• On average, consumer e-bike prices across the industry have increased 6.7%
• Larger companies with greater brand equity showed an average price increase of 9.5%
• We expect end prices to consumers to increase by roughly 10% with the 25% tariff
• Some companies with less brand equity have maintained or cut prices, possibly to attract sales. This could indicate they are struggling.
• Electric Bike Report’s conversion rates have declined, showing a strong correlation with e-bike price increases following the tariff exemption expiration.
• Overall e-bike sales are down, though it is difficult to estimate a percentage.

As Forbes reports, economists from Goldman Sachs estimated that consumer prices rise 0.1% for every 1% increase in tariff rates, but our findings suggest more extreme changes in the e-bike market.

As shown by the data above, e-bike prices increased after June 14th by 6.7% on average industry-wide, with some larger companies with greater brand equity showing an approximately 9.5% increase on average.

You may wonder why the additional 25% tariff does not correlate to the same increase in every e-bike’s price. Broadly speaking, production and import costs are only a portion of the total expenditures that the manufacturer’s e-bike prices must account for; overhead, marketing, shipping, and other operating costs are also pieces of the proverbial pie.

Our data shows that most manufacturers are, at least in part, passing on the added cost to consumers. As explained by TaxFoundation.org, this is an expected reaction that coincides with historical instances of tariff implementation or increase. Simply put, consumers usually bear the burden of tariffs, making import fees an indirect tax on the American people.

In truth, e-bike brands only have so many options. They could attempt to negotiate reduced production prices with foreign factories. They can choose to absorb the added cost, thereby reducing profit margins. As we have discussed, they might choose to pass on the added cost to consumers. In the most likely scenario, companies might combine these tactics.

In the cases of the brands that have, at least to this point, maintained consistent prices, we assume one of the following scenarios. These brands may have greater profit margins or lower cost structures, allowing them to absorb the tariff with reduced effect. Alternatively, they may intentionally suffer the loss of profits in an effort to gain market share.

When considering the brands that have lowered prices, we can only assume that they are feeling the effects of decreased sales due to tariffs and reduced consumer spending power caused by inflation. By lowering prices, these brands might be attempting to clear old inventory and generate sales.

A few caveats about our data should be considered.

• First, the industry has likely not yet felt the full impact of added tariff costs, so current pricing data may not reflect long-term effects.

  We expect that many brands are currently selling through existing inventory that was imported before June 14th. As new production runs are ordered, produced, and imported into the US, we expect prices on more models to increase, which will likely push the industry average higher.

  We believe this is evidenced by price increases on some specific models from Company 12, as this brand released many new models in 2024. These bikes are likely to be more popular than older models, so we assume the company has imported shipments of these bikes from China after the tariff increase.

• Second, while we focused on brands with a significant share of the US e-bike market, our data pool is relatively small. The industry average may look different when considering a larger collection of prices from a broader group of e-bike companies.




• Third, our data does not factor in volume. Brands may implement smaller price increases on popular and quick-selling e-bikes and larger increases on less popular models. As bikes are sold, the difference in volume and pricing can, in theory, balance out.

Assuming that tariffs’ impacts on the e-bike industry will continue to develop, we can extrapolate from our data to project possible futures.

The Future of E-Bike Tariffs and the Industry

As we are now well into October, the 2024 US Presidential Election is looming on the horizon. While neither major presidential candidate has made firm proposals regarding the future of tariffs, one potential outcome is a 10% tariff applied to all foreign imports and an increased 60% tariff on all goods imported from China.

Our data points to roughly a 10% consumer-level price increase following the introduction of a 25% tariff on e-bikes. Therefore, we have calculated possible projected pricing changes should the 10%/60% tariff increase go into effect.

Projected E-Bike Pricing Based on Proposed Tariffs

• A 10% tariff on e-bikes originating from foreign countries excluding China could increase consumer prices by 4%
• A 60% tariff on e-bikes imported from China could cause a total consumer price increase of 24%

As shown in the table above, a 10% tariff—which would affect e-bike brands manufacturing e-bikes in Europe, Taiwan, or elsewhere outside of China—could result in a 4% increase in consumer pricing.

A 60% tariff—which would, again, affect many of the best e-bikes on the market—has the potential to increase their prices by a total of 24% when compared to tariff-exempt pricing (or an additional 12.7% from the current post-exemption expiration levels).

Current and future price increases will likely prevent at least some consumers from purchasing e-bikes. Conversion rates from our e-bike reviews have shown a 20-30% decrease in sales following the expiration of Section 301 tariff exemptions. If tariffs on Chinese-made e-bikes increase to 60%, we can only speculate on the severity of the impact on the industry.

Broadly speaking, we can imagine that local bike shops, US-based e-bike brands of all sizes, and their employees would all be hurt tremendously. Some brands could potentially shift manufacturing to less-tariffed countries, but not without significant cost, time, and effort.

Due to the extreme nature of the proposal to add a 10% tariff to products originating from every country outside the USA, we are unsure how to attempt to model this.

It is also worth noting that the current US Presidential administration has enacted, increased, or planned to enact/increase tariffs on Electric Vehicles (EVs), lithium-ion batteries used in EVs, and non-EV-specific lithium-ion batteries made in China. While we are uncertain of the potential effects of these tariffs, those relating to e-bikes are set to go into effect in January 2026.

Clearly, consumers and e-bike brands are suffering now, and the problems could get worse. This is evidenced by broadly reduced pricing across a handful of specific e-bike brands and events like Rad Power Bikes’ most recent round of layoffs.

With such drastic reductions in sales, we expect consolidation in the market, with some e-bike brands shutting down or selling to larger, more established companies.

However, considering that the bike industry is an ecosystem, the effects may not end there; employees of e-bike manufacturers, bike shops, and other ancillary businesses could lose their jobs.

The E-Bike Industry Needs Your Help

With little to no ground-up domestic production of e-bikes, all of the current evidence around e-bike tariffs suggests that the added import taxes harm the industry, its employees, and consumers at large. If tariffs are extended or increased, this harm is likely to intensify.

As advocates for the e-bike industry, the environment, and anything encouraging healthy and active lifestyles, we firmly oppose tariffs on e-bikes.

We encourage lawmakers to once again exempt e-bikes and their components from Section 301 tariffs. We also encourage more care in understanding the harm tariffs can inflict on the industry and consumers.

What can you do to help?

While it may sound trite or cliche, everyone’s voice matters.

If you agree with our take on the matter, we encourage you to contact your legislators to express your concerns. Linking to this article allows our research to support and enact change. If you are unsure who to contact, please reference Congress.gov to identify lawmakers based on your location.