That's it, all the new power emtbs are e-mopeds
View attachment 178618
Counter-Argument to Hans Rey’s Position on E-MTB Power Limits
Hans Rey is one of the pioneers of modern mountain biking and a respected advocate for trail access and responsible riding. His concern that electric mountain bikes could threaten access if the industry pushes power limits too far is understandable.
However, the argument that the industry must defend Class 1 limits as the only acceptable form of E-MTB deserves closer examination.
1. Technological Progress
Mountain biking has always evolved through technological development.
Suspension, hydraulic disc brakes, dropper seatposts, carbon frames and wide-range drivetrains were all initially criticised as changes that would “damage the spirit” of the sport. Today they are standard equipment.
Electric assistance is part of that same technological progression. Restricting development purely to preserve a historic definition of cycling risks freezing the technology at an arbitrary point.
Manufacturers must be able to explore improvements in motor efficiency, torque delivery, battery capacity and control systems. These developments often improve safety and ride control rather than simply increasing speed.
2. Inclusivity and Rider Access
Electric mountain bikes have brought many riders back into the sport.
These include older riders, riders recovering from injury, and mixed-ability riding groups. In many cases higher torque motors do not increase speed but allow riders to climb technical terrain at sustainable effort levels.
Restricting power purely on principle risks excluding riders who benefit from greater assistance.
3. Terrain Limits Speed More Than Motor Power
On real mountain trails, speed is primarily limited by terrain and traction rather than motor output.
Factors that control speed include:
• gradient
• surface conditions
• line choice
• rider skill
On technical climbs and descents a 250 W motor and a more powerful system often result in very similar real-world speeds. The trail itself sets the practical limit.
4. The Class System Is Largely Regulatory
The Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 categories are regulatory frameworks rather than precise engineering distinctions.
For example:
• nominal power ratings vary between manufacturers
• peak motor output is often several times higher than nominal ratings
• torque levels differ widely across systems
The classification system therefore simplifies a complex technical reality. Focusing entirely on nominal wattage may not accurately reflect how these bikes actually perform.
5. Sponsorship Context
Hans Rey is sponsored by Bosch eBike Systems. Bosch motors operate within the European 250 W regulatory framework and the company has strongly supported the Class 1 model globally.
This context does not invalidate Rey’s position, but it explains why defending Class 1 has become a central industry message. It aligns with Bosch’s established product ecosystem and regulatory environment.
6. Market Development
The E-MTB market is already diversifying. Manufacturers are exploring a range of concepts including:
• lightweight assist bikes
• high-torque systems
• adaptive assistance software
• larger battery platforms
Attempting to restrict development to a single category may not reflect real consumer demand or technological direction.
7. Rider Behaviour Matters More Than Motor Output
Most trail conflict arises from rider behaviour rather than equipment. The key factors affecting trail access are:
• speed control
• yielding etiquette
• environmental awareness
• participation in trail maintenance
• respect for other trail users
A responsible rider on a powerful bike causes less conflict than an irresponsible rider on a traditional mountain bike. Education and stewardship therefore matter more than strict equipment limits. Additional Considerations Often Discussed in the Industry
8. Generational Divide
There is a clear generational divide within mountain biking.
Many early pioneers built the sport around human-powered riding and view electric assistance as a fundamental change. Younger riders and new entrants often see E-MTB simply as another form of mountain biking.
The debate is therefore partly cultural rather than purely technical.
9. Commercial Strategy Behind “Protect Class 1”
“Protect Class 1” messaging has also become a commercial strategy within the bicycle industry.
By establishing Class 1 as the acceptable standard for trail access, existing manufacturers protect their current product platforms and regulatory environment. However, innovation in electric mobility is occurring far beyond the traditional bicycle industry. If mountain biking refuses to adapt, development may simply occur elsewhere.
10. Advocacy Language Versus Real-World Riding
Advocacy organisations often promote strict categories in order to negotiate access with land managers. In practice, the situation on trails is more nuanced. Riders already use a wide range of bikes with varying assistance levels, and enforcement of exact specifications is rarely practical.
What land managers usually care about is trail impact, rider behaviour and safety.
Conclusion
Hans Rey’s call for responsibility reflects a genuine desire to protect mountain bike access. That concern is valid. However, limiting the evolution of electric mountain bikes to a narrow Class 1 definition may not be the most effective way to achieve that goal. A more practical long-term approach would emphasise:
• responsible riding culture
• clear trail etiquette
• environmental stewardship
• flexible regulation that allows technological development
Electric mountain biking is still evolving. Protecting the future of the sport may require managing behaviour and trail use rather than restricting the technology itself.
www.nps.gov
recreation.utah.gov
and even between different regions of the same country.
. But people do tend to drive fast, though, and enforcing the rules isn’t always easy, somewhat similar to what I experienced in Portugal when I spent time there.
