Monster post, so hold tight. An update on my 10 month ownership:
So I am on motor #3, all the way in South Africa. I have an early 9.7 (Aug'22), probably one of the 1st batches to come out of the factory. Major notable issues were, 1. Geo mess-up / lower bb than advertised / changing BB height on geo-charts = not-fit-for-mullet; 2. the Float X knock; 3. Screen death by moisture; 4. I am on my 3rd motor
I was already properly scratchy on day 1 when I measured 9 shop bikes and my own and realised the BB was 341 in high instead of the launched 349 BB. I had such great mullet-plans. The lower BB made the bike un-mulletable, as 330mm BB-height is just not safe. I had a big fight with them, and they dismissed me with "tyres stretch, so every bike is different, and I am measuring wrong". Trek didn't acknowledge this and just changed the BB to 341 on the geo charts, no comment.
So I am on a small frame full 29er, 160 cranks, high setting 160mm fork. Luckily, the bike rides really well in 29er.
Trek however, has been great in the warranty process, no questions asked, so thank goodness for that. Maybe its a new strategy? Cut costs by lowering QC levels, have a liberal warranty process, fix when necessary, no questions asked to patch up customer satisfaction. It is a thin line balance though.
Motor 1 had 2 issues: 1. Presented considerable drag in no assist mode or even in lower watts, and 2. was woefully under-measuring my input watts (torque-sensor issue). I would do 300 watts input on my brother's bike, and only 180 on my bike. Trek replaced the motor.
Motor 1 details: Art no 329587.0105, year 2022, SN500006168 (this was the version with no frame-width adjusters)
Motor 2 had same drag issue: Presented considerable drag in no assist mode or even in lower watts. Trek replaced the motor.
Motor 2 details: Art no 329587.0200, year 2022, SN500009433 (with frame-width adjusters)
Motor 3 is much better, with almost no drag, and the torque sensor seems more in-line with what I would expect my outpu to be.
Motor 3 details: Art no 329587.0200, year 2022, SN500009288 (with frame-width adjusters)
Seems that the running hardware updates are documented in the last 4 digits of the "Art No" on the motor. Would be interesting to see if the 2023 motors end in different to my ".0200".
Regarding TQ drag: from Bikeradar Scott Solace Gravel eRide 10 first ride (TQ) review: "What is noticeable is some resistance as you pedal. I didn’t notice this so much when I rode the similarly equipped
Scott Lumen".
"This meant I either needed to slow down to benefit from the electric assistance or pedal harder to get above the 26kph limit to stop feeling any resistance from the motor."
I really like how the bike rides, and the TQ system is really perfect for my needs. Just a shame that lots of early buyers were test guinea-pigs helping Trek do prototyping. Crowd-prototyping perhaps? I don't like it. I don't like it one bit
My hypothesis is that the early motors had loads of tolerance variation in internal motor parts, hopefully TQ have sorted the QC process, and are putting out in-spec motors more consistently.
Lastly, lots bike manufacturers are going to TQ. Which is good, because TQ have much larger budgets, incentives and pressure to improve the system. Hopefully they keep supporting us early-adopters and we don't end up on the forgotten landfill!
Here's to the OG's, that are paying the schoolfees
