Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[f3flight]

Hi fellas,

I am the owner of a ZEV LRC 10 (the initial model from 2013, not the updated "LRC 11" or "12.2") electric scooter. Wanted to hear if any of you have the same model. Also if you have any questions about this scooter feel free to ask them. I have traveled about 4000 km on it so far.

[protomech]

ZEV is an interesting company. They've been around a long time and their focus has always seemed to be on function and durability over form. Visually their website and bikes seem to have changed little since six years ago, but they actually offer one of the most practical bikes on the market. IMO.

They're also not afraid to talk about their competitors. "Dare to Compare" has been a hallmark of their site for ages. Take with a grain of salt.

How well does the range on your LRC match their claims? They claim 80 miles at 70 mph from a 10 kWh scooter - rides lower and has a front fairing vs Zero bikes, so not an unbelievable claim. But then they claim 140 miles at 55 mph!

Zero gains approximately 22% range by dropping speed from 70 mph to 55 mph. LRC surely weighs much more than the Zero, and (per the 80 mile range claim) is a little more aerodynamic. Both of those should reduce the gain from dropping speed, but instead ZEV claims 75% more range by dropping 15 mph!

[f3flight]

I've had a few troubles with LRC, and overall I would not recommend it to someone who expects good quality product. Yesterday I went to a Zero dealer shop to have a look at what Zero looks like - I would say they look much more durable and sturdy. If I were to choose now I'd buy a Zero S. But two years ago Zero S was not near as good as LRC 10 (specifications-wise).

As for the range, I would really like to know myself! I expect you to say "what??", but here is why - once I have decided to test the range and I went on a trip together with a passenger, one way distance was around 65km and I did not take the charger (ZEV has a separate pretty bulky and ugly charger). So I made it there no prob, but on my way back the scooter suddenly turned off. The thing is, ZEVs do not even have battery level gauge - instead they show voltage. It is said that 72V is critical minimum, bike will turn off when you hit/go below this voltage. In my case it turned off when I hit 78V. So I knew I was close (Voltage drops non-linearly, so the closer you are to 72 the faster it drops) but did not expect the bike to die at 78V. Now I do not risk checking the range anymore. But in my case I was able to drive for around 130km with ~ 120kg load and max (cruising) speed of ~80-90km/h. Sorry for km and not miles, I live in Russia, we use km measurement here. When daily commuting (through traffic on low speeds) alone I was able to get around 150-160km from it (Monday to Friday to the office and back home), and I usually charged it on Friday evening when it was too weak for the highway (~75km/h on 2nd gear). 225km which ZEV LRC claims to give I have not been able to achieve once, and I don't really believe it.

The main disadvantages of ZEV LRC for me are:
- Hard to understand the amount of juice left (voltage drops non-linearly)
- Speed difference between fully charged and almost discharged battery is significant (on "second gear" - goes from 90km/h to ~75km/h). Second gear = about 65% from max power. Not really a gear, just a power limiter.
- Build quality is way worse then I expected - gaps between plastic, some body parts do not connect well and plastic locks go off in these areas, almost no weather protection - my bike does not work if I leave it under the rain, so I have to cover it every time to be safe. Batteries were covered with dirt when I opened the body for the first time (after a few 100 km driven) to check how innards are looking. I did some modifications afterwards but factory build allows water and dirt from road to get onto battery contacts and controller boards on them. Yikes. Also at some point speedometer started showing random speed - maybe it was due to cold (around 0 Celsius) but I was not expecting this at all.
- The service was great in the beginning, I was able to get a new charger (my blew) and a new DC/DC+BMS (blew too, but my fault) - but in the end I still have not received a luggage mount which I have purchased initially (as an extra) over 2 years ago! So I have my luggage box delivered from ZEV, but I cannot attach it to the bike! And they just ignore my emails now. Sucks.

Still a really like the HUGE underseat compartment, which takes two helmets + raincoats + other small stuff. And the scooter is very stable on the road. But I don't have much to compare with - this is my first bike.

I wonder if other LRC owners have different experience with it. I'm still happy to have it since it is my first scooter and first motorized transport in general, but I wish I waited a couple more years.

[f3flight]

Just FYI I have today finally tested for max distance and I ended up with 187.5 km with 74 V on full throttle when starting movement. 72 V is when scooter turns off, so very close to it. I usually do not go full throttle but I did so a few times during my test to see lowest voltage / worst case voltage. Some 40-50 of these were covered with a passenger. So I'd add probably 3 km for 2 V left before cutoff and maybe 10 km taken by second rider ---> around 200 km (124 miles) on one charge if you drive like me. I do not go above 90 km/h (56 mph) and almost never accelerate with full power.

[kensiko]

Just FYI I have today finally tested for max distance and I ended up with 187.5 km with 74 V on full throttle when starting movement. 72 V is when scooter turns off, so very close to it. I usually do not go full throttle but I did so a few times during my test to see lowest voltage / worst case voltage. Some 40-50 of these were covered with a passenger. So I'd add probably 3 km for 2 V left before cutoff and maybe 10 km taken by second rider ---> around 200 km (124 miles) on one charge if you drive like me. I do not go above 90 km/h (56 mph) and almost never accelerate with full power.

2V left ? What is the battery type ?

[protomech]

Just FYI I have today finally tested for max distance and I ended up with 187.5 km with 74 V on full throttle when starting movement. 72 V is when scooter turns off, so very close to it. I usually do not go full throttle but I did so a few times during my test to see lowest voltage / worst case voltage. Some 40-50 of these were covered with a passenger. So I'd add probably 3 km for 2 V left before cutoff and maybe 10 km taken by second rider ---> around 200 km (124 miles) on one charge if you drive like me. I do not go above 90 km/h (56 mph) and almost never accelerate with full power.

2V left ? What is the battery type ?

I believe f3flight meant the final battery voltage in his test was 2V above the lower cutoff voltage.

[dhzehrbach]

F3 FLIGHT (DIMITRY
I think your posting requires some additional information noted and factually incorrect.

Range - The 225 km range we get is something you will never get –because you have snow tires on your bike as a major factor.  An article published on Tire Review discusses the cost saving benefits of fuel efficient tires. “Studies show that 20% to 30% of a vehicle’s fuel consumption and 24% of road vehicle CO2 emissions are tire-related.”  Mileage is significantly decreased with snow tires.”   So just putting on snow tires kills the range. 
The 225 km yielded in company tests is also noted as constant speed driving on flat surfaces.  Your driving included some stop and go, varying speeds, and sometimes a passenger.  You also noted in some emails that you and your girlfriend were wearing bulky warm clothes of the snowmobile type. 
Still, depending on which range of the 124 mile, or whether you admit or deny the snow tires, you are getting within 12% of the company test results on a several year old bike.
Still, depending on which test you claim, either the 115 mile or the 124 mile range, or whether you admit or deny the snow tires, you are killing the ZERO S range and getting 31% better range using a 25% smaller battery on a several year old bike that you say you drive daily and only charge after a week’s driving.  (CARE OF THE BIKE – I note that you say you run the bike down and only charge it once a week.  That is not good for the battery and will cut the life.  The bike should be charged often)

FIT AND FINISH – You say there are some plastic fitting issues and there is a gap
-- Is it not fair to note that you have crashed and or dumped the bike at least 3 times as noted from your emails?  Maybe it is time to order repair body parts?
--Is it not fair to note that you drive the bike year round with snow tires on it in Moscow Russia, renowned for crappy roads and weather as a daily driver?
--Should you also note that you volunteered to be a Beta Tester of first production in exchange for a whopping discount on the bike?  And you also got a free heated riding gear.  And you got a free rear rack system.  Sure, now you would like a Zero.  So you mean you bought the bike two years ago, and wish you had waited, not gotten any of the free stuff and the discount, and paid $6,000 more for a bike with 31% less range?

SERVICE SUCKS – You say that you got all of the service you needed when you needed it in the early life of the bike, but now you want a luggage rack and cannot get it.  -Why did you not also mention that Russia started a program to block all package shipments and the parts were returned?  How about that you want things sent to Latvia to avoid the Russian law, but when your rack was sent there, you refused to pick it up. You did not want to pay $30 of customs/duty, and wanted me to lie on the forms about the value?  Then requested that we eat the $360 of two way shipping, take it back, and set on it until you come to the USA this summer? 

Your last email swap of three emails with me was about a week before you made this posting, and after telling me to hold the parts, after you refused the shipment, why do you claim service sucks? 

You state that we refuse to answer emails.  There were several in the month before you made this post.  Your instructions about holding the rack and not shipping it was just before you posted your report.  So your statement is indisputably false.

Most importantly, you state that you “ordered the rear rack years ago as an extra”.  Better go look at your contract.  There was no order, there was no payment.  You got the rack for free.  The promise was that I would develop the rack and send you one as soon as we finished getting the first bike production finished and after designing and testing the rack for free.  You bought a rear top box only.  You never ever neither paid for a rack nor ordered it.  The FREE rack was sent to you, and you refused delivery.  We are still trying to recover it from Latvia for when you get to the USA. 

Should you mention that as part of the Beta test rider program we installed power plugs on the bike at no cost and shipped you electric heated riding gear in addition to the free rack and the big discount?  Does that suck also?
Let me know when you arrive in the USA.  After recovering the refused parts shipment from Latvia I will ship them to you.

The last time you wrote to me about the bike performance you wrote “The scooter is awesome and drives very well. Maintenance is minimal, price per charge also minimal.  These were really great trips I had”   Thanks for the information on your range.

[dhzehrbach]

PROTOMECH,
Thanks for the input.  You are onto one range factor when you mention fairings.  In regard to your comparison to the ZERO range and comment on a fairing, we just finished a years testing with meters on several bikes measuring power consumption.  To our surprise, we found that the ZEV T8500 and a new prototype motorcycle in testing, both naked motorcycle style like the ZERO, returned a consistent 17% higher watt hour consumption per mile in the 55 and 70 mph tests compared to the faired scooter bodies of the S Series and LRC.  This is one of the reasons that ZERO recently stated they intend to work on a fairing for the ZERO.  We found that the LRC does better than the S Series slightly which we believe is due to the length of the LRC and a sort of “tail” that aids streamlining.  Flat out on a flat road, when ran with the same motors, controllers, etc. , the LRC ekes out a bit of speed advantage on two bikes running side by side weighted to the same weight.

You are correct that the ZERO rider sets much higher and makes a bigger air dam for even more drag vs the ZEV T8500.  Not sure how much exactly, but I would figure another 2-3% giving about a 20% advantage to the ZEV in aero.

In addition to the fairings, there are a few other big differences in the designs that eat into range. 
--First is the belt drive on the ZERO.  Belts and chains do not transmit power without losses.  Estimates of power losses run as high as 12% at max load.  In constant speed power transmission 4% is considered the minimum losses.  The ZERO runs a very high reduction ratio.  Look at it from the side and you can see that the ratio between the front and rear sprocket is much higher that the ratio typically seen on a gas bike.  High ratios incur additional losses, but it would be pure speculation to guess what the effect might be.  The 4% is not just during power on, it is a loss in glide distance also.  Since ZEV runs a hub motor, we do not suffer those losses thus gaining in range. 
--Second- motor internal design.    ZEV runs 1200 rpm down the road at 80 mph, a ZERO is about 4300 rpm.  When you turn a motor at high rpm, you suffer internal windage losses.  The rotor in the ZERO is zinging in an enclosed space and creates pumping losses.  The ZEV uses big vent windows internally through the stator to minimize that effect.  This can be worth 4-5% depending on the motor.  Opening the  motor up with vents yielded 3.7% on a drag race motor we ran that was a non hub motor.  Works on piston engines the same.  My race car jumped 17 hp from porting vent holes between the cylinders in the main bearing support webs.  Newer car engines now generally do this.
--Torque lag occurs when the throttle response is not instantaneous and you are basically pouring the amps to the motor and waiting for it to rev up.  That “excess” amps used to reach a given speed where the amp draw will decline at constant load is a range killer.   Motor torque on a ZERO S is listed at 92 Nm.  Its 161 Nm on a T8500 or 220 Nmon the top ZEV motor.  But it’s not just that we have more than double the torque, it’s that we make that torque on only 150 amps.  So when you roll on the throttle on the ZERO, it takes time to gain rpm, and your using higher amps than to accelerate at the same rate.  Time X amps is lost watt hours and lost range.
--Efficiency curves are not the same for all electric motors.  How you wind them puts the torque and or the efficiency at a given rpm A ZERO S is listed as having a top speed of 95 mph, and a sustained speed of 80 mph.  We just set the torque by the motor windings to put the efficiency in the 55-70 mph band.  No reason to lose range to gain the ability to make a short run to 95 mph.  80/95 would indicate the torque band for testing for range at 70 mph is off by 15.7%. as a rough figure, and it would be more as the aero drag goes up exponentially with speed.  Rather like running your car in 4th instead of overdrive. 
--Motors are not the same flat efficiency throughout the rpm band.  While someone may state their motor is 87-90% efficient, that is at only one spot on the rpm and load band.  At top speed, motors are generally under 10% efficient.  So being 15.7% off on the matching of the motor efficiency point to the range measurement points of 55 and 70 mph will cost you dearly.  Moving the rpm band on a motor by 15% could cost you as much as 45% efficiency.  This is where I think the ZERO loses much of its at 55 mph range.  You just cannot make a highly efficient 55 mph machine that runs 95.
--Heat is the next factor.  As shown in some video on YouTube of the ZERO SR, two acceleration runs to 60 mph from a dead stop made the system register overheat and pull back the power when made in the max power mode.  Torque lag causes motor temperatures to soar.  So does running out of the efficiency band as for some 55 mph test.  Heat in a motor costs you power and efficiency.  Loses just soar.  The hub motor is spinning making its own fan.  It has more surface area to get rid of the heat.  It uses the wheel rim as a “cooling fin”.

Now take all of the factors above into account and you can see why the ZEV wins the range wars.  The 10 kw ZEV out distances the 12.5 kw ZERO consistently.

Now let’s take F3s results. 
First, he states he got 187 km range from the bike.  115 miles.  And he calculates that he could reach 124 miles.  So there is your proof period that his 115 miles or his 124 miles beats the  94 miles of the ZERO, or any of the other mileages that they list at any speed or combination of speed despite the fact that the ZERO has a 25% larger battery.  All of those efficiency factors just kill them.

So how did he get less than 140 miles?  First and foremost, he was not running in controlled circumstances as we or ZERO did.  He had varying speeds, roads, etc.
A major factor is he has snow tires on his bike according to his emails from me because he drives year round through Moscow Russia winters.  An article published on Tire Review discusses the cost saving benefits of fuel efficient tires. “Studies show that 20% to 30% of a vehicle’s fuel consumption and 24% of road vehicle CO2 emissions are tire-related.”  Mileage is significantly decreased with snow tires.”   So just putting on snow tires kills the range.  Anyone want to dispute that?  Know of any ZERO with snow tires on them?

I love the mileage F3 Dimitry got.  I think we will post it on the web site.  It just proves we kill everyone else in range (even with the snow tires).  So when you say "take the (ZEV) Dare to Compare with a grain of salt", remember this case. 31% better range than the ZERO on 25% less battery –while driving on snow tires (by Dimitry’s tests).   ZEV never makes a claim we cannot prove.  Too much low hanging fruit like this to point to without trying to create any truths or requiring a grain of salt. 

[f3flight]

Hi dhzehrbach,

I would like give a lengthy reply for your lengthy reply to make things clearer to both us and other members here whoever is interested.

Range. I do not use snow tires, I still use stock tires which were on the bike initially. But more importantly, range is not so important for me, as long as it is over ~ 150km. I am ok with the fact that I cannot achieve 225km because my bike i not fresh new, I do not ride with constant speed, etc. What I care about is that ZEV gives this figure, while 2015 ZERO S 12.5+powertank gives "298km city", where city should mean something closer to real world then driving with constant speed on flat ground. Even if we take their "227km combined" it it still higher and expected to be closer to real world. So it claims to provide more range then ZEV (now, not in 2013), so if choosing by this parameter I would go with ZERO now if I were to choose. I did not have that choice 2 years ago. Maybe it would not be wise for someone knowing how ZEROs really perform, but I am not saying I'm an expert here, just being an ordinary customer with some experience of ZEV LRC10 and no experience of ZERO. Yes, Zero is more expensive but not too much, 16540$ vs 13990$ for ZEV. Yes, I got a big discount for ZEV, but if I were to choose now I wouldn't have it so it wouldn't matter.

Care of the bike - you say I say I charge infrequently which is not good. The problem here is obvious and it is "definition". You have not defined "often" in user manual or anywhere else, it is not clear when I am supposed to stop riding. If it is on 50% battery and means I can only get 50% range otherwise "it will cut the life" then you should state so. Give figures. Like saying "range is 225km but this will cut the life, don't ride more than 150km or your bike will die soon(er)". Such things should be stated clearly and they aren't. My bike is not "several years old". I received it in November 2013, and covered ~ 4500km on it so far. Less than 2 years old and less than 100 charges. I know it wad built in early 2013 but still just above 2Y.

Fit and Finish. No, it is not fair and not relevant to note my crashes. The gaps and problems with front containers popping open were from day 1, I have discussed this with you back then. No, I do not wear snow tires. Yes, roads are crappy, but this is not relevant to gaps and container locks not holding when on good roads. I am ok when something pops open on a bad road, but not when it does so on a tiny bump on a good road. I am not sure how beta test discount is relevant to "fit and finish". If discount means worse fit, worse body parts, etc then you should have informed me beforehand, which you did not. I do not see how other stuff is relevant here (heated jacket, etc). This is for Service section I guess. Finally - yes, I mean that if I were to choose now, with my experience of ZEV and no experience of ZERO I would pay extra 2500-3000$ (since there would be no beta program now for ZEV) for ZERO which has built-in charger, better finish, better weather protection (at first glance) and MORE range, not less. I am not stating in any way that I got bad quality for money. I only state that quality was lower then I expected. Remember this is my first motorized transport, I did not know what to expect for given money, so I had build quality expectation of something like Yamaha T-Max.

Service sucks. I did not state it like this. My statement is more like "service sometimes sucks". My complaint is mainly about luggage rack issue. The issue comes from lack of communication from your side. You did not send luggage rack to Russia which was returned, that was the charger, I am not complaining about that case. Yes, I refused to pick up rack when it was in Latvia. Why? Because I have sent you in clear text the requirements for such shipment, and you did not follow the declared price part, which has caused issues. If lying on the forms was not right for you you should have informed me and I then would rearrange delivery dates at least, or waited until I would be in USA. Not informing me about you not following my instruction would cause me to pay way above 30$ - it would have cost me over 100€ if I were to receive the package. I do not feel right to pay 100€ for something which was intended as free. You see, if I were buying this part, I would be ok with this extra customs price - which would be less because I would know about your declared value and would ask you to send the package on a different date - when there would be someone in Latvia to pick it up fast, or again, waited until my USA trip. I am not ok with this amount when I am supposed to get it for free. Emails - prior to the arrangement of the latest shipment I have sent you at least 5 emails with questions about rack - either you ignored that part in my emails and replied with answers to other questions but not that one, or you did not answer at all. I have sent you emails for almost a year (or more) asking about this. This is the only question which was ignored by you, and ignored many times, like I did not ask at all. Any answer would have been ok, but I got zilch. There was one time when you said it was ready to be sent, then you said there are still issues with it and then there was long silence period.

Order of rack. Please remember this is the first time I buy a bike. It was SO OBVIOUS for me that IF I order luggage box IT MEANS i will be able to attach it, it did not occur to me at all that I need to buy an extra part to do this. AND you did not tell me about it UNTIL I have received the bike and found out I cannot use the box, and emailed you about it - then you said that the mount is not ready. This is lack of communication, again. And not fair from my point of view. "You bought a box only". Yeah right, like saying "You bought the bike, you did not buy a seat, seat is an additional part". Why buy a box without the mount? Maybe I'm an idiot? Is that what you thought of me when selling me the box without the mount? Or did you expect me to use it at home or tie it to the seat with some duct tape? You have not informed me that I would not be able to attach it. If you had, I would not have ordered the box at all!

So all the other stuff you wrote in the end is not relevant. Discount is great, free stuff is great. I am not complaining about this. My complaint was about situation with luggage rack which really sucks 200%. Good things do not negate bad things. At least not from my point of view.

Thank you for understanding, I hope this reply makes things clearer and lets you see that there was nothing untruthful in my posts.

[dhzehrbach]

Dimitry

As to using snow tires, I can only go by your emails to me that you were buying Michelin snow tires.  I cannot know what you did, only what you told me you were going to do.

As to range of a ZEV vs a Zero , you do not understand what you are writing about.  If you are going to quote ranges and specs, make it an apples and apples test vs test.  We do not publish the City test you quote on the Zero for the ZEV because the tests are so misleading to would be customers to the point of being a joke.

Go to the Zero page  http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/zero-s/specs.php    The ZEV 140 mile / 225 range is at a steady 55 mph, flat land as per the same tests ZERO uses for their 55 mile range.  Using the exact same test, the ZERO advertises 115 miles / 185 km.  So by the ZERO web site, they advertise that under the same test, they get 40 less km range than a ZEV.  You understand that?  Less range claimed by Zero in the same government tests.

So  you can see that in the 55 mph test, ZEV beats the ZERO, even with its power tank, by 25 miles / 40 km.   A 15.3 kw Power Pack gets beaten by a 10 kw ZEV.
Now you say that you believe that the 298 km range of the Zero in City test should be real world, and not a 55 mph flat land test.  You could not be more wrong as follows.

You quoted the  298 km range of the ZERO in the “city” driving test.  Click on the ? behind the word city and you will get  “A “City” range test is specified to determine riding range during “stop-and-go” operation typically found in urban areas. This estimate is provided following the SAE J2982 Riding Range Test Procedure for On-Highway Electric Motorcycles to provide a reasonable and consistent basis for manufacturers to inform prospective owners of the riding range that can be expected under specified operating conditions. Actual range will vary based upon riding conditions and habits.”

So now you need to look up the SAE J2982 test.  Go to http://www.mic.org/downloads/MIC-recommended-practice-riding-range-test-procedure-for-on-hwy-electric-motorcycles-042412.pdf   But then you see that you have to go to http://www.epa.gov/oms/standards/light-duty/udds.htm 

What you learn is that
•   This test is not driven on a road at all by an actual rider.
•   This is not a road test.   
•   It is run on a dyno with no rider weight, no aerodynamic factors, etc.  The throttle is not even used by a person, it is slaved to a computer.
•   The speed used is 19.59 mph / 31.5 kmh
•   The test sequence is for 7.45 miles / 12 km (and repeated until the bike shuts off)
•   No braking is ever done

This is why there is the giant jump in the ZERO specs from the 55 mph test results to the City test results of a factor 1.6
But you are really focused on the City number that we do not advertise because of its misleading nature.    You want apples and apples.  So the ZEV results for the City test is 245 miles, 395 km.  So in City test vs City test, we beat the Zero by 97 km.  97 km Dimitry.  The higher torque at lower rpm of the ZEV gives us an advantage in this type of test. 
Since all of these tests are done at EPA facilities and or under controlled circumstances, there is no funny business by either company. 
As to a complaint that the storage lids coming open as being your fit and finish issue, I would assume that part of that is cold weather shrinking the plastic.  But regardless, in your rear rack package that was not picked up are a set of parts to lock the lids to fix your issue.
Since you are willing to spend another $6,000 to get less range, perhaps you would like to use some of that fix your wish list.  If you want more range than you already have, perhaps you should consider a Range Pack for the ZEV that can fit in the under seat compartment. 
Your rear rack was returned from Latvia and is laying here waiting for you to tell us where you want it sent as per previous email to you.  I am waiting for your instructions.

[Burton]

So happy to see manufactures actually responding on this forum I to wish the range tests were more transparent if only so my spreadsheets can be updated for theoretical range tests. I am left to get my own numbers and work from there but it is hard to find flat surfaces where I am at.

That said I would love to see a ZEV in a full Vetter streamline kit. I bet you the range would increase dramatically over your previous test.