The King has no clothes - SL 1.2 Power

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

The King Has No Clothes.
In my quest to race E Enduro, I upgraded my beloved Kenevo SL. I achieved this by purchasing a brand new SL equipped with the 1.2 motor, swapping motors and TCUs, and then selling the other bike at a discount.
The swapping process was straightforward. The only adjustment required was the bash guard, a modification that took a mere 5 minutes with a Dremel. My local bike shop also advised me to switch the TCU, expressing concerns that the motor could be rendered inoperative if I used my original TCU. Altogether, the entire procedure was done in about 30 minutes.

It seemed marginally more potent as I test-rode it around the parking lot. However, I felt a sense of unease, as if something wasn't right.

I proceeded to a familiar local trail that I've frequented for over a year, for which I have a good amount of data. To my disappointment, I realized I had forgotten to connect the power meter during my excitement. Still, it felt evident that the bike wasn't delivering the promised 80 Watts of additional power.

I revisited the spec sheets to check if I'd misunderstood the numbers, but there was no error. The Levo SL Gen 2 is equipped with the Specialized 1.2 motor, boasting an output of 320W and 50 Nm of torque. In contrast, the Specialized SL 1.1 motor delivers 240W and 35 Nm.

Having already made the investment, I resolved to simply enjoy the bike for what it was. Nevertheless, during my most recent ride with the power meter duly connected, I was left pondering.

This is the data from my ride 18 April 2023 with the SL 1.1 motor:

To normalise the data from the Strava segment, which I use to gauge my fitness, I rode 29:24 on this day.


Here is the data from today, 14th August 2023:

As you can see, I'm fitter and produced 20 watts more average power resulting in a time for the same segment 27.51, which is about right with me producing 10% more power.

I then dug further into the data and found that my Garmin records battery consumption:

Here is the data from 18 April:

And here is the data from today, the 14th of August:

What am I missing, has Specialized completely misled us with the 1.2 motors?
How can a motor that produces 80 more watts only use 2% more battery?
Based on me riding a trail that I know exceptionally well, I would expect to see a 20%-30% increase; why am I not?

 

[SquireRides]

The King Has No Clothes.
In my quest to race E Enduro, I upgraded my beloved Kenevo SL. I achieved this by purchasing a brand new SL equipped with the 1.2 motor, swapping motors and TCUs, and then selling the other bike at a discount.
The swapping process was straightforward. The only adjustment required was the bash guard, a modification that took a mere 5 minutes with a Dremel. My local bike shop also advised me to switch the TCU, expressing concerns that the motor could be rendered inoperative if I used my original TCU. Altogether, the entire procedure was done in about 30 minutes.

It seemed marginally more potent as I test-rode it around the parking lot. However, I felt a sense of unease, as if something wasn't right.

I proceeded to a familiar local trail that I've frequented for over a year, for which I have a good amount of data. To my disappointment, I realized I had forgotten to connect the power meter during my excitement. Still, it felt evident that the bike wasn't delivering the promised 80 Watts of additional power.

I revisited the spec sheets to check if I'd misunderstood the numbers, but there was no error. The Levo SL Gen 2 is equipped with the Specialized 1.2 motor, boasting an output of 320W and 50 Nm of torque. In contrast, the Specialized SL 1.1 motor delivers 240W and 35 Nm.

Having already made the investment, I resolved to simply enjoy the bike for what it was. Nevertheless, during my most recent ride with the power meter duly connected, I was left pondering.

This is the data from my ride 18 April 2023 with the SL 1.1 motor:

View attachment 122505


To normalise the data from the Strava segment, which I use to gauge my fitness, I rode 29:24 on this day.


Here is the data from today, 14th August 2023:
View attachment 122506




As you can see, I'm fitter and produced 20 watts more average power resulting in a time for the same segment 27.51, which is about right with me producing 10% more power.

I then dug further into the data and found that my Garmin records battery consumption:

Here is the data from 18 April:
View attachment 122507

And here is the data from today, the 14th of August:

View attachment 122508

What am I missing, has Specialized completely misled us with the 1.2 motors?
How can a motor that produces 80 more watts only use 2% more battery?
Based on me riding a trail that I know exceptionally well, I would expect to see a 20%-30% increase; why am I not?

Is that on the OG battery in your KSL, or did you bring the battery from the LSL1.2? Could be the efficiency of a fresh battery?

Even if it's the OG battery, ambient temperature could account for it.
Or other tweaks to the motors - I think Spesh mentioned something about improved efficiency in their interviews...

 

[CjP]

The King Has No Clothes.
In my quest to race E Enduro, I upgraded my beloved Kenevo SL. I achieved this by purchasing a brand new SL equipped with the 1.2 motor, swapping motors and TCUs, and then selling the other bike at a discount.
The swapping process was straightforward. The only adjustment required was the bash guard, a modification that took a mere 5 minutes with a Dremel. My local bike shop also advised me to switch the TCU, expressing concerns that the motor could be rendered inoperative if I used my original TCU. Altogether, the entire procedure was done in about 30 minutes.

It seemed marginally more potent as I test-rode it around the parking lot. However, I felt a sense of unease, as if something wasn't right.

I proceeded to a familiar local trail that I've frequented for over a year, for which I have a good amount of data. To my disappointment, I realized I had forgotten to connect the power meter during my excitement. Still, it felt evident that the bike wasn't delivering the promised 80 Watts of additional power.

I revisited the spec sheets to check if I'd misunderstood the numbers, but there was no error. The Levo SL Gen 2 is equipped with the Specialized 1.2 motor, boasting an output of 320W and 50 Nm of torque. In contrast, the Specialized SL 1.1 motor delivers 240W and 35 Nm.

Having already made the investment, I resolved to simply enjoy the bike for what it was. Nevertheless, during my most recent ride with the power meter duly connected, I was left pondering.

This is the data from my ride 18 April 2023 with the SL 1.1 motor:

View attachment 122505


To normalise the data from the Strava segment, which I use to gauge my fitness, I rode 29:24 on this day.


Here is the data from today, 14th August 2023:
View attachment 122506




As you can see, I'm fitter and produced 20 watts more average power resulting in a time for the same segment 27.51, which is about right with me producing 10% more power.

I then dug further into the data and found that my Garmin records battery consumption:

Here is the data from 18 April:
View attachment 122507

And here is the data from today, the 14th of August:

View attachment 122508

What am I missing, has Specialized completely misled us with the 1.2 motors?
How can a motor that produces 80 more watts only use 2% more battery?
Based on me riding a trail that I know exceptionally well, I would expect to see a 20%-30% increase; why am I not?

Fear not, there are motors out there producing the correct numbers. For some reason there are a bunch of people who have received motors that seem to produce power similar to a Gen 1.
We are still trying to work out why this is the case.

Can I ask how many km/mls your bike has had since new?
Also a screen shot of your battery/motor software would help for comparisons sake
You can also see what output your battery is putting out in the mission control app.
Dodgy ones are putting out around 6amps vs 7.8/8 amps for the correct 1.2 motor.

Once we have enough date I guess we could get Specialized Rider care involved

 

[Hitorogoshi]

firstly - thanks for posting in the correct thread
secondly - kudos for having the balls to do this, I almost went the same route
thirdly - Spez did a Spez on us. Like I mentioned somewhere else in a thread - It's named the 1.2 for a reason.

In all honesty I hope this can all be fixed with firmware. Because it's BS

 

[p3eps]

I was out on Saturday on my LSL 1.2, riding in my Trail mode - which is currently 15/45, and I covered 27.5 miles and just over 3000ft in 2hrs 55mins. I had my RE plugged in, but I finished the ride with 92% - so I only used 58%.

It's not often I get the chance to go out 2 days in a row... but there was a green light from my wife - and despite my legs feeling ruined, I grabbed the opportunity.

I went to a place with a fire road up the middle, and a few singletrack runs off of this. I used my Turbo 100/100 to get up, and then used my Eco to come down. I thought using it as a shuttle would give my legs a bit of a rest.
18.35 miles / 3850ft over the course of about 2 and a half hours.

I had my RE on drain first, and once I got to just over 110%, I swapped my RE for my second one (the car was at the bottom of one of the runs). Once it was at about 115%, I removed the RE completely. I finished the day with 38% on the internal battery. When the RE is using the last 5-10%, it seems to put the bike in a slow mode - which is why I bailed at 110-115%.

I generally don't use Mission Control for anything other than setting the assist levels since I use a Garmin 840... but yesterday I was continually checking / recording the voltages / current used after the experiments last week.
When in Turbo and climbing, I had a fairly steady 7.6 - 8A, and saw peaks of 8.80A.

Like mentioned in the other thread, I'm positive I wasn't getting full power out of my SL1.2 motor for my first couple of rides, and as time has gone on it has increased. I can now climb 2 specific steep rocky technical climbs that I'd never managed on my SL1.1... and I can assure you that's not down to my fitness or technique improving

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

thanks, guys, for the engagement good to be part of a community; I typically sit on the sidelines, but glad I got involved.

As a consolidated reply:

1. @SquireRides Yes, it's the original battery, I had not thought of it being the limiting factor as it's still 100% healthy. Lithium batteries will produce to specification until 80% healthy. Thinking about it, it's not impossible that the BMS is limiting the AMP's. I still own the other bike, so it's being swapped as I speak.

2. Regarding temperature, knowing a little about lithium batteries, I can tell you that both rides were well within the operating temp. Secondly, using lithium batteries at 1 C, the variance will be less than 1% peak output. A lower temp could mean less capacity, which only further amplifies the fact that the motor is underperforming

3. When it comes to motor efficacy, yes, they might have tweaked one or two things, but adding 80 watts needs to come from somewhere

3. Thank you @CjP means a lot that I'm not alone with this issue. I was not aware that the app has AMPS. Sadly the bike is already in to swap the battery. I will provide feedback tomorrow on the AMPS it's pulling.

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

Breaking News! An Epic Tale of Batteries, Bikes, and Bad Balance...

In an astonishing development, after my intense battery swap, I can confidently exclaim, "EUREKA!" There's an improvement. However, it’s not the “I’ve-got-the-power” 80W boost I dreamed of while wearing my mad scientist lab coat, building my KSL into what it is today.

Now, slight hiccup: I had a graceful (and by graceful, I mean embarrassing) tumble on the last turn. Think of it as my dramatic entrance to the ground. Thus, our data set might have a few gaps,

From the piece of this jigsaw puzzle known as the "big climb", my performance today was a sizzling 243W with a time of 4:49. In comparison, yesterday, with my raw unbridled power, I churned out 253W, at 4:53. It felt like my bike and I had a heart-to-heart: I gave a bit less, but the bike, in a dramatic soap-opera twist, decided to give more in the tight turns.

Hey @CjP, here is the battery data:

And my 2 cents (which, let's face it, probably resonates with millions, give or take a few):

1. The Motor? Same old dude with a new hat. They've jazzed it up mostly to serenade us less.
2. Specialized peered into its crystal ball (or warranty data), took a leap of faith, and added a bit more zing to the power.
3. That zing? Somewhere between 10W and 40W.

I was daydreaming of a glorious bridge, a majestic one, connecting the SL and the full-power machines. But surprise, surprise! It seems they spent the R&D cash on recruiting the wizards behind Apple’s “creative” statistics. I guess an apple a day keeps the power away?

 

[Hitorogoshi]

And my 2 cents (which, let's face it, probably resonates with millions, give or take a few):

1. The Motor? Same old dude with a new hat. They've jazzed it up mostly to serenade us less.
2. Specialized peered into its crystal ball (or warranty data), took a leap of faith, and added a bit more zing to the power.
3. That zing? Somewhere between 10W and 40W.

I was daydreaming of a glorious bridge, a majestic one, connecting the SL and the full-power machines. But surprise, surprise! It seems they spent the R&D cash on recruiting the wizards behind Apple’s “creative” statistics. I guess an apple a day keeps the power away?

haha - well - there we have it folks. Congrats on your assessments and time doing this. Pretty much sums up what I've been saying all along. However the issues some ppl are facing seem to be a combo of battery and motor firmware. Could be a mismatch.

 

[CjP]

Breaking News! An Epic Tale of Batteries, Bikes, and Bad Balance...

In an astonishing development, after my intense battery swap, I can confidently exclaim, "EUREKA!" There's an improvement. However, it’s not the “I’ve-got-the-power” 80W boost I dreamed of while wearing my mad scientist lab coat, building my KSL into what it is today.

Now, slight hiccup: I had a graceful (and by graceful, I mean embarrassing) tumble on the last turn. Think of it as my dramatic entrance to the ground. Thus, our data set might have a few gaps,

From the piece of this jigsaw puzzle known as the "big climb", my performance today was a sizzling 243W with a time of 4:49. In comparison, yesterday, with my raw unbridled power, I churned out 253W, at 4:53. It felt like my bike and I had a heart-to-heart: I gave a bit less, but the bike, in a dramatic soap-opera twist, decided to give more in the tight turns.
View attachment 122552
View attachment 122553


Hey @CjP, here is the battery data:

View attachment 122551

And my 2 cents (which, let's face it, probably resonates with millions, give or take a few):

1. The Motor? Same old dude with a new hat. They've jazzed it up mostly to serenade us less.
2. Specialized peered into its crystal ball (or warranty data), took a leap of faith, and added a bit more zing to the power.
3. That zing? Somewhere between 10W and 40W.

I was daydreaming of a glorious bridge, a majestic one, connecting the SL and the full-power machines. But surprise, surprise! It seems they spent the R&D cash on recruiting the wizards behind Apple’s “creative” statistics. I guess an apple a day keeps the power away?

Seems down on voltage compared to others with similar amps. Which would explain your lack lustre reaction.

A 50% torque increase and 30% power increase would be immediately noticeable.

Somethings not right with these Gen 2s and they need to sort it out asap. A real let down for an otherwise great product!

 

[p3eps]

Breaking News! An Epic Tale of Batteries, Bikes, and Bad Balance...

In an astonishing development, after my intense battery swap, I can confidently exclaim, "EUREKA!" There's an improvement. However, it’s not the “I’ve-got-the-power” 80W boost I dreamed of while wearing my mad scientist lab coat, building my KSL into what it is today.

Now, slight hiccup: I had a graceful (and by graceful, I mean embarrassing) tumble on the last turn. Think of it as my dramatic entrance to the ground. Thus, our data set might have a few gaps,

From the piece of this jigsaw puzzle known as the "big climb", my performance today was a sizzling 243W with a time of 4:49. In comparison, yesterday, with my raw unbridled power, I churned out 253W, at 4:53. It felt like my bike and I had a heart-to-heart: I gave a bit less, but the bike, in a dramatic soap-opera twist, decided to give more in the tight turns.
View attachment 122552
View attachment 122553


Hey @CjP, here is the battery data:

View attachment 122551

And my 2 cents (which, let's face it, probably resonates with millions, give or take a few):

1. The Motor? Same old dude with a new hat. They've jazzed it up mostly to serenade us less.
2. Specialized peered into its crystal ball (or warranty data), took a leap of faith, and added a bit more zing to the power.
3. That zing? Somewhere between 10W and 40W.

I was daydreaming of a glorious bridge, a majestic one, connecting the SL and the full-power machines. But surprise, surprise! It seems they spent the R&D cash on recruiting the wizards behind Apple’s “creative” statistics. I guess an apple a day keeps the power away?

Do you have any of the data from your old motor?

According to your screenshot, you're getting 46V x 8.60A = 394.6W from the motor.
With Specialized's claimed 80% efficiency, that's 316.5W from the motor... which is not far off the claimed 320W from the 1.2 motor... and almost 80W higher than the 1.1 motor.

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

Do you have any of the data from your old motor?

According to your screenshot, you're getting 46V x 8.60A = 394.6W from the motor.
With Specialized's claimed 80% efficiency, that's 316.5W from the motor... which is not far off the claimed 320W from the 1.2 motor... and almost 80W higher than the 1.1 motor.

I believe this underscores my point regarding "Apple-type" marketing strategies. While there might be select cases—when one cherry-picks the data—that support this view, it doesn't hold consistently. My expectation was that this would be evident across the power curve. However, I can assure you, backed by data, that this is not the case.

From my analysis, at low speeds and a specific cadence, the motor might produce 80W, but this occurs less than 5% of the time. This means for 90% of its operation, the motor's performance is only marginally better.

I really want this not to be the case and iv tried hard to prove otherwise. However, the data simply does not add up.

 

[p3eps]

I believe this underscores my point regarding "Apple-type" marketing strategies. While there might be select cases—when one cherry-picks the data—that support this view, it doesn't hold consistently. My expectation was that this would be evident across the power curve. However, I can assure you, backed by data, that this is not the case.

From my analysis, at low speeds and a specific cadence, the motor might produce 80W, but this occurs less than 5% of the time. This means for 90% of its operation, the motor's performance is only marginally better.

I really want this not to be the case and iv tried hard to prove otherwise. However, the data simply does not add up.

I used to ride my SL1.1 predominantly in 30/80. When I tried my SL1.2 bike on this setting, the power seemed massively more. It felt more like what 60/80 would feel like on the 1.1.

Over my first few rides, I kept dialling the SL1.2 back - trying to find what the equivalent (feeling) setting was... and I've settled on 15/45. 15/45 'feels' about the same level of assistance as 30/80 did on the 1.1, and also uses slightly less battery.

To me, my SL1.2 has much more power all across the range than my 1.1 ever did. I've said before that the first few rides on Turbo 100/100 didn't feel much different from my 1.1 to 1.2... but now there's a significant difference.

 

[iamanej]

Breaking News! An Epic Tale of Batteries, Bikes, and Bad Balance...

In an astonishing development, after my intense battery swap, I can confidently exclaim, "EUREKA!" There's an improvement. However, it’s not the “I’ve-got-the-power” 80W boost I dreamed of while wearing my mad scientist lab coat, building my KSL into what it is today.

Now, slight hiccup: I had a graceful (and by graceful, I mean embarrassing) tumble on the last turn. Think of it as my dramatic entrance to the ground. Thus, our data set might have a few gaps,

From the piece of this jigsaw puzzle known as the "big climb", my performance today was a sizzling 243W with a time of 4:49. In comparison, yesterday, with my raw unbridled power, I churned out 253W, at 4:53. It felt like my bike and I had a heart-to-heart: I gave a bit less, but the bike, in a dramatic soap-opera twist, decided to give more in the tight turns.
View attachment 122552
View attachment 122553


Hey @CjP, here is the battery data:

View attachment 122551

And my 2 cents (which, let's face it, probably resonates with millions, give or take a few):

1. The Motor? Same old dude with a new hat. They've jazzed it up mostly to serenade us less.
2. Specialized peered into its crystal ball (or warranty data), took a leap of faith, and added a bit more zing to the power.
3. That zing? Somewhere between 10W and 40W.

I was daydreaming of a glorious bridge, a majestic one, connecting the SL and the full-power machines. But surprise, surprise! It seems they spent the R&D cash on recruiting the wizards behind Apple’s “creative” statistics. I guess an apple a day keeps the power away?

Why dont you simply add the motor wattage on to the TCU screen and just look at it in real time?
My 1.1 maxes out at about 305W

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

Why dont you simply add the motor wattage on to the TCU screen and just look at it in real time?
My 1.1 maxes out at about 305W

Here you go, read what you need to out of this.

 

[iamanej]

Here you go, read what you need to out of this.
View attachment 122559

Whoa - that is too much power for 320w?

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

Whoa - that is too much power for 320w?

Indeed, that's the exact point we aim to validate with additional data. Something is clearly amiss. I want to clarify that I'm not biased against Specialized, and I have a vested interest in this matter.

The complication isn't merely about the quantity of power delivered; it's nuanced. Key considerations include when the power is delivered, under which conditions, and for how long. Consequently, I believe analyzing a climb provides a comprehensive view, given the diverse conditions it presents. But revisiting the data I shared, there's a glaring discrepancy. As @CjP highlighted, the proclaimed boosts in power are significant, yet these don't seem to be reflected in real-world tests.

 

[Zimmerframe]

Whoa - that is too much power for 320w?

No that's right.

People are confusing power drawn from the battery and power produced by the motor. As @p3eps says, the motor is approximately 80% efficient so to produce 320w it needs to draw 400w.

The numbers you see are the battery draw numbers, not the motor power output.

Roughly, this would be 50 volts * 8 amps = 400w.

The Mahle motor has voltage compensation, so as you can see in @Fit_Fat_almost_50's example with his voltage low (46v) because the battery is discharged to 44% , the system then allows a higher current draw (amps) to "compensate" so you get the same power through the voltage range. Otherwise he'd have 8*46 = 368w draw and the motor would feel less powerful as the battery depletes.

There are potentially two issues with the 1.2 power.

The primary problem, for some reason, certain motors only draw 6 amps at full charge (300w battery/240 motor). This can be seen on the display when you ride the bike. The LSL2 was delayed considerably, so it might be that some bikes only had the provisional/1.1 firmware installed on them and were missed when the correct 320w (motor) firmware was deployed. Or there's some other issue like certain TCU's not supporting the power levels correctly/certain batteries have physical limits on or incorrect firmware.

The second problem is considerably harder to prove, which is for examples like @Fit_Fat_almost_50's. The numbers would appear to show that in theory his motor is performing as you'd expect. But his "external" power figures show it as not providing any more power. In this case it looks like the system is saying ok, have 8 amps and it's displaying that, but for some reason the motor's only actually drawing 6 amps. Which could be a faulty motor or battery.

 

[Hitorogoshi]

No that's right.

People are confusing power drawn from the battery and power produced by the motor. As @p3eps says, the motor is approximately 80% efficient so to produce 320w it needs to draw 400w.

The numbers you see are the battery draw numbers, not the motor power output.

Roughly, this would be 50 volts * 8 amps = 400w.

The Mahle motor has voltage compensation, so as you can see in @Fit_Fat_almost_50's example with his voltage low (46v) because the battery is discharged to 44% , the system then allows a higher current draw (amps) to "compensate" so you get the same power through the voltage range. Otherwise he'd have 8*46 = 368w draw and the motor would feel less powerful as the battery depletes.

There are potentially two issues with the 1.2 power.

The primary problem, for some reason, certain motors only draw 6 amps at full charge (300w battery/240 motor). This can be seen on the display when you ride the bike. The LSL2 was delayed considerably, so it might be that some bikes only had the provisional/1.1 firmware installed on them and were missed when the correct 320w (motor) firmware was deployed. Or there's some other issue like certain TCU's not supporting the power levels correctly/certain batteries have physical limits on or incorrect firmware.

The second problem is considerably harder to prove, which is for examples like @Fit_Fat_almost_50's. The numbers would appear to show that in theory his motor is performing as you'd expect. But his "external" power figures show it as not providing any more power. In this case it looks like the system is saying ok, have 8 amps and it's displaying that, but for some reason the motor's only actually drawing 6 amps. Which could be a faulty motor or battery.

OR - we got sold a Dyson

 

[p3eps]

The second problem is considerably harder to prove, which is for examples like @Fit_Fat_almost_50's. The numbers would appear to show that in theory his motor is performing as you'd expect. But his "external" power figures show it as not providing any more power. In this case it looks like the system is saying ok, have 8 amps and it's displaying that, but for some reason the motor's only actually drawing 6 amps. Which could be a faulty motor or battery.

That'd be a bit of an issue if he's transplanted the motor from a new Levo SL, then sold that bike with the old 1.1 motor in it.
You'd have to have an extremely friendly LBS to do a warranty motor on a bike you don't actually have anymore.

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

No that's right.

People are confusing power drawn from the battery and power produced by the motor. As @p3eps says, the motor is approximately 80% efficient so to produce 320w it needs to draw 400w.

The numbers you see are the battery draw numbers, not the motor power output.

Roughly, this would be 50 volts * 8 amps = 400w.

The Mahle motor has voltage compensation, so as you can see in @Fit_Fat_almost_50's example with his voltage low (46v) because the battery is discharged to 44% , the system then allows a higher current draw (amps) to "compensate" so you get the same power through the voltage range. Otherwise he'd have 8*46 = 368w draw and the motor would feel less powerful as the battery depletes.

There are potentially two issues with the 1.2 power.

The primary problem, for some reason, certain motors only draw 6 amps at full charge (300w battery/240 motor). This can be seen on the display when you ride the bike. The LSL2 was delayed considerably, so it might be that some bikes only had the provisional/1.1 firmware installed on them and were missed when the correct 320w (motor) firmware was deployed. Or there's some other issue like certain TCU's not supporting the power levels correctly/certain batteries have physical limits on or incorrect firmware.

The second problem is considerably harder to prove, which is for examples like @Fit_Fat_almost_50's. The numbers would appear to show that in theory his motor is performing as you'd expect. But his "external" power figures show it as not providing any more power. In this case it looks like the system is saying ok, have 8 amps and it's displaying that, but for some reason the motor's only actually drawing 6 amps. Which could be a faulty motor or battery.

I have a theory from a technical standpoint. Battery Management Systems (BMS) are designed to monitor and regulate the operation of batteries, especially in preventing them from operating outside their safe limits. If the BMS detects a current draw that's beyond the battery's capability or might cause damage or overheating, it will intervene to limit the current draw.

Adding a Range Extender, which essentially increases the number of cells and total capacity, should allow for a greater current draw if the theory holds. This is because the load (or current draw) would be distributed across a larger number of cells, potentially preventing any one cell from being overburdened.

The experiment could shed light on whether the battery and its BMS are the limiting factors in the power delivery of the device. If the theory is correct and the BMS was indeed throttling the power to protect the battery, I should observe a more consistent power output with the Range Extender in place.

 

[Zimmerframe]

I have a theory from a technical standpoint. Battery Management Systems (BMS) are designed to monitor and regulate the operation of batteries, especially in preventing them from operating outside their safe limits. If the BMS detects a current draw that's beyond the battery's capability or might cause damage or overheating, it will intervene to limit the current draw.

Adding a Range Extender, which essentially increases the number of cells and total capacity, should allow for a greater current draw if the theory holds. This is because the load (or current draw) would be distributed across a larger number of cells, potentially preventing any one cell from being overburdened.

The experiment could shed light on whether the battery and its BMS are the limiting factors in the power delivery of the device. If the theory is correct and the BMS was indeed throttling the power to protect the battery, I should observe a more consistent power output with the Range Extender in place.

I'm not sure why, but for some reason I thought/presumed you'd already tried it with an extender.

You could also try it with just the extender to rule out the battery completely.

 

[iamanej]

Indeed, that's the exact point we aim to validate with additional data. Something is clearly amiss. I want to clarify that I'm not biased against Specialized, and I have a vested interest in this matter.

The complication isn't merely about the quantity of power delivered; it's nuanced. Key considerations include when the power is delivered, under which conditions, and for how long. Consequently, I believe analyzing a climb provides a comprehensive view, given the diverse conditions it presents. But revisiting the data I shared, there's a glaring discrepancy. As @CjP highlighted, the proclaimed boosts in power are significant, yet these don't seem to be reflected in real-world tests.

Did you try to buy BLevo app for mobile phone and record your run in there? It takes notes about the battery drain and battery draw thru the ride and can upload it to strava...

 

[Zimmerframe]

Did you try to buy BLevo app for mobile phone and record your run in there? It takes notes about the battery drain and battery draw thru the ride and can upload it to strava...

Except it doesn't work with a mastermind TCU, so he'd have to swap back to a TCU 1.0 to get Blevo working, or use it with the newer levociraptor - but I'm not sure that would pass all the data through.

 

[iamanej]

Except it doesn't work with a mastermind TCU, so he'd have to swap back to a TCU 1.0 to get Blevo working, or use it with the newer levociraptor - but I'm not sure that would pass all the data through.

Try it. It is not expensive (the app)

 

[Zimmerframe]

Try it. It is not expensive (the app)

I have it. It's great ..

But .. like I said ... it's won't work with a mastermind TCU, so he can't use it for testing.

 

[iamanej]

I have it. It's great ..

View attachment 122625

But .. like I said ... it's won't work with a mastermind TCU, so he can't use it for testing.

You got a 2.1 motor?

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

I have it. It's great ..

View attachment 122625

But .. like I said ... it's won't work with a mastermind TCU, so he can't use it for testing.

I'm in the movie of throwing good money after bad.

 

[Hitorogoshi]

I'm in the movie of throwing good money after bad.
View attachment 122629

I like this guy - you're my wifes worst nightmare

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

From my tests and observations over the past few days, I've derived some key insights about the performance dynamics of my bike, particularly in relation to its battery and power management:

1. Performance Comparisons: When I contrasted the bike's operation on the 14th of August (with the old battery) against the 15th of August (with the new battery), there was a discernible change. This shift was even more pronounced when I compared the 15th to the 18th of August, during which I incorporated the Range Extender.
2. Battery Limitations: I've researched standard specifications for 18650 battery cells, which I assume are being used in the SL's battery. The 1C discharge rating indicates a maximum continuous output equivalent to the battery's capacity. In the case of the SL, with its 320Wh battery, this translates to an output limitation of around 320W. However, it's worth noting that this doesn't mean the entire 320W is available solely for driving the motor; other system functions or reserves might be consuming a portion.
3. Burst Capabilities: While there's a continuous power limit, batteries often have a burst capability that allows them to momentarily provide power beyond the continuous limit. The specifics of this burst capability, I found, vary depending on the battery manufacturer.
4. The Role of BMS: Drawing from my data and understanding of battery management systems (BMS), I suspect that the BMS in place might be actively limiting the current to ensure battery longevity and safety. This means the real-world performance of the bike could be curtailed by the BMS rather than the actual motor power.

Now, a question lingers for me: What are the exact settings or limitations Specialized has programmed into the BMS? This information is crucial, as it could provide deeper insights into the performance constraints I've observed. While I understand that manufacturers might keep such details proprietary, having this knowledge would offer a more comprehensive understanding of my bike's behaviour.

In essence, my data and research emphasize that an e-bike's performance isn't just about its motor or battery capacity in isolation; it's a holistic system where each component, including the BMS, plays a significant role.


More data will give me more insight so once the levociraptor arrives we can go deeper into this rabbit hole.

 

[Endi]

From my tests and observations over the past few days, I've derived some key insights about the performance dynamics of my bike, particularly in relation to its battery and power management:

1. Performance Comparisons: When I contrasted the bike's operation on the 14th of August (with the old battery) against the 15th of August (with the new battery), there was a discernible change. This shift was even more pronounced when I compared the 15th to the 18th of August, during which I incorporated the Range Extender.
2. Battery Limitations: I've researched standard specifications for 18650 battery cells, which I assume are being used in the SL's battery. The 1C discharge rating indicates a maximum continuous output equivalent to the battery's capacity. In the case of the SL, with its 320Wh battery, this translates to an output limitation of around 320W. However, it's worth noting that this doesn't mean the entire 320W is available solely for driving the motor; other system functions or reserves might be consuming a portion.
3. Burst Capabilities: While there's a continuous power limit, batteries often have a burst capability that allows them to momentarily provide power beyond the continuous limit. The specifics of this burst capability, I found, vary depending on the battery manufacturer.
4. The Role of BMS: Drawing from my data and understanding of battery management systems (BMS), I suspect that the BMS in place might be actively limiting the current to ensure battery longevity and safety. This means the real-world performance of the bike could be curtailed by the BMS rather than the actual motor power.

Now, a question lingers for me: What are the exact settings or limitations Specialized has programmed into the BMS? This information is crucial, as it could provide deeper insights into the performance constraints I've observed. While I understand that manufacturers might keep such details proprietary, having this knowledge would offer a more comprehensive understanding of my bike's behaviour.

In essence, my data and research emphasize that an e-bike's performance isn't just about its motor or battery capacity in isolation; it's a holistic system where each component, including the BMS, plays a significant role.


More data will give me more insight so once the levociraptor arrives we can go deeper into this rabbit hole.

I am seriously interested in the results you are experimenting, I was planning to by a new SL with 1,2 motor to do the swap ike you did, even considered to buy a kid's SL as it is cheaper and has same engine same TCU as Levo SL, and for Kid's the 35Nm would be still a good support, however I was told, take into consideration that your bike and the TCU, Motor, Batter as parts are must be confugured together, as I found out Specialized limits the performance based on the parts, did you try to use the setup of your bike with the part number of the bike new SL you sold? It may makes differendce, if it does not, then anyone, who might has access to Kid's SL would try out the swap .