ElectricMotorcycleForum.com

  • April 24, 2024, 03:29:20 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Electric Motorcycle Forum is live!

Pages: [1]

Author Topic: 2014 specs, comparison and graphs  (Read 2050 times)

nigezero

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
    • View Profile
2014 specs, comparison and graphs
« on: November 16, 2013, 05:10:30 AM »

Hi all

Excited about the 2014 and wrote a long story here http://solarbusiness.com.au/future-arrived-called-zero/

Also, included in the story were these graphs







Nige
Logged

NoiseBoy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
    • View Profile
Re: 2014 specs, comparison and graphs
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2013, 06:32:58 AM »

Nice article but you did miss one key point. You list the published 0 to 60 times of gas bikes but the fact is that normal people cannot get anywhere close to those times. However on the Zero it is actually achievable to get a good start every time.
Logged

Richard230

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9483
    • View Profile
Re: 2014 specs, comparison and graphs
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2013, 08:54:42 AM »

Thanks for the article and analyses, Nige.  It looks like you put a lot of thought into your evaluation.  But to be fair, it is worth mentioning that the torque figures used in the comparison are for top gear on the IC motorcycles, most of which have a 6-speed transmission, including the Brammo Empulse.  If those motorcycles were shifted into a lower gear, the results would be different.  I like to ride in top gear as much as possible, so that fact doesn't concern me, but if two bikes were riding side-by-side and the IC bike was able to be shifted several gears down, it might very well get the jump on the Zero SR as it would be producing greater torque at the rear wheel, depending upon the gear chosen and the rpm of the engine during the comparison.  In an IC engine the torque fluctuates much more over its rpm range than the very flat torque curve of the Zero motor, so these side-by-side comparisons are very hard to make, unless you specify that they are taken in top gear and at the IC engine's maximum torque rpm.

One very important advantage that the Zero has for the owner that you neglected to mention is its lack of periodic maintenance cost.  Most BMWs typically cost around $600 for a dealer performed service, the Japanese brands are only a little lower, while the other European brands are likely higher.  Not only does the Zero save you in fuel costs, but it saves you a lot in both maintenance costs as well as the hassle and time of taking it to a dealer and waiting around for the bike to be serviced.  I feel that this is a real benefit for the Zero owner that is usually neglected when discussing the brand.  During the 20 months that I have owned my Zero, it has yet to need any servicing, other than needing its belt tension adjusted once, which I was able to perform in my garage in about 30 minutes.   :)
Logged
Richard's motorcycle collection:  2018 16.6 kWh Zero S, 2009 BMW F650GS, 2020 KTM 390 Duke, 2002 Yamaha FZ1 (FZS1000N) and a 1978 Honda Kick 'N Go Senior.

WindRider

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: 2014 specs, comparison and graphs
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2013, 09:15:21 AM »

Good point Richard.

I have now rolled almost 7K Zero miles and it is fun to go by mileage milestones that used to mean 6 hours of shop time on my old ICE bikes but on my Zero I think... "maybe I should wash it?"

Almost Zero maintenance time and cost means that you have more time and money to do other things in life.
Logged
2008 Yamaha WR250R 
Past E Bikes:  2010 Zero XU, 2012 Zero DS9, 2013 FX5.7

protomech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1996
    • View Profile
    • ProtoBlog
Re: 2014 specs, comparison and graphs
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2013, 12:23:47 PM »

Richard230:

I believe those are maximum motor torque figures, not top-gear wheel torque figures. So they're slightly comparable.

However, maximum motor torque is very close to worthless as a metric for comparing performance between bikes, without discussing gearing. A great example of this is the (slow) DS 2010 @ ~96 ft-lb vs the (very fast) SR 2014 @ 106 ft-lb.
Logged
1999 Honda VFR800i | 2014 Zero SR
Check out who's near you on frodus's EV owner map!
http://protomech.wordpress.com/

nigezero

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
    • View Profile
2014 specs, comparison and graphs
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2013, 01:49:51 PM »

Hey all

You are of course all right.

I did the graphs out of interest, accept the huge variables and always count on seat of the pants results. Having test ridden a 2013, I do know to 2014 will better and it goes like stink enough.

I wanted to stimulate intrigue with graphs to get others riding them. :)

FWIW, being a solar guru, and 30 riding veteran, I remained primarily excited by the bi-directional fast charging capabilities because that's what's going to change the world of solar owners and people are one bikes to happen doing solar it's a no-brainer here in Australia.
Logged

Richard230

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9483
    • View Profile
Re: 2014 specs, comparison and graphs
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2013, 10:05:41 PM »

I think my off-the-cuff comments about comparing torque between a direct-drive EV and a multi-geared IC were an attempt to try to analyze (in my mind) the practical difference that having multiple gears would make in daily riding.  Having both a Zero and 50 years of riding IC bikes, my feeling (nothing controversial here) is that having access to a lower gear really helps with take off from a dead stop and especially when carrying a passenger and going up hill.  It would also likely decrease your passing time, provided that you could choose the proper gear to be in. But in the real world, once you get going, not needing to shift can save time when reacting to a road emergency and having the instant torque of an electric motor can really help, compared with having to take the time to downshift an IC motorcycle to get it into its most useful power band.

It would be interesting to see an instrumented road test comparing a popular IC motorcycle with a Zero to see how they perform within their performance envelopes on the road and in the hands of a typical rider.

Logged
Richard's motorcycle collection:  2018 16.6 kWh Zero S, 2009 BMW F650GS, 2020 KTM 390 Duke, 2002 Yamaha FZ1 (FZS1000N) and a 1978 Honda Kick 'N Go Senior.

WindRider

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: 2014 specs, comparison and graphs
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2013, 03:59:51 AM »

It would be interesting to see an instrumented road test comparing a popular IC motorcycle with a Zero to see how they perform within their performance envelopes on the road and in the hands of a typical rider.

Here is a YouTube video of a Roll on contest from 10MPH with a Zero FX vs a Kawasaki KLR650.   Notice that the FX has a hard time keeping the front wheel down and whenever the KLR rider has to shift the FX surges even further into the distance.

Personally, I think that with the right motor, controller, and tuning there is absolutely no need for a transmission on an electric motorcycle.  I am in step with the Zero philosophy here and this real world video bears out how well it works.

Logged
2008 Yamaha WR250R 
Past E Bikes:  2010 Zero XU, 2012 Zero DS9, 2013 FX5.7

Richard230

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9483
    • View Profile
Re: 2014 specs, comparison and graphs
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2013, 04:06:01 AM »

Well, that was impressive.  Of course, it was only a lowly KLR.    ;)
Logged
Richard's motorcycle collection:  2018 16.6 kWh Zero S, 2009 BMW F650GS, 2020 KTM 390 Duke, 2002 Yamaha FZ1 (FZS1000N) and a 1978 Honda Kick 'N Go Senior.

WindRider

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: 2014 specs, comparison and graphs
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2013, 06:11:03 AM »

Ha, yes, a lowly KLR.   Still a torquey 650 thumper and some electric power and lack of transmission runs away from it completely.
Logged
2008 Yamaha WR250R 
Past E Bikes:  2010 Zero XU, 2012 Zero DS9, 2013 FX5.7

NoiseBoy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 819
    • View Profile
Re: 2014 specs, comparison and graphs
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2013, 04:09:47 PM »

Ha, yes, a lowly KLR.   Still a torquey 650 thumper and some electric power and lack of transmission runs away from it completely.

You aren't joking, it was an annihilation! Maybe I need to forget the SR and buy an FX with S wheels.
Logged

KrazyEd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Re: 2014 specs, comparison and graphs
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2013, 12:24:40 AM »

   The FX should meet most uses other than distance. The added weight of the extra battery slows acceleration.
The lighter weight should make it more nimble. Not sure if the tax credits will be available after the end of the
year, but, if so, Purchase the 2.8, then get a 30% tax credit for buying the second battery. IF extended, then
it should be less cash outlay overall.
Logged

BSDThw

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 647
    • View Profile
Re: 2014 specs, comparison and graphs
« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2014, 07:45:15 PM »

While watching the Zero FX vs KLR650 on Youtube I remembered to see the Video in our Forum already - but - he did more videos.











Would be nice to have "Matt Fish" in the forum.
Logged
Air Drag Sucks - 2012 Zero DS ZF9 - 2013 Zero FX ZF5.7

Guba

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: 2014 specs, comparison and graphs
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2014, 01:14:17 PM »

Progressive International Motorcycle show at the IX Center in Cleveland was just last weekend. I went to the show because the IX Center web site specifically mentioned that Zero would be there. What a disappointment! Zero never showed up. Wasted a trip...
Logged
Pages: [1]