Failed SONDORS Metacycle motorcycle was never street legal, reveals employee
A former SONDORS employee has revealed new details regarding the Metacycle electric motorcycle sold by the now-defunct SONDORS e-bike company, describing the project as “a freight train wreck turned into a dumpster fire.”
The Metacycle was the first motorcycle built and sold by SONDORS, a company that had previously built budget-priced electric bicycles.
The Metacycle made waves upon its unveiling in early 2021, both for its novel design and the shockingly low price for a supposedly highway-capable electric motorcycle at just US $5,000.
However, after a series of mismanagement issues and amid accusations of fraudulent business practices, the company was effectively closed and forced into receivership in late 2023. The closure occurred shortly after Electrek exposed the first images of warehouses full of thousands of SONDORS Metacycles sitting unpaid at the Chinese factory that had been contracted to build the bikes.
It is unclear how many Metacycles were delivered to customers, but import records put the number at likely between 1,400 to 1,500 units. At multiple points, SONDORS had claimed to have deposits or full pre-payments from customers for several thousand more Metacycle orders.
Former SONDORS Director of Project Management and Engineering Bill Ruehl recently shared a number of alarming revelations about both the bike and the company during an appearance on The ITC Show podcast.
Bill joined SONDORS after spending nearly 8 years at Zero Motorcycles, where he served as Director of Prototype and Test. His hiring came as SONDORS added several key additions from the automotive and motorcycling industries, including from companies such as Zero, Ducati, and Tesla.
Bill has a long history as an engineer working with electric motorcycle designs and a rider himself. While the Metacycle was already designed and had begun making deliveries before Bill joined the company, he explained that he quickly assumed a role that dealt in large part with solving the rapidly increasing issues discovered in the motorcycle.
“I took it upon myself to learn the nuances of this vehicle as quickly as I could,” Bill explained. “So it was regular calls with the factory. It was regular involvement in doing forensic involvement on failures, going to customers and looking at their problems.”
According to Bill, the issues proved to be widespread, covering everything from technical concerns to business practices and even road legality. On the technical side, the bike’s speed controller, which is essentially the brain of an electric motorcycle responsible for delivering power from the battery to the motor, would often fail due to poor components and construction. On the business side, the company had a tendency to skirt importation tariffs through improper classifications. And during homologation, major issues were overlooked that would render the bike non-street legal.
In the US, all motor vehicles operated on public roads must conform to regulations compiled in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Motorcycles have specific design requirements relating to their design, operation, and manufacturing.
The process of homologation refers to preparing and approving a vehicle to meet applicable regulations for sale in a certain market.
Unlike in Europe, the US does not have type approval, where the government or an appointed body inspects and certifies vehicles as road-worthy. Instead, the US uses a system known as self-certification, in which manufacturers are responsible for verifying that they have indeed met or exceeded federal regulations for homologation.
“If you don’t meet those requirements, basically you can’t sell your product for use on US roads, so it becomes unregisterable,” Bill explained. “And there were a lot of issues with the Metacycle. In fact, if you were to hold a gun to my head and ask me if it was legitimately homologated, it was not. There were shortcuts that were taken. The biggest one of these is that the braking system, by FMVSS definition, is not suitable for a vehicle called a ‘motorcycle’ on US roads.”
Bill explained that each time he attempted to raise these concerns, he was pushed aside. “I was told to be quiet, and not repeat this anymore.”
While many riders were able to register their Metacycles at their local DMVs, this was not always straightforward or even possible. Several states would not allow the motorcycles to be registered. And even for those that were registered successfully, the registration is not an indication that the vehicle is actually street legal, but merely that the DMV permitted the application to be processed. Several riders reported having to make multiple attempts on successive days before a DMV worker accepted and filed their registration application.
Another key issue the Metacycle encountered was a high controller failure rate due to poor MOSFET selection and implementation, which Bill attributed to cost-saving measures at the controller manufacturer. The failure tends to occur under heavy loading, such as hill climbing and other high-power scenarios.
The problem doesn’t affect all Metacycles and depends on how well the multiple MOSFET chips in the controller are paired to each other, which is essentially random luck without a process for evaluation during the controller manufacturing stage.
“There are good Metacycles out there. I’m not trying to say that all Metacycles are bad and all Metacycles have this controller issue, but many of them do,” he added.
Bill had choice words for several other components on the bike, including the Metacycle’s security system.
“Honestly, I believe that the security system they used on the Metacycle was probably the worst thing ever unleashed on the American public.”
Bill attributed the many problems at SONDORS to its leadership, namely the company’s founder and CEO Storm Sondors.
“I will say there were a lot of people behind the scenes at SONDORS who were really trying hard to make a difference. They were not all Storm. But the problem is when you have an individual like Storm at the head of a company like that, the lies and the BS trickle down.”
After SONDORS closed and the company entered receivership, Bill decided to put his experience with the bike to use in helping owners who need support or spare parts. He now consults by appointment and is currently working with the former Metacycle factory in China to hopefully provide original Metacycle equipment to owners.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
After years of teasing that other automakers would license Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system, Elon Musk has now admitted that no other automakers want to license it.
“They don’t want it!” He says.
For years, the bull case for Tesla (TSLA) has relied heavily on the idea that the company isn’t just an automaker, but an “AI and robotics company”, with its first robot product being an autonomous car.
CEO Elon Musk pushed the theory further, arguing that Tesla’s lead in autonomy was so great that legacy automakers would eventually have no choice but to license Full Self-Driving (FSD) to survive.
Back in early 2021, during the Q4 2020 earnings call, Musk first claimed that Tesla had “preliminary discussions” with other automakers about licensing the software. He reiterated this “openness” frequently, famously tweeting in June 2023 that Tesla was “happy to license Autopilot/FSD or other Tesla technology” to competitors.
The speculation peaked in April 2024, when Musk explicitly stated that Tesla was “in talks with one major automaker” and that there was a “good chance” a deal would be signed that year.
We now know that deal never happened. And thanks to comments from Ford CEO Jim Farley earlier this year, we have a good idea why. Farley, who was likely the other party in those “major automaker” talks, publicly shut down the idea of using FSD, stating clearly that “Waymo is better”.
Now, Musk appears to have given up on the idea of licensing Tesla FSD. In a post on X late last night, Musk acknowledged that discussions with other automakers have stalled, claiming that they asked for “unworkable requirements” for Tesla.
The CEO wrote:
“I’ve tried to warn them and even offered to license Tesla FSD, but they don’t want it! Crazy …
When legacy auto does occasionally reach out, they tepidly discuss implementing FSD for a tiny program in 5 years with unworkable requirements for Tesla, so pointless.”
Suppose you translate “unworkable requirements” from Musk-speak to automotive industry standard. In that case, it becomes clear what happened: automakers demanded a system that does what it says: drive autonomously, which means something different for Tesla.
Legacy automakers generally follow a “V-model” of validation. They define requirements, test rigorously, and validate safety before release. When Mercedes-Benz released its Drive Pilot system, a true Level 3 system, they accepted full legal liability for the car when the system is engaged.
In contrast, Tesla’s “aggressive deployment” strategy relies on releasing “beta” (now “Supervised”) software to customers and using them to validate the system. This approach has led to a litany of federal investigations and lawsuits.
Just this month, Tesla settled the James Tran vs. Tesla lawsuit just days before trial. The case involved a Model Y on Autopilot crashing into a stationary police vehicle, a known issue with Tesla’s system for years. By settling, Tesla avoided a jury verdict, but the message to the industry was clear: even Tesla knows it risks losing these cases in court.
Meanwhile, major automakers, such as Toyota, have partnered with Waymo to integrate its autonomous driving techonology into its consumer vehicles.
Electrek’s Take
The “unworkable requirements for Tesla” is an instant Musk classic. What were those requirements that were unachievable for Tesla? That it wouldn’t crash into stationary objects on the highway, such as emergency vehicles?
How dare they request something that crazy?
No Ford or GM executive is going to license a software stack that brings that kind of liability into their house. If they license FSD, they want Tesla to indemnify them against crashes. Tesla, knowing the current limitations of its vision-only system, likely refused.
To Musk, asking him to pay for FSD’s mistakes is an “unworkable requirement.” It’s always a driver error, and the fact that he always uses hyperbole to describe the level of safety being higher than that of humans has no impact on user abuse of the poorly named driver assistance systems in his view.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
CPSC warns Rad Power Bikes owners to stop using select batteries immediately due to fire risk
In an unprecedented move, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a public safety warning urging owners of certain Rad Power Bikes e-bike batteries to immediately stop using them, citing a risk of fire, explosion, and potentially serious injury or death.
The warning, published today, targets Rad’s lithium-ion battery models RP-1304 and HL-RP-S1304, which were sold with some of the company’s most popular e-bikes, including the RadWagon 4, RadRunner 1 and 2, RadRunner Plus, RadExpand 5, RadRover 5 series, and RadCity 3 and 4 models. Replacement batteries sold separately are also included.
According to the CPSC, the batteries “can unexpectedly ignite and explode,” particularly when exposed to water or debris. The agency says it has documented 31 fires linked to the batteries so far, including 12 incidents of property damage totaling over $734,000. Alarmingly, several fires occurred when the battery wasn’t charging or when the bike wasn’t even in use.
Complicating the situation further, Rad Power Bikes – already facing significant financial turmoil – has “refused to agree to an acceptable recall,” according to the CPSC. The company reportedly told regulators it cannot afford to replace or refund the large number of affected batteries. Rad previously informed employees that it could be forced to shut down permanently in January if it cannot secure new funding, barely two weeks before this safety notice was issued by the CPSC.
For its part, Rad pushed back strongly on the CPSC’s characterization. A Rad Power Bikes Spokesperson explained in a statement to Electrek that the company “stands behind our batteries and our reputation as leaders in the ebike industry, and strongly disagrees with the CPSC’s characterization of certain Rad batteries as defective or unsafe.”
The company explained that its products meet or exceed stringent international safety standards, including UL-2271 and UL-2849, which are standards that the CPSC has proposed as a requirement but not yet implemented. Rad says its batteries have been repeatedly tested by reputable third-party labs, including during the CPSC investigation, and that those tests confirmed full compliance. Rad also claims the CPSC did not independently test the batteries using industry-accepted standards, and stresses that the incident rate cited by the agency represents a tiny fraction of a percent. While acknowledging that any fire report is serious, Rad maintains that lithium-ion batteries across all industries can be hazardous if damaged, improperly used, or exposed to significant water intrusion, and that these universal risks do not indicate a defect specific to Rad’s products.
The company says it entered the process hoping to collaborate with federal regulators to improve safety guidance and rider education, and that it offered multiple compromise solutions – including discounted upgrades to its newer Safe Shield batteries that were a legitimate leap forward in safety in the industry – but the CPSC rejected them. Rad argues that the agency instead demanded a full replacement program that would immediately bankrupt the company, leaving customers without support. It also warns that equating new technology with older products being “unsafe” undermines innovation, noting that the introduction of safer systems, such as anti-lock brakes, doesn’t retroactively deem previous generations faulty. Ultimately, Rad says clear, consistent national standards are needed so manufacturers can operate with confidence while continuing to advance battery safety.
Lithium-ion battery fires have become a growing concern across the US and internationally, with poorly made packs implicated in a rising number of deadly incidents.
While Rad Power Bikes states that no injuries or fatalities have been tied to these specific models, the federal warning marks one of the most serious e-bike battery advisories issued to date – and arrives at a moment when the once-dominant US e-bike brand is already fighting for survival.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Rivian’s e-bike brand launches $250 smart helmet with breakthrough safety tech and lights
ALSO, the new micromobility brand spun out of Rivian, just announced official pricing for its long-awaited Alpha Wave helmet. The smart helmet, which introduces a brand-new safety tech called the Release Layer System (RLS), is now listed at $250, with “notify for pre-order” now open on ALSO’s site. Deliveries are expected to begin in spring 2026.
The $250 price point might sound steep, but ALSO is positioning the Alpha Wave as a top-tier lid that undercuts other premium smart helmets with similar tech – some of which push into the $400–500 range. That’s because the Alpha Wave is promising more than just upgraded comfort and design. The company claims the helmet will also deliver a significant leap in rotational impact protection.
The RLS system is made up of four internal panels that are engineered to release on impact, helping dissipate rotational energy – a major factor in many concussions. It’s being marketed as a next-gen alternative to MIPS and similar technologies, and could signal a broader shift in helmet safety standards if adopted widely.
Beyond protection, the Alpha Wave also packs a surprising amount of tech. Four wind-shielded speakers and two noise-canceling microphones are built in for taking calls, playing music, or following navigation prompts. And when paired with ALSO’s own TM-B electric bike, the helmet integrates with the bike’s onboard lighting system for synchronized rear lights and 200-lumen forward visibility.
The helmet is IPX6-rated for water resistance and charges via USB-C, making it easy to keep powered up alongside other modern gear.
Electrek’s Take
This helmet pushes the smart gear envelope. $250 isn’t nothing, but for integrated lighting, audio, and what might be a true leap forward in crash protection, it’s priced to shake things up in the high-end helmet space.
One area I’m not a huge fan of is the paired front and rear lights. Cruiser motorcycles have this same issue, with paired tail lights mounted close together sometimes being mistaken for a conventional four-wheeled vehicle farther away. I worry that the paired “headlights” and “taillights” of this helmet could be mistaken for a car farther down the road instead of the reality of a much closer cyclist. But hey, we’ll have to see.
The tech is pretty cool though, and if the RLS system holds up to its promise, we might be looking at the new bar for premium e-bike head protection.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024