Fuel EXe Trek Fuel EXe Megathread!

[Rob Rides EMTB]

By the way, I should add, that I know TQ are looking at the forum / this thread, and gathering all feedback that people are leaving, and taking it all on board

Hi TQ

 

[Rob Rides EMTB]

Although I have no doubts about Rob's testing in relation to meters climbed compared to the Fazua, to be fair, they were completely different rides.

Agree. But the range is similar across 3-4 rides, I just dug those out as they were the ones I found in my strava.

I only really ride in Turbo mode on light weight bikes, personal preference, but I like making boring bits / hills as fast as possible. I only ever get approx 750 metres of elevation on the Trek EXe. Side note, the test area in the Quantock Hills consists of big, long hill grinds. The start of the ride is a 250 metre ascent to the top

The Fazua was always over 1000 metres. Lowest was 1038 metres, highest approx 1350 ish metres.

 

[Mteam]

By the way, I should add, that I know TQ are looking at the forum / this thread, and gathering all feedback that people are leaving, and taking it all on board

Hi TQ

Nice - this is a really good thing.

TQ if you're reading- can we have the option to enable/disable a little bit of motor overrun when you stop pedalling, in each mode. Like you have a slider for pedal response, it'd be good to have something for pedal disengagement.

 

[Swingset]

Procured on Saturday. Took it right home and proceeded to see how well the dealer built it. The answer...not as good as they should. Rode it 12 miles that afternoon just to feel it out. I bought it to be able to work harder and find that the low mode was far better than expected.

Yesterday took it out for about 15 miles with about 1500 feet of climbing, again mostly on low mode, and its pretty fantastic. Rode it with the motor off a bit and was really impressed as well. The first minute or two when cold going up a slight grade there was some very faint clicks or hitches in the drivetrain. It went away and was dead quiet and smooth the rest of the ride. Finished with about 55% battery so quite happy with that as well.

One thing I did notice is how much shifting you have to do to keep the cadence within reason. Coming off a 34-45 and onto a 32-51 with another gear you are really whacking away on the shifter.

So..... Shimano brakes are good. Tires are not bad with the pressure down a few pounds. Stock seat was not as bad as I thought it would be. What does it weigh? who cares?

Such a widely different experience from my Decoy. Especially when I have to get it on and off the bike rack.

Much to learn.

 

[Balboa]

I lost this ring last weekend. Anybody knows what kind of ring this is and how to lock it?

Will call the shop too, but they are closed on Monday......

 

[Flow81]

Please check your BB heights, and share!

It seems we have an "out-of-spec" batch of frames doing the rounds, maybe early production runs, with Trek subsequently changing a seatstay mould? I believe all the sizes have the same rear triangles.

The quoted Trek Fuel Exe geo-chart shows a BB height of 342mm in LOW, or 349mm in HIGH. My bike, and 6 different stock bikes on the shop floor that I measured (in all different frame sizes) have a BB height of ± 330mm in LOW (150mm, 29 FR &RR) or 337mm in HIGH. Thats is 12mm below the GEO chart of 342mm LOW, 349mm HIGH.

The shocks are all 205mm eye-to-eye and the chainstays are ±438mm, so it leaves me to believe we have a batch of seatstays (connected to the flipchip) is out-of spec (too short), which drops the BB a lot (12mm in this case).

So really curious to see what is doing the rounds in other parts of the world? Please share!

The bikes were held-up by the saddle on a bike stand, with rear wheels barely touching, so no sagging

 

[Swingset]

Please check you BB heights?
It seems we have an "out-of-spec" batch of frames doing the rounds here down south, maybe early production runs, with Trek subsequently changing a seatstay mould? I believe all the sizes have the same rear triangles.
The quoted geo-chart BB height is 342mm in LOW, or 349mm in HIGH. My bike, and 6 different stock bikes on the shop floor that I measured (in all different frame sizes) have a BB height of ± 330mm in LOW (150mm, 29 FR &RR). Thats is 12mm below the GEO chart of 342mm.
The shocks are all 205mm eye-to-eye and the chainstays are ±438mm, so it leaves me to believe the seatstay section (connected to the flipchip) is out-of spec (too short), which drops the BB 12mm.
If you mullet the Fuelexe you drop the BB by 12mm, so our stock 29er front and rear bikes have geo's of mulleted bikes
And don't give me "sagging under bike's weight", shocks and tyres are all pumped high pressure.

335- Stock everything, low Mino

 

[Cell4soul]

The average speed of the tq ride is 50% faster than the fazua ride, that would drain the battery on the tq quicker for every meter of height gained,wouldn't it

Although I have no doubts about Rob's testing in relation to meters climbed compared to the Fazua, to be fair, they were completely different rides. A real comparison would be the same climb back to back with the two bike systems. As a third comparison, below is my ride from yesterday on my exe. There was a lot of flat bitumen on this ride hence the decent average speed but I didn't need to work particularly hard (as seen by my heart rate) to achieve close to 60km and 674 metres of elevation. Again a completely different type of ride (80% paved, 20% dirt)

Looking at the efficiency specs of both motors, the TQ is rated at greater then 90% and the Ride 60 at approx 80%. based on this the TQ is rated at 324Whr to crank and the Ride 60 360 Whr to the crank. This gives the Ride 60 a 10% advantage.

I think bottom line, no one should be disappointed with either one of these systems. No doubt we are in a golden age of ebikes.
View attachment 100431

Your elevation gain is only 51’ of elevation per mile. Have you tried a big mountain ride, with more elevation gain per distance traveled? I think you would be a little surprised at the increase in discrepancy. I have zero regrets on my EXe purchase, but they really dropped the ball on the range capabilities. My wife’s Specialized Turbo Levo SL gets very similar range to my EXe. My Rise had noticeably more range than the EXe with the same size, 360 w battery. I’ve tested all three bikes. This is a real world comparison. My elevation gains on my testing trails is about 150’ per mile, so triple the elevation gain.

I guess that is the thing with testing range, we all have different experiences. Either way, my EXe having capabilities of 20 miles with 3,000’ elevation is plenty. That is about 40 % more distance than my full pedal MTB’s, in the same amount of time. I’ll take that all day. I ride by myself 98% of the time. I have no need to keep up with others.

 

[Swingset]

I lost this ring last weekend. Anybody knows what kind of ring this is and how to lock it?

Will call the shop too, but they are closed on Monday......

View attachment 100469

Extractor- The usually have some Loctite on them to keep from rattling out. Don't really need it but its handy when you have to pull the crank arm without a special tool.

 

[Emailsucks98]

I only really ride in Turbo mode on light weight bikes, personal preference, but I like making boring bits / hills as fast as possible.

I guess that is the thing with testing range, we all have different experiences. Either way, my EXe having capabilities of 20 miles with 3,000’ elevation is plenty.

I'm going to be a broken record here, sorry!

Each motor is going to have a wattage/assist level where it's most efficient. My hunch is that, in order to create the most natural feel (and also because it likely has fewest moving parts) the TQ may be optimized for efficiency Eco mode. As a consequence, it could be the system loses efficiency at higher wattages. Makes sense, as it may be using wattage to compensate for torque.

Rob's test was great, and I appreciate it.-But it may not tell the whole story. As it stands, seems like if you're purely after max range, the Fazua is indeed more efficient. But could the HPR be equally/more efficient at lower wattages? We can't say... yet.

We have a local trail that has a paved climb, about 450m vert in 3km. On my previous bike (Norco Sight VLT/Shimano E8000) I found that trail mode consistently used LESS battery than eco mode!

 

[Rob Rides EMTB]

I'm going to be a broken record here, sorry!

Each motor is going to have a wattage/assist level where it's most efficient. My hunch is that, in order to create the most natural feel (and also because it likely has fewest moving parts) the TQ may be optimized for efficiency Eco mode. As a consequence, it could be the system loses efficiency at higher wattages. Makes sense, as it may be using wattage to compensate for torque.

Rob's test was great, and I appreciate it.-But it may not tell the whole story. As it stands, seems like if you're purely after max range, the Fazua is indeed more efficient. But could the HPR be equally/more efficient at lower wattages? We can't say... yet.

We have a local trail that has a paved climb, about 450m vert in 3km. On my previous bike (Norco Sight VLT/Shimano E8000) I found that trail mode consistently used LESS battery than eco mode!

Agree for sure. I guess all these range reports are just to be a bit taken cautiously- and just as various data points at best, and should not really be relied upon too much as there are far too many variables.

Either way, interesting to learn what others are experiencing

Even EV cars range tests are ridiculously variable, e-bikes arguably are even more variables.

 

[Mteam]

Agree for sure. I guess all these range reports are just to be a bit taken cautiously- and just as various data points at best, and should not really be relied upon too much as there are far too many variables.

Either way, interesting to learn what others are experiencing

Even EV cars range tests are ridiculously variable, e-bikes arguably are even more variables.

I got 720m of climbing over 16 miles on my first ride yesterday,which tallies with robs figures.

I have to say I am a bit disappointed with that, but I had tweaked the modes to offer more power/assistance than default, and I'm still learning how to get the best out of it.

I usually ride my full fat Bosch gen 4 (with 625wh battery) in tour+ mode, and that will typically give me ~1300m of climb over 30 miles ,of a similar ride.

I've since lowered the power/assist in the first two modes,so will see how it goes.

I was hoping for around 1000m of climbing without having to resort to the lowest power mode too much.

Knut got 938m in full power in his test here
TQ HPR50 Motor Review

Which does seem at odds with other people's numbers. Maybe it's all about the trail surface ?

 

[Kawboy]

I got 720m of climbing over 16 miles on my first ride yesterday,which tallies with robs figures.

I have to say I am a bit disappointed with that, but I had tweaked the modes to offer more power/assistance than default, and I'm still learning how to get the best out of it.

I usually ride my full fat Bosch gen 4 (with 625wh battery) in tour+ mode, and that will typically give me ~1300m of climb over 30 miles ,of a similar ride.

I've since lowered the power/assist in the first two modes,so will see how it goes.

I was hoping for around 1000m of climbing without having to resort to the lowest power mode too much

Given your numbers, you were hoping for 77% of the height with 58% of the battery capacity when you actually got 55% of the height (your rough numbers from memory for the 1300m) with 58% of the battery? Unscientific as it is, sounds about right to me for the same kinds of rides.

 

[Emailsucks98]

I was hoping for around 1000m of climbing without having to resort to the lowest power mode too much.

I got 1100m on the first ride over 32km, all singletrack climbing, I weigh 84kg.
I did the first 80% in Eco, then realized I wasn't going to kill the battery so put it in boost for the remainder and finished with 12%

I think it's wattage, not assist level, that drains the battery. In the app, If you lower set the wattage for trail and boost, but increase the assist, the app shows similar ranges for all 3 modes. Thus, "I think" using lower wattage/higher assist is the way to get max vert range.

 

[Mteam]

I got 1100m on the first ride over 32km, all singletrack climbing, I weigh 84kg.
I did the first 80% in Eco, then realized I wasn't going to kill the battery so put it in boost for the remainder and finished with 12%

I think it's wattage, not assist level, that drains the battery. In the app, If you lower set the wattage for trail and boost, but increase the assist, the app shows similar ranges for all 3 modes. Thus, "I think" using lower wattage/higher assist is the way to get max vert range.

Could you post a screenshot of your motor settings?

 

[Mteam]

Given your numbers, you were hoping for 77% of the height with 58% of the battery capacity when you actually got 55% of the height (your rough numbers from memory for the 1300m) with 58% of the battery? Unscientific as it is, sounds about right to me for the same kinds of rides.

Yes,but I put more of my own effort in on the fuel than I would have done on the Bosch bike, hence thought I should have got more range from it.

 

[Kawboy]

Yes,but I put more of my own effort in on the fuel than I would have done on the Bosch bike, hence thought I should have got more range from it.

That's fair. I saw a YT vid the other day of a guy who was going to isolate rider effort with the fancy input torque measuring pedals. I haven't seen him post the full test yet though.

 

[DugT]

I got 1100m on the first ride over 32km, all singletrack climbing, I weigh 84kg.
I did the first 80% in Eco, then realized I wasn't going to kill the battery so put it in boost for the remainder and finished with 12%

I think it's wattage, not assist level, that drains the battery. In the app, If you lower set the wattage for trail and boost, but increase the assist, the app shows similar ranges for all 3 modes. Thus, "I think" using lower wattage/higher assist is the way to get max vert range.

I think both the Assist Level and Max Wattage Level affect how fast the battery drains. If you set the Assistance Level to 100%, the battery will drain twice as fast as it would if you set it to 50%. That is guaranteed, all the time. At 100%, whenever you are pedalling, it is working twice as hard as it is when set to 50%. Max Watts only affects battery drain when you are pedalling harder than normal.
Max wattage determines the maximum amount of assist available when you are pedaling hard. For example, if you are inputting 100W and you assist level is set at 100%, the bike will assist 100W. If you input 200W, and the bike assist is set to 100% and the Max Watts is set to 100W, the bike will only assist the same 100W. So you battery drains less but you are getting the same assist at a time when it would be nice to have more assist. In that scenario, if you stand on the pedals to get up a steep hill, the bike only assists 100W. If the Assistance Level is set to 50% and the Max Watts is set to 300W, the bike is faster than a manual bike but when the going gets tough and you input 300W, the bike will assist 150W which is significantly more assist when you really need it. In this scenario, you aren't draining the battery very much when riding normally but when you need more help, it is there for you. If you need even more help, put it in Trail mode.

I think the range calculations can't anticipate how hard you will be pedalling so it can't accurately adjust for an increase in the Max Watts level.

Try lower assist and higher Watts settings. You might like it.

 

[socal_rider]

To add to the range discussion I had two different rides this weekend at the two extremes of power level. I’m 185 lbs / 84 kg for reference.

Ride 1: Eco set to 75W max the whole ride. Final numbers: 23.40mi (37.7km) / 4077ft (1243m) / 3h25m moving time / 20% battery remaining. My effort uphill was often 200-250W. I was pretty tired at the end of the ride.

Ride 2: Boost set to max for everything the whole ride. Final numbers: 15.87mi (25.5km) / 2047ft (624m) / 1h32m moving time / 17% battery remaining. My effort was pretty minimal the whole ride. Kind of just soft pedaled most of it.

Ride 2 was my first time riding in Boost for an entire ride. It’s a whole different experience. Crazy fast uphill. I kept screwing up corners because I wasn’t used to coming into them so fast. My wife was riding with me on her Rise also maxed out. On the flat or easy uphills it was very difficult to catch her even when I was putting in a serious effort.

 

[Emailsucks98]

I think both the Assist Level and Max Wattage Level affect how fast the battery drains.

Agreed here, and with your descriptions of what the settings do.

If you set the Assistance Level to 100%, the battery will drain twice as fast as it would if you set it to 50%. That is guaranteed, all the time.
If you input 200W, and the bike assist is set to 100% and the Max Watts is set to 100W, the bike will only assist the same 100W.

Both these things can't be true simultaneously. If your max watts is 100w, once the motor is putting that out, any additional power comes from the rider, not at the expense of the battery. Which is why I propose the low wattage settings to get max vert. There's no magic here, it's sort of neutering the bike so you don't get carried away in boost mode and kill the battery.

In my case, I tried creating 3 modes that were all somewhere between stock ECO and TRAIL modes, 100-150w, with varying levels of assist. I'll post a screengrab later.

Try lower assist and higher Watts settings. You might like it.

I'll try it, but I don't expect to get 3500' /1100m+ with higher wattages. What do you think?
I'm definitely enjoying using the app to see what's possible. Make all 3 modes identical but with one variable, etc.

 

[DugT]

Agreed here, and with your descriptions of what the settings do.



Both these things can't be true simultaneously. If your max watts is 100w, once the motor is putting that out, any additional power comes from the rider, not at the expense of the battery. Which is why I propose the low wattage settings to get max vert. There's no magic here, it's sort of neutering the bike so you don't get carried away in boost mode and kill the battery.

In my case, I tried creating 3 modes that were all somewhere between stock ECO and TRAIL modes, 100-150w, with varying levels of assist. I'll post a screengrab later.



I'll try it, but I don't expect to get 3500' /1100m+ with higher wattages. What do you think?
I'm definitely enjoying using the app to see what's possible. Make all 3 modes identical but with one variable, etc.

Now I get it, sorry. You do a lot of climbing and I wasn't taking that into consideration! You are a wild man for doing that much climbing with only 100W max assist! If I understand correctly, if it gets a little too steep you click into Trail mode for a little more assist. I think it is possible that you could find a setting, like 85% and 125W where you would get the best of ECO and TRAIL in ECO mode.

By the way, my third assist level is 150% and 300W and I plan to use it for long boring uphills and for getting home if I break a bone, again. Also, my rides are much shorter so running out of battery isn't a concern for me.

 

[rdbowden]

Agree for sure. I guess all these range reports are just to be a bit taken cautiously- and just as various data points at best, and should not really be relied upon too much as there are far too many variables.

Either way, interesting to learn what others are experiencing

Even EV cars range tests are ridiculously variable, e-bikes arguably are even more variables.

Hi Rob, Thanks for all the youTube videos and the website.

If you have a University near you with an Electrical Engineering Department, you may be able to get some Seniors help you with a project. The other option is a vocational school. I am not sure how the UK education system is set up. You would need a Fuel ExE, an extender battery, power sensing pedals and Wahoo Kickr smart trainer. The Fuel ExE can run only with the extender, so remove the main battery. The students would need to research the connectors used on the bike and the cable and construct a short extension cord. The extension cord could be instrumented to measure current and voltage applied to the motor which gives you power. The Kickr is good for up to 2200 watts of resistance. You could measure the rider power into the pedals, the electrical power input into the motor and the final output power at the Kickr. I would think that would be a popular video on youTube. I don't think anyone has done it before. At that point the measurement opportunities are almost limitless.

Note: Safety would be a concern. A 50 volt lithium battery requires best electrical safety practices. The students would need to perform the experiment under the guidance of a professor and/or a licensed electrician. Also, the cable wiring may be difficult, I suspect there is a combination of sensor wires and power wires in the cable and sorting them out will require some reverse engineering unless TQ publishes the cable pinout online.

 

[mitea]

View attachment 100361 View attachment 100362

Here’s the Strava data. The TQ was with original tyres too.

@Rob Rides EMTB
Thanks for the video comparison. But do you also have the actual power consumption Wh/km of both motors during that ride. This would give more clarity. We just see a higher average power of yourself but this doesn't tell the whole story.

I would be interested if you ride both bikes on flat terrain setup to the same max power pedaling at the same speed what each drive units power consumption per kilometer is on average.

There I would expect to see the fazua having a Wh/km smaller than TQs.

 

[Emailsucks98]

Now I get it, sorry. You do a lot of climbing and I wasn't taking that into consideration!

All good! That's what I like about this bike, being light and natural feeling, it's a good climber even at lower assist levels, and still rideable with a dead battery. Of course for shorter rides I like full boost too.

ATTN: TQ - Feature Request
Would be awesome for the app to have a few "preset banks" where we could save mode settings optimized for different ride types. Max Distance (level 1/2/3), Afterwork Rip (level 1/2/3), Technical Climbing (level 1/2/3) etc.

 

[Emailsucks98]

Could you post a screenshot of your motor settings?

These are the sort of "max vert, all singletrack" settings I've been going off about. All three modes somewhere between stock Eco and Trail.

 

[mitea]

All good! That's what I like about this bike, being light and natural feeling, it's a good climber even at lower assist levels, and still rideable with a dead battery. Of course for shorter rides I like full boost too.

ATTN: TQ - Feature Request
Would be awesome for the app to have a few "preset banks" where we could save mode settings optimized for different ride types. Max Distance (level 1/2/3), Afterwork Rip (level 1/2/3), Technical Climbing (level 1/2/3) etc.

Could also post it here

Fuel EXe - TQ Feature Requests

Since @Rob Rides EMTB invited TQ to this forum I thought we could start a Thread especially for Feature Requests. Idea is everybody posts a feature requests with a title and some description. Other users then can vote for the feature using the like button. This would help TQ to see whats...

www.emtbforums.com

We could gather all feature requests their to have them seperated and more easy to find for TQ and other users.

 

[Kepler]

I mainly use the bike on steep single track in assist 2 and 3 and get a similar distance and elevation to Mteam. Last ride was an exception due to most of MTB trails being shut down at the moment due to rain where I live. I really just wanted to demonstrate that the exe does have good efficiency. Getting 20 miles and 2 hours ride time under high assist to me shows the efficiency is pretty good on this bike.

For context below is a typical blast around my local MTB park. From memory, I still had 15% battery left at the end of the ride and had toggled between assist level 2 and 3 for this ride.

 

[AMbmb2168]

Please check your BB heights, and share!

It seems we have an "out-of-spec" batch of frames doing the rounds, maybe early production runs, with Trek subsequently changing a seatstay mould? I believe all the sizes have the same rear triangles.

The quoted Trek Fuel Exe geo-chart shows a BB height of 342mm in LOW, or 349mm in HIGH. My bike, and 6 different stock bikes on the shop floor that I measured (in all different frame sizes) have a BB height of ± 330mm in LOW (150mm, 29 FR &RR) or 337mm in HIGH. Thats is 12mm below the GEO chart of 342mm LOW, 349mm HIGH.

The shocks are all 205mm eye-to-eye and the chainstays are ±438mm, so it leaves me to believe we have a batch of seatstays (connected to the flipchip) is out-of spec (too short), which drops the BB a lot (12mm in this case).

So really curious to see what is doing the rounds in other parts of the world? Please share!

The bikes were held-up by the saddle on a bike stand, with rear wheels barely touching, so no sagging

Mine is 330mm in Low, Size medium. Canada.

 

[socal_rider]

Please check your BB heights, and share!

It seems we have an "out-of-spec" batch of frames doing the rounds, maybe early production runs, with Trek subsequently changing a seatstay mould? I believe all the sizes have the same rear triangles.

The quoted Trek Fuel Exe geo-chart shows a BB height of 342mm in LOW, or 349mm in HIGH. My bike, and 6 different stock bikes on the shop floor that I measured (in all different frame sizes) have a BB height of ± 330mm in LOW (150mm, 29 FR &RR) or 337mm in HIGH. Thats is 12mm below the GEO chart of 342mm LOW, 349mm HIGH.

The shocks are all 205mm eye-to-eye and the chainstays are ±438mm, so it leaves me to believe we have a batch of seatstays (connected to the flipchip) is out-of spec (too short), which drops the BB a lot (12mm in this case).

So really curious to see what is doing the rounds in other parts of the world? Please share!

The bikes were held-up by the saddle on a bike stand, with rear wheels barely touching, so no sagging

I’m closer to 332mm than 342mm in LOW.

 

[Flow81]

I’m closer to 332mm than 342mm in LOW.

Thanks! When did you take delivery?

Our bikes down south was delivered in late July, early August and I measured 6 bikes in the shop and in the hands of owners with 330mm BB in low (29r, 150mm), which is way below the marketed spec of 342mm in LOW.

We do however have @Emailsucks98 with a 338mm BB height in Mullet which is bang-on in-spec (he should have 349mm in 29r). I also found another guy on youtube in the UK (Forest Mountian biker) with 338mm BB in Mullet and 349mm in 29r HIGH, and he took delivery in late Sept. So there are bikes doing the rounds that is in-spec.

So this is leading me to believe that the first few production runs have out of spec rear triangles or seatstays that leads to a 12mm lower than spec BB height. The difference in BB height is consistently 12mm.

It is unconfirmed, but it seems that Trek realised the issue and fixed it subsequently by changing the mould in the meantime. I am not happy that they didn't do a recall and fixed the earlier batches. Did they just hope that people wont find out? We have these low bikes doing the rounds in the hands of owners.

I am trying to go the warranty route, but I am still waiting for a response. Not cool, as a too low BB on an ebike can have catastrophic consequences. As another guy on the Facebook group found out the hard way, with a motor knocked out of the frame by a rock strike to the chainring, cracking the frame. Not sure what his BB height was before the incident, but Trek apparently came good and gave him a new frame, so Trek might know this is a potential issue? A pedal strike at a wrong angle can also do considerable damage to the motor, or lead to a serious crash. (Remember the Richie Rude crash hitting a pedal on a concealed tree-trunk!?

Please chime in, we need more data points!