ElectricMotorcycleForum.com
Makes And Models => Zero Motorcycles Forum | 2012 and older => Topic started by: s44captain on July 30, 2014, 02:53:56 AM
-
I finally took a test ride around town on a 2014S and while it seemed better built and faster than my stock 2012 I liked the lighter weight of my 2012 more so I opted for the size 6 upgrade instead of a new bike. When I got the bike back from Harlan it seemed much faster than the 2014 that I took around town. I'm sure that would be different on the open road but my gosh what a difference! My buddy Eric with a Suzuki 400 swears it's much faster than his. If you own a 2012 and lust after a new SR but don't have an extra 10k floating around get a size 6 Controler and enjoy your "new" bike. I just wish I had done it a year earlier.
-
I totally agree! It's much more affordable than a new bike and the smaller weight of the 2012 bikes with more power is indeed a fun time!
-
Is the size 6 controller about the same size as the one that's on the S? If not, how easy/hard is it to do the mod? (I've got a 2013 S and am mostly just curious)
-
It will fit the 2013 too but will require some bracket mods as it is slightly larger. Contact Harlan at Hollywood Electrics for the kit.
-
W00t! Thanks for the info :-)
-
Just for my clarification, the Type 6 is the bigger (600a) controller, right ? Can I assume that an S or FX which has the 440a controller can be easily retrofitted (putting aside physical constraints)? I had assumed that the motor, wiring and comm's would allow it but wanted to check; S models are selling well here due to availability and I foresee an opportunity to upgrade them. What do they cost ?
-
The Size 6 controller is physically larger than the Size 4 controller and there are some frame modifications on the 2012 bike that is necessary to mount it (if I recall correctly). My dealer was able to take care of it without issue.
A couple of years ago Harlan at Hollywood electrics was selling Size 6 controllers for $2,500 and would give you $500 for your Size 4 controller. That is a good place to start if you are seriously considering this upgrade.
I upgraded when the 2013 bikes came out and this tempered my desire for a new bike. Except now there is the SR... ;-)
-
Did you put the SR into sport mode on that test ride or leave it in custom?
If you left it in custom, it was at only 40% torque upper limit and capped at 67MPH.
-
With the extra current flying through the drivetrain - how much does it affect range?
-
Most of my SR test ride was in sport mode... of course!
The range is affected, but it depends strongly on how often you accelerate hard. Basically the sport mode makes more current available, but that doesn't mean you use it.
For example, on my road trip I would travel at 55mph consistently for most of the day. I got similar range in Eco and sport mode. However, it was easier to keep the speed constant in eco mode, and it was easier to conserve charge in eco mode. I used sport mode for the vast majority of the legs of the trip.
-
The range is affected, but it depends strongly on how often you accelerate hard.
Ben, I beg to differ with you. I believe acceleration has little if anything to do with range. Think about it: If you're getting on a freeway on-ramp at 30 mph, and you want to accelerate up to 70, you can do it long and slow, or short and fast. Obviously, accelerating harder will draw more current from the batteries, but you don't need to accelerate for as long. In fact, you can calculate the kinetic energy of you and the bike at 70 mph, subtract the energy of you and the bike at 30, and that's how much energy you need to add to change speed. It doesn't matter how fast you do it! Now that's just a first approximation; higher currents will certainly result in higher losses, so the truth is somewhere in between -- acceleration has SOME effect on battery life, but not very much!
I admit it sounds a bit hard to believe, but I've tested it on my SR several times, and it really does seem to be true. Sometimes on my daily commute I'll accelerate very hard, somedays I'll accelerate much slower, sometimes I'll just ride naturally, but always limit my top speed to 75 mph. I honestly can't see any difference in the results. Day-to-day variations are far bigger.
I think top cruising speed is by far the most critical factor determining range, maybe 80% influence. Amount of regen may be a 10% factor, acceleration rate maybe 5%, and everything else adds up to the last 5%.
-
There is some loss with i^2 R losses.... But what I've seen in my battery testing as more of a factor... Is The more current you draw from a battery.... The less total energy you get out. If you accelerate hard, it will limit the useable energy of a battery. Look at a battery discharge curve between 10C and a 2C one.... The one with 10C sources less total energy in Wh.
I agree on the amount though.... It's not huge... Between 5 and 10 percent.
-
During 2012, I tested Zero Ds 2010 for fifteen days and the engine burned. The dealer said the manufacturer detected a fail and didn't repare before for a vagueness. The change was simply modify some data software, I'm afraid to change something.
-
The range is affected, but it depends strongly on how often you accelerate hard.
Ben, I beg to differ with you...
I'm just going off experience of 21,000 miles with a 2012 Zero S, most of which were done using a size 6 controller. Clearly top speed makes the biggest difference, but if cruising speed is the same then accelerating using 660amps will use your power faster than 440 amps.
-
Electric car manufacturers go to great lengths to encourage you to accelerate gently with eco driving meters etc. so I'm sure there is something in it.
There is some debate in the hypermiling community about whether it's better to accelerate hard to overcome the losses through the throttle bodies at small openings but the general consensus is to keep revs low at all times.
-
Electric car manufacturers go to great lengths to encourage you to accelerate gently with eco driving meters etc. so I'm sure there is something in it.
There is some debate in the hypermiling community about whether it's better to accelerate hard to overcome the losses through the throttle bodies at small openings but the general consensus is to keep revs low at all times.
If the hypermilers are debating the point, you can be sure it's anything but a slamdunk either direction. If anybody's tested it, you can be sure these guys have!
...then accelerating using 660amps will use your power faster than 440 amps.
Of course it does, I said that in my original post. But you don't have to accelerate as long to reach your final speed! Seriously, if you're skeptical, as I was originally, test it yourself.
There is some loss with i^2 R losses.... But what I've seen in my battery testing as more of a factor... Is The more current you draw from a battery.... The less total energy you get out.
Yes, these are the extra losses that makes it not QUITE a wash, as I also said in my original post. But a modern EV is VERY efficient, even at its highest performance levels, and those extra losses just aren't very big.
I'd love to see real data on this. My testing has been very informal and limited to real-world commuting on different days, so it's hardly conclusive. It's enough to convince me that the difference is small, but not HOW small.
-
Example motor efficiency plot for an unspecified Parker GVM traction motor (http://www.parker.com/parkerimages/Market-Tech/Market-Tech%20Home/Hybrid%20Electric%20Vehicles/Literature/Parker%20Traction%20Motor%20Brochure.pdf), similar to the one used in the Brammo Empulse
(http://i.imgur.com/VCuvpQk.png)
The vast majority of this plot shows very good efficiency, 93-96%. There are two regions where efficiency falls off:
1. Very low RPM, high motor torque. At very low RPM - such as accelerating from a stop - accelerating slowly is more efficient (say 40% peak motor torque = averages about 90% efficiency up to 1000 RPM) than accelerating wide-open (100% motor torque = averages maybe 75% efficiency up to 1000 RPM).
If you have a selectable transmission you want use a lower gear if available to avoid the low-RPM efficiency hole. Example: 750 RPM 300 motor Nm is 87% efficient (say 3rd gear), but 1500 RPM 150 motor Nm (same wheel Nm) is 93-96% efficient (say 1st gear).
This is where an Eco-like mode can help by limiting peak motor torque from a stop.
2. Very low motor torque. At high RPM, motor efficiency is largely independent of requested torque. However, very light motor torque load (< 10% peak) starts to drop off in efficiency again.
Not much you can do about this if you have a direct drive system. Perhaps apply pulse & glide techniques if constant operation puts you in this smaller efficiency hole. However, if you have a selectable transmission then you can upshift to decrease motor RPM and increase motor torque for a given wheel torque target. ie, 30 Nm 7500 RPM is < 93% efficient, but 90 Nm 2500 RPM is 93-96% efficient.
It's also worth pointing out that efficiency in the second region is still quite good, and that typically the energy spent accelerating from a stop is quite small on a motorcycle relative to energy spent overcoming drag. Dropping 1 mph off your travel speed would likely more than make up for the extra energy lost in dozens of hard launches at a stoplight.
And motor efficiency WILL depend on the motor in question.
2004 Prius motor (http://brammoforum.com/index.php?topic=756.msg6327#msg6327):
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GADM7ES4LmE/UCnJxpi_8JI/AAAAAAAACyQ/dfZAJMS-dLY/s592/2004+prius+motor+map.png)
Remy HVH250 traction motor (http://remyinc.com/docs/HVH410_r3_Sept_2010.pdf), as used on the Lightning bike:
(http://i.imgur.com/x1Og1Bt.png)
-
That's some GOOD stuff, protomech! There's a ton of red in that first graph, that's great to see. Is that motor similar to the one in my Zero SR? And exactly what type is it? I'm guessing it's a "permanent magnet AC" motor or a "brushless DC" motor. The Lightning uses a field coil motor of some sort, doesn't it? I believe that's why it has so much more horsepower than the Zero SR but not all that much more torque. Same logic for the Mission.
-
...then accelerating using 660amps will use your power faster than 440 amps.
Of course it does, I said that in my original post. But you don't have to accelerate as long to reach your final speed! Seriously, if you're skeptical, as I was originally, test it yourself.
I did test it myself over the course of two separate 5,000 mile road trips. I'm not sure how much more evidence you require. Accelerating harder eats some if your range despite getting your desired speed slightly faster.
On the current setup if my 2012 Zero S the Sport mode makes the full 660 Amps available while Eco mode limits me to 440 Amps. I've done this experiment dozens of times in the past month, plus many other times over past 2 years.
-
Also, I just re-read the previous posts you have been alluding to and I think I understand where our disagreement lies. It seems as though you object to when I used the word "strongly" to identify how hard acceleration affects range. While hard acceleration is not the strongest factor, I have found it to affect my range consistently. So if that was your main dispute, then I partially agree with you. Could have used a different adjective.
Also, this is a case in which you have done your experiments and I have done mine and we appear to have come out with contradictory results. So on this point we shall have to agree to disagree.
Cheers!
-
That's some GOOD stuff, protomech! There's a ton of red in that first graph, that's great to see. Is that motor similar to the one in my Zero SR? And exactly what type is it? I'm guessing it's a "permanent magnet AC" motor or a "brushless DC" motor. The Lightning uses a field coil motor of some sort, doesn't it? I believe that's why it has so much more horsepower than the Zero SR but not all that much more torque. Same logic for the Mission.
Here's a new term: IPM, or internal permanent magnet. As opposed to having magnets on the outside of the rotor (surface permanent magnets or SPM), the magnets are embedded in the rotor to provide a better magnetic flux profile.
Mission uses either PMAC IPM or AC Induction in their custom motors. The IPM has a peak torque of 115Nm and a peak power of 85kW. The induction motor has 70Nm and 65kW respectively.
Lighning uses a Remy HVH250 motor, which is a PMAC IPM motor. The standard HVH250 has a peak torque of 325Nm and a peak power of 82kW. In the same HVH250 family, there are higher power models that hit 150kW and 440Nm.
Brammo uses a Parker GVM motor, which is a PMAC IPM motor. Brammo lists their specs as a peak torque of 90Nm and peak power of 40kW with the Empulse R. I know for a fact that the motor in mine has some overhead with the settings in the Sevcon, so the peak torque is going to be in the ~110Nm range.... which would boost the power as well. I think they use the GVM142-150, which lists a peak torque of 113Nm and a peak power of 65kW.
Zero S/SR uses a PMAC SPM motor. Zero lists the motor as having 144Nm of peak torque and 50kW of peak power.
All of those motors have a similar stator (wound coil stator, outside of the motor), but are a little different between the SPM and IPM. A lot of the racing motors (Yasa, Remy, parker, etc) are IPM motors.
-
Interesting discussion - we have some well-informed members of this forum!
I was a wanna-be engineer at one point in my life and so studied physics/calculus for several years (ended up in the medical field - go figure).
To get back to basics, if memory serves, Work = Force x Distance, and Power = Work/Time. So, with Time in the denominator, more Power would be required for the same amount of Work done in a shorter amount of time - correct?
This is my understanding anyway - when I'm making a longer run (on one of my electric bikes or in my electric car) I accelerate slowing - hoping to conserve some of the battery capacity.
-
It seems as though you object to when I used the word "strongly" to identify how hard acceleration affects range.
I overstated my case as well. I said acceleration has "little to no" effect on battery usage, and that's not true. I should have said that I believe it has only a small effect.
I think we're on the same page.
-
Benswing, have you had any cooling issues while taking advantage of your newfound acceleration? I have a 2012 DS, and because there's no DSR, and because my nearest dealer is probably dropping Zero, I'm considering hanging on to mine for awhile and maybe doing this upgrade.
-
Doug S, I agree.
CiiC, I haven't had any overheating problems during regular use including highway riding (about 10+ miles at 70-80mph). The only two times it ever overheated were (1) going 100mph and (2) riding up Mt. Washington a little too fast. ::) (I made it up Mt. Washington the 2nd time without overheating going the normal speed.)
I've had a great experience using the size 6 controller and haven't had any issues relating to that part. However, I now need to change my tires again from so many miles!
-
Full throttle acceleration power wheelie romps on my FX make the energy bars go away with shocking rapidity.
Gentle acceleration makes the bars last a lot longer.
That is my humble observation.