The T bike, Torq Radical project

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
52,803
30,375
That battery modification: I wonder why it is not the standard...
Thanks Leonardo. The problem for manufacturers with doing that battery mod is that it can take them over the legal power limit. It would be possible to have the controller limiting the voltage to a fixed figure, but that would make it more bulky and very wasteful of power.

It's the inflexibility of the law that's the problem here. If it allowed either a speed limit via the controller, or a power limit, the designers would have a free hand to do their job of design while still achieving what the legislators intended.

Unfortunately our politicians and civil servants always seem convinced of their own rightness in all matters and thus make our lives needlessly difficult.
.
 

coops

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 18, 2007
1,225
1
Manchester U.K.
I meant to ask this when you did the Q bike flecc: how difficult is it to bend & reshape the frame i.e. the rear stays for these projects? How much care is needed? I read somewhere that aluminium frames should not be "spaced" i.e. stretched/bent as they are weaker than alloy frames for that: is that not true, or must it be done judiciously and by an experienced metalworker?

I still have an aluminium framed MTB which I may try a "project" build on :D but this aspect has so far been an obstacle to progress because all good powered hub motors won't fit standard dropout sizes.

Also, would it be easier or harder to mount a front hub motor in suspension forks? Can over-wide front suspension forks be had for the purpose? Or better to just rear-mount for comfort, traction etc. and accept some possible gearing compromise (currently I have a 7-speed freehub with 3 front chainwheels...).

Of course, since the bike is quite old, it may be better to just find a newer bike with "potential" for conversion, but in the spirit of recycling what I've got & as "practice"... :) also its quite light really...

Stuart.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
52,803
30,375
I meant to ask this when you did the Q bike flecc: how difficult is it to bend & reshape the frame i.e. the rear stays for these projects? How much care is needed? I read somewhere that aluminium frames should not be "spaced" i.e. stretched/bent as they are weaker than alloy (flecc-note:think you mean steel here) frames for that: is that not true, or must it be done judiciously and by an experienced metalworker?
It's not true that alloy frames can't be bent Stuart, but alloy tubing can fail very suddenly, instead of giving way gradually as with steel. It's a matter of "feel" and experience, and I doubt it's possible to teach or learn quickly. Working with various materials over years gradually gives the experience necessary. The best guidance is first to try the expansion by hand and "read" from the feedback feel of the strain on the metal. Here's an example of me demonstrating a tube change method without wheel removal on an alloy frame Twist, the "fightback" of the frame telling me how far I can go:




Also, would it be easier or harder to mount a front hub motor in suspension forks? Can over-wide front suspension forks be had for the purpose? Or better to just rear-mount for comfort, traction etc. and accept some possible gearing compromise (currently I have a 7-speed freehub with 3 front chainwheels...).

Stuart.
A rear mount motor is easier if you can have one complete with freewheel thread. Although multi sprocket freewheels are undoubtedly weaker than cassettes, too much can be made of this for electric bikes. The fact that the bike is assisted means that the derailleur will be doing much less work than if it was on an unassisted bike, and that's why I'm quite happy to use freeewheels on my two project bikes.

There need be no gearing compromise. Whatever you do don't keep that excessive number of gears on an electric. Yes, you do need a reasonably good gear range, but an e-bike absolutely does not need a large number of gears due to the gear-gap bridging power of the motor. Some like Powabyke offer 24 speed setups, but that's just to give a good range with a cassette system, that number of gears being quite ridiculous. I view that as poor design.

An illustration is my Torq that was. Even in my very hilly area I only ever used about four of the eight gears, constantly skating backwards and forwards across the intermediate ones, barely pedalling on them. It's a relief to have the 5 + 1 megarange system now on both Q and T bikes. Even in that system only the top three gears are used most of the time, four at most usually. The megarange first gear large sprocket is only a "get home up a hill with flat battery" gear usually, just occasionally used on a really tough hill like a 1 in 5. Likewise the second gear mainly for a difficult hill like 1 in 6 typically. With a motor assisting, the upper three are enough for nearly all our roads.

There isn't a big choice of multi freewheels, and they are only from Shimano. These are the current range:

Cadet: seven speed, 14 to 24 teeth, 179%
Cadet: five speed, 14 to 24 teeth, 179% range
Cadet: six speed, 13 to 34 teeth, 262% Megarange
HG.50: seven speed, 11 to 34 teeth, 309% Megarange

Dismiss the first as you need a bigger range and an e-bike doesn't need such close spaced gears.

The second also has too small a range.

The third is the second one but with it's 14 tooth sprocket changed to a 13 and a large 34 tooth on the back. This is my favourite for e-bikes.

These three are all a budget series as the Cadet name implies. The fourth one uses the sprockets of the third, plus an 11 tooth on the front. Because that's so far out from the inside bearings of the freewheel, it has to have a stronger bearing centre section, so the usual price is £19.99 instead of £9.99 for each of the others. Again I'd question if seven gears are really needed.

The official reason for having many sprocket gears is that the narrower the gap between the number of teeth on adjacent sprockets, the slicker the change, and that's true for Campagnolo and SRAM derailleurs.

But it's not true for Shimano, who use methods that enable smooth wider gap changes. There are three methods.

The first is that Shimano sprockets are shallow, the teeth cut off short so it's much easier for the chain to move off sideways. This also has the disadvantage of higher wear, but Shimano don't mind you having to buy replacements!

The second method is tooth staggering, intermittent teeth bent sideways out of line. This creates more gear noise, but it does give intermittent better chances for the chain to leave or enter as the teeth pass.

The third method is by indenting the sprocket sides with ramp indentations. These engage with the link rivet ends and help carry the chain upwards as the sprocket slips past the chain after it leaves the preceding sprocket, and this in particular is how a chain can change slickly, even direct from a 24 tooth to a 34 tooth sprocket.

The rest of the secret is just keeping it correctly adjusted.
.
 
Last edited:

coops

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 18, 2007
1,225
1
Manchester U.K.
Thanks for the information flecc

I probably meant more correctly to say gearing reduction (as in number, not range necessarily) not compromise :eek: sorry 'bout that: very good point the advantage of fewer gears, but good range, as you say, with the motor assist - thanks.

Excuse my ignorance, but when you said its not true "alloy" frames can't be bent, you do mean "aluminium alloy", right? There is a difference between aluminium alloy and other alloys, isn't there? Its just I naively thought "alloy" usually refers to non-aluminium based, like steel-alloy or somesuch: my MTB is marked as "7005 series heat treated aluminium" which, I believe, is an aluminium alloy of some kind? If it can be bent carefully a small amount, then I may try that, with care of course ;) if necessary... I'll take full responsibility, don't worry :D

Stuart.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
52,803
30,375
I use alloy to mean all aluminium alloys Stuart, but never for steel alloys.

As you say, they will bend, but failure can be very sudden, especially with thinwall tubes. That carries the complication that welding thinwall is very difficult. If it's a very light bike it's probably thinwall tubing.

If you lay the frame on it's side, foot on the lower side, then stretch the upper triangle by hand, you'll find a definite hard point at which it doesn't want to go further. That's the point where, when you do the actual stretching, you will have to stretch just a bit further for any stretch to be maintained after release. It's that touch of extra stressing that resets the molecular structure and holds part of the new position in place.

Best to use some sort of expander as on my site to do the actual job, since that leaves you free to feel and watch the tube as you gradually expand it. A rear one is usually little problem though.
.
 

coops

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 18, 2007
1,225
1
Manchester U.K.
Thanks flecc, clear on the alloy bit now, and very useful information & tips on the practical side: i think there's something highly infectious about these projects... how about a pedelecs DIY forum, anyone?! ;) :D I'm torn between electricmikes materials and kb's batteries... :D

I'm sure my washing machine is due for recycling... err I mean an overhaul..! :rolleyes:

Stuart.
 
Last edited:

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
52,803
30,375
Washing machine parts? Why not!

The very first thing I ever built, an acoustic gramophone at the age of nine, involved me in stripping and rebuilding my mother's electric iron to pinch a film of mica from the element to use as the diaphragm, much to her consternation, convinced she would be electrocuted afterwards. She lived to a ripe old age I'm relieved to say. :)
.
 

danieldrough

Pedelecer
Feb 21, 2007
44
6
Devon
Flecc

It's amazing how powerful those early experiences can be. My older brother bought me a crystal set kit for Christmas when I was about 7. It lead to a lifelong interest in electronics and later all things mechanical.

Belated congratulations on your two excellent projects. I live in hope that manufacturers will be guided by your efforts to produce the bikes that we all need and not those that they think we do.

Steve
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
52,803
30,375
I live in hope that manufacturers will be guided by your efforts to produce the bikes that we all need and not those that they think we do.

Steve
Thanks Steve. There are small signs in the market that there might be improvements in that direction, but I think the Chinese are rather lax when it comes to market researching what's wanted, just forwarding what suits them far too often. Hence the truly oddball shopper styled bikes that are still coming here.

I remember David Henshaw of A to B magazine remarking how the Chinese don't understand our obsession with hill climbing. It seems they must either avoid hills or walk up them, so little wonder they often send us poor and wrongly geared climbers.
.
 

Grandad

Pedelecer
Mar 16, 2007
97
0
Devon
grandads.googlepages.com
Flecc

It's amazing how powerful those early experiences can be. My older brother bought me a crystal set kit for Christmas when I was about 7. It lead to a lifelong interest in electronics and later all things mechanical.Steve
I used to make and sell crystal sets when I was in the junior and grammar schools. Nice little sideline. After the war I converted British and US government surplus TX's to work as recievers on medium and long waves selling them too.
Nowadays they would be thrown away.

Happy days.

PS. Very impressive flecc, cartoon of your next project under construction, (I've had the spies out again) :cool: bet you thought I hadn't noticed. ;)
 

coops

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 18, 2007
1,225
1
Manchester U.K.
Talking of projects... its just a thought, but how tricky/advisable do you think it would be to change the Torq motor by replacing with a different, rear motor (would you have to swap the controller too?) with a bit more low speed torque for the 28" wheels, then switch rear wheel to front as in the T bike, and refit the Torq motor in a front suspension 26" MTB wheel, & transplant controller too if necessary? Would make a gutsy "road" 28" bike plus a lighter, zippy & more versatile 26" bike? Two "urban shoppers" :D ;).

Can you see any major difficulties/obstacles, other than the Torq motor possibly a few mm too wide for my front dropouts (100mm wide but tapers inwards within the height of the motor above dropouts) and low speed torque only marginally improved from the 28" wheels to 26"... I suppose I should just lose some weight before going up too many hills :D ;).

Stuart.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
52,803
30,375
Í wouldn't risk opening up 100 mm front forks for the wide Torq motor, too far to be safe, and then there's the huge strain due to the motor weight and drive to be added as well. And still nowhere for the battery in an MTB. I don't think the build of the Quando/Torq motor is robust enough for off road either.

The high power bike in the Torq frame would be ok, but with all the usual disadvantages of these high power motors that I've mentioned, range, legality, weight etc.

Yes, the standard Torq controller is very fussy and almost certainly wouldn't work with a higher power motor, so must be swapped.
.
 

coops

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 18, 2007
1,225
1
Manchester U.K.
Thanks, so you advise against trying to put the Torq motor in standard 100mm front forks: do you advise against putting it in any front suspension forks of any type, even suitable width ones, because of the motor strain?

EDIT: (if so, you've shown how to deal with that with the T bike - switch rear wheel etc. :D)

Off-road would be nice, but I appreciate there are limitations of these hub motors: do you think they'd handle rough tracks? What's the limit of bumpiness they'll handle? Rough uneven roads?

Stuart.
 
Last edited:

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
52,803
30,375
Ah, the unpowered back wheel into the rear width front isn't the same thing at all. :)

I'm not the best person to comment on suspension forks at all, since I don't think they should be on bikes anyway for at least three good reasons, but also most are rather poorly made with loads of slop or else taut enough but inclined to seize up. "Devil or deep blue sea" situation. :(

If any front forks are wide enough, or can be professionally altered to the suitable width, it's worth using them and seeing how they perform, but bending them is definitely too risky, given the potential high speed downhill consequences.

As you've probably noted, there has been the odd Torq motor with problems like excess noise and seizing up very early in life, and the manual warns against driving on motor alone from standstill. These are indicative of the limitations of the light build of the support frame of the orbital wheels and freewheel, and I think it might not be up to an excess of hammering off road.
.
 

coops

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 18, 2007
1,225
1
Manchester U.K.
flecc said:
Ah, the unpowered back wheel into the rear width front isn't the same thing at all. :)
Yes, sorry I wasn't clear: I was actually referring to the "put motor in rear wheel" aspect of the T, to avoid the possible drawbacks of front mounting; not suggesting that to put a rear wheel in front forks always works in principle! :rolleyes:
 

coops

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 18, 2007
1,225
1
Manchester U.K.
flecc said:
The high power bike in the Torq frame would be ok, but with all the usual disadvantages of these high power motors that I've mentioned, range, legality, weight etc.
I hesitate to post this here, but it seems relevant: given what's been said about having a correctly geared motor for the wheel for best low speed torque, and larger wheels better for more efficient, low rolling resistance, then how about this for a project: if the puma motor (discussion & links) was internally geared for a 28" wheel i.e. ~185rpm/15mph max @ 36V, higher speed possible at higher voltages e.g. ~20mph+ @ 48V+, and current limit selected for economy/power (if possible?) e.g. 15A for good power, 20-35A for high power?

EDIT: Fitwise, I believe the puma motor is not too wide & will fit 130mm rear dropouts with small freewheel, 135mm may take a 6-speed if wanted.

Would that give a sort of Torq/puma "hybrid" 28" wheel bike, as capable of hills as the Q-bike (EDIT:if pedal-geared appropriately) without reduction in range (possibly some increase from rolling efficiency with good tyres like m+?) given no excessive speeding :D e.g. at 15-20 mph?

EDIT: Do you think I'm thinking along the right lines, or am I way off-course? :rolleyes: I feel I need a bit extra power for hills on a Torq, due to current excess of weight being carried... and I don't mean on the rear rack :rolleyes:.

I've noticed some hub kit bike projects start off in 26" wheels, but get reduced to 24" or 20" wheelsize due to lack of torque, since the most widely available kit hub motors seem high-geared for larger wheels e.g. 20mph+ in 26" wheels: in that sense the Torq/Quando situation seems far from unusual... and I don't see (other than the "need for speed" !!) why the motors are not geared lower, so low speed torque is available in 26/28" wheels at say 36V, and the speed can then be increased, if wanted, with higher voltage batteries...

Stuart.
 
Last edited:

coops

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 18, 2007
1,225
1
Manchester U.K.
I forgot to ask, flecc, for those (like me) not very experienced in engineering/metalwork, which would you say was harder to do: adding the freewheel gears to the Quando rear motor in the Q-bike project, or to the rear-mounted Torq motor in the T-bike project, and as such, which might be easier to try to reproduce?... :D

Stuart.

EDIT: Answered here!
 
Last edited: