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.
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.
We don’t know if the final production bikes have the same default power settings.
A nicely integrated and good looking display
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 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.
TQ HPR50 - compact integration into the Trek Fuel EXe
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
A lower power score means the motor does more of the work. So lower is better.
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. 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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 pt1 | TQ 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
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 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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Air pressure shown in the Sram app |
The Trek Central main page |
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.
|
We briefly tested the ride tracking |
Clicking this opens the trek website for tips and 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.
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
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
