Considering a Specialized, got a few questions

[Ebikelife72]

I rode a Vado 3.0 IGH today and was quite impressed. I’m a huge fan of the Vado 4 and certainly prefer it as it’s a class 3 and has very easy speed. I was surprised at how strong of a hill climber the 3 IGH was with its 50nm motor. I ride my Tero X 5 in the stock eco setting pretty exclusively. How many nm’s am I using in that setting? If it’s similar or less than the 3.0 in eco that might explain why I’m impressed. The 50nm seemed to be plenty for me. I’ve been riding my wife’s Vado 4 this week while my Tero is in the shop. Other than it being a medium frame and I require an XL it’s been quite fun. The 4 at the current price is the best value out there.

 

[Bavi]

But I think I'll probably get the 4.0 just on the "don't buy cheap now and regret it later" philosophy. Maybe I'll want the extra range or power.

This sounds like a wise decision to me, you never know how you needs may change in the future... if you can afford it, do it, cos it'll me mighty expensive to change later, second hand e-bikes are worth virtually nothing

I went overboard and got a Como 5.0 IGH just as insurance power & battery wise, in case my dodgy knees give up the ghost when I'm out and about because the thought of that really worries me. But it's got plenty more of both than I normally need and I try to use as little of both as I can get away with. But with it, I now have confidence to use the bike much more than I otherwise would have.

I think I'll get red.

Yep, their red finish looks absolutely stunning in the sunlight but then quality wise, Specialized paint jobs are lovely on all their bikes

 

[Stefan Mikes]

I ride my Tero X 5 in the stock eco setting pretty exclusively. How many nm’s am I using in that setting?

It is hard to say in terms of Nm (it is the Specialized 2.0 motor with 70 Nm max).

Your 35/35 ECO setting on Tero X 5.0 equals to Assist 1.12x (every 100 W of your leg power are assisted with 112 W of the mechanical motor power), and the motor will not assist you with more than 164.5 W.

Vado 3.0 has the Specialized 2.0 motor (50 Nm max). The 35/35% ECO setting means the Assist of 0.98x (100 W of leg power are assisted by 98 W of the motor power), and the motor max power is capped at 150.5 W.

These motors are not that different in the low power setting. You would notice the difference in the Turbo mode.

 

[AvalancheRun]

Whatever you go with, red is a great color! Too much boring black, white, and silver out there.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

red is a great color

Red is the fasterestest colour!

 

[GaryInCO]

These motors are not that different in the low power setting. You would notice the difference in the Turbo mode.

That's good to know! I was concerned that the 4.0 might have more power than I wanted. The 3.0 had plenty of power in Sport mode, effortlessly holding 18-20mph on flats. If the 4.0 has more, does that mean I won't get any exercise? Or will a single stroke of the pedals zoom me up to 30mph?? I didn't really expect that, but I wondered how a higher-power bike would behave. I really don't want the bike doing all the work. I can kick it up to Turbo if I need to climb a steep hill. But I assume the Mastermind or whatever will let me custom-tweak the power settings to whatever I want? I expect I'll actually use a small sliver of the 4.0's power, 98% of the time.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

That's good to know! I was concerned that the 4.0 might have more power than I wanted. The 3.0 had plenty of power in Sport mode, effortlessly holding 18-20mph on flats. If the 4.0 has more, does that mean I won't get any exercise? Or will a single stroke of the pedals zoom me up to 30mph?? I didn't really expect that, but I wondered how a higher-power bike would behave. I really don't want the bike doing all the work. I can kick it up to Turbo if I need to climb a steep hill. But I assume the Mastermind or whatever will let me custom-tweak the power settings to whatever I want? I expect I'll actually use a small sliver of the 4.0's power, 98% of the time.

It is not the motorcycle, and the power delivery through pedalling is very natural. The workout you are getting mostly results from the net time spent pedalling. A stronger motor shortens the trip time and it means less workout, (it is not the assistance itself that reduces the workout!)

The higher assistance modes make it easy riding above 20 mph but going past 25 mph even in Turbo is not that easy because of the air drag.

The MicroTune is a unique feature, and you're going to love it! MT is a distinctive assist mode, activated with a function button. Each click on the +/- remote button changes the assistance in 10/10% increments/decrements. You would notice how the assistance settings affect your speed and effort. This feature is something I dream to have!

It is also possible to set the assistance levels in the Specialized App (or in Mission Control) once you have found your favourite settings. I ride my 90 Nm Vado 6.0 at 20/20% now, as it gives me a good workout at low battery consumption and decent speed.

 

[GaryInCO]

Placed my order today!

 

[mcdenny]

Gary, congrats on getting the new bike. A great feature it will have is the ability to tune exactly how the electric power boosts your riding power. I'd been riding for a year with ECO set to 20/40 and wanted to get more exercise benefit. It's easy to fiddle the settings to make the bike feel however you want it to.

Shown below is a copy of a post on another thread relating to Specialized ride mode settings (love the Mastermind software) and rider effort. As I've been riding more I'm getting a little fitter (duh!) and was thinking about maybe getting a nice analog hybrid bike. I did have an old analog folding bike in the basement so got that out to try.

.... This interest in fitness is because I just got an Apple Watch (Series 4, watch IOS9). That's how I measured the rides and a comparison is shown to the Mastermind Calories data. Each ride was the same 0.6 mile loop around my neighborhood, moderate hills, no traffic or stop signs.

The Apple Watch calorie data obviously doesn't take into account the electric boost (in spite of their claims to the contrary). Pedaling along effortlessly in TURBO registers the same calorie burn as riding with the motor OFF. Average heart rate does show the difference in effort.

The Tern is an old bike I had laying around from our camping days. Probably not at all representative of a nice hybrid road bike but its the only choice I had.

Conclusions: Riding the Como OFF felt similar in effort to the acoustic Tern, assuming the watch measures calories accurately for regular bikes. This surprised me as turning the motor off while riding assisted feels like deploying a parachute. Doing the whole ride with the motor off actually didn't feel too bad.

ECO 10/20 still gave a noticeable boost over OFF and still burnt 40% more calories than at the old 20/40 setting. I'm going to try this for a longer ride soon and see how it feels. Cal apple is active calories used per watch. Cal spec is the mastermind calories expended pedaling. Heart rate is averaged over the ride time.

The result of the comparison test is that, for now at least, I'm going to stick with the Como and leave ECO set at 10/20. I'm able to enjoy the ride and burn 50% more calories than with the former 20/40 setting.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

ECO 10/20 still gave a noticeable boost over OFF and still burnt 40% more calories than at the old 20/40 setting. I'm going to try this for a longer ride soon and see how it feels. Cal apple is active calories used per watch. Cal spec is the mastermind calories expended pedaling. Heart rate is averaged over the ride time.

@mcdenny let me tell you something.

As I got fitter by riding e-bikes and slowly decreasing assistance, I often ride my lightweight Vado SL in the OFF mode. However, please understand where the fittness really comes from:
If you are pedalling with the same effort, an unpowered or a low powered bike/e-bike rides slowly. You need a longer time to get from A to B or to close your loop ride. The calories burnt only depend on the pedalling time with the same effort. I used to complete a 104 km gravel group ride under 4 hours (fancy how much of assistance that meant!) In the low power mode, I make a similar distance in 5 h 30 min. If the e-bike is unpowered, it is 6 hours. The difference in the ride time between these cases directly translates to the kcal burnt... The assistance or no assistance do not matter on a pedal assisted e-bike.

 

[GaryInCO]

With the same effort, yes. But I don’t use nearly as much effort on the Vado, even pedaling in Eco mode, compared to what I used on my unpowered bike. My typical speed on my old bike, on flat trails, was generally around 11–12 mph, and it was work to keep it there. On the Vado it’s easy to hold 16–18. So yes, shorter ride time, but…

I only tried it once, but I think riding the Vado with the assistance off was significantly more effort at the same 16-18 speed. So more kcal burned in the same time / distance. Which only makes sense, since the motor is contributing some of the necessary kcal when it’s on. But you’ve put on a lot more miles than I have. Do you really feel that it takes no more effort if you turn off the assist and hold the same speed? (Then why ride a ebike?)

 

[Stefan Mikes]

I think riding the Vado with the assistance off was significantly more effort at the same 16-18 speed

If you can maintain that speed, yes. I cannot

 

[mcdenny]

Sure it’s more effort to ride x mph unassisted vs. assisted. I can comfortably ride my Como about 9-10 mph unassisted on flat ground. That same effort yields 16-17 mph on Turbo. Riding 10 miles at 10 mph unassisted burns the same calories as riding 17 miles at 17 mph in turbo mode.

My point was that the assist levels are tunable so you can get the effort you want at the speed you want. For me the 10/20 ECO setting gives the effort and speed I want. I shift gears to keep 70-80 cadence.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Riding 10 miles at 10 mph unassisted burns the same calories as riding 17 miles at 17 mph in turbo mode.

Yes because you pedal either bike for an hour.

 

[BlackHand]

I ride a Bosch, but the same principle applies of course. One thing I've noticed is that perceived effort can feel higher at low assist settings even though the total amount of work may be about the same as going faster with higher assist:

2 commutes home from work this past week:

1) I hadn't charged overnight and then also managed to somehow jar the charger cord loose at work so I had to ride home with a nearly dead battery using the flattest shortest route in eco mode.

2) I didn't have any range or time constraints so I took a more 'fun' way home in sport mode most of the way. It felt like an easy cruise home with a few hills, but I did almost almost the same amount of work on both rides. BTW, I consider the calorie difference within the margin of error given how opaque the calculation is (it's not even using HR info). I suspect it's reading about 6% lower cal on the longer/faster ride because there was more coasting on that ride.


As long as you are willing to ride longer or further you can get just as much of a workout in higher assist modes too.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

180 W average user power. Look at you! You do not need an e-bike whatsoever!

 

[mschwett]

I ride a Bosch, but the same principle applies of course. One thing I've noticed is that perceived effort can feel higher at low assist settings even though the total amount of work may be about the same as going faster with higher assist:

2 commutes home from work this past week:

1) I hadn't charged overnight and then also managed to somehow jar the charger cord loose at work so I had to ride home with a nearly dead battery using the flattest shortest route in eco mode.

2) I didn't have any range or time constraints so I took a more 'fun' way home in sport mode most of the way. It felt like an easy cruise home with a few hills, but I did almost almost the same amount of work on both rides. BTW, I consider the calorie difference within the margin of error given how opaque the calculation is (it's not even using HR info). I suspect it's reading about 6% lower cal on the longer/faster ride because there was more coasting on that ride.
View attachment 166765View attachment 166766

As long as you are willing to ride longer or further you can get just as much of a workout in higher assist modes too.

what you'll find is that when the rider power output is known, heart rate is likely not used. the efficiency of a human being cycling is generally known to be 20-25%, so all you really have to do is convert the units. it's interesting that in your examples the relationship between average power, time, and calories is slightly off. beware of the term "average," sometimes it's actually a weighted average which does not truly reflect work done. the first ride is closer to the standard calculation - 100 watts = 100 J/s = 360 Kj/hr = 86.12 KCal/hr (4.18 KJ in a KC). at 25% efficiency you're burning 344 calories in one hour of cycling at 100 watts. you were cycling for .8 hours, so 275 calories, but at 178w, so it should be approx 490.5 calories burned. the 467 figure in your bosch app is close enough; it may make some additional assumptions about efficiency based on cadence, speed, variation, etc, or it may just be using a slightly different value for efficiency. the other ride is off by enough that it makes me wonder if the average is actually a weighted average, which would explain the slightly lower than expected figures.

 

[GaryInCO]

Interesting, I see I will have new toys to geek out with.

I've been looking forward to long rides on my Vado. But looking at those calorie-burning stats, I'm wondering how many long rides I should take. Most people want exercise so they can lose weight. But I'm trying to GAIN weight. I've always been skinny (currently 182 lbs = 83 kg and 6'4" = 193cm) and I lost 15% of my body weight with a bout of cancer a few years ago. I'd love to bulk up 20-30 lbs of muscle, but my body just doesn't want to do that. But if I regularly burn 500-1000 calories on a ride ...

 

[OrTrek]

Interesting, I see I will have new toys to geek out with.

I've been looking forward to long rides on my Vado. But looking at those calorie-burning stats, I'm wondering how many long rides I should take. Most people want exercise so they can lose weight. But I'm trying to GAIN weight. I've always been skinny (currently 182 lbs = 83 kg and 6'4" = 193cm) and I lost 15% of my body weight with a bout of cancer a few years ago. I'd love to bulk up 20-30 lbs of muscle, but my body just doesn't want to do that. But if I regularly burn 500-1000 calories on a ride ...

Interesting. Gary your BMI (Body Mass Index) is good - 22.4. While BMI is just a basic reading it is useful as an indicator. You can calculate your body fat as well. A good tool is https://www.fatcalc.com/bf. The US Navy and Covert Baily calculators are actually pretty accurate. For me at my age a BMI in the 22 range and body fat minimally under 20 , preferably under 18 is where I want to be. Too low I lose strength, too high I feel like a slug.

There really are only two ways to put on weight - more calories inbound than outbound and/or adding muscle mass. I've lifted weights for over 55 years. Big believer in it. If you indeed want to add body weight you really need to add resistance exercises also. Most males add weight starting at the stomach, then the chest followed by the neck and face. To lose it it's the opposite. So be careful on just adding caloric weight. Doesn't mean you have to spend hours in a gym. One can accomplish a lot at home with some resistance bands, dumbbells and kettle balls. YouTuber Athlean-x has a whole series on bands and Musclemonster has some reasonable exercise routines for older individuals. I do both gym and also bands/bells at home or when traveling. I just don't do squats or benches at twice my weight any more - screws up my joints and messes with my flexibility. Now it's biking/hiking for lower body, resistance exercises for upper body - though biking is a pretty good total body workout as well.

 

[GaryInCO]

Thanks, @OrTrek. I actually joined an online workout group for skinny/bony guys 3 months ago. I've been loading more calories and protein than before, but my weight hasn't changed a bit. Unfortunately my discipline sucks and I haven't kept up with my weightlifting. (I've been too busy shopping for bikes !!! ) But I play 2-3 hrs of pickleball twice a week, trying to get back into light dumbbell work 2-3x/wk, trying to kick my lazy butt back to the gym for more serious lifting. And once my Vado arrives next week, when the weather cooperates I'll pound out some miles. (I gave away my old recumbent a few months ago.) That's far more & more consistent exercise than I've EVER done in my life. Gettin' old & weak has motivated me to get back into shape.

My BMI is 22.2 which is supposed to be "just fine." The Navy calculator says I have 18% body fat, Covert Bailey says 16.1%. The "fit" category per the American Council on Exercise is 14-18%. I can't believe they want 6-14% for "athletic." The American College of Sports Medicine says anything under 18% is "very lean," and at 16-18% I think I look borderline skeletal. My ribcage sticks out. I think I'd look and feel a lot better if I could re-build some of the muscle mass that melted away before we started treating my cancer.