MTB vs E-MTB: The e-bike's eco-balance is good

Bio-power or battery boost? This fact check clarifies whether the e-MTB is ecologically superior to the biobike despite its heavy CO2 backpack.

More than almost any other piece of sports equipment, mountain bikes symbolise freedom, the experience of nature and self-propulsion. E-mountain bikes, on the other hand, were long regarded as the heavy brothers with battery ballast and a questionable environmental balance. But this simple comparison falls short. The life cycle assessment of the two types of bike is not only based on analysing the life cycles, but above all on everyday use. And this is precisely where e-MTBs - or more generally: e-bikes - significantly shift the balance.

If you want to analyse the ecological footprint of mountain bikes and e-mountain bikes, you have to take a close look at several assessment criteria: Production, transport, wear and recycling - but you also have to explicitly include how many car journeys can realistically be replaced by which bike. After all, a bike that is ridden more often may ultimately have a better environmental footprint despite a higher production carbon footprint. And e-mountainbikes are explicitly used very universally: at the weekend as leisure and sports equipment, in everyday life as a robust commuter and city bike.

Production: The ecological starting block

The bare figures initially speak in favour of the classic mountain bike. A modern, full-suspension MTB generates around 150-200 kg of CO2 equivalents during production - depending on the material mix. The main drivers are aluminium or carbon frames and energy-intensive components such as suspension and drive.

The CO2 consumption of an e-mountainbike is significantly higher in this discipline: The combination of motor, electronics and, above all, lithium-ion battery drives the production footprint to around 300-350 kg of CO2 equivalents. The battery alone accounts for around 60-100 kg of CO2 equivalents.

Interim conclusion: Biobike advantage

The E-MTB is clearly at a disadvantage in terms of production. But this advantage of the organic bike is only half the truth.

Transport: Globalisation meets weight

Today, both types of bike are predominantly produced globally. Frames from Taiwan, motors from Europe, final assembly in Eastern Europe - this is standard for both types of bike. However, transport only accounts for 5-10 per cent of the total life cycle footprint.

The higher weight of the E-MTB (usually plus 8-10 kg) causes slightly more emissions during transport, but remains almost negligible in the overall picture.

Interim conclusion: draw

Transport is not an ecological game changer - neither for the MTB nor for the E-MTB. Its share of the overall ecological footprint is relatively small, and the weight disadvantage of the E-MTB is irrelevant.

Wear: the components suffer

The bottom line is that an e-MTB wears out faster: the chain, cassette, brakes and tyres have to be changed more frequently. The motor increases the system weight, the average speed increases - as does material wear. Studies assume 10-20 per cent more wear on parts on an e-MTB compared to a non-motorised mountain bike - in relation to the wear on all parts. In practice, however, workshops often report significantly higher wear (up to 50 per cent) on drive components such as the chain and cassette due to the high motor torque.

Interim conclusion: draw

This point also goes to the biobike: higher weight and higher torque pay off above all in terms of wear on brakes, tyres and drive components.

Substitution: the tide is turning

In all the points mentioned so far, the biobike has performed better than the e-MTB in terms of ecological balance. However, there is now a decisive factor: the frequency of use. E-bike riders ride significantly more often and further than organic bikers - and above all for other purposes. Not just for sport, but in everyday life.

Studies suggest that the substitution potential (replacing car journeys with bicycle journeys) of e-bikes is considerably higher than that of non-motorised bikes.

• Studies (e.g. IFEU Institute or Mobility in Germany) that the Bio-Bike is primarily used for distances of less than 5 kilometres - an area where people otherwise often walk or use public transport.
• While conventional bikes often only replace around 20-30 per cent of real car journeys, this figure is significantly higher for e-bikes (over 60 per cent).
• Distance effect: On average, e-bikers cover 60-80 per cent longer distances than cyclists without a motor. As the inhibition threshold for the car often only drops at distances of 5-7 kilometres or more, the e-bike "poaches" much more in the car's territory than the classic bike.

Commuters in particular benefit: longer distances, more metres in altitude, less sweat - factors that often rule out classic mountain bikes or other non-motorised types of bike in everyday life. This is consistent with many personal experiences: If you arrive at the office sweaty, slower or exhausted, you are quick to reach for the car again. This fact has a significant impact on the eco-balance of the e-MTB and more than makes up for the shortfall compared to the biobike.

Interim conclusion: e-bike advantage

An E-MTB replaces significantly more car kilometres than a classic bike. This fact weighs most heavily in the overall eco-balance.

Recycling: battery as a weak point

At the end of its life, the mountain bike scores points for simplicity: steel, aluminium, sometimes carbon - all more or less established in the recycling cycle. The critical point with e-MTBs remains the battery. But a lot has happened here too: modern recycling processes achieve recovery rates of 70-95 per cent for metals such as nickel, copper, cobalt and, increasingly, lithium. The EU Battery Regulation will also significantly tighten the regulations for take-back and recycling from 2027.

Interim conclusion: the advantage of an organic bike

E-MTBs pose more challenges when it comes to recycling - but they are technically solvable and covered by regulations.

The bottom line: the bill is not settled at the counter

From a purely technical point of view, the mountain bike is the ecologically leaner piece of sports equipment. However, the ecological balance sheet does not include the aspects of production, transport and recycling. The e-mountainbike shows its ecological strength where the organic bike often fails: commuting, shopping, longer distances and time pressure, in cities and areas with hilly terrain. If you - like many users - regularly use an e-MTB instead of a car in everyday life, the environmental balance clearly tips in favour of the electric bike. In other words, the most sustainable bike is not the one with the smallest battery - or no battery at all - but the one that replaces the car as often as possible.