News / E-Bike: 1.500 With a peak power output of 150 watts and 150 Nm of torque at a motor weight of just 2,59 kilograms, the Avinox M2S drive system, unveiled a few weeks ago, turned the e-MTB world upside down. However, the sheer power of the system has not only generated enthusiasm across the industry but also sparked heated debate. Now, Avinox has issued a detailed statement addressing the issue of performance.
Anyone who follows developments in the e-mountain bike sector knows: We're in an extremely exciting phase. The boundaries of what's technically feasible are shifting rapidly. We experienced this ourselves in April on the test bench and on the trails when the Avinox M2S in our test It delivered absolute top results. But with the advance into completely new performance dimensions, the need for discussion inevitably grows.
The industry is intensely debating the sense and nonsense of this wattage arms race. The discussions revolve around legal gray areas regarding rated continuous power, the durability of drive components, and whether such high-performance vehicles will eventually trigger mandatory insurance. It's a discourse we actively follow in our magazine – be it through our Overall positive review of the hardware or by one recently published commentary, which brought our concerns into focus.
That these debates are also being closely followed at Avinox's headquarters in Shenzhen is shown by a recently published document. Detailed statement from the manufacturer under the title “Avinox Pursues Power with Purpose” (roughly translated as: performance with meaning and purpose). In this statement, Avinox addresses industry-wide concerns.
Legality and the 25 km/h speed limit
One of the loudest criticisms of drives like the M2S is the concern about EPAC status (DIN EN 15194), which legally equates pedelecs with bicycles. The legal requirement specifies a continuous rated power of 250 watts. Can a motor that reaches a peak power of 250 watts meet this requirement? 1.500 Is the power supplied still legal?
Avinox argues here with a clear commitment to the current legal situation: The high peak power is not designed to circumvent legal limits. "Avinox systems fully comply with all applicable speed regulations""That's what the statement says. The 25 km/h threshold remains the absolute limit. The motor cuts out precisely, as our tests have also shown."
According to Avinox, the purpose of these enormous power peaks is not speed, but rather the ability to handle extreme terrain. When climbing a 25 percent gradient, carrying a heavier rider, or tackling thick root sections uphill, the large power buffer ensures consistent forward momentum.
High torque = high wear? Yes… but
Another point of contention: What happens when 150 Newton meters of torque are applied to the chain and cassette? Many e-bike riders are concerned about increased wear and tear and damage such as chain breaks. In its statement, Avinox addresses these concerns with its smart motor control system.
The engineers clarify that the M2S doesn't unleash its power on the drivetrain like an unregulated sledgehammer. When the "chain guard" function is activated, the motor noticeably reduces its power output for the duration of the shifting process. We were able to confirm this in our test. The goal of the Avinox developers was to reduce stress on the drivetrain despite the enormous power. This should work quite well in conjunction with an electronic SRAM drivetrain and during gear changes. However, those using a mechanical drivetrain will need to be more cautious, and those who consistently utilize the system's high power output should expect increased wear, at least on the chain and cassette.
No threat to the industry?
However, the section that is likely to be most interesting for the current discussions is probably the one that will be most interesting. “Higher Power Does Not Threaten the Industry” This is where Avinox addresses the political dimension of the debate: the concern of many industry insiders that extremely powerful motors would inevitably attract regulatory authorities and could jeopardize the legal status quo of the entire bicycle industry.
Avinox considers this view too short-sighted and calls for a more nuanced perspective. While the manufacturer is firmly committed to responsible regulations and compliance with all laws, it rejects the blanket condemnation of performance. The message is clear: Technological innovations must not be stifled by arbitrary wattage limits as long as these lack a clear, logical foundation. True progress, according to the Chinese manufacturer, must be driven by customer benefits, performance, and broader access to sports – not by the mere fear of large numbers.
So everything's fine then?
With its statement, Avinox has laid its cards on the table and unequivocally articulated its position in the current performance debate. Nevertheless, a manufacturer's statement, however detailed, does not end a fundamental, industry-wide debate. Whether this technological argument is sufficient to dispel concerns surrounding EPAC standards and potential regulations in the long term remains to be seen, not only on the trail but also in legislative bodies. The discussion about the limits of what is feasible and permissible in the e-bike sector will continue for quite some time. We will continue to closely monitor this process, the exploration of new performance categories, and the market's reactions: critically, curiously, and with a focus on the technology.