The new Avinox M2S motor is one of those launches that forces the whole eMTB world to pause. Not only because the headline numbers are so extreme, but because this is no longer a one-brand curiosity. Avinox says the new M2S delivers 1,500W peak power, 150Nm peak torque and 130Nm continuous torque, while the lower-tier M2 arrives alongside it with 1,100W peak power and 125Nm peak torque. More importantly, Avinox says more than 60 industry partners have now integrated its latest systems, including Atherton, Canyon, Commencal, Mondraker, Pivot, Propain, Rotwild, Unno and Whyte. That moves this story on from novelty to genuine market shift.
That matters because the new motors do not arrive in isolation. They land into a market where rumours around an Avinox M2 had already been building, where the Mondraker Zendit had already raised questions about whether some brands see Avinox as the next performance shortcut, and where consumers are increasingly encouraged to shop by motor ecosystem rather than by bike alone. In that context, it is perfectly fair to ask whether the category is progressing in the right direction, or simply escalating the spec-sheet war.
Having ridden the Turbo Levo 4 with the newer output figures, I already found 105Nm to be more than enough for serious trail riding. Specialized now openly lists non-S-Works Levo 4 models at 105Nm and 810W, while Giant continues to pitch its core SyncDrive Pro motor at 85Nm. That feels significant. It suggests some of the industry’s biggest names still believe there is a sensible middle ground between meaningful assistance and outright excess. That, to me, is a responsible direction of travel.
Brands are not wrong to look closely
It would be too easy, and frankly too lazy, to point at every brand adopting Avinox and say they are simply chasing numbers. Of course they will have their reasons. Some will like the compact packaging. Some will want the integration, fast charging and software ecosystem. Some will see genuine performance benefits in weight distribution, cooling and sustained output. And some will simply believe, probably with good reason, that Avinox has already proved itself as more than a headline machine. E-MOUNTAINBIKE’s 2026 motor test called the outgoing M1 the benchmark among full-power motors, not because it was merely powerful, but because it used that power intelligently. The new M2 and M2S also appear to improve efficiency further, with E-MOUNTAINBIKE measuring them at an average 81%, up from 78% for the M1.
The latest bikes underline that point. Whyte’s new Karve EVO is not pretending to be a beginner trail bike. Whyte positions it as a 180mm-travel machine for gravity riders, self-shuttlers and big mountain users, with prices starting at £5,650 and rising to £7,299. Atherton’s S.170E is even more explicit about the bike-first thinking, with a 12-size chassis approach, a Welsh-built aluminium frame, and pricing broadly from £6,999 to £8,999 depending on build. In other words, the first wave of M2S bikes is not a bargain-bin power grab. These are premium, purpose-led bikes from brands that would argue they chose the system because it lets them build the ride they want.
That matters because reducing every adoption decision to “brands want bigger numbers for marketing” risks missing the fuller picture. A gravity-led brand may simply look at Avinox and see a compact drive unit that unlocks cleaner frame packaging, more freedom with suspension layout and more self-shuttle capacity without the bloated feel of older full-power bikes. That is a legitimate design argument. The harder question is not whether brands are allowed to want that. It is whether the whole category should increasingly define progress in those terms.
But who are these bikes actually for?
This is where the article gets more awkward. If the first crop of Avinox M2S bikes is anything to go by, these are not entry-level products aimed at first-time mountain bikers. The Whyte Karve EVO is explicitly aimed at gravity thrill seekers and big mountain riders. The Atherton S.170E is a long-travel, full-power premium machine developed around Dyfi testing and big terrain. These are, on paper at least, bikes for riders who already know what they are doing.
And if that is the case, the question becomes sharper, not softer. If these bikes are aimed at experienced, capable riders, do those riders really need 150Nm on the trail? The honest answer is probably only in fairly narrow circumstances. Repeated uplift-style laps without an uplift, very steep and very long technical climbs, or a gravity-focused rider wanting maximum self-shuttle efficiency, yes, I can see the case. But that is a smaller use case than the headline suggests. Most UK riding is tighter, slower, muddier and more traction-limited than the launch graphics imply. The trail does not always reward the biggest shove. Quite often it punishes it.
The flip side is no less uncomfortable. If power like this does eventually trickle down into more accessible or lower-priced bikes, then the category has another problem to think about. Should genuinely inexperienced riders be handed this much torque on wet, shared, low-speed trails where judgement and restraint matter as much as outright control? That is not a moral panic argument. It is a practical one. More power amplifies mistakes as well as confidence.
The trail still asks for control, not just force
That is why the early review picture is so useful here. It stops the conversation becoming ideological. Pinkbike’s first impression was that the peak power and torque are arguably overkill for most situations, but also that the system is surprisingly refined. BikeRadar’s back-to-back M1 versus M2S test reached a similar place by a different route, noting that on technical climbs power delivery and control are often more important than outright output, and warning that the M2S needs some respect when sharing trails. E-MOUNTAINBIKE meanwhile was even more direct, arguing that on technical climbs finely controlled assistance is often worth far more than brute force alone. Bikerumor’s first rides also point in the same direction, suggesting the real story is not simply more power, but how that power can actually be used.
That, to me, is the heart of this whole debate. The M2S may be a superb motor. It may also be a better motor than the M1. But the key issue is not whether Avinox has built something impressive. It clearly has. The issue is what the rest of the industry chooses to celebrate about it. If the conversation becomes “150Nm is better because 150 is bigger than 105 or 85”, then eMTBs are going backwards in the way they explain themselves to riders. If the conversation stays focused on control, integration, efficiency, range and ride feel, there is at least a chance the category keeps its head.
As Guy Kesteven argued in his Polaris piece “Power is nothing without control”, the real eMTB debate is no longer just about what the technology can do, but what it means for trails, access and the wider future of mountain biking.
It is also worth stressing that Avinox’s lower-tier M2 may be the more interesting motor in the long run. At 1,100W peak and 125Nm, it is still an enormous-output system by normal eMTB standards, but it is slightly easier to imagine where it fits. And beyond mountain biking, a motor this powerful arguably makes more immediate sense in utility and cargo applications, where high torque can help move families, loads or courier traffic through towns and cities more effectively. If the industry wants to argue for very high-output mid-drive motors, that may be the cleaner case.
The optics problem is not the same as a legality claim
This is where the line has to be tread carefully. I am not arguing that the Avinox M2S automatically makes a bike illegal in the UK. UK EAPC law is based on maximum continuous rated power and the 15.5mph assisted cut-off, not on the most dramatic peak figure used in a launch headline. GOV.UK is clear on that, and official bike listings such as Whyte’s Karve EVO already present the Avinox M2S as a 250W nominal system despite the much bigger peak output numbers.
But optics matter, especially in a category that still has to defend its place on shared trails and public rights of way. The public does not read the small print first. They hear “1,500W e-mountain bike” and make their own assumptions. That is why where can you ride an eMTB in the UK and what counts as a UK legal e-bike matters so much. The industry has spent years trying to clarify that a legal pedal-assist eMTB is not an electric motorbike. Launches like this risk muddying that distinction in the public imagination, even if the technical legal position remains more nuanced.
That is another reason I think it helps to mention the other end of the market. Bikes such as the Orbea Rallon RS show that some brands still believe in a very different kind of progress: lighter systems, quieter motors, lower outputs, and assistance that sits in the background rather than dominating the ride. TQ’s newer HPR60, for example, is pitched around 60Nm, 350W and a 1,924g motor weight. That is not a better philosophy by default, but it is an important reminder that the eMTB category still has choices. It does not have to treat ever-higher torque as the only meaningful definition of advancement.
The Avinox M2S is remarkable engineering. It may also prove to be an excellent motor on the trail. But for me, this is still the wrong headline for eMTBs to rally around. I would rather see the next few years defined by lighter bikes, smarter batteries, better efficiency, quieter systems, tighter integration and clearer thinking about access and public perception. More power has become the easiest story to tell. I am not convinced it is the most useful one.