# Examining the Efficiency of Electric-Assisted Mountain Biking across Different Types of Terrain
## 3 Results
Specifically, the results showed that cyclists using electric-assisted mountain bikes achieved a significantly higher average speed of 23.6 \(\pm\) 0.4 km/h when riding uphill. In contrast, cyclists using conventional mountain bikes achieved a significantly lower average speed of 11.9 \(\pm\) 0.9 km/h under similar conditions. In addition, the study's results showed that the average power output of riders of mountain bikes with electric assistance was 19.1% lower than that of riders of conventional mountain bikes when riding uphill. In contrast to uphill cycling, the results presented (Table 2) show no statistically significant differences in cycling speed between an electric and a mountain bike when cycling on flat terrain, downhill, and on technically challenging sections. However, the electric-assisted mountain bike had significantly lower mean power output on downhill, flat, and technically challenging sections. The mean power output while riding an electric-assisted mountain bike was significantly lower than the conventional mountain bike in downhill (\(-\)40.5%), flat (\(-\)35.5%), and technically demanding (\(-\)35.4%) sections. The results presented in Table 3 compare the physiological demands of off-road cycling on different types of terrain between electric-assisted and conventional mountain bikes. The results highlight several significant differences in physiological parameters between \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Uphill**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Downhill**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Flat**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Technical**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **e-MTB** & **MTB** & **e-MTB** & **MTB** & **e-MTB** & **MTB** & **e-MTB** & **MTB** \\ \hline Velocity (km/h) & 23.6 \(\pm\) 0.4 * & 11.9 \(\pm\) 0.9 * & 38.5 \(\pm\) 3.1 & 35.9 \(\pm\) 3.1 & 24.8 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 24.2 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 18.2 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 15.9 \(\pm\) 1.7 \\ Cadence (rev/min) & 82.1 \(\pm\) 6 * & 70.7 \(\pm\) 7 * & 47.3 \(\pm\) 28 & 57 \(\pm\) 17 & 77.5 \(\pm\) 8 & 82.6 \(\pm\) 5 & 73.8 \(\pm\) 9 & 81.2 \(\pm\) 5 \\ MPO (W) & 225 \(\pm\) 34 & 278 \(\pm\) 31 * & 67.8 \(\pm\) 10 * & 114 \(\pm\) 14 * & 158 \(\pm\) 34 * & 245 \(\pm\) 21 * & 156 \(\pm\) 44 * & 242 \(\pm\) 22 * \\ MPO (W) & 219 * 27 * & 273\(\pm\) 31 * & 16 \(\pm\) 8 & 17\(\pm\) 19 & 152 \(\pm\) 49 & 238 \(\pm\) 27 * & 130 \(\pm\) 39 * & 232 \(\pm\) 26 * \\ PPO (W) & 389 \(\pm\) 84 & 397 \(\pm\) 75 & 141 \(\pm\) 39 & 218 \(\pm\) 118 & 456 \(\pm\) 103 & 616 \(\pm\) 191 & 499 \(\pm\) 178 & 593 \(\pm\) 94 \\ \hline \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;
* Indicates statistical differences at \(p<0.05\) between the electric-assisted and conventional mountain bike.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparative analysis of power outputs, velocity, and pedaling cadence in different off-road terrains: electric-assisted (e-MTB) vs. conventional (MTB) mountain bikes. the two types of bikes, particularly during uphill sections. The gross efficiency of the electric-assisted mountain bike was consistently lower than the conventional mountain bike on all off-road sections. This suggests that the electric-assisted mountain bike is not as efficient at converting rider-applied energy into forward motion, which was possibly due to the additional weight of the electric components. Riding the electric-assisted mountain bike during climbs resulted in a statistically significant 6% decrease in heart rate. This suggests that the rider's cardiovascular system experienced less stress and exertion when the e-bike was used to negotiate inclines. Oxygen uptake, a measure of the body's oxygen consumption during exercise, was significantly lower (\(-\)7.9%) when riding the electric-bike uphill. The electric-assisted mountain bike resulted in a significant decrease in minute ventilation (\(-\)17.9%) and a significant decrease (\(-\)13.4%) in respiratory rate during uphill climbs.