Vado SL 5.0 - power setting to compensate for bike weight

[Stefan Mikes]

It's so interesting to see both Mark and Jeremy getting at the same results! Who would think so little Watts were needed to compensate for the bike (and the riders') weight difference? That also explains the recent phenomenon that made me ride my Vado SL unassisted whenever possible.

Some of riding mates of mine are weak traditional cyclists. In the past, I used to reduce the assistance down to ridiculously low level on such group rides, and noticed the SL motor was barely working. It felt as if the motor was fed intermittently, and it was not a pleasant sensation. I guess the motor has some minimum power necessary for the proper operation, and the system tries to meet the very low assistance demand by feeding the motor on and off (you could determine it by the motor noise disappearing and reappearing regularly). As that felt terrible, I simply switched the assistance OFF on a 60 km friendly gravel group ride and continued unassisted.

The silence of the unpowered e-bike was a win. I have become a traditional cyclist on almost all shorter rides. The next discovery was using the assistance in the order of 60 W made my rides fast enough, pleasant, and making me pedal harder, which is good for my fitness. Now, I can laugh at all my e-biking years ridden at high assistance...

Yes, there are situations when I need a lot of motor power. I would not dare riding together with my strong friends at anything less than 40/40% full power, or 80/80% SL assistance. I would not go for high mountain road rides on anything else than my full power Vado either!

 

[Rás Cnoic]

Fascinating discussion. One thing I'm very aware of is the advantage a non assist bike has on hills because it's lighter. My Salsa Vaya is not light, it's a robust all road steel frame and is only about 10 pounds lighter then my Vado SL. But it feels zippy and the big difference is when you start up a hill. Being lighter it seems to zoom up the hill, carrying the speed into it and I find I need to change gears much later then when I'm on the Vado SL. I ride the Vado SL unpowered as much as I can. I value it because of the steep hills but at the top or on the flat I turn off the assistance because I value the workout. But it's sluggish, leaden. It feels like a loaded touring bike, fast yes on the downhills or flats with no wind or with tailwind but not lively and unassisted it slows immediately the road goes uphill. The Salsa Vaya is no Aethos that's for sure(!) but perhaps the springy steel frame helps the lively feel. When I climb the very steep hills on the Vaya I make full use of the low gears, far lower than the Vado SL (22/36 9 speed triple v 38/46 1x or 16.7 v 23 gear inches) this means I can set a similiar cadence in granny gear to the Vado SL with assist, as I climb the 16-20% gradients which makes it comfortable- it's a cadence I'm well used to and can patiently control my breathing and slog it out to the top. Of course I'm going much slower then on the Vado SL assisted but that doesn't matter, what matters is getting over the hill and I could not do this on the Vado SL unassisted as the gearing is far too high. Personally I find bikes particularly gravel bikes geared too high for my hills (and fitness) out of the box. A lot of the gravel 1x set ups have similiar 23 inch gearing to my Vado SL with 38 or 42 chainrings and a biggest cog of 42 or 46. That means grinding up the steep gradients or getting out of the saddle- and actually that is another big advantage of a lightweight non assist in climbing short hills, it's fun and easy to get out of the saddle and power up these short hills. Again on the Vado SL unassisted, the bike, fighting gravity, goes much slower and it's a struggle and not fun.

Ultimately I own a Vado SL for the help in getting up the hills which allows me to go for longer rides and that's what I enjoy. It's a fantastic machine. But I doubt I'd own an e bike if I lived somewhere flat, though I would probably curse the headwinds like an old Dutch pro.

 

[John in CA]

Imagine a Vado SL with a front derailer and a very low gear--like a road bike. And add to that a larger rear chainring to climbing hills. While going uphill might be slow, it would require less motor power. Is there some inherent reason the Vado SL couldn't have two gears in the front (like a road bike)?

 

[fooferdoggie]

Just get a tire and a rope and tie it to the back that will compensate for the motor and you can feel like your really working. or a broom so you can lean up as you ride.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Imagine a Vado SL with a front derailer and a very low gear--like a road bike. And add to that a larger rear chainring to climbing hills. While going uphill might be slow, it would require less motor power. Is there some inherent reason the Vado SL couldn't have two gears in the front (like a road bike)?

no room the cranks would be too wide. anymore most road bikes only have one front chainring.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

most road bikes only have one front chainring.

Not really. Road bikes must have very tight gear spacing because a rider in a peloton must keep at the speed of the group with constant cadence. It is easier achievable with the dual chainring. It is true more and more performance bikes become 1x though.

Yes the main reason for the 1x drivetrain in mid drive ebikes is the crank width (Q-factor).

 

[Rás Cnoic]

Imagine a Vado SL with a front derailer and a very low gear--like a road bike. And add to that a larger rear chainring to climbing hills. While going uphill might be slow, it would require less motor power. Is there some inherent reason the Vado SL couldn't have two gears in the front (like a road bike)?

The double (or a triple) wouldn't fit on a vado SL because of the width of the motor. The TQ or Fazua, possibly, I'm not sure the Q factor width with those motors. The Levo or Kenevo SL bikes of course have the same motor but much lower gearing, something like 32/50 for steep technical off road trails. I have a spare 36T chainring and I've wondered about using it- right now I'm mostly on the road and the 38/11-46 seems ideal, I rarely spin out as most downhills are twisty and steep. Over the winter I might put the 36T on and do more bridleways and muddy steep lanes where the extra low gear would be fun.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Imagine a Vado SL with a front derailer and a very low gear--like a road bike. And add to that a larger rear chainring to climbing hills. While going uphill might be slow, it would require less motor power. Is there some inherent reason the Vado SL couldn't have two gears in the front (like a road bike)?

@John in CA, I have just looked into the specs of a typical modern road bike with a Shimano 105 2x drivetrain. (Let us not discuss the rather obsolete 3x drivetrain).

• Cassette: 11-28 (11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-28). Note how tight gearing is used there for the five top gears. It could be a loose spaced 11-32t cassette (4 tight top gears - Mountain) or a very tightly spaced 12-25t one (Sprint) with eight top gears just spaced one tooth apart.
• A very typical 56/32T dual chainring.

Now, the top gear ratio here is 5.09 and the lowest gearing is 1.14 for the standard cassette (you cannot go below 1x for the biggest cassette here). Now, let us talk a Vado SL 5.0 with the 1x drivetrain, 44T chainring and the 11-50T cassette. The top gear ratio here is 4.0 while the granny gear ratio is only 0.88x!

So, on the road bike you can have either 1.14x gear ratio for the standard cassette or 1.0x for the mountain one. However, you can have 0.88x on a Vado SL 5.0; or, you can go even lower with a smaller chainring! Even Vado SL 4.0 has a lower gearing (1.05x) than your typical road bike! What makes you think a 1x drivetrain is missing the low end? Yes, it is missing the top end (but we are not racers).

The road bike 2x drivetrain is made for maintaining constant pedalling cadence with very tight gearing. It is not made for any better climbing The 1x drivetrain has come straight from MTBs where you need to climb, and prefer less things that might potentially break (like, the front derailleur).
----------
Regarding SL e-bikes: the SL motors have been designed for the modern, simple and flexible 1x drivetrain, and even the hardware to make it 2x does not exist. I hope it explains the matters for good!
----------
@Rás Cnoic, I do not quite get you. You are talking about 3x drivetrain with completely different gearing. You are talking about the joy of riding out of the saddle and grinding uphill. I think that has nothing to do with the power expenditure you need for climbing with a traditional 3x drivetrain bike. Why should you climb a hill unassisted on a Vado SL? Do you need to get out of the saddle or grind on a powered Vado SL? Something must have missed me

 

[Rás Cnoic]

@John in CA, I have just looked into the specs of a typical modern road bike with a Shimano 105 2x drivetrain. (Let us not discuss the rather obsolete 3x drivetrain).

• Cassette: 11-28 (11-12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-25-28). Note how tight gearing is used there for the five top gears. It could be a loose spaced 11-32t cassette (4 tight top gears - Mountain) or a very tightly spaced 12-25t one (Sprint) with eight top gears just spaced one tooth apart.
• A very typical 56/32T dual chainring.

Now, the top gear ratio here is 5.09 and the lowest gearing is 1.14 for the standard cassette (you cannot go below 1x for the biggest cassette here). Now, let us talk a Vado SL 5.0 with the 1x drivetrain, 44T chainring and the 11-50T cassette. The top gear ratio here is 4.0 while the granny gear ratio is only 0.88x!

So, on the road bike you can have either 1.14x gear ratio for the standard cassette or 1.0x for the mountain one. However, you can have 0.88x on a Vado SL 5.0; or, you can go even lower with a smaller chainring! Even Vado SL 4.0 has a lower gearing (1.05x) than your typical road bike! What makes you think a 1x drivetrain is missing the low end? Yes, it is missing the top end (but we are not racers).

The road bike 2x drivetrain is made for maintaining constant pedalling cadence with very tight gearing. It is not made for any better climbing The 1x drivetrain has come straight from MTBs where you need to climb, and prefer less things that might potentially break (like, the front derailleur).
----------
Regarding SL e-bikes: the SL motors have been designed for the modern, simple and flexible 1x drivetrain, and even the hardware to make it 2x does not exist. I hope it explains the matters for good!
----------
@Rás Cnoic, I do not quite get you. You are talking about 3x drivetrain with completely different gearing. You are talking about the joy of riding out of the saddle and grinding uphill. I think that has nothing to do with the power expenditure you need for climbing with a traditional 3x drivetrain bike. Why should you climb a hill unassisted on a Vado SL? Do you need to get out of the saddle or grind on a powered Vado SL? Something must have missed me

Look at it this way: I use both bikes on different days for the variety. On a LONG steep hill where it's natural to stay in the saddle, while on my ordinary bike I use a low enough gear to match the familiar cadence I use when I'm assisted by the motor on the SL. On the hills here of 16 - 20% gradient I can get by using a very low 'granny gear' of around 16 inches on my ordinary bike. The pay off is I'm going very slow. But with this cadence I have a good chance of controlling my breathing and NOT grinding, to control the ascent and make it to the top. Though if it ramps up near 20% it's still tough and I may need to pause to admire the view.

On SHORT hills It's easy and nice on the ordinary bike to jump out of the saddle to climb these hills quickly without needing to change gears. This does not feel easy or instinctive on the SL because of the additional weight so no, I wouldn't go up short hills with assist off unless I was in the mood to challenge myself.

Re the triple chainset, personally given the terrain I have around me here I still find it the perfect solution. It seems elegant compared to the dinner plate sized large rear cogs on the 1x systems and still gives me the option to get lower and higher gears then any 1x system, currently from 22-36 to 46-11. The fact the Diverge Eco now ships a 50T monster cog on the rear shows the limitations of a lot of gravel bikes 'medium low' gearing of 38 x 42. Yet the Diverge still only has a lowest gear of around 20 inches, my triple gets me down to around 16 inches. It probably wouldn't be necessary in flat Poland but here it's great. The trusty triple was used on touring bikes so you had enough gears to deal with anything the road could throw at you while laden down like a packhorse and was picked up by early MTBs enabling us to explore any trails or wilderness- and trust me in 1984 or 5 riding my first mtb with 15 gears and a triple it felt revolutionary the places I could ride that bike. Coming from single speed BMX or 10 speed racer the MTB was a total game changer.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Look at it this way: I use both bikes on different days for the variety. On a LONG steep hill where it's natural to stay in the saddle, while on my ordinary bike I use a low enough gear to match the familiar cadence I use when I'm assisted by the motor on the SL. On the hills here of 16 - 20% gradient I can get by using a very low 'granny gear' of around 16 inches on my ordinary bike. The pay off is I'm going very slow. But with this cadence I have a good chance of controlling my breathing and NOT grinding, to control the ascent and make it to the top. Though if it ramps up near 20% it's still tough and I may need to pause to admire the view.

On SHORT hills It's easy and nice on the ordinary bike to jump out of the saddle to climb these hills quickly without needing to change gears. This does not feel easy or instinctive on the SL because of the additional weight so no, I wouldn't go up short hills with assist off unless I was in the mood to challenge myself.

Re the triple chainset, personally given the terrain I have around me here I still find it the perfect solution. It seems elegant compared to the dinner plate sized large rear cogs on the 1x systems and still gives me the option to get lower and higher gears then any 1x system, currently from 22-36 to 46-11. The fact the Diverge Eco now ships a 50T monster cog on the rear shows the limitations of a lot of gravel bikes 'medium low' gearing of 38 x 42. Yet the Diverge still only has a lowest gear of around 20 inches, my triple gets me down to around 16 inches. It probably wouldn't be necessary in flat Poland but here it's great. The trusty triple was used on touring bikes so you had enough gears to deal with anything the road could throw at you while laden down like a packhorse and was picked up by early MTBs enabling us to explore any trails or wilderness- and trust me in 1984 or 5 riding my first mtb with 15 gears and a triple it felt revolutionary the places I could ride that bike. Coming from single speed BMX or 10 speed racer the MTB was a total game changer.

Thank you for your explanations, Ras!

Just to clarify the things: Not all Poland is flat, not at all. We have very hilly regions (even in places you would not expect them to be), and we have high mountains, too. I'm quite familiar with mountain road riding.

(For instance, Mt. Rysy in Polish/Slovak Tatra is 2501 m.a.s.l. while Ben Nevis is 1345 m.a.s.l. Of course you do not ride bikes in High Tatra but we have many rideable high mountain ranges in Poland).

 

[mschwett]

no room the cranks would be too wide. anymore most road bikes only have one front chainring.

yes - the q factor of the motor is very wide for a 2x front.

but NO, most road bikes don’t have one front ring. like 99% of serious road bikes are 2x these days, typically 52-36 or 50-34 up front and anywhere from 10-36 in the back.

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

Best explanation of cycling power requirements I've seen, from Grin Technologies. Using interactive graphs, the role of total weight becomes very clear.

 

[California]

@Jeremy McCreary .... thanks again. All of your numbers still intimidate me (haha), but they help me confirm a few things:

1) I will continue to admire my friend's strength and determination in riding up a ~3,900' mountain on a non-electric bike at the age of 77.
2) I will need varying levels of assist for varying grades.
3) I need to lose weight.
4) I will relax and stop worrying about assist levels.

I wouldn't fuss this at all! Its not about 'competing' with your friend or yourself but enjoying the ride / journey.
I just generally 'figure' if I am on eco mode it is compensating for the bike weight and that's it.

I may have to try this Diablo ride some day....

 

[Bavi]

This

I wouldn't fuss this at all! Its not about 'competing' with your friend or yourself but enjoying the ride / journey.

and this

I just generally 'figure' if I am on eco mode it is compensating for the bike weight and that's it.

^ Man you got it bang on in my books

 

[Stefan Mikes]

I have revisited an interesting website:

Specialized Pathfinder Pro 2Bliss Ready 38 Rolling Resistance Review

Rolling resistance and puncture resistance review of a Specialized Pathfinder Pro 2Bliss Ready 38 cx/gravel bike tire. Also includes detailed weight and size measurements

www.bicyclerollingresistance.com

If a Vado SL is equipped with the Specialized Pathfinder Pro 2 Bliss 38-622 tyres, the rolling resistance of both is estimated to 2 x 23 = 46 W. Of course, a traditional gravel cyclist using these tyres will need to overcome that resistance with own leg power. However, an e-biker would like to overcome that resistance with the motor power. It means that a rider of leg power of 100 W would need 46/180 = 25% of SL 1.1 assistance just to forget of the tyre rolling resistance.

For me, the choices are either to ride unassisted or just use the default 35/35% ECO assistance (it will compensate for the e-bike weight, too). I see no sense in forcing the motor to deliver ridiliculously low power, as the motor was not made for that