Print

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

[flynnstig82r]

I do not believe you.

It’s an estimate, and it’s possible I’m being optimistic. I can tell you that the bike has a lifetime average of 105 Wh/mi and most of those miles are highway trips from point A to B, but there’s no hard and fast way that I know of to record efficiency at highway speeds separate from city riding or twisties.

If we assume 130 Wh/mi instead of 110, that would still be about 115 miles from 15 kWh. If I read Zero’s marketing correctly, there’s potentially another 10% capacity past that using the deeper charge mode.

[flynnstig82r]

70mi range at 70mph for the ZF13.0 was a pretty reliable figure on the DSR. Longest I ever got was 40mph for 169mi. Slow down to 52mph and that ZF13.0 would get 100mi range on level ground.

What battery is that on the 2017 SR?

It’s the ZF13.0 and it’s at about 80% of original capacity (just enough over 80% that Zero won’t replace it). I get about 65-70 highway miles, 75 if I’m really tempting fate. It depends on the windyness of the route, of course. Yesterday I went from Davis to Citrus Heights and back, which is only 31 miles each way, and I had to reduce speed and ride behind big rigs on the way back to make it on one charge. I was always able to make it from San Francisco to Tracy on one charge, which was about 70 miles, but I could never make it back without stopping unless I took the frontage roads.

I would never be able to get over 90 miles of range out of my 2018S with Power Tank at a speed of 65 mph on level ground in calm wind. I have the Zero "touring" windshield installed on my bike, which I would rate as a medium-size shield.  I have installed large windshields on a couple of my BMW motorcycles in the past and in every case they decreased the gas mileage. There seems to be a point where increasing the size of windshields creates more aerodynamic drag than they reduce - which I think makes sense.  And don't forget that if you are riding against a wind (which seems to happen more often that having a tail wind    ) that will really affect your motorcycle's efficiency, especially as your speed increases.

BTW, I have heard that CalSci no longer is making motorcycle windshields. I believe the company went out of business.    Too bad. They had a good reputation for supplying well designed and manufactured motorcycle windshields and having good customer service.

I can’t compare the CalSci to the touring screen, but it definitely boosted my range compared to the small commuter screen.

I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone, though. The mounting method was terrible, and it came loose and smacked me in the face the first time I rode on the highway with it. Luckily the wind pinned it to my chest and I was able to pull off at the next exit and tie it down to the top case. I ended up using longer bolts with nuts on the other side instead of relying on the pressure fit of the stock bolts. The arms that hold the screen to the headlight also cracked all the way through and broke off. I had to wrap it with shipping tape, which actually seems just as strong as whatever material they were using. The method of attaching the fork clamps requires about 5 hands because of the nuts and washers on each side of the hose clamp and the fact that you have to pinch the clamp, line up the mounting arm, and hold 2 nuts and washers. When I had to take it off to replace the left fork seal, it took at least an hour to put back on. I decided that if I ever had to take it off again, the whole assembly was going in the garbage and I would either live with the reduced range of the commuter screen or get a Madstad like I should have done in the first place.

[talon]

What I meant was, does the 14.4+ have a 10% higher charging amp limit than the old 14.4, or is the 1C calculation based on the same 12.6 kWh? And does buying the Cypher upgrade increase that limit or is it always available? I agree that it would be difficult to take advantage of charging speeds greater than 13.2 kW in the US, but it would be nice to know if a person could potentially charge at up to 17.3 kW using 3 J-plugs, 2 Tesla DC’s, or 2 14-50R’s.

Ah I see, that's a very good question. My understanding from this poorly-constructed ad campaign is that it will allow you to charge and discharge (emphasis on discharge) your cells deeper on 2022 models. "Get access up to 20% more ... includes a 10% extended capacity [sic] charging" seems to indicate they allow you to charge 10% higher and discharge 10% deeper because your battery is actually 20% larger than it reports. What would really be interesting is if someone with a newer model could see if they are still charging up to 116.x Vdc and discharging down to 84.x-86.x Vdc (3.0-Vpc) on each model BEFORE they do the Cypher upgrade for reasons listed below--and if false roughly what the new values are. Obviously I don't believe they've gone outside that range with the upgrade, but I'm curious about what the limiting was before. I know also Zero has a pessimism variable that is used in displaying range estimates and SoC in some manner, and with higher cell quality you can dip more into this and more reliably cut off close to 0% and 100%.

I'm a fan of the tax credits, but the government needs to step in and stop this naming hell loophole of "max kwh" before every company is doing it and evolving this further.
14.4*kWh_MAX is the Standard (SR, SR/F, SR/S), 15.6*kWh_MAX is Premium (SR/S, SR/F only), 17.3kWh_MAX is Unlocked for one or both of them, +3.6kWh_MAX Power Tank=20.9kWh_MAX (from stats)

The new Zero-supplied specs still state (11/7/21 for 2022 models):
12.6kWh_TRUE for the Standard, 13.7kWH_TRUE for the Premium, the power tank is still 3.2kWH_TRUE so I'm only seeing a largest potential cap. of 16.9kWH_TRUE with the premium model unlocked+PT (still impressive).

From this, the SR will only be the standard 12.6_T battery, the SR/F and SR/S are still the only ones with the option of the premium 13.7_T. To answer your question by Zero's purported numbers no, it's still based on 12.6 unless they are allowing over 1C charging or the voltages limits have changed. By the advertising? The 12.6_T may be capable of "up to 17.3_MAX" so it's still unknown. Are Zero's stats technically not true? Is the 12.6_TRUE secretly a ZF17.3_MAX/ZF15.3_TRUE? It's not like it affects the tax credit for how much the capacity is stated over 2.5kWh for 2 wheelers... so they could underreport and change the source of the nominal values from [likely] Farasis to themselves.

TL;DR:  Zero's specs indicate it's still either just a ZF14.4 or a ZF15.6 but it all depends on the unlockability of the ZF14.4 model whether it is now secretly a 15.6 or not.

By the way, that 16.9kWH_TRUE/~102.2Vnominal=165.4AH which actually yields 165.4*116.2Vmax=19.2kW max charging power needed at end of charge at 1C! It's only 16.9kW average over entire charging range and starts going higher above 50% or so (and lower below). So above 50% 16.9kW wouldn't be enough to keep up with 1C. Not that these new models have an accessory charging port intended to be used by the consumer. At least they are finally increasing charging speed, we'll see if it has the reliability to warrant its cost.

[MVetter]

I think you've gone and confused yourself. Here, use my spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13SSEUrAld2zh3wmrBYSLkEODtCYEeFCevFXc0QvryUA/edit?usp=sharing

[talon]

Edit: I've been actively editing my previous post. I think I see why you think that, but I do realize the cells are likely different and am updating wording to reflect that. Is there a different reason why you think I'm confused?

What makes you think I'm confused?

[talon]

I found the proof in the Cypher store link that shows the addons for each model and can now definitively see this would be made a lot more clear by calling all of the new CypherIII 2022 batteries ZF17.3's. Thanks for the spreadsheet Morgan, it's much quicker than trying to mine this from Zero's website. With Zero's specs' incorrect restricted nominal kWh values, Zero might not allow anyone with a restricted bike to charge at true 1C for these packs of 165AmpsDC. So they've done the same thing as they did with "max" kWh and found a way to apply it to the nominal value as well. "Well, if you calculate it based on what we allow out of/into the pack...". I'm not even sure why Zero allows Cypher 2 bikes to retain warranties at 1C. My philosophy was never charge faster than Zero has their own option for, which was 8.7kW-11.3kW on my 2016 SR.

[flynnstig82r]

Thanks for the spreadsheet, Morgan! That clears up a lot. So the potential 20% Cypher upgrade increase is for the 14.4+ pack, with 10% available from the 15.6+ with a deep charge. It’s interesting that the maxed out Premium is cheaper than the maxed Standard trim.

[MVetter]

What makes you think I'm confused?

I dunno man, have you seen your own post?




But as a serious answer, you're overthinking this. Let me break it down using small words.

NEW BIG CELLS. Zero cap cells. Super safe. Way below hurt hurt zone. For money put cell in normal zone. Not hurt. Same high. Same low.

[talon]

What makes you think I'm confused?

I dunno man, have you seen your own post?




But as a serious answer, you're overthinking this. Let me break it down using small words.

NEW BIG CELLS. Zero cap cells. Super safe. Way below hurt hurt zone. For money put cell in normal zone. Not hurt. Same high. Same low.

Still nothing specific. Cool.
High and low would obviously not be the same then if you don't spend then. Sorry to get too technical on you?

[talon]

When this was all posted I did a brief scour of Zero's website and somehow missed those options. So my post is perfectly valid for someone that did not have proof of what the exact options were for the 2022 SR.

[princec]

At over $26k, the top-of-the-range SR/F does not look at all competitive with the Energica Ribelle. Or even the LiveWire, or whatever it's going to be called these days.

Cas

[Richard230]

At over $26k, the top-of-the-range SR/F does not look at all competitive with the Energica Ribelle. Or even the LiveWire, or whatever it's going to be called these days.

Cas

It looks that way to me too, especially as the H-D EV has dropped its MSRP to not much over $20K and is backed up by the resources of that company. And Energica sales are still going like gangbusters at competitive prices, especially in Europe and with a much higher (claimed) battery pack than even the 2022 Zero models offer.

[wavelet]

I do not like this entire approach.
I'm not a battery engineer, but paying the the unlock(s) means charging the battery to higher capacity, reducing the top buffer and/or charging at higher rates.
As far as I can tell, both of these stress the battery more, even if it's not to "hurt"  levels.
I don't believe Zero has any statistical info on how significant this extra stress is, unless they've been running these batteries with the new cells -- dozens of bikes, hundreds of thousands of miles -- at all combos of capacity and charge; which we know they haven't.

Yes, if the owner pays for the unlocks, they still have the same warranty (which at 5 years for the battery is already less than the 8-year warranty BEV cars get); the charger still gets only the 2-year warranty.
However, all the warranty gives the owner is that they don't pay for the warranty work if needed. It doesn't avoid the associated hassles or loss of riding days. Over here, pretty much noone can afford owning more than one bike, and quite commonly, it's either bike or car.

Zero's track record with MTBF isn't great. Anecdotally, it looks like ~10% of bikes until today develop disabling faults making them unrideable within a few years.
I doubt Zero's large and organized enough to deal with the configuration control this scheme needs.

Zero will probably need to rule me out as a future customer at this point.

IMO, this will not work well a.f.a. as marketing to the general riding public goes, either. Yes, Tesla and some luxury ICE brands have been doing this to a limited extent for a while -- but not for major capabilities (Tesla's SW unlock of battery capacity was a temporary measure; they no longer do it).

[Auriga]

That last 10% upgrade that probably stresses the battery more is entirely optional. The premium bikes still get a bump from 14.4 to 15.6, and an option to upgrade the SR to that point. I imagine that'll be roughly the same as having a 14.4 for longevity. If the 14.4 owner never upgrades, I imagine battery lifespan will increase, because you're only charging to ~70-80% all the time.

Most people seem to own a bike for < 5 years anyway. As a dealer I think 10% is too high for MTBF in warranty, depending on how you define it. Can't really say I have metrics to back that up though. I'd hope that as the platform matures, Zero makes improvements to hardware and software to reduce early failures. I have heard that improvements to waterproofing and dash condensation are in the pipeline for this year.

[MVetter]

I do not like this entire approach.
I'm not a battery engineer, but paying the the unlock(s) means charging the battery to higher capacity, reducing the top buffer and/or charging at higher rates.
As far as I can tell, both of these stress the battery more, even if it's not to "hurt"  levels.
I don't believe Zero has any statistical info on how significant this extra stress is, unless they've been running these batteries with the new cells -- dozens of bikes, hundreds of thousands of miles -- at all combos of capacity and charge; which we know they haven't.

Zero's previous gen cells operate with a certain amount of padding. By that I mean that the nominal voltage for the cells was 3.65vdc. In most cases, with such a cell, it's agreed upon that it's 'safe' to go as low as ~3.3vdc and as high as 4.2vdc. Zero stays well above the minimum and below the maximum. I can demonstrate with some easy math if needed, but I will say that the cells are capped at 4.157vdc on the high end, and 3.39vdc on the low end.

I have no reason to suspect these values are being exceeded with the new pack. The cell density has become much higher. So yeah, the new pack might only allow like... from 3.5vdc-4.157vdc with the 14.4, and the maximum unlocked pack may be the exact same 3.39-4.157vdc values.

Don't assume the cells are being stretched more. I wanna see some numbers before I jump to those conclusions.