Blog

Riese & Müller, the German maker of premium urban and cargo e-bikes, has announced it will fully withdraw from the US market on July 31st of this year. The company first paused US shipments back in August 2025 due to tariff volatility, specifically a 50% tariff on steel used in e-bikes.

While that particular tariff has since been removed, the damage to long-term planning was already done. R&M cited “persistently challenging and increasingly volatile market conditions” as the driving force behind the decision. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are not affected by the decision.

The US withdrawal will be structured to protect existing dealers and customers. Dealers will retain access to components, technical documentation, and support after sales end, and all warranty obligations will be honored. Orders can still be placed through July 31st, after which remaining dealer inventory will sell until it’s gone.

Our Take:
From our point of view, this decision is not a surprise, though it is disheartening. After last August’s pause in imports, the writing was on the wall for Riese & Müller. Tariff whiplash makes it nearly impossible for foreign brands to plan inventory, pricing, or distribution with any confidence.

R&M follows a similar path to Stromer, who made comparable statements before their own US exit. While the two companies are different, our staff’s experiences and difficulties in trying to source Stromer parts leads us to urge caution with any Riese & Müller purchases.

California has two separate bills moving simultaneously through its legislative process. AB 1557 would drop Class 1 and 2 e-bike speed limits from 20 mph to 16 mph and cap motors at 250W nominal, a dramatic reduction from the current 750W limit. Cargo e-bikes, however, would get an exception, still allowing motors up to 750W.

Additionally, the bill would make it illegal for manufacturers and retailers to make or sell e-bikes with motors that can exceed 750W. Companies that break this law could be punished with a fine of up to $15,000 with their first offense—and up to $50,000 for each future violation.

Current law prevents riders younger than 16 from using Class 3 e-bikes, but this bill would prevent kids in this age group from using any e-bikes that exceed 250W nominal.
Supporters of this bill are mainly medical groups and some cities, while opponents include most bicycle advocacy groups and retailers. The bill passed unanimously in California’s State Assembly and is now moving on to be heard by the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees.

Meanwhile, California’s SB 1167 aims to clarify e-bike and moped definitions. It prevents vehicles with motors exceeding 750W, throttle speeds above 20 mph, pedal assist that exceeds 28 mph, or the ability (as intended by the manufacturer) to be modified to do any of these things from being advertised, sold, or labeled as an e-bike.

The bill also replaces the definition of a motorized bicycle, now referring to them as mopeds. By the included definitions, a moped is considered a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with strict motor power limitations (4 brake horsepower). They are also specified as being designed for highway use, with speeds not exceeding 30 mph.

A third change is the addition of electric motors to the definition of a “motor-driven cycle.” These vehicles now include those with motors under 3,750W that produce up to 5 brake horsepower.
This bill was introduced by California Senator Catherine Blakespear and was developed in conjunction with PeopleForBikes, CalBike, and other industry-related groups. At this time, SB 1167 passed in the California Senate Transportation Committee, and now moves to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee for consideration.

Our Take:
With a bill in Minnesota similar to SB 1167 currently in the works, we find California’s approach to be cleaner and more respectful to current e-bike classifications. E-bikes and e-motos need separate definitions that respect lawful users, makers, and sellers of each product—not laws that hamper one type in an effort to curb the other.

It is somewhat perplexing, however, that the two CA bills are moving simultaneously through the state’s legislative process with such different—and seemingly contradictory—approaches.

To be clear, we do not support the restrictions put forth by AB 1557. While similar to current EU regulations, the enactment of this bill could decimate e-bike use in California, make similar restrictions in other states more likely, and make it much more difficult for manufacturers to make and sell e-bikes that meet varying restrictions in different states.

In Illinois, SB 3336 would require riders of e-bikes and e-motos capable of exceeding 28 mph to carry a driver’s license, registration, title, and insurance. Class 1 and 2 e-bikes would remain largely unchanged, though riders would need to be at least 15.

Additionally, the bill would require other mobility devices, such as electric scooters, skateboards, and unicycles, to be limited to 28 miles per hour on roads, paths, and sidewalks. It would mandate that riders of these devices be at least 16 years old.

This bill was created by the Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias as part of his Ride Safe, Ride Smart, Ride Ready campaign. The operation seeks to update the state’s laws and improve education and training around micromobility.

Giannoulias commented about the bill, saying, “As these devices become faster, heavier and more powerful, our laws must keep pace to protect riders and the public.This initiative closes dangerous regulatory gaps, creates uniformity across Illinois communities and ensures riders understand the responsibilities that come with high-speed electric devices. We’re replacing a confusing patchwork of local rules with clear statewide standards that prioritize safety.”

As of the writing of this post, the bill passed the Senate unanimously in a 54-0 vote, and is now headed to the House for consideration. If enacted, the law would go into effect on January 1, 2027. Importantly, e-bikes and e-motos purchased before that date would be exempt from the title requirement.

Our Take:
While this bill’s proposed action is relatively sudden and strong, the move to require users of high-speed e-bikes and e-motos to carry insurance, registration, etc. makes sense. After all, these products are different from, and potentially more dangerous than, e-bikes restricted to the Class 1, 2, and 3 limits of 20 and 28 mph, respectively.

Ultimately, the range of different e-bike-related bills currently being considered in various states underscores the need for a unified approach to their regulation. Federal definitions and laws governing e-bikes and e-motos would make it easier for brands to make and sell their products, while giving consumers some relief in knowing that the products they buy are legal in their areas.

It’s no secret, E-bikes are heavy. That’s just the reality, and it’s why vehicle racks that aren’t rated for e-bikes aren’t a good solution when you’re trying to load more than one or two of them. The VelociRAX 6 Max was built with that problem in mind; it hauls up to six bikes using a roll-in, roll-out system that eliminates lifting (almost) entirely.

Each tire basket supports up to 100 lbs, the total rack capacity is 300 lbs, and it handles wheels from 20-29 inches with tires up to 3 inches wide. So whether you’re mixing e-bikes with kids’ analog bikes for a family trip or hauling a group of riders to a trailhead, it’s likely going to cover the load. It mounts to a 2-inch Class 3 hitch, locks with a keyed hitch pin, and includes a garage-mount bracket for home storage.

There are a few things to know going in. The rack itself weighs 98 lbs, and getting it back to vertical when fully loaded with e-bikes can be difficult, but leaving the last bike off until it’s upright makes it manageable. Fender compatibility is also an issue right now, which is worth noting given how many commuter and cargo e-bikes run fenders.

Otherwise, the 6 Max’s no-lift loading is the headline feature; it’s built to match the demands of carrying large and heavy e-bikes. At the time of writing, it runs $1,179.

• How should I store my bike and care for my battery in winter?
• Which of the best folding e-bikes are the most comfortable and easiest to pedal without power?
• Would we be more likely to recommend the Aventon Aventure M or one of Aventon’s Level 4 models (the rear-hub REC or mid-drive ADV) to a rider looking to handle city riding, steep hills, and some off-roading?

The 3-class framework was designed for bicycles with electric motors – not motorcycles with pedals. Under federal and state definitions, a legal e-bike cannot exceed 750 watts of motor power, and it cannot travel faster than 20 mph on motor power alone. Those are the lines that separate a bicycle from a motor vehicle.

This framework took years of industry advocacy to build, and it gave the modern e-bike market its legal legitimacy.

Unfortunately, a growing category of products is blowing past both.

Machines weighing well over 100 pounds, powered by 5,000-watt motors, and capable of hitting 40 or 50 mph, are being marketed and sold online as E-bikes. Manufacturers exploit a straightforward loophole: attach a pair of functionally useless pedals to a dirt bike frame, and the vehicle can technically be classified as a bicycle. “That’s not innovation,” Dr. Lovell said. “That’s regulatory laundering.”

For years, the industry referred to these products as “out-of-class E-bikes” – a term Lovell acknowledged never really landed with the public. Last year, PeopleForBikes began promoting the term “eMoto” as a cleaner, more intuitive label for these vehicles. The definition, she said, is simple: if a vehicle exceeds 20 mph on throttle alone, or is powered by a motor larger than 750 watts, it belongs in the moped or motorcycle category.

There are two main categories of bikes that tend to push speed limits beyond what is legal: e-moped style E-bikes, and electric dirt bikes like Surrons.

At Electric Bike Report, we believe the distinction between these two styles of bikes is important so legislatures can create effective legislation to properly govern both styles of bikes.

Moped-Style E-Bikes

Moped-style E-bikes are designed to look like cafe racers, a very popular style of motorcycle from the 1960’s:

When you look at a Super73, you see the resemblance:

These moped-style or cafe racer style E-bikes are incredibly popular with teenagers. The bikes look cool, and they are fun to ride. Some brands follow the Class 3 guidelines and limit the speeds of these bikes to 20 mph on throttle and 28 mph while pedaling (although to be honest, pedaling this style of bike is not fun).

However, many brands that sell this style of bike notoriously allow riders to unlock the bike via an app or code, allowing them to speed beyond the allowed limits of a class 2 or 3 e-bike. Some brands require the consumer to verify / sign a waiver stating that they will be riding these vehicles off-road and aren’t subject to state regulations. This waiver may protect the brand’s backside legally; however, these waivers don’t help keep unlocked E-motos off public sidewalks and trails designated for E-bikes.

Given that these bikes could go faster than 28 mph, we naturally see people riding faster than 28 mph. Many of these riders are not licensed to drive a car and have very little to no understanding of how to operate a vehicle safely on the road. But, their parents bought them the E-moped because the bike shop told them they were buying and E-bike.

Major brands like Super73 appear to be doing all they can to backtrack and limit their bikes to safe speeds. However, we continue to get requests by brands who want us to review their moped-style e-moto. These brands still openly flaunt their bikes’ abilities to be unlocked and go 30+ mph – it’s a great selling point for a lot of people who love to ride fast.

Because so many of these E-motos continue to have motors that exceed 750 watts and go faster than 28 mph, legislators often place these bikes right alongside more powerful E-motos, such as ones from Surron and Talaria.

The issues with classifying both styles as one is that the legal, class 2 or 3 E-mopeds get thrown out with the bathwater. This also presents certain challenges to law enforcement officers.

Currently, electric vehicles that propel riders beyond Class 2 and 3 speeds are in a legal grey zone that is often undefined and not governed by the CPSC or NITSA.

This loophole has created a challenge for law enforcement. When an e-Moto passes a police officer at 35 mph in a bike lane or on a sidewalk, the responding officer faces ambiguity – the vehicle may or may not have pedals, no license plate, and no obvious motor vehicle markings. Classification stickers, which are supposed to identify these products, are frequently absent or deliberately placed out of sight, under the seat or near the bottom bracket.

LaCarrell, representing the motorcycle industry, pointed out that the confusion cuts both ways. “At the scene of one incident they’ll say it’s a bicycle,” she noted. “The next incident – same type of unit – they’ll say it’s a motorcycle.” Both industries absorb injury and fatality statistics that don’t accurately reflect their own products.

In many jurisdictions, particularly in California, officers are effectively prohibited from pursuing riders on these vehicles. If a rider crashes during a chase, the resulting liability falls on the department. “So they just don’t respond,” LaCarrell said.

No community has felt the impact of this challenge more than Marin County, California. As a high-income area with many early adopters of E-bikes, it became an instructive – and cautionary – case study.

Kullaway, who serves as both executive director of the Marin County Bicycle Coalition and as an elected official in San Anselmo, described watching the problem unfold over five years. Early enthusiasm about E-bikes quickly gave way to a different reality. Middle schoolers were posting footage of themselves riding Super 73s standing up, hands off the handlebars, on main arterial roads. The local press started calling them “the E-bike gangs of San Anselmo.” Community meetings that were supposed to address infrastructure and other community issues had to instead focus their attention on E-motos. Standing-room crowds of parents had no idea what they had actually purchased for their kids – because they had been told something different at the point of sale.

The downstream consequences have been significant:

• Schools banned all E-bikes from campus because administrators couldn’t distinguish legal models from illegal ones. Campus audits claimed to find that 80 to 90% of the vehicles students were riding, all sold as E-bikes, were actually illegal E-motos. That number hasn’t changed meaningfully despite years of sustained education efforts. Furthermore, it’s difficult even for experts to recognize if a moped-style e-bike is an illegal e-moto based solely on looks. They have to power on the bike and check the actual settings and speeds.
• A community e-bike safety program was shut down after insurance providers dropped coverage. The liability exposure from E-motos showing up to classes made the program uninsurable.
• Infrastructure advocacy has been derailed. “Every time I go in and talk about creating better infrastructure,” Kullaway said, “the chorus is always: what are you going to do about kids on E-bikes?”

The media has compounded the problem. Kullaway described a New York Times story headlined “An E-Bike Almost Killed Her, and Now She’s Fighting for Regulation.” She had been interviewed for the piece and said the reporter did solid work. An editor added the headline at the last minute. The vehicle involved was an e-Moto, not an e-Bike. Kullaway stated that “[I] interview with live journalists, I have them repeat things back to me, I think they get it, and then the article ends up being wrong every single time.”

Part of the reason why journalists incorrectly classify E-motos as E-bikes is because the Associated Press doesn’t have a word the reporters can officially use for E-motos. Everything falls under the ‘e-bike’ umbrella.

When lawmakers are inundated with constituent complaints about 40 mph “E-bikes” on sidewalks and bike paths, the policy response tends to be blunt rather than surgical.

New Jersey has emerged as the clearest example of what happens when legislatures act without drawing a distinction between E-motos and legitimate E-bikes. The state introduced sweeping policies that apply equally to both.

Kullaway described the consequence: “If you’re in New Jersey, and you are a mom on a cargo bike, with two kids on the back, you have to be registered, you have to have insurance, you have to have a license, and then each of you have to be wearing a motorcycle helmet.”

Under those requirements, a parent using a Class 1 cargo bike for the school run faces the same DMV obligations as a rider on a 500cc motorcycle. The panel’s position was uniform: that kind of blanket legislation does not solve the e-Moto problem. It eliminates the accessibility that makes legitimate E-bikes viable as a transportation and climate tool in the first place.

Kullaway noted that E-bikes are responsible globally for replacing at least one million barrels of oil emissions per day – a number that depends on continued, frictionless adoption.

The panel outlined a three-part strategy to move forward to increase consumer safety while also ensuring that license and registration are required for E-bikes across the nation – and made clear that none of the components work without the others:

• Legislation – draw a clear legal line between E-bikes and E-motos, and give law enforcement the tools to enforce it.
• Education – ensure the public, media, parents, and retailers understand the difference between an e-bike and an E-moto.
• Enforcement – equip officers with the clarity and legal authority to act when they encounter an out-of-class vehicle.

On the legislative front, Senator Blakespear’s SB 1167 was held up as the model. The bill does five things:

• Reconfirms the legal definition – any device with a motor exceeding 750 watts is not an e-bike.
• Requires point-of-sale disclosure – manufacturers and sellers must inform buyers when a vehicle doesn’t meet the e-bike definition.
• Closes the loophole – prohibits any two- or three-wheeled device capable of exceeding 20 mph on motor power alone from bypassing standard motor vehicle laws.
• Standardizes label placement – classification labels must appear visibly on the frame, where law enforcement and school officials can actually see them.
• Creates a reckless riding citation – gives law enforcement a practical enforcement tool that stops short of full DMV involvement.

Blakespear credited the bill’s traction to the industry’s willingness to self-regulate. “Part of the genius of this bill is that we’re saying we have to regulate ourselves and come up with these guidelines,” she said. “That kind of collaboration is what allows a bill like this to be successful.”

On education, Kullaway named a specific benchmark: getting the Associated Press to officially add “E-moto” to the AP Stylebook. Until journalists consistently use the correct term, she argued, the misidentification problem persists regardless of how much outreach the industry does. “Every time we educate people and they still use the word E-bike, I have less time to actually fight for safer streets and save lives.”

On enforcement, LaCarrell offered an alignment that surprised some in the room. The Motorcycle Industry Council, through its nonprofit arm the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, has already partnered with PeopleForBikes to launch a youth-focused e-bike education program. Her industry wants these vehicles properly classified and regulated. “I see this as the biggest opportunity we’ve been given in so long,” she said. “There are so many people out there riding two wheels. We need to educate them and figure out how to make this work.”

Dr. Lovell closed the session by drawing a direct line between the current moment and the industry’s past victories. “We have solved problems like this before,” she said. “We built the three-class system. We passed e-bike legislation across the country. We expanded trail access and transportation policy. And we did it by working together – brands, retailers, advocates, policymakers.”

California was the first state to adopt 3-class legislation. If SB 1167 fully passes, the panel argues it can serve as the first effective eMoto regulatory model – and other states will follow, just as they did before (since the panel, the bill passed the California Senate Committee and is now going to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee for consideration).

The immediate ask from PeopleForBikes is straightforward: sign the letter of support for Senator Blakespear’s SB 1167. The industry built the framework that made the modern e-bike market possible. According to the leaders on that stage, protecting it will require the same unified effort that created it.

The new Turbo Vado 3 EVO, a more robust and off-road-friendly version of the bike, comes in three trim levels: the 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 models. All three use the 250W Specialized 3.1 mid-drive with 810W of peak power and 105 Nm of torque, and are powered by fully integrated but removable 840 Wh integrated batteries.

Additionally, the bikes come in four frame sizes, fitting riders from 5’1” to 6’4”. They feature suspension forks with 120mm of travel, 40mm suspension seatposts, and 27.5×2.6” Specialized Hemisphere all-terrain tires. All trim levels include an MIK-HD rear rack and are compatible with optional MIK front racks. They also feature 4A fast chargers, with the claim of reaching 80% charge in less than an hour.

The Vado 3 EVO offers built-in compatibility with Apple Find My and pairs with Apple watches for heart rate monitoring, ride tracking, etc. All trim levels include some form of integrated security, along with custom stem/handlebar setups with stem-mounted color displays. As with other Specialized e-bikes, motor tuning is available via the Specialized app.

There are a few key differences between the three trim levels:

The 4.0 model includes an SR Suntour suspension fork, two-piston Shimano MT200 hydraulic brakes, and a 9-Speed Shimano CUES drivetrain. This version features a standard color display, and a basic battery and motor lock. Its starting price is $4,500.

The 5.0 is also equipped with an SR Suntour fork, but includes upgraded four-piston Tektro T5040 hydraulic brakes with 2.3mm thick rotors and an 11-speed Shimano CUES drivetrain. It also features a hi-res touchscreen display with wireless phone charging via an integrated quadlock mount. It comes with an additional integrated wheel lock and has a price of $5,200.

At the high end, the EVO 6.0 offers the most robust component package. It features a RockShox Psylo suspension fork, four-piston SRAM DB6 hydraulic disc brakes, and a 12-speed SRAM S1000 Eagle AXS drivetrain with electronic shifting. Like the 5.0 model, it includes a touchscreen display and quadlock phone mount, but also includes a digital lock bypassed via the app or a security PIN, as well as an integrated rear-facing radar system. This version of the bike costs $7,000.

Specialized also released a non-EVO version of the Vado 3 that isn’t (or isn’t yet) available in the US. Instead of the EVO version’s full 27.5” wheel setup with 2.6” tires and 120mm of suspension travel, it offers a relatively unique (for a commuter) mullet setup with a 29” front wheel and 27.5” rear wheel. Its 2.3” tires are narrower, and its fork travel is more conservative, at 90mm.

Our Take:
This bike—especially the 6.0 trim level—looks extremely promising! In our experience, Specialized’s e-bikes always feel incredibly ergonomic and precise, and we have no reason to expect anything different this time around.

Specialized’s 3.1 mid-drive is powerful, offering the torque and peak output to make pedaling both natural and easy. The new integrated tech, like the radar system, is both cool and practical. Admittedly, it does feel a bit odd that Specialized has leaned hard into Apple technology instead of something more universal.

With brands like Aventon and Velotric recently stepping up their game with models like the Level 4 ADV and Discover M, respectively, it will be extremely interesting to see how the Vado 3 EVO’s performance compares. Will Specialized still have the edge against these more affordable models? Only time—and testing—will tell.

At the present time, Velocomp is known primarily for two handlebar-mounted performance optimization devices called the PowerPod and Aeropod. The former is a wireless power meter that pairs to a bike via ANT+ and measures rider effort in both legs. The latter is a similar device that measures aerodynamic efficiency, helping riders optimize their position, clothing, etc.

The company’s newest technology, called PowerBoost, goes in a different direction. It is designed as an alternative to torque sensors, being easier and more affordable to produce—while touting a similarly natural feel. In contrast with torque sensors, Velocomp’s PowerBoost technology is integrated into a handlebar-mounted display, where it’s more accessible and less prone to getting splashed than bottom-bracket-mounted torque sensors.

Velocomp’s CEO, John Hamann, explained the technology by saying, “PowerBoost delivers expensive torque sensor performance without the cost and complexity of traditional torque sensors. PowerBoost applies our proven and patented combination of accelerometer, air pressure, and barometric sensor technology to deliver enhanced e-bike performance and high reliability. Among its many features, e-bikes with PowerBoost offer slope-adjusted starting motor torque, deliver an easy, natural pedaling experience irrespective of wind and hill conditions, and display real-time slope and wind speed information.”

Velocomp has partnered with AVS Mobility to produce components with PowerBoost built-in. They can be added to any e-bike and are commercially available to bike manufacturers for around $40.

Our Take:
Having witnessed the rise of torque sensors to their nearly-ubiquitous current status, we haven’t thought much about their alternatives—or what might come next—before reading about the PowerBoost system.

Like most pieces of new technology, it’s highly intriguing, and we’re curious how natural a pedal assist system using PowerBoost would feel. If it truly is more affordable and easier to produce, it’s entirely possible that it will become more widespread, though it’s hard to imagine that torque sensors wouldn’t have some advantage or tradeoff to make them worth their higher price.

We are hopeful that we’ll have the opportunity to test e-bikes with this technology in the near future!

Last fall, Guardian Bikes, a US-based manufacturer of primarily children’s bicycles, proposed up to a 50% tariff via Section 232 on imported steel and aluminum products. If approved, this tariff would have applied to the majority of imported bike frames and many of their components..

Following Guardian’s request, members of the bike industry responded strongly to the company’s proposal, submitting over 1,300 comments that opposed it. Both individuals and industry-related groups also reached out to lawmakers and the Department of Commerce, encouraging them to reject the implementation of this request.

Last week, the White House released an updated list of products affected by Section 232 tariffs, which did not include bikes. E-bikes, e-bike parts, and exercise bikes were also removed from a steel tariff list. Some small bike-related parts still remain affected, however, including steel chains, chain parts, hardware, tools, bearings, etc.

PeopleForBikes stated that the proposal to tax bike and e-bike frames was “completely terminated.”
The group’s statement continued, saying, “There will not be future rounds of inclusion requests. Instead, the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative are authorized to monitor imports, periodically assess the progress of Section 232 tariffs towards achieving their stated goals, and consider input from trade groups and other stakeholders in determining whether additional derivative products need to be added or tariffs adjusted.”

Our Take:
This is a huge win for the bicycle and e-bike industry! Of course, it would be better if all bike and e-bike components (including chains and bearings) were left out, but those are relatively small potatoes in comparison to frames and other large components. Had such foundational elements been subject to massive tariffs, prices could have risen dramatically.

This turn of events is evidence that speaking up works, and we’re hopeful that e-bike prices will remain stable—and most importantly, affordable—for the foreseeable future.

We’re happy to keep you informed on trade issues that can affect e-bikes and their prices, and we’re grateful for your support in voicing your concerns and opinions to those with more decision-making power.

After testing various types of handlebar-mounted phone holders, the PNITRI phone mount has become our preferred choice. It’s cheap, lightweight, secure, and it attaches in seconds. It attaches via a threaded clamp with rubber inserts that twists to tighten, and features a toggle lock to keep phones held tightly in place.

Additionally, the mount uses a ball joint, allowing users to change the angle of their phone once secured. Admittedly, it can sometimes rattle and move while riding, but no more than other models we’ve tested. Its convenience and affordability are nearly unbeatable! We think it’s hard to go wrong with the mount’s list price of around $13.00.

• With Griffin now gone, how will we conduct our Brake Tests going forward?
• Is the Aventon Level 4 ADV really capable of 120 miles of range with meaningful power?
• Is it better to have a commuter with a suspension fork or one without?
• How well does the Level 4 ADV’s automatic shifting feature work?
• How does the Velotric Discover M compare to the Aventon Level 4 ADV?