Another new TQ motor: hpr40

[stompandgo]

Thanks guys. Your support is much appreciated. You were actually all mentioned in the first version, but that one went 45minutes and I had to chop…sorry!

Thank you for your comparison review. This fat (somewhat), old (guilty), arthritic (without question), ill (sometimes) e-bike rider really appreciated the comparison, and your effort in putting it together. The spoke noise drove the mechanic in me crazy, but you knew that.

If you want to see some negative feedback about the TQ HPR50 and HPR60, there's a Facebook group called "TQ hpr 50&60 emtb motor owners" where you'll see detailed stories about HPR50 motor failures and how TQ and their dealers handled them. Some were out of warranty. Some got upgraded to the HPR60 with TQ limiting the maximum power to 300W.

Keep up the great work.

 

[mschwett]

Darn. Good point! Still, at least we’re consistent despite our disparities
I think I’ll need to point out my lack of any real science in my approach on the vids in future!

that’s ok, you’re getting interesting data. i’m sure you can look back and see how long the climb took. would be interesting to know if you’re going a lot faster on the TQ!

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

Another very interesting video, @Yako ! Keep up the good work. Glad you're active on the forum.

A lot of extra work at your end, I know, and not sure how you'd present it in a video, but to fully assess a comparo like this, I'd want to see all the data bearing on battery consumption and motor efficiency, including...

Name of app or device providing the data*
Rider weight and height (if willing to share)
Bike weights as ridden, including any cargo
Bike battery capacities
Tires used
Ride profiles
Total distances
Total elevation gains
Total moving times
Average moving speeds
Raw average motor and rider powers*
Adjusted or normalized average rider powers*
Battery actually consumed over profiles in % or Wh

Without that side-by-side data, it would be hard to isolate relative motor efficiency.

* Every app seems to have its own algorithm for adjusted or normalized average rider power, but the raw averages should be the same across apps.

 

[Yako]

Thank you for your comparison review. This fat (somewhat), old (guilty), arthritic (without question), ill (sometimes) e-bike rider really appreciated the comparison, and your effort in putting it together. The spoke noise drove the mechanic in me crazy, but you knew that.

If you want to see some negative feedback about the TQ HPR50 and HPR60, there's a Facebook group called "TQ hpr 50&60 emtb motor owners" where you'll see detailed stories about HPR50 motor failures and how TQ and their dealers handled them. Some were out of warranty. Some got upgraded to the HPR60 with TQ limiting the maximum power to 300W.

Keep up the great work.

Thanks for that, just joined it. Nice that it’s possible to upgrade from the 50 to the 60. I ca’t think when a brand has done that before (pet hate of mine! These bikes are too expensive not to be able to upgrade in my opinion). Sorry about the fat/old/arthritic thing!

 

[Yako]

Another very interesting video, @Yako ! Keep up the good work. Glad you're active on the forum.

A lot of extra work at your end, I know, and not sure how you'd present it in a video, but to fully assess a comparo like this, I'd want to see all the data bearing on battery consumption and motor efficiency, including...

Name of app or device providing the data*
Rider weight and height (if willing to share)
Bike weights as ridden, including any cargo
Bike battery capacities
Tires used
Ride profiles
Total distances
Total elevation gains
Total moving times
Average moving speeds
Raw average motor and rider powers*
Adjusted or normalized average rider powers*
Battery actually consumed over profiles in % or Wh

Without that side-by-side data, it would be hard to isolate relative motor efficiency.

* Every app seems to have its own algorithm for adjusted or normalized average rider power, but the raw averages should be the same across apps.

I think my normal viewers would riot, Jeremy! I decided that a broad brush would be what the majority would want, if potentially fairly inaccurate. And really that suits me better too - even the research for this vid plus the filming and worse, editing took many hours over many days, and I work a smallholding for self-sufficiency too and get into a lot of trouble already with my ‘co-worker’!

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

I think my normal viewers would riot, Jeremy!

I'm sure you're right about that.

I decided that a broad brush would be what the majority would want, if potentially fairly inaccurate. And really that suits me better too - even the research for this vid plus the filming and worse, editing took many hours over many days, and I work a smallholding for self-sufficiency too and get into a lot of trouble already with my ‘co-worker’!

It's obvious that you put a ton of time, effort, thought, experience, and talent into these videos. Love the presentation style. I've seen you explain in one clear plain-English sentence what I've tried to explain (with only limited success) in a semi-technical paragraph. Wouldn't want you to change any of that.

Maybe Strava or RideWithGPS could do a lot of the grunt work automatically. Posting these test rides publicly to either one and providing a link in the video description would go a long way when technical issues like motor efficiency are the focus.

 

[stompandgo]

I thought the visuals were telling. On the X20 bike, you were huffing and puffing and putting out 300w. On the TQ bike, you were having a conversation about turning down the assistance. Real world stuff.