My prior comment on hydrogen mobility:

Hydrogen for mass- or space-constrained mobility (eg bikes, automobile, aircraft) faces all the known problems with storing it inside inconvenient shapes and contending with the losses from liquification. Real Engineering has a video on this aspect (Nebula and YouTube) when compared to simply using battery-electric storage.

With that out of the way, I’m skeptical as to the benefits touted on the HydroRide website. Specifically, the one about storage:

Hydrogen storage offers extended longevity, surpassing 10 years, ensuring reliability and sustainability over time.

This might be true in static conditions, but hydrogen automobiles have to vent some of the hydrogen while parked, simply to deal with the buildup of hydrogen gas, since even with excellent insulation, the liquid hydrogen will eventually get warm and evaporate into gaseous hydrogen, building up pressure. The fact is that automobiles must withstand broad environmental factors, especially temperature. And we expect bicycles to do the same: how the hydrogen tank would behave in warm climates is unclear.

There’s also not that much hydrogen in the tank. The website appears to indicate 20 grams. At 33.6 kWh/kg, the total energy in the tank would be 672 Wh, putting it at par with electric bikes of similar range and speed. Any hydrogen losses would be balanced against battery capacity loss over time.

Overall, as the article states, the target audience of rental operators might still be inclined to go with battery electric bikes rather than hydrogen. Requiring a supply of pure water in addition to electricity at charging locations – compared to just electricity for battery charging – is an extra logistical consideration. The “charge” time of 5 hours for 20 grams of hydrogen is also a potential issue.