The article and the press release it was derived from says nothing about "more efficient", just smaller.

https://yasa.com/news/yasa-smashes-own-unofficial-power-dens...

On a cargo ship the last thing you worry about is weight. To the point that they add ballast.

Your average cruiseship already has an electric engine, they just have massive generators onboard to power it.

25km range is department-store electric scooter territory. A motorcycle that can do highway speeds could expend that entire range in 15 minutes or less, which would be quite a high discharge rate and also an unusual user experience for most.

Maybe what you want is a large electric bike like a Surron or similar?

> That can be offset by not requiring the same sort of range that's typically assumed to be required.

It really can't be offset by that (with current tech). All existing electric motorcycles are both overweight and very limited on range.

Well, and the fun ones are power-to-weight monsters. Making them 100 lb heavier (and neutering range) is a recipe for a less exciting motorcycle. Might work for something like a Gold Wing (though limited range would also be a problem there).

It's still a problem today, 2025. I think the LiveWire S2 models come closest, but they still have anemic range. (And we're ignoring cost, which is also much higher.)

> The law needs to catch up. There are clearly good reasons for people to want extremely powerful e-bikes and they should be allowed to.

I'm not so sure about that.

I don't want a 6000kw Sur Ron riding in the bike lane with me. The whole point of the bike lane was to make a safe space for riding a bicycle. I want the bike lanes to be safe enough for children to ride their bikes in, and having something that powerful in it is not conducive to that goal. They are by and large too fast and too unlike a bicycle for bike lanes. Having things that powerful there is going to dissuade a lot of potential (non electric) cyclists. My girlfriend already gets too freaked out by how fast some of the legal e-bikes in the bike lane go.

Certainly they shouldn't be on the sidewalk. But what does that leave? Just the road. If that's the case they probably need to just adhere to whatever standards the state has for scooters or mopeds. Which probably means some kind of license, maybe registration, and possibly insurance.

But that type of e-bike manufacturer doesn't want to make a light electric scooter that's road legal, they want to make a thing that skirts regulations by being "for off road use only".

And the buyers by and large don't want to deal with license and registration, and certainly not insurance.

Just because people are doing an illegal thing a lot doesn't mean that the law needs to find a way to make it legal.

> The real problem, IMO, is that the law is generally not deferential enough to cyclists and already forces them off sidewalks, onto the street, and to follow traffic laws designed for cars.

If we’re talking about high powered e-bikes, I don’t want them on the sidewalk either. Once they exceed the current regulations they’re in the moped/motorcycle category.

> There's not much else to take away, and the rules right now are unreasonable enough that cyclists always break them.

So what’s your suggestion? Let people ride electric motorcycles on sidewalks? Change the laws so that high powered e-bikes don’t have to follow the rules of the road?

I don’t think the current laws are unreasonable. I live in a place where people routinely ride their e-bikes on the sidewalks and it’s absolutely awful, especially with young children. Every time we go somewhere I have to hold their hands and yank them off the sidewalk at least once to dodge another e-bike zooming past. I can only hope enforcement catches up and starts impounding bikes from people breaking the law and issuing large fines, because I don’t know how else to stop this.

> but aren't nearly as dangerous as motorcycles.

What a ridiculous statement.

I don't think there's any inherrent difference, but until the laws catch up the "powerful e-bikes" are clearly more dangerous. Riding a traditional motorcycle requires a license, passing a driving test, and following the rules of the road - none of which are true for e-bikes.

But I'd love to hear why you think the opposite.

> There are clearly good reasons for people to want extremely powerful e-bikes and they should be allowed to.

They are called motorcycles. At > 4kw they are that (here). So either you get them registered a such, get a license and insure them, or downgrade them to under 4kw, get a license and insure them as a moped, or downgrade them to 2kw and pedal assist only and register them as a pedelec. All other options is 250w continuous (you can get away with about 500w peak) and pedal assist only.

You are also not insured if you drive an illegal bike on the road.

Any ebike that goes faster than 25kmph in Europe and whatever it is in NA should not be allowed anywhere were pedestrians can go.

The real solution people don't want to accept is that ALL non arterial roads in ANY urban/suburban/rural environment should be limited to 30kpmh (and equivalent in NA). And by limited I mean traffic calmed: 1 lane per direction, narrow lanes, raised street crossing, raised intersections, European style roundabouts, the works (Dutch style) - so that people actually respect the speed limit because they don't want to bang their car.

Once that happens, bike stay in bike lanes (or multi use paths with pedestrians) and everything else can go on the regular non arterial roads and stuff that's registered (mopeds and up) and go on any road.

But my "solution" requires major political adoption and probably decades of sustained vision in investment. In places with good governance it will happen naturally and everywhere else will slowly be left behind.

> They can't be treated like bicycles because they're too fast but aren't nearly as dangerous as motorcycles.

Why would an extremely powerful ebike be any less dangerous than extremely powerful gas motorcycle?

>They can't be treated like bicycles because they're too fast but aren't nearly as dangerous as motorcycles.

As a former rider, why? Cars were the most dangerous part, in my experience.

Something that stuck with me from my motorcycle safety course, the speed at which hitting a wall is 50% fatal is 30 mph. Doesn't take highway speeds.

In many states there’s a carve out for mopeds, for example which have less than 50 ccs of displacement. In Texas you can ride them with just a regular drivers license, but ccs have no meaning in the electric world. Should be straightforward to make the case for equivalent regulation, but would require a new advocacy campaign/org.

> aren't nearly as dangerous as motorcycles.

Opinions differ. I have seen far more accidents with powerful e-bikes than I have seen with motorcycles, and yet there are many more motorcycles.

What is the issue? I've seen people on those bikes and they look fun to ride.

There's a difference.

I've noticed that people seem to believe as long as they bought something it should be safe. If you're smart enough to build something, I have to hope you're at least smart enough to realize that there might be consequences.

Take your beer back, I'm going for a rip next.

So that you can flip over in an uncontrolled wheelie at an even lower fraction of the throttle? Even if there was infinite energy throughput (aka power) at zero mass, the main limiter for power per total system mass would still be the battery. In any practical setup, even in super short runtime designs, getting, say, twice the power would not all that dramatic a runtime hit if it was achieved by scaling the same motor technology and paying for the extra mass with a little battery capacity. Unless of course you want to actually use that power increase for any meaningful fraction of the runtime, then you'll obviously drain the battery fast. But a zero-mass power increase would not change that a lot either.

Increasing power density (of the motor) just isn't worth much when it does not happen to coincide with an increase in efficiency (and then the battery mass saved for achieving the same range will quite literally outweigh the mass saved by a smaller engine for achieving the same power)

The good news is that those striving for power density aren't really at liberty to completely ignore efficiency in the process because cooling is a key issue for them.

Deceleration requirements are going to be harder than acceleration, one would think so how would you apply full brakes with the same motor?

fwiw four of those electric motors is approximately 4,000 hp. You won't get better 0-60 times with that though, at that point, you're limited by the tires' physical limitations. So at best you could get down to a ~2.2 second 0-60 mph time with regular tires, and then after that, you'd need race sticky tires in order to go faster.

Unless you used the motors to power fans instead, then you could use that for downforce and propulsion, and get well belown 2 seconds, theoretically.

F1 cars with fans to run them upsidedown but with remote drivers for their safety maybe?

> A light-weight plug-in electric chainsaw would be pretty awesome.

These already exist, in both plug-in and cordless / battery powered.

That’s a drive unit, which is more than the motor. Read the description:

> This kit includes the Tesla motor, inverter, gear box, power cables and drive shafts.

Drive shafts, gearbox, power cables, inverter. Also includes the mounts, which is likely not factored into the lab calculations for this marketing material.

You cannot drop 150lbs from the Model 3 motor because it doesn’t even weigh 150lbs.

Superfastmatt did a test recently where he proved to himself that the front area of the vehicle and trailer is the dominant factor on mileage, not the weight towed or friction.

For a guy trying to drive 300 mph though maybe he should have been able to do that with math instead of sketchy road tests.

Newton’s first law helps out a lot here.

kWh not kW.