# Examining the Efficiency of Electric-Assisted Mountain Biking across Different Types of Terrain
## 3 Results  
Riding with the electric-assisted mountain bike (24.3 \(\pm\) 1.85 km/h) on the entire 4.5 km long course (Table 1) was significantly faster than riding the conventional mountain bike (17.2 \(\pm\) 1.22 km/h). Despite the higher average speed of the electrically assisted mountain bikes, they rode at a significantly lower mean power output (\(-\)36.3%) than on the conventional mountain bikes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **e-MTB** & **MTB** & **\% Difference** \\ \hline Velocity (km/h) & 24.3 \(\pm\) 1.85 * & 17.2 \(\pm\) 1.22 * & 29.2 \\ Cadence (rev/min) & 76.5 \(\pm\) 5.1 & 72.8 \(\pm\) 4.1 & 4.8 \\ MPO (W) & 138.5 \(\pm\) 31.8 * & 217.5 \(\pm\) 24.3 * & 36.3 \\ PPO (W) & 526.0 \(\pm\) 150.1 & 719.7 \(\pm\) 159.4 & 26.9 \\ MPO (W/kg) & 1.9 \(\pm\) 0.13 * & 3.1 \(\pm\) 0.28 * & 38.7 \\ NPO (W) & 186.0 \(\pm\) 31.6 * & 253.5 \(\pm\) 28.6 * & 26.6 \\ HR (bpm) & 148.7 \(\pm\) 14.8 & 162.5 \(\pm\) 4.5 & 8.5 \\ Rf (br/min) & 44.8 \(\pm\) 5.8 * & 52.6 \(\pm\) 6 * & 14.8 \\ Ve (L/min) & 103.1 \(\pm\) 26.2 * & 130.6 \(\pm\) 11.7 * & 21.1 \\ VO\({}_{2}\)/Kg (mL/min/kg) & 47.5 \(\pm\) 6.1 * & 55.4 \(\pm\) 3.8 * & 14.3 \\ METs & 13.6 \(\pm\) 1.8 * & 15.8 \(\pm\) 1.1 * & 13.9 \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* The values presented are means \(\pm\) standard deviations. MPO—mean power output; PPO—peak power output; MPO—relative mean power output; NPO—normalized power; HR—heart rate frequency; Rf—respiratory rate; Ve—vernition; VO\({}_{2}\)/kg (mL/min/kg)—relative oxygen uptake; METs—metabolic equivalent of tasks;
* Indicates statistical differences at \(p\) < 0.05 between the electric-assisted and conventional mountain bike.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparative analysis of performance metrics for electric-assisted (e-MTB) and conventional (MTB) mountain bikes. In phases where pedaling was not performed (normalized power), there were still significant differences (\(-\)26.3%) in normalized power between the electric-assisted mountain bike and conventional mountain bike. There were no significant differences in pedaling cadence between electrically assisted mountain bikes (average cadence of 76.5 \(\pm\) 5.1 rpm) and conventional mountain bikes (average cadence of 72.8 \(\pm\) 4.1 rpm). The physiological parameters during off-road cycling on an electric-assisted mountain bike and a conventional mountain bike over the entire course are shown in Table 1. The effort level during off-road cycling was classified as vigorous intensity (>6 METs). It was also demonstrated during cycling on an electric-assisted mountain bike (13.6 \(\pm\) 1.8 METs) and a conventional mountain bike (15.8 \(\pm\) 1.1 METs). The study results suggest that cycling with an electric-assisted mountain bike is more efficient than a conventional one. Gross efficiency (GE), a measure of how effectively mechanical energy is converted into forward motion, was significantly lower when using an electric-assisted mountain bike (14.1 \(\pm\) 3.3%) than when using a conventional mountain bike (18.7 \(\pm\) 3.4%). The results also examined various physiological parameters, such as an average heart rate 8.5% higher on the conventional mountain bike than on the electric-assisted mountain bike. The respiratory rate was approximately 14.8% higher on the conventional mountain bike than on the electric-assisted mountain bike. Minute ventilation was 21.1% higher on the conventional mountain bike than on the electric-assisted mountain bike. Relative oxygen uptake was 14.3% higher on the conventional mountain bike than on the electric-assisted mountain bike. The results in Table 2 compare speed and power output while cycling on different off-road terrains using electric-assisted and conventional mountain bikes. The combination of higher average speed and lower power output indicates that electric-assisted mountain bikes can provide cyclists with a more efficient and less strenuous experience when climbing hills.