One of the most recognizable names in longtail cargo bikes, Xtracycle, just introduced the new Swoop ASM, or Automatic Smile Machine. It’s a mid-drive family hauler that comes fully kitted with the accessories you actually need for carrying passengers right out of the box.

Key features include:

• Shimano EP6 mid-drive, with Class 1 or Class 3 configurations available
• 630Wh Shimano battery, rated for up to 60 miles of range
• Shimano Di2 electronic shifting with Auto Shift mode (it can downshift for you when you come to a stop, which is a lifesaver if you forget when the bike is loaded)
• Mixed wheel setup for stability: 24” front / 20” rear
• Dropper seatpost
• Hooptie kid carrier / handrails
• Front rack
• MIK HD rear rack
• Wheel skirts
• Passenger footrests
• Wide-angle lighting
• Xtracycle also lists a broad range of add-ons, baskets, and crates, plus a lifetime frame warranty and local professional assembly available.

Pricing starts at $4499, but they’re offering a $500 launch discount

Our take: This looks like a genuinely well-thought-out package. The Auto Shift and dropper post are both smart, practical choices for a bike that’s going to be doing lots of stop-and-go riding with kids onboard, especially when you’re trying to get stable at a stop and put a foot down confidently while perhaps forgetting to shift along the way.

I’m 6’1” with long legs, getting a foot or two feet down is something I take for granted. My wife cites this as a reason she doesn’t cycle as much, and is hesitant to try a cargo bike in case she can’t support bike weight + two kids on the back with sure footing underneath. The dropper post could change a lot of minds and open up possibilities for more people if they feel they’ll be able to operate the whole ride more confidently.

On Feb 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not allow the president to impose tariffs. Since then, numerous companies’ legal teams have been suing to recoup what they paid in tariffs. Several cycling names are joining that growing list, including: Trek, Specialized, Shimano, Marin, Ibis, Bell Sports, Quality Bicycle Products (QBP), Yakima, and Tern. Retailers and adjacent outdoor brands are also involved, including REI, Patagonia, and Helly Hansen.

The suits are similar in nature, listing either the US government, Office of the President, and Customs and Border Protection as defendants in the suits, amongst other affiliated names.

Government officials have indicated legal action won’t be necessary to resolve tariffs; however, legal counsels suggest it could expedite the process for brands willing to pay for the legal fees.

Our Take: As far as the cycling industry goes, the tariff saga has been harmful. Many brands closed citing tariff pressures, several saw downturns in profits, and customers paid unnecessary increases on products when brands’ margins forced their hand, and prices were increased—the whole thing was just a mess.

Hopefully, with the Supreme Court’s ruling, brands can expect some stability. The damage is done; hopefully, some recovered costs can help, but this was a wildly unnecessary burden that did all harm and no good.

In October 2025, Guardian Bikes along with aluminum trade groups, proposed adding bike frames to a list of products subject to a 50% aluminum and steel tariff list. This is under Section 232 law.

Now that the government cannot impose IEEPA tariffs, routes like this for collecting tariff revenue represent a more prominent threat to the cycling industry.

PeopleForBikes is said to be “actively pushing back against the proposed inclusion of bicycle and e-bike HTS codes under Section 232 tariffs. In the coming weeks, the Commerce Department will decide which products will be added under the latest round of tariff inclusion requests.”

The comment period is now closed, but reportedly over 600 comments came from cycling industry types opposing the inclusion of frames being added to that list. Now, the advocacy group is urging people to contact their local representatives to let them know the ways this will harm business and affect the cycling community at large.

Our Take: We strongly oppose to what Guardian is doing here. You can get a deeper breakdown of what they’re doing here. The short version is: They make their own frames instead of importing them. They’re one of the few larger-scale manufacturing options that exist in the States. That’s commendable, but their posturing to impose tariffs on all other bike frames benefits nobody but themselves. Guardian alone can’t satisfy all aluminum and steel bike frame needs, especially since the majority of what they sell is to kids. Factories for manufacturing can’t be set up quickly, so this seems like a way to hinder rival brands and force their prices up while keeping their own costs controlled. Consumers will just end up footing the bill, and bike sales will slow, which is bad for the industry as a whole.

PeopleForBikes is right to raise the alarm here; this is potentially the next thing to kick the industry if bikes and e-bikes are rocked by the full force of what the Section 232 tariffs could mean.

Two high-population states are considering bills that would require e-bikes to be registered and display a plate.

In California, Assembly Bill 1942 (AB 1942) would require Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes to be registered with the DMV and to display a special license plate mounted on the rear of the bike, visible and legible at all times.

In New York, Senate bill S2599A ( referred to as “Priscilla’s Law”) would require bicycles with electric assist to be registered and issued a number plate by the state, but the current language is targeted to a city of one million or more.

The aim of the goals is safety-focused. Advocates say it will help identify and crack down on repeat offenders who behave recklessly. Opponents feel this is bureaucracy that will harm those who already follow the rules, and it fails to address the larger culprits of e-motos that masquerade as e-bikes and that travel at excessively high speeds beyond the Class definition of e-bikes.

Neither proposal is final and is still working through its respective legislature. If passed, it would set a precedent for others to follow, as two of the most populous states in the nation.

Our Take: You’ll find no argument that we need safer streets, bike lanes, and multi-use paths. Much of that can be achieved through better infrastructure and education. Imposing forced registration will discourage e-bike adoption as a whole, which is problematic when you consider the transportation alternative it provides, the health benefits users get, and the good old-fashioned happiness that comes from feeling the wind in your face on a ride instead of staying at home or relying on cars.

Other laws, like California’s recent SB 1167, do more to clarify the differences between what is and what is not an e-bike. That would be a better way to do it, in our opinion. Let’s no longer allow overly powerful electric motos to pretend to be an e-bike just because they slap pedals on the machine. Those shouldn’t mix with cyclists and pedestrians, and are often the egregious offenders making the headlines. Registering these would be a good first step, then we can better discern how many e-bike riders are part of the problem with better labeling, before forcing bureaucracy on all e-bikers to register.

• Why does cadence matter when pedaling a mid-drive motor like on the Ramblas ADV? Isn’t it running a torque sensor?
• Help choosing between the Velotric Discover M, Discover 3, and Euphree City Robin X+.
• Is a coil fork worse than an air fork?
• Is the Pinion system on the Priority Skyline overly complicated? Why not just go with a classic chain and cassette? .
• How does one be a good citizen on the bike path?

A broad coalition of politicians, businesses, and advocacy groups sent a letter to Congress ahead of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s September 30 expiration. The letter urges lawmakers to maintain and increase funding for cycling and pedestrian projects in the next federal transportation package.

The signers include Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R–WV) and Rep. Sam Graves (R–MO), along with ranking members Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D–RI) and Rep. Rick Larsen (D–WA). The coalition also includes organizations such as American Trails, the League of American Bicyclists, PeopleForBikes, Rails to Trails Conservancy, and the Safe Routes Partnership.

Supporters say the letter is a proactive push to ensure that walking and biking investments don’t shrink after the current bill sunsets, particularly if federal priorities shift back toward a more vehicle- and bridge-centric approach. The coalition highlights recent progress in expanding multi-use trail networks nationwide, noting more than 42,500 miles of multi-use trails developed under the current initiative.

Our Take: E-bikes have helped a lot of people discover the benefits of cycling who might not have otherwise given it a shot. But access is only part of the equation. People also need to feel safe. Separated multi-use paths are a big deal for that, and they make riding feel more approachable for beginners, families, and anyone who simply doesn’t want to mix it up with traffic.

With more than 1,100 groups signing on, the message to Congress seems pretty clear: protected, connected places to walk and ride matter, and they’re worth continuing to fund.

Senate Bill 382 and House Bill 243 are moving through the Florida Legislature. Together, the bills aim to improve safety on shared multi-use paths and establish clearer expectations for how e-bikes interact with pedestrians. Under the proposals, riders would need to slow to 10 mph when they’re within roughly 50 feet of pedestrians, yield to them, and give an audible signal (such as a bell or verbal warning) before passing. The measures are framed as safeguards for crowded public spaces that weren’t originally designed with motor-assisted bicycles in mind.

The legislation would also direct law enforcement to more precisely record e-bike-related crashes and establish a task force to analyze e-bike accident data, rider behavior, and interactions with other path users, with an eye toward future regulation.

Supporters say the goal isn’t punishment, but clarity and improved safety where pedestrians and faster-moving riders share the same space. Critics argue the changes could be overly restrictive, or a sign of broader overreach to come.

The bills have not yet become law, but they have cleared early subcommittee stages with broad approval.

Our Take: We’ve been fairly critical of some recent e-bike legislation, but this one seems reasonable. A 10 mph speed when approaching and overtaking pedestrians is already best practice, and turning that expectation into law feels like a fair safety step for both riders and walkers.

The task force also makes sense. We’ve seen too much sloppy reporting that can’t tell a Surron from a Lectric XP, so improving crash reporting and creating a group that can actually study the data feels like a positive move, not a negative one.

• Is there a folding e-bike that comes with a hard case or other option for transportation and storage?
• Does a lightweight folding bike like the Urtopia Carbon Fold ST even need a rack to carry gear?
• Can you get a folding e-bike with BMX-style handlebars?
• How does the new Velotric Discover 3 compare to the old Discover 2?
• Help picking between the Discover 3, and the Nomad 2X.

According to Specialized’s safety notice, “The fork steerer tube on affected bikes may develop a small fatigue crack which depending on use could lead to a progressive failure of the fork, posing a fall hazard.” The notice applies to all Turbo Como SL 4.0 and 5.0 models with either belt or chain drives. Affected e-bikes were sold starting in 2021 and continuing up to the present.

Specialized is currently working with the CPSC to develop and implement a plan, with a solution expected in the next few weeks. Owners of affected e-bikes can check the recall notice page for updates and announcements. Specialized dealers will reach out to affected customers when a fix has been decided upon.

The bill is HB4007, which proposes a huge range of changes to Oregon law.

Currently, Class 1 e-bikes are treated like cars, so riders under 16 can’t operate or learn how to use them. The new bill would open access to Class 1 e-bikes for riders as young as 14, provided they wear a helmet. It also allows riders of all ages to ride Class 1 or 2 e-bikes while in safety classes. Otherwise, it enables riders 16 and older to operate Class 2 and 3 e-bikes.

HB4007 also creates a new class for “powered micromobility devices” that don’t fit cleanly into other categories (JackRabbit micro e-bikes, OneWheels, electric longboards, etc.) with a sub-100-lb weight and a maximum speed of 28 mph. It makes users of powered micromobility devices exempt from license and registration requirements and allows their use on bike paths or in bike lanes.

The bill punishes sellers of so-called “imposter vehicles” that are marketed as one type of micromobility device or EV while meeting the legal definition of another. For example, electric motorcycles without pedals are often sold as e-bikes, which must legally include operable pedals. It also makes it a violation to sell non-safety-certified and approved batteries. Those found in violation of the law could face fines up to $250.

Our Take:
Instead of the blanket approach that some states, such as New Jersey, have recently taken to regulate e-bikes, Oregon’s approach via HB4007 seems smart, targeted, and forward-thinking. We’ve always believed that proper education is a better approach than tighter restrictions, and the bill seems to encourage young riders to be informed about responsible e-bike use.

While a $250 fine seems like a relatively small penalty for companies selling intentionally mislabeled products or uncertified batteries, we also appreciate its approach to defining powered micromobility devices. These vehicles have largely occupied a legal grey area, so ensuring their operation in bike-friendly areas without registration is a welcome change.

Hyena’s recall affects the 20-mph FX+1 and 28-mph FX+1S models in both mid-step and stepover frame styles, as well as Townie Go! and Townie Go! S e-bikes. Faulty rear wheel bolts are the cause of the recall, as they may be affected by a phenomenon called hydrogen embrittlement.

This condition occurs when hydrogen atoms permeate the material, causing microscopic cracks and weakness. If affected, the bolts can break when too much torque is applied, which can result in the wheel coming off, potentially causing the rider to fall and become injured. According to the CPSC, 7 incidents have been reported with no injuries.

Affected bikes were sold only in the US and Canada prior to October 28th, 2025. If you own one of the models involved in the recall, stop riding it immediately and schedule a repair appointment with your local dealer. A technician will replace the bolts for free, and you will receive $10 of in-store credit toward Trek and Trek-owned merchandise.

If you’re not sure whether your bike is affected, you can reach out to your local dealer for more information.

• Do we have a target speed for our max-assist and min-assist Range Tests?
• Why do we review brand new e-bikes while also recommending used models from Upway?
• How does the Aventon Soltera ADV compare with the Ride1UP Roadster V3 and the Tenways CGO600 Pro-C?
• How does voltage affect throttle performance on a mid-drive-equipped e-bike?
• What off-road-capable e-bikes would we recommend to a 5’4” rider?