Review: The AWD Fucare Gemini X electric moped has dual batteries and attitude
The Fucare electric bikes I’ve tested in the past have largely been fast and powerful machines, but always within the realm of reason. Apparently, that streak has come to an end with the new Fucare Gemini X Sport Dual Motor Dual Battery electric bike, which throws reason to the wind with so much power and speed that you can’t really call it much of an electric ‘bicycle’ anymore.
What I mean is that any two-wheeled EV that can hit 35 mph (56 km/h) is so far beyond the standard e-bike regulations in the US that it can’t even pretend to be in the grey area anymore.
This is a certifiable electric moped, at least in a hyperbolic sense. Good luck getting actual certificates like trying to register it as a motorbike.
But that’s a future problem. Let’s talk about the present, which means it’s time to jump into a review of how this crazy powerful e-moped actually rides.
Fucare Gemini X Sport Video Review
Fucare Gemini X Sport tech specs
- Motor: Dual 750W continuous (total of 2,400W peak) geared hub motors
- Top speed: 50-56 km/h (32-35 mph)
- Range: Claimed up to 120 km (75 mi) on throttle
- Battery: Dual 48V 15Ah for a total of 1,440 Wh
- Max load: 181 kg (400 lb)
- Brakes: Hydraulic two-piston disc brakes
- Extras: LCD display, LED head and tail lights, kickstand, suspension fork, 4″ fat tires, and included fenders & rear rack
Double the trouble, twice
Double batteries usually means double the range. But in this case, doubling the motors keeps the usual range closer to a standard single-battery/single-motor bike, unless you’re choosing to limit that power or only use one motor for casual riding.
Even without getting the double-range benefit, you’re getting a lot of extra power and the ability to supply that power. The pair of supposedly UL-compliant batteries gives us nearly 1.5 kWh of capacity, which is a veritable ton of battery on an e-bike.
I’m glad to see that both batteries get tucked away inside that rather neat-looking trellis frame too. Fucare scores some bonus points in my book for their novel frame designs, which help them look interesting and unique compared to the same old e-bike designs we see from many different companies.
On the other hand, the frame also has its problems, including that the rear chainstays (the tubes on either side of the rear motor) splay out so far that I get heel strike as I pedal. I’ve learned to spread my heels out to avoid it, but it’s not something you should have to adapt to – it should just be designed well to begin with.
There are other compromises too, such as the extreme weight of the bike, pushing 99 lb (45 kg). I had to set up a hanging scale just to check that figure, as you’ll see in my video review above. That is a lot of bike!
And it should be no surprise where all of that weight is coming from. Those dual motors and dual batteries are chunky, of course. That’s a major contributor. But the bike also has a hefty dual crown suspension fork, wide (and heavy) 4″ tires, and a bunch of other add-ons like fenders, rear rack, LED lights, big and visible display, hydraulic disc brakes, etc.
Each of these components add to the usability of the bike, and so I’m glad they’re there. But they each also add to that weight, leaving us just one pound shy of triple digits.
Of course most people are going to treat this bike more like a motorcycle anyway, and so I don’t see a lot of folks attempting to lift this into their car or carry it up a flight of stairs. This is very much a moped or motorbike replacement. It gets well over 30 mph on throttle (with a full battery and a tucked riding posture, you can get close to 35 mph). It’s got a motorcycle-style fork and enough rubber on the road to hug those turns with confidence. And the whole thing just screams motorbike, not electric bicycle. So it’s obvious that weight savings were the last thing on the designer’s minds.
Ultimately, the price is what makes or breaks a lot of these direct-to-consumer electric bikes, and Fucare seems to know that very well. At $1,699, it’s hard to fault the company on performance-to-price ratio.
There aren’t many e-bikes with 1,500W of power, 30+ mph speeds, dual motors, dual batteries, and a slick-looking frame for this price. In fact, most don’t even get close to this price. So I commend Fucare in that sense.
On the other hand, you’re basically taking a risk every time you ride this bike on the road and pretend to be an e-bike, since it is obviously so far outside of Class 2 or Class 3 e-bike specs in most states in the US. So as an off-road only bike, go for it. But for on-road use, you should either adjust the settings appropriately for your local laws or at least ride respectfully of others around you, especially when sharing bike lanes and other areas with vulnerable road users.
This is a lot of bike, and it’s fun to know you can get these performance specs at this price. But you better know going in that this is a vehicle that requires some serious responsibility, too. And a good helmet. And probably a good jacket, while you’re at it.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Hyundai’s electric fastback is due for some major upgrades that could finally make it the Tesla Model 3 challenger it was designed to be. The new Hyundai IONIQ 6 is better than ever, featuring a stylish new look both inside and out, an NACS port for charging at Tesla Superchargers, and even more driving range than expected.
The new Hyundai IONIQ 6 is a long-range, stylish EV
It’s been just about three years since Hyundai unveiled the IONIQ 6 for the first time at the 2022 Busan International Motor Show.
Hyundai’s “electrified streamliner” arrived as what was expected to be a genuine rival to the Tesla Model 3, boasting over 350 miles of driving range, fast charging in under 20 minutes, and an affordable price tag.
Despite this, the electric sedan has failed to live up to its hype. In the US, IONIQ 6 sales fell 6% last year, with only 12,264 units sold. According to Cox Automotive, Tesla sold 189,903 Model 3s in the US last year, a decrease from 2023, partly due to the launch of the refreshed model.
With the upgraded IONIQ due out later this year, Hyundai’s EV might finally match the Model 3 as another long-range, fast-charging, affordable electric sedan.
The new Hyundai IONIQ 6 has just become Korea’s longest-range electric sedan. It was officially certified by the Ministry of Environment with a range of up to 568 km (353 miles), surpassing the Kia EV4 at 549 km (341 miles).
On the WLTP scale, that could translate to nearly 700 km (430 miles) range. The current IONIQ 6 is rated with a WLTP range of up to 614 km (382 miles).
For those in the US, the 2025 Hyundai IONIQ 6 already provides an EPA-estimated range of up to 342 miles. The new model is expected to achieve a range of over 350 miles.
The new IONIQ 6 features an upgraded 84 kWh battery, similar to the 2025 IONIQ 5, providing increased driving range. Hyundai’s new IONIQ 5 is now rated with an EPA-estimated driving range of 318 miles, up from 303 miles in the 2024 model.
Like the IONIQ 5 refresh, the new IONIQ 6 is expected to arrive with a built-in NACS port, allowing access to Tesla Superchargers.
Hyundai unveiled the new IONIQ 6 design at the Seoul Mobility Show in April, saying it “enhanced every line and detail to make the IONIQ 6 simpler and more progressive.” And last week, Hyundai teased a sporty “N” line mode coming soon. We got a sneak peek of it in public a few days later after it was spotted driving in Korea. You can tell, it’s already shaping up to be a significant upgrade.
As for prices and final specs, we’ll have to wait until closer to launch later this year. Check back soon for more info. We’ll keep you updated with the latest.
Will Hyundai’s electric sedan finally compete with the Model 3? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
Source: Yucca Post Korea
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Markets are shrugging off the Israel-Iran conflict. Some strategists warn of complacency
Fire and smoke rise into the sky after an Israeli attack on the Shahran oil depot on June 15, 2025 in Tehran, Iran.
Getty Images | Getty Images News | Getty Images
Global investors may be underpricing the impact of a conflict between Israel and Iran, market watchers warned on Monday, as stocks rallied despite escalating warfare in the Middle East.
The two regional powers continued trading fire on Monday, marking the fourth consecutive day of fighting since Israel launched airstrikes against Iran last week.
Despite the continued fighting — with hundreds reported dead — global stock markets sustained a positive momentum on Monday, seemingly shrugging off broader concerns about the conflict.
Russ Mould, investment director at AJ Bell, warned on Monday that there was a risk markets were underpricing “the risk of a major conflagration in the Middle East,” particularly when it comes to the energy market.
European shares opened broadly higher on Monday, with Asia-Pacific stocks and U.S. stock futures also trading in the green. Even Middle Eastern indexes saw gains on Monday, with the Tel Aviv 35 index last seen trading 1% higher after falling 1.5% last week.
“This is partly because there are so many moving parts and geopolitical considerations, and partly because the potential outcomes are so unthinkable,” Mould said. “In a worst case, oil and share prices would be the least of our worries.”
In a Monday morning note, David Roche, a strategist at Quantum Strategy, warned that the conflict between Israel and Iran “will last longer than the Israeli lightning-strikes that the market is used to.”
Torbjorn Soltvedtp, principal Middle East analyst at Verisk Maplecroft, agreed, saying an escalation remained of “huge concern.”
“What we have now is very different, and what we’re seeing is effectively a war and an open-ended one,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe.”
“And of course, that is something that has huge implications, not just for the region, but also for energy markets and how they interpret what is happening. You know, minute by minute and day by day.”
Energy markets have moved the most on news of the attacks, as the Israel-Iran conflict stoked supply concerns.
Loading chart…
While Friday marked the biggest single-day gain for crude since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, however, global benchmark Brent crude futures — last seen at $73.75 a barrel — were still far below the prices seen in the aftermath of Moscow’s incursion into Ukrainian territory.
“A lull is the most likely outcome before later escalation when Iran rejects US Trump’s overtures,” Roche said. “The market is likely to mistake the lull for lasting peace. I would use the lull to buy into energy assets as a safe haven.”
‘Very modest’ market reaction
Some market watchers are taking a somewhat less pessimistic view, however.
In a note on Monday, Deutsche Bank’s Jim Reid noted that while both Iran and Israel had traded retaliatory blows, they had so far avoided “the most extreme escalatory steps.”
“As geopolitical shocks are becoming more frequent it seems it’s now at least a yearly occurrence that we refer to our equity strategists’ work on the impact of such shocks and how long it takes for the market to recover from them,” he said.
Loading chart…
“The typical pattern is for the S&P 500 to pull back about -6% in 3 weeks after the shock but then rally all the way back in another 3,” Reid said. “[Our strategists] believe this incident will likely be milder than this unless we get notable escalation as they highlight that equity positioning is already underweight … and a -6% selloff would need it to fall all the way to the bottom of its usual range.”
Philippe Gijsels, chief strategy officer at BNP Paribas Fortis, told CNBC on Monday that he feels the market is correct in not pricing a huge escalation, such as the U.S. being drawn into the fray, or a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
The Strait of Hormuz, nestled between Iran and Oman, is a vital oil transit route through which millions of barrels of oil are transported every day.
“Still, the market reaction has been very modest, so there is room for disappointment if things were to escalate,” Gijsels conceded on Monday.
Tesla’s upcoming Robotaxi launch in Austin, Texas, is increasingly looking like a game of smoke and mirrors, and a dangerous one at that.
CEO Elon Musk claims Tesla is being “paranoid with safety”, but it is taking risks for the purpose of optics.
It’s all about optics
Musk has been wrong about self-driving for years. His track record is marked by missed deadlines and broken promises.
He said:
“Our goal is, and I feel pretty good about this goal, that we’ll be able to do a demonstration drive of full autonomy all the way from LA to New York, from home in LA to let’s say dropping you off in Times Square in New York, and then having the car go park itself, by the end of next year. Without the need for a single touch, including the charger.”
That was in 2016, and therefore, he claimed it would happen by the end of 2017. Today, in 2025, Tesla is still not capable of doing that.
Musk has claimed that Tesla would achieve unsupervised self-driving every year for the last decade. It has become a running gag, with many YouTube videos featuring his predictions and a Wikipedia page tracking his missed deadlines.
Famously, the predictions are about Tesla achieving self-driving “by the end of the year” or “next year.”
This time, Musk has set a clear deadline of “June” for Tesla to launch its robotaxi service.
With Waymo pulling ahead in the autonomous driving race, now operating in four cities, providing over 200,000 paid rides per week, and soon expanding with 2,000 more vehicles, Musk needs a win to maintain the illusion he has been pushing for a while: that Tesla is the leader in autonomous driving.
He recently claimed about Tesla’s self-driving technology:
No one is even close. There’s really not a close second. We felt like it was a bit of an iPhone moment — you either get it or you don’t, and there’s a massive gap.
This is becoming increasingly difficult to claim amid Waymo’s expansion. Still, Musk believes that the robotaxi launch in Austin will help maintain the illusion, even though Waymo has already been operating like Tesla’s plans in Austin for years in other cities and for months in Austin itself.
Moving of the Goal Post
We have often described what Tesla is doing in Austin with its planned “robotaxi” launch as a moving of the goalpost.
For years, Tesla has promised unsupervised self-driving in all its vehicles built since 2016. Musk explicitly said that customers who bought Tesla’s Full Self-Driving package would be able to “go to sleep” at the wheel of their vehicles and wake up in another city.
Now, Musk is claiming that Tesla has “solved” self-driving with its “robotaxi” launch, but it is vastly different from prior promises.
Tesla plans to operate its own small internal fleet of vehicles with dedicated software optimized for a geo-fenced area of Austin and supported by “plenty of teleoperation.” This is a night-and-day difference compared to deploying unsupervised self-driving in customer vehicles, as promised since 2016.
Musk himself is on record saying, “If you need a geofence area, you don’t have real self-driving.”
Now, Musk is on record saying that Tesla will only launch the service in a limited area in Austin and even avoid certain intersections that Tesla is not sure it can handle:
We will geo‑fence it. It’s not going to take intersections unless we are highly confident it’s going to do well with that intersection. Or it will just take a route around that intersection.
In addition to geofencing, Tesla is also utilizing teleoperation to control vehicles with human operators remotely.
We reported last year when Tesla started building a “teleoperation team.”
Despite Tesla originally planning to launch the robotaxi service on June 12, and now “tentatively” on June 22, the automaker posted a new job listing days ago for engineers to help build a low-latency teleoperation system to operate its “self-driving” cars and robots.
The use of geofencing and teleoperation results in Tesla having the same limitations as Waymo, which Musk claimed means it’s “not real self-driving and not scalable to the customer fleet as promised by Tesla for years.
‘Paranoid’ about Safety
Musk claims that Tesla is being “super paranoid” about safety, but you have to take his word for it.
We have pointed it out before, but it’s worth repeating: Waymo tested its self-driving vehicles in Austin for six months with safety drivers and then for another six months without safety drivers before launching its autonomous ride-hailing service in the city.
As for Tesla, it tested its vehicles with safety drivers throughout Austin for a few months. Then, Musk announced in late May, only weeks before the planned launch, that it had started testing without safety drivers.
Despite many people being on the lookout for these driverless Tesla Robotaxis, they were only spotted for the first time last week.
Since then, only two confirmed Tesla vehicles without drivers have been spotted testing.
Furthermore, several of those vehicles were spotted with Tesla employees in the front passenger seat. While Musk claims that there are “no safety driver”, these “passengers” pay attention at all times and have access to a kill switch to stop the vehicle.
They virtually operate like “safety drivers”, but they are on the passenger seat rather than the driver’s seat.
Tesla is currently still in the “testing” phase based on the listing with the state regulators, which also mentions “no” safety drivers:
To go back to the “optics” for a second, Tesla’s head of self-driving, Ashok Elluswamy, has shared this conveniently cropped image of Tesla’s “robotaxis” being tested in Austin:
The image crops out the passenger seat of the car in front, which would show a Tesla employee, and the driver’s seat of the trailing car, which would show a driver, as spotted in Austin over the last week.
There’s also no way to know precisely at what rates these safety passengers and remote operators are intervening on the self-driving vehicles.
Tesla has never released any intervention or disengagement data about its self-driving and ADAS programs despite using “miles between disengagements” as a metric to track improvements and Musk claiming for years that self-driving is a “solved problem” for Tesla.
As we have previously reported, the best available data comes from a crowdsourced effort. Musk has previously shared and misrepresented the dataset in a positive light.
Currently, the data for the combined two most recent updates (v13.2.8-9) on Tesla’s latest hardware (HW4), which is reportedly the same hardware used in Tesla’s “robotaxis” in Austin, currently sits at 444 miles between critical disengagements:
That would imply a high risk of an accident every 444 miles without a driver paying attention and ready to take control at all times.
Tesla is also currently actively fighting in court against organizations trying to access its self-driving crash data.
There are currently efforts to raise concerns about Tesla’s “robotaxi” deployment in Austin.
The Dawn Project attempted to convey the potential danger of Tesla’s upcoming robotaxi fleet by demonstrating how Tesla vehicles fail to stop for school buses with their stop signs activated and can potentially run over children on the latest public Supervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) v13.2.9:
Musk has repeatedly highlighted that the vehicles used for the robotaxi service in Austin are the same that it currently delivers to customers, like this one used in this test.
However, they use a new, custom software optimized for Austin, with supposedly more parameters, allowing for greater performance. Still, there is no way to verify this, as Tesla has not released any data.
Electrek’s Take
I can’t lie. I’m getting extremely concerned about this. I don’t think that we can trust Musk or Tesla in their current state to launch this safely.
As I previously stated, I think Tesla’s FSD would be an incredible product if it were sold as a regular ADAS system, rather than something called “Full Self-Driving,” with the promise that it would eventually become unsupervised.
Tesla wouldn’t face a significant liability for not being able to fulfill its promises to customers, as it has already confirmed for HW3 owners. Additionally, safety would be improved, as drivers wouldn’t become so complacent with the technology.
Speaking of those failed promises, they are also what’s driving Tesla to push for this launch in Austin.
As Waymo’s former long-time CEO John Krafcik said about Tesla’s effort: “There are many ways to fake a robotaxi service.”
Musk badly needs a win with self-driving, and he saw an opportunity to get one by getting his gullible fanbase of Tesla shareholders excited about a glimpse at its long-promised future full of “Tesla robotaxis.”
As he previously stated, he knows full well that the way Tesla is doing this is not more scalable than Waymo even if the hardware cost per vehicle is lower. The hardware cost is negligible compared to teleoperation, development, insurance, and other expenses.
Even with all the smoke and mirrors involved with this project, it’s becoming clear that Tesla is not even ready for it.
Now, the question is whether Musk lets the June deadline slip and takes another ‘L’ on self-driving, or if he pushes for Tesla to launch the potentially dangerous service with lots of limitations.
With the federal government in complete shambles and the Texas government being too close to Musk and Tesla, I wouldn’t count on the regulators to act here. Although they probably should.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut