Oh! You decided to double down and get a second?
'lightest.bike' 1.7kg 1000w mid drive
- Thread starter Grantmac
- Start date
Absolutely. I might actually buy 3.
If we can get past the 900w artificial power limitation ( i'm hoping to get an email back ), the 1300w motor would allow my recumbent to go up from 34mph to 37mph or higher, which is more than adequate.
A Grin All Axle or GMAC could do that and more but it's 9-10lbs of additional unsprung weight on the back wheel and that's a negative for the offroading, so a mid drive is killer.
When warranty is out on my primary unit, i want to experiment with an external controller and improve the power further.
I believe the unit is underrated.
On my upright bike, i want it to be light and be able to chuck it into a car. Right now it has a Grin All Axle, which makes car chuckability easier vs a regular hub, but it would be even easier with 4lbs of weight in the center of the bike versus 10lbs in the rear. I may also move to a 29er in the future, and the mid drive is transferable.
Expensive, but i want the most power density in my motor to make up for the fact that i use huge batteries. My bikes are 70 and 65lbs already and i want batteries that are +5lbs heavier.. high power density motor is the only way to offset that, barring a miraculous advance in lithium technology..
If we can get past the 900w artificial power limitation ( i'm hoping to get an email back ), the 1300w motor would allow my recumbent to go up from 34mph to 37mph or higher, which is more than adequate.
A Grin All Axle or GMAC could do that and more but it's 9-10lbs of additional unsprung weight on the back wheel and that's a negative for the offroading, so a mid drive is killer.
When warranty is out on my primary unit, i want to experiment with an external controller and improve the power further.
I believe the unit is underrated.
On my upright bike, i want it to be light and be able to chuck it into a car. Right now it has a Grin All Axle, which makes car chuckability easier vs a regular hub, but it would be even easier with 4lbs of weight in the center of the bike versus 10lbs in the rear. I may also move to a 29er in the future, and the mid drive is transferable.
Expensive, but i want the most power density in my motor to make up for the fact that i use huge batteries. My bikes are 70 and 65lbs already and i want batteries that are +5lbs heavier.. high power density motor is the only way to offset that, barring a miraculous advance in lithium technology..
Last edited:
tamagucci
1 mW
I've not heard of anyone here doing it; whether it works or not will depend on the bike's shape, their compatibility page should show one that works.
Might want to consider the hybrid mount instead; enough clearance for a large chainring, and can be moved forward and up for better ground clearance.
Might want to consider the hybrid mount instead; enough clearance for a large chainring, and can be moved forward and up for better ground clearance.
tamagucci
1 mW
Yeah, I've been leaning towards that option. I just find the in-frame option more aesthetically pleasing.
rivers
1 W
Hi, I'm interested in the new quieter gears. I have a Bikee kit but took it off my bike because it was running too noisy. I know there are two stages of gear reduction inside the motor. Are all the gears upgraded or just the big plastic gear?
Paraphrasing a recent email response, they're in the process of manufacturing new motor units with the quieter gears. Older models can be retrofitted. He'll update me when ready.
My pessimistic wild guess as to when: 2 months.
Also from what i gather it looks like the delay from ordering to receiving a unit is narrowing down to 6 months.
My pessimistic wild guess as to when: 2 months.
Also from what i gather it looks like the delay from ordering to receiving a unit is narrowing down to 6 months.
tamagucci
1 mW
Between ordering the motor and it being shipped was only a couple weeks for me. I also confirmed with Bikee that it would come with the quieter gears.
Okay apparently things have changed over there, that's good to hear
tamagucci
1 mW
Yeah, I ordered it with the in-frame mount and apparently switching to one of the other mounts isn't as simple as just changing the mount; the motor itself has a different spring that has to be changed at the factory. So in-frame it is then I guess. Hopefully the caveats aren't too noticeable
tamagucci
1 mW
I'll keep y'all posted!
I'm putting it on a gravel bike I built up with a Soma Wolverine frame. I'm also talking with Waltly, a Chinese titanium company, to design a custom bike frame that has the geometry, mounting holes, and cable routing I'm looking for. That frame is probably still a ways off though.
I'm putting it on a gravel bike I built up with a Soma Wolverine frame. I'm also talking with Waltly, a Chinese titanium company, to design a custom bike frame that has the geometry, mounting holes, and cable routing I'm looking for. That frame is probably still a ways off though.
Just to clarify, all of lightest bikes specs seem to indicate a 48v system. You run it at 52v with no issues?
rhauff
100 mW
I hope it works out great for you! I had been hoping to go in-frame with my CF fat bike:
But even after making a mock-up and sending photos, Victor sent me this response:
"We typically do not recommend the in-frame installation for several reasons:
Complexity of Installation: The in-frame mount requires more precise measurements and modifications compared to standard installations. This makes the process more complicated and time-consuming.
Compatibility Issues: Not all bike frames are suitable for in-frame installations. If the frame dimensions and geometry aren’t perfect, it could lead to improper fitting or performance issues over time.
For these reasons, we usually advise against in-frame setups and recommend using a standard mount instead, which is simpler and more versatile."
So, he talked me into hybrid.
Are you saying they already shipped you motor with new revision plastic gear????
I am STILL waiting for my Indiegogo order from years ago
bedesign
10 mW
From my hard experience when doing so -
The theoretical straight upper chain part is .. theoretical.
When pedaling the chain will dynamically go lower and
possibly hit the chainring if there is to little
additional clearence
Next summer I'm planning to add a special pulley mount to prevent this.
Will share a report when ready.
I recently decommissioned my recumbent bike and decided to give fitting the drive on a regular bike another try.
Half a day was spent getting the best chainline, tension, etc to no avail.. the best i can do, is with the medium mount, cover 1/4 of a 46T sprocket. 46T is the absolute limit when accounting for the chain not being able to touch the top of the chainring.
Even in this scenario, with the power off, pedaling causes the chain tensioner to move forward significantly, the chain skips on it, then the chain skips on the chainring.. regardless of gear. It will skip with maybe 5% of my leg power applied.
I decided fine.. let's go back to the dual chainwheel configuration.
But.. despite my alignment being +/- 1mm.. the wobble in the lightest bike cranks causes the drive chain to constantly fall off and i have no idea why.
Next day after cooling off from the long running frustration, i try a poor man's inframe mount, trying to maximize chainring contact..
..now i finally have ~40% chainwrap on a 48T.. maybe enough?
In the tallest rear gear, the chain is not slipping along the gears anymore, but as i shift down to lower gears, the chain starts skipping over the chainring again.. on the lowest gear, the bike is unpedalable and just as bad as the above setup.
When i do have the bike in the largest rear gear, and it's not slipping, i find the feeling of sludgy notchiness coming from the idler quite irritating.
Looking at lightest's page about the different mounts, i notice that even the bike with the inframe mount, which should give an ideal amount of chainwrap, has ~30% chainwrap, which isn't enough to prevent this problem.. so i'm betting this is a problem with all installations.
Luckily one of the permutations of dual chainring setup actually works for me w/o the motor chain dropping itself.. it's identical to the the setup that worked on my recumbent.
Quite a bummer that there's no way for me to avoid this dual chainring setup.. i actually don't see how the single chainring setup could work well..
Half a day was spent getting the best chainline, tension, etc to no avail.. the best i can do, is with the medium mount, cover 1/4 of a 46T sprocket. 46T is the absolute limit when accounting for the chain not being able to touch the top of the chainring.
Even in this scenario, with the power off, pedaling causes the chain tensioner to move forward significantly, the chain skips on it, then the chain skips on the chainring.. regardless of gear. It will skip with maybe 5% of my leg power applied.
I decided fine.. let's go back to the dual chainwheel configuration.
But.. despite my alignment being +/- 1mm.. the wobble in the lightest bike cranks causes the drive chain to constantly fall off and i have no idea why.
Next day after cooling off from the long running frustration, i try a poor man's inframe mount, trying to maximize chainring contact..
..now i finally have ~40% chainwrap on a 48T.. maybe enough?
In the tallest rear gear, the chain is not slipping along the gears anymore, but as i shift down to lower gears, the chain starts skipping over the chainring again.. on the lowest gear, the bike is unpedalable and just as bad as the above setup.
When i do have the bike in the largest rear gear, and it's not slipping, i find the feeling of sludgy notchiness coming from the idler quite irritating.
Looking at lightest's page about the different mounts, i notice that even the bike with the inframe mount, which should give an ideal amount of chainwrap, has ~30% chainwrap, which isn't enough to prevent this problem.. so i'm betting this is a problem with all installations.
Luckily one of the permutations of dual chainring setup actually works for me w/o the motor chain dropping itself.. it's identical to the the setup that worked on my recumbent.
Quite a bummer that there's no way for me to avoid this dual chainring setup.. i actually don't see how the single chainring setup could work well..
rivers
1 W
rivers
1 W
My chain does not skip regardless of pedal pressure. However, without the rear pulley the bike is unrideable because the chain comes off the chainring with very light pedal pressure.
Also, I no longer use the Lightest crankarm on the right side because of excessive wobble which can cause the chain to skip on both the front and rear sprockets. I use the ebay 170mm right crank arm that was mentioned on this forum.
Also, I no longer use the Lightest crankarm on the right side because of excessive wobble which can cause the chain to skip on both the front and rear sprockets. I use the ebay 170mm right crank arm that was mentioned on this forum.
I see, maybe i need one of those.. you're running the mid mount, yeah?
Grumble.. i wish i bought two pairs of those ebay crankarms rn!
Are you running a 10 speed drivetrain? i think i'm in luck because i use either a 7 or 8 speed, and the spacing is wider..
Grumble.. i wish i bought two pairs of those ebay crankarms rn!
Are you running a 10 speed drivetrain? i think i'm in luck because i use either a 7 or 8 speed, and the spacing is wider..
rivers
1 W
Yes, I have the medium mount and I'm running 1x10 speeds. The rear pulley, the pulley, housing, and the support rod should have come with your kit. So, Bikee owes you. Maybe another forum member has the parts.
A pity that the ebay crankarms are no longer available. They were only $15, and yes, they do run with close to zero wobble.
A pity that the ebay crankarms are no longer available. They were only $15, and yes, they do run with close to zero wobble.
Clever. This setup maintains TS functions, correct?
rivers
1 W
No, the torque sensor does not function with the dual chainring configuration. Throttle only.
Similar threads
