1234
New Member
Excellent to get Objective feedback from someone who has used both back to back.
About the efficiency,
The review that I remember claiming increased efficiency was this one.Despite being tested with the bigger, heavier 580 Wh battery, and the same identical tires and air pressures, the HPR60 in the Yeti used over 20% less energy – despite the bike being nearly 10% heavier than the Canyon. The measured energy consumption came in at just 25.65 Wh per 100 vertical metres, which is remarkably low, especially at full motor support.
In absolute terms, our test rider climbed nearly 2,200 vertical metres on the 580 Wh battery with an average rider output of 175 watts. For comparison’s sake, the HPR50 drive combined with the 360 Wh battery managed just over 1,050 metres under nearly identical conditions. Based on those figures, the HPR60 of the Yeti should theoretically achieve around 1,350 metres of elevation gain with the smaller 360 Wh battery – a clear and measurable improvement.
That translates to a 27.2% increase in efficiency for the Yeti compared to the Canyon, calculated based on elevation gained per unit of battery energy consumed. This figure accounts for both the weight and speed differences between the two bikes.
However, the support modes aren’t configured identically across all TQ-powered bikes. TQ leave this entirely up to the individual bike brands. For example, Canyon configure the Spectral:ONfly with much higher peak power in the “Eco” and “Mid” modes than Yeti do on the MTE. Yeti, in turn, opt for a higher assist factor instead.
Have to say with that particular review the methodology is pretty bad, they should have set both motors to the same settings in the app rather than leaving them on the stock Settings that yeti and canyon set them up with. It sounds like you’re feedback is going to be much better as it’s the exact same bike, and the only part that has been changed is the motor.And the different batteries are going to give different results as well, one of the things they said when the Slash+ came out was the new battery was able to maintain a steadier output which helped improve power delivery and efficiency for the motor since there was less voltage drop under load. I have noticed with the Slash+ it seems to have a little more pep in its step compared to the Fuel EX-e.
But theoretically you should be getting better range if you’re running it at 300w rather than 350w, maybe it just needs time for the software to optimise itself.
. Let’s see what happens.
