Industry Veteran Hans Rey Calls for Clearer E-Bike Definitions

[bmwpowere36m3]

Connecticut doesn’t allow small kids to ride dirt bikes or quads off road? You’re required to register and insure your dirt bike like a road motorcycle even when it never sees a public roadway in CT?

Also, I think eMTB should have the identical power and speed limits cars, boats, motorcycles, and analogue bicycles employ. None… and there’s a lot more power, speed, and deaths due to cars and motorcycles than eMTB. Somehow we’re still not governing their output.

Fundamentally I disagree with the premise that limiting power and speed will protect access to trails.

Correct, off-road legal motorcycles have to be at a minimum like a dual sport bike… so a conventional MX isn’t legal. It needs a headlight, turn signals, brake light, plate, horn. No ATVs period.

Private property is unrestricted. So if you own it or know someone and they permit it, then it’s fine.

No, kids don’t get an exemption. Now what people really do and the law, is different . There are certain forests where folks ride illegally, but the amount of riding is very, very low. It’s also more hush, hush than secret MTB loamers. Often it’s folks living nearby to said forest or remoter areas with large property owners.

Showing up to a trail head with a trailer is a sure fire way of getting caught. And riding your non-street legal MX to the woods is equally likely of getting caught if not more.

I had a dual sport and gave up after a few years, because of that very reason. The lack of riding around me. I’d rather take my MTB to 40 places nearby, than 2 moto spots. Or bushwhack and be on the threat of getting caught elsewhere.

 

[Powerslider]

Correct, off-road legal motorcycles have to be at a minimum like a dual sport bike… so a conventional MX isn’t legal. It needs a headlight, turn signals, brake light, plate, horn. No ATVs period.

Private property is unrestricted. So if you own it or know someone and they permit it, then it’s fine.

No, kids don’t get an exemption. Now what people really do and the law, is different . There are certain forests where folks ride illegally, but the amount of riding is very, very low. It’s also more hush, hush than secret MTB loamers. Often it’s folks living nearby to said forest or remoter areas with large property owners.

Showing up to a trail head with a trailer is a sure fire way of getting caught. And riding your non-street legal MX to the woods is equally likely of getting caught if not more.

I had a dual sport and gave up after a few years, because of that very reason. The lack of riding around me. I’d rather take my MTB to 40 places nearby, than 2 moto spots. Or bushwhack and be on the threat of getting caught elsewhere.

Call me a federalist perhaps, but this is why I believe a single worldwide approach should be seen as highly undesirable if not the worst possible approach.

 

[irie]

Call me a federalist perhaps, but this is why I believe a single worldwide approach should be seen as highly undesirable.

Would a single US wide approach be desirable?

 

[B1rdie]

With such a nuclear solution proposed you’d think there would be evidence of speed and/or power causing loss of access somewhere.
I forecast trail access will expand as eMTB increases in popularity. Artificial limitations will only slow the growth of the sport, and thus slow the broadening of trail access. The solution proposed ironically may exacerbate the problem instead of being the remedy.

Thanks @Moderator, for deleting the duplicates I had posted before.

@power, I do not see a ruling system as a nuclear solution, it should serve for the people that manage lands to be able to make a decision based on accountability. Because this is just what managers do: if they have no clarity about what motorized vehicle will be riding in the lands that they are accountable for, they will not grant access to land.
What you call "artificial limitations", others may consider "rules". And the "growth" of the sport may be restricted to bikeparks on private lands if such rules are not clear and/or impossible to enforce.

What exactly are the terms of what is considered an assisted bicycle, concerning power, speed, weight etc... is another subject wich I'd rather not get into. Let you guys decide and then make it clear to the general public.

 

[Powerslider]

Would a single US wide approach be desirable?

No. Too big a difference between say, New Jersey (the highest population density in the US) and someplace like Wyoming or Montana.

 

[Powerslider]

Thanks @Moderator, for deleting the duplicates I had posted before.

@power, I do not see a ruling system as a nuclear solution, it should serve for the people that manage lands to be able to make a decision based on accountability. Because this is just what managers do: if they have no clarity about what motorized vehicle will be riding in the lands that they are accountable for, they will not grant access to land.
What you call "artificial limitations", others may consider "rules". And the "growth" of the sport may be restricted to bikeparks on private lands if such rules are not clear and/or impossible to enforce.

What exactly are the terms of what is considered an assisted bicycle, concerning power, speed, weight etc... is another subject wich I'd rather not get into. Let you guys decide and then make it clear to the general public.

I think there’s actually a lot of overlap in our positions.

This sorta loops back to a point I made early in this thread where land mangers are still accountable to the public. If we see their judgements as unreasonable they will be replaced by people who reflect the public’s desires. Again, this is why we want governing to be as local as possible. We want to be able to impact change.

 

[irie]

No. Too big a difference between say, New Jersey (the highest population density in the US) and someplace like Wyoming or Montana.

So how do you think regulation should be split in the US?

 

[Mario Antony]

Rules and regulations are evitable... I'm not going to argue the philosophical merits of freedom and right to travel, etc... Rules are not going to be universal either, because there's a lot of nuance and factors depending on local politics, land available, precedent and various scenarios were dicsussing.

If you could buy an "unrestriced" ebike say for use on OHV, BLM or private land, legally. What's to stop you from using it on a public road? In a town park? Enforcement, right?

However, that enforcement is probably impossible and would be a waste of resources. So by treating ebikes like bicycles and LIMITING them, there's no need for enforcement. Without limits, at what point to they become motorized vehicles, because those have a ton of regulation. There needs to be a distinction and it cannot rely solely on enforcement.

Folks are angling, trying to push how far they can ride their legal "bicycle" and still have all the access in world.

Simply put, you can't ride your motorcycle, SXS, off-road crawler everywhere. You can take your bicycle A LOT MORE places. Maybe "today's" ebikes need to be somewhere in between. Ideally, I think, most folks would like to retain ALL the access a bicycle brings.

Here in CT:
Bicycles = most access (certain roads and trails are restricted), no motor, and no age restriction
Moped/Scooter = no off-road access (nor highway), power restricted <50cc and age (driver's license)
Motorcycle = limited off-road, age restricted and registration & insurance required (motorcycle endorsement on top of driver's license).

So the motorcycle gives you a tiny bit of off-road access with power, but has burdens of age, registration and insurance. Bicycles have the least restrictions, but no motor.

So where does an ebike fall? It has to be more restrictive than a moped/scooter, at least in CT.

You, and riders that support this idea, seems to not understand:

ROAD USE, requires KNOW the rules/Laws.

Electric vehicles, I'm referring to all Electric Mobility, be it:
eScooters
eMoped
eMotorcyles
e__________

When appeared, were seen as a solution for transport, and left unruled, without needing:
Driving License
License Plates

Users of such vehicles, are/were allowed, or are
/were in "grace period" from law enforcement/goverment/people in general, in the name of "easy mobility".

Any vehicle or person using Public Road, it's a liability.

The electric mobility, got out of hand, with users riding without following RULES eg:
Riding on wrong side of the road/lane
Riding on sidewalks
Don't respecting STOP signs, red lights, one way street, etc...
Besides leaving such vehicles anywhere (even in the Channels, or rivers).

All this abuse, resulted in some European Cities Stopping the Rental eMoped Business (Ubber/etc...) - eg: Paris, by 2023.


If rules are set, and were set for decades, people need to obey for the sake of all.
To know the rules, people need to learn, and "Driving License", were somehow the grant people would understand and KNOW these rules.

Following rules, is independent of how fast or how powerfull such vehicles are.

I ride an Unretricted ebike, capable of reaching (theoretically) 64km/h, but I obey traffic rules, and normally don't pedal up to 40ish km/h, because it's very, very physical. Yes... even being assisted.
Of course it's less physical than a Bike, but the physical part is there.

I also ride motorcycles capable of riding well above 250km/h, and I'm not riding at those speeds, or even close to that!
Do I respect all speed limits? No!
But being caught by law enforcement. I KNOW I'll be penalized. Do I agree? No... but I understand. It's part of riding.


Regarding MX bikes riding on Public Roads, I have to disagree that most would do it, because:
Tires will be eaten (and are unsafe, let alone wet tarmac!), it's not that confortable, and besides that, don't have basic legal equipment:
Lights/worn.
Will this limit people from using MX bikes on public Road, like we see on some Youtube clips? No! But users KNOW they will get the vehicle inpound and fined!


In resume:
Ebikes don't need speed restriction, nor Power Restrictions, because:
1- eMTBs are looking for less weight = smaller batteries
2- Powerfull eMTBs to have range, required BIG batteries
3- eMTBs requires you to pedal, without throttle.
And here, normally, people that buy proper ebikes, like the physical part!
Not the physical part has BIKES. But some physical exercise.

If the issue, is riders not respecting Laws & Rules, then we need to make accountable, meaning means to ID riders.

Restrictions never solved anything...
And that's the reason, why there are so many devices to derestricted ebikes

 

[bmwpowere36m3]

You, and riders that support this idea, seems to not understand:

ROAD USE, requires KNOW the rules/Laws.

Electric vehicles, I'm referring to all Electric Mobility, be it:
eScooters
eMoped
eMotorcyles
e__________

When appeared, were seen as a solution for transport, and left unruled, without needing:
Driving License
License Plates

Users of such vehicles, are/were allowed, or are
/were in "grace period" from law enforcement/goverment/people in general, in the name of "easy mobility".

Any vehicle or person using Public Road, it's a liability.

The electric mobility, got out of hand, with users riding without following RULES eg:
Riding on wrong side of the road/lane
Riding on sidewalks
Don't respecting STOP signs, red lights, one way street, etc...
Besides leaving such vehicles anywhere (even in the Channels, or rivers).

All this abuse, resulted in some European Cities Stopping the Rental eMoped Business (Ubber/etc...) - eg: Paris, by 2023.


If rules are set, and were set for decades, people need to obey for the sake of all.
To know the rules, people need to learn, and "Driving License", were somehow the grant people would understand and KNOW these rules.

Following rules, is independent of how fast or how powerfull such vehicles are.

I ride an Unretricted ebike, capable of reaching (theoretically) 64km/h, but I obey traffic rules, and normally don't pedal up to 40ish km/h, because it's very, very physical. Yes... even being assisted.
Of course it's less physical than a Bike, but the physical part is there.

I also ride motorcycles capable of riding well above 250km/h, and I'm not riding at those speeds, or even close to that!
Do I respect all speed limits? No!
But being caught by law enforcement. I KNOW I'll be penalized. Do I agree? No... but I understand. It's part of riding.


Regarding MX bikes riding on Public Roads, I have to disagree that most would do it, because:
Tires will be eaten (and are unsafe, let alone wet tarmac!), it's not that confortable, and besides that, don't have basic legal equipment:
Lights/worn.
Will this limit people from using MX bikes on public Road, like we see on some Youtube clips? No! But users KNOW they will get the vehicle inpound and fined!


In resume:
Ebikes don't need speed restriction, nor Power Restrictions, because:
1- eMTBs are looking for less weight = smaller batteries
2- Powerfull eMTBs to have range, required BIG batteries
3- eMTBs requires you to pedal, without throttle.
And here, normally, people that buy proper ebikes, like the physical part!
Not the physical part has BIKES. But some physical exercise.

If the issue, is riders not respecting Laws & Rules, then we need to make accountable, meaning means to ID riders.

Restrictions never solved anything...
And that's the reason, why there are so many devices to derestricted ebikes

Who is this "we" is or what am I proposing? I'm simply showcasing facts and highlighting realities of current local laws as they apply to various forms of transportation. I haven't set or proposed ANY hard limits beyond a thought experiment. I did say limits will exist and do exist .

I've said it before, having a bicycle permit or license wouldn't be a terrible idea. Nothing to do with ebikes, just the fact of riding on public roads, one should know the rules to the extent we make other users accountable with licenses. People have licenses and don't follow the law... so it isn't perfect. People break the law in various forms all the time. Hence there's enforcement and other nannies in place to reduce impact onto society, without burdening users too much.

How would you ID riders?

Still go back to precedent as it relates to limits on power, because its already happening. Why differentiate mopeds from motorcycles? Why not treat them all the same, no power or speed restrictions.

Its your argument for "electric Mobility"... government was convienced that an ebike should be treat like a bicycle for XYZ benefits to society, BUT it has to meet XZY criteria. Otherwise, what separates it from a moped or motorcycle the latter which don't have the benefits of regulation like a bicycle.

 

[Powerslider]

So how do you think regulation should be split in the US?

Similarly to how it is now where federal land is governed federally, state land by the state, and county or municipal land by their respective governing bodies. Thats why Hawes that’s within a national forest has different regulations than nearby South Mountain that I believe is a county park that formally allows eMTB. It’s probably worth pointing out that eMTB access at SoMo was won by locals (like Pivot) lobbying their local representatives for access. Impacting change obviously becomes more difficult on the state, federal, or god forbid international or industry level.

 

[Powerslider]

When there’s disagreement it’s helpful to find common ground, then work outward from there.

Backing out from specifics- Can we agree that whatever regulations that may be imposed, that we want them to be implemented as locally as possible?

 

[irie]

When there’s disagreement it’s helpful to find common ground, then work outward from there.

Backing out from specifics- Can we agree that whatever regulations that may be imposed, that we want them to be implemented as locally as possible?

What might apply in the US does not necessarily apply in other parts of the world.

 

[Powerslider]

What might apply in the US does not necessarily apply in other parts of the world.

I’m not sure if that’s a yes or no.

 

[DIomidis]

I’ve been of the opinion that cyclists on public roads should be required to have a bike license (essentially pay a fee) ever since we started making special lanes for them.

I am 100% with you. But vehicles should be paying the appropriate amount based on the infrastructure required for each type, the polution per mile, the wear per mile etc etc.

As it is the case with every one of my posts, someone who hasn't look into it might not like what I am about to follow up the above with, but...if any of you are interested in some reading, here:

The True Cost of Your Daily Commute

What’s the true cost of commuting? In addition to the monetary cost accrued by commuters, there is a far greater impact on society and our communities.

transloc.com

Ofc none of this is all-inclusive : there is quite a bit of bibliography on this, feel free to fall in the rabbit hole if any of you so wish.

TL/DR; Riding a private Car is stupendously subsidized by society, just like a family living in a single family home with supported infrastructure (roads utilities/sewer/trash/internet etc) costs society much more vs. the same family living in a denser, urban environment.

Again, believe it or not, it is about subsidies and the same reason we get "ACCESS" to eMTBs.
Society/Governments choose to support people trying - not ensuring - equal opportunity, aka equal ACCESS to things - like a productive life. If they were to charge the isolated single-family neighborhood exact $/KWh, or Trash $/weight etc or property taxes based on miles of road dedicated to reach our place and sewer lines and internet networks etc, a majority of people living in single family homes (like I am) would be priced out of them.

And if anyone believes that Shimano ($2.7Bill annual rev) or Bosch ($108B but a tiny fraction of that from eMTBs) or DJI ($10B but a tiny fraction of that from eMTBs) have a pull on social policies, infrastructure and social engineering, look up what % of the US Economy the Auto manufacturing and oil industry had post WWII where the majority of cities in the US became completely car-centric, after the above companies were allowed to buy up most mass-transit companies and their networks, dismantle them and sell them for parts to ensure their place in the market for decades, moves that were mimicked by many European and Asian countries which were rebuilt in that image also.

And this is part of why eBicycles and eMoppets etc are invaluable and we should not outright ban them off the streets or burden them disproportionately with insurance (doesn't mean no insurance, or registration, but nowhere close to what a car needs) etc. Every car we keep off the streets, including EVs, is a net benefit in the long run, but we need to also balance it with the serious risk of injury that comes with 2-wheeld vehicles, especially as those can reach moto speeds in traffic (you will be surprised how low a speed the average moto related injury that leads to hospitalizations occurs at - it is under 30mph).

But streets and commuting =/= trail access.

 

[RustyIron]

Ofc none of this is all-inclusive : there is quite a bit of bibliography on this, feel free to fall in the rabbit hole if any of you so wish.

I've tried not to get dragged into this fray. It seems that everyone is upset, and anything I said would just be throwing fuel on the fire. However, I take exception to one of the videos you posted and feel compelled to speak up. I didn't even watch the video because the creators have no credibility, and they deserve nothing less than a swift kick in the ņũťš. I'll bet you might even agree. Check out the attached screen grab from their video.

Go ahead, take a close look.

Who ARE these dimwitted fools riding around on city streets with no helmets? If they die, it's no skin off my butt, but I sure as heck don't want my tax dollars paying for their life support. And what about the little kid with no helmet?! How is this even possible? Why would anyone use this as the cover for their video? Clearly, the world is filled with awful people.

 

[pagheca]

I’ve been of the opinion that cyclists on public roads should be required to have a bike license (essentially pay a fee) ever since we started making special lanes for them.

At this point, it seems to me that there are four main positions in the debate around (e)bike regulation:

1. Keep things as they are (with factory limits on speed and power for pedelecs / Class 1).
2. Remove factory limits, but introduce proper regulation for all bicycles used in public spaces, such as rider licensing, insurance, and ID plates (including for trail use in case of accidents with hikers or other riders).
3. Remove all limits - full stop.
4. Increase the current limits to something more realistic (for example, 40 km/h and 750 W).

I used to support option 1, but after discussing the topic more thoroughly, I find myself leaning toward option 2. Curious if others have had a similar change of perspective.

I tend to agree now that people riding bicycles in public spaces should be identifiable, through some form of license and an ID plate on the bike, and an insurance. But I do not think that introducing fees or taxation for riders, which would be a different issue altogether, would be fair and wise, given the clear benefits of cycling: minimal space usage, no noise, no pollution, health benefits, and generally lower risk in case of collisions.

That said, there’s a practical issue that I think is often overlooked: how would this apply to children? Should a 3-year-old need some form of “license” to ride in a park with their parents on a bycicle with training wheels? Or a 10-year-old to cycle to school? This seems like a non-trivial challenge for any realistic regulatory approach.

Moreover, one should also consider that even a modest cost for a license and a registration plate, applied to a vehicle that can cost as little as €50 (which is the typical price of used bikes here or in Amsterdam for commuting and everyday tasks like taking children to school by most of the people), would represent a significant disincentive to its use and would likely trigger widespread public rage. You need to consider also that bicycle commuting in the US is relatively limited, but is very popular here and in The Netherlands, Paris, some places in Gemany, etc.

In my view, this is the main limitation of the proposal.

 

[Powerslider]

At this point, it seems to me that there are four main positions in the debate around (e)bike regulation:

1. Keep things as they are (with factory limits on speed and power for pedelecs / Class 1).
2. Remove factory limits, but introduce proper regulation for all bicycles used in public spaces, such as rider licensing, insurance, and ID plates (including for trail use in case of accidents with hikers or other riders).
3. Remove all limits - full stop.
4. Increase the current limits to something more realistic (for example, 40 km/h and 750 W).

I used to support option 1, but after discussing the topic more thoroughly, I find myself leaning toward option 2. Curious if others have had a similar change of perspective.

I tend to agree now that people riding bicycles in public spaces should be identifiable, through some form of license and an ID plate on the bike, and an insurance. But I do not think that introducing fees or taxation for riders, which would be a different issue altogether, would be fair and wise, given the clear benefits of cycling: minimal space usage, no noise, no pollution, health benefits, and generally lower risk in case of collisions.

That said, there’s a practical issue that I think is often overlooked: how would this apply to children? Should a 3-year-old need some form of “license” to ride in a park with their parents on a bycicle with training wheels? Or a 10-year-old to cycle to school? This seems like a non-trivial challenge for any realistic regulatory approach.

Moreover, one should also consider that even a modest cost for a license and a registration plate, applied to a vehicle that can cost as little as €50 (which is the typical price of used bikes here or in Amsterdam for commuting and everyday tasks like taking children to school by most of the people), would represent a significant disincentive to its use and would likely trigger widespread public rage. You need to consider also that bicycle commuting in the US is relatively limited, but is very popular here and in The Netherlands, Paris, some places in Gemany, etc.

In my view, this is the main limitation of the proposal.

I’m envisioning bicycle licensing for people over 14.

I acknowledge the problem with disincentivizing; and low-income individuals being challenged.

Bicycle licenses shouldn’t be subject to revocation due to an automobile event like a suspension. Bicycles provide transportation to many people with a suspended automobile license.

 

[ebsocalmtb]

Similarly to how it is now where federal land is governed federally, state land by the state, and county or municipal land by their respective governing bodies. Thats why Hawes that’s within a national forest has different regulations than nearby South Mountain that I believe is a county park that formally allows eMTB. It’s probably worth pointing out that eMTB access at SoMo was won by locals (like Pivot) lobbying their local representatives for access. Impacting change obviously becomes more difficult on the state, federal, or god forbid international or industry level.

Let's go down this rabbit hole for a second. Let's keep it somewhat simple and say that local/regional/state regulations end up with 3 different, but very similar definitions of ebikes with variations of requirements. I realize, in your utopia, power/speed levels should not be one of those, but let's assume that 1 of those 3 similar, yet different variations has a power limit.

How do you propose that bicycle mfg's deal with a product type that might be regionally un-acceptable? What if, because of the outrage of emobility devices and safety incidents (idiot kids on super73s and surrons), these mfg's need state approval or vin (equivalent) for them to be sold in that state? How would land managers, police what becomes a legal emtb in their state vs one that is out of state and not legal?

We have different versions of this... CARB (california air resources board) is an example where california instituted tighter emissions regulations than the national standard. Initially, automotive mfg's created 2 versions of their cars, 48 state and then carb compliant. That lasted about 15 years, and then everything made in this country was all of a sudden carb compliant.

The green tag solution is one example of how this could work. You either buy a vehicle that is green tag approved, or you end up with a red tag. It starts to filter out what can be done in which state... but again, how do local land managers deal with this? How do they determine how to police this to ensure that they do not run afoul of the land usage bylaws?

This all quickly heads to the easy solution of just banning ebikes... and since ebikes are getting so hard to distinguish from pedal bikes, it's not a reach to see bicycles getting banned all together from some areas. These land managers are understaffed and under funded... there is no budget for enforcement of minutia. The truth is that the utopia of land managers or representatives being replaced because they do not model the desires of their constituents does not apply here. Land managers, are rarely, if ever elected officials.

The only thing that calls this shots in this country is lobbiest influence. Since the US makes up 50% of the ebike market (conservatively) then just like CARB regulations, there is likely not going to be a dual or multiple compliance path. The best answer, is for the market and those with the money to self regulate, advocate for definitions that don't put their user/consumer base in jeopardy.

 

[Powerslider]

Let's go down this rabbit hole for a second. Let's keep it somewhat simple and say that local/regional/state regulations end up with 3 different, but very similar definitions of ebikes with variations of requirements. I realize, in your utopia, power/speed levels should not be one of those, but let's assume that 1 of those 3 similar, yet different variations has a power limit.

How do you propose that bicycle mfg's deal with a product type that might be regionally un-acceptable? What if, because of the outrage of emobility devices and safety incidents (idiot kids on super73s and surrons), these mfg's need state approval or vin (equivalent) for them to be sold in that state? How would land managers, police what becomes a legal emtb in their state vs one that is out of state and not legal?

We have different versions of this... CARB (california air resources board) is an example where california instituted tighter emissions regulations than the national standard. Initially, automotive mfg's created 2 versions of their cars, 48 state and then carb compliant. That lasted about 15 years, and then everything made in this country was all of a sudden carb compliant.

The green tag solution is one example of how this could work. You either buy a vehicle that is green tag approved, or you end up with a red tag. It starts to filter out what can be done in which state... but again, how do local land managers deal with this? How do they determine how to police this to ensure that they do not run afoul of the land usage bylaws?

This all quickly heads to the easy solution of just banning ebikes... and since ebikes are getting so hard to distinguish from pedal bikes, it's not a reach to see bicycles getting banned all together from some areas. These land managers are understaffed and under funded... there is no budget for enforcement of minutia. The truth is that the utopia of land managers or representatives being replaced because they do not model the desires of their constituents does not apply here. Land managers, are rarely, if ever elected officials.

The only thing that calls this shots in this country is lobbiest influence. Since the US makes up 50% of the ebike market (conservatively) then just like CARB regulations, there is likely not going to be a dual or multiple compliance path. The best answer, is for the market and those with the money to self regulate, advocate for definitions that don't put their user/consumer base in jeopardy.

My vision is the bike industry should be working towards a complete revamp of the bike class system that’s not using speed and power to define the distinction between eMTB, eMoto, and eRoad. That’s it.
Then the trail access topic would be a separate focus that’s more grassroots and lead by locals who would be using the new definitions as ammunition to fight for more access.

 

[pagheca]

Since the US makes up 50% of the ebike market (conservatively)

Just to note, regardless of what you wrote elsewhere, this is far from the reality.

According to Electric Bike Market Size, Share, Trends | Growth Analysis [2034] the global e-bike market is largely dominated by the Asia-Pacific region, which accounted for over half of the total in 2025 (56.5%) and continues to grow thanks to well-developed cycling infrastructure, heavy urban congestion, and increasingly strict emissions regulations for motorcycles. China is by far the largest market in the region.

Europe is the second-largest market (35.3%), driven by technological innovation, high product quality, and supportive public policies such as incentives and infrastructure development.

North America holds a much smaller share (7.8%) but is growing, mainly due to expanding cycling infrastructure in urban areas.

The rest of the world remains marginal (less than 1%), with growth primarily linked to tourism and recreational use of e-bikes.

 

[ebsocalmtb]

Just to note, regardless of what you wrote elsewhere, this is far from the reality.

According to Electric Bike Market Size, Share, Trends | Growth Analysis [2034] the global e-bike market is largely dominated by the Asia-Pacific region, which accounted for over half of the total in 2025 (56.5%) and continues to grow thanks to well-developed cycling infrastructure, heavy urban congestion, and increasingly strict emissions regulations for motorcycles. China is by far the largest market in the region.

Europe is the second-largest market (35.3%), driven by technological innovation, high product quality, and supportive public policies such as incentives and infrastructure development.

North America holds a much smaller share (7.8%) but is growing, mainly due to expanding cycling infrastructure in urban areas.

The rest of the world remains marginal (less than 1%), with growth primarily linked to tourism and recreational use of e-bikes.

If we are adding commuting and lifestyle bicycles into the mix, absolutely. If we're counting the bicycles we're discussing on this forum... then 50% is accurate if not potentially conservative.

 

[Fangs2k]

If we are adding commuting and lifestyle bicycles into the mix, absolutely. If we're counting the bicycles we're discussing on this forum... then 50% is accurate if not potentially conservative.

Where’s that figure coming from please if you have it? Searching for some data on e-mountain bike (not e-bike) market share throws up quite a few websites with info, I can’t find any that have the USA at 50%+ or anywhere near though.

Seems to be Europe or Asia Pacific with those sorts of market share, with USA around 10-15% although a growing market as trails open up to Class 1 e-mountain bikes.

AI summary with sources

share.google

Europe is the dominant global market for electric mountain bikes (e-MTBs), accounting for over 45–52% of global unit sales

 

[ebsocalmtb]

Where’s that figure coming from please if you have it? Searching for some data on e-mountain bike (not e-bike) market share throws up quite a few websites with info, I can’t find any that have the USA at 50%+ or anywhere near though.

Seems to be Europe or Asia Pacific with those sorts of market share, with USA around 10-15% although a growing market as trails open up to Class 1 e-mountain bikes.

AI summary with sources

share.google

I realize this is going to come across as a total dodge of the question... but the information I have comes from sources that I cannot share as it's through inside sales contacts. It's a hard thing to measure, since many brands are bigger in one continent then the rest...

 

[bmwpowere36m3]

Let's go down this rabbit hole for a second. Let's keep it somewhat simple and say that local/regional/state regulations end up with 3 different, but very similar definitions of ebikes with variations of requirements. I realize, in your utopia, power/speed levels should not be one of those, but let's assume that 1 of those 3 similar, yet different variations has a power limit.

How do you propose that bicycle mfg's deal with a product type that might be regionally un-acceptable? What if, because of the outrage of emobility devices and safety incidents (idiot kids on super73s and surrons), these mfg's need state approval or vin (equivalent) for them to be sold in that state? How would land managers, police what becomes a legal emtb in their state vs one that is out of state and not legal?

We have different versions of this... CARB (california air resources board) is an example where california instituted tighter emissions regulations than the national standard. Initially, automotive mfg's created 2 versions of their cars, 48 state and then carb compliant. That lasted about 15 years, and then everything made in this country was all of a sudden carb compliant.

The green tag solution is one example of how this could work. You either buy a vehicle that is green tag approved, or you end up with a red tag. It starts to filter out what can be done in which state... but again, how do local land managers deal with this? How do they determine how to police this to ensure that they do not run afoul of the land usage bylaws?

This all quickly heads to the easy solution of just banning ebikes... and since ebikes are getting so hard to distinguish from pedal bikes, it's not a reach to see bicycles getting banned all together from some areas. These land managers are understaffed and under funded... there is no budget for enforcement of minutia. The truth is that the utopia of land managers or representatives being replaced because they do not model the desires of their constituents does not apply here. Land managers, are rarely, if ever elected officials.

The only thing that calls this shots in this country is lobbiest influence. Since the US makes up 50% of the ebike market (conservatively) then just like CARB regulations, there is likely not going to be a dual or multiple compliance path. The best answer, is for the market and those with the money to self regulate, advocate for definitions that don't put their user/consumer base in jeopardy.

My thoughts exactly... we already have division with some states allowing 1000W, majority 750W and a few with much higher limits IIRC.

Honest question, at the federal level are e-bikes regulated? Like imported vehicles must comply with DOT standards. Or its all at local/state level? If there's no federal standard, then presumably manufacturers are going to find the least restrictive standards (state) and leave it to the consumer to be complaint by adjusting power/speed to meet their local laws. Kind of sounds like Avinox's tactic, whereas the other big players have been "trying" to stay more complaint. I suppose Specialized with their 850W update are also in clear violation of certain state laws.

The EU is tricky, because with derating there's no limit to peak power per se... its all about a continuous thermal 250W rating. Whereas in the States, many have clearly set the PEAK limit at 750W.

Now to stay "competitive" Bosch is likely going to offer the same power levels to appease critics/brand managers. Why spec a 750W when I can a 1000W... I feel like brands are having a FOMO moment, but consumer habits will drive sales. I guess we'll see. Certainly not every full power bike is going to have Avinox as spec, but a helluva lot will in the short-term.

 

[RustyIron]

If we are adding commuting and lifestyle bicycles into the mix, absolutely. If we're counting the bicycles we're discussing on this forum... then 50% is accurate if not potentially conservative.

Yeah, the name of the forum is EMTB. The features that make a good mountain bike are totally different than the features that make a good commuter, road, or gravel bike.

 

[pagheca]

If we are adding commuting and lifestyle bicycles into the mix, absolutely. If we're counting the bicycles we're discussing on this forum... then 50% is accurate if not potentially conservative.

Let me try to make this a bit clearer and more constructive. you mentioned “e-bike,” not specifically “e-MTB” or another subtype, and in both cases, the 50% figure is highly unrealistic.

Have you had the chance to visit Europe? E-MTB is now a very popular sport here, and there’s a rapidly expanding network of cycling infrastructure. For example, routes like EuroVelo 7 allow you to travel entirely by bike from Malta (the island) all the way to Nordkapp, except for some ferry passages.

Or take China, a vast, densely populated country with rapidly growing wealth and an impressive level of technological development. Every people who visit describe it as a eye-opening and shocking experience.

My point is simply this: the US is no longer the sole reference point in many areas. Spending some time abroad can really help put things into perspective, and might lead you to reassess some of the assumptions coming from your sources.

 

[martyfrommonmouth]

I realize this is going to come across as a total dodge of the question... but the information I have comes from sources that I cannot share as it's through inside sales contacts. It's a hard thing to measure, since many brands are bigger in one continent then the rest...

Trust me bro.

 

[Ugenius]

Open Letter to the Bicycle Industry https://www.pinkbike.com/news/an-open-letter-to-the-bicycle-industry.html#commenttop​

That's it, all the new power emtbs are e-mopeds

View attachment 178618

List the reasons for this endevor. List the negative effects this will have. This is the beginning of a push to classify a bicycle. I hate to tell you but 10 speed bicycle pros hit speeds of up to 30 miles a hr when riding. Just muscle power. Will you regulate them also? This is about money and control. Find some other way to take away our freedoms. I will mind my own business if you will. DO NOT LET A FEW PEOPLE RUIN IT FOR EVERYONE. BUDDY, GO LIVE ON A DESERTED ISLAND.

 

[Fangs2k]

List the reasons for this endevor. List the negative effects this will have. This is the beginning of a push to classify a bicycle. I hate to tell you but 10 speed bicycle pros hit speeds of up to 30 miles a hr when riding. Just muscle power. Will you regulate them also? This is about money and control. Find some other way to take away our freedoms. I will mind my own business if you will. DO NOT LET A FEW PEOPLE RUIN IT FOR EVERYONE. BUDDY, GO LIVE ON A DESERTED ISLAND.

That is just about the exact opposite of what he’s talking about.

We already have, in most places in the world, a regulatory environment that permits e-bikes to be used exactly the same as a pedal bicycle. That means no restrictions on access, no licences, no registration, no insurance, no test and no requirement to wear helmets or protective gear.

How much more freedom do you want? There are a ‘few people’ and a few companies that will ruin it for those of us who already enjoy the freedom that legal e-bikes bring, his letter is about what might happen if companies keep pushing the power and speed boundaries.

Neither bike manufacturers nor consumers make the law, governments do, no serious company is going to make products that can’t be legally sold in the markets they want to sell them.

If people want e-motorbikes, fine, but jump through the hoops to own and ride one and leave e-bicycles alone.

 

[E-MTBinGreece]

I realize this is going to come across as a total dodge of the question... but the information I have comes from sources that I cannot share as it's through inside sales contacts. It's a hard thing to measure, since many brands are bigger in one continent then the rest...

I’ve taken some time to look at this more closely and pull together a structured set of data points from a range of industry and market research sources. Where possible, I’ve tried to focus specifically on data relating to E-MTBs rather than the wider e-bike category. The figures below come from published reports and are referenced with direct links so they can be checked individually. I’m not in a position to comment on the reliability of each report, but they are commonly cited sources within the sector. As with most market analysis in this area, there are variations between sources, largely due to differences in how E-MTBs are defined and what is included or excluded. For that reason, I’ve used ranges where appropriate rather than single figures.

The aim here isn’t to argue a position, but to provide a clear, evidence-based overview of the current scale, growth, and structure of the E-MTB market, so the discussion can be grounded in data. Hopefully this is useful.

1. Global E-MTB Market Size (Current Position)

There is a reasonable level of convergence across multiple reports. The 2024–2025 baseline appears to be the most consistent range.

- Lower estimate:
~ $7.5 billion (2025)
Source: https://www.statsmarketresearch.com/global-mountain-ebikes-forecast-market-8067101

- Mid estimate:
~ $8.3–$8.8 billion (2024–2025)
Source: https://www.psmarketresearch.com/market-analysis/electric-mountain-bike-market-report

- Upper estimate (broader category definitions):
~ $16.9 billion
Source: Electric Mountain Bike Market worth $31.96 billion by 2032

Most reliable working range:
~ $8–10 billion annually (core E-MTB market)

2. Growth Rate

- Typical CAGR:
~ 8% to 9.5%
Source: https://www.psmarketresearch.com/market-analysis/electric-mountain-bike-market-report

- Higher projections (broader models):
~ 12%–16% CAGR
Source: E-Mountain Bike Market Size & Growth Report [2034]

- Confirmed growth signal:
+38% year-on-year increase in 2023 (select datasets)
Source: Mountain Bike Market Size, Growth Outlook 2034

3. Market Share Within E-Bike Sector

Total global e-bike market:
~ $38–40 billion (narrow definition)
Source: E-bike Market Size, Share & Industry Trends, 2031

E-MTB portion:
- E-MTB value: ~ $8–10 billion
- Total e-bike: ~ $38–40 billion

Result:
E-MTB ≈ 20%–25% of global e-bike market (in value)

Estimated unit comparison:

- Global e-bike units: ~ 35–40 million/year
Source: https://electroiq.com/stats/electric-bikes-statistics/

- Estimated E-MTB units (derived):
~ 3–6 million units/year

Please note:
E-MTB unit figures are not directly reported and are inferred from value share and pricing.

4. Market Share Within MTB Sector

Total MTB market:
~ $10 billion (2025)
Source: https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/mountain-bike-global-market-report

E-MTB penetration:
~ 15% of MTB market
Source: https://www.marketgrowthreports.com/market-reports/mountain-bike-market-109524

Derived figures:
- E-MTB within MTB (value):
~ $1.5 billion equivalent share if using strict MTB segmentation

Please note:
Many reports classify E-MTB separately, so overlap exists.

Penetration is higher in the mid-to-high-end segment (often 30–50% in European retail), although this is not globally standardised.

5. Regional Distribution
Europe:
~ 43% of global E-MTB market
Source: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/e-mountain-bike-market

Estimated value:
~ $3.5–4.3 billion

Asia-Pacific:
~ 46%–57% share (depending on scope)
Source: E-Mountain Bike Market Size & Growth Report [2034]

Estimated value:
~ $4–5+ billion

United States:
- North America share: ~ 10%–15%
- USA-specific estimate:
~ $1.0–1.5 billion E-MTB market

Please note:
US adoption is lower than Europe but growing, particularly in the high-end trail segment.

Key point:
Europe = performance / sport / trail segment
Asia-Pacific = volume + mixed-use adoption
USA = growth market, high-value segment

6. Market Composition
Usage segmentation:

- Leisure / recreational riding:
~ 61%
Source: https://www.globalgrowthinsights.co...ain-bike-electric-mountain-bike-market-103369

Bike type:
- Hardtail:
~ 58% market share
Source: https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/industry-reports/electric-mountain-bike-market

- Full suspension:
Dominates higher-end / technical riding

Motor type:
- Pedal assist (Class 1 equivalent):
~ 70%+ of market
Source: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/e-mountain-bike-market

7. What This Means

A. E-MTB is not a niche category
$8–10 billion market
~ 3–6 million units annually
~ 20–25% of e-bike market

B. It is a significant driver of MTB growth
~ 15% penetration of MTB market (and increasing)
- Higher in mid-to-high-end segment

C. It is concentrated in a higher-value segment
- Typical price range: €3,000–€8,000+
- Lower unit share, higher value share

Summary
- Market size: $8–10B
- Market share (e-bike): 20–25%
- Market share (MTB): ~15%
- Units: ~3–6M (derived)
- Europe: ~43% (~$3.5–4.3B)
- USA: ~10–15% (~$1–1.5B)
- Growth: 8–10% typical

Taking this data into account, it suggests that E-MTB is already a significant and established part of the wider cycling landscape rather than a marginal or emerging category. That has a direct bearing on the regulation discussion. Any proposal that materially restricts access or introduces additional barriers needs to be considered in the context of the scale of use, the diversity of riders, and the environments in which these bikes are actually being used. In practice, the issue appears less about the existence of E-MTBs themselves and more about how access is managed across different settings — public roads, shared countryside tracks, and privately managed trail systems — and how rider behaviour is handled within those spaces. The data does not point to a single regulatory solution, but it does reinforce the need for proportionate approaches that recognise both the growth of the category and the practical realities of how and where people ride.