Well summed up! It's just a shame the protagonist is banned for 24 hours, so can't reply. He's probably reading the thread getting angrier and angrier!!Just reading through all this again to see if some of us are missing a perspective ..
Two points really come out.
1: Tantrum feels more Torque and has more power, but ultimately seems to be basing most of his "Scientific" conclusion from Strava data - most notably the "Estimated Average Power" statistic.
For anyone not using Strava :
View attachment 128619
View attachment 128620
This really can vary hugely depending on the terrain and how you ride, ease off here and there for a few moments and the average plumets.
Interestingly it should be noted that this is "ESTIMATED". So leaping up and down and throwing all of your toys out of the pram because other peoples experiences and Data they've recorded from TCU's doesn't fit with your scientific "ESTIMATION" seems a little ludicrous.
2. There are constant demands to "measure data" and repeated references to car manufactures as examples.
We've had several discussions in the past about making dyno's and how to best measure ACTUAL motor powers.
The reality is that they're generally all designed or programmed to produce power in different ways. It's not just about peak power. A dyno can give you scientific results, but in the real world a motor which appears to excel on a dyno might feel total crap when you're riding - the same as a car engine tuned only peak power.
As we know from Diesel gate, it's fairly easy to make something perform perfectly in a lab/dyno - but not be doing what it's supposed to in the real world.
Hence, we rely on the experiences and feedback from people who ride lots of different bikes and motors to give us an idea of what to expect - based on that persons experiences and comparisons. They're not robots or AI's. We ride our bikes in the real world on real trails doing mainly stupid things !We don't want to know which is the best in a lab - the manufacturers tell us those numbers, we want to know how they feel to a human in comparison to the competition.
The King has no clothes - SL 1.2 Power
- Thread starter Fit_Fat_almost_50
- Start date
Thankyou for your suggestion, but no.
Despite the advances in VR, we couldn't find a VR padded cell which not only felt like it was correctly padded but also had the data to back that up. There was also the requirement that it had been independently tested for at least three months by people from diverse backgrounds who had extensive prior experience of padded cells who were also capable of objectively and reliably evaluating their environments.
The team decided it was too risky that FFA50 would become extensively aggravated if the feel of his cell did not live upto his expectations.
Hopefully he's gone for a nice ride and will remember and appreciate how good EMTBing is.
Or rile him up about how little 'power' he's getting from his SL 1.2 motor...
ThierryGTLTS
Member
Can you confirm the evolution from 1.1 to 1.2?
Battery is identical.
Motor has same gears (but different material to reduce noise and allow more safety margin).
Software is different to allow more torque and more short term power.
Probably that the dynamic comportment is also changed in the software, but i will be very difficult to measure.
More, the dynamic comportment will change the impression we have (very subjective).
So yes the only way to test(and or measure) is to test both models at 100% settings.
Do you think there are several sofware version running today?!
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
Battery is identical.
Motor has same gears (but different material to reduce noise and allow more safety margin).
Software is different to allow more torque and more short term power.
Probably that the dynamic comportment is also changed in the software, but i will be very difficult to measure.
More, the dynamic comportment will change the impression we have (very subjective).
So yes the only way to test(and or measure) is to test both models at 100% settings.
Do you think there are several sofware version running today?!
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
I am also intrigued into BMS. I see the 1.1 has max current around 5.8-6.0 amps while 1.2 draws 7.6-7.8 amps.
Fit_Fat_almost_50
New Member
- Thread starter
- #98
@Zimmerframe Strava uses estimated power when there is no power meter. As we all know the KSL has a power meter and hence the screenshot I showed does not say estimated power.Just reading through all this again to see if some of us are missing a perspective ..
Two points really come out.
1: Tantrum feels more Torque and has more power, but ultimately seems to be basing most of his "Scientific" conclusion from Strava data - most notably the "Estimated Average Power" statistic.
For anyone not using Strava :
View attachment 128619
View attachment 128620
This really can vary hugely depending on the terrain and how you ride, ease off here and there for a few moments and the average plumets.
Interestingly it should be noted that this is "ESTIMATED". So leaping up and down and throwing all of your toys out of the pram because other peoples experiences and Data they've recorded from TCU's doesn't fit with your scientific "ESTIMATION" seems a little ludicrous.
2. There are constant demands to "measure data" and repeated references to car manufactures as examples.
We've had several discussions in the past about making dyno's and how to best measure ACTUAL motor powers.
The reality is that they're generally all designed or programmed to produce power in different ways. It's not just about peak power. A dyno can give you scientific results, but in the real world a motor which appears to excel on a dyno might feel total crap when you're riding - the same as a car engine tuned only peak power.
As we know from Diesel gate, it's fairly easy to make something perform perfectly in a lab/dyno - but not be doing what it's supposed to in the real world.
Hence, we rely on the experiences and feedback from people who ride lots of different bikes and motors to give us an idea of what to expect - based on that persons experiences and comparisons. They're not robots or AI's. We ride our bikes in the real world on real trails doing mainly stupid things !
I love the fact that I am the one showing:
1. My data, including screenshots
2. My conclusions, including detailed calculations and detailed explanations.
And I am the one having a tantrum.
Fit_Fat_almost_50
New Member
- Thread starter
- #99
@Zimmerframe @Rob Rides EMTB @knut7 all have had/have access to 1.1 and 1.2 and yet I am the only one that has produced really data and a view based on the data. Yet I am the one whose opinions are being belittled. Very very telling
I also offered all my personal details via DM. @knut7 asked for them and I sent my Name, Cell number and email address and offered all the raw data.
Facts matter. The Scientific method was developed to eliminate exactly this kind of misinformation we are being subjected to.
I also offered all my personal details via DM. @knut7 asked for them and I sent my Name, Cell number and email address and offered all the raw data.
Facts matter. The Scientific method was developed to eliminate exactly this kind of misinformation we are being subjected to.
Last edited:
You've made some pretty serious accusations about the owner of the site simply because they don't agree with you. Frankly, I'm amazed you're still here.
Fit_Fat_almost_50
New Member
- Thread starter
- #102
Well the truth my accusations are data driven. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either they censor me and take a serious credibly knock or they conduct their own research. What really telling is that they have not provided there own research
Fit_Fat_almost_50
New Member
- Thread starter
- #103
I provided the data and calculations. Which questions relating to the data remain unanswered?
I guess the answer could be somewhere in this thread, and I've missed it... How did you record the data? What is the peak power recorded for each motor?
Fit_Fat_almost_50
New Member
- Thread starter
- #105
I took the time to read your articles. Watch your videos. How about you take the read to read my analysis, we can then discuss what part of my test you disagree?
I don't get it, why do you tell me this instead of just saying what peak power you recorded?
Does it never end ?
You just keep taking random data and bits of information and twisting them to try and fit with your "view" - which I'm still not clear what it is as you say you have more torque and have demonstrated with "data" that you have more power.
Things like :
So yes, a 1.1 motor will pull about 300w from the battery which is what the TCU shows. This translates to 240w power from the motor due to 80% efficiency with the motor(s). How does that suggest that the hardware is identical - it might be, it's just the comment doesn't suggest it at all.
You "ceased" your evaluations - which don't appear to be at all conclusive and you haven't reached a solution. You just came up with a theory and have decided to mould your model around that - but haven't provided any proof or actually conducted any proper tests like you keep insisting everyone else is obliged to.
Your "view" doesn't raise concerns about "Individuals" like @knut7. What the forum does do is try to protect it's members from unsubstantiated claims and slander - which is what you're undertaking.
@knut7 has clearly stated for you that he has no conflicts of interest as he's not recompensed for what he does.
So you are upset that Spesh says it delivers 33% more power - 320w (motor). Yet in the same post you explain that you got 420w (battery draw). When a 1.1 pulls about 300w.
There are not "Some views around where power is measured and reduced by 20%" - it's a simple fact, not a view. It's scientific not black magic. Motor 80% efficient, therefore what you get out will be 80% of what you put in. Easy !
You're trying to put forward a logical argument and then talking gibberish constantly.
Then you complain that you've not seen anyone, including knut7 claim a verified max output - so he's not claimed figures you disagree with ??? Yet you get upset with his use of the word "Generous" because of how you choose to interpret it ?
Even if we were to waste time discussing if the word "Generous" was fair or not. Again to point out, you said you have more torque and more power .. sooooooo is it not generous ?
Are you sure you're not an AI, half of what you write just sounds like joke comments written by an AI told to sound like a prick ?
Clearly, you're not open to considering "informed perspectives" - you've dismissed them all and say you haven't seen anyones views/data/opinions or they're subjective.
Yet you didn't .. you just dismissed Knut and told him to go read your waffle again.
As the moderator said ... Discuss ... you're still not discussing. You're just being an arrogant prick who keeps spooning out the same crap with no rational or logic behind your theory.
Suggestions have been made, you've just continued to ignore them and sprout more copied or AI crap.
I can't even be bothered going over your other comments. It's a nice bike by the way.
I'm out .. this is just full on loony tunes. You're just wasting everyone's time.
You just keep taking random data and bits of information and twisting them to try and fit with your "view" - which I'm still not clear what it is as you say you have more torque and have demonstrated with "data" that you have more power.
Things like :
So yes, a 1.1 motor will pull about 300w from the battery which is what the TCU shows. This translates to 240w power from the motor due to 80% efficiency with the motor(s). How does that suggest that the hardware is identical - it might be, it's just the comment doesn't suggest it at all.
You "ceased" your evaluations - which don't appear to be at all conclusive and you haven't reached a solution. You just came up with a theory and have decided to mould your model around that - but haven't provided any proof or actually conducted any proper tests like you keep insisting everyone else is obliged to.
Your "view" doesn't raise concerns about "Individuals" like @knut7. What the forum does do is try to protect it's members from unsubstantiated claims and slander - which is what you're undertaking.
@knut7 has clearly stated for you that he has no conflicts of interest as he's not recompensed for what he does.
So you are upset that Spesh says it delivers 33% more power - 320w (motor). Yet in the same post you explain that you got 420w (battery draw). When a 1.1 pulls about 300w.
There are not "Some views around where power is measured and reduced by 20%" - it's a simple fact, not a view. It's scientific not black magic. Motor 80% efficient, therefore what you get out will be 80% of what you put in. Easy !
You're trying to put forward a logical argument and then talking gibberish constantly.
Then you complain that you've not seen anyone, including knut7 claim a verified max output - so he's not claimed figures you disagree with ??? Yet you get upset with his use of the word "Generous" because of how you choose to interpret it ?
Even if we were to waste time discussing if the word "Generous" was fair or not. Again to point out, you said you have more torque and more power .. sooooooo is it not generous ?
Are you sure you're not an AI, half of what you write just sounds like joke comments written by an AI told to sound like a prick ?
Clearly, you're not open to considering "informed perspectives" - you've dismissed them all and say you haven't seen anyones views/data/opinions or they're subjective.
Yet you didn't .. you just dismissed Knut and told him to go read your waffle again.
As the moderator said ... Discuss ... you're still not discussing. You're just being an arrogant prick who keeps spooning out the same crap with no rational or logic behind your theory.
Suggestions have been made, you've just continued to ignore them and sprout more copied or AI crap.
I can't even be bothered going over your other comments. It's a nice bike by the way.
I'm out .. this is just full on loony tunes. You're just wasting everyone's time.
@Zimmerframe the request to be polite to all members applies to everyone.
I know you said you're out, but you're banned from the thread for 24 hours.
@Fit_Fat_almost_50 To reiterate. Either discuss your point clearly and rationally and present your data and proof in a concise format that everyone can relate to or your posts will all be moved to a new thread in the wasteland.
I know you said you're out, but you're banned from the thread for 24 hours.
@Fit_Fat_almost_50 To reiterate. Either discuss your point clearly and rationally and present your data and proof in a concise format that everyone can relate to or your posts will all be moved to a new thread in the wasteland.
Fit_Fat_almost_50
New Member
- Thread starter
- #110
Fair request, in the coming week I will consolidate all my data and data lead interpretations into a consolidated reply.
I can't find a description of how bike-magazin.de performs their tests, like where the poweroutput is measured. It seems like they're measuring it off the rear wheel? Can anyone point me in the right direction? @Harold perhaps?
Reading the 1.2 SL test, it seems bike-magazine.de found the same as I did.
www.bike-magazin.de
Have I seen this graph in this thread already? Can't find it when scrolling through all pages.
Reading the 1.2 SL test, it seems bike-magazine.de found the same as I did.
Specialized E-Bike-Motor im Test: Specialized SL 1.2 E-MTB
Specialized zeigt den neuen SL 1.2 E-Bike-Motor für Light-E-EMTBs. Mit geringem Betriebsgeräusch und mehr Drehmoment soll er den Vorgänger ausstechen.
www.bike-magazin.de
bike-mag said:
Have I seen this graph in this thread already? Can't find it when scrolling through all pages.
Last edited:
Taking a step aside from the SL 1.2 motor power (or lack of) discussion... can I just clarify something please?
You bought a KSL with the 1.1 motor a while ago (I assume). The Levo SL came out with a 1.2 motor, so you bought a Levo SL 1.2 with the sole purpose of transplanting the new motor into your KSL 1.1. Was this purely to get more power / assistance?
Later in the thread, you then bought a Levociraptor device - so that you can unlock the speed limiter and ride it with assistance past the limit (whatever that may be in your country).
My feeling is you've bought the wrong bike. If you need the motor unlocked, and the extra power, then perhaps you should have gone with a full fat bike.
I don't have any numbers to justify this comment (sorry - I know you like DATA), but I think I'm safe to say that the "majority" of SL riders ride their bikes on relatively low settings most of the time (Eco or Trail), and only use Turbo for special occasions.
Personally, I updated from a Levo SL 1.1 to an SL 1.2 because my 1.1 always felt too big for me, and for the geometry change. Getting a Mastermind TCU, an extra 15Nm and a quieter motor were a bonus. I ride predominately in a 15/30 setting on the SL 1.2, and generally use Turbo in little bursts when I'm struggling.
Again, I don't have DATA to prove it... but to me, the SL 1.2 offers more power than the SL 1.1 does when I need it at 100/100. Maybe this is classed as Torque rather than power like you mentioned earlier... however it's all the same to me. The motor gives me more assistance than the SL 1.1 did. It's not a groundbreaking increase, but it's definitely there. We've got to remember we're talking about a relatively low powered motor to begin with (compared to some others), so a 33% increase is going to be noticeable (which it is), but not groundbreaking.
You bought a KSL with the 1.1 motor a while ago (I assume). The Levo SL came out with a 1.2 motor, so you bought a Levo SL 1.2 with the sole purpose of transplanting the new motor into your KSL 1.1. Was this purely to get more power / assistance?
Later in the thread, you then bought a Levociraptor device - so that you can unlock the speed limiter and ride it with assistance past the limit (whatever that may be in your country).
My feeling is you've bought the wrong bike. If you need the motor unlocked, and the extra power, then perhaps you should have gone with a full fat bike.
I don't have any numbers to justify this comment (sorry - I know you like DATA), but I think I'm safe to say that the "majority" of SL riders ride their bikes on relatively low settings most of the time (Eco or Trail), and only use Turbo for special occasions.
Personally, I updated from a Levo SL 1.1 to an SL 1.2 because my 1.1 always felt too big for me, and for the geometry change. Getting a Mastermind TCU, an extra 15Nm and a quieter motor were a bonus. I ride predominately in a 15/30 setting on the SL 1.2, and generally use Turbo in little bursts when I'm struggling.
Again, I don't have DATA to prove it... but to me, the SL 1.2 offers more power than the SL 1.1 does when I need it at 100/100. Maybe this is classed as Torque rather than power like you mentioned earlier... however it's all the same to me. The motor gives me more assistance than the SL 1.1 did. It's not a groundbreaking increase, but it's definitely there. We've got to remember we're talking about a relatively low powered motor to begin with (compared to some others), so a 33% increase is going to be noticeable (which it is), but not groundbreaking.
New thread .. I'm not banned here
Apologies for calling you a prick.
If we start at the beginning and your initial "data" for your conclusion :
Your argument that the 1.1 motor used 35% battery, yet for the same ride the 1.2 used only 37% - so therefore it can't be 30% more powerful because that power has to come from somewhere.
For starters - you're not riding at 100% power all the time, so both motors won't have constantly been using max power - so you can't compare the two things to confirm a 30% increase.
This was discussed fairly extensively before the motor was released where we explained that 30% more maximum power availability doesn't directly correlate to 30% reduction in range.
Secondly. The 1.1 ride started at 60% battery. The voltage drops with usage so the voltage compensation allows the use of more amps. Batteries also produce less usable power at lower voltages. The 1.2 ride was with a full battery - full voltage. Whilst the actual % was similar, the actual total electrical power used would have been higher on the 1.2. - Battery % is not linear.
You keep making reference to your "power meter" what is this please ?
I'm still ultimately completely confused that you say you've researched this considerably yet state that you and the germain magazine both find the 1.2 to have noticeably more torque than the 1.1 (therefore it has more power - Torque (N.m) = 9.5488 x Power (kW) / Speed (RPM)) and YOUR OWN data shows you have power peak draws of 420w and pull in the region of 8 amps. Where as the 1.1 pulls in the region of 6 amps.
Initially we suggested this might be a fault with your motor or battery as it didn't fit with your findings - but your findings are subjective and just reading through the thread again, you've cherry picked data and quoted out of context other comments to suit your feelings.
Looking forwards to reading your full summation presentation.
Apologies for calling you a prick.
If we start at the beginning and your initial "data" for your conclusion :
Your argument that the 1.1 motor used 35% battery, yet for the same ride the 1.2 used only 37% - so therefore it can't be 30% more powerful because that power has to come from somewhere.
For starters - you're not riding at 100% power all the time, so both motors won't have constantly been using max power - so you can't compare the two things to confirm a 30% increase.
This was discussed fairly extensively before the motor was released where we explained that 30% more maximum power availability doesn't directly correlate to 30% reduction in range.
Secondly. The 1.1 ride started at 60% battery. The voltage drops with usage so the voltage compensation allows the use of more amps. Batteries also produce less usable power at lower voltages. The 1.2 ride was with a full battery - full voltage. Whilst the actual % was similar, the actual total electrical power used would have been higher on the 1.2. - Battery % is not linear.
You keep making reference to your "power meter" what is this please ?
I'm still ultimately completely confused that you say you've researched this considerably yet state that you and the germain magazine both find the 1.2 to have noticeably more torque than the 1.1 (therefore it has more power - Torque (N.m) = 9.5488 x Power (kW) / Speed (RPM)) and YOUR OWN data shows you have power peak draws of 420w and pull in the region of 8 amps. Where as the 1.1 pulls in the region of 6 amps.
Initially we suggested this might be a fault with your motor or battery as it didn't fit with your findings - but your findings are subjective and just reading through the thread again, you've cherry picked data and quoted out of context other comments to suit your feelings.
Looking forwards to reading your full summation presentation.
Fit_Fat_almost_50
New Member
- Thread starter
- #114
I went into the reason for the upgrade in the first post of this thread:
"In my quest to race E Enduro, I upgraded my beloved Kenevo SL."
I am already competitive on the KSL and the promise of additional power with the same handling was the motivating reason.
The reason for the purchase of the Levoicrator was also discussed and it was to get additional data.
I will provide a more comprehensive response in my consolidated reply next week. Addressing your valid question and highlighting the significance of this issue, I must admit that if I had been aware of the information I know now, particularly if Specialized had provided accurate specifications, I would not have upgraded my KSL. Most critically, I would have opted to sell my KSL 1.1 and purchase a different lightweight E Enduro bike. As much as it pains me to say this, Specialized is simply not a competitive option at the moment in the lightweight E-Bike category.
Fit_Fat_almost_50
New Member
- Thread starter
- #115
Apology accepted.New thread .. I'm not banned here
Apologies for calling you a prick.
If we start at the beginning and your initial "data" for your conclusion :
Your argument that the 1.1 motor used 35% battery, yet for the same ride the 1.2 used only 37% - so therefore it can't be 30% more powerful because that power has to come from somewhere.
For starters - you're not riding at 100% power all the time, so both motors won't have constantly been using max power - so you can't compare the two things to confirm a 30% increase.
This was discussed fairly extensively before the motor was released where we explained that 30% more maximum power availability doesn't directly correlate to 30% reduction in range.
Secondly. The 1.1 ride started at 60% battery. The voltage drops with usage so the voltage compensation allows the use of more amps. Batteries also produce less usable power at lower voltages. The 1.2 ride was with a full battery - full voltage. Whilst the actual % was similar, the actual total electrical power used would have been higher on the 1.2. - Battery % is not linear.
You keep making reference to your "power meter" what is this please ?
I'm still ultimately completely confused that you say you've researched this considerably yet state that you and the germain magazine both find the 1.2 to have noticeably more torque than the 1.1 (therefore it has more power - Torque (N.m) = 9.5488 x Power (kW) / Speed (RPM)) and YOUR OWN data shows you have power peak draws of 420w and pull in the region of 8 amps. Where as the 1.1 pulls in the region of 6 amps.
Initially we suggested this might be a fault with your motor or battery as it didn't fit with your findings - but your findings are subjective and just reading through the thread again, you've cherry picked data and quoted out of context other comments to suit your feelings.
Looking forwards to reading your full summation presentation.
I will take your comments into consideration and ensure I address them in the consolidated reply.
Myalteregohamish
Active member
I hope we don’t start doing this. I work with engineers, speaking in absolutes is par for the course. I’m not seeing anything worth being offended about. Data is data, question the data and the method. @Fit_Fat_almost_50 my advice going forward would be to ask questions and drop any assertions/accusations to be on the safe side. That way you’ll retain your credibility.
ah1
Active member
Whoa just found this thread and very confusing. Back and forth, proving/disproving data, accusations...
Maybe someone already suggested it, but IF I had the two motors for the same bike in my possession, I would just run the exact same (short) climb segment in the same support % in both bikes (say 50% and then 100% if I had time) with of course max set to 100%, gather the "rider input Watt" data, and find runs where the rider watts are close enough. Probably doesn't require more than 4-5 climbs on each combo to get there.
Everything else extrapolating, reading data off something, etc - it could be directionally correct, but since it's the result that counts just measure results.
Also: I'm assuming the 50Nm won't play much effect in a long steady climb, so you could run that test on one steep climb and compare / contrast.
Anyways - I'm on the 1.1 motor but apparently it needs to be replaced, that's the reason for my initial interest in this thread.
Maybe someone already suggested it, but IF I had the two motors for the same bike in my possession, I would just run the exact same (short) climb segment in the same support % in both bikes (say 50% and then 100% if I had time) with of course max set to 100%, gather the "rider input Watt" data, and find runs where the rider watts are close enough. Probably doesn't require more than 4-5 climbs on each combo to get there.
Everything else extrapolating, reading data off something, etc - it could be directionally correct, but since it's the result that counts just measure results.
Also: I'm assuming the 50Nm won't play much effect in a long steady climb, so you could run that test on one steep climb and compare / contrast.
Anyways - I'm on the 1.1 motor but apparently it needs to be replaced, that's the reason for my initial interest in this thread.
sethimus
😠 Donald Duck 😠
more like the op is the one with no clothes
Since the "consolidated reply" has not materialised can we safely assume that the 1.2 motor is about what was claimed?
Maybe the AI experiment is over?
Similar Threads
-
-
-
-
-
2022 Turbo Kenevo SL Expert - factory locked. What should I do?
- Started by FreeBiker
- Replies: 3
