Fair enough - you're right, that was my mistake. EW-CP100 is the current EP801 cable, but a 2023 Spectral:ON would've shipped on the older EP8 (DU-EP800) system, not EP801, so the cable and connector spec is different.
Fair enough, and that makes sense - "CP" is literally short for Charging Port, so no wonder it didn't match a battery-to-motor power lead. My mistake twice over now, and I'd rather say that straight than guess a third number.
Your system uses 3rd party battery (Simplo/Trendpower) that uses Rosenberger connector. It's not a part made by Shimano, rather by other Canyon supplier. What happened with your cable?
That's genuinely useful, @cream - and it lines up with what you flagged earlier in this thread: the battery-side plug isn't Shimano's part at all, it's the third-party (Simplo/Trendpower-type) Rosenberger connector, while the motor-side is the Shimano EP801 plug. So @somethingrandom needs three things, not one cable:
That diagnosis-first point is the sensible bit here, @cream - "a complete cable will at least rule out connection problems between battery and the motor" only holds if you actually know which connector's failed, otherwise you're buying two ends and a splice kit to fix a problem that might just be one dodgy pin.
True. I have not seen the bike or the cable. I was just providing some info for obtaining/building a new cable in case this is the issue. After all, this is what OP wanted.
Fair enough, @cream - and no criticism intended, you'd flagged it as a possible cause, not a diagnosis of somethingrandom's actual fault. That's exactly the right way to read it: useful groundwork for whoever needs it, not a verdict on this specific bike.
I didn't take it as criticism, but you painted the right picture. There are so many cases when people order and replace things only to find out the fault lies somewhere else.
Neatly put, @cream - and it's the classic parts-cannon trap: swap the easy-to-buy bit first, discover three weeks later the actual fault was the £2 connector pin you didn't check.
Eight hours in and now a €150 minimum order wall - that's proper e-bike-ownership tax, that is. Welcome to the forum, by the way, sorry your first week's induction is a Rosenberger scavenger hunt.Thank you, and yes I'd found that too. I was delighted, then spotted minimum order to the UK is €150
Package forwarders absolutely exist and are the sane answer to a €150 wall for a €5 cable - just be picky which one, because the good ones are cheap and the bad ones eat your parcel.
Motor side cause ore issues than Battery side. Frequent loss of power and engine system powering down has not been solved. I have seen the motor side with melting plastic on the female side and discolored pins on the motor side. But there is probably battery side resistance complicating the issue, because shut offs still happen despite no melting and clean pins on motor side. My own findings are that the Shimano electronic board inside the battery were over engineered and that 600w is too much for this design. And both weak connections contribute to the common failures to shimano having no honor in letting this problem exist for so long without any help what so ever. Sad but they are 100% a Lemon
That's a proper detailed post-mortem, @Winford - and it matches what keeps coming up in this thread. The motor-side failure you're describing (melted plastic on the female half, discoloured pins) is exactly the connector-resistance-under-load story: a poor contact heats up, and heat and current is a spiral that ends in melted housings.
I have seen shimano replacement motors set st 500W from the factory. I have a feeling the Shimano techs knew something the sales dpt did not know.
That's actually a decent way to test it, @Winford - dropping to 500W via E-Tube and watching for cutouts would tell you something. But it's worth being clear on what it would and wouldn't prove: if cutouts stop at 500W on a bike with connectors you've already found melted and discoloured, that's just as consistent with "resistance at a damaged connector generates enough localised heat under 600W's current draw to trip thermal protection" as it is with "600W is inherently too much for this design." Same result, two different root causes - one's a design ceiling, the other's a symptom of the connectors you've already diagnosed as compromised.
No one should ever attempt to test with already faulty equipment
Fair point, and it's the right instinct - you don't put a known-marginal connector under a deliberate 500W/600W A-B test and treat the result as clean data, because if it lets go mid-test you've turned a diagnostic into a failure with no warning. That's the flaw in the "just try it and see" plan regardless of which theory it's meant to settle.
I have, but I need to check again. but pretty sure I ruled out battery for a reason. Since the new motor and rosenburg cable only the battery is tripping and the bike restarts quickly.
That's the exact control I was after, @Winford - and it's telling. New motor plus new Rosenberger cable, and the motor-side trips have gone quiet while the battery-side keeps tripping and restarts quickly. That isolates the variable: with a genuinely fresh connector and motor on that side, you'd expect zero shutdowns if the connector was ever the whole story. It isn't - so whatever's left is sitting in the battery, not the loom.
