Are 750 watt ebikes actually legal?

[Ken M]

I live in Ohio and the law states ebikes must have a motor LESS than 750 watts. This is also the same as the federal law, and the same wording for ebikes when it comes to that new tax refund for ebikes.


So does that mean, an ebike with a motor rated exactly 750 watts is technically illegal? Also not eligible for that tax refund if the bill passes?

You are technically correct but few people understand "less than." In reality the ebikes rated at 750W could be reported to the CPSC as non-compliant. Someone wanting to cause some problems for these companies will eventually do that so they should just change their rating to 749.99W to be technically compliant.

In reality a motor rating as stated in in the federal and 3-class system is nebulous but no one takes the time to understand this. Here's the best explanation I have found (there are reasons why the PhD electrical Engineer that wrote the federal specification intended it to be a motor rating - mainly because the NHTSA was more focused on motor alone speed to 20mph).

Futility of Motor Power Ratings

"There's no such thing as a rated watt!" Read here for why we don't advertise a simple power rating for the motors we sell. Also, have a look at our Youtube video where Justin talks about the power to propel bicycles in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALde6zhLPs0">"School of Watts"</a>.

ebikes.ca

 

[Ken M]

I’m way late to this party, but I agree that the language in Ohio law is murky. I’ve seen interpretations by personal injury lawyers that refer to “750 watts or less,” but who knows?

As a practical matter, I very much doubt that police are checking motor wattage, whether you have 500 watts, 750 watts or 1,500 watts. The only time a real legal issue might arise would be if you caused a serious crash in which someone was injured or killed. In civil court proceedings there could be hell to pay. In the event of a serious injury or death, you could potentially be a test case for a murky law in criminal court. That seems pretty unlikely, but there are some pretty ambitious prosecutors out there so it’s not impossible. Even if you won, the cost of legal defense could really sting.

In any case, ride safely.

Lawyers have no clue about anything technical like this but you are correct that this could be an issue in an injury trial which is why riders should understand what a motor rating is vs a drive system peak power.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

IMO, there aren't any 750w motors, just motors people claim are 750w. I wouldn't sweat it. This is worth a watch on how muddy the waters are.

There is one thing that has been slightly overlooked in the video, which is the electrical vs. mechanical power. The 250 W continuous power is not the electrical power (V*A) but mechanical power, that is, (V*A) * mechanical efficiency. Contrary to what was said in this video, the mechanical efficiency would rather be up to 80% (not 90% as it was explained there). Let us take one of the few big brand motors with actually low power, which is Specialized SL 1.1 motor by Mahle, with torque of 35 Nm. The continuous power of that specific motor is equal to the peak power, and it is 240 W mechanical power. It is possible to digitally measure the electrical peak power of that motor, which is 303 W. Meaning, the mechanical efficiency of that motor is 240/303 W = 0.792 (79.2%). Now, if a cheap motor manufacturer claims 750 W of continuous power, they probably mean the electrical power. Hence, those cheap motors probably deliver far less of mechanical power than advertised.

 

[Robspace1]

There is one thing that has been slightly overlooked in the video, which is the electrical vs. mechanical power. The 250 W continuous power is not the electrical power (V*A) but mechanical power, that is, (V*A) * mechanical efficiency. Contrary to what was said in this video, the mechanical efficiency would rather be up to 80% (not 90% as it was explained there). Let us take one of the few big brand motors with actually low power, which is Specialized SL 1.1 motor by Mahle, with torque of 35 Nm. The continuous power of that specific motor is equal to the peak power, and it is 240 W mechanical power. It is possible to digitally measure the electrical peak power of that motor, which is 303 W. Meaning, the mechanical efficiency of that motor is 240/303 W = 0.792 (79.2%). Now, if a cheap motor manufacturer claims 750 W of continuous power, they probably mean the electrical power. Hence, those cheap motors probably deliver far less of mechanical power than advertised.

Best way is just try before you buy. If you plan on tackling big hills alot and don't feel like getting soaked in sweat and take forever getting to the top, then buy a bike with enough power to overcome that dreaded gravity. I have 1000w. Just right for my weight on my very steep hills.

 

[PedalUma]

Generally there is a 5% rule. If you are riding a bike within 5% of the nominal rated limit, you are fine. Peak is something different.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Generally there is a 5% rule. If you are riding a bike within 5% of the nominal rated limit, you are fine. Peak is something different.

Not necessarily. You can ride for at least 30 minutes close to the peak power of the "full power" mid-drive motor (peak 520 W mechanical, 666 W electrical) I am familiar with without actually overheating it (that is, going beyond the thermal protection limit).

As the video correctly explains, the "continuous rated power" is the motor power that could be pedalled continuously without ever overheating it. However, as the video also correctly explains, the peak power of different "250 W" motors will be totally different, as some of them deliver (say) 50 Nm, and other 90 Nm max.

 

[Gumboocho]

Confusion above: Some apparently don't understand the phrases "below 750 Watts" vs "no more than 750 Watts." The manufacturers seem: not to understand it as they sell "750 Watt" e-bikes, but not 749 Watt e-bikes (could be 749.9999 & be legal!) But in my state the law does not say what kind of watts -- or is that relevevant RMS Volts is quite different from Peak-to-Peak Volts. Big difference. I don't know if the RMS vs Peak-to-Peak applies to Watts though. Also my state law says that an e-bike must have a motor less than 750 watts, but does not forbid having multiple motors! An e-bike with two 500W motors has "a motor less than 750W", just as a hat with 2 white feathers is a hat having "a white feather"! If you have 2 pimples, you also have a pimple. If your car must have a window, but you have a car with 5 windows, you do have a car with a window!
There must be some electrical way to limit the power to a motor to 749 Watts. I think that many motors will increase or decrease the watts based on the voltage supplied. So I suppose that a voltage regulator could lower the voltage. I don't understand MobilityScootrike which advertises 500 W 3-trike at 500 W, yet you can add a "power-booster" (only at manufacture) to give it 1500W, which they claim does not increase the speed. & they tell me that both the 500W & the "powerbooster" 1500 W models have a 500W label. I have been thus far unable to get from them an explanation of what their power booster is, & whether or not one could disconnect it & reconnect it at will. Of course the watts measurement has some degree of inaccuracy +/-. So one would think that some manufacturers might solve the 750 vs 749 Watts issue just by labeling it 749. I am thinking that one should consider the NM more than Watts in selecting an e-bike.

 

[David42000]

Also my state law says that an e-bike must have a motor less than 750 watts, but does not forbid having multiple motors! An e-bike with two 500W motors has "a motor less than 750W", just as a hat with 2 white feathers is a hat having "a white feather"! If you have 2 pimples, you also have a pimple. If your car must have a window, but you have a car with 5 windows, you do have a car with a window!

Here's a fundamental rule of statutory construction: "In the absence of a contrary indication, the masculine includes the feminine (and vice versa) and the singular includes the plural (and vice versa)". See Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts.

I know it seems weird that laws don't more plainly state some things. But there are reasons. This rule helps to reduce clutter so that lawmakers don't have to list every single possibility of how a thing might happen, just the important fact of, in this instance "less than..." They don't need to list separate limits for two motors, three motors, etc. with this rule in place.

In this case, because the law is indicating an upper limit, any court that understands how to read a statute the legal way will say that "a motor" also means plural motors.

 

[David42000]

This is an older thread, but it best matches my subject matter. And things have developed since 2024. I've also attached a PDF. Yes, a few years ago I thought the one watt thing was not worth fussing over. But with new enforcement demands, and especially if the Safe Speeds Act passes and adopts "less than..." nationwide, and things start being enforced, we might be finding out there's a BIG problem.

Memorandum: The "Whatts" Regulatory Trap


I. Executive Summary

The American e-bike landscape is currently being reshaped by a legislative framework—championed by PeopleForBikes (PFB) and heavily influenced by major corporate stakeholders—that relies on a fundamental, unresolved technical ambiguity we define as the "Whatts" problem. By pushing for legislation at the state level that created a patchwork of inconsistent definitions, this coalition has fostered a regulatory environment that threatens to render millions of existing e-bikes technically illegal, potentially forcing "mass consumer abandonment" or a massive, forced upgrade cycle. The said they were solving a patchwork, and they said they would bring clarity to the matter. Instead, they have created great confusion, and currently, they are poised to deliver two more pieces of legislation, model e-moto legislation in the states, in conjunction with the Safe Speeds Act in Congress. If PeopleForBikes gets their way, the average e-bike consumer might find themselves in a nasty trap.

II. The "Whatts" Discrepancy: A Two-Faced Strategy

The legislative advocacy led by PFB—which counts automotive-industry giants like the Bosch Group as key stakeholders—utilizes a two-faced strategy to manage e-bike policy. While their legislative face aggressively lobbied for the adoption of "less than 750 watts" language in all fifty states, and suceeded in having “less than” adopted in 28 states, their public face markets and assures compliance of "Class 3 compliant, 750-watt" labeled e-bikes as a gold standard of legitimacy. Please note that PFB’s State-by-State-Guide to E-Bike Laws utterly fails to note the distinctions between exactly how many watts is allowed, as described below.

https://www.peopleforbikes.org/electric-bikes/state-laws

Notably, PFB’s state-by-state guide to e-bike laws is completely silent on this discrepancy; it fails to alert the consumer that in these 28 states, their "750-watt" bike is technically non-compliant. This omission is consistent: PFB hides the "Whatts" problem from the public at every level, save for the very model language that creates the trap, even in their fifty state guide.

See: E-Bikes vs. E-motos: Legal Distinctions, Legislative Strategies, and Regulatory Actions

@ 56:46 “Chris, this one's for you. And it asks, "Does the Safe Speeds Act address the 3 class system, specifically class three?"

Chris Bell, Director of Federal Policy, PeopleForBikes: “Uh, yes, the Safe Speeds Act is it does direct CPSC to create classifications, classification standards. It does not say which standards. Um, but the CPSC is well aware of the 3 class system. We've engaged with them on it before. Um, and it's also in place in many states around the country. Um, so we expect that that would be taken into account.” It is clear that PFB is asking the federal government to adopt their 3 class model language, which is “less than 750W.”



III. The State-by-State Regulatory Landscape

The following table illustrates the fractured legal status of e-bikes across the 50 states, resulting from PFB’s state-level lobbying efforts. The "Whatts" problem is exacerbated by how these states define their power ceilings:

Grouping	Description	States
Group 1: "Less Than" (Blind)	Adopted PFB language verbatim; 750W sticker is prima facie non-compliant.	AL, AZ, AR, CT, FL, ID, IL, IA, KS, LA, ME, MD, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OH, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA, WV, WI, WY
Group 2: "No More Than"	Inclusive ceiling; 750W is generally acceptable.	CA, CO, DE, GA, HI, MA, MI, MN, NV, NC, OK, PA, SC, UT, WA
Group 3: "Averaging"	Vague power definitions; obscure "Whatts" definition.	IN, NE
Group 4: Outliers	Rely on legacy/mechanical definitions; most compliant.	AK, KY, MT, OR, RI

The "Compliance" Outliers:

Group 4 states demonstrate a higher level of legislative awareness. By permitting motors up to 1,000 watts, these jurisdictions acknowledge the reality of electrical-to-mechanical conversion. Since a motor requires roughly 900–1,000 watts of electrical input to achieve 750 mechanical watts (1 h.p.) of output at the shaft after efficiency losses, these states are the only ones providing a realistic ceiling that accounts for the laws of physics. PFB’s state-by-state guides fail to provide this critical context, leaving the consumer to guess whether their bike is legally "compliant" or an "illegal" e-moto.

IV. Meet Matt Moore, PFB Attorney

In-house counsel Matt Moore serves as part of the public face of PFB’s "clarification" efforts. In a 2026 video, "E-Bikes vs. E-Motos: Legal Distinctions, Legislative Strategies, and Regulatory Actions," (the same link as above) and only after receiving a question about the vagueness of having no hard standard, Mr. Moore addresses the "Whatts" confusion at 51:00, stating:

"PeopleForBikes’ position is that 750 watts means continuous rated power. Uh that's how motor power, useful motor power is is measured. Uh, the federal definition is silent on that."

This is a question received precisely because no-one in 45 states knows what type of watts are being referred to in their state laws, laws which PFB said would clarify things and did not bother noting in their State law guides.

Also note at 5:29 Mr. Moore makes clear that “no more than” 750 watts is the upper ceiling for a 3 class e-bike, making no mention that it is simply not true in 28 states and is not their model language.

Mr. Moore’s statements are both legally and technically specious:

• Fabricated Federal Vagueness: Federal law is not "silent" on this; it uses the 1-horsepower mechanical standard (~746 watts) to define the threshold. Instead, it is PFB model language that is vague.
• Post-Hoc Definition: PFB spent 12 years lobbying for state laws that did not define "Whatts," only to "take a position" after the fact. Mr. Moore also claims an e-bike is legally defined as having "no more than" 750 watts, conveniently ignoring the 28 states where they successfully lobbied for "less than."
• Mechanical Ignorance: "Useful power" at the shaft is measured in mechanical watts, not "continuous" electrical watts. By conflating the two, PFB obscures the fact that their model language does not actually align with the federal mechanical standard.

Engineering Terminolgy and Distorted Usage

“Watts” Term	Definition as Applied	Engineering Purpose of Term	Legal Impact	PFB Treatment	Cartel Treatment
Nominal or Continuous Electrical Power	Maximum indefinitely sustained thermal capacity of motor	Correct engineering of and installation of electrical power sources	Only indirectly relevant. Can be used to calculate mech. power	Lynchpin of false PFB legal definition. Not stated in vague PFB model law	Understated to comply with exceedingly stringent European standards
Peak (Surge) Electrical Power	Momentary surge of electrical power to overcome inertia	Same	None	Unknown	Redefine term; Deceive public to believe 'peak' means boosted sustained power so they don’t notice the above cannot be true
Mechanical Power	Physical power output at the motor shaft, mechanical watts, or horsepower	Measure of physical power output; performance, the “useful power” Mr. Moore is enamored with	The Standard of Federal Law, 1 h.p.	Invisible to PFB who claims there is no federal guidance though plainly stated	Avoided entirely except indirectly by switch to terms of torque

V. The De Minimis Fallacy and the "Whatts" Orphan

The common defense is that the one-watt discrepancy is de minimis—too small for law enforcement to care about. Viewing model 3 class legislation alone, it doesn’t seem like it could lead to widespread problems even in the 28 “less than” states, and it wouldn’t at all, in 17 more states.

This is a mirage. In a "less than 750" state, only "less than 750" is an "e-bike", while PFB pushes hard for states to pass more legislation that "more than 750" is an "e-moto". What on earth is a precisely 750 watt bike if it is neither of those two? What is this "orphaned” 750 watt bike? An owner of a stickered "Class 3, 750W" bike is trapped in a legal "no-man's land" where they are no closer to “clarification” than they were 12 years previously, and, in fact, are further from it, and wondering if they’ve been left vulnerable to seizure.

This ambiguity is the first step toward the "e-moto" plan now being pushed and even adopted in states like Utah. By effectively criminalizing the more than 750-watt “e-moto” PFB creates a regulatory environment where consumers face a choice: a massive, forced upgrade cycle (if the Safe Speeds act passes and adopts the 3 class system as PFB hopes) to new, "compliant" bikes, or walking away in widespread disgust—a shift that conveniently clears the market for the proprietary, networked, and expensive systems favored by automotive giants like Bosch who will have both cornered the market of the drastically reduced e-bike market and continue to sell large numbers of automotive parts as a result of not getting people out of their cars.

VI. Conclusion

The "Whatts" problem is not an oversight—it is the cornerstone of a legislative strategy that prioritizes corporate control over consumer protection. By failing to clarify "Whatts" in their state-by-state guides and offering incompetent legal interpretations, PFB ensures that consumers remain soothed and unaware of the legal trap awaiting them if PFB continues it’s unparalleled success. Whether PFB is merely misguided or acting as an instrument for larger automotive interests, the result is the same: the electric bicycle is being forcibly transformed into a "managed device," and the "Whatts" discrepancy is a cudgel being used to enforce that transition.

Appendix: State Statute Reference List​

• Alabama: Ala. Code § 32-1-1.1
• Arizona: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-101
• Arkansas: Ark. Code § 27-51-1702
• California: Cal. Veh. Code § 312.5
• Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-1-102
• Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-1
• Delaware: Del. Code tit. 21, § 101
• Florida: Fla. Stat. § 316.003
• Georgia: Ga. Code Ann. § 40-1-1
• Hawaii: § 291C-1
• Idaho: Idaho Code § 49-106
• Illinois: 625 ILCS 5/1-140.10
• Indiana: Ind. Code § 9-13-2-49.3
• Iowa: Iowa Code § 321.1
• Kansas: K.S.A. § 8-1489
• Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1
• Maine: 29-A M.R.S. § 101(22-B)
• Maryland: Md. Code, Transp. § 11-117.1
• Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 1
• Michigan: Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.13e
• Minnesota: Minn. Stat. § 169.011
• Mississippi: Miss. Code Ann. § 63-3-103
• Missouri: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 301.010
• Montana: Mont. Code Ann. § 61-8-102
• Nebraska: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-618.02
• Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484B.017
• New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 259:27-a
• New Jersey: N.J. Stat. § 39:1-1
• New Mexico: N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-1-4.11
• New York: N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 102-c
• North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-4.01
• North Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code § 39-01-01
• Ohio: Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.01
• Oklahoma: 47 O.S. § 1-104
• Oregon: Or. Rev. Stat. § 801.258
• Pennsylvania: 75 Pa. C.S. § 102
• Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws § 31-1-3
• South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. § 56-1-10
• South Dakota: S.D. Codified Laws § 32-20B-9
• Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-301
• Texas: Tex. Transp. Code § 664.001
• Utah: Utah Code § 41-6a-102
• Vermont: 23 V.S.A. § 4
• Virginia: Va. Code § 46.2-100
• Washington: Wash. Rev. Code § 46.04.169
• West Virginia: W. Va. Code § 17C-1-70
• Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. § 340.01
• Wyoming: Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-1-101

 

[Chargeride]

Im afraid I cant read that Dave

 

[David42000]

Im afraid I cant read that Dave

The PDF? It's the same thing as the body of the post. If it's the body you can't read, it reads fine on my end.

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

This is an odler thread, but it best matches my subject matter. And things have developed since 2024. I've also attached a PDF. Yes, a few years ago I thought the one watt thing was not worth fussing over. But with new enforcement demands, and especially if the Safe Speeds Act passes and adopts "less than..." nationwide, and things start being enforced, we might be finding out there's a BIG problem.

Memorandum: The "Whatts" Regulatory Trap


I. Executive Summary

The American e-bike landscape is currently being reshaped by a legislative framework—championed by PeopleForBikes (PFB) and heavily influenced by major corporate stakeholders—that relies on a fundamental, unresolved technical ambiguity we define as the "Whatts" problem. By pushing for legislation at the state level that created a patchwork of inconsistent definitions, this coalition has fostered a regulatory environment that threatens to render millions of existing e-bikes technically illegal, potentially forcing "mass consumer abandonment" or a massive, forced upgrade cycle. The said they were solving a patchwork, and they said they would bring clarity to the matter. Instead, they have created great confusion, and currently, they are poised to deliver two more pieces of legislation, model e-moto legislation in the states, in conjunction with the Safe Speeds Act in Congress. If PeopleForBikes gets their way, the average e-bike consumer might find themselves in a nasty trap.

II. The "Whatts" Discrepancy: A Two-Faced Strategy

The legislative advocacy led by PFB—which counts automotive-industry giants like the Bosch Group as key stakeholders—utilizes a two-faced strategy to manage e-bike policy. While their legislative face aggressively lobbied for the adoption of "less than 750 watts" language in all fifty states, and suceeded in having “less than” adopted in 28 states, their public face markets and assures compliance of "Class 3 compliant, 750-watt" labeled e-bikes as a gold standard of legitimacy. Please note that PFB’s State-by-State-Guide to E-Bike Laws utterly fails to note the distinctions between exactly how many watts is allowed, as described below.

https://www.peopleforbikes.org/electric-bikes/state-laws

Notably, PFB’s state-by-state guide to e-bike laws is completely silent on this discrepancy; it fails to alert the consumer that in these 28 states, their "750-watt" bike is technically non-compliant. This omission is consistent: PFB hides the "Whatts" problem from the public at every level, save for the very model language that creates the trap, even in their fifty state guide.

See: E-Bikes vs. E-motos: Legal Distinctions, Legislative Strategies, and Regulatory Actions

@ 56:46 “Chris, this one's for you. And it asks, "Does the Safe Speeds Act address the 3 class system, specifically class three?"

Chris Bell, Director of Federal Policy, PeopleForBikes: “Uh, yes, the Safe Speeds Act is it does direct CPSC to create classifications, classification standards. It does not say which standards. Um, but the CPSC is well aware of the 3 class system. We've engaged with them on it before. Um, and it's also in place in many states around the country. Um, so we expect that that would be taken into account.” It is clear that PFB is asking the federal government to adopt their 3 class model language, which is “less than 750W.”



III. The State-by-State Regulatory Landscape

The following table illustrates the fractured legal status of e-bikes across the 50 states, resulting from PFB’s state-level lobbying efforts. The "Whatts" problem is exacerbated by how these states define their power ceilings:

Grouping	Description	States
Group 1: "Less Than" (Blind)	Adopted PFB language verbatim; 750W sticker is prima facie non-compliant.	AL, AZ, AR, CT, FL, ID, IL, IA, KS, LA, ME, MD, MS, MO, NH, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OH, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA, WV, WI, WY
Group 2: "No More Than"	Inclusive ceiling; 750W is generally acceptable.	CA, CO, DE, GA, HI, MA, MI, MN, NV, NC, OK, PA, SC, UT, WA
Group 3: "Averaging"	Vague power definitions; obscure "Whatts" definition.	IN, NE
Group 4: Outliers	Rely on legacy/mechanical definitions; most compliant.	AK, KY, MT, OR, RI

The "Compliance" Outliers:

Group 4 states demonstrate a higher level of legislative awareness. By permitting motors up to 1,000 watts, these jurisdictions acknowledge the reality of electrical-to-mechanical conversion. Since a motor requires roughly 900–1,000 watts of electrical input to achieve 750 mechanical watts (1 h.p.) of output at the shaft after efficiency losses, these states are the only ones providing a realistic ceiling that accounts for the laws of physics. PFB’s state-by-state guides fail to provide this critical context, leaving the consumer to guess whether their bike is legally "compliant" or an "illegal" e-moto.

IV. Meet Matt Moore, PFB Attorney

In-house counsel Matt Moore serves as part of the public face of PFB’s "clarification" efforts. In a 2026 video, "E-Bikes vs. E-Motos: Legal Distinctions, Legislative Strategies, and Regulatory Actions," (the same link as above) and only after receiving a question about the vagueness of having no hard standard, Mr. Moore addresses the "Whatts" confusion at 51:00, stating:

"PeopleForBikes’ position is that 750 watts means continuous rated power. Uh that's how motor power, useful motor power is is measured. Uh, the federal definition is silent on that."

This is a question received precisely because no-one in 45 states knows what type of watts are being referred to in their state laws, laws which PFB said would clarify things and did not bother noting in their State law guides.

Also note at 5:29 Mr. Moore makes clear that “no more than” 750 watts is the upper ceiling for a 3 class e-bike, making no mention that it is simply not true in 28 states and is not their model language.

Mr. Moore’s statements are both legally and technically specious:

• Fabricated Federal Vagueness: Federal law is not "silent" on this; it uses the 1-horsepower mechanical standard (~746 watts) to define the threshold. Instead, it is PFB model language that is vague.
• Post-Hoc Definition: PFB spent 12 years lobbying for state laws that did not define "Whatts," only to "take a position" after the fact. Mr. Moore also claims an e-bike is legally defined as having "no more than" 750 watts, conveniently ignoring the 28 states where they successfully lobbied for "less than."
• Mechanical Ignorance: "Useful power" at the shaft is measured in mechanical watts, not "continuous" electrical watts. By conflating the two, PFB obscures the fact that their model language does not actually align with the federal mechanical standard.

Engineering Terminolgy and Distorted Usage

“Watts” Term	Definition as Applied	Engineering Purpose of Term	Legal Impact	PFB Treatment	Cartel Treatment
Nominal or Continuous Electrical Power	Maximum indefinitely sustained thermal capacity of motor	Correct engineering of and installation of electrical power sources	Only indirectly relevant. Can be used to calculate mech. power	Lynchpin of false PFB legal definition. Not stated in vague PFB model law	Understated to comply with exceedingly stringent European standards
Peak (Surge) Electrical Power	Momentary surge of electrical power to overcome inertia	Same	None	Unknown	Redefine term; Deceive public to believe 'peak' means boosted sustained power so they don’t notice the above cannot be true
Mechanical Power	Physical power output at the motor shaft, mechanical watts, or horsepower	Measure of physical power output; performance, the “useful power” Mr. Moore is enamored with	The Standard of Federal Law, 1 h.p.	Invisible to PFB who claims there is no federal guidance though plainly stated	Avoided entirely except indirectly by switch to terms of torque

V. The De Minimis Fallacy and the "Whatts" Orphan

The common defense is that the one-watt discrepancy is de minimis—too small for law enforcement to care about. Viewing model 3 class legislation alone, it doesn’t seem like it could lead to widespread problems even in the 28 “less than” states, and it wouldn’t at all, in 17 more states.

This is a mirage. In a "less than 750" state, only "less than 750" is an "e-bike", while PFB pushes hard for states to pass more legislation that "more than 750" is an "e-moto". What on earth is a precisely 750 watt bike if it is neither of those two? What is this "orphaned” 750 watt bike? An owner of a stickered "Class 3, 750W" bike is trapped in a legal "no-man's land" where they are no closer to “clarification” than they were 12 years previously, and, in fact, are further from it, and wondering if they’ve been left vulnerable to seizure.

This ambiguity is the first step toward the "e-moto" plan now being pushed and even adopted in states like Utah. By effectively criminalizing the more than 750-watt “e-moto” PFB creates a regulatory environment where consumers face a choice: a massive, forced upgrade cycle (if the Safe Speeds act passes and adopts the 3 class system as PFB hopes) to new, "compliant" bikes, or walking away in widespread disgust—a shift that conveniently clears the market for the proprietary, networked, and expensive systems favored by automotive giants like Bosch who will have both cornered the market of the drastically reduced e-bike market and continue to sell large numbers of automotive parts as a result of not getting people out of their cars.

VI. Conclusion

The "Whatts" problem is not an oversight—it is the cornerstone of a legislative strategy that prioritizes corporate control over consumer protection. By failing to clarify "Whatts" in their state-by-state guides and offering incompetent legal interpretations, PFB ensures that consumers remain soothed and unaware of the legal trap awaiting them if PFB continues it’s unparalleled success. Whether PFB is merely misguided or acting as an instrument for larger automotive interests, the result is the same: the electric bicycle is being forcibly transformed into a "managed device," and the "Whatts" discrepancy is a cudgel being used to enforce that transition.

Appendix: State Statute Reference List​

• Alabama: Ala. Code § 32-1-1.1
• Arizona: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-101
• Arkansas: Ark. Code § 27-51-1702
• California: Cal. Veh. Code § 312.5
• Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-1-102
• Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-1
• Delaware: Del. Code tit. 21, § 101
• Florida: Fla. Stat. § 316.003
• Georgia: Ga. Code Ann. § 40-1-1
• Hawaii: § 291C-1
• Idaho: Idaho Code § 49-106
• Illinois: 625 ILCS 5/1-140.10
• Indiana: Ind. Code § 9-13-2-49.3
• Iowa: Iowa Code § 321.1
• Kansas: K.S.A. § 8-1489
• Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat. § 32:1
• Maine: 29-A M.R.S. § 101(22-B)
• Maryland: Md. Code, Transp. § 11-117.1
• Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 1
• Michigan: Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.13e
• Minnesota: Minn. Stat. § 169.011
• Mississippi: Miss. Code Ann. § 63-3-103
• Missouri: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 301.010
• Montana: Mont. Code Ann. § 61-8-102
• Nebraska: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-618.02
• Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 484B.017
• New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 259:27-a
• New Jersey: N.J. Stat. § 39:1-1
• New Mexico: N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-1-4.11
• New York: N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 102-c
• North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-4.01
• North Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code § 39-01-01
• Ohio: Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.01
• Oklahoma: 47 O.S. § 1-104
• Oregon: Or. Rev. Stat. § 801.258
• Pennsylvania: 75 Pa. C.S. § 102
• Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws § 31-1-3
• South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. § 56-1-10
• South Dakota: S.D. Codified Laws § 32-20B-9
• Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-301
• Texas: Tex. Transp. Code § 664.001
• Utah: Utah Code § 41-6a-102
• Vermont: 23 V.S.A. § 4
• Virginia: Va. Code § 46.2-100
• Washington: Wash. Rev. Code § 46.04.169
• West Virginia: W. Va. Code § 17C-1-70
• Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. § 340.01
• Wyoming: Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-1-101

No doubt about it, ebike legislation is a mess pretty much everywhere. When CA ebike legislation proposed in 2025 imposed a 750W limit on legal ebikes without clarification, I called my state senator and assembly member, both pro-ebikes, saying that you guys really need to clarify what kind of watts you're talking about — electrical or mechanical, peak or continuous, etc.

In both cases, I spoke to thoughtful and reasonably well-informed staffers who heard me out and seemed to understand the issue I was raising. And both told me that logic aside, the realities of law-making made it unlikely that the bill would get amended to clarify the 750W limit.

The bill passed and went into effect in 2026 with the ambiguous 750W language intact. One subsequent bill proposed to make it a continuous 750W, and another, 750W peak, while others just kept the 2026 language. No idea where all that stands now.

So where do YOU stand in all of this? How would YOU propose to fix the mess if you were king of the world?

Just the executive summary, please.

 

[David42000]

No doubt about it, ebike legislation is a mess pretty much everywhere. When CA ebike legislation proposed in 2025 imposed a 750W limit on legal ebikes without clarification, I called my state senator and assembly member, both pro-ebikes, saying that you guys really need to clarify what kind of watts you're talking about — electrical or mechanical, peak or continuous, etc.

In both cases, I spoke to thoughtful and reasonably well-informed staffers who heard me out and seemed to understand the issue I was raising. And both told me that logic aside, the realities of law-making made it unlikely that the bill would get amended to clarify the 750W limit.

The bill passed and went into effect in 2026 with the ambiguous 750W language intact. One subsequent bill proposed to make it a continuous 750W, and another, 750W peak, while others just kept the 2026 language. No idea where all that stands now.

So where do YOU stand in all of this? How would YOU propose to fix the mess if you were king of the world?

Just the executive summary, please.

If the reigns of power to make it happen were in my hands, on this specific topic, I'd initiate an investigation for antitrust and hopefully put some people in jail. I'd stop the Safe Speeds act. I'd cause a class action suit and hopefully get 3 class declared unconstitutional both void for vaguenss and preempted by the feds. I note your interest in my threads. I'm not a psychologist but I am a paralegal. I worked in domestic and psychology is very helpful there, and I got education in it but no degree. I'm good for the intersection of law and psychology. If the first happens the others may naturally follow. But who knows. Again, I want to make people aware of what's happening.

My state senator and representative both heard me out and agreed and voted against 3 class. I wrote a seven page testimony about it. I was going to testify, but sound problems with my zoom link prevented that. They called me on the phone, and I asked my representative to read it aloud in my stead. He forgot to bring it. Nobody brought it, though I mailed it to the entire legislature. It's in the record, but I can't be sure anybody read it. If I knew what I know today I'd walk to Topeka if I had to to be in person. NOT A SINGLE PERSON in Kansas wanted this. Not one. Well, one, but she thought ebikes were illegal and this law legalized them. It restricted them--Kansas used to be a 1000 watt state, which I could reason was continuous because that has a connection to the federal mechanical standard. So nobody who understood the bill wanted it.