I am thinking of buying a Trek Verve + ?

Greg This bike comes with a suspension seat post and I assume yours does too? Is it sufficient ?

Yes it does and I personally find it extremely comfortable even on rough surfaces. My Trek dealer mentioned an upgrade to the grips that he said would take a lot of the jarring away on my wrists but I have not looked into it yet. I like a more firm ride and the bike is incredibly stable at higher speeds I guess that is why I love Mazda because of their tight suspension and handling! By the way I am about 200 miles in to my riding and not a single vibration from the fenders yet.
 
First impressions after 30 km are very favourable. There is a lot to like about this bike. I climbed one major hill and although it was a tad slower (12 kmh) than on the CX it was strong enough that I would not hesitate to take it up Burnaby mountain . If I were climbing Mt Seymour I would prefer the CX. Even with the 400 battery it shows better range than a 500 on my 20 pound heavier CX. I guess the reason is that the motor is not as powerful ,but I did not find it lacking much in comparison. I took it on an asphalt trail that is heavily heaved from nearby tree roots and it did shockingly well over the bumps. The seatpost suspension is really decent and even though it is a solid front end and the vibrations were greater than the air shock on the CX but not serious enough of a dealbreaker since the bike is lighter. I look forward to testing on some more trails tomorrow. There are trails I would fear to tread on this bike ,but not as many as I suspected before this demo. I still have 2 more days to decide if I will pull the trigger on it but so far it is thumbs up.
1574279253603.png
 
First impressions after 30 km are very favourable. There is a lot to like about this bike. I climbed one major hill and although it was a tad slower (12 kmh) than on the CX it was strong enough that I would not hesitate to take it up Burnaby mountain . If I were climbing Mt Seymour I would prefer the CX. Even with the 400 battery it shows better range than a 500 on my 20 pound heavier CX. I guess the reason is that the motor is not as powerful ,but I did not find it lacking much in comparison. I took it on an asphalt trail that is heavily heaved from nearby tree roots and it did shockingly well over the bumps. The seatpost suspension is really decent and even though it is a solid front end and the vibrations were greater than the air shock on the CX but not serious enough of a dealbreaker since the bike is lighter. I look forward to testing on some more trails tomorrow. There are trails I would fear to tread on this bike ,but not as many as I suspected before this demo. I still have 2 more days to decide if I will pull the trigger on it but so far it is thumbs up.View attachment 41734

A beautiful bike for sure keep us posted on your decision. here is a picture of mine with the rear rack, carrier bag, mirrors and battery cover.
 

Attachments

  • 0521C603-D4B4-45A7-AEEE-CCF14B273DF7.jpeg
    0521C603-D4B4-45A7-AEEE-CCF14B273DF7.jpeg
    507.9 KB · Views: 422
Agree on the fenders. We finally had them take the rear fender off my wife's Verve+ after having a lot of trouble keeping it from rattling or rubbing the tire. The Verve+ 2 is a huge improvement in that regard.
 
Agree on the fenders. We finally had them take the rear fender off my wife's Verve+ after having a lot of trouble keeping it from rattling or rubbing the tire. The Verve+ 2 is a huge improvement in that regard.
I am going to see if the fender struts can be lengthened a tad. I just checked and it would not a simple fix. .
 
Last edited:
Agree on the fenders. We finally had them take the rear fender off my wife's Verve+ after having a lot of trouble keeping it from rattling or rubbing the tire. The Verve+ 2 is a huge improvement in that regard.
What about the brakes? Are you satisfied with them at 160mm?
 
To give a bit of further context, the current verve is barely capable of 17 mph (if that) on flat, smooth pavement with minimal winds (5 to 10 mph). I weigh about 170-175 lbs when dressed for a ride.

You'll get much more value out of something like a $1500 Radrover which can pull very easily to 20 mph on flats (probably 24 to25 mph ungoverned) and climbs moderate grades at 15-16 mph with ease.

The lack of power is borderline unacceptable.
 
To give a bit of further context, the current verve is barely capable of 17 mph (if that) on flat, smooth pavement with minimal winds (5 to 10 mph). I weigh about 170-175 lbs when dressed for a ride.

You'll get much more value out of something like a $1500 Radrover which can pull very easily to 20 mph on flats (probably 24 to25 mph ungoverned) and climbs moderate grades at 15-16 mph with ease.

The lack of power is borderline unacceptable.
My friend you must be in poor health. I had no problem riding past the motor cutoff on flat asphalt.
 
To give a bit of further context, the current verve is barely capable of 17 mph (if that) on flat, smooth pavement with minimal winds (5 to 10 mph). I weigh about 170-175 lbs when dressed for a ride.

You'll get much more value out of something like a $1500 Radrover which can pull very easily to 20 mph on flats (probably 24 to25 mph ungoverned) and climbs moderate grades at 15-16 mph with ease.

The lack of power is borderline unacceptable.
I own two hub motor bikes and I do not like them. You can have the Radrover.
 
I own two hub motor bikes and I do not like them. You can have the Radrover.

I agree that the weight distribution of hub motored bikes is less than ideal. It's a matter of tradeoffs. The extra wear on drivetrain components with a midmotor is also less than ideal.

My point was that the rad was a lot more fun than I had anticipated. Sometimes, for reasons which aren't especially clear, certain bikes outperform their spec and/or price point. I'm happy to say that the rad was one of them, likely because my expectations were so low (my test mule was in especially poor cosmetic condition, which lowered my expectations even further!).

I do think the programming of the controller had a lot to do with it. Power ramp up is very smooth, much better than I had expected, and I've seen a lot worse. Well done Rad!
 
The only thing that deters me from buying the Verve + is the thought of getting a belt drive on my next bike. My Heavy CX powered bike is in the shop getting a new rear cluster , front cog and of course a chain. This will be my 3rd set of chainrings , so that means approximately every 5k. I am really wondering now whether the belt drive is worth switching to. I am happy with the responsive functioning Shimano changer but now that too needs replacing so the maintenence costs are adding up ( not to mention brake pads). Daydreaming of a light bike with a belt drive is nice , but then one is at the mercy of an internal gearing system ,which is the X factor in the equation. Hmmm...
 
Last edited:
The only thing that deters me from buying the Verve + is the thought of getting a belt drive on my next bike. My Heavy CX powered bike is in the shop getting a new rear cluster , front cog and of course a chain. This will be my 3rd set of chainrings , so that means approximately every 5k. I am really wondering now whether the belt drive is worth switching to. I am happy with the responsive functioning Shimano changer but now that too needs replacing so the maintenence costs are adding up ( not to mention brake pads). Daydreaming of a light bike with a belt drive is nice , but then one are the mercy of an internal gearing system ,which is the X factor in the equation. Hmm...
The belt drive on the La Free E+1 is THE reason I decided to go for it, rather than the essentially same priced Verve+. If I were going to do a chain, I'd go the La Free E+2 instead (I know I've said this before). Again, that is comparing full price versions - if you're happy with the price you're getting with the Verve, and you've ridden the bike and liked it, you're the only one who can pull the trigger 😉. You've got other bikes and experience to compare this one to, so you're in a better position to decide than most...
 
Back