But then those claims are no longer valid?!?
The q128H 800w is pretty good motorThe bafang G310 is supposedly whisper silent due to the spiral cut gears. But that hub drive is easy to blow up.
I’m not in a position to test mine. I’ll be chopping and facing my 73mm bottom bracket down to 68mm, waiting for a new crankset and chainring to arrive, and bleeding my brakes before I’ll have a functional bike.
I was able to find a new in box HXR Easy Shift crankset on eBay for a good price. That will give me what Bikee can’t. Outboard bearings and a 30mm axle two piece crankset. A modern bottom bracket. But I will need to chop down my BB shell to 68mm to make that work. I’ve covered this already, but the motor mounts turn a 73mm BB into a 79mm BB which will cause problems when trying to fit any other bottom bracket than the cheap square taper adjustable one from Bikee. So I have some work to do.
I've decided against building up my new(old) bike with the Bikee Lightest. I'll either just ride it as an acoustic bike, or get the CYC Photon.
How would you fit a modern bottom bracket with 30mm axle two piece crankset on the Photon?I was able to find a new in box HXR Easy Shift crankset on eBay for a good price. That will give me what Bikee can’t. Outboard bearings and a 30mm axle two piece crankset. A modern bottom bracket.
View attachment 346242
I swapped my medium mounts with @neptronix for his short mounts. Posting this photo to illustrate the incompatibility between the short mounts and a 42T chainring. There’s no clearance. Also, the motor cog is narrow-wide, and so a narrow-wide chainring is probably not an option. Getting the motor cog and chaining to line up with the right amount of slack if both were narrow-wide would be sheer luck.
I introduced myself in the 9th post of this thread, and I answered to those who asked questions to me. You've been sending us questions by email, to which we all replied.I'm sorry, I just have to add some additional commentary. This whole time, the engineer of the Lightest Kit, and founder of Bikee has been lurking on this thread... and finally this is his contribution to the discussion. He could have answered questions about the confusing torque rating, addressed manufacturing errors in the mounting brackets, offered words of encouragement or insight.
Nope. He drops in with this little elon-style shitpost.
"Well, I guess a more efficient approach would be to put a 38T on the bike above and you'll be riding your bike, with 10 minutes of work. From 42T to 38T means a 9.5% increase in cadence comparing to your target one: I guess that's not a huge deal."
"The larger chainring you can use with short mounts is 36T."
Those two statements aren't compatible.
"The higher the cog, the higher is the perceived torque at the chainring. The torque at the wheel will be the same..."
OK "perceived torque." I'm not familiar with that measurement. I'll need to check around with other vendors to get the perceived torque ratings of their motors.
@Pilot Engineer - While you're here:
Is there any problem with installing a chainring a little larger, making the chain touch the top and bottom of the chainring?
I notice in most installation pictures, the top part of the chain never touches the chainring.
Your introduction, the 9th post of this thread was 4 years ago. FOUR YEARS. And your last contribution to this thread was a year and a half ago. You are only drawing attention to the fact that we payed you only to wait years for this motor kit to finally arrive.
Your replies to emails have been copy pasted already to this thread. Nobody was baiting you into answering. I am sharing my experience with the other members of this forum... a space dedicated to sharing experiences related to the electrification of bikes. As you've seen, we've even exchanged parts from your kit as well.
When I pointed out that your medium mount is countersunk on the wrong side, support asked me to fix it myself, and then offered me a short mount instead, which was backordered. That wasn't a solution. As I have a 42T chainring. If you can't tell, I gave up on Bikee support. Can you blame me? Step outside yourself, and try and view things objectively... can you you blame me for giving up on support?
Can you please take this private, you've been ragging on this company for many months and chose to not even try the drive.
Kind of beating a dead horse then if you are not looking for solutions... not helpful for others looking at hte thread trying to find out of this drive is good or not.
Shame nobody else has got it running but we are out of biking season in most part of the world. ES gets a lot less active around this time.
Luckily, it's just starting to thaw over here. Today is the first day of bike-compatible weather, hitting 50f in about 1 hour from now.
Weather here usually stops sucking around mid February.
I should be back in action pretty shortly.
OK. All of my posts have been removed from the thread, and I will never mention this motor again on ES.
Hi Neptronix, the chain and the chainring are spinning in sync, so having it slightly touching the top of the chainring will only bring some rubbing noise in the small rear cog.
So, you should decide, basing on how much it touches, whether it's worth or not. If the chain slightly touches and you're almost never using the smallest cog because your mainly use the bike on mountains or hills, the you can go for it. If there's an consistent overlap ( the whole chain is overlapping the chainring ) and you're frequently using the smaller cog, then I'd go for either a longer mount or smaller chainring.
Hope this helps,
Matteo
At 90RPM cadence..
With 29" wheels, you need a 42T with a 10T rear cog to hit 32mph (51.5kph) which means we have more room in the gearing than needed ( good ).
With 26" wheels and the same 10T > 42T, we can only hit 28.9mph (46kph) in that gear. So we want a little taller chainring to hit the max continuous speed.
Nervagon noticed the original design was using 2 chainrings in some configurations. Can the drive still be used this way to overcome the chainring height problems when you need > 42T with some various adjustments? or are there some other problems with that?
Dual chainring would be the way to go on a BikeE or similar CLWB.
The mid mount is not long enough to put the drive on.
What can i say, it was not designed to be installed backwards.
It looks like the inframe mount, hybrid mount, or long mount might make the dual chainring drive style possible because the drive appears to have sliding mounting points. I imagine there is enough adjustment to act as a tensioner.
Would the above idea possibly work, @Pilot Engineer?