Recent content by Calcoaster

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!

Yes, it’s logical that the hpr40 will prove to be at least as efficient as the HPR50, likely better. Besides evolving motors, there are still gains to be made in battery technology which will increase range per battery size/weight = more miles per same physical size battery.

Here’s another test report I came across showing the efficiency o the HPR50. https://www.testmybike.com/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/INFORME_TQ_HPR50_EN_HI.pdf

When Specialized rolled out the Creo2 they published this chart comparing their new motor’s efficiency with the TQ hpr50 and others. I saw a lot of room for misleading marketing hype and I asked Spec if I could see their test data and methodology. Like “rider cadence between 80 and 100”, and how...

It’s nice to see you’re taking the 1.8 (or so) rider multiplication factor into consideration in your examples showing the rider power that hits the motor cap. You may have seen the specialized app reports motor power peaking out around 308 Watts, which is the max electrical input they allow in...

Very informative and expertly done! Thanks for your efforts.