Power Struggle: Who Controls the Future of E‑MTB?

[LeftItLancs]

The German cycling industry association ZIV (lots of influence in the EU) are recommending.

• Support ratio of 1:4 and
• Support ratio of 1:6 possible up to max. 15 km/h and
• Max. assistance power of 750W at the drive wheel and
• Max. weight of 250kg for single-track EPAC or
• Max. weight of 300kg for multi-track EPAC

To illustrate its assistance ratio recommendations, ZIV says: “If a cyclist has a power output of 100W, an assistance ratio of 1:4 would mean that the electric motor contributes a maximum of four times this power, i.e. 400W. This would result in a total power output of 500W at the drive wheel.”

 

[ZR1]

On my commute I'm apparently averaging ~ 210W with a a peak typically around 600-800W. And I'm no Geraint Thomas. So 250W continuous with a peak of 750W sounds equivalent to a fairly typical rider.

The EU 250W nominal was from a time of brushed motors.

Manufacturers, of ebikes as well as the individual motors, have a huge interest in harmonised rules (that's a core point of the EU itself) as it makes life simpler and thus cheaper.

*If* the EU decides on revision of the rules in introducing a max peak power (either replacing the nominal power rule or in addition), manufacturers will lobby for it to be 750W the same as class 1 in most US states.

Your input 200w + 750w = 950w? a quick google says 1 hour record power is ~500w

I just don't see a compelling argument for 750w over 1000w or even 400w. All these articles mention oh its not a bicycle anymore but it's fine to put out the power of 2 elite riders?

Or with my very cynical hat is they are just pedalling what bosch tells them to at these fancy insider presentations so 750w it is.

 

[DieBoy]

Your input 200w + 750w = 950w? a quick google says 1 hour record power is ~500w

If you read the info from LeftItLancs directly above, with the proposal it would be 210W times maximal 4 (so max 1040W total) capped to 750W at the drive wheel. My current motor peaks at 600W I believe (maybe 680W), not sure what the current assist ratio is max assist ratio is currently 340%.

The original thought back in the 1990s apparently was that the *nominal* output should be roughly equal to a typical rider (professional cyclists have an FTP of around 410W apparently), i.e. a continuous assist ratio of 2:1 without the motor burning out.

Even today, you're unlikely to get the advertised peak power for more than a few seconds at a time, depending on ambient temperature.

I just don't see a compelling argument for 750w over 1000w or even 400w.

As I already mentioned, 750W max peak is, so I've learnt, the current existing limit in most US states for class 1, it wouldn't make sense to have a different value (I initially thought they'd simply multiplied the nominal rating by 3 as this is a common nominaleak ratio but no there's apparently a jurisitical reason too).

 

[Mikerb]

I think from a regulators point of view, when the amount of assisted power made available requires hardly any rider input to achieve, the cranks become more like a throttle.

 

[ZR1]

Even today, you're unlikely to get the advertised peak power for more than a few seconds at a time, depending on ambient temperature.

Velomotion have a dyno test, an avinox is still outputing >700watts after 15min. If you set a power limit with the current 250w rule they'll all be chucking out 750w consistently in a few years.

lots of recent media extolling the virtues of extra power and upping the assit ratio from the gen5 update while DJI gets criticised because it's higher than what they chose to do.

Felt like we settled on ~600w and ~85nm a few years ago, more power is good but not if its DJI

 

[Mikerb]

The more I read and see on video reviews the less I think the higher power developments will actually benefit the majority of riders. I am using Bosch gen4 and when I watch reviews of that motor or indeed the Brose as fitted to the gen3 Levo it makes me wonder if the tester actually knows that you can tune the motor in the Flow/ Mission Control Apps!! For example I have my Cx4 motors tuned to + 3 in the Flow app.............as a result I only ever use EMTB...never need Turbo....never need more power, and the power is fully controllable.
I noted in the last video a bove that whilst the extra nm/watts is only for the latest Bosch CX, EMTB+ will be available also on the CX4. Not sure what that would be like compared to my existing tune, so will try it on one bike and leave the other as is.
Currently nothing a bout 100nm /750w inspires me but the overall improvements to noise reduction and rideability of the Bosch Gen5 compared to the Bosch Gen4 seem worthwhile.

 

[DieBoy]

Velomotion have a dyno test, an avinox is still outputing >700watts after 15min

So 70% peak at 15min, sounds about right. Ambient temperature 20°?

they'll all be chucking out 750w consistently in a few years.

Not without a corresponding improvement in battery technology and motor efficiency (or heat dispersal). There's a huge difference between peak and continuous.

lots of recent media extolling the virtues of extra power and upping the assit ratio from the gen5 update while DJI gets criticised because it's higher than what they chose to do.

You may have something there, but that's marketing for you. Which was apparently also a point at the recent industry thinktank.

The worst case scenario is that vehicle or land-use regulators look at contemporary eMTBs and see "1000W Powa!" and decide, not entirely unreasonably, that ebikes are to be no longer classed the same as pushbikes and then we're all fucked (unless you own your own mountain).

 

[JohnR]

Everybody thinks we have some power over regulations, and our access is granted in perpetuity. If eMTB riders aren't in the room and at the table, we have no power.

I don't know how the EU passes regulations. Are there public meetings? In the states, these issues are state and very often county and local government issues. Fairly easy to attend and make your opinions known. You might be surprised at the level of vocal opposition there is to ebikes. Most of these people only know what they see in the news or YouTube. Somebody's phone gets stolen by an 'ebiker' or some idiot on, what they are calling an ebike, ripping up the countryside on a 5k watt dirt bike.

Very often the regulators don't know what they're regulating. If we lose access and we did nothing, it's our own fault. Communication to the powers that be is easier than it's ever been. From my view, there's some good debaters on this forum.

 

[DieBoy]

I don't know how the EU passes regulations

Slowly usually . There's usually working groups but you'd need to be a large organisation to have input. That's why I think the recent preemtive industry lobbying isn't a such a bad thing.

Someone else earlier made the very salient point that it's not just vehicle regulators but also land-use. For example, in my part of the world public access to forests is guaranteed for recreation such as walking or cycling. As pedalecs are legally the same as pushbikes, that's hundreds (if not thousands) of km of forest trails that can be lawfully ridden by eMTBs. Even if the EU (vehicle regulator) doesn't change the definition of pedalecs, there's nothing stopping the national government changing the forestry access laws to explicitly exclude ebikes if they're given a reason to do so. In which case my bike would end on the scrap heap.

From what I gather, there's already difficulty in parts of the US with trail access (though sometimes that's all MTB not just eMTB?) and acceptance. Didn't some town in Florida try to ban all ebikes outright? I doubt higher power eMTBs will help, even if it is just a perception.

 

[Bengy22]

Hmm, interesting that the 750W peak is a US limit, not simply the EU nominal times 3.

Only for 6 states California, Indiana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, Washington. Federally and for most states it's 750w rated (not including local laws)

 

[DieBoy]

Only for 6 states California, Indiana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, Washington. Federally and for most states it's 750w rated (not including local laws)

Ok, thanks, the US rules seem to vary so much it gets confusing very quickly.

This site says

For Classes 1-3, the motor's electrical output is generally limited to 750W (1 HP) but a few states allow 1000W motor.

which I took to be a max output, i.e. peak.

I always thought the US class 1 was otherwise roughly equivalent the European EPAC: pedal assist, no throttle, max assist speed 32kmh.

 

[Bengy22]

Ok, thanks, the US rules seem to vary so much it gets confusing very quickly.

This site says


which I took to be a max output, i.e. peak.

I always thought the US class 1 was otherwise roughly equivalent the European EPAC: pedal assist, no throttle, max assist speed 32kmh.

Unfortunately yes it can get confusing and even vague, especially when local governments inside a state can impose even further restrictions. I wouldn't trust sites like those though because they like to give their interpretation on what the law states even if that's not what it says (Also I found some where outdated). I just recently visited every states GOV site to read their definition because I was curious where the DJI wouldn't be legal here and my findings where at the state level only 6. (Of course this is not to be taken as legal advise, I encourage anyone to look up the laws themselves and also local laws).

Federally speaking this is the wording used: "equipped with fully operable pedals, a saddle or seat for the rider, and an electric motor of less than 750 watts". Now unlike the EU we don't at the federal level (and even most states) have any further definitions so this is left to interpretation on peak or rated. But looking at the market of ebikes sold here (looking at big brands not using EU motors like Aventon) they peak well above 750w, and are accepted as legal here thus in my opinion showing its a 750w rated limit. And for example if I asked you what wattage is a bosch motor, most if not everyone would say 250w, the rated power not the peak. What most states did for their laws was basically copy and paste the federal definition, while a few did even adopt the "rated" term into theirs. But some states did further define the power as peak power, with 6 limiting it to 750w.

And for a class 1 definition it's the above and: "equipped with a motor that— (I) provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling; and (II) ceases to provide assistance when the speed of the bicycle reaches or exceeds 20 miles per hour." What's interesting to me is this seemingly does allow class 1's to have a throttle but it can only function where the rider is pedaling, but I haven't seen such a bike exist before though.

 

[glixerd]

No study has shown this to be true. Even when comparing a normal bike to any eMTB, additional wear isn’t a thing. It depends far more of how you ride, not what you ride.

A good XC rider can peak at over 1500 watts. We’re not blaming them for extra trail wear. Poor technique and party tricks like schralping do more damage to trails than motor assist. Most eMTB riders aren’t losing traction on uphill sections, are they?

Gordon

It's not just the quality (power output) of the rider though, it's the total weight and also the quantity.
How many 1500w XC riders rider local trails
How many E-MTB's will ride local trails

1 x 1500w XC rider powering up a climb once a month is not going to do much trail damage
40 x 1500w (750w+750w) E-MTB's a month.........

What does a XC bike weight, say 11kg
My Decoy is easily over double that

 

[JohnR]

Slowly usually . There's usually working groups but you'd need to be a large organisation to have input. That's why I think the recent preemtive industry lobbying isn't a such a bad thing.

Someone else earlier made the very salient point that it's not just vehicle regulators but also land-use. For example, in my part of the world public access to forests is guaranteed for recreation such as walking or cycling. As pedalecs are legally the same as pushbikes, that's hundreds (if not thousands) of km of forest trails that can be lawfully ridden by eMTBs. Even if the EU (vehicle regulator) doesn't change the definition of pedalecs, there's nothing stopping the national government changing the forestry access laws to explicitly exclude ebikes if they're given a reason to do so. In which case my bike would end on the scrap heap.

From what I gather, there's already difficulty in parts of the US with trail access (though sometimes that's all MTB not just eMTB?) and acceptance. Didn't some town in Florida try to ban all ebikes outright? I doubt higher power eMTBs will help, even if it is just a perception.

The US has all sorts of problems. In the main, throttle bikes and speed/power are major issues. When I started ebiking in 2013 I thought EU was way too strict with their regs. At the time I bought what was called an eMTB for commuting on gravel 34 miles a day. Rain or shine, snow and ice. I commuted for a long time on a regular hardtail push bike and I wanted to up my human speed from an average of ~14 mph to our standard ebike speed of 20 mph. The EU max of 15.5 wasn't going to cut it by only giving me an additional 1.5 mph. Now I think the EU got it mostly right. I would argue for the 20 mph (32 kph) speed though.

What has happened here in the last 12 years is a proliferation of people riding throttle bikes. With the advent of the 3 class regulations, sellers of throttle bikes added the 28-mph speed to the throttle bikes, when throttle bikes (class 2) were supposed to be limited to 20 mph. Then the fat-tired bikes, with throttles and 1500-watt motors capable of speeds 30+ mph started showing up everywhere.

My county, which has more than 5500 acres of forest and park land has 3 dedicated MTB parks, along with a premier gravel rail trail that runs along one of the oldest active rail lines in the world for 35 miles. They continue to add gravel, natural trails and designed and built MTB trails. Additionally, there are thousands of acres of state forest, park and game land with trails. In 2019 the county banned ebikes on all off-road venues.

A good riding friend and I put together a small group of ebikers and attended public meetings with law makers, regulators and law enforcement. At the same time the state was trying to codify what was legal on state land. Neighboring states were doing the same. No one realized that when states legalized ebikes, and when states enacted the 3 class system, none of those laws had anything to do with off road trails and paths. The EU got that part right from the beginning; Ebikes were bikes. Not here.

It took 2 years for us to get the ban overturned. The state codified the same regulation, and one neighboring state followed. What won the day was we setup test rides for these regulators, politicians and law enforcement officials. We won, with a few exceptions. 20 mph; no throttle; 750 watts max and weight limited to 75 pounds. If the ebike meets those specifications it is a bike and can ride wherever bikes are allowed. They were never going to allow throttles or higher speeds. Privately they told me that.

Several years after the ban was lifted there are throttle fat bikes everywhere. I fear another ban is coming. And I am really frustrated after all the effort it took to win access. The world is a narcissistic place.

 

[Astro66]

The US has all sorts of problems. In the main, throttle bikes and speed/power are major issues.

Same in Australia. The issues land and road use regulators have is Throttles, Unrestricted Speed and Overrated Motors and Controllers. No one cares about peak power of a 250 watt rated motor. There is zero instances where EU compliant Ebikes have created any issues, concerns or safety problem. Why does the EU need to change it's regulation or make the current regulation an issue ?

It's the rise of illegal Ebikes that don't comply to the current regulation that is giving regulators concerns.

Anyway ......... my Amflow PL Carbon Pro has just arrived at my LBS. Pickup tomorrow. I'll be loading the latest firmware tomorrow. Setting peak power to 1000 watts. This will make my EMTB 100% compliant to EU and Australian Regulations. And I will not update the firmware again. The rest of the world can do what it pleases. If the consensus is they want less capable EMTBs. Go make crap EMTBs ......

 

[Amber Valley Guy]

Before any of this goes goes forward, we need some clarification on output measured in watts. Do the regulations mean power consumed based on a nominal voltage or a fully charged battery or the output at the chainring with a fully charged battery or at nominal voltage, or an overall output as the battery loses charge?
Unless this is answered it's all nonsense, because it's unanswerable depending on the method of measurement. Has anyone measured the true output around DJI's claimed 1000 watts on a dyno? For all we know it could 1200w or just as easily 800w. Without clarification it's all pointless speculation.

 

[Astro66]

Has anyone measured the true output around DJI's claimed 1000 watts on a dyno? For all we know it could 1200w or just as easily 800w. Without clarification it's all pointless speculation.

I've made the point earlier. Rated power has got nothing to do with dyno power. Rated motor power has to do with a motors ability to dissipate heat when it's running continuously at it's rated power. If the motor is over rated, it would be extremely simple to prove.

If a motor was over-rated. When running continuously over the rated power, it's temperature would not continue to heat up.

You can run a motor above it's rated power for the time it takes to heat it to the point it melts it's windings. But if the motor doesn't continue to heat up when it's running continuously well above it's rated power. Then it's rated for a higher power.

Obviously ambient temperature, weather conditions like air density, and air flow affect this measurement. So there is always a tolerance to allow for worldwide and seasonal use.

To protect buyers of EBikes. Rated Power of a motor should be the criteria that is measured and regulated. Not peak power. The problem with creating Peak Power regulation is it muddies the water of what a motor is actually reliably able to run at continuously. And is why industry use rated measurement.

A Motor that is started without a smart controller can pull up to 6 times it's rated current, whilst starting. But that doesn't allow anyone to rate that motor at that 6 times value. Nor does it mean that motor is designed for that starting power draw continuously.

 

[DirkWisely]

It's not just the quality (power output) of the rider though, it's the total weight and also the quantity.
How many 1500w XC riders rider local trails
How many E-MTB's will ride local trails

1 x 1500w XC rider powering up a climb once a month is not going to do much trail damage
40 x 1500w (750w+750w) E-MTB's a month.........

What does a XC bike weight, say 11kg
My Decoy is easily over double that

Yeah but quantity is a pretty poor argument. "Oh know, our citizens are utilizing our trails too much!" is a ridiculous complaint, when the trails exist to be used.

 

[ZR1]

I'm not an engineer but from what I can gather, the 250w rule is not a 250w rated motor - it has to pass heat tests designed for a brushed 250w motor at the time. Bosch guy says this in this presentation :
When the rules were implented a brushed 250w motor could peak to say 500w for a min or so

We now have brushless with speed controllers that run cooler can far outperform that.

Bosch can peak at 750w but run at say 500w for 15mins
a DJI can peak 1000w but run at 700w for 15mins

Now we have this narrative that DJI is reckless and Bosch is conservative but they are far exceeding the original power levels.

Maybe the regulators will nerf us back to what was originally intended. Or the EU will protect europeon brands and give them what they ask for. Or leave the rules as they are who knows.

Doesn't make sense to copy USA power limits if the EU has a lower speed limit

 

[LeftItLancs]

Ebikes with high "peak power" enable riders to ascend and traverse trails at speeds that might be difficult or impossible on ebikes with lower peak power. This will lead to increased braking on descents, skidding, and more aggressive riding styles, and is already demonstrated on many YouTube videos posted by riders.

With more users on the trails, and potentially at different speeds or with different riding styles facilitated by ebikes, there's also a higher potential for user conflict. This will involve issues like passing etiquette, trail etiquette, and perceived differences in trail impact between different user groups (hikers, traditional cyclists, horse riders, etc).

Increased traffic, regardless of how it's generated, will also have ecological impacts, such as compacting soil, and damaging vegetation and while this isn't solely an ebike issue, the potential for easier access due to ebikes with higher "peak power" will exacerbate these concerns in particularly sensitive areas in the UK.

The ebike market is rapidly evolving, and the lines between "conservative" and "high-power" players are becoming increasingly blurred as companies adapt to market demands and technological possibilities.

It is inevitable that regulating peak power will eventually become a thing. So long as it involves consultation with industry stakeholders, safety experts, and importantly the public (riders), hopefully a sensible compromise can be reached that enables ebike riders to continue enjoying all our existing access rights.

 

[Astro66]

I'm not an engineer

I am an electrical engineer that works on motor drives. There is no loophole for the rating of a motor or controller. Yes ratings are normally used to set a minimum. But if you can set a minimum. You can also define a maximum. Just measure the temperature profile like you would if you were checking the minimum rating. Why don't they do that, rather than limit peak power ?

With a motor. It makes no difference if it's a DC Brushed or Brushless, or if it's an AC Induction Motor. It's rating is it's rating. It has 100% to do with the motors temperature response to the power it is generating. I have no idea what point Claus was trying to make there, other than to sound like he knew what he was talking about, when he was spouting nonsense.

If one 250 watt rated motor can run at a higher peak wattage for 10 mins than another. It's just a better engineered motor. Just like a brushless motor is a better design than a brushed motor. This is especially so when you are so weight limited in an Ebike. It can just dissipate heat better when it's running above it's rated power.

The less mass a motor has. The less heat it can absorb. So a lighter motor that can dissipate more heat is a good thing, that we should be encouraging.

It's not a bloody loophole. You still cannot run it indefinitely above it's rated power. And that is irrelevant of the type of motor it is. The fitter a human is. The longer they can pedal at a higher power output. And we don't limit how fit someone is allowed to be when riding a bicycle.

 

[ZR1]

I am an electrical engineer that works on motor drives. There is no loophole for the rating of a motor or controller. Yes ratings are normally used to set a minimum. But if you can set a minimum. You can also define a maximum. Just measure the temperature profile like you would if you were checking the minimum rating. Why don't they do that, rather than limit peak power ?

With a motor. It makes no difference if it's a DC Brushed or Brushless, or if it's an AC Induction Motor. It's rating is it's rating. It has 100% to do with the motors temperature response to the power it is generating. I have no idea what point Claus was trying to make there, other than to sound like he knew what he was talking about, when he was spouting nonsense.

If one 250 watt rated motor can run at a higher peak wattage for 10 mins than another. It's just a better engineered motor. Especially when you are so weight limited in an Ebike. It can just dissipate heat better when it's running above it's rated power.

The less mass a motor has. The less heat it can absorb. So a lighter motor that can dissipate more heat is a good thing, that we should be encouraging.

It's not a bloody loophole. You still cannot run it indefinitely above it's rated power. And that is irrelevant of the type of motor it is. The fitter a human is. The longer they can pedal at a higher power output. And we don't limit how fit someone is allowed to be when riding a bicycle.

so in bike terms could a well designed 250w rated motor run at 500w for the duration of a 800wh battery? Then I don't understand what the point of the rated limit is.

The theory in some ways isn't relevant, are the rules allowing more power than originally intended?

 

[Mikerb]

Most of the best riding around here (ÙK SOUTH) is forest trails...we don't have any mountains! Many of the forests are managed pine forests owned or managed by Forestry England. They are used by mtbers and dog walkers although families and dog walkers usually stick to the fireroads.
All the mtb trails probably originate as animal tracks but then are fashioned by riders over the years.
The trails constantly evolve with most changes during periods of school holidays as kids build new features ....some good....some poor. Does this damage the forest in any way?
Well every 2/3 years the big machines arrive, usually in winter to fell trees for lumbar and clear rhododendron and undergrowth. The result is complete carnage. Some trails are destroyed and the undergrowth cut down is just littered everywhere.
It usually only takes a couple of months for folk to clear the trails and all the undergrowth and small trees cut down littered about provide a treasure chest of the feature build material!!
A very different scenario to the managed trails of bike parks, trail centres etc mentioned in ma y of these posts!!

 

[Astro66]

so in bike terms could a well designed 250w rated motor run at 500w for the duration of a 800wh battery? Then I don't understand what the point of the rated limit is.

The theory in some ways isn't relevant, are the rules allowing more power than originally intended?

That would be 500 watts for more than an hour and a half. If the motor hasn't overheated in an hour and a half. That would be considered a continuous rating.

A 250 watt rated motor will de-rate if run at 500 watts. How well it is designed will determine how quickly that de-rating occurs. If you get a lighter than normal motor to not de-rate longer. That is a good thing for the EMTB world.

They just need the rated power to have a measurable definition, rather than limit peak, IMO.

It would be one thing if DJI had created a heavier motor and battery that was able to achieve higher peak power. But it's a lighter motor and battery than the other industry leaders. We should be getting behind this technology. Not trying to regulate it out of existence.

 

[flash]

That's all you understand from that video? Did you check the graph from DJI?

Yes. And others. DJI handles thermal management differently to Bosche. DJI’s thermal management runs earlier and regularly to control heat. The Bosche runs flat out until it cooks. The DJI motor runs cooler as a result (you’ll need to watch the DJI video for the heat measurement). A couple of motors are better than DJI. DJI is cooler than Bosche, which gets very very hot before a major thermal management change.

Interestingly, to me, my Gen 3 Levo ran exactly as described during an Australian summer. I have a 3km fire road climb locally and the Levo would power down exactly like the graph.

Gordon

 

[Robin Grant]

Punchy response from DJI:

DJI hits out at 'blanket power restriction' and exploitative industry practices in official response to proposed e-bike motor legislation - MBR

DJI has issued an official response to the recommendation from German bike industry body Zweirad Industrie Verband (ZIV) to cap motor power at 750W. The detailed reply, from the drone brand and manufacturer of the game-changing Avinox motor, makes a number of salient points regarding the...

www.mbr.co.uk

DJI has issued an official response to the recommendation from German bike industry body Zweirad Industrie Verband (ZIV) to cap motor power at 750W. The detailed reply, from the drone brand and manufacturer of the game-changing Avinox motor, makes a number of salient points regarding the proposals, which are still a long way from becoming law in the EU. DJI claims that the advisory 750W limit does not have ‘a clear theoretical foundation’, and that an appropriate power limit needs to be determined through ‘thorough and comprehensive discussions’. While DJI doesn’t make the link, some industry figures have described the proposed legislation as a campaign to keep German manufacturers competitive. A view given credence by the fact that Bosch’s latest power upgrade for the gen 5 CX motor is set at exactly 750W.

Further down the statement, DJI is particularly scathing about ‘certain practices’ within the industry ‘exploiting user needs’, with ‘subscription-based fees or offering superior performance or features exclusively for premium models’. It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to work out this is referring to Specialized’s decision to offer two versions of its latest motor in the Turbo Levo, with only the ultra-premium S-Works model getting the full performance, using software to limit the power of the lower price models.

DJI's statement:

1. The proposed restriction of 750 W does not appear to have a clear theoretical foundation justifying why this specific limit has been chosen. We believe it is essential for the industry to engage in more thorough and comprehensive discussions to determine an appropriate power limit.

2. The imposition of a 750 W limit may overlook the needs of certain vulnerable groups, including individuals with disabilities who require enhanced assistance, those with higher body weights, minors, and users of e-cargo bikes for transporting supplies, where often involve loads up to 400 kg, necessitating additional support when navigating inclined terrains. We urge policymakers to consider these unique requirements in their deliberations.

(Additionally, It is also important to recognize that in scenarios involving e-cargo bikes, users with higher body weights etc., the riding speed tends to be significantly lower than the speed limit. Consequently, the associated kinetic energy and the likelihood of potential injuries remain low and within acceptable safety standards.)

(E-Cargo bikes might need to be discussed separately, as there might be a separate classification for e-cargo in the future? We support the establishment of more nuanced classifications and standards within the industry, rather than imposing a blanket lower power restriction across the board. It is our position that a tailored approach would better address the diverse needs and applications within this sector.)

3. Our pursuit of enhanced power is driven by the goal of improving the riding experience (while maintaining a balance between the wear and cost of easily worn components), rather than merely increasing power for its own sake. For instance, the Avinox’s power output is intelligently modulated, automatically decreasing power and torque during gear shifts. This strategy extends the life of the transmission system, ensuring an optimal balance between performance, safety, and reliability.

4. It is crucial to remain critical regarding certain practices within the industry that are exploiting user needs, where certain manufacturers differentiate their products by imposing subscription-based fees or offering superior performance or features exclusively for premium models, despite identical hardware components. They profit primarily through software limitations. This highlights the critical importance of prioritizing genuine user needs and maintaining transparency in product offerings.

5. We recognize the need for more adaptable solutions for eMTB riders, including scene-based power modes and user-adjustable settings, which we have successfully developed and implemented. These features allow users to tailor the power mode (including the highest power setting) to meet varying situational demands, such as requiring greater power when starting the ride or ascending hills, thereby enhancing the overall riding experience within legal speed limits. This innovation has been widely validated in the market.

6. We’re closely monitoring the EU regulations and we are committed to adhere to established guidelines. We are also committed to providing our users with support in light of any regulatory changes that may impact our products. Should such circumstances arise, we will ensure that our end users and OEM bike brands have access to the necessary resources and guidance for adaptations.

7. Avinox represents more than merely power output; its innovation is reflected in various features, such as its compact size and lightweight design, impressive power-to-weight ratio, seamless software-hardware integration, advanced smart-assist algorithms, lightweight yet high-capacity battery, rapid charging capabilities and more. All these elements underscore Avinox’s commitment to enhancing user experience and exemplify our dedication to innovation.

8. Since its launch, Avinox has swiftly garnered acclaim from OEM bike brands, users, and top tier media outlets and organizations, underscoring the importance for the industry to heed these voices.

 

[glixerd]

Any word from Shimano?

Seems to be DJI v Bosch at this stage

 

[Waynemarlow]

Max. assistance power of 750W at the drive wheel and

750W at the drive wheel is probably around 1000W's at the motor output shaft if you take into account all the mechanical losses getting to the drive wheel.

 

[Plyphon]

All I know is Bosch are looking like complete mugs.

 

[Cinderpath]

If Trump were in charge of the Think Tank….he would put a tariff on power above 750w!

That is the mentality I am gleaning from this discussion? As someone who comes into the this conversation a bit late, and the eMTB world via interest in photography to get to locations, there was zero surprise for me DJI entered the market with an amazing product in its first launch hitting all the right notes: power and battery output and efficiency, battery power density by mass. Quietness, software integration, user interface, connectivity, the full package! It leads, and at above all, a massive price value! But for those of us in the drone world, this was expected. I bought my first DJI drone in 2017 and was shocked at what a well engineered, reliable product it was, and thought out down to every detail, yet still astonishingly they massively improve every product cycle? IMO DJI is the most innovative tech company, like Apple in the Steve Jobs days!

So the 750w voluntary cap for me is a pure ruse to stifle competition as the current kings: Specialized, Bosch, etc. simply realized DJI is going to be eating their lunch! This is merely a well-dressed form of market protectionism like when U.S. automakers tried to limit Japanese and European cars in the U.S. in the early 1980’s that were horribly inefficient, conveniently packaged as safety, conservation, and reasonable, self-policed “governance” designed by status quo, entrenched players! I.e The BlackBerrys who don’t like the looming iPhones….. in the end innovation always wins out, and protectionism inevitably looses to disruptive technologies. E-bikes are exactly that in the first place ironically?

The idea that a one-size-fits all power cap is absolutely ridiculous if one thinks about it? People have different BMIs and cargo haulage needs, and geographic constraints, so to make a cap based purely on what the current status quo thinks is “reasonable” amount of power is a laughable and a thinly-veiled attempt at again: market protectionism. DJI is correct: power needs are absolutely dynamic! Imagine if tractor makers in an industry trade group put hard-line limits on HP and torque? Great for those who farm flat fields with the same sized plots? How about an industry “Think Tank” by manufacturers putting limits on camera resolution on megapixels, because a new market player has a new technology?

As many really good, well thought-out commenters here have mentioned: there is already a massive cap in place: speed limits. Full stop! This is why 1000hp Ferraris are able to be sold: because they still have to follow speed limits, as everyone does. (Enforcement is another issue all together). And none of this addresses downhill speeds, which is conveniently ignored by the “Think Tank”, (but also pointed out by commenters here) that it is a far, far greater safety issue, making power-limit caps even more obvious what their goals are?

Further, the idea that restricting power output will somehow also limit the masses from experiencing more trails? That genie left the magic lamp a long, long time ago, but it’s also an elephant in the room….

If anybody that has experience with DJI knows, what they just launched was a tip of an iceberg of technical expertise and features to follow. I expect this year DJI will launch a road bike that will have Specialized and Canyon, etc shivering in their boots as well. Elites never cared much for democratization, and it shows!