ElectricMotorcycleForum.com
Makes And Models => Energica => Topic started by: DonTom on November 22, 2019, 02:39:23 AM
-
Look what happens with their own specs with the new battery.
The 13.4 KWH battery range is 124 city, 100 combined, 80 freeway.
The new 21.5 KWH is 249, 143 and 112 miles.
That is in percentage of range improvement as 100%, 43% & 40% increase with the new battery.
I assume the 80/112 freeway miles is at 65 MPH.
I assume at 80 MPH, both batteries could have around the exact same range.
At 100 MPH, perhaps our old battery has a better range than the new.
That's why I would like to see a chart on each, like Tesla has. I know my Tesla Model 3 gets 420 miles of range at 38 MPH, 320 at 65 MPH. etc.
With the new battery, I expect the nominal KWH reduces a lot more with load than does our old battery. I have explained before, with batteries, a KWH is NOT always a KWH when the load changes. They could rate them where the KWH give the very best numbers.
The big advantage of the newer battery is at slower speeds, where the range doubles. As the speed increases, it looks like the difference becomes less and less between the new and old battery by Energia's own range specs.
If going fast enough, is it possible that the older battery gives better range than the new? I kinda assume such is possible, say at above 100 MPH. Can somebody here explain if such is really possible?
-Don- in rainy Payson, AZ (RV)
-
I'll hazard a guess from this, that internal resistance on the new battery has a different (steeper or more quadratic/exponential, say) curve on load current than before, unless weight and girth somehow changed enough to warrant that efficiency loss.
Remember that P(lost) = I²R(internal), and R(internal) for a battery can be non-constant per current, so there might be a surprising (cubed-ish) effect out of what seems like a subtle curve change.
Now, since Energica proved this technology through racing, the hypothetical thermal effects I'm inferring would be fine or within parameters. After all, cooling by airflow and the internal coolant loop at speed is probably the easiest.
But the increased voltage droop at the battery terminals that determines what the controller has to work with is the supposed consequence that would explain the figures.
It's possible that internal resistance while charging is different, but I hesitate to speculate, and the larger battery benefits from having a lower C-rate for a given amount of current flowing into the pack (distributing current across more Ah-capacity cells, which is what such a breakthrough is for).
-
Now, since Energica proved this technology through racing,
Which probably means the battery is designed more for racing (a heavier load but for a shorter time).
The real test will have to wait to see how much range improvement riders get at the higher speeds in the real world. Some may be disappointed at higher freeway speeds, based on some of the range data released already.
The 21.5 (18.9) KWH battery has a rating of 62% better than the 13.4 (11.7) KWH battery but only has a 40% better range on the freeway. If at higher than legal speeds, it is most likely even lower than that 40%-perhaps by quite a bit.
-Don- in Rainy Payson, AZ (RV)
-
Remember, batteries like discharging slower. So it's nearly always going to be that raising the battery size will not give a linear increase at maximum output. At some speed the increase is the same as the size increase - above that, it's less, below that, it's more.
But nowhere really should the bigger battery not still go further than the smaller one. It's a curve.
-Crissa
-
Increasing the battery size reduces the C rate of discharge for a given power demand. So the cells should be under less load / current for a given speed, because this battery upgrade mostly only changes the mass of the bike, not its drag.
That’s why the figures are worth considering to be an indication of the cell performance having changed in relation to the discharge rate.
The low speed range improvement is proportional to the capacity change. At high speeds, that diminishes. The capacity change isn’t matched by a demand change, so there’s something about how that is delivered that has a new loss.
-
But nowhere really should the bigger battery not still go further than the smaller one. It's a curve.
-Crissa
You need to define "bigger". There are so many possible variables when they can rate the new lighter (smaller?) battery in various ways.
Sometimes NO rating is more meaningful than the rating. Take the batteries in this RV, for the house section, for an example. True deep cycle (NOT marine deep cycle). A CCA or a MCA rating means the battery is too cheap to use for a decent house RV battery. No fast discharge rating at all usually means its a good battery for very low currents for a very long time (the opposite of an engine starting battery) such as for the 12 volt house lights. However, it can still be used to start an engine, but won't last long under such use. Same if an engine starting battery is used for the house battery.
There is also something called RC or "Reserve Capacity". That means the AH spec where the battery is expected to be used the most. That stops most of the cheating with the specs when batteries are compared across brands.
I tend to think many other batteries often cheat with their specs by rating the battery where they get the very best numbers for KWH even if the battery is not expected to be used in that load range.
Energica's own range specs show that 60% more KWH can only give 40% more range at higher speeds. However, that same 60% KWH increase also gives 100% better range at slower speeds.
I just wish it were the opposite. I like the Energica for the freeways and faster roads and the Zeros for the mountains and in town stuff.
It's the freeway range I want to see increased the most on the Energica.
-Don- in rainy Payson, AZ (RV)
-
Right, and no matter how you make a battery contain more, no battery known to man will not have a curve where it performs longer (more watts) at lower amperage load than at a higher one. (well, there's a small point where the load is below natural discharge, but that doesn't really count.)
You always end up with a curve. Maybe we'll have batteries some day that discharge evenly at the high load needed for highway... But they'll still probably be super-efficient at lower loads/speeds.
-Crissa
-
Well, if Energica actually invested in highway aerodynamics, it would benefit better from the pack capacity increase, assuming these hypotheses hold up. But that’s not their market or in their interest. So we’re stuck paying for fast charging on a battery with a warranty too short for touring, or dealing with competitors’ limitations. Either option is valid, but not fully satisfying.
-
The aerodynamics at high speed riding is the range killer. It's basically 4X the energy for 2X the speed. The air starts to stack up in front of you becoming more dense and requires more energy to over come it. Same for gas powered or even man powered.
But the first thing you have to do is change to whole motorcycle into a low recumbent style and then enclose the whole thing in an aerodynamic pod if you want to take the concept to fruition. Anything else will pale in comparison.
Like this but electric motorcycle of course.
http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/hill/RobWoodInFairing.jpg
When I was still racing bicycles there was a guy who would go on the training rides on a recumbent bike and he could keep up at the back of the pack even though he wasn't in nearly as good of shape as the rest of us. He would try to get us to buy one (from him) and tell us, just think how fast you guys could go on this bike. Of course there were no takers, but it was a more aerodynamic ride.
-
Y’all ready for a little Occam’s Razor?
“Maybe the 80 miles at highway speed on the 13.4 pack is unrealistic and it’s closer to 65 miles.â€
-
If the old statistic is unrealistic, then so would the new statistic be unrealistic, per Occam's Razor.
Let's not talk aero here. We're just trying to understand how this pack works.
-
Mvetter, yeah it does work both ways, no reason to trust one set of figures by the company and not the other. I know the company numbers are the "most optimum" specs and my results may vary.
Well, if Energica actually invested in highway aerodynamics, it would benefit better from the pack capacity increase, assuming these hypotheses hold up. But that’s not their market or in their interest. So we’re stuck paying for fast charging on a battery with a warranty too short for touring, or dealing with competitors’ limitations. Either option is valid, but not fully satisfying.
Brian on one hand I agree aerodynamics are a method to get more range. You bring it up often. My point is where would you have a company take the aerodynamic design to? Sport bike fairings without the stylish air scoops and angles? Any fairings for an upright motorcycle are a band aid on an ax wound.
To get real improvements in energy use you have to get low. The problem is people don't want to get low.
As for the battery numbers, they are a similar curve to a Zero SR with and without a power tank. A claimed 40 mile increase in the city but only a claimed 20 mile increase at 70 MPH. Rider weight and road conditions being equal, the Zero can go farther on every kWh of battery due to it being a 150ish pound lighter motorcycle.
I hope to see some real world reviews and rides of the new battery powered bikes and take some averages from there. In the end I do have no doubt it will be an improvement over the old batteries and would be a great improvement at the slower speeds of city and back road riding.
-
The 13.4 KWH battery range is 124 city, 100 combined, 80 freeway.
The new 21.5 KWH is 249, 143 and 112 miles.
Question for the current Energica owners: In which of those 3 categories would your range fall exclusively on twisties? Here in Austria there are lots of mountain roads, most of those with a 100 km/h legal limit. Just wondering what to expect...
-
Question for the current Energica owners: In which of those 3 categories would your range fall exclusively on twisties? Here in Austria there are lots of mountain roads, most of those with a 100 km/h legal limit. Just wondering what to expect...
Expect a bit better than "combined". Sometimes a lot better, because there is usually a lot of regen. Almost as good as city at times.
My experience with electric bikes in the curvy hilly paved roads around Auburn, CA show excellent range.
-Don- Payson, AZ (RV)
-
It makes a lot of sense the 80 mile range is an old number they published and never corrected, and the 112 mile range is what they're actually getting now. Simple question:
Has anyone gone 80 miles at 70mph on a charge? I haven't. I'd say it's closer to 65-70.
-
Has anyone gone 80 miles at 70mph on a charge? I haven't. I'd say it's closer to 65-70.
I never ran mine down to zero. And even at a 0% SOC, there are probably still several miles left. Hard to say what the range is on any electric bike. Too many variables, IMO.
Go downhill far enough with the wind behind you and you will probably get the 80 miles at 70 MPH on a warm day. :)
I get range anxiety at 20% SOC left in most areas. Ever get below 0 SOC on yours?
-Don- in sunny clear Payson, AZ (RV)
-
I've gotten it down to 2% before. Brandon has gone to 0% but no surprise there.
-
Several of us have gone to 0, and no, there aren't necessarily any miles left. It's not like a gas tank indicator that way. In fact, some of us had the experience of being at a few percent left, a sudden jump to 0, and stopping dead.
Then again, that experience was a few firmware changes ago. But I wouldn't make any assumptions down in the very low percentage range.
-
MVetter,
At 70 MPH the range of an Eva is about 55 miles. I have friends in Knoxville, TN who live about a mile or so from I-40. Left there house at 100%. Got on I-40E and kept a steady 70 MPH. Pulled off for a DCFC at 40 miles, remaining estimated range was about 15 miles.
I have went 80 miles before on a single charge but average speed was low.
-
Lending more credence to my simple explanation.
-
Only if the new numbers are right.
Which we just don't know yet.
Ultrarnr glad to see you get in on this. Any chance your going to upgrade or wait a bit?
-
NEW2elec,
Yes I am definitely planning on upgrading. Last year when traction control came out I really wanted it but overall it wasn't worth it by itself. The increase in battery size it pretty hard to ignore. EA has put in a lot of chargers on the east coast and in some cases the increased battery size means you can ride on the interstate instead of taking side roads at a much slower speed. It would also be awesome going out to western NC but that is being countered by Greenlots shutting down most of their DCFC in North Carolina.
-
Cool, another Eva I'm guessing. I keep waiting for Walmart to start putting DC stations or any stations in down here like they have in other parts of the country.
Looking at the Plugshare map I did see one Harley dealer has one so they must be a Livewire dealer.
Let us know how it goes. You've been a customer for quite a while now you should be able to have your name at the top of the waiting list.
-
The increase in battery size it pretty hard to ignore.
But IMO, it's not clear if it's a real increase at higher freeway speeds.
What I see in the specs is that there is a larger gain of going slower than there was before. The difference at 80 MPH on the new battery and old is far from being clear. I do not doubt the big increase of low speed range. But I like my SS9 for higher speeds and there is it not real clear how large of an improvement (if any) the new battery is.
After the new battery becomes commonly used on the road, I will be checking here to see what the increase really is in freeway range (above 70 MPH). If it is really a reasonable increase, I too will be looking for an upgrade. I really do NOT care about the low speed range of the SS9, and that is where it is a 100% increase by their specs. My SS9 is mainly for the freeways. I use the Zeros for slower stuff.
Also, the older battery charges a little faster than the new.
I will wait until the bike with the new battery is common on the road before making any decisions.
-Don- Payson, AZ (RV)
-
Don't worry, friends. We'll report everything we find as soon as we get our grubby mitts on one, but it will be after IMS NY.
-
Don't worry, friends. We'll report everything we find as soon as we get our grubby mitts on one, but it will be after IMS NY.
What I want to see is BOTH bikes take the same trip at the same high speed (75-80 MPH) and see what happens when the SOC gets below 5% on one and then compare. Even better would be if they can both be ran until totally dead after a full charge.
-Don- In sunny warm Payson, AZ (RV)
-
Can do
-
Hey don't stop there. Do like they do in horse racing. Weigh the riders with their gear and add weight to the lighter guys so it's as even as can be.
Now throw a Zero SRF 14.4 in the mix and a SR with a power tank. Add a Live Wire if you can.
Oh and a Strike too. ;D LOL
But seriously I'd love to see the results in the real world. It would show a snap shot in time and advancement of electric motorcycles.
Show it from the owners and not "motorcycle journalists" who get the specs wrong every time.
A gentleman's agreement of upright riding and only windscreens offered by the company can be used everything else stock. Maybe until the bike's range shows 10 miles left for safety's sake.
A quiet rolling group of guys bringing in a new day.
-
Yeah, put water bottles in the lighter guy's jacket, and then swap guys and do the trip again so we can average it. ^-^
-Crissa
-
It makes a lot of sense the 80 mile range is an old number they published and never corrected, and the 112 mile range is what they're actually getting now. Simple question:
Has anyone gone 80 miles at 70mph on a charge? I haven't. I'd say it's closer to 65-70.
I would agree with that. I am 60-70 depending on temp and terrain.
-
I was just looking at the CCS fast charging spec comparison between the two batteries.
The 21.5/ /18.9 KWH battery is 61% more capacity in KWHs than the 13.4/11.7 KWH battery by Energica's own numbers.
However, the charge time is DOUBLE (100%) more.
And the new battery is obviously only 40% more in capacity at the higher speeds, however, is really double capacity at the slow city speeds, when we ignore the KWH ratings.
But the charge time is exactly double when charging to 85% SOC.
Energica's own spec for the CCS charge times are "0 to 85% SOC 20 Min" for the 13.4/11.7 KWH battery and 40 min for the 21.5/ /18.9 KWH battery.
This means that you get the same miles added per minute charge at slow speeds, but much less than that if riding at higher speeds when compared to the 13.4/11.7 KWH battery.
IOW, an average of more miles added per minute charge on the older battery.
So if they both charge at 26 KWH max, it seems the older battery is more efficient than the new.
-Don- Auburn, CA
-
I was just looking at the CCS fast charging spec comparison between the two batteries.
The 21.5/ /18.9 KWH battery is 61% more capacity in KWHs than the 13.4/11.7 KWH battery by Energica's own numbers.
However, the charge time is DOUBLE (100%) more.
And the new battery is obviously only 40% more in capacity at the higher speeds, however, is really double capacity at the slow city speeds, when we ignore the KWH ratings.
But the charge time is exactly double when charging to 85% SOC.
Energica's own spec for the CCS charge times are "0 to 85% SOC 20 Min" for the 13.4/11.7 KWH battery and 40 min for the 21.5/ /18.9 KWH battery.
This means that you get the same miles added per minute charge at slow speeds, but much less than that if riding at higher speeds when compared to the 13.4/11.7 KWH battery.
IOW, an average of more miles added per minute charge on the older battery.
So if they both charge at 26 KWH max, it seems the older battery is more efficient than the new.
-Don- Auburn, CA
Well, the new battery is already smaller and lighter (at least for the same capacity) than the old one, I hadn't expected it to ALSO be more efficient.
We need some room for improvement for the next generations, right? ;)
-
Well, the new battery is already smaller and lighter (at least for the same capacity) than the old one, I hadn't expected it to ALSO be more efficient.
We need some room for improvement for the next generations, right? ;)
Well, the only reason the new battery is lighter is because the older battery was over-engineered with almost 30 lbs of extra casting that Energica decided later wasn't necessary. The cells in the new battery are a different type, but they weight about the same as the older cells.
Yeah, we need room for improvements but I will most likely be dead before any major improvements. It kinda looks like to me the new battery technology has some trade-offs. One would think a larger capacity battery would charge in proportion to its KWH rating. By Energica's own specs, the new battery is a bit longer to charge for the same distance, unless riding very slow.
-Don- Auburn, CA
-
One would think a larger capacity battery would charge in proportion to its KWH rating.
Why would one think that? They're two very different things, both dependent on the exact chemistry of a Li-ion cell. My personal favorite Li-ion chemistry is LiFePO4, which can be charged and discharged with essentially no limit on current -- they're EXTREMELY rugged, with extremely low equivalent resistance. In addition, they can tolerate far higher temperatures than any other Li-ion formulation, and don't have any toxic elements in them at all. The only reason they're not used very often is because they have only half the energy density of some chemistries containing nickel, cobalt and/or manganese.
-
Why would one think that? They're two very different things, both dependent on the exact chemistry of a Li-ion cell. My personal favorite Li-ion chemistry is LiFePO4, which can be charged and discharged with essentially no limit on current -- they're EXTREMELY rugged, with extremely low equivalent resistance. In addition, they can tolerate far higher temperatures than any other Li-ion formulation, and don't have any toxic elements in them at all. The only reason they're not used very often is because they have only half the energy density of some chemistries containing nickel, cobalt and/or manganese.
Yes, if they could only stick with the same chemistry with the 20.5 KWH battery. I think we are saying close to the same thing. They changed the cells, so that changed everything when compared to an increase to 21.5 KWH if using the same old cells.
Notice how with Zeros, the C rate increases in proportion to battery size and doesn't have these type of trade-offs as with the new Energica battery when compared to the older bttery. The more battery KWH on the Zeros allows more Q-chargers, for an example.
-Don- Auburn, CA
-
Just a bit of food for thought regarding charge rates.
In 2016 Energica motorcycles charged at a max 60A with DCFC which translates to around 18kWh. Those same bikes over the years have had improvements in there charge algorithms and can now charge at 75A or 80A if you have a 2019 and newer spec bike.
-
Just a bit of food for thought regarding charge rates.
In 2016 Energica motorcycles charged at a max 60A with DCFC which translates to around 18kWh. Those same bikes over the years have had improvements in there charge algorithms and can now charge at 75A or 80A if you have a 2019 and newer spec bike.
Is it expected that the 21.5 battery bikes will have similar improvements in their charge algorithms any time soon? Or is there a limitation with the new 21.5 KWH battery and it cannot be charged much faster?
-Don- Auburn, CA
-
> Is it expected that the 21.5 battery bikes will have similar improvements in their charge algorithms any time soon?
> Or is there a limitation with the new 21.5 KWH battery and it cannot be charged much faster?
Is there any expectation that they would not?
I imagine it'll depend on real world degradation stats they'll be presumably be collecting from the fleet. I imagine they'll look into the outliers and then decide what the safe levels are to push out in the next versions of the firmware.
-
Is there any expectation that they would not?
I imagine it'll depend on real world degradation stats they'll be presumably be collecting from the fleet. I imagine they'll look into the outliers and then decide what the safe levels are to push out in the next versions of the firmware.
With a new technology, that can even back-fire on Energica. They may even discover they have to reduce the charge rate! But I think that is rather unlikely. But the very non-linear battery specs on the new battery have me curious. Non-linear in speed versus range and charge times, unlike Zero batteries KWH increases where it all stays in proportion as battery KWH is increased.
IMO, there's no way to know for sure what will happen until there are many bikes on the road. That's the only spec that counts!
-Don- Reno, NV
-
> With a new technology, that can even back-fire on Energica. They may even discover they have to reduce the charge rate!
Learn from Tesla. They did something like that to some early Model S owners and face a lawsuit now.
> But the very non-linear battery specs on the new battery have me curious. Non-linear in speed versus range and charge times, unlike Zero batteries KWH increases where it all stays in proportion as battery KWH is increased.
Can you give me a technical reference for that? Where did you hear it?
-
The lawsuit has no merit, since the increase and reduction is within their sold nominal specs. Leaf owners would kill for the rates those owners are whining about.
Batteries are non-linear. This shouldn't be a surprise.
-Crissa
-
Can you give me a technical reference for that? Where did you hear it?
From Zeros own specs, which I also have in writing (in Auburn, I can post them here within the next two days). But they also should be on their website.
For an example, compare Zero's 6.5KWH battery to their 13 KWH battery in the same bike (DS, S, SR, take your pick).
100% more range, 100% longer to charge at the same charge rate (unlike Energica) when their KWH rate is doubled:
1. The 13 KWH takes EXACTLY twice the time to charge as the 6.5 KWH battery.
2. The 13 KWH battery gets EXACTLY twice the range at ANY speed in the same frame (DS, SR, S, SR, etc).
The Energica battery when compared, the new battery is 60% larger in KWH, but gets double the range compared to the older battery at slower speeds but 40% more range at higher speeds. Not 60% higher in either case VERY unlike Zero where it's the same battery 100% larger.
It's a VERY obvious difference.
-Don- Reno, NV
-
Batteries are non-linear. This shouldn't be a surprise.
-Crissa
Are you saying double the usable battery capacity will NOT give you double the range? If that's what you're saying, tell Zero, because they have not noticed that. Neither have their riders.
If a battery is rated the same and is the same type cells, if you double the cells you get double the KWH and double the range at ANY speed (but allow perhaps 1% max for the weight difference).
If you have 60% more KWH you get 60% more KWH and 60% more range in the same battery design.
But the Enerigca battery is 60% more KWH and gives 100% more range at slow speeds and 40% more range at higher speeds when compared to their older battery. Not 60% in either case.
But if the battery cells are the same (as with Zero) if they did make a battery 60% larger, it would get 60% more range at any speed, unlike comparing Energica's older battery to their new.
In case you did not realize it, Energica changed to different cells on their 21.5 KWH battery from the batteries they made last year. That is the only reason why they do not compare well to their older battery and 60% more KWH is NOT 60% KWH more except at the very spot they rate it, which must be at a medium speed. Perhaps at around 50 MPH as rough guess based on the above facts. And perhaps at around 50 MPH you will get 60% more range, but not if much faster or slower. With the Energica battery (unlike Zero's batteries) you will get a lot better than 60% range at slow speeds and a lot less than 60% at higher speeds.
Just look up Zero specs and then look up the specs from Energica on each battery as I have and then do the math yourself. No need to debate with me, it's all very clear in writing from both Zero and Energica specs when you compare the battery sizes.
-Don- Reno, NV
-
Haven't you noticed the Zero speeds are slightly lower, their weights are significantly lower, and that the extra range given by a charge tank isn't that much?
The lighter the bike, the smaller the profile, the better the range calculation.
Batteries aren't gas tanks, either. The slower the speed, the better the draw.
No, twice the battery will not give you twice the range at highway speed. It's non-linear.
-Crissa
-
Haven't you noticed the Zero speeds are slightly lower, their weights are significantly lower, and that the extra range given by a charge tank isn't that much?
The lighter the bike, the smaller the profile, the better the range calculation.
Batteries aren't gas tanks, either. The slower the speed, the better the draw.
No, twice the battery will not give you twice the range at highway speed. It's non-linear.
-Crissa
Okay, tell Zero their specs are incorrect. I will post their specs here in a few hours when I am in Auburn.
-Don- Reno, NV
-
You've complained that Zeros take more power to charge, perhaps they're not listing battery size but available kwh at highway draw? There does seem to be a missing top and bottom percent since they don't seem to care about being charged to 100% as much as say, a Leaf, and they don't turn off when you expect them to at the bottom %.
But as batteries go, their draw is non-linear. The energy you take out of them depends on the amperage load. Generally lithium is good at being close to all in all out, but the higher a draw, the less you get out, the lower the draw, the more. With batteries that have consumable charge like lead-acid unsealed, this is a very notable curve. With lithium, less so.
But every battery composition works differently.
-Crissa
-
But as batteries go, their draw is non-linear. The energy you take out of them depends on the amperage load.
A better way to say it is the KWH rating changes with load with batteries. Perhaps with any type of battery. That's why we have deep cycle and CCA rated batteries, etc with lead-acid. AFAIK, all batteries have the issue of a KWH is NOT a true KWH EXCEPT at the current draw where it is rated, unlike anywhere else, such as a power company where it is exact. I have said that countless times here. But now lets get to linearity of increased KWH by Zeros' and Energica's own specs.
2019 ZERO S is the bike I will use for an example here. If you prefer I use another Zero model, just say so, as I now have all the specs in front of me.
2019 Zero S 7.2 KWH battery:
City Range: 89 miles.
Highway range 45 miles
combined range 60 miles.
2019 Zero S 14.4 KWH battery (100% more KWH):
City range= 179 miles (100.66% increase, within a fraction of 1% of a 100% increase).
Highway range=90 miles (100.000% increase just as the battery size increase).
Combined Range =120 miles (100.000% increase just as with the KWH increase).
That is about as linear as possible. Specs from page 27 of Zero's SB-180924-US year 2019 publication.
Now, let's compare Energica's 13.4 KWH battery to their 21.5 KWH battery:
Increase of 60.5% increase in rated KWH.
Range of 13.4 KWH battery (all models)=
City= 124 miles
Highway=100 miles
combined=80 miles
The 21.5 battery (60.5% more in KWH)
City=249 miles (more than a 100% increase)
Highway =112 miles (only a 40% increase)
Combined=143 miles (a 55% increase).
It's not 60.5% in any of the above examples of Energica's own specs. Not even close. Double to less than half is very non-linear, the opposite of Zero's battery.
Above specs from Energica's 2021MY Manual.
So now see how linear Zero's battery increases are compared to Energica's very non-linear battery increase. By their own specs in writing.
-Don- Auburn, CA
-
You've complained that Zeros take more power to charge,
Not exactly a complaint. More of an observation. If I do have a "complaint" it's that it's not a reverse non-linearity. IOW, I would want the double range on the freeway, instead of at the lower speeds.
But I am glad you brought up charging! I almost forgot about that.
Zero Charge Tank on the same bike (2019 S):
Time to charge the 7.2 KWH battery to 95% = 1.0 hr.
Time to charge the 14.4 KWH battery to 95%= 2.0 hr.
Same charge time per mile in either case. Exactly double the charge time for exactly double the range. As linear as possible, as the battery is also double KWH.
Now let's do the same with Energica, again using their own specs.
Charge time for the 13.4 KWH battery to 85%=20 min
Charge time for the 60% larger 21.5 KWH battery to 85%=40 min (100% longer to get a 60% more charge).
Not only that, above is only 40% more freeway range with the 100% longer charge.
I see no such time spec for the Energica OBC, which is 3KW.
Above specs from the same manuals as mentioned previously. I assume the same info. is available on their websites, in case any body wants to double check.
Bottom lines are:
With Zero, double the KWH and get double the range as well as double the charge times to double the range. Everything is linear with Zero batteries. Range, charge times, everything.
Nothing is linear when you compare Energica's own specs comparing the 13.4 battery to the 21.5 KWH. Everything changes, charge times, speeds, nothing is linear between them.
To the point IMO, that the 13.4 KWH battery at a very high speed could get a better range than their new 21.5 KWH battery. But I assume that will be a speed most of us will not often ride at anyway. Perhaps above 100 MPH, when we look at the curve between the two Energica batteries, unlike Zero's batteries, where you KNOW that will not happen based on their own specs even if they did have a battery rated at 60% higher, as long as they use the same cells.
So if I am wrong about any of this, it's the written specs that have to be wrong. I only used very simple math with their own specs.
The difference is the technology. There are obvious trade-offs for Energica to use a newly designed battery that has the best range of all electric motorcycles. Or did I hear they have used this battery for a while on a racetrack? Then perhaps more designed for racing (not range, but speed)?
However, I am more interested in the high speed range. I don't care if their 60% more battery in KWH gives more than 100% more range at city speeds. I care more about the freeway range, which is only 40% better with 60% more KWH at double the charge times.
But the most important spec of all to me, is not listed. That is can I take I-80 from Auburn to Reno as well as Reno to Auburn with only using home charging on the 21.5 KWH battery. The distance between these houses is 99 miles, door to door. But 99 miles of hills, some uphill some down hill in either direction.
Lawrence is going to try to set that up for me to see if it can make it, he will follow in his van.
Again, all I am saying is that we cannot compare the old Energica battery to the new all that well, as the cells are different inside the battery.
What we will notice on the 21.5 KWH battery is slowing down will be a much larger range gain than before. With the 13.4 battery that will make less difference (but still a fairly large difference, of course).
-Don- Auburn, CA
-
A better way to say it is the KWH rating changes with load with batteries.
I did say it. Repeatedly.
The energy you take out of them depends on the amperage load.
-Crissa
-
I did say it. Repeatedly. The energy you take out of them depends on the amperage load.
-Crissa
Okay, I can accept that. But they rate them in KWH as shown in their manuals as well as right on the battery. So to avoid confusion, I use their terms and stick with KWHs.
-Don- Auburn, CA
-
Yeah, until there's a regulation about what the labeling is (see like the labeling law on data drives) we're going to have these weird conversions between manufacturers.
Every formulation and array will react differently, too.
-Crissa
-
I'm only getting 65-70 miles at 65-70 mph.
-
I'm only getting 65-70 miles at 65-70 mph.
On what bike? And have you ridden it until the bike is dead? I am not clear on how far we can ride at 0 SOC.
-Don- Auburn, CA
-
On my 13kw SS9 I've hit 0% SoC a few times and I can at least confirm a couple of miles worth of range. Without a tow truck or portable charger of some kind shadowing me, I don't feel comfortable trying to test exactly how far the bike will go at 0%.
-
My 13.4 bike hit empty ~2 miles from home. I limped it there at 15-20mph with the (-) showing for remaining miles.
-
I'm only getting 65-70 miles at 65-70 mph.
I looked at your old posts and found "It is a 2020 SS9 with the 13.3 Kw battery". The same bike I own.
Sounds about right with your range.
-Don- Auburn, CA
-
Seems the Zeros are a whole lot more efficient than the Energicas?
Cas :)
-
Not really, no.
-
Well, Zeros are lighter with less rolling resistance (at least, from the motor's pov) so yes, they're probably 'more efficient'.
But most of the inefficiency of a bike is air resistance and that doesn't change much from one bike to another without fancy bubbles.
-Crissa
-
Well, Zeros are lighter with less rolling resistance (at least, from the motor's pov) so yes, they're probably 'more efficient'.
But most of the inefficiency of a bike is air resistance and that doesn't change much from one bike to another without fancy bubbles.
-Crissa
So far it's looking like Zero's powermosfet controller and belt is about 5-10% more efficient than Energica's igbt controller and gear reduction and chain drive. I'll do some calibration runs after Shelter In Place blows over.
-
It's been a while since I read up on the subject, and I've mostly skimmed this thread, but comparing some Lead Acid composition battery's ratings with various Lithium chemistry batteries isn't exactly apples-to-apples.
My understanding is that the Peukert Effect does not apply to lithium but does to lead acid. Anything within the acceptable continuous range of current for a lithium battery should give almost the same capacity. Conversely, lead acid takes an extra, varying hit at all rates. IIRC the Peukert Effect is the reason that leads to lead acid being rated given a certain load or time that is chosen on industry standards ("20 hour rate"). Lithium kind of has this, but in a broad (ex: 0-10C rate) kind of specification, with very little gain for lower rates.
So wind resistance may affect the range with the square of the speed and other factors like density of the air, but the actual capacity out of the lithium should be *roughly* the same for high or low loads. On a side note, I read somewhere that lead acid has a non-linear charge efficiency that may be related to Peukert Effects (somewhere around 50% through most of the SoC range). They both suffer from some internal resistance and obviously cut-off voltages then apply and account for any load-related loss in capacity, which shouldn't be all that much with lithium? Maybe cut-off 5% or 10% early for being sagged a volt or two, which is accounted for in Zero's ratings (70miles @ 70mph for the ZF13.0). I don't know if sagged voltage degrades cells the same ways that being overdischarged does, so perhaps they can tolerate being a volt or two lower than cutoff if it will rest higher?
With the numbers we are dealing with here, I don't think the 21.5kWh pack could give less range than the 13.4 at any speed the motor and controller can continuously put out.
-
High loads (or temperature), increase the internal resistance in lithium batteries, which loses some of their efficiency. Plate surface and cell number change the optimal discharge point.
It wouldn't matter for many uses, but for a vehicle, we really can try to draw or charge massive amounts which gets us to the ends of the curves.
-Crissa
-
Actually, high Temps tend to decrease internal resistance, is this what you meant to say?
Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk
-
No, that's not what I meant. I meant that 'high load' or 'temperature' can cause internal resistance. What the temperature or load range depends on the battery formula and configuration, of course.
-Crissa
-
The battery doesn't have 21.5 kWh but a net 18.9kWh. Therefore, reserves are surely incorporated.
You also only need the power of xxx kW for a few seconds. A topic could be the temperatures if it is
permanently above 40 ° C, from 50 ° C (122F) the red area begins where the electronics reduce the power.
(sorry I write in °C since I live in Germany)
-
Please never apologize for going metric.
-
Just label the numbers, that's all I ask.
-Crissa
-
Guys, are there any real world comparisons available now? Like charging curves for OBC and DC, or any range comparisons? Range comparisons at 60mph is most interesting for me as this is my local limits (again Germany) for country roads incl twisties.
I‘d be interested in that - just sold my Zero DS and about to sell my BMW R1200GS in favor of a Esse MY19 (dealers demo bike) that I could pay cash. Or wait, save some more bucks and get the 21.5kWh battery...?!?
-
About the range of my Eva Esseesse9 +
Yesterday I drove 3.5 hours / 180km (112miles) through the Sauerland (Germany / NRW) in very winding, mountainous way.
I shut down the battery to 19% (without recharging).
In warm weather, the battery should last longer (10-14 degrees).
Now I have new the TomTom Rider 550, it is very helpful, you can create curvy round courses with more fun than drive on main streets.
-
Thanks for this report. Curious about how fast and how hard you rode. 180km/3.5 hrs = about 50kph. Sound about right? How hard were you accelerating?
-
Thanks for this report. Curious about how fast and how hard you rode. 180km/3.5 hrs = about 50kph. Sound about right? How hard were you accelerating?
By his own words, he only averaged 32 MPH. 112 miles divided by 3.5 hours.
That's probably close to where the bike gets its best range on an average.
-Don- Auburn, CA
-
the average speed may be 30 mph but was that fairly steady or with a lot of time is faster or slower with lots of acceleration? Hard or gentle acceleration? Hypermiling or burning it up? That’s what I am curious about
-
Because of the low average speed.
The area only narrow valleys and mountains 150-600m above sea level, rarely 300m without a curve.
But I only drove side streets with a lot of altitude and very tight curves. Whereby I prefer to go around a tight curve with a 20% gradient than with a 20% downhill.
Although I brake almost exclusively with recuperation (setting to max)
The lot of acceleration after the bends is especially fun with the howling from the gearbox.
I'm looking forward to the next trip.
-
Hi Uwe, so I understand you had a nice tour in the Sauerland area (was born there myself). You drove 180km and still had 19% SOC left? So theoretically a range of 214km.
Not bad at all!
hereto wanted to know if after a tight turn you accelerated like hell or if you had more the touristic ride style - are you able to comment on that?
tnxx
most
-
Kia ora from Aotearoa/NZ...having only recently done some testing on my new 2020 Eva107 (13.4kwh), I was getting similar to LESS range than Morgan on cold,wet,twisty roads. I've also had a good chat with Chris Paz and it's noted that more changes to 'throttle' creates more draw and less efficiency. For those with cruise control, it's a very efficient algorithm and worth using!
In terms of comparisons, I think Morgan and Brandon have done the most testing so far, and importantly for distance tourers, you must compare charging times/rates alongside capacity. Theoretically, a new and older battery bike with equal weighted riders starting at 'A' to reach 'B' at a distance of over 300km would see the older bike arrive first. That is significant in terms of how I ride in NZ. We can go over the numbers as to why, but in a country with ample DC charging points, getting to the distant destination with less time spent charging is a clear advantage. 8)
-
I sincerely doubt I outrange you, man. I am basically the worst case scenario.
-
I just did some more simple math with Energica's own specs of range comparing the "+" to the "-" bikes. The plus has an 18.9 KWH battery and the minus models have a 11.7 KWH battery (the useable capacity to us).
Energica claims the minus models have a range of:
124 miles city/ 100 miles combined/ or 80 miles on the highway,
That is 10.598 miles per KWH city/ 8.547 miles per KWH combined and 6.8376 miles per KWH highway.
Energica claims the plus models get 249 miles city/ 143 miles combined/ 112 miles.
I will put them in the same format below to make comparison easier:
That is per KWH 13.174 city/ 7.560 combined / 5.9259 highway for the Plus.
That is per KWH 10.598 city/ 8.547 combined / 6.8376 highway for the minus.
How far off is Energica's specs when they compare the Plus to the Minus? What do the Pluses really get for approximate range at various speeds? From 100% SOC to a few SOC left? And how does it really compare to my 11.7 KWH? Seems we cannot use Energica's specs for accuracy.
-Don- Auburn, CA
-
Don,
I have the 21.5 KWH Ribelle. Max range for me is 110 miles, no way I could ever make 142 miles. My 110 mile max range is based on me at 180 lbs, the easy rolling hills of eastern NC (south of Raleigh) speed at mostly 55-60 but some 35 and 45 mph mixed in. There is a rider who posts over on advrider.com who claims 130-140 miles on his Ribelle no problem but he also mentions he weighs about 150 and his lighter weight could make a difference in his range. Not sure of the terrain he is on but think he lives in CA.
-
The wind rather than the weight would be the main factor for that kind of difference. The CA guy must be in more city traffic type speeds than he realizes or admits, or he is in a low tuck.
If the two of you were riding side by side same road, same speed, same riding position, I doubt he would get 5 more miles of range from his less weight.
On the other hand maybe you could send in your battery logs just to make sure you're getting all the juice you should.
I have to admit that your range seems disappointing from a 21.5kWh battery. I feel I could still get 85-90 miles out of my 11.4kWh 2013 Zero if I'm under 55MPH in summer.
-
I haven't posted my range figures in awhile and I haven't measured range in city/back road riding conditions, but since I commute on my bikes, I have measured freeway range at 75mph (GPS) multiple times on both of my bikes. My freeway figures are:
13kw SS9: 90% SoC used to go 50 miles
21kw Ribelle: 90% SoC used to go 80 miles
The above ranges are a constant 75mph with no lane splitting. Here in my area, even 75mph feels dangerously slow at times and I normally ride faster during my commutes.
I know my local city/back road riding is significantly more on both bikes but I haven't tried to measure it since I'm an aggressive rider and my speed & acceleration fluctuates widely in those conditions.
-
Hm the 14.4 Zero I'm on did 100 miles yesterday with 15% remaining. Admittedly I rode like a nun for half of the journey (55mph max), but the first half was normal 60-65mph in between towns and villages.
Cas :)
-
Hm the 14.4 Zero I'm on did 100 miles yesterday with 15% remaining. Admittedly I rode like a nun for half of the journey (55mph max), but the first half was normal 60-65mph in between towns and villages.
Cas :)
And like I have said before, my 2018 Zero S with Power Tank (with a claimed 16.6 kWh) once went 150 miles on a single charge, which included two 1500-foot elevation uphill and downhill slogs at 35 mph and then a 55 mph run against a headwind up the coast highway to home (which gobbled up the last 50% SOC).
Most of my Zero riding now is back and forth to my daughter's home located 38 miles away. About 20 miles is usually around 65 mph, including a couple of 500-foot elevation rises, with the other 18 miles consisting of stop-and-go, being ridden at a average of 40 mph, between stops. When I am riding against the wind on a cold morning (40 degrees F) I will arrive at her home with the display showing as little as 62% SOC. But on a morning with no wind and a temperature of 55 degrees F, I will see 72% SOC. On the return trip, typically with a moderate to stiff side wind and the temperature around 70 degrees F, I will usually arrive home also with 72% SOC, but that ride usually includes more aggressive throttle action and more stop-and-go. Between my weight, and a full top box and seat pack of stuff, the additional weight, over and above the bike's 452 pounds, is typically about 180 pounds.
The only odd thing I really notice lately, which may or may not have anything to do with a slightly degraded battery, is that the first 2% SOC is going away noticeably faster than it used to do. ???
-
Another data point from yesterday with my SS9+: 179 km of backroads used 90% charge (done in about 3h). Half of it hooning around, half in rain, one 1000m climb, lots of twisties with breaking/accelerating.
150 to 200km seems to be what I'm getting per charge with my driving style.
-
And like I have said before, my 2018 Zero S with Power Tank (with a claimed 16.6 kWh) once went 150 miles on a single charge, which included two 1500-foot elevation uphill and downhill slogs at 35 mph and then a 55 mph run against a headwind up the coast highway to home (which gobbled up the last 50% SOC).
Most of my Zero riding now is back and forth to my daughter's home located 38 miles away. About 20 miles is usually around 65 mph, including a couple of 500-foot elevation rises, with the other 18 miles consisting of stop-and-go, being ridden at a average of 40 mph, between stops. When I am riding against the wind on a cold morning (40 degrees F) I will arrive at her home with the display showing as little as 62% SOC. But on a morning with no wind and a temperature of 55 degrees F, I will see 72% SOC. On the return trip, typically with a moderate to stiff side wind and the temperature around 70 degrees F, I will usually arrive home also with 72% SOC, but that ride usually includes more aggressive throttle action and more stop-and-go. Between my weight, and a full top box and seat pack of stuff, the additional weight, over and above the bike's 452 pounds, is typically about 180 pounds.
The only odd thing I really notice lately, which may or may not have anything to do with a slightly degraded battery, is that the first 2% SOC is going away noticeably faster than it used to do. ???
Isn't it a claimed 16.3 KWH as is my 2017 SR?
I think the first 2% could be because of a FW update. On mine, a few years ago, if I ride it around four miles, it would say 97% SOC when I parked when I went to the local Denny's for breakfast. But after I got done eating and went back to the bike, I would turn it on and be at 100% SOC again, just as if I never left home. After one of the FW updates, it didn't do that anymore. I hope I didn't really lose my perpetual motion gain ;) .
My Zero SR with power tank is the electric cycle I own with the best range. But on a long trip where I need recharges, my Energica is the way to go.
I was wondering if the Energica Plus models could make it from here in Auburn to my Reno house, 99 miles up and down hill at freeway speeds. Looks like it will be too close for comfort, just as my Zero SR with power tank. I think the Zero can do it, but I am too chicken to try it when the last two miles is all up hill to either of my two main houses.
I just recently discovered that the CCS charger at the Summit is free! Both sides of the Donner Summit Rest Stop. That is within a few miles of dead center between my two main houses. A nice place to take a break! Free CCS charging is rare. The only other place I have done a free fast charge is at the Hawthorne, NV rest stop
With the many new CCS charge stations, along with the fact that it takes twice as long to charge to full with the plus models, I see less and less reasons for the longer range models for around 95% of my riding. And that is getting better fast.
The longer range models, from Reno, will still will not get me to Susanville, CA on Hwy 395 or Salt Lake City on I-80. But it looks like it will get me to Bridgeport, CA with a fast charge in Garnerville, NV. Not only that, I just discovered there is a new FREE CCS charger there in Garnerville!
Often, a CCS charge costs more than gasoline for the same distance on an ICE motorcycle. I am glad to see these free ones getting more common. I guess really paid for by our taxes.
-Don- Auburn, CA
-
Glad to hear the free CCS chargers are starting to pop-up.
I don't use CCS chargers very often since 90%+ of my riding is well within range of an 80% SoC. As free (or easy to activate) CCS chargers increase along interstate and freeway routes, I may start taking longer road trips with my CCS capable EVs.
-
Glad to hear the free CCS chargers are starting to pop-up.
I don't use CCS chargers very often since 90%+ of my riding is well within range of an 80% SoC. As free (or easy to activate) CCS chargers increase along interstate and freeway routes, I may start taking longer road trips with my CCS capable EVs.
Here in CA, most CCS chargers are near the major freeways. In Nevada, I find it's the opposite. Can go just about anywhere EXCEPT east on I-80. If you want to get to Salt Lake City, better take the "loneliest road in NV" (https://travelnevada.com/road-trips/loneliest-road-in-america/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIppWfjOv28AIVKx6tBh2hQQAQEAAYASAAEgI6XPD_BwE).
But in CA, there are CCS chargers almost every exit on I-80.
-Don- Auburn, CA
-
Glad to hear the free CCS chargers are starting to pop-up.
I don't use CCS chargers very often since 90%+ of my riding is well within range of an 80% SoC. As free (or easy to activate) CCS chargers increase along interstate and freeway routes, I may start taking longer road trips with my CCS capable EVs.
I am the opposite. When I take my SS9, it's always far enough to need charge on the road, if not several. If I am not going that far, I will take one of my Zeros, usually the DS.
When I take my SR, it's about 50-50.
But I cannot think of a single time when I took my SS9 and not need a charge while on the road. I normally use it for trips of more than 100 miles round trip.
BTW, did you unload your SS9 yet?
-Don- Auburn, CA
-
I'm working with a forum member to work out the specifics for completing the sale.