Blog

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?

The update, which can be downloaded via the Specialized app, increases power on the Specialized 3.1 motor on both S-Works and non S-Works models of the Turbo Levo Gen 4.

For the top-tier S-Works model, the update raised the motor’s peak output to 850W (a 130W increase), while its torque output remained at 111 Nm. Non-S-Works Turbo Levos received a larger boost to both peak power and torque, adding 144W and 4 Nm to reach a peak of 810W and 105 Nm.

The update also added to and refined many of the bike’s features. A new setting for Dynamic MicroTune matches rider input 1:1, so a rider pedaling with 100W gets 100W of power from the motor. It smooths power drop off at the legal speed limit to give pedal assist a more natural feel.

Additionally, the update improves overrun responsiveness and allows its power to be customized, with an option to stop overrun when backpedaling. Finally, it adds three speed settings for walk mode instead of one, allowing riders pushing the bike to have it match their speed.

Specialized’s Leader of Turbo Technology, Marco Sonderegger, explained the changes, saying, “With Over-the-Air updates, every Turbo bike becomes a living, evolving machine that gets better over time. With a simple software update done from the convenience of their home, riders’ bikes get more powerful, more refined, and more personalized.”

This increase in the Turbo Levo 4’s motor power follow recent updates from other brands. For example, Avinox increased the power of its motor to 1000W peak and 120 Nm via an OTA update. Bosch also pushed out an update to its Gen 5 Performance Line CX mid-drive, boosting its power to a maximum of 750W and 100 Nm of torque.

Brands are clearly competing for the top spot, though each company’s motors have a different feel and performance
OTA updates are great—they allow for improvements over time as tech improves, so you don’t have to buy new things all the time to get the updates

Our Take:
Clearly, the makers of popular eMTBs and/or their motors are vying for the top spot in these torque wars, though each brand’s motor has a unique feel and performance. While Avinox is taking no prisoners with its mid-drive’s massive power output, Specialized’s update seems to be an effort to make its motors more comparable without being overpowered.

Over-the-air updates are a thing of beauty when it comes to e-bikes, as they allow bike owners to benefit from refinements as technology advances. Instead of having to purchase an entirely new product when an improvement is made, riders can simply connect to the app, then download and install the app—all without lifting more than a finger.

Under the proposal, delivery workers for companies such as DoorDash or UberEats would be prohibited from using e-bikes, motorized scooters, or mopeds as a means of making deliveries.

The proposal was introduced by Boston City Councilor Ed Flynn, and it serves as a response to numerous complaints he has received about delivery drivers/riders behaving recklessly.

Flynn’s proposal states, “On a near daily basis, city residents have shared how these motorized vehicles, which can travel more than 20 mph, do not obey the rules of the road – driving the wrong way on our streets, on sidewalks, speeding, running stop signs and red lights, weaving between vehicles at red lights, and posing an unpredictable danger to pedestrian safety.”

At the time of writing, the ordinance proposal is under review, but public reactions have been mixed. Some support the idea, others are concerned about the ban causing deliveries to become delayed or more expensive, and still others have voiced concerns about the ban unfairly forcing current workers out of a job if they are unable to afford buying a car.

In its current form, the ordinance ONLY targets delivery drivers, so all other Boston residents could still use e-bikes and exhibit the same reckless behaviors unless traffic laws are more thoroughly enforced.

Our Take:
We oppose any measures that unfairly single out e-bikes as a source of problems, and strongly believe that better education and enforcement would be an optimal solution. After all, the operators of the e-bikes referenced in Councillor Flynn’s proposal are the ones at fault, not the e-bikes themselves. Furthermore, legislation that targets one type of rider without affecting all users of specific vehicles or mobility devices seems ill conceived.

As a former food delivery worker, I can personally attest that deliveries can be made quickly, efficiently, and safely. I would urge delivery app companies to incentivize their workers to behave responsibly and complete each job while following traffic laws, even if doing so would cause deliveries to be marginally later.

The Rallon RS is a collaboration between Orbea, Fox, and TQ. It was designed to be as synergistic and optimized as possible, providing subtle power to compensate for the climbing inefficiencies of downhill bikes. Despite having a motor, it is not listed as an electric bike on Orbea’s website.

Unlike other eMTBs, the Rallon RS’s motor, derailleur, dropper post, suspension, and control panel are all electronic, connected, and powered by the main battery. The bike is equipped with TQ’s HPR40 mid-drive, Fox’s eNEO Live Valve Shock, and Orbea’s MC10-RS dropper post—all of which communicate with each other and adapt based on riding conditions.

According to an article published by the Loam Wolf:

• “The shock receives inputs such as cadence, rider power, motor power and bike speed from the TQ motor. Orbea’s custom algorithms use this data to deliver more predictable and responsive suspension behaviour.”
• “The MC10-RS dropper communicates its exact position multiple times per second through an optoelectronic Time-of-Flight sensor. This is an industry first. When the dropper is lowered, the shock stays fully open to optimize downhill performance.”
• “The TQ motor recognises when the bike is pointed downhill with the dropper lowered and adjusts its assistance to avoid unwanted inputs in technical terrain.”

The bike also uses Orbea’s RS-HMI (Rider Synergy-Human Machine Interface), which allows riders to select between riding modes for the motor, smart dropper functions, and suspension settings. It pairs with Orbea RS Connect app for motor tuning and OTA updates.

Additionally, the bike features impressive yet modest specs, including 200W of peak motor assistance and 40 Nm of torque, and a 290 Wh battery capable of over a mile of total possible climbing range (roughly 5,900 feet). The Rallon RS is also compatible with a 160 Wh range extender that Orbea claims can grant riders up to 55% more range.

The Rallon RS uses a carbon fiber frame made with advanced construction techniques. It can be ran with a full 29” setup or as a mixed-wheel mullet style eMTB. Its geometry is also adjustable, offering both a flip chip and headset adjustment for balance and head angle tuning. Depending on the selected frame size, it is compatible with 210-240mm dropper posts.

Orbea sells the bike for £9,499 / $12,820 or £12,499 / $16,870.

Our Take:
IoT technology has made some e-bikes smarter, but the Rallon RS is on another level. On a bike with many electronic components all powered by a single battery, it makes sense for the parts to sync and communicate automatically. Such a concept allows technology to optimize functionality for the rider, instead of making the rider manually adjust elements individually.

While the Rallon RS is certainly a premium offering, we have hope that this kind of technology will become more affordable in coming years. We also hope to see similar collaborations between component manufacturers in the future!

• Do e-bikes with rear hub motors and mid-drive motors require different shifting techniques?
• What belt-drive-equipped e-bikes would we recommend to a rider seeking a touring/gravel bike with a max budget of $4,000?
• How do the Velotric Discover 3 and Discover M compare?
• Why does the Velotric Discover M’s throttle not function in Class 1 and 3 modes?

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.