GrumpyDisco
New Member
Does any know if there is a tuning chip for the Fuel Exe?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
Fuel EXe Trek Fuel EXE Tuning
- Thread starter GrumpyDisco
- Start date
Tomac boy
New Member
Yup “badassBox BOSCH G4-SET” will get the nanny limiter off.
It is a bit ugly, doesnt fit that well, but gets the job done.
It is a bit ugly, doesnt fit that well, but gets the job done.
andronin
Member
Would that work with the TQ motor as it is not a Bosch?
Tomac boy
New Member
Tomac boy
New Member
Yes it does ( I had to confirm too) .
Just mounts on the speed sensor . So is not motor specific. Speed sensor is similar enough.
Just mounts on the speed sensor . So is not motor specific. Speed sensor is similar enough.
Gd3fit
Member
SPEEDi - E-Bike Limit Speed Increaser for Trek
SPEEDi is a mechanical speed limit increaser for your Trek E-Bike. Designed, tested and precision engineered in New Zealand, the SPEEDi will delimit your E-Bike without messing with your bikes computer. Easy to install and remove.
nlscomponents.com
This is a little cheaper and I've considered this.
GrumpyDisco
New Member
- Thread starter
- #7
Thanks
I have ordered on for a new set of wheels (they are hub pacific) that I a building.
I have ordered on for a new set of wheels (they are hub pacific) that I a building.
Tomac boy
New Member
Very clever! The Speedi is a neat solution.
ragetty
Member
EXe 9.8 on order, been a reader only so far, here is my first post …
Does running the bike mullet count as tuning? It is effectively a 5% gear reduction (for a 2,5” tyre), so max. 50Nm becomes max. 52.5Nm
… so very likely not really noticeable.
Does running the bike mullet count as tuning? It is effectively a 5% gear reduction (for a 2,5” tyre), so max. 50Nm becomes max. 52.5Nm
… so very likely not really noticeable.
BuzzCanada
Member
Has anyone tested the built in power meter versus a pedal power meter to check accuracy? I noticed initially when using the onboard power meter that my wattage had dropped significantly. To confirm this I attached my Garmin pedals to confirm and yes in fact the Trek was displaying a much lower wattage output . I am going to run a test by recording a short ride with the trek app using the onboard power meter and simultaneously record the ride with my Garmin using my power meter pedals to confirm. FYI my Garmins are of course calibrated and have been confirmed correct with my trainer (+ - 3%) and the bike will be run with all assist off. I have emailed TQ on this issue and I am waiting for a reply.
I guess it's the same kind of "tuning" as swapping chain ring for a smaller one.EXe 9.8 on order, been a reader only so far, here is my first post …
Does running the bike mullet count as tuning? It is effectively a 5% gear reduction (for a 2,5” tyre), so max. 50Nm becomes max. 52.5Nm
… so very likely not really noticeable.
It will read faster though (on 27 compared to 29). so assist will stop a bit earlier and you can't calibrate it on the TQ as far as I understand.
Last edited:
ragetty
Member
@BuzzCanada any update on the wattage output of the motor and reading of the inbuilt powermeter? Any feedback from TQ?
ragetty
Member
I intend to check this soon against Garmin XC200’s.
ragetty
Member
In case anyone wants to know …
Here is the overlapped power data comparison from Strava for a ride recorded with both the Trek Central app and Garmin XC200 pedals (via Edge 1030). Shown top to bottom is speed, power and cadence.
Website plotting functions can be a little ‘vague‘ (see km markers, or the ave. speed lines that should be the same …), so I used the stopping points mid-ride to scale the distance (x) axis so that the timing matched for everything else.
+ The speed data are near enough identical, max. was 48.3 & 48.5km/h. I read somewhere that Trek Central App uses the OS GPS data in the saved file, so this is effectively Edge 1030 vs. iPhone 12.
+ The cadence is also near enough identical, which is what it should be. Any differences are next to negligible.
+ The power comparison is a can of worms! Due to different max. power values, I had to scale vertically as best I could – in general, I had seen that there was wildly varying differences, often factor 2, but there is one short passage at around 8.4km (uphill, speed below TQ cut-off), where both consistently showed approx. 100W, that I used to match the vertical scaling. The margin of error (due to how often I looked to compare) could easily be +/-10% or perhaps more. What is worse,, the average power lines should not overlap (I think 78W vs 117W), and if I had scaled so that they were relatively correct, the following would be much worse!!
The reality is that the TQ values (green) were rarely the same as the XC200 pedals, and in fact usually higher – look at where I hold speed, power and cadence (by accident, all above cut-off): the TQ data was 50-100% higher. Elsewhere the data doesn‘t match much either. The TQ data shows bloated values just about everywhere, but there was also consistent ‚overrun‘ shown ‚real time’ on the display for 1 or 2s, meaning that updating was generally slower. Given that Garmin has had many years to qualify their pedals (ha ha … yes, but we all know Garmin ;-), that TQ freely admits that their power data is a ‚guesstimate‘, and adding that to what I saw while riding, then, frankly, the TQ values are nothing more than ‚ball park‘ … and a fairly big one at that.
Here is the overlapped power data comparison from Strava for a ride recorded with both the Trek Central app and Garmin XC200 pedals (via Edge 1030). Shown top to bottom is speed, power and cadence.
Website plotting functions can be a little ‘vague‘ (see km markers, or the ave. speed lines that should be the same …), so I used the stopping points mid-ride to scale the distance (x) axis so that the timing matched for everything else.
+ The speed data are near enough identical, max. was 48.3 & 48.5km/h. I read somewhere that Trek Central App uses the OS GPS data in the saved file, so this is effectively Edge 1030 vs. iPhone 12.
+ The cadence is also near enough identical, which is what it should be. Any differences are next to negligible.
+ The power comparison is a can of worms! Due to different max. power values, I had to scale vertically as best I could – in general, I had seen that there was wildly varying differences, often factor 2, but there is one short passage at around 8.4km (uphill, speed below TQ cut-off), where both consistently showed approx. 100W, that I used to match the vertical scaling. The margin of error (due to how often I looked to compare) could easily be +/-10% or perhaps more. What is worse,, the average power lines should not overlap (I think 78W vs 117W), and if I had scaled so that they were relatively correct, the following would be much worse!!
The reality is that the TQ values (green) were rarely the same as the XC200 pedals, and in fact usually higher – look at where I hold speed, power and cadence (by accident, all above cut-off): the TQ data was 50-100% higher. Elsewhere the data doesn‘t match much either. The TQ data shows bloated values just about everywhere, but there was also consistent ‚overrun‘ shown ‚real time’ on the display for 1 or 2s, meaning that updating was generally slower. Given that Garmin has had many years to qualify their pedals (ha ha … yes, but we all know Garmin ;-), that TQ freely admits that their power data is a ‚guesstimate‘, and adding that to what I saw while riding, then, frankly, the TQ values are nothing more than ‚ball park‘ … and a fairly big one at that.
Last edited:
Now we are talking! What would be gold is to try and identify drivetrain losses (drag) or system efficiency at varying outputs. Imagine you could still find hub power meters and combine that with the Garmin pedals. You can then show the cumulative wattage that hits the rear hub. Rider input + motor input - drivetrain losses = total system output
Last edited:
BuzzCanada
Member
Nothing from TQ
BuzzCanada
Member
I was seeing the same except the motor was low consistently sometimes by a factor of 2. the Garmin pedals are accurate I have compared them with my trainer (NEO) and they were bang on. Side note, has anyone noticed their motor getting noisy? I am now getting much more noise and the not going to say grinding but a grumbling noise when I am not inputting not much for wattage. Usually just spinning lightly around corners.
Hey Buzz, set your display to the Watts display (something you clearly do a lot!) and then check when you hear the grumbling at low input to see if the support from the motor is remaining relatively constant or dropping off to 0 and spooling back up repeatedly along with the low growling sound (clutch not disengaging completely I'm led to believe.) If so your motor has an issue. Mine did it from new when rider input was between 80-130 watts and pedalling along smoothly , and the same again with the first replacement motor. Third time lucky it seems, symptoms are gone, motor is quiet and the support is much more consistent. Because simply put if you are pedalling and not coasting, the motor should be giving something (dependent on level selected) but it should never spool down to nothing. Trek and TQ were very helpful in solving my problem. It's a known issue and TQ are busy training their diagnostics software to recognise the problem by using motors returned from the field. One more thing, have you taken your cranks off at all? And if so are you sure they are aligned with the marks as per the service manual, they don't like being out of sync. I can share a video of what mine was doing if you like.
it will spool down to nothing when you are over the motor speed limit cut out..... I know its obvious, but worth stating as on the flat (or especially downhill slightly) its quite easy to go over the cut off speed and then wonder why the motor is not doing anything, especially when the motor is as quiet as the TQ.
I agree it obviously would do that at assist cut off. So I'll clarify by stating mine always occurred at between 20-23 km/h on a bike with a 32km/h cutoff speed. I could replicate the problem at will by keeping the rider input in the zone mentioned, put in 140watts and it went away.... , it was clearly a flaw and Trek and TQ agreed. Back to back testing with the shops demo bike showed that it was not normal.
You can find that part in de UK or if you a 21mm topcap like Dt 350 hub try Stamp3D
BuzzCanada
Member
Thanks a lot. I'll give that a try. Yes I have removed the cranks but I was aware of the alignment of the cranks on the spindle (notch) and they are installed correctly. (as well as properly torqued which is another issue common with these bikes) I am going to try what you said but to be honest I think it is doing exactly what you are describing which is making sense. I'll let you know what I find.
BuzzCanada
Member
Yah, I concur, I noticed the grumble went away with a higher wattage input from me. The clutch disengaging prematurely is most likely the culprit.
Ok seems similar, did you notice the motor wattage cycling down to zero intermittently as well while you still pedal? If so I'm pretty confident you have the same issue I had. The latest motor I have installed under warranty (no.3) does not do it at all. So it's not considered normal. I think it's also because the power delivery (especially in eco & mid) is so smooth and natural, and because it only occurs in a very specific power band which is not where you spend most of the ride, some people don't notice the issue.
Do you have a step back, with your 3rd engine that does not cut while pedaling?...
I am on my second motor, the gear noise is less noisy than on the first motor, but persists regularly, and I find these variations and cut-off of the assistance unacceptable when pedaling with energy...
I will therefore request a third replacement.
I am on my second motor, the gear noise is less noisy than on the first motor, but persists regularly, and I find these variations and cut-off of the assistance unacceptable when pedaling with energy...
I will therefore request a third replacement.
I'm not sure what you mean by step back? The power drop to zero while rider input was 80-130W was about as frequent on motor 2 as motor 1, I would say motor 2 was noisier, with more "growling" than 1. Motor 3 (so far!) is golden, no drop off and no noise. It's super smooth and quiet.
Ah I see, so far 125km. Will see how we go!
Similar threads
EMTB Forums
Latest articles
-
A new standard for charging ebikes is coming? A quick interview with Bosch - charge2bike
I had a quick chat with dr Vikram Godbole about "charge2bike", a new...- Knut Nes
- 2 min read
- Views: 455
- Reaction score: 6
- Comments: 2
-
Introducing the Forestal e-Cygnus - a downcountry and XC emtb
The new Forestal e-Cygnus is a slightly unusual emtb. It comes in two...