Print

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

[Richard230]

I am still in the larger battery camp because where I ride there are no public charging stations, not even Level 1 outlets.

Regarding windshields: not even BMW (with all of their engineers and access to a wind tunnel) can make good ones.  I can't recall a single BMW model made during the past 20 years that had a windshield that their owners didn't say sucked and wanted to immediately replace with an after market windshield.  Soon about 10 companies would make replacement windshields and good luck getting a consensus by owners on which one worked best.     Windshields are as tough to design as comfortable seats.     But that doesn't mean that Zero shouldn't give it a try.  I hope they are successful. Any new Zero that I will buy will be getting a windshield and a rear luggage rack and top box before it leaves the dealership.   

[Electric Terry]

Anyone remember a show that used to be on TV called CHiPs?  If the shows producers thought a large windshield didn't look good, I'm sure they would have made special ones a few inches shorter, even if the big ones were the ones the real highway patrol was using.  And I don't think a single viewer stopped watching the show because the bikes had big windshields lol.  I'm pretty sure they came high enough that you look just over them by a few inches. 

I thought they sort of set the standard that a large windshield was both practical and cool.  I don't know too many people that enjoy being hit in the neck with rain, bugs, sand on a windy day, and little pebbles thrown up from the tires of the cars ahead.  Then again the Harley crowd seems to value how they look vs what seems to make logical sense.  I don't know too many Harley riders that even wear full face helmets.  I sort of place Zero riders in a slightly higher bracket of rational thinking and practicality vs just image.  But who knows. 

Let me see if I can dig up a picture of Ponch and Jon riding...

[MrDude_1]

I don't think a single viewer stopped watching the show because the bikes had big windshields lol.

wow! I didnt know people in the 70s judged shows based off of how the windshields of bikes looked!

[Erasmo]

I am still in the larger battery camp because where I ride there are no public charging stations, not even Level 1 outlets.

Regarding windshields: not even BMW (with all of their engineers and access to a wind tunnel) can make good ones.  I can't recall a single BMW model made during the past 20 years that had a windshield that their owners didn't say sucked and wanted to immediately replace with an after market windshield.  Soon about 10 companies would make replacement windshields and good luck getting a consensus by owners on which one worked best.     Windshields are as tough to design as comfortable seats.     But that doesn't mean that Zero shouldn't give it a try.  I hope they are successful. Any new Zero that I will buy will be getting a windshield and a rear luggage rack and top box before it leaves the dealership.   

Why not both?

I liked the factory windshield on my K75RT, it kept the wind above my head and I am not the shortest with 190cm.

[Electric Terry]

I don't think a single viewer stopped watching the show because the bikes had big windshields lol.

wow! I didnt know people in the 70s judged shows based off of how the windshields of bikes looked!

Yeah you didn't know that

You might be right.  Lots of people don't pay attention to how things look.  I'm sure most people tuned into Baywatch because they liked the plot and acting. 

in all seriousness though, just making a point that a big curved windshield could help increase range and rider protection, and that whether people realized it or not, many of us watched a TV show and probably never even thought about how big the windshields were.  Why?  Because it looked just fine.  No one was talking about it looking abnormal.  So why are the windshields today so tiny?

I remember in 2013 talking to Ben Rich, who is on this forum, is a science educator and teacher, who must value logic and reason, and I remember him talking to Craig Vetter about how important it was that his bike looked cool to his peers first and function well second.  So surely he can not be the only one that thinks this way.  Since when did practical and efficient not look cool?  How did it get this way?  How do we fix it? 

If the biggest Hollywood actors rode around Zero's with huge aerodynamic windshields or fairings designed for a low coefficient of drag instead of to conform to FIM racing rules do you think opinions would change? 

If you took a picture of a naked streetbike, a supersport bike, and an aerodynamic streamlined motorcycle image and went back in time to philosophers and artists in the Reniassance, which image do you think they all would like best?

Exactly!

My point is it is probably racing and wanting to look like racers on TV that has changed the image of what we think looks best, when in reality, without outside influence, the shape that truly looks best to us naturally is the one that is most efficient.

So, Richard230 above says he is in the camp of wanting more battery vs charging, but I think what he really means is he wants more range.  If that can be done with aerodynamics easier than trying to fit another 16 kWh on a bike to have 32 kWh total, I can promise it will be easier and less expensive, heavy, etc.  Can you imagine a motorcycle with 32 kWh on it?  To get 200 miles highway range you will need it.  Or aerodynamics on a current 16 kWh bike could do the same 200 highway miles. 

No one is going to mass produce an efficient fairing when lots of people don't want to look that way.  It's just frustrating to me that people that own electric motorcycles don't want them to go as far as they can on a charge and there is so much difference in opinion.  Maybe one day that will change.

Sorry for the rant.  I just am close to this issue.  I rode around on the Vetter motorcycle for 50,000 miles and not once did anyone say they didn't like how it looked.  Yet I would hear Zero owners like Ben say they liked my bike but didn't want to look that way themselves.  This is what was so confusing to me.  Where did this worry and concern about how it looks come from?  I just want the bikes to be as efficient as they can be.  And the first thing would be to go down the highway using 80 watt hours per mile instead of 160.

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

They call this "larger"... It looks tiny! Good for warm weather, but for commute and cold I'd want something that would cover a 6'4" rider properly without ducking ridiculously low.

This is an obvious improvement on their part, but has minimal risk (it's an MRA windscreen, again). My spoiler-enhanced version of the commuter windscreen is fairly effective, but longer windscreen dimensions test the limit of the mount. The spoiler install I did does wobble in the wind a bit even after I reinforced the mounting.

Also, I still crouch forward at highway speeds to get out of the airstream, which is not ergonomic.

For this reason, I'm glad I kept moving forward, with the Parabellum involved in my current iteration, but that means I'm doing more research about structural mounting points and positioning than average.

[protomech]

I remember in 2013 talking to Ben Rich, who is on this forum, is a science educator and teacher, who must value logic and reason, and I remember him talking to Craig Vetter about how important it was that his bike looked cool to his peers first and function well second.  So surely he can not be the only one that thinks this way.  Since when did practical and efficient not look cool?  How did it get this way?  How do we fix it?

Everyone has their own preferences at any given time. What is practical for you may not be practical for me today, but may be practical tomorrow.

Aero treatments - whether large windshields, sportbike fairings, streamlined fairings, or full cabin enclosures - have a price. That price can be weight, cost, added bulk / length, tinkerer requirements, appearance, cross-wind susceptibility, lowered visual profile for the feet-forward bikes, or even the perception of any of the above.

A lightweight, full cabin enclosure would be more efficient than the open configuration of the LVF. Think Cedric Lynch's cabin bike .. or Monotracer, or Lit C1. Yes, they are more vulnerable to side winds. Yes, there are no production cabin bikes today (or production LVF). But .. the world isn't exactly beating down the door of the cabin bike manufacturers either. They erode part of what distinguishes a bike from a car.

And while 100 Wh/mile @ 70 mph is cool, wouldn't the 25 Wh/mile (@60 mph) for Lynch's cabin bike be cooler? That'd be 4x the effective charge rate from a power-limited AC supply!

Everyone that stops short of turning their motorcycle into a recumbent faired bicycle or a fully prone solar racer hits a point where they say "good enough". And maybe not even then. The question is at where you stop, and why.

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

My point is it is probably racing and wanting to look like racers on TV that has changed the image of what we think looks best, when in reality, without outside influence, the shape that truly looks best to us naturally is the one that is most efficient.

So, Richard230 above says he is in the camp of wanting more battery vs charging, but I think what he really means is he wants more range.  If that can be done with aerodynamics easier than trying to fit another 16 kWh on a bike to have 32 kWh total, I can promise it will be easier and less expensive, heavy, etc.  Can you imagine a motorcycle with 32 kWh on it?  To get 200 miles highway range you will need it.  Or aerodynamics on a current 16 kWh bike could do the same 200 highway miles. 

No one is going to mass produce an efficient fairing when lots of people don't want to look that way.  It's just frustrating to me that people that own electric motorcycles don't want them to go as far as they can on a charge and there is so much difference in opinion.  Maybe one day that will change.

Sorry for the rant.  I just am close to this issue.  I rode around on the Vetter motorcycle for 50,000 miles and not once did anyone say they didn't like how it looked.  Yet I would hear Zero owners like Ben say they liked my bike but didn't want to look that way themselves.  This is what was so confusing to me.  Where did this worry and concern about how it looks come from?  I just want the bikes to be as efficient as they can be.  And the first thing would be to go down the highway using 80 watt hours per mile instead of 160.

We need this rant; it's food for thought. It must be really difficult to do something really bold and have to wait to see it materialize for others, when we're finally technically capable of making long-distance travel reachable for electric motorcycles.


I'm reminded of Brandon's initial marketing poll about what we'd pay for a 1-hour charger. Many (myself included) underestimated what they'd be willing to pay. And I have to admit pausing to consider (for a minute!) the commitment involved before I put down money, but I also got to witness it in action first. It's difficult to believe something like this from afar! One thing that works about DigiNow's offer is building on/with eMotorWerks' engineering.


Fully efficient fairings must have a similar adoption hurdle, but a full fairing isn't just a box you can place somewhere and then use. You're pointing out the very heavy problem of image, but I think that disappears once someone [credibly] shows an option you can put money down for.


I'm sure that if someone took a 3/4 or dustbin fairing, and literally listed the parts required to solidly mount it on a modern Zero, a few dozen people would put money on the table to get it, and that's for the 30% reduction in highway power consumption, not the golden 50%.


I don't think the 30% design is what to aim for, but it certainly feels more realistic to assemble and acquire, and personally I can deal with 30% if it gets me on the road this year comfortably. We've all seen your work, and it's amazing, but it's also a level of involvement similar to assembling one's own kit plane. [It's obviously much simpler but it doesn't seem like Vetter's last fairing comes with set plans to follow for a Zero, especially watching Burton's progress.]


I'll also admit that it's daunting to commit to a strategy that doesn't allow for a passenger; I might cross the country alone but want enjoyable day trips with my girlfriend as well, or know that I can navigate around town with a lot of bulk. I don't want to pile onto doubts but just express the concerns that keep me from commitment.


So, what can we do to maintain progress? How do we get good fairings onto more bikes out in the wild? I don't feel like we all have to shout in unison for the exact same design constraints in order to get some company with experience to package up the Vetter or similar design for a Zero. I feel that if a credible company puts effort into it, more will adopt it than would have expected to - no one wants to miss out.

[LeftieBiker]

   In my case, and I think a lot of other cases, the issue isn't how a fairing looks, or what other people think of them. It's an unwillingness to have to duck down behind a sportbike-type fairing, or deal with the substantial extra weight high up of a Vetter-type fairing. A clear or mostly clear Plexistar-type fairing that protected me from wind *while upright* and also increased range, all without weighing enough to make an already heavy-feeling SR even heavier, that would be just fine with me. I used a big quick-remove Plexistar on my Madura 1200 in the Nineties, and while I took it off in hotter weather because it lowered high speed performance a lot, I loved it the rest of the year. Something that combined the protection of that, with less drag instead of more, would be fantastic.

[Justin Andrews]

Well you can still get the old dustbin style fairings.

http://www.airtech-streamlining.com/vintage/vintagefairingsdustbin.htm

[Richard230]

I am all for aerodynamic streamlining, I just don't think the motorcycle market will support that trend with sales.  For whatever reason, motorcycle buyers are very conservative in their buying tastes.  Note the current sales trend in the "retro" styling.  No aerodynamics there.    

Regarding small stock windshields, most motorcycle customers who complain about the windshield that cane with their bikes from the factory, say they are too small and typically purchase larger windshields made by aftermarket suppliers.  My guess is that stock windshields are usually somewhat tiny because it saves the motorcycle manufacturer a few bucks on every shield.  And a penny saved is a penny earned (for the stockholders).   

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

Well you can still get the old dustbin style fairings.

http://www.airtech-streamlining.com/vintage/vintagefairingsdustbin.htm

Yes, and I'm explicitly considering them. What I'm saying is that there needs to be a known fitment for there to be sales. Asking every buyer to invent a mount is what prevents adoption.

[Doug S]

I am all for aerodynamic streamlining, I just don't think the motorcycle market will support that trend with sales...Note the current sales trend in the "retro" styling.

I'm very much of two minds regarding fairings. I absolutely love the current "retro" bikes; to my eye, the new Norton Commando is simply beyond stunning. I'd never consider hiding a bike like that under any type of fairing whatsoever. Even a bikini fairing would completely destroy the look of that bike. Naked is the only way for a work of art like that.

But for whatever reason, my SR has a very different appeal to me. It's far less of an aesthetic appeal and far more of a "real world transportation solution" appeal. It sounds kind of sad to write it that way, but it's not sad at all to me -- I picked the SR over every other bike, including the Norton, and couldn't be happier with my decision. Maybe I'm just getting more practical in my old age, but for whatever reason it's about reality for me these days, not image.

So for the SR, I'm all about a full-on, highly efficient aerodynamic solution. The rewards of range improvement are so valuable to an EV that I'm not just ready for it, I want it. Even if it's "aesthetically challenged" I wouldn't really consider it ugly since it would possess that kind of highly functional beauty many extremely efficient designs have. My only reservation would be about the full whale tail true streamliners have -- I just couldn't get that in my carport, let alone trying to back it out. Practically speaking, that tail just is too much of a sacrifice for me. But other than that, bring on the ugly!

[Erasmo]

Airtech is located in Vista about 160 km from Hollywood Electrics and if I'm right there are some members living near them. Oneway from HE to Airtech is do-able without a charging stop.

[Doug S]

Airtech is located in Vista about 160 km from Hollywood Electrics and if I'm right there are some members living near them. Oneway from HE to Airtech is do-able without a charging stop.

Holy crap that's less than 40 miles from me. Email time.