TQ HPR50 Review + Trek Central app

A few months ago, we tested the new Trek Fuel EX-e 9.9 AXS with the new TQ HPR50 motor. The test was done before the bike launch and the Trek Central app wasn't ready at the time.

We noticed the motor couldn't possibly be set to 200% amplification of rider input. Not if we were to trust the watt data presented on the display. Looking through the press event video, we caught a glimpse of the app claiming 156% amplification.

That seemed to be correct based on the figures we saw. For this reason, we couldn’t check everything we wanted. But we still made a pretty in-depth video review.

TQ HPR50


Check out that video, as we won’t repeat everything here. We talk a bit about the challenges and advantages of making a motor with the crank axle in the center. And we look at the display, battery etc.

TQ HPR50 pt1TQ HPR50 pt2

Testing the TQ HPR50 – part deux

Towards the end of the summer, we got to ride the Trek Fuel EX-e demo bike again. We connected the app and found the highest assistance mode was indeed set to ~150% power amplification.

We don’t know if the final production bikes have the same default power settings.

A nicely integrated and good looking display.

A nicely integrated and good looking display

We barely notice the motor​

We describe the motor behavior in detail in the first video but let me repeat the highlights. The motor kicks in quite softly and it’s barely noticeable. When we started pedaling, we would notice we had motor power, but we couldn’t really tell exactly when the motor had kicked in.

The HPR50 is reasonably quick to activate, and it has no overrun. The motor power cuts instantly, there is no extra push after you stop pedaling.

The TQ HPR50 is easy to control, it doesn't shove me away when activating

The motor is easy to control, it doesn't shove me away when activating

The motor never jerks when we’re quick on and off the pedals. It feels like the motor is always in sync with our feet. There are no sudden pulses of power reminding us that there is a motor down there.

If we pedal with a high cadence, there is some noise. But for the most part, the motor was pretty much silent. The low noise levels ads to the sensation of not noticing the motor.

c02_DSC09785.JPG

TQ HPR50 - compact integration into the Trek Fuel EXe

In full effect

The motor characteristics is slightly altered with all settings at max. The motor feels very similar, but now we can feel some slight motor jerks when riding slowly in technical sections.

The motor is still easy to handle, but there are a few situations where we are reminded there is a motor there. This isn’t that surprising. More power usually means a less natural feeling motor.

We get why ~150% amplification was the default setting. It provides the ultimate user experience for someone coming from an unassisted bike.

The design of the TQ HPR50 is quite unusual with the crank axle in the center.

The design of the TQ HPR50 is quite unusual with the crank axle in the center.

Trek central app

But I think it’s important having access to maximum motor power. And we need Trek Central for that. I set level 3 to max everything. Level 2 was set slightly lower than the default settings for level 3. And Level 1 was increased slightly. I like it this way.

Max assistance can be used for transport or when I need a bit of rest. Then I’m alternating between the two other modes for normal trail riding.

c01_vlcsnap-2022-10-06-16h30m10s647.jpg
c01_vlcsnap-2022-10-06-16h30m18s520.jpg
c01_vlcsnap-2022-10-06-16h28m02s735.jpg

The Trek Central app can integrate the Sram Smartwiz data, allowing us to read air pressure for tyres and suspension. Provided the bike has these sensors, like the testbike has.

The integration didn’t work out of the box, but we guess it’s because of the demo bike being a pre-production model. We assume this works for bikes that are in stores now.

c01_vlcsnap-2022-10-06-16h35m50s893.jpg

Air pressure shown in the Sram app
Air pressure shown in the Sram app

The Trek Central main page
The map

The map

Trek Central can be used to track a ride. And we downloaded the maps for the navigation, but we didn’t find the time to test it. The app can also be used to set a service appointment, it will list nearby service centres. There are three different levels of service to chose from, and you'll find maintainance tips there too.

c01_Screenshot_20221006-174021_Trek Central.jpg

We briefly tested the ride tracking
c01_vlcsnap-2022-10-06-16h42m08s548.jpg

Clicking this opens the trek website for tips and service
Three levels of service

Three levels of service

How powerful is the TQ HPR50 really?

With all motor settings at max, we could finally do the motor power test. This is a bit challenging to test, there are two different aspects that we need to consider.

One is the maximum motor power, the other is the power amplification. If we ride up a hill and the motor never reaches maximum power output, we have only tested the amplification. We want to know both.

TQ HPR50


The HPR50 is up against the Forestal EonDrive 60Nm (Bafang) and the Shimano EP8 RS 60Nm. These are both among the most powerful motors found on a lightweight emtb. The EP8 RS is rated at twice the power amplification compared to the TQ. One could argue the results of this test is given in advance.

The HPR50 is designed to be weaker, and that’s completely fine. These lightweight bikes have got small batteries so you can’t ride around in full power if you want to ride for a while.

Still, it’s interesting to see what one can expect from the HPR50.

We're using pedals with a power meter to test every motor riding the same stretch.

We're using pedals with a power meter to test every motor riding the same stretch

Power test

We ride up a steep hill with sections at over 15% inclination. The hill is ridden several times with a cadence of 60, 80 and 100 rpm. If the test is done right, we should get the same time for all motors with a given cadence. We use watt pedals for measuring how hard we push.

A lower power score means the motor does more of the work. So lower is better.

Motor test results


The 60 cadence test shows the TQ motor amplifies the rider input much less than the two others. The Forestal EonDrive feels very powerful and performs similar to the 80-90Nm full power motors.

The 80 cadence test shows the HPR50 improves with a higher pedaling frequency. The test is ridden 6 seconds faster, and we’re only pedaling 30 more watts compared to the 60 cadence test. Compared to the two other motors, the HPR50 is closing in a bit.

Rolf gets a workout doing the 100 cadence test. He was pushing 400W for almost 30 seconds, repeatedly. In this test, all motors have reached their maximum power output. The difference between the motors isn’t that big.

The motor is operated using this compact remote unit.

The motor is operated using this compact remote unit. Below is the lever for the dropper seatpost.

The results reflect the motor specifications. The TQ is behind at lower pedaling frequencies because it amplifies rider input by 200%. This is part of what makes the motor so pleasant, and it ensures good range. Increase pedaling frequency a bit and the HPR50 performs quite well.

The final test basically shows the difference between a 50 and a 60Nm motor. The motors are outputting maximum power, and the level of power amplification doesn’t make a difference anymore.

The Trek Fuel EX-e 9.9


A more powerful TQ HPR?​

We prefer having the option, to ride with lots of power amplification when we feel like it. We’re old enough to take responsibility for our power consumption, also when riding an emtb.

The HPR50 doesn’t really give us the option though. We believe the motor could easily provide more than 200%. But TQ decided to limit the motor a bit. And that’s understandable. The motor will never be twitchy and unrefined with the current limitations(!).

The big idea behind this Trek bike is to offer a riding experience similar to what people are used to coming from an unassisted bike. And it really isn’t much of a sacrifice.

Most of the riding, the riding that counts, is done below max motor power anyway.

The TQ HPR50 from an unusual angle


But, can’t TQ just make a more powerful version? They can, and they have. The Haibike Flyon motor, the HPR120S, is a very powerful 120Nm motor. We don’t consider this an ideal motor for proper trail riding.

The diameter of the motor is too big. The motor takes up space in front of the rear wheel, increasing the chainstay length. And the motor sticks out a bit much at the bottom, resulting in less ground clearance or increased bottom bracket height.

We need something in between these two motors. Will a HPR75 work?

This is the older TQ HPR120S, also known as the Haibike Flyon motor.

This is the older TQ HPR120S, also known as the Haibike Flyon motor.

What does TQ think?

I reached out to “Technology in Quality”, TQ that is, and Anna replied. My initial question was if the HPR50 can be reprogrammed to offer more power amplification.

She said they decided to go with the current settings after having done a lot of testing. But they’re constantly looking at ways to further improve the motor.

In theory, it’s possible to increase amplification to more than 200%. But is it necessary? Honestly, it might not be.

TQ HPR50 specs

TQ HPR50 specs

Then I asked about their thoughts on a bigger HPR75 motor, something between the HPR50 and HPR120S. How big can the motor be before it negatively affects the frame geometry?

Anna said TQ gained a good bit of experience after making the HPR120S. Their motor concept will scale, and I’m not the first to ask about an HPR75. My interpretation is TQ can make bigger motors, and the HPR75 should be possible.

The 360Wh battery

We talk a bit about the battery specs and details in our first video. But this time we rode until the battery was empty, sort of.

Provided you ride with the same amount of assistance, you would think you get about the same range from the Trek Fuel EX-e as you get from the Orbea Rise M and the Forestal Cyon.

Two bikes we rode alongside the Fuel EX-e. And you would be right, sort of.

TQ offers a 160Wh range extender

The 160Wh range extender

We’re getting about 25km and 800m of elevation. But assistance almost disappears as you drop to 10% state of charge.

We were en route to getting about the same range as the other two bikes, but when the Fuel EX-e stopped being an ebike at 10%, we rode to almost 30km and 900 meters of climbing before giving up.

There was still a bit of battery left. Depending on how you look at it, this could be a good thing. Still, it’s nice to be aware of.

Very few lightweight emtbs come with a detachable battery. The Trek Fuel EX-e does.

Very few lightweight emtbs come with a detachable battery. The Trek Fuel EX-e does.

Reliability

Taking a less established motor to the market can be a bit of a gamble. The bike manufacturer needs to ensure the after-market bit is taken care of. And we've seen examples of how new motor brands can struggle to support their product.

We believe this is of high priority for a serious and well-established brand such as Trek. And word is more brands will be out with this motor, making it more likely TQ will become a well-established motor manufacturer.

The HPR50 has been out for a while now, and there are some users reporting issues on the forum. Initially, there were reports of noisy motors that were failing. Mainly from the Australian market.

It seems this only affected that one batch of motors. Later, there was talk of bikes not turning on, and it seems this is down to water ingress. Having the shop swap the display is a solution.

Trek states the display and remote should not be power washed, these should only be cleaned with a damp cloth.

display01.jpg


TQ HPR50 conclusion

The smooth and silent TQ HPR50 behaves like no other motor I have tested. The motor is made for what we call a natural riding experience.

The motor is always well behaved, there is no odd behavior that makes the motor stick out. This isn’t a motor for shoving you up steep hills while you barely pedal.

But if you adapt to the strengths of the motor, you really aren’t sacrificing that much power compared to the most powerful competitors.
About author
knut7
Main editor at emtbforums.com and owner of emtb.no.
https://emtb.no/contact/

Comments

PHENOMENAL review. Thank you so much for comparing against the EP8-RS and Bafang on power at those 3 cadences.
Can you share how long each bike went in the range test, please?

The EP8-RS's power advantage alone is likely swaying me toward the Rise M20, and some users have reported that in the battle of the 42 lb carbon Rise M20 vs. 42 Lb EXe 9.7, the Rise gets more range and climb out of a similar-capacity (360-ish WHr) battery.
Net, the EP8-RS may turn out to be like piston engines when TQ50 is like rotary/wankels. Tried/true had the reliability, power, & range advantage over the smoothness (in TQ's case, the silence), fewer moving parts, no valve float.
 
Thanks! The range tests are done with slightly different levels of motor assistance, so it's not an exact result. Just a ballpark figure for one rider on those specific trails. It has to be a pretty big difference in the results before we dare suggest one is more efficient than the other.

Rise M10, 26.6km, 671m elevation
Fuel EX-e, 29.9, 938m elevation
Boost mode on the EP8-RS was set to way over 200% amplification, and it was used quite a bit during the test. The EP8-RS was likely giving more help. We did a second run on the Rise M10 with lower power settings on a faster rolling surface (fire roads etc) and got 31.6km/926m. So, not much help in these results :)

We'll present more data in an upcoming Lightweight emtb group test.
 
Such great e-bike content Knut!

Thanks again.

I'm sold on the Forestal personally and will buy one in the Spring unless something significantly improved is released from one of the other manufacturers.

Hopefully you can add the Fazua motor to this combo.
 
Thanks! Yeah, will start testing the Fazua 60 tomorrow :) Doing a quick review of the Shuttle SL.
 
Quite curious if some motor designs use more energy to operate, lost to friction and what not?

The Eondrive is very powerful, with only a 360 w battery, does it use up it's battery juice quicker than the others as a result?

Does the TQ HP ring gear design possibly have more friction or energy loss as I read one rider report indicating that the battery really didn't take much operation/ climbing before it was completely out of energy.

I'd like to see the different motors (the Eon, the TQ & the F60) be rated in terms of range (with the same rider input), noise, free pedaling, power, and how natural they feel.

We are getting more options but here in the US I have to base my entire buying decision mostly on Knut's reviews. for the category of bikes i'm looking at (150-170mm travel) we now have the Simplon Pmax TQ featuring the TQ engine, the Forestal Siryon featuring the Eondrive & soon the Transition Relay offering the Fazua 60. And of course Spesh is about to release something big in the near future.

All of these have very close to my preferred geo so at this point it's mostly about picking out the best motor for my needs.
 
The eondrive is really powerfull and will consume a lot of energy if ridden at low cadence and max assistance. It's as powerful as a full-fat motor. The EP8-RS too can consume a lot at max power + low cadence.

We've got a bit of range data for the Eondrive, HPR50 and EP8-RS, but unfortunately not for the Fazua 60. I believe the Fazua has low consumption, but that's down to motor programming. How hard you have to work to get good power from the motor. I think the motors will have similar maximum efficiency. But there could be a difference in what cadence is the most economical. If you keep the cadence up and don't run max assistance everywhere, I don't think there's much between them.

Having ridden several SLs lately, I'm getting the impression there are two directions. The powerful SL bikes, perhaps aimed at ebikers. And the more stingy motors that focus more on a natural ride feel, like the TQ and Fazua, perhaps aimed more at people coming from mtb. The difference between an EP8-RS and Fazua 60 is quite significant when pedalling calmly up a hill.
 
Great content Knut. Nice work

I have the 2018 Focus Jam2 and recently bought the Fuel EXe because it was time for updated motor tech (and the other full fat bikes are really chunky in the down tube). Also great to have a spare bike if one is waiting on parts.

Loving the Trek on the trails but I rinse the battery in under 20km with 600m of climbing and sometimes miss the power of the Jam2 (especially on the fire road climb up again) even though it’s only the Shimano e8000 at 70nm.

Been experimenting with mode assist settings in the app and got to thinking. Remember when Bosch released the CX4 at 80nm then did an OTA update and bumped it to 85nm? What are the chances of Trek doing that and bumping the power to 55 or 60nm?

Sure I’d go through the battery faster but that’s what the range extenders for (as soon as we can get our hands on them).

Surely they’re restricting max output for the initial mass test in the market..?

What are the chances…
 
What are the chances…
I asked about this, and they said the usual stuff about having tested carefully and decided on these settings. But also; they're continuing to improve the system and it is possible to change the power amplification in the future.

So, reach out to them and let them know you want more :)
 
Road interloper looking for help.

Glad to have bumped into Knut 7's review of the TQ HPR50, especially his coverage of tuning options and their effect on assist power. I hope he can help me better understand how the assist level might translate to a road e-bike, so that I can adapt the HPR50's tuning options to my limited condition.

Angina keeps me from pushing more than 100W on a sustained basis, which becomes a challenge when climbing. [One issue is that even at the 200%, the most assist I can get on a sustained basis is 100Wx2=200W, leaving 50 to 100W of motor untapped. I've asked TQ about a boost to 300% for High, got the same uninformative response.]

My interest is increasing the amount of HPR50 assist wattage at lower input. Can I expect a noticeable difference in response between Eco set say to 125W/125% vs 250W/200% (sustained max) , Mid at 225W/150% vs 250W/200%, and High set to 300W/200% (peak max) in both scenarios, with my input at say 75W, 100W, and (briefly) 125W ?

Any other thoughts or insights are welcome. Thanks.
 
PS. Would setting Eco, Mid and High all to 300W/200% make them all respond the same and make switching between them pointless, or does the TQ algorithm impose some differentiation?
 
PS. Would setting Eco, Mid and High all to 300W/200% make them all respond the same and make switching between them pointless, or does the TQ algorithm impose some differentiation?
if you set each mode to the same settings, then yes, each mode will just feel the same, and would be pointless switching between them.

I dont follow/understand your earlier question - could you elaborate on it?
 
Thank you.

The motor seems set up to respond in proportion to rider input: stronger rider effort gets more assist, reaching maximum assist at high wattage. Correct?

I don't get anything near the higher assist wattages due to my low input. My condition would be better served if the motor provided higher assist earlier, in response to the lower input. I'm trying to figure out what tuning settings will bring me closest to that goal.

Simplifying (I hope) my example, I'm asking whether I would feel a beneficial difference by upping the Mid settings from 200W/150% to 250W/200% (or even 300W,/200%) and whether the difference would take effect at rider inputs as low as 75W, 100W, or 125W, or not at all at less than 150W.

Even if it amounts to speculation, your educated guesswork would be sounder than mine, but no problem if you decline because I'm asking too much.
 
Why not just test different settings? Seems easier than asking on a forum.
Just crank all the bars up then all the bars down. Try different things and figure out what you like.
 
True. Will do some testing, when I have the bike. I was asking Knut because he assessed the tuning parameters more deeply than other reviewers.
I'm trying to understand how TQ's algorithm operates, which is not all that well defined beyond aiming at a 'natural' feel. By comparison Fazua seems to also aim at a natural feel for the capable rider, but also provides what I'm looking for as an option. According to its Customizer description, Fazua's "Support Relation" can be set such that a limited rider can get the set maximum assistance with low input, my holy grail.
 
True. Will do some testing, when I have the bike. I was asking Knut because he assessed the tuning parameters more deeply than other reviewers.
I'm trying to understand how TQ's algorithm operates, which is not all that well defined beyond aiming at a 'natural' feel. By comparison Fazua seems to also aim at a natural feel for the capable rider, but also provides what I'm looking for as an option. According to its Customizer description, Fazua's "Support Relation" can be set such that a limited rider can get the set maximum assistance with low input, my holy grail.
I think you'll find a lot more information if you look in the actual forum rather than the articles. Search for TQ or look in the Trek Rail eXE thread and read all of that. There's lots of advice and ideas. Lots of bikes will give you maximum assistance with low input - most bikes on "turbo" or "boost". Some bikes like Levo's/Kenevo's let you set "shuttle mode" - so even less effort required for full boost - though those are "full fat"(heavy) bikes.
 
Pardon my interloping: already committed to the Domane+ SLR 6 road bike. Just figuring out how the get the most from my medicated 100W of input out of the TQ motor. Not the likeliest forum, but Knut's review was more probing than most.
Thanks. Will let it rest there.
 
Pardon my interloping: already committed to the Domane+ SLR 6 road bike. Just figuring out how the get the most from my medicated 100W of input out of the TQ motor. Not the likeliest forum, but Knut's review was more probing than most.
Thanks. Will let it rest there.
No need for pardon's ! :) I just thought you would have more success finding information and answers in the forums where lots has already been discussed and discovered.
 
in french, sorry...
utilisateur du Domane + SLR, je fais le même constat: assistance qui intervient tard, vers 70/80w/cycliste, et accompagne de façon instable ensuite, variation de l'assistance de 0 à 50w, sans raison. Si le cycliste est fatigué, et faible, il n'a pas d'assistance moteur?.....
J'en ai fait part à TQ, j'attends avec impatience, une mise à jour du firmawre 1.4.132.
Déçu de l'assistance, comparativement à Spécialized Créo, la puissance me convient, mais pas la gestion de l'assistance.
 
When riding in the max assistance mode on my new Scott Lumen 900, I have the motor that frequently turns of and on, when I am peddling at the same pace. Very annoying. Does somebody has the same issue? Does this have something to do with the pedal slider in the app (turtle)? Thx for your answers!
 
I just bought my first ebike, Trek Fuel Exe 9.8. I have some riding on tarmac before and after trail rides and experience that even with engine off, I feel I must pedal against the engine when the speed goes above 25 kmh. I see there are tuning options but I am not interested in more power from the engine, I just want it to freewheel better - possible?
 
Top