Burning Question: 7 Brands That Haven't Released an eMTB Yet
This past year has seen plenty of fresh new electrified models with names like Pole and Yeti launching bikes and we got a quick look at a potential new eMTB from Evil this month. It has become increasingly rare to see brands not be working on some form of eMTB or even take a stance against these kinds of bikes. With this in mind, we reached out to several brands missing an eMTB in their lineup and asked them why they haven't released one yet and if there are any difficulties, sustainability issues or anything else that could stop them from launching one in the future.
Keith Scott, Owner/Designer at Banshee:
Why haven’t you released an eMTB yet?
There are a whole number of reasons… but I guess the main ones are:
- At Banshee we are purists, and like to ‘earn our turns’.
- I don’t like the idea of unnecessarily introducing the pollution inherent in batteries and consumed power where they simply aren’t required by most people (eMTB are an amazing accessibility tool if someone’s condition requires it, so they have a niche that justifies them, and I’m all for this, but it’s more than covered by the many eMTB makers already in the market)
- We are a small brand, (just 3 people) and there is an economy of scale required to compete in the eMTB world from a pricing perspective, minimum order qty of motors being a big one. We have a sustainable business and strong niche, why be greedy and risk destroying what we have?
- There is lots of red tape around ebikes in terms of regional testing etc… So they are expensive to bring to market, and for our scale it wouldn’t make financial sense.
- I don’t like the current battery/motor options out there. They are generally pretty rudimentary and unrefined afterthoughts added on to a bike, they could just be so much more integrated with gearing etc.
- There is also an element of impact on trail conservation especially on climbs (wheel spins plus more general wear and tear), plus radically different speeds on climbs can cause issue on occasion if riders are not respectful. Something I have personally witnessed a number of times mainly by people renting eMTBs at trail centres.
Would you ever consider releasing an eMTB in the future?
Maybe, but only once the battery tech cleans up significantly, and I’d aim for slight assist rather than loads of power. I quite like the idea of something like 100-200w assistance to help you climb a bit further and faster but without having huge impact on weight and with a much smaller battery and motor. But only once the tech is cleaner and gears are integrated into motor and a few other things like that. I feel eMTBs of today will be laughed at in 10 years time as design and tech improves significantly. I mean, why do eMTBs still have traditional derailleurs when there is so much opportunity to integrate gearing with the motor?
What considerations are there in deciding to release an eMTB?
For us this is mainly about our brand and what we stand for Releasing an eMTB (in their current form) would be hypocritical as we currently do what we can to minimise environmental impact, and we like to promote the purity of riding. Bikes are often considered the most efficient human-powered modes of transport ever created. I guess I just like the human power element, and feel that a lot of our loyal customers feel the same and share ethics.
Do you think releasing an eMTB is a different prospect from a standard bike? Or would it be like adding any different style of bike to your range?
I consider it quite a different prospect. They are for a different type of customer, and different marketing is required as a result. Plus there is the legislation side of things that’s difficult for a boutique brand of our scale to justify.
If you wouldn’t ever release an eMTB, why not?
Never say never, but currently the industry is very guilty of greenwashing. Batteries are not clean tech and even if energy comes from renewables, the infrastructure has significant environmental impact, so it’s not as green as the industry claims. Greenwashing is rife everywhere right now as companies realise the marketing potential of presenting their companies as ‘green’, but when you dig under the surface and look at systems as a whole they are often far more polluting than they would have you believe.
Are there any sustainability or other issues that guide your decisions around eMTBs?
Other than the dirty business of sourcing elements needed for current battery tech, there is also the hysteresis element that means batteries have a finite usable life, and then the recycling element, which I don’t believe is currently as high a priority as it should be. Marketing guys can greenwash it as much as they want, but ultimately it’s needless pollution being pushed into our sport.
Currently, all major motors are a huge design constraint. They limit pivot locations significantly as well as dictate orientation on the frame. The result is that any good short link 4 bar orientation is impossible, so nearly all eMTB’s end up being basic single pivots or generally inefficient horst link designs, and end up basically being iterations of the same sort of design. Current motors dictate frame design and as a result, sacrifice linkage performance.
I should note that I’m for e-bikes for commuting purposes where they replace the use of a car, but eMTB is a different story (Unless you are lucky enough to commute to work along proper mtb trails).
Ben Pinnick, Founder at Bird:
Why haven’t you released an eMTB yet?
We have a bike in prototype, but it's taking a long time due to prototype lead times tripling, and even when we have the frame ready we may not have motors and batteries. Despite the fact we ordered the production motors and batteries as soon as we committed to a certain design, and BEFORE we made our first proto bike! It's just a waiting game now. The supply chain is likely to take 2-3 years to resolve itself, so we’re not sure when it can launch just yet.
Would you ever consider releasing an eMTB in the future?
For us, mail order is the big issue. We have a leading (and I hope deserved) reputation for great customer service and we want to protect that. E-bikes are not as reliable, or maybe less easy to self-diagnose and fix is a better way to put it, as regular bikes, and present a whole raft of extra challenges in terms of diagnostics and service/warranty. That's why we’ve gone EP8 as it has the widest support network. Even then we’ve chosen to go with a more traditional sales route and will be selling the bikes under a different brand and via our partners rather than online. We’re also launching 3 new stores as part of that process to provide servicing hubs for our customers as well as demo and possibly rental fleets too.
What considerations are there in deciding to release an eMTB?
Well, I guess half that question is answered above - yes the idea of a bike with a motor & electronics do present some major challenges for a direct supplier. But also there are two types of bikes to as we see it in terms of the ‘range’ we could logically offer. The Full eMTB with big motors and batteries, and the bike replacement eMTB which is slimmed down to have a more reasonable weight. We’re focused on the big bike right now. We’ve met some challenges that fitting the motor and big battery in brings by adapting our normal design style with some updates and suspension changes that have worked so well I suspect some will make it back into the regular range too. There are of course the smaller niggles of extra cables to handle, and the adaptation of the build process but those are less troublesome.
If you wouldn’t ever release an eMTB, why not?
Some days when I'm working on the eMTB I do wish we weren’t! They do add a layer of complexity to what is otherwise a joyously simple piece of kit. They are also great fun though. I've found myself doing way more wild old-school style riding since the eebs arrived. They really can make rides that at this time of year would be a total chore really enjoyable. My washing machine doesn’t love me so much though. For me, this is the challenge to overcome - ensuring our production eMTB is as reliable and trouble-free as we can make it. If that means lots of filthy rides out in the moors rather than sitting at a desk, I will take one for the team.
Are there any sustainability or other issues that guide your decisions around eMTBs?
Sustainability is a challenge especially when you add in a Lithium battery, and gets harder as the supply chain strains further making you have to compromise on decisions you'd not have to compromise on in normal times. The reality is unless you're making pure commute or cargo eBikes then you've no place claiming your eBike is green. It's just not when compared to a regular bike. There's no real debate on that point and so the best you can do is minimise the impact you make.
We’re taking a different approach than most other manufacturers though, as you'll know reduction and reuse is way better than recycling, and with that in mind rather than put all our efforts into reducing the impact of new stuff, which of course we do in many small ways around the factory and in our shipping, we’re instead focusing on lifetime usefulness of the product. We’re soon launching a refurb service for existing owners to get their bikes refurbed and back to like new for a reasonable cost. We’ve always been fairly cutting edge on our bikes so even a bike with a few years on it is still very relevant in terms of modern geo, so rather than buy a whole new one we can help the owner get it back to better than new. That program will have been running for a while by the time the eBikes start shipping, so we’ll roll them into that as well with support for the complete bike including motor and battery support so you can still get a decent lifespan from your eBike too.
Cy Turner, Founder at Cotic:
Why haven’t you released an eMTB yet?
We haven't released an eMTB yet because we wanted to wait until the tech was a bit more mature, but mainly because the current supply issues combined with prototyping in Taiwan means that it takes a very, very long time.
Would you ever consider releasing an eMTB in the future?
Very much so. [radio announcer voice] I can EXCLUSIVELY REVEAL.... that we have just received our first eMTB prototypes. I signed the drawings off in July 2019, and Shimano tell us even if we order now we won't get drive units and batteries until the end of '23 earliest, so it's a slightly frustrating product to develop. That said, we're looking forward to the fun part now, which is riding and developing the bikes properly. We have one in each size so everyone at Cotic can get involved, and friends beyond the company too. We had our first afternoon of team ebiking last week and there were a lot of laughs, and silly climbs attempted.
What considerations are there in deciding to release an eMTB?
The considerations are that it's a huge market, and it's a part of the sport now, and they're fun! It massively increases the accessibility of mountain biking to people who maybe aren't strong enough to get 'out there' on a regular bike. Cotic is 18 years old. We will have customers from our early years who might well be getting to an age where riding a regular bike isn't fun or even possible anymore. For others, it gives more bang for buck if you only have a limited time window for riding. As good examples, I've done a big ride that would normally take me 3.5 to 4 hours in just over 2, and I've ridden more with my wife in the last two weeks with her having the ebike that we have in years. That last one alone makes it a reason to build one on a personal level.
Do you think releasing an eMTB is a different prospect from a standard bike? Or would it be like adding any different style of bike to your range?
Our eMTB won't be an exact replica of one of our current bikes, but it's very much a variation on the theme. As you can see it runs our proven droplink suspension and Longshot geometry, so you know it's going to handle and feel great. Others may come after, but we're focusing to doing this one right for the moment.
Are there any sustainability or other issues that guide your decisions around eMTBs?
The battery issue is a worry, but given that's a global issue with electric cars etc, the solution will have to present itself. I suspect it will be in the form of battery farms or similar. Just because a battery is done in its initial application, doesn't mean it's useless. If it still holds 70% charge and can happily charge and discharge at a low, steady rate, I see old batteries being used to store electricity generated by renewables where the performance isn't such an issue. You can even build your own powerbanks using old cells relatively easily. One of our friends already does. These seem like a good solution to me, but unfortunately I have no influence on whether it becomes a widespread option. Closer to home, the reliability of the drive units is still improving, and I really hope that a refurb option comes online for the warranty replaced units that fail in service.
Owen Pemberton, CEO at Forbidden:
Why haven’t you released an eMTB yet?
As a small team with limited resources we have to be very selective when it comes to developing new platforms. This is all the more important when the technology at the core of an emerging category is advancing as fast as it is within the world of eMTBs. As such, we would never jump into anything until we’re 100% ready and have fully evaluated the [eMTB] market and the current offerings that pique our interest. Deciding what kind of eMTB we would like to develop and the design direction to take is, therefore, a huge decision for us. Tossing the ongoing supply chain issues into the mix with some exciting new non-e-platforms, which we can’t talk about and are in development right now, we’re extremely busy and happily distracted, for now anyway.
Would you ever consider releasing an eMTB in the future?
Yes, totally, I think the writing is on the wall; eMTB’s are here to stay! But what is less obvious is how the technology will develop and where the products will shake out during this period of rapid evolution. Motor and battery technology is advancing so fast that I would bet that the eMTB offerings we’ll see and be riding five years from now, will be significantly different from the ones on the market today. Given the rate of development in this sector, we are content to sit back and observe, at least for a little while.
Do you think releasing an eMTB is a different prospect from a standard bike? Or would it be like adding any different style of bike to your range?
Absolutely, the addition of the motor, battery and rider interface make an eMTB a totally different product from a standard MTB. The way the rider and the bike interact with each other, and with the trail, is fundamentally different. To us, this makes it a very different product and as such, would require a different approach. This is why we have chosen to take it slow and learn as much as we can before we develop our own eMTB. We don’t produce “me too” products without motors and we won’t start doing it with [eMTBs].
Are there any sustainability or other issues that guide your decisions around eMTBs?
If we were on the cusp of developing a platform for this category, perhaps, but this topic is hard to cover authoritatively without hard facts to reference. I think it’s fair to say that there are real concerns about the end-of-life options for old motors and batteries especially, and while this is true of any consumer goods with batteries, I am pleased to see initiatives happening within our industry - and the world as a whole - to reduce the environmental impact of battery disposal.
Will Montague, President at Guerilla Gravity:
Why haven’t you released an eMTB yet?
We are actively investing a ton into our operations to meet current demand. We’re a small company with limited resources, so it makes sense for us to sit on the sidelines until we’re able to get through these next few years of infrastructure building.
Would you ever consider releasing an eMTB in the future?
Definitely. We’ve ridden some of the modern eMTBs and think they’re awesome. We’re excited about where the motor and battery tech is going and we are looking forward to seeing how things evolve over the next few years. Further, I think there is a lot of “getting the bugs worked out” happening right now with the current bikes on the market and the bigger companies have the resources to shoulder the costs of early technology adoption.
What considerations are there in deciding to release an eMTB?
It’s no secret that there are some negative aspects to the battery tech as it stands now, both from current supply chain and end-of-life recycling. In addition to keeping an eye on that, another big thing is rider service and support. Presently, a lot of eMTB riders are newer to the sport and need additional support to have a good experience. And even experienced riders buying their first eMTB are new to motor and battery technology, which is just a different “component” than they’ve used before. Lastly, there are additional nuances around product design (e.g. frame and drive system integration) and fulfillment (e.g. shipping of batteries to customers) to consider.
Do you think releasing an eMTB is a different prospect from a standard bike? Or would it be like adding any different style of bike to your range?
If you think about a standard eMTB (like what Santa Cruz or Yeti offers), I would say it’s about “25%” different, so more akin to an additional bike in our range. There are definitely additional considerations for design, ride characteristics, and customer support, but we don’t view them as a totally different animal. Something like a Sur Ron or some of Greyp’s models are, however, very different animals from what we know and love of mountain bikes.
If you wouldn’t ever release an eMTB, why not?
If the carbon footprint and eco impacts begin trending in the wrong direction, or additional information around their impact becomes available, that would definitely affect our decision.
Are there any sustainability or other issues that guide your decisions around eMTBs?
This is something we’re keeping an eye on and that will affect our planning and timing. What the cycling industry is working on in regards to battery recycling is great. We’re optimistic that given all of the focus on EV batteries in general, a lot of the progress will be made on the sustainable sourcing and manufacturing of batteries and their raw material components. While too subjective to fully quantify, I do think there is some amount of offset to riding an eMTB vs driving a car to the trailhead. At a more macro level --and more personal view-- I think the potential of ebikes as the urban transport of choice is very exciting and something I’m excited to be able to participate in (I now ride to work, when I previously had not).
Noel Buckley, CEO/Head Engineer and Jens Lange Sales at Knolly:
Why haven’t you released an eMTB yet?
Currently, our main focus is on concentrating our resources on our pedal bikes to be able to provide a full range of bikes and make the best engineered and riding aluminum bikes possible. We have introduced four new models during the past 18 months and are still working on expanding our core range, even if lead times are longer given the challenges of Covid.
Would you ever consider releasing an eMTB in the future?
A Knolly eMTB makes sense if motors/batteries continue to get lighter and smaller. For us, we have always prioritized ride quality and feel above anything else, and currently the delta between regular pedal bikes and eMTBs is quite large. As that delta continues to shrink, we feel we can start to look at designing and building a sub 20kg aluminum eMTB that does not compromise the existing advantages of our suspension layout and ride quality.
What considerations are there in deciding to release an eMTB?
The challenge with eMTB is finding our niche: we don't want to bring one to market just because we can. It's actually relatively easy to build an eMTB, what is not easy is differentiating yourself from all of the other products in the marketplace that use the same 5 motor suppliers with the same 3 frame layouts. We have several markets that we can focus on as a high-end niche player and we are looking into those markets. The challenge with good suspension design is in the subtleties. High power eMTBs mute those subtleties and we want to explore how we can exploit the additional power, not just make the same bike but with more available power.
We feel that the layout and intended purpose of a Chilcotin or a Warden would make them the perfect base for a low-torque (around 60nm), small battery (around 400Wh) eMTB that uses the motor as a climbing aid for tech/steep climbs rather than a 900 Wh battery monster, super booster for forest roads and gravel motorways with the sole purpose of breaking KOM records of most meter climbed in a day without getting range anxiety. With smaller, more tunable motor offerings from the likes of Shimano, Yamaha or Fazua we should certainly investigate what's out there and how we can be part of this and how this can be incorporated within our current values and philosophies.
Again, the performance delta between climbing and descending on a pedal bike vs climbing and descending on an eMTB is what we would want to minimize. Our goal with any eMTB would not be to cheapen the experience. It's a bit of a different philosophy compared to most of the eMTBs on the market which are prioritizing maximum power and maximum energy storage.
Do you think releasing an eMTB is a different prospect from a standard bike? Or would it be like adding any different style of bike to your range?
My personal feeling is that they are different. The eMTB market is more complicated than people give it credit for. I think there is a feeling from many high level / purist cyclists who want to marginalize the market as a beginner product or "bringing in new riders" product. Both of those market segments are valid but there is also an extremely skilled user base that purchases eMTBs. Sometimes it's just to be able to fit in an extra lap: the first lap or so are done on the pedal bike, and the 3rd and 4th lap are done on the electric bike. Or perhaps it's due to limited time and you can crank out the climb a lot more quickly. Or it's for commuting. There are lots of reasons. Whether all cyclists agree that it's valid is an ongoing discussion.
Where I disagree with the industry's overall direction is that I don't feel that eMTBs and pedal MTB are the same and currently, there is a lot of advertising pressure trying to make everyone believe that they are the same. This isn't a question of what's better, what's more righteous or ethical. It's recognizing that increasing the rider's effective power output by 3 - 4x is a stepping stone into motorized vehicles. Ten years ago, there were mountain bikes and there were gas-powered dirt bikes with very clearly delineated boundaries. Now, there are 10 steps between the two where you can link the dots together and that is something that we as a user base should all be aware of from an access and legislation standpoint.
Are there any sustainability or other issues that guide your decisions around eMTBs?
Absolutely. Personally, I'm a huge fan of the shift to a purely electric energy future and have been an EV owner for the past couple of years. There is a lot of discussion on battery longevity, repurposing and recycling and how this will be executed on a massive scale to ensure that the environmental benefits of EVs are not partially offset by materials extraction and waste.
For Knolly the question is similar to our recent internal decision to focus on metal bikes and stay away from carbon frames for the foreseeable future. When we talk about "The Three Rs" we tend to forget that they are in order. There is a huge focus on Recycling, but Recycling should be the last option: the first two are Reduce and Reuse. If we focus on Reduce as our key metric, this means that we create high-quality products that last and that don't have planned obsolescence as part of their design. This same philosophy would be key in any eMTBs that we bring to market.
Joe McEwan, Founder at Starling Cycles:
Why haven’t you released an eMTB yet?
As a small company, we cannot get economic prices (or even supply) from the eMTB system manufacturers. They are only interested in the big companies. Also, we are very busy building bikes here in the UK, and only have limited spare time for development...
Would you ever consider releasing an eMTB in the future?
We have been working with a start-up UK motor manufacturer called Freeflow Technologies. They have a great new system nearing commercial readiness: it is small, neat and uses a clever gearing system to reduce motor speeds down to those suitable for pedal assist. We have a first prototype which has been ridden for a good while now. We are working on a second version to refine the design a little. But building a full-sus eMTB out of steel presents a few technical issues, but we're getting there. The proto rides great!!
A closer look at the unique Freeflow technologies motor being used on the current Starling eMTB prototype.
What considerations are there in deciding to release an eMTB?
I think all brands need an eMTB in their range, unless you are happy to stay small and niche. I think Starling Cycles could exist quite happily in the niche market, in fact I think our simple elegant designs and aesthetics will do well in a post eMTBs world. But I always like an engineering challenge, so have been keen to develop the bike...
Do you think releasing an eMTB is a different prospect from a standard bike? Or would it be like adding any different style of bike to your range?
There will be some people not happy with a brand like mine adding an eMTB to our range, but hopefully we can come up with something different to the status quo and add some interest.
Are there any sustainability or other issues that guide your decisions around eMTBs?
I think the issue of batteries is something that will come back to bite us in the future, there is talk of recycling, but I suspect for now it's just greenwashing bullshit.
Also, I think the current failure rate with eMTBs is just not acceptable. I've been told that one particular very big manufacture of eMTBs has a 100% failure rate on motors! Every single bike they sell has the motor fail and it just replaced under warranty. They do this very efficiently, so customers seem to accept it. But the waste is terrible. In a world where the environment is failing because of our actions, I really don't think this is something we should allow. Freeflow technologies motor I am working with has many fewer moving parts, so should be much more reliable. And this is something they are working on very hard.
I also think trail access and conflict issues need resolving. Over time processes and behaviours will develop. But we need to be aware of this and work towards it.
Although not featured in the article the following companies are also missing an eMTB in their ranges:
Calibre
Canfield
Esker Cycles
Ibis
NS Bikes
Pipedream
Canfield
Esker Cycles
Ibis
NS Bikes
Pipedream
Pyga
RAAW Mountain Bikes
Ragley
Revel
Salsa
Transition
RAAW Mountain Bikes
Ragley
Revel
Salsa
Transition
Author Info:
Member since Mar 16, 2017
Must Read This Week
My last 3 bikes have been Banshee, Banshee, Knolly and I realize it has a lot to do with the design ethos of those companies.
Everyone buying e in it's current form should realize it comes with negative impacts on the environment. It's not black and white of course, you may still get away with it if you make other reasonable life choices. But don't buy the green washing.
What's not discussed so much is that in a lot of places and with irresponsible use, eMTB can have a negative impact also on our trail networks. Both with regards to land access and wear and tear, either through more watts on the ups, more weight on the downs, or just longer average rides = more trail passages = more wear.
Peace!
• Distance. Most e-bike riders I know are using them to self-shuttle trails without shuttle access. They'll do three laps at maximum assist, compared to one lap on a human-powered bike. As such, this is already three times the wear & tear, even without other factors.
• Shear force. 200% boost is 3× the original shear force at the rear contact patch, and many bikes exceed 200% boost.
Trail erosion is a function of distance and shear force. When both increase several-fold, greater erosion is inevitable.
(For those who are about to comment that water does more damage than tires and feet: Yes, but only once tires and feet have created a high velocity channel down the middle of the trail, and the factors listed above hasten the formation of this channel.)
www.pinkbike.com/photo/21715900
You are doing math wrong.. it is adding 25kg(or lets say 10kg difference) to the average rider weight.
This is 100% my "get erf ma lawn" opinion of ebikes. It feels so backwards.
In every other instance, electric transportation is done with goals towards sustainability. You build ebikes for commuting and it frees people from the vehicle. You add electric motors to cars and it allows for more sustainable energy production. Even electric scooters open up longer sidewalk commutes to people who would otherwise likely be driving.
But ebikes are the opposite of this progess. We already have a sustainable, zero-emission (when in use) way to access the backcountry and it's called the mountain bike.
I get it that in some cases it is a great thing, allowing older people or otherwise disadvantaged folks to access the outdoors in a way that would otherwide not be available. But that's not the scenario that is driving ebike adoption for the large part. In reality, it is normal, healthy adults replacing a more sustainable technology (the mountain bike) with a less sustainable one (the ebike). So now, all of a sudden, emissions are a part of riding a bike and we get to fill the ground with more and more discarded lithium cells.
And that's not even getting into the impact on trails, maintenance, and environmental sustainability.
We're going in the wrong direction.
"There's definitely a place for e bikes where they replace cars, but not eMTBs."
Absolutely.
Well there's a simple solution in not using strava when riding these things. You are asking a lot from strava to moderate your own or individual's activities. I don't see how it is in their interest or even practical when you consider the global scale. Also couldn't someone lobby to remove stuff that they don't like but is legit? How does strava square that circle?
You're not wrong that people are driving cars. But we also have cities and infrastructure built around the automobile and lots of times people have no choice. Demanding better and being stuck living in the world that currently exists are not mutually exclusive ideas.
I'm certain a second thought is given. Otherwise people in car-centric cities wouldn't be demanding better public transit and cycle infrastructure at such a high level.
This is always the 'what about' that comes out when people care about the environment. "Well you drive, don't you?" Sure. A lot of us live in North America where cities are connected exclusively via the automobile and you cannot access areas by foot or by bike or by transit. Operating in the world in which you live does not mean you can't work towards improving it.
Take away that challenge and you have riders adding some throttle at the wrong times. This can be bad for their health, but also lead to trail degradation.
We're all hypocrites, man. This isn't the devastating takedown you think it is.
No one needs to go out and buy an electric car, or rid themselves of a car entirely, in order to be able to hold an opinion about the environmental impacts of things.
This is false equivocation, and frankly, a really dumb take.
The heatmap is updated monthly.
Activity that athletes mark as private is not visible.
Athletes may opt out by updating their privacy settings.
Areas with very little activity may not show any 'heat.'
www.wired.com/story/guide-to-ebike-classes
The main causes are braking, either too much or not enough control.
Riding in conditions that increase damage to a given soil type. Too wet/dry..
The increased overall trail use is a valid concern.
I'd also venture a guess that when most people complain about e-mtbs having more impact on trail wear, they are thinking about down trails. But the shear forces you are talking about are not really happening there. That would more likely be on up trails, or at least when folks hammer in boost mode in a small number of places where that can happen. I wonder whether e-mtbs, used properly, really have any real, measurable impact on trail erosion. And that could probably be said about regular pedal bikes too.
The other factor is increased distance. X times the distance will cause X times the wear, even without the additional multiplier of shear force effects.
The recent growth of the sport is another multiplier. It is reasonable to assume:
• Some - probably most - of the e-bike adoption has been from existing riders, which isn't captured in the growth
• Most of the growth would've occurred with or without e-bikes (riders who started or increased their riding on human-powered bikes, plus those on e-bikes who still would've joined / increased without motor assist)
• Some of the growth occurred exclusively because of e-bikes (some new riders wouldn't have started mountain biking without the benefit of motors)
• All of these e-bike users are riding farther, faster, and/or more frequently than they would be if e-bikes were not available to them
You may be right that e-bikes are here to stay, but it doesn't take away that he still made objectively accurate points.
As someone who is quick to turn on the c*ntometer when I disagree with someone, I'm even taken aback at the approach you're taking- it's pointlessly insulting.
If you're in a place where legally available trail miles are already tapped and the trail system can't grow, then that increase in use and ridership will lead to issues - user conflicts, more illegal building, erosion on over-used trails, what have you. Ultimately, that can endanger access for all riders. Bad.
If you're in a place where you're blessed with the opportunity to grow your trail system (i.e., the limiting factor is volunteer labor, rather than available land), then more riders coming into the sport, and people who used to sort of ride getting a second wind in their riding can very much lead to a more engaged community. And that, in turn, can grow the trail system for everyone.
And then there's the question whether a growing riding community can turn the former sort of place into the latter sort of place. If that were the case, that would be a huge win for all riders. In commuting, there's a bit of that sort of thing going on, where bike commuting was stagnating, so traffic planning didn't really get pressured to provide more opportunity for safe and enjoyable bike commuting. But now you've got lots of middle aged people buying ebikes and wanting to ride places all over town, so you've got them lobbying and exerting influence, plus you've got higher user numbers adding to the pressure, and all of a sudden traffic planners are responding and improving infrastructure. We know that virtuous cycle works in MTB as well (here in Bellingham, even before ebikes, we've had lots of growth, and the result has been more and more access, and as a result more and more trails). I'm hearing from friends in Germany that places that were completely locked out of being able to develop trails in the woods all of a sudden are becoming more open because of how freaking popular eMTBs are over there, giving the riding community critical mass.
My position on how to categorize bikes for trail access uses "human vs. non-human" as the most basic division.
Human: Fully human-powered (unassisted) or assisted bikes that meet both of the following criteria:
• More human than machine: ≤100% assist.
• Does not exceed human capabilities: maximum combined output less than or equal to the maximum human output, which we could model after that of a World Champion or similar. Seems more than fair to allow every rider to equal the fittest human on the planet. No speed limit on the assist would be required.
Human and human-comparable bikes would be allowed anywhere bikes are allowed, which would make it easier to group us with other human users (ex. hikers).
Non-human bikes and other non-human trail users (motorcycles, ATVs, horses, etc.) may also be allowed or may be subject to restrictions, at the discretion of whomever sets the policy for the trails in question.
Personally, my biggest concern is over collisions. For example, most of my local trails are two-way. Currently, they're just barely safe at the upper end of speeds of descending riders vs. unassisted climbing riders. An assisted climbing rider may be traveling at two to three times the unassisted speed, which could easily push the closing speeds between riders into an unsafe range. If we choose to solve this by enforcing the 30+ year old requirement for descending riders to be able to avoid climbers, the faster the climbers go, the more the descenders must limit their speed to accommodate. Conceivably, the climbers could end up going faster than the descenders, which is clearly not how the policy was meant to work.
Another problem arises on undulating terrain. Sections of my local trails change from uphill to downhill in intervals as short as 10 m. Heavily assisted bikes can exceed 30 km/h in both directions, giving a closing speed of 60 km/h with rapidly changing statuses of "climber" and "descender". Even if such speeds were manageable, existing right-of-way policies did not envision the current situation and are impractical.
I feel one-way trails - or segments, at least - are the best solution for busy areas and/or trail segments that could create dangerous situations.
E bikers seem to rape and pillage then move on the the next trail.
(w)Ord!
LMAO are you really making the argument if you buy enough carbon offset vouchers you "get away with it". If so f*ckING LOL, I can't even pretend to play nice you all live in a different cognitive reality than me. If you hate ebikes fine, but please don't you dare hate them for purely ecological reasons while you ride a full suspension mtb full of all sorts of noxious fluids that need to be deposed of seasonally, let alone the frame materials conversation. Funny the more yall squeel about the environment and how Ebikes are a nail in the coffin, the more i think about how grossly "unsustainable" all forms of cycling are.
not to mention narrower tires tear and cut up trails much faster that wider treads..
that is one point no one can deny as far as ebikes don't do any more damage to trails.
It's pretty simple, if rider A rides 10 miles on a pedal bike, then rider B rides 20 miles on his ebike, your trails are going to have TWICE the erosion on them.
Not to mention they do slightly more damage to begin with.
how does an ebiker defend that?
I'll just leave this here, praying to my higher diety for an enforcer of this sort to arrive in the mtb world, mostly kidding LOL
www.reddit.com/r/surfing/comments/qptxz6/consequences_foiled_at_fort_point
I'll be 65 next year, have had 3 AC separations, both Supraspinatus severed and will need a knee replacement soon, but don't let that stop me. I ride all year until the snow flies and switch to fat bikes for 4-1/2 months. All the drivel about the environment is a crock. How many of you drive large pickup trucks or SUV's to go fetch your beer at the corner store. I'll be getting an e-bike next year to continue riding, and I won't be tearing up the trails any more than I do now, except perhaps putting in more km. I couldn't care less why others might consider them. Ride, relax and have a beer when done and enjoy life.
Try to do as many reasonable life choices as possible e.g.
-Fly 0-1 times a year
-Keep house temp low and electricity consumption down, choosing renewable supply
-eat more veg/vegan
-consume less, buy stuff that can be maintained and lasts, with lower LCA impact where you can choose eg question of you need
Carbon or batteries. And if you do choose as clean and/or recyclable as you can (e.g.Japanese Toray over Chinese carbon)
Everyone can do something, most people can do more, me included.
Btw I qualify for eMTB due to a post TBI fatigue, but I Still choose not to as long as I can. Hopefully by the timeI may need it it's all recyclable and more cleanly produced.
Peace
Was trail damage as much of an issue before ebikes? No.
I see things getting to a point where trail access is going to cost money because maintaining them will become too costly.
Indoor trainer for the win. It's like the worst off all sustainability arguments.
When I worked in shops alot of schlubby upper middle aged men buying (alot of store financing) 10kusd regular and E-bikes to make them faster.
Getting under a barbell, doing some actual cardio plus eating well would make them faster than any SWorks or slash 9.9 ever could.
For me, I made my mind up when a dad and his kid were wondering where they would charge their batteries on a long ride in moab...what are you doing out here if you can finish the ride under your own power?
That and watching another father and son ride up the landings of steep drops...idiots
It wouldn't be the first or last time I'm wrong about anything but from what I've seen of ebikers, they tend to exhibit less finesse, but rather ride with a smash and grab style - maybe ebikers just don't pay as much of a penalty for poor habits and so don't have to learn as fast.
Anyhow, I don't mean to move the goalposts, I just typed that shit and not realized it's a bit off-topic.
1. Trail erosion does occur on climbs. If you don't believe it's shear forces because the wheels aren't spinning like a car doing a burnout, then what do you propose causes the observed erosion?
2. Why do we see almost zero erosion on flat ground, but lots of erosion on steeper ground?
As I said, a tire doesn't have to be spinning wildly. There is always some shear slippage, even when it's as small as a heavily loaded lug deforming and dragging a lightly loaded neighbour lug. Lugs flex, casings flex, and micro-slippage occurs as they do so.
Once again: if you don't believe it's related to shear, I invite you to propose an alternate explanation for how trail erosion occurs.
To clarify, shear force is the dominant factor in erosion of dry, compacted trails. This refers to shear both parallel and perpendicular to the direction of travel, and the related micro- or macro-slippage. Obviously, it's a different story on muddy or unconsolidated surfaces; these are much more vulnerable and are damaged by displacement and pumping, which is why it's best practice for trail management to avoid riding in such conditions.
I recommend, as your best reference:
Applying Geomorphic Principles in the Design of Mountain Biking Singletracks: Conceptual Analysis and Mathematical Modeling – Land, Basel, 2020.
www.proquest.com/docview/2460877899
Also relevant:
Erosional Imapct of Hikers, Horses, Off-Road Bicycles, and Motorcycles on Mountain Trails – Joseph Paul Seney, 1991.
scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/6831/31762100885266.pdf
Erosional Impact of Hikers, Horses, Motorcycles, and Off-Road Bicycles on Mountain Trails in Montana – Wilson & Seney, 1994.
www.researchgate.net/publication/268297897_Erosional_Impact_of_Hikers_Horses_Motorcycles_and_Off-Road_Bicycles_on_Mountain_Trails_in_Montana_Authors
Managing Degraded Off-Highway Vehicle Trails in Wet, Unstable, and Sensitive Environments – United States Forest Service, 2002. (Note: Primarily refers to wet conditions.)
www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm02232821/index.htm
E bikes easily now account for 20 - 30% of bikes on my local trails, while heavyset riders on enduro bikes are still very rare, and there are even more heavyset riders on those ebikes as fitness is less of a barrier. These riders are all putting in twice as many laps. There is easily a 60-70% increase of heavy e-traffic of 125kg + riders down our local trails and they are suffering badly for it.
The weight thing is just comical. My eeb weighs 16lbs more than my analog, so I guess we should just ban people who weigh 190lbs+ from the trail network. Same with the watts, I put out what an XC racer does on the ups, so XC racers should be banned from trail networks too.
"At Banshee we are purists, and like to ‘earn our turns’." Hope you guys have never ridden a shuttle truck or a chairlift then!
Tire slippage on climbs, braking on descents, hard cornering, ALL include 'Macro slippage' (I'm coining that term right now). The tire loses traction (for a split second or more) and the structure of the substrate is broken (rocks and dirt are kicked up)... this is erosion.
It's plausible that the consistency of torque provided by an E-Bike motor actually REDUCES the macro slippage I'm referring to. This is incredibly easy to visualize: simply think about how much tire slippage you get on a gravel climb when seated vs when out of the saddle... an E-bike inarguably reduces the requirement of a rider to be out of the saddle 'mashing' on the pedals on moderately steep climbs.
In conclusion, Shear force in and of itself has nothing to do with erosion. If the shear force exceeds a critical value then NOW we have tire slippage, and erosion occurs. If you still don't understand this concept I invite you to go get piece of sandpaper and hold it REALLY hard against a piece of wood, now (without allowing the sandpaper to 'slip' against the wood) apply as much shear force as you possibly can. According to your erosion theory simply applying this shear force should somehow make the wood start to disintegrate... But that's ridiculous, because it's clear that the sandpaper slipping across the wood with even gentle force will have infinitely more impact than all the shear force you can muster (without slippage. You follow?
Yes, macro-slippage occasionally occurs and causes a high rate of erosion when it does. It is not the only mechanism, though.
If erosion results only from macro-slippage, we would see essentially zero erosion from hikers, yet we see approximately the same from hikers as from bikers.
Shear forces create both micro-slippage (lug squirm and casing flex) and macro-slippage (even a few millimeters counts). More power makes both of these more likely to occur and increases the extent of each. Even an infinitely sensitive motor could do nothing to mitigate micro-slippage, and no real motor reacts quickly enough to control macro-slippage on the scale of several millimeters.
In your sandpaper analogy, if you attached the sandpaper to a tire and rode over the workpiece, the micro-slippage (again, that's unavoidable lug squirm and casing flex) would eventually produce wear on the workpiece. It would also produce more frequent, and usually larger, macro-slippage.
I'd refer you to your last reference: "The shearing action destroys soil structure by crushing soil peds (natural soil aggregates) and collapsing voids. Shearing is most likely to occur on finely textured soils under moist to saturated conditions. It is uncommon in coarse soils." note that it specifically states the 'shearing action', and not the shearing forces.
Secondly please refer to your first reference: "Particle aggregation increase up to a threshold determined by the soil shearing strength", what this means is that there is 'critical point' at which shearing FORCES actually begin to shear the substrate, if this is not exceeded then shearing does not occur.
To conclude higher shearing forces (caused by wheel torque) can induce shearing, but erosion will only occur when this forces is actually translated to shearing... In the context of bicycle tires you can read shearing as WHEEL SLIPPAGE.
I'm also utterly confused why you went to all that trouble to come to the conclusion that the point you were trying to make only really applied to dry, compacted soils... does this sound like the kind of trail that anybody is overly concerned about E-bikes on?
Yes, there is a shear strength to soil that, when exceeded, causes bulk masses of soil to break loose. Obviously, we're not talking about landslides, but the tiny edges of lugs on tires, shoes, and hooves can cause abrasion of a surface due to micro-slippage. These tiny amounts of wear add up to cause erosion over time. It's true that a small number of users can cause rapid damage on wet ground, but that's not the only mechanism.
I think our conversation has run its course. Thanks for your participation.
Honestly, I pictured shear force was related to torque until I browsed those sites you linked. Was schooled when I saw an illustration of a tire pushing down on the soil, and the soil under the tire displacing the soil down and out to the side of the tire, essentially forming a rut that looks like a heavy-vehicle's tire track.
Spreading weight out with a bigger contact patch, like with plus tires, helps to minimize that, but there's still the fact that more distance covered equates to more erosion.
Are you just baiting those who want to support their belief that emtb erosion isn't big enough to cause concern compared to other human-powered traffic, and low-key trolling the "believe the science (confirmation bias)" types?
I still remember you trying to explain cornering traction to me, using a bunch of motor vehicle concepts, but I forgot all of it... until I came upon some explanations about tire load sensitivity and how rubber isn't really a solid that follows traditional friction, and how it deforms to interlock with the fine micro texture of the ground for traction. Got the impression that it's better for the rubber to be as hard as possible while still being able to do this deforming ability.
You're correct that wider tires may reduce trail damage. My opinion is the trend toward wider off-road tires hasn't yet reached the optimum width and has been held back by sub-optimal casings and insufficient aspect ratios. The optimum tire width has more to do with managing impacts than climbing traction, so we won't see the bikes with 3× the force on tires 3× as wide.
You're also correct that "wagon wheel" ruts are mostly due to lateral displacement of material, but this form of erosion is minor, compared to ruts on steep slopes. In particular, wagon wheels are not powered, therefore produce extremely low shear force along the line of travel.
Even if someone doesn't believe in shear forces and we assume a vehicle applying 3× the force at the ground somehow produces no more erosion per unit of distance, you and I clearly agree e-bikes cover more distance. From a policy standpoint, the physics of the erosion is of little importance; it only matters to understand the impacts of various activities. The discussion could have further nuance by considering restrictions on activities during certain conditions, such as wet weather or limiting tire width on snow-covered trails.
I am not saying this to argue against e-bikes, only describing well-known facts that influence land use policies.
Basing your predictions on emtbs by applying some straight multiplier to power/torque... that's like using BMI to judge someone. Oversimplifying like that just attracts argument.
You're totally disregarding the software on the motors which ramp up the power to make riding feel natural. I wouldn't dismiss arguments suggesting that it even smooths power output, which contributes to the increased ease of riding.
The counterarguments are trying to suggest that adding sudden and unevenly/unsmoothly applied power and torque from accelerating from a very low speed, like a novice hammering in a granny gear, causes more wear compared to accelerating from a higher rolling speed.
A less powerful person getting tripped up by "technical" features on a climb will be eroding it more with their tires spinning out than someone powerful who is rolling up it with more ease (with momentum making trivial work of the tech features). The less powerful person is more likely to weave their way around uphill obstacles and widen the trail. The smoother rider erodes trail less, therefore can go more distance before matching the damage caused by stereotypical noobville usage. And as you say, slopes are the more sensitive to erosion, due to how water flows down it.
It would be like trying to argue that a fit and powerful trail runner does less erosion than a less fit and less powerful hiker. I would not dismiss the possibility that the fit trail runner does overall less erosion, esp if the hiker is in boots, despite the trail runner likely doing more distance. If I ignore the whole "light-footed vs heavy-footed" perspective, I'd still be optimistic about the trail runner, depending on how they maintain their speed, minimizing braking, unnecessary direction change, and quick accelerations.
Erosion on flat ground would be minimized when the rider is riding at the "flow speed" (the trail's natural speed limit). The flow speed is characterized by the amount of speed that would need the least amount of braking and least amount of quick acceleration to ride comfortably and efficiently. Emtbs have very limited battery life, so riding efficiently is encouraged. Are you presuming that emtbers would be going over this flow speed regularly, despite their handling not being as good as normal bikes? They'd be taking on more risk than riders on better handling bikes if they tried.
To top it off, emtb allows people to carry the weight of gear that makes them ride better (less like a noob). Less dragging brakes down slopes, less skidding, less going around obstacles and widening trails...
It's true a bike that helps the rider carry speed may reduce erosion when it helps the rider roll over things that could've caused a stall and spin for an unassisted rider. On the other hand:
1. When an assisted bike does stall and spin, it may spin with more force and the tire could rotate farther, as the rider will be in a higher gear ratio than they would be on an unassisted bike.
2. In some situations, a rider may stall due to lack of skill more than lack of force. In such a case, the rider is less likely to spin when unassisted than when assisted. Even so, I don't know about you, but stalls with wheel spinning are infrequent for me.
3. Riders on assisted bikes are still pedaling when they would otherwise be walking on an unassisted bike. Riding up extremely steep trails certainly will create more wheel slippage and erosion than walking up the same trail.
The only way an assisted bike could cause less erosion per unit of distance covered is if it spins less, which I'm not convinced is the case. As examples, albeit on severe terrain, we could look at a Pinkbike test and an EMBN EWS-E Power Stage climb:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDkle6JVfRU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3wlpdhsFNI
The riders mention traction issues several times and, to my eye, there are several instances of the rear wheel spitting rocks in ways I don't think an unassisted bike would do.
If we look at the GMBN video below, by counting wheel revolutions during the slow-mo shots on steep, smooth ground, I get about 25% slip rate. We don't have an unassisted bike to which to compare, so I can only speculate it looks different from what how I'd expect an unassisted bike to look. Maybe there's some analogy to how assisted vs. unassisted bikes would perform on less steep terrain. Maybe the only value is a glimpse into what happens on extreme grades that would force an unassisted rider to walk.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eBmLBv6Dks
We may be losing sight of the big picture, so let's take a step back. An assisted bike is putting greater average shear force through the contact patch (assuming fairly similar weight and contact patch, both of which are a lot closer between assisted vs. unassisted than the discrepancy in power outputs). This difference in average force is not in doubt - it's the mechanism by which the bike is propelled, and assisted bikes do more propelling. It's implausible that a vehicle applying more force will be more gentle on the trail. We can look at local effects and non-linear rates of erosion under various circumstances, and doing so will surely result in a wear rate that's not a perfectly linear relationship to the difference in average power, but the more powerful vehicle isn't going to be more gentle on the trail.
You've probably heard "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". To me, it's an extraordinary claim that two similar vehicles can have a 3× difference in power output and not have significantly different impacts on the trail. I don't feel the supporting arguments are extraordinary, so I'll thank you for your discussion and I'd prefer to end it from my side.
You suggest the walker does less erosion. I will contest that. Walking up a dirt slope requires a surprising amount of grip, hence why stairs are considered an infrastructure improvement. Pushing up a bike while walking further stresses that grip. Every time a foot slides... when a bicycle tries it, and the wheel slips, it's likely due to too much torque from low gearing and lack of momentum. There's less likely to be slipping if the rider's in a higher gear, but you'd need more power to push that gear, which is where fitness or a mid-drive pedal assist system helps. Who the heck believes that cleanly clearing a challenging climb causes more erosion than all the various attempts by more novice riders? Better fitness and a better bike help reduce all that faff, and a quality emtb is likely the best choice for novices and out-of-shape experienced riders that money can buy, especially if they're not concerned about racing.
Why do you repeatedly refuse that it's plausible that there's less erosion with faster speeds? I'm arguing that there's a sweet spot speed that minimizes erosion, and acknowledge that it takes fitness, skill, and experience to stay in that range. I'm suggesting that quality emtbs lower that fitness, skill, and experience requirement. There's less stress on the ground when you are carrying momentum over it... it's easily imagined if you take for instance a soil type that is more prone to erosion and shear force, like a sandy beach.
Compare a walker going down a hill, maintaining their slow walking speed, vs one that just lets gravity accelerate them, letting their legs loose to increase stride and stay upright. Compare to a rider that is going at a smooth, controlled flowing speed downhill and to a rider that heavily drags brakes (perhaps because they have fast rolling tires that they can't afford to brake late into corners with)... I'm confident that the people who resist gravity, from speeding them up, are causing more erosion than those who are flowing with it.
Rest of your argument is still you repeating your same oversimplified crap based on assumptions that the ebike behaves like a motor vehicle, rather than a bicycle with pedal-assist whose motor was programmed to retain the bicycle experience. You still are cherry-picking scenarios where noob behavior (low skill) and reckless behavior (racing/competing) causes erosion. The emtb is not to blame there, but the rider. I've been saying that emtbs can reduce noob habits. It also makes racing kind of pointless. Not hard to see through all the confirmation bias you use; behind it all is just blind hate.
Emtbs are not for everyone, just like enduro FS bikes aren't for everyone. They open up all sorts of riding for those who have the locale for it, and are a great replacement for shuttling.
Speed differences among riders exist, but the % differences aren't something I'm going to assume. However, braking causes more wear and tear to the trail.
Exhibit a) braking bumps.
The mass increases by 15-20kg and you want to pretend the physical effects of that dont exist on the trail- what are you smoking?
You increase the number of ebikers, you increase trail damage.
Exhibit b) reality.
It's like R-M-R said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you're lacking that.
Take the last word.
As someone who has ridden those same Peak District trails as you for longer than you've had a bike company and longer than Strava has existed the increase in traffic is not just down to one bit of technology.
I have a web site with Peak District routes on it and you actively promote riding in the area to help sell your bikes - if there is a problem we are part of it too.
A liter of water is 1kg, and some people carry 3L on their back to fuel their rides, which I see as comparable to a battery's fuel.
Realistic scenarios: noobs and racer wanna-bes cause extra erosion, enough to anger entitled mtbers (Karens).
Unrealistic: emtbs straight up multiplies that.
Irrational belief: the ground erodes more from a bike that weighs 15 lbs more, than some person adding 15 lbs to them in some other way, like packing some extra weight on their belly over the holidays.
My belief: the extra 7kg that a motor and battery adds to a bike offers way more performance per $ and gram than any other stuff these bike sites cover, especially all that lightweight carbon stuff. A person losing 7kg of lard on their body does 'em more good than throwing money at crap to save 7kg in weight off their bike. If people stopped being so sensitive to being overbiked, this place would be far less toxic.
@thenotoriousmic: great *replacement* for shuttling. As in ditching the separate shuttle vehicle, whether it's the car to drive to the trailhead or a lift. In other words, riding to the trailhead from home, and riding to the top.
And I would say I'm able to pay for my my hobbies and riding everyday with my morals (savings acculumated after working 5 years as an rn, quit in the spring to fish salmon and currently taking a break before getting a travel gig)
Lots of different ways to do life, just depends on how you're looking at it. But one size certainly does not fit all
WOW I'm glad you have a flexible work schedule that allows you to ride MOAR often.
Seems like riding MOAR has a bigger impact on a trail versus someone that rides less, due to work + family obligations...
LOL just giving you shit from your BS comment on the "Opinion: How Many Batteries Does a Mountain Bike Really Need?" thread
Knolly “ have you seen how ugly our normal bikes are?”
Knolly - "Let's paint them the color of bile and see if that helps"
Edit:
After I posted this I rode into the sunset on my intense tracer, and I said “that was a very intense pun I wrote earlier”.
1. Mountain bike companies want to sell you ebikes
2. Pinkbike wants to sell ads
3. Therefore: Pinkbike wants to sell you ebikes
Filters will disappear, content will shift, money drives it all
1. Increase reliance on proprietary preformed frame parts with standards that will change every 2 years
2. Increase reliance on Taiwanese and Chinese manufacturing given that the US is incapable of supplying batteries and controllers
3. Take even more authority away from frame makers and turn bike brands into component integrators
Are ebikes something riders asked for, or something that private equity demanded?
And I think it's a good argument, but if pushed to the extreme we are in trouble.
Luckily the political climate these days isn't about the extremes at all....
1. We would like to but cannot afford to right now
2. We are working on it.
3. Keith.
Banshee - can't afford it.
Bird - have prototype, supply issues.
Cotic - have prototype, supply issues.
Forbidden - can't afford it.
Guerilla Gravity - can't afford it.
Knolly - wannabe "high-end niche player"
Starling Cycles - can't afford it.
We make luxury/hobby market bikes with a carbon footprint bigger than 0. We really care about carbon footprints. That's why we don't make an ebike.
If they really cared about the planet more than money, they would stop making bikes.
Honesty is a hard thing to come by!
We are talking about mountain biking, which is a niche in the world of mobility. We have seen that an electric bike could weigh ~ 500kg of CO2 emissions (I voluntarily exaggerate), but we forget that a car is about 5 to 10 tons of CO2 in production ... and the bike can sometimes replace the car in question for the end user ...
If we're talking about the environment, I don't think the priority should be on the world of cycling, which is already an alternative to polluting modes of transport...
Although I am convinced that this is of course a primary issue for all products, as long as possible, maximum efforts must be made to respect the environment and limit emissions.
In the end my thougt is that i prefer it to be a mindset more of a selling or no-selling point.....
Some are in the works.
To use it as a commuter however it would suck because it only can make 25kmh and I am sure 30kmh with heavy and knobby tires will not be possible for me for 45km for one way. I don't like the time I waste with commuting so I stay with train's and xc/gravel bikes .
For that distance over gravel and bad tarmac I could hold average of 30kmh with an xc.
Those are the reason why I stay way from it
Also , I don't have a car..
Man I just saw some videos from
not just bikes
NA really looks like a desert even compared to Germany if we talk about cycle infrastructure.
@SLBIKES ha no thanks but at least 5kmh would be nice. I would not loose any time on that trip and because I have big mountains near me I could even do a proper afterwork trail ride by just alter the route.
= I want to sound like I care but as long as the solution involves me making less money, I'm out.
It seems like the consumers are quick to pick their favorite brand, and nothing, ebike in the lineup or not, will keep them from getting something from that brand. I'm sure Banshee would still lots of bikes if they produced an ebike, and people will still talk them up.
But how many people look at a brands lineup and say "no ebikes, great! I'm buying one of their bikes."
I had to replace my Shimano E8000 a little while ago (after only 2000km!) and the shop told me I'm definetly not the only one and even advised to sell. He also mentioned that Bosch seems very reliable and that he hadn't experience any troubles with Yamaha (but I don't think there are that many bikes out there with that system anyway).
Anyone who thinks anything in the bicycle industry produced overseas, and lots of domestic manufacturing too, is "environmentally friendly" has got their head in the sand.
"We simply don't have the cash to do it."
There are valid arguments against e-bikes but trail wear and climbing speeds are utter bullshit. Especially when it comes to new riders.
Give my a break. My emtb weighs less than my 03 Scream did and I've done and do FAR less damage to the trails on either because I subscribe to the 'old school ride, don't slide' methodology. A grom can do more damage to a trail on a single run shredding berms on a 32lb downcountry bike than me and my friends do on our eebs in an entire day.
With new lighter battery and motor tech, by 2025 all emtbs will be under 40lbs and will drive the entire market. If Banshee or Transition had the funds(or lack of elitism lol) to release an all-mountain and enduro ebike like say, Rocky Mountain... they be sold out or on back order while their other 'overpriced' models sat on the floor. 'Love the climb' See ya at the top!
"Put up an ebike article and turn the filter off. Done."
www.ebikemotorcentre.com
Eebs will get there. I would love one but I'm going to wait for two things. First, they have to not cost the same as a used motorcycle. Second, they have to have a gearbox somehow built into the motor. Right now I can see the appeal but they're just not quite there in my opinion. Putting a conventional drivetrain on one makes absolutely no sense.
Give it five to ten years though and I'm sure there will be a range of absolutely sick options on the market.
I wouldn't touch one!
Motors just seem like a terrible rip off when compared to internal combustion engines.
I’d love an ebike. Living where I live, most decent trail centres are at least an hour away, reducing the time I have to ride. I’m much more into descending than climbing, so anything that makes the climbing quicker, easier and less boring is a win for me. More runs, more fun.
However…
We’re still a long way away from them being a truly viable option. Disregarding the high cost, ebikes have so many unresolved issues. Appalling reliability, still using derailleurs instead of a maintenance-free gearbox and weight. The biggest elephant in the room though is that they make cycling (a pretty eco-friendly pleasure) a high polluting, lithium-consuming, un-recycleable pastime. Until we work out how to deal with that, ebikes have no place.
Purely from a riding perspective, I had a fairly open mind towards E-bikes, although I’ve no interest in owning/riding one myself, but there seem to be more and more idiots riding them now, riders with no clue on trail etiquette or respect for other trail users.
Had one blast past me on a pedally section yesterday, cutting off of the trail and back in front of me, if he’d given me a shout, I’d have pulled to one side. Karma nearly got him as he lost the front and nearly stacked it after rejoining the trail.
Finally someone in the bike industry willing to say it out loud.
I’ll still probably get one in the next year or 2 as it makes sense for our circumstances. But I do wish they’d sort out battery recycling and motor reliability.
At the moment it seems to be that people run them for 18-24 months and then shift them before the motor dies.
I think geometry wise there’s not really many reasons nowadays you need to keep changing your regular bike every season as there aren’t the huge changes in geo/tech anymore.
MTB is hardcore pedalling for sure, if he/she/other finds it difficult then ride an easy trail till your fitter, or try road cycling first, or even hit an exercise bike.
learn journalism pls.
On the other hand, I was impressed by the intelligent responses.
There's pros to getting more people on bikes, especially for comuting etc, but impact of batteries, future redundancy of standards, waste, environmental impact is huge.
You can say the same thing about electric cars but at least that is switching from one damaging tech to a hopefully less damaging one.
I'm all for e-bikes being used to replace cars on roads, and to provide the infirm or older riders with ability to keep riding.
But seeing young, fit men and women buying e-bikes is really depressing, and has horrible environmental consequences, both in terms of producing powered drivetrain, warranty replacement, and rapid burnout of drivetrain components and brake system. Easily seeing riders destroy drivetrain in 2-3 months - standard MTB components are just not suitable! Very valid case for gearbox, thick chain or belt drive.
Noel as Knolly had an honest response of "there is no point at this time to make another ebike to try to compete with the multitude of companies out there already using the same parts as it would not be a good return on investment to produce something that does not allow them to make a bike that remains true to their engineering principles (paraphrased)".
I would like to find out the facts of how many new riders are buying $8-10k ebikes for their first bike compared to more experienced rider who would shell out that kind of money, for their own specific reason. While I personally have had a full powered ebike and did not like it due to its weight, I now ride a Specialized Levo SL which gives me enough of a boost to make it up the climbing trails on the North Shore and in Squamish and still get a work out. I am 59 years old and broke my foot a couple of years ago. I think I have earned it.
Specialized makes a good product but if Knolly makes an ebike on the Warden or Chilcotin frame, I would switch over in a heart beat because I know it would be better for the trails I like to ride.
The only reason im not in a emtb today is because they are ugly and heavy but I have no doubt I’ll buy one in a few years when the technology becomes better and they become lighter. I agree with one of the comments from Banshee, a 200watt motor and a smaller battery with a low assist would be enough for me to get me interested
That's kind of clumsy wording.
Yea and as its my joint favourite brand, I’ll want one.
- Do something different than the rest (hard though with the reliance on a handful of manufacturers for motors and batteries).
- At least not partake in the 'biggest motor & biggest battery' race but rather prioritize actual ride quality and go light and lean.
- Bring back the 'Traitor' brand name for it and at least own the fact that they are going against their original stance.
Been on a Transition for nearly two years and have another on order, but I’m pretty sure if Transition did bring out an E-bike (I hope they don’t], I’ll be able to resist.
Stay strong fella.
The can seriously eff off if they have been working on electric gimmicks (probably strapping a Shimano moto on an existing bike and making a goofy video about it) instead of trying to deliver bikes to people.
Shame. No issues with stock here.
As a rider who doesn't like to stop, ebikes make dirt jump sessions way more fun when you can ride back to the top easy. Not only do you get more jumps in, you have fun riding uphill. win win.
Doesn't release an ebike.
www.vitalmtb.com/news/press-release/Cotic-Is-Developing-an-E-Bike,4878
An e bike wouldn't help him at all with staying on the bike longer in life. If anything it's more dangerous by being faster uphill and having more downhill time, so he'd be less likely to ride it.
My dad had decent mtb skills. He actually crashed on a section of fire road he'd ridden a thousand times cause mtb involves crashing sometimes, no matter how good you are. When my body is too old to climb, I'll probably be too old to crash as well, and therefore should try something more mellow. Nothing wrong with that. It's called maturity. But I won't be buying an emtb just so I can pretend I'm still 30.
If its got a throttle then it needs to lose the pedals, be licensed, insured, equiped with legally visable lights/turn signals and banished to the street.
GET OFFA' MY LAWN!!!
Yawn...
Aka we can’t afford to make one but would totally do it otherwise
Similarly, with a few hundred extra watts+chunky ass tires ebikes make it easier to rip trails up. Don't know why that's so difficult to understand.
This comment only works for real purists who literally pedal everything and if that's your jam, good for you.
That said, modern eBikes are quite sh*t. They are an unfinished product, but it reflects the general bike industry standard. You can get away with half ass mechanical products and call it hi-tech, but when it comes to motors you need to be on a different level.
My Shimano E8000 motor recently failed after only 2000kms! But it was over the 2 years of warranty, so Shimano said "bummer".
A new motor is quite a bit more expensive than a BB that has worn out. Great stuff!
from my experience, it was most likely the torque sensor. Could've been a simple replacement, but indeed, no one can open the motor or the warranty is void. Which was the case for mine, but where should I get spare parts? ugh!
But ya i agree there is much improvement that needs to be made. But same can be said for electric cars.
Bottom line for small companies is that the R&D is too expensive, takes too long with a very small team and they cant get the parts.
One of the big bonuses of E-bikes is in areas where trails have a low usage people are riding the trails more on their E-bikes, even if that is just fire roads and single track, it means that they are kept clearer for the pedal bikers if they hit those trails.
E-bikes have a massive part to play in the MTB sector, and are probably the largest enabler of new riders that the industry has ever seen. Which has to be a good thing (even if it does come with some negatives).
I still push my Dh bike up these days rather than get the enduro bike out for going down hills fast, its still the best tool for the job on so many tracks. I would have an e-bike if I could justify the cost for sure as they are rad.
I'd rather see that phenomena as "irritation" or "annoyance".
Maybe where you come from hate is used in a different way. I don't know, I don't live where you do.
I was not referring to the article or answers from the frame designers in particular.
Hate, dislike, not like, dispise, love, like, don't care, whatever your view is, E-bikes are here and here to stay and will be a larger and larger part of mountain biking.
Folk generally don't like change, remember when it was 26 v 29 and all the 29er "hate". The same folk are now riding 29ers.
Just dig, ride and enjoy the trails.
when you mention hate you dismiss the entire context of the discussion and reduce it to a simple state of mind. Hating something is easy, giving you reasons for disliking its a totally different thing.
You can build your idea of what some people on the other side of the argument think or not. Maybe if they're loud about it, but labelling as hate just because you're being vocal about stuff that you care, it makes no sense to me. What should ones do? Keep quiet? C'mon. It's nonsense. And it resonates on every walk of life.
People argue about their sports, about changes, about good and bad things and some touch your nerve and you get really pissed off and call it hate, but most of the times it's not.
And I give you an example, most of the reasons I have for not owning an ebike are never considered by those o read them, they just call me a hater. Imagine that, a guy who owns 7 bikes of all types and sizes can't have is own informed opinion about something.
When I said "There is still so much hate for the E-bikes". I was talking in general, as this is still probably a true and accurate statement.
I then followed this up with regard to the size of the company etc and what they may spend (lets call it risk) their investment in as far as R&D is concerned, if you cant secure supply chain for 12+ months then the testing cycle is going to be pushed out and the technology is still in the early stages of development, there is a good chance that what you test on would be out of date when you get your test samples (unless you rob them from current bikes which involves investment or are like Orange (exception to the rule) and make your frames in house so turn around time and cost is minimised.
"Bottom line for small companies is that the R&D is too expensive, takes too long with a very small team and they cant get the parts."
HATE
Verb: feel intense dislike for.
Noun: intense dislike.
The owner of Propel bikes has made a video “Why do people hate eBikers”:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl8Gm5ncMP4
From the Telegraph
"Why do cyclists hate e-bikes? We rode one up Europe's highest mountain pass to see what the fuss is about"
www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/france/articles/an-e-bike-across-the-alps
Some people use those bikes for commuting, and as long as it replaces a car at some days, it's fine for me. NO Northern American citizen can complain about any of that, ANY, with your big ass trucks and crap, keep it to yourselves.
Then you talok about trail damage, are you kidding me? Do you ever care about that when you see a video of some pros "shredding the gnar"? No you don't.
What a ridiculous discussion.
Of course most frames (and other bike parts) are not that environmentally friendly, but you are "adding" a battery to that frame (and a motor) that probably has elements from conflict areas in it, children used for labour and is not disposable and you will most likely need more than 1 battery for the lifetime of that e-bike (maybe not in your possession but in someone else's for sure).
Adding a significant environmental input to a recognised current problem is what people are talking about.
As for pros v Joe's.
Skid lines generally cause more damage that a schralp lines (having just repaired a number of local trails) .
One of the reasons NA residents drive EVERYWHERE is because they have to. Zoning laws prevent any local businesses from existing nearby, and the public transportation systems are no where near most of the European networks.