The King has no clothes - SL 1.2 Power

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

Added Percentage change of Spd-to-Power Ratio and comments for ease of comparison:

1. Power-Time (Wh):
   • This is calculated by multiplying the Power (in watts) by the duration of the activity (in hours).
   • Formula: Power (W) × Duration (hours)
2. Speed-to-Power Ratio:
   • This is the ratio of average speed to power. It indicates how much speed was achieved per unit of power.
   • Formula: Average Speed (km/h) ÷ Power (W)
3. % of Max Speed-to-Power Ratio:
   • This compares each Speed-to-Power ratio against the maximum ratio in the dataset, represented as a percentage.
   • Formula: (Individual Speed-to-Power Ratio ÷ Maximum Speed-to-Power Ratio) × 100%

Now that I have built out the model as I get more data it's going to be easier to input.

From a theoretical perspective I calculated an 80W increase would result in a reduction in time using the 18th of April
1 minute and 18 seconds and the result would be a time of 3:44

Here is the formula used:

Old Distance = Old Speed × Old Time = 14.9 km/h × (5/60 + 2/3600) hours = 14.9 km/h × 5.0333/60 hours = 1.24722 km
With the new speed (from our previous calculation): New Speed=19.986km/hNew Speed=19.986km/h

New Time=Old DistanceNew SpeedNew Time=New SpeedOld Distance= 1.24722 km / 19.986 km/h = 0.06235 hours

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

I am seriously interestedin 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 .

Honestly, the verdict is still up in the air. Based on my preliminary tests, it's evident that the current software grants a performance boost ranging from 2% to 7%.

All the electronics and software are from the Gen 2 SL on my bike.

This naturally raises the question: Where did Specialized source its figures? Delving deeper, we see that the devil truly is in the details. Do I believe there's an 80w increase? Absolutely. But why doesn't this reflect in my tests? Because this 80w spike is realized only at the peak power output, and it's fleeting—lasting merely a few seconds.

A logical follow-up would be to inquire if Specialized plans to rectify this with software updates. From my perspective, that seems unlikely. The battery, in its current state, can't maintain that intense power output for more than a moment.

For KSL owners contemplating an "upgrade", here's what this revelation implies:

1. A comprehensive system overhaul is mandatory: TCU, Motor, and Battery coupled with the addition of a range extender.
2. Based on my evaluations, anticipate a best-case performance increase of around 7%

I have already made the investment and I will continue to perform tests and report back on the results. I think if anyone is considering the upgrade, you might want to wait a few weeks to see what the data yields

 

[iamanej]

Specialized should hire you!!!

 

[Dave_B]

has your research reached a stage where we know what BMS, Motor, TCU software and firmware versions work together to give the improved performance ?

 

[Hitorogoshi]

Specialized should hire you!!!

why would they do that? That would just cost them money and destroy profit margins.

 

[iamanej]

Honestly, the verdict is still up in the air. Based on my preliminary tests, it's evident that the current software grants a performance boost ranging from 2% to 7%.

All the electronics and software are from the Gen 2 SL on my bike.

This naturally raises the question: Where did Specialized source its figures? Delving deeper, we see that the devil truly is in the details. Do I believe there's an 80w increase? Absolutely. But why doesn't this reflect in my tests? Because this 80w spike is realized only at the peak power output, and it's fleeting—lasting merely a few seconds.

A logical follow-up would be to inquire if Specialized plans to rectify this with software updates. From my perspective, that seems unlikely. The battery, in its current state, can't maintain that intense power output for more than a moment.

For KSL owners contemplating an "upgrade", here's what this revelation implies:

1. A comprehensive system overhaul is mandatory: TCU, Motor, and Battery coupled with the addition of a range extender.
2. Based on my evaluations, anticipate a best-case performance increase of around 7%

I have already made the investment and I will continue to perform tests and report back on the results. I think if anyone is considering the upgrade, you might want to wait a few weeks to see what the data yields

Great work!!!
I would love spec to drop the mahle motor and just take the one that sits in Orbea Rise and use better cells for their battery. Just for info - i've bought aftermarket 480wh extender for KSL and it weights only 1.8 kg. That is the same as internal 320wh.
Imagine having stock 480wh... that is 50% increase if we are speaking about more range or more power if they would use 65nm motor like the one Orbea used.
Even TQ would be a better choice :
Trek Fuel EXe (50Nm motor & 360Wh battery) – 3.68kg
Specialized Levo SL (35Nm motor & 320Wh battery) – 3.75kg
Orbea Rise (60Nm motor & 360Wh battery) – 4.8kg

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

Thank you, @iamanej! I take that as a compliment. However, I can assure you that Specialized employs engineers who are much more skilled than I am. Projects like these are complex and require coordination among Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), product management, and manufacturing teams. So, kudos to the engineers at Specialized, I'm a big fan of their work.

I'm particularly intrigued to find out what types of batteries are used in the bikes discussed in this thread. Specialized's choice of 18650 cells is understandable. If you're curious about the risks of pushing the boundaries with lithium batteries, just check out YouTube videos on the Samsung Note 7 battery saga.

I recently experimented with the idea of battery current as a limiting factor by riding slower.

Disclaimer: For the most accurate results, we would need data from a 1.1 setup. However, the preliminary data shows that the output varies over time, especially if the rider doesn't frequently demand 100% from the bike.

To fully grasp this, let's talk about what happens to a 1C-rated battery when it's subjected to demand greater than 1C for extended periods. Imagine a car engine with a silicone pipe delivering fuel. Here, 1C represents the maximum amount of fuel the pipe can deliver. Demanding more than 1C causes the pipe to constrict, reducing its diameter. After a few seconds, the engine's performance drops below 1C.

This is where the Battery Management System (BMS) comes into play. It monitors voltage drops, which occur when the current demand exceeds the battery's C rating and also keeps an eye on temperature. When the voltage drops and the battery heats up, the BMS limits the output to well below 100% to stabilize the situation

So what does this all mean practically: If you're not aiming to push the bike beyond approximately 220W in rider output, you're likely to see a significant improvement. This improvement is likely to be even more noticeable for lighter riders. For context, I weigh 95 kg and have a Functional Power Threshold (FPT) of around 280W.

The real challenge that Specialized faces comes when people decide to upgrade their 1.1 Sworks bikes, which cost them $12,000, to the new $15,000 1.2 model, expecting it to be a massive improvement. I sympathize with the local bike shops that will have to navigate these conversations with customers.

 

[Endi]

Not much standard on her anymore so decided to give her a face job
View attachment 125765


View attachment 125766 View attachment 125767

And any news about the bike and the change of the motor? Is everything still OK
? I have read, that you can get the maximum out of it if you change TCU, Battery and Motor together, as new battery allows more discharge as the original version did.

 

[Harold]

Thank you, @iamanej! I take that as a compliment. However, I can assure you that Specialized employs engineers who are much more skilled than I am. Projects like these are complex and require coordination among Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), product management, and manufacturing teams. So, kudos to the engineers at Specialized, I'm a big fan of their work.

I'm particularly intrigued to find out what types of batteries are used in the bikes discussed in this thread. Specialized's choice of 18650 cells is understandable. If you're curious about the risks of pushing the boundaries with lithium batteries, just check out YouTube videos on the Samsung Note 7 battery saga.

I recently experimented with the idea of battery current as a limiting factor by riding slower.

View attachment 123655

Disclaimer: For the most accurate results, we would need data from a 1.1 setup. However, the preliminary data shows that the output varies over time, especially if the rider doesn't frequently demand 100% from the bike.

To fully grasp this, let's talk about what happens to a 1C-rated battery when it's subjected to demand greater than 1C for extended periods. Imagine a car engine with a silicone pipe delivering fuel. Here, 1C represents the maximum amount of fuel the pipe can deliver. Demanding more than 1C causes the pipe to constrict, reducing its diameter. After a few seconds, the engine's performance drops below 1C.

This is where the Battery Management System (BMS) comes into play. It monitors voltage drops, which occur when the current demand exceeds the battery's C rating and also keeps an eye on temperature. When the voltage drops and the battery heats up, the BMS limits the output to well below 100% to stabilize the situation

So what does this all mean practically: If you're not aiming to push the bike beyond approximately 220W in rider output, you're likely to see a significant improvement. This improvement is likely to be even more noticeable for lighter riders. For context, I weigh 95 kg and have a Functional Power Threshold (FPT) of around 280W.

The real challenge that Specialized faces comes when people decide to upgrade their 1.1 Sworks bikes, which cost them $12,000, to the new $15,000 1.2 model, expecting it to be a massive improvement. I sympathize with the local bike shops that will have to navigate these conversations with customers.

View attachment 123648

I have investigated what could be the real (peak) power output (watts) of the new SL1.2.
Aside your personal analysis, it is difficult to find some good evaluations (with scientifically measured data).
There is well @EMTBReview channel on YouTube who's trying to bring some more tangible comparisons between lightweights motors (including SL1.1 and 1.2), and those are definitively using less hazardous testing protocols compared to other well known websites/magazines. But at the end I can still feel kind of a biased for Spe...

I finally found the "scientific" information I was looking for, visiting this website:

Leichte Motoren und kleine Akkus: 6 Light-Motoren und Mini-Akkus im Test

Mit kompakten Light-Motoren und Mini-Akkus sind E-MTBs optisch kaum noch von normalen Bikes zu unterscheiden. Die wichtigsten Modelle im Labor- und Praxisvergleich.

www.bike-magazin.de

The tests are performed in lab (less variables at stake), and protocols look legit. Data are corroborating yours (to some extend). Indeed SL1.2 delivers 278 watts of peak power (instead of the 320 advertised), which is in line with your 40 watts power increase (vs 1.1) you assumed.

Note: The site is in German (Edge, Chrome extension might be helpful for page translation)

 

[iamanej]

I have investigated what could be the real (peak) power output (watts) of the new SL1.2.
Aside your personal analysis, it is difficult to find some good evaluations (with scientifically measured data).
There is well @EMTBReview channel on YouTube who's trying to bring some more tangible comparisons between lightweights motors (including SL1.1 and 1.2), and those are definitively using less hazardous testing protocols compared to other well known websites/magazines. But at the end I can still feel kind of a biased for Spe...

I finally found the "scientific" information I was looking for, visiting this website:

Leichte Motoren und kleine Akkus: 6 Light-Motoren und Mini-Akkus im Test

Mit kompakten Light-Motoren und Mini-Akkus sind E-MTBs optisch kaum noch von normalen Bikes zu unterscheiden. Die wichtigsten Modelle im Labor- und Praxisvergleich.

www.bike-magazin.de

The tests are performed in lab (less variables at stake), and protocols look legit. Data are corroborating yours (to some extend). Indeed SL1.2 delivers 278 watts of peak power (instead of the 320 advertised), which is in line with your 40 watts power increase (vs 1.1) you assumed.

Note: The site is in German (Edge, Chrome extension might be helpful for page translation)

My 1.1 can sometimes push out up to 310w (peak).

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

I have investigated what could be the real (peak) power output (watts) of the new SL1.2.
Aside your personal analysis, it is difficult to find some good evaluations (with scientifically measured data).
There is well @EMTBReview channel on YouTube who's trying to bring some more tangible comparisons between lightweights motors (including SL1.1 and 1.2), and those are definitively using less hazardous testing protocols compared to other well known websites/magazines. But at the end I can still feel kind of a biased for Spe...

I finally found the "scientific" information I was looking for, visiting this website:

Leichte Motoren und kleine Akkus: 6 Light-Motoren und Mini-Akkus im Test

Mit kompakten Light-Motoren und Mini-Akkus sind E-MTBs optisch kaum noch von normalen Bikes zu unterscheiden. Die wichtigsten Modelle im Labor- und Praxisvergleich.

www.bike-magazin.de

The tests are performed in lab (less variables at stake), and protocols look legit. Data are corroborating yours (to some extend). Indeed SL1.2 delivers 278 watts of peak power (instead of the 320 advertised), which is in line with your 40 watts power increase (vs 1.1) you assumed.

Note: The site is in German (Edge, Chrome extension might be helpful for page translation)

Thank you for sharing this information; it's certainly reassuring to receive confirmation. I ceased my evaluations upon recognising the marginal uplift compared to the proclaimed figures.

This raises concerns about the reliability of individuals such as @knut7, who have published articles with quite deceptive descriptions regarding the bicycles and motors. One wonders if this forum enforces any rules concerning the disclosure of conflicts of interest.

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

My 1.1 can sometimes push out up to 310w (peak).

This seems to suggest that the hardware is nearly identical. It's conceivable that the software in version 1.1 has been refined for enhanced long-term performance. I have no particular issue with Specialized, but if a consumer felt significantly misled and conducted side-by-side comparative testing, it's possible that Specialized might find themselves at odds with certain consumer protection and advertising regulations.

 

[iamanej]

This seems to suggest that the hardware is nearly identical. It's conceivable that the software in version 1.1 has been refined for enhanced long-term performance. I have no particular issue with Specialized, but if a consumer felt significantly misled and conducted side-by-side comparative testing, it's possible that Specialized might find themselves at odds with certain consumer protection and advertising regulations.

I've posted a link to this thread in FB group called Specialized Levo SL and Kenevo SL under some post saying that kenevo SL with 1.2 is out and that it has 33% more power and 42% more torque as 1.1 and I got a warning message from group admin saying that I shoudn't say such things so they banned me for it.

I also talked about battery which is really 2018-ish when talking about density or capacity vs. weight ratio. I mean, my after market extender weights 2kg and has 480wh.
I was also warned for that. I mean - ain't this a free world? Can't we talk about obvious things like people being ripped off with that kind of "offers"?

 

[p3eps]

I haven't watched the video - I'm sitting at work. I'll watch it later...

What I can say is that my 1.2 motor felt like 100/100 had no significant improvement over the 1.1 when I first got it. Sure, it was quieter, and the lower levels seemed to be more powerful... but 100/100 offered very little more. I was pretty gutted when I'd spent almost £6000 to upgrade.

Anyway... after a few rides and a couple of hundred miles on the motor, the 1.2 seemed to "perk up" at 100/100.
There is a very steep technical climb I have on one of my regular routes that I could race up on my Trek Rail when I had it. It ploughed straight up it. When I swapped to a Levo SL (1.1) there was no way I was getting up it - even in Turbo 100/100. It just didn't have enough power.
Now with the SL 1.2, I can get up it. I'm not struggling either.... but I'm not racing up it like I was on the Rail. My fitness level has been pretty steady over the last few years, so my conclusion is that the 1.2 motor has more power than the 1.1. There are other trails / climbs that I visit that give me the same impression too.

It's been mentioned on several SL threads, Facebook groups etc that there seems to be 2 different breeds of SL1.2 motors out there. Some people are convinced that there is nothing between the 1.1 and 1.2... and some are sure there is a significant difference.
Different firmwares? I haven't updated mine... but my experience would make me believe it had some sort of "run in" required before full power was 'unlocked'.

I personally am very happy with the upgrade my 1.2 has given me over my 1.1... both in terms of power and volume. It could be quieter, and is certainly not "whisper quiet" as advertised... but it is significantly quieter than my 1.1.
Having said that... if I'd been one of the guys with a 1.2 motor that didn't feel any different to the 1.1, I'd probably be pretty p1ssed off too.

 

[knut7]

This raises concerns about the reliability of individuals such as @knut7, who have published articles with quite deceptive descriptions regarding the bicycles and motors. One wonders if this forum enforces any rules concerning the disclosure of conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest to list. I'm probably the most independent reviewer out there as I'm not taking any money/reimbursement from the industry. Also, my financial situation is not affected by clicks and views, so I have no interest in doing clickbait.

I'm not sure I get what I'm being accused of here. After 7 years, this is the first time I've been accused of having articles with "quite deceptive descriptions regarding the bicycles and motors".

I stated that the 300 W ("mechanical power") I report is read from the display. And I went on to say is 300 W is close to 320 W, so that seems plausible. It's very difficult knowing at what cadence, and possibly rider input, you get the maximum motor power so it was very likely I didn't find the sweetspot. At what cadence ws the rported 278 W read? I don't have the means to check if the figures reported by the display are correct. But based on my experience with other motors I had no reason to suspect 320 W was a lie.

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

There are no conflicts of interest to list. I'm probably the most independent reviewer out there as I'm not taking any money/reimbursement from the industry. Also, my financial situation is not affected by clicks and views, so I have no interest in doing clickbait.

I'm not sure I get what I'm being accused of here. After 7 years, this is the first time I've been accused of having articles with "quite deceptive descriptions regarding the bicycles and motors".

I stated that the 300 W ("mechanical power") I report is read from the display. And I went on to say is 300 W is close to 320 W, so that seems plausible. It's very difficult knowing at what cadence, and possibly rider input, you get the maximum motor power so it was very likely I didn't find the sweetspot. At what cadence ws the rported 278 W read? I don't have the means to check if the figures reported by the display are correct. But based on my experience with other motors I had no reason to suspect 320 W was a lie.

When evaluating technical items, particularly motors with detailed specifications, and when contrasting one product with another based on empirical advancements, it stands to reason that your guidance to the reader should be more precise than 'generous'. My own testing, now corroborated by laboratory analysis, reveals that the benefits you perceived as generous are, in reality, exceedingly marginal.

To clarify the accusation: the data-driven tests indicate a less than 40-watt enhancement from version 1.1 to 1.2. I am directly alleging that you have exaggerated the extent of this improvement, thus misleading readers into believing it is a substantial upgrade.

Certainly, I welcome your queries for clarification:

1. Regarding my tests and the subsequent laboratory tests, what is your personal view?
2. Standing by a review would depend on the alignment of the initial assessment with the newly presented evidence. If the data contradicts the original findings, it would be prudent to re-evaluate the conclusions of the review?
3. The protocol for testing the product against its predecessor would ideally involve a series of controlled, repeatable experiments designed to measure performance outputs objectively. what protocol did you use?

 

[knut7]

When evaluating technical items, particularly motors with detailed specifications, and when contrasting one product with another based on empirical advancements, it stands to reason that your guidance to the reader should be more precise than 'generous'. My own testing, now corroborated by laboratory analysis, reveals that the benefits you perceived as generous are, in reality, exceedingly marginal.

To clarify the accusation: the data-driven tests indicate a less than 40-watt enhancement from version 1.1 to 1.2. I am directly alleging that you have exaggerated the extent of this improvement, thus misleading readers into believing it is a substantial upgrade.

Certainly, I welcome your queries for clarification:

1. Regarding my tests and the subsequent laboratory tests, what is your personal view?
2. Standing by a review would depend on the alignment of the initial assessment with the newly presented evidence. If the data contradicts the original findings, it would be prudent to re-evaluate the conclusions of the review?
3. The protocol for testing the product against its predecessor would ideally involve a series of controlled, repeatable experiments designed to measure performance outputs objectively. what protocol did you use?

You're not going back on your accusations I see.

"Generous" is basically describing the power amplification, not the maximum power.

I won't go through this entire thread now, so I might be missing something. At what cadence did you perform your tests? At what cadence will the motor output maximum power? I don't speak German, but I couldn't find cadence anywhere in the bike-mag...de article.

I've tried creating a test bench where I could measure power input and power on the rear wheel. This was such a time consuming task, and I never found a very reliable way of measuring input. So I gave up, but it was an interesting exercise in designing a test protocol that actually returned the data I was trying to measure. Did the manufacturer measure the rated power at the rear wheel, on the crank axle (chain ring) or drawn from the battery? Can the data we read be compared to the data presented by the manufacturer?

When I do motor reviews, the easiest part is getting a feel for the power amplification. That doesn't necessarily correlate with maximum power. A motor with 500W max can come across as more powerful than a 600W motor, that's why I tend to describe them as "stingy" or " generous". It doesn't say anything about maximum power, rather how I experience the motors on the trails. When ridden in the same way, a 500W motor can draw more energy from the battery on a given loop compared to a 600W motor.

Allthough I found the 1.1 SL surprisingly generous, I had no reason to doubt the 1.2 had a higher maximum power, and the power readings on the display gave me no reason for doubt. I did not get the opportunity to compare directly against the 1.1 SL, but I still believe the 1.2 SL offered more motor assistance. I'm attaching two screen captures from my tests, one image is 391W "electrical power" with 114W rider input and a cadence of 77. The other image is 306W (mechanical power) with 57W rider input and 63 cadence.

If you're sure about the numbers you've recorded and there is no way to get a higher maximum power output from the 1.2 compared to the 1.1, then I guess you're on to something. I've been communicating with a company that do test motor power and I hope I get the chance to do an article about them. Having someone that are able to create power and torque curves for these motors would be very interesting!

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

You're not going back on your accusations I see.

"Generous" is basically describing the power amplification, not the maximum power.

I won't go through this entire thread now, so I might be missing something. At what cadence did you perform your tests? At what cadence will the motor output maximum power? I don't speak German, but I couldn't find cadence anywhere in the bike-mag...de article.

I've tried creating a test bench where I could measure power input and power on the rear wheel. This was such a time consuming task, and I never found a very reliable way of measuring input. So I gave up, but it was an interesting exercise in designing a test protocol that actually returned the data I was trying to measure. Did the manufacturer measure the rated power at the rear wheel, on the crank axle or drawn from the battery? Can the data we read be compared to the data presented by the manufacturer?

When I do motor reviews, the easiest part is getting a feel for the power amplification. That doesn't necessarily correlate with maximum power. A motor with 500W max can come across as more powerful than a 600W motor, that's why if tend to describe them as "stingy" or " generous". It doesn't say anything about maximum power, rather how I experience the motors on the trails. When ridden in the same way, a 500W motor can draw more energy from the battery on a given loop compared to a 600W motor.

Allthough I found the 1.1 SL surprisingly generous, I had no reason to doubt the 1.2 had a higher maximum power, and the power readings on the display gave me no reason for doubt. I did not get the opportunity to compare directly against the 1.1 SL, but I still believe the 1.2 SL offered more motor assistance. I'm attaching two screen captures from my tests, one image is 391W "electrical power" with 114W rider input and a cadence of 77. The other image is 306W (mechanical power) with 57W rider input and 63 cadence.

View attachment 128554

View attachment 128555

If you're sure about the numbers you've recorded and there is no way to get a higher maximum power output from the 1.2 compared to the 1.1, then I guess you're on to something. I've been communicating with a company that do test motor power and I hope I get the chance to do an article about them. Having someone that are able to create power and torque curves for these motors would be very interesting!

I am confident in my figures and have no qualms about your expertise. Indeed, I have no regrets about the funds invested in the 1.2 motor, as I take pleasure in experimentation. Nonetheless, it would be negligent on my part to remain silent when there are others diligently saving their money, reading reviews in anticipation of a significant upgrade.

Consider, if you will, whom your disagreement truly lies with: is it with me, for presenting the facts, or with Specialized for disseminating inaccurate specifications? I, for one, am willing to privately message you my complete details, including full name, contact number, email, and raw data; I have nothing to conceal or gain from this.

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

You're not going back on your accusations I see.

"Generous" is basically describing the power amplification, not the maximum power.

I won't go through this entire thread now, so I might be missing something. At what cadence did you perform your tests? At what cadence will the motor output maximum power? I don't speak German, but I couldn't find cadence anywhere in the bike-mag...de article.

I've tried creating a test bench where I could measure power input and power on the rear wheel. This was such a time consuming task, and I never found a very reliable way of measuring input. So I gave up, but it was an interesting exercise in designing a test protocol that actually returned the data I was trying to measure. Did the manufacturer measure the rated power at the rear wheel, on the crank axle (chain ring) or drawn from the battery? Can the data we read be compared to the data presented by the manufacturer?

When I do motor reviews, the easiest part is getting a feel for the power amplification. That doesn't necessarily correlate with maximum power. A motor with 500W max can come across as more powerful than a 600W motor, that's why I tend to describe them as "stingy" or " generous". It doesn't say anything about maximum power, rather how I experience the motors on the trails. When ridden in the same way, a 500W motor can draw more energy from the battery on a given loop compared to a 600W motor.

Allthough I found the 1.1 SL surprisingly generous, I had no reason to doubt the 1.2 had a higher maximum power, and the power readings on the display gave me no reason for doubt. I did not get the opportunity to compare directly against the 1.1 SL, but I still believe the 1.2 SL offered more motor assistance. I'm attaching two screen captures from my tests, one image is 391W "electrical power" with 114W rider input and a cadence of 77. The other image is 306W (mechanical power) with 57W rider input and 63 cadence.

View attachment 128554

View attachment 128555

If you're sure about the numbers you've recorded and there is no way to get a higher maximum power output from the 1.2 compared to the 1.1, then I guess you're on to something. I've been communicating with a company that do test motor power and I hope I get the chance to do an article about them. Having someone that are able to create power and torque curves for these motors would be very interesting!

Should you wish to form an informed opinion, I would recommend following my approach and reviewing the information thoroughly. My tests are driven by data and focused on outcomes. I am open to considering informed perspectives once you have acquainted yourself with the details.

I dont speak German either but Chrome automatically translates German into English.

 

[knut7]

I have no obligations to Specialized, but I also want to be very sure before calling anyone out. Also, my reaction was more sparked by the accusations. Feel free to send me a message, it would be interesting to hear more about the data.

 

[iamanej]

You're not going back on your accusations I see.

"Generous" is basically describing the power amplification, not the maximum power.

I won't go through this entire thread now, so I might be missing something. At what cadence did you perform your tests? At what cadence will the motor output maximum power? I don't speak German, but I couldn't find cadence anywhere in the bike-mag...de article.

I've tried creating a test bench where I could measure power input and power on the rear wheel. This was such a time consuming task, and I never found a very reliable way of measuring input. So I gave up, but it was an interesting exercise in designing a test protocol that actually returned the data I was trying to measure. Did the manufacturer measure the rated power at the rear wheel, on the crank axle (chain ring) or drawn from the battery? Can the data we read be compared to the data presented by the manufacturer?

When I do motor reviews, the easiest part is getting a feel for the power amplification. That doesn't necessarily correlate with maximum power. A motor with 500W max can come across as more powerful than a 600W motor, that's why I tend to describe them as "stingy" or " generous". It doesn't say anything about maximum power, rather how I experience the motors on the trails. When ridden in the same way, a 500W motor can draw more energy from the battery on a given loop compared to a 600W motor.

Allthough I found the 1.1 SL surprisingly generous, I had no reason to doubt the 1.2 had a higher maximum power, and the power readings on the display gave me no reason for doubt. I did not get the opportunity to compare directly against the 1.1 SL, but I still believe the 1.2 SL offered more motor assistance. I'm attaching two screen captures from my tests, one image is 391W "electrical power" with 114W rider input and a cadence of 77. The other image is 306W (mechanical power) with 57W rider input and 63 cadence.

View attachment 128554

View attachment 128555

If you're sure about the numbers you've recorded and there is no way to get a higher maximum power output from the 1.2 compared to the 1.1, then I guess you're on to something. I've been communicating with a company that do test motor power and I hope I get the chance to do an article about them. Having someone that are able to create power and torque curves for these motors would be very interesting!

whoa... 391 watts? that is something new!

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

whoa... 391 watts? that is something new!

Not really if you go back a few pages you will see that I got 420W on the TCU. There was some views around where the power is measured and reducing it by 20% to get a true measure. I have not seen anyone including @knut7 claim a verified max power output.

At he core of this discussion is the claim by specialized of:
"It delivers 33% more power (320 Watts) than its predecessor"

when in reality the max output is:

Which in comparison to the 1.1 motor of 250-watt = 28 Watts best case increase.

 

[iamanej]

Not really if you go back a few pages you will see that I got 420W on the TCU. There was some views around where the power is measured and reducing it by 20% to get a true measure. I have not seen anyone including @knut7 claim a verified max power output.

At he core of this discussion is the claim by specialized of:
"It delivers 33% more power (320 Watts) than its predecessor"

when in reality the max output is:
View attachment 128558
Which in comparison to the 1.1 motor of 250-watt = 28 Watts best case increase.

yeah but my turbo 1.1 mode is averaging around 280 watts with peaks around 310 at most

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

yeah but my turbo 1.1 mode is averaging around 280 watts with peaks around 310 at most

Do you remember what VW did on their fuel consumption data?...

 

[p3eps]

yeah but my turbo 1.1 mode is averaging around 280 watts with peaks around 310 at most

My 1.2 has peaks of 395W... theres a whole section of the KSL thread about it - Kenevo SL - Official 2022 Kenevo SL (KSL) Megathread!

 

[G-Sport]

....I also talked about battery which is really 2018-ish when talking about density or capacity vs. weight ratio. I mean, my after market extender weights 2kg and has 480wh.
I was also warned for that. I mean - ain't this a free world? Can't we talk about obvious things like people being ripped off with that kind of "offers"?

I'm very interested in this thread in general, and don't want to derail it too much. But could you elaborate on this a bit please.
What does the stock battery weigh (sorry I know I should just take mine out and weigh it but I'm not at home at the moment so I don't have that option)?
I've always thought that the Specialized extender is excessively heavy and voluminous for the capacity. I'd be very interested in any kind of lighter options.
Is it possible to get a BMS that will work with the bike and build our own options?

 

[Rob Rides EMTB]

Here's what Specialized say:

QUOTE:

You can measure the power of a motor in the maximum watts it can produce. A motor that produces more watts will make it easier for you to maintain a certain speed while riding. All Specialized motors offer optimal support over a broad range of pedaling cadences – even beyond 100 rpm. This helps provide a more natural feel.

• The original SL motor provides 240w of nominal/peak output and 35 Nm of torque
• The SL 1.2 motor provides 250w nominal power with 320w of peak output and 50 Nm of torque

This is equivalent to about 180% of rider power or 2 x you.

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

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

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

Yet the tests dont support this. @Rob Rides EMTB we are all very aware of the claims. How about you give us a view on the discussion and data here?

 

[Rob Rides EMTB]

Yet the tests dont support this. @Rob Rides EMTB we are all very aware of the claims. How about you give us a view on the discussion and data here?

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:

My 1.2 has peaks of 395W... theres a whole section of the KSL thread about it - Kenevo SL - Official 2022 Kenevo SL (KSL) Megathread!

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?

 

[Fit_Fat_almost_50]

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

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.