Hi Flecc;
Thank you for posting your ‘intimate’ details in answer to my plea (you are the only one who has done so, so far). But then it takes a long time to check every thread for updates.
I took details of the formula for calculating Watts required to climb a hill of various steepness, and its complementary one ‘maximum gradient possible’
There was an anomaly in the formula (probably both) but more of that later.
My own statistics are:
Weight – Body + bike = 116 Kgs
The results for gradients that one is likely to meet of a serious steepness are based upon a road speed of 12 mph (19.2 Kph) because that is the point at which the Torq motor produces its maximum output: 570 Watts.
Therefore: 1136.8 x 5.381 x 0.12 = 734 Watts
The Torq is rated at 570 watts max but it wont climb 1 in 8 (12%) with me on UNASSISTED. I need to put in >164 watts assistance. (1/5th Horse Power)
FLECC who weighs 74 Kg + 26 x 9.8 = 980 needs 633 watts to go up unassisted.
He must put in > 63 watts of effort. (1/12th Horse Power)
The amount of Watts required for all gradients for a rider and bike weighing 116 Kgs are:
1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
61 122 183 245 306 367 428 489 550 611
11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16%
673 734 785 856 917 979
The number of Watts required for all gradients for a rider and bike weighing 100 Kgs are:
1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
52 105 157 211 264 317 369 422 474 527
11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16%
580 633 685 638 690 743
The anomaly I referred to concerns the calculation for riding on the flat. That would be a grade of 0%. BUT the formula suggests that requires an output of Zero Watts.
Or are the figures I have calculated above in addition to the watts required to travel on the flat?
Some other specification figures I would like to obtain for the Torq (but perhaps they are shrouded in secrecy) are the gearing reduction and the revolutions that the motor is achieving when the wheel is turning at 15.5 mph and at 22 mph.
Peter
Thank you for posting your ‘intimate’ details in answer to my plea (you are the only one who has done so, so far). But then it takes a long time to check every thread for updates.
I took details of the formula for calculating Watts required to climb a hill of various steepness, and its complementary one ‘maximum gradient possible’
There was an anomaly in the formula (probably both) but more of that later.
My own statistics are:
Weight – Body + bike = 116 Kgs
The results for gradients that one is likely to meet of a serious steepness are based upon a road speed of 12 mph (19.2 Kph) because that is the point at which the Torq motor produces its maximum output: 570 Watts.
Therefore: 1136.8 x 5.381 x 0.12 = 734 Watts
The Torq is rated at 570 watts max but it wont climb 1 in 8 (12%) with me on UNASSISTED. I need to put in >164 watts assistance. (1/5th Horse Power)
FLECC who weighs 74 Kg + 26 x 9.8 = 980 needs 633 watts to go up unassisted.
He must put in > 63 watts of effort. (1/12th Horse Power)
The amount of Watts required for all gradients for a rider and bike weighing 116 Kgs are:
1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
61 122 183 245 306 367 428 489 550 611
11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16%
673 734 785 856 917 979
The number of Watts required for all gradients for a rider and bike weighing 100 Kgs are:
1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
52 105 157 211 264 317 369 422 474 527
11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16%
580 633 685 638 690 743
The anomaly I referred to concerns the calculation for riding on the flat. That would be a grade of 0%. BUT the formula suggests that requires an output of Zero Watts.
Or are the figures I have calculated above in addition to the watts required to travel on the flat?
Some other specification figures I would like to obtain for the Torq (but perhaps they are shrouded in secrecy) are the gearing reduction and the revolutions that the motor is achieving when the wheel is turning at 15.5 mph and at 22 mph.
Peter