2023 Trek Domane+

[AntonioAlfaro]

Allow me to share data from my first ride in Domane+ SLR6. For many years I have used the Orbea Gain D50 which is a first generation ebike based on the Mahle X35, today I have been really impressed with the performance and comfort of the Domane+.
Prior to this first outing, I used a Wahoo Smart trainer to simulate different slopes and after multiple adjustments I was ready to hit the streets.
The assist settings are based on my 140W FTP and the different assist ranges are based on % slopes.

 

[Deacon Blues]

I can't, for the life of me, understand Trek's thinking when they decided what model they'd bring into Canada. Bikes are more expensive in Canada, when compared to the US, so why in the world would they only bring in the more expensive model?
I ride with two people who recently purchased Domane+ bikes and both are having some issues with the front derailleur. Seems Trek is unable to figure out why, when shifting from the small to large ring, the derailleur allows the chain to move too far outwards allowing the chain to fall off. One owner has it happen occasionally, while the other has it happen at least once every time he goes for a ride. Trek has replaced the Ultegra front derailleur with a 105 Di2 model (which, unlike the Ultegra model it can be manually adjusted) and so far (90km of riding) it has solved the problem.
Trek also brought in another Domane+ for him to ride while they take his bike and try and figure out what's happening with the Ultregra front derailleur.
I did take his bike for a very short ride today and was really impressed, but boy-oh-boy is this bike expensive in Canada.

 

[WillShootPhotos]

I can't, for the life of me, understand Trek's thinking when they decided what model they'd bring into Canada. Bikes are more expensive in Canada, when compared to the US, so why in the world would they only bring in the more expensive model?
I ride with two people who recently purchased Domane+ bikes and both are having some issues with the front derailleur. Seems Trek is unable to figure out why, when shifting from the small to large ring, the derailleur allows the chain to move too far outwards allowing the chain to fall off. One owner has it happen occasionally, while the other has it happen at least once every time he goes for a ride. Trek has replaced the Ultegra front derailleur with a 105 Di2 model (which, unlike the Ultegra model it can be manually adjusted) and so far (90km of riding) it has solved the problem.
Trek also brought in another Domane+ for him to ride while they take his bike and try and figure out what's happening with the Ultregra front derailleur.
I did take his bike for a very short ride today and was really impressed, but boy-oh-boy is this bike expensive in Canada.

DB - you have my curiosity piqued - which model does TREK offer that isn't avail in Canada?

On the front derailleur issue, the front Ultegra Di2 12 speed derailleur *is* adjustable. It is part of the setup process to step through adjusting the front mech outer and inner limits with the chain on the big and small sprockets while at extremes on the back cassette. So I'm not sure how the 105 adjustment is any different. (I've been a professional bike shop mechanic over the years to support my habit - I may not be as up to speed on 105 Di2 as I've not worked with it, but I do have the 12 Speed Ultegra on my bike and have another 300 miles on it since purchase (up to just under 500 miles so far). I know one other person here in my area who has about 200 miles on their new D+ SLR, and they've also had zero issues to date.

My method for adjusting the front derailleur is via the E-Tube app from Shimano. Once paired to the bike; you can connect, go into "maintenance" mode, tap the "front" row in the "Derailleur adjustment" section, and the app will step you through the 6 steps. With the bike in a work-stand, it will tell you when to spin the cranks and it will shift the front and rear mech to each of the needed combinations, coach you on how to adjust (it shows an image of the inner or outer plate and the distance to the chain edge), allow you to make the adjustment by tapping buttons in the app, and then tapping "next" to get to the next step. I think this is also doable by using just the button on the rear derailleur if you don't have the app, so long as you have the front/rear positioned correctly, you can adjust the front mech for each setting - but I've always used the free app from Shimano.

Curiously enough - I've gone "non standard" and am still not having issues.

I commented before about how the non Shimano chain rings may affect shifting, but I've since modified my front chainring setup to match my previous "standard" 2021 Domane SLR config - mixing up front chainring sizes to get a broader range. Shimano only "approves" of 50/34 (compact), 52/36 (semi-compact) and 53/39 (standard) combos. They machine the pins/ramps/teeth to give optimal up and down shifting. Where I live we have long steep climbs so I love the 34 smallest ring, but also have long gradual descents of only 2-3 percent where the folks I ride with would pull away from me on the 50T big ring... having 2 more toofers has helped me stay in w/ the group.

That said - I ended up getting a 52T big ring that matches the spec of the 50/34 Praxis rings that came on the Domane+ SLR7, I've run that now for about 250 miles with zero mis-shifts. I've just had the same experience I had with the Shimano non standard rings on my standard Domane SLR - an occasional (maybe 1 in 15 or so) slow shift from small to big ring...

Hoping your friends can get their front mech issue sorted!

 

[WillShootPhotos]

Allow me to share data from my first ride in Domane+ SLR6. For many years I have used the Orbea Gain D50 which is a first generation ebike based on the Mahle X35, today I have been really impressed with the performance and comfort of the Domane+.
Prior to this first outing, I used a Wahoo Smart trainer to simulate different slopes and after multiple adjustments I was ready to hit the streets.
The assist settings are based on my 140W FTP and the different assist ranges are based on % slopes.

Sounds like a great first ride!!!

 

[AntonioAlfaro]

Sounds like a great first ride!!!

Yeah. It really was. Next week I will do 3 new tours to finish verifying that I am not dreaming. I will keep you informed

 

[Deacon Blues]

DB - you have my curiosity piqued - which model does TREK offer that isn't avail in Canada?

On the front derailleur issue, the front Ultegra Di2 12 speed derailleur *is* adjustable. It is part of the setup process to step through adjusting the front mech outer and inner limits with the chain on the big and small sprockets while at extremes on the back cassette. So I'm not sure how the 105 adjustment is any different. (I've been a professional bike shop mechanic over the years to support my habit - I may not be as up to speed on 105 Di2 as I've not worked with it, but I do have the 12 Speed Ultegra on my bike and have another 300 miles on it since purchase (up to just under 500 miles so far). I know one other person here in my area who has about 200 miles on their new D+ SLR, and they've also had zero issues to date.

My method for adjusting the front derailleur is via the E-Tube app from Shimano. Once paired to the bike; you can connect, go into "maintenance" mode, tap the "front" row in the "Derailleur adjustment" section, and the app will step you through the 6 steps. With the bike in a work-stand, it will tell you when to spin the cranks and it will shift the front and rear mech to each of the needed combinations, coach you on how to adjust (it shows an image of the inner or outer plate and the distance to the chain edge), allow you to make the adjustment by tapping buttons in the app, and then tapping "next" to get to the next step. I think this is also doable by using just the button on the rear derailleur if you don't have the app, so long as you have the front/rear positioned correctly, you can adjust the front mech for each setting - but I've always used the free app from Shimano.

Curiously enough - I've gone "non standard" and am still not having issues.

I commented before about how the non Shimano chain rings may affect shifting, but I've since modified my front chainring setup to match my previous "standard" 2021 Domane SLR config - mixing up front chainring sizes to get a broader range. Shimano only "approves" of 50/34 (compact), 52/36 (semi-compact) and 53/39 (standard) combos. They machine the pins/ramps/teeth to give optimal up and down shifting. Where I live we have long steep climbs so I love the 34 smallest ring, but also have long gradual descents of only 2-3 percent where the folks I ride with would pull away from me on the 50T big ring... having 2 more toofers has helped me stay in w/ the group.

That said - I ended up getting a 52T big ring that matches the spec of the 50/34 Praxis rings that came on the Domane+ SLR7, I've run that now for about 250 miles with zero mis-shifts. I've just had the same experience I had with the Shimano non standard rings on my standard Domane SLR - an occasional (maybe 1 in 15 or so) slow shift from small to big ring...

Hoping your friends can get their front mech issue sorted!

Trek isn't offering the SLR6 in Canada.
I'm not sure what's going on with the chain dropping problem. Trek recommended the shop switch the front derailleur and that seems to have worked/helped.

 

[Deacon Blues]

When I first looked at the Domane+ I compared its price to the Scott Solace and Orbea Gain X20. The Solace and Gain can be had for around $10,000 Can, which, in my opinion, makes them a much better bang-for-the-buck than the Domane+ SLR7. Components wise, all three are in the same ball park.
In a perfect world I'd be able to test ride all three back-to-back, but that isn't going to happen.

 

[WillShootPhotos]

When I first looked at the Domane+ I compared its price to the Scott Solace and Orbea Gain X20. The Solace and Gain can be had for around $10,000 Can, which, in my opinion, makes them a much better bang-for-the-buck than the Domane+ SLR7. Components wise, all three are in the same ball park.
In a perfect world I'd be able to test ride all three back-to-back, but that isn't going to happen.

I'm not as familiar w/ the Solace, but do love the endurance geometry of the TREK and have been loving the iso-speed plush ride on Domanes since they were initially launched. I've had 2 "regular" and now one electric Domane. Put almost 30,000 miles on my first before I got the 2021 SLR, and only went electric due to some health issues...

 

[WillShootPhotos]

I'd be interested in knowing how long the nominal 250W TQ HPR50 motor can sustain the max 300W output, its power curves, and how it self protects against overstress, among aspects. TQ seems mighty stingy with specifics that go beyond marketing blurb. Anyone come across insightful information?

So, I played around a bit with the max assist mode at the end of a very hot ride yesterday. I tweaked the max assist to provide 200% boost to a max power of 300W. I was about 2.5 hours into a 3 hour total ride, so the bike was pretty toasty.

With ambient air temps around 103F and my Garmin showing 112F, I headed for a local climb called Villa Ridge. 3.3 miles averaging 3.4% grade - but that's a bit deceptive as it starts easy and just continues to ramp up as you get up the climb - with the end being a solid stretch of 8-9%

Off I spun, trying to stay around 150W to the TQ would be trying to be at its max of 300W. I crawled through the GPX file from the TREK app and compared it against the power recorded by my Garmin from my Garmin Vector 2 power pedals.

Shortest version:
Time: 10:35
Avg Speed: 18.9 mph
TREK App Motor Power Average: 279W
TREK App Human wattage: 236W* <--
Garmin reading of human wattage: 156W <-- much more believable
Garmin reading of temp during the climb: Max: 113F Avg: 109 F
* In the TREK TQ FAQ it does say that the input power by the rider number is NOT accurate, that if you want to train using power numbers, to get a pedal based power meter of some sort.

All in all, I'm pretty darn impressed by how the bike held up in the heat. I've had a few rides where I've plugged it in to charge when I've finished and the bike wouldn't charge due to the battery being too hot - so I sort of wondered if the system would brick on me part way up the climb... or somewhere after (I still had another 6 or 7 miles, and a few more long climbs too), but it didn't.

That said, a friend joined me who is heavier than I am who also has a D+ SLR7... he said his conked out with a "too hot" code on the TQ display a mile or two before he got to his place. But he had no issue pedaling the bike the rest of the way home. He didn't do the big climb with me, he peeled off to an easier climb, but the heat did hit the limit and stopped his assist.

More as I know it if folks are interested.

- Will

 

[WillShootPhotos]

Agree with your example values, though both control - the 50% assist up to 200W of rider input, the 100W max boost at higher inputs.

I'd be interested in knowing how long the nominal 250W TQ HPR50 motor can sustain the max 300W output, its power curves, and how it self protects against overstress, among aspects. TQ seems mighty stingy with specifics that go beyond marketing blurb. Anyone come across insightful information?

@rdv - dug a bit deeper into the data today (the post above was actually ready Sun evening, but seems I didn't click "Post Reply" till a few minutes ago... d'oh!

Since the TREK "human" power numbers were a bit *cough* overstated *cough cough* - I adjusted them down so that the avg from TREK (after adjustment) matched the average I saw from the strava segment for this part of the climb... I plotted that against the TQ Power numbers - and threw in cadence for kicks and grins.

This was "full" support mode, set for 200% and 300W max - so 150+ from me (blue) should have seen a steady(ish) 300 from the TQ (orange). Temps (according to my Garmin) were 113F max and 109 avg for this 10 min or so. This was at about 2.5 hours into a toasty 3 hour ride. So the bike was pretty well and thoroughly heat soaked by now.

It looks like the heat *did* get to the TQ motor, and it looks like it started to pull back on max supportable wattage as the climb went on... you can see where it stayed around 300W till about six and a half minutes in, then it drops to 275, 250 for a bit, back up to 275 again, before it seems to level out at 250 for most of the rest of the climb, tapering of again (perhaps) to 225 just before the end.

Nice to see the TQ looking after itself...

I'll keep diggin' in the data... more as I know it (iffin there is interest).

- Will

 

[AntonioAlfaro]

@rdv - dug a bit deeper into the data today (the post above was actually ready Sun evening, but seems I didn't click "Post Reply" till a few minutes ago... d'oh!

Since the TREK "human" power numbers were a bit *cough* overstated *cough cough* - I adjusted them down so that the avg from TREK (after adjustment) matched the average I saw from the strava segment for this part of the climb... I plotted that against the TQ Power numbers - and threw in cadence for kicks and grins.

This was "full" support mode, set for 200% and 300W max - so 150+ from me (blue) should have seen a steady(ish) 300 from the TQ (orange). Temps (according to my Garmin) were 113F max and 109 avg for this 10 min or so. This was at about 2.5 hours into a toasty 3 hour ride. So the bike was pretty well and thoroughly heat soaked by now.

View attachment 158450

It looks like the heat *did* get to the TQ motor, and it looks like it started to pull back on max supportable wattage as the climb went on... you can see where it stayed around 300W till about six and a half minutes in, then it drops to 275, 250 for a bit, back up to 275 again, before it seems to level out at 250 for most of the rest of the climb, tapering of again (perhaps) to 225 just before the end.

Nice to see the TQ looking after itself...

I'll keep diggin' in the data... more as I know it (iffin there is interest).

- Will

Hi Will, thanks for the information.
Today was my second ride on the Domane+SLR6 and by circumstance I dig into the GPX file generated by the TREK app. Unfortunately there is only geolocation data. I wonder if there is some configuration in the app that is jumping me?
If I am correct, the information you show in the graphs is extracted from the GPX file of the Trek app.
I will appreciate your comments
Antonio

 

[rdv]

@rdv - dug a bit deeper into the data today (the post above was actually ready Sun evening, but seems I didn't click "Post Reply" till a few minutes ago... d'oh!

Since the TREK "human" power numbers were a bit *cough* overstated *cough cough* - I adjusted them down so that the avg from TREK (after adjustment) matched the average I saw from the strava segment for this part of the climb... I plotted that against the TQ Power numbers - and threw in cadence for kicks and grins.

This was "full" support mode, set for 200% and 300W max - so 150+ from me (blue) should have seen a steady(ish) 300 from the TQ (orange). Temps (according to my Garmin) were 113F max and 109 avg for this 10 min or so. This was at about 2.5 hours into a toasty 3 hour ride. So the bike was pretty well and thoroughly heat soaked by now.

View attachment 158450

It looks like the heat *did* get to the TQ motor, and it looks like it started to pull back on max supportable wattage as the climb went on... you can see where it stayed around 300W till about six and a half minutes in, then it drops to 275, 250 for a bit, back up to 275 again, before it seems to level out at 250 for most of the rest of the climb, tapering of again (perhaps) to 225 just before the end.

Nice to see the TQ looking after itself...

I'll keep diggin' in the data... more as I know it (iffin there is interest).

- Will

Great information. Much appreciated. It's bringing peak and nominal power into real world focus.
300W peak power for 6+ minutes on a scorching day seems pretty good. I was thinking it might keep it up for about 10 minutes on a cooler day, and it seems to be be within striking range. Continuing at 250W is not too shabby.
And yes, very reassuring that the motor protections kicked in.
Rob

 

[Calcoaster]

@rdv - dug a bit deeper into the data today (the post above was actually ready Sun evening, but seems I didn't click "Post Reply" till a few minutes ago... d'oh!

Since the TREK "human" power numbers were a bit *cough* overstated *cough cough* - I adjusted them down so that the avg from TREK (after adjustment) matched the average I saw from the strava segment for this part of the climb... I plotted that against the TQ Power numbers - and threw in cadence for kicks and grins.

This was "full" support mode, set for 200% and 300W max - so 150+ from me (blue) should have seen a steady(ish) 300 from the TQ (orange). Temps (according to my Garmin) were 113F max and 109 avg for this 10 min or so. This was at about 2.5 hours into a toasty 3 hour ride. So the bike was pretty well and thoroughly heat soaked by now.

View attachment 158450

It looks like the heat *did* get to the TQ motor, and it looks like it started to pull back on max supportable wattage as the climb went on... you can see where it stayed around 300W till about six and a half minutes in, then it drops to 275, 250 for a bit, back up to 275 again, before it seems to level out at 250 for most of the rest of the climb, tapering of again (perhaps) to 225 just before the end.

Nice to see the TQ looking after itself...

I'll keep diggin' in the data... more as I know it (iffin there is interest).

- Will

Thanks for posting your data here, I’m interested in how the TQ system works and your experiment has answered some of my questions. So your adjusted rider input must come from your power pedals? It looks like Trek’s rider power is 50% or so high, at least in this case. I’ve read others post on an emt bike forum say their trek TQ equipped bikes read 20% or so lower than their pedals show.

I wonder if setting a lower maximum power or different power delivery (not sure what that third parameter in the app is called) would change the accuracy.

And since your test maxed the motor power with anything over 150 watts, it’s not clear if the TQ motor would have output the same 300 watts if you had kept your input down to the TQ’s display reading of 150 watts, which would be more like 100 “real” rider watts.

With your graph of the motor power I assume the app’s gpx file shows continuous data (like second-by-second?) from a ride. I was told that the app only displays motor power in real time and doesn’t record it for reviewing later. If you found a way to see that data, that’s good to know.

Thanks again for posting your findings!

 

[WillShootPhotos]

Hi Will, thanks for the information.
Today was my second ride on the Domane+SLR6 and by circumstance I dig into the GPX file generated by the TREK app. Unfortunately there is only geolocation data. I wonder if there is some configuration in the app that is jumping me?
If I am correct, the information you show in the graphs is extracted from the GPX file of the Trek app.
I will appreciate your comments
Antonio

@AntonioAlfaro - Not sure why you wouldn't see all the data unless your converter is only grabbing the main data in the nodes. There is also "extension" data for each "node" in the file - those extensions have all the other parameters. The gpx file is nothing but XML w/ nodes that look like this: Note the "extensions" section that may have been ignored by your converter

    <trkpt lat="36.078918" lon="-115.320503">
        <ele>866.311523</ele>
        <time>2023-07-07T16:47:47Z</time>
        <extensions>
            <distance>11911.881739</distance>
            <speed>10.166667</speed>
            <course>169</course>
            <acceleration>0.000000</acceleration>
            <calories>0.171117</calories>
            <speed_from_sensor>true</speed_from_sensor>
            <cadence>93</cadence>
            <ebike_mode>1</ebike_mode>
            <ebike_battery>92</ebike_battery>
            <power>184.000000</power>
            <motor_power>78</motor_power>
        </extensions>
    </trkpt>

I went to history in the TREK App, found the ride, tapped it to see the summary, then tapped the "up ward pointing arrow" button in the top right corner. That took me to a "share" page. From there, I chose the "Share to device" option. I just used GMail to mail it to myself.

From there, I just downloaded it to my computer (I use a PC) and then just used a web based "XML > CSV" file converter (I used This One). That allowed me to download the CSV file that I opened in Excel.

Hope this helps!

- Will

 

[WillShootPhotos]

Thanks for posting your data here, I’m interested in how the TQ system works and your experiment has answered some of my questions. So your adjusted rider input must come from your power pedals? It looks like Trek’s rider power is 50% or so high, at least in this case. I’ve read others post on an emt bike forum say their trek TQ equipped bikes read 20% or so lower than their pedals show.

I wonder if setting a lower maximum power or different power delivery (not sure what that third parameter in the app is called) would change the accuracy.

And since your test maxed the motor power with anything over 150 watts, it’s not clear if the TQ motor would have output the same 300 watts if you had kept your input down to the TQ’s display reading of 150 watts, which would be more like 100 “real” rider watts.

With your graph of the motor power I assume the app’s gpx file shows continuous data (like second-by-second?) from a ride. I was told that the app only displays motor power in real time and doesn’t record it for reviewing later. If you found a way to see that data, that’s good to know.

Thanks again for posting your findings!

@Calcoaster - you're welcome!

The adjusted rider input was my own "maths" to convert the number from the TREK file to match what my Garmin said. Not knowing how to easily align data from my garmin activity file and the TREK gpx file, I went "lazy but hopefully close enough" by just taking the section of data, summing the "human" input power number and dividing by the number of entries. I compared that average to the same one from Garmin/Strava - and came up with 66.1% as a factor to reduce TREK to match Garmin... I then just multiplied each value by 0.661 and used that in my chart...

Agreed - on your next two thoughts - I'm not sure, and would need to come up with some other segments where I knew what I was aiming for power wise and trying to keep an eye on the display to see what it was saying... not the easiest w/ the placement of the TQ display and where my garmin sits out front of the bars...

The GPX file shows nodes for each second of the ride. I nab the GPX file from the TREK App (see notes in prev post about how and the field content) and just play with it in Excel. My Garmin grabs some basic data like the assist level (which shows in the Garmin Connect app) but I've yet to delve into the Garmin FIT file data - since it doesn't show on the garmin screen nor in the summary in Garmin Connect, I'm doubtful that it grabbed and stored that data... but I may get around to diving down that rabbit hole too. Tho - if memory serves, Garmin compresses the data in their FIT files; it isn't clear text XML like the GPX file from the TREK app - so I'd need to sleuth out a converter.

Glad to assist!

- Will

 

[Calcoaster]

@Calcoaster - you're welcome!

The adjusted rider input was my own "maths" to convert the number from the TREK file to match what my Garmin said. Not knowing how to easily align data from my garmin activity file and the TREK gpx file, I went "lazy but hopefully close enough" by just taking the section of data, summing the "human" input power number and dividing by the number of entries. I compared that average to the same one from Garmin/Strava - and came up with 66.1% as a factor to reduce TREK to match Garmin... I then just multiplied each value by 0.661 and used that in my chart...

Agreed - on your next two thoughts - I'm not sure, and would need to come up with some other segments where I knew what I was aiming for power wise and trying to keep an eye on the display to see what it was saying... not the easiest w/ the placement of the TQ display and where my garmin sits out front of the bars...

The GPX file shows nodes for each second of the ride. I nab the GPX file from the TREK App (see notes in prev post about how and the field content) and just play with it in Excel. My Garmin grabs some basic data like the assist level (which shows in the Garmin Connect app) but I've yet to delve into the Garmin FIT file data - since it doesn't show on the garmin screen nor in the summary in Garmin Connect, I'm doubtful that it grabbed and stored that data... but I may get around to diving down that rabbit hole too. Tho - if memory serves, Garmin compresses the data in their FIT files; it isn't clear text XML like the GPX file from the TREK app - so I'd need to sleuth out a converter.

Glad to assist!

- Will

All great information! I’d be interested to see if your multiplication factor to adjust the TQ reported rider power to a more accurate one is the same under different conditions. Like, if you ride in stock eco mode, will it still over-report by the same amount? That seems like it would be easy to fix with a firmware update, so I’m guessing it’s a more involved calculation. Still, my Creo seems pretty consistent and accurate in its rider power reporting, so maybe TQ will figure it out at some point.

 

[WillShootPhotos]

All great information! I’d be interested to see if your multiplication factor to adjust the TQ reported rider power to a more accurate one is the same under different conditions. Like, if you ride in stock eco mode, will it still over-report by the same amount? That seems like it would be easy to fix with a firmware update, so I’m guessing it’s a more involved calculation. Still, my Creo seems pretty consistent and accurate in its rider power reporting, so maybe TQ will figure it out at some point.

Well - the plot thickens...

On my ride today, I tried to compare the Garmin wattage to the wattage displaying on the TQ head unit, and I think I see a bit of a pattern.

As I started to add power slowly and then sustain that power, it looked like the numbers were the same, it was only when I eased off a bit that the TQ's number didn't drop... not until I backed off enough to supply a much lower (or zero) power to the pedals.

I think the TQ doesn't really "ease off" as the rider does, it appears to keep the "human" power number at it's max (ish) value until the rider eases up to put no input into the motor; then it resets and starts to match input again.

This may be a "usability" decision by TQ - I'm not sure I'm a fan of it or not... I think it may have been a decision to "support" the rider "in a manner to which they've become accustomed to" in an effort to keep the bike rolling along on a rise, hill, climb, effort, whatever... once the rider eases off significantly, I think the motor must ease up so the rider can coast to a stop, etc.

I can see how this might buoy a rider into enjoying a ride more; but being a cyclist who rides in groups, in pace lines, etc - I'm pretty used to easing up my power slightly to ensure my pace is consistent with other riders in the group.

I did most of this experimenting on the way back from my coffee run, but looks like the TREK app auto ended the ride while I was having said coffee... so I don't have that data to review. I'll see what I can find in the first half of the ride.

 

[Calcoaster]

Well - the plot thickens...

On my ride today, I tried to compare the Garmin wattage to the wattage displaying on the TQ head unit, and I think I see a bit of a pattern.

As I started to add power slowly and then sustain that power, it looked like the numbers were the same, it was only when I eased off a bit that the TQ's number didn't drop... not until I backed off enough to supply a much lower (or zero) power to the pedals.

I think the TQ doesn't really "ease off" as the rider does, it appears to keep the "human" power number at it's max (ish) value until the rider eases up to put no input into the motor; then it resets and starts to match input again.

This may be a "usability" decision by TQ - I'm not sure I'm a fan of it or not... I think it may have been a decision to "support" the rider "in a manner to which they've become accustomed to" in an effort to keep the bike rolling along on a rise, hill, climb, effort, whatever... once the rider eases off significantly, I think the motor must ease up so the rider can coast to a stop, etc.

I can see how this might buoy a rider into enjoying a ride more; but being a cyclist who rides in groups, in pace lines, etc - I'm pretty used to easing up my power slightly to ensure my pace is consistent with other riders in the group.

I did most of this experimenting on the way back from my coffee run, but looks like the TREK app auto ended the ride while I was having said coffee... so I don't have that data to review. I'll see what I can find in the first half of the ride.

Interesting observation. Every review I’ve read of the various TQ equipped bikes say it’s a very natural feel. Could it be that the TQ rider power number stays high like you described but its motor power fell off like you would expect? I think I read the TQ screen has an option to watch both rider and motor power.

Thanks for passing on your experiences! My Creo has a very natural feel, fairly accurate power reporting but an annoying motor whine, so I’m always interested in what else is out there.

 

[AntonioAlfaro]

@AntonioAlfaro - Not sure why you wouldn't see all the data unless your converter is only grabbing the main data in the nodes. There is also "extension" data for each "node" in the file - those extensions have all the other parameters. The gpx file is nothing but XML w/ nodes that look like this: Note the "extensions" section that may have been ignored by your converter

    <trkpt lat="36.078918" lon="-115.320503">
        <ele>866.311523</ele>
        <time>2023-07-07T16:47:47Z</time>
        <extensions>
            <distance>11911.881739</distance>
            <speed>10.166667</speed>
            <course>169</course>
            <acceleration>0.000000</acceleration>
            <calories>0.171117</calories>
            <speed_from_sensor>true</speed_from_sensor>
            <cadence>93</cadence>
            <ebike_mode>1</ebike_mode>
            <ebike_battery>92</ebike_battery>
            <power>184.000000</power>
            <motor_power>78</motor_power>
        </extensions>
    </trkpt>

I went to history in the TREK App, found the ride, tapped it to see the summary, then tapped the "up ward pointing arrow" button in the top right corner. That took me to a "share" page. From there, I chose the "Share to device" option. I just used GMail to mail it to myself.

From there, I just downloaded it to my computer (I use a PC) and then just used a web based "XML > CSV" file converter (I used This One). That allowed me to download the CSV file that I opened in Excel.

Hope this helps!

- Will

Thanks a lot Will. I already open it using Visual Studio Code. Next step to do a deep analysis of my first 2 rides.

 

[WillShootPhotos]

Interesting observation. Every review I’ve read of the various TQ equipped bikes say it’s a very natural feel. Could it be that the TQ rider power number stays high like you described but its motor power fell off like you would expect? I think I read the TQ screen has an option to watch both rider and motor power.

Thanks for passing on your experiences! My Creo has a very natural feel, fairly accurate power reporting but an annoying motor whine, so I’m always interested in what else is out there.

@Calcoaster : Oh - don't get me wrong - it is a natural feel... I do like it... A LOT

I'm just diving (perhaps) a bit too far down into the weeds on the data... I'll post what I find when I get a few min to dork out a bit more. And to your point, I've not really looked at the combined number, etc.

I've gotten in the mix a few times now in groups w/ some close pacelines, etc - I've not had any "WTF" moments, nor has anyone in the group called me over for a polite word or three... (or called me out mid ride!) I've made a point to leave the "

A friend has a Creo in our group, and the noise is much more pronounced than the TQ. Personally, I like the ability to fit a front derailleur (which ruled the Creo out of my decision making early, sadly), to get a bigger top end. He gets dropped on the descents. I was able to add a 52T front ring to my D+, keeping the 34 little ring... perfect for climbing Red Rock canyon, and winding it up to keep up with the group when speeds top the 28 mile assist on the long steady descents in the area. I've had a few folks ask me what I think of my new bike, and they're surprised when I say "the motor"...

But, YMMV - I'd suggest you hit a TREK shop to see what you think first hand...