Levo Gen 3 Rockin' the Mullet? Read This.

[GL1]

Just a PSA on this and a place to document the effect of wheel circumference changes in the system and in actuality. You can find this scattered around the internet but NOT in one place and broken down and specific to our bikes.

So yes, we all know Spec / Mission Control has locked the ability to change wheel sizes arbitrarily in MC. You can no longer do this in MC or even with Blevo, Blue Light, etc. I get it because of course, setting the wheel circumference size in the system to being smaller than you are actually running will increase the motor cutout speed threshold. It also messes up your miles etc. so even back when you could do this it was ill-advised for many reasons.

Now, many of us (myself included) are running any number of wheel size variations on our Levo's which they are designed to accommodate including full 29", full 27", 27"+Plus, or Mullet (29" front, 27" rear.) Also, as we know the 2022's are coming stock setup as mullet so there must be something to it.

I have been running mullet on my 2020 Levo Comp and I love it. I lost a hair of bb / pedal clearance and increased the head angle slightly but not much after flipping the chip. The bike feels more whippy and responsive and corners better with this setup. I'm hooked.

I just got a new warranty motor (finally killed the original on my 2020 Levo Comp at 2500 miles) and knowing I am going to be running mullet, I want the Wheel Circumference in MC to match so that I get the appropriate motor cutout speed as well as accurate miles.

As it is, it is set to the default for 29" tires at 90.55". After doing some research, if I continue to run my mullet setup with 27" rear with this setting I will both get a lower assistance cutout (I haven't calculated but somewhere around 17 mph as opposed to right around 20 mph) and, my motor will show MORE miles than it actually has. It will also mess up your Ant+ devices if you have those. All of these are undesirable to me. Also, I did run this way for awhile with my old motor and compared MC to Strava and yes, your assistance cutout threshold will be lower, your MPH will be off, and your mileage for rides and overall motor odometer will also be off in MC.

So, luckily, I found that if you click on the "?" in MC in the upper right hand corner of "Diagnose" you get a list of helpful hints. Below is the one pertaining to Wheel Circumference.

So as you can see, they say that if you choose to run mullet or other sized that differ from the standard, stock 29" configuration you can take it into the LBS to get this updated. So I have an appointment to have the LBS do this and they said they can and will!

Also, it sounds like they could just change it to say 78.74" which is the standard 27" Wheel Circumference setting for the Kenevo's etc. OR, they can possibly do a true "roll-out" to get the exact circumference based on the actual rims and tires I run. This could matter of course if you are doing bigger mid-fat or Plus tires etc. So just keep that in mind if you take yours in to get updated. If you have a setup you plan to keep maybe ask them do the roll-out as opposed to the standard 27" setting.

AND...finally...IF you were to have them set it to the / a 27" setting of 78.74" or thereabouts and then you went back to 29" wheels...yes, you would be getting a "hack" of sorts. You would both get a higher power assistance cutout (maybe somewhere around 22-23 mph) and, your motor would show less miles than actual. But, for me I will not be doing this because I want it accurate and I love mullet. Also, if you were a buyer of a second-hand Levo what would you think about the miles being mis-represented due to a wheel size hack? It's odd but we are entering an era here with these where that could be akin to odometer fraud...maybe. But it happens on Jeeps and 4wd vehicles all the time when they mod them to larger tires without adjusting the odometer gear to accommodate (so they read slower mph and accrue less miles than actual). It could be slight but a change from an actual 29" wheel and a setting that says you're running, say, 16" tires would make quite a difference in overall miles. Just all things to think about.

Cheers!


Final notes:

1) Changing your wheel circumference size in the app / system to read smaller while actually running bigger wheels will result in raising the motor cut-out speed, thereby providing assistance higher than the Class 1 threshold of 20 mph, but will also result in registering less miles than you actually have on your bike in MC. (You can't change this on your own anymore anyhow in MC.)

2) Running an actual smaller wheel in the back withOUT updating the app / system will result in lowering the motor cut-out speed, thereby stopping assistance lower than the Class 1 threshold of 20 mph, but it will also result in registering more miles than you actually have on your bike.


Direct Comparison of a ride to highlight effect of 27" wheel on Levo while MC still set at 29" (90.55") VS Strava which is actual:

Mission Control Readings: 21.18mi / 11.06 mph avg -- (so MC is calculating faster and more miles than actual AND results lower cutout.)

Strava GPS App Readings: 19.04mi / 10.20 mph avg -- (so actual is slower and less miles than what MC is calculating)

So that's a difference or approximately 2.1 miles and an average of almost 1 mph average. So not huge on overall mph and maybe the cut-out would occur at 18 mph something rather than right under / around 20. Okay, not huge in that regard perhaps. But over time, that mileage difference would certainly add up.

 

[Mikerb]

I posted elsewhere an article I read that said several brands and bike organisations had signed a statement declaring their commitment to go further than the current 2017 ( plus amendments) EU regulations mandate to prevent " hacking".....even recommending that the sale of such devices be made illegal. The 2017 EU regulation covering Pedelecs is currently under review and the industry joint statement is clearly part of a lobby to influence any amendments made during that review. A report on the outcome of the review is due late October. Obviously this concerns European regulations not elsewhere.

The example given above of the ability of an authorised Spesh dealer to change the wheel diameter is an obvious weakness in the desired control of max assisted speed since it would be easy to get the wheel diameter changed and then revert back to the original wheel size. The route the major brands seem to favour however ( e.g Bosch), is the ability of the controlling software to recognise forms of hacking and disable the bike if not rectified after a couple of warnings. I think people need to be aware that this form of further control can be implemented without the owner even knowing in any firmware update.........or newer bikes pre programmed with the updated firmware.
Lets see what if anything is announced later this month.

 

[GL1]

I posted elsewhere an article I read that said several brands and bike organisations had signed a statement declaring their commitment to go further than the current 2017 ( plus amendments) EU regulations mandate to prevent " hacking".....even recommending that the sale of such devices be made illegal. The 2017 EU regulation covering Pedelecs is currently under review and the industry joint statement is clearly part of a lobby to influence any amendments made during that review. A report on the outcome of the review is due late October. Obviously this concerns European regulations not elsewhere.

The example given above of the ability of an authorised Spesh dealer to change the wheel diameter is an obvious weakness in the desired control of max assisted speed since it would be easy to get the wheel diameter changed and then revert back to the original wheel size. The route the major brands seem to favour however ( e.g Bosch), is the ability of the controlling software to recognise forms of hacking and disable the bike if not rectified after a couple of warnings. I think people need to be aware that this form of further control can be implemented without the owner even knowing in any firmware update.........or newer bikes pre programmed with the updated firmware.
Lets see what if anything is announced later this month.

Nice to keep up on. Thanks for the info!

So yes, having the Spec dealers able to do this is a weakness perhaps (when I was 18 and working at an LBS would I have messed with this if I had access...yes likely so) but it's more strict and at least puts some accountability and control into place than the early Mission Control or Bosch that let the user adjust it infinitely.

To me, allowing the user to be able to swap between 27" or 29" and a few variations for tire sizes in MC would not present too much of a "hack." From what I'm calculating in the event of being set to 27" and then running 29" only results in raising the cut-off by 1-2 MPH or so. Being able to program your wheel size to say 8" (which Bosch allows on some models) is a major hack with a huge difference in assist cut-out thresholds. And then there is the issue of mis-representing miles on the bike for resale too with these issues.

Now, when you look at aftermarket devices...it's going to be harder to do any kind of software or app hack. They won't be allowing third party apps in (Blevo no longer works for 2022 I'm seeing) and they will limit their own app (MC.) Outright outlawing Levociraptor or the mechanical planetary gear hacks...IDK if I support that. I mean, it's good to have standards but I don't think I would support going so far as to make something like that illegal because at the end of the day it is the owner's bike and it's up to them to follow the rules of the roads and trails. They COULD, for example, own their own land and have their own trails and want to juice their bike. So the "illegal" is a bit far for my taste.

But, if Spec wants to disqualify an owner from a warranty for using one of these devices and they can tell, I'd have to logically support that. I mean, then it's being modified in a way that does not match the intended design. No different than doing major mods to an engine in a vehicle.

Great to watch and discuss!

 

[DtEW]

Outright outlawing Levociraptor or the mechanical planetary gear hacks...IDK if I support that. I mean, it's good to have standards but I don't think I would support going so far as to make something like that illegal because at the end of the day it is the owner's bike and it's up to them to follow the rules of the roads and trails. They COULD, for example, own their own land and have their own trails and want to juice their bike. So the "illegal" is a bit far for my taste.

A sociologist friend taught me when I was in my youth that good policy is about addressing the societal issue that manifests in significant numbers, and not about anecdotes, edge cases, and worse, theoretical cases. You can always contrive some circumstance in which the policy is intuitively wrong... but it won't manifest much (if ever) in reality, and worse, the absence of such a policy is known to facilitate greater wrongs.

The reality is that extremely few people own their own land and bike on it exclusively, relative to all the people who bike on public lands at any point.

The reality is that a good number of people hack their e-bikes to circumvent legal speed restrictions, evidenced by the existence of a fairly competitive industry to come up with better mousetraps to that end.

A policy that bans speed hacks, electronic or mechanical, makes it harder for the large number of people who ride on public lands to break the law. It does make it just as hard for the very few exclusively private-land-riding riders to access means to enable what should be their own discretion to determine... but it is just as hard to catch them breaking such prohibitions on private land with self-made versions of such hacks (eg. with a 3D printer).

In the converse, the absence of such a policy will just allow lots of lawbreaking in the face of inadequate means of enforcement (perhaps we should really police the trails? Is that what anybody wants?), while allowing the exclusively private-land-riding riders the peace-of-mind that they aren't breaking any laws... which I can say is a truly inconsequential "good" for all the bad that will be allowed. This is called buggering a society with "principle" in the face of evident reality and the constraints of actual, practical governance. This happens a lot in American politics, BTW.

 

[GL1]

A sociologist friend taught me when I was in my youth that good policy is about addressing the societal issue that manifests in significant numbers, and not about anecdotes, edge cases, and worse, theoretical cases. You can always contrive some circumstance in which the policy is intuitively wrong... but it won't manifest much (if ever) in reality, and worse, the absence of such a policy is known to facilitate to greater wrongs.

The reality is that extremely few people own their own land and bike on it exclusively, relative to all the people who bike on public lands at any point.

The reality is that a good number of people hack their e-bikes to circumvent legal speed restrictions, evidenced by the existence of a fairly competitive industry to come up with better mousetraps to that end.

A policy that bans speed hacks, electronic or mechanical, makes it harder for the large number of people who ride on public lands to break the law. It does make it just as hard for the very few exclusively private-land-riding riders to access means to enable what should be their own discretion to determine... but it is just as hard to catch them breaking such prohibitions on private land with self-made versions of such hacks (eg. with a 3D printer).

In the converse, the absence of such a policy will just allow lots of lawbreaking in the face of inadequate means of enforcement (perhaps we should really police the trails? Is that what anybody wants?), while allowing the exclusively private-land-riding riders the peace-of-mind that they aren't breaking any laws... a truly inconsequential "good".

Well at the risk of a political or social debate I'll simply say that the policy making strategy you reference above generally and en masse leads to the "nanny" state mentality and socialism ultimately. The idea we must have a policy about everything and force companies to comply for the "sake of the greater good" / utilitarian argument is a dangerous guiding principle as it ultimately allows for power grabs by governmental entities which I (as any true American should) vehemently reject. Those power grabs and control over our lives IS the ULTIMATE greater wrong and yes, actually, I would much prefer NOT having a policy / law in many cases for this reason and to ensure my own personal freedoms.

But hey, all we're talking here is the speed of eBikes. Personally, I abide by the rules and generally agree with them and police myself. The Class standards put forth as a co-effort of land governing mangers and manufacturers are great and I support them. I personally have no desire to modify my eBike for all the aforementioned reasons and because I DO ride mostly on public land and agree and follow their statutes but I say let Velociraptor and the others sell their aftermarket products and let freedom ring! Let the responsibility be on the RIDER, not on the government. Or, maybe all this could create a dark web black market for these products. Things are always cooler when they are illegal anyway.

 

[Mabman]

Whenever I skim through a thread like this I am reminded of how glad I am to live in a place that no one cares what my eBikes are able to achieve speed wise and the fact that even though they can I don't.

 

[DtEW]

true American

Alright dude. We're done.

 

[GL1]

Whenever I skim through a thread like this I am reminded of how glad I am to live in a place that no one cares what my eBikes are able to achieve speed wise and the fact that even though they can I don't.

That's what I'm saying. It's on you to decide to follow the rules because they make sense and you respect the given authority; or not and / or incur the other possible consequences like voiding your warranty, getting crap from other riders as you pass them uphill at ridiculous speeds, or yes, even possibly getting a fine from some authority at some point. But it's not at the minute control of some government policy. Should we outlaw turbochargers and superchargers for cars? Stop Tesla from allowing users to engage ludicrous mode? As what point is it on the owner?

As for living in a place where no one cares...that IS lucky and worth celebrating man! Places like that are fast disappearing. I miss the American west of my youth where THAT was the guiding principle rather than control, control, control.

 

[Mikerb]

............and yet, the joint statement I referred to above is from the bike brands and cycling industry organisations. So you have to ask why is it them that is pushing for firmer action on hacking?
I would say it is because they are at most risk of punitive measures. On the one hand they have regulators ( again I stress this is in the EU) saying that they can only sell "pedelecs" without the cost of achieving Type Approval etc, if the bikes they design and manufacture concur with the Regulation ( e.g. 250w nominal power/ 25kph max assisted speed). If the bikes they manufacture are patently easy to subsequently break one or both of those rules and they are seen to have done nothing to prevent it, they make themselves liable to being in breach of those regulations with the potential for fines or manadatory changes etc. On the other hand the manufacturers' existing, albeit fairly basic, preventative measures are constantly bypassed by creative manufacturers of hacking products.

It needs to be understood that the ever growing and lucrative e bike market is only made possible by the fact that the rules governing Ebikes as we know them, were passed. If at any time the EU Commission decided the 2017 Regultions in their current form were unworkable due to the easy way in which they can be bypassed, there is the risk that additional measures could be agreed..........e.g tax, insurance, lights, brake lights, Type Approval, helmets, tests............etc. In effect the pedelec reulation is a bandoned in favour of classifying them as "mopeds".

So you can see the bike industry has a huge vested interest in ensuring their products conform to the regulations both at manufacture and in general use.

The current review of the 2017 Regulations is unlikely to gloss over the well known fact that their regulations are widely bypassed by end users and certainly one of their most predictable responses would be to place more responsibility on the brands/manufacturers to ensure that cannot happen.
So I see the joint statement by the brands etc trying to suggest spreading the responsibility to prevent those regulations being bypassed. One glaring example in the joint statement was the proposal that the sale of hacking devices should be made illegal.........thus spreading the responsibility to the EU Commission to regulate to that effect.

 

[DtEW]

An article toward the same point was posted on TechRadar today.

Hacking your e-bike for extra speed risks spoiling everyone's fun

Opinion: the best speed hack is to pump those legs harder

www.techradar.com

 

[RebornRider]

Speaking as an old (and not necessarily wise!) man, I have observed over several decades of adulthood that people will sort themselves into two groups. One group focuses on the benefits of a particular concept, e.g. electric mtbs and what you can do with them, while the other focuses on how the concept can be misused.

My personal experience suggests that I am most dangerous when riding a gravity-powered downhill at 25 mph, not when I'm pedaling on a flat fire road at an assisted 25 mph.

 

[Muzza]

Just a PSA on this and a place to document the effect of wheel circumference changes in the system and in actuality. You can find this scattered around the internet but NOT in one place and broken down and specific to our bikes.

So yes, we all know Spec / Mission Control has locked the ability to change wheel sizes arbitrarily in MC. You can no longer do this in MC or even with Blevo, Blue Light, etc. I get it because of course, setting the wheel circumference size in the system to being smaller than you are actually running will increase the motor cutout speed threshold. It also messes up your miles etc. so even back when you could do this it was ill-advised for many reasons.

Now, many of us (myself included) are running any number of wheel size variations on our Levo's which they are designed to accommodate including full 29", full 27", 27"+Plus, or Mullet (29" front, 27" rear.) Also, as we know the 2022's are coming stock setup as mullet so there must be something to it.

I have been running mullet on my 2020 Levo Comp and I love it. I lost a hair of bb / pedal clearance and increased the head angle slightly but not much after flipping the chip. The bike feels more whippy and responsive and corners better with this setup. I'm hooked.

I just got a new warranty motor (finally killed the original on my 2020 Levo Comp at 2500 miles) and knowing I am going to be running mullet, I want the Wheel Circumference in MC to match so that I get the appropriate motor cutout speed as well as accurate miles.

As it is, it is set to the default for 29" tires at 90.55". After doing some research, if I continue to run my mullet setup with 27" rear with this setting I will both get a lower assistance cutout (I haven't calculated but somewhere around 17 mph as opposed to right around 20 mph) and, my motor will show MORE miles than it actually has. It will also mess up your Ant+ devices if you have those. All of these are undesirable to me. Also, I did run this way for awhile with my old motor and compared MC to Strava and yes, your assistance cutout threshold will be lower, your MPH will be off, and your mileage for rides and overall motor odometer will also be off in MC.

So, luckily, I found that if you click on the "?" in MC in the upper right hand corner of "Diagnose" you get a list of helpful hints. Below is the one pertaining to Wheel Circumference.

View attachment 73228

So as you can see, they say that if you choose to run mullet or other sized that differ from the standard, stock 29" configuration you can take it into the LBS to get this updated. So I have an appointment to have the LBS do this and they said they can and will!

Also, it sounds like they could just change it to say 78.74" which is the standard 27" Wheel Circumference setting for the Kenevo's etc. OR, they can possibly do a true "roll-out" to get the exact circumference based on the actual rims and tires I run. This could matter of course if you are doing bigger mid-fat or Plus tires etc. So just keep that in mind if you take yours in to get updated. If you have a setup you plan to keep maybe ask them do the roll-out as opposed to the standard 27" setting.

AND...finally...IF you were to have them set it to the / a 27" setting of 78.74" or thereabouts and then you went back to 29" wheels...yes, you would be getting a "hack" of sorts. You would both get a higher power assistance cutout (maybe somewhere around 22-23 mph) and, your motor would show less miles than actual. But, for me I will not be doing this because I want it accurate and I love mullet. Also, if you were a buyer of a second-hand Levo what would you think about the miles being mis-represented due to a wheel size hack? It's odd but we are entering an era here with these where that could be akin to odometer fraud...maybe. But it happens on Jeeps and 4wd vehicles all the time when they mod them to larger tires without adjusting the odometer gear to accommodate (so they read slower mph and accrue less miles than actual). It could be slight but a change from an actual 29" wheel and a setting that says you're running, say, 16" tires would make quite a difference in overall miles. Just all things to think about.

Cheers!


Final notes:

1) Changing your wheel circumference size in the app / system to read smaller while actually running bigger wheels will result in raising the motor cut-out speed, thereby providing assistance higher than the Class 1 threshold of 20 mph, but will also result in registering less miles than you actually have on your bike in MC. (You can't change this on your own anymore anyhow in MC.)

2) Running an actual smaller wheel in the back withOUT updating the app / system will result in lowering the motor cut-out speed, thereby stopping assistance lower than the Class 1 threshold of 20 mph, but it will also result in registering more miles than you actually have on your bike.


Direct Comparison of a ride to highlight effect of 27" wheel on Levo while MC still set at 29" (90.55") VS Strava which is actual:

Mission Control Readings: 21.18mi / 11.06 mph avg -- (so MC is calculating faster and more miles than actual AND results lower cutout.)

Strava GPS App Readings: 19.04mi / 10.20 mph avg -- (so actual is slower and less miles than what MC is calculating)

So that's a difference or approximately 2.1 miles and an average of almost 1 mph average. So not huge on overall mph and maybe the cut-out would occur at 18 mph something rather than right under / around 20. Okay, not huge in that regard perhaps. But over time, that mileage difference would certainly add up.

Thanks for the awesome info, just in the process of changing my 2020 Comp to a mullet & found this to be super helpful.
My main concern was the fact that our chain stays are not as short as 22 models & wondered if the mullet would really make much of a difference to the feel of the bike? You loving it sort of eases the mind.
Down side to the new 22 models I suppose will be they won't be able to go 29" rear if they wanted to...

 

[GL1]

Thanks for the awesome info, just in the process of changing my 2020 Comp to a mullet & found this to be super helpful.
My main concern was the fact that our chain stays are not as short as 22 models & wondered if the mullet would really make much of a difference to the feel of the bike? You loving it sort of eases the mind.
Down side to the new 22 models I suppose will be they won't be able to go 29" rear if they wanted to...

Good info. I did not know that the 2022 are 27" rear specific. For me it would be okay because I really love the setup but it was nice I suppose to have the versatility of all wheel sizes.

 

[Fred campbell]

Interesting thread. Based on the assumption that most (if not all) MTBers are also car drivers and the ultimate road speed limit in the UK in 70 mph, (don’t know about US) who would buy a car if there was a built-in cut off speed of 70 mph? I certainly don’t know of any car on the market that doesn’t do over 70mph. So, what’s the difference.
Also, I’m quite surprised that at the depth of this debate bearing in mind that the speed limit imposed on mountain bikes refers to road use whereas MTBs are designed for and used in off-road situations.

 

[Mikerb]

Interesting thread. Based on the assumption that most (if not all) MTBers are also car drivers and the ultimate road speed limit in the UK in 70 mph, (don’t know about US) who would buy a car if there was a built-in cut off speed of 70 mph? I certainly don’t know of any car on the market that doesn’t do over 70mph. So, what’s the difference.
Also, I’m quite surprised that at the depth of this debate bearing in mind that the speed limit imposed on mountain bikes refers to road use whereas MTBs are designed for and used in off-road situations.

Well you may get to find out given that the EU has made a provisional regulation that all new cars from July 2022 have to be fitted with automatic speed limiters that limit the car to whatever the speed limit on any particluar road.!!

By the way, the maximum pedal assist speed for a pedelec ( e.g our EMTBs) applies everywhere other than on private land.....not just public roads......ie virtually everywhere we ride.

 

[apac]

Good info. I did not know that the 2022 are 27" rear specific. For me it would be okay because I really love the setup but it was nice I suppose to have the versatility of all wheel sizes.

I've been to Golden... a few times. Got friends that lived there. Coors beer is brewed there. I think I stayed on lookout mountain? They live in Evergreen now.

 

[Fred campbell]

Well you may get to find out given that the EU has made a provisional regulation that all new cars from July 2022 have to be fitted with automatic speed limiters that limit the car to whatever the speed limit on any particluar road.!!

By the way, the maximum pedal assist speed for a pedelec ( e.g our EMTBs) applies everywhere other than on private land.....not just public roads......ie virtually everywhere we ride.

I don’t live in the EU. I’m in the U.K. I would like to see the legislation on this. Can you send a link?

 

[Mikerb]

I don’t live in the EU. I’m in the U.K. I would like to see the legislation on this. Can you send a link?

EU ruling means speed limiters will be mandatory in the UK by 2022 | RAC Drive

 

[RebornRider]

Also, I’m quite surprised that at the depth of this debate bearing in mind that the speed limit imposed on mountain bikes [snip]

Sorry to be pedantic, but there is no speed limit. There is an assistance limit. That is actually an important difference!

 

[JetSetDemo]

Article is from March 2019. Not so sure we’re keen on following EU legislation these days however there are plenty more updates indicating new cars in the UK next year will have the same speed limiter software, although you can switch it off.

 

[Fred campbell]

Agreed. The article my friend refers to is indeed dated March 2019 and as JetSetDemo says, you can switch it off. In fact most modern cars are already fitted with a speed limiter, but you have to switch it on. This doesn’t mean that when you buy a car it will only do 70mph. It means you will have an option to set a speed limit over which your car can’t go eg 30, 40, 70mph - whatever you set it to. So that you don’t inadvertently exceed the speed limit.
I still don’t see how speed limits, assistance limits are enforceable by law in off road situations. Can anyone dig up the legislation? (Not some newspaper article written for scaremongering or sensationalism please). Legislation.

 

[Mikerb]

there are plenty of other articles....search Google. The regulation stipulates all cars manufactured in the EU from June 2022 must be equipped with speed limiters. @JetSetDemo is correct that many existing cars have the option to set a max speed ( my BMW 5 series has it, my wife's Citroen Picasso has it). The new EU regulation is different in that the speed of the car is limited to the relevant speed limit by a GPS signal. It is not a driver option to set, it is not under the driver's control. It appears that initially at least the system can be switched off. It does make clear whether that requires a dealer service centre to do that or whether it is able to be set by the driver.
That being the case and with so many cars manufactured on an a multi national basis there is no reason for the UK to not adopt the EU regulation. It would of course then be a simple further step to remove the ability to switch the system off!!

Whatever! Getting back to the subject of assisted speed on emtbs, there are no parallels with car use.

 

[Mabman]

Article is from March 2019. Not so sure we’re keen on following EU legislation these days however there are plenty more updates indicating new cars in the UK next year will have the same speed limiter software, although you can switch it off.

I am not all that down with the whole "Geo Fencing" idea personally. Although anyone with a smart phone already, including me, is hooked up I would imagine....

Been riding Mullet for 4 years and it works for my needs, mainly to allow me to use a slightly wider tire on the rear, plus it looks cool.

 

[rpr]

Good info in this thread but my specific concern on wheel circumference does not appear to have been discussed in this or any other threads. I asked this in a separate post but the folks on this thread seem to know this particular issue best so apologies if this is being asked in two different locations.

If the wheel circumference is set lower than actual by a dealer, can that affect (compromise) assist on inclines?

Here’s my thinking. If the wheel circumference is set lower than actual, the TCU thinks each pedal revolution is resulting in less distance travelled than what is actually happening. So while from a rider input perspective on flat ground this may not result in any noticeable difference, you’re likely expending considerably more effort than the algorithm in thenTCU predicts to get that additional rotational distance with each pedal revolution on uphill climbs. So I’m wondering if this could skew (reduce) the intended level of pedal assist on uphill climbs.

I ask this because I demo’d two different Levo SL’s and while the assist felt comparable on flat terrain, they felt very different on uphill climbs in Turbo mode. I purchased the one that felt like it had less assist on uphill climbs due to the frame size and better componentry. I noticed in MC that my wheel circumference seems pretty low for the 29” rear tire I have. Just wondering if it’s worth having the dealer reset to actual in the hope that might improve the pedal assist performance on uphills.

 

[RickBullotta]

Good info in this thread but my specific concern on wheel circumference does not appear to have been discussed in this or any other threads. I asked this in a separate post but the folks on this thread seem to know this particular issue best so apologies if this is being asked in two different locations.

If the wheel circumference is set lower than actual by a dealer, can that affect (compromise) assist on inclines?

Here’s my thinking. If the wheel circumference is set lower than actual, the TCU thinks each pedal revolution is resulting in less distance travelled than what is actually happening. So while from a rider input perspective on flat ground this may not result in any noticeable difference, you’re likely expending considerably more effort than the algorithm in thenTCU predicts to get that additional rotational distance with each pedal revolution on uphill climbs. So I’m wondering if this could skew (reduce) the intended level of pedal assist on uphill climbs.

I ask this because I demo’d two different Levo SL’s and while the assist felt comparable on flat terrain, they felt very different on uphill climbs in Turbo mode. I purchased the one that felt like it had less assist on uphill climbs due to the frame size and better componentry. I noticed in MC that my wheel circumference seems pretty low for the 29” rear tire I have. Just wondering if it’s worth having the dealer reset to actual in the hope that might improve the pedal assist performance on uphills.

Remember that you can modify assist characteristics quite extensively for these bikes using Mission Control - so it's possible (likely?) that those two SL's simply had different assist profiles set up. Has nothing to do with wheel circumference.

 

[rpr]

Yes, good point, but the SL I purchased has Turbo pre-set at 100/100. I doubt uphill assist would improve with lower settings?