12 Worst Selling Electric Bikes of All Time

Most people think electric bikes are the future of transportation. But what if I told you that most electric bike companies are spectacular commercial failures that leave customers holding worthless receipts? Bikes that looked revolutionary in press releases but quickly turned into expensive paper weights or never existed at all. In this video, we’ve got the 12 worsts selling electric bikes of all time, ranked from disappointing to absolutely catastrophic based on sales data and company outcomes. And trust me, some of these failures might shock you. From crowdfunded scams to billion-dollar company blunders, these bikes represent every way the electric vehicle dream can turn into a nightmare. And here’s the kicker. The number one worst seller on this list managed to sell exactly zero units to customers despite years of development and millions in investment. Stick with me to the end because this isn’t just a failure ranking. It’s your guide to avoiding the red flags that signal disaster. Miss this and you could be the next victim of electric vehicle vaporware. Number 12, Highland Motorcycles. Starting our countdown at number 12 is Highland Motorcycles, a company whose story represents one of the most tragic endings in electric vehicle history. Highland wasn’t destroyed by poor business decisions or market failures. Instead, their promising venture was cut short by an uncontrollable tragedy. Operating in 2010, Highland Motorcycles showed genuine promise in developing innovative electric two-wheelers. Their engineering team was making real progress on designs that addressed early challenges facing electric motorcycles. The company had the technical competence and vision needed for success in the emerging market. The devastating event that ended Highland’s operations came without warning. In 2010, the company’s three top executives were killed in a plane crash, effectively ending operations overnight. This tragic loss eliminated not just leadership but the institutional knowledge and vision that had driven development efforts. Highland’s failure is unique because it demonstrates how fragile small companies can be when they depend heavily on key individuals. Unlike typical startup failures involving funding, market fit or technical challenges, Highland was destroyed by circumstances no business plan could anticipate. Their story serves as a reminder that external factors beyond anyone’s control can instantly destroy even promising ventures. Number 11, rowier motorcycles. At number 11, we have rower motorcycles. Representing the purest form of commercial failure in the electric vehicle space. Operating from 2009 to 2012, Rorow was a bespoke US manufacturer producing two electric models, the EUP Sport at $16,965 and the E Superbike at $27,595. Roer’s approach was methodical and technically sound. They built electric motorcycles on proven Hyosung chassis and equipped them with high-end components that justified premium pricing. The engineering was solid, build quality was excellent, and performance met expectations. This wasn’t a get-richquick scheme, but a serious attempt at quality electric motorcycle manufacturing. Despite doing everything right from a technical perspective, Roer achieved the ultimate commercial failure. They sold exactly zero units during their entire operational period. The bikes worked as advertised and received positive feedback from the few people who rode them, but no customers were willing to purchase them at the asking price. Royer’s failure demonstrates that technical competence and quality engineering don’t guarantee commercial success. The company discovered that the market for premium electric motorcycles simply didn’t exist at the scale needed to sustain their business model. Their closure in 2012 marked the end of a venture that executed well but couldn’t find paying customers. Number 10, Evolve Motorcycles. Number 10 brings us Evolved Motorcycles, whose failure represents the quiet, unspectacular demise that befalls many startups. Operating from 2008 to 2015, Evolve manufactured electric scooters and motorcycles priced between $2,900 and $2,900, $5,400, targeting the affordable end of the market. Evolve’s 7-year operational period suggests some level of competence. They manufactured and delivered products to customers while maintaining operations longer than many electric vehicle startups. Unlike companies that collapsed spectacularly due to fraud or technical failures, Evolve operated steadily for nearly a decade. However, this extended timeline ultimately made their failure more significant. 7 years should have been sufficient to establish market presence, build brand recognition, and achieve sustainable sales volumes. The fact that they operated so long without breakthrough success indicates fundamental problems with their business model or market approach. Evolve’s quiet closure around 2015 represents the fate of many companies that failed to gain sufficient market traction. They weren’t destroyed by scandals or funding crisis, but simply couldn’t build the customer base needed for long-term sustainability. Their story reminds us that persistence alone isn’t enough. Companies must achieve meaningful market penetration within reasonable time frames. Number nine, Cake Calc and Buck. At number nine, we have Cake, the Swedish startup that became a venture capital darling before filing for bankruptcy in February 2024. Cake’s story is significant because they had everything that should have led to success. Innovative design, substantial funding, positive press, and critically acclaimed products. Cakes electric bikes were genuinely innovative. The Bou featured rapid battery swapping, configurable ride modes, and minimalist design that earned praise from publications worldwide. At $9,470, the Buck reflected genuine premium engineering and distinctive aesthetics that created strong brand recognition in the market. The company raised millions from investors and had sufficient runway to develop their market presence. Unlike many failed startups, Cake had access to capital and time to establish sustainable operations. Their products received positive reviews and generated genuine enthusiasm among early adopters. Despite these advantages, Cake fell short of the 7,500 to 10,000 annual sales needed for profitability. When economic conditions deteriorated, they couldn’t secure additional funding to bridge the gap. The CEO blamed harsh macroeconomic conditions and a completely dead risk capital ecosystem for their inability to continue operations. Cake’s bankruptcy demonstrates how external factors can destroy even wellpositioned ventures. Their premium pricing strategy created extreme vulnerability to economic downturns regardless of product quality or innovation. Being on the brink of success doesn’t guarantee survival when funding disappears. Before we continue counting down these commercial disasters, if you’re finding this analysis of electric vehicle failures as revealing as we are, make sure to subscribe for more deep dives into the tech industry’s biggest disappointments and the lessons they teach. Number eight, Brammo Impulse R and Inertia. At number eight, we encounter BRAMO, a pioneer that experienced the first mover disadvantage despite creating innovative products. Operating from 2009 to 2015, Brammo was among the first companies to bring electric motorcycles to retail, notably selling through Best Buy stores starting in 2009. BRMO’s flagship Impulse R featured a controversial six-speed manual transmission designed to provide familiar riding experience. This decision sparked intense debate about whether electric bikes should emulate gasoline motorcycles or forge entirely new experiences. Professional reviewers praised the bike’s chassis, Brembo brakes, and handling characteristics. However, the manual transmission created problems that highlighted the industry’s identity crisis. Many riders found it added unnecessary complexity to what should have been simple electric operation. The feature that differentiated Brammo also created barriers among consumers expecting electric vehicles to be fundamentally different from gasoline alternatives. Bremo struggled with the same challenges facing all early manufacturers. High costs, limited range, and pricing that couldn’t compete with gas bikes. The Impulse R’s $18,995 price put it at significant premium over comparable alternatives, limiting the market to early adopters willing to pay extra for electric technology. The company’s story ended in strategic acquisition by Polaris in 2015 rather than bankruptcy. This suggests Brammo had valuable technology but couldn’t overcome market timing and financial challenges. They educated the market. Improved electric motorcycles could work, but were ultimately absorbed by larger players who could leverage their innovations more effectively. Number seven, Alta Motors Redshift Series. Number seven brings us Alulta Motors, a company that achieved technical excellence but couldn’t survive industry economics. Operating from 2016 to 2018, Alta gained a claim for high performance electric motorcycles, particularly the Redshift MX and SM models designed for off-road use. Alta’s engineering was exceptional. Their motorcycles delivered 120 ft-lbs of instant torque through 40 horsepower motors, creating performance that impressed riders accustomed to gasoline bikes. The Red Shift models felt lighter than their 275 lb weight and were legitimate competitors to traditional dirt bikes in demanding conditions. Professional reviews were universally positive, praising agile handling, instant power delivery, and overall performance. Alta had solved technical challenges plaguing many manufacturers, creating machines that genuinely competed with gasoline alternatives. Off-road riders appreciated quiet operation, instant torque, and reduced maintenance requirements. Despite technical success, Alta faced insurmountable financial challenges. Production costs resulted in pricing roughly $5,000 higher than comparable gas bikes, creating significant adoption barriers. The off-road market, while enthusiastic about innovations, proved too small and price sensitive to sustain operations. Alta’s final blow came when crucial funding partnership with Harley-Davidson fell through, eliminating financial backing needed to continue operations. The company ceased operations abruptly in October 2018, shocking the industry and disappointing customers who had embraced their products. Their collapse demonstrates that excellent engineering isn’t enough without access to capital in economies of scale. Number six, Arc Vector. At number six, we have the Ark Vector. Representing ultimate technological overreach. Launched in 2018 at 90,000 lb, $123,000, the Vector was positioned as the most advanced electric motorcycle ever created. Featuring carbon monoke chassis, hub center steering, and promised 120 mph top speed. ARK’s engineering ambitions were genuine. The company attracted investment from Jaguar Land Rover and demonstrated real technological innovation rather than marketing hype. The Vector incorporated advanced safety features and manufacturing techniques that pushed industry boundaries. However, ARK’s ambition exceeded their commercial execution ability. The ultra premium pricing limited their market to an incredibly small number of potential customers worldwide. At $123,000, the Vector competed with exotic supercars rather than motorcycles, creating fundamental positioning challenges. Production delays mounted as technological complexity became apparent. Each vector required extensive hand assembly and custom components that made scaling extremely difficult and expensive. Distribution challenges in key markets created additional obstacles that further delayed revenue generation. ARK filed for liquidation in April 20th of 2024, unable to overcome financial challenges of bringing their showcase to market. The CEO cited US distribution issues as major revenue blow that prevented securing additional investment. Their collapse demonstrates that breakthrough technology can’t survive if business models don’t align with market realities. Number five, Victory Impulse TT. Coming in at number five is the Victory Impulse TT, representing how corporate strategy changes can destroy well-engineered products. Launched in 2016 by Polaris Industries, the Impulse TT was a rebranded Brammo Impulse R acquired when Polaris purchased Brammo’s assets. The Impulse TT featured sophisticated engineering, liquid cooled motor, 10.5 kWh battery, claimed top speed over 100 mph, and controversial six-speed manual transmission. Professional reviewers praised high-quality components, including Brembo brakes and Marsaki forks, plus agile handling characteristics. Realworld range of 80 mi was respectable, and $19,999 pricing was competitive. The motorcycle represented unique opportunity. Electric bike from established American manufacturer with resources and dealer network to support success. Victory had brand recognition among American riders and Polaris had financial stability to weather early market challenges. However, the Impulse TT’s fate was sealed by factors unrelated to its performance. In January 2017, just one year after launch, Polaris announced immediate production cessation and Victory brand windown. This wasn’t based on electric motorcycle performance, but strategic corporate decision to eliminate Victory after three consecutive unprofitable years. The premature discontinuation illustrates how products can become casualties of broader corporate strategy shifts. Despite positive reviews and technical achievement, the motorcycle couldn’t survive parent brand failure. This demonstrates that individual product success doesn’t guarantee survival within larger corporate structures. Number four, Mission R and RS. At number four, we encounter Mission Motorcycles, exemplifying the difference between brilliant concepts and viable execution. Operating from 2013 to 2015, Mission generated enormous excitement with electric superbike prototypes, but never delivered a single motorcycle to customers. Mission’s technology was genuinely impressive. The Mission R featured 160 horsepower motor and components from Oins, Brembo, and Marcosini. The company promised internet connected operating systems with GPS navigation and HD cameras. Revolutionary features for motorcycles. Pricing reflected premium positioning with base models at $29,999 and RS variants over $56,000. Mission’s marketing created substantial industry buzz through major show appearances, positive media coverage, and customer deposits. The company appeared technically capable and attracted attention from potential buyers willing to invest in revolutionary electric superbikes. However, Mission represents textbook vaporware. Products announced with fanfare but never delivered. Despite years of development and significant investment, they never achieved production readiness. The collapse was attributed to internal legal disputes between co-founders that paralyzed operations and prevented coherent execution. High-profile talent poaching by Apple reportedly caused crucial investor withdrawal. When Mission filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2015, the CEO stated they had no money and couldn’t afford legal representation. Their failure demonstrates the difference between impressive technology demonstrations and sustainable business operations. Number three, Fuel Fluid and Follow. Taking bronze at number three is Fuel. Co-founded by renowned designer Eric Bule, attempting ambitious dual product strategy, Fuel planned using followid ebike revenue to fund flagship follow motorcycle development, raising over $5 million through crowdfunding. Eric Bule’s reputation lent enormous credibility to the project. As founder of Bule motorcycles and creator of numerous innovations, his name attracted thousands of backers willing to invest significantly in his electric vision. The fluid was marketed as a gamecher with advanced mid drive motor and automatic transmission. The flow motorcycle represented Bule’s vision for electric motorcycleycling future combining decades of design experience with modern drivetrain technology. The project generated substantial enthusiasm among motorcycle enthusiasts who respected Bule’s engineering legacy and expected breakthrough innovations. However, Fuel’s business model proved fundamentally flawed. The company never progressed beyond concept phases for the LL. According to liquidation statements, there was little more than a CAD drawing after years of development and millions in funding. Even the supposedly productionready fluid never reached customers. Despite having necessary parts to build pre-ordered bikes, Fuel ran out of funds and employees needed for assembly and shipping. In late 2024, the company filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, admitting inability to fulfill crowdfunding obligations. Their collapse demonstrates that legendary designers can’t overcome fundamental manufacturing challenges when business models can’t support production realities. Number two, Sondor’s Metycle. At number two, we have the Sondor’s Metycle. A crowdfunded catastrophe illustrating how too good to be true pricing serves as confidence trap. Promising highway capable electric motorcycle for just $5,000, the Metycle attracted thousands of pre-orders from customers paying full amounts upfront. The initial concept was compelling. Futuristic lightweight bike with cast aluminum frame. claim 200lb weight, 80 miles per hour top speed, and 80 mile range. At $5,000, these specifications seem to solve the industry’s fundamental affordability problem. The crowdfunding campaign generated millions in pre-order revenue, providing substantial operating capital. However, delivered products bore little resemblance to promises. Weight ballooned 50% to 335 lbs, completely changing handling characteristics. Critical features like removable batteries and regenerative braking were eliminated. The quick release battery became permanently integrated, eliminating key advantages that attracted customers. Delivery suffered significant delays as customers waited months or years for motorcycles already paid for in full. The company provided minimal communication about production challenges, leaving customers uncertain about delivery prospects. By late 2023, Sondors filed bankruptcy, abandoning thousands of partially assembled bikes in Chinese factory due to unpaid bills. Customers who paid full amounts found themselves creditors in bankruptcy proceedings with little recovery hope. The meta cycle represents everything dangerous about crowdfunded manufacturing. Unrealistic promises, customer-funded operations, and inevitable disappointment when reality meets ambition. Number one, Harley-Davidson Livewire 1. Finally taking the top spot as worstselling electric bike of all time is the Harley-Davidson Livewire 1. A motorcycle with every possible advantage that still achieved catastrophic sales figures shocking the entire industry. Launching in 2020 at $29,799, the Live Wire was backed by the most iconic American motorcycleycling brand. Harley-Davidson’s century of heritage and brand loyalty should have guaranteed strong sales, especially with substantial marketing support, including celebrity endorsements and massive advertising campaigns. Technically, the LiveWire was genuinely impressive. Professional reviewers described acceleration as ferociously fast with 0 to 60 times of 3 seconds rivaling supercars. The 146 mi city range was competitive. Engineering was solid, build quality excellent, and performance specifications compelling by any measure. Despite technical achievements, the LiveWire became an unequivocal commercial disaster. Sales figures revealed shocking truth. Only 597 bikes sold in 2022 and 660 in 2023. Even more damning, reports indicated Harley sold exactly zero flagship LiveWire models in 2023. The company attempted addressing sales crisis through dramatic price reductions, cutting MSRP from nearly $30,000 to $21,999, then $16,499. These massive discounts demonstrated desperation of a company trying to move inventory nobody wanted. Financial losses were staggering, $85 million in 2022 and $125 million in 2023. The LiveWire’s failure wasn’t about product quality or performance deficiencies, but fundamental brand identity crisis and complete market miscalculation. The initial $30,000 price eliminated most potential customers, while silent, futuristic character contradicted everything traditional Harley riders expected. Harley customers don’t just buy transportation. They buy complete sensory and cultural experience centered around distinctive V twin sound, vibration, and mechanical character. The Live Wire delivered none of these essential brand elements, creating profound disconnect between product and target market. The use of totally bespoke parts created manufacturing costs, making competitive pricing impossible while limiting production volumes needed for economies of scale. This resulted in premium product that was both too expensive and too different for Harley’s traditional customer base. The LiveWire’s spectacular failure demonstrates that brand heritage and unlimited marketing budgets can’t overcome fundamental misalignment between products and customer expectations. Despite being technically superior to many competitors, it achieved ultimate commercial failure by selling virtually nothing to its intended market. While these electric bikes crashed and burned through spectacular failures, the industry has also produced some genuine success stories that are flying off dealer floors. Check out our breakdown of these 13 electric bikes are selling faster than ever. [Music]

▶️ Watch more videos from Tech Charge: 🔋
_____________________________________________
The UGLY Truth About Electric Cars…

_____________________________________________
When Will Electric Cars Become Affordable

_____________________________________________
The INSANE History of Electric Cars

_____________________________________________
This Tiny EV is a HUGE SUCCESS

_____________________________________________
First EV to Reach 1000 MILES Range

_____________________________________________
The First EV to Reach 1,000 km Range

_____________________________________________