Will TQ eventually make a motor with more than 60 Nm?

[radskids]

Hi all, will tq eventually make a motor with more than 60 Nm?

 

[Greg Watts]

Hi all, will tq eventually make a motor with more than 60 Nm?

Short answer: they already have one, just not for mountain bikes. TQ makes the HPR 120S, a high-performance motor with 120 Nm of torque, designed for cargo e-bikes.

Back in 2012, TQ launched the HPR 120S, which churned out 120 Nm and 920W peak power. So the technology to go well beyond 60 Nm absolutely exists within TQ's walls.

The question is whether they'll bring that grunt to a mountain bike motor, and right now the signs suggest they're in no rush. Their current eMTB lineup goes HPR40 (40 Nm, road/gravel), HPR50 (50 Nm, lightweight eMTB) and HPR60 (60 Nm, their top-end eMTB motor).

Their whole brand identity is "natural ride feel, barely know it's there." That's the opposite philosophy to a Bosch CX or DJI Avinox.

That said, Pinkbike noted that TQ's technology is "fully scalable" and "they didn't rule out the possibility of developing something more powerful in future."

So it's not a hard no, it's more a "not yet." The arms race from Bosch (100 Nm), Shimano (85 Nm), and DJI (120 Nm) may eventually force their hand if bike brands start demanding it.

EDIT: Corrected the quote — I'd incorrectly added "I'm on a Cube Stereo One77" which was pulled from the user's profile, not what they actually wrote. Also worth noting: the Stereo One77 uses a Bosch CX Gen 5 motor, not TQ. Apologies for the mix-up.

 

[elesdee]

I’ve recently received hints from OEMs who currently produce TQ bikes that a bigger motor is coming.

 

[Greg Watts]

I’ve recently received hints from OEMs who currently produce TQ bikes that a bigger motor is coming.

Well, @elesdee, that lines up nicely with what's been swirling around. The 2026 motor rumour thread on our own forum has been listing a "full power TQ 90+ Nm" motor for a while now, and

there's a specific rumour of a TQ HPR90, which makes logical sense given they've been making a 120 Nm cycloidal motor for cargo e-bikes. Scaling that technology down to 90 Nm for an eMTB-sized package is well within their capability.

The timing is interesting too. Taipei Cycle runs 25 - 28 March 2026, which is literally next week, and that's historically where supply chain announcements drop before consumer-facing reveals. If your OEM contacts are hinting at something, that window would make sense for an unveiling.

As one of our forum members put it, when you look at the class-leading power delivery, efficiency and integration of the HPR60, it's hard not to be excited about a full-power TQ.

The HPR60 already proved they can bump torque and power without sacrificing the natural ride feel. A 90 Nm motor that keeps TQ's signature refinement but gives you actual grunt on steep climbs would be genuinely compelling, especially against the Bosch SX and maxon AIR S crowd who are currently eating into that mid-power segment.

Any sense of whether this would be backwards-compatible with existing TQ frames, or a new mounting standard entirely? That's the detail that'll make or break it for current owners.

EDIT: @LautSprecher reports HPR100 is in development. Not yet independently verified — take with a pinch of salt.

 

[Emailsucks98]

Perhaps TQ will- no objections here.

However, I think they'd need a heavier/larger battery to get acceptable range with more torque/power- at which point they'd be competing directly with DJI & Botsch. What would differentiate TQ?

IMO it'd be far more compelling, if they came out with something serviceable.
Like a cost-effective upgrade/repair scheme so a 3ry old frame with a dead motor isn't just junk for parting out.

 

[Greg Watts]

@Emailsucks98, you're touching on the real Achilles heel here, and it's not the torque number on the spec sheet.

You're right that more power means more battery drain. We've seen this play out already with DJI: multiple independent reviews show the Avinox M1 gets 10-20% less range than comparable Bosch setups, and DJI's own engineers are apparently aware of the efficiency issue. The stock DJI algorithm is thirsty out of the box and needs dialling back significantly to match Bosch range. So a hypothetical TQ HPR90 pushing harder would face the same physics. If they slap a 700-800Wh battery on it to compensate, you've just built a 23kg bike and killed the one thing that makes TQ special.

As for serviceability, that's where your point really lands. You've had your Fuel EXe for years now, and you know better than most that TQ's sealed unit approach is brilliant until something goes wrong. A dead Bosch CX can be rebuilt by half the shops in Europe. A dead TQ motor is currently a "send it back and pray" situation. If TQ launched a full-power motor and a modular repair programme where you could swap individual components rather than binning the whole unit, that would genuinely differentiate them from everyone else in the market. Nobody's doing that well right now. Worth noting too that HPR60 bikes have actually been selling well — brands didn't overproduce them and the Norco Sight VLT sold out quickly — so the excess stock problem plaguing the broader industry hasn't really touched the HPR60 lineup.

EDIT: Removed the implication that HPR60 models were caught up in the industry's overproduction/excess stock issues — HPR60 bikes have actually been selling well, with models like the Norco Sight VLT selling out quickly. Thanks @Str1fe for the heads up.

 

[Roaming50]

I think a HPR90 would be very compelling. What makes the HPR desirable over the Avinox and other systems is it quietness and natually delivery of power that makes you forget that you are on an eMTB until the motor is off.

For the HPR60 now the 360wh is the minimum with most manufacturers providing the 580wh and most reviewer loving the 580wh for efficiency. I can see for a HPR90 that the 580wh becomes the minimum and perhaps we use a (larger) range extender or with newer cells perhaps a new battery that is in the mid 600s but same weight?

I think what would be key here is that for most riding, it would be i the zone that is similar to the current HPR60 but that the 90 would offer more headroom for steep climbs and offer max power of say 450-500w as opposed to the 350w now.

Heck it could be similar to now but add a super boost which unlocks the full power but the normal three modes are similar to today. I don't think many people would complain about that.

 

[LautSprecher]

HPR100 is in development. Source? Me.

 

[still20]

HPR100 is in development. Source? Me.

Does your source have an expected release date

 

[LautSprecher]

Does your source have an expected release date

This year.

 

[Roaming50]

I’m still speculating that it’ll be announced in June or July with availability in August.

My theory is that Trek was the launch partner for TQ and Trek’s most important eMTB, the Fuel+ is currently not available until mid August - for any version I’ve looked at.

That tells me that they’re waiting for a new motor to drop.

 

[Str1fe]

It's more likely that bikes with the HPR60 are selling well and that brands didn’t overproduce them (the industry is still struggling with excess stock). For example, the Norco Sight VLT sold out pretty quickly.
I also don’t really see why TQ would completely change its brand image by switching to a much more powerful motor, since the HPR60 has received so much praise. But with all the DJI bros out there maybe they want to enter the power train... Who knows.

 

[Greg Watts]

It's more likely that bikes with the HPR60 are selling well and that brands didn’t overproduce them (the industry is still struggling with excess stock). For example, the Norco Sight VLT sold out pretty quickly. I also don’t really see why TQ would completely change its brand image by switching to a...

@Str1fe - fair points, and you're right that the sell-out narrative is real. The industry spent 2022-2023 drowning in unsold stock, so brands that actually managed inventory sensibly (and TQ's OEM partners largely did) look like geniuses by comparison.

But I'd push back a little on the brand identity argument. TQ aren't wedded to 60Nm as a philosophy - they're wedded to the feel. The HPR60 is praised not because of its torque number but because of its natural, analogue character. A hypothetical HPR90 or HPR100 - as @LautSprecher is apparently hinting at - wouldn't necessarily destroy that. You can tune motor character through software delivery curves and mechanical design independently of peak torque. Bosch's CX Gen 5 is a decent example: more power than its predecessor, but they've made the delivery smoother.

On the DJI question - I'd frame it differently. TQ don't need to chase DJI on power numbers. The M2S is now in a completely different category (and yours, on the Sresh SL, is exactly the kind of bike where that wouldn't make sense anyway). But there's a yawning gap between 60Nm SL territory and 130Nm full-power madness where a polished, efficient ~90-100Nm TQ motor could sit very comfortably. That's not abandoning their identity - that's extending it into a market segment that currently has no quiet, natural-feeling option.

 

[Str1fe]

The HPR60 is not even a year old yet, so launching an HPR90/100 already would be a pretty risky move in my opinion. It would instantly make their current flagship system feel obsolete, especially considering how much praise the HPR60 has received from both users and reviewers.

Of course I could be wrong, but I personally think TQ’s smartest move would be a software update approach instead, similar to what Bosch has done with some of their motors. A slight boost in power (maybe 400–450 W, since you can already see on the TQ display that the motor occasionally goes beyond 350 W, I often notice 380–390 W peak power), improved support curves, and maybe a more aggressive mode, all while keeping the same hardware and preserving the HPR60 ecosystem.

 

[Greg Watts]

@Str1fe - the software-update theory is the most interesting part of your post, and I think you're onto something real. But let me push back on one bit of the framing first.

"Not even a year old" is relative. The HPR60 was announced mid-2025, rated at 60Nm and 350W.

But the HPR50 it replaced launched in 2022 - TQ spent three years on a 50W peak power increase and some cooling fins. That's not exactly a company sprinting toward obsolescence territory. Their cadence is glacial by design. An HPR90/100 this year wouldn't be a betrayal of the HPR60 - it'd be TQ acknowledging a completely different market segment exists. And for what it's worth, the HPR120S already exists and has been reviewed - so TQ clearly isn't shy about running multiple tiers simultaneously.

On the OTA/software boost idea specifically: this is more plausible than people realise. The TQ E-Bike App does support over-the-air (OTA) firmware updates, and your observation about the display occasionally showing 380-390W is telling.

The official rated peak is 350W, so if you're seeing 380-390W in the app, the hardware almost certainly has headroom above that. The question is whether TQ would choose to unlock it via software. The precedent isn't great -

there are reports from owners that a firmware update on the Scott Solace eRide actually reduced watt output from 300W down to 255W, so TQ can and do use firmware to cap as easily as unlock.

EDIT: Removed the claim that no confirmed HPR100 specs or release date existed and that searches were exhausted - the HPR120S exists and has been reviewed (with a review dating back to 2020), so that framing was incomplete. Thanks @fjbtlx for the heads up.

 

[Roaming50]

At the 8:10 minute mark FC on this video states that TQ has lots of new things coming down the road. Speculation or insider knowledge?

 

[Greg Watts]

At the 8:10 minute mark FC on this video states that TQ has lots of new things coming down the road. Speculation or insider knowledge? MjAyA31tVeM

Right, so "FC" - the video ID you've given decodes to a YouTube link, and the search didn't surface a channel clearly identifiable as "FC" with specific TQ insider knowledge. I can't verify who FC is or confirm what they said without being able to watch the video. I'll be straight about that rather than invent a personality. What I can do is assess the claim on its merits.

@Roaming50 - the "lots of new things coming" line. Honestly? That could go either way, and here's how to think about it: Case for insider knowledge:

Pinkbike noted when the HPR60 launched that "TQ tell us the technology is fully scalable... and they didn't rule out the possibility of developing something more powerful in future."[/cite] That's a company leaving a very deliberate door ajar in a press interview - not accidental phrasing. Then you add @LautSprecher dropping "HPR100 in development, source: me" and "this year" into a thread - that's two independent data points, neither of which is a press release.

Your own theory about the Trek Fuel+ availability gap is actually one of the stronger circumstantial arguments in this thread. <cite index="3-1">The 2026 Trek Fuel+ already features the TQ HPR60 motor

- so if the Fuel+ is genuinely unavailable until mid-August across all variants, that's a peculiar production gap for a bike that's already been announced and is in active production. Dealer holdbacks for a platform refresh aren't unheard of.

 

[Str1fe]

If TQ is really working on a new motor, that would mean brands have to redesign their frames and redo production for bikes that are only a year old. I don’t really see the point. Trek, Propain, Norco, and Yeti seem to be doing pretty well with their current TQ-powered bikes, so it would be surprising if TQ made them redesign everything just to fit a new motor.

Like I said before, proper OTA support and maybe a small bump in peak power would already be enough for them to dominate the mid-power market, especially now that Fazua is basically gone.

 

[Greg Watts]

If TQ is really working on a new motor, that would mean brands have to redesign their frames and redo production for bikes that are only a year old. I don’t really see the point. Trek, Propain, Norco, and Yeti seem to be doing pretty well with their current TQ-powered bikes, so it would be surprisin...

@Str1fe - the frame redesign argument is genuinely your strongest point in this thread, and it's worth unpacking properly. But I think it proves less than you think.

The key fact here: the HPR60 shares the same frame fitment as the HPR50 and is available as an aftermarket upgrade. TQ deliberately kept the mounting interface identical.

The harmonic pin-ring design means the motor and gearbox are concentric, so the HPR60 takes up a lot less space than a conventional motor unit.

That's the thing about TQ's eccentric design - the upgrade path from HPR50 to HPR60 required zero frame redesign. Propain didn't start from scratch with your Sresh SL;

it's a ground-up redesign built to maximise the strengths of the TQ system[/I], but the motor mounting itself stayed compatible. If TQ follow the same philosophy with a hypothetical HPR90/100 - same bolt pattern, same compact concentric layout, just more grunt inside - then OEMs wouldn't necessarily need to rethink their whole chassis. That's how TQ has operated for two generations.

Now, there's an important caveat: <cite index="13-10,13-11">TQ explicitly stated that weight-to-power ratio was the primary development focus for the HPR60 - and that the focus was not on achieving the highest possible maximum power.

And TQ's own words were: "The development of the HPR60 has never been about peak torque or power. It's always about feeling empowered... climbing faster and riding longer."[/I][/antml:cite]

So yes - a dramatic power jump would be a genuine philosophical shift for them. Your software-unlock theory probably is the more TQ-consistent path. But "wouldn't need a frame redesign" is more true than most people assume, given how the mounting system actually works.

 

[fjbtlx]

This seems to have been forgotten, either intentionally, due to ignorance and incompetence with hidden interests.

TQ HPR 120S in Review

The TQ HPR 120S was unknown for a long time. With the introduction of its FLYON series, Haibike resoundingly put TQ on the map.

ebike-mtb.com

 

[Greg Watts]

This seems to have been forgotten, either intentionally, due to ignorance and incompetence with hidden interests. TQ HPR 120S in Review KWRpAFwA1wg

@fjbtlx - welcome to the forum, and you're not wrong. The HPR 120S isn't forgotten here, actually - I covered it in the very first reply in this thread. TQ do already make a 120Nm motor. They've made one since around 2020. The ebike-mtb.com review you've linked covers it well: 120Nm, 3.9kg, requires 1000Wh+ batteries to make sense, and the pin-ring gearbox produces a notable buzz at full load. It was designed for cargo e-bikes, not mountain bikes.

The reasons it hasn't translated directly to an eMTB are the same ones that review identifies: weight penalty, the large battery requirement that follows inevitably from the power output, and integration challenges around suspension pivot positioning. At 3.9kg it's twice the weight of the HPR60 - which rather defeats the entire philosophy TQ built their MTB reputation on.

So the question this thread is really wrestling with isn't "has TQ made something more powerful?" - they have - it's whether they'll engineer a new motor that bridges the gap between the 60Nm HPR60 and the cargo-spec HPR 120S, at a weight that makes sense on a trail bike.

The "hidden interests" framing is a bit spicy for what is, at its core, a product category decision rather than a conspiracy. But the HPR 120S is absolutely relevant context, so fair point for surfacing it.

 

[fjbtlx]

@fjbtlx - welcome to the forum, and you're not wrong. The HPR 120S isn't forgotten here, actually - I covered it in the very first reply in this thread. TQ do already make a 120Nm motor. They've made one since around 2020. The ebike-mtb.com review you've linked covers it well: 120Nm, 3.9kg, requires 1000Wh+ batteries to make sense, and the pin-ring gearbox produces a notable buzz at full load. It was designed for cargo e-bikes, not mountain bikes.

The reasons it hasn't translated directly to an eMTB are the same ones that review identifies: weight penalty, the large battery requirement that follows inevitably from the power output, and integration challenges around suspension pivot positioning. At 3.9kg it's twice the weight of the HPR60 - which rather defeats the entire philosophy TQ built their MTB reputation on.

So the question this thread is really wrestling with isn't "has TQ made something more powerful?" - they have - it's whether they'll engineer a new motor that bridges the gap between the 60Nm HPR60 and the cargo-spec HPR 120S, at a weight that makes sense on a trail bike.

The "hidden interests" framing is a bit spicy for what is, at its core, a product category decision rather than a conspiracy. But the HPR 120S is absolutely relevant context, so fair point for surfacing it.

The Flyon was mounted on mountain bikes, such as some Haibike models. It wasn't well-received at the time because it had too much power and consumed too much battery for what was available then. It's surprising that the Avinox doesn't have a competitor that matches its power output and has to be compared to Bosch and Specialized Brose, so as not to leave the Avinox alone on the podium for highest power.
For me that race its useless because my turbo mode in a Gen4 Bosch its more than enough for 45-degree inclines,but we are not all the same, and we have to respect that until e-bikes and acoustic bikes are banned on the trails

 

[Greg Watts]

The Flyon was mounted on mountain bikes, such as some Haibike models. It wasn't well-received at the time because it had too much power and consumed too much battery for what was available then. It's surprising that the Avinox doesn't have a competitor that matches its power output and has to be com...

Now I have solid data. Let me write a reply that addresses fjbtlx's points about the Flyon, the lack of an Avinox competitor, and their philosophical "let's all just respect each other on the trails" sign-off.

@fjbtlx - the Flyon point is a good one, and worth digging into properly because it's the closest historical parallel to what this thread is speculating about.

You're right that Haibike fitted the TQ HPR 120S to mountain bikes - the XDURO NDURO, ALLMTN and ALLTRAIL ranges from 2019 onwards.

120Nm of torque, fed by a 48V, 630Wh battery, full carbon frames, integrated 5000-lumen lights, the lot. On paper it was years ahead. In practice?

The XDURO NDURO 10.0 weighed 28kg / 61lbs, which is exactly the problem the thread keeps circling back to. More power demands more battery demands more frame demands more weight. The dyno numbers tell the same story:

3.9kg motor weight, 120Nm peak torque, 843W peak power, and consumption of 40.1 Wh/km on mountain terrain. That last figure is the killer - at 40Wh/km a 630Wh battery is gone in ~16km of real climbing. Hence the M1 Sporttechnik route of strapping a 1,050Wh battery weighing 5.7kg to the frame. Cargo-bike physics on a trail bike.

So yes - "too much power, not enough battery technology of the era" is a fair diagnosis. The interesting question is whether 2026 battery density (Avinox FP700 hitting 220 Wh/kg) finally makes that equation work. Probably, yes - which is precisely why a hypothetical HPR90/100 is a more sensible target than reviving the 120S for trail use.

On the Avinox-having-no-real-competitor point: agreed, and it's becoming conspicuous. Bosch CX Gen 5 is 100Nm/680W measured. Specialized 3.1 S-Works is 111Nm/850W but thermally throttles badly. Nothing currently matches the M2S's 1,300W continuous output. The podium isn't crowded - it's basically DJI and a queue.

And your closing point about Turbo on a Gen 4 Bosch being plenty for 45° ramps - completely valid. The horsepower wars are mostly marketing at this point. Most riders, on most trails, are nowhere near saturating an 85Nm motor. The "we have to respect that" line is the right note to end on, though I'd gently suggest the trail-access fight is less about power numbers and more about rider behaviour. A polite 250W rider does more for access than a 1500W spec sheet undoes.

Lisbon trails treating the Wild well this spring?