Begode T4

[Jon Stern]

5 hours ago, meepmeepmayer said:

Imagine a "15 inch" MCM6 in the same vein as this, same MCM5-sized rim but 3 inch wide tire so it's 15 instead of 14 inches, with around 1000Wh (has to be a 3p battery), and suspension. 25kg or less. Might be a nice maneuverable smaller commuter, or just some offroad torque monster. I don't think they will do it, but it could be done.

Imagine an MTen3 in the same vein as this! 

[mrelwood]

5 hours ago, Funky said:

Still you can get used to any riding mode over time.

Just like you would get used to the T4's weight. 

I'm not buying a 2500€ wheel hoping I'll get used to it's quirks over time when I can choose a wheel I don't have to get used to. That's my mindset.

5 hours ago, Funky said:

No need to play with the settings.

When I go test drive a car, I also "play" with the driver's seat adjustments and the rearview mirrors. In a shoe store I also "play" with various shoe models before purchasing. People get used to everything, even to an abusive partner. It doesn't mean they enjoy it. I wish to enjoy my wheels.

5 hours ago, Funky said:

(Yes i get - you can regulate almost everything in the setting and how the wheel responds.) Big WoW.. Wheel is wheel, you go forwards and backwards.

Tell me again, why did you go through the trouble of manually slicing a larger motorcycle tire to fit your 18XL? Didn't you get used to the original? 

Btw, we should discuss more when you have a good amount of miles behind you with a GW... The MSX modes weren't nearly as nice and predictable as on the 18XL.

 

3 hours ago, Eucner said:

Tire width is carrying the weight. Tire diameter has very little doing with it.

It has nothing to do with the weight carrying capacity. (Neither does the width btw.) Taller or heavier riders need to lean less for a similiar acceleration and turning behaviour, so small wheels feel increasingly unstable. A 14" wheel for me is comparable to an Mten for a 77kg rider.

[EMA]

9 hours ago, Funky said:

Simply better built wheel in general. All of these new wheels are complete garbage in one way or another.

Give me any wheel name and i will tell you what's wrong with it.

strongly disagree, material and build quality in wheels now is way better than 3-4 years ago, maybe it's not enough for you but you can deny that sorry

 

[mike_bike_kite]

Playing with the settings: I'll admit I'm one of those people that leaves most of the settings well alone. I pump the tyre to something appropriate to my weight and I did set the hardness mode to medium but that's it. I'm not even sure what settings there are on my wheel or what they do if I fiddle with them. I do know if I started playing around then I'd quickly make things worse. The extreme example for me is listening to folk setting their suspension settings and swapping springs etc - it sounds like chaos to me and I'm not sure whether people are improving things or they're just tinkering for the sake of tinkering. It might also be that I'm clueless on what any of the settings actually mean.

Maybe there should be a page on here explaining what each type of setting does and why you might want to change it?

[Freestyler]

13 hours ago, meepmeepmayer said:

Imagine a "15 inch" MCM6 in the same vein as this, same MCM5-sized rim but 3 inch wide tire so it's 15 instead of 14 inches, with around 1000Wh (has to be a 3p battery), and suspension. 25kg or less. Might be a nice maneuverable smaller commuter, or just some offroad torque monster. I don't think they will do it, but it could be done.

Along with the T4 firmware there is an Mten4 (84v) one, so I thought they were going to have a simultaneous release.

Maybe they are holding on for later? Someone must know. EMA spill the beans 

Some more tidbits for the T4: I see a current_shunt value. Maybe they added shunt resistors and we are going to have battery current along with motor current?

 

As far as mcm5 goes it's quite perfect to me for what it is. I would maybe want 4p (still 18650) for less sag & more range and better lights.

A 3 inch tire would be interesting, but I'm not convinced it's going to be better in every way.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Freestyler

[Eucner]

7 hours ago, mrelwood said:

It has nothing to do with the weight carrying capacity. (Neither does the width btw.) Taller or heavier riders need to lean less for a similiar acceleration and turning behaviour, so small wheels feel increasingly unstable. A 14" wheel for me is comparable to an Mten for a 77kg rider.

You are now mixing tires weight carrying capacity and EUC's riding geometry.

[Funky]

12 hours ago, Eucner said:

Tire width is carrying the weight. Tire diameter has very little doing with it.

Compare 14" vs 18" ground contact. If we use same psi. Meaning same psi and under 280lbs weight, the 14" rim will sit closer to ground than 18", because it would compress more underweight no?

8 hours ago, mrelwood said:

 

Just like you would get used to the T4's weight. 

Sure i could easily carry 30kg, heck i think i could even carry 35kg easily with one hand, but i don't wanna carry it to 3rd floor 2-4 times a day..

I'm not buying a 2500€ wheel hoping I'll get used to it's quirks over time when I can choose a wheel I don't have to get used to. That's my mindset.

I personally buy wheel that is built very good, i could care less about how it "rides/looks", because for my there is very small difference. I simply need a wheel that goes forwards - guess what, every wheel does that. Yeay.  Function over form..

In a shoe store I also "play" with various shoe models before purchasing. People get used to everything, even to an abusive partner. It doesn't mean they enjoy it. I wish to enjoy my wheels.

Nah i simply look at them and choose which ones "like" the most. Then i try them on.  

Tell me again, why did you go through the trouble of manually slicing a larger motorcycle tire to fit your 18XL? Didn't you get used to the original? 

Original tire had weight limit of 90kg my weight 127kg+wheel 25kg = 152kg. That's 62kg over weight limit. I simply needed M/C tire and in 18x2.5" size there are NONE.. That would fit my 72mm wheel well. 

Btw, we should discuss more when you have a good amount of miles behind you with a GW... The MSX modes weren't nearly as nice and predictable as on the 18XL.

I tried all the modes that 18xl offers, i felt almost 0 difference. Only thing i noticed on "soft" mode it was very easy to over power the wheel. On middle one it felt more pleasant, but very, very little difference from hard mode. At the end i simply left it at hard mode.

 

3 hours ago, EMA said:

strongly disagree, material and build quality in wheels now is way better than 3-4 years ago, maybe it's not enough for you but you can deny that sorry

 

Yeah they use more metal than plastic - that's great and i love it. Batteries getting "saffer". We are starting to get real smart bms.

But i was talking about dumb mistakes like S22 "plastic/rubber" sliders, which slide in "open" frame that is greased. (over time sand will get in there and mix with grease = sandpaper..) Master outside "rubber" covers glued with 2sided tape and having zero water protection, being very fragile, just look at the battery casings.. EX20S is one of the best built wheels out there now, but it has the worst water protection in my mind. Same time having still "hot" charging plugs. Wires going true outside of frame, where they can get easily cut..

Thing like that is shown in almost all the new wheels. That's why they could be made better..

Edited August 5, 2022 by Funky

[Eucner]

17 minutes ago, Funky said:

Compare 14" vs 18" ground contact. If we use same psi. Meaning same psi and under 280lbs weight, the 14" rim will sit closer to ground than 18", because it would compress more underweight no?

14x3.0 tire's rim would be 1.4 mm closer to the ground than 18x3.0 tires rim. 14" would be little softer and thus more comfortable to ride. 18" would have little higher safety margin against flats. A 18x2.5 tire's rim would be 1.5 mm closer to the ground than 18x3.0 tires rim. It would be the most hardest of these to ride and have the lowest safety factors against flats.

[Freestyler]

24 minutes ago, Eucner said:

14x3.0 tire's rim would be 1.4 mm closer to the ground than 18x3.0 tires rim. 14" would be little softer and thus more comfortable to ride. 18" would have little higher safety margin against flats. A 18x2.5 tire's rim would be 1.5 mm closer to the ground than 18x3.0 tires rim. It would be the most hardest of these to ride and have the lowest safety factors against flats.

Can confirm. The rider with the most flats I know in Greece is a kingsong 18xl rider with a 18x2.5 tire

[mrelwood]

1 hour ago, Eucner said:

You are now mixing tires weight carrying capacity and EUC's riding geometry.

Sir, you were the one who brought up weight carrying capacity as a response to a comment saying that 14" EUCs are too small for large men. And I told you that it's not about the weight carrying capacity, but wheel geometry. That's not mixing, that's correcting.

Every single EUC tire can be pumped up to carry a 150Kg rider without issues. There has been zero reported tire failures due to exceeding the humorous max capacity stamped on some tires, or by over pressurizing the tire. Weight carrying capacity is a non-issue.

Reported EUC carrying capacities vary from 100 to 150kg without obvious strength differences in the axle or pedal bracket design. I'm certain that these figures are not based on strength calculations or tests.

[Mono]

1 hour ago, Eucner said:

A 18x2.5 tire's rim would be 1.5 mm closer to the ground than 18x3.0 tires rim.

I am puzzled, doesn't 0.5 inch equal to 1.27cm?

[Mono]

19 hours ago, techyiam said:

Although tire size is a 16x3.0, it looked bigger in the video. Maybe it is a 3.00-12 tire? The V12 HT uses a Cordial 3.00-12 tire? Perhaps that is why they call it a 17"wheel.

Right. Strangely enough, the specs 16x3.0 and 3.00-12 refer to the same tire size (the 16 refers to a very approximate outer tire radius while the 12 is the actual rim radius), which is indeed the KS 16X and Nikola and V12 tire size.

19 hours ago, techyiam said:

Very curious to find out how well a 16" high torque wheel can accelerate and brake.

You could try the KS 16X for a start (timing at climb test)

 

Edited August 5, 2022 by Mono

[meepmeepmayer]

10 hours ago, Jon Stern said:

Imagine an MTen3 in the same vein as this! 

Would you even see the tire for all the other stuff?

[enaon]

 

17 minutes ago, Mono said:

Right. Strangely enough, the specs 16x3.0 and 3.00-12 refer to the same tire size (the 16 refers to a very approximate outer tire radius while the 12 is the actual rim radius), which is indeed the KS 16X and Nikola and V12 tire size.

this is not accurate I think,
16X3.0 are physical tire dimensions (assuming a correct width rim), with knobs etc.
3.00- 12 is tire carcass width (no knobs)/rim size. 

for instance:
an motocross tire for the s18 could be

an 18X3.00
an 2.50-14 
an 60/100-14 

Edited August 5, 2022 by enaon

[Mono]

3 hours ago, enaon said:

this is not acurate I think, 16X3.0 are physical tyre dimensions, with knobs etc. 3.00- 12 is tire carcass size /rim size. 

not "accurate" but true, a tire with the specification 16x3.0 has (in our case that is, ETRTO 76x305) a rim diameter of precisely 305mm ≈ 12.01" and has an approximate outer diameter of 12 + 2x3 = 18". The 16 becomes close to the true outer diameter for a more common 16x2.0 = ETRTO 50x305 tire that fits the same rim.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Mono

[Eucner]

1 hour ago, mrelwood said:

Sir, you were the one who brought up weight carrying capacity as a response to a comment saying that 14" EUCs are too small for large men. And I told you that it's not about the weight carrying capacity, but wheel geometry. That's not mixing, that's correcting.

Big guys need to consider weight carrying capacity and ride geometry. I only responded to the first one.

1 hour ago, mrelwood said:

Every single EUC tire can be pumped up to carry a 150Kg rider without issues.

Not without issues. You would have dangerously high pressure, uncomfortable hardness and low safety margin against flats. Maybe these don't matter to you, but others have right for a different opinion.

1 hour ago, mrelwood said:

There has been zero reported tire failures due to exceeding the humorous max capacity stamped on some tires, or by over pressurizing the tire. Weight carrying capacity is a non-issue.

Bold statement. Are you really sure there hasn't been any extra flat tires due to over weight? Load index markings on tires are not for amusement. They are for safety. It is not enough a new tire being safe. It need to be safe also when it is worn out, on hot day and hitting a pothole.

1 hour ago, mrelwood said:

Reported EUC carrying capacities vary from 100 to 150kg without obvious strength differences in the axle or pedal bracket design. I'm certain that these figures are not based on strength calculations or tests.

How would you know that? Have you done many strength calculations? I've seen many manufacturers test ride videos. You can find them in Youtube. For calculations you need to know initial values. They are not always known. Some assumptions needs to be taken. From different use cases with different assumptions you can end up to wildly varying carrying capacities. So, yes, they could have been calculated. For my use, I wouldn't trust all of them, because my use could differ from the manufacturers intended use.

[Eucner]

1 hour ago, Mono said:

I am puzzled, doesn't 0.5 inch equal to 1.27cm?

I'm sorry. I wasn't clear enough. The 1.5 mm was in addition to the lower profile.

[Mono]

19 hours ago, enaon said:

an 18X3.00
an 2.50-14 
an 60/100-14 

This 18x3.00 tire has ETRTO 76x355, a 20" outer diameter ((2x76+355) / 25.4 ≈ 20), and it should be about 0.5" or about 16mm wider than the other two specs. Rim size 355mm equals ≈13.9764 inches and is exactly 0.6mm short of 14".

Edited August 6, 2022 by Mono

[conecones]

This will be the perfect city ripper. I hope they price this competitively compared to the Master. Very good news that Begode is continuing with the proven 100V platform with updated chassis. Looks like a replacement/upgrade for the Nikola instead of the Tesla though!

[Mono]

3 hours ago, Eucner said:

14x3.0 tire's rim would be 1.4 mm closer to the ground than 18x3.0 tires rim. 14" would be little softer and thus more comfortable to ride. 18" would have little higher safety margin against flats. A 18x2.5 tire's rim would be 1.5 mm closer to the ground than 18x3.0 tires rim. It would be the most hardest of these to ride and have the lowest safety factors against flats.

Tire size is an insignificant factor for safety against flats compared to the tire construction (e.g. kevlar layer, rubber width, sidewall strength) and also, to a smaller extend, tire pressure.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Mono

[Eucner]

38 minutes ago, Mono said:

Tire size is an insignificant factor for safety against flats compared to the tire construction (e.g. kevlar layer, rubber width, sidewall strength) and also, to a smaller extend, tire pressure.

Thicker tire makes better air spring against bottoming on flat ground, for example jumping down from a rock. Reinforcement helps against curbs and potholes, but still tire thickness is very meaningful.

 

[Mono]

36 minutes ago, Eucner said:

Thicker tire makes better air spring against bottoming on flat ground, for example jumping down from a rock. Reinforcement helps against curbs and potholes, but still tire thickness is very meaningful.

If you are concerned about snake bites (flats from the rim forcefully touching the outer tire), then tire pressure is your friend. A high enough tire pressure (which depends on the tire width) will prevent snake bites (and potential rim damage that comes along with it) entirely. Of course this may mean to make compromises on comfort and handling.

Tire thickness is mainly meaningful for comfort, ride quality and handling. I am pretty sure the latter is the reason why 2.75" wide tires have become a quasi-standard.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Mono

[DavidB]

When I first heard about this I was excited.

However looking further into it it seems Begode missed an opportunity.

Many people comment on how they like the looks but all the promo images are doctored in that they show the wheel  with the suspension bottomed out because it looks weird at full extension. Compare one on the table to the one in the background.

The specs don't add up either. They say 100mm of travel but there is only 80mm betweeen high and low pedal height. Maybe 20mm of sag perhaps. But the weight is the killer. The T2 was 19kg with a 1900W C30 motor that had a free spin speed of 66km/h. They say the T4 has a high torque motor but in the video it is a C30 just like the T2 (but hollow). I'm not an electrical engineer but it is my understanding that if you up the voltage you get more power and more speed from a motor so giving the C30 100.8V instead of 87.4V would take the free spin speed to 77km/h ( which matches the claimed T4 free spin speed) and power to ~ 2200W .

This is marketed as a commuter wheel but what I see is a wheel that weighs 60% more than the T2 Tesla which is fitted with what appears to be the small early version Begode display and not the easy to read Hero/Master one. It has the same Master headlights that everyone says are rubbish which are mounted vulnerably. The tail lights are blue (illegal in many places). The pedals are old style non-spiked grip-tape covered, yet it supposed to be a fun wheel for trails. The design is same frail cantilevered forward facing unprotected MB container that has not been durable on the Master. The wheel is 270mm wide (T2 was 200) The pedal hangers stick out like dog balls ready to snag a rock. 

I am not sure why you would choose this over a Hero which is thinner, more robust, better display, larger tire and only a couple of kilos more.

[mrelwood]

 

2 hours ago, Eucner said:

You would have dangerously high pressure, uncomfortable hardness and low safety margin against flats.

How high would this "dangerously high pressure" be? As high as the sidewall recommendation? Because that has been very clearly demonstrated by Chooch to be a dangerously high pressure for EUC riding.

I also haven't heard of anyone getting rim damage or snake bites with a pressure that's actually suitable for the rider's use case. Like 2.5-2.8 bars for a 18x3" in a rough environment. No need to go crazy. They all seem to be rather low pressure riders.

2 hours ago, Eucner said:

Maybe these don't matter to you, but others have right for a different opinion.

Of course they do. And I have the right to my experiences.

2 hours ago, Eucner said:

Are you really sure there hasn't been any extra flat tires due to over weight?

How could anyone be sure about that? I said "none reported". And none of the reports I've read would suggest the rider's weight as a potential issue.

2 hours ago, Eucner said:

Load index markings on tires are not for amusement.

For cheap Chinese bicycle tires they just might be.

2 hours ago, Eucner said:

Have you done many strength calculations?

Maybe read the wording I used again.

Ride various wheels and examine  them and their issues for a few years and it starts to get pretty clear that strength calculations does not seem to be a part of the design process. It's more like "Shit, they are breaking here and there, lets make it way stronger!"

Like the axles that used to be seriously weak. They were then beefed up by a good amount on all manufacturer's wheels, yet the carrying capacity didn't increase one bit. I wonder why...

[meepmeepmayer]

1 hour ago, DavidB said:

When I first heard about this I was excited.

However looking further into it it seems Begode missed an opportunity.

Many people comment on how they like the looks but all the promo images are doctored in that they show the wheel  with the suspension bottomed out because it looks weird at full extension. Compare one on the table to the one in the background.

The specs don't add up either. They say 100mm of travel but there is only 80mm betweeen high and low pedal height. Maybe 20mm of sag perhaps. But the weight is the killer. The T2 was 19kg with a 1900W C30 motor that had a free spin speed of 66km/h. They say the T4 has a high torque motor but in the video it is a C30 just like the T2 (but hollow). I'm not an electrical engineer but it is my understanding that if you up the voltage you get more power and more speed from a motor so giving the C30 100.8V instead of 87.4V would take the free spin speed to 77km/h ( which matches the claimed T4 free spin speed) and power to ~ 2200W .

This is marketed as a commuter wheel but what I see is a wheel that weighs 60% more than the T2 Tesla which is fitted with what appears to be the small early version Begode display and not the easy to read Hero/Master one. It has the same Master headlights that everyone says are rubbish which are mounted vulnerably. The tail lights are blue (illegal in many places). The pedals are old style non-spiked grip-tape covered, yet it supposed to be a fun wheel for trails. The design is same frail cantilevered forward facing unprotected MB container that has not been durable on the Master. The wheel is 270mm wide (T2 was 200) The pedal hangers stick out like dog balls ready to snag a rock. 

I am not sure why you would choose this over a Hero which is thinner, more robust, better display, larger tire and only a couple of kilos more.

• The wheel in the background does not have the side pads installed. That's why it looks different.
• If you look at the riding scenes in the video, it looks to me that the (top of the) pedal height is about at axle height/where the tire is widest. It indeed seems the suspension is bottomed out when they show the wheel otherwise. Good find!
  But this is also good. The pedals would be too low if this was indeed with the suspension uncompressed.
• This wheel has nothing to do with the Tesla line other than the name. The tire is wider and has like 5cm/2 inches bigger outer diameter. So it will also be proportionally faster compared to the Tesla tire at the same RPM. 20% higher voltage and about 18/16 (+12.5%) more tire diameter would give like 35% (1.2*1.125=1.35) more top speed for the same motor.
  I'm not sure it even is the same motor. The bigger Begodes all use the C30 or C38 motors, but I'm not sure what the Nikola or Tesla v3 use.

Let's see how it looks with the suspension not bottomed out. But I think it will look good enough. These tall-battery-packs + suspension wheels just tend to be high, see Master or S22.

If it rides well and offers 16x3 inch + suspension + 1800Wh + the rumored quite low price below $2400, it will be a fantastic wheel for everyone who does not want/need the most extreme specs but wants all the possible features otherwise.

Edited August 5, 2022 by meepmeepmayer