## 5 Discussion
### Impact of Predictors on Rider Types  
RT1's riding experience was mainly impacted by riding dynamics and motor power. We revealed that a speed reduction had a strong negative impact on the riding experience while negative pitch angles and increased riding dynamics affected riding experience positively. We conclude that RT1 preferred downhill sections over uphill sections. Increasing motor power and heart rate had a positive effect on RT1's riding experience. We therefore derive that both motor power and rider input could compensate a decrease in riding experience caused by reduced riding dynamics in uphill sections. We conclude that RT1 are dynamic-oriented riders preferring riding scenarios with speed potential such as downhill sections and high and dynamic motor support, especially in uphill sections.  
RT2's riding experience was solely influenced by riding dynamics. Neither motor power nor rider behaviour impacted RT2's riding experience. The positive effect of low pitch angles and increasing braking duration revealed the preference for dynamic riding situations. In contrast to RT1, RT2's riding experience could not be improved through motor assistance. We therefore conclude that RT2 are downhill-oriented riders who enjoy dynamic rides without motor assistance.  
RT3's riding experience was impacted by rider behaviour, motor power and riding dynamics. We observed a preference for high and dynamic riding support, as increasing motor power and speed contributed positively to the riding experience. More importantly, reduced rider torque led to an optimal riding experience. Moreover, the negative effect of rider cadence deviations below the mean showed that RT3 preferred a continuous riding style. We therefore conclude that RT3 are comfort-oriented riders who enjoy motor support to ride faster but with less exertion.  
RT4's riding experience was impacted by riding dynamics and motor power. The positive contribution of motor power deviation, average speed and low decelerations to riding experience revealed that those of RT4 preferred a dynamic and continuous riding style. Additionally, motor support was appreciated to reduce rider input in the uphill section. We therefore conclude that RT4 are endurance-oriented riders who try to avoid peak load.  
The impact of the predictors on the riding experience differed between rider types. Compared to the other rider types, RT4's riding experience was influenced by fewer predictors. In addition, the overall importance of the predictors differed between rider types. We identified a dynamic-oriented, a downhill-oriented, a comfort-oriented and an endurance-oriented rider type. The feature importance analysis showed that the rider types weighted the contributors to riding experience differently. While both RT1 and RT2 focused on dynamic riding, motor power however did not affect RT2's riding experience. Comfort aspects of ebike riding, such as reduced exertion, solely played an important role for RT3. Interestingly, motor power gained importance in the uphill section, influencing strongly the riding experience of RT1, RT3 and RT4. The reason for the different influence of predictors might lay in personality traits, which affect the perception of riding experience such as riding skills [30], riding style [71], risk behaviour [72] and attitude towards cycling [73]. Moreover, sociodemographics such as age [25] or gender [37] also influence the riding experience. We therefore assume that the different distribution of sociodemographic characteristics among the rider types also influenced our results. These observations confirm the heterogeneity of cyclists, highlighting the importance of differentiating predictions by rider type.