Deep Dive: Vertical Range, Range and Efficiency: Which Motor System Gets the Most Out of Every Watt-Hour?

The range myth

Don’t we all want the fun to go on forever? How long the battery keeps you going on the trail is one of the key factors on an e-bike. But does a bike with a bigger battery always go further than one with a smaller one? We say no. Comparing watt-hours alone simply isn’t enough. What really matters is how efficiently the bike uses that precious energy in the battery. In our real-world test, we measure the climbing range of every bike and, in this deep dive, we not only share the results from our motor group test, but also explain what you need to know about e-bike efficiency and energy consumption.

Science alert: the key terms

Before we dive into measurement curves, efficiency figures and watt-hours, let’s go back to the basics for a moment. If you’re talking about range, efficiency and consumption, you need to know exactly what those terms mean. In the e-MTB world, terms like range, power and efficiency get thrown around all the time, often vaguely and sometimes just plain wrong.

So before we start comparing apples with newton metres, let’s clear up the key technical terms. If you want to understand which motor system really climbs most efficiently, you need to speak the language of physics, at least the most important bits of vocabulary:

• Range (km) : Range describes the distance covered per battery charge in kilometres. The problem is that it depends heavily on speed, gradient, surface, wind and assistance mode. Not only does it require a far more complex description of the riding cycle, but the difficulty of ensuring repeatability in real-world testing also makes range less suitable for our group test.
• Vertical range (m) : Vertical range shows how many vertical metres an eMTB can cover on a single charge. On climbs, gravitational work dominates, in other words the energy needed to move the combined weight of rider and bike uphill against gravity. This factor is independent of the test conditions, making climbing range the more precise metric for comparison.
• Efficiency (no unit) : This isn’ta measured value, but a general description of how sparingly available resources are used to achieve a result. On an eMTB, that means how much of the electrical energy stored in the battery, together with the rider’s own physical input, actually ends up as forward drive and elevation gain, and how much is lost along the way as heat, friction or internal losses.
• Efficiency rating (%) : In engineering, efficiency rating is the defined measure of efficiency and expresses the ratio between useful output and input. In the case of an e-bike motor, for example, it’s the ratio of the mechanical power delivered at the chainring to the electrical power supplied by the battery. An efficiency rating of 80% means that 80% of the battery’s energy is converted into mechanical energy to drive the bike, while the remaining 20% is converted into heat, which is of no practical use to us.

• Power (W): : This refers to the amount of energy absorbed or delivered over a given period of time. In other words, power describes how quickly energy is converted. A large battery may store a lot of energy, but if it can only deliver that energy slowly, its power output is still low. Power therefore plays a key role in how quickly you accelerate and how briskly you can tackle a climb.

• Energy (Wh or J): : Conversely, the total energy over a given period is equal to the product of average power and time. Energy is therefore the capacity to do work, in other words to move mass uphill, build momentum or overcome resistance. In the eMTB context, energy is expressed in watt-hours (Wh) (1 Wh = 3,600 J).
• Force (N): :Force is what causes acceleration or deceleration and is measured in newtons. If you want to move at a constant speed, the sum of all forces acting in the direction of travel must be zero. So to ride uphill, you need a driving force that acts against gravity and, ignoring friction losses for the moment, is equal in magnitude. This driving force is independent of speed. However, since the power required is equal to driving force × speed, riding uphill faster requires more power.

A few examples of forces and their corresponding power values are:

• Driving force × speed = drive power
• Braking force × speed = braking power
• Aerodynamic drag × speed = aerodynamic power
• Motor torque × angular velocity = motor power

• Torque (Nm) : Torque is a force acting through a lever arm, in other words a rotational force around a pivot point, such as at the crank or chainring. Torque determines the maximum gradient you can tackle. As with force, the product of torque and rotational speed is also a measure of power, and it determines how quickly you can power your way up a steep ramp.
• Acceleration (m/s² or km/h per second): : This is the rate at which speed changes over time. It happens as a result of force acting against the inertia of mass. On an eMTB, that means extra power (W) is needed to accelerate the combined system of rider and bike, on top of the power required for climbing work, rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. That additional energy is not lost, but initially stored in the increased speed of the moving mass. When you brake, it is converted into heat, while when you roll on, you use that momentum to overcome the resistances that are already there.

Power balance on an e-bike: where does the juice come from, and who takes a sip?

The source of the fun on an e-bike is the battery and the rider. Their energy turns into enjoyment when it accelerates you or carries you up the climb. Unfortunately, that energy has to pass through a number of loss-heavy stages before it can finally do its job. If you want to understand why two bikes with the same battery capacity and the same motor system can achieve different range figures, you need to look at the power balance.

E-bike power balance:

If we follow the flow of energy through our e-bike, the journey starts in the battery. This supplies electrical energy. If a current [A] flows to the motor at the battery’s present voltage [V], the product of the two is the electrical power [W] delivered by the battery.

Inside the motor system, there’s then a current controller which determines how much current should flow to the motor, depending on assist mode, cadence and other factors. However, this controller converts part of the battery power into heat, and that in turn is the controller’s power loss.

Using the remaining current, the motor generates torque and, when it rotates, mechanical power too. Unfortunately, the motor also converts part of the electrical power into heat, mainly due to electrical resistance in the windings.

Small electric motors can produce only limited torque, but they do so at high rotational speeds. To bring that down into our cadence range of 0 to 140 rpm, a reduction gearbox is needed. But friction at the gear wheels, bearings and seals also causes power losses in the gearbox.

At the end of the gearbox, the output shaft is connected to the chainring, known as the chainring shaft. This is where the mechanical output power of our e-bike motor is measured.

But what exactly do the cranks do? The cranks are mounted on a separate shaft – the crank axle. They serve not only as the rider’s moving footrests but also act as a throttle input for the motor controller and provide additional power to the bike. The crank axle is connected to the chainring shaft via a freehub mechanism, allowing the chainring to continue rotating even when the cranks remain stationary. This occurs, for example, when using walk assist, when the motor briefly keeps running, or when an automatic gear shift is executed on a derailleur drivetrain.

Another freewheel, incidentally, also transfers the motor’s torque to the chainring shaft. When the motor is assisting but you’re pedalling, you obviously don’t want to be turning the gearbox and motor as well. In that case, the freewheel disengages and only re-engages when the motor cuts back in. And it is precisely this freewheel that often makes riding an e-bike without motor support feel more demanding than riding an unpowered MTB.

The usable mechanical output power PDR, is reduced further by friction in the chain drive, or belt drive, although this remains very low with a clean, well-lubricated chain and, ideally, no chainline misalignment.
Far more significant, and far more noticeable, is the tires’ rolling resistance, which depends heavily on the tire itself, including rubber compound, tread pattern and casing, as well as tire pressure and rider weight. The resulting power loss increases with speed.
One factor that gets little attention is power loss caused by slip. It is often lumped in with rolling resistance, but it has a different cause and increases with both driving force and speed. Slip is always present whenever a rotating wheel transfers forces to the ground. Near the limit of grip, especially on loose surfaces, this power loss can become very high.

Power loss from aerodynamic drag rises with the cube of speed. That sounds harsh, and it is. However, this power demand is comparatively low at the speeds at which we typically ride uphill on an e-bike.

On an eMTB, climbing power is in fact the dominant factor, as it is what lifts the combined mass of rider and bike uphill against gravity at whatever speed you are travelling. The steeper and faster the climb, the more power you need. Incidentally, for the total climbing energy needed to get up a given hill, it makes no difference whether you ride up quickly or slowly. Riding faster requires more power, but only for a shorter time. This is where that familiar line fits perfectly: go faster and it will not take as long. But be careful, because in the real world aerodynamic drag increases disproportionately with speed.

If there is still power left over, the bike accelerates. Since many of the losses, along with climbing power, increase with speed, the surplus power shrinks as your pace rises. Once the power available for acceleration drops to zero, you have reached the maximum speed for that riding situation and power level. If the figure at the end of the balance turns negative, meaning the resistances are greater than the available drive power, you slow down until a constant speed is reached again.

Does that sound like too much lost power? Not at all. There’s still plenty left for serious trail fun. You don’t get those losses back, of course. They have gone into warming the planet 😉. But momentum and elevation are still yours to keep. Better still, the two can be converted into each other, for example when you pick up speed on a descent without pedalling, or when you carry plenty of momentum into a climb.

To give you a feel for the scale of it, and for the thirst of the guests at the eMTB party, we analysed a range of riding scenarios without acceleration in the table below. The key takeaway is this: climbing power is dominant and unavoidable, but thankfully it’s not a loss. Aerodynamic drag plays a smaller role when riding uphill. Rolling resistance and slip, however, are significant, so choose your tyres carefully if you want to maximise range. For more on that, take a look at the tire test from our sister magazine ENDURO, where we also measured the rolling resistance of all current tires in the lab.

Can we use this to conclude that climbing a steep trail takes less energy than riding up a shallow road? Not directly, but we’ll save that for another deep dive for the energy-saving and climbing-range fans.

The efficiency of all eMTB motors in the lab test

The term efficiency gets used for all sorts of things. But what do we actually mean by it in the context of an eMTB? To answer that, we first need to define the goal and the input needed to achieve it. For the motor system, the goal is mechanical drive power, while the input is the power drawn from the battery. In this context, efficiency therefore means nothing more than the ratio of useful mechanical power to electrical power consumed. That exact ratio is what efficiency (%) describes. But how do we actually determine a motor’s efficiency?

In our motor test, we wanted to eliminate as many factors as possible that are not directly related to the motor system itself. That is why we fitted all bikes with the same tires and ran the same tire pressure. For the test bench measurements, we used MAXXIS Metropass tyres with a minimal tread pattern at a high pressure of 4 bar.

On the test bench, the complete bike is mounted in ready-to-ride condition, with the rear wheel loaded with a 50 kg payload to replicate a realistic load case and provide enough contact pressure for high drive forces. The rear wheel sits on a braked measuring roller with a friction coating. It looks similar to a TÜV brake test bench, only with a single roller. To simulate rider input, one crank arm was removed and connected via an axle adapter to a test bench motor.

Using this setup, we ran a range of so-called operating points. These are combinations of cadence and rider input power, together with a controlled braking torque or controlled rotational speed at the rear-wheel measuring roller, corresponding to relevant and realistic riding scenarios.

The following data were recorded for all operating points:

• Speed and power of the drive motor
• Speed and power of the measuring roller
• Current and voltage of the electrical energy supplied to the motor

We also noted setup parameters such as the assist mode and selected gear

When it comes to motor efficiency, we compare the motors’ efficiency using the following formula:

As you saw in the power balance in the previous section, the motor’s output is not measured directly on the chainring, but indirectly via the measuring roller on the rear wheel.

For our efficiency calculation, this means that the power losses from the chain drive, rolling resistance and slip are no longer included in the power measured on the roller, and therefore have to be added back to the roller power. By contrast, the rider’s input power has to be subtracted from the measured result. For that reason, we calculated additional values from the test data, allowing us to determine the losses up to the measuring roller and, beyond that, to derive information on motor torque and rider torque.

In the end, we evaluated twelve operating points for each bike, ranging from low to high motor output.

Our motor ratings were based on the mean values across all operating points, excluding those with pronounced dips at very low motor outputs, as these are of little relevance in real-world riding. Where little power is being delivered, the absolute losses are low too. We also removed obvious outliers, as we had no way to repeat or closely verify the measurements. Unfortunately, two motors in our test produced results that paint a less convincing picture and should therefore be treated with some caution. In Shimano’s case, there were issues during testing with the motor not running through cleanly. The Bosch SX showed a plausible efficiency figure in the mid-power range, but dropped off noticeably at the top end of its output.

Most of the motors sit between 77 and 79% efficiency in the most relevant operating range. The standout is the maxon AIR S, partly because its 81% efficiency puts it three percentage points ahead of the strong midfield, and partly because it is also noticeably more frugal than its rivals at lower power outputs.

Battery capacity: the untidy baseline

Now that you are up to speed on the consumers and losses in the e-bike drivetrain, the next question is: how much energy do you actually have available for your trail party?

It’s hardly a secret that headline-grabbing marketing figures don’t always match technical reality. We already know that from the claimed weights of bikes and components, which usually turn out to be higher on your own scales than the manufacturer suggests.

We had the same suspicion about batteries, and already questioned the stated capacity figures in our article The unfair competition. Although we will go into this topic in much greater detail in a separate deep dive, here are the key facts for now.

How can battery capacity be determined?

1. You trust the manufacturer’s stated energy content in Wh.
2. You calculate the battery’s nominal capacity from battery voltage [V] multiplied by nominal capacity [Ah].
3. You use an external energy meter to measure how much charging energy [Wh] is needed for a full charge from 0 to 100%. This already includes charging losses in both the charger and the battery, though their exact size is unknown.
4. You measure, while riding, how much energy flows from the battery to the motor during a ride from 100% to 0% state of charge. We call this the discharge energy [Wh].

For our climbing range analysis, the only figure that really matters is the actual discharge energy. Unfortunately, it is not easy to measure, but for your benefit we went to the effort and simply carried out the procedure on several motor systems.

The result? From the Bosch, Avinox and Specialized batteries, we could extract only between 85% and 90% of their stated capacity, with Bosch’s claimed figure proving closer to reality than S-Works’. Looked at another way, a consistent picture emerges: across all three systems, charging energy came to 120 to 122% of discharge energy. Apparently physics leaves less room for interpretation than marketing does.

To be fair to the manufacturers, discharge energy depends in part on discharge current and temperature. The voltage at which a battery is considered empty is also defined by the manufacturer. So, stay tuned, we’ll get to the bottom of it.

In Practice: Vertical Climbing Range

Real-world testing: climbing range runs

So how does all of this play out in practice? As in our last major e-mountain bike group test, we went all in and ran all eleven motor systems in this test completely flat in real-world riding, right down to the point where the system shut itself off.

That gave us clear insights into

1. real-world climbing range
2. the system’s sustained power capability
3. the efficiency of both drivetrain and bike
4. behaviour at low state of charge

How did we test?

We rode each bike up the exact same paved test climb over and over again, starting every time with the battery charged to 100%, until the battery was empty. We used the highest continuous assist mode throughout, and switched off the motor for the descents. Our test conditions in detail:

• Route length: 2.47 km
• Average gradient: 8.6%
• Elevation gain per ascent: 212 m
• Rider input: 150 W
• Rider weight: 72 kg
• Cadence: 75 rpm
• Standardised tires:
  Front: MAXXIS HighRoller, MaxxGrip, DD
  Rear: MAXXIS Minion DHR II, MaxxTerra, DD
• Tire pressure front/rear: 1.5/1.8 bar/li>

So we also measured the bike’s real-world influence, while keeping the conditions the same apart from differences in bike weight.

The most important update compared with our previous climbing range tests was the use of standardised tires. As the tire test by our sister magazine ENDURO once again showed, the differences in rolling resistance are huge. Using standardised tires eliminates that variable. The result is more consistent efficiency figures, which suggests that drivetrain efficiency was isolated more effectively from riding resistance.

For Avinox, Bosch and S-Works, we fitted an energy meter into the system and recorded the energy consumed during the ride for every 10% used, based on the reading shown on the e-bike display.

To assess the efficiency of an e-bike as a whole, we once again need to define both the benefit and the input. Let us assume your goal is to rack up plenty of descending metres, which means you first need to climb plenty of vertical metres before the holy mother of blessed motor support abandons you. So the goal is maximum elevation gain. What is the input? Battery energy is one possible metric. But you do not really feel that in practice, because electricity is cheap. Battery size is more noticeable in the purchase price of the bike. In day-to-day use, however, it is the battery weight that makes itself felt, as it is the single biggest contributor to the extra weight of an e-mountain bike. So when we talk about achieving climbing range efficiently, one useful metric is the ratio of climbing range to battery weight.

For the analysis, we again didn’t just determine the absolute climbing range figures, but also used them to calculate efficiency metrics by including the system weight and relating the benefit to battery energy and battery weight. First, though, let’s take a look at the absolute climbing range figures.

Bosch (CX and CX-R) and Avinox deliver the greatest climbing range at just under 2,000 m, closely followed by the TQ motor with 1,900 m and the largest battery among the light-assist bikes. Of course, the TQ rider has to allow a bit more time for the ride and also contribute more energy overall, as the same output has to be pedalled for longer. Despite its large battery, S-Works cannot compete on absolute climbing range, but it does stand out for outright speed, consistently right on the 25 km/h assistance limit all the way to the end.

As expected, the systems with smaller batteries sit further down the rankings for climbing range. FAZUA still deserves a mention here as a strong compromise, delivering a solid climbing range of 1,430 m at a still respectable speed of 15 km/h. The maxon covers the least ground at 1,000 m, but it is also very quick at 19 km/h. Here, a slower riding style would probably unlock a lot more climbing range. Just as a reminder, we rode every motor in the highest assist mode. Speed therefore settled according to the motor’s support factor and maximum output.

The test procedure essentially follows the same approach as in the big 2025 eMTB group test, where you will find a detailed explanation of the overall principle.

In brief, this is how we calculate climbing range efficiency:

We calculate the climbing energy for the achieved elevation gain, which is the weight force of rider and bike multiplied by climbing range, and subtract the rider’s own energy input from that, which is 150 W multiplied by uphill riding time. That gives us the useful output the e-bike ultimately delivered.

To what extent speed itself counts as a benefit is undoubtedly one of the key questions when choosing a motor system and selecting an assist mode, and that is something each rider has to decide for themselves. We cannot, however, assign a numerical value to speed as a benefit.

For efficiency in terms of climbing range, we then relate the climbing energy to the energy stored in the battery and so obtain the bike’s efficiency at the speed it actually achieved. In other words, how much climbing energy a bike can generate from one watt-hour of battery energy. For the comparison, we use the batteries’ charging energy, as this has so far shown a consistent relationship with the measured discharge energy and is available for all batteries.

As a second measure of efficiency, we bring another metric into play by relating the achieved climbing range to battery weight. This metric takes into account the fact that battery weight makes a significant contribution to total system weight and therefore to handling. While integration into the overall system is not considered here, this ratio still allows us to assess how effectively the battery power you have to carry translates into long-lasting riding fun.

In terms of pure energy efficiency, the Avinox and S-Works systems come out on top here. Behind them sits a broad midfield with very little to separate the rest, except for the Bosch SX, which we clearly didn’t run in its most efficient operating window.

The picture changes noticeably once total climbing range is related to battery weight. The lighter systems in particular generate a relatively large number of vertical metres per kilogram of battery. This shifts the perspective entirely, because absolute climbing range is not the same thing as efficiency relative to weight. It’s also striking that the slower systems perform better by this metric. Could that be down to the rider’s own input making up a larger share of the total energy over the longer ride time?

To clear that up, let’s take one more look at the energy balance for two hypothetical climbs of 1,000 vertical metres each, based on the climbing range tests with an 8.6% gradient and rider input of 150 W. The difference between them lies in motor output and therefore in the speed achieved. For that, we used the highest and lowest speeds reached in the climbing range tests.

For both scenarios, we first calculated the theoretical energy demand. What stands out is that overcoming the elevation always requires the same amount of energy. The energy needed for rolling resistance is also almost identical. What does depend on speed, however, are the energy losses caused by slip, which decrease, and by aerodynamic drag, which increases significantly. Even so, the difference is surprisingly small at 33 Wh, or 9%.

Looking at the energy supply side reveals clearer differences. Because the ride time is halved at double the speed, the rider only has to contribute around half as much energy at the same power output. The motor, in turn, has to make up both for the rider’s missing contribution and for the extra demand created by the higher speed. In terms of motor output, that difference is already substantial. At the slower 12.6 km/h, 233 W of motor power is enough, while 24.8 km/h requires as much as 673 W.

So how can you save energy? Based on the energy balance shown for an 8.6% gradient, we calculated how much energy can be saved with two simple measures.

• A 5% reduction in system weight saves 4.9% / 4.4% energy at 12.6 / 25.8 km/h.
• Fast-rolling tires save up to 9.4% / 8.5% energy at 12.6 / 25.8 km/h compared with very slow-rolling models, for example a MAXXIS ASSEGAI with DD casing and MaxxGrip compound versus an EXO casing with MaxxTerra compound.

Climbing range increases roughly in line with the amount of energy saved.

Our key takeaways on climbing range and efficiency are as follows:

1. 1. With the same bike and the same motor usage, a bigger battery delivers more climbing range. That’s hardly a surprise.
   2. A high motor efficiency is essential if you want to turn the bike’s extra weight into as much support as possible.
   3. Alongside motor efficiency, the way the bike is used has a major influence on climbing range. Less support therefore means greater climbing range.

 

• Looked at the other way round, higher climbing speeds require only a little more energy, but they greatly reduce your ability to extend the ride through your own effort.

 

Resistance is futile? No-load power: what happens when the motor is off?

Who doesn’t know that feeling of pedalling into a wall when the e-bike motor stops supporting you, whether by choice or not? It usually happens when the motor cuts out at the 25 km/h threshold, the battery is empty, or you deliberately switch the motor off. Are e-bikes really that much harder to ride without assistance than bikes without a motor? The extra weight is beyond dispute, and it does increase the climbing power needed on the way up. But are these bikes also harder to pedal on the flat? Of course, we looked into that too.

For this, we measured the no-load torque required to turn the cranks with the motor switched off. With the bike mounted in a work stand, we spun up the rear wheel and slowly turned the cranks forwards, always just enough for the freehub at the rear wheel to remain audible. We had to overcome the friction of the crank axle and chain in no-load operation, without driving the rear wheel. To get this out of the way up front, the share of friction from the chain is so small that we spared ourselves the job of removing the chain guide and chain for the comparison.

Using a force gauge, we pulled a cord from a 200 mm thread spool adapted to the crank bolt. From the measured force and the spool radius as the lever arm, we calculated the torque. By multiplying the torque by angular velocity, corresponding to a cadence of 75 rpm, we then calculated a typical no-load power figure.

For comparison’s sake, we also measured a well run-in and lubricated analogue bike without a motor.

The results reveal major differences between the motors, but also show that, for most of them, no-load power remains in the negligible range of up to 2 W. Even so, the difference compared with a bike without a motor is clearly noticeable. For context, in our uphill scenario on an 8.6% gradient, an extra 1 kg of bike weight requires around 3 W more climbing power. To offset the no-load power of an Avinox or Pinion system on this gradient, the bike would need to be around 2 kg lighter.

Where do these no-load torque figures come from, and how relevant are they?

One reason for the high friction is the large number of tight seals needed to protect the motor from dirt. Compared with a standard bottom bracket, a motor is far more expensive, so a compromise on sealing is hardly something any of us would welcome.

Then there’salso the friction from the motor clutch, which only has to be overcome in no-load operation, in other words when the motor itself is not turning. Manufacturers use various types of freewheel here, with more or less preload on the engaging elements and greases of differing viscosity. A certain amount of friction is even desirable, as it helps reduce the annoying knocking noises some motors still make when freewheeling downhill.

Pinion occupies a special position here because of the gearbox integrated into the motor. Owing to the specific design of its two-stage transmission, no-load friction depends on the gear range the gearbox is in. In gears 1 to 4, which are the ones that matter on steeper climbs, the power loss sits in the middle of the test field.

In the end, Bosch, S-Works and FAZUA strike the best compromise here, all with no-load power figures below 2 W. At the other end of the scale, Pinion and especially Avinox stand out. That said, their typical user group is unlikely to notice this drawback very often, as they are probably less concerned with riding without motor support than riders using a light-assist e-bike.

Highlights and lowlights from our deep dive

The pillars of climbing range: system efficiency, riding style and hardware choice

System efficiency
With an efficiency rating of 81%, the maxon AIR S sets the benchmark, sitting three percentage points clear of the solid midfield.

The biggest outliers appear in off mode, where no-load power is concerned, with Avinox effectively giving away its weight advantage through friction losses.

Riding style, or the human and time factor
Climbing range is a trade-off. If you want to get further on your bike, you have to pay for it with time and your own effort. The equation is simple: slower climbing creates less aerodynamic drag and keeps your own power in the mix for longer, without necessarily making you sweat more.

This is especially clear with light-assist systems such as TQ and FAZUA, which can still achieve respectable climbing range despite smaller batteries, but take a little longer to do so.

At the other end of the spectrum, the S-Works 3.1, holding a constant 25 km/h in the climbing range test, shows that more support also drains even the biggest battery faster.

Despite having a mid-level maximum output, the Bosch SX is the slowest motor in the climbing range test. The reason lies in its character, as it demands more rider input to unlock its full potential. Even so, despite its modest efficiency, it’s still very frugal.

Hardware choice
Our tests and calculations show that tyres and tyre pressure have a major influence on climbing range. That is why we tested with standardised tyres and calculated how tyre choice affects climbing range.

If you want to maximise your vertical metres, you need to look beyond the motor and consider the whole system, from rolling resistance to total system weight. The difference in climbing range between good and poor rolling tires can easily be 10%.

Absolute climbing range
Bosch’s CX and CX-R motors with the 800 Wh battery, together with Avinox, deliver the greatest climbing range at just under 2,000 vertical metres. Avinox is 2 to 3 km/h faster here, but gives away a few vertical metres in return.

By contrast, the maxon AIR S delivers the lowest climbing range. At the same time, though, maxon also has the greatest potential for extra vertical metres, thanks to its lightest-in-class battery and generous motor support, whether through riding at a lower speed or pairing it with a larger battery.

Conclusions

The key takeaway from our deep dive is this: range on an eMTB isn’t just about battery size. If you only look at watt-hours, you’re missing the bigger picture. What really matters is how efficiently a system uses the energy available and how the rider chooses to deploy it. There is no single best motor, only the best system for your riding profile.
Choosing between maximum punch, as with Avinox, and the best handling combined with strong relative efficiency, as with TQ and maxon, comes down to personal preference and your own fitness. If absolute climbing range and long rides are your priority, removable batteries or large range extenders are also a strong option. But whatever your preference for high-energy riding, one rule always applies: know your party guests. If you know who you are catering for, you can manage your resources far more effectively.

Broken wires and battery fires!

---

Did you enjoy this article? If so, we would be stoked if you decide to support us with a monthly contribution. By becoming a supporter of ENDURO, you will help secure a sustainable future for high-quality mountain bike journalism. Click here to learn more.

Words: Ingo Karb, Benedikt Schmidt, Lars Engmann Photos: Peter Walker, Benedikt Schmidt