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...
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.
@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!
Hi Will, thanks for the information.
Great information. Much appreciated. It's bringing peak and nominal power into real world focus.
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.
@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>@Calcoaster - you're welcome!
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.@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
Well - the plot thickens...
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.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.
Thanks a lot Will. I already open it using Visual Studio Code. Next step to do a deep analysis of my first 2 rides.
@Calcoaster : Oh - don't get me wrong - it is a natural feel... I do like it... A LOT
And to your point, I've not really looked at the combined number, etc. Awesome! Looking forward to what you find in the data!
This is really encouraging as that was one of the limitations about my Creo that I didn't like. Not so much the limited top end, but more the ability to have a 2X drivetrain so the cassette has smaller gaps.@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.
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...
electricbikereview.com
Hello Captain Slow,
Hello Deacon Blues,
Too bad about your knee pain. If the Q factor really is the culprit, are your cleats moved as far outbound (bringing feet inward) as possible but still allowing pedaling without rubbing your feet on the cranks? And if you haven’t had a thorough fit done on this bike, that’s worth a try too. Good luck!
