New SL 1.2 motor - better range?

[hankj]

I've read plenty about more peak power and an ounce or two lighter, but what turns my crank (har har) is range at lower assist levels.

Will the new motor likely go farther at 35%? At 60%?

Thanks!

 

[Dazmanturbo]

From the reports I have seen, there is efficiency saving for Eco and Trail modes. Turbo will drain battery quicker with the higher wattage, but the interviews with Specialized team said design changes inside give the saving against the current motor.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

but the interviews with Specialized team said design changes inside give the saving against the current motor.

That would only be possible if the new motor had the efficiency greater than 0.79. You cannot cheat the laws of physics. If the motor delivers the same mechanical power at some setting, the motor of greater efficiency would offer more range.

 

[Dazmanturbo]

That would only be possible if the new motor had the efficiency greater than 0.79. You cannot cheat the laws of physics. If the motor delivers the same mechanical power at some setting, the motor of greater efficiency would offer more range.

From what I understand, there are less moving parts, which would produce an efficiency saving. How much.....can't say....lol

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Let me be sceptical. The efficiency of the motor is electrical and mechanical. Removing some mechanical parts might improve the efficiency with 1-2%. It is very hard to improve the electrical efficiency (because otherwise all manufacturers would make their motors very efficient). Dazman, go on an SL ride. Just before the ride, check the motor and battery temperature with Mission Control diagnostic. Ride for an hour with significant assistance (such as 60%). Check the motor and battery temperature post-ride. You will notice the motor and the battery both became pretty warm. That's the measure of the electrical inefficiency: over 20% of electricity drawn from the battery was converted to heat. It is also why the maximum power draw from the battery on SL 1.1 system is 303 W but you only get 240 W of the mechanical power on the chainring.

There is no doubt the new SL 1.2 motor is stronger than the 1.1. To maintain the same energy consumption (range), the rider would have to decrease both the Assistance and Max Motor Power %. Nothing comes free in this world. Want more power? Get less range

 

[Dazmanturbo]

View attachment 157529

Let me be sceptical. The efficiency of the motor is electrical and mechanical. Removing some mechanical parts might improve the efficiency with 1-2%. It is very hard to improve the electrical efficiency (because otherwise all manufacturers would make their motors very efficient). Dazman, go on an SL ride. Just before the ride, check the motor and battery temperature with Mission Control diagnostic. Ride for an hour with significant assistance (such as 60%). Check the motor and battery temperature post-ride. You will notice the motor and the battery both became pretty warm. That's the measure of the electrical inefficiency: over 20% of electricity drawn from the battery was converted to heat. It is also why the maximum power draw from the battery on SL 1.1 system is 303 W but you only get 240 W of the mechanical power on the chainring.

There is no doubt the new SL 1.2 motor is stronger than the 1.1. To maintain the same energy consumption (range), the rider would have to decrease both the Assistance and Max Motor Power %. Nothing comes free in this world. Want more power? Get less range

Very true, I was only expecting a small efficiency saving due to mechanical loss. Will be surprised if it turns up greater than this. I am sure someone will show some data down the line.

 

[GAJ]

Not sure my 5.0 SL needs a bit more power/torque for my riding habits but more range would be nice but that does not seem to be in the cards.

Doesn't seem like the new bike will be appreciably lighter either unless they go full carbon.

 

[Dazmanturbo]

Not sure my 5.0 SL needs a bit more power/torque for my riding habits but more range would be nice but that does not seem to be in the cards.

Doesn't seem like the new bike will be appreciably lighter either unless they go full carbon.

We know the motor and we know the battery. I am not expecting any weight saving over the previous Creo...... I would be happy with just the new motor as love my Creo

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Were I living in the mountains, I would be interested with the more powerful SL 1.2 motor. What I am seeking now is long range. That's why I do not need the new motor and do not think the efficiency could increase to the significant level

 

[BEC111]

We shall see how it goes. Personally, I hope any compromises made to achieve the greater performance are significant enough to make me not want to buy the eventual Vado SL when it arrives. I suspect my wife would not be happy any excuses I might make in order to buy one.

 

[Wookie]

I believe the torque gains are all made in software, that is the motor is essentially the same motor but with better thermal management, allowing the motor to be run "harder".

 

[Dazmanturbo]

Been watching a few reviews on the long tern tests of the Levo with the SL1.2. Unsurprisingly, on turbo, the battery does not last as long (320w v 240W.....go figure......) However, the lower power modes of trail and eco do give a range uplift of the previous bike. I know this on an MTB, but really making me curios as what it will be like in the new Creo

 

[GAJ]

Been watching a few reviews on the long tern tests of the Levo with the SL1.2. Unsurprisingly, on turbo, the battery does not last as long (320w v 240W.....go figure......) However, the lower power modes of trail and eco do give a range uplift of the previous bike. I know this on an MTB, but really making me curios as what it will be like in the new Creo

So a small evolutionary change vs a revolutionary change.

I guess we'll have to wait for battery tech to take a leap and be happy that there really is no need to get rid of our SL1.1 bikes, (which I wasn't planning anyway).

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Did I already tell you that introducing the SL1.2 motor in Creo will eliminate that e-bike from the Giro-E race?
Specialized is strongly involved in European e-MTB and e-road races. The rules of Giro-E (the e- version of Giro d'Italia) require that the road e-bike is truly limited to 250 W and 25 km/h.

 

[gromike]

250 watts maximum power? Maybe for a race of slow ebikes, but my 500 watt Grin hub motor pulls 1500 watts peak power. There's nominal power, and there's peak power. If a 250 watt rated motor could only pull 250 watts that would truly suck.

 

[PDoz]

Been watching a few reviews on the long tern tests of the Levo with the SL1.2. Unsurprisingly, on turbo, the battery does not last as long (320w v 240W.....go figure......) However, the lower power modes of trail and eco do give a range uplift of the previous bike. I know this on an MTB, but really making me curios as what it will be like in the new Creo

The new levo sl has a more efficient chasis / geometry than the original levo sl - I expect most of the improved range is coming from this rather than the motor efficiency. Steeper seat tube angle , for example.

I've almost reconciled myself to keeping my 1.1 motor / original levo sl . I can live with the noise, don't need the extra torque, and still love the way my lsl handles. Except when I ride a more modern bike......

 

[Stefan Mikes]

250 watts maximum power? Maybe for a race of slow ebikes, but my 500 watt Grin hub motor pulls 1500 watts peak power. There's nominal power, and there's peak power. If a 250 watt rated motor could only pull 250 watts that would truly suck.

These are the rules of the Italian road e-race. Those people basically race without any assistance and assist themself only on climbs. Specialized SL 1.1 motor is intentionally 240 W peak power.
Nobody would admit your Grin motor e-bike to that competition, cheater Does it have a... throttle?