TQ just launched the HPR60, it’s based on the TQ HPR50 that was came out in 2022. The HPR60 is now rated at 60 Nm and 350 W, compared to the 50 Nm / 300 W of the HPR50. It’s not just the power that is upgraded though. Read more ...
TQ HPR60 60Nm - the new TQ gets stronger
- Thread starter knut7
- Start date
So there it is. Now the question is, how long for Trek to (presumably) incorporate them into the Fuel EXe's and, more importantly, how much more expensive are Fuel EXe's going to be in Orange man's tariff world...
I would be all over a 60nm Fuel EXe with a 580 battery if it was available this year at current EXe pricepoints (or cheaper but lol @ that...) but the reality is that AMFlow has come to my country (Canada) and that will almost certainly be the direction I go...
I would be all over a 60nm Fuel EXe with a 580 battery if it was available this year at current EXe pricepoints (or cheaper but lol @ that...) but the reality is that AMFlow has come to my country (Canada) and that will almost certainly be the direction I go...
hughballs
Member
I’ve got a hpr50 on Trek Fuel EXe and I’d just be keen for the apparent improvement in efficiency that Jeff mentions. Hopefully it flows down to us early adopters in a software update?
JP-NZ
E*POWAH Elite World Champion
60NM would be a sweet spot for me. The HPR50 whilst very good is just a little undergunned for my weight 110kg kitted.
I wasn't anticpating backwards compatibility
I wasn't anticpating backwards compatibility
hughballs
Member
Yeah sorry. Didn’t mean to imply backwards compatibility, just maybe better range from software
JP-NZ
E*POWAH Elite World Champion
Sorry, wasn't directly replying to you. I understand what you meant.. The faster charging in the latest update was a nice surprise. So hopefully some updates to come for the older motors/batteries.
justridebike
New Member
My 2 cents…..As an owner of both a Scott Solace eRide (e-Gravel) and Scott Lumen (e-MTB) I don’t really see the huge appeal of the HPR60. I already downrate my e-Gravel to 250 max specifically to manage the battery. You just don’t really need more than 300w max on the road. It limits at 28 mph regardless.
As for e-MTB, I get that they are trying to keep up with trend of larger watts. But 50w doesn’t move the needle. To me the real benefits are the ~20% improved efficiency as battery capacity has always been the limiter for me. I wonder how much of this is hardware vs software…..and if they quietly push an update to HPR50 with the efficiency improvements. That would be the GAME CHANGER for me as I am always managing my assistance levels on the e-Gravel.
Also, It’s bigger on the bottom now, so going to create frame clearance issues on existing models. I don’t see how HPR-60 will appeal to road/gravel frame designers that are all about sleek/low profile appearance. So are they going to keep selling HPR50 and 60 models concurrently?
As for e-MTB, I get that they are trying to keep up with trend of larger watts. But 50w doesn’t move the needle. To me the real benefits are the ~20% improved efficiency as battery capacity has always been the limiter for me. I wonder how much of this is hardware vs software…..and if they quietly push an update to HPR50 with the efficiency improvements. That would be the GAME CHANGER for me as I am always managing my assistance levels on the e-Gravel.
Also, It’s bigger on the bottom now, so going to create frame clearance issues on existing models. I don’t see how HPR-60 will appeal to road/gravel frame designers that are all about sleek/low profile appearance. So are they going to keep selling HPR50 and 60 models concurrently?
Yep agree the power/torque changes are not significant, the efficiency change (if it really is more efficient and it's not just fluff) is the big one.
Depends on your use case. For a gravel bike efficiency. Though you could carry two range extenders. For my Lumen downcountry/trail bike the existing setup is fine. With the range extender I get plenty of range. For my Stash+ the improved cooling is actually the big deal. Although, on that bike the extra power and torque will be nice as well.
this is where I am. The +10nm is mostly just icing, for me its the wider adoption of the 580wh battery that is the real draw
Emailsucks98
Well-known member
ragetty
Member
I welcome all the gains, in particular if some of those (efficiency) trickle down to the HPR50.
But there are (for me) bigger issues, such as an unusable walk function in steep rocky terrain and inconsistency in assist between crank rotations when hot - the latter is new, so was introduced by a software ‚update‘.
But there are (for me) bigger issues, such as an unusable walk function in steep rocky terrain and inconsistency in assist between crank rotations when hot - the latter is new, so was introduced by a software ‚update‘.
Emailsucks98
Well-known member
Constant error messages too. But TBH every brands walk mode sucks and we've had worse.
It's definitely something I'd look for improvement in the NEXT GREATEST generation of motors.
Maybe not having to hold a button down. How about a bluetooth, latching trigger/ lever- kind of like a micro version of a gas pump?
Last edited:
atypicalguy
New Member
This motor is the same form factor and bolt pattern. They are designed to drop out for replacement in all frames. My sense is that this was designed to be fully backward compatible with respect to both motor and controller cutouts on existing frames. Unclear if battery software will need updating or how that works to match old batteries to new motor and controller, or if new batteries share a form factor with the older battery e.g. for Fuel exe retrofit. Will update when I get my hands on the new motor.
The 580Wh are definitely larger than the 360Wh, so no backwards compat there.
And also unless it’s more efficient, the hpr60 would drain the 360 even faster.
A mtbr range review of all lightweights had the hpr50 being the lowest, the specialised 320Wh being better as is the 400+ rise60s
But I do love the output feel of my hpr50
And also unless it’s more efficient, the hpr60 would drain the 360 even faster.
A mtbr range review of all lightweights had the hpr50 being the lowest, the specialised 320Wh being better as is the 400+ rise60s
But I do love the output feel of my hpr50
Emailsucks98
Well-known member
HPR60 is 20% more efficient according to this review/testing.
I'm skeptical that would translate into 20% more range, all other things being equal. However- even if the range is the same but it does not self-limit as much as the current HPR50- and have higher torque too- that would be a cool upgrade.
hughballs
Member
Im still loving my HPR50 on my Trek Fuel EXe. Its just the range that eeks me. Thinking about the range extender but just wishing it was even just a bit bigger
Chrysaor
Active member
The efficiency of an electric motor is around 90% so if the original motor had an efficiency of 90% the new one might be around 91.8% which sounds less impressive than a 20% improvement. In real world that might translate to a 1-2% range increase all other parameters being equals, still good to take
They performed a range test against the old motor and recorded the below. Far more than a 1-2% increase.
Emailsucks98
Well-known member
@Chrysaor I understand what you're saying, makes sense hypothetically.
Piinkbike's review is also worth considering. Mike Kazimer said he got nearly 6000' / 27 miles out of the Yeti, using mostly boost. I have the Trek Slash+ with the 580wh battery, ride many of the same trails, I've got 20lbs on Mike and not as fit- but 5k' is about the most I've gotten, and that's using very little boost, mostly trail with some eco.
The HPR50 on the Slash+ feels much different than on the EXe... I think TQ could do a lot with firmware that we're not accounting for. I think heat management is the issue. I've been taking the battery cover off for steep service road climbs and it does make a noticeable difference.
I've often been riding the Slash+ with a 360wh battery.Would be awesome If the more efficient motor could increase the range with that battery. 2lbs is a noticeable. We'll see!
Piinkbike's review is also worth considering. Mike Kazimer said he got nearly 6000' / 27 miles out of the Yeti, using mostly boost. I have the Trek Slash+ with the 580wh battery, ride many of the same trails, I've got 20lbs on Mike and not as fit- but 5k' is about the most I've gotten, and that's using very little boost, mostly trail with some eco.
The HPR50 on the Slash+ feels much different than on the EXe... I think TQ could do a lot with firmware that we're not accounting for. I think heat management is the issue. I've been taking the battery cover off for steep service road climbs and it does make a noticeable difference.
I've often been riding the Slash+ with a 360wh battery.Would be awesome If the more efficient motor could increase the range with that battery. 2lbs is a noticeable. We'll see!
Last edited:
atypicalguy
New Member
It would drain battery faster if the hpr60 were not more efficient than the hpr50. But it supposedly is a lot more efficient. So it is just a matter of getting the hpr60 to talk to the old batteries, dropping it in with a new control screen, and seeing how it does. Maybe they will even go higher power at some point, but one suspects they are maxing out this form factor first.
atypicalguy
New Member
All power levels are a bit arbitrary
atypicalguy
New Member
The Fuel exes are great. The motor will more than double the rider's power output. I would argue that when the motor is making more power than the rider, you aren't biking any more - you are riding a motorcycle with a pedal-controlled throttle. We just rode up the steep climb at the head of our canyon last night at 9pm on level 1 and it basically cut the time required in half. So we did it again. This is unheard of; it us really a grind on my analogue Rohloff steel bike. I was making 175-200W and the TQ 50 seems limited to 100w in Level 1. It makes a nice ride out of what used to be a full-effort slog.
We did try level 2 and the thing just rocketed up. But that isnt biking any more; it is some other sport. If that is what people want to do then fine. But it isnt what I want to do.
I can barely hear the motor at all, and the new one is even quieter. Power delivery is seamless. We will probably find the battery limit at some point, but if we climb in level 1 I dont see it being an issue and I question the utility of more power. I would switch to the hpr60 for more range and less noise, but using more power is a fool's errand unless you really have somewhere to go that you just cannot get to on a regular bike due to time constraints. We ride almost exclusively for recreation. I also abhor chairlift skiing and vastly prefer XC and climbing with skins off piste, if that is any indication of my proclivities. I rode motorcycles a lot as a kid and have the scars and gravel in my knees to prove it, but that isnt what I am after. To each their own. Have fun.
We did try level 2 and the thing just rocketed up. But that isnt biking any more; it is some other sport. If that is what people want to do then fine. But it isnt what I want to do.
I can barely hear the motor at all, and the new one is even quieter. Power delivery is seamless. We will probably find the battery limit at some point, but if we climb in level 1 I dont see it being an issue and I question the utility of more power. I would switch to the hpr60 for more range and less noise, but using more power is a fool's errand unless you really have somewhere to go that you just cannot get to on a regular bike due to time constraints. We ride almost exclusively for recreation. I also abhor chairlift skiing and vastly prefer XC and climbing with skins off piste, if that is any indication of my proclivities. I rode motorcycles a lot as a kid and have the scars and gravel in my knees to prove it, but that isnt what I am after. To each their own. Have fun.
I think the HPRs are great for many users, unfortunately it wasnt for me.
Just have to give a word of warning for prospective buyers, the 50nm is not really representative of the power levels. At 100W of rider input it is significantly less powerful then the spec 1.1 35 nm motor (see velomotion review). Just wanted to give some context for possible buyers, I think it has many other great charecaristics.
Just have to give a word of warning for prospective buyers, the 50nm is not really representative of the power levels. At 100W of rider input it is significantly less powerful then the spec 1.1 35 nm motor (see velomotion review). Just wanted to give some context for possible buyers, I think it has many other great charecaristics.
atypicalguy
New Member
This may be true. I would like to highlight that no one seems to be outlining a framework for how much power is "enough". As my hot rodding friends say, "Fundamentally, you get used to any amount of power." I can see using higher and higher multiples of rider power output with age, as riders become less powerful. But to me if one rider is on a device putting out 2x rider power, while the other rider's kit is putting out 0.5x rider power, they are not really having the same experience. Rather like the people riding the lift whilst I zigzag up the chute on skins. Related experiences, but not meaningfully discussed in the same conversation. The same comment applies, but less markedly, to motors with different amounts of maximum torque. It is sort of like swimmers who race with fins and full face snorkels, vs swimmers who race with goggles only. Or archers vs air pistol shooters. Not that all riding is competitive of course. But really the writing about these devices should be categorized by power output to provide any meaningful context. Thanks for this thread. Enjoy.
Pedro@Ribeiro
New Member
Similar Threads
-
Might a TQ HPR90 announcement be imminent (June at Eurobike)?
- Started by Roaming50
- Replies: 29
-
-
TQ HPR50 to HPR60 upgrade on a Fuel ex-e: Is it worth it?- Started by Twisted Fork
- Replies: 114
-
Other Trek Slash+ 9.7 – worth buying now? Looking for advice (TQ motor, high pivot, parts, battery)- Started by vapeuz
- Replies: 51
-
