Print

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

[trikester]

I would hope along with Tudor's hope, but the reality is probably closer to what Lipo423 said. 

I don't know at this point how much physically the '13 FX packs differ from the '12 FX packs. Can the '13 plug into, and fit, the '12FX? My "off the top of my head" guess would be that they won't.

Trikester

[protomech]

There is no 2012 FX, and the 2012 and 2013 removable battery packs are mutually incompatible.

Tudor:
ttxgpfan @ ESBK interviewed Kenyon Kluge from Zero about the 2013 bikes, and I recall KK saying something like they had designed their battery modules to be independent of the internal battery cells.
http://esbk.co/2012/12/13/esbk-studios-episode-12-interview-with-kenyon-kluge-of-zero-motorcycles/

To date, Zero has only designed the 2010/2011 X-series bikes to exchange batteries, and those bikes use the same cell type and pack voltage. I'd like to see Zero start to incorporate more cross-year compatibility, possibly even small future pack voltage increases provided that the onboard charger and motor controller are capable.

Imagine buying a 2013 FX now, and in 3-4 years upgrading to a double-density pack and just having to swap out the battery modules. It'd still be a significant expense, but it'd be nice to have that option for personal use.. and probably critical for municipal or fleet use.

[Lipo423]

Do not want to spoil your hopes (remember I also own a ZF9), but do not expect that to happen.
Battery business is changing so rapidily and as I stated earlier Zero would have to follow the manufacturers/new technology, not the opposite way.

Anyway, I hope to be wrong guys, as I do not like throwing money out of the window (investment wise), but I still think this is the price you pay when acquiring new technology -and I knew it beforehand- when I looked at the ZF9, and still went for it...

[Tudor]

Battery business is changing so rapidily and as I stated earlier Zero would have to follow the manufacturers/new technology, not the opposite way.

But is it not just a matter of fitting these new denser batteries in a case that fit the FX?

[protomech]

Provided that the voltage is compatible with the motor controller and the charger. Both support a range of voltages, but Zero would have to design the system to be programmable to work like this. Otherwise they could build a denser battery at the same voltage level.

[Lipo423]

Agreed.
which gets you again to the point that future battery compatibility is unlikely to be happening (this is without getting into a more difficult discussion on the "future" battery chemistries or fuel-cells development)

[protomech]

Assume Zero is using a 3.8v 25 Ah cell now, each ZF2.8 module is 27s1p. Pack voltages range from 4.2 volts per cell hot off the charger (114V) down to 2.8 volts per cell (momentary, 76V) under heavy discharge @ low SOC, with a 3.2 volts per cell low voltage cutoff (86V).

Say the motor controller supports input voltages in the range of 60V - 140V, and the motor supports up to 140V at maximum RPM. Charge supports 25A @ max 150V.

Suppose for 2014 they figure out how to shrink their electronics, and can fit 28 cells in a single type-2013 module. Unlikely, but go with me here. BMS probably resides on the individual removable modules; multiple BMS communicate to the MBB their operating voltage (118V down to 78V), MBB okays this as the controller and charger both support it. MBB reconfigures the charger's constant current / constant voltage cutoff points, and works fine.

Suppose for 2015 they get hold of some different-dimension Envia cells (3.7v 20Ah @ $10/ea). Unfortunately the different-dimensions only allow 25s2p (3.7 kWh ea, +45% energy vs 2013) in the type-2013 module, or 25s3p in a slightly resized module for a type-2015 module. Type-2013 modules are used in 6000 bikes 2013 and 2014 bikes, 3000 of which are X-series and can accept a removable module. They figure 1000 unit sales are likely @ $2000/ea over a period of 2 years, $500 of which is marginal profit. $500k isn't a ton of profit, but it covers development expenses, is a revenue boost for Zero and their dealers and generates some community good will.

Now the BMS tells the MBB it operates from 70V-105V, MBB okays this. BMS tells the MBB it needs a slightly different charging profile, MBB okays this. Charging is pretty slow (650W is not going to charge a 7.4 kWh pack very quickly), Zero sells a few more offboard 650W chargers.

Note that the new type-2013 modules drop weight slightly (6 kg less per module) and boost power per module, especially with a single module. At the same discharge ratings, 8C pulse / 5C continuous, a single Envia module 2013 FX @ 100kg has almost as much power (30 kW) as a dual-module 2013 FX @ 125kg (33 kW), and a dual Envia module bike (113 kg) weighs closer to a single module 2013 FX (106 kg).

***

While all of the above is speculation, it seems technically feasible to me.

[trikester]

As a person about to take delivery of my 2013FX, I hope you have seen the future. 

Did a 33.4 mile (total out and back) PCH ride on my 2012 DS ZF6 yesterday, to my antique motorcycle club annual luncheon. Beautiful day riding along the coastal beaches of SoCal. My speed ranged from 45mph to 60mph (mostly 50 - 55mph) with a fair number of stops at lights along both the out and back rides. Rode in Eco mode all the time. Many stop lights & many times I didn't have to touch my brakes to come to a complete stop behind other vehicles (using my added handlebar switch to activate the brake light to get 25% regen without using brakes).

Back home with the the fourth bar having just gone away. Overnight: total recharge = 4.35kwh.

Trikester

[protomech]

4 bars gone should be around 33% discharged. 0.33 * 5.3 kWh / 0.85 = 2.1 kWh to charge, quick ballpark figure. 4.35 kWh sounds high for a third of your pack, although about right for 33 miles @ 45-60 mph.

Edit: Maybe it did a balance cycle at the end? Those seem to use about a kWh or so.

[Lipo423]

I agree with the theoretical assumptions with Envia supplied info...(leaving aside again that compatibility with current battery packs goes out of the window)
Let me be a little sceptical on the performance though...IMHO this is still more a laboratory performance than a real one...stability & charging cycles are probably one of their headaches at the moment, which hopefully they will resolve over time, but not that quickly...
For RC applications might be a good option short term (as other manufacturers have done with nano-tech).

[trikester]

Oops! I should have been clearer. I meant that with four bars left showing, the fourth one had just gone away as I was close to home. I had three bars showing when I parked, but I wanted to indicate that it was not deep into the #3 bar. I'm not sure, but I think I was only about a block away when the #4 bar disappeared, leaving three bars showing on the gauge. I wish the gauges had higher resolution than just eleven bars.

Sorry about the confusion. 

Trikester

[protomech]

Ahh, gotcha.

So you left with 11 bars displayed, and you returned home @ 33.4 miles with 3 bars displayed and the 4th bar having just disappeared? (I record this as 8.0 or 8.1 bars discharged on my sheets)

Charge energy estimation then is (8.1 bars / 11 + 1 hidden bar) * 5.3 kWh nominal energy / 85% charge efficiency = 4.2 kWh. Pretty close.

[trikester]

It may have been close to 4.2 when it reached full charge but I had it plugged in for about 18 hours before I read the total. I have noticed that the reading keeps creeping up all the time it is plugged in, even for days.

Trikester

[protomech]

Yeah. Over a long period of time I average 5W (120 Wh/day).

[kingcharles]

5W is pretty good as standby. My Vectrix does 110W!!!
But I have the ESD charger which is also known as the biggest engineering failure ever.