More like a Kenevo 1.2 - but a welcome motor update, but still with some needed frame changes
Kenevo SL Kenevo SL 2 - Would you even notice?!
- Thread starter Rob Rides EMTB
- Start date
More like a Kenevo 1.2 - but a welcome motor update, but still with some needed frame changes
Semmelrocc
E*POWAH Master
Interesting analysis. The seatpost (lack of clearance) seems to be the biggest drawback to me.
Nerds On Dirt MTB
Active member
With my stubby legs (29 inseam) I was able to just barley stuff a 170mm dropper on my S3.
I found my Levo SL 1.2 much more torquey on the same settings as I used to ride my 1.1… and as a result, the battery drains quicker (obviously!).
I tried to match my 1.1 motor setting (30/80) on the 1.2 - which has ended up being 15/30.
What I’m trying to say, is that you don’t HAVE to use more battery on the 1.2 than the 1.1. If you find the equivalent setting of what you were riding on the 1.1 (may take a few rides / trial and error to get it right) the battery actually drains LESS due to the slightly more efficient motor.
I was one of those riders that would turn my 1.1 off when cycling past other riders or walkers!! The 1.2 is much quieter, but still nowhere near the ‘whisper quiet’ that Specialized advertised it as.
I tried to match my 1.1 motor setting (30/80) on the 1.2 - which has ended up being 15/30.
What I’m trying to say, is that you don’t HAVE to use more battery on the 1.2 than the 1.1. If you find the equivalent setting of what you were riding on the 1.1 (may take a few rides / trial and error to get it right) the battery actually drains LESS due to the slightly more efficient motor.
I was one of those riders that would turn my 1.1 off when cycling past other riders or walkers!! The 1.2 is much quieter, but still nowhere near the ‘whisper quiet’ that Specialized advertised it as.
- Thread starter
- #5
Agreed! The Levo SL 2 has a ton of changes, including the new motor.
But the new Kenevo SL 2 only changes the motor system, so the only changes on the new bike is the more powerful, quieter motor. So if you ran the new bike at similar settings to the old one, to preserve battery, the only benefit you'll get for your extra cash spent on the new bike is a quieter motor.
And the ability to whack it up to a more powerful 100% if you needed a boost on a tough techy climb.
George_KSL
Active member
Where would this technical miracle honestly come from :- ) ? Not disputing it's torquey (higher limit) and more silent (better casing), but there is no internal change apparently that would achieve efficiency difference.
Efficiency difference is rather moot in between different engines across brands as well, it just seems to be something both reviewers and riders convinced themselves to be technical fact, when it's placebo or straight up make belief at best. I don't see anyone doing lab testing with equivalency, so it's just "brand XY said so".
Still, keeping hope they'll offer the engine as upgrade option at some point.
Actually I wonder if some after-market service brand could offer the milled casing as well as stand-alone upgrade for the noise-proofing.
Last edited:
George_KSL
Active member
Oh boy.. I just found that other thread on 1.2 engine :- DD I should have not.
Very honest and informative review @Rob Rides EMTB! Greatly appreciated! How did you manage to get your FF Kenevo to sub 23 kg? My S3 is 23,7kg without pedals and the weight penalty of the EXT coil shox over the X2 already deducted. I am running aluminium DT swiss wheels. Other components are pretty much the same. Your carbon wheels can't make a 800gr difference, can they?
- Thread starter
- #10
What other components / tyres you running?
I think it was in the video Rob put out when the SL1.2 motor was first announced - when he was discussing it with the guy from Specializeds E division (I've been trying to remember his name for about 10 mins now, and have given up - Marcus / Marco maybe?). I'm pretty sure in that video, he said the 1.2 engine (as he called it) was more efficient than the 1.1.
It may be some more marketing BS - much like "whisper" quiet... or something it could be something as simple as the 1.2 dissipates heat better making it more efficient?
I personally have noticed a few more % left at the end of my ride (same route I've done for many years)... but that could be down to the 30/80 on my SL 1.1 motor not being EXACTLY the same as the 15/30 setting I'm running on the SL 1.2. It FEELS the closest match to me... but it might be slightly different.
I don't have the SL 1.1 anymore, so can't run stats / numbers I'm afraid.
Think it was Marco and yes, reference was made to it being more efficient.
I think the 1.1 was 80% and presume the 1.2 is probably the same. BUT .. when they say more efficient, do they necessarily mean the electrical to mechanical conversion or more efficient in the way it produces power for the rider ? So for similar scenarios, it might use slightly less power to achieve the same/similar results by feeding power in slightly slower for example ? Or it could be that it's 80.00009% efficient now
Fox 38 180mm
DT Swiss Wheels (1501 / E1900)
Maxxis Assegai 29x2.5 EXO+ & DHF 29x2.5 DD
Magura MDR-P Discs
Shigura (XTR / MT7)
160mm E13 cranks
One Up V2 180mm
Race Face Turbine R Stem
Renthal 35 Carbon Farbar
Deity Grips
GX AXS with XX1 Eagle 10-52T
EXT E-Storia (but the weight penalty has already been deducted)
Frame Size: S3
- Thread starter
- #14
+70g on dropper post (I have the 31.6 shimmed, you have 34.9 by the look of it)
+62g on AXS vs mine which is cables
+60g on rotors (MDR-P are heavier I believe than standard SRAM)
+300g ish on wheels
+200g on tyres (mine weighted with Kryptotal which are a bit lighter than Maxxis)
etc etc
At a quick glance, some small additions...
+62g on AXS vs mine which is cables
+60g on rotors (MDR-P are heavier I believe than standard SRAM)
+300g ish on wheels
+200g on tyres (mine weighted with Kryptotal which are a bit lighter than Maxxis)
etc etc
At a quick glance, some small additions...
- Thread starter
- #15
by the way, in this setup here its heavier at 23.52KG. The lightest I got on the bike was 22.9 but I made some changes. The AXS dropper / mech adds a fair bit of weight and a couple other changes?
Ah very interesting to see how it adds up. Thx for clarifying!
Exactly - more efficient could be marketing BS for 0.0001% more efficiency. Technically it IS more efficient, however the difference is so small that no one is going to notice it... but they might as well claim it!Think it was Marco and yes, reference was made to it being more efficient.
I think the 1.1 was 80% and presume the 1.2 is probably the same. BUT .. when they say more efficient, do they necessarily mean the electrical to mechanical conversion or more efficient in the way it produces power for the rider ? So for similar scenarios, it might use slightly less power to achieve the same/similar results by feeding power in slightly slower for example ? Or it could be that it's 80.00009% efficient now
I'll have to have a look for the video again when I have a bit of time. I think he did give an explanation?
I don't think there was an explanation about the efficiency.. or maybe there was and my brain glossed over that bit with "yeah yeah yeah".
I don't think I can get away with sitting watching this at work... so it'll have to wait until this evening! Well done on finding it so quickly though
Skip to 9.43 is the first reference to efficiency.I don't think I can get away with sitting watching this at work... so it'll have to wait until this evening! Well done on finding it so quickly though
This is much closer to my setup regarding components and overall weight. Riddle is solved. ;-)
From 9.45 ish.
"This engine was designed at higher efficiency still than the old engine and they're between five even up to ten percent depending on your Rider Cadence. So we have in theory if you ride full power full turbo - a bit less range than the previous version, but we're going faster we're having a higher efficiency.
So as a comparison if you ride the first generation and second generation and you set the value of the assistance to 200 Watts motor power then you will go further with the new version.
Why ? because it has a higher efficiency"
"This engine was designed at higher efficiency still than the old engine and they're between five even up to ten percent depending on your Rider Cadence. So we have in theory if you ride full power full turbo - a bit less range than the previous version, but we're going faster we're having a higher efficiency.
So as a comparison if you ride the first generation and second generation and you set the value of the assistance to 200 Watts motor power then you will go further with the new version.
Why ? because it has a higher efficiency"
- Thread starter
- #23
For anyone wondering, this 180mm OneUp dropper is at max insertion. There’s still 83mm of post left exposed (top of collar to wiper seal).
EDIT: 210mm dropper, NOT 180mm.
EDIT: 210mm dropper, NOT 180mm.
Last edited:
So no particular reason stated - it just does?!
Probably not the answer you're looking for, but here's where the info came from!
Geniusbiker
Member
For me the much more important point is not that they put this new motor in the KSL. For me the big question is: how long will this modell last until Specialized will launch the real successor of the KSL?
Rob said it ride: even that it is a real monster on the trails, especially in the downhills, the frame desperately needs an update (seat angle, dropper post issue).
Selling the KSL with the 1.1 motor will become really, really difficult. But having the question in mind "when will they launch the new modell?" chances are high that also selling this KSL with the 1.2 motor might be getting a similar nightmare.
I will not by this KSL2, because I´m afraid that we will have a completely new modell already at some point next year.
Rob said it ride: even that it is a real monster on the trails, especially in the downhills, the frame desperately needs an update (seat angle, dropper post issue).
Selling the KSL with the 1.1 motor will become really, really difficult. But having the question in mind "when will they launch the new modell?" chances are high that also selling this KSL with the 1.2 motor might be getting a similar nightmare.
I will not by this KSL2, because I´m afraid that we will have a completely new modell already at some point next year.
Efficiency could all be down to how the power is sent to the motor, or there could be a subtle change to the windings that you can't see from a basic tear down, they might have changed the gear ratios very slightly so the motor spends more of it's time in the more efficient speed range; or yes it could be spin. But just because you can't immediately detect any changes doesn't mean they haven't made some.
- Thread starter
- #28
It really is
I hope to see
- 400Wh battery at same battery weight (definitely possible with 22700 cells)
- Revised frame with better seatpost insertion and at least 78 degree seat tube angle
- longer CS (size specific)
the bike rides great as is, but definitely would like at a minimum a better seat post depth, considering the enduro and DH capabilities it’s such a shame that it gets in the way.
Geniusbiker
Member
Completely agree! But I think if they want to make these changes they have to do a full redesign of the frame.
Semmelrocc
E*POWAH Master
That will probably not happen before the bike industry has gotten rid of their huge stocks and everything is balanced out once again. My guess would be that we won't see an all new KSL before 2025.
Similar threads
EMTB Forums
Latest articles
-
The new 2025 Orbea Rise - my wish come true?
A few months ago, I wrote an article about a great bike that didn’t...- Knut Nes
- 5 min read
- Views: 14K
- Reaction score: 8
- Comments: 24
-
The lightweight Canyon Neuron:ONfly CF is here!
Finally, Canyon is out with their first mid-assist, lightweight emtb...- Knut Nes
- 6 min read
- Views: 6K
- Reaction score: 5
- Comments: 5