Another new TQ motor: hpr40

[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!

 

[Calcoaster]

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.

Thanks for the article. My only complaint about the Garmin/TQ connection is that the TQ motor power doesn’t transmit to the Garmin. The specialized 1.1 sl was the same - no way to see the motor power being delivered on my Garmin. I do find (by watching my top tube display set to show both rider and motor power) the assist % and motor max W readings are what they should be.

I’ve seen a lot of riders complain of very low, inaccurate readings of their rider power, at least on Trek TQ bikes. I find mine (BMC with TQ hpr50) seems to be accurate and consistent. That observation is only based on my comparison with the specialized Creo and before that the Vado sl power meter readings on the same rides over thousands of miles.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

My only complaint about the Garmin/TQ connection is that the TQ motor power doesn’t transmit to the Garmin. The specialized 1.1 sl was the same - no way to see the motor power being delivered on my Garmin.

The LEV ANT+ protocol has no Motor Power included

Source: https://www.thisisant.com/developer/ant-plus/device-profiles#527_tab

Interestingly, the protocol does not mention the Rider's Power but that is the part of another ANT+ protocol (the one dealing with Power Sensors).

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

A very dangerous question: Wonder if someone will come out with a very lightweight flat-bar bike with the HPR40?

My neck's made it quite clear that my drop-bar days are over.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

A very dangerous question: Wonder if someone will come out with a very lightweight flat-bar bike with the HPR40?

My neck's made it quite clear that my drop-bar days are over.

Get yourself a Pinarello Nytro E5 Allroad with TQ HPR 50, same as @stompandgo has bought Only not sure what your CFO would say

 

[Chazmo]

The LEV ANT+ protocol has no Motor Power included

View attachment 197916
Source: https://www.thisisant.com/developer/ant-plus/device-profiles#527_tab

Interestingly, the protocol does not mention the Rider's Power but that is the part of another ANT+ protocol (the one dealing with Power Sensors).

View attachment 197917

I may be misunderstanding what you’re saying about the protocol. There’s no field for actual (measured) watts being used? Don’t people want to know that? It’s arguably not essential information (though I think it is), but it’s something I know I like to know when I’m riding. Maybe “% assistance” is a related metric, but it’s vague compared to the detail I want to know. Kind of like an warning light on your car dashboard rather than an actual gauge for, say, temperature or oil pressure...

 

[Calcoaster]

A very dangerous question: Wonder if someone will come out with a very lightweight flat-bar bike with the HPR40?

My neck's made it quite clear that my drop-bar days are over.

A redshift riser drop bar (50 or 70mm rise) will raise bars on a creo higher than the flat bars on a Vado sl. For TQ hpr50 bikes like trek and BMC those bars will work too. The canyon with hpr40 seems to have a proprietary cockpit and steerer tube that makes it challenging to change to a standard stem and bars.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

I may be misunderstanding what you’re saying about the protocol. There’s no field for actual (measured) watts being used? Don’t people want to know that? It’s arguably not essential information (though I think it is), but it’s something I know I like to know when I’m riding. Maybe “% assistance” is a related metric, but it’s vague compared to the detail I want to know. Kind of like an warning light on your car dashboard rather than an actual gauge for, say, temperature or oil pressure...

ANT+ is what it is:

Not only the protocols (while quite extensive) are limited. It also requires a good will of the e-bike system manufacturers and the bike GPS computer makers to use the full strength of ANT+, and that's not happening. You still get a lot of useful information obtained from compatible e-bikes:

• Speed
• Distance
• Cadence
• Rider's Power
• Travel Mode (assistance mode name or ID)
• LEV Battery Level % (can involve Main/Range Extender)
• Range (optional)

(Garmin and Shimano Steps have cooperated. Garmin Edge has a special data screen for Shimano STEPS e-bike system, showing many normally ignored parameters; this is not ANT+ though).

It is a wealth of information! Some advanced/lightweight e-bikes come without the display and ANT+ is the only way to replace the display capability. Otherwise, most advanced e-bikes come with their own App that shows a way more parameters than ANT+ can visualize. Or, it is an advanced display such as Specialized Mastermind. Both display and App can show the Motor Power or Rider/Motor power ratio, for instance. However, it is not really practical to have a smartphone on your bars unless you only ride paved roads.

 

[Chazmo]

ANT+ is what it is:

View attachment 197918

Not only the protocols (while quite extensive) are limited. It also requires a good will of the e-bike system manufacturers and the bike GPS computer makers to use the full strength of ANT+, and that's not happening. You still get a lot of useful information obtained from compatible e-bikes:

• Speed
• Distance
• Cadence
• Rider's Power
• Travel Mode (assistance mode name or ID)
• LEV Battery Level % (can involve Main/Range Extender)
• Range (optional)

(Garmin and Shimano Steps have cooperated. Garmin Edge has a special data screen for Shimano STEPS e-bike system, showing many normally ignored parameters; this is not ANT+ though).

It is a wealth of information! Some advanced/lightweight e-bikes come without the display and ANT+ is the only way to replace the display capability. Otherwise, most advanced e-bikes come with their own App that shows a way more parameters than ANT+ can visualize. Or, it is an advanced display such as Specialized Mastermind. Both display and App can show the Motor Power or Rider/Motor power ratio, for instance. However, it is not really practical to have a smartphone on your bars unless you only ride paved roads.

So, I think what you’re saying is that there’s no good e-bike standard protocol to which manufacturers can adhere and report important electrical data? Or, is there another protocol other than ANT?

Well, gee, we’re only 15+ years into ebike designs… It took the electronic music industry a lot longer than that to realize the necessity of building a protocol that would allow their gear to interact (MIDI). Unbelievable.

 

[apctjb]

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.

Yes for sure, I rode a friends Pinarello with TQ50 and watching rider power and motor power was fascinating...

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.

Clearly not an Musk offspring (or I would buy an Addict eRide and Canyon Endurace ), apctjb was my AOL username and for some reason I have used it ever since. (Anyone else old enough to have an AOL account?) Seriously I greatly appreciate your help in informing my purchase...

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

Anyone else old enough to have an AOL account?

Pretty sure you're the last living example.
;^}

 

[mschwett]

So, I think what you’re saying is that there’s no good e-bike standard protocol to which manufacturers can adhere and report important electrical data? Or, is there another protocol other than ANT?

Well, gee, we’re only 15+ years into ebike designs… It took the electronic music industry a lot longer than that to realize the necessity of building a protocol that would allow their gear to interact (MIDI). Unbelievable.

yeah, it’s kind of an interesting artifact of where we are in the technology landscape. the ANT standard has been around a long time, and it’s very, very simple. European regulations around wireless communications require encryption going forward (EU RED) which would be difficult to implement in ANT without breaking everything. garmin said no, garmin owns the standard, so it’s essentially a dead end. people have known this for quite some time so something like an updated profile for e-bikes to send more complete data about power, battery, modes, etc, has not been don’t and won’t be done. Apple‘s decision not to put it in iPhones was the other kiss of death.

there are Bluetooth profiles for power meters and just about everything else - I actually exclusively use Bluetooth for my HRM, power/cadence, and radar/lights and it works great. but there aren’t non-proprietary profiles for e-bike sensor and control data. why, you might ask? the manufacturers say it’s because it’s proprietary, specific to their products, unique to the control methodology of the bike, and not safe to let some rando bike computer or third party app screw with your bike.

i think that’s silly and they could implement a transmit only protocol that wouldn’t work at the same time as the control protocol, and standardize the former, but there doesn’t seem to much incentive there. virtually every bike seems to have a Bluetooth protocol that goes with their own app, and none of them work together.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

So, I think what you’re saying is that there’s no good e-bike standard protocol to which manufacturers can adhere and report important electrical data? Or, is there another protocol other than ANT?

The only widely accepted standard is ANT+ with the LEV extension. The implementation of ANT+ for a given e-bike system solely depends on good will of the e-bike system manufacturer. For instance, Wahoo has no issue to recognize both Main and Range Extender batteries while Giant/Yamaha battery is not being recognized because of some software glitch on one of the sides. While Garmin will read the Giant battery but not recognize any Range Extender. Wahoo intercepts the Travel Mode name (ECO, SPORT, TURBO etc as it has been written in the e-bike software while Garmin can only produce 1, 2, 3...

Bosch E-Bike is the major brand that staunchly ignores the very existence of ANT+ (for that reason I won't buy a Bosch powered e-bike).

Any premium e-bike brand has their own service app that communicates with the e-bike by Bluetooth. Such a protocol is proprietary and can produce almost any e-bike parameter on your smartphone if the manufacturer wishes so. Let me give you an example from near past.

The first generation of modern Specialized e-bikes had its own app called Mission Control. Meanwhile, an Italian guy by name of Paolo Dozio wrote his own Bluetooth app called BLEvo. BLEvo was a genius app capable to extract any existing Turbo e-bike parameter to your phone, including fields reserved by Specialized for future purposes. You could for example read the actual capacity of your batteries, motor and battery temperature along with the current motor current and voltage, electrical motor power, the ratio of rider power to motor power, and some 50 other parameters. BLEvo could also reliably calculate the Remaining Range! You could even set the assistance in 1% increments! BLEvo was a danger for Specialized, as it revealed uncomfortable facts such as a brand new battery might have a way lower capacity than declared or that the batteries were significantly degrading over their use. So Specialized introduced a new system called Mastermind and encrypted the Bluetooth channel*, rendering BLEvo unusable for newer e-bike models. Now, Specialized only shows you what it wants to show in its new Specialized App. End of the story.

(My both Specialized e-bikes are older models so I can still enjoy using BLEvo if I need).

Re-iterating: LEV ANT+ is the e-bike MIDI but it hasn't achieved the excellence level or recognition similar to MIDI. However, it is not any dead-end as illustrated by the fact TQ HPR system is equipped with the protocol. ANT+ is a transmit only protocol, so nobody can manipulate their e-bike with that protocol (it was possible with unencrypted Bluetooth).
-----------
*) Perhaps because of EU RED regulation described by @mschwett.

 

[stompandgo]

There was a time in the early days of wireless communication on bikes when ANT+ was the gold standard. Bluetooth existed, but considerably more data was available via ANT+, and the data was more reliably transmitted. Bluetooth evolved, ANT+ added extensions, but that's it. It remains a proprietary, licensed protocol, while Bluetooth from day 1 was an open standard given to the world by IBM. You can see where this is going.

 

[Base]

Well, gee, we’re only 15+ years into ebike designs… It took the electronic music industry a lot longer than that to realize the necessity of building a protocol that would allow their gear to interact (MIDI). Unbelievable.

A bit longer than 15 years...

Yamaha E-kit is from 1993 on the market, e-bikes from Yamaha a bit earlier

not to mention the models pre-WWII

this one is from 1931. A Burgers model based on the system from Phillips.

 

[Base]

sorry for drifting off OP

 

[Chazmo]

There was a time in the early days of wireless communication on bikes when ANT+ was the gold standard. Bluetooth existed, but considerably more data was available via ANT+, and the data was more reliably transmitted. Bluetooth evolved, ANT+ added extensions, but that's it. It remains a proprietary, licensed protocol, while Bluetooth from day 1 was an open standard given to the world by IBM. You can see where this is going.

Chris, I’m not sure the communication protocol is really the issue here, unless you’re saying that the variety of transports is what has been responsible for improper standardization. What I’m saying (badly, I guess ) is that the industry should have already recognized the value of an ebike-oriented protocol that contains all the important electrical data. I mean current battery voltage, current power draw (wattage), various temperatures, maybe "state of charge,”… All the things that anyone who needs to know the state of their electric bike can reference. That seems to be missing in ANT, etc. If that’s all not there, then what you have is an industry that’s short-sighted and needs a wake-up call (in my opinion). Again, I’m not sure I’m understanding everything here.

Do you guys have a reference to the spec(s)? I’d like to learn more. Maybe I can help.

 

[Chazmo]

View attachment 197927

View attachment 197928

A bit longer than 15 years...

Yamaha E-kit is from 1993 on the market, e-bikes from Yamaha a bit earlier

not to mention the models pre-WWII

View attachment 197929

this one is from 1931. A Burgers model based on the system from Phillips.

Right on, @Base !!! I was being generous. It’s ludicrous. Well, perhaps insidious is a better adjective.

 

[stompandgo]

Chris, I’m not sure the communication protocol is really the issue here, unless you’re saying that the variety of transports is what has been responsible for improper standardization. What I’m saying (badly, I guess ) is that the industry should have already recognized the value of an ebike-oriented protocol that contains all the important electrical data. I mean current battery voltage, current power draw (wattage), various temperatures, maybe "state of charge,”… All the things that anyone who needs to know the state of their electric bike can reference. That seems to be missing in ANT, etc. If that’s all not there, then what you have is an industry that’s short-sighted and needs a wake-up call (in my opinion). Again, I’m not sure I’m understanding everything here.

Do you guys have a reference to the spec(s)? I’d like to learn more. Maybe I can help.

The protocol is the issue, though, because changes to them require submissions, evaluations, approvals, and releases. This is true for both ANT+ and BTLE. If the e-bike industry got together and agreed that they needed a robust dataset that the protocol needed to support, it could probably happen. That's how ANT+ started in the first place, as a consortium. The first part is the obstacle. Bicycle manufacturers relish in their innovations and proprietary developments. They are all guilty of this. It's what they believe sets their product apart from all the others. The bicycle industry has always been its own worst enemy.

This is ANT has historical information about the protocol. As @mschwett says, Garmin bought it and controls everything surrounding it.