Light, Lighter, TQ – In our latest light eMTB comparison test, bikes equipped with TQ’s 50 Nm HPR50 motor consistently ranked among the lightest in the field. Of course, it’s not just the drive system – and in this case, particularly the battery size – that determines a bike’s system weight. There’s more to be saved on the bike itself than on the motor or battery.
Still, the concept of the HPR50, which delivers 50 Nm of torque and 300 W peak power, makes it an optimal choice for lightweight eMTBs that give you the feeling of being fitter than ever, and ready to crush climbs on the way to the trailhead.
At just 16 kg, the SCOTT Lumen eRIDE 900 SL showcases what’s possible – but even with TQ’s ultra-light system, it’s far from the norm. That said, several bikes with a TQ drive sit comfortably in the 17–18 kg range – including true trail rippers and light enduro rigs like the Trek Fuel EXe and the Mondraker Neat.
The lightweight motor also features in one of the test winners in our 2023 Light eMTB comparison test: the SIMPLON Rapcon Pmax TQ. Meanwhile, more manufacturers jumped on the TQ bandwagon – from small, exotic boutique brands like UNNO, to huge direct-to-consumer corporations like Canyon. And the list doesn’t end there. Recent additions to the TQ lineup include the TREK Slash+ 9.9 and the Yeti MTE – both downhill-oriented bikes tipping the scales at over 20 kg. Is a light-assist motor really the right choice here?
So yes, there are plenty of lightweight bikes with a TQ drive out there, roaming trails and forest roads alike. And they all benefit from – and struggle with – the same defining characteristics of TQ’s discreet and natural drive system. The TQ HPR50 is arguably the quietest and most visually unobtrusive eMTB motor currently available on the market. But at the same time, it’s also one of the weakest – and not particularly efficient when it comes to managing energy from its modest 360 Wh battery. The compact motor also tends to suffer from thermal derating under sustained load. In our big e-motor group test, we also criticized the lack of overrun support – that extra little push when you ease off the pedals. Without it, the HPR50 often struggles on technical climbs, forcing you to hike-a-bike way sooner than you would with other systems – including other light-assist motors like the FAZUA Ride 60 and the Bosch Performance Line SX.
That’s exactly what our Impossible Climb Challenge highlights. Ever since our last light eMTB group test in 2024, one thing has been clear: light eMTBs are awesome – but they’re still being pushed into a niche. Why? A new generation of e-bike motors like the DJI Avinox delivers full-power performance in a package that’s dangerously close to light drive units, both in terms of weight and size. And in this context, more news is expected out of Switzerland and Spain in June.
TQ – short for “Technologie in Qualität” (Technology in Quality) – have now introduced the HPR60, the successor to their first light-assist motor. It’s designed to address many of the criticisms aimed at the HPR50. As the name suggests, torque has been bumped up to 60 Nm – a 20% increase over the HPR50. Peak power has also been raised on paper, from 300 to 350 W. However, you still won’t find a temporary boost mode like the one you get with FAZUA or DJI’s Avinox M1 motor. Natural power delivery remains the top priority with the HPR system. TQ also claim to have improved the motor’s thermal performance by adding slightly bigger cooling fins. That said, the motor’s overall size has barely changed – and at 1.92 kg, it’s only 70 grams heavier than its predecessor. And that’s a good thing!
At first glance, the changes in power and size seem minimal. But things look quite different when it comes to the batteries. While the previous system was long limited to a single 360 Wh option, TQ are now offering three battery sizes with the HPR60: 290, 360, and 580 Wh. Although the 580 Wh battery was technically already compatible with the HPR50, it was rarely seen in actual builds. The brand-new 290 Wh model, on the other hand, is designed primarily for ultra-lightweight builds, weighing in at just 1,460 grams. The familiar 160 Wh range extender remains unchanged. We’ve already had the chance to thoroughly test the TQ HPR60 – both on climbs and technical trails around our home turf in Leonberg – and we’ve also put it through our real-world range test to see how it stacks up against its predecessor, the HPR50.
The TQ HPR60 Motor in Detail
With its patented Harmonic Pin-Ring transmission, TQ set themselves apart ever since the launch of the HPR50 – and the same technology continues seamlessly in the HPR60. Unlike traditional gearboxes that rely on a complex arrangement of multiple gears, TQ’s design uses a dual-ring setup with just two concentric, intermeshing gear rings. The key advantage: since multiple teeth engage simultaneously, the system can handle greater loads on the components compared to conventional gearboxes, where only a few teeth are in contact at any given time – resulting in lower surface pressure and efficiency.
The result: an extremely compact design, barely larger than a fist, that wraps smoothly around the crank axle thanks to its rounded shape. Compared to the HPR50, the HPR60 has a slightly bigger housing, which is mainly due to the oversized cooling fins – though you’d only notice if you placed both motors side by side.
Depending on battery size and downtube shape, TQ-powered bikes still remain nearly indistinguishable from their analog counterparts. And the benefits of such a compact motor aren’t purely aesthetic: its round, minimalist shape gives bike manufacturers more freedom with frame designs. The lower battery placement also improves the center of gravity, which is a clear advantage on the trail.
The motor’s low system weight further supports this: the HPR60 tips the scales at just 1.92 kg. For comparison: the FAZUA Ride 60 comes in at 1.98 kg, while the more powerful Bosch SX weighs 2.05 kg.
Of course, the concentric design also comes with inherent drawbacks. The previous TQ HPR50 version, for example, required a relatively high pedalling cadence to deliver its full power and reach its optimal efficiency range. Moreover, the compact construction limited the motor’s cooling capacity under sustained high loads.
Battery Options and Range Extender
With the latest generation of their light-assistance motor, TQ offer three battery options right from the start. The 360 Wh version originally introduced with the HPR50 remains in the lineup, alongside the more recently introduced 580 Wh pack and the 160 Wh range extender, which is shaped like a water bottle. New to the family is a 290 Wh option, which is designed to enable particularly lightweight builds thanks to its low weight of just 1,460 grams. TQ leave it up to bike manufacturers to decide whether the batteries should be integrated or removable. When the HPR50 was launched, TQ claimed the highest energy density on the market – and they’re making the same claim for the HPR60. And rightly so: with roughly 215 Wh/kg, the 580 Wh battery (2,695 g) ranks among the top performers, even matching the 800 Wh battery of DJI’s Avinox system. The two smaller battery options, on the other hand, come in at just under 200 Wh/kg – not quite as high, but understandable given that the casing has a proportionally greater impact on total weight and thus energy density. Still, TQ’s new batteries strike an excellent balance between capacity and weight.
Display and Remote
When it comes to integration, TQ set a benchmark ever since the introduction of the HPR50. Not only are the motor and battery discreetly integrated into the frame, but the handlebar remote and the almost flush-mounted 2″ top tube display also stand out for how unobtrusive they are. And this hasn’t changed with the latest HPR60 evolution. The display has been slightly updated with more color – previously monochrome, it now features select elements in TQ’s signature blue. More importantly, the support mode is now visualized with clearer blue bars. The previous system, which used a dot and two circles, wasn’t always intuitive to read – likely the reason why Trek opted for a bar display from the very beginning. As for the rest of the display: speed, battery charge status, power output (motor/rider), and range remain unchanged – and that’s a good thing. What’s still missing, however, is built-in navigation.
The handlebar remote remains unchanged from the HPR50: compact, discreet, wired, and equipped with rubberized buttons. Overall, the control concept of the new TQ HPR60 system is reduced to the essentials. Riders only have direct control over the support modes and the walk-assist function.
TQ E-Bike App
In today’s market, offering an app is more or less expected – or at least that’s how it seems. And yes, many apps offer real benefits, unlocking extensive options for configuring and customizing electronic gadgets. But when an app becomes a requirement just to use a product, it starts to feel more like a nuisance or a cost-cutting workaround. Thankfully, that’s not the case with the TQ E-Bike App. Bikes powered by the German manufacturer’s drive system can be ridden entirely without the app, with all essential settings and ride data available directly on the bike. So why bother with the app at all? Because it lets you truly fine-tune your system and get the most out of your drive unit. That said, TQ aren’t alone in taking a rider-first approach: Specialized’s fourth-generation Turbo Levo also allows all settings to be adjusted directly on the bike – no app required.
The TQ E-Bike App comes with a mix of strengths and weaknesses. First off, it requires users to create an account before they can even use it – a definite drawback. SRAM’s AXS app, for example, proves that things can work just fine without usernames or passwords. While having an account does add some convenience, it shouldn’t be mandatory. That said, we really like the app’s clean, minimal interface and intuitive navigation. It mirrors the bar-style layout of the bike’s onboard display, making it easy to find your way around right from the start. Customization options are limited to tuning the three support modes – Eco, Mid, and High. For each mode, you can configure four parameters independently: maximum power output, assistance level (in percent), pedal response, and the cutoff speed of the motor (up to the legal 25 km/h limit, of course). The app also functions as a ride dashboard, displaying key metrics such as speed, distance, battery level, and both rider and motor power. In essence, it shows everything the bike’s built-in display does – just in a much larger, more detailed format.
In addition to mode customization, the TQ E-Bike App also supports over-the-air (OTA) firmware updates. It provides key information about the drive system along with access to a comprehensive FAQ database. What it doesn’t offer – unfortunately – is navigation like Bosch provide, or at least a range map like you’ll find on Trek bikes with the same motor. Not even for love or money. But who knows – maybe it’s still to come?
The TQ HPR60 Drive System on Test
60 Nm of torque and 350 W of peak power – those numbers aren’t a coincidence. On paper, the new TQ HPR60 sits exactly on par with the FAZUA Ride 60, at least if you leave out FAZUA’s Boost mode. But does it feel like the Ride 60’s fraternal twin on the trail? Spoiler alert: not even close! Despite sharing the same headline figures, the TQ HPR60 offers a maximum support of 200%, whereas the FAZUA Ride 60 delivers up to a whopping 388% assistance. That’s a huge difference when it comes to how the motor actually behaves out on the trail.
If you’re coming from a full-power e-bike, chances are you’ll be underwhelmed by both options – unless you’re specifically looking for the natural ride feel that TQ constantly promote, which aims to replicate the experience of an analogue mountain bike rather than a powerful eMTB. Light drive systems, and the TQ HPR60 in particular, are designed for riders who are considering the switch to eMTBs or aren’t looking for a shuttled replacement. For that audience, the new TQ motor delivers exactly what they’re after: the fittest legs they’ve ever had – without the sensation of being pushed by a motor. It feels more like a steady tailwind than a strong mechanical push. But on steep technical climbs and big steps, that gentle assistance often just isn’t enough. What’s missing is the extended assistance you get with the FAZUA Ride 60, for example, which can make all the difference in demanding sections.
If you’re riding a bike with a TQ drive, you probably know one thing: climbing takes effort – and that hasn’t changed with the new HPR60, despite the higher peak power values. On the trail, the difference compared to the HPR50 is minimal at best. We tested both motors on the same route aboard two current bike models: the HPR60 on the new Yeti MTE, and the HPR50 on the Canyon Spectral:OnFly. While the default motor settings were different, we equalised them via the app for a fair comparison.
When it comes to natural ride feel, the older HPR50 still has the edge. It responds more smoothly and offers better modulation. That’s something a software update could likely improve – but at the time of testing, it made a small difference. The HPR60 also doesn’t increase the support that much at higher cadences. At some point, you’re left wondering: is the power coming from the motor or your legs? A quick glance at the top tube display reveals the truth – on steep climbs, you’re clearly putting in more work than the motor.
There are brief surges of power on short kickers, but they fade just as quickly, almost as if the motor was holding itself back. Power derating was a well-known issue with the HPR50. TQ aims to address this in the HPR60 with a bigger cooling surface. On the plus side, the HPR60 runs even quieter than its already quiet predecessor – especially at higher cadences, where the new motor sounds more refined than ever.
When it comes to efficiency – that is, how effectively the system uses the available energy – the TQ HPR50 didn’t exactly impress, as documented in our huge comparison test with 30 of the hottest eMTBs of the season. According to TQ, they’ve since focused heavily on this issue, and based on our testing, that effort has clearly paid off. In our real-world climbing range test, the new TQ HPR60 significantly outperformed its nominally weaker predecessor.
Despite being tested with the bigger, heavier 580 Wh battery, and the same identical tires and air pressures, the HPR60 in the Yeti used over 20% less energy – despite the bike being nearly 10% heavier than the Canyon. The measured energy consumption came in at just 25.65 Wh per 100 vertical metres, which is remarkably low, especially at full motor support.
In absolute terms, our test rider climbed nearly 2,200 vertical metres on the 580 Wh battery with an average rider output of 175 watts. For comparison’s sake, the HPR50 drive combined with the 360 Wh battery managed just over 1,050 metres under nearly identical conditions. Based on those figures, the HPR60 of the Yeti should theoretically achieve around 1,350 metres of elevation gain with the smaller 360 Wh battery – a clear and measurable improvement.
That translates to a 27.2% increase in efficiency for the Yeti compared to the Canyon, calculated based on elevation gained per unit of battery energy consumed. This figure accounts for both the weight and speed differences between the two bikes.
However, the support modes aren’t configured identically across all TQ-powered bikes. TQ leave this entirely up to the individual bike brands. For example, Canyon configure the Spectral:ONfly with much higher peak power in the “Eco” and “Mid” modes than Yeti do on the MTE. Yeti, in turn, opt for a higher assist factor instead.
What does this mean for the rider? In the stock settings, the Yeti MTE feels punchier off the line but limits peak power earlier. The Canyon, on the other hand, demands more effort from the rider but rewards them with more wattage at the top end than its American competitor.
Ultimately, it comes down to personal preference and what best suits your local trails. Thankfully, with the TQ app, you can fine-tune the support modes to your liking – regardless of whether you’re riding the HPR50 or HPR60. Needless to say, in our practical climbing range test we standardised the motor settings.
Who Should Take a Closer Look at the TQ HPR60 Motor?
60 Nm and 350 W aside – the TQ HPR60 is still very much a light-assistance motor. Like its predecessor, it’s aimed at athletic riders who enjoy putting in a serious effort, even with motor support. But it’s not just about finishing a ride with heavy legs and that satisfying (or not so satisfying) feeling of having pushed your limits. Equally important is the natural way in which the motor delivers its power – and that’s something you have to appreciate. Because if you’re looking for a powerhouse to conquer technical climbs or endlessly steep ascents, the TQ motor isn’t the right tool for the job – whether you pick the HPR50 or HPR60 version. However, if you want to feel like Nino Schurter and explore unknown terrain with confidence and agility, this motor won’t let you down. With the new smaller and larger battery options, TQ now open up even more possibilities for light-assist riders who want to tailor their setup to match their style and adventure goals.
Conclusions
TQ HPR stands for a natural ride feel with a generous breeze of artificial tailwind – and that hasn’t changed with the new generation, despite a nominal increase of 20% in torque and an extra 50 watts peak power. On the trail, though, that boost is barely noticeable. The TQ drive system is still best suited for riders who are willing to put in the effort. Technical climbs remain a challenge – and that was never the system’s intended purpose. The good news? The improved efficiency of the HPR60 is both noticeable on the trail and measurable in testing. With that, TQ have effectively addressed one of the biggest criticisms of the previous model. Nice!
For more information, visit tq-ebike.com.
Words: Julian Schwede, Patrick Gruber Photos: Peter Walker
