Specialized Turbo Vado SL: An Incredible E-Bike (User Club)

[Base]

Next thursday there is a christian holliday, so we bridge that day into the weekend. Free from next thursday so we will be out of the city and will ride the SL's from the "datcha" into Zeeland. Long term weather info shows some sun, 20+ degrees C and not to chilly nights, so some cycling, beach, bbq.

Will be a bit different trip than we usually plan (usually at leeast 3 weeks) for cycle touring, we've ridden for instance the North Sea Cycleroute. I've been bikepacking/cycletoruing for the last 30 years I think, next to hiking and climbing. For cycle touring I've build our own 26" travel bikes, and also a pair of folding bikes with touring setup, but since we have these SL's at the "datcha" it is easier to just hop on to those and take them for a spin. (And yes, the ideaal amount of bikes is N+1)

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Next thursday there is a christian holliday

Ascension is celebrated on Sunday in Poland as we have too many holidays including a long weekend in May anyway

 

[Stefan Mikes]

An Interesting Story: From the SL to A Full Power E-Bike

In 2020, a Polish man by name Artur visited these Fora. He was asking about an e-bike for his wife, and he was considering a used Stromer. I "intercepted" him and we started talking. An athletic couple (she: a lawn tennis player; he: a martial arts instructor), they loved having multi-day lightly packed vacation rides. The wife Anna needed some oomph to be able to ride at the same speed as her husband. In the pandemic crisis, a Giant Explore (the highest model 0) was the best choice; bough online in Germany, it was serviced locally by Giant in Warsaw Poland. Anna and Artur became friends of mine, and we were on two trips together.

Two years ago, Anna asked me to give an advice on an e-bike for Arthur. I said "Visit Specialized Warsaw and ask for a Vado SL". Indeed, Artur was able to buy a Vado SL 5.0 EQ at a huge discount! Anna and Artur have had two vacation trips I am aware of and seemed to be happy. Meanwhile, Anna complained how heavy her Giant was compared to the lightweight SL of her husband!

Now, the man writes to me: 'I'd rather sell the SL and look for another e-bike'. A little shock to me. I asked for reasons, and he goes: 'The battery in the SL is good for 50 km. When we had to ride for 80-100 km a day, we had to stop at, e.g., restaurant and recharge the battery, which was a long process. Also, on mild hills I had to go TURBO and chase my wife! Too little power, to small a battery!"

Well, I told him about the Range Extender but I feel he simply got bored with Vado SL and he looks for a new toy. He will lose a lot on the Vado SL sale... Not my problem! I think he wants a full power Vado 5.0 now. What can I say...

 

[Rás Cnoic]

You can lead a horse to water etc etc.

When I got the Brave with the EP6 motor at Christmas I was worried I'd get addicted to the astonishing power of the 85nm and for sure at first on the 20% hills where I could zoom up them only using 40/50% assist, but still not feel like I was working it was a revelation. But it's sluggish on roads and hills drains the 630wh battery very quickly, it's a thirsty motor. So then to counter this I bought 50mm tyres (xc fast rolling Conti Race Kings) swapping off the 2.35 inch Maxxis tyres it came with. It was a bit quicker on road and I needed less power to overcome that sluggish feel (Not slow, with that power at hand it hits the 25Km cutoff very quickly) but the new tyres compromised the off-road performance. I realised I was trying to turn it into the Vado SL and what was the point of that! I put back on the wider tyres, and now don't worry about sluggish feeling on road but enjoy how capable the bike and motor is on really rough off road paths, which is the point of a mtb like that. So then recently after a period where work meant I barely got any rides, and those were mostly short fun off-road blasts on the Brave, that's when I worried that hopping back on the Vado SL would suddenly feel lacking. Especially as over winter my fitness has suffered. Would I feel the SL was now too much hard work after the powerful motor and with fitness levels low? Not a bit of it. It is such an efficient system. Last Friday on the SL I did a usual road loop of 23 miles with about 2,800ft of steep climbing including three 20%+ hills- but a loop I haven't done in months. The combination of low gearing and motor got me up these hills just like always. Yes I was out of breath on the steep hills but not on the edge, it always felt relatively comfortable.

The Spesh app told me I did 41% unassisted, 38% Eco (50/50) 16% Sport (75/75) and just 3% in Turbo.

From what I can see the two big differences between the bikes (full fat & SL) on road are weight and tyres. I need to use motor assist more on the Brave because riding unassisted rarely feels fun. That 41% where the motor was off on the SL wasn't a chore, it was fine. And my tyres at 44mm are not the narrowest but do roll fast at 55psi.

Also at nearly 5 years old that original battery is holding up well, I had 26% left when I got home. I'm sure there must be a percentage loss since new but I don't have any extra range anxiety. Might get that BLevo app just to check how it's degraded.

As the carbon Creos 1's are even lighter, I expect the range to be even better as I imagine I'd have assist off even longer. Might keep an eye out for second hand bikes as people switch to the Creo 2 and used prices come down.

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

Would I feel the SL was now too much hard work after the powerful motor and with fitness levels low? Not a bit of it. It is such an efficient system. Last Friday on the SL I did a usual road loop of 23 miles with about 2,800ft of steep climbing including three 20%+ hills- but a loop I haven't done in months. The combination of low gearing and motor got me up these hills just like always. Yes I was out of breath on the steep hills but not on the edge, it always felt relatively comfortable.

Ditto. In my case, the "other ebike" is my wife's new 50 lb, 750W, 65 Nm hub-drive cruiser with switchable torque- and cadence-sensing assist. Not really comparable to your MTB or the SL, but powerful, capable, and fun to ride in its own way.

Still, the SL's my Goldilocks bike. Everything came together just right. Plenty of climbing help for my hills at current fitness, and hard to give up for the nimble handling alone. The admitted motor noise is a small price to pay.

 

[GAJ]

Did 36 miles the other day from Santa Rosa to Forestville and back.

Still had some power left after only using turbo on hills.

Every ride confirms it is the perfect bike for me.

 

[RRCV]

Overheard recently.

Using the Vado SL in factory eco mode is the same as riding a similar, lightweight, unpowered bicycle. Factory setting eco mode makes up for the weight difference of the battery/motor system.

Any comments?

For Stefan, no I still haven’t used the motor. Yes, I could have purchased something without a motor, if I had, I suspect I would miss the data.

Riding around 800km a month. Motor off.
Still enjoyable.

The five year olds on their trainer wheel equipped, derestricted, ebikes pass me like I’m standing still.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

For Stefan, no I still haven’t used the motor. Yes, I could have purchased something without a motor, if I had, I suspect I would miss the data.

You could probably buy a 9-10 kg pedal bike, install a cadence meter and a power meter plus a GPS bike computer instead

The five year olds on their trainer wheel equipped, derestricted, ebikes pass me like I’m standing still.

I was passed by an 11-year old riding a small pedal bike yesterday. He rode at 30 km/h!

 

[Rás Cnoic]

Overheard recently.

Using the Vado SL in factory eco mode is the same as riding a similar, lightweight, unpowered bicycle. Factory setting eco mode makes up for the weight difference of the battery/motor system.

Any comments?

For Stefan, no I still haven’t used the motor. Yes, I could have purchased something without a motor, if I had, I suspect I would miss the data.

Riding around 800km a month. Motor off.
Still enjoyable.

The five year olds on their trainer wheel equipped, derestricted, ebikes pass me like I’m standing still.

Bit stumped by this. Scratching my head. I ride my V SL unassisted about 40% of the time. The rest of the ride the assist helps me up steep hills. Unassisted the bike is ok to ride. The weight penalty I don't mind on the flat/downhill, bike zooms along nicely. But if I was A. fit enough or B. lived in a flat place and was to ride constantly unassisted I would use an analogue, lighter bike for the liveness of the ride. It's just more fun. And I'm not even talking about a 15lbs or lower carbon fibre race machine. My all steel road bike is about 27lbs so by no means a light bike today, Roadies would scoff at it, but the ride quality is just lovely.

If you don't need the motor you are basically carrying a couple of bricks around with you for no reason. As Stefan says just get a bike computer and meters and bob's yer uncle.

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

CORRECTION: Sorry, the original version used a mistyped value for the acceleration of gravity. This made most rider power differences between bikes too small, but not by enough to change the conclusions. The spreadsheet screenshot and text below are now correct.

Overheard recently.

Using the Vado SL in factory eco mode is the same as riding a similar, lightweight, unpowered bicycle. Factory setting eco mode makes up for the weight difference of the battery/motor system.

Any comments?

I used the spreadsheet simulation below to evaluate this claim for 2 common ride scenarios — a "climb" up a 5% grade at 3.6 m/s (8.0 mph), and a "cruise" on the flat at 6.7 m/s (15 mph). Both are steady rides on smooth pavement in still air. The simulation includes a model of the power-sensing PAS in Specialized mid-drives (Rows 23-29).

Going forward, "SL" means the Vado SL 1. The sheet shown is for the ECO climb with my SL and rider weight as examples. Ran versions for all of the bikes and scenarios discussed below. One way or another, the claim always came up false.

The simulation compares 3 bikes (A B, and C) at once. The rider's weight is always mine.

Bike A. My SL (Column C) has a mass of 17.3 kg (38 lb) as ridden. Add my own 87.3 kg, and gross mass comes to 105 kg (not shown). And per reliable sources, the SL motor and battery account for only 3.75 kg (8.25 lb) or 4% of it.

The corresponding gross weight is 1025 N (Row 7). This is the only weight that counts in slope and tire power losses. The coefficient of rolling resistance (Crr) and drag factor (Ka) estimates in Rows 8 and 9 are based on credible sources.

Bike B. This is just Bike A, still with motor and battery, but with their 3.75 kg weight magically removed. Per Row 32, the climb in my factory ECO (35/35) would require 8W less rider power (Pr) on Bike B than on Bike A.

That Pr difference is ~10% of the roughly 80W of mechanical motor power (Row 34) used on the ECO climb. It stays at 8W with both bikes climbing in OFF. And on an ECO cruise, it reduces to a negligible 2W.

Conclusions:
1. Motor power's offsetting a lot more than motor and battery weight on these ECO climbs and cruises.
2. Motor and battery weight have a small impact on the SL's Pr requirements on ECO climbs and cruises.

These results refute part of the claim in two common ride scenarios. They probably extrapolate to normal riding in general.

Bike C. This is the claim's best-case scenario — an unassisted "racer" weighing 6.8 kg, the TdF minimum. Its Crr and Ka are 20% less than Bike A's.

The climb would require 55W more Pr on the racer than on my SL (Bike A) in ECO. This huge difference reduces to a still substantial 22W on the ECO cruise.

More conclusions:
3. The climb would be significantly harder on an unassisted racer than on an SL in ECO.
4. The cruise would also be significantly harder for the racer, but less so than the climb.
5. The racer would always be significantly easier than the SL in OFF.

In short, the racer and SL have significantly different Pr requirements in two common situations. This is true whether the SL is in ECO or OFF, and would be even more true with a less extreme road bike in lieu of the racer. I think it safely extrapolates to normal riding in general.

This refutes the rest of the claim.

NB: These simulations look only at rider power requirements in steady riding. They say nothing about weight impacts on responsiveness and handling.

 

[BlackHand]

My SL (Column C) weighs 17.3 kg (38 lb) as ridden. Add my own 87.3 kg, and gross weight comes to 105 kg. This is the only weight that counts in slope and tire power losses.

Can you explain row 7? If you're expressing weight in Newtons, I'm assuming g is gravity but the values for total weight look like there is another variable in the mix? Or maybe my brain is just out of exercise with this stuff...

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

Can you explain row 7? If you're expressing weight in Newtons, I'm assuming g is gravity but the values for total weight look like there is another variable in the mix? Or maybe my brain is just out of exercise with this stuff...

Good catch! Standard gravity is g = 9.80665 m/s², but I mistyped it as 9.0665. The error made all rider power differences between bikes too small, but not enough to change the main result: The claim is wrong.

Sorry for the confusion. I've already replaced the spreadsheet screenshot and am working on corrections to the text.

 

[BlackHand]

Thank you!

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Wheel Circumference Dilemma

The Gen 1 Vado SL 4.0 has 2180 mm set for the Wheel Circumference. Interesting: Is it for 38 or 42 mm tyres?
-----------
While Garmin Edge allows for the Automatic Wheel Circumference (based on the GPS readouts and the wheel RPM), it cannot measure the Range Extender battery charge level %. Wahoo ELEMNT (that handles the Range Extender) requires giving a fixed value of Wheel Circumference for e-bikes (it allows the automatic for pedal bikes). Now, Wahoo specifies 2180 mm as the wheel circumference for 38-622 wheels.

As the 42-622 is obviously bigger than 38-622, I was trying 2216 then 2200 mm for my 42 mm tyres. Strava allows adjusting the reported ride distance to the map (I'm positive my shopping ride is 15.0 km round trip). The figures I entered in Wahoo were always bigger than the map distance.

My last attempt was just entering 2185 mm in Wahoo for 42 mm tyres, and now I am almost sure the recorded ride distance would match the map. Strange, isn't it.

You might say it is a first world problem as it indeed is. However, I'd like my riding distance measured on a race be correct without any Strava adjustments!

 

[RRCV]

Bit stumped by this. Scratching my head. I ride my V SL unassisted about 40% of the time. The rest of the ride the assist helps me up steep hills. Unassisted the bike is ok to ride. The weight penalty I don't mind on the flat/downhill, bike zooms along nicely. But if I was A. fit enough or B. lived in a flat place and was to ride constantly unassisted I would use an analogue, lighter bike for the liveness of the ride. It's just more fun. And I'm not even talking about a 15lbs or lower carbon fibre race machine. My all steel road bike is about 27lbs so by no means a light bike today, Roadies would scoff at it, but the ride quality is just lovely.

If you don't need the motor you are basically carrying a couple of bricks around with you for no reason. As Stefan says just get a bike computer and meters and bob's yer uncle.

I’m not an elite athlete, climbing hills is slow, but no more effort than riding flat, just takes longer.


Ok, so around 10 pounds lighter. I know someone with a Creo 2, S Works, specs indicate 28lbs, I shall ask for a ride, unassisted.

 

[RRCV]

CORRECTION: Sorry, the original version used a mistyped value for the acceleration of gravity. This made most rider power differences between bikes too small, but not by enough to change the conclusions. The spreadsheet screenshot and text below are now correct.


I used the spreadsheet simulation below to evaluate this claim for 2 common ride scenarios — a "climb" up a 5% grade at 3.6 m/s (8.0 mph), and a "cruise" on the flat at 6.7 m/s (15 mph). Both are steady rides on smooth pavement in still air. The simulation includes a model of the power-sensing PAS in Specialized mid-drives (Rows 23-29).

Going forward, "SL" means the Vado SL 1. The sheet shown is for the ECO climb with my SL and rider weight as examples. Ran versions for all of the bikes and scenarios discussed below. One way or another, the claim always came up false.

View attachment 194564
The simulation compares 3 bikes (A B, and C) at once. The rider's weight is always mine.

Bike A. My SL (Column C) has a mass of 17.3 kg (38 lb) as ridden. Add my own 87.3 kg, and gross mass comes to 105 kg (not shown). And per reliable sources, the SL motor and battery account for only 3.75 kg (8.25 lb) or 4% of it.

The corresponding gross weight is 1025 N (Row 7). This is the only weight that counts in slope and tire power losses. The coefficient of rolling resistance (Crr) and drag factor (Ka) estimates in Rows 8 and 9 are based on credible sources.

Bike B. This is just Bike A, still with motor and battery, but with their 3.75 kg weight magically removed. Per Row 32, the climb in my factory ECO (35/35) would require 8W less rider power (Pr) on Bike B than on Bike A.

That Pr difference is ~10% of the roughly 80W of mechanical motor power (Row 34) used on the ECO climb. It stays at 8W with both bikes climbing in OFF. And on an ECO cruise, it reduces to a negligible 2W.

Conclusions:
1. Motor power's offsetting a lot more than motor and battery weight on these ECO climbs and cruises.
2. Motor and battery weight have a small impact on the SL's Pr requirements on ECO climbs and cruises.

These results refute part of the claim in two common ride scenarios. They probably extrapolate to normal riding in general.

Bike C. This is the claim's best-case scenario — an unassisted "racer" weighing 6.8 kg, the TdF minimum. Its Crr and Ka are 20% less than Bike A's.

The climb would require 55W more Pr on the racer than on my SL (Bike A) in ECO. This huge difference reduces to a still substantial 22W on the ECO cruise.

More conclusions:
3. The climb would be significantly harder on an unassisted racer than on an SL in ECO.
4. The cruise would also be significantly harder for the racer, but less so than the climb.
5. The racer would always be significantly easier than the SL in OFF.

In short, the racer and SL have significantly different Pr requirements in two common situations. This is true whether the SL is in ECO or OFF, and would be even more true with a less extreme road bike in lieu of the racer. I think it safely extrapolates to normal riding in general.

This refutes the rest of the claim.

NB: These simulations look only at rider power requirements in steady riding. They say nothing about weight impacts on responsiveness and handling.

CORRECTION: Sorry, the original version used a mistyped value for the acceleration of gravity. This made most rider power differences between bikes too small, but not by enough to change the conclusions. The spreadsheet screenshot and text below are now correct.


I used the spreadsheet simulation below to evaluate this claim for 2 common ride scenarios — a "climb" up a 5% grade at 3.6 m/s (8.0 mph), and a "cruise" on the flat at 6.7 m/s (15 mph). Both are steady rides on smooth pavement in still air. The simulation includes a model of the power-sensing PAS in Specialized mid-drives (Rows 23-29).

Going forward, "SL" means the Vado SL 1. The sheet shown is for the ECO climb with my SL and rider weight as examples. Ran versions for all of the bikes and scenarios discussed below. One way or another, the claim always came up false.

View attachment 194564
The simulation compares 3 bikes (A B, and C) at once. The rider's weight is always mine.

Bike A. My SL (Column C) has a mass of 17.3 kg (38 lb) as ridden. Add my own 87.3 kg, and gross mass comes to 105 kg (not shown). And per reliable sources, the SL motor and battery account for only 3.75 kg (8.25 lb) or 4% of it.

The corresponding gross weight is 1025 N (Row 7). This is the only weight that counts in slope and tire power losses. The coefficient of rolling resistance (Crr) and drag factor (Ka) estimates in Rows 8 and 9 are based on credible sources.

Bike B. This is just Bike A, still with motor and battery, but with their 3.75 kg weight magically removed. Per Row 32, the climb in my factory ECO (35/35) would require 8W less rider power (Pr) on Bike B than on Bike A.

That Pr difference is ~10% of the roughly 80W of mechanical motor power (Row 34) used on the ECO climb. It stays at 8W with both bikes climbing in OFF. And on an ECO cruise, it reduces to a negligible 2W.

Conclusions:
1. Motor power's offsetting a lot more than motor and battery weight on these ECO climbs and cruises.
2. Motor and battery weight have a small impact on the SL's Pr requirements on ECO climbs and cruises.

These results refute part of the claim in two common ride scenarios. They probably extrapolate to normal riding in general.

Bike C. This is the claim's best-case scenario — an unassisted "racer" weighing 6.8 kg, the TdF minimum. Its Crr and Ka are 20% less than Bike A's.

The climb would require 55W more Pr on the racer than on my SL (Bike A) in ECO. This huge difference reduces to a still substantial 22W on the ECO cruise.

More conclusions:
3. The climb would be significantly harder on an unassisted racer than on an SL in ECO.
4. The cruise would also be significantly harder for the racer, but less so than the climb.
5. The racer would always be significantly easier than the SL in OFF.

In short, the racer and SL have significantly different Pr requirements in two common situations. This is true whether the SL is in ECO or OFF, and would be even more true with a less extreme road bike in lieu of the racer. I think it safely extrapolates to normal riding in general.

This refutes the rest of the claim.

NB: These simulations look only at rider power requirements in steady riding. They say nothing about weight impacts on responsiveness and handling.

Jeremy, thank you.

For the technically deficient, and for others who think the Vado SL 1 is lacking power, would setting eco mode to say 1-5% be a good starting point for a meaningful comparison?

 

[Stefan Mikes]

would setting eco mode to say 1-5% be a good starting point for a meaningful comparison?

RRCV, I need to make you aware e-bike motors cannot be throttled down to absurdly low values. These must operate at some minimum power, which I estimate to 50 W mechanical for SL 1.1. If you reduce the assistance below 30%, the SL 1.1 systems stops understanding what your intentions are. To deliver the requested very low power, the motor will continually go on and off to deliver minimum operable power at one rapid cycle and no power in another. This is the worst scenario for a mid-drive e-bike motor.

I tried 20% and I know now it does not work..

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

Jeremy, thank you.

For the technically deficient, and for others who think the Vado SL 1 is lacking power, would setting eco mode to say 1-5% be a good starting point for a meaningful comparison?

Ran this through the simulator in a single scenario: On a 3.0% climb at 12 mph, my SL as ridden and an unassisted racer would require the same rider power with SL assist set at a hypothetical 16/16.

I say hypothetical because (a) the minimum tuning increment is 5% in the app and 10% in MicroTune, and (b) as @Stefan Mikes just pointed out, actual assist falls off much faster than you'd expect as MicroTune drops below 30%. I still find 20% useful, but 10% is a waste of battery. Might as well ride in OFF and enjoy the silence.

Yes, the SL 1 lacks power compared to nearly all other ebikes. But it's got plenty for my purposes, and I have some pretty substantial hills to contend with. The fact that I rarely want or need to resort to TURBO and often ride in OFF by choice says it all.

Of course, everything's a trade-off. In exchange for a small motor and battery, I get beautiful handling and a bike that's easy to carry or throw on a rack. Works for me, and I'm not that strong a rider.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

I still find 20% useful, but 10% is a waste of battery. Might as well ride in OFF and enjoy the silence.

It is because you input 150 W leg power, and it tries making the motor produce 54 W (the minimum operable motor power). The 20% Max Motor Power is 48 W, just at the threshold.