No sooner do systems like Avinox introduce new power metrics than calls for stricter wattage limits, peak values, or assistance factors follow. For Scheffer, this falls short. Not because power shouldn’t be regulated more precisely, but because new digital limits alone won’t solve the old problem. He poses a different question: Why should such specifications work reliably, of all things, when the 25 km/h speed limit has been a target of manipulation for years?

The old vulnerability is well known

This is not a theoretical risk. Pedelec tuning has been publicly documented for years—by trade media, manufacturers, and freely accessible shop listings. Scheffer sharpens his criticism with a sensitive estimate: He assumes that around 5 to 10 percent of all pedelecs may now be tuned for cutoff speed. There are no independently verified market figures for this magnitude. His objection remains serious nonetheless: The problem is visible and unresolved.

From this, he derives his actual warning: If, in the future, not only the 25 km/h speed limit but also peak power, assistance factors, or similar values are regulated more strictly, new areas for manipulation could emerge. Then it would no longer be just about tuned speed. Then interventions in power or motor assistance could also become legally relevant, even if an e-bike continues to limit its speed at 25 km/h. Furthermore: In the debate, short-term peak power and overload power are often conflated, even though the two are not technically the same.

New rules, new opportunities for manipulation?

This shifts the debate. It is no longer just about legal power. It is about the question of which rules can be technically secured, practically controlled, and enforced in everyday life. If new power limits are as vulnerable as today’s speed limits, they may look stricter but could simply create the next avenue for manipulation.

For the mountain bike community, this is more than a technical dispute. It’s not just about how much power a legal e-mountain bike is allowed to have. It’s also about whether the e-MTB can credibly be considered a bicycle. That is precisely why Avinox serves as a good starting point. Not because the new drive system is the problem in and of itself, but because it exposes an uncomfortable question: Is the industry currently working on more precise rules or on the next weak point? At the same time, pressure on manufacturers is likely to increase. Those who leave known and exploitable security gaps unaddressed could face stricter regulatory obligations.

Anyone calling for new wattage limits today must therefore offer more than just a number. They must demonstrate how these limits will be technically protected, practically enforced, and safeguarded against tampering. Scheffer’s alternative proposal is therefore not an either/or choice. It aims for both: clear software regulations and physical safeguards like motor weight.  Otherwise, the tuning problem will simply shift—from speed to power.

Lutz Scheffer is a designer and engineer with decades of experience in the mountain bike industry. He has worked for companies including Votec, Bergwerk, Canyon, and Rotwild, and has been intensively involved in the development of e-mountain bikes for many years.