Let’s be honest: have you ever heard a car manufacturer – or the automotive industry as a whole – publicly declare that cars are dangerous and should be urgently regulated? Not even Volvo does that. And this, despite being the most self-restricting brand in the business. But Volvo wraps its message in a positive, future-focused narrative: the ambition to build the safest cars in the world. Their vision? That no one should die or be seriously injured in a new Volvo — even in the worst-case scenario. A clear, compelling mission that resonates far beyond the brand’s core audience.
Before you read on – have you taken part in our reader survey yet? This is your chance to help shape the future of the bike world and E-MOUNTAINBIKE magazine – and, with a bit of luck, win dream bikes from Haibike and Specialized worth €17,999. Take part now and share your thoughts – your opinion matters!
And what are we doing as an industry? We’re not just acknowledging the arguments of bike critics, we’re amplifying them.
Excessive trail erosion caused by increasing e-bike power? Trail closures due to higher motor outputs? New risks from more powerful motors? Are people out there laughing at us? T
hey must be – because honestly, it couldn’t get any better for the critics. We’re practically doing their job for them. Is this what effective industry lobbying is supposed to look like?
It’s high time we brought some calm and common sense back into the conversation – to broaden the industry’s perspective and raise the level of professionalism across the board. The good news? Within this heated debate lies a huge opportunity for the bike world to reposition itself and finally learn some long-overdue lessons.
Over the past weeks and months, we at E-MOUNTAINBIKE Magazine have spoken with the most influential players in the e-bike industry – including lobbyists, industry associations, trail advocacy groups, testing institutes, and leading brands. What emerged is a picture that’s partly encouraging, but also deeply unsettling.
In this article, we aim to bring clarity, provide concrete recommendations for action, and point the way toward a more sustainable future for the entire industry.
The pressure points – and what we’re totally overlooking
The current debate around e-bike self-regulation has become louder, more emotional, and more urgent. Along the way, a number of damaging narratives and misconceptions have taken root. It’s time to clear the air – and take a collective deep breath. Because before we dive deeper into the technical details, we first need to step back and address the bigger picture.
First things first: A big thank-you to the ZIV (German Bicycle Industry Association) and Claus Fleischer, whose 750 W proposal has sparked an important debate and laid the groundwork for a much-needed discussion. There’s no question that some form of regulation is necessary – to put the brakes on the current arms race for more power, which shows no signs of slowing down, and to proactively address potential risks.
But we must be careful not to fall into the framing trap – and lose sight of where this industry is actually headed (if it ever truly knew). Nor should we, in the process of trying to “save” the e-bike world, end up shooting ourselves in the foot.
The ZIV proposal, our Think Tank, and the heated discussions that followed – often driven by varying levels of expertise – have made one thing painfully clear: where the bike industry currently stands, and how unprepared or indifferent much of it remains when it comes to dealing with crucial issues. And just how much we’re still lacking as an industry.
At the same time, the current debate offers a huge opportunity, but only if we’re willing to spark the changes that could make this industry more effective, more agile, and ultimately far more successful. We’re at a turning point. And what matters most right now is how we choose to represent our collective interests.
What does the bike industry have in common with the Titanic?
The bike industry has a problem. Unlike other sectors, we’re a colorful mix of tinkerers, idealists, and tech nerds – structured and organized to varying degrees of professionalism. We love what we do. And that’s our greatest strength. But also our biggest weakness: we often get lost in technical details and lose sight of the bigger picture.
Because what good is having the best crew in the engine room if the bridge is empty – or asleep? If no one is aware of their responsibility, their influence, or the weight of their decisions? If no one is stepping up to steer?
The iceberg was never the Titanic’s real problem. What doomed her was the lack of foresight. And the same holds true for the bike industry: we don’t need more technical solutions. What we really need is far better communication, stronger representation of our interests, and – brace yourselves for the dirty word – we need real lobbying. And we need it tied to clear visions and long-term development goals.
The last major growth phase – the COVID boom – was luck and coincidence, not the result of any strategic brilliance within the industry. Grand forecasts were made without a plan, promises thrown into the world based on sheer chance rather than an actual roadmap.
Champions League forecasts – third-division planning
The good news? The bike industry is a lot like a football team: if you’re just aimlessly kicking the ball around without strategy or tactics, you might get lucky once in a while – but you’re never making it to the Champions League. And the same goes for life: if you drift through without a plan, without speaking up, without standing up for your interests, you might scrape by – but you’re not going to win any trophies. What we need – in the bike industry, and in life – are clear goals and a deep understanding of what we want to achieve. And those goals shouldn’t just be slightly ambitious. They must be bold and bigger than we currently expect to be possible – because that’s the only way growth can happen.
Unfortunately, the bike industry still counts only a handful of true leaders among its ranks who not only value technical excellence, but who also dare to think beyond their own brand, take responsibility, and make bold decisions, even when it feels like a David vs. Goliath battle.
At E-MOUNTAINBIKE Magazine, we firmly believe that this industry is capable of so much more – if we finally start getting organized. It’s the same story with trails: there are countless (e-)mountain bikers out there, yet far too few are actively involved in clubs or advocacy groups. Locally, we’re starting to see more and more success stories – but on a regional and national level, far too little is happening. That’s not only the case for Germany, but in many countries around the globe.
Drifting along and hoping that the market will sort things out – or that the next boom will magically appear – is no longer a strategy. The real question is: are we ready to take our future into our own hands?
Caught in the framing trap: Is it too soon to talk about 750 W and beyond?
Too soon? Too late? Or exactly the right moment? The ZIV’s 750 W proposal has steered the conversation in a clear direction – and that’s both valuable and potentially dangerous. On the one hand, we urgently need to start discussing the technical details. On the other, this narrow framing risks pulling focus away from what truly matters: Namely the conditions that strengthen the industry’s development and the appeal of (e-)bikes, rather than weakening them or keeping things neutral. Do we merely want to preserve the status quo – or, if we’re going to act, shouldn’t we aim to evolve?
Of course, we could now start debating whether 750 or 800 W should be the maximum power limit – and how feasible that would be in practice. We could talk about the gap between a motor’s electrical output and the mechanical power delivered at the rear wheel, and the confusion that arises when regulators want to measure power at the wheel, while motor manufacturers specify it at the motor shaft.
But that’s not the discussion we want to dive into here. Rather, we want to clarify key aspects that are currently casting e-bikes in a misleading light within the ongoing discussion.
More powerful e-bikes are damaging our forests!More power doesn’t result in any meaningful increase in forest erosion, since most riders don’t even use their motors at full output. And even if they did, the damage caused by spinning tires is far less than that caused by braking. So if that’s the logic, we might as well ban braking or knobby tires in the woods – or better yet, put harvesters and other forestry machines on the red list. But sliding through the forest on slicks isn’t exactly the solution either…More powerful e-bikes are killing trail access.The issue of trail access isn’t primarily a question of motor power – it’s mostly a problem in densely populated areas, where the pressure on shared spaces is simply too high. Trail access only becomes a real issue when e-bikes are no longer visually or functionally distinguishable from motorcycles or similar vehicles.E-bikes with 1000 W peak output are unsafe.What really matters is the rider’s behavior – and how controllable and responsive the motor is. The risk factor of “speed” isn’t about the motor itself. Otherwise, every downhill ride – where 90% of riders exceed 25 km/h anyway – would be inherently dangerous. All motors cut off at 25 km/h, and aside from the initial curiosity, every rider eventually settles into the support mode that suits them. Most people never ride at maximum output in the first place – they stay in the lower support modes. It’s no different with a Porsche 911 or any other sports car stuck in traffic or used for grocery runs. Those who take them to the track know exactly what they’re doing. And honestly, we should trust users with a basic level of personal responsibility. For everything else, the automotive industry has developed assistance systems – from ABS to wet modes – and those technologies are already available in the bike world too.
What do these three points tell us? As stakeholders, we need to be careful not to project risks onto e-bikes that don’t actually exist – or exaggerate negligible dangers just to serve our own interests.
As an industry, we have to stop painting e-bikes as inherently dangerous. Because they’re not. What the bike industry is currently doing amounts to public anti-lobbying – against itself. The industry currently meets all legal requirements and is doing everything it can to ensure that e-bikes are safe.
When preaching and practice don’t align
How do you destroy trust? By preaching one thing – and doing the exact opposite. Or by agreeing on a direction, only to ignore it afterward. At the E-MOUNTAINBIKE Think Tank, nearly all brands were in agreement (DJI, for the record, was present but remained neutral and observing): regulation makes sense – and it can even steer innovation in a better direction, in the interest of riders.
But what happened afterward was the complete opposite. One manufacturer after another – DJI, Bosch, ZF, and others – has recently rolled out power increases via software updates, further fueling the arms race. Whether those updates exceed or align with the ZIV proposal is beside the point – because the proposal remains at this point just that: a proposal. MAHLE already launched their M40 motor with 850 W. Yamaha followed with the powerful 800 W PW-X4. And we already know: this is just the beginning. More manufacturers will follow with power updates.
Welcome to the arms race. Is it sensible? That’s up for debate, depending on your perspective. For us – and for a large part of the rider community – it’s clearly heading in the wrong direction. The push for “more” power might be cleverly disguised as a sales argument in an oversaturated market, but real demand is minimal, as shown by user data from our reader survey with around 17,000 participants, as well as other studies. The awareness among riders of increased wear and energy consumption with more power is growing – something Bosch handled particularly well in their communication around the 750 W power update, clearly explaining the other side of the coin.
Interestingly, most of those craving more power never take the energy equation to its logical conclusion: they expect more output, but are then surprised when that output naturally leads to higher consumption and reduced range. It’s simple math. But the root cause of this arms race goes deeper.
The marketing and media failure of the bike industry
Which came first – the chicken or the egg? It’s a question the bike industry has been asking itself for decades. ‘Lighter, faster, more powerful’ is just so much easier to market and communicate than anything else. But do riders really want that – or is it just what we’ve always told them to want?
Back in the day, it was the Shimano XT derailleur that sold bikes – now it’s torque and motor power. Peak output, torque figures, and battery capacity have become the most eye-catching selling points – and, unfortunately, also the most clickable headlines on YouTube and in many magazines. Ideally plastered with “WOW!!!!”, “Finally more 💥💥💥💥” or some other emoji spectacle.
In short: media, manufacturers, and retailers are losing themselves in clickbait and spec-sheet superlatives, fuelling a distorted market awareness and a poor understanding of what actually matters. But more doesn’t automatically mean better – as our Impossible Climb Challenge during the mega group test with 30 e-MTBs clearly showed. Or how is it possible, that one bike, with a peak output of 600 W, beat a DJI-powered bike with its 850 W peak output on the most technical uphill section – and scored roughly 25 percentage points better, despite having less power! Because in the end, it’s about more than just raw numbers. Unfortunately, we keep forgetting that.
By constantly putting hard numbers front and center, the media, motor manufacturers, bike brands, and retailers have created a spiral of sensationalism. Because what everyone talks about becomes what everyone talks about. Yup – feel free to read that one twice.
Say what you want about the Pope, but during his inauguration he said something that fits this perfectly: “If we disarm our words, we contribute to the disarmament of the world.” And the same applies to the arms race in the e-bike world. If we reduce clickbait and data porn, and instead highlight use cases, real product USPs, brand values, and emotion, the absurd overemphasis on performance figures will gradually start to fade. And even more so if we start asking better questions – and providing real answers:
What’s the point of more power if you never use it – or if it just makes your bike heavier and bulkier? Did you know that higher output increases battery consumption and wear? Do you want to win races – or just get out of the daily grind? Are you buying what you truly want and need – or what you’ve been talked into?
The UCI shouldn’t be defining what level of e-bike power is right or safe
Have you ever seen a tail wagging a dog? Neither have we. That’s why UCI regulations for e-bike racing must never serve as a benchmark for broader regulation. Let’s be honest: how many e-bike riders have actually raced – or ever plan to? Right now, it’s roughly 0.02% (!) of all annual e-bike buyers in Germany.
Fair e-bike racing is often brought up as a reason for regulation. But sport and leisure are two different things – and racing shouldn’t define the sport as a whole. According to the latest UCI regulations, the way many amateur road cyclists ride would practically be illegal. E-bike racing must be fair – but it has nothing to do with the wider e-bike market. So why not introduce separate performance and software classes, like it’s the standard in car and motorcycle racing?
The latest UCI regulation unnecessarily excludes systems like DJI or MAHLE through the added clause “must not advertise.” And these won’t be the last. Yet with a simple software regulation or adjustment, they could easily participate in competition, since motor output is entirely software-controlled. As a result, the already niche world of e-racing is losing important and exciting players, narrowing the field to bike brands using Bosch – and just a few others.
To ensure fair competition, there may be smarter solutions: Motor manufacturers could implement a dedicated race mode via their apps, locked to standardized parameters. The system would automatically generate a shareable performance log capturing all key motor data during the race. A central analysis tool could then evaluate the data post-race – ensuring transparency, compliance, and a level playing field.
Bonus: it would also generate rich data for storytelling and post-race analysis – making racing more exciting and coverage more engaging for fans and media alike.
This is the kind of regulation we love: clear, purposeful, and something that actually adds value – and fun! But let’s get back to the main topic…
Strategic own goal? Big bike brands as component carriers
No wonder so many bikes today are referred to as “Bosch bikes” or “DJI bikes.” Most bike brands have long since downgraded themselves to accessories of their suppliers. Instead of putting their own product and brand experience at the center, they showcase the motor as the main highlight – and in doing so, make themselves more or less interchangeable outside the core scene.
Even if the current economic situation plays a role – at EUROBIKE, many brands dutifully slot themselves into their suppliers’ booths, those of the motor manufacturers, instead of putting their own brand in the spotlight. There’s little space left for independent marketing, brand experiences, or differentiation. And so, the motor and its performance figures become the primary selling point of many bikes.
With only a few exceptions, it’s a strange trend: most bike brands reduce themselves to mere component carriers – handing over responsibility and market development to the motor makers. You see the same thing in the ZIV working groups on e-bike self-regulation, where only motor manufacturers are represented – but not a single bike brand defending its own interests. Are they not invited? Do they not care? Or is it simply a strategic own goal to let themselves, as bike brands, become playthings of the motor industry?
Still playing – or already taking control?
The bike industry is stuck. And not just in the day-to-day, but also in a strategic sense. Whether bike or motor manufacturers – many lack big-picture thinking, a willingness to take responsibility beyond their own brand, and a real industry-wide vision. Even billion-euro corporations are surprisingly unprepared when it comes to representing their interests, engaging politically, and doing real lobbying. But why?
Many manufacturers are so busy playing the current game that they don’t realize how much influence they could actually have on the rules of that game. And how working on changing the rules can benefit their business. Just look at bike leasing programs like JobRad – a perfect example of how new rules and frameworks can reshape an entire market. Bike leasing hasn’t just been a huge win for the industry – it suddenly made premium e-bikes more accessible and affordable for a much broader audience in Germany and other markets. When the framework is actively shaped, new markets, new audiences, and new opportunities emerge. But that takes courage, organization – and clear goals.
The future won’t wait for you!
Recent developments show that the bike industry is at a crossroads – and ready for its next big leap. The direction won’t be left to chance, but shaped by those willing to step up and take responsibility.
It’s time for brands to engage more strategically in shaping the future of cycling, for associations to reorganize and consolidate, and for all of us in the bike industry to finally learn how to stand up for our interests – and do it far more effectively. To grow the world’s greatest hobby with vision, purpose, and accountability. Because the future isn’t a fluke. If you’re not shaping it, it’s shaping you.
So let’s take action – time for a real plan!
- Every bike brand needs a new understanding of what lobbying really means.
- Bike brands and their associations need to organize themselves far more effectively – to speak with one voice and serve as a clear point of contact for policymakers.
- Make better use of existing platforms – instead of constantly trying to create new ones.
1. Why More Bikers Should Be Wearing a Suit – Lobbying Needs to Become Our Best Friend
Lobbying has a bad reputation in Germany. But anyone who believes lobbying is inherently wrong has clearly misunderstood how politics works – and how the future is shaped. Because lobbying, at its core, is simply this: representing your own interests. And in that respect, the bike industry – as it stands today – is doing a shockingly poor job. Sure, it’s more appealing to blast through trails or launch the next hip marketing campaign for a new bike. But if you want to be taken seriously as a mature and responsible company in the world, you also need to commit to shaping the industry’s future. And that includes engaging in associations and support their work not only with money, but impulses, network and drive. If we want to have meaningful conversations with policymakers and institutions, then yes, sometimes that means swapping bike gear for a suit and showing up with a serious, credible voice.
Current Issues:
- There’s a lack of willingness to take responsibility beyond one’s own company.
- There are too many voices – but no coordinated chorus.
- There’s a lack of understanding of political processes – and slow willingness to learn.
- The many industry associations need to become better organized and merge – a process that has already begun in some areas.
As a bike manufacturer or member of an industry association, it’s easy to complain about outdated processes and long meetings. But complaining is the easy part – and as in any company or organization, the team always shares responsibility for success.
As a member and brand with influence, you have a duty not just to show up passively at the annual general meeting, but to actively contribute. To challenge the association’s leadership, to support them with ideas and constructive input. That’s the only way progress can happen. And most associations are (or should be!) aware that modernization is overdue – and that it needs support from the outside to make it happen.
Back to lobbying: lobbying doesn’t mean bending laws. It means arguing based on facts, taking a clear public stance, and stepping up as a first mover to help shape the debate – instead of complaining afterward that others were faster or louder. And that includes using the full range of tools available – such as this well-executed, strategic study on 750 W regulation.
No question – there will always be free riders. Brands that reap the rewards of groundwork laid by others. But if you’re a strong, confident brand, that shouldn’t stop you from taking action. On the contrary: pioneers aren’t just the first to harvest – they also decide what gets planted, and what grows!
2. Kindergarten Mentality in the Chaos of Industry Associations
Which crowd did you hang with back in the schoolyard? Were you one of the cool kids or the overachievers? The misfits or the tough ones? Or did you just slip quietly through the chaos, never picking sides, never taking a stand?
Worryingly, the parallels in the bike industry are hard to ignore. Instead of talking with one another, most manufacturers – even within associations – prefer to talk about one another. And when someone doesn’t get their way, they run off to the next association or try to start a new one altogether. “Fortunately,” there are already more than enough of those in the bike world. But this kind of playground politics has to stop.
So who actually represents the interests of the bike industry? ZIV? VSF? ADFC? Zukunft Fahrrad? DIN committees? LEVA? CONEBI or CIE in Europe? WFSGI globally? Or… somehow all of them?
In the current e-bike regulation process, Germany’s ZIV has taken the lead – yet many brands seem to feel insufficiently involved or represented in the decision-making. It’s now up to the ZIV to bring its members along more transparently, actively encourage participation, and integrate diverse perspectives more effectively into the process. At the same time, our position at E-MOUNTAINBIKE Magazine is clear: vision must come before regulation. Otherwise, we risk charging ahead in a direction we might not even want to go.
3. Fewer – but done right.
We don’t need more platforms. Because even the best platform is worthless if it isn’t used properly. And that’s a massive problem. In the bike industry, everyone loves doing their own thing – whether it’s closed-door trade shows, half-baked associations, or difficult conversations that never happen. Amid the chaos of countless in-house events, the absence of nearly all major bike brands from a central trade show – whether it’s called EUROBIKE or not – and the overload of poorly coordinated associations, the full impact and energy of this otherwise innovative and vibrant industry is simply lost.
How can we possibly represent our broader interests to policymakers or stand up to the stronger lobbying groups in other industries, if we in the bike world remain so fragmented and disorganized that we can’t even manage to present ourselves with unity and strength? It’s the kind of damage you’ll never see listed as a line item on a company’s balance sheet – but one that costs the industry, and the companies within it, far more than most would expect, simply because we’re wasting our potential.
Lobbying only works if we show up as a united front. If we stop just launching platforms and start using them properly. If we learn to tolerate conflict and recognize that friction between differing opinions – the foundation of any healthy democracy – is not a threat, but a path to progress.
Congratulations!
It wasn’t that dry, was it? Anyone who’s read this far has not only gained insight into the current state of the bike industry, but hopefully also sensed just how much potential there is for its future development. The debate around e-bike regulation has exposed deeper, structural issues – and marks a turning point: is the bike industry finally ready to grow up?
A regulation for e-bikes is important – but without a vision for how the industry should evolve, it becomes dangerous. What we need now is representation with real foresight. Not reaction, but direction. Not defensiveness, but confident, proactive engagement. Not fragmented efforts, but clarity and cooperation.
We don’t need new platforms – we need to better organize and engage with the ones we already have. Because we can’t complain about how the market evolves if we’ve had the chance to influence it – and failed to represent our interests.
At E-MOUNTAINBIKE Magazine and 41 Publishing, we’re not only fired up for what’s ahead – we’ve got bold visions for how we want to help move the industry forward. And with our next Think Tank in October 2025, we’ll be bringing fresh ideas and new momentum to the table. The agenda is already clear: before we get lost in the technical weeds of regulation, we need to step back and focus on the bigger picture. And instead of whining, we need to talk to one another, learn, and grow together.
The future of the bike industry won’t just happen. It will be the result of the choices made by those who are willing to take responsibility, to step up, and to drive change – every day. Starting now. Anything else would be pretty damn dumb, wouldn’t it?
Questions or suggestions?
Send an email to Robin Schmitt, founder and editor-in-chief of E-MOUNTAINBIKE Magazine: robin@ebike-mtb.com Important: We will read every reader email, but may not be able to reply to each one individually.
Words: Robin Schmitt Photos: Volvo, ZIV – Die Fahrradindustrie, Robin Schmitt, Jan Richter, Jan Fock, Peter Walker, Bosch eBike Systems
