BikeBiz Bicycle and cycling retail news
In recent weeks, the e-bike industry has frothed itself into a lather over Peak Power. All kinds of insinuations about regulatory implications have been spoken.
BikeBiz wanted to get a non-motor manufacturer-based sense of what’s happening and why. To do this, we spoke with renowned e-bike and eMobility expert, Hannes Neupert.
Bosch likely doesn’t want you to hear what Hannes has to say. You can judge for yourself why that is, as we explore key points from our hour-long conversation.
Hannes, lets talk about the hot topic of Peak Power, one on which Bosch seems to be lobbying hard. Is there a regulatory risk here?
Let me say that Bosch is aiming to protect its commercial position here. It has fallen behind in the innovation of e-bike motors and is using all its power to try and slow or stop others from gaining market-share at the expense of Bosch.
Peak power has nothing to do with how e-bikes are ‘regulated’. Indeed, the original 250W limit, which was later reinterpreted as 250W normalised power concept, comes from a single early electric cycle which was used as a benchmark in 1994. Not remotely representative of the electronically controlled units of today.
If the guidance was followed to the absolute letter, then almost all of today’s e-bikes would be falling foul of these. I should know. I helped write EU guidance on e-bikes.
What about safety? Surely there are implications and guidance based on research?
The real guidance comes from insurance companies. They provide cover against risk. It’s their entire business.
As Insurance companies see e-bikes, it is less risky in many situations to have more power, as this means e-bike riders move at a speed closer to that of other like cars and motorcycles, especially when going uphill, but also when riding on the flat.
Remember, the speed an e-bike moves at when motor-assisted is within the reach of the human-powered analogue bike – 15.5 mph or 25 kph – for a fit and strong rider. Insurance companies provide cover for just such use cases. So why would this be any more risky on an e-bike?
The only interesting point from an insurance research viewpoint is that a rate of accelerative force up to 15kph is identified as a risk. Rapid acceleration up to 15 kph is seen as a risk resulting in a loss of control for less experienced, less physically capable riders – think older people – and/or physically smaller riders – think children.
After 15 kph, the insurance industry has no concerns with e-bikes and power, or speed, until we get to speeds past which a regular bicycle could typically achieve.
Here we should say that you and I both know we can ride down a hill on an unassisted bike at 40, 50, maybe even 60 kph. The Insurance companies know this, too. They factor that in when providing cover.
So, higher power motor output is advantageous when torque (accelerative force) is controlled?
Yes. A more powerful motor makes this, within classification speed, possible for load-carrying cargo bikes and for bikes ridden by people who rely on the e-bike motor to provide a mobility solution. And of course, cycles for more than one passenger, as active riders like on a tandem or passive passengers.
I need to say here, we’re not all eMTB obsessed.
They’re far from the only e-bike type. E-bikes present a mobility opportunity which is far bigger than the sports and leisure sector.
The European Union knows this. You can see this in its actions, with the European Declaration on Cycling. Putting monetary value on this, “From 2026, the EU Social Climate Fund (SCF) will make €87 billion available for initiatives to tackle transport poverty, including subsidies for bicycles, cycling infrastructure projects, and bike-sharing schemes.”
The ‘challenge’ is that a transport customer doesn’t buy a new bike every 2 or 3 years, so Bosch focuses where the easy money is, at the expense of innovation which would actually grow the number of people choosing an e-bike as a form of transport which successfully replaces a motor vehicle.
Talking about real innovation, I’ve mentioned before that a hub-based motor could deliver regenerative braking, working in tandem with traction control and ABS systems – all massively beneficial for people using an e-bike in place of a motor vehicle. (These types of safety systems are now an integral part of the NCAP crash test certification for motor vehicles.) Why would e-bikes be any different? Safety systems make for better outcomes. Again, the insurance industry provides data-based facts here.
As you ride a bike with more than one person onboard, or a load that is weekly food shop and/or essentials for work, these systems make choosing a bike a safer option for people newer to riding a bike – people we can call ‘new riders’ in the same way we call those just starting out in a car ‘new drivers’ – as well as those with mobility challenges for whom a bike is a significant source of freedom, significantly improving quality of daily lived experience.
The noise about anything over 750W Peak Power hasn’t really featured in our conversation as I’d expected.
It’s not the issue Bosch wants to make it out to be.
I suspect that they have been busy filling orders and, as a result, deprioritised innovation. Now they have found themselves behind the curve, losing sales to newer e-bike system providers.
That they lobby to make this – peak power – seem an issue, which then negatively impacts competitors in the space, is extremely frustrating. Why not compete on innovation? Why not lead on new applications?
Looking at the market, there are clear classifications. An EAPC is limited to 25 kph (15.5 mph). A Speed Pedelec is limited to 45 kph (28 mph). After that, we have eMopeds, with no pedals at all. There is no confusion here. In no way will an e-bike (EAPC) ever be confused by anyone working in a regulatory capacity with an eMoped. What is required of each is clear. What is needed by the rider of each is clear.
It sounds like you are not a fan of the generic use of ‘e-bike’ as a naming convention – that it leads to a wide variety of types of product being mislabeled under this one ‘name’.
Generally, I do not like the term e-bike since the motorcycle riders as well claim it.
That is why I try to use Pedelec, and even sub-specify Pedelec 25, Pedelec 45,… but I can live with other uses. Personally, I believe the next generation will use ‘cycle’ again and consider the electric-assisted version of it. Like my children do not know a landline telephone any more since we never had one at home when they have been born.
