Print

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

[yhafting]

After seing all the new diginow belly pan installations, and Mistasam's / Newzeroland tank installation- I was pondering on the potential thermal problems of having hot chargers below the battery-

would it not be a better idea to lower the monolith, and stack all chargers on top?

Or will the width of the batteries soon become a problem?

Having an air intake just above the batteries and charger fans pulling the air up through the chargers seems like a better deal than having chargers below the battery, as the airflow might even be used to remove some heat off the batteries while charging.

[2014ZeroSR]

After seing all the new diginow belly pan installations, and Mistasam's / Newzeroland tank installation- I was pondering on the potential thermal problems of having hot chargers below the battery-

would it not be a better idea to lower the monolith, and stack all chargers on top?

Or will the width of the batteries soon become a problem?

Having an air intake just above the batteries and charger fans pulling the air up through the chargers seems like a better deal than having chargers below the battery, as the airflow might even be used to remove some heat off the batteries while charging.

yhafting - Good questions. Morgan is the best person to ask ( morgan@diginow.it )
-or-
Maybe move your question over to the ‘Diginow Supercharger 2.5!!’ thread.

                     

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

First, there's no way you can remount the monolith without voiding all support from Zero. It will impact everything about how Zero certifies the bikes as road-worthy with regulatory agencies.

Tank install advantages:
- The tank is easier to ventilate for sure, and has a better gap to the monolith casing.
- The tank is easier to access and is designed for the physical loading (for the Power Tank and Charge Tank).

On the other hand, a tank install prevents a Power Tank install.

The pan has some advantages:
- It removes the onboard charger from the battery heating equation.
- Access to the onboard charger's CAN port helps with intelligent bike integration / charge management.

On the other hand:
- I suspect that CAN access could have been achieved through the OBD-II port.
- The stock pan "dropped install" is sketchy, to be honest. The mounting fasteners I've seen are not rated for the payload.


And then for DoctorBass' pan as adjusted for/by DigiNow for production:
- It is very sturdy.
- It seems to be intended for no fan usage, as a high performance heat sink intended only for riding immediately aftewards.
- It seems unsuited to slow charging for the above reason, reducing its efficacy as an onboard charger replacement.
- Ventilation and drainage are not great - some dirt and moisture can accumulate within it.
- It is very heavy, and lifting the chargers onto the belly of the bike is difficult even with the stock pan.


Zero's platform does not offer much in the way of extensibility or mounting, which makes any solution difficult. DigiNow is making some tradeoffs, and I'm glad a pan design is emerging that is pretty suitable, even though I'd like it revised.


I wish that side mounts were more realistic, but they expose cabling and we'd really want to see a cowl covering those before deploying them widely in the field.

[dukecola]

No one ever talks about a top-case location install. I've been using diginows in my topcase for nearly 2 yrs and they work well, but the 25lb limit of the topcase rack/monokey attaching system is a show stopper for more than 2 modules. I dream of a better integrated mount that's part of the bike and a streamlined enclosure that can hold up to 4 modules with all wires and inlets concealed and contained, not sticking out and looking like an afterthought.

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

No one ever talks about a top-case location install. I've been using diginows in my topcase for nearly 2 yrs and they work well, but the 25lb limit of the topcase rack/monokey attaching system is a show stopper for more than 2 modules. I dream of a better integrated mount that's part of the bike and a streamlined enclosure that can hold up to 4 modules with all wires and inlets concealed and contained, not sticking out and looking like an afterthought.

My Elcon 2500 in the top case is what broke my top rack bolts. That’s the weight of two DigiNow chargers.

I think the top case mount is not a good idea without a better rack.

Now, chargers on a Happy Trail SU ride rack are more realistic, BUT there will still be wires and cables exposed to weather, vibration, and dust.

[NEW2elec]

I watched Ben Rich's latest trip on Youtube and his pan mounted 3 chargers were "adding" to the batteries heat to a level over 124 degrees on his first day riding.  This stopped the charging process as it was designed to do but left him in a bit of a jam.  He made his trip a success but I'm glad he showed the problems he had and didn't try to act like all was perfect.  Maybe he had a bad connection or just a less than perfect batch of super chargers, we don't know yet.

At this point lowering the monolith should never be done on the current bikes but I agree this is not ideal placement for heat sensitive batteries.

Maybe a ceramic heat shield and heat sink fins below to try to get the heat radiating up the sides of the bike?

I've also thought of (Zero) switching the charger and controller positions giving more air flow over the controller riding down the road.  And open air exposure to the charger when charging and not in contact with the battery at all.

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

I cannot take Ben’s assessment of the thermodynamic relationships among his equipment at face value. No matter how he feels about it, his rationale is not sound and he doesn’t understand how to perform a proper comparison.

He keeps presenting his case as more solid than his evidence supports, and is inconsistent with reports from previous years.

I do have doubts about the intended design, but I want to see some gloriously detailed coverage of his configuration, down to what exact pan he’s fielding and how the cooling is arranged if any.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, where the vendor could do better, and where Ben admits that he doesn’t understand how to make engineering claims confidently.

[Doctorbass]

I’ve been using my pan design for now over 2500km and here are the facts :

-The chargers only transfer  VERY MINIMAL heat to the battery. The battery itself heat A LOT more when being used or charging. I will prove that by measurement in the next weeks.
-The Charger pan drain water perfectly and all installation inside are made to support debrit if they can enter to the pan however there is minimal area where debrit can enter look for yourself
-If the bike suspensions are adjusted and tuned LIKE THEY ALWAYS SHOULD, the pan clearance to the ground is ok even for use with passenger on the bike. IT IS IMPORTANT TO READJUST THE PRELOAD IF YOU HAVE THE POWERTANK ANDALSO IF YOU HAVE THE CHARGER PAN
-If Diginow include proper wire lenght between the chargers and the Zero the pan installation is easy to install.
-The bike center of gravity remain very good with the charger pan and it handle as well or even better with it.
-The air gap between the top of the chargers in the pan  is about 1cm  while the air gap between the stock 1.3kW charger is 1mm this make a huge difference in thermal isolation as the charger pan have air convection that help draining the heat by convection.
-The Stock 1.3kW charger hottest surface is the closest to the battery ( on top of the charger) while the charger pan hottest surface is on the bottom an dthen cooled by the surrounding pan itself.
- I discussed withmy friend  Luke, The Key designer of the Zero battery and he said that even with the stock 1.3kW  charger the cell to cell thermal transfer is calculated to spread all the heat over the entire battery so the bottom cell and the top cell of the monolith should not have very big temp difference meaning that  the battery act like an entire volumetric heatsink so the battery temp does not have a hot spot.
-The heat transferred to the battery is equal or less important with the charger pan even at 13kW than the heat transferred by the stock 1.3kW charger due to the air gap and convection difference between both and the location of the hottest surface area of the two chargers design.

Doctorbass

[yhafting]

While i appreciate all considerations about the diginow solution, I'm not very fond of the tone of the conversation that followed Benswings rant on facebook. I would prefer if everyone kept this thread in particular on possibilities of lowering the monolith.

I was not primarily planning to move the monolith myself. I was merely proposing it to see whether it is considered possible or not within the current frame. If the frame is not too much in the way, maybe Zero should consider this- or rebuild the frame for that purpose. Higher power charging will inevitably require more cooling, and while the battery is air cooled while driving, neither the battery nor the charger is so unless fans are installed.

I do also believe that having access to charging from the top is convenient compared to the side, under the seat or the bottom of the bike. If one could lower the monolith, significant extra tank space could be added.

However, I would guess  that there are some design considerations governing why Zero put the charger beneath the monolith in the first place. Perhaps the chargers being potted and all is much heavier than the battery, and more narrow.?

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

I would prefer if everyone kept this thread in particular on possibilities of lowering the monolith.

We're not focusing on your question because it's a bad idea from every professional perspective I can think of. Everything about this idea is more expensive with greater risk and lower benefit than doing something better with chargers.

I was not primarily planning to move the monolith myself. I was merely proposing it to see whether it is considered possible or not within the current frame. If the frame is not too much in the way, maybe Zero should consider this- or rebuild the frame for that purpose. Higher power charging will inevitably require more cooling, and while the battery is air cooled while driving, neither the battery nor the charger is so unless fans are installed.

Don't do this for yourself or others.


Let me try to enumerate the concerns:

• It is absolutely preferable in the case of a collision with the bottom of the bike to strike a charger than the monolith. Chargers are modular, cheaper to replace, and not urgently essential to riding.
• The monolith is absolutely the heaviest piece of equipment on the bike (it's the majority of the bike's mass, really) and would be difficult to remount in a solid way without extensive manufacturer planning, just from the perspective of re-centering the mass that the frame is supporting dynamically.
• The monolith's join points with the frame are engineered into the design and not modifiable after manufacturing without massive risks.
• The frame has no clearance to the monolith, so there's no realistic way to make bracketing or such that could carry the monolith in a displaced position.
• All roadworthiness certifications by the manufacturer for regulators would be voided by this change and would require expensive retesting.
• All of the cabling through the rear of the compartment would require re-organizing in difficult ways.
• The front panel for BMS access would be occluded by the lower front frame bar.
• The splash and debris protection afforded by the lower front plastics would be compromised.

I do also believe that having access to charging from the top is convenient compared to the side, under the seat or the bottom of the bike. If one could lower the monolith, significant extra tank space could be added.

I agree about the access concern. However, the much more economical way to address this concern is to fit a higher/larger tank enclosure over the top.

However, I would guess  that there are some design considerations governing why Zero put the charger beneath the monolith in the first place. Perhaps the chargers being potted and all is much heavier than the battery, and more narrow.?

See reason #1 above: any charger is modular, cheaper to replace, and expendable for the duration of a ride compared to a battery if it gets damaged. Putting the battery down there makes the failure mode of a belly strike disastrous.

[Burton]

Why not just put on a bigger tank and increase the amount of chargers you can put under the "tank?"

[dukecola]

Why not just put on a bigger tank and increase the amount of chargers you can put under the "tank?"

This is what i want, bigger bike, bigger battery and all chargers internal, not an afterthought.

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

Yeah, a more robust frame is definitely what I would also like from the manufacturer.

The "I want a pony" request would be support for 6 bricks, but 5 bricks would be fine with a more robust and slightly larger build.

[NEW2elec]

For the record I didn't see any rant by Ben on FB just his trip on Youtube.
The heating issue was what I was trying to point out.
My old Meanwells don't heat up the monolith hardly at all, but when I add the Zero quiq charger it feels rather warm.  I have to assume that 9+ kW of charging would crank it up quite a bit more.

I think what got the OP thinking of lowering the battery was the same one that got me thinking about it, simply put Tesla does it.  The impact issue would be very real but stronger protection could be designed if enough benefits could be shown to justify the modifications to the frame and pan.  I just doubt they would be found.

[Doctorbass]

When i got my 2015 frame and placed the 2012 powertrain into it i had to lower the position of  the 2012 ZF9 monolith  as the battery shape is different.

I think i am the first if not the only one who have installed a different battery generation on a Zero. It was not so easy.. as i did not wanted to cut or affect the original frame so i had to machine some special bracket to adapt the bolt position betwen the battery base ad the 2015 frame. It worked very well but i would not recommand anybody that dont have experience in mecanic and structure frabrication doing this.

Overall the attery was lowered by 1.75 inches and i did not had to cut or drill the frame or battery.

Doc

Btw, Sam Baker installed 3 units in his tank.

Doc