eMTB Motor Benchmark — 9-motor comparison
9-motor eMTB benchmark — where Maxon AIR S sits
Standardised lab test data on the most-compared eMTB drive systems on the market today. Useful as a relative motor benchmark, but not as a range predictor — read the caveat below before drawing conclusions about how far you will ride.
† Note on the Maxon AIR S row below: the unit emtb-test.com tested was a pre-production prototype without final BIKEDRIVE Connect app tuning. The production engine on every Paratu CP we ship is more refined — so treat its lab figures as a conservative floor.
Our range calculator uses your actual style + weight + climb profile, calibrated against 7+ logged real rides on the Paratu CP + AIR S setup — that's the prediction you should trust for your trips. This table just shows where the AIR S sits in the motor landscape.
| Motor | Bike tested | Battery Wh | Wh per 100 m climb | Time 1000 m climb | Max vertical (TURBO) | Peak power | Thermal behaviour |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maxon BIKEDRIVE AIR S † | Paratu CP (DIRTLAB) | 400 | 37.9 | 30 min | 1056 m | 620 W | No thermal throttle |
| DJI Avinox | Amflow PL Carbon Pro | 800 | 40.8 | 25 min | 1470 m | 850 W | Throttles after 18min to 47% |
| Shimano EP801 | Santa Cruz Heckler CC | 720 | 35.0 | 27 min | 2057 m | 600 W | Throttles after 10min to 17% |
| Bosch CX Gen 5 | Trek Rail+ Gen 5 | 800 | 33.0 | 31 min | 1840 m | 600 W | Throttles after 15min to 65% |
| Brose Drive S Mag | Specialized Levo Gen 3 | 700 | 35.0 | 30 min | 2000 m | 565 W | Throttles after 6min to 45% |
| Specialized Spec 3.1 | Specialized Levo Gen 4 | 840 | 41.0 | 26 min | 2049 m | 720 W | Mild throttle after 18min to 78% |
| Specialized SL 1.2 | Levo SL Gen 2 | 320 | 40.0 | 38 min | 800 m | 320 W | Minimal throttle / Light motor |
| TQ HPR 50 | Canyon Spectral:ONfly | 360 | 32.8 | 35 min | 1098 m | 300 W | Throttles after 15min to 33% |
| TQ HPR 60 | Yeti MTe T4 | 580 | 25.5 | 32 min | 2193 m | 350 W | Minimal throttle / Best Wh/HM |
Lab data (the 9-motor table above): emtb-test.com — standardised to 150 W constant rider input · 100 kg system weight · 16% paved gradient · TURBO mode. Real-ride results (the head-to-head and validation cards below): Dirtlab riders' own logged rides, at real rider input outside the 150 W lab standard — shown for real-world comparison, not lab-equivalent.
Real-world head-to-head — same ride, three drive systems
Same ride, same day — a Bavarian loop, ~18.5 km with 1,165 m of climbing across three sustained 20–25-minute pitches — three riders, three different drive systems, all riding hard (88 kg+ riders). This isn't a lab test; it's what they saw at the finish. Peter's Maxon ride is logged from his Garmin (FIT file); the other two are honest end-of-ride readings, not instrumented — and labelled as such.
| Drive system | Bike | Battery | Battery at finish | Energy used (full ride) | Data source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maxon BIKEDRIVE AIR S | Paratu CP (DIRTLAB) | 400 Wh | 27% (after +5% top-up) | ~312 Wh | Measured (FIT) |
| DJI Avinox | Amflow PL | 800 Wh | 50% | ≈ 400 Wh | Observed at finish |
| TQ HPR 60 | Yeti MTe | 580 Wh | < 30% | > 406 Wh | Observed at finish · full Turbo |
Why this doesn't match the efficiency table above — and why that's not a contradiction. The lab ranks motors with a light 72 kg rider holding a steady 150 W on repeat laps, motor off on the descents. This was the real thing: 88 kg+ riders at full effort over three sustained 20–25-minute climbing pitches. Two things separate the field — each pitch outlasts the Avinox's 18-minute thermal-throttle threshold, so it sheds power late in every climb, while the TQ HPR 60 — a light 60 Nm motor — gets pinned in full Turbo by a heavy rider and drinks its battery. The AIR S held full power and topped the loop on the least energy, from the smallest battery of the three.
Honest notes: the three riders differ in weight and style, so this is a real-world outcome, not a controlled motor test. Peter's Maxon figure includes a 5% trail top-up (≈20 Wh), counted in the 312 Wh total. The Avinox and TQ figures are observed end-of-ride readings.
Real-world validation — the engine we actually ship
The table above is a lab benchmark at a fixed 150 W rider input, on a pre-production unit. Here's something different: three real rides logged on a production Paratu CP + AIR S, at a strong rider's real effort. These are not directly comparable to the 150 W lab numbers above — a rider pushing harder than 150 W draws fewer motor watts per metre climbed — so we keep them on their own. What they show is how the shipping engine behaves on real mountains.
Why these aren't in the table above: the lab figures assume every rider puts in exactly 150 W. These rides were ridden at a stronger, variable real-world effort, so their Wh-per-100 m can't be lined up against the lab column — that would flatter the AIR S unfairly. For a range estimate tuned to your weight, trails and effort, use the calculator below.