Boxxbike Valkyrie : 12kw crank concentric mid drive with left hand motor drive

Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
1,903
Boxxbike Valkyrie : new 8kw mid drive with pedals and left hand motor drive ..

customizable from 250w to 8000w
up to 250Nm torque..

https://evnerds.com/ev-album/your-ebike/the-performance-e-bike/

facebook.com/boxxbike
boxxbike.com
 
https://boxxbike.com/

new-2-580x600.jpg


Thought I'd start a thread on this... looks like a good setup IMO, and a decent looking bike. Somewhat of a competitor to surron, LMX, LightningRodds Middrives, UBCO/neematic, RevX etc.

Boxx bike have been around for a couple years from memory - their earlier models looked a bit naf imo, but this one looks good, and has the right balance of weight, range and power, at least for me. Head angle looks very slack though...

Some specs (from site/facebook)
37kg
12kw peak, multiple modes including pedelec, programmable
1.8kwh VTC6 battery, 48Vdc
27.5in wheels
MT5 brakes
not sure yet on suspension travel
seems custom motor (uses cranks as a jackshaft by the looks)
unkown controller atm.
~7500 Euro/USD

I'll likely go have a visit to them later this year, as this frame/setup is pretty damn close to what I'd been designing for myself for years but Ive continually been getting stuck in circles of hardware, time and analysis paralysis issues. I was very keen on the UBCO/neematic before they decided to drop the pedals, this looks like a near ideal alternative.
 
efMX Trials Electric Freeride said:
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=94174

not really the same bike though is it? different power, controller, motor, battery, frame... like I said in my post (not sure why its merged to this thread - mods?) the older/other models looked pretty ordinary IMHO, where the newer one looks quite good.
 
the latest iteration of Boxxbike Valkyrie LH mid drive looks great.. a huge improvement in design, power, aesthetics etc over the earlier prototypes.. so thanks for the subject bump:) .. but why would we want or need multiple threads for the same subject?? (or did you just want to take my credit for bringing this bike to the forum attention;).. :D
 
efMX Trials Electric Freeride said:
the latest iteration of Boxxbike Valkyrie LH mid drive looks great.. a huge improvement in design, power, aesthetics etc over the earlier prototypes.. so thanks for the subject bump:) .. but why would we want or need multiple threads for the same subject?? (or did you just want to take my credit for bringing this bike to the forum attention;).. :D

I wasn't even sure it was the same bike tbh, if its just a model upgrade then yea merge away. I thought my post had been deleted at first too, topic reply link said 'that post has been deleted...', didn't think it was that controversial haha :p
surprised there hasn't been a bit more attention though, seems to be the best of several worlds, light, good enough battery size, great power level, nice looking etc. Wouldn't be hard to add a booster pack either for more range, given its a 48V system and some free rel-estate left on the frame.
 
cheers mate 😎 .. did you read the article linked.. wouldn't readers want to know the history of the bike development etc not just the latest version.. I've been following their progression the whole time, just don't bother posting unless there's interest.. but I have seen some mentions of Boxxbike in various threads since so the seeds have been planted and perhaps the garden will bloom:)
 
efMX Trials Electric Freeride said:
cheers mate 😎 .. did you read the article linked.. wouldn't readers want to know the history of the bike development etc not just the latest version.. I've been following their progression the whole time, just don't bother posting unless there's interest.. but I have seen some mentions of Boxxbike in various threads since so the seeds have been planted and perhaps the garden will bloom:)

yea mate makes good sense. might be worth bumping the power on the title to 12kw now though :p
 
Head Angle looks like what the latest DH/AM bikes are going to over the last couple of years.

Look at some of the new YT Bikes, and Specialized DH Bikes of recent models.

That Head Angle looks to be exactly what I am wanting , When I go down twisty down hill roads within 50+ miles of me I am wishing the head angle on my bike was more like that .
( And I even put on a fork that has 10 mm more travel than what my bike calls for and I am still wanting more stability at speed ) .
So for Speed , what you see in the picture is what Mfg's LIke Boxxbike and even what the DIY E-Bike Frames should be doing .

More Speed = Slacker Head Tube Angle Needed.

That Bike is Way over my Budget, so I will not be contacting them, see if they will tell you what the Head Tube angle is and post it. This really is the new Normal .




sn0wchyld said:
https://boxxbike.com/

new-2-580x600.jpg



Head angle looks very slack though...
 
ScooterMan101 said:
Head Angle looks like what the latest DH/AM bikes are going to over the last couple of years.

Look at some of the new YT Bikes, and Specialized DH Bikes of recent models.

That Head Angle looks to be exactly what I am wanting , When I go down twisty down hill roads within 50+ miles of me I am wishing the head angle on my bike was more like that .
( And I even put on a fork that has 10 mm more travel than what my bike calls for and I am still wanting more stability at speed ) .
So for Speed , what you see in the picture is what Mfg's LIke Boxxbike and even what the DIY E-Bike Frames should be doing .

More Speed = Slacker Head Tube Angle Needed.

That Bike is Way over my Budget, so I will not be contacting them, see if they will tell you what the Head Tube angle is and post it. This really is the new Normal .




sn0wchyld said:
https://boxxbike.com/

new-2-580x600.jpg



Head angle looks very slack though...

Yea when I ran my norko Aline with a 17'' rear it was very slack, super stable though as you point out. I'm no expert on suspension so outside of that I'm not sure whats best. And yea, its certainly more than I'd want to pay (isnt everything?) but if I was paying myself even minimum wage I'd have spent much, much more than that just in design and initial prototyping of my own, and I dont have anything functional to show for it. At a certain point, you just want to ride :p
 
Its a nice looking bicycle, even if I had the money and wanting to buy a store bought ebike, I'd just go with one of the major brands, and be limited to 750W. Too bad there wasnt after-market upgrades to stuff a more powerful motor in the housing. Thats the redeeming quality of the Boxxbike, the power! I just dont know about the cost, and the geometry of the suspension compared to the majors.
 
markz said:
Its a nice looking bicycle, even if I had the money and wanting to buy a store bought ebike, I'd just go with one of the major brands, and be limited to 750W. Too bad there wasnt after-market upgrades to stuff a more powerful motor in the housing. Thats the redeeming quality of the Boxxbike, the power! I just dont know about the cost, and the geometry of the suspension compared to the majors.


cost is in the 2nd post mate :p 7500 odd USD. Covid's delayed my trip but hopefully be testing one out before year's end.
 
Covid's delayed my trip but hopefully be testing one out before year's end.

Look forward to hearing the report. Too expensive for me but you make a good point about time spent on designing :roll:
 
sn0wchyld said:
Head angle looks very slack though...

Yeah, a real amateurish mistake by the designer. The bike in the first pic has about a foot of trail with that head tube angle, so it would really suck to ride at low speed. The yellow bike looks a lot better in terms of steering geometry unless the angle of the photo is playing tricks on me.

I'm building a combination road and trail bike now using 21" moto wheels, and with a generous number of rear shock attachment points that I'll be able to adjust trail between 3" and 4.5".
 
John in CR said:
sn0wchyld said:
Head angle looks very slack though...

Yeah, a real amateurish mistake by the designer. The bike in the first pic has about a foot of trail with that head tube angle, so it would really suck to ride at low speed. The yellow bike looks a lot better in terms of steering geometry unless the angle of the photo is playing tricks on me.

I'm building a combination road and trail bike now using 21" moto wheels, and with a generous number of rear shock attachment points that I'll be able to adjust trail between 3" and 4.5".

Why would you run 12kw bike at "low speed"?
Head angle is the same as anything desgined in the last 10 years that's not from walmart (except the eeb, it's crap from the beginning).
 
of course this is a downhill bike, but with a motor and power for blasting up mtns trails at similar speeds as down them.. the head angle could also be adjusted via suspension choice and adjustment, etc... one of my mtn bikes had a suspension fork that could be lowered or raised by lever for on the fly head angle and suspension travel adjustment, shorter and steeper for climbing and longer and slacker for descent.. :idea:

[youtube]gwycCWNO1sM[/youtube]
 
Steer angle does make a huge difference in stability vs nimbleness. Slack for jumping and speeding mountain trails of course, everyone can figure. But, slow technical trails do require much steeper head angle, more like a trial motorcycle. Every discipline has an ideal geometry. Compromises are hard decisions when you want to do it all. That is why I like variable geometry: dropout height, headset angle, BB height... all add well with cockpit tuning and suspension adjustments to make a bike suit the rider and the task.
 
I was a bit quick to judge. I took a ruler to the first pic and came up with a trail of less than 6.5" which isn't too bad at all. When I first looked at it for some reason I was seeing 10"-12" of trail, which would have handled horribly. 6.5" is still more than I use on high speed bikes for street use, because large trail measurements make for sluggish handling and an inability to track in a straight line at low speeds, but I can understand wanting to get the wheel out further in front for downhilling.
 
Tommm said:
Why would you run 12kw bike at "low speed"?

I guess you're just supposed to jump on and off as the bike flies by. Plus there are plenty of times when it's prudent to ride at low speed. Just like a 500hp car needs to be able to handle properly at 5-10mph, so does a 12kw ebike.
 
John in CR said:
Tommm said:
Why would you run 12kw bike at "low speed"?

I guess you're just supposed to jump on and off as the bike flies by. Plus there are plenty of times when it's prudent to ride at low speed. Just like a 500hp car needs to be able to handle properly at 5-10mph, so does a 12kw ebike.

Ok. Being a bit more difficult to turn the bars at 5mph vs being a bit more stable above 20mph is a trade off I would take any day, and as you can see, so would the desginer of this bike and the designers of modern commerical enduro/dh bikes.
 
Tommm said:
John in CR said:
Tommm said:
Why would you run 12kw bike at "low speed"?

I guess you're just supposed to jump on and off as the bike flies by. Plus there are plenty of times when it's prudent to ride at low speed. Just like a 500hp car needs to be able to handle properly at 5-10mph, so does a 12kw ebike.

Ok. Being a bit more difficult to turn the bars at 5mph vs being a bit more stable above 20mph is a trade off I would take any day, and as you can see, so would the desginer of this bike and the designers of modern commerical enduro/dh bikes.

That's not why they use such slack geometry. I have ebikes with far shorter trail that are perfectly stable well above 100mph. The reason they need to use such slack headtube angles that result in longer amounts of trail is because the geometry can change quite a bit as the suspension is compressed, and the last thing you want while barreling down a hill is to end up with a speed wobble at any point in the suspension travel.
 
John in CR said:
That's not why they use such slack geometry. I have ebikes with far shorter trail that are perfectly stable well above 100mph. The reason they need to use such slack headtube angles that result in longer amounts of trail is because the geometry can change quite a bit as the suspension is compressed, and the last thing you want while barreling down a hill is to end up with a speed wobble at any point in the suspension travel.

This is a trail use bike. Dirt bikes and dh/enduro mtbs use a slacker head angle. So he uses one aswell.
If you want to argue with that, take it up with the whole industry not me or him.
 
Tommm said:
John in CR said:
That's not why they use such slack geometry. I have ebikes with far shorter trail that are perfectly stable well above 100mph. The reason they need to use such slack headtube angles that result in longer amounts of trail is because the geometry can change quite a bit as the suspension is compressed, and the last thing you want while barreling down a hill is to end up with a speed wobble at any point in the suspension travel.

This is a trail use bike. Dirt bikes and dh/enduro mtbs use a slacker head angle. So he uses one aswell.
If you want to argue with that, take it up with the whole industry not me or him.

You're the one talking about 5mph and stability over 20mph, and I was just pointing out that has nothing to do with why slacker geometries were appropriate on those bikes.
 
John in CR said:
Tommm said:
John in CR said:
That's not why they use such slack geometry. I have ebikes with far shorter trail that are perfectly stable well above 100mph. The reason they need to use such slack headtube angles that result in longer amounts of trail is because the geometry can change quite a bit as the suspension is compressed, and the last thing you want while barreling down a hill is to end up with a speed wobble at any point in the suspension travel.

This is a trail use bike. Dirt bikes and dh/enduro mtbs use a slacker head angle. So he uses one aswell.
If you want to argue with that, take it up with the whole industry not me or him.

You're the one talking about 5mph and stability over 20mph, and I was just pointing out that has nothing to do with why slacker geometries were appropriate on those bikes.

It is a fact slacker head angles handle more stable at speed. You brought up low speed handling, not me.
 
Back
Top