Another new TQ motor: hpr40

[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?

 

[Calcoaster]

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).

Yako, on my hpr50 bike (and I’ve heard the hpr40 is the same but don’t know for sure) we set thee parameters in each of the three assist levels: Assist percentage (the motor gives you this percentage of the rider’s input power), max power (motor power is capped with this setting), and pedal response.

I wonder if your issue with the motor turning in and off during a pedal stroke could be the result of a maxed out pedal response or maxed assist percentage. I find the most natural feel to be with the pedal response set to its lowest, and with the assist percentage set to about half of the max power I set it to.

I set my eco to 30% assist, 60W max and the lowest pedal response. Then mid setting of 60% assist with 120 W max (same low pedal response).

I know the hpr40 has a max assist percentage of 100%, while the hpr50 can be set up to 200%. I find a high assist percentage feels much less natural and seems like it’s only useful for times when a rider would need a huge boost.

I think I understood a comment you made to be that you have no way to see the motor power being delivered during a ride. I know the canyon doesn’t have the top tube display that my hpr50 BMC has but you can set that parameter in the TQ app to see on your phone during your ride. The app only shows two parameters on the screen but a long tap on one of them brings up the menu where you can select what you’ll see (cadence, speed, rider power, motor power, etc.

You may already know all of this but I thought I’d pass on what I’ve learned about my TQ system just in case!

Again, thank you for your great reviews!

 

[stompandgo]

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.
;^}

You're a pro and you know it.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Yako, thank you for a very informative review!
How well does TQ HPR 40 integrate with LEV ANT+? (Wahoo, Garmin). What e-bike parameters can you get on a bike GPS computer? Does HPR 40 report LEV Battery %, Main/Range Extender? Cadence and Power? Range? Travel Mode name?

 

[Yako]

but you can set that parameter in the TQ app to see on your phone during your ride. The app only shows two parameters on the screen but a long tap on one of them brings up the menu where you can select what you’ll see (cadence, speed, rider power, motor power, etc.

You may already know all of this

I didn’t, so very many thanks! Not really played with the app yet - I managed to drop my phone going over 90kmh and the bluetooth connections haven’t been great since, so its not something I look forward to! If I get stuck, can I ask for more help?

I thought the same re. the cut outs, so reduced pedal response on all levels and things improved. I wanted to leave max assist at max assist as a hail mary if I get stuck. Things are still improving without intervention too.

 

[Yako]

Yako, thank you for a very informative review!
How well does TQ HPR 40 integrate with LEV ANT+? (Wahoo, Garmin). What e-bike parameters can you get on a bike GPS computer? Does HPR 40 report LEV Battery %, Main/Range Extender? Cadence and Power? Range? Travel Mode name?

Unfortunately Stefan, my bike computer is too basic to establish e-bike fields, though I will now try to see if I can get a power reading from the bike. For the full review I’ll ask TQ about ANT+ connectivity. Thanks for that.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

my bike computer

What is it if I may ask?

 

[stompandgo]

This article discusses in depth the TQ HPR50 ANT+ LEV capability and the data that is reported by the three sensors. I don't think it does everything that the Specialized drive units do. I also don't know if the TQ HPR40 reports less, equal, or more than the HPR50.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

This article discusses in depth the TQ HPR50 ANT+ LEV capability and the data that is reported by the three sensors. I don't think it does everything that the Specialized drive units do. I also don't know if the TQ HPR40 reports less, equal, or more than the HPR50.

Thank you, Chris! It looks TQ HPR transmits all necessary parameters to Garmin Edge. (No Range but it is the least worry). I can see Garmin cannot pick up the Travel Mode name (like ECO, etc) but displays the assistance mode as a set of bars (fine!) Garmin has never been capable of detecting the Range Extender battery, either. I think I would be happy with my Wahoo Roam v2 with the TQ motor.

The review you have shown only demonstrates the TQ system is very capable!

 

[Calcoaster]

I didn’t, so very many thanks! Not really played with the app yet - I managed to drop my phone going over 90kmh and the bluetooth connections haven’t been great since, so its not something I look forward to! If I get stuck, can I ask for more help?

I thought the same re. the cut outs, so reduced pedal response on all levels and things improved. I wanted to leave max assist at max assist as a hail mary if I get stuck. Things are still improving without intervention too.

I’ve found that using settings where the assist percentage is higher than the max power gives you a lot of motor assist right away and can feel jerky and unnatural. By setting the assist percent to about half of the max power level, it spreads the assist out over a wider range of rider input power and feels very natural.

Like my eco setting of 30% assist and 60W max brings on the motor power slowly and will continue to increase as my power input increases until my input reaches 200W. For example, at 100W rpm the rider, 30% gives 30W from the motor. The motor power keeps ramping up as my input power increases until my input reaches 200W, then the 60W cap I set is reached. I set my turbo setting for a bailout with the assist and motor max up at high levels, but I never have used it.

Your videos sure showcase some awesome places to ride!