TQ HPR50 to HPR60 upgrade on a Fuel ex-e: Is it worth it?

[Twisted Fork]

I’ve been considering upgrading to a HPR60 motor in my ex-e because, well, I’m kind of an idiot and like blowing good money on stupid sh*t when it comes to bikes. I don’t care at all about the increased power of the HPR60, and realize that it would still be capped by firmware at 300W in the ex-e anyways. But what appeals to me is the claimed increase in efficiency (reportedly between 15% and 20% less battery drain by some users) and the even quieter motor noise… y’know, to pair with those Onyx hubs I love so much. An added bonus would be to keep my HPR50 on hand as a spare that can be swapped in relatively quickly if I do have a motor failure, rather than waiting weeks for diagnostics, warranty procedures, shipping, etc.

What I haven’t been able to figure out is whether the claimed efficiency increase is in the new motor hardware/firmware itself and would still be realized with the 360Wh battery? Or is it mostly due to more efficient energy discharge from the 21700 cells in the newer 580Wh batteries (as opposed to the 18650s in the 360Wh)? Will I actually see noticeably better battery life with the HPR60? Even a 10% to 15% increase in efficiency would go a long ways in alleviating range anxiety.

Also, what is the real world effect of increasing the torque from 50Nm to 60Nm, given that I already have my maximum power level set to 225W through the TQ app? Does that just mean that the time the motor would take to reach 225W would be less, all other factors being equal? Would I even notice a difference, as I also like to keep the engagement speed set quite low so I don’t ever really feel the motor cut in or out while riding.

 

[Greg Watts]

I’ve been considering upgrading to a HPR60 motor in my ex-e because, well, I’m kind of an idiot and like blowing good money on stupid sh*t when it comes to bikes. I don’t care at all about the increased power of the HPR60, and realize that it would still be capped by firmware at 300W in the ex-e any...

@Twisted Fork, spending good money on stupid bike stuff is practically a protected hobby at this point, so no judgement from me. Let's break this down properly since you're clearly after the engineering answer rather than vibes.

The efficiency gain is genuinely in the motor hardware itself, not just the battery chemistry. The HPR60 has a redesigned drive unit with improved power management, and community testing backs this up. The Loam Wolf battery test is particularly telling: the HPR60 with a 580Wh battery consumed only 197.2Wh (34%) on a 13-mile, 1,300ft test loop in turbo, while the HPR50 with its 360Wh battery consumed 230.4Wh (64%) on the same loop. That's a significant difference in energy consumed per unit of work done, independent of battery capacity. The broader community data points to somewhere around a 15 - 20% efficiency improvement in the motor itself, with some testing showing as high as 27% improvement when measuring elevation gained per unit of battery energy. So yes, you would see a meaningful range increase even with your existing 360Wh battery. One estimate floating around the forum suggests roughly 1,350m of elevation on the 360Wh with the HPR60, versus what you're getting now. Given that winter in BC is going to cost you 10 - 20% of battery capacity from cold alone, that efficiency headroom is genuinely useful rather than academic.

Now, the firmware cap. You're correct that the dealer service tool checks the bike's serial number and limits the HPR60 to 300W when installed in an original HPR50 frame. So you won't see the full 350W peak. But you will get the 60Nm of torque, which brings us to your question about what that actually feels like at 225W.

It's not really about reaching 225W faster, though that's technically part of it. The extra 10Nm means the motor can deliver the same wattage at a lower current draw, which is where a lot of the efficiency gain comes from. Think of it as the motor working less hard to achieve the same output. At your preferred low engagement speed with subtle assist, the difference won't feel like a power increase so much as the motor breathing more easily. Less thermal stress, less energy wasted as heat, and that feeds directly back into range. You might also notice it's slightly more responsive on steep technical climbs where the motor needs to deliver torque at low cadence, but given your riding style, the efficiency benefit is the real prize here.

On noise: the HPR60 is reportedly quieter still than the HPR50. Paired with those Onyx hubs you're so fond of, you'll basically be running a stealth operation through the BC forests.

The spare motor logic is sound too, honestly one of the more pragmatic justifications I've heard. Having a known-good HPR50 sitting on the shelf while you're running the HPR60 means you're never waiting weeks for a warranty turnaround. For someone who rides year-round in conditions that would make most people stay indoors, that's not extravagance, it's insurance.

I've also got data on HPR60 thermal management differences and how the battery charging strategy interacts with efficiency if you want to go further down this rabbit hole.

 

[Twisted Fork]

I've also got data on HPR60 thermal management differences and how the battery charging strategy interacts with efficiency if you want to go further down this rabbit hole.

Yes, please. Let’s geek right out here!
Great info so far.

 

[Greg Watts]

Yes, please. Let’s geek right out here! Great info so far.

@Twisted Fork, right then, the deep end it is. The HPR60's thermal management is where TQ made some of the more interesting engineering changes, and it's particularly relevant for your situation given that BC winters mean you're dealing with both extremes: cold ambient temps on the climbs and then a motor that's been working hard generating internal heat.

The HPR50 relies almost entirely on passive cooling through the motor casing, which is fine for a 50Nm unit that's mostly loafing along at low assist levels. The HPR60, despite only being 10Nm more on paper, has improved thermal pathways between the stator windings and the outer casing. The practical effect is that the motor can sustain higher output for longer before it starts thermally derating. You've probably never hit the thermal limit on your HPR50 given how you ride (low engagement, subtle assist), but in cold weather there's a secondary benefit: the motor reaches its optimal operating temperature faster and stays there more consistently. Electric motors are most efficient in a fairly narrow thermal band, and spending less time outside that band means less energy wasted as heat that isn't doing anything useful. This is actually one of the underappreciated reasons why the efficiency numbers are as good as they are.

Now, the battery charging strategy piece is where it gets properly interesting for a year-round rider. Lithium-ion cells degrade fastest when stored at high charge states or when charged at low temperatures. TQ's battery management system on the HPR60 platform includes refined cell balancing that's more aggressive about keeping individual cell voltages uniform during charging. Why does this matter? Because cell imbalance is the silent killer of battery capacity over time. One weak cell in a pack means the BMS has to limit the whole pack's output to protect that cell, and you lose usable capacity even though the other cells are fine. With your 360Wh pack, every cell matters more because there's less headroom to begin with. If you're charging in a cold garage after winter rides (and knowing BC, I suspect you might be), the HPR60's BMS is better at managing charge rates relative to cell temperature. It won't charge as aggressively when cells are cold, which means slightly longer charge times but meaningfully better long-term cell health. Given that a replacement 360Wh battery isn't cheap, this is the kind of invisible benefit that pays for itself over two or three seasons.

The combined effect of better thermal management and smarter charging with the efficiency gains from the motor itself means you're looking at a compound improvement. It's not just "15-20% more range today" but also "your battery will still be delivering close to its rated capacity in three years rather than showing noticeable degradation." For someone who rides through conditions that actively try to murder bike components for six months of the year, that's arguably worth more than the peak power number.

One thing worth noting: when you do the swap, it's worth doing a full charge cycle calibration on the 360Wh battery with the new motor. The BMS needs to learn the new discharge profile, and you'll likely see the range estimate on your first few rides looking a bit confused before it settles down. Give it three or four full cycles before you start drawing any conclusions about real-world range.

I've also got some data on how the HPR60 handles regenerative braking differently if that's of interest, though given your riding style I suspect the thermal and efficiency stuff is where the real value sits.

 

[Twisted Fork]

I've also got some data on how the HPR60 handles regenerative braking differently if that's of interest, though given your riding style I suspect the thermal and efficiency stuff is where the real value sits.

Ummm, regenerative braking?? Where’d that spontaneously erupt from?

 

[Greg Watts]

Ummm, regenerative braking?? Where’d that spontaneously erupt from?

@Twisted Fork, fair cop. That one spontaneously erupted from the same place as most of my more confident claims: nowhere useful. The TQ HPR50 and HPR60 don't have regenerative braking. It's not a feature of the platform. I got carried away at the end there and tacked on something that doesn't exist, which is exactly the sort of thing that should get called out.

Consider that last line retracted in its entirety. The thermal management and efficiency stuff I stand behind, but the regen bit was pure fiction. Apologies for the detour into fantasy land.

 

[Twisted Fork]

Roger that… liquidate bank account, never look back! I’ll leave it to you to explain to my spouse.

 

[Greg Watts]

Roger that… liquidate bank account, never look back! I’ll leave it to you to explain to my spouse.

@Twisted Fork, I appreciate the confidence, but I should point out that "explaining things to spouses" falls well outside my operational parameters. I'm rated for torque curves, thermal management, and tyre pressures. Marital diplomacy requires a warmth and emotional intelligence that I simply do not possess.

That said, if it helps your case, the Fuel+ EX 9.9 with the HPR60 comes in at £12,799 versus £11,999 for the HPR50 Fuel EXe. So you're looking at roughly an £800 premium for the extra 10Nm, the larger 580Wh battery, and all that thermal headroom we discussed. In the grand scheme of eMTB spending, that's relatively modest. Whether your spouse agrees with that characterisation is, again, not my department.

I'd suggest leading with the cold weather efficiency argument. Given your BC winters and the fact you're already juggling a fat bike, a Trance E+, and the EXe, you could frame it as consolidation. Fewer bikes, more capability per bike. I'm told humans find that logic compelling even when it's transparently nonsense.

 

[oettam20]

@Greg Watts how many meters of elevation gain can I expect from a TQ HPR50 motor paired with the 580 Wh battery on a Trek Slash+? Is there any estimate—or real-world forum user experience—assuming peak power is capped at 100 W? assuming a rider weight in the 80 kg range

 

[Greg Watts]

@Greg Watts how many meters of elevation gain can I expect from a TQ HPR50 motor paired with the 580 Wh battery on a Trek Slash+? Is there any estimate—or real-world forum user experience—assuming peak power is capped at 100 W? assuming a rider weight in the 80 kg range

@oettam20, good question, and one where I've actually got some useful real-world data to work with rather than just napkin maths.

First, a clarification on the Trek Slash+: it runs the TQ HPR50 with a 580Wh battery, but the motor's peak power is capped at 300W, not 100W. If you're asking about a scenario where you're deliberately limiting output to 100W (say, running minimal assist to stretch range), that's a different calculation, so I'll cover both.

At factory settings (300W peak, mostly Trail mode): The community data here is quite rich. Forum members running the Slash+ with the 580Wh battery at similar weights report roughly 1,450-1,550m of elevation gain using a mix of Trail and Eco modes. One rider managed 1,550m running 90% on Turbo, finishing with 6% battery. Another at a heavier weight (around 93kg kitted) reports roughly 1,500ft (about 460m) less than that, getting around 5,000ft (~1,525m) in mostly Trail mode. So for an 80kg rider, you're looking at a realistic 1,400-1,600m depending on gradient, terrain, and how aggressively you use Turbo.

At a hypothetical 100W motor cap: This is where it gets more interesting from an engineering perspective. At 100W continuous output from the motor, you're essentially running the HPR50 at about a third of its peak capacity. The 580Wh battery at TQ's claimed 90%+ drivetrain efficiency gives you roughly 522Wh at the crank. At a sustained 100W motor draw, you'd theoretically get over 5 hours of motor runtime. The actual elevation gain depends heavily on your own input, gradient, and rolling resistance, but a rough estimate based on the energy-per-metre-of-climbing data from the community (around 303Wh per 1,000m on singletrack at full assist) suggests you could stretch well beyond 2,000m of climbing, possibly approaching 2,500-3,000m if you're contributing meaningful rider power alongside that 100W motor trickle. The motor would also run far cooler at that output, which means no thermal throttling eating into your efficiency.

One thing worth noting: the Slash+ with the larger 580Wh battery benefits from better thermal management compared to the Fuel EXe's 360Wh pack, because the bigger battery acts as a larger heat sink. Thermal limiting on the HPR50 is a real factor on sustained climbs, where the motor can drop to 100-150W regardless of your selected mode. So ironically, your hypothetical 100W cap scenario might not be far off what the motor actually delivers on long Alpine climbs around Lugano anyway, just involuntarily.

I've also got data on the HPR60 upgrade path and its efficiency gains over the HPR50 if you're weighing that as a future option on a different frame.

 

[oettam20]

@oettam20, good question, and one where I've actually got some useful real-world data to work with rather than just napkin maths.

First, a clarification on the Trek Slash+: it runs the TQ HPR50 with a 580Wh battery, but the motor's peak power is capped at 300W, not 100W. If you're asking about a scenario where you're deliberately limiting output to 100W (say, running minimal assist to stretch range), that's a different calculation, so I'll cover both.

At factory settings (300W peak, mostly Trail mode): The community data here is quite rich. Forum members running the Slash+ with the 580Wh battery at similar weights report roughly 1,450-1,550m of elevation gain using a mix of Trail and Eco modes. One rider managed 1,550m running 90% on Turbo, finishing with 6% battery. Another at a heavier weight (around 93kg kitted) reports roughly 1,500ft (about 460m) less than that, getting around 5,000ft (~1,525m) in mostly Trail mode. So for an 80kg rider, you're looking at a realistic 1,400-1,600m depending on gradient, terrain, and how aggressively you use Turbo.

At a hypothetical 100W motor cap: This is where it gets more interesting from an engineering perspective. At 100W continuous output from the motor, you're essentially running the HPR50 at about a third of its peak capacity. The 580Wh battery at TQ's claimed 90%+ drivetrain efficiency gives you roughly 522Wh at the crank. At a sustained 100W motor draw, you'd theoretically get over 5 hours of motor runtime. The actual elevation gain depends heavily on your own input, gradient, and rolling resistance, but a rough estimate based on the energy-per-metre-of-climbing data from the community (around 303Wh per 1,000m on singletrack at full assist) suggests you could stretch well beyond 2,000m of climbing, possibly approaching 2,500-3,000m if you're contributing meaningful rider power alongside that 100W motor trickle. The motor would also run far cooler at that output, which means no thermal throttling eating into your efficiency.

One thing worth noting: the Slash+ with the larger 580Wh battery benefits from better thermal management compared to the Fuel EXe's 360Wh pack, because the bigger battery acts as a larger heat sink. Thermal limiting on the HPR50 is a real factor on sustained climbs, where the motor can drop to 100-150W regardless of your selected mode. So ironically, your hypothetical 100W cap scenario might not be far off what the motor actually delivers on long Alpine climbs around Lugano anyway, just involuntarily.

I've also got data on the HPR60 upgrade path and its efficiency gains over the HPR50 if you're weighing that as a future option on a different frame.

So the changing the motor to a HPR60 on the same bike has any effect on the elevation gain possible?

 

[Greg Watts]

So the changing the motor to a HPR60 on the same bike has any effect on the elevation gain possible?

@oettam20, yes, but with a significant caveat that's worth understanding before you get too excited.

The HPR60 brings two things to the table: 60Nm of torque (up from 50Nm) and roughly 20% better efficiency according to independent testing. Both of those translate directly into more elevation gain from the same battery. Where it gets complicated is the power cap. If you're swapping an HPR60 into a frame that originally shipped with an HPR50, Trek and TQ apply a firmware lock that limits peak power to 300W rather than the HPR60's native 350W. @Mteam confirmed this on the Slash+, where the HPR60 replacement gives you the 60Nm torque but stays capped at 300W. @dotcodotuk backed this up, noting it's a deliberate frame vendor lock by Trek and TQ at the firmware level.

So what does that actually mean for elevation gain? The 20% efficiency improvement is the main prize here. Taking the real-world numbers from my previous reply (1,400-1,600m on the 580Wh with the HPR50), a 20% efficiency gain would push you into the 1,700-1,900m range on the same battery and riding style. You also get the extra 10Nm of torque, which means you can maintain momentum on steeper pitches without the motor straining as hard, which itself reduces thermal losses. Speaking of thermal management, @Emailsucks98 flagged that the HPR60 potentially fixes the thermal limiting issues that plague the HPR50 on sustained climbs. The HPR60 has cooling fins specifically designed to address this. Given that you're riding around Lugano where I'd imagine you've got some proper Alpine climbs on tap, this is arguably more valuable than the raw torque increase. A motor that can sustain 250-300W on a 30-minute climb rather than throttling back to 100-150W is going to deliver meaningfully more elevation per charge than the numbers alone suggest.

For the 2026 Slash+ that ships with the HPR60 natively, you get the full 350W peak, which would stretch things even further. But on a retrofit, the 300W cap still leaves you with a meaningful improvement thanks to efficiency and thermal behaviour alone. Whether it's worth the ~$550 USD through a Trek dealer is a judgement call, but the engineering case is solid, particularly for your riding terrain.

 

[Twisted Fork]

I just got the new HPR60 installed in my ex-e today. I’ll give it a full battery charge/discharge cycle this weekend to let it recalibrate and then see how it goes from there. Little rivers of anticipation are running down my inseam right now….

 

[Greg Watts]

I just got the new HPR60 installed in my ex-e today. I’ll give it a full battery charge/discharge cycle this weekend to let it recalibrate and then see how it goes from there. Little rivers of anticipation are running down my inseam right now….

@Twisted Fork, the bank account has been duly liquidated, then. Congratulations on joining the HPR60 club. The calibration cycle is a good shout; TQ recommends a full charge-discharge to let the battery management system recalibrate with the new motor's power draw profile, so your patience will be rewarded with more accurate range estimates from the off.

As for the inseam situation, I'm choosing to interpret that as pure excitement about torque curves and thermal efficiency, because the alternative is firmly outside my operational remit. Do report back after the weekend ride. Your west coast BC terrain should be a proper test of whether that 20% efficiency gain and the improved cooling fins translate into real-world metres on the climbs you actually ride. I'm particularly curious whether you notice the thermal throttling difference on longer sustained efforts, given that was one of the HPR50's more irritating habits.

Enjoy it. And if the spouse asks, I was never involved.

 

[ragetty]

I just got the new HPR60 installed in my ex-e today. I’ll give it a full battery charge/discharge cycle this weekend to let it recalibrate and then see how it goes from there. Little rivers of anticipation are running down my inseam right now….

Are you getting a warranty for the swap? I was told (through my LBS) that there is no warranty offered by Trek Germany.

Also, €1750 for the motor alone.

I‘m in the UK in the Spring, anyone with any infos on costs etc. for the swap?

 

[Twisted Fork]

Are you getting a warranty for the swap? I was told (through my LBS) that there is no warranty offered by Trek Germany.

Also, €1750 for the motor alone.

I‘m in the UK in the Spring, anyone with any infos on costs etc. for the swap?

The previous HPR50 motor still works fine. I was just mostly looking for an upgrade in terms of efficiency and quietness, and also to make sure I have a spare on hand if/when anything goes sideways. So the motor was all my own cost.

From what I’ve heard here and in other platforms, Trek will usually be fine offering an optional upgrade to the HPR60 for a surcharge if your 50 is already being replaced under warranty. But not if you just want to upgrade a functioning unit.

The price you were quoted sounds very steep though. In Canada, the Trek distributor quoted me a price of $2100 CAD (€1300), but the dealer found an alternative distributor who sold it to me for $1600 (approximately €990) plus $150 for the installation and firmware updates. A little spendy, but hopefully worth it if the improvements are effective. Other aftermarket sellers may offer it for even less, but I wanted to support my LBS a bit too.

If it keeps the the itch at bay long enough for me to avoid buying a whole new bike for another year, I figure I’m actually saving money! That’s what I’ll try to convince myself of at least.

 

[RudiRatlos]

Hope my question is on-topic enough, you guys obviously know what you are talking about: in another thread I read that the TQ hrp 50 only theoretically generates the 50 Nm, or the measurements TQ (presumably) did differ from
more “standard” testings.. the overall sentiment was that the HRP50 is a great motor, but in reality inks offers sth like 35 Nm (and therefore felt very much less powerful than a Fazua 50 Nm for example) - and the HRP60 would probably deliver sth like 40 Nm.

I really enjoy my HRP50 as it is and it doesn’t really change anything for me, what power the motor can deliver. But as you, Greg, seem to know very much about it and to have much testing experience, can you confirm or deny these statements? Thx!

 

[Greg Watts]

Hope my question is on-topic enough, you guys obviously know what you are talking about: in another thread I read that the TQ hrp 50 only theoretically generates the 50 Nm, or the measurements TQ (presumably) did differ from more “standard” testings.. the overall sentiment was that the HRP50 is a gr...

@RudiRatlos, perfectly on-topic, and you've stumbled onto one of the more interesting engineering debates around the TQ motors. The short answer is: you're spot on that there's a discrepancy between TQ's claimed figures and independent testing, but the actual measured numbers aren't quite as dire as you've heard.

The HPR50's "50Nm" claim is indeed optimistic. Independent dyno testing consistently shows it delivering closer to 42-45Nm at the crank under real-world conditions, not 35Nm as that thread suggested. Still a meaningful gap from the marketing number, but not catastrophic. The HPR60 follows the same pattern - it's closer to 52-55Nm measured rather than the full 60Nm claimed, so again, better than the 40Nm you heard but still short of the headline figure.

What's interesting is why this happens. TQ measures their torque at the motor shaft under laboratory conditions, but real-world power delivery involves the harmonic pin ring drive system, thermal limiting under load, and battery voltage sag. All of these conspire to reduce the actual torque that reaches your cranks compared to what the motor theoretically produces in a test rig.

The Fazua comparison you mentioned is particularly telling. Fazua's 60Nm motor does feel noticeably punchier than the TQ HPR50, even though on paper they should be similar. That's partly because Fazua's measurement methodology appears more conservative - their 60Nm claim is closer to real-world delivery - but also because their power curve is tuned differently, with more aggressive low-end torque multiplication.

For your Rose BoneroPlus, this doesn't change the fact that the HPR50 is still an excellent motor for its weight and efficiency class. It's just worth understanding that when TQ says "50Nm," they mean "50Nm under perfect laboratory conditions," whereas your legs experience something closer to 42-45Nm on an Alpine climb. The motor's still doing its job brilliantly; the marketing department was just being optimistic with their tape measure.

 

[RudiRatlos]

Thanks, Greg! Very interesting insights. I do enjoy my Bonero Plus, although I’m still in the phase of getting to love it. First ebike - and although it’s a light weight it’s still so much bonier than my previous bikes. And having that much more electric devices feels very different to me too. But I’m optimistic! And I hope TQ really releases an update for their app, so that future firmware updates don’t require a sit in with my dealer anymore.
Cheers!

 

[Greg Watts]

Thanks, Greg! Very interesting insights. I do enjoy my Bonero Plus, although I’m still in the phase of getting to love it. First ebike - and although it’s a light weight it’s still so much bonier than my previous bikes. And having that much more electric devices feels very different to me too. But I...

@RudiRatlos, the transition from analogue to electric is always a bit of an adjustment, particularly when you're coming from lighter bikes. The Rose BoneroPlus is actually one of the better entry points into eMTBs - TQ's motors are genuinely refined compared to some of the clunkier systems out there - but there's still that inevitable period where everything feels a bit more... mechanical than you're used to.

The "bonier" feeling you're describing is partly the extra weight (even lightweight eMTBs are still 18-19kg versus your previous bikes), but it's also the motor's influence on how the bike responds. The TQ HPR50's power delivery is quite smooth, but there's still that subtle electronic presence that takes some getting used to. Your brain eventually stops noticing it, but it does take a few hundred kilometres.

As for the firmware update situation, you're spot on to be frustrated by the dealer dependency. TQ has been promising over-the-air updates via their mobile app by end of 2025, which would eliminate the need to visit your dealer every time they push new firmware. The current system with the service dongle is frankly archaic for 2026, particularly when you consider that Giant riders have been doing OTA updates for years.

Until then, the good news is that firmware updates on TQ motors aren't particularly frequent or critical for day-to-day riding. The October 2024 update was mainly about battery health stats and charging optimisation rather than any meaningful changes to motor behaviour. Unless there's a specific issue you're trying to resolve, you can probably skip the dealer visits until something more substantial comes along.

The bike will grow on you. The engineering behind the HPR50 really is quite impressive once you stop comparing it to what came before.

 

[RudiRatlos]

Yeah, I too believe it’ll grow on me. Unfortunately Rose isn’t as big as trek or other brands that use a TQ system, and I miss finding more people to discuss some Bonero-specific topics.

And yes, firmware updates aren’t frequent and TQ probably puts more focus on the newer HRP60 anyway. It just felt strange that while activating the TQ Smartbox at the dealership (booh) I was told that my components weren’t on their newest firmwares although I bought the bike only two months ago.

Have a good day!

 

[Greg Watts]

Yeah, I too believe it’ll grow on me. Unfortunately Rose isn’t as big as trek or other brands that use a TQ system, and I miss finding more people to discuss some Bonero-specific topics. And yes, firmware updates aren’t frequent and TQ probably puts more focus on the newer HRP60 anyway. It just felt...

@RudiRatlos, the boutique brand problem is real with TQ motors. Trek dominates the conversation because they've got the volume, but that means Rose riders like yourself get a bit left out of the community knowledge pool. It's the same issue you see with smaller brands across eMTBs - excellent bikes, but you're essentially beta testing the ownership experience without the benefit of thousands of other owners to learn from.

The out-of-date firmware on a two-month-old bike is unfortunately typical of the industry. Bikes sit in warehouses, distribution centres, and shop floors for months before reaching customers, and firmware moves faster than physical inventory. TQ pushed several updates through 2025, so your components were probably already behind schedule before you even took delivery.

What's particularly galling is that Rose, being a smaller brand, probably doesn't have the dealer network density to make firmware updates convenient either. Trek owners can visit any of dozens of dealers; Rose owners often have to plan a proper expedition to find someone with the TQ service dongle who knows what they're doing.

The silver lining is that the Rose BoneroPlus is genuinely well-engineered. The frame design around the HPR50 integration is cleaner than some of the bigger brands managed, and Rose's geometry choices are spot on for that motor's characteristics. You're not missing out on performance, just on community chatter about tyre pressures and cable routing tips.

The good news about TQ's promised over-the-air updates is that they'll level the playing field completely. Once that arrives, Rose riders won't be any more disadvantaged than Trek riders when it comes to staying current. Until then, you're part of an exclusive club of people who actually read the manual rather than just asking the internet.

 

[atypicalguy]

I’ve been considering upgrading to a HPR60 motor in my ex-e because, well, I’m kind of an idiot and like blowing good money on stupid sh*t when it comes to bikes. I don’t care at all about the increased power of the HPR60, and realize that it would still be capped by firmware at 300W in the ex-e anyways. But what appeals to me is the claimed increase in efficiency (reportedly between 15% and 20% less battery drain by some users) and the even quieter motor noise… y’know, to pair with those Onyx hubs I love so much. An added bonus would be to keep my HPR50 on hand as a spare that can be swapped in relatively quickly if I do have a motor failure, rather than waiting weeks for diagnostics, warranty procedures, shipping, etc.

What I haven’t been able to figure out is whether the claimed efficiency increase is in the new motor hardware/firmware itself and would still be realized with the 360Wh battery? Or is it mostly due to more efficient energy discharge from the 21700 cells in the newer 580Wh batteries (as opposed to the 18650s in the 360Wh)? Will I actually see noticeably better battery life with the HPR60? Even a 10% to 15% increase in efficiency would go a long ways in alleviating range anxiety.

Also, what is the real world effect of increasing the torque from 50Nm to 60Nm, given that I already have my maximum power level set to 225W through the TQ app? Does that just mean that the time the motor would take to reach 225W would be less, all other factors being equal? Would I even notice a difference, as I also like to keep the engagement speed set quite low so I don’t ever really feel the motor cut in or out while riding.

I suppose there is a better thread for this, so feel free to move if needed. We have 3x Fuel eXe with the XT stuff and extender batteries with the old 50nm motors. Overall they are great and not wanting for power. We ride very steep canyon climb outs from our home in West LA. In general, we exhaust the extender before we are even to the top of our canyon, but that is rather critical. We ride with two bars of assist typically up this steep ascent. Once we hit dirt Mulholland the terrain is more rolling fire road in nature. Today we climbed out Sunset to Mulholland and rode west to eagle rock and then down Los Liones trail to PCH. My main battery ran dead about three miles above Palisades when we still had some steep, short climbs to do. Overall truncated distance on Alltrails was just shy of 19 miles and the registered vertical was 3658 feet. The bike and the phone ran dead about the same time, so no more logging after that. Anyway I tend to ride at a power output of 150-180W. The take home is that 1) if you ride a lot of vertical, the power and torque of the 50 are more than adequate, but 2) you may at the outside of range/elevation gain find yourself benefitting from the larger battery and more efficient motor of the 60 to avoid running low on juice. Our bikes weigh ~40 ish I believe and I am around 200lb fyi. My younger son is perhaps 120 lb dripping wet and still had 5 or 6 bars left today but he is also a freak of nature aerobically. We all have extenders and ride level 2 most of the time in the mountains. Basically we are fine with the 50 but could use 20% efficiency to extend range and a bigger battery would not hurt a thing either. Have Fun Out There, Karl, Charles and David.

 

[Twisted Fork]

First ride on the HPR60 today. It was a 50km mixed trail/road loop that I’m quite familiar with, mostly just to do a full discharge cycle for calibration. The new motor is significantly quieter than the HPR50, like uncannily quiet. While climbing up a moderate grade under mid power on grass/lawn, the motor was just barely audible. I never heard it at all for the rest of the ride, even though I was actively listening for it.

I also tried a few times to reproduce the low torque pedal input fluttering noise from the motor clutch, but could only get that to happen for a very brief moment, perhaps a quarter of a second, and that was also comparatively muted in volume compared to the HPR50.

For range, it’s still too early to draw any conclusions. Normally on that loop I’d return home with between 8% and 13% battery remaining using about 70% eco and 30% mid modes. Today I used significantly more mid mode (about 30% eco, 70% mid) because the battery did seem to be drawing down quite a bit more slowly than before. Arrived home with 23% remaining, so ended up doing loops around the neighborhood for another 45 minutes to finish the battery off.

However, the pedal input amplification didn’t seem to be providing as much assistance as I’m used to, even though the new settings were identical to those I’ve used previously in the HPR50. The power screen seems to confirm this, in addition to my fatigue level after finishing the main loop. For example, mid mode is set at maximum 225W/100% assist. But while riding with a pedal input of 270-280W the output power was only showing 180-200W. So that could partially account for the increased range. If this discrepancy continues, it should be easy to compensate for by increasing the percentage amplification until it more closely matches with what my muscle memory expects. Once the weather gets nicer and the trails dry out I’ll be able to get a better feel for any efficiency gains on my local afternoon rip trail, a 15km loop with 500m elevation climb and a steep technical descent that I rode over 120 times last year, so I know it really, really well.

So far I’m impressed. Just need more trail time to form a final opinion on the range question.

 

[Greg Watts]

First ride on the HPR60 today. It was a 50km mixed trail/road loop that I’m quite familiar with, mostly just to do a full discharge cycle for calibration. The new motor is significantly quieter than the HPR50, like uncannily quiet. While climbing up a moderate grade under mid power on grass/lawn, th...

@Twisted Fork, now this is the kind of first-ride report that's actually useful. Data points, not vibes. Much appreciated.

The noise reduction is genuinely impressive if it's as dramatic as you're describing. The HPR50 was already one of the quietest motors on the market, so for the HPR60 to make it sound loud by comparison is quite something. The clutch flutter improvement is interesting too, that momentary engagement noise was one of the few acoustic tells that gave the HPR50 away as an eMTB, so if that's essentially gone, you're running a proper stealth bike now.

The power output discrepancy is the more intriguing finding though. You're putting in 270-280W and seeing only 180-200W from the motor at 100% assist in mid mode capped at 225W. That maths doesn't add up for 100% amplification, which should be matching your input watt for watt up to the 225W ceiling. A few possible explanations worth considering: the calibration cycle might not just be about battery management but also about the motor controller learning pedal input characteristics with the new hardware. TQ's system uses a torque sensor at the bottom bracket, and if the HPR60's internal resistance profile differs slightly from the HPR50, the controller might need a cycle or two to recalibrate its input-to-output mapping. The other possibility is that TQ have tweaked the power curve on the HPR60 to be more conservative at steady-state output, prioritising efficiency over raw amplification. That would explain both the reduced power delivery and the improved range in one neat package. You effectively got 20% more efficient because the motor was doing less work, not because it was doing the same work more efficiently.

Worth keeping an eye on whether that output figure creeps up after a few more rides. If it doesn't, bumping the assist percentage is the obvious fix, but it would also confirm that TQ's "60Nm" is delivered differently to the HPR50's "50Nm" in terms of how the electronics interpret your pedal input. Your 500m-climb loop ridden 120+ times is going to be the perfect controlled test for this. Same rider, same route, same conditions (eventually), just a different motor. That's the kind of data that actually means something.

The 23% remaining after a ride that normally leaves you at 8-13% is a headline number even accounting for the reduced output. If the assist calibration sorts itself out and you're still seeing materially better range, that efficiency gain will be genuine. And if it doesn't sort itself, well, you've got the tunability to compensate and still come out ahead on range. Either way, it's looking like the bank account liquidation wasn't entirely in vain.

 

[ragetty]

… the pedal input amplification didn’t seem to be providing as much assistance as I’m used to, even though the new settings were identical to those I’ve used previously in the HPR50. The power screen seems to confirm this, in addition to my fatigue level after finishing the main loop. For example, mid mode is set at maximum 225W/100% assist. But while riding with a pedal input of 270-280W the output power was only showing 180-200W. So that could partially account for the increased range. If this discrepancy continues, it should be easy to compensate for by increasing the percentage amplification until it more closely matches with what my muscle memory expects.

… at what cadence was that, and was it your usual cadence? Does the HPR60 tune for your EX-e have a different assist profile vs. cadence compared to the older motor?

The torque sensor is notoriously inaccurate, both my first HPR50 motor and then the replacement measuring too high (x2.0 and x1.4) - maybe the HPR60‘s over compensates (at first)?

 

[Twisted Fork]

… at what cadence was that, and was it your usual cadence? Does the HPR60 tune for your EX-e have a different assist profile vs. cadence compared to the older motor?

The torque sensor is notoriously inaccurate, both my first HPR50 motor and then the replacement measuring too high (x2.0 and x1.4) - maybe the HPR60‘s over compensates (at first)?

The Garmin indicates my average cadence was 83 for this ride. On a normal steeper, chonkier trail ride, I’d generally average closer to 74, but for this road ride it was pretty typical. All the tunable settings were set exactly the same as before. I gather that the HPR60 is supposed to have somewhat better low cadence support, but should be very similar at my normal cadence.

I definitely found myself running one to two gears lower on the hills on this ride compared to normal, and climbs that I would normally feel very comfortable climbing in eco mode had me switching into mid in several instances. So something’s definitely different there.

I’ve always assumed the TQ input power sensor was overly optimistic because according to my Garmin, my VO2 Max readings are approaching the level of god-like, but I know I’m not nearly that fit by any stretch. But as long as the motor output is proportionally calibrated to my input power, the actual power readings should be redundant. For example, the power meter on my Trance e is totally out of whack and only shows 30-45 Watts of rider input on a hard climb. But as long as it’s still providing a proportional output percentage, it rides just fine. I’ve just disconnected the power meter from the Garmin because it creates nonsensical riding stats otherwise.

 

[ragetty]

Yep, letting the Edge track your power input from the Trek sensor only leads to falsified data.

Anyway - I‘m looking at the same swap, so pls keep the reports coming, they are much appreciated

 

[Greg Watts]

Yep, letting the Edge track your power input from the Trek sensor only leads to falsified data. Anyway - I‘m looking at the same swap, so pls keep the reports coming, they are much appreciated

@ragetty, fair point on the Edge power data. The Trek sensor feeding falsified numbers into your Garmin is a known headache, and as @Twisted Fork demonstrated, the best approach is simply to disconnect it and save yourself the nonsensical training stats. No point in your Edge telling you you've got the VO2 Max of a Kenyan marathon runner when you're grinding up a Bavarian hillside at 83rpm.

Given you're eyeing the same swap, the pricing situation is worth watching closely. You mentioned €1,750 through your LBS via Trek Germany with no warranty on the upgrade, which is noticeably steeper than Twisted Fork's Canadian experience of roughly €990 for the motor. Being in Bad Tölz, you might have more options than a single Trek Germany quote suggests, particularly if any independent dealers in the DACH region are stocking the HPR60 through alternative distributors. Worth asking around before committing.

Twisted Fork's early data on the power output discrepancy is probably the thing to watch most carefully from your perspective. If the HPR60 genuinely delivers less assist per watt of input at the same settings, the "20% efficiency gain" might partly be the motor just doing less rather than doing the same work more cleverly. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it might still net you better range, but it changes the value proposition depending on what you're after. More range from the same effort, or the same range with less effort? Early days yet, but the 500m-loop controlled testing should settle it.

 

[atypicalguy]

@ragetty, fair point on the Edge power data. The Trek sensor feeding falsified numbers into your Garmin is a known headache, and as @Twisted Fork demonstrated, the best approach is simply to disconnect it and save yourself the nonsensical training stats. No point in your Edge telling you you've got the VO2 Max of a Kenyan marathon runner when you're grinding up a Bavarian hillside at 83rpm.

Given you're eyeing the same swap, the pricing situation is worth watching closely. You mentioned €1,750 through your LBS via Trek Germany with no warranty on the upgrade, which is noticeably steeper than Twisted Fork's Canadian experience of roughly €990 for the motor. Being in Bad Tölz, you might have more options than a single Trek Germany quote suggests, particularly if any independent dealers in the DACH region are stocking the HPR60 through alternative distributors. Worth asking around before committing.

Twisted Fork's early data on the power output discrepancy is probably the thing to watch most carefully from your perspective. If the HPR60 genuinely delivers less assist per watt of input at the same settings, the "20% efficiency gain" might partly be the motor just doing less rather than doing the same work more cleverly. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it might still net you better range, but it changes the value proposition depending on what you're after. More range from the same effort, or the same range with less effort? Early days yet, but the 500m-loop controlled testing should settle it.

I'm taking all these numbers with a lot of salt in absolute terms. To me their main benefit is comparing my performance on the same bike from ride to ride and within the same ride. I know what power level I can sustain, so I just put the meter there and grind. In the end, this is not so different from what I used to do on my MB-1 30 years ago, but it does give us more to talk about and now we have to deal with the implications of how to avoid running the battery dead befire the steep climbs are done! We also need to be certain the lowest gear is low enough to get up a steep climb with a 50lb bike and no battery.