AKM100SX(R2) on a Lectric XP?

[MylarStar]

I have been trying to think of ways to gear my bike down to 1:10 or lower and I had overlooked these motors on the basis of their wattage being relatively low. I don’t care if my top speed is as low as 12mph on flat ground if I can get the torque to have my rear wheel kick like a trials motorcycle and climb continuously at low speed. Using PAS 5 at 4mph is not a good thing from what I gather here.

Would one of these motors that’s figured for low rpms in a 26” wheel accomplish this being built into a 20” wheel? It seems like it would take about 15lbs off of my bike and make it get a lot more time out of a 14 amp hour battery.

The gears don’t look very substantial and I haven’t seen metal replacements like there are for Bafang motors. I had also wondered about hybridizing the AKM gear mechanism with my stator somehow or stacking two Bafang sets together as a series if there were a way to make room with a modified shell.
I’m bound and determined to see it through to make an attempt but I don’t have limitless resources to throw at it so any advice or suggestions would be appreciated.

*Those are 5DEV knockoffs, I’m not insane

 

[amberwolf]

I have been trying to think of ways to gear my bike down to 1:10 or lower and I had overlooked these motors on the basis of their wattage being relatively low. I don’t care if my top speed is as low as 12mph on flat ground if I can get the torque to have my rear wheel kick like a trials motorcycle and climb continuously at low speed. Using PAS 5 at 4mph is not a good thing from what I gather here.

Does your system use a torque sensor for PAS? Or is it just the on/off cadence type? (the former will allow you to use pedal force (or something approximating that) to actually control motor output. the latter only provides full output of whatever assist level you've chosen, if you are moving the pedals, and isn't variable output).

Using a system that allows true variable control would probably make the system easier to use, if not more efficient.

If you're using a throttle then it doesn't matter; you'd have variable control of either the entire output range, or at least of the range allows by whatever assist level you've chosen, depending on how your specific controller works.

But if you don't use a throttle, and don't presently have variable control via PAS, you can get that by adding the Cycle Analyst v3 (of the "smart cable" they also make) between your input controls and the controller's throttle input (if it has one--if not you'd have to replace the controller with one that does to use the CA for this).

Would one of these motors that’s figured for low rpms in a 26” wheel accomplish this being built into a 20” wheel? It seems like it would take about 15lbs off of my bike and make it get a lot more time out of a 14 amp hour battery.

Have you ever checked out the ebikes.ca motor simulator? You can use it to get an idea of the actual power / etc required for a certian "job"; doing a certain thing at a certain speed on specific terrain / wind / etc conditions, even when it doesn't have the specific hardware you want to use. If it doesn't have anything close to what you have/want, just use the custom settings in various fields to get close to the parts you have / want and then see if they'll do it, and it will also show the power / etc used to do this.

The gears don’t look very substantial and I haven’t seen metal replacements like there are for Bafang motors. I had also wondered about hybridizing the AKM gear mechanism with my stator somehow or stacking two Bafang sets together as a series if there were a way to make room with a modified shell.
I’m bound and determined to see it through to make an attempt but I don’t have limitless resources to throw at it so any advice or suggestions would be appreciated.

Regarding gearing down....have you considered a middrive that lets you use your bike's gearing to amplify a smaller motor? If none of the off-the-shelf ones fit your bike, you can DIY one, even from a hubmotor (see Crossbreak's thread(s) for some examples; there are others). A motor that is not in the wheel can be a lot easier to cool off than a geared motor in a hub in a wheel, for example.

 

[MylarStar]

I’m still trying to get my head around how they call these motors torquey when they’re rated at like 30nm, and yet I see people zipping around on 26” wheels. Granted their bikes are lighter than mine but whatever extra power and torque I have aren’t really available where and when I want them. If they’re taking off with some snap on 26” wheels I would think even with the extra weight I’d be seeing something like what I’m going for with a 20” wheel.

Supposedly some of the AKM type motors that have stepped planetary gears are as reduced as much as 1:14. I’m not trying to get my bike to do anything that’s totally unrealistic; I just want to be able to have enough torque to get the front wheel up and be able to keep it up to get the back wheel over a small log or what have you, the problem with doing this in PAS 5 to have the power for it is you’re good to get the sudden jolt you need, but then as soon as you shift your weight it’s that much more able to keep winding up to its full output and loop right out. So I’d like to be able to get a little bit of a jump but then have the wheel only try to spin up to like PAS 1 or 2 speed you know?

I actually haven’t hooked up the new cadence sensor I got to work with those cranks that have a huge spindle; so the last few times I’ve been riding I’m just peddling and hitting the throttle here and there as needed which isn’t a bad approach for where I ride. There’s a lot of dry leaves and loose stone and gravel and sometimes it’s hard to go slow enough even with PAS 2 going continuously. I’m kind of liking easing off on the throttle better than squeezing the brake to kill the PAS when I’m approaching a sharp turn.

I don’t think a torque sensor would suit me really well because the main thing that brought me to the e bike world is having enough respiratory difficulty it could probably be called COPD at this point and I’m way better off having a little more help than I need starting out and dialing it down than to be doing the exertion up front that signals the motor to meet me at a level.

Once I get really overworked and winded it takes me a while to get back to normal so I’m always looking ahead to get into the easier gear in advance and not be shifting under load frantically.

Something about the cheapo rattletrap nature of geared hub motors appeals to me more than all the tight tolerance stuff that’s crammed into a mid-drive but I don’t have a really good reason to dismiss them. It just seems a little over the top to have one on a 20” bike maybe.

 

[amberwolf]

I’m still trying to get my head around how they call these motors torquey when they’re rated at like 30nm, and yet I see people zipping around on 26” wheels. Granted their bikes are lighter than mine but whatever extra power and torque I have aren’t really available where and when I want them. If they’re taking off with some snap on 26” wheels I would think even with the extra weight I’d be seeing something like what I’m going for with a 20” wheel.

The weight matters for going up slopes, and for acceleration. But the bike weight difference (for most ebikes) is very small compared to the total bike/rider weight. If you have a 50lb bike and a 150lb rider, and then a 30lb bike and a 150lb rider, that's only a 200 / 180 = 2:1.8 ratio of mass. If both have the same system on there, there won't be all that much difference in their response.

If you use a 20" wheel vs 26" for the same motor, that's a ratio of 26:20 or 1.3:1 for torque, and 1:1.3 for speed. (depending on actual tire size used on each).

Supposedly some of the AKM type motors that have stepped planetary gears are as reduced as much as 1:14. I’m not trying to get my bike to do anything that’s totally unrealistic; I just want to be able to have enough torque to get the front wheel up and be able to keep it up to get the back wheel over a small log or what have you, the problem with doing this in PAS 5 to have the power for it is you’re good to get the sudden jolt you need, but then as soon as you shift your weight it’s that much more able to keep winding up to its full output and loop right out. So I’d like to be able to get a little bit of a jump but then have the wheel only try to spin up to like PAS 1 or 2 speed you know?

Well, the assist levels (that you're calling PAS #) dont' work the same way on every system; some work by speed limits, and some work by power limits or current limits; etc. Knowing how your system works can help figure out what exactly to do about the issue.

If yours is just a speed limit, then it still has full current / power available and thus full torque, at any level. It's just going to have a different limit for the top speed of the wheel in each level. It wouldnt' be limiting available torque or power, and wouldn't be usable to mitigate overheating under slwo but high load conditions.

If yours is a limit on the power or current, then it doesn't have an actual speed control on each level, the speed would just be limited by the available total power vs the present riding conditions (so riding downhill at the lowest assist could easily let you reach the top speed limit of the system (where it would cease assisting at all regardless of assist level). The level instead is a maximum torque (effectively) allowed, and could be usable to minimize the risk of overheating under slow but high load conditions.

If it's some other limit type, like a combination of speed and current, etc., then depending on how they set it up it could have various degrees of combinations of the above behaviors.

I actually haven’t hooked up the new cadence sensor I got to work with those cranks that have a huge spindle; so the last few times I’ve been riding I’m just peddling and hitting the throttle here and there as needed which isn’t a bad approach for where I ride. There’s a lot of dry leaves and loose stone and gravel and sometimes it’s hard to go slow enough even with PAS 2 going continuously. I’m kind of liking easing off on the throttle better than squeezing the brake to kill the PAS when I’m approaching a sharp turn.

If you have a throttle, then that's probably easier to variably and precisely control the system for highly variable conditions than any cadence-based pedal control (variable or not).

Then it's just up to how the system responds to the throttle, and whether the system's assist levels work via speed limits or current/power limits, etc.

On my SB Cruiser, the cadence is variable (because of the Cycle Analyst), so I simply reduce pedalling speed to reduce motor output and slow down, if doing so in advance of the need to turn or stop, so brakes are only needed for quick stops or unexpected decelerations. (I just pull the lever lightly to engage the brake lights, without triggering the brakes or regen or cutting off the motor entirely).

I don’t think a torque sensor would suit me really well because the main thing that brought me to the e bike world is having enough respiratory difficulty it could probably be called COPD at this point and I’m way better off having a little more help than I need starting out and dialing it down than to be doing the exertion up front that signals the motor to meet me at a level.

Once I get really overworked and winded it takes me a while to get back to normal so I’m always looking ahead to get into the easier gear in advance and not be shifting under load frantically.

That makes sense. I get winded just walking around the house, so I sympathize. I couldn't ride at all if it weren't for motors (well, I could, but only at less than walking speed and only for a few dozen yards at a time with significant stops / breaks before continuing).


Keep in mind that torque sensor systems (at least those using the CA, possibly others) are tunable for the response to the TS. So you could set it up to require less input to get more output.


Because I am really only riding on flat ground, and for the most part am riding at a constant speed (whatever the best speed is for present conditions on that path or road or parking lot, etc), I just use a cadence sensor with the CA to control my speed variably, because it works "well enough". If I had variable slopes to ride on, and rode at constantly varying speeds, I might well use the torque sensor ability instead, as it would respond faster to changes in input (doesn't have to wait for enough magnets to pass the sensor to calculate cadence).

But I do have a throttle on there as a kind of "go button" for startups from a stop when needed (fairly common), or the times when I'm simply so worn out or knee/etc pain is too bad (rare). My hands usually hurt more than my knees if I'm sitting (vs walking), so I couldn't use the throttle for whole rides most of the time.

Something about the cheapo rattletrap nature of geared hub motors appeals to me more than all the tight tolerance stuff that’s crammed into a mid-drive but I don’t have a really good reason to dismiss them. It just seems a little over the top to have one on a 20” bike maybe.

It doesnt really matter what the size of the bike is. What matters is the end result required, vs the ability of the system to do that job.

A middrive *is* more complex, with more failure points, than a hubmotor in a wheel, and it wears out the pedal drivetrain faster than just pedalling does. So it's got disadvantages. The reason to use one in your situation is simply to get more torque for less power, less battery usage, at a lower speed, with less risk of overheating the motor.

The ebikes.ca motor simulator can help figure out which method works "better" for a particular usage, though ti takes a bit of time learning how the sim works and to set it up properly for your specific usage/etc.

 

[docw009]

Good looking Lectric! Nice work.

I have several AKM100/Q100H motors in 20" skinny tire folding bikes. I have owned a 20" fat tire folder ebike with a similar size motor as your Lectric, Rode it for two years, The fat tire motor is about 50% bigger in diameter and 20-30% wider than an AKM 100. The bigger motor will more than offset the difference in gearing from 5:1 to 12;1. The AKM is too narrow anyway being only 135mm to fit a fat bike frame. You need a 175mm axle width,

My fat tire bike was only 36V, with far more torque than my 48V AKM bikes. SInce mine had externa battery, I also had the opportunity to run it on 52V. You might think about going up to a 25A controller, as I think the Lectric is 20A?

 

[MylarStar]

Good looking Lectric! Nice work.

I have several AKM100/Q100H motors in 20" skinny tire folding bikes. I have owned a 20" fat tire folder ebike with a similar size motor as your Lectric, Rode it for two years, The fat tire motor is about 50% bigger in diameter and 20-30% wider than an AKM 100. The bigger motor will more than offset the difference in gearing from 5:1 to 12;1. The AKM is too narrow anyway being only 135mm to fit a fat bike frame. You need a 175mm axle width,

My fat tire bike was only 36V, with far more torque than my 48V AKM bikes. SInce mine had externa battery, I also had the opportunity to run it on 52V. You might think about going up to a 25A controller, as I think the Lectric is 20A?

Thanks, I’m definitely having fun with what’s sort of an homage to the freestyle BMX aesthetic of 1987. If they had lavander motorcycle tires I’d be using them
There are actually some 175mm AKM motors (I’m referring to this as if it’s a type which I’m not sure is correct) and supposedly the motor for a Ride 1Up Portola, which is 150mm is an AKM that’s 750 watts and uses a 20 amp controller and only peaks at 1000, all of which seemed odd before I knew it was an AKM. It supposedly has 90nm of torque.

I almost bought one before I found out the axle size was wrong but I’m still tempted if it wouldn't be a big deal to make adaptations. I think the Lectric is already using a higher than normal amperage controller to be 20 amps with a 500w motor isn’t it? Most bikes that are 500w Lectric copycats have 18 amp controllers and supposedly Lectric did too on the previous XP model before they added this PWR management thing to the controller that a lot of people hate. I’m no expert so I’d be interested in whatever you have to say about that. I thought you would only be using a 25 amp controller with a 750 watt motor.
I had read that you could actually use a 52v battery no problem in this specific instance because the components of a 48v controller just happen to have a higher threshold for failure relative to the over volted battery than other match ups would.

 

[MylarStar]

The weight matters for going up slopes, and for acceleration. But the bike weight difference (for most ebikes) is very small compared to the total bike/rider weight. If you have a 50lb bike and a 150lb rider, and then a 30lb bike and a 150lb rider, that's only a 200 / 180 = 2:1.8 ratio of mass. If both have the same system on there, there won't be all that much difference in their response.

If you use a 20" wheel vs 26" for the same motor, that's a ratio of 26:20 or 1.3:1 for torque, and 1:1.3 for speed. (depending on actual tire size used on each).





Well, the assist levels (that you're calling PAS #) dont' work the same way on every system; some work by speed limits, and some work by power limits or current limits; etc. Knowing how your system works can help figure out what exactly to do about the issue.

If yours is just a speed limit, then it still has full current / power available and thus full torque, at any level. It's just going to have a different limit for the top speed of the wheel in each level. It wouldnt' be limiting available torque or power, and wouldn't be usable to mitigate overheating under slwo but high load conditions.

If yours is a limit on the power or current, then it doesn't have an actual speed control on each level, the speed would just be limited by the available total power vs the present riding conditions (so riding downhill at the lowest assist could easily let you reach the top speed limit of the system (where it would cease assisting at all regardless of assist level). The level instead is a maximum torque (effectively) allowed, and could be usable to minimize the risk of overheating under slow but high load conditions.

If it's some other limit type, like a combination of speed and current, etc., then depending on how they set it up it could have various degrees of combinations of the above behaviors.




If you have a throttle, then that's probably easier to variably and precisely control the system for highly variable conditions than any cadence-based pedal control (variable or not).

Then it's just up to how the system responds to the throttle, and whether the system's assist levels work via speed limits or current/power limits, etc.

On my SB Cruiser, the cadence is variable (because of the Cycle Analyst), so I simply reduce pedalling speed to reduce motor output and slow down, if doing so in advance of the need to turn or stop, so brakes are only needed for quick stops or unexpected decelerations. (I just pull the lever lightly to engage the brake lights, without triggering the brakes or regen or cutting off the motor entirely).




That makes sense. I get winded just walking around the house, so I sympathize. I couldn't ride at all if it weren't for motors (well, I could, but only at less than walking speed and only for a few dozen yards at a time with significant stops / breaks before continuing).


Keep in mind that torque sensor systems (at least those using the CA, possibly others) are tunable for the response to the TS. So you could set it up to require less input to get more output.


Because I am really only riding on flat ground, and for the most part am riding at a constant speed (whatever the best speed is for present conditions on that path or road or parking lot, etc), I just use a cadence sensor with the CA to control my speed variably, because it works "well enough". If I had variable slopes to ride on, and rode at constantly varying speeds, I might well use the torque sensor ability instead, as it would respond faster to changes in input (doesn't have to wait for enough magnets to pass the sensor to calculate cadence).

But I do have a throttle on there as a kind of "go button" for startups from a stop when needed (fairly common), or the times when I'm simply so worn out or knee/etc pain is too bad (rare). My hands usually hurt more than my knees if I'm sitting (vs walking), so I couldn't use the throttle for whole rides most of the time.




It doesnt really matter what the size of the bike is. What matters is the end result required, vs the ability of the system to do that job.

A middrive *is* more complex, with more failure points, than a hubmotor in a wheel, and it wears out the pedal drivetrain faster than just pedalling does. So it's got disadvantages. The reason to use one in your situation is simply to get more torque for less power, less battery usage, at a lower speed, with less risk of overheating the motor.

The ebikes.ca motor simulator can help figure out which method works "better" for a particular usage, though ti takes a bit of time learning how the sim works and to set it up properly for your specific usage/etc.

What you are saying about the output being the same at all levels and only being speed controlled is probably wherein lies the gripe a lot of people have with the XP 3.0 where the first two PAS levels are governed by this PWR management programming they added to the controller that a lot of people who previously had the XP 2.0 can’t stand.

However, there is something that is not published that can be done by changing setting 22, which may remove the speed limit on the lower levels but it doesn’t seem like the power is the same. I mean now that I’m riding solely with the throttle as a control for the assist it still makes a difference if I gradually creep from level 3 to 4 to 5 as I lose momentum on any prolonged climb.

Are you saying that on some bikes the throttle would be full power in all cases? It changes with whatever level of assist the display is showing on mine.

I tried to trick the limiter by setting my wheel size to half what it really is but apparently now it’s wired in for the controller to know how fast you’re going before the display does. I came up with that on my own but saw a video later that said that actually used to work.

I’ve seen some other interesting stuff where people have increased power by taking out the whole sensor board and it’s leads and replacing the 3 motor leads with 14g solid copper wire, but Lectric has that corporate cult mentality where they have surely built it into the controller to not function if anyone deviates from their proprietary setup in any way.

They went so far as to source a 110mm hub and have a garbage suspension fork specially made possibly just so no one would ever have a fork that doesn’t have Lectric stickers on it. I seriously can’t think what else the point could be.

Thankfully my relentless desire to subvert their will lead me to scour the parts department of every single brand until I found that the Ride 1Up Portola also uses the same nonsensical 110mm hub and their shock is really nice and they’ll sell it to anyone for $60.

Maybe I’m barking up a lot of wrong tree(s) in what I am thinking would be a solution, I mean certainly the mid drive thing makes sense given that it could be driving my 34 tooth rear cog, which is almost absurdly low on a 20” wheel. Can a mid drive be retrofitted to a non mid drive bike? The Lectric has a somewhat unusual convergence of frame elements around the bottom brack.

Maybe I’ll just leave it more or less as is after I build my new back wheel and buy a $200 30lb Temu BMX bike and put a $100 AKM conversion kit on that if I want to get what I’m after. I’m making a bash guard out of a scooter rim that should slide over logs better than a narrow stand that’s angled towards them. Then there wouldn’t be any need to back wheel it over them other than for the cool factor. It just sucks having to stop and dismount because you can’t just get a leg up and fling the bike over in one fell swoop like with a mountain bike.

Oh, I pulled the trigger on the Wuxing motor I was pondering before and ordered two of them with pretty reasonable shipping. Then I saw this other thing that’s part of a kit I think I’m going to have to order just to see if it’s for real. I have a modest money making venture in mind this could play into.

New e-bike part 2023 MXUS high torque fat 48V 750W electric bicycle gear motor kit for 170mm and 190mm dropout size

m.alibaba.com

Get a load of that end cap huh?
This apparent comes with a back rack battery and an option for a 190mm dropout width so my dream of being a Fucare Scorpio owner might not be dead after all.
I could probably even build them with the frames that are for sale on Alibaba and the Portola shock and wheels I can build for next to nothing and offer a custom build bike where the components aren’t all low end stuff that should be upgraded immediately.
Assuming this kit were any good at all.

 

[amberwolf]

What you are saying about the output being the same at all levels and only being speed controlled is probably wherein lies the gripe a lot of people have with the XP 3.0 where the first two PAS levels are governed by this PWR management programming they added to the controller that a lot of people who previously had the XP 2.0 can’t stand.

However, there is something that is not published that can be done by changing setting 22, which may remove the speed limit on the lower levels but it doesn’t seem like the power is the same. I mean now that I’m riding solely with the throttle as a control for the assist it still makes a difference if I gradually creep from level 3 to 4 to 5 as I lose momentum on any prolonged climb.

Soudns like your system is more complex than the typical ones in how it's assist levels work. That's probably good, because the typical ones pretty well suck.

But if it doesn't use the cadence sensor to *actually measure cadence* and *use that to modulate assist*, then it's still essentially like virtually all the PAS systems out there (other htan torque sensor versions), and just uses the sensor to see if you're pedalling, and activates the motor at whatever the full amount is of the presently-chosen assist level, which is a very unuseful method of operation, and totally unbicycle (or moped or motorcycle) like, and provides a terrible user experience and is unsafe. The only way for a rider to actually control a system like that is to use the throttle instead, but many of these systems don't have throttles (and no way to add one without basically replacing the system).

Are you saying that on some bikes the throttle would be full power in all cases? It changes with whatever level of assist the display is showing on mine.

Some controllers are designed that way. IIRC the "fusin" kit that I have around here somewhere (using an old LiShui controller, not like the modern ones) the throttle could go full speed regardless of what the assist level was for PAS. Mode 0 disabled all motor ouptut from either throttle or PAS (a safety feature, since that's what it started up in). I think in my old review thread I called them power levels, but they were really just speed limits.

These days, some controllers (like yours) have some mix of power/current and speed limits in the assist levels, but there's still a lot of them that just use speed limits on the assist levels, or just use current limits.

I prefer either "dumb" controllers that don't have display/pas functions, so I can just use the Cycle Analyst to do all that, or smart FOC controllers like the Phaserunner, which can be programmed (via PC USB/serial and a program) to operate as desired. (if desired, Grin makes a smart cable that does a lot of what the CA does, but uses common ebike displays instead of the text-only display the CA has)). The VESC type controllers have variants that could be setup the way I want, too, but I haven't used them.

I tried to trick the limiter by setting my wheel size to half what it really is but apparently now it’s wired in for the controller to know how fast you’re going before the display does. I came up with that on my own but saw a video later that said that actually used to work.

If it uses a separate speed sensor instead of the motor hall sensors, then you can build a small circuit to either halve or double the number of pulses the wheel provides, depending on the effect you're after. Then it doesn't matter what the controller or display is setup for, as the incoming signal is going to tell it what you want anyway.

FWIW, the controller gets all the data first, then sends that to the display. Sysstems vary in how they process data, but it's fairly common for hte dipslay to be used to write settings to the controller, and not actually have them stored in the display (though some do it that way instead). So the controller can be setup with the display, then the display can be removed, and the "ignition/keyswitch" wiring on the connector jumpered to allow the controller to just turn on whenever power is connected. (or a switch can be used).

I’ve seen some other interesting stuff where people have increased power by taking out the whole sensor board and it’s leads and replacing the 3 motor leads with 14g solid copper wire, but Lectric has that corporate cult mentality where they have surely built it into the controller to not function if anyone deviates from their proprietary setup in any way.

There's a lot of threads about modifying assorted hubmotors to increase the phase wire size, with quite a few methods.

Some of them discuss changing out the sidecover for one with a larger bearing with more room in the ID, and making a filler disc (which fills up the space between the axle OD and the larger bearing ID) with holes for as large a phase wire set as you want. In most cases you'd have to make that new sidecover yourself (or have it made); same for the filler disc.

To really test out an experimental FOC controller designed by another member here, I modified an MXUS 450x "3k" DD hubmotor to use 10G solid wire by grinding a channel in the axle flat on one side of each end of the axle, and as much of a notch in the bearing inner race as I thought it might handle without weakening it too much. It worked ok, but the motor already had other issues, so it was retired after not too long. I still have it around here someplace.

They went so far as to source a 110mm hub and have a garbage suspension fork specially made possibly just so no one would ever have a fork that doesn’t have Lectric stickers on it. I seriously can’t think what else the point could be.

Most of the prebuilt ebikes are made of low end or even garbage parts (including the frames). Even expensive bikes don't necessarily have good parts on them.

Thankfully my relentless desire to subvert their will lead me to scour the parts department of every single brand until I found that the Ride 1Up Portola also uses the same nonsensical 110mm hub and their shock is really nice and they’ll sell it to anyone for $60.

You could also replace the wheel along with the fork.... But it wouldn't be cheap, as a much better fork would probably be many times that price.

Maybe I’m barking up a lot of wrong tree(s) in what I am thinking would be a solution, I mean certainly the mid drive thing makes sense given that it could be driving my 34 tooth rear cog, which is almost absurdly low on a 20” wheel. Can a mid drive be retrofitted to a non mid drive bike? The Lectric has a somewhat unusual convergence of frame elements around the bottom brack.

A middrive doesn't have to mount on the BB, or even use the same chain/etc to the wheel as the pedals do. There's a whole subforum here for non-hubmotor drive systems, which includes some that use a hubmtoro but not in the wheel, to drive one or more wheels via some other drivetrain (sometiems shiftable, someitmes not).

There are hundreds (more likely thousands), of builds on here that are completely "from scratch" using totally non-ebikes as their basis (everything I build and ride for instance), so it doesn't typically matter what the bike was originally built for if you are creative enough with workarounds for whatever issues arise. If you have a *specific* drive system you want to use *then* you have to find a bike that can use it, but if you don't have anything specific besides a certain use case and conditions to deal with, then whatever works, works.

 

[MylarStar]

I was thinking if I could make more room in a motor case I could stack two planetary sets and have the first ring gear welded or somehow attached to a plate that would spin the planets of the second set and turn the hub. 10:1. I used to have my own Bridgeport and all the rotary tables and indexing heads it took to make that kind of stuff but it became too much of a hassle to keep and store and move repeatedly. Not a great tool for a renter to own

I kind of like the way e-bikes come with a bunch of junk because it makes them really cheap to make 100x better. Even a $3000 e bike only has about $200 worth of parts that are slightly better than a $1000 e bike. Like woo hoo! Alevio and Tektro. And the same steel one piece chainring. The kind of boutique snobbery that exists in the conventional bike world is not something I miss at all so putting a bunch of color anodized stuff from Ali Express that’s lighter and surprisingly good quality most of the time is fun and not really even a guilty pleasure because it’s so cheap to do.

I remember when cheap bikes had cottered cranks that start coming loose the minute you actually used them and useless side pull brakes so the fact that a Walmart bike now has V brakes and a derailleur that actually works makes things a little different. I’ve bashed my still original Tourney derailleur into rocks hard enough to twist its tab and throw it totally out of whack and grabbed it and twisted it right back and it’s still working like a champ.

It’s ironic that the really tight tolerance Shimano stuff has a shorter working life because all the drag on the pins tires the springs out. Or so my old boss at the bike shop thought and it rings true with my experience from when I actually wouldn't have been caught dead with anything less than Deore LX.

The controller on the Lectric is definitely more complicated than others I think. You can change a lot of stuff like how intense the assist comes on and after how much of a pedal stroke, but it’s definitely not reading the rate of your spin. The setting for number of magnets is set to one so it’s just looking for any magnet that passes by. I don’t think that setting can be edited. I got used to it pretty quick so it’s pretty much what I’m used to but maybe I should broaden my horizons and look at the options for mid drive.

I just went all in on the whole thing and ordered two Scorpio frames and two of those motor kits and two more Ride 1Up shocks. I’m not wealthy by any means but I had some money I was saving for a rainy day and pre-tariff anxiety is driving me insane. For some reason the shipping on those frames was down from like $200 for one to getting both of them shipped for $80 in a reasonable amount of time.

And I might be able to get the other people to substitute the rack battery in that kit to a generic Hailong that frame actually takes.

So I’ve been chatting it up with all of them all night

Oh and I got someone that is going to make me DUB spindles in a really short run in the length people have been mourning for like 10 years, 160mm. No one has wanted to make that since Fat Bikes became less popular but it’s what every e bike with a 175mm rear hub needs if you want to use anything that’s not square spindle.