Any thoughts on the comparison between the motor's software stated human power in vs an external power meter? Based on their own manual and online forums, it looks like it shouldn't be trusted too much, but I haven't seen anyone quantify it well.
Interesting discussions. Too technical .....anyway the shape of motor is the future I think .....just look at the bike . Compared to the others brose, Shimano, Bosh, etc (not fazua ) When they get 70 to 80 Nm of torque from this motor I think it will be a game changer. As usual great review and interesting data. Thanks
@@craigjones9372 wow looks like you had a bad day ........not interested in arguing....just comments........ Be cool man I'm going for a ride now......maybe you should do the same .......
I have just baught a treck domaine + with a tq hpr 50 motor.it rattles when under 10nm or just causing casually.is this normal for a new bike.dose the settings make a difference. Thank you jim
If you want some help to stay fit get the TQ motor for some assistance if your still lazy and want more help get the other motors, you still get where your going in the same time regardless of motor , so the TQ motor serves its purpose
I haven't heard the rumors about a new TQ for 2023. But I know there has been some speculation about a HPR70-75. I don't know what such a motor would be like, and I haven't looked closely on how the motor integrates into the frame. But my initial thought is a bigger HPR won't fit current frames using the HPR50. I assume the diameter of the motor will increase. Chances are a bigger motor would come in conflict with the shape of the current frames, so it can't be positioned in the frame and having the motor mounting points line up. And I would assume the BB height would be too low, meaning the ground clearance would be too low. I wouldn't count on this to work, but what do I know (:
There are a lot of problems with the TQ motor right now. I'm hoping that Trek can resolve them. Creaking, motor failures, all within 30 days and happening to multiple people, including myself. Caused me to do a full refund and to buy the Analog version.
just test drove bike .. has 200% advantage. I am a heavier rider at 97kg, i dont think anyone needs anymore than this on MTB trials. Your skills on even a moderate technical climb are the limiting factor, not the power.
@@tomcagle5324 Yeah, you could be right. I didn't find it on their website. So I was going by the info in the app. 350W when pedaling 90W. It's more than 350% actually.
@@EMTBVideos thanks I too searched their website and prominent reviews to no avail unfortunately....I thought I heard it somewhere and trust your estimate...thx 👍 In truth, waiting eagerly for the Transition Relay next spring. Luv'n my Trek Rail for now but want stealth with as much power as I can get with an easy battery removal system.💪
Lower power at lower cadence do NOT mean the motor is less efficient at lower cadence. It simply means that the maximum torque of the motor is more limited, which it is. Motors and controllers have a maximum phase current enforced, if this is lower than another motor it will result in lower power at lower cadence regardless of the efficiencies involved. Furthermore, if you are going to do cadence comparisons, then equalize the assist levels. Running one motor at 200% and the others much higher destroys the entire comparison. Garbage in, garbage out.
Aren't most motors less efficient outside their optimum rpm? This motor is more efficient in the sense that it outputs more power relative to power input at higher cadence. I was considering using another word than "efficient", but I decided it would do. It was difficult deciding on the design og this test. Tuning down all motors to the same settings would leave me with results that this test isn't precise enough to tell apart. Also, I wouldn't know what ammount of amplification I've set on all motors. The app doesn't always tell. I think leveling out the assistance defeats the point of the test really. The results reflects how it feels riding the motors pretty well. For most motors at least...
It makes no sense removing motor programming from the equation. Not when considering our goal with the test. Motor behaviour is not just down to power. Allthought motor behaviour improves as power drops. Response time / transmission rate / processing, programming and ammount/types of sensors affect the behaviour. I'm not trying to isolate the variables. I want to describe how the motors feel and try putting them up against each other. If one motor is more powerful than another, it's basically drawing more power. And chances are it's bigger/heavier. This is something I point out repeatedly. I believe it's interesting to know how much power the motors will deliver, regardless of what's limiting the motor. Well, with the exception of battery. To be on the safe side, I wouldn't test the Shimano EP8 running a 375Wh battery. Motors can/will change with software updates though, so we should perhaps start logging firmware versions. I never intended to claim the HPR50 is a natural feeling motor because it's efficient. I need to watch through the video later to check if I come acreoss that way. As I mentioned, I considered removing the comment about efficiency, that wasn't planned. But I didn't bother. I decided one could argue the HPR50 feels more efficient when ridden at 80rpm compared to 60. As the test run was like 17% faster with a 12% increase in power. This is the way we decided to design the test, after many attempts and much consideration. Sure, there is limited value to such a test. But I don't agree I'm admitting its BS. It works fairly well, we are getting consistent data when repeating tests. Precision is low of course. It was never designed to make smaller motors look bad. It wasn't designed to be stacked against anyone. But it is sort of inevitable a smaller motor scores lower. So I say in the video, not to hold the results against the TQ. And I say this is by design, TQ could have increased power amplification at the cost of motor behaviour. Sure, the result was mostly given in advance, still I wanted to see the data. Getting some figures on the improvement at increased cadence was interesting.
Dude, you are being unfair. I think a discussion on the test protocol and what the data can be used for is interesting. But if you don't want to have a polite conversation then there is no point going on. I explained the use of the word "efficient". Stop accusing me of supporting my own narrative, that's extremely unfair and unfounded. As are the accusations of presenting crap data for views and money. I know TQ could increase gain because I talked to them. Copper is heavy.
I’ve only had mine for 2 days but I absolutely love this bike
That was an awesome comparison of the motors, have thought about including the specialized SL and the Fazua 60?, greeting from Chile!
Yeah, hopefully The Fazua Ride 60 isn't that far away.
Fazua has a really bad tech support. Wouldn‘t recommend them.
Any thoughts on the comparison between the motor's software stated human power in vs an external power meter? Based on their own manual and online forums, it looks like it shouldn't be trusted too much, but I haven't seen anyone quantify it well.
Interesting discussions. Too technical .....anyway the shape of motor is the future I think .....just look at the bike . Compared to the others brose, Shimano, Bosh, etc (not fazua )
When they get 70 to 80 Nm of torque from this motor I think it will be a game changer.
As usual great review and interesting data.
Thanks
@@craigjones9372 it's in the video......shape, design, ....why would you use a bigger and bulkier motor to make a bike.....
@@craigjones9372 wow looks like you had a bad day ........not interested in arguing....just comments........ Be cool man
I'm going for a ride now......maybe you should do the same .......
@@DKLVE And not interested in answering questions or having your views challenged! Thanks for the ad hominem, "be cool man"!
I have just baught a treck domaine + with a tq hpr 50 motor.it rattles when under 10nm or just causing casually.is this normal for a new bike.dose the settings make a difference.
Thank you jim
Should be cruising.
If you want some help to stay fit get the TQ motor for some assistance if your still lazy and want more help get the other motors, you still get where your going in the same time regardless of motor , so the TQ motor serves its purpose
hi, would it be possible to upgrade a TQ-HPR50 Motor (with Trek Fuel EXE) with a new Motor TQ will release next year? What do you think?
I haven't heard the rumors about a new TQ for 2023. But I know there has been some speculation about a HPR70-75. I don't know what such a motor would be like, and I haven't looked closely on how the motor integrates into the frame. But my initial thought is a bigger HPR won't fit current frames using the HPR50. I assume the diameter of the motor will increase. Chances are a bigger motor would come in conflict with the shape of the current frames, so it can't be positioned in the frame and having the motor mounting points line up. And I would assume the BB height would be too low, meaning the ground clearance would be too low.
I wouldn't count on this to work, but what do I know (:
There are a lot of problems with the TQ motor right now. I'm hoping that Trek can resolve them. Creaking, motor failures, all within 30 days and happening to multiple people, including myself. Caused me to do a full refund and to buy the Analog version.
I have not seen that, have had mine for a few months and logged 200 miles, but I only ride in the desert no mud no water.
Hi what problem? how did Trek / TQ resolve the problem?
mine got weird sound and 2 times remote failure
@@hades24x I returned it for a 9.9 AXS fuel ex and never looked back
just test drove bike .. has 200% advantage. I am a heavier rider at 97kg, i dont think anyone needs anymore than this on MTB trials. Your skills on even a moderate technical climb are the limiting factor, not the power.
Thanks for the video. Any chance you’ll do a comparison between the TQ and Fazua’s ride 60 motor?
Yeah, that's on my list. Not sure when though, depends on when a Fazua bike is available again.
💯 isn't Fazua60 rated at 275-300% assistance???
@@tomcagle5324 Yeah, you could be right. I didn't find it on their website. So I was going by the info in the app. 350W when pedaling 90W. It's more than 350% actually.
@@EMTBVideos thanks I too searched their website and prominent reviews to no avail unfortunately....I thought I heard it somewhere and trust your estimate...thx 👍 In truth, waiting eagerly for the Transition Relay next spring. Luv'n my Trek Rail for now but want stealth with as much power as I can get with an easy battery removal system.💪
Terrengsykkelritt 2012☺😁🇳🇴
Hehe, riktig. First time anyone has commented on it
Lower power at lower cadence do NOT mean the motor is less efficient at lower cadence. It simply means that the maximum torque of the motor is more limited, which it is. Motors and controllers have a maximum phase current enforced, if this is lower than another motor it will result in lower power at lower cadence regardless of the efficiencies involved.
Furthermore, if you are going to do cadence comparisons, then equalize the assist levels. Running one motor at 200% and the others much higher destroys the entire comparison. Garbage in, garbage out.
Aren't most motors less efficient outside their optimum rpm? This motor is more efficient in the sense that it outputs more power relative to power input at higher cadence. I was considering using another word than "efficient", but I decided it would do.
It was difficult deciding on the design og this test. Tuning down all motors to the same settings would leave me with results that this test isn't precise enough to tell apart. Also, I wouldn't know what ammount of amplification I've set on all motors. The app doesn't always tell. I think leveling out the assistance defeats the point of the test really. The results reflects how it feels riding the motors pretty well. For most motors at least...
It makes no sense removing motor programming from the equation. Not when considering our goal with the test. Motor behaviour is not just down to power. Allthought motor behaviour improves as power drops. Response time / transmission rate / processing, programming and ammount/types of sensors affect the behaviour. I'm not trying to isolate the variables. I want to describe how the motors feel and try putting them up against each other. If one motor is more powerful than another, it's basically drawing more power. And chances are it's bigger/heavier. This is something I point out repeatedly. I believe it's interesting to know how much power the motors will deliver, regardless of what's limiting the motor. Well, with the exception of battery. To be on the safe side, I wouldn't test the Shimano EP8 running a 375Wh battery. Motors can/will change with software updates though, so we should perhaps start logging firmware versions.
I never intended to claim the HPR50 is a natural feeling motor because it's efficient. I need to watch through the video later to check if I come acreoss that way. As I mentioned, I considered removing the comment about efficiency, that wasn't planned. But I didn't bother. I decided one could argue the HPR50 feels more efficient when ridden at 80rpm compared to 60. As the test run was like 17% faster with a 12% increase in power.
This is the way we decided to design the test, after many attempts and much consideration. Sure, there is limited value to such a test. But I don't agree I'm admitting its BS. It works fairly well, we are getting consistent data when repeating tests. Precision is low of course. It was never designed to make smaller motors look bad. It wasn't designed to be stacked against anyone. But it is sort of inevitable a smaller motor scores lower. So I say in the video, not to hold the results against the TQ. And I say this is by design, TQ could have increased power amplification at the cost of motor behaviour. Sure, the result was mostly given in advance, still I wanted to see the data. Getting some figures on the improvement at increased cadence was interesting.
Dude, you are being unfair. I think a discussion on the test protocol and what the data can be used for is interesting. But if you don't want to have a polite conversation then there is no point going on.
I explained the use of the word "efficient".
Stop accusing me of supporting my own narrative, that's extremely unfair and unfounded. As are the accusations of presenting crap data for views and money.
I know TQ could increase gain because I talked to them.
Copper is heavy.