Mission Control Understanding Support vs Peak Power in Mission Control App v2.0

[McInner1]

Question to @Specialized Rider Care :

With the setting 20/100 I’ll get a 20% support of the motor, which is about 0.8 times the rider-power.
If I ride with 100 Watt the motor gives me another 80 Watt.
Is there a rider power limit above which there is no additional motor support? And I don't mean the point of the maximum possible motor power.
Suppose I ride with 400 watts of rider power, will the motor give me an additional 320 watts?

Thanks!

 

[Funkeydunk]

Slightly different challenge, my buddies are on Bosch motors with Emtb (automatic) mode. Any ideas what combo of support I should use to match their performance and battery life.

 

[Mikerb]

Its not that simple. Bike geometry rider weight tyre choice tyre pressure and riding style all impact. Set your modes to suit your riding not theirs.

 

[rsilvers]

Question to @Specialized Rider Care :

With the setting 20/100 I’ll get a 20% support of the motor, which is about 0.8 times the rider-power.
If I ride with 100 Watt the motor gives me another 80 Watt.
Is there a rider power limit above which there is no additional motor support? And I don't mean the point of the maximum possible motor power.
Suppose I ride with 400 watts of rider power, will the motor give me an additional 320 watts?

Thanks!

If you set 20/100 and pedal at 400 watts, the motor will be sent 328 watts of battery power. Power out of the motor will be a little less than that.

Personally I am not a fan of this PP concept. If you want to limit the battery consumption then still have PP at 100, but lower the assist percent. That will keep the power boost proportional to your pedal input. I will just keep it simple and always have PP on 100.

 

[rsilvers]

In eco mode ylu normally want tl limit peak power to preserve battery..

Just note that PP only comes into effect if you are either a very powerful rider or are using a lot of assist. It would be triggered with the default eco mode settings but not so much if you changed the eco setting to 10 or 15 percent like a lot of people seem to do.

Let's do an example at a lower assist value that someone may use for an eco mode: If you have 10% assist and 100%PP, and pedal with 200 watts, then the motor will get sent 200*.41 watts, or 82 watts. Now if you are a monster and pedal with 400 watts, then the motor will get sent 400*.41, or 164 watts. The peak power limiter will never trigger on these examples, but will on the default Eco setting (which seems tuned to impress new riders on test drives).

 

[TMS]

Just note that PP only comes into effect if you are either a very powerful rider or are using a lot of assist. It would be triggered with the default eco mode settings but not so much if you changed the eco setting to 10 or 15 percent like a lot of people seem to do.

Let's do an example at a lower assist value that someone may use for an eco mode: If you have 10% assist and 100%PP, and pedal with 200 watts, then the motor will get sent 200*.41 watts, or 82 watts. Now if you are a monster and pedal with 400 watts, then the motor will get sent 400*.41, or 164 watts. The peak power limiter will never trigger on these examples, but will on the default Eco setting (which seems tuned to impress new riders on test drives).

You are right. But only if the only variable in your example is rider power. When you add speed, cadence, rider torque, and the fact that assistance power is not the same (or linear factor between these) as power drawn from battery, the result is not so obviously anymore when speaking about saving battery.

 

[TMS]

Actually this is easy to test. Set modes to 10/20, 10/60 and 10/100 for example. Take equal test rides in variable terrain (not only flat) and examine the logs and battery used. Or did you felt any difference?

 

[Mihail]

Hi, based on the post from Specialized in this thread I have created an excel table which calculates the support given by the motor based on the support setting in mission control and the rider input at cadence 70-90 RPM. If I interpret everything correctly, this shall give a good direction how to setup your own custom settings in Mission Control (MC).

Turbo: I know I can sustain to pedal with 250W average for 20 min. This means that at 60% support setting I will be already getting the maximum support level from the motor and using combined power of 810W, enough for 20 min of climbing the steepest hill possible to climb. So I set my turbo to 60% at 100% Peak power.
Trial: Let’s say I want to sustain 200W on average for the whole time I use trial mode (typically on flat to 5% incline). If I set support to 30%, that would give me 446W total average power, enough for good tempo and fun on the trials, I can even reduce peak power to 60% and still be able to use 495W average total power.
ECO: Let’s say I will want to be able to ride transfers with 25km\h on the flat in the most economical, but comfortable way. I'm 86kg and based on past experiences I know I need around 250W to sustain that speed on flat fire road. I know also that 150W are very comfortable for me for even long stretches of time. That would mean I need additional 100W from the motor which I can get from 20% support (123W). I can set peak power to 20% to further limit the motor to max 112W input.


See the picture below with the highlighted numbers to better understand my fuzzy description ?.

 

[Mihail]

Here is also a link if you want to play with the model. Just change the Cyclist input field. Any feedback is welcome
Levo.xlsx

 

[Mikerb]

I prefer settings that straddle a variety of trail conditions since that is the reality of my rides, both in terms of terrain and elevation. Having sufficient pedal assist in each mode to maintain momentum with plenty of headroom which I may or may not need to use works best for me. Ignoring the stats I played with settings until I found ones that gave the best results and I now find the 3 modes so intuitive that I know exactly what mode to be in in each scenario.

 

[TMS]

Here is also a link if you want to play with the model. Just change the Cyclist input field. Any feedback is welcome
Levo.xlsx

I have a question. I've always wondered how this Blevo stat is possible:

Advanced user - 10/30/70 PP 30/75/100 ACC 0% Shuttle 0%

Maximum motor power: 756 Watt
- ECO: 330 Watt (17:27:11 - km 7,65)
- TRAIL: 750 Watt (17:45:29 - km 12,51)
- TURBO: 756 Watt (17:24:16 - km 6,58)

If 100 % = 756 W then with eco the max should be
0.3 * 756W = 227 W. My Blevo says 330W.
Can you explain this?

 

[davarello]

Hi, based on the post from Specialized in this thread I have created an excel table which calculates the support given by the motor based on the support setting in mission control and the rider input at cadence 70-90 RPM. If I interpret everything correctly, this shall give a good direction how to setup your own custom settings in Mission Control (MC).

Turbo: I know I can sustain to pedal with 250W average for 20 min. This means that at 60% support setting I will be already getting the maximum support level from the motor and using combined power of 810W, enough for 20 min of climbing the steepest hill possible to climb. So I set my turbo to 60% at 100% Peak power.
Trial: Let’s say I want to sustain 200W on average for the whole time I use trial mode (typically on flat to 5% incline). If I set support to 30%, that would give me 446W total average power, enough for good tempo and fun on the trials, I can even reduce peak power to 60% and still be able to use 495W average total power.
ECO: Let’s say I will want to be able to ride transfers with 25km\h on the flat in the most economical, but comfortable way. I'm 86kg and based on past experiences I know I need around 250W to sustain that speed on flat fire road. I know also that 150W are very comfortable for me for even long stretches of time. That would mean I need additional 100W from the motor which I can get from 20% support (123W). I can set peak power to 20% to further limit the motor to max 112W input.


See the picture below with the highlighted numbers to better understand my fuzzy description ?.

View attachment 21597

I'm at about these settings using 20/35, 40/60 and 60/100. At 125kg I'm putting a fair load through the cranks and I found using Turbo at 100% assist was no faster than 60% (on timed climbs) which suggests I was reaching the limits of the motor.

 

[Maastricht]

Hi, based on the post from Specialized in this thread I have created an excel table which calculates the support given by the motor based on the support setting in mission control and the rider input at cadence 70-90 RPM. If I interpret everything correctly, this shall give a good direction how to setup your own custom settings in Mission Control (MC).

Turbo: I know I can sustain to pedal with 250W average for 20 min. This means that at 60% support setting I will be already getting the maximum support level from the motor and using combined power of 810W, enough for 20 min of climbing the steepest hill possible to climb. So I set my turbo to 60% at 100% Peak power.
Trial: Let’s say I want to sustain 200W on average for the whole time I use trial mode (typically on flat to 5% incline). If I set support to 30%, that would give me 446W total average power, enough for good tempo and fun on the trials, I can even reduce peak power to 60% and still be able to use 495W average total power.
ECO: Let’s say I will want to be able to ride transfers with 25km\h on the flat in the most economical, but comfortable way. I'm 86kg and based on past experiences I know I need around 250W to sustain that speed on flat fire road. I know also that 150W are very comfortable for me for even long stretches of time. That would mean I need additional 100W from the motor which I can get from 20% support (123W). I can set peak power to 20% to further limit the motor to max 112W input.


See the picture below with the highlighted numbers to better understand my fuzzy description ?.

View attachment 21597

Hi @Mihail , thanks for your helpful contribution!

I think I more or less thought in the same way but approached it from a different side to end up with more or less the same result. I use BLEvo Smart Power function and with the function via the optional O_Synce remote I change the leg power threshold during the ride so BLEvo's algorithm then automatically adjusts the support% within a preconfigured range. If you like to experiment with this too, check my post below:

The Official BLEvo Thread - EMTB Forums

 

[TMS]

I have also noticed that with Wattbike I can reach over 1 000 W peak power but With Levo I can only reach under 600 W peak power no matter how hard I try.

 

[Maastricht]

I have a question. I've always wondered how this Blevo stat is possible:

Advanced user - 10/30/70 PP 30/75/100 ACC 0% Shuttle 0%

Maximum motor power: 756 Watt
- ECO: 330 Watt (17:27:11 - km 7,65)
- TRAIL: 750 Watt (17:45:29 - km 12,51)
- TURBO: 756 Watt (17:24:16 - km 6,58)

If 100 % = 756 W then with eco the max should be
0.3 * 756W = 227 W. My Blevo says 330W.
Can you explain this?

@PaoloBLEvo , can you maybe comment this? Maybe there is difference between a max theoretical wattage setting (227W) and a short peak of overshoot of wattage in practice possible?

 

[Mihail]

Hi @Mihail , thanks for your helpful contribution!

I think I more or less thought in the same way but approached it from a different side to end up with more or less the same result. I use BLEvo Smart Power function and with the function via the optional O_Synce remote I change the leg power threshold during the ride so BLEvo's algorithm then automatically adjusts the support% within a preconfigured range. If you like to experiment with this too, check my post below:

The Official BLEvo Thread - EMTB Forums

I saw this remove on some BLEvo youtube videos and i was wondering what is that. I have just found it from your post, thanks for that. I will order one and experiment with it as suggested. It would be great if i can make it work with my Hammerhead Karoo bike computer aswell.

 

[Mihail]

I have a question. I've always wondered how this Blevo stat is possible:

Advanced user - 10/30/70 PP 30/75/100 ACC 0% Shuttle 0%

Maximum motor power: 756 Watt
- ECO: 330 Watt (17:27:11 - km 7,65)
- TRAIL: 750 Watt (17:45:29 - km 12,51)
- TURBO: 756 Watt (17:24:16 - km 6,58)

If 100 % = 756 W then with eco the max should be
0.3 * 756W = 227 W. My Blevo says 330W.
Can you explain this?

My understanding from the Specialized post on the first page of this topic is that the max real motor support is 560W, not 756W, i guess 756W is the maximum electrical draw from the motor?
I have just bought BLEvo yesterday, so i didn't experiment with it yet, hence i don't have an answer to your question .

 

[PaoloBLEvo]

@PaoloBLEvo , can you maybe comment this? Maybe there is difference between a max theoretical wattage setting (227W) and a short peak of overshoot of wattage in practice possible?

The only thing that I can say is that the value is received from the motor..
BLEvo doesn't do any calculation..
Maybe this is a peak value and not the "average value"..

 

[TMS]

My understanding from the Specialized post on the first page of this topic is that the max real motor support is 560W, not 756W, i guess 756W is the maximum electrical draw from the motor?
I have just bought BLEvo yesterday, so i didn't experiment with it yet, hence i don't have an answer to your question .

Yes. Assistance level is made by limiting current drawn from motor. Not by limiting the real assistance output. Max current is 20 A. Max output watts is related to battery voltage level which it can keep when drawing this 20 A max amperes. So reverse calculation 756 W / 20 A = 37,8 V. If we assume that efficiency in that moment is 0,75 then the real assistance power would be 756 W * 0,75 = 567 W.

Efficiency is not related to my question. I was wondering how the power drawn from battery can exceed the limit set with PP. Looks like this is happening. And after this we can evaluate the excel calculations. It's a nice sheet but there might be some more variables that is affecting assistance power and max power drawn from battery.

This is very interesting though useless at the end

 

[Mihail]

I have also noticed that with Wattbike I can reach over 1 000 W peak power but With Levo I can only reach under 600 W peak power no matter how hard I try.

Could be body position on the different bikes, could be that Levo recording sample is longer vs. the Wattbike. I will try to compare my Levo vs. my roadbike powermeter vs. my kickr powermeter to see if there is similar relation to your result.

 

[Mikerb]

In addition to the power efficiency and torque curve you are also tring to second guess the software algorithm that controls the assist level. That algorithm likely uses torque cadence and speed to try to emulate a natural power delivery in all circumstances so will not be linear.

 

[TMS]

I have a question. I've always wondered how this Blevo stat is possible:

Advanced user - 10/30/70 PP 30/75/100 ACC 0% Shuttle 0%

Maximum motor power: 756 Watt
- ECO: 330 Watt (17:27:11 - km 7,65)
- TRAIL: 750 Watt (17:45:29 - km 12,51)
- TURBO: 756 Watt (17:24:16 - km 6,58)

If 100 % = 756 W then with eco the max should be
0.3 * 756W = 227 W. My Blevo says 330W.
Can you explain this?

I figured this out by myself. Maximum watt readings are measured when I'm changing from Turbo to Trail or Trail to Eco. Higher power level don't stay on so this is just echo from previous assistance level. And of course as you can see I'm not talking about assistance level, I'm talking about power level drawn from battery.

 

[Mihail]

In addition to the power efficiency and torque curve you are also tring to second guess the software algorithm that controls the assist level. That algorithm likely uses torque cadence and speed to try to emulate a natural power delivery in all circumstances so will not be linear.

Might be, might not be, as you said we don't know. If they put it in % from 1% to 100%, my best guess is that it is linear, but there are so many other things which could affect it. I guess this is the reason why Specialized are not publishing such data. Still for me it is a good start for customizing and understanding the impact those settings and learn how others are approaching it.

 

[Mikerb]

Might be, might not be, as you said we don't know. If they put it in % from 1% to 100%, my best guess is that it is linear, but there are so many other things which could affect it. I guess this is the reason why Specialized are not publishing such data. Still for me it is a good start for customizing and understanding the impact those settings and learn how others are approaching it.

So here is a real world example. You are riding single track and a slight incline combined with rougher ground increases your rolling resistance. You may well increase torque on the cranks to maintain speed....which may or may not be successful. At the same time your cadence may remain constant or reduce. How does the motor assist level respond? If your speed and cadence is maintained it may decide no further assistance is required despite sensing higher torque at the crank. If however both speed and cadence is lost it may deliver more assist. What does it do if cadence is reduced, torque increased, and speed is lost. A smart algorithm would provide a greater level of assist than in the previous scenario. I can think of several similar riding scenarios where the software designer would be considering how best to ensure power delivery was smooth and progressive in order both to make the ride safer but also to feel smooth and progressive. Linear power delivery proportionate to crank torque would be very easy to programme and probably pretty hairy to ride!!

 

[TMS]

Lets say we want the same 100 W assistance from motor in 40 and 80 cadence levels. When cadence is only 40 we need twice as much current from battery. And we don't know maybe motor want's to add a bit extra assistance to gain the normal cadence. Or at start ups. Maybe not.

The same thing happens to rider power. If torgue remains the same in any cadence the more you have rpms the more you produce the power.

What I'm saying when producing linear assistance level trough different rpm values the power drawn from battery is definitly not linear. It is changing all the time and that't why the ride feels smooth.

Mihail your excel works at constant and efficiency rpm levels as you mentioned. I'm not criticizing it. Keep going!

 

[Mihail]

So here is a real world example. You are riding single track and a slight incline combined with rougher ground increases your rolling resistance. You may well increase torque on the cranks to maintain speed....which may or may not be successful. At the same time your cadence may remain constant or reduce. How does the motor assist level respond? If your speed and cadence is maintained it may decide no further assistance is required despite sensing higher torque at the crank. If however both speed and cadence is lost it may deliver more assist. What does it do if cadence is reduced, torque increased, and speed is lost. A smart algorithm would provide a greater level of assist than in the previous scenario. I can think of several similar riding scenarios where the software designer would be considering how best to ensure power delivery was smooth and progressive in order both to make the ride safer but also to feel smooth and progressive. Linear power delivery proportionate to crank torque would be very easy to programme and probably pretty hairy to ride!!

I think those are two different things. The calcs above are my best guess about how much support we get from the motor based on given MC settings, sweet spot cadence (70-90 RPM) and constant rider power input, not how the power input is modulated based on variable cadence and power. BTW i did my first ride implementing my assumptions, and for me it felt much closer to my old, non EMTB. But that could very much be because based on what i learned from this topic, I have significantly increased the cadence while riding my Levo, to be in this 80-90RPM sweet spot. The average cadence from my last ride is 15 RPM higher. Similar (but not exactly the same) 40km ride i finished at 37% instead of 25% battery level.

 

[Mihail]

Lets say we want the same 100 W assistance from motor in 40 and 80 cadence levels. When cadence is only 40 we need twice as much current from battery. And we don't know maybe motor want's to add a bit extra assistance to gain the normal cadence. Or at start ups. Maybe not.

The same thing happens to rider power. If torgue remains the same in any cadence the more you have rpms the more you produce the power.

What I'm saying when producing linear assistance level trough different rpm values the power drawn from battery is definitly not linear. It is changing all the time and that't why the ride feels smooth.

Mihail your excel works at constant and efficiency rpm levels as you mentioned. I'm not criticizing it. Keep going!

I agree, and I'm definitely not taking it as criticism, rather than journey to better understand how we can get the best from the fun riding an ebike and still build our own power. BLEvo and settings flexibility were significant part of my decision to change my 3 years old Haibike full seven pro for a Levo 2020. And i like numbers and excel
As promised i did peak power comparison. My road bike on Wahoo Kicker Power meter 973W, Levo 719W but measured with the Karoo computer, next time i will check it with BLEvo and share back. But I'm starting to think that it is lower, as when motor is helping, it impacts the signals to our brains making us think we are at the max, while we are not. You know some say 40% of our muscle power is locked i our brains. I think this can be verified with a test with support off and even with the whole bike off which i will do

 

[TMS]

As promised i did peak power comparison. My road bike on Wahoo Kicker Power meter 973W, Levo 719W but measured with the Karoo computer, next time i will check it with BLEvo and share back. But I'm starting to think that it is lower, as when motor is helping, it impacts the signals to our brains making us think we are at the max, while we are not. You know some say 40% of our muscle power is locked i our brains. I think this can be verified with a test with support off and even with the whole bike off which i will do

I have tried max rider power also without assistance. No luck breaking 600 W limit with Levo. Could help if could see the power from display when pushing the limits. But my phone is always in backpack. Or maybe I'm just stronger indoors with Wattbike and both readings are correct .

 

[Mihail]

I have tried max rider power also without assistance. No luck breaking 600 W limit with Levo. Could help if could see the power from display when pushing the limits. But my phone is always in backpack. Or maybe I'm just stronger indoors with Wattbike and both readings are correct .

I did some experiments today. According to the data from Karoo, first I was able to produce Max 709W which is consistent with the previous attempt. Than I dialed the preload on the fork to the max, and i stiffened the shock (I have Levo 2020 comp with rock shock suspension). This enabled me to register 807W on the Karoo. However when I looked at BLEvo, the same effort was recorded as Max 544W. So I think there are two things into play. First the suspension eats lots of Power compared to the stiff Watt bike, and second BLEvo and Karoo are interpreting the data from the same sensor differently. Tomorrow i plan to ride for 1 hour with Garmin, Karoo and BLEvo recording the data, to see how this will compare in term of Average and Max power.

 

[TMS]

This max rider power thing may deserve its own dedicated thread.