The King has no clothes - SL 1.2 Power

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

Are you suggesting in your tests you've not seen peaks of 320Wh? From what I can make out from your posts, on the 14th august with the 1.2 motor you achieved 253w of power over 4m53 of riding. Which would be in line with what they claim:

• The SL 1.2 motor provides 250w nominal power with 320w of peak output and 50 Nm of torque

There are also posts from various others listed above, with electrical power displayed on the TCU screen (Knut with 391W) which is approximately 312w of mechanical power.

And:

Which is approximately 316w of mechanical power, assuming 80% efficiency.

From the graph you posted from that magazine, do we know the duration of the test?

he German laboratory has conducted an accurate measurement. My current stance is based on the premise that the figures provided by Specialized may not be accurate, as they are not corroborated by real-world tests. Therefore, my comparison is between versions 1.1 and 1.2, and I have made my calculations available for public scrutiny.

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

@Rob Rides EMTB as a long time fan of your videos I am asking your personal view on the 1.1 to 1.2 discussion? You have ridden both motors and seen the data posed here.

 

[p3eps]

he German laboratory has conducted an accurate measurement. My current stance is based on the premise that the figures provided by Specialized may not be accurate, as they are not corroborated by real-world tests. Therefore, my comparison is between versions 1.1 and 1.2, and I have made my calculations available for public scrutiny.

I haven't watched the video yet... but do they test more than one SL1.2 motor? As previously mentioned, and covered in various SL threads, there seem to be some motors / users having different experiences with them. Some users are reporting a big difference between 1.1 to 1.2 when testing back to back (at 100/100), and others are reporting a minor increase in power.

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

I prefer to avoid engaging in subjective discussions because they tend to lead to complex and unproductive conversations.

In this context, the issue at hand revolves around data, and the data doesn't seem to align with the claims being made. While I understand that you may have your own opinions on the matter, I'm interested in whether you can provide supporting data for your perspective.

Specifically, I'd like to highlight concerns related to journalists' assessments. For instance, consider a scenario where BMW introduces a new M3 model, claiming it is 300Kw more powerful. However, when tested on a track, it performs similarly to the previous model. Furthermore, when subjected to a dynamometer test, it only shows a 30Kw increase in power. In such a situation, it raises questions about the decisions of those who upgraded to the new model and the credibility of the journalists who praised it in their reviews.


The King has no clothes.

 

[Rob Rides EMTB]

the figures I'm observing in my data are markedly different. I am open to providing the unprocessed data, which indicates that the maximum increase is approximately 28 watts at best, rather than the 80 watts that has been claimed. This is a considerable discrepancy, and I must note that the 28 watts figure is a generous estimation.

OK, well the peaks that some others are seeing are greater than 400w electrical.

See here: 8.4a 52.4v

Apologies if I am misunderstanding something in your data, but from what I can see, your tests are conducted over a time duration, where the expected results would should in fact be 250w of nominal power output. Your results show that you achieved 253w over a duration of 4m 53s

Can we assume that within that test, the motor did in fact peak higher than 253w? And as it got hot (it is mid august) then it tapered down to provide less than 253w for some moments of this test?

About the magazine test. Its a single bike in a lab, with test conditions that are not published. How long/ what cadence / temperateure, etc.

There are also multiple sources here that have conducted tests and are achieving 390w-440w of peak power, shown on the TCU / mission control.

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

OK, well the peaks that some others are seeing are greater than 400w electrical.

See here: 8.4a 52.4v

Apologies if I am misunderstanding something in your data, but from what I can see, your tests are conducted over a time duration, where the expected results would should in fact be 250w of nominal power output. Your results show that you achieved 253w over a duration of 4m 53s

Can we assume that within that test, the motor did in fact peak higher than 253w? And as it got hot (it is mid august) then it tapered down to provide less than 253w for some moments of this test?

About the magazine test. Its a single bike in a lab, with test conditions that are not published. How long/ what cadence / temperateure, etc.

There are also multiple sources here that have conducted tests and are achieving 390w-440w of peak power, shown on the TCU / mission control.

Mid August in Cape Town South Africa is middle of winter.

@Rob Rides EMTB you feel that my test results are in line with Specialized claims? and the problem based on your stance is the lab and my expectations? Really just want to clarify your stance here.

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

As more SL 1.2 get sold to SL 1.1 owners and now KSL 1.1 owners buy KSL 1.2's the reviews and posts by @Rob Rides EMTB and @knut7 will not age well. These people are on Strava and the data is simply not going to be flattering. Mark my words.

 

[Rob Rides EMTB]

As more SL 1.2 get sold to SL 1.1 owners and now KSL 1.1 owners buy KSL 1.2's the reviews and posts by @Rob Rides EMTB and @knut7 will not age well. These people are on Strava and the data is simply not going to be flattering. Mark my words.

I’m not sure why your tone is so aggressive. I’m trying to understand your posts and data and (like you requested) add some commentary. You’re calling people out - no one here is out to get you.

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

I’m not sure why your tone is so aggressive. I’m trying to understand your posts and data and (like you requested) add some commentary. You’re calling people out - no one here is out to get you.

@Rob Rides EMTB, consistently relying on data from questionable or theoretical sources makes it challenging to have meaningful discussions. I suggest that you conduct your own tests, which would lay the foundation for a more objective conversation. I have personally taken the initiative to run tests and share my findings.

My approach is not confrontational but rather defensive, driven by the desire to ensure that fellow riders make informed purchasing decisions based on real-world feedback. Whose interests are you looking out for in this situation?

 

[knut7]

It's not clear to me after going through this thread; have others experienced the same?

To my understanding these tests are being performed on a bike with the gen2 motor and TCU in combination with a gen1 battery and BMS?

Do we have proof the BMS is the same between gen1 and gen2? I have previously ridden an Orbea Rise where the non-RS EP8 wasn't putting out all it's rated power. I believe it was caused by the BMS limiting the power, but I never got a proper answer from the Orbea rep.

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

It's not clear to me after going through this thread; have others experienced the same?

To my understanding these tests are being performed on a bike with the gen2 motor and TCU in combination with a gen1 battery and BMS?

Do we have proof the BMS is the same between gen1 and gen2? I have previously ridden an Orbea Rise where the non-RS EP8 wasn't putting out all it's rated power. I believe it was caused by the BMS limiting the power, but I never got a proper answer from the Orbea rep.

All electronics are Gen 2:
Motor
TCU
BMS
Battery

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

It's not clear to me after going through this thread; have others experienced the same?

To my understanding these tests are being performed on a bike with the gen2 motor and TCU in combination with a gen1 battery and BMS?

Do we have proof the BMS is the same between gen1 and gen2? I have previously ridden an Orbea Rise where the non-RS EP8 wasn't putting out all it's rated power. I believe it was caused by the BMS limiting the power, but I never got a proper answer from the Orbea rep.

Isn't it a bit odd that this thread has had a gander from over 23,000 pairs of eyes and yet, not a single soul has trotted out any data to counter mine? You'd think with the shiny new SL 1.2 on the market, we'd see a flood of cyclists zipping through Strava with eye-popping, record-breaking rides and broadcasting their massive time gains. But what do we have? Tumbleweeds, my friend, tumbleweeds.

 

[Mteam]

Isn't it a bit odd that this thread has had a gander from over 23,000 pairs of eyes and yet, not a single soul has trotted out any data to counter mine? You'd think with the shiny new SL 1.2 on the market, we'd see a flood of cyclists zipping through Strava with eye-popping, record-breaking rides and broadcasting their massive time gains. But what do we have? Tumbleweeds, my friend, tumbleweeds.

It should be easy to demonstrate a difference between the 1.1 motor and the 1.2 motor, set them both in max assist, max power, then pedal up the same hill (with the same rider), the 1.2 should get to the top faster with 320w assistance compared to 240w assistance. Just make sure the rider is putting the same effort in on both bikes and that effort is sufficient for the both motors to be giving max assist.

Repeat this a few times, the 1.2 should be consistently faster up the hill with its 80 watt power advantage.

I guess if the new 1.2 motor can only hold 320w for a few seconds before throttling back to 250w then this will show it up.

 

[Moderator]

Just a reminder to treat fellow members with respect.

Whilst @Fit_Fat_almost_50 might be frustrated with their personal results, please try to keep the conversation civilised and non accusatory. Your comments to @knut7 are not acceptable. He's reported what he's experienced which coincides with the experiences of nearly everyone who has tested the bike and written about it.

Some other examples if you don't understand :

You also keep using the word "Discussion" so discuss, don't badger for :

Really just want to clarify your stance here.

Your other comments are openly aggressive. You're welcome to use the forum to discuss your problem and try to solve and understand the situation YOU have. Reading back through the thread others have suggested ideas and thoughts.

Another example :

@p3eps said :

I haven't watched the video yet... but do they test more than one SL1.2 motor? As previously mentioned, and covered in various SL threads, there seem to be some motors / users having different experiences with them. Some users are reporting a big difference between 1.1 to 1.2 when testing back to back (at 100/100), and others are reporting a minor increase in power.

Which you dismissed and replied :

I prefer to avoid engaging in subjective discussions because they tend to lead to complex and unproductive conversations.

In this context, the issue at hand revolves around data, and the data doesn't seem to align with the claims being made.

Your results are subjective and yet you're discussing them when they contradict the data and experiences of others. Ok. Someone else has done a test - does that make their results accurate and real. You're dismissing the results of one person who's written their findings, but accepting those of another because they fit with your feelings.

@Rob Rides EMTB, consistently relying on data from questionable or theoretical sources makes it challenging to have meaningful discussions.

You asked him for his view and he gave you the data from Specialized - that's not a theoretical source.

Isn't it a bit odd that this thread has had a gander from over 23,000 pairs of eyes and yet, not a single soul has trotted out any data to counter mine?

True, if you choose to ignore the hundreds of watt and amp results from many riders on many bikes and all the riders who say their 1.2 is faster than their 1.1. (Agreed, there are people who have not had the 1.2 being more powerful than the 1.1 result - but you dismissed that side of the discussion). I don't really think you can use Strava's calculated "power" figure as a scientific data point either.

Everyone's treating you with respect and being polite despite your approach, please act the same. If you want to have a discussion, have a discussion. If you want to just be a conspiracy theorists and talk gibberish ** - please do it somewhere else like "The Lounge".

** There is already a thread for this :

The Crazy Conspiracy Threory Thread

Dedicated to informative information endlessly provided by Eddy Raisin - A Man who will not be tricked from the truth ! Let your imaginations run wild .. post your wildest conspiracy theories bike related or otherwise .. Erm .. how about one of Eddy's Favourites .. The only reason why all...

www.emtbforums.com

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

Just a reminder to treat fellow members with respect.

Whilst @Fit_Fat_almost_50 might be frustrated with their personal results, please try to keep the conversation civilised and non accusatory. Your comments to @knut7 are not acceptable. He's reported what he's experienced which coincides with the experiences of nearly everyone who has tested the bike and written about it.

Some other examples if you don't understand :

You also keep using the word "Discussion" so discuss, don't badger for :



Your other comments are openly aggressive. You're welcome to use the forum to discuss your problem and try to solve and understand the situation YOU have. Reading back through the thread others have suggested ideas and thoughts.

Another example :

@p3eps said :



Which you dismissed and replied :





Your results are subjective and yet you're discussing them when they contradict the data and experiences of others. Ok. Someone else has done a test - does that make their results accurate and real. You're dismissing the results of one person who's written their findings, but accepting those of another because they fit with your feelings.



You asked him for his view and he gave you the data from Specialized - that's not a theoretical source.



True, if you choose to ignore the hundreds of watt and amp results from many riders on many bikes and all the riders who say their 1.2 is faster than their 1.1. (Agreed, there are people who have not had the 1.2 being more powerful than the 1.1 result - but you dismissed that side of the discussion). I don't really think you can use Strava's calculated "power" figure as a scientific data point either.

Everyone's treating you with respect and being polite despite your approach, please act the same. If you want to have a discussion, have a discussion. If you want to just be a conspiracy theorists and talk gibberish ** - please do it somewhere else like "The Lounge".

** There is already a thread for this :

The Crazy Conspiracy Threory Thread

Dedicated to informative information endlessly provided by Eddy Raisin - A Man who will not be tricked from the truth ! Let your imaginations run wild .. post your wildest conspiracy theories bike related or otherwise .. Erm .. how about one of Eddy's Favourites .. The only reason why all...

www.emtbforums.com

So me not accepting data from Specialized on there own product which is in contradiction to my own real world test is me being a conspiracy theorist.

Feel like 1984 here, enjoy the eco chamber.

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

How dare I not accept the data from the central data agency like EMTB has. Ban me how dare i.

 

[Harold]

Here's what Specialized say:

QUOTE:


So they are claiming the 1.2 motor is outputting what has been found in the data; peaks of 320w, but still, 250w of nominal power, which I think is what @Fit_Fat_almost_50 is seeing in his data?

They claim the 1.1 puts out 240w nominal and 240w peak

Source:

SL Motor

support.specialized.com

View attachment 128562

Yes, but no …

In the German lab test peak power has been measured over different cadences and they did pick up the highest power output which is 278 watts and not 320.
Even though this is one of the most controlled test environment we have so far to asses real SL1.2 power output, it doesn’t mean that every bike/motor will peak at “only” 278 watts in any given scenario/conditions.

What this test tells though, is that the 320 watts marketed by Spe is a very best case scenario, and clearly not the norm.
I was surprised seeing the guys at Loam Wolf saying that the SL2 was less powerful than Trek EXE going up technical climbs. Now I see where it might comes from.
Numbers are just numbers, especially when Marketing can announce what they feel is right without any compliance regulations in place.

 

[Moderator]

So me not accepting data from Specialized on there own product which is in contradiction to my own real world test is me being a conspiracy theorist.

Again, you seem to be consistently argumentative rather than reading what is actually written.

You accused Rob of quoting a "theoretical source" , when he quoted the manufacturer - this is not "discussion" this is you deflecting when you don't read what you want to read.

But what do we have? Tumbleweeds, my friend, tumbleweeds.

It's these comments, where you choose to only accept your "subjective" results and not the results of others which make you sound like a conspiracy theorist.

Feel like 1984 here, enjoy the eco chamber.

I'm pretty sure you were told you were welcome to discuss. Being impolite and making unsubstantiated accusations to other members is what you were asked to refrain from doing.

If you're incapable of rational conversation today, then maybe today isn't the day you should be doing it.

How dare I not accept the data from the central data agency like EMTB has. Ban me how dare i.

You can accept or deny what you like. That's your prerogative, but you seem to expect everyone else to accept your results.

Why ban you ? Are you just acting out because you want banning because in your head, this makes your results more valid ? As stated, you're entitled to your opinion and to discuss it - just politely and respectfully.

I'm not judging if what you're saying is right or wrong, I'm merely saying to discuss it reasonably.

If you continue to be disrespectful then yes, you will be banned for 24 hours - that's YOUR choice. I'm sure everyone else is capable of continuing a rational conversation without you. I understand you might be frustrated, but that doesn't make your behaviour acceptable.

 

[Doomanic]

Isn't it a bit odd that this thread has had a gander from over 23,000 pairs of eyes and yet, not a single soul has trotted out any data to counter mine?

Maybe it's because nobody else gives a shit?

I've got a KSL1 and a mate has an LSL2. I've ridden both over the same terrain on the same day and the LSL2 is noticeably faster uphill than my KSL1. It's not enough of a difference for me to want to upgrade though. Would I be disappointed if I'd waited and bought a KSL2 instead of a bargain KSL1? Probably, £3.5k is a lot of coke and hookers, but in isolation I'd be happy with either.

 

[Zimmerframe]

£3.5k is a lot of coke and hookers, but in isolation I'd be happy with either.

Don't they normally come together ?

 

[G-Sport]

Isn't it a bit odd that this thread has had a gander from over 23,000 pairs of eyes and yet, not a single soul has trotted out any data to counter mine? You'd think with the shiny new SL 1.2 on the market, we'd see a flood of cyclists zipping through Strava with eye-popping, record-breaking rides and broadcasting their massive time gains. But what do we have? Tumbleweeds, my friend, tumbleweeds.

As one of the 23,000 the reason I haven't tried to contradict your findings (or equally confirm them), is that I don't have access to an SL1.2 motor to test and compare.
My eyes are here to discover data, but I must be missing it amongst the bickering.
I see a lot of questions and very few answers.
If the motor is really considerably more efficient than the previous version then isn't it possible that the power Output IS significantly greater than the previous version whilst the power INPUT is little changed?
This would allow your data and the anecdotal claims to match up reasonably well surely?
Personally, my interests would be in efficiency first, noise second and headline power and torque a distant last.

 

[p3eps]

It should be easy to demonstrate a difference between the 1.1 motor and the 1.2 motor, set them both in max assist, max power, then pedal up the same hill (with the same rider), the 1.2 should get to the top faster with 320w assistance compared to 240w assistance. Just make sure the rider is putting the same effort in on both bikes and that effort is sufficient for the both motors to be giving max assist.

I’ve pretty much done this test. I have a technical climb I can’t do on a 1.1 motor, but can do on a 1.2 motor… both on 100/100.
I don’t fly up it like I did when I had a Trek Rail… but I can make it up it.
On my SL 1.1 I would always get to the same point and get stuck. On the SL 1.2 I get up to the top and carry on.

No, I haven’t done this in a lab under strict conditions… but I rode the SL 1.1 for over 3 years and always got to the same part - about half way up. My fitness hasn’t changed, and suddenly I can get all the way to the top.

Is the SL 1.2 motor a revelation over the 1.1? Definitely not.
Does it have noticeably more power? Yes. It has more poke all through its range, and my default setting of 30/80 on my SL 1.1 has been replaced by 15/30 on the SL 1.2 as that’s what ‘feels’ the same to me.

 

[Dax]

Ban me

This does seem like a good option.

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

The reason the data is important is that what you feel has many inputs. In the case of a motor there are two main drivers to what @knut7, @Doomanic and @p3eps are experiencing being Torque NM and Power W.

My tests have shown a noticeable increase in Torque (proven at lower speeds) and the German Lab verified this.

Torque and power are both fundamental concepts in the field of mechanics, particularly when it comes motors.

1. Torque in eBikes:
   • In eBikes, torque is the force that the electric motor generates to turn the wheels. It's essentially the twisting force that propels the bike forward. Higher torque in an eBike means more force at the pedal or wheel, making it easier to start pedaling, climb hills, or carry loads.
   • Torque is crucial for eBikes because it directly impacts the bike's ability to accelerate and climb. For example, an eBike with higher torque will be more capable in hilly terrain or when starting from a standstill, especially with a heavy load.
2. Power in eBikes:
   • Power, measured in watts (W), represents the rate at which the eBike's motor can use energy. It's a function of both the torque the motor produces and the speed at which it operates. Higher power means the bike can reach and maintain higher speeds more effectively

In summary, for an eBike:

• Torque is more about the immediate pulling power - essential for quick starts, hill climbing, and carrying loads.
• Power reflects the eBike’s overall performance, affecting top speed and how efficiently it maintains speeds, especially under varying conditions like we experience mountain biking.

Details matter especially when we are talking about billion dollar industries and where @Rob Rides EMTB and @Moderator are taking advertising $ and then trying to play sheriff with people with data that does not support the party narrative.

 

[Moderator]

The member above has elected to take a 24 hour holiday from the forum.

 

[Hitorogoshi]

what have we learned?

1 - Specialized has released an over advertised and dramatized half baked motor, at least they called it the 1.2 instead of 2.0 - so we can give them that.

2 - Should you upgrade if you have the 1.1? How deep are your pockets seems to be the only question you should ask yourself

3 - Don't get fooled by pretty videos and new toy reviews on the innerwebs, because they are generally done without proper testing and pushed out for that all elusive release day hype

 

[Doomanic]

Specialized has released an over advertised and dramatized half baked motor

Are you saying that a marketing department has made exaggerated claims about their newest, shiniest product?

Wow. In other news; water, wet, fire, hot...

 

[Zimmerframe]

Just to cover some points from my experience and others.

My 1.2 tests draw to a halt because the motor didn't feel any different, so it was impossible to test which battery's/TCU's performed, or didn't, as everything felt the same.

TESTING bikes back to back showed my 1.1 and 1.2 motors produced the same Watts and Amp draw. (Around 300w battery draw, so about 240w at the motor for an 80% efficient motor - the new motor is similarly efficient). You can conclude from that there isn't some software motor wattage exaggeration factor going on, otherwise the 1.2 motors would show higher watts and they didn't.

To quote one other example, @CjP had similar experiences and results which he shared in the LSL and KSL threads with two different 1.2 bikes compared to 1.1 bikes ridden back to back.

We concluded that either there were firmware issues or some of the first batches of motors had manufacturing/assembly errors and weren't full 1.2 motors as they only drew the same Watts as 1.1 motors.

The difficult thing with Tantrum boys problem is that his DATA !! clearly shows HIS BIKE in real world tests pulling 420W. But he FEELS it's not performing significantly more than a 1.1 - which is subjective is it not ? A long time ago in this thread I suggested maybe he had a motor or battery problem. If there's a tight bearing in the motor for instance, it could be pulling 420w, but would produce less than expected - like every other suggestion, this was ignored.

From what I understand. Despite Knut and Rob testing the bikes and in their experiences, finding the bikes did pull stronger and also showed higher power draw (data) , but because Tantrum didn't feel that (even though his data does correlate to their results) they're lying because they're being paid millions of euro's to lie, but he's right - despite everyone elses experiences - humans and journalists alike.

I got a bit confused with the last post. Rather than full on tantrum he tried to sound intelligent by quoting an excerpt from MDPI/Applied Sciences, authored by Samo Rauter ,Matej Supej and Janez Vodičar. But then didn't explain how any of that related to his data ?

For reference, as we like accurate stats, figures, links.

Examining the Efficiency of Electric-Assisted Mountain Biking across Different Types of Terrain

Mountain bikes with electric assistance (e-bikes) have gained popularity recently by allowing riders to increase their pedaling power through an electric motor. This innovation has raised questions about how e-bikes compare to traditional mountain bikes regarding physical effort, speed, and...

www.mdpi.com

He literally just admitted to feeling more Torque (like everyone else), and had previously demonstrated his bike pulling more power ?? Therefore - more and more but more unhappy ?

My tests have shown a noticeable increase in Torque (proven at lower speeds) and the German Lab verified this.

Tantrum then went full tantrum again and if I understand correctly, accused Moderator of being paid off by Spesh for telling him to be polite ? What I want to know is how do I get my cut ? "Be polite Tantrum boy" - that must be worth €1k ?

Have Knut and Rob been negligent ? Clearly, they should both have flown to SA, tested tantrums bike before he bought it & bought him dinner.

 

[Zimmerframe]

Just reading through all this again to see if some of us are missing a perspective ..

Two points really come out.

1: Tantrum feels more Torque and has more power, but ultimately seems to be basing most of his "Scientific" conclusion from Strava data - most notably the "Estimated Average Power" statistic.

For anyone not using Strava :

This really can vary hugely depending on the terrain and how you ride, ease off here and there for a few moments and the average plumets.

Interestingly it should be noted that this is "ESTIMATED". So leaping up and down and throwing all of your toys out of the pram because other peoples experiences and Data they've recorded from TCU's doesn't fit with your scientific "ESTIMATION" seems a little ludicrous.

2. There are constant demands to "measure data" and repeated references to car manufactures as examples.

We've had several discussions in the past about making dyno's and how to best measure ACTUAL motor powers.

The reality is that they're generally all designed or programmed to produce power in different ways. It's not just about peak power. A dyno can give you scientific results, but in the real world a motor which appears to excel on a dyno might feel total crap when you're riding - the same as a car engine tuned only peak power.

As we know from Diesel gate, it's fairly easy to make something perform perfectly in a lab/dyno - but not be doing what it's supposed to in the real world.

Hence, we rely on the experiences and feedback from people who ride lots of different bikes and motors to give us an idea of what to expect - based on that persons experiences and comparisons. They're not robots or AI's. We ride our bikes in the real world on real trails doing mainly stupid things ! We don't want to know which is the best in a lab - the manufacturers tell us those numbers, we want to know how they feel to a human in comparison to the competition.

 

[Doomanic]

The member above has elected to take a 24 hour holiday from the forum.

Is he in a padded cell for the duration?