Another new TQ motor: hpr40

[stompandgo]

And I am the exact opposite. Pound it on the flats.

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

And I am the exact opposite. Pound it on the flats.

The flats do have their charms— even in fitness riding. Gobbling up the road in front of you with no wind or slope to help or hurt your effort can be very satisfying. Adding motor assist just ups the ground speed, which generally only adds to the fun.

 

[mschwett]

I live at the top of the highest hill in town and coming home I get the wind and the climb at the same time when I am already tired. Big battery suck if I can even keep it climbing...

wind blowing down a hill is just horrible. it’s quite rare here since the hills tend to block the wind, but the occasional hot, dry “diablo” winds which blow out of the cursed Central Valley and set everything on fire make for miserable hill climbing in parts of the Bay Area. I got stuck in it once, probably a steady 20mph headwind that was 10 degrees hotter than the 80 degree day up a 6-10% grade.

the headline would have been something like “local cyclist absolutely relieved to die when e-bike battery combusts in diablo wind “

 

[Asher]

Three more interesting takes on the Canyon Endurace ONFLY and its hpr40 motor. Don't be put off by the click-bait title.

Not clickbait to call road e-bikes pointless, in the UK. When you can do 22+ mph on flats, a heavier costlier ebike that maxes out at 15 mph under assist is of limited appeal.

I just wish the Canyon Endurace Onfly came to the US as a Class 3 ebike. The cheapest Scott Fastlane is still $7k thanks to baubles like carbon wheels and electronic shifting, vs $5.1k for the cheapest Canyon Endurace Onfly (though some of that price difference is due to Canyon's D2C pricing). I'd even take a quality alloy frame (eg a CAAD 14 ) if it came with the TQ HPR40.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

a heavier costlier ebike that maxes out at 15 mph under assist is of limited appeal.

I would almost agree with you but in all the honesty, you would not ride very far on a smallish battery with the Class 3 limitation
I personally think road e-bikes make little sense (gravel e-bikes do a lot of sense!) but on the other hand a road e-bike is a great equaliser on the hills and against headwind.

There is e-Giro race in Italy. A TQ HPR40 e-bike is a perfect motor for that race.

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

And I am the exact opposite. Pound it on the flats.

The flats do have their charms— even in fitness riding. Gobbling up the road in front of you with no wind or slope to help or hurt your effort can be very satisfying. Adding motor assist just ups the ground speed, which generally only adds to the fun.

 

[Catalyzt]

The flats do have their charms— even in fitness riding. Gobbling up the road in front of you with no wind or slope to help or hurt your effort can be very satisfying. Adding motor assist just ups the ground speed, which generally only adds to the fun.

Funny this came up. I've been saying over and over that there are no relatively flat routes near my house, the mythical low-zone-3 or mid-zone-2 ride (that @stompandgo suggested I try to work into my fitness routine) is impossible where I live, and it's mostly true. But just today, I had to run to the ATM and stop at the aquarium store to pick up turtle chow, and I thought, "Driving and parking in Hollywood is getting too annoying. And they're not going to throw me out of the aquarium store for bringing my bike in, the turtle food is right behind the counter."

It was a muggy 78 degrees out, and the whole run was just over 7 miles with about 400 feet of vertical total-- roughly half the climbing of most of my rides. It was a fantastic workout, I broke a sweat, but it wasn't nearly as arduous as my usual 4.1 mile slog with 385 feet of vertical, and a lot of that steep, when I'm deliberately pushing a lot harder. Traffic was not bad at 11:00, either. I felt great afterwards, kept the motor off a long time, and used only 10% of my battery power. Still feeling refreshed hours later... and interesting that under more normal conditions, the Grizl ON: Fly 7 would deliver about 70 miles of range.

 

[stompandgo]

@Catalyzt, you're getting it!!

I used to do a lot of group rides with my club in western MA. Saturday rides were about getting into the Berkshire mountains and climbing. We would do about 60-80 miles and 5-6K feet of climbing. On the longer, steeper stuff, I'd be at the back or off the back of the group, and they would usually have to wait at the summit for me and a few others, usually for less than a minute. On the way home, though, I'd be on the front with another strong rider or two, and we would pull the group home at 22-24mph so they could just sit in. The key was to always look back and make sure they are comfortable and not dropping off the back. I used an Italian bar end mirror for this.

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

Saturday rides were about getting into the Berkshire mountains and climbing. We would do about 60-80 miles and 5-6K feet of climbing. On the longer, steeper stuff, I'd be at the back or off the back of the group, and they would usually have to wait at the summit for me and a few others, usually for less than a minute. On the way home, though, I'd be on the front with another strong rider or two, and we would pull the group home at 22-24mph so they could just sit in.

So you were saving yourself on the way to the top to pace them on the way home? Good a way as any to feed your stated need for speed.

When I rejoined the local Wednesday road ride last week, after many months away, I also rode off the back most of the way, mostly in OFF and ECO. And I was the only ebike.

Had every reason to believe that I was now paying for riding less than usual in the interim. And for weighing more — especially after the holidays.

But this being the post-truth era, where the best spin wins, I decided that they'd just gotten a lot faster since last time.

 

[stompandgo]

I wasn't saving anything for later. I cannot climb like the rest of them. I never was a climber, no matter what my weight and FTP were. It was more about recovery from coming back down from the hills, and having something left for the flats, where I am in my element.

 

[Asher]

New BMC Teammachine sports the HPR40, with models from $8-13.5k, and as little as 20.72 lbs.

The BMC Teammachine 01 AMP Road eBike is So Light & Pedalable it Feels Like a New Category

The new BMC Teammachine 01 Amp is the ebike for people who don't want an ebike, but a road bike they can easily pedal up hills

bikerumor.com

 

[mschwett]

from a review of the new BMC

With the motor on, it’s a slightly different story. In the low setting, the motor is acting on the drivetrain, but it’s also introducing noticeable friction as you also push against the motor.

In short, in this mode the power delivery was capped at such a low level that when I pushed hard to accelerate, I found the system felt draggier than it would have done with the system switched off.

It’s also noticeable (to a lesser extent) in the medium setting, meaning only the more powerful two settings are really powerful enough to feel like true assistance when you're working hard.

this is what i have been worried about with these designs, which lacks the “clutch” behavior of other mid drive motors. it makes sense that once it’s engaged, with no clutch and at very low power levels, you could overrun the motor and essentially be acting as a generator. of course it should catch up quickly … but instantly?

 

[Rás Cnoic]

from a review of the new BMC



this is what i have been worried about with these designs, which lacks the “clutch” behavior of other mid drive motors. it makes sense that once it’s engaged, with no clutch and at very low power levels, you could overrun the motor and essentially be acting as a generator. of course it should catch up quickly … but instantly?

Trying to get my head around this - so if the motor is on a low 'eco' setting, power is so low your own pedalling is exceeding the assist and that creates drag? For comparison I'm not feeling that on my SL motor (35nm max) for a couple of factors I'm guessing, because of the steep hills here Eco is always set over 35% so there is always a good level of assist, and my motor has a clutch(?) which does not create friction/drag when I exceed low levels? Damn I want to try one of these on my roads to experience this and see what it feels like as I've difficulty in visualising it. If as the reviewer says, it is noticeable, that would be, excuse the pun, a real drag.

 

[Rás Cnoic]

Trying to get my head around this - so if the motor is on a low 'eco' setting, power is so low your own pedalling is exceeding the assist and that creates drag? For comparison I'm not feeling that on my SL motor (35nm max) for a couple of factors I'm guessing, because of the steep hills here Eco is always set over 35% so there is always a good level of assist, and my motor has a clutch(?) which does not create friction/drag when I exceed low levels? Damn I want to try one of these on my roads to experience this and see what it feels like as I've difficulty in visualising it. If as the reviewer says, it is noticeable, that would be, excuse the pun, a real drag.

Additional: just read that Bike Rumours review above. It's the approx 20lbs that gets me every time. That and of course the price. Clearly Less really is More!

 

[Rás Cnoic]

Above 25kph, the motor disengages entirely, and all rider-generated power is transferred directly to the rear wheel without drag. The assist cuts cleanly, leaving the bike to behave like an unassisted machine at the speeds where road cycling most often operates. BMC worked very closely with TQ in this area, ensuring a very smooth switch of power, an area that other motors struggle with. On a mountain bike or hybrid bike the 15mph cut-off isn't such a big deal as in general the speeds are lower, but on road, where it's easy to go over that speed, the transition needs to be very subtle or else it feels like more of a problem than a help and can be very frustrating when riding with others on flatter terrain.

Rouleur

I've noticed a couple of reviewers saying this now- It must really piss Specialized off. When did the first Creo & SL motor come out? 2019? So for about 7 years they've had this imperceptible motor cut off already. But I find it's a common thread for road bike magazine reviewers to spend half the review delicately weaving the line of 'of course some say e bikes are cheating' and the other half showing that the last ebike they rode had a car battery hooked up to a washing machine electric motor.

He never mentions either that Canyon Scott and Ridley already have models with the TQ40 motor. Guess BMC are paying for the review.

Be interesting to see if more riders comment on this low power v drag issue. Personally I hope it's not a big deal as this low power, low weight mid drive fits my hilly rides and I'd love to own a bike that feels breezy when riding with assist off. Right now my 16 year old Salsa Vaya, no weight weeny at 27lbs, still is fun to ride, so a 21lbs machine with 40nm must feel extraordinary. An on the road weight of nearly half of my Vado SL yet with similar power. But also, and a big deal for me, is the silence of the TQ.

My forlorn hope is of course that a Decathlon or X Lab etc will come out with a reasonably priced TQ40 motor model and I can start to do the sneaky maths to figure out how to justify getting one.

Also, and I mentioned this in a thread yesterday re the Avinox launch, what are Shimano thinking about all these new motor developments? Are they going to quietly withdraw from motor R&D, it's been 6 years since any new motors. Or are they just waiting for market conditions to improve? I've thought for a long time they have the most knowledge of the cutting edge of bicycle development, the most contacts in all bike sports, right to the top, and so are in the prime spot to come out with brilliant e bike tech and a ready market to sell it to.

Anyway a topic for another day.

 

[Asher]

Above 25kph, the motor disengages entirely, and all rider-generated power is transferred directly to the rear wheel without drag. The assist cuts cleanly, leaving the bike to behave like an unassisted machine at the speeds where road cycling most often operates. BMC worked very closely with TQ in this area, ensuring a very smooth switch of power, an area that other motors struggle with. On a mountain bike or hybrid bike the 15mph cut-off isn't such a big deal as in general the speeds are lower, but on road, where it's easy to go over that speed, the transition needs to be very subtle or else it feels like more of a problem than a help and can be very frustrating when riding with others on flatter terrain.

Rouleur

I've noticed a couple of reviewers saying this now- It must really piss Specialized off. When did the first Creo & SL motor come out? 2019? So for about 7 years they've had this imperceptible motor cut off already. But I find it's a common thread for road bike magazine reviewers to spend half the review delicately weaving the line of 'of course some say e bikes are cheating' and the other half showing that the last ebike they rode had a car battery hooked up to a washing machine electric motor.

He never mentions either that Canyon Scott and Ridley already have models with the TQ40 motor. Guess BMC are paying for the review.

Be interesting to see if more riders comment on this low power v drag issue. Personally I hope it's not a big deal as this low power, low weight mid drive fits my hilly rides and I'd love to own a bike that feels breezy when riding with assist off. Right now my 16 year old Salsa Vaya, no weight weeny at 27lbs, still is fun to ride, so a 21lbs machine with 40nm must feel extraordinary. An on the road weight of nearly half of my Vado SL yet with similar power. But also, and a big deal for me, is the silence of the TQ.

My forlorn hope is of course that a Decathlon or X Lab etc will come out with a reasonably priced TQ40 motor model and I can start to do the sneaky maths to figure out how to justify getting one.

Also, and I mentioned this in a thread yesterday re the Avinox launch, what are Shimano thinking about all these new motor developments? Are they going to quietly withdraw from motor R&D, it's been 6 years since any new motors. Or are they just waiting for market conditions to improve? I've thought for a long time they have the most knowledge of the cutting edge of bicycle development, the most contacts in all bike sports, right to the top, and so are in the prime spot to come out with brilliant e bike tech and a ready market to sell it to.

Anyway a topic for another day.

Yeah that is a chronic problem with the bike media - bikes are reviewed in isolation when everyone wants to know how they compare against others in the field. It's why review Roundup sites like the Wirecutter are so successful.

As for a cheaper brand using the TQ, I had the same hope, and Canyon already has it - but it's neither class 3 nor stateside, and their US footprint seems to be shrinking. An e road bike that isn't class 3 is pretty silly. I had also read somewhere that TQ works closely with brands that use their motor, it's not a simple plug and play, so that limits the speed and span of adoption, which explains why nearly a year on, despite it being recognized as the best lightweight e road motor, it's still on few bikes. TQ is probably charging a nice scarcity premium to manufacturers too.

 

[stompandgo]

TQ really isn't taking advantage of their market niche. The cost of their components aren't any higher than their competition.

 

[mschwett]

Trying to get my head around this - so if the motor is on a low 'eco' setting, power is so low your own pedalling is exceeding the assist and that creates drag? For comparison I'm not feeling that on my SL motor (35nm max) for a couple of factors I'm guessing, because of the steep hills here Eco is always set over 35% so there is always a good level of assist, and my motor has a clutch(?) which does not create friction/drag when I exceed low levels? Damn I want to try one of these on my roads to experience this and see what it feels like as I've difficulty in visualising it. If as the reviewer says, it is noticeable, that would be, excuse the pun, a real drag.

the SL motors have a clutch (or something like one) - you physically can’t turn the motor with the pedals, and the motor can’t actually turn the pedals either. if you put the bike on a stand and give the pedals a quick spin without any load on the wheel in turbo what you’ll see is actually the chainring spinning fast for a second (and the rear wheel of course) but the crank arms are basically disconnected by the clutch. it’s strange, but makes sense. you don’t want to ever feel like the motor is turning the pedals, and when the motor is off or you’re out pedaling it briefly you don’t want to be a generator!

TQ does it differently, the whole deal is fully concentric to the motor and the harmonic pin ring assembly replaces all the kludgy splined gears, and in the 40 they’ve made it so tiny and light by removing one of the physical clutches and using software to emulate it by spinning the motor “just right.”

something doesn’t seem right about this - so we/i may be misunderstanding part of it. the motor obviously disconnects above the cutoff, there’s no way the rider is spinning the motor at all times, but it seems like the behavior when the motor is “ON” but at low power level is highly dependent on the software.

 

[Rás Cnoic]

the SL motors have a clutch (or something like one) - you physically can’t turn the motor with the pedals, and the motor can’t actually turn the pedals either. if you put the bike on a stand and give the pedals a quick spin without any load on the wheel in turbo what you’ll see is actually the chainring spinning fast for a second (and the rear wheel of course) but the crank arms are basically disconnected by the clutch. it’s strange, but makes sense. you don’t want to ever feel like the motor is turning the pedals, and when the motor is off or you’re out pedaling it briefly you don’t want to be a generator!

TQ does it differently, the whole deal is fully concentric to the motor and the harmonic pin ring assembly replaces all the kludgy splined gears, and in the 40 they’ve made it so tiny and light by removing one of the physical clutches and using software to emulate it by spinning the motor “just right.”

something doesn’t seem right about this - so we/i may be misunderstanding part of it. the motor obviously disconnects above the cutoff, there’s no way the rider is spinning the motor at all times, but it seems like the behavior when the motor is “ON” but at low power level is highly dependent on the software.

Very interesting. Not an engineer but I do get nervous when it's software not mechanical, not when the motor is new, but how the longevity of the system pans out. I guess we'll hear more reports as people buy the bikes.

 

[apctjb]

something doesn’t seem right about this - so we/i may be misunderstanding part of it. the motor obviously disconnects above the cutoff

Does the motor mechanically disconnect or at cutoff does software reduce motor torque to achieve a neutral torque state? By neutral torque I mean it adds enough torque to overcome internal resistance of the motor (rider feels no drag when pedaling) but not so much to add meaningful assistance. Good control software in theory could make it appear to the rider that the motor is "disconnected" why still being mechanically connected. So if riders are feeling drag then also in theory that is something that could be addressed via a software update. Interesting stuff!!!