new Extraenergy test

[Leonardo]

Hello everybody – I had long holidays…

Did you see the preview of the “new” Extraenergy test on Aktiv-Radfahren? (pdf in German > 1MB)

In the introduction of Hannes Neupert, the founder of Extraenergy, there is an interesting explanation of the delay.
The new Giant has demanded to repeat three times the test (between 1000 and the 3000 km, approximately 7 months each): the electronics with which it has been proposed initially guaranteed an exceptional range but it offered too much low assistance, therefore it has been changed repeatedly… on the models already distributed, says Neupert, “Giant replaces the electronics free of charge, if in doubt ask your retailer”.

At the end the test result is Very Good… But I wonder if Giant could afford a different judgment: therefore the many modifications and the long delay… the defects (frame bending, motor drag) are confirmed, but this new electronics (that we are not sure will be the same of models on sell) seems to give a considerable assistance also uphill (at expenses of the range, of course, which seems to be not much more than a half of the one stated initially).

[flecc]

Thanks for the information Leonardo.

The new Twist certainly needed improvement, but I view that judgment of "now very good" with suspicion. It still uses the ex USA Birkestrand motor that Giant used in the Suede in a 36 volt version. It certainly wasn't particularly powerful in that and only an average performer, so I'd be doubtful if a 24 volt version would rank as very good. That drop in range is worrying, A to B only got 37 miles on the Twist I with both batteries and said it might do 40 miles, so a drop from that would make it very poor indeed for two 10 Ah batteries costing £600 here.

Some of the members have been very critical of the last round of ExtraEnergy tests, so I'll have to wait until I've seen and read an English translation before further judgement.
.

[Leonardo]

Hello Flecc,
I’m suspicious too… When I say that I wonder if Giant could afford a different result, I mean that I guess that Extraenergy was – lets say – under pressure in order to give such result… figures about the “new” new Twist are strange, with an uphill factor higher than the one of old Twist, which seems incredible with a motor that, as you said, has not a brillant record.
Anyway the test results in English should be published in a short time, but I think that Neupert’s article will be not translated: that’s why I summarized in English the relevant point about the Giant and the delay.

[flecc]

Yes, thanks for doing that Leonardo, I haven't your proficiency with European languages.

Like you, I view the idea that the new Twist could outclimb the old one as totally unbelievable. Pressure indeed, and I think the biggest twist was applied to someone's arm to get that result!
.

[jac]

hi i have never understood how they get there figures for hill climbing i can only imagine it varies so mucb because it depends on whether it is hub motor or drives through crank as on there test figures the sprint is best assistence on hills at 5.3 yet on the oldest twist it is 1.9 strange maybe on the new test method they will come up with a better solution

jim

[flecc]

Those figures suggest that they are factoring in speed of hill climbing as well as gradient Jim. The old Twist would climb anything, but very slowly on steep hills, while the Sprint copes well on all but the very steepest and always climbs much faster.

For example, I found my former Quando wouldn't manage a 1 in 5 with it's single rider gear, but on everything up to 1 in 6 it climbs at about twice the speed of my old Twist, whether solo or trailer pulling.

[jac]

hi that sounds good but maybe if they if they gave out max torque figures or something like brake horse power it would help more than watts as every bike is suposed to be 250watts but real power of bikes varies enormousley

jim

[flecc]

I fully agree Jim, and it's really the manufacturers of the bikes who should make that available in the way that car and motorcycle manufacturers do. Just giving the legal average consumption definition isn't good enough. Where an e-bike supplier gives the legal figure as the power output of a bike, I believe they could be charged and found guilty under the trade descriptions act.

Gross powers of current legal e-bikes range from 180 watts (Bliss folding bike) to 700 watts (Powabyke), with net outputs averaging 80% of those, a near 4 to 1 ratio. But they all conform to the British 200 watts and European 250 watts average power used legal definition, which of course is not the power output.
.

[Leonardo]

The new 2007 results and the "updated" 2006 results are now available in English on ExtraEnergy web site

[flecc]

Thanks Leonardo.

P.S. I see they say the 45 kph/30 mph BikeTech S is street legal everywhere in Europe.

A bit misleading in an electric bike test, as it would need to be registered, taxed and insured as a motor cycle here in the UK.
.