Print

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

[Tony]

I am in the market for buying a new MC. Currently I have the Zero SR/F 2020 model. I was considering updating to the 2022 model for a bit longer range, but there were few other improvements to be found. Then discovered there is a new Energica importer in Norway where I live now. So I started looking at their options as well.

I found the EsseEsse9 model to be quite close to the Zero SR/F in terms of your riding posture, which makes it comfortable for long trips, unlike their EGO. So, the EssEsse9 might be the best bet for a similar SR/F riding feeling?

It also seem to offer a better range and a few other improvements. So, I am considering doing the switch.

Anyone here has some experience with this MC, or some insight on how it would stack up against the SR/F?

[FlorisXIII]

I own a SS9+ and it is definitely usable for longer trips! No clue how it compares to a Zero though.
Effective range is up to 240 km (at slower speeds on backroads), at moderate highway speeds (100 km/h) I get around 150 km from a full tank. Range depends on many factors (temperature, wind, rider’s right wrist). The best thing is of course DC charging, from 20% to 80% takes about 40 minutes. Overall average speed (ride, charge, repeat) for longer trips is around 60km/h. That value is the same for the smaller battery size since they charge at the same current, the bigger ones have more range but spent longer recharging.
From comfort perspective long trips are no issue. Riding 500 km in a day is absolutely doable.

One more thing: Energica build quality and dealer support are super.

I hope this gives some insight. Happy motoring!

[MrMogensen]

Only twice have I tried an electric bike. One was a SR-F testride and the other was a Eva Ribelle RS testride...

Both are fast and surprisingly nimble (Energica having a reverse gear is great though).

Personally I was a bit dissapointed about the generel feel of the SR-F. Everything I looked at and touched just felt less quality than my more than 15 year old FZ6. It might be a Yamaha but it was never a high end model.
The Energica however really feels like a quality product. I think it justifies the increased price compared to the SR-F.

The Norwegian dealer... Is it PM Motor?

Currently jumping around a trigger that is aimed at ordering a Ribelle RS...

[Hans2183]

I had a 2019 (they call it 2020) SR/F premium with charge tank, 12 kW charging and 14.4 kWh battery. That renders around 12 kWh usable in real life. After 2 years I've traded it in for an SS9+ which I now have for almost 1 year.

Some Quick thoughts based on your OP:

The sitting position of the SS9 is way more upright and relaxed than the SRF was. SRS is closer but even compared to that the SS9 is more relaxed. A more similar riding position is the Ribelle. I have Ribelle handlebars on my SS9 but my legs are still more relaxed than the SRF with SRS pegs was.

Besides that position Energica's are heavier and longer bikes. That length is something you can easily feel in the showroom. Weight while riding is something you'll only notice on very slow or very fast-not-in-a-straight-line riding. Aka not in normal use.

Zero SRF feels a bit quicker than an SS9 because of the lower weight for similar power numbers. A Ribelle feels again quicker than an SRF. I haven't ridden any EGO or RS models but I imagine those are also faster.

In cold temperatures my SS9 gets very close to the range I got with my SRF. The Zero can handle both cold and heat better (not water, not at all).
For Energica heat (anything above 25°C) will reduce charge speed. Heat is generated by both high speed riding (highway use) and fast DC charging.
The cold will impact not only the range while riding but also the useable capacity after a full charge on Energica. For 10°C charge temp I get around 15 kWh while at 25°C I get closer to 16,4 kWh. If you can charge in a heated space or with a warm battery (after highway ride) this isn't a big issue.
I do notice that difference when using the bike. Also Energica is a bit less efficient than Zero while riding.

Note that for me, in Belgium, cold weather is -10 to 10°C ambient temp and heat is 20°C or up, sometimes up to 30° for a few days.

Energica displays numbers on the dash you can count on. My Zero didn't have magic charging issues but the consumption numbers were very unreliable. Also changing ride style in the middle of a ride would rarely result in different range numbers on the dash. On Energica you can literally adapt riding style and see range change. My Zero could run for over 10 km on 0 % SOC, albeit with massively reduced power. I haven't tested this on the Energica yet. 

Reason for me to switch was reliability, the Zero wasn't doing well in heavy rain. I would switch again right away.

The only downside for me is the chain maintenance. But then the belt of the Zero broke on me so that also isn't a perfect. Plus if you don't ride in rain or long distances this chain will stay clean and lubed way longer.

[Skidz]

at moderate highway speeds (100 km/h) I get around 150 km from a full tank.

I'm in the market for a Energica as well (SS9+, test drive next friday) mostly for the much bigger battery than my current Zero DSR13.3, but hearing i only get 150km at 100km/h is a bit of a disappointment. I need at least 150km at 100km/h because of my commute, and if all aligns well (wind, temps) I can make that on the Zero driving at 90km/h. I was expecting the Energica to go at least 190km with the twice as big battery...

[Sklith]

The big Energica batteries have 18.9 net capacity. Getting only 150 km of range out of that means the efficiency is 126 Wh/km which is about the same as a Tesla Model 3 so something's not right. My Ego only has the 13.3 kWh battery but I doubt efficiency is very different, and I get about 80 Wh/km at those speeds.

I'd have to ride at 130 kph to get the efficiency FlorisXIII mentions. I know the Ego is more efficient but not by that much.

[Hans2183]

At 100 kph constant speed you should be able to get just 200 km in range with a plus (21.5 kWh) Energica model. There are some remarks here in place though.

It will likely mean you run the battery close to empty, and as of 20 % or so output is limited so not very safe to use on highways. For that alone I wouldn't recommend it.

Empty also means you went passed the 30% SOC barrier of a fast charge back up to 80% at full 24 kW. If you charge for longer than 50% of the battery capacity (around 20 min) on high speed chargers you'll get into 40°C battery temperatures reducing the charging speed a lot. This blog post shows that lower ambient temperature is ideal (not for the rider but for the battery) if you need multiple charges on the road

https://fotoleer.wordpress.com/2022/01/08/running-my-energica-ss9-electric-motorcycle-in-the-cold-for-almost-400-km-and-3-charges-checking-battery-temp/

On this image (from that post) you can clearly see the temperature peaks of the 3 charges I did. This was a 400 km highway ride BTW. You can also see the battery temp go up from the 12-14°C in garage to a perfect 25°C while riding at speed (in the cold).



Another important remark is that in ideal charging situations you get around 16 kWh from that battery, nowhere near 18 kWh. With a 14.4 kWh zero you would get around 12 kWh. I haven't tested any of their new models or their 110% charge features yet.

You can get a lot lower charge result just by charging in colder conditions. I don't know what season you test rode but 100% isn't always the same Wh available. For Example during winter my non heated but insulated garage ambient temp is around 12°C while at the office it would charge with 23°C ambient temperature. That alone is enough to see a big difference in the usable capacity. I also have a post about those numbers

https://fotoleer.wordpress.com/2022/02/22/energica-battery-temperature-versus-usable-capacity-after-balanced-charge/

The graph from that post (obv above 30 it won't be that linear)



These are numbers reported by the BMS after a 100% balanced charge, so not something I "think" the bike does. Plus it was confirmed (at least the 15,x kWh numbers at around 20°C) on multiple bikes. I'm a big fan of Energica and prefer it over the Zero I had in the past. This is also not bashing, just numbers and things to take into account if you go for it.

So best count with 16 kWh available. Consumption on non highway rides can be as low as 70 to 90 Wh/km. On highway speeds more like 120 Wh/km minimal unless you really try hard. And if you ride faster way more, no need to try hard for that.

Tucking in while riding can gain you up to 10% in range. Obv that also works on a Zero.

[Sklith]

It makes me wonder if a 13.3 kWh Energica will do better on long trips than the plus versions if the DCFC stations are plentiful enough.

[Hans2183]

I've heard those handle heat way better indeed. This summer I'll try to arrange a long ride with someone with a non plus model so we can check if they cope better.

Here in Belgium the goal is to have DC chargers every 50 km on highways. On the top part of Belgium that is done, the bottom part is ... in progress .

The best bike is probably the EMCE motor combined with the old battery... Might also get the price down. A bit like Zero is now selling the SR model (the new SR, not the old one).

[MVetter]

It makes me wonder if a 13.3 kWh Energica will do better on long trips than the plus versions if the DCFC stations are plentiful enough.

Yes

[Tony]

I had a 2019 (they call it 2020) SR/F premium with charge tank, 12 kW charging and 14.4 kWh battery. That renders around 12 kWh usable in real life. After 2 years I've traded it in for an SS9+ which I now have for almost 1 year.

Some Quick thoughts based on your OP:

The sitting position of the SS9 is way more upright and relaxed than the SRF was. SRS is closer but even compared to that the SS9 is more relaxed. A more similar riding position is the Ribelle. I have Ribelle handlebars on my SS9 but my legs are still more relaxed than the SRF with SRS pegs was.

Besides that position Energica's are heavier and longer bikes. That length is something you can easily feel in the showroom. Weight while riding is something you'll only notice on very slow or very fast-not-in-a-straight-line riding. Aka not in normal use.

Zero SRF feels a bit quicker than an SS9 because of the lower weight for similar power numbers. A Ribelle feels again quicker than an SRF. I haven't ridden any EGO or RS models but I imagine those are also faster.

In cold temperatures my SS9 gets very close to the range I got with my SRF. The Zero can handle both cold and heat better (not water, not at all).
For Energica heat (anything above 25°C) will reduce charge speed. Heat is generated by both high speed riding (highway use) and fast DC charging.
The cold will impact not only the range while riding but also the useable capacity after a full charge on Energica. For 10°C charge temp I get around 15 kWh while at 25°C I get closer to 16,4 kWh. If you can charge in a heated space or with a warm battery (after highway ride) this isn't a big issue.
I do notice that difference when using the bike. Also Energica is a bit less efficient than Zero while riding.

Note that for me, in Belgium, cold weather is -10 to 10°C ambient temp and heat is 20°C or up, sometimes up to 30° for a few days.

Energica displays numbers on the dash you can count on. My Zero didn't have magic charging issues but the consumption numbers were very unreliable. Also changing ride style in the middle of a ride would rarely result in different range numbers on the dash. On Energica you can literally adapt riding style and see range change. My Zero could run for over 10 km on 0 % SOC, albeit with massively reduced power. I haven't tested this on the Energica yet. 

Reason for me to switch was reliability, the Zero wasn't doing well in heavy rain. I would switch again right away.

The only downside for me is the chain maintenance. But then the belt of the Zero broke on me so that also isn't a perfect. Plus if you don't ride in rain or long distances this chain will stay clean and lubed way longer.

Thank you for a detailed writeup on your experience.

I heard Energica reduced the weight significantly in their latest models, so it is now a bit closer to the SRF, is your model the new type weight-wise?

I also had some rain related issues on my SRF actually, at one point it had to go into service after riding in heavy rain. Good to know the SS9 would be more reliable in this scenario.

[FlorisXIII]

The big Energica batteries have 18.9 net capacity. Getting only 150 km of range out of that means the efficiency is 126 Wh/km which is about the same as a Tesla Model 3 so something's not right. My Ego only has the 13.3 kWh battery but I doubt efficiency is very different, and I get about 80 Wh/km at those speeds.

I'd have to ride at 130 kph to get the efficiency FlorisXIII mentions. I know the Ego is more efficient but not by that much.

See Hans’ post with the charts, his figures align with my experience. My efficiency on highways (100 kph speed on GPS) is around 100 Wh/km. Maybe my massive windscreen & cases impact consumption… Still, I did a 380 km (total) commute today to one of our remote offices. Just needed a 20 minute charge on each leg (left the bike plugged in at AC at the office). Totally doable!

[MrMogensen]

It's really cool to see the data (and someone confirming it).

We have a Tesla Model 3 (Long Range) and it would be a big shame if it Wh/km-wise wasn't more affordable to jump on the bike whenever possible!
The Tesla can get around 160 at 100 km/h.

[Hans2183]

@Tony mine is a 2021 SS9+ so with the lighter 21.5kWh battery but not yet with the lighter EMCE motor. Should be closer to 265 kg for the new ones. Plus they are more efficient.


I did weigh these that were at some point in my garage. My own SRF with charge tank was 241 kg. My SS9+ stock was 275 kg but I now added hard cases so it will be a bit heavier again.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dlXTSnTh_q7bFefpvZ-3EcVxmnQzLHX44gKEATt2rA4/edit

[Tony]

@Tony mine is a 2021 SS9+ so with the lighter 21.5kWh battery but not yet with the lighter EMCE motor. Should be closer to 265 kg for the new ones. Plus they are more efficient.


I did weigh these that were at some point in my garage. My own SRF with charge tank was 241 kg. My SS9+ stock was 275 kg but I now added hard cases so it will be a bit heavier again.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dlXTSnTh_q7bFefpvZ-3EcVxmnQzLHX44gKEATt2rA4/edit

Thank you for this thorough weight comparison, very helpful!

Roughly 265kg means 45kg more than what I am used to, definitively something to take into consideration. I guess the only way to know for sure is to go on a test drive, even though it would cost me two or three days for the trip to that only dealership in Norway.