Another new TQ motor: hpr40

[Chazmo]

The bicycle industry has always been its own worst enemy.

I think we’re in violent agreement.

Thanks for the historical background. I’ll digest that and get back to you guys. This kind of stuff used to be my bag back in my working days. A retired old fart like me could be patient enough to work with the right committees to get the right data into the protocols and then you could help me build hardware around it, Chris.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

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).

You have all necessary information on the display or in the App of a proprietary system such as Bosch, Specialized or TQ. The point is, there is no standard. LEV ANT+ gives me all the information I need during the ride, especially on my Vado SL that even doesn't have a proper display.

By comparison, what information you ask for is available on your e-bike?

 

[Chazmo]

. . .of a proprietary system such as Bosch, Specialized or TQ ...

That’s the problem, Stefan. That’s what I’m saying. This information should be in a standardized packaged format that can be utilized and visualized by (non-proprietary) devices. The fact that this data is not available outside the (proprietary) manufacturer’s hardware/software ecosystem means that innovation is limited.

… LEV ANT+ gives me all the information I need during the ride ...

Well, clearly we have different needs/wants, Stefan. Nothing wrong with that. if I’m not seeing basic power utilization information when I ride, then I’m not happy with the equipment.

 

[Base]

most systems run on CAN-bus, so in theory wireless CAN-bus would the most logical step. I2C and UART needs to be solved in a different way... and most e-bike systems are single-line CAN

 

[Chazmo]

most systems run on CAN-bus, so in theory wireless CAN-bus would the most logical step. I2C and UART needs to be solved in a different way... and most e-bike systems are single-line CAN

I think I’d be inclined to look toward bluetooth or ultra-wideband (UWB) as wireless transports for ebikes. Both are short-range and seem appropriate to the task. Maybe there are others, but I don’t know.

Base, I see that there’s already problems with standardization in the existing ebike (wired) world and if I were to focus on the future I think I’d abandon all of that (or at least not work on that first) in favor of wireless controls/displays/data.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Charlie, nobody in the industry gives a s*it on standardisation. Does your own e-bike provide the information you need?

 

[stompandgo]

The right way to do this is to use a standard programmable chip, open source software, with proprietary vendor branches. It will never happen.

 

[mschwett]

most systems run on CAN-bus, so in theory wireless CAN-bus would the most logical step. I2C and UART needs to be solved in a different way... and most e-bike systems are single-line CAN

but the bike already has BLE. it’s really just a need for / use of a standard profile for BLE. this already exists for many bluetooth fitness devices - like cycling power meters.

phones have bluetooth. smartwatches have bluetooth. bikes have bluetooth. cycling computers have bluetooth. other than the safety issue around actually controlling the bike, this is really just a matter of defining the profile and agreeing to use it. i believe there are implementations now which comply with EU RED.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

phones have bluetooth. smartwatches have bluetooth. bikes have bluetooth. cycling computers have bluetooth. other than the safety issue around actually controlling the bike, this is really just a matter of defining the profile and agreeing to use it. i believe there are implementations now which comply with EU RED.

What if the BT channel is encrypted for the compliance with EU RED?

 

[stompandgo]

You use an encryption capable BTLE chip that does the key handshake.

 

[Calcoaster]

Here’s a bit of good news, assuming it’s accurate:

I read a riders post on an e mt bike site who quoted a response from TQ saying they are working on “over the air” updates for TQ systems and expect that to be in place by the end of the year.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

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.

I have checked the facts. @mschwett is right. ANT, the division of Garmin ceased its operation on June 25th, 2025. The future is dire.

 

[stompandgo]

Or they do the right thing and make it open source.

 

[Calcoaster]

Yako just posted another video on his YouTube channel. This one is a ride comparison of the hpr40 and the Mahle x20. His ride was a long climb with up to 14% grade. Very nicely done comparison and worth a watch!
Thanks again Yako for your unbiased evaluations!

 

[mschwett]

Yako just posted another video on his YouTube channel. This one is a ride comparison of the hpr40 and the Mahle x20. His ride was a long climb with up to 14% grade. Very nicely done comparison and worth a watch!
Thanks again Yako for your unbiased evaluations!

cool!

@Yako i may have missed it (i'm not good at watching videos lol) but did you spend the same amount of TIME climbing on the x20 as the hpr40? that will be the biggest factor by far, because (assuming you’re pedaling with the same effort) the slower you go the higher the proportion of the work that you - the rider - are doing. if you're putting out 200 human watts and you climb for an hour, that's 200wh. if, because one bike is providing more assist than another, it only takes 45 minutes, now you're down to 150wh and the range is going to drop correspondingly.

incidentally, with me keeping my heart rate under 100bpm, and not pedaling very hard (150w ish) i got 3.9m/wh on a fairly controlled test a few days ago with the x20. average speed 16kph. the math tells me that i was pedaling at 225w (which is about what i did when not as worried about my heart) that number would go up to 4.8m/wh.

probably a bit lighter than you but also not pedaling nearly as hard, so the 3.9 vs 4.0 is a satisfyingly consistent result!

 

[apctjb]

Yako just posted another video on his YouTube channel. This one is a ride comparison of the hpr40 and the Mahle x20. His ride was a long climb with up to 14% grade. Very nicely done comparison and worth a watch!
Thanks again Yako for your unbiased evaluations!

Great review, worth the watch. Has me rethinking the Scott eRide with X-20 in favor of a TQ40 bike, hopefully some will make it across the pond soon.

 

[mschwett]

Great review, worth the watch. Has me rethinking the Scott eRide with X-20 in favor of a TQ40 bike, hopefully some will make it across the pond soon.

if price was not a factor, and an LBS not a requirement, i think i'd go with the canyon today! very nice bike. the ability to put standard 2x electronic drivetrains on a mid-drive is a game changer - although the inability to use the correct crank arms for the group is a bummer. i'd have to use power pedals, not the end of the world but too bad.

 

[Yako]

Yako just posted another video on his YouTube channel. This one is a ride comparison of the hpr40 and the Mahle x20. His ride was a long climb with up to 14% grade. Very nicely done comparison and worth a watch!
Thanks again Yako for your unbiased eval

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!

 

[Yako]

] i may have missed it (i'm not good at watching videos lol) but did you spend the same amount of TIME climbing on the x20 as the hpr40? that will be the biggest factor by far, because the slower you go the higher the proportion of the work that you - the rider - are doing. if you're putting out 200 human watts and you climb for an hour, that's 200wh. if, because one bike is providing more assist than another, it only takes 45 minutes, now you're down to 150wh and the range is going to drop correspondingly.

incidentally, with me keeping my heart rate under 100bpm, and not pedaling very hard (150w ish) i got 3.9m/wh on a fairly controlled test a few days ago with the x20. average speed 16kph. the math tells me that i was pedaling at 225w (which is about what i did when not as worried about my heart) that number would go up to 4.8m/wh.

probably a bit lighter than you but also not pedaling nearly as hard, so the 3.9 vs 4.0 is a satisfyingly consistent result!

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!

 

[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.