2023 Trek Domane+

[mschwett]

See my comments above reower. Way off. I have been riding with power meters for the past 10 years and this one is not even close. I rely extensively on the Creo power readings to track my effort….the numbers feel a little inflated but at least they’re consistent. Perhaps there was something amiss with the factory calibration on the unit I rode. If not, I’d need a set of Rally pedals for accurate measurement.

that's a huge bummer! definitely would need power pedals.

 

[AntonioAlfaro]

See my comments above reower. Way off. I have been riding with power meters for the past 10 years and this one is not even close. I rely extensively on the Creo power readings to track my effort….the numbers feel a little inflated but at least they’re consistent. Perhaps there was something amiss with the factory calibration on the unit I rode. If not, I’d need a set of Rally pedals for accurate measurement.

This could be a question for the TQ or TREK support center. It would not make sense that such advanced TQ technology relies on inaccurate power measurements.

 

[AntonioAlfaro]

Every new paradigm raises reasonable doubts, but it doesn't mean it's bad.
We have to encourage all those who already drive a 2023 Domane+ SLR6 to share their experiences, doubts, lessons learned. We all want to learn.

 

[EdBell]

See my comments above reower. Way off. I have been riding with power meters for the past 10 years and this one is not even close. I rely extensively on the Creo power readings to track my effort….the numbers feel a little inflated but at least they’re consistent. Perhaps there was something amiss with the factory calibration on the unit I rode. If not, I’d need a set of Rally pedals for accurate measurement.

I agree with your analysis of the deficiencies in the power meter readings, off by 25-40% especially bad in the less than 200 watt range, seems to improve slightly with higher power. I have seen the same comments under the Trek Fuel EXe forums where riders have used pedal PM’s to compare. My LBS has contacted TQ in USA as well asTrek but have yet to receive a reply. Hoping for a software fix soon.

 

[jlubeck]

I agree with your analysis of the deficiencies in the power meter readings, off by 25-40% especially bad in the less than 200 watt range, seems to improve slightly with higher power. I have seen the same comments under the Trek Fuel EXe forums where riders have used pedal PM’s to compare. My LBS has contacted TQ in USA as well asTrek but have yet to receive a reply. Hoping for a software fix soon.

It would be reassuring to know they've acknowledged it and are working on a fix. A $500 - $1K addon is something I'd like to avoid at an $8500 purchase point.

 

[AntonioAlfaro]

It would be reassuring to know they've acknowledged it and are working on a fix. A $500 - $1K addon is something I'd like to avoid at an $8500 purchase point.

I have just sent an email to the TQ HPR50 support center inviting them to look at this forum and make the corresponding comments. I hope we have an answer.

 

[rdv]

Here's my experience with the Domane+ SLR 6. I got the Domane+ because Angina limits my medicated heart rate to 100 bpm, which corresponds to a sustained output to ~100 Watts. I can push to ~150W for up to a minute but have to stop to recover beyond that. That colors my experience.

Pedal response was deceptive. Initially I chose 'fast' for all three assist levels... who wouldn't want a good initial burst? But support dropped off just as fast if I relented on the pedals for a moment, and losing assistance on a 10% climb even briefly is quite unpleasant. So now my Pedal Response is set midway in Eco, and Gradual in Mid and High, making for much smoother transitions.

Battery (no expander) consumption has not been an issue thus far, though the rides have been admittedly flat: 75 miles (45 assisted), 2600' climbing showed 25% remaining at end; 57 miles (39 assisted), 1500', 40% remaining; similar 57 miles (26 assisted), 1600', 65% remaining. On two punchier rides: 25 mile (23 assisted), 1750', 55% remaining; 30 miles (all 30 assisted), 1850', 40% remaining. I find the battery percentage to be a fairly reliable guide but got rid the fluctuating 'miles remaining' metric as practically useless.

I'm still playing around with the assist levels. My limited sustainable 100W of input constrains overall usefulness. I can't tap into the motor's maximum 300W of assistance because 200% max x 100W input = 200W assist. 150W of input is needed to get the full benefit on a steady 10+ climb, and I can't keep that up for more than a minute. My latest setting is Eco 100W / 100%, Mid 200W /200%, High 300W / 200% (to take advantage of the few 150W bursts I can produce on short steep climbs). The best fix for me would be a software tweak to allow 300% of assist, to tap into all of the motor's 300W of output at 100W. I've reached out to Trek and TQ on that... not holding my breath.

To summarize my overall experience with the Domane+ so far: it lets me do things I could do on my own 5+ years ago, with a bit less sense of accomplishment, but with more gusto. Having the most fun in Eco mode, with pedals spinning almost effortlessly, as with a good tailwind on gentle inclines and into headwinds.

 

[AntonioAlfaro]

Here's my experience with the Domane+ SLR 6. I got the Domane+ because Angina limits my medicated heart rate to 100 bpm, which corresponds to a sustained output to ~100 Watts. I can push to ~150W for up to a minute but have to stop to recover beyond that. That colors my experience.

Pedal response was deceptive. Initially I chose 'fast' for all three assist levels... who wouldn't want a good initial burst? But support dropped off just as fast if I relented on the pedals for a moment, and losing assistance on a 10% climb even briefly is quite unpleasant. So now my Pedal Response is set midway in Eco, and Gradual in Mid and High, making for much smoother transitions.

Battery (no expander) consumption has not been an issue thus far, though the rides have been admittedly flat: 75 miles (45 assisted), 2600' climbing showed 25% remaining at end; 57 miles (39 assisted), 1500', 40% remaining; similar 57 miles (26 assisted), 1600', 65% remaining. On two punchier rides: 25 mile (23 assisted), 1750', 55% remaining; 30 miles (all 30 assisted), 1850', 40% remaining. I find the battery percentage to be a fairly reliable guide but got rid the fluctuating 'miles remaining' metric as practically useless.

I'm still playing around with the assist levels. My limited sustainable 100W of input constrains overall usefulness. I can't tap into the motor's maximum 300W of assistance because 200% max x 100W input = 200W assist. 150W of input is needed to get the full benefit on a steady 10+ climb, and I can't keep that up for more than a minute. My latest setting is Eco 100W / 100%, Mid 200W /200%, High 300W / 200% (to take advantage of the few 150W bursts I can produce on short steep climbs). The best fix for me would be a software tweak to allow 300% of assist, to tap into all of the motor's 300W of output at 100W. I've reached out to Trek and TQ on that... not holding my breath.

To summarize my overall experience with the Domane+ so far: it lets me do things I could do on my own 5+ years ago, with a bit less sense of accomplishment, but with more gusto. Having the most fun in Eco mode, with pedals spinning almost effortlessly, as with a good tailwind on gentle inclines and into headwinds.

Hello rdv,
Thank you for your contributions to this forum. Being TQ and Doname+ SLR a very new ecosystem, all the experiences that are shared will undoubtedly help us to use it in the optimal way, enjoying our tours to the fullest.
As I have commented in the past, I have quite a bit of experience with my Mahle X35+ ecosystem based Ordea Gain D50 eBike, but now I am waiting (hopefully no more than 2 months) for my TQ equipped Domane+ SLR6. I must admit that the way to adjust the assistance levels in TQ is not familiar to me at all. I don't understand what is the methodology to do it. What does that 200% that you mention mean?
Is there any video or explanatory document about this?
Greetings
Antony

 

[Stefan Mikes]

What does that 200% that you mention mean?

Each Watt input by the rider in pedalling is rewarded with two Watts of assistance up to the maximum motor power of 300 W.

 

[AntonioAlfaro]

Each Watt input by the rider in pedalling is rewarded with two Watts of assistance up to the maximum motor power of 300 W.

Thanks Stefan,
Marvelous! I got used to the way the first generation (X35) works and I never thought of something so reasonable

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Thanks Stefan,
Marvelous! I got used to the way the first generation (X35) works and I never thought of something so reasonable

It is a mid-drive motor with both cadence and torque sensors, so the system can calculate and multiply the cyclist's power.
Technically speaking, the motor of this kind has rider's power-meter-pedals.

 

[jlubeck]

I took the Domane out for another spin today to get a better feel for assist and battery consumption. I started out by setting it at 25% assist with max set at 72W which is close to Creo 15/30. What I realized is that the Trek software already factors in the 2X ( 2 times you) calculation and assist levels are graded from 0-200% although the floor is 25%. So Creo 15% may equal Domane 30%. At this level of assist battery consumption appeared to be about 1% every 2 miles (200 miles range) as opposed to a range of 250 miles for the Creo. At times I couldn't detect much in the way of added power and it became apparent that the lack of the Creo whine and smooth acceleration made the assist almost imperceptible.

I thought that this may have been slightly below the Creo's level of assist. I then dialed the assist up to 30% with max remaining at 72W. Consumption /range would have been about 135 miles and then did a little test.
There is a small quarter mile ramp near my house that I often like to hammer.
Last week I PR'd it in the Creo at 15/30 in 47 seconds.
With the Domane at 30/72W, I again PR'd it in 44 seconds. So I could probably dial this back to 25% and approximate my Creo ECO settings.
Summary:
With somewhat comparable settings, Creo appears to have slightly better range but Domane appears more than adequate for my usage without the need to add an extender.

Also, same unreliable results with power. On the hammer:
Average / max power Creo - 392/480
Domane - 235/315 My max HR was exactly the same!

 

[rdv]

I took the Domane out for another spin today to get a better feel for assist and battery consumption. I started out by setting it at 25% assist with max set at 72W which is close to Creo 15/30. What I realized is that the Trek software already factors in the 2X ( 2 times you) calculation and assist levels are graded from 0-200% although the floor is 25%. So Creo 15% may equal Domane 30%. At this level of assist battery consumption appeared to be about 1% every 2 miles (200 miles range) as opposed to a range of 250 miles for the Creo. At times I couldn't detect much in the way of added power and it became apparent that the lack of the Creo whine and smooth acceleration made the assist almost imperceptible.

I thought that this may have been slightly below the Creo's level of assist. I then dialed the assist up to 30% with max remaining at 72W. Consumption /range would have been about 135 miles and then did a little test.
There is a small quarter mile ramp near my house that I often like to hammer.
Last week I PR'd it in the Creo at 15/30 in 47 seconds.
With the Domane at 30/72W, I again PR'd it in 44 seconds. So I could probably dial this back to 25% and approximate my Creo ECO settings.
Summary:
With somewhat comparable settings, Creo appears to have slightly better range but Domane appears more than adequate for my usage without the need to add an extender.

Also, same unreliable results with power. On the hammer:
Average / max power Creo - 392/480
Domane - 235/315 My max HR was exactly the same!

Pardon, but your post sparked my curiosity.
You use so little assistance that I wonder (coming from the other end of the assist spectrum) what led you to e-bikes in the first place.
I also wonder where you get the projected range estimates from. Have you tested the Creo to the point of batter exhaustion (over separate rides)? I find it surprising that the 25% larger capacity TQ battery would yield only 80% as many miles over the same terrain at the same speed. It suggests that the TQ system is horribly inefficient. The only metric I find reliable is the % battery remaining, which the Domane+ reports in 1% decrements. (However, I haven't yet confirmed that the burn rate for the last 25% is as good as the first 25%.)
With regard to power, do the values you cite consist of your input alone? How reported on the Domane+?
Thanks for your prior and future feedback.

 

[AntonioAlfaro]

I don't know the (reported) efficiency of the Creo system, but in the case of TQ the manufacturer reports 90%.

FAQ

Answers on commonly asked questions (FAQs) summarized in a nutshell.

www.tq-ebike.com

How can we understand a 20% less projected distance in TQ for a configuration similar to Creo (also considering that TQ has higher battery capacity)?

 

[jlubeck]

Pardon, but your post sparked my curiosity.
You use so little assistance that I wonder (coming from the other end of the assist spectrum) what led you to e-bikes in the first place.
I also wonder where you get the projected range estimates from. Have you tested the Creo to the point of batter exhaustion (over separate rides)? I find it surprising that the 25% larger capacity TQ battery would yield only 80% as many miles over the same terrain at the same speed. It suggests that the TQ system is horribly inefficient. The only metric I find reliable is the % battery remaining, which the Domane+ reports in 1% decrements. (However, I haven't yet confirmed that the burn rate for the last 25% is as good as the first 25%.)
With regard to power, do the values you cite consist of your input alone? How reported on the Domane+?
Thanks for your prior and future feedback.

Getting older and I like having bonk insurance. My motor usage isn't linear but that seemed to be the easiest metric to compare. I ride in groups and if age appropriate I usually ride in the flats with no assist and use ECO on gentle climbs to neutralize the weight. When in faster groups, I'll use ECO in the flats and SPORT (30/50) on steeper climbs. I no longer have climbing dread. Real life usage isn't linear as I clearly need more assist at the end of longer rides. I can't compare battery consumption between the 2 bikes at higher assist levels.

 

[mtnroads]

I have a new Domane+ SLR 6 myself, base model, purchased at the end of April. I was interested in the TQ technology, and wanted some assistance on super hot days or when the winds kick up on my return leg. I am 68 and live in Tucson, an active road cyclist logging 75-100 miles a week normally. I have 3 other road/gravel bikes and wanted a performance e-road bike. A narrow Q-factor was important due to my medial meniscus issues. I have pretty bad knees from years of trail running and imperfect biomechanics, but up until a couple of weeks ago was doing fine, and still averaging 15-16mph (solo) on two hour rides.

So.. I injured one of my knees about two weeks ago and then made it worse by continuing to ride and some stupidity on my part with my gravel bike. The torque to the knee was the final insult and the situation is bad again. Doc said the knees are bone on bone, with severe arthritis. I'm not ready for a joint replacement, but I have to keep pedaling, as it has always kept me going. Thank god for this bike. It may buy me a few more years before something has to be done with the joints.

Yesterday, after not riding for almost a week, I needed to pedal - so I took the Domane+ out, set the boost to the highest setting and managed to ride 13 miles before I started to feel some pain and quit. I could only put in a very low effort, but still managed to average 15 mph. It provides just enough when you need it, and only used 24% of the battery (~ 52 mi range). Yet it feels quite natural and my legs aren't splayed out like on a couple other bikes I tried before I bought this one. My knees actually felt a lot better after the ride and icing down the bad one.

I am really shocked at how good this bike is. Quiet, exceptionally smooth and natural feeling. Feels almost like my Roubaix, but with that extra boost. Surprised to see I was averaging similar speed, with much less effort, yet quite frugal with the battery it seems. Worth every penny if you were in my situation.

 

[mschwett]

I took the Domane out for another spin today to get a better feel for assist and battery consumption. I started out by setting it at 25% assist with max set at 72W which is close to Creo 15/30. What I realized is that the Trek software already factors in the 2X ( 2 times you) calculation and assist levels are graded from 0-200% although the floor is 25%. So Creo 15% may equal Domane 30%….

actually, specialized does the same. the first % is the % of total assist ratio, which is 2x on the SL bikes. so 100% = 200% assist. put in 100w, motor adds 200w for a total of 300w. 50% = 100% assist. put in 100, motor adds 100w.

it’s weirdly counterintuitive but it allows the “system” to be the same on bikes of varying power. very interesting to me that trek/tq are doing the same.

has anyone here compared dual sided power pedals to the built in meter? is the big variance confirmed or just suspected? the specialized SL system is also off by a bit depending on the situation, although it’s gotten better.

 

[mtnroads]

has anyone here compared dual sided power pedals to the built in meter? is the big variance confirmed or just suspected? the specialized SL system is also off by a bit depending on the situation, although it’s gotten better.

Have never used power pedals, but I find it rather interesting that despite the watts being all over the place during my rides (both rider and system watts), when I return from a ride and look at the average watts displayed in the Trek Dashboard ride summary - the sum of the two figures (rider/system) is within a few watts of what Strava tells me was expended for the ride. Yesterday it was within ONE watt. Two completely different systems and ways of deriving the number. Strava uses the actual route with known elev gain, time, heart rate (for effort) and rider weight, to get to it's number. I don't think it knows much about localized wind conditions. Obviously the bike measures what the bike and I are actually putting in.

For them to be so close tells me the Trek number must be fairly accurate. There has only been one exception - on my first ride, Strava was low by 15 watts - but I had a very strong headwind without a compensating tailwind, and I also had not told Strava it was an e-bike ride.

The speed and range continue to impress, being at least as good as Trek estimates, but tuning through the app is still a crapshoot and I am never really sure why I get exactly what I do in the various modes, other than of course MAX contributes more than ECO or MID. Still figuring it out.

 

[jlubeck]

Have never used power pedals, but I find it rather interesting that despite the watts being all over the place during my rides (both rider and system watts), when I return from a ride and look at the average watts displayed in the Trek Dashboard ride summary - the sum of the two figures (rider/system) is within a few watts of what Strava tells me was expended for the ride. Yesterday it was within ONE watt. Two completely different systems and ways of deriving the number. Strava uses the actual route with known elev gain, time, heart rate (for effort) and rider weight, to get to it's number. I don't think it knows much about localized wind conditions. Obviously the bike measures what the bike and I are actually putting in.

For them to be so close tells me the Trek number must be fairly accurate. There has only been one exception - on my first ride, Strava was low by 15 watts - but I had a very strong headwind without a compensating tailwind, and I also had not told Strava it was an e-bike ride.

The speed and range continue to impress, being at least as good as Trek estimates, but tuning through the app is still a crapshoot and I am never really sure why I get exactly what I do in the various modes, other than of course MAX contributes more than ECO or MID. Still figuring it out.

Assuming you have the bike or bike "power meter" paired with your bike computer, Strava averages the actual broadcast wattage from the bike. You can easily see it if you examine the analysis graph. With an actual power meter, there are thousands of data points and high variability. So the wattage between Trek dashboard and Strava should be nearly identical. Strava only uses the virtual estimates if there is no power meter. If you look at the power graph on a ride without a power meter, the graph has far fewer data points and is significantly smoothed.

 

[Ben J]

specialized does the same. the first % is the % of total assist ratio, which is 2x on the SL bikes. so 100% = 200% assist. put in 100w, motor adds 200w for a total of 300w.

I had been assuming that "up to 4x you" meant the total (me + bike) was 4x, meaning the assist was actually 3x. Which would make the SL "2x" up to 50/50 rider/bike.

Do we know for sure of the 2x/4x number includes the rider or not?