Powered by Outside

First Look: The Rotwild R.EXC is a Race-Focused eMTB With a 820 Wh Battery

May 6, 2024 at 11:55
by Dario DiGiulio  
photo


Rotwild went for the ground-up approach for their new long travel eMTB, utilizing a suspension design unlike anything else in their lineup. With a mid-high pivot, elevated stays, and aggressive geometry throughout, the R.EXC is clearly intended to handle serious terrain and high speeds. With a very large capacity battery and Shimano's newest motor system at play, it should have plenty of juice for the way back up the hill as well. There are two models to choose from, and some unique frame features worth highlighting, so dig in.
R.EXC Details

• Carbon frame
• 29"/27.5" mixed wheel
• 145/150/160mm travel, 170mm fork
• 63.3° head angle
• 78° seat angle
• Battery: 820Wh
• Shimano EP801 motor, 85 Nm torque
• Price: €9,990 - €11,990
rotwild.com

photo
Side access.
photo
Mid-high.

photo

Geometry

Rotwild designed the R.EXC to be competitive in the E-Enduro World Cup, with heavy input from Claudio Caluori to hone the details. The geometry is certainly geared towards steep and challenging terrain, with a 63.3° head angle and 78° seat angle making for a very modern combo. The reach numbers fit into standard sizing, with 430, 455, 480, and 505mm increments rounding out the range. Stack heights don't grow very much per size, so taller riders might need to compensate via a higher rise bar to get fit dialed.

The chainstay length is the same across sizes, but is adjustable by 5mm via a flip chip. The geo chart quotes the rear center length as 436mm, but it's unclear whether that's in the short or long position. 21mm of bottom bracket drop and a mixed wheel layout should keep the cornering behavior lively for a full-power eMTB.

photo
photo
Chainstay adjustment.


Frame Features

The R.EXC is built on the Shimano EP801 motor standard, with Rotwild's own take on the battery mount and access. The 820Wh battery is accessed via the side of the bike, and features a quick release mechanism for fast swaps.

One distinct feature of the frame is the inclusion of an Eightpins dropper post, which is integrated directly into the frame. The NGS2.0 has up to 225mm of travel, and has independently adjustable stroke and ride height to suit the individual rider. You can learn more about these unique posts in Richard Cunningham's review.

Other frame details include the use of a universal derailleur hanger, along with adjustable chainstay length via a flip chip. That chip allows for 5mm of fore-aft adjustment to suit your preference. There's room for a full-size water bottle, plenty of room to access the shock to make adjustments, and the cables are routed through the frame.

photo
photo
Travel adjustment.

photo

Suspension Design

In lieu of charts and graphs, Rotwild provided some explanations of their approach to the kinematics of the R.EXC. As mentioned above, the bike's travel can be changed via the upper shock mount, allowing you to swap between 145, 150, and 160mm of rear wheel travel.

On the suspension layout:
bigquotesCompared to previous ROTWILD models, the main pivot of the swingarm on the R.EXC sits higher and further forward. This showcases the outstanding riding characteristics of a "Mid-High Pivot Design" without having to accept the significant drawbacks of a High Pivot Bike (such as highly varying chain stay length, very high Anti-Rise). In the main range of active travel between 20% and 75% travel, the chain stay length only changes by an extremely small 1.5 mm on the R.EXC.

On anti-rise:
bigquotesRegarding the so-called Anti-Rise, which refers to the suppression of rear wheel extension during rear wheel braking only, we were able to reduce the value to 58% Anti-Rise in the SAG. The Anti-Rise remains at relatively constant low values throughout the entire travel: 49% Anti-Rise when fully extended, up to 65% Anti-Rise when fully compressed. High Anti-Rise values of over 80% lead to the dreaded brake jack, which has largely been constructively eliminated in the R.EXC.

On anti-squat:
bigquotesThe R.EXC boasts an incredibly consistent anti-squat of 106-108% across the entire range of suspension travel. This means that the chain tension stabilizes the suspension without introducing any disturbances.

Build Kits

There are two build kits available for the R.EXC, differing primarily in suspension, wheels, and cockpit items. Both builds use Shimano XT brakes and drivetrain, the same motor and battery, and the same Eightpins dropper. The Ultra model gets Fox Factory suspension, while the Pro uses Performance and Performance Elite. The Ultra has carbon wheels and cockpit, while the Pro spec is all aluminum. There isn't a weight quoted for the Pro build yet, but that's likely to be the most tangible difference between the two in the long run.

photo



photo


Author Info:
dariodigiulio avatar

Member since Dec 25, 2016
214 articles

100 Comments
  • 57 0
 with a range extender, it could be rotwilder
  • 12 0
 I actually like the fact that they've made the battery easily removable (or removable at all). I like having a spare battery in the truck I can swap halfway through a self-shuttle day and still keep the bike a reasonable weight. 820wh is pretty massive as it is. Props to Rotwild!
  • 2 0
 @succulentsausage: how much are spare batteries? They aint going to be cheap, I'd guess $1k(ish)...but I suppose if you can afford an Ebike...
  • 7 3
 Put on a throttle (small extra step) and we've got a rotwildest
  • 3 1
 Leave it in the shed with an empty battery for too long, and the batteries will make it rottingwild.
  • 3 3
 Or is it an 800 watt battery with a bicycle attached to it
  • 5 3
 Next should be kids e-bike - Rothschild!
  • 31 0
 Getting some Pro-Flex / Mountaincycle vibes from that swingarm.
  • 3 0
 And Marin
  • 2 0
 Thanks man, I was wondering for the past 30 min what it does remind me of... SanAndreas
  • 23 0
 Actually not that ugly (for a Rotwild)
  • 6 0
 Man, I wish they would bring back a bike closer to their design in the early 2000s… raw aluminum, some red decals… they had a dual slalom hardtail that I wanted soooo bad, back in the day. I really liked their bikes, despite never being able to get one. My early-teenage self couldn’t afford it lol…
  • 6 0
 @drjohn: my middle aged self can't afford this. But have to say, it's pretty dang clean for an ebike.
  • 20 5
 I would have preffered an e-pinion bike...
Not interested in weak/expensive cassettes/chains..
  • 3 4
 this!
  • 61 0
 That's just, like, your e-pinion, man
  • 2 0
 @glory66: he said no chains Wink
  • 1 1
 Completely missed that there is a 12sp Di2 Shimano Deore XT rear mech. Has it been out there for years or is it indeed something new? As for the gearbox/motor combo, I get that it might be a good idea but it hasn't been out there for long. Many of the bikes that are now being released have probably been under development since well before the Pinion unit has been released. Seems like quite a plunge to design an entire frame around a unit you haven't been able to test. As for belt vs chain, I'm not too sure about belts in mud, rocks etc. Not sure whether it is as much of an issue in practice, but it seems to me like it is much easier for mud to evacuate with a regular chain and sprocket compared to these more solid belts and matching teeth.
  • 2 1
 And how much do you think an e-pinion would be to fix or replace? Traditional drivetrains only need to fix/replace the broken component. Isn't technology great?
  • 1 1
 @corerider: I already use a rohloff in a 120nm Ebikes..... Only oil change every 5000kms and one chain a year... Technology IS great, programmes obsolescence isn't....
  • 2 1
 @f*cktoryteam: With traditional drivetrains (like the 10sp XTR system on my hardtail) I can be assured of almost a lifetime of parts for it (I have 2 complete spare drivetrains as insurance; Boy Scouts was good to me: be prepared). Ebike motors are obsolescent almost the day you get them, and in 10 years you are going to be SOL with a replacement (assuming the frame lasts that long). My Ti hardtail is for life, and with the right traditional drivetrain it will most likely outlast me.

But they tell you ebikes are better and technology is always progressing forward.
  • 1 0
 @corerider: actually, i have a titanium hardtail with a bafang 750w.... Been using it everyday for 3 years... Every pièce is in aftermarket... Pignon 15 Euros.. Controller 60... And you can reparle it yourself....
The you have obsolescence marketing brands..
  • 1 1
 @corerider: the point is, rohloff and Pinion don't Brake, only oïl changes vers 5000 kms...
  • 2 0
 @f*cktoryteam: You have a motor on a hardtail? When hardtails are the epitome of pedalling efficiency?
  • 1 0
 @corerider: don't carte about pedal efficient, i hâve a 120nm bafang, a light cassette Would be chewed like a chewing-gum...
  • 15 2
 There is a lot to like about this offering. My question to manufactures is why 145-160mm rear travel for an big bike? What's holding us back from seeing more options in the 180-200mm range?
  • 26 16
 What king of racing is it focused on? I suppose E-mtbs have their place, but racing them is an absolute joke.
  • 15 8
 Tell that to Martin Maes!
  • 6 2
 @lagunabeachbikepark: Well I would be fine with that, if it's meant to be raced sans battery and motor, like Martin Maes did. However I am afraid that it's not the case.
  • 6 25
flag sharpiemtb FL (May 7, 2024 at 8:07) (Below Threshold)
 ok boomer
  • 13 7
 Lifts have their place too but you see those in races also, I don't think you can be pro-lift assist (or pro shuttle for that matter) and anti-Ebike.....
  • 9 1
 @IluvRIDING: E-bike races are different, and (as far as I'm aware) often have punchy uphills thrown into the sections that're timed. You can't apples-apples compare enduro and e-bike races, because they're different.
  • 9 0
 If racing regular bikes is fun why wouldn't racing e bikes be fun? I'm not asking about whether it it's a good spectator sport or not. Seems like it would be fun on a local level, I'm surprised there aren't more races considering the e bike boom.
  • 2 1
 @lagunabeachbikepark: Maes' E stood for Empty
  • 3 1
 Is moto racing an absolute joke?
  • 3 0
 @IluvRIDING: we all feel a lot better knowing that you would be fine with it.
  • 5 3
 EEB racing is as valid as any other sort of racing. No one here has a cogent argument to the contrary. All you have is down votes.
  • 1 0
 @2d-cutout: Also, I'd guess it would allow you to have enduro races in area's without lifts? And less organizational work than doing it with shuttles. (LOL, cause comparing it to races with lifts. obviously sometimes they actually have to ride and/or push their bikes to the top...)

(though I don't think you can compare the trail experience overall against lifts/shuttles with ebikes doing the uplift because riders taking lifts and shuttles to the top are not pedaling UP the same trails you're trying to ride DOWN. Makes for some really fast closing speeds on trails that are not one way! (also, have had a few ebikers scare the hell out of me passing super fast uphill with little to no notice)
Though most of that is more an etiquette thing and not specifically an ebike thing. (AND, obviously in a race they wouldn't be doing uplift rides on the race course! Smile )
  • 2 0
 Something else - the longer / more elevation there is, counterintuitively, the less an Ebike makes sense in my mind. More than 5-6k feet of climbing a battery isn't going to last so you have to run in Eco mode a lot or risk pedaling an ebike without the "E" which is going to kill ya. I've raced the EWS Qualifier up in Kellogg, ID that was a big day of 6,000'+ and a long course and 2x Trans Cascadia stage enduro that had a 7500-8000' day and a LOT of hike-a-bike and carry-a-bike, neither of which I think an Ebike would of been the right tool.
  • 1 2
 @RadBartTaylor: Good point. Racing, but you have to use Eco Mode to have enough battery; just doesn't quite make sense... Smile
  • 1 1
 @stiingya: I guess my point was....it's not necessarily an advantage like people automatically *assume*. On a short course, a fit rider can ride it on an analog, on a long course they'll run out of juice assuming no battery swaps and any course with stages that are steep without climbs (not all courses but most) I'm convinced a std. bike is faster.
  • 1 1
 @RadBartTaylor: yes I got your point. But thanks for talking down to me again assuming your logic is beyond the understanding of mere mortals... Smile Smile Smile OK, I guess you did state it more eloquently this time.

Again, I do get and think you are making a good point. But, It wouldn't "really" matter which is faster as they aren't racing ebikes against mountain bikes. So it would be about the rider and their e-bike VS the competing riders, their e-bike and how efficient their motor was, how much battery they chose to carry in the race, and the weight of their e-bike if it came down to needing to shut off the motor for parts of the race to conserve power and pedal as God intended.

Ideally, an e-bike race course would be set up to take advantage of the platform. But I'm sure many times they are just throwing the e-bikes on the same course they already set up for everyone else.

I'm sure at some point they will have an exo-suit weight lifting contest too. There is a certain amount of illogic to the idea of externally powering something that was human-powered originally and then competing with it. BUT, almost every form of competition has some amount of technology providing an advantage so it is what it is...
  • 9 0
 Who the hell is buying this when Rotwild has a Pinion MGU bike?
  • 5 0
 that's the review I was hoping to read...
  • 2 1
 Certainly seems like a great use for a gearbox! The motor makes up for the drag which is usually the biggest downside. So yeah, that is cool!!
  • 3 0
 Is this thing attempting to use the natural characteristics of the drive unit to isolate chain and suspension forces associated with a mid-high pivot without the use of an idler? I can't remember exactly how the ratcheting system works on the electric stuff....
  • 1 0
 ... nearly the actual rather than effective seat tube angle at 78, sub-440 chainstay, and horst link suspension - nowhere else can you get this package. Man, with an infinite budget I would remove the motor and battery and run this as my everyday trail bike
  • 3 1
 According to the commonly agreed upon definition of high pivot, this is not a high pivot bike and it's not a mid-high pivot bike either. These have idler pulleys.
  • 3 0
 That's why I prefer to use the terms "direct drive" and "indirect drive" to distinguish. As you know, there have been bikes with idlers that have a lower instant-centre than others without an idler, so the terms "high pivot" and "low pivot" are ambiguous at best and simply incorrect at worst.

Also, the claim that anti-rise over an arbitrary value leads to "the dreaded brake jack" is both nonsense (there is no significant change that occurs at this value) and wrong (low anti-rise leads to brake jack - the meaning of the words should've been their first clue!). High anti-squat can lead to reduced traction when braking, but a mistake like indicates either their kinematics designer or marketing copy writer has no clue what they're talking about - let's hope it's the latter.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: Can you give an example of a commercially available high-pivot bike with a lower instant center than low-pivot bikes?
  • 3 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: I was thinking about the bad old days of sometimes absurd kinematics, which is why I used the past tense "there have been". It's an interesting question whether that holds true for any current models. I'd have to test it by removing the idler from a couple hundred simulations, which I'm sure you'll understand if I don't do, but I'll do a quick test.

The highest anti-squat values I can think of (values taken at 33% compression, zero pitch, size M, my standard centre of mass location for size M) with direct drivetrains are the Ghost Riot TR and Terrain Control Crowbar. The lowest indirect systems that come immediately to mind are the new YT Tues prototype and the Mondraker Summum from 2022. These aren't production bikes, of course, but they're recent/current and have been described as "high pivot" designs due to the presence of idlers.

My simulations show the YT and Mondraker without their idlers have lower ICs at the aforementioned conditions than the Ghost and Terrain Control. There may be additional examples with more widely available models.
  • 1 0
 @R-M-R: Interesting, thanks. Perhaps there are "high pivot" bikes with a low pivot. However, if high pivot bikes aren't defined by having an idler pulley, then what's the threshold for high vs low pivot bikes? Also, idler pulleys have a big effect on anti-squat and pedal kickback, so it's useful to have a term for bikes with idler pulleys. Therefore, I think that even if there are exceptions where high pivot (idler-equipped) bikes don't have a high pivot, the use of the descriptor "high pivot" should still require the presence of an idler pulley. Any bike without an idler pulley should not be called a high pivot bike because it'll never have a pivot nearly as high as typical high pivot bikes.
  • 2 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: Exactly: What is the threshold? If the presence or absence of an idler doesn't produce a common set of properties, we should use properties and terms that more accurately group designs with common ride characteristics.

First, an examples of this problem is the common belief that LS 4-bar (long & short link, such as Horst) designs are "plush", but don't pedal as crisply as SS (short & short, such as VPP, dw, Maestro, etc.). This originated from early uses of the LS configuration often placing the pivot on the BB shell, while single-pivot designs often preferred to use a high pivot and elevated chainstays. Fast forward to the present and the bikes with the highest pedaling anti-squat values in recent history are a mix of single-pivots, LS, and SS, and the lowest values are a mix of LS and SS. There never was an intrinsic relationship between the configuration and the pedaling characteristics, which has finally become apparent to most people.

The point of that analogy is that "high pivot" bikes also have a wide range of values for pedaling anti-squat, brake squat, motion ratio curves, axle paths, etc. Current "high pivot" designs have the highest anti-squat I've found in the past 1.5 decades (Insanity of Gravity UHP-FR V2) and tied for the lowest (Starling Sturn 29 V2). Even the axle paths have some - not much, but not zero - overlap with direct drive designs. This is why I don't recommend simply lumping all such designs together under the "high pivot" term and implying they're all similar to one another and completely distinct from direct drive designs. Instead, I recommend distinguishing direct vs. indirect and making some sort of effort to quantify or qualify the relevant kinematic properties.

For example, we could talk about the UHP-FR V2 having an indirect drive with extremely rearward axle path and extremely high pedaling anti-squat, while the Sturn 29 V2 has an indirect drive with moderately rearward axle path and extremely low pedaling anti-squat. It's not as concise as simply calling them both "high pivot" designs, but being concise is of little value when it's incomplete at best, and misleading at worst.

Finally, to address the statement: "Any bike without an idler pulley should not be called a high pivot bike because it'll never have a pivot nearly as high as typical high pivot bikes." This is not so, as I demonstrated in my previous message. There isn't much overlap between direct and indirect designs, but there's a little overlap and the two groups certainly abut one another. I say that not to be nit-picky, but to refute the notion that the instant centres of direct drivetrains can never be nearly as high (without wading into the murky definition of whether a low-high-pivot counts as a "typical" high pivot).
  • 1 2
 @R-M-R: The point of the term "high pivot" is not to group bikes that aboslutely must have certain ride characteristics, but to indicate that they will tend ot have certain ride characteristics. I maintain that bikes without an idler pulley should not be called high pivot bikes.
  • 2 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: I understand your point, but it's not the best way to group together similar properties, and it uses a term that can be incorrect.

If a bike without an idler can have a higher instant centre than a bike with an idler, why use the term "high pivot" to describe the one with the lower pivot? Why not just call them what they are - direct and indirect - then discuss the pedaling anti-squat, axle path, etc. as needed?

If nothing else, it avoids the silliness of talking about "high low-pivots" and "low high-pivots". Just mention whether there's an idler, then move on to the actual kinematics.
  • 2 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: Perhaps I can reframe my point: The problem is not with "high" and "low" as adjectives to describe pivot locations, but "high pivot" as the classification for all indirect drive designs and "low pivot" to describe all direct drive designs.
  • 1 2
 @R-M-R: "If a bike without an idler can have a higher instant centre than a bike with an idler, why use the term "high pivot" to describe the one with the lower pivot?" The point I was trying to get at is that oddball examples aren't enough reason for deviating from the existing term "high pivot" and its commonly accepted definition that it involves idler pulleys. I personally am not interested in pushing for new naming conventions on this front even if your suggestions are rational. I'm simply advocating that people don't misuse the term high pivot like in this article.
  • 2 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: No one likes changes to the familiar, whether that's terminology, BB standards, or derailleurs, but I thought you - of all people - might appreciate overcoming the hurdle of change to arrive at a more fit-for-purpose alternative. Wink
  • 2 0
 @R-M-R: I, for one, agree with your point about not using the drive type ie. direct vs. indirect, as a sort of purity test for if a bike can be described as high pivot. Pivot height is one, very distinct, design element. The presence, or lack thereof, of an idler pulley, is another, very distinct, element. There is no need to conflate the two. Regarding ways that pivot height could be described accurately, I've wondered about the challenge of defining what is actually a "low", "medium", or "high" pivot, and while we all generally get the gist of the terms, it seems like the actual lines between those categories are somewhat in the eyes of the beholder. Do you have any suggestions about how one could put an actual numeric value on the height of the pivot, via IC or something like that? Or, since IC can and does move significantly on some bikes, would it be more consistent to classify them by the amount of for/aft movement of the rear axle, adjusting somehow for differing total travel numbers?
  • 2 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: RMR may be suggesting what he thinks is a more accurate way of doing things, but I would also challenge your claim that "high pivot" is an "existing term...(with a) commonly accepted definition that it involves idler pulleys". The current generation of bikes with relatively high pivots may mostly have idlers too, but historically, most of the early single pivot full suspension mountain bikes (Cannondale, Pro-flex, Boulder, Trek, Mountain Cycle etc...), prior to the horst link bikes hitting the scene, had very high pivots and no idler. Even through the late 90s and early 2000s, there were bikes both for XC and DH use with insanely high pivots (look up a pic of a Bianchi Super G for fun). Now, to your point, they may not have been marketed specifically as "high pivots" but they most assuredly were high (or even very high) pivots. I think it is a stretch to assume that at some point "high pivot" became a sort of almost trademarked term that can't be applied unless an idler is attached to it, just because that is the form that the current crop of high pivot bikes tend to take. And how would one describe the pivot point of those older bikes accurately if not using that exact term?

Now, having said all of that, I agree with you that it seems like Rotwild is putting some marketing spin on this bike, trying to capitalize on the current "high pivot" vogue while having a bike that doesn't really have the suspension characteristics (putting aside the idler issue) of a high pivot. This bike has a minimally rearward axle path, so to suggest you get the benefits of a high pivot is really stretching it.

P.S. I really dig your drivetrains, keep up the good work and innovation!
  • 1 0
 @thekaiser: Two ways to look at it:

First, the height of the pivot - and we have to look at the instant centre, i.e. the "virtual pivot", which could be located anywhere, regardless of the physical location of the linkage. Something that looks similar to the Bianchi Super G you mentioned could have a very low instant centre, and vice versa.

Second, we could ignore the hardware and the even the instant centre, instead considering what it actually does, i.e. consider the pedaling anti-squat, brake squat, axle path, etc. without getting bogged down in discussions of what hardware produces the properties we feel when we ride.

I favour the latter, which removes any need to discuss the height of the pivot(s) (or the instant centre). The more we look at pivot height, the more problematic it becomes. If we're considering the instant centre location, we need to standardize the sprocket combination and the point in the travel, as some designs vary the IC location greatly throughout the travel and/or produce dramatically different kinematics across the cassette range. If we're considering the physical hardware, it becomes clear how problematic this approach can be when a SS (short & short) linkage can have an infinitely high instant centre with both links located under the BB.

Unless someone has a more robust and universal solution, I can only propose we note the presence or absence of indirect drive mechanisms and discuss each kinematic property (ex. pedaling anti-squat, brake squat, axle path, pedal kickback, etc.) as low / mid / high according to how they compare to typical values. Doing so, we can observe relationships between kickback, anti-squat, and axle path that indicate whether a design warrants an indirect drive. We might also see how some designs manage to maintain high values of some (arguably) favourable properties without incurring enough kickback to warrant an idler, while others may incur the drag and hassle of an idler without taking full advantage of the flexibility it offers. I believe viewing designs in terms of what they do facilitates a deeper understanding of how the design translates to the ride experience, and the ability to quantify and critique aspects of the design.
  • 1 1
 "without having to accept the significant drawbacks of a High Pivot Bike (such as highly varying chain stay length, very high Anti-Rise)"

High anti-rise has way more to do with where and how the brake is mounted than whether the main pivot (potentially virtual) is located.

Pretty much everything has varying chainstay length, high pivots just bias that variance towards growth through the whole travel. That said, their very small chainstay length variance is pretty sweet. I personally would have toned down the anti-squat to like 85%, especially with a motor, letting it squat just a bit to add that much more traction, but the consistency on that front is commendable.
  • 2 0
 ?? If the chain stain length only changes by 1.5mm when compressed is there still the rearward axle path possible that characterizes a high pivot bike?
  • 4 0
 A carbon Orange
  • 1 0
 Carbange
  • 1 0
 Integrated dropper: Curious about a long term review and also curious how it would impact resale as I understand it is cut to fit for the rider.
  • 1 0
 8pins droppers are simply adjustable, no cutting involved: www.pinkbike.com/news/eightpins-ngs1-integrated-dropper-post-review.html
  • 1 0
 @one38: I haven't actually used one of these, but the article you linked states they must be cut to length: "Eightpins droppers are purposely shipped longer than most riders will ever use because they are designed to be easily be cut to length and independently adjusted for saddle height and stroke length."
  • 5 2
 Race focused e? Should've called it the Oxymoron.
  • 2 0
 Shimano needs to bring out a Saint Battery upgrade!!!!
  • 2 0
 First look? That's my last look. Not sure my eyes will recover.
  • 1 0
 The rear swing arm bridge looks like a nice rock trap?
  • 1 0
 Not to be a Klent, but that looks like a rock eating swing arm
  • 1 2
 Lose the ridiculous STA and mullet nonsense, and I'd think long and hard about this bike.... Before deciding that I'm not quite old enough for an e-bike, yet!
  • 1 0
 Whoa look at that IDEAL seat tube and actual angle, yes please
  • 1 0
 22.1KG with 820 battery in size L is good going if true.
  • 1 0
 28kg
  • 1 0
 22 !!
  • 1 1
 @Niarf: My KSL is 21.3kg. This will weight over 26kg with a decent build
  • 1 0
 @Jordmackay: Says 22.1 on spec list
  • 1 0
 @orm1972: Mine is meant to be 18kg. Website weights are bullshit
  • 3 3
 fugly and e, perfect match
  • 1 0
 Available in NA?
  • 1 0
 I see flex
  • 2 1
 Race focused emtb…lol
  • 1 3
 Does anybody knwo how i can speedhack the new bosch smart motors to go over 20mph?
  • 1 0
 You just have to jump the battery with your truck, it will instantly hack the whole motor so it runs over 20mph.
  • 1 4
 What is that chainstay, it can’t be that hard to make it not 10 year old motor oil thickness
  • 5 7
 E-bike... racing? Sure. . .
  • 11 1
 In an enduro format - get rid of the lifts/shuttles, why not?
  • 6 5
 @RadBartTaylor: Because the variances in motor output and the ability to hack / cheat them makes it a less even playing field. Especially at the amateur level.
I'm a fan of e-bikes and adopted them very early but racing them seems quite pointless IMHO.
  • 3 0
 @Dustfarter: cheating is a thing, yes, even with non-ebikes and yes even with amateurs. Do you think more power, assuming larger battery / heavier weight, is faster on an enduro course?
  • 1 2
 nmnm
  • 1 2
 820w battery = Fail
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.037526
Mobile Version of Website