Connect with us

Published

on

There are plenty of low-cost electric bikes out there, but the lowest-priced options can sometimes be more trouble than they’re worth. Two main sub-$1,000 folding electric bikes have risen to the top of the bang-for-your-buck list, the Lectric XP 3.0 and the Ride1Up Portola.

So which one is right for you?

Lectric XP 3.0 Vs Ride1Up Portola – How did we get here?

The Lectric XP 3.0, as the name suggests, is the third iteration of what has become the best-selling electric bike in North America. The $999 e-bike may not be a masterclass in sexy design, but it sure does manage to jam-pack performance into a low-cost ride. And with a large headquarters in Phoenix, AZ, Lectric Ebikes has proven that a strong support team is just as important as a low price tag.

Ride1Up, another leader in value-oriented electric bikes, got its start shortly before Lectric Ebikes with a wide range of commuter-focused models. The company has recently expanded into new bike styles but is a relative newcomer to the folding e-bike space after launching the Ride1Up Portola earlier this week. The Portola is widely seen as an attempt by Ride1Up to target that lucrative folding fat-tire e-bike slice of of the mobility pie that Lectric has dominating for years.

The two bikes are actually quite similar, so let’s dive in and see how we can differentiate them.

Lectric Ebikes vs. Ride1Up: Price

The Lectric XP 3.0 has long been priced at $999, helping keep it on just about every “best e-bike under $1,000” list out there.

The Ride1Up Portola recently debuted with an MSRP of $995, which makes the difference in price largely meaningless unless you were really hoping to spend your last four dollars on some cool beads for your bicycles spokes.

As part of this week’s launch though, the Ride1Up Portola is actually on sale for $895 though, meaning you’ll save an extra $100 if you decide to buy one by… today. For anyone reading this in the future, we’re probably back to that four-dollar price difference.

Lectric XP 3.0 (step-over frame variant)

Speed and power

Both the Lectric XP 3.0 and the Ride1Up Portola ship as Class 2 electric bikes, meaning they’ll hit 20 mph (32 km/h) out of the box on throttle-only acceleration. They can also both be unlocked via the bike’s display to Class 3 speed, meaning you can use pedal assist to reach a maximum of 28 mph (45 km/h).

The power levels are slightly different though. Lectric claims a 500W continuous power motor with 1,000W of peak power and 55 Nm of torque. The Portola gets a more powerful 750W continuous power motor and 65 Nm of torque (the peak power spec isn’t published).

That means that all else being equal, the Portola is likely to accelerate a bit more quickly and climb hills faster, even if the flat ground top speeds of the two bikes are largely similar. Those that live in hillier areas are more likely to feel that difference, while those that live in flatter areas won’t feel the contrast as significantly.

Ride1Up Portola in “Sea Turqouise” colorway

Battery capacity and range

Advertised range is a highly suspect figure in the e-bike world because it can be affected by everything from tire to pressure to terrain to how much you ate for lunch. The exact same e-bike can get 20 miles or 50 miles of range when switching from power-sipping pedal assist to feet-dragging throttle. That means the best way to compare two similarly sized and relatively similarly powerful bikes is by the battery capacity.

The base battery on the Lectric XP 3.0 and Ride1Up Portola are actually the same capacity. Both are rated at 48V 10.4Ah for 500 Wh of capacity.

Both bikes also come with a larger battery option though, with the Lectric’s measuring in at 48V 14Ah for 672 Wh of capacity and the Ride1Up Portola’s packing slightly less at 48V 13.4Ah for 643 Wh of capacity. Those are quite close, but Lectric takes the cake there.

Consider though that the long-range battery option is only a $100 upgrade from Ride1Up but costs an extra $200 at Lectric, so the slightly smaller battery is technically also slightly more cost effective.

Lectric XP 3.0 (with rear passenger package installed)

Bike components

When it comes to the drivetrain and other bike components, there are several similarities but also a number of key differences.

Both bikes feature hydraulic disc brakes on 180 mm disc rotors. They both feature 20″ x 3″ tires as a nice compromise between comfort and agility. They both feature front and rear LED lights. They both feature simplistic black-and-white LCD displays.

From here, thing start to differ. While both bikes have frame-integrated rear racks, Lectric’s comes with a higher weight rating of 150 pounds vs. the lower weight rating of 130 pounds for the Portola. On the other hand, both bikes have front suspension, but the Portola has 80 mm of travel while the Lectric XP 3.0 has just 50 mm of travel.

The Portola has slightly nicer fenders with adjustable arms for getting the perfect tire spacing (though I tend to just grab the Lectric’s arms and pull on them to bend them and adjust my spacing that way). The Portola also has an 8-speed drivetrain compared to Lectric’s 7-speed, and it powers a slightly higher-quality Shimano Altus derailleur compared to Lectric’s cheaper Tourney derailleur.

Speaking of component quality, this is probably a good time to point out that Ride1Up’s Reention FR-5 battery is also considered to be higher quality than Lectric’s more affordable DCH-006 battery. Neither come with UL-certification at the moment, but both companies are expected to such certification at some point in the future.

Both bikes appear to use current-controlled pedal assist systems (PAS), which is a more refined way to implement a cadence sensor and get faux-torque sensor performance. However, the Ride1Up Portola seems to have a finer degree of adjustability built into the PAS sensor to achieve more precise starts with less lag, down to as little as 10% of a pedal turn. There are also individually programmable PAS levels so riders can fine-tune their PAS to their liking.

ride1up portola electric bike
Ride1Up Portola

Ride1Up Portola vs. Lectric XP 3.0: Convenience

Convenience is very much subjective, but there are a few important differences between these two bikes that play a big role in convenience.

For starters, the Ride1Up Portola has a battery that is removable without folding the bike, while the XP 3.0 requires the bike to be folded while the battery is removed. When it comes time for folding and lifting, the 59 lb. Portola is slightly lighter than the 64 lb. XP 3.0.

For everyday use, the Portola thus is likely slightly more convenient, though the XP 3.0 wins on the first day due to its easier assembly right out of the box. In fact, there’s no assembly required since the Lectric XP 3.0 only needs to be taken out of the box and unfolded to be ready to ride. The Portola arrives “95% assembled,” which basically means just bolting on the handlebars. That’s relatively easy (and there’s an instructional video), but it might still be intimidating to someone who has never worked on a bike before, and it is important that it is done correctly so the bike is safe to steer and ride.

lectric xp 3.0 hydraulic

Design

Design and aesthetics can be subjective, so this section will be partly based on opinion.

Personally, I find the Ride1Up’s frame design to be sleeker and more attractive than the XP 3.0’s boxier-style frame. I also like the wider range of color choices from Ride1Up.

Lectric gives riders the choice of either a step-over or step-thru frame, while the Portola is available in only a step-thru frame. They both have a nice grab handle in the middle of the frame for lifting, so they both get points there.

The wires are run externally on the XP 3.0, which can be a positive for accessibility in the event of repairs or upgrade work, but also doesn’t look as nice as the internally routed hidden wires on the Portola.

The chrome suspension stanchions and silver fender arms on the XP 3.0 will appeal to anyone who prefers a flashier look, while the Portola’s blacked-out stanchions and fender arms offer a more muted look that blends into the bike.

Accessory lineup

The Lectric XP 3.0 is the clear winner when it comes to the breadth of the accessories offered.

Both bikes come with similar main accessories, such as passenger packages that add a rear bench seat with foot pegs, comfort packages with nicer saddles, cargo rack and basket options, phone mounts, and panniers for carrying groceries. But Lectric has many more additional options available, likely due to holding a several-year head start in the folding fat-tire e-bike space.

Lectric also has more niche offerings such as utility trailers, pet carriers, food delivery bags, and more.

lectric xp 3.0 electric bike

What’s the verdict?

Ultimately, both of these are very nice options with incredible bang-for-your-buck value in the sub-$1,000 space.

I’d consider the Ride1Up Portola to be slightly more refined and with slightly better components, but I can’t count out the Lectric XP 3.0’s larger battery option and fully-assembled shipping, not to mention years’ worth of customer documentation for mods, upgrades, and other content already available in online communities. As a new model, it will take the Portola time to rack up that level of online documentation from a broad rider base.

Ultimately though, both models are strikingly similar in terms of actual specs and real-world performance. So the best decision is likely to go with the one that simply tickles your fancy more.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Game changer: Harbinger launches a medium-duty EREV with 500 mile range

Published

on

By

Game changer: Harbinger launches a medium-duty EREV with 500 mile range

The electric box van experts at Harbinger announced a new, EREV version of their medium-duty van that pairs a big battery with a small, gas-powered ICE engine to offer fleets that are hesitant to electrify a massive 500 miles of autonomy on a single charge + tank.

The American truck brand is putting its latest $100 million raise to good use, developing a cost-competitive EREV chassis that marries a low-emissions 1.4L inline four-cylinder gas engine with a close coupled 800V generator sending power to a 140 or 175 kW battery for up to 500 miles of fully loaded range. More than enough, in other words, to meet the needs of just about any fleet you can think of.

That’s a good thing, too, because medium-duty trucks are put to work in just about any circumstance you can think of, as well – a fact that’s not lost on Harbinger.

“Medium-duty vehicles serve an incredibly diverse range of applications, just like the fleets and operators that rely on them, ” explains John Harris, Co-founder and CEO, Harbinger. “There are some fleets whose needs simply can’t be met with a purely electric vehicle—and we recognize that. Our hybrid is designed for use cases and routes that go beyond what an all-electric system typically supports. The series hybrid delivers the benefits of an electric drivetrain, along with the added confidence of a range extender when needed.”

Advertisement – scroll for more content

In addition an up-front cost that should make it an attractive prospect for fleet buyers, the new Harbinger EREV pack performance that should made it attractive for its drivers, too. The new chassis’ electric powertrain delivers 440 hp and 1,140 lb-ft of tq for quick acceleration into traffic and smooth running, even under load. Charging performance is also quick, with the ability to get the big battery from 10-80% charge in just under an hour on a 150 kW port.

You’ve heard all this before


THOR Industries and Harbinger Collaborate to Deliver the World's First Hybrid Class A Motorhome
Thor hybrid RV concept; via Thor.

If that sounds familiar, that’s because it is. This medium-duty chassis was first shown last year, making its debut under a Thor Class A motorhome concept that we covered in September. That vehicle promised the same great EREV range and capability to a market that values independence and spontaneity more than most, and bringing those values to a medium-duty commercial market that’s lapping up “messy middle” propaganda from Shell NACFE is just smart business.

The new Harbinger chassis’ batteries are manufactured by Panasonic. No word on who is making the 1.4L ICE generator, but my money’s on the GM SGE four-cylinder last seen in the gas-powered Chevy Spark. You guys are smart, though – if you have a better guess who the supplier might be, let us know in the comments.

SOURCE | IMAGES: Harbinger.


If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Trump wants coal to power AI data centers. The tech industry may need to make peace with that for now

Published

on

By

Trump wants coal to power AI data centers. The tech industry may need to make peace with that for now

Energy Sec. Wright: Trump's duties provide 'no tariffs on energy'

President Donald Trump wants to revive the struggling coal industry in the U.S. by deploying plants to power the data centers that the Big Tech companies are building to train artificial intelligence.

Trump issued an executive order in April that directed his Cabinet to find areas of the U.S. where coal-powered infrastructure is available to support AI data centers and determine whether the infrastructure can be expanded to meet the growing electricity demand from the nation’s tech sector.

Trump has repeatedly promoted coal as power source for data centers. The president told the World Economic Forum in January that he would approve power plants for AI through emergency declaration, calling on the tech companies to use coal as a backup power source.

“They can fuel it with anything they want, and they may have coal as a backup — good, clean coal,” the president said.

Trump’s push to deploy coal runs afoul of the tech companies’ environmental goals. In the short-term, the industry’s power needs may inadvertently be extending the life of existing coal plants.

Coal produces more carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt hour of power than any other energy source in the U.S. with the exception of oil, according to the Energy Information Administration. The tech industry has invested billions of dollars to expand renewable energy and is increasingly turning to nuclear power as a way to meet its growing electricity demand while trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that fuel climate change.

For coal miners, Trump’s push is a potential lifeline. The industry has been in decline as coal plants are being retired in the U.S. About 16% of U.S. electricity generation came from burning coal in 2023, down from 51% in 2001, according to EIA data.

Peabody Energy CEO James Grech, who attended Trump’s executive order ceremony at the White House, said “coal plants can shoulder a heavier load of meeting U.S. generation demands, including multiple years of data center growth.” Peabody is one of the largest coal producers in the U.S.

Grech said coal plants should ramp up how much power they dispatch. The nation’s coal fleet is dispatching about 42% of its maximum capacity right now, compared to a historical average of 72%, the CEO told analysts on the company’s May 6 earnings call.

“We believe that all coal-powered generators need to defer U.S. coal plant retirements as the situation on the ground has clearly changed,” Grech said. “We believe generators should un-retire coal plants that have recently been mothballed.”

Tech sector reaction

There is a growing acknowledgment within the tech industry that fossil fuel generation will be needed to help meet the electricity demand from AI. But the focus is on natural gas, which emits less half the CO2 of coal per kilowatt hour of power, according the the EIA.

“To have the energy we need for the grid, it’s going to take an all of the above approach for a period of time,” Kevin Miller, Amazon’s vice president of global data centers, said during a panel discussion at conference of tech and oil and gas executives in Oklahoma City last month.

“We’re not surprised by the fact that we’re going to need to add some thermal generation to meet the needs in the short term,” Miller said.

Thermal generation is a code word for gas, said Nat Sahlstrom, chief energy officer at Tract, a Denver-based company that secures land, infrastructure and power resources for data centers. Sahlstrom previously led Amazon’s energy, water and sustainability teams.

Executives at Amazon, Nvidia and Anthropic would not commit to using coal, mostly dodging the question when asked during the panel at the Oklahoma City conference.

“It’s never a simple answer,” Amazon’s Miller said. “It is a combination of where’s the energy available, what are other alternatives.”

Nvidia is able to be agnostic about what type of power is used because of the position the chipmaker occupies on the AI value chain, said Josh Parker, the company’s senior director of corporate sustainability. “Thankfully, we leave most of those decisions up to our customers.”

Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark said there are a broader set of options available than just coal. “We would certainly consider it but I don’t know if I’d say it’s at the top of our list.”

Sahlstrom said Trump’s executive order seems like a “dog whistle” to coal mining constituents. There is a big difference between looking at existing infrastructure and “actually building new power plants that are cost competitive and are going to be existing 30 to 40 years from now,” the Tract executive said.

Coal is being displaced by renewables, natural gas and existing nuclear as coal plants face increasingly difficult economics, Sahlstrom said. “Coal has kind of found itself without a job,” he said.

“I do not see the hyperscale community going out and signing long term commitments for new coal plants,” the former Amazon executive said. (The tech companies ramping up AI are frequently referred to as “hyperscalers.”)

“I would be shocked if I saw something like that happen,” Sahlstrom said.

Coal retirements strain grid

But coal plant retirements are creating a real challenge for the grid as electricity demand is increasing due to data centers, re-industrialization and the broader electrification of the economy.

The largest grid in the nation, the PJM Interconnection, has forecast electricity demand could surge 40% by 2039. PJM warned in 2023 that 40 gigawatts of existing power generation, mostly coal, is at risk of retirement by 2030, which represents about 21% of PJM’s installed capacity.

Data centers will temporarily prolong coal demand as utilities scramble to maintain grid reliability, delaying their decarbonization goals, according to a Moody’s report from last October. Utilities have already postponed the retirement of coal plants totaling about 39 gigawatts of power, according to data from the National Mining Association.

“If we want to grow America’s electricity production meaningfully over the next five or ten years, we [have] got to stop closing coal plants,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright told CNBC’s “Money Movers” last month.

But natural gas and renewables are the future, Sahlstrom said. Some 60% of the power sector’s emissions reductions over the past 20 years are due to gas displacing coal, with the remainder coming from renewables, Sahlstrom said.

“That’s a pretty powerful combination, and it’s hard for me to see people going backwards by putting more coal into the mix, particularly if you’re a hyperscale customer who has net-zero carbon goals,” he said.

Catch up on the latest energy news from CNBC Pro:

Continue Reading

Environment

Bollinger Motors circles the drain as court cases, debts pull it down

Published

on

By

Bollinger Motors circles the drain as court cases, debts pull it down

A federal court judge in Michigan has placed the once-promising electric truck brand Bollinger Motors’ assets into receivership following claims that the company’s owners still owe its founder, Robert Bollinger, more than $10 million.

Bollinger Motors first came to fame in the “draw a truck, get a billion dollars” stage of the EV revolution that saw Nikola rise to a higher market cap than Ford for a brief time. Robert Bollinger wasn’t able to capitalize quickly enough to get his trucks into production, though – and a late stage pivot to sell the brand to Mullen Automotive and launch a medium-duty commercial truck doesn’t appear to have been enough to save it.

Now, Automotive News is reporting on some of the more convoluted details of the Mullen purchase deal, with Robert (for ease of distinguishing the man from the brand) claiming that Mullen Automotive owes him more than $10 million for a loan he made to the company in 2024.

Just how Robert ended up giving Mullen Automotive $10 million to take his eponymous truck brand off his hands is probably one of those capitalistic mysteries that I’ll never understand, but Mullen’s response was perfectly clear: they didn’t even bother to show up to court.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Bollinger claims that at least two suppliers are also suing Mullen for unpaid debts. As such, the Honorable Terrence G. Berg has put the Bollinger brand into receivership, and its assets have been frozen in preparation for everything being liquidated. Worse, for Bollinger, the official court filings reveal a company that is really very much doing not awesome:

The testimony and evidence—which Defendant’s counsel conceded accurately reflected Defendant’s finances—showed that Defendant is in crisis. For months Defendant has owed more than twenty million dollars to suppliers, contractors, service providers, and owners of physical space. These debts are owed to parties who are critical for Defendant’s functioning. CEO Bryan Chambers testified that Defendant was locked out of its production facilities on May 5, 2025, and that the owner of the production facilities was seeking to permanently evict Defendant. The Court heard that Defendant had been prevented from accessing its critical manufacturing accounting system for a short time at the end of April 2025, before making a partial payment to restart services.

US DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

I’m not sure if you caught all that, but Bollinger’s CEO has been locked out the company’s facilities and getting evicted, the company is more than $20 million in debt, and that debt is owed to people Bollinger absolutely needs in order to keep going.

You can read the full court decision, which I’ve embedded here, below. Once you’ve taken it all in, feel free to rush into the comments to say you told me so, since I really thought hoped the Bollinger B1 had a shot. Silly me.

Bollinger v. Bollinger case

SOURCES: Automotive News, Justia, Yahoo!.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending