mschwett
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
Interesting - the field is sort of mislabeled then, since “rider power” is clearly a torque x speed measurement and not an internal body measurement but usefully so as it allows you to calculate range and so on. 80% would be a reasonable value for a brushless permanent magnet electric motor, i think.I think what Mission Control actually shows is the power drawn from the battery (there is no way to actually determine the motor power while it is very easy to measure the current and voltage to multiply them and get the power figure). Since we know the 1.1 motor produces 240 W max and the reported value was 300, it indicates the motor efficiency of 80% and it sounds about right.
I agree with the phenomenon (that you describe) of inputting more leg power at high motor assistance than it happens with low support. I cannot explain that at all but I get very similar relationship when I ride my Vado 5.0 and measure the leg power against motor assistance with the BLEvo app. Let us say I need to ride together with slow traditional cyclists. I set the assistance down to say 25%, and after the daily trip I realize my leg power was just puny. Now, the more assistance I use the higher my average leg power turns to be. Finally, if I set the assistance to 100% and do a (say) 8 km/5 mi sprint, my power input becomes quite high as for my ill legs.
I don't know why that happens. It might be we just try harder ourselves with high assistance on?
I believe the issue with rider power for me has more to do with gearing. I simply can’t pedal hard enough to climb a very steep hill at a good cadence in the lowest gear; my heart rate would be too high. But at higher speed, whether enabled by the motor boost or flatter ground, I feel very comfortable putting out 200-300w for extended periods of time. I’m very curious if a super light road bike with a 2x drivetrain would allow greater power output from my legs and heart uphill! Probably Not.