Recent content by Calcoaster

I watched that segment again and the translation said the BMC is a “super light unicycle …” No wonder it only weight 8.5kg! Then when you bolt on the front half of the bike it will weigh more than the canyon. Or the AI translator is showing its limitations.

I saw a couple of mentions and video views of the BMC from reviewers at Eurobike. It’s a prototype based on the Teammachine model, 8.5kg with the tq hpr40. I know BMC is switching their Roadmachine model from the hpr50 to the hpr60, which makes sense - the roadmachine is their endurance bike and...

I‘ve been reading that some mt. Bikers with the HPR50 have had them replaced with hpr60 motors. It seems that the only difference in fit between the two is that the hpr60 has bolt-on heat sink fins that could make it hard to fit the motor cover over, at least on some brands. Some say that the...

Yako just posted another video on his YouTube channel. This one is a ride comparison of the hpr40 and the Mahle x20. His ride was a long climb with up to 14% grade. Very nicely done comparison and worth a watch! Thanks again Yako for your unbiased evaluations!

Here’s a bit of good news, assuming it’s accurate: I read a riders post on an e mt bike site who quoted a response from TQ saying they are working on “over the air” updates for TQ systems and expect that to be in place by the end of the year.

A redshift riser drop bar (50 or 70mm rise) will raise bars on a creo higher than the flat bars on a Vado sl. For TQ hpr50 bikes like trek and BMC those bars will work too. The canyon with hpr40 seems to have a proprietary cockpit and steerer tube that makes it challenging to change to a...

Thanks for the article. My only complaint about the Garmin/TQ connection is that the TQ motor power doesn’t transmit to the Garmin. The specialized 1.1 sl was the same - no way to see the motor power being delivered on my Garmin. I do find (by watching my top tube display set to show both rider...

I’ve found that using settings where the assist percentage is higher than the max power gives you a lot of motor assist right away and can feel jerky and unnatural. By setting the assist percent to about half of the max power level, it spreads the assist out over a wider range of rider input...

Yako, on my hpr50 bike (and I’ve heard the hpr40 is the same but don’t know for sure) we set thee parameters in each of the three assist levels: Assist percentage (the motor gives you this percentage of the rider’s input power), max power (motor power is capped with this setting), and pedal...

If anyone hasn’t watched Yako’s canyon review with the hpr40 here’s a link. He has a couple more but this one is him testing it out on a long ride.

Yes, there has always been marketing hype involved in ratings of all kinds. That’s probably why we rarely see the actual test parameters and data. I’ve never seen TQ state the angular velocity (stated as rpm or otherwise) their torque or power specs come from.

They claim 40nm and 200 watts peak and nominal for the hpr40. The hpr50 claims 50nm and 300w peak, 250w nominal. It’s upgrade now being used by trek and BMC, the hpr60 claims 60nm, 350 w peak and depending on the source, 250 or 300w nominal. I read the reason for the two different nominal...

That’s what they advertise- 200 watts peak or continuous. Meant for lightweight road bikes and riders who want some assist but still expect to work for it.

The testmybike site has a few other interesting articles. https://www.testmybike.com/en/artic/

It’s nice to get your input and analysis, both here and on your YouTube channel! And you’re so right about the heat/efficiency connection: basic physics says less heat = better electrical/mechanical conversion. Thanks for your reviews!