Ridstar FM001 vs Ridstar MN20
On the numbers that decide this pair, the Ridstar MN20 is 5 Nm more torque than the Ridstar FM001. Everything else is below, including where it loses.
Range is our estimate under the reference ride, not the manufacturer's claim. Cost is over 5 years at 3,000 km a year, on the same formula the cost-of-ownership calculator runs. How we work this out
| Spec | Ridstar FM001 | Ridstar MN20 |
|---|---|---|
| Estimated range | 48 km | 53 km |
| Battery | 720 Wh | 720 Wh |
| Weight | 22.7 kg | 22.7 kg |
| Motor torque | 85 Nm | 90 Nm |
| Top speed | 48 km/h | 48 km/h |
| Price | $849 | $699 |
| 5-year cost | $1,682 | $1,568 |
Where each one wins
- Ridstar MN20 is 5 Nm more torque.
The Ridstar FM001 does not lead on a single measured axis here. That does not make it the wrong bike, but it does mean the Ridstar MN20 is the one to justify not buying.
What each one costs to own
Over 5 years the Ridstar MN20 costs about 105 EUR less to own, once purchase, charging, servicing, a battery replacement where one is due, and resale are all counted.
That figure moves mostly on the battery. The Ridstar FM001 covers about 38,400 km before its pack is due for replacement; the Ridstar MN20, about 38,400 km. Ride less than that and the replacement never enters the sum.
Run these numbers on your own mileage
Which one to buy
- Pick the Ridstar MN20 if your route has real hills, or you carry cargo or a passenger.
- Pick the Ridstar MN20 if the five-year total is what you are optimising.
Verdict
On the measured axes the Ridstar MN20 is the better buy, and the Ridstar FM001 needs a reason of its own: a colour, a frame, a shop you trust, a price that moves. None of those are in our numbers, and all of them are legitimate.
Range here is an estimate under one reference ride, not a measurement. Yours will differ with terrain, weight, tyres and weather, which is what the range calculator is for.
Tell me when either of these gets cheaper
One email when a price moves on a bike you are watching. Nothing else.