Seem to be more TQ HPR 50 powered lightweight EMTB's hitting the market

[R120]

BMC

First Look: BMC Fourstroke AMP LT - Downcountry Motorized - Pinkbike

BMC has totally revised their suspension layout on the 120 mm travel Fourstroke LT AMP to fit the TQ motor in the downtube.

www.pinkbike.com

SIMPLON

Exclusive first ride review: the brand new 2023 SIMPLON Rapcon Pmax TQ 170/165

We had the exclusive opportunity to test SIMPLON’s brand-new light-eMTB, the 2023 Rapcon Pmax TQ 170/165, which comes equipped with TQ’s latest 50 Nm HPR 50 motor.

ebike-mtb.com

I am sure we will see some more over the next few months - the above two bikes very different approaches so clearly the motor will be finding its way into all sorts of bikes.

Between Trek, BMC, and Simplon you now have downcountry/XC, Trail and Enduro covered

 

[Doomanic]

That Simplon looks awesome!

An then, a wild headset appears...

That's me out, oh well.

 

[R120]

I actually rather like the BMC - I would slap a 130mm fork in though.

Whilst I totally agree that the motor on an EMTB means you can go straight to full on enduro with little consequence unlike a regular bike, for a lot of my local riding which is effectively mellow blue trails a bike like the BMC would be a lot of fun - for most of my local rides the sole reason for using an EMTB over a regular bike is time, and the ability to blast out an hour loop which you couldn’t do on an analog. The motor effectively enables you to get to the fun stuff quickly.

 

[Mteam]

The simplon looks great (apart from the headset -cant decide if that headset would put me off a bike if everything else was right - it probably would), but there appears to be only one simplon dealer in the uk, and they are in glasgow, so that rules out simplon for most people in uk.

 

[Doomanic]

Also, you just know that it'll end up being called the Simpleton...

 

[ohm13]

"downcountry" is sooo 2021

 

[seamarsh]

I vote for the Simpion as best of these!

I don’t understand short travel e-bikes. And from @Rob Rides EMTB review of the Pole e-bike I think he agrees. Pinkbike I think did a test and it was like 3 seconds faster with the suspension locked out on an enduro for a legit climb. So unless someone cares about 3 seconds on a climb we should all be wanting 200mm e-bikes. Even if you’re only a streetqueen rider like @shockwave having 35%sag on your e-bike would feel great and you’d be able to roll over curbs like they were nothing. The only reason I see to go short travel on an e-bike os if you’re limited on funds.

He also prefers longer chain stays... a lot of people do not.

200mm is kinda ridiculous for a trail bike that is not hitting big stuff. Although I agree to a point.. don't see why to go below 150/160 as a minimum, unless a frame design or something.

 

[Pharmaboy]

Bike length for one - on twisty stuff, a shorter and shorter travel xc kind of bike rides a lot different to an enduro 160mm travel bike- they are harder to turn in and need to be man handled around tight corners.

That BMC looks beautiful- it’s designed for a mountain biker. As always 95% of mountain bikers are way over biked - same goes for ebikes - more travel doesn’t always equal more fun

 

[Rob Rides EMTB]

He also prefers longer chain stays... a lot of people do not.

I prefer chainstays that are proportionally correct for XL frames. Barely any brands do this, so usually I have to ride long bikes with chainstays that are designed for Medium / Large bikes.

A XL bike with long front centre and 440mm chain stay is really unbalanced. Bikes should grow both front AND rear for larger sizes - so when bikes have a 455 ish chainstay they actually ride (and climb) much better for me.

 

[seamarsh]

I prefer chainstays that are proportionally correct for XL frames. Barely any brands do this, so usually I have to ride long bikes with chainstays that are designed for Medium / Large bikes.

A XL bike with long front centre and 440mm chain stay is really unbalanced. Bikes should grow both front AND rear for larger sizes - so when bikes have a 455 ish chainstay they actually ride (and climb) much better for me.

ahh gotcha, that makes more sense. The way you described it in the video I watched made it sound like, in general you didn't like them as much.

I guess the same thing could be said about seat post angle as well should really change depending on the size of the bike.

 

[boBE]

The patent: TWI694951B - Cycloid gear transmission machine in electric bicycle assist system - Google Patents

 

[TurboJoe]

I like the BMC Fourstroke 01 LTD. A XC bike with 100mm of travel front and rear. Does anyone know the bikes weight?

 

[TOLM]

That Simplon looks awesome!

An then, a wild headset appears...
View attachment 99421

That's me out, oh well.

I've got a headset like this on one of my bikes and I actually have no complaints. Super clean cockpit with short hoses, very easy to run cables inside the frame, etc

 

[hilbil-E-bikr]

That’s good news. I thought TQ had an exclusive deal with Trek. More competition (and choice) the better.

 

[Varaxis]

I prefer chainstays that are proportionally correct for XL frames. Barely any brands do this, so usually I have to ride long bikes with chainstays that are designed for Medium / Large bikes.

A XL bike with long front centre and 440mm chain stay is really unbalanced. Bikes should grow both front AND rear for larger sizes - so when bikes have a 455 ish chainstay they actually ride (and climb) much better for me.

Should also note that heavier and taller riders need longer CS, as the additional body weight and ability to get more rearward loads the rear wheel more. This rearward weight bias makes front traction in corners suffer, forcing the rider to be more aggro (e.g. lower grip and with your chin over the stem). Longer CS shifts some of that body weight to the front to rebalance things, so the rider can save more energy staying neutral, ready to execute techniques like pumping. The key operating word here is balance, where things get worse and worse as you get more weight on the front wheel (more OTB risk, front wheel harder to keep level in air on drops/jumps, etc.)

Please don't say say most bikes are designed for Med and Large! I'd agree if you just corrected that to say designed for Large (only). XL has the 2nd largest pool of bikes to choose from, IMO. I find pickings are extremely thin for size med, and forces me to be overbiked to get a WB that is long enough to match the long CS. Tall folk likely gravitate to shorter travel stuff, to get the WB short enough to match the short (to them) CS.

As a lighter and shorter rider, I rarely find any bikes with short enough CS. Marin, Polygon, and maybe Scor and Kona Remote160 are the only options I found in size Med. The Torque:ON has CS short enough in med, but slack STA (74°). Maybe if I weighed 100kg/220lbs (muscle weight, from a life of lifting heavy weights of course ~_^), more in line with a stereotypical American, I might find the long CS on some medium bikes to be decent, able to pick a mainstream option like the Torque:ON or Levo.

Riders seeking bikes in size small... good luck. I found that up-sizing, slapping on a shorter stem, and raising the grip height reduces the weight on the front enough to get a decent ride. Overforking and -2° angleset are also options to reduce the problem of too much weight up front. Else, there's always adapting by getting your butt behind the saddle on anything gnarly; can't really do any techniques from that position besides clench, steer, and modulate brakes though. Without sufficient opportunity to practice technique, you might feel untalented and slow to progress. Maybe consider a Canfield Balance in small with a CYC motor?

IME, I find bikes (29er 150mm) with 1230WB and 435CS to have the ideal balance and WB for what I ride. I'd opt for slightly shorter CS if the rear wheel were 27.5 (maybe 3-4mm shorter CS) or if it were a high pivot. If I wanted some variety, I'd get a bike with a diff WB (1170WB for a playbike, 1270 for a big mountain bike). I know from riding dozens of bikes, including ones with adj CS length, that balance is retained if WB is adjusted by 20mm for every 5mm of CS change. In short: 440CS still feels balanced to me if the WB were 1250, 430CS with 1210WB, 445 with 1270, 425CS for a 1190WB, 420CS 1170WB, and so on.

That Simplon looks great, except it's too rich for my blood. I love the quiet motor and clean elegant look, but try again in alum at under $6000! I'm waiting for an utilitarian build, with Linkglide 10spd, a good fork chassis like a base Zeb/Lyrik (or Domain/Yari if they receive the same updates as '23 Zeb/Lyrik), and MT520 brakes. Everything else can be budget/no-name placeholders. I'd take a mullet rear, as long as it's not a plus tire nor some compromised design convertible to 29 rear! I'm sold on short cranks, after adapting to 152 cranks, so hoping to see something similar. The Alpine Trail E2 was on top of my list for a while, but now I'm waiting for a TQ HPR50 or eventual HPR80 instead, with a battery setup that can go 4+ hours with eco mode on the flats, and adaptive/trail mode on the climbs.

 

[CJaMTB]

If I had the money, I'd be getting one of the BMC bikes as soon as they hit the UK (January I'm told). Awesome looking bike for someone who needs to take their riding down a notch or two, for medical reasons. I currently have a 170/170 and a 150/150, both of which allow me to ride in styles that my body just can't handle any longer (long-term injuries that aren't ever going to get any better!). A bike like that would force me to stop riding the drops and jumps that are causing me such problems now, and might encourage me to look at more distance rides, helping to wean me off the gnar (though Kes rode Ard Rock on a Scott Spark this year )!

 

[Varaxis]

If I had the money, I'd be getting one of the BMC bikes as soon as they hit the UK (January I'm told). Awesome looking bike for someone who needs to take their riding down a notch or two, for medical reasons. I currently have a 170/170 and a 150/150, both of which allow me to ride in styles that my body just can't handle any longer (long-term injuries that aren't ever going to get any better!). A bike like that would force me to stop riding the drops and jumps that are causing me such problems now, and might encourage me to look at more distance rides, helping to wean me off the gnar (though Kes rode Ard Rock on a Scott Spark this year )!

There's something about conservative geo that makes it seem like there's no more performance left on the table, besides marginal gains from weight savings and preferential tweaks regarding compliance/stiffness, aesthetics/styling, etc.

When you get on such a bike, it makes you not think about what can be tweaked (would be pricey, with questionable value), but instead just puts you in the mindset to just shut-up-and-ride.

That is, unless the geo is pretty uncomfortable and marketing pops up, and you happen to be susceptible to the hyping up of incremental gains.

An ideal rider would be a simple type of person who feels satisfied that they survived through some suffering/hardship, convinced that they come out better as a result (character-building, thicker skin, cooler/chill since you've been through worse shit than what normal people see).

 

[Zimmerframe]

An ideal rider would be a simple type of person who feels satisfied that they survived through some suffering/hardship, convinced that they come out better as a result (character-building, thicker skin, cooler/chill since you've been through worse shit than what normal people see).

Is this describing the purchasing experience ?

 

[R120]

A modern XC bike can be pushed harder than most people think, just look at the current World Cup courses.

 

[Streddaz]

EMTB+Downcountry+Thru Headset Routing = perfect internet hate

 

[Trudo]

Request to TQ or Trek. I don't want to press the remote 2 to 3 seconds to go to the no-assist mode. Can I activate something in the app ? Thanks

 

[guglez]

A XL bike with long front centre and 440mm chain stay is really unbalanced.

Did you ever discuss this with bike manufacturers? There is a chance that they will hear your voice. I'm 100% with you. I'm also tall (191cm) and chainstays shorter than 445 is a no-go for me.

 

[Rob Rides EMTB]

Did you ever discuss this with bike manufacturers? There is a chance that they will hear your voice. I'm 100% with you. I'm also tall (191cm) and chainstays shorter than 445 is a no-go for me.

We are starting to see more longer (450mm+) CS bikes, although, I think its a byproduct of some brands not being able to get them short when running 29er and long travel!

I think its the next part of progression of bike geo. Longer CS makes a massive difference on bigger bikes. Short CS bikes suck on XL bikes for tall people!!