# Becoming an emtb convert - kind of like becoming a 29er convert



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

My experience on an emtb was like my experience trying a 29er when they became harder to ignore/resist (in 2010). I was not willing to put in a lot of money to try something so unknown. I went the bikesdirect route, getting a Motobecane HAL eBoost, putting up the least amount I could at the time (Nov '18).

I had come from having fun getting sideways on an AM 26er with OG High Rollers. I was on the bike-of-the-year (according to VitalMTB) at the time, a Stumpy FSR EVO. I was about the thrill, even finding small things like getting a small boost of airtime from bumping into rocks to be enjoyable. Even getting squirrelly and almost dying, getting impaled by pointy branch stumps off the side of the trail was exciting.

The 29er changed my riding style. It went from fun-seeking to adventure-seeking. I was counting miles and elevation, rather than going for smiles-per-mile. It was faster but felt calmer. People used to think that with more speed came more danger, but most of the speed wasn't coming from blasting through dangerous sections but instead were just from efficiency over micro-bumps adding up. I found fun in things I previously didn't, like riding neglected trails, with raw/natural erosion. I even opened up to longer and steeper climbs that I avoided due to being out of my comfort zone. I found a surprising number of challenging climbs, doing something akin to peak bagging, opening a world of adventure that had me researching for more that I can make a trip out of, even scanning satellite pics for dirt paths leading up to unnamed hilltops that I saw on the horizon.

The 29er handled worse, but I later learned that was because they grew the chainstays so much (15+mm) to fit in the rear wheel and didn't change anything else. Some said they handled like a bus. To me, they handled like a barge. I often found myself getting my hips really far back and steering while on the brakes. My 26er was more confidently ridden off the brakes in comparison. 29ers also were heavier and the parts weren't stout enough. The industry went through a weight weenie stage, scaling up things like fork steerer size, axle diameter, hub width. Weight was managed by focusing on XC end of things, promoting carbon wheels as a must-have upgrade that fixed the stiffness, weight/acceleration issues, etc. Geo returned to something more familiar by lowering stack with ZS/integrated headsets and short head tubes, spec'ing less travel, shortening CS, but the entry of 29ers to the gravity realm opened up people to slacker HAs, which balanced out the long CS problem by extending the front wheel out (with longer reach added) and lowered stack, all without the compromises of a short stubby HT and reduced rear tire clearance.

Almost the same thing with emtbs... there are a ton of emtbs that are like those early-day 29ers that have mega long CS. They appeal to the same kind of riding style, just cruising long miles in the saddle. They're faster, but mostly on the flats and climbs. Shoppers demand the same impossible crap, wanting weight to be reduced to more familiar levels but being disappointed by the prices and other compromises like a halved battery capacity or reduced durability.

In my eyes, the emtb cured the weight weenie upgrade-itis I had from the 29er wave. The addition of a motor and battery did way more than any bit of pricey carbon I added. I'm not holding myself back due to expensive and light-duty parts. I did go back to ride enduro without a motor, but I realized that the enduro bike would not be perfect without a motor due to all those stout parts. If my fitness ever waned from downtime, I'd be suffering from pedaling all those heavier-duty parts. I ended up choosing between the avante garde enduro bike and emtb with crappy geo, and ultimately chose the emtb, decking it out with stout parts and just dealing with the crap geo and high weight. I've had downtime and I find that part breakage is more of a problem than fears of the battery/motor going down. I can still pedal a heavy bike, but not a broken one.

In summary, be aware that you're eyeing a young market niche that is far from being refined. I will not be surprised if standards come out every 2.5 years to bring emtbs up to par with classic mtbs, like how 29ers did. Looking back on the 29er boom, I think I might have been better served by a Canfield Riot in '15, rather than going the weight weenie route. It was ahead of its time. Good luck trying to find the equivalent in the emtb market for you. To me, it's the Marin Alpine Trail or Kona Remote 160. An all-rounder that's built to last (hopefully more than 3 years)...


----------



## levity (Oct 31, 2011)

Nice write-up, @Varaxis 👍 👍

and yes, lighter weight ebikes are getting better and better


----------



## Tickle (Dec 11, 2013)

Agreed, they will get lighter, more powerful batteries, gearboxes, cheaper(hopefully!)


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Uh, my write-up was implying that the weight weenie phase is a mess. I called it a waste of money. I said people who were chasing it were demanding impossible things. I bluntly stated that it's wiser long-term to just find an all-rounder that has good geo and is built-to-last (at least 3 years). The real improvements come from the "standard" changes (e.g. thru-axles front and rear, tapered steerers, boost), which came in cycles for the 29er revolution.

Things don't really get cheaper. What happens is technology trickling down to lower price points. Clutch RD tech trickling down to Deore level is an example of it... if you're an SLX or XT shopper, you don't see it as getting cheaper, it's more like you figuring you'd be fine with Deore if you ever decide to lower your weight weenie standards. Or like Boost tech making aluminum 29er wheelsets seem more adequate, since the stiffness and strength that people attributed to carbon rims seem less needed.


----------



## Jack7782 (Jan 1, 2009)

Varaxis said:


> Uh, my write-up was implying that the weight weenie phase is a mess. I called it a waste of money. I said people who were chasing it were demanding impossible things. I bluntly stated that it's wiser long-term to just find an all-rounder that has good geo and is built-to-last (at least 3 years). The real improvements come from the "standard" changes (e.g. thru-axles front and rear, tapered steerers, boost), which came in cycles for the 29er revolution.
> 
> Things don't really get cheaper. What happens is technology trickling down to lower price points. Clutch RD tech trickling down to Deore level is an example of it... if you're an SLX or XT shopper, you don't see it as getting cheaper, it's more like you figuring you'd be fine with Deore if you ever decide to lower your weight weenie standards. Or like Boost tech making aluminum 29er wheelsets seem more adequate, since the stiffness and strength that people attributed to carbon rims seem less needed.


Instead of going weight weenie, I would like to see heavy duty chains and other components designed for those of us that love/need to ride our EMTBs in the turbo/boost/high modes etc.


----------



## Tickle (Dec 11, 2013)

29er's were more XC oriented in the beginning so yeah weight weenies did apply but once they became more mainstream things started changing. I started with a Turner Sultan in 2007 was XC but I just considered it a trail bike, then a 2013 Covert 29 that weighed 33lbs and was true "all mtn" category at the time, next a 2017 Primer trail bike

Still say emtb's will get lighter tho, and cheaper as tech evolves like you say, but not a waste IMO to make them lighter cause it will improve power and range right?


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

You're hopeless man. Demanding lightweight crap just is a trap that drains your bank account.

The feedback loop is endless. Shop lightweight and it comes with lots of cuts, often becoming more compact. Capability is the first thing to be cut, along with toughness. This is how the segmentation began to develop (XC, trail, AM, enduro, etc.). You end up throwing money at higher-end parts that promise more capability to make up for the losses. The whole "no compromises" marketing wank is designed to get people to talk, and all the consumer hoopla generates interest. People wait for suckers willing to experiment to confirm their predictions (skepticism/hope).

====

I'll lay some facts down, in case you don't have emtb experience. I actually typo'd my OP--my emtb experience started Nov '17. Well over 3 years on one, switching back from it and classic bikes. 8k miles on the emtb's odometer, doing mostly mountainous offroad miles.

Emtb range is at least longer than classic mtb range. The addition of a motor and battery doesn't make the bike unrideable without assist. The motor and battery are enablers. It's a normal bike that has 15 lbs of weight added to the main triangle. This is sprung weight, which affects range as much as your own body weight. The amount of drag in the motor is equivalent to the drag your rear hub has when you coast--there are 2 sprag clutches inside of it instead of a freewheel. You can treat the assist like you treat your granny gear, as a bailout. You can go all-out and burn yourself out on a climb and not have to suffer for it, because you can put the motor into its lowest assist level and still ride circles around non-assisted riders. Assist is that powerful. On a hill that I normally would be going 3-5 mph average on, I'm hitting averaging 7 mph with the same intensity in eco mode, and maybe 11 in turbo. You merely have the freedom to choose at your fingertips. You still ride however you wish. If you wish for range, you put more of your own power out rather than rely too much on the battery's power.

I see a quality emtb kit (battery, motor, switch, display) as being an upgrade costing $1750, for budget purposes. I see opportunities to save money elsewhere, to justify the emtb kit, esp considering that weight isn't a big deal with the assist to help. I can do without carbon, high PoE hubs, expensive drivetrains... since quality MTB kits generally come with a frame, I picked a frame that utilized tech that further allowed me to go cheap. Long wheelbase offers stability to offset the need for high-end susp, and wide hub spacing offset the need for high-end wheels.

For my adventuring habits, I see a need to beef up the tires, brakes, and wheels. I didn't realize how much I'm being held back due to these parts being so bad until I changed them out. Being able to ride off the brakes confidently really upped my game. I also see opportunities to improve comfort items (grips, saddle, and pedals), which also add on weight. I've ended up doing frequent accidental epics into the unknown since the bike was well-equipped to handle them.

Weight weenie emtbs, like the Orbea Rise, Levo SL, Lapierre eZesty, and Forestal Siryon, cut down on the battery size, frame, and motor. They're also mega expensive.

You're demanding "impossible" things. New battery tech is far from production quality. Motor tech has been the same for decades and already has very high-efficiency #s at around 90%. These parts cost $750+. How much of an improvement are you looking for that you are willing to replace your current motor/battery for a new one? By the time this tech comes, you'll be shopping for a new bike anyway. If you're already on an emtb, you won't be as desperate to be an early adopter. The tech usually comes with a significant cost of entry, and calls for companion parts that are designed to make the most use out of the benefit.

When lighter parts got even lighter, people got skeptical and prices didn't drop. See the latest Roval Control SL wheels... those are tech marvels that I'd love to see copied at lower price points. It's their lightest yet, but 2600. That's an Enve price tag, but I'd say these are better. When sales dry up, but the tech is promising, they don't throw it out. They seek a new market for it, perhaps one that shops lower price points.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

I converted to 29" wheels in 1999 after riding 26" wheels since 1984. It just took a ride down the block to tell me that it was worth exploring and never looked back.

Did my first e conversion in 01', front hub on a 29"er, cause I didn't think anyone would be willing to pay $2/gal for gas so I was trying to get ahead of that curve....batteries sucked but followed their progress through the years and when battery tech got good enough, as well as cheaper, I put $1k of kit, again a front hub, on a Motobecane drop bar bike with 45c's 5yrs ago and another $1k kit on my hardtail the year after when there was one that had torque sensing PAS. 

I never cared for light weight over durable and cheap and ebiking is no different that I can see in that dept.. Although I keep up with the latest stuff online the only changes I make are ones that I think will have benefit for me and my riding terrain/style.


----------



## speedygz (May 12, 2020)

I can see an ebike in my future for sure. Just not quite yet. When the time comes that previous injuries prevent me from grinding up big steep hills solely under my own power, or traveling reasonable distances, I'll welcome a bit of assistance from a battery. Hopefully, by that time, various governments will have seen the light as far as commuter traffic congestion, pollution & the like, and may actively promote them. As well as provide infrastructure to support their use. Bike paths would be a good start.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

My daughter and I spent the winter on e-fat bikes. We enjoyed the experience immensely but they definitely do not replace our bikes. I recently swapped out the studded Wrathchilds for the OEM Cake Eaters but we haven't been on them for weeks. Over the next 3 seasons, I'm hoping to use them on rest days and for long multi-peak adventures, but I wonder how much they are going to get used now that nicer weather is here. Hopefully we use them a lot more than I'm thinking we will.

As for the lightness comments above, Varaxis stated things very nicely, summarized at a high level by "the feedback loop is endless." I learned that long ago, and it is no different with e-bikes. In fact, weight is (arguably) even less a concern for e-bikes. Combine that with the need for durable drivetrain components and the whole lightness thing becomes an unrealistic and impractical target.


----------



## Tickle (Dec 11, 2013)

Never said any of the stuff you were rambling on about Varaxis, and I certainly don't believe my Rise is a weight weenie bike  I definitely value durability over light weight I've been doing this long enough to know better, I lived thru the "light is right" era of the 90's and been riding since the late 80's. I've seen bikes evolve and my opinion still stands


----------

