Another new TQ motor: hpr40

[mschwett]

Thank you. Obviously these were just initial thoughts. Things are very skewed for others looking at my data - despite various ails I’m fairly fit, but over 250lbs…but unfortunately I have good and bad days where I use more or less assist. At least there will be ride data for a minimum of 6 weeks, over similar routes with lots of climbing, for when I compare the X20 and the HPR40.
I currently have level 2 set to 130w in the app, but there’s no access to power readings from the motor in the app.
A question about the X20 - the power meter readings in the Mahle app, of both motor output and rider input watts - are these software estimates, not from a physical power meter? Or might the Gain M10i have more bells and whistles?
For those of you with the X20, did you ever see a motor wattage over 214w? I didn’t…of course, the way the wattage is measured could be inaccurate.
The explanation as the the motor ‘blips’ seemed convincing - more importantly, they are now already rare, so perhaps some credence can be given to their interactive software claims.
May I also thank you all for helping me understand these systems better! Did you all notice from the graph that the HPR50 output peaked at around 65rpm and remained fairly level before finally dropping again? Is such a broad levelling off normal?

i didn’t realize that was your review ! fantastic and thank you for producing it, lots of work no doubt.

the rider input number in the mahle app is total nonsense, it comes from some kind of sensor in the bottom bracket and is way off. i can say this pretty definitively since i moved the dura-ace crank from my aethos to the addict with the dual-sided 4iiii power meter that it had, so i can see both values. before that, i also put a single side power meter on the left crank arm that came with the bike, and those two both matched each other in similar situations as well as the predictions. so i’m pretty certain that at least my x20 bottom bracket reads very, very low at low cadences, and just randomly low at normal cadences and low power, and arbitrarily low or high at very high power outputs.

on the x20 i have never seen a motor reading over 205w, which is part of why i believe it’s output, not the electrical input. the sensor list for the x20 also mentions a “motor torque” sensor so this value may actually be measured, rather than estimated from electrical usage and known efficiency curves.

sunday, after this thread, i rode up some pretty shallow hills to see if going uphill at speeds between 15 and 20 mph on full power would get to 250w, but i still didn’t see over 205.

 

[Chazmo]

combat yoga

Bwahahaha. Yeah, enroll me too, Yako!

 

[apctjb]

if you use strava and a power meter (a real one, not their estimate) you can see the total energy of a human powered ride and spitball what level of motor power would be sustainable over the same course, and reduce the human contribution accordingly.

As a recreational rider never felt I needed a power meter (although the tech intrigues me) so not sure what average power may be needed for my routes or what is realistic to expect in terms of sustained power from me or the motor. I do have some range anxiety as I ponder which bike and drive system to purchase. Hence my interest in better understanding drive system efficiency and rider input requirements.

Am I missing something? if the TQ40 has a motor efficiency of 65% and the X-20 is 80% then wouldn't the X-20 have greater range, even with a smaller battery (236 vs 290) assuming all other things are equal and the test is not climbing a steep grade where the rider in unable to provide the input need to keep the X-20 operating at sufficient RPM?

Looking forward to Yako's long term review of the TQ40 and comparison to the X-20.

 

[Yako]

so i’m pretty certain that at least my x20 bottom bracket reads very, very low at low cadences, and just randomly low at normal cadences and low power, and arbitrarily low or high at very high power outputs.

OK, thank you Mark. I can discount drawing any conclusions from that then. I’m hoping that the motor readings OUGHT to have some relevance…though in truth, what it FEELS like to ride with each system might be as useful as anything else to potential buyers, particularly in light of my technological prowess! I can do ‘easier’, ‘softer’, ‘more’ and ‘less’ etc as well as anyone!

 

[mschwett]

As a recreational rider never felt I needed a power meter (although the tech intrigues me) so not sure what average power may be needed for my routes or what is realistic to expect in terms of sustained power from me or the motor. I do have some range anxiety as I ponder which bike and drive system to purchase. Hence my interest in better understanding drive system efficiency and rider input requirements.

Am I missing something? if the TQ40 has a motor efficiency of 65% and the X-20 is 80% then wouldn't the X-20 have greater range, even with a smaller battery (236 vs 290) assuming all other things are equal and the test is not climbing a steep grade where the rider in unable to provide the input need to keep the X-20 operating at sufficient RPM?

Looking forward to Yako's long term review of the TQ40 and comparison to the X-20.

i just don’t believe that the TQ40 is only 65% efficient. so far we have a test report that seems to show 65%, specialized claiming it’s 65% (lol, wouldn’t trust that one) and TQ claiming it’s 90%.

that 65% test showed a peak of 250w output power (isn’t supposed to max out at 200?) at 400w input. 150w is a lot of heat for a small motor like this to be dumping. obviously i don’t quite understand the methodology.

 

[mschwett]

OK, thank you Mark. I can discount drawing any conclusions from that then. I’m hoping that the motor readings OUGHT to have some relevance…though in truth, what it FEELS like to ride with each system might be as useful as anything else to potential buyers, particularly in light of my technological prowess! I can do ‘easier’, ‘softer’, ‘more’ and ‘less’ etc as well as anyone!

when you consider that the cheapest accurate power meters on the market cost quite a lot more than mahle’s entire bottom bracket with the sensors (which is very cheap - $200 at retail) it makes sense that it’s a blunt instrument. given similar experiences with the specialized ones (which at least are integrated into an expensive motor, giving the opportunity for real savings) i was not surprised or disappointed.

 

[Yako]

Am I missing something? if the TQ40 has a motor efficiency of 65% and the X-20 is 80% then wouldn't the X-20 have greater range, even with a smaller battery (236 vs 290) assuming all other things are equal and the test is not climbing a steep grade where the rider in unable to provide the input need to keep the X-20 operating at sufficient RPM?

I don’t want to jump the gun, and as I mentioned my data will be unlike another tester, but I think as long as I ride similar routes to my X20 tests, the data should/could be relevant…
And I think you mentioned your local hills are significant? It’s just that I very much struggled to maintain speed climbing on the X20, though the rear 30t granny gear didn’t help there, and 34t sprockets are available when ordering, at least with Orbea.
It is very early days indeed…but the TQ is so far just edging the X20 for efficiency, at 4.1meters vertical gained/Wh vs 4m/Wh. I don’t do distance as a range metric, it’s too random. The TQ has done more, and steeper climbs too, where it suits my weight better than the X20….so in these early (fun) days of testing, I’m searching out tougher climbs…

I appreciate that this may be informing a purchase, apctjb, (an unusual name - but you’re presumably not offspring of Musk?) but I’m assuming you’ve searched anecdotally for rider satisfaction with the Addict’s 236 Whs? There are several FB groups of owners to check with.

 

[mschwett]

I don’t want to jump the gun, and as I mentioned my data will be unlike another tester, but I think as long as I ride similar routes to my X20 tests, the data should/could be relevant…
And I think you mentioned your local hills are significant? It’s just that I very much struggled to maintain speed climbing on the X20, though the rear 30t granny gear didn’t help there, and 34t sprockets are available when ordering, at least with Orbea.
It is very early days indeed…but the TQ is so far just edging the X20 for efficiency, at 4.1meters vertical gained/Wh vs 4m/Wh. I don’t do distance as a range metric, it’s too random. The TQ has done more, and steeper climbs too, where it suits my weight better than the X20….so in these early (fun) days of testing, I’m searching out tougher climbs…

I appreciate that this may be informing a purchase, apctjb, (an unusual name - but you’re presumably not offspring of Musk?) but I’m assuming you’ve searched anecdotally for rider satisfaction with the Addict’s 236 Whs? There are several FB groups of owners to check with.

the 4 and 4.1 meter/wh values are very interesting. if you’re doing half the work yourself, and the total load is 125kg, that’s 70% efficiency!

of course it could be way more or less if you were going fast or doing less/more of the work yourself.

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

9View attachment 197872
It's based on a bunch of empirical data, but I can't tell you how many times I've had to tell a rider who thinks they should be allowed to upgrade their category because of the numbers in this chart. It's way, way more than that.

Chart limitations notwithstanding, I'm very proud to have just squeaked into the bottom line — at least in the 5 min and probably in the FT columns. Hope that qualifies me to at least watch a race.
;^}

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

Thank you. Obviously these were just initial thoughts. Things are very skewed for others looking at my data - despite various ails I’m fairly fit, but over 250lbs…but unfortunately I have good and bad days where I use more or less assist. At least there will be ride data for a minimum of 6 weeks, over similar routes with lots of climbing, for when I compare the X20 and the HPR40.
I currently have level 2 set to 130w in the app, but there’s no access to power readings from the motor in the app.
A question about the X20 - the power meter readings in the Mahle app, of both motor output and rider input watts - are these software estimates, not from a physical power meter? Or might the Gain M10i have more bells and whistles?
For those of you with the X20, did you ever see a motor wattage over 214w? I didn’t…of course, the way the wattage is measured could be inaccurate.
The explanation as the the motor ‘blips’ seemed convincing - more importantly, they are now already rare, so perhaps some credence can be given to their interactive software claims.
May I also thank you all for helping me understand these systems better! Did you all notice from the graph that the HPR50 output peaked at around 65rpm and remained fairly level before finally dropping again? Is such a broad levelling off normal?

Really enjoyed your review. A clarification please: Several times you said that you had level 1 set to X watts and level 2 set to Y watts. Later you said that motor power varies with rider power.

All of that would make perfect sense on my Specialized Vado SL if X and Y were just the caps on motor power for levels 1 and 2. Is that how the Canyon's assist works as well?

 

[stompandgo]

Thanks for your video review.

 

[Yako]

Really enjoyed your review. A clarification please: Several times you said that you had level 1 set to X watts and level 2 set to Y watts. Later you said that motor power varies with rider power.

All of that would make perfect sense on my Specialized Vado SL if X and Y were just the caps on motor power for levels 1 and 2. Is that how the Canyon's assist works as well?

Sorry, yes I set the maximum assist for each level based on what I use on my Orbea Gain, as it is familiar to me, but it varies up to that level dependent on rider input (and the balance between the two can also be preset, I assume the same as the Vado, as it was with the Mahle X20).

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

As a recreational rider never felt I needed a power meter (although the tech intrigues me)

Digression: If you end up with a bike with a built-in rider power (Pr) display, I think you'll get a lot out of it — even if you never do a day of formal training.

My first power meter was built into my current Vado SL 1, and it's been both educational and entertaining. Not the most accurate by all accounts — per @mschwett , it runs ~5% high — but plenty close enough for my purposes.

This is the (top tube) dispay I watch 95% of the time now. Ride for fitness as much as anything these days but never in a disciplined way. Still, encouraging to see Pr progess over time. The lure of round numbers is also a spur: If I look down and see 190W, just can't resist pushing it to over 200W.

If you like bicycle physics, it's also a great way to develop more insight into how speed, external resistances, cadence and assist choices, and Pr interact in the real world.

A totally unexpected discovery — the carrot effect: When upping assist results in higher speed, my Pr tends to go up all on its own. Result: When you have the battery, better, faster workouts at higher assist. Who knew?

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Sorry, yes I set the maximum assist for each level based on what I use on my Orbea Gain, as it is familiar to me, but it varies up to that level dependent on rider input (and the balance between the two can also be preset, I assume the same as the Vado, as it was with the Mahle X20).

In Specialized motors, we set the percentage of maximum assist (for instance, 40% of 4x) and the percentage of the maximum motor power (for instance, a cap of 40% of 565 W). I'm not sure it is the same for X20 of TQ HPR?