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.

 

[apctjb]

@Yako; If you have further conversations with TQ or Canyon perhaps you could tease out of them when a TQ40 equipped road bike will be available in the US (or Canada)? Itching to get one after watching your review...

 

[Yako]

@Yako; If you have further conversations with TQ or Canyon perhaps you could tease out of them when a TQ40 equipped road bike will be available in the US (or Canada)? Itching to get one after watching your review...

No problem. I’ll ask TQ now, but my Canyon contact is out of office until mid next week.

 

[apctjb]

No problem. I’ll ask TQ now, but my Canyon contact is out of office until mid next week

Excellent, thanks. It will be interesting to see if other brands (Scott, Orbea, etc.) using the X-20 switch to TQ for road bikes and beat Canyon to the US market.

 

[Yako]

Excellent, thanks. It will be interesting to see if other brands (Scott, Orbea, etc.) using the X-20 switch to TQ for road bikes and beat Canyon to the US market.

I may have missed it in the thread, but did you see that BMC had an 8.5kg prototype with it at the Eurobike show?
I’m wondering if Mahle will do more mid-motor development. They’ve already done Spesh’s, and recently released the M40 Emtb motor…but that TQ form factor is so easy to fit into existing frame design with comparatively little alteration…

 

[apctjb]

BMC had an 8.5kg prototype with it at the Eurobike show

No , first I heard of it. 8.5kg...amazing, curious to understand how they can achieve that. The TQ is lighter, but not by that much..

 

[Rás Cnoic]

I may have missed it in the thread, but did you see that BMC had an 8.5kg prototype with it at the Eurobike show?
I’m wondering if Mahle will do more mid-motor development. They’ve already done Spesh’s, and recently released the M40 Emtb motor…but that TQ form factor is so easy to fit into existing frame design with comparatively little alteration…

Earlier this year when Spesh released the new Levo - a year late- there were rumours of a big Barney between Spesh and Brose about delays (the DJi motor quickening industry pulses) and that Spesh were looking at the Mahle M40 instead or that it was possibly developed with an eye to Spesh adapting it instead of the Brose. All juicy rumours of course!

 

[Stefan Mikes]

I may have missed it in the thread, but did you see that BMC had an 8.5kg prototype with it at the Eurobike show?

Without the motor and battery for sure, doable

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

I may have missed it in the thread, but did you see that BMC had an 8.5kg prototype with it at the Eurobike show?

Incredible! That's only 1.7 kg above the TdF minimum.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Incredible! That's only 1.7 kg above the TdF minimum.

Indeed, incredible.
S-Works Aethos weighs 6.34 kg (13 lb) without pedals, and it is below the UCI weight limit. How would BMC build a bike strong enough to withstand the e-bike forces and find a motor plus battery lightweight enough to get at 8.5 kg (18.7 lb) is a mystery for me. The battery weight alone is estimated to 1 kg (2.2 lb) per 160 Wh.

 

[Calcoaster]

I may have missed it in the thread, but did you see that BMC had an 8.5kg prototype with it at the Eurobike show?
I’m wondering if Mahle will do more mid-motor development. They’ve already done Spesh’s, and recently released the M40 Emtb motor…but that TQ form factor is so easy to fit into existing frame design with comparatively little alteration…

I saw a couple of mentions and video views of the BMC from reviewers at Eurobike. It’s a prototype based on the Teammachine model, 8.5kg with the tq hpr40. I know BMC is switching their Roadmachine model from the hpr50 to the hpr60, which makes sense - the roadmachine is their endurance bike and the teammachine is their race bike. I haven’t found any official BMC details on when and where the hpr40 version will be available.

The new Trek domane+ slr’s (endurance road) and the fuel exe’s (mt bike) are moving from the hpr50 to the 60. Maybe they’ll develop a Madone or Edmonda with the hpr40.

I’m glad to see the ebike evolution is including low power highly refined road bikes and not just focusing on the other end of the spectrum that looks like electric motorcycles with pedals.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

I saw a couple of mentions and video views of the BMC from reviewers at Eurobike. It’s a prototype based on the Teammachine model, 8.5kg with the tq hpr40.

@Calcoaster it is all good when the reviewers believe what they are told to believe. So it is the 8.5 kg Teammachine plus the motor and the battery, thank you very much
I cannot forget the blunder of the reviewers of Levo 4 (weren't they the EBR forum owners?) who misread Specialized marketing info and declared Levo 4 would ride for 5 hours in Turbo mode (Specialized just wrote 5 hours and it was assumed for the ECO mode).

I cannot wait for @stompandgo receive his Pinarello Nytro and actually weigh it

 

[stompandgo]

Soon enough, Stefan.

 

[Yako]

The BMC gets a few seconds at the end of this vid

Which interestingly (for me!) also features the new, smaller but slower charger option for the HPR 40 as it’s nigh on impossible to take the huge 4a charger that comes with both the HPR 40 and the X20 on a bikepacking trip As there wouldn’t be space for even a toothbrush