I think it boils down to the different riders on the forum.
The mountain bikers generally like e-bikes.
The roadies (who happen to have a MTB) don’t.
It’s all about whether riding for you is about the bike handling or about the action of turning the cranks.
😀
I think it boils down to the different riders on the forum.
The mountain bikers generally like e-bikes.
The roadies (who happen to have a MTB) don’t.It’s all about whether riding for you is about the bike handling or about the action of turning the cranks
Sorry, but I think that's bollox and born out of your own prejudices rather than any evidence.
I'm definitely not a crank turner. Ideally I would like to live somewhere with a chairlift.
I still think that ebikes are going to be bad for the sport in the long run for the reasons I've given above.
It’s a slippery slope if you only allow what is needed. Who decides what I need, hopefully not some of the posters above?
On any given MTB You don’t need suspension, disk brakes, gears, dropper posts , tough tyres. You don’t even need a MTB.
None of those added a motor and batteries to a pedal bike though did they. As I’ve said more than I need to, in my opinion, it is a wrong step. It adds something that can prove to be vastly more detrimental to our environment than anything else bike related and again, in my opinion, that’s a bit ****ed up and unnecessary. We’re creating a potential issue where none existed before.
As per previous posts I’m not trying to decide what you need. Just stating an opinion. Seems that eBike riders are as touchy as normal bike riders 😘
I think it boils down to the different riders on the forum.
The mountain bikers generally like e-bikes.
The roadies (who happen to have a MTB) don’t.
Lol - I can’t stand road riding. Up there with running for most mind numbing form of exercise for me. Love MTB yet, brace yourself here, I really like the fact that it’s me powering the bike. Madness!
Just been for a ride after the gym on the eeb that I wouldn't have done if I didn't have it. Opened my lungs up, sweated, average heart rate of 140, max 187 (watch didn't catch it all so not accurate just for the record). Not sure where there are any negatives to be had from that and I must have missed the bit where I didn't put any effort in....
Have you ridden on natural trails that’re frequented by ebike groups @Cougar?
Have you walked on natural trails that’re frequented by traditional bike groups? We're in no position to be crying "leave no trace."
Mess is so much more apparent when it's someone else's.
It’s all about whether riding for you is about the bike handling or about the action of turning the cranks.
Nah, still prefer the handling of a bike without a heavy motor and battery. It’s a fun thing not a suffering thing. The lighter e-bikes come close, they’ll get there in the next few years.
Mess is so much more apparent when it’s someone else’s.
Nothing’s changed my mind about e-bikes, still think they’re great and every home should have one… but still also think that those dismissing the additional damage and access conflict they will create for all mountain bikers are sticking their heads in the sand.
Back on topic, always happy to ride with people on e-bikes, just as I am happy to ride with stronger fitter riders. There’s always someone at the back, and always people who have to wait at junctions and at the top of climbs. Bring a coat… I’m extra slow this winter… 😉
There are rules for mixed group rides:
1. Tow ropes to be carried by all E bike riders.
2. Offer to carry as much kit as possible for the non E bikers.
3. At least one E bike should be tail end Charlie and keep next to the last rider on an 'ordinary'.
😋
It’s all about whether riding for you is about the bike handling or about the action of turning the cranks.
If that were the case there would be far more trials riders on this MTB forum. Instead it's populated with gravel threads and even zwift (the antithesis to trials) is more popular.
I probably hate Zwift more than e bikes 🤣
Would using an e bike for zwift make you smile?🙃
Nothing’s changed my mind about e-bikes, still think they’re great and every home should have one… but still also think that those dismissing the additional damage and access conflict they will create for all mountain bikers are sticking their heads in the sand.
I don't disagree and there's some good points made here (on this last page at least😁).
But we need to be mindful that this isn't a new argument. We could cross out "motor" and write "gears" in Funky's post above (and many others) and it'll still scan. Back when I was a kid my mate used to proto-MTB in Easy Mode because he had a three-speed Grifter. He went further, higher, faster etc than the rest of us could. Anyone with a derailleur on their bike has no place whining about accessibility. Christ, next we'll be arguing that folk with disc brakes are able to ride recklessly faster because they can stop quicker, whereas back in my day you took the rear mudguard off so you could put your foot on the tyre.
We cannot debate "additional damage and access conflict" from a position of righteousness without first considering the word "additional" right there.
We can't have it both ways. One minute rabidly chasing the next bit of new kit that'll shave ten grams off the weight of our bike, the next crying into our skinny latté because someone else has something better. Complaining about people having no place being in our space instead of "sitting at home where they belong," then griping about hikers and dog walkers taking umbrage at us for the crime of merely existing on shared-use trails.
Keep it honest. This isn't an argument about environmental concerns, it's an argument about Strava scores.
We could cross out “motor” and write “gears” in Funky’s post above (and many others) and it’ll still scan.
It wouldn’t have the same meaning though, would it.
As I said, big ebike fan… but adding a motor to help drive you forward is not analogous to a lighter component, or a lower gear, or whatever other “advancement” comes along that doesn’t use a motor to augment your pedalling input. Your “additional” comment is very valid, but that “addition” is a big one, especially when the trails are wet and soft. Climbs you’d normally leave for the summer are increasingly sessioned in all conditions, as are the downhills they lead to. This is all a good thing for those riders getting out there, but the “additional” impact on trails, and the access conflicts surrounding them, will affect all riders and needs to be thought about.
It wouldn’t have the same meaning though, would it.
Wouldn't it?
Keep it honest. This isn’t an argument about environmental concerns, it’s an argument about Strava scores.
I feel like I'm talking to myself here. I reckon I've made some reasonable points but they are getting ignored in favour of strawman arguments about strava scores, 'it's only for fat biffers', it's just crank-turners who object, etc
My point is that this a step change in mountain biking and none of the other changes since the first purpose built mtbs appeared on the market come close to the impact this is going to have on the sport.
I'm honestly struggling to see how this impact is going to be positive. For what feels like the 6th time I've said this, my reasons are given above.
Are you saying that ebikes are going to bad for the sport BruceWee? Only, you've not mentioned it.
Are you saying that ebikes are going to bad for the sport BruceWee? Only, you’ve not mentioned it.
I'm worried e-mountain bikes are going to turn the sport we know today into the equivalent of jet skiing within a generation.
I think that would be a bad thing.
I think we all agree that there should be some limit on how people are allowed to access trails. I don’t see anyone saying they are cool with moto-X bikes tearing up and down the trails we use for mountain biking.
In general, MX bikes aren't allowed where we ride. If they are allowed, then so are 4x4's etc. An e-bike, is still a bicycle
The majority of trails we (are allowed to) access are bridleways and therefore open to horses (whether horses can actually physically ride them is moot).
Yes MX bikes ride cheeky trails and it's fair to say most people won't be happy about it. I have nothing against a bit of green laning though
BUT and this is a big but. Unless you are ONLY riding trails that are legally accessible by bicycle, then you really shouldn't be making an issue about anything. Even more so if you're cutting a new cheeky trail into the woods somewhere
Yes, I ride footpaths and cheekys all the time and don't feel guilty about it (always considerate to other users though). The BW's in the Derbyshire Dales are generally rubbish. I tend not to get too judgey about others on that basis though
I'd like to address the elitism inherent in those who are anti-ebike. Mountain biking has always been an elite fringe sport. It demands a technical skill set that carries a steep learning curve as well as a high degree of fitness, attaining both takes years of dedicated practice and is a point of pride for seasoned riders. A lot of the traditional arguments against ebikes--access, erosion, newbs getting in too deep etc...-- are just convenient diversions from the real issue which is that all of us are mired in the muck of our own ego and anything that poses a threat to our idea of self is undesirable.
We identify as mountain bikers and that identity is intricately woven into the fabric of our idea of self. We are tough, fit, technically adept and adventurous. We only arrived at this point after years (decades for me) of practice. Attaching an extra 250 watts to our legs shatters that image. The very idea that someone with half our fitness could tackle a 7k foot day of vert by riding a cheater bike seems wrong. They didn't earn it. It doesn't count. On the surface this sounds quite shallow and petty so we leave it unsaid and hem and haw about access and erosion instead.
There is an elegance to the suffering involved in sessioning a 20*+ loose climb until you clean it. 36mm forks, slack head angles and electronic shifting add to the experience. But for many of us free watts cheapen what it means to be a mountain biker. We may not be right but we should at least be honest about it.
My point is that this a step change in mountain biking and none of the other changes since the first purpose built mtbs appeared on the market come close to the impact this is going to have on the sport.
Personally, I'm not purposely ignoring your posts. Rather, I don't care about "the sport," I don't really even understand what that means. I just want people to enjoy riding their bikes without someone else getting sniffy about it.
Is everything not a "step change"? 26 / 29 / 650b. Softtail / hardtail / full-sus / DH. Rear derailleur, front derailleur, triple chainring, 1x[whatever]. Canti brakes, V-brakes, disc brakes, hydraulic disc brakes. Steel, aluminium, carbon. The MTB industry exists to tell you that your must-have from last year is now obsolete and you have to buy their latest shit.
You might well be right. But I'm unconvinced that the difference between an electrically-assisted bike and a modern regular bike, and the comparative difference between a bouncybike and my mate's Grifter, is as great as you're suggesting. Why aren't we all riding BSOs?
are just convenient diversions from the real issue which is that all of us are mired in the muck of our own ego and anything that poses a threat to our idea of self is undesirable.
Nope. My concern is that it will fundamentally change the sport, creating an insurmountable barrier to entry that means mountain bikes will go from being a pastime available to all (or the majority of the population) to a toy where the initial costs are so high the majority of the population won't be able to get started. Hence my comment about ebikes turning mountain biking into the equivalent of jet skiing within a generation.
I do wish people would actually address the points I'm raising instead of valiantly fighting strawmen.
all of us are mired in the muck of our own ego and anything that poses a threat to our idea of self is undesirable
You’re projecting your own insecurities onto others there I feel.
Is everything not a “step change”? 26 / 29 / 650b. Softtail / hardtail / full-sus / DH. Rear derailleur, front derailleur, triple chainring, 1x[whatever]. Canti brakes, V-brakes, disc brakes, hydraulic disc brakes. Steel, aluminium, carbon. The MTB industry exists to tell you that your must-have from last year is now obsolete and you have to buy their latest shit.
No, none of those are equivalent to having a motor to assist driving you forward. Not even close. Which is why e-bikes are great, they are a step change in what a bike is, what you can get out of them, and who can get about on them, this is not incremental fiddling. Embrace the fact they are a game changer, and don’t dismiss those who have concerns as just being luddites… address their concerns instead of dismissing them with that same poor analogy again and again. Get some miles in on an ebike… you’ll probably love it, and will definitely stop with the “this is just like when a new brake system came along” proclamations.
Rather, I don’t care about “the sport,” I don’t really even understand what that means.
'The sport' is whatever you make of it. I would put mountaineering, rock climbing, bouldering into the 'sport' of climbing. Likewise, I would put XC, trail riding, downhill, and whatever else into the 'sport' of mountain biking.
Like I said, I've been on club rides where every type of mountain bike has been represented. It was always made to work.
I think mixed group rides (ebike and bike) can be made to work. Provided the ebikers are in the minority.
When the ebikers become the majority, that's when I see there being an issue. Which brings me to your next point.
Is everything not a “step change”? 26 / 29 / 650b. Softtail / hardtail / full-sus / DH. Rear derailleur, front derailleur, triple chainring, 1x[whatever]. Canti brakes, V-brakes, disc brakes, hydraulic disc brakes. Steel, aluminium, carbon. The MTB industry exists to tell you that your must-have from last year is now obsolete and you have to buy their latest shit.
None of these were a step change. For the most part the first version was pretty shit. Even if it wasn't, none of these things doubled your biking capacity in one fell swoop. Ebikes double your riding capacity with a single purchase.
If a group is made up of a majority regular bikes then the ebikers just put the boost on minimum and get on with it.
What happens when the majority of a group has ebikes? Suddenly the non-ebikers are holding the group back. What's the point of owning a big motor and battery if you're not going to use it?
The non-ebikers will have to choose between forcing the group to ride at half capacity, buy ebikes, or leave the group.
There seems to be an assumption that ebikes and bikes will be able to live side by side in harmony for ever more. Judging by jameso and Brant's comments, I reckon that some time in the next few years Giant and Spesh are going to say, 'Normal bikes are dead and proper mountain bikes are ebikes'. The industry will be forced to follow them because that's the way these things work.
From there, regular bikes will become like steel bikes today. Sure, they are there to be bought, but you are going to have to pay a premium for them to such an extent that you might as well buy an ebike.
From there, mountain biking becomes a sport with such a high intitial cost it is no longer a sport that is accessible to the majority of the population (despite the boutique prices many like to pay, the majority of the population could get into mountain biking if they wanted to).
If mountain biking becomes emountain biking, the majority of the population will not be able to enter the sport.
At that point, the mountain biking that we know today, a sport that is available to (almost) all, becomes an exculsive and anti-social weekend toy for the rich.
I do wish people would actually address the points I’m raising
Help us out here; how do we do that and what are your aims? eBikes are here to stay, they aren’t going away and the dicks on jet skis you’re worried about are far more likely to be on Surons and the like than eMTBs because they are faster and cheaper.
If it’s people on eMTBs riding off piste that are the problem then education is one of the answers.
Help us out here; how do we do that and what are your aims? eBikes are here to stay, they aren’t going away and the dicks on jet skis you’re worried about are far more likely to be on Surons and the like than eMTBs because they are faster and cheaper.
Just read what I wrote in the post directly above yours (or any of the other multiple posts where I've made the exact same points). I literally can't spell out my concerns more clearly than that.
I don't care if poor people can't afford an ebike to piss around in the woods. Should I?
I'm sure they can buy a legacy bike to piss around in the wood on.
Oh and it's a hobby, not a sport.
But what can we do about that? You seem to be blaming eBikers for something they have no control over.
‘The sport’ is whatever you make of it.I would put mountaineering, rock climbing, bouldering into the ‘sport’ of climbing. Likewise, I would put XC, trail riding, downhill, and whatever else into the ‘sport’ of mountain biking.
So, eBiking then. It fits all those categories.
From there, mountain biking becomes a sport with such a high intitial cost it is no longer a sport that is accessible to the majority of the population (despite the boutique prices many like to pay, the majority of the population couldget into mountain biking if they wanted to).
The economics don’t add there; the market for MTBs is colossal in comparison to the market for eMTBs. There’s no way the big players are going to ignore that sector unless they can massively reduce the cost of eBikes to fill the void.
We cannot debate “additional damage and access conflict” from a position of righteousness without first considering the word “additional” right there.
We absolutely can. Everything we do causes some damage. It's clearly much better to just ride to your local woods rather than load a bike onto a Hummer (or a e-tron) and drive there. Even that would be better than taking a flight to the Alps. We each have a view on an acceptable level of damage. Ebikes clearly do more than a normal bike.
The economics don’t add there; the market for MTBs is colossal in comparison to the market for eMTBs. There’s no way the big players are going to ignore that sector unless they can massively reduce the cost of eBikes to fill the void.
Is it? What are the numbers today? What do the big companies expect the numbers to be in 5 years time based on the current trajectories?
What are the profit margins on an ebike compared to regular bikes?
I genuinely don't know. I'm just reading between the lines of what jameso and Brant said.
I have no doubt that it would be more profitable for bike companies to focus on ebikes from now on. At least in the short term. The problem comes in 20 years time when current mountain bikers die or stop riding and there is no younger generation to replace them.
How many companies prioritise their 20 year profits over their 5 year profits these days?
The economics don’t add there; the market for MTBs is colossal in comparison to the market for eMTBs. There’s no way the big players are going to ignore that sector unless they can massively reduce the cost of eBikes to fill the void.
The vast majority of bikes are cheap commuter or shopping bikes. The profit on those will be tiny. Then you have your lower-end mountain bikes or road bikes. These will be the majority of bikes sold to people who cycle for sport. The profit on one of those is probably the same as 10 cheap bikes. Then you have your halo bikes, running XTR level gear. The profit on those is probably 10 times an entry level mountain bike, 100 times a cheap shopping bike, but their sales numbers will be tiny. E-bikes will likewise make much more profit for manufacturers than low-end bikes and appeal to a different market segment than the halo bikes. No manufacturer can afford to ignore a profitable market segment like that. It might only be 1% of the total bike market, but each e-bike probably makes as much profit as 100 cheap commuter bikes.
I have no doubt that it would be more profitable for bike companies to focus on ebikes from now on.
I just don’t agree. Most bike companies have bikes that cost as much, or even more, than their most expensive eBike. The bikes will be more profitable than the eBikes and have a much lower warranty cost.
What are the numbers today? What do the big companies expect the numbers to be in 5 years time based on the current trajectories?
I have no idea, neither do you and with the greatest respect I doubt Brant or Jameso have access to such sensitive commercial information.
My concern is that it will fundamentally change the sport, creating an insurmountable barrier to entry that means mountain bikes will go from being a pastime available to all (or the majority of the population) to a toy where the initial costs are so high the majority of the population won’t be able to get started.
Half-decent mountain bikes were an "expensive toy" long before e-bikes were a thing. Your argument that no-one would be able to buy in to the "sport" would hold water if BSOs no longer existed. Your gripe here isn't e-bikes, it's marketing.
And in any case, if e-bikes do gain traction (so to speak) as is your concern, prices only ever go in one direction when things become mainstream.
‘The sport’ is whatever you make of it.
Well, it's not, seeing as you're the only one sealioning about it. We have no idea what -you- make of it.
None of these were a step change.
...
What happens when the majority of a group has ebikes? Suddenly the non-ebikers are holding the group back.
Again,
Tell me how this is any different from a singlespeeder out riding with a group largely on 27-speed bikes.
There seems to be an assumption that ebikes and bikes will be able to live side by side in harmony for ever more.
There seems to be an assumption that they must do so. What does it matter, this affects you how? People walk, climb, run, ride fixies, ride bouncybikes, ride motorcycles, ride horses, drive cars, pilot helicopters, no-one in a glider ever shook their fist at those in Easy Mode up in their expensive space shuttles.
Go have fun however you see fit. The world will keep turning.
BruceWee… there’s a bit of a contradiction in your fears… that it’ll become uneconomical to produce bikes without motors, and that having motors will price people out of getting involved. Either e-bikes will become much cheaper and so that’s all that’s available from the big companies, or they’ll continue to be bikes without motors being produced and sold for a good chunk less than e-bikes by those big companies. Either way, it means (ignoring the normal inflation that confuses people as to the real value/price of “things today”) that the price of entry to getting out on the trails on wheels will stay much the same as it is today, either on cheaper e-bikes or on cheaper than e-bikes ‘normal” bikes.
I just don’t agree. Most bike companies have bikes that cost as much, or even more, than their most expensive eBike. The bikes will be more profitable than the eBikes and have a much lower warranty cost.
We're all working on the assumption that there is plenty of space for manufacturers to focus on high end normal bikes and ebikes.
The vast majority of bikes are cheap commuter or shopping bikes. The profit on those will be tiny. Then you have your lower-end mountain bikes or road bikes. These will be the majority of bikes sold to people who cycle for sport. The profit on one of those is probably the same as 10 cheap bikes. Then you have your halo bikes, running XTR level gear. The profit on those is probably 10 times an entry level mountain bike, 100 times a cheap shopping bike, but their sales numbers will be tiny. E-bikes will likewise make much more profit for manufacturers than low-end bikes and appeal to a different market segment than the halo bikes. No manufacturer can afford to ignore a profitable market segment like that. It might only be 1% of the total bike market, but each e-bike probably makes as much profit as 100 cheap commuter bikes.
I don't think the market is there to support both. I think major manufactures are going to pick ebikes over high end mountain bikes.
And by high end, I mean anything over 1000 pounds.
Mountain biking will become a hobby where you need a minimum of 3000 quid just to get started.
For most on here, that won't be an issue. We can afford it. Or we'll just keep riding our old kit.
However, in 20 years, mountain bikes will be rich people's toys.
They’ll be £1500 (in today’s money) bikes available to get you out on the trail for decades. Maybe they’ll be some cheaply equipped e-bikes, maybe they’ll be some reasonably equipped bikes without motors… probably both. I think you’re worrying about a very unlikely scenario.
The more likely scenario is many people riding in ebike only groups… but not everyone… people will still mix it up if they want to be sociable… just like mixed ability/fitness rides have always been.
We absolutely can. Everything we do causes some damage. It’s clearly much better to just ride to your local woods rather than load a bike onto a Hummer (or a e-tron) and drive there. Even that would be better than taking a flight to the Alps. We each have a view on an acceptable level of damage. Ebikes clearly do more than a normal bike.
I'd agree with that. And obviously bikes do more damage than walking. I think the tough bit is aligning the acceptable levels of damage with activities you don't personally do. Round my way 4x4 use made bits of trail unusable for most. But those are byways, so really that's on the landowner to maintain them, not 4x4 users. Similar, some bridleways are impassable in winter on an mtb due to horses. Again, clue's in the name 🙂
I think you’re working about a very unlikely scenario.
The question you have to ask yourself is, who is going to buy a 1500 quid non-electric bike if the majority of people are riding ebikes?
The only people who are going to buy them are people who only ride alone.
If that's the case, they are going to become a premium product due to the lack of mass-production. Then the price isn't going to be 1500, it's going to be 2500.
Anyone who has the choice of a 2500 quid normal bike and a 3000 quid ebike is going to choose the ebike. Unless they are weirdos like me, but I'll probably be building my own bikes by then.
Which is why e-bikes are great, they are a step change in what a bike is, what you can get out of them, and who can get about on them, this is not incremental fiddling.
It’s exactly the same step change that happen in the late 19th century
Now, where did that end up?
E-bikes will go the same way. It’s human nature.
We absolutely can. Everything we do causes some damage.
Absolutely. So then we're back to "what I do, that's OK. What everyone else does, that's unacceptable." How do we quantify that?
E-bikes "clearly" do more damage than regular bikes (do they, is it all that clear?) Riding clearly causes more damage than walking. Walking does more damage than staying at home.
If someone is hooning around the local woods on several grand's worth of full-sus scattering dog-walkers like bowling pins then they don't get to take the moral high ground over someone on an electrically assisted bike just because they're not in a Range Rover I'm afraid.
But we need to be mindful that this isn’t a new argument. We could cross out “motor” and write “gears” in Funky’s post above (and many others) and it’ll still scan.
adding a motor and batteries to a pedal powered machine is a very different thing to adding gears. If you can’t see that then we’re simply not on the same page and can’t take the debate any further. To me it is a very different concept and makes it an entirely different vehicle. Some people may disagree and that’s fine. In this day and age adding unnecessary batteries and motors to things is just a dick move in my opinion.
Possibly I’m just poor or jealous or some other thing mentioned in other posts. That or possibly I do have actual environmental concerns about what will happen with batteries and knackered motors. That can’t true though because somebody else said so in a previous post. Opinions are like arseholes etc
Riding clearly causes more damage than walking. Walking does more damage than staying at home.
Wasn’t there some research done that says the opposite? Size of contact patch and speed of movement over the ground or something? Might have been one bike and lots of walkers so not a fair comparison. I’m probably wrong and can’t be arsed going down a Google rabbit hole though
We’re all working on the assumption that there is plenty of space for manufacturers to focus on high end normal bikes and ebikes.
You're working on the assumption that there isn't.
The cheapest adult mountain bike on Halfords is sub-£150. No company that wanted to stay in business ever stopped making budget-friendly products because luxury items existed.
Plus, the second-hand market exists (and dear christ if any demographic should know about turning over last year's castoffs it's cyclists). What do we suppose the going rate for a several-year old e-bike might be?
Now, where did that end up?
There are already electric motor bikes. That evolution isn’t needed.
You’re working on the assumption that there isn’t.
The cheapest adult mountain bike on Halfords is sub-£150. No company that wanted to stay in business ever stopped making budget-friendly products because luxury items existed.
The majority of the big brands profits come from selling kids bikes, commuter bikes, etc. We're a tiny percentage of their profit margin and the big brands steer the industry through their decisions. Sure, a small company might introduce a new standard or new technology but once the big boys decide that's what they are doing, that's what they are doing.
I'm sure Giant and Spesh wouldn't hesitate to never sell another regular mountain bike again if they could make the same profits through selling fewer ebikes.
Once that happened the rest of the industry would have no option but to focus fully on ebikes.
Sure, normal bikes would still be available as a niche. And you would have to pay the premium you do for any niche product.
Your choice then is to buy a budget normal bike, a premium priced regular mountain bike, or a good value for money ebike (at a price that will still exclude the majority of the population).
In five years time we'll all know one way or the other, I guess.
I find it amusing that e-bikes with their nasty batteries and motors are an environmental catastrophy, but EV's are just fine and dandy, we should all be driving them 🤣
That would be because EVs are intended to replace vehicles that only ever spew shite from their backends.
Whereas e-bikes are a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
I reckon that some time in the next few years Giant and Spesh are going to say, ‘Normal bikes are dead and proper mountain bikes are ebikes’. The industry will be forced to follow them because that’s the way these things work.
While I do see your concerns BruceWee and I agree e-bikes are a step change, the biggest change in bicycles since the safety bicycle layout perhaps, I just don't agree that the longer term impact will be as severe or polarising as you're concerned it may be. I don't think your concern isn't valid. But I do believe that non electric bikes and MTBs will always have a place and market forces will mean we'll have choice at average value prices.
What e-MTBs will test is what proportion of the 'sport of MTB' is powered built trail laps and what is 'gravel plus' XC, and there's always something in between. I don't know how the split will end up overall or what will be seen as 'mainstream MTB' in 2030.
I think eMTB will be big, influential and cost of entry will come down, it's changing what MTB is to some extent, but I don't see it displacing non ebikes.
Whether the changes coming with more eMTBs is a bad thing I don't know. I personally don't think it'll be noticeable to those outside the scene, to those within it it'll all depend on what riding is to you now and who you ride with.
Whereas e-bikes are a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
I think they do solve a problem, if you think of them as medicine, ie, they allow people who wouldn't otherwise be able to due to ill-health to get out there and keep riding, either by themselves or with their friends.
Like many other types of medicine, it can be abused by perfectly healthy people as well.
