Hi. Sorry for the long first post.
I'm about to buy a Turbo e-bike. I've been reading this forum – very helpful, thank you. And I've now had the chance to do short test rides on a Vado 3.0, a Como 3.0 and a Vado SL EQ 4.0. Unfortunately – but understandably so – the dealers have no wanted me test riding off asphalt roads, so no gravel paths, and the terrain had only minor inclines, so nto ideal conditions for testing, but given general availability I still count myself lucky.
That said, I'm absolutely torturing myself over which model to get, both in terms of which Turbo line and which level within the line. Researching and the test drives have only muddied the water rather than clarifying – the Como wasn't even in the running until I tested it because it happened to be in the shop after I tried the SL.
Here's my criteria:
-- Male, 6.1, ~220lbs, 50 yo; okay shape but some joint issues
-- I currently bike for exercise about once a week (and do other exercises the other days) and want to do so more, but inclines wear me out too quickly (even in lower gears)
-- I'll probably mostly ride it on roads around my house, but I do want to ability to transport the bike to bike paths (mostly gravel, some dirt roads (but not hardcore mountain bike paths); we have some amazing paths in my greater area
-- I won't be using this for commuting – purely recreationally and exercise
-- I don't want road bike handle bars. My neck and back get uncomfortable after about 45 minutes on my current old hybrid bike, and my hands sometimes get numb
Here's all the things tripping me up:
-- I like the idea of the SL because I think it's the one Turbo I could transport on my existing bike racks or even just put in the back of the inside of my SUV (on its side) or minivan. I also have a little range (or motor problem) anxiety and like the idea that if I have no assist the SL doesn't drag more than a normal bike.
-- That said, I found the ride on the SL 4.0 ridiculously harsh in my test drive. My wife tried it too and had an even stronger reaction saying I was crazy to even consider it because it was the most uncomfortable ride she's ever had on any bike ever. This was all on city streets. She'd get the Como in a heartbeat. I know in theory I can change the seat/saddle, seat post to a suspension post and add a suspension handlebar stem (though with various complications for the lights and display), all of which should help the harsh ride. But without being able to test it, I have no idea if they will make a profound enough difference if I currently hate the ride. I also know the 5.0 has the suspension handlebars but I have no easy way to test that model and I wasn't clear if it made enough difference either for an extra $1K. Is it crazy to get the SL and throw a big springy saddle seat on it? Will the sum total of these mods be a night-and-day difference or only minor and incremental?
-- I also worry the real issue on the SL is the thinner tires. I'm used to tires at least as wide as the regular Vado and think I am spoiled by the bigger tires absorbing more of the road for me. I see on paper you can change the SL tires, but it seems like to do so you either had to sacrifice all the things that are in the EQ – fenders, rack and the fender taillight – or get the non-EQ but then have the seat-mounted taillight that won't work with any of the after-market seat post suspension systems.
-- My only issue with the Vado or Como really is weight making it harder to transport and really unpleasant if you have to finish a ride without assist. I tried both without assist on my test rides, and they were fine flat or downhill but awful up an incline.
-- Between the regular Vado and Como I thought I was a Vado guy going in, which more closely resembles my current bike. But after riding the Como, I wonder if I have been missing the advantages of sitting straight up and having a huge cushy seat all this time. Could help that back/neck problem. Is there ever a type of riding where I will regret the Como orientation versus the Vado half-leaning orientation? I don't care about high speed per se, I'm more interested in stamina – what gets me to keep riding longer and to be able to handle long inclines and regular off-road paths (but not single track downhill stuff).
-- The 3.0's are the easiest to get locally right now and I was generally fine with the power level of the assist (though I didn't get to try it on a major incline). But I am worried about the range on the 460 batteries. Should I be? Also, is the range really any better on the 4.0's or does the more efficient motor of the 3.0's combined with the relatively modest battery difference means the 3's and 4's effectively have similar ranges?
Any help sorting this out is appreciated. I'm committed to getting an e-bike and a Turbo and am ready to pull the trigger, just not sure which one I should be aiming at given my particular issues…
Thanks.
electricbikereview.com
