindeln: Not my first visit, but with Orange it's not as bad as with Pole. Granted, i don't read every comment down here. I mostly come for the product reviews and testing stuff...
  • 13 1
 @reindeln: that's because Orange bikes don't fail huck to flat tests ever...
  • 6 4
 When I first saw this bike I thought it was barf ugly but I’ll be damned now I’m starting to like it. I’m sure I won’t buy it but I’ll bet it looks decent in person. Down votes, where you at?
  • 11 0
 @RidleyRijder: That's like saying you read playboy for the articles...
  • 4 4
 @RidleyRijder: I bet 90+% of those that signed up for the orange frame in the advent calendar the other day were hopeful they'd be able to sell it if they won. Otherwise, it may make a decent wall art piece.
  • 1 1
 @gilby82: ....guilty. lol
  • 2 0
 @gilby82: i would ride the frame... That blue is also a nice colour. So orange, if nobody wants your frame, send it to me and i'll be happy to ride it!
  • 42 1
 I'm sure this will be very useful to reference when refusing people's warranty claims.
  • 42 0
 No C3PO's were harmed in the making of this bike.
  • 10 0
 I like to imagine the bike saying “Oh dear!” when 6000N is applied downward on it for 10 seconds
  • 20 0
 Hard to break chainstays if you don't have them...
  • 14 0
 “My cat can eat a whole watermelon!!”
  • 10 1
 The amount of negativity is weird, to say the least. Here's a challenge. Design a frame strong enough to pass this highly-demanding test by employing a pioneering manufacturing technique that pretty much nobody else in the industry uses at this scale. Oh, and remember to do it with competitive kinematics, decent weight, and include a hole in the down tube to make room for the battery, I'd like to see the applications.
  • 8 1
 I think in three years time all new e bikes will have slimmer batteries that side out the bottom bracket area and we'll think of cutting huge chunks in the downtube as an antiquated way of doing things. In 5 years they'll all have built in gearboxes as well
  • 2 1
 This is already an antiquated way of incorporating the battery compared to the leaders in the ebike world. Does anyone want to see the battery?!
  • 7 1
 @bogey: Yes, quickly removable battery is a criteria for many so it can be brought in and charged.
  • 23 17
 Credit where it's due, Pole is a bar setter. Several years ago the Evolink frames were considered to be way to long, low and slack. Everyone laughed how it's unrideable. Now pretty much everyone has copied their geometry. Not to mention more and more manufacturers are doing CNC machined frames. I wont be surprised if a gearboxe'd Pole E-bike is in the works
  • 14 0
 @tonkatruck true. I had a machine for a while, and it was very fast on high speed trails. That was a few years ago - I’m no fanboy but it was a good bike, although a bit too long for me after giving it a season. My experience with Pole was positive overall tbh. I happened to briefly meet the Pole team and Leo in Whistler, he was a chill and friendly guy to me at least. Invited me to do a lap with them.

PB audience quick to forget that the Stamina that Levy tested (and Jason broke) set the fastest times in the Field Test that year. Companies like Nicolai and Pole were ‘outrageous’ with their geometry just a few years ago. If you don’t have those numbers on your bike now, you’re outdated and irrelevant.

That voima tho.. it’s not so easy on the eyes.
  • 6 2
 @tonkatruck No one "laughed how it's unrideable", what are you talking about. The reason it caught on was precisely that people liked it.

And they were hardly the first ones with long/slack geo. Wasn't Pole founded in 2013? By that time Fabien Barel had already joined and left Mondraker where he helped Rojo with forward geometry. Barel had a super-long custom Stab in 2005 when he won the World Champs. Cesar Rojo and Mondraker made production bikes like that in what, 2009 or something? IIRC Geometron had long/slack versions of Nicolai available for purchase before Pole started as well.

Seems to me like Pole were more followers than leaders. Early followers for sure, but still followers.
  • 2 0
 The Evolink sucked because its poor construction and design that would best be described as agricultural. I've seen shovels that were designed better. The bike was so flexible torsionally that I was wearing out DU bushings every couple of weeks. The shop rebuilding my shock for the third time in two months were amazed at home much uneven scoring there was that matched up perfectly with the uneven loading delivered by the frame and linkage. That's yet to mention the plate front shock mounts that bend when you breathe on them too hard. The geometry was the only good thing about the Evolink.
  • 2 0
 @bananowy: I would say Pole were early adopters, but the first they were not.
  • 15 4
 Still ugly tho
  • 1 0
 star wars card #207
  • 18 12
 You can test a frame in a jig like that as much as you want, it may prove that the frame can handle slow speed torsional stress, but it doesnt test real world riding of thousands of impact and vibrations a minute. The kind of stresses that would unbond the glue holding together the most disgusting, over engineered, frame ever produced. I had a friend try buy a bike from Pole, his order was so far over due he requested a refund. Pole told him he could have his refund but it would be less than what he paid due to the difference in the currency exchange rate!
  • 25 1
 The customer service of the company and whether they know how to make strong frames are completely unrelated. This is a standardized test for downhill bikes and if it passed the test then objectively it is a sturdy frame per the test. If bikes which pass the test fail in real life then the test should be updated to be harder to pass. If the test is a valid test of frame strength, then your speculation about the frame being fragile is unfounded.
  • 4 0
 @mdinger: this is correct. Either the test itself is insufficient/invalid or the bike is strong enough for its purpose.
  • 4 1
 Are you kidding? I hope your friend immediatelly replied them with request of complete money refund PLUS their lost value. Because, he actually helped them fund their business in return for ... nothing.
  • 5 1
 @fluider: No he didn't fund their business. If you pay in a different currency than your own it's a risk you take.
You can't expect a company to refund you more money than you paid them.
  • 1 2
 @Perra: He gave Pole a free loan. Go to your bank and tell them they can't expect you to pay back more than you borrowed, let's see what they say Smile

Bike brands taking full payments in advance for bikes that won't be delivered for months if not years is a scam. If a brand won't take a small refundable deposit, give them the finger. There's enough choice out there of brands that don't resort to dodgy practices. Don't pay the full price unless you know the bike is physically in stock and ready to ship to you (or in front of you in a shop). Your money should be working for you while you wait for the bike, not for someone else unless you are getting interest.
  • 3 0
 @bananowy: Read the comments I responded too again. The issue at hand was the loss caused by exchange rates changing.

Paying in advance for goods that don't exist yet is a whole different thing.
  • 1 1
 @Perra: I know that's what the OP wrote but you replied directly to @fluider who mentioned "complete money refund PLUS their lost value" which I understood to go beyond the currency issue and suggest at least covering inflation (which I'd agree with). Your statement about refunding more than paid seemed more general as well.

I agree with you that the currency shift risk is what it is, but still think there is a lot more that customers lose on such "deals".
  • 2 0
 @Perra: You're right that paying in different currency is buyers own risk. My fault of making inaccurate comment.
  • 1 0
 What real world conditions would produce a cyclic loading rate of 1000 cyles/seconds (16Hz) on a bike frame?
  • 1 0
 @st49: 60 mph = 1056 inches/sec so if you were going 60 mph and there were bumps spaced 1 inch apart then you'd hit over a thousand of them every second.

While that is rather idealistic, 30-40 mph might be fairly normal for an aggressive rider over rough terrain. Then I'd expect a rider might see a variety of features from pebble size to boulder size depending of the ride. These would then have a cyclic rate of 0.5 Hz (big boulder drop) to 1000 Hz (tiny pebbles). It would vary constantly depending on the terrain and so could not just be a straight number.

Also, the disturbance amplitude would very in proportion to the feature size (boulder drop is more intense than a bunch of pepples). Therefore it generally makes sense that a test would focus more on low amplitude frequency where the most aggressive impacts will occur.
  • 1 0

another option might be getting towed by a magic car down a rail road track with ties spaced every 10 inches at 600 mph.

was talking real world not hypothetical. in order for the BIKE FRAME to see100 % the cyclic loading in the scenario you described you would need a completely undampened system containing a rigid wheel set, fork and, frame and the the tire would have to stay in constant ground contact while traveling 60 mph. Assuming you accomplish this. you now have a rider trying to control a bike who's handle bares, pedals, and wheels are moving up and down one thousand times per second. While traveling 60 mph. I don't think this fits in the real world category.

Not going to get into theorizing about what frequency or amplitude values should be used for fatigue failure testing. Pole based there testing criteria of ISO's bicycle safety testing recommendations. All relevant information is located on ISOs web site not in this comment section.
  • 11 1
  • 9 4
 All the keyboard warriors on here referring to the fail of the prototype part when another Pole was subjected to the Huck To Flat
Like no other bike frame failed…ever ‍♂️

Pole testing their bikes like this shows that they take this seriously. Would you prefer they didn’t test?
  • 1 0
 Can you name any bike frame that has failed on such a small jump?

Pole testing their bikes like this proves they are aligning with what is a pretty standard testing procedure I am amazed took them so long to do. That is something you put your prototypes through before you send out to customers or racers.
  • 5 1
 It’s like the industrial design team ran out budget before they got to the rear half of the bike. Surely there must be a better compromise between the engineering and aesthetics than that!
  • 2 0
 it isn't difficult to design a full suspension bike that is competitively light weight, strong and with good suspension performance. What is difficult is making a full suspension frame that is competitively light weight, strong, with good suspension performance...and looks good.
  • 4 0
 But did it reveal the location of the hidden rebel base?

(although, to be fair, if this bike was a Star Wars character it would be 3PO, not Leah)
  • 2 0
 3P0, but with legs from R2D2.
  • 2 0
 Is the 10 Hz a flat 10 Hz or a random distribution which the largest component is 10 Hz? I've run tests before and they always target a frequency distribution and not just a flat frequency.
  • 6 0
 They run them at 10Hz or less, not 10Hz specifically. Structural fatigue tests need to be run at sufficiently low frequencies because otherwise you can kind of cheat them. If you ran it at say 100Hz for example, a significant portion of the peak force applied could be going into acceleration of the mass of frame components (even if they don't flex very much) and any friction or damping effects (including friction of the pivots on the actuators) would give a peak stress that's lower than you'd get if the load was applied quasi-statically (ie slow enough). You could go one step further and run something like a jackhammer at 1000Hz and you'd cause all kinds of local yielding/impact damage at the point of load application, that might pass the test by protecting other weaker downstream components.
  • 4 0
 I think we found the new pinkbike theme music.
  • 5 1
 All that work for a video that's filmed in portrait-mode - for shame!
  • 3 0
 90% of video material is portrait mode nowadays. Most poeple are browsing on their phone anyway.
  • 2 0
 It’s like my left testicle trying to prove its strong (which it is) but knowing it’s doing so while being unrelentingly unattractive to 92% of the population….
  • 1 0
 i think if i wanted a bike this big, id probably just settle for a dual crown fork? i know zebs are plenty stiff, but that steerer to crown interface wont be lasting long with all that weight behind it surely?
  • 1 0
 I'm more interested in seeing a fatigue test on the bonding agent. Just two small plates made from the same material and bonded using their method with higher frequency cycling.
  • 2 0
 All I can think about when watching that video is that is how Mr Bean would dance if he were a hideous Ebike frame.
  • 9 5
  • 2 0
 650 °C Would be enough.
  • 4 1
 Still doesn't pass the looks test.
  • 2 0
 Good to have them tested so they don´t snap in future bottom out tests, because that would be embarrassing. 3
  • 2 0
 And where is the statistics? You can test one sample as long as you want, but it is still not scientific. B10 or bust.
  • 3 1
 But does a crash or a rock chip turn into a paperweight?
  • 2 0
 The music is straight out of a low quality adult film.
  • 2 0
 LOl. It was straight porno with that pimp frame pumping up and down.
  • 1 0
 I think visual impressions are secondary too how it rides, but easier to sell good looks?
  • 1 0
 100,000 cycles, or 450km on a 100% peddle over baby-head rocks. Did I do my maths wrong?
  • 1 0
 So is it pronounced pole or pohl-leh?
  • 1 0
 Henry Quinney mentioned in a podcast episode that it's pronounced Paw-Luh
  • 1 0
 It´s pronounced Master Paw-Lee.
  • 4 3
 In before it fails on a simple curb drop
  • 1 0
 I need someone to do this to my pole.
  • 1 0
 product on market is legally safe enough to have on market.
  • 1 0
 Even for a Moped this think looks awkward
  • 1 0
 did every other bike not pass a fatigue test?
  • 3 3
 Stop making Pole happen,,, it's not gonna happen !
  • 5 6
 Congrats team!! How about some pricing and availability on the bike too??
  • 11 11
 All the information on pricing can be found here - polebicycles.com/voima-bosch

Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.048299
Mobile Version of Website