Is e-bike motor power and torque completely cadence related?

The undecided

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2024
Messages
101
Reaction score
101
Location
Scotland
Hi fellow riders
Huge apologies for my stupidity/ignorance on this query
Irrespective of rider input,can ANY rider acess their e-bikes’max power and torque as long as they can spin fast enough?
ie will you still achieve full power even if you have compromised leg strength but can still spin quickly?
I know motors multiply your effort etc but if you can’t put the grunt in how much power are you ultimately missing from the motor regardless of the make.
 
Last edited:
⚡ EMTB Pro Go Pro — exclusive discounts & ad-free Peaty's 25% off & more · Ad-free browsing · Pro badge See the deals →
Well, with motors now contributing up to 4x the work you put in,
we are moving towards that situation.

If you put in only 63w, the motor will respond with 250w, the maximum allowed sustained* output allowed in the EU.
That sustained total power output of 300+ is beyond Tour de France levels.

-

*) yes, many motor makers have creative definitions of "sustained" to deliver more than that in practice.
 
Last edited:
Well, with motors now contributing up to 4x the work you put in,
we are moving towards that situation.

If you put in only 63w, the motor will respond with 250w, the maximum allowed "sustained" output allowed in the EU.

400%... Avinox provides 800% assist. However to achieve maximum power you still need to input power a bit. 1500W from a M2S would require 187W input which isn't nothing. Even on a Bosch CX, to get 750W you'd input the same 187W.

That said, you can get lower power outputs with very little input (soft pedal) and that'll a reasonable amount of assistance. However, its not like spinning cranks with no resistance to a certain cadence.
 
If you ride at 40 cadence (crank rpm) you’re going to put excessive strain on on your drive-train components. (Chain, chainring, cassette, peddles, and probably the motor)

I rode with a novice yesterday and I stressed the importance of maintaining a cadence of 80. Easier on the components and easier on your body. That can change slightly however when you are climbing or descending. (+/-). I also explained the importance of finding the right gear (1st to 12th) for the terrain and shifting properly.

Starting off in turbo while in 12th gear …not good.
 
If you ride at 40 cadence (crank rpm) you’re going to put excessive strain on on your drive-train components. (Chain, chainring, cassette, peddles, and probably the motor)

I rode with a novice yesterday and I stressed the importance of maintaining a cadence of 80. Easier on the components and easier on your body. That can change slightly however when you are climbing or descending. (+/-). I also explained the importance of finding the right gear (1st to 12th) for the terrain and shifting properly.

Starting off in turbo while in 12th gear …not good
If you ride at 40 cadence (crank rpm) you’re going to put excessive strain on on your drive-train components. (Chain, chainring, cassette, peddles, and probably the motor)

I rode with a novice yesterday and I stressed the importance of maintaining a cadence of 80. Easier on the components and easier on your body. That can change slightly however when you are climbing or descending. (+/-). I also explained the importance of finding the right gear (1st to 12th) for the terrain and shifting properly.

Starting off in turbo while in 12th gear …not good.
Thanks for sharing that.I appreciate just like a vehicle you’ve got to constantly use the gears to keep the engine in its sweet spot to accelerate etc.Tbh I was maybe confusing an e-bike motor with an electric car where full instant torque is available from a standstill and the power develops the faster the motor turns and therefore I expected some kind of similar sensation from an e-bike motor.It therefore appears imho that manufacturers power figures are worthless if the rider can’t provide the grunt in the first place.Stinks of misleading advertising if you can’t climb up gradients for instance like their sponsored riders if you foolishly believed (as I did) a similarly powered bike was a leveller.If someone’s car didn’t perform like an identical model there would be investigations.Ultimate motor performance seems wholly dependent on the riders strength and input as I suspected.👍
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't get too caught up in trying to do the math. There are so many variables that it's hard to come to a single unifying conclusion. You're right in that there's a sweet spot, just as there is on your Amish bike. If the cadence is too slow, you blow up your knees. If the cadence is too fast, you blow up your heart. The limitations are going to be very similar on your eMTB.

If you want to do a little math to demonstate the futility of ill-considered assumptions, figure out the torque you can lay down with your body weight and crank arm length. I'm good for about 150 Nm. Will my motor with 400% gain crank out an additional 600 Nm? No. it provides 100 Nm maximum.

Anyway, you get the idea. In your case of diminished strength, the benefit you derive will be greater in proportion to the power your body can generate on its own. Whatever bike you get is going to improve your abilities.

My advice is to figure out what you really want to do on the bike, and then go shopping to see what bike best meets your requirements. If I had to try to steer you a little, it would be away from the small motor/battery bikes. They're great for a few folks, but the majority are going to be happier with greater power and range.
 
Don't get too caught up in trying to do the math. There are so many variables that it's hard to come to a single unifying conclusion. You're right in that there's a sweet spot, just as there is on your Amish bike. If the cadence is too slow, you blow up your knees. If the cadence is too fast, you blow up your heart. The limitations are going to be very similar on your eMTB.

If you want to do a little math to demonstate the futility of ill-considered assumptions, figure out the torque you can lay down with your body weight and crank arm length. I'm good for about 150 Nm. Will my motor with 400% gain crank out an additional 600 Nm? No. it provides 100 Nm maximum.

Anyway, you get the idea. In your case of diminished strength, the benefit you derive will be greater in proportion to the power your body can generate on its own. Whatever bike you get is going to improve your abilities.

My advice is to figure out what you really want to do on the bike, and then go shopping to see what bike best meets your requirements. If I had to try to steer you a little, it would be away from the small motor/battery bikes. They're great for a few folks, but the majority are going to be happier with greater power and range.
Cheers for that. Just to put a spanner in the works I actually own an SX bike for my sins lol and it does me fine.
I’m what’s best described as more of an “active” rider than fit nowadays-post stroke since 2018 and worn out knees too!
You guys finally confirmed what I suspected,a rider won’t get the claimed figures unless they put the effort in no matter how good the motor.I fully agree with you that what best suits someone’s needs is what they should purchase for the long term.
E-bikes are scarily too expensive to make the wrong choice.
Thanks for replying to my post.👍
 
Cheers for that. Just to put a spanner in the works I actually own an SX bike for my sins lol and it does me fine.
I’m what’s best described as more of an “active” rider than fit nowadays-post stroke since 2018 and worn out knees too!
You guys finally confirmed what I suspected,a rider won’t get the claimed figures unless they put the effort in no matter how good the motor.I fully agree with you that what best suits someone’s needs is what they should purchase for the long term.
E-bikes are scarily too expensive to make the wrong choice.
Thanks for replying to my post.👍
Have you installed the firmware update for Bosch SX released last year (November in US)? After I increased the maximum torque to 60 nM, I clearly felt more assistance at a lower cadence, starting in mid 80's. If your goal is to increase the power assistance, I certainly recommend adjusting the settings to push the motor output.
 
Have you installed the firmware update for Bosch SX released last year (November in US)? After I increased the maximum torque to 60 nM, I clearly felt more assistance at a lower cadence, starting in mid 80's. If your goal is to increase the power assistance, I certainly recommend adjusting the settings to push the motor output.
Hi. Yes all updated and all good,but fwiw I’ve just got the 60nm setting on Turbo to help with the odd uphill section when I really need it.
I’m now using eco a lot more since the update after playing about with the settings and have reached a reasonable balance between torque and range.Its disappointing though how much the estimated range drops depending what percentage of assistance you dial in.
Mid power certainly has its inherent compromises but I just embrace them and enjoy the good side of ownership.
 
Technical Guide to Real-World Use of the Avinox M1/M2 System
1. Key Principle (what actually matters)
90% of users don’t exploit the motor properly because of this:
Power ≠ torque → Power = torque × cadence
This is not marketing, it’s the physical limitation of the system:
At 50 rpm → you won’t exceed ~500–600 W
At 90 rpm → you can approach 1000 W
Critical conclusion:
The Avinox is not “1000 W all the time”
It is “1000 W only if your pedaling allows it”
This completely changes how it should be configured.
2. Variables that define YOUR setup (not the manufacturer’s)
Total weight (rider + bike)
Real cadence (not ideal cadence)
Sustained rider power (W)
These three variables determine everything.
3. Correct configuration logic
3.1 Real adjustment order (key)
Target power (W/kg)
Maximum power (W)
Maximum torque (Nm)
Assist level
This order is usually reversed (common mistake).
3.2 Golden rule (very important)
W limits consumption
Nm defines response
Assist defines how much the bike helps relative to you
4. How to exploit the Avinox M1/M2 (real strategy)
4.1 Use W/kg, not absolute W
Reference:
Eco → 1–1.5 W/kg
Auto → 2–3 W/kg
Trail → 4.5–6 W/kg
Turbo → 6–8 W/kg
Technical interpretation:
<2 W/kg → efficiency / range
3–5 W/kg → real-world usage (trail)
6 W/kg → exponential consumption
4.2 Torque (Nm) adjustment → motor feel
This is where Avinox stands out vs Bosch/Shimano.
Low Nm → progressive, natural feel
High Nm → aggressive, motorcycle-like
Practical rule:
XC / efficiency → 20–40 Nm
Technical trail → 40–80 Nm
Enduro / full Avinox → 80–120 Nm
4.3 Assist Level (where people get it wrong)
This is not power, it’s a multiplier of your effort.
Real example:
Assist 3 → ~80%
Assist 6 → ~150%
Assist 9 → ~300%
Assist 11 → ~450%
Critical interpretation:
Strong rider → lower Assist
Weaker rider → higher Assist
Otherwise → artificial or inefficient feeling
5. Optimal real-world configuration (universal baseline)
Balanced setup (recommended all-round):
ECO
Assist: 2–3
W: 120–180
Nm: 15–25
→ Maximum range
AUTO
Assist: 4–6
W: 250–350
Nm: 35–50
→ Main riding mode
TRAIL
Assist: 6–9
W: 500–700
Nm: 70–90
→ Technical climbs / fast flow
TURBO
Assist: 10–12
W: 850–1000
Nm: 120
→ Occasional use, not continuous
6. Where you actually gain performance (not obvious)
6.1 Cadence
If you ride at:
60 rpm → you’re wasting the motor
80–95 rpm → you’re fully exploiting it
This matters more than any setting.
6.2 Limiting power (W) = battery control
Key point:
The W limit is the only parameter that truly controls consumption
Much more effective than lowering Assist.
6.3 Micro Adjust (underused)
Allows on-the-fly Assist tuning.
Real use:
Eco → modulate human effort
Turbo → compensate fatigue
It’s basically a “manual PID control”.
7. Common mistakes (important)
Tuning by feel → wrong
Riding always in Turbo → useless
Low cadence + high Nm → very poor efficiency
Not differentiating modes → redundancy (Auto vs Trail)
8. Critical reading of the Avinox M1/M2
Real advantages:
High torque → better technical traction
Configuration flexibility → superior to Bosch
Real peak power (if you pedal properly)
Real limitations:
Strong dependence on cadence (critical)
Likely thermal derating above ~800 W sustained (not documented, but consistent)
High consumption if poorly configured
9. Operational conclusion
If you want to get the most out of it:
Set by W/kg (not by feel)
Increase cadence (80–95 rpm)
Limit W for normal riding
Use Turbo only as a real boost
Use Micro Adjust

FB_IMG_1777274651546.webp


FB_IMG_1777274657730.webp
 
I had a similar discussion recently though I was coming at it from a consumption PoV. I concluded that a modern eMTB with both cadence and torque sensors will modulate the motors power output and torque and, therefore, battery consumption more or less in line with the effort the rider is putting in. In a given mode the harder and faster you pedal the more power the motor will deliver and the more battery you will use.

My main issue is with optimum cadence which is usually quoted as being around 80 rpm. Lets face it older, less fit, riders make up a large proportion of the eMTB community and the option to configure the system to optimise motor power at a lower rpm would be a big advantage at the end of a long ride. FWIW I'm 73 and, apparently, fitter than the average for my age. I can and do spin at around 80rpm much of the time, I ride electric 'cos it means I can still do a lot of the rides that I used to do in my 40's but many older riders can't spin fast anymore and would benefit from being able to ride at lower cadence* without compromising the motor and battery's efficiency.

And, what about all those e-hybrids and e-shoppers, surely they are not optimised for 80-95 rpm?

* At the end of a strenuous ride, cruising home at 60 rpm is a very attractive proposition and I know I can (and do) do exactly that but there's always the little nagging doubt that somehow its wrong to pedal that slowly. :rolleyes:
 
Technical Guide to Real-World Use of the Avinox M1/M2 System
1. Key Principle (what actually matters)
90% of users don’t exploit the motor properly because of this:
Power ≠ torque → Power = torque × cadence
This is not marketing, it’s the physical limitation of the system:
At 50 rpm → you won’t exceed ~500–600 W
At 90 rpm → you can approach 1000 W
Critical conclusion:
The Avinox is not “1000 W all the time”
It is “1000 W only if your pedaling allows it”
This completely changes how it should be configured.
2. Variables that define YOUR setup (not the manufacturer’s)
Total weight (rider + bike)
Real cadence (not ideal cadence)
Sustained rider power (W)
These three variables determine everything.
3. Correct configuration logic
3.1 Real adjustment order (key)
Target power (W/kg)
Maximum power (W)
Maximum torque (Nm)
Assist level
This order is usually reversed (common mistake).
3.2 Golden rule (very important)
W limits consumption
Nm defines response
Assist defines how much the bike helps relative to you
4. How to exploit the Avinox M1/M2 (real strategy)
4.1 Use W/kg, not absolute W
Reference:
Eco → 1–1.5 W/kg
Auto → 2–3 W/kg
Trail → 4.5–6 W/kg
Turbo → 6–8 W/kg
Technical interpretation:
<2 W/kg → efficiency / range
3–5 W/kg → real-world usage (trail)
6 W/kg → exponential consumption
4.2 Torque (Nm) adjustment → motor feel
This is where Avinox stands out vs Bosch/Shimano.
Low Nm → progressive, natural feel
High Nm → aggressive, motorcycle-like
Practical rule:
XC / efficiency → 20–40 Nm
Technical trail → 40–80 Nm
Enduro / full Avinox → 80–120 Nm
4.3 Assist Level (where people get it wrong)
This is not power, it’s a multiplier of your effort.
Real example:
Assist 3 → ~80%
Assist 6 → ~150%
Assist 9 → ~300%
Assist 11 → ~450%
Critical interpretation:
Strong rider → lower Assist
Weaker rider → higher Assist
Otherwise → artificial or inefficient feeling
5. Optimal real-world configuration (universal baseline)
Balanced setup (recommended all-round):
ECO
Assist: 2–3
W: 120–180
Nm: 15–25
→ Maximum range
AUTO
Assist: 4–6
W: 250–350
Nm: 35–50
→ Main riding mode
TRAIL
Assist: 6–9
W: 500–700
Nm: 70–90
→ Technical climbs / fast flow
TURBO
Assist: 10–12
W: 850–1000
Nm: 120
→ Occasional use, not continuous
6. Where you actually gain performance (not obvious)
6.1 Cadence
If you ride at:
60 rpm → you’re wasting the motor
80–95 rpm → you’re fully exploiting it
This matters more than any setting.
6.2 Limiting power (W) = battery control
Key point:
The W limit is the only parameter that truly controls consumption
Much more effective than lowering Assist.
6.3 Micro Adjust (underused)
Allows on-the-fly Assist tuning.
Real use:
Eco → modulate human effort
Turbo → compensate fatigue
It’s basically a “manual PID control”.
7. Common mistakes (important)
Tuning by feel → wrong
Riding always in Turbo → useless
Low cadence + high Nm → very poor efficiency
Not differentiating modes → redundancy (Auto vs Trail)
8. Critical reading of the Avinox M1/M2
Real advantages:
High torque → better technical traction
Configuration flexibility → superior to Bosch
Real peak power (if you pedal properly)
Real limitations:
Strong dependence on cadence (critical)
Likely thermal derating above ~800 W sustained (not documented, but consistent)
High consumption if poorly configured
9. Operational conclusion
If you want to get the most out of it:
Set by W/kg (not by feel)
Increase cadence (80–95 rpm)
Limit W for normal riding
Use Turbo only as a real boost
Use Micro Adjust

View attachment 183138

View attachment 183139
Thanks.This will be a very helpful reference if I ever buy an Avinox powered bike,but I’m confident by that time there will be the next even greater motor out from another manufacturer-such is progress my learned friend
 
Thanks for sharing that.I appreciate just like a vehicle you’ve got to constantly use the gears to keep the engine in its sweet spot to accelerate etc.Tbh I was maybe confusing an e-bike motor with an electric car where full instant torque is available from a standstill and the power develops the faster the motor turns and therefore I expected some kind of similar sensation from an e-bike motor.It therefore appears imho that manufacturers power figures are worthless if the rider can’t provide the grunt in the first place.Stinks of misleading advertising if you can’t climb up gradients for instance like their sponsored riders if you foolishly believed (as I did) a similarly powered bike was a leveller.If someone’s car didn’t perform like an identical model there would be investigations.Ultimate motor performance seems wholly dependent on the riders strength and input as I suspected.👍
If you watch people climbing on e-bikes it is clear they are having to put some effort in, not sure how you can blame a manufacturer just because you haven’t bothered to educate yourself, manufacturers certainly aren’t trying to hide the fact effort is needed - otherwise we would just have throttle control?
 
Shorter cranks might be helpful. I was starting to get knee issues and shorter cranks completely eliminated the problem.
Currently I’d only consider fitting 155mm cranks to replace my std 165s mainly to eradicate a lot of the pedal strikes where I ride.I hit a protruding rock a f###ing belter a few days ago on a climb that stopped me dead.So far the motor seems unaffected.🙏
Good to hear shorter cranks helped your knees out.👍
 
If you watch people climbing on e-bikes it is clear they are having to put some effort in, not sure how you can blame a manufacturer just because you haven’t bothered to educate yourself, manufacturers certainly aren’t trying to hide the fact effort is needed - otherwise we would just have throttle control?

What manufacturers or the sales people aren’t making clear to the “uneducated” is the fact that a weaker rider isn’t going to extract the quoted motor power figures.End of!
Take some time to fully read my post and my apologies from the begining.
I’m also not “uneducated” enough to realise that an e-bike won’t magically transform my limited abilities or fitness into the next YouTube sensation.
And fwiw I’ve personally no intention of owning a throttle bike to feed any power hungry fix.
 
What manufacturers or the sales people aren’t making clear to the “uneducated” is the fact that a weaker rider isn’t going to extract the quoted motor power figures.End of!
Take some time to fully read my post and my apologies from the begining.
I’m also not “uneducated” enough to realise that an e-bike won’t magically transform my limited abilities or fitness into the next YouTube sensation.
And fwiw I’ve personally no intention of owning a throttle bike to feed any power hungry fix.

If motors were that powerful, then the experience would become one of an emoto… i.e. pedals are throttles. One defining character of a bicycle is effort and more effort is faster. A motor just multiples your input.

That said, you can go quite fast on an Avinox with very little input. You may not get 1500w, but with 800% assist you can choose to do very little work.

I don’t think is misleading since its “well known” that these motors provide proportional power relative to your input.
 
VeloMotion tests and reports exceptionally detailed comparisons of motor responses to rider power input levels and the practical range of cadences. The results for some of the most prevalent motors are published in clear and accessible form, as a group and individually, at The Ultimate E-Bike Motor Comparison | E-Bike Lab. Should provide useful insights corresponding to personal needs and preferences.
 
I think it may be worth mentioning there are also the DIY kits that are cadence only based so the amount of power is controlled by simply what mode you are in. There is a group of people who prefer these types of bikes and it may be similar types of riders, those who dont want to work for their power(or maybe they cant put enough). On my dads hunting bike we did a single speed and bbs02 so you basically control climbing speed by what power level you put it in and how hard you push on the pedals. Its almost like having electric shifting if you just keep the the cranks moving with little to no pressure(or like a throttle). Its sort of counter intuitive as I have the tendency to push harder when I want to go faster(like on a normal bike lol) but on this system it does less work the harder you push the less the motor helps until it outruns your cadence. That said proper emtb can get pretty close to that feeling at the higher levels but assistance and if it uses cadence as well
 
Shorter cranks might be helpful. I was starting to get knee issues and shorter cranks completely eliminated the problem.
Yes, I went from 170mm to 160mm (the shortest Shimano make for a Steps motor) on my 2022 Urrun and was impressed with the change. I've moved them over onto my 2025 Rise now I'ge passed the Urrun on to (my much taller than me) #1 son.
 
Top end specs are almost never reached by anyone actually, just fun to brag about and may be reasoning to buy a new bike for most...

What you are "missing" is subjective, crank up the assist/torque if you are feeling weaker and you will gain "more" from the motor everywhere you go!

The less effort you want to or can put in, the more torque and watts you may want under your feet to help you keep things FUN!

Get the bike you want to ride, specs are only good until you buy the thing. (y)
 
There are other factors that actually marginalise the importance many of those "stats".
Firstly, there are 2 distinct stages to progression on any bike. The first is moving from a standstill. You have to then overcome inertia. The second is once momentum is gained. Thereafter the rider has a lot of potential input into maintaining momentum, whilst headwinds and inclines ( up) reduce momentum. All of that applies whether the bike has a motor or not. Just like in a car, being proactive and predictive in terms of reducing or increasing power based on the trail conditions ahead pays dividends.

Then of course there are factors that influence both overcoming interia and gaining/sustaining momentum. Bike and rider weight are a factor.....negative when overcoming interia, both negative and positive in terms of maintaining momentum (negative when going upill/positive when going downhill for example.)

Tyres ( weight and tread pattern) and wheels ( rotating weight) and suspension set up also make a big difference.

Finally there is gear ratio. Most emtbs are 1x12 and that delivers a huge gear range sufficient to tackle the steepest climb with little pedal torque......but of course a high cadence.

Just a note on cadence. The best cadence in any gear is one that enables progress without a lot of crank torque. That is better for reducing strain on the drivetrain and keeping the motor at an optimum cadence.
 
Technical Guide to Real-World Use of the Avinox M1/M2 System
1. Key Principle (what actually matters)
90% of users don’t exploit the motor properly because of this:
Power ≠ torque → Power = torque × cadence
This is not marketing, it’s the physical limitation of the system:
At 50 rpm → you won’t exceed ~500–600 W
At 90 rpm → you can approach 1000 W
Critical conclusion:
The Avinox is not “1000 W all the time”
It is “1000 W only if your pedaling allows it”
This completely changes how it should be configured.
2. Variables that define YOUR setup (not the manufacturer’s)
Total weight (rider + bike)
Real cadence (not ideal cadence)
Sustained rider power (W)
These three variables determine everything.
3. Correct configuration logic
3.1 Real adjustment order (key)
Target power (W/kg)
Maximum power (W)
Maximum torque (Nm)
Assist level
This order is usually reversed (common mistake).
3.2 Golden rule (very important)
W limits consumption
Nm defines response
Assist defines how much the bike helps relative to you
4. How to exploit the Avinox M1/M2 (real strategy)
4.1 Use W/kg, not absolute W
Reference:
Eco → 1–1.5 W/kg
Auto → 2–3 W/kg
Trail → 4.5–6 W/kg
Turbo → 6–8 W/kg
Technical interpretation:
<2 W/kg → efficiency / range
3–5 W/kg → real-world usage (trail)
6 W/kg → exponential consumption
4.2 Torque (Nm) adjustment → motor feel
This is where Avinox stands out vs Bosch/Shimano.
Low Nm → progressive, natural feel
High Nm → aggressive, motorcycle-like
Practical rule:
XC / efficiency → 20–40 Nm
Technical trail → 40–80 Nm
Enduro / full Avinox → 80–120 Nm
4.3 Assist Level (where people get it wrong)
This is not power, it’s a multiplier of your effort.
Real example:
Assist 3 → ~80%
Assist 6 → ~150%
Assist 9 → ~300%
Assist 11 → ~450%
Critical interpretation:
Strong rider → lower Assist
Weaker rider → higher Assist
Otherwise → artificial or inefficient feeling
5. Optimal real-world configuration (universal baseline)
Balanced setup (recommended all-round):
ECO
Assist: 2–3
W: 120–180
Nm: 15–25
→ Maximum range
AUTO
Assist: 4–6
W: 250–350
Nm: 35–50
→ Main riding mode
TRAIL
Assist: 6–9
W: 500–700
Nm: 70–90
→ Technical climbs / fast flow
TURBO
Assist: 10–12
W: 850–1000
Nm: 120
→ Occasional use, not continuous
6. Where you actually gain performance (not obvious)
6.1 Cadence
If you ride at:
60 rpm → you’re wasting the motor
80–95 rpm → you’re fully exploiting it
This matters more than any setting.
6.2 Limiting power (W) = battery control
Key point:
The W limit is the only parameter that truly controls consumption
Much more effective than lowering Assist.
6.3 Micro Adjust (underused)
Allows on-the-fly Assist tuning.
Real use:
Eco → modulate human effort
Turbo → compensate fatigue
It’s basically a “manual PID control”.
7. Common mistakes (important)
Tuning by feel → wrong
Riding always in Turbo → useless
Low cadence + high Nm → very poor efficiency
Not differentiating modes → redundancy (Auto vs Trail)
8. Critical reading of the Avinox M1/M2
Real advantages:
High torque → better technical traction
Configuration flexibility → superior to Bosch
Real peak power (if you pedal properly)
Real limitations:
Strong dependence on cadence (critical)
Likely thermal derating above ~800 W sustained (not documented, but consistent)
High consumption if poorly configured
9. Operational conclusion
If you want to get the most out of it:
Set by W/kg (not by feel)
Increase cadence (80–95 rpm)
Limit W for normal riding
Use Turbo only as a real boost
Use Micro Adjust

View attachment 183138

View attachment 183139
Wow! sounds like you really know your stuff. the recommended settings are probably ok for a fit 25 yr old,but not really for a reasonably fit 70 yr old with knackered knees,after reading your post and re-re-reading it I realize I am way out with my settings. I will spend some time re-setting my bike, but feel your suggested settings are too low for me,although I could up my cadence a bit,this is only on the uphills and flat bits between downhills,where only odd pedal stokes are put in to keep speed up, at the moment it feels too powerful and unnatural,any suggestions would be appreciated
 
Wow! sounds like you really know your stuff. the recommended settings are probably ok for a fit 25 yr old,but not really for a reasonably fit 70 yr old with knackered knees,after reading your post and re-re-reading it I realize I am way out with my settings. I will spend some time re-setting my bike, but feel your suggested settings are too low for me,although I could up my cadence a bit,this is only on the uphills and flat bits between downhills,where only odd pedal stokes are put in to keep speed up, at the moment it feels too powerful and unnatural,any suggestions would be appreciated
The AVINOX drive system offers a wide range of adjustment options in order to adapt motor
characteristics, energy consumption, and the way power is delivered to the rider’s personal needs.
Potential users of the system differ in many respects. The most important influencing factors are the rider’s
weight, the preferred cadence (rpm), and the rider’s personal power capability (in watts), meaning the
average power that can be sustained over a certain period of time.
The individual use of a bike with an AVINOX drive system also differs because of the wide range of possible
applications.
For example, an Amflow with AVINOX can be used both in the city for commuting and in a bike park, where
due to its sheer power it can often replace the lift.
Between these extreme uses—where there may certainly be better concepts—lie long-distance rides, XC
use, trail riding, and many other applications. In some cases, one and the same rider may also have very
different requirements: commuting during the week and then racing an E-MTB or having fun in rough terrain
at the weekend.
And to top it all off, riders’ home terrain varies greatly. In Alpine regions, a 1,000 m climb starts almost right
at the front door, whereas in other areas you may need 20 km just to reach even a small climb.
This means that there is no single setting that is optimal for everyone. Instead, the parameters Assist
Level, max. watts, and max. Nm need to be configured as well as possible.
The aim of this setup guide is to explain these relationships and to enable every technically interested rider
to find their optimal
 
As an old roadie, I'm 72, I am always clipped into my pedals no matter what bike I am riding, except in the winter when there is ice everywhere. Being able to pedal in circles, clipped in versus flat pedal riding, has (for me) made a huge difference in how efficiently I ride, and as a bonus, I can dial down assist to the bare minimum while saving battery wattage at the same time. Cadence, in my experience, is your best friend; the faster and rounder the pedal stroke, the happier I am.
 
As an old roadie, I'm 72, I am always clipped into my pedals no matter what bike I am riding, except in the winter when there is ice everywhere. Being able to pedal in circles, clipped in versus flat pedal riding, has (for me) made a huge difference in how efficiently I ride, and as a bonus, I can dial down assist to the bare minimum while saving battery wattage at the same time. Cadence, in my experience, is your best friend; the faster and rounder the pedal stroke, the happier I am.
I'm an old MTBer (I started in the early '80s before suspension was even a thought, my second MTB was an Orange Clockwork, you won't even have heard of my first) and have used clippless pretty much from the off. I can't maintain superfast cadences these days but mostly pedal in the '80's rpm on my 2025 Rise LT M-Team. I have short legs and am very much enjoying my 160mm cranks to the point that I'm probably going to try shorter 150/155mm ones when a pair pop up on ebay.
 
I'm an old MTBer (I started in the early '80s before suspension was even a thought, my second MTB was an Orange Clockwork, you won't even have heard of my first) and have used clippless pretty much from the off. I can't maintain superfast cadences these days but mostly pedal in the '80's rpm on my 2025 Rise LT M-Team. I have short legs and am very much enjoying my 160mm cranks to the point that I'm probably going to try shorter 150/155mm ones when a pair pop up on ebay.
I have a pair o 145mm cranks from Scottish brand Pinnd on my Amflow,really good quality and a good price also,after the first 5 minutes they just feel normal,less pedal strikes and they look good,
 
I have a pair o 145mm cranks from Scottish brand Pinnd on my Amflow,really good quality and a good price also,after the first 5 minutes they just feel normal,less pedal strikes and they look good,
Shimano's shortest are 160mm (which I have) so I was looking at Miranda and Pinnd 150/155 cranks. The Mirandas are a fair bit cheaper than Pinnd...
 
Keep reading
    Browse all

    Similar Threads

    Community Stats

    Since 2018
    668K
    Messages
    40,796
    Members
    Join 30,000+ Riders, it's free!
    Back
    Top