Print

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

[ultrarnr]

Does that mean the speedometer is more accurate now with FW 42?

[jotjotde]

Just came home from a ride with the new 042 update.
I can confirm that the speedometer reading is now more accurate.
It isn’t plus 10 % anymore, but more in the range of plus 4-6 km/h.
At 55 km/h speedo, my GPS shows 51-52.
At 120 km/h GPS showed 114.

What I think is a setback compared to the earlier version is the range estimate.
The estimate is now total bulls**t.
In 041 version it was a reasonably prediction using the average of the last several minutes.
Now it seems to be more or less constant %SOC = km. See it yourself in the attached pics.
Started with 98 % and 120 km prediction which quickly fell to 90 somewhat outside urban.
Arrived home again having consumed 60 % SOC for 107 km. That should get me a residual range of more than 60 km.

So, for me the battery is OK but the range estimate is fu**ed up.

[wadejesu]

Sounds like my Typhoon Drone, Did FW update that was suppose to get rid of bugs, instead, it created more.
If it Anit broke don't fix it. 

[DonTom]

So, for me the battery is OK but the range estimate is fu**ed up.

I cannot think of anything more useless than a range estimate on an electric motorcycle. Best to never look at it, especially in the hills. If going downhill your estimate will be extra high. And then you're lucky to get a third of that range estimate when you start going uphill.


Just use the SOC and figure out your range from that.


The range estimate is based on how you have been riding. Will always be higher after going downhill and lower after going uphill.


It would work well if the wind and hills didn't change as you ride. A good estimate of range in one direction means expect to get very poor range when you return the same way. Totally useless, IMAO! 


It would make a lot more sense to base a range estimate on the SOC. Tesla seems to do that. Range left is around three times the SOC. IOW, 50% SOC means ~150 miles range left on a Tesla on every trip in either direction.


-Don-  Auburn, CA

[Valen]

Range estimate takes 5 charging cycles so it's normal that it's f... at the beginning.

On my side, i start to think that my problem wasn't FW related. I had the bike shut off, showing a % of 0 (was 37% 2 seconds before). Restarted the bike, made like 10 meter and the bike died again.Got "undefinited fault" on the screen, bike couldn't be restarted, screen still black and even the red led wasn't flashing.

Pushed it to my garage (i've done sports for 2023 and beyond i think), plugged it on the wall box, bike wasn't detected. Unplugged it and thought i ll get it towed this week (got some business trips before)

Yesterday i check the bike and saw the red immobilizer led flashing, turned the bike on. Battery percentage at 0%. I plug it and it start to charge. I planed a cell balancing but the bike couldn't charge past 57% and started balancing at 57% (...) I left it plugged for hours and still the bike doesn't charge above 57%. Didn't try to drive it, i think i ll get it towed instead.

All in all i think that my problem sounds more like a faulty battery pack instead of a FW issue. I ll have more info end of the week i think and will keep you posted.

[HoodRichOG]

That's awesome that they made the speedo more accurate! It was one of the main complaints of owners that I've seen.

Interesting about that SOC calc change. May not be a bad thing. I live on top of a hill and my range estimate is always way off because of the way it calculates it so I think the new version may actually work better in my case.

Now if only we didn't have to go all the way to the dealer to update the fw... Is there anything else in the new firmware that we should absolutely need to go update it?

[jotjotde]

Now if only we didn't have to go all the way to the dealer to update the fw... Is there anything else in the new firmware that we should absolutely need to go update it?

In my view, yes.
My dealer explained to me that the update redeems a problem with inaccurate cell balancing which over time would lead to bad performance during accelerations (sudden power reductions).


If the SOC calculation gets better over time as Valen indicated in his post yesterday, I am not too sure about that.
Unfortunately after having the warmest new year day since weather recordings we are now facing a long period of cold and rain. So I will not be able to confirm if that is the case (no bike riding for me in cold and rain  ).
I agree to Don that the SOC calculation is not helping anyway e.g. you if you are heading to the mountains.
To me the bad SOC calculation is not a major problem, but it pains me every time when I see a working system fail because of an update 

[DonTom]

I agree to Don that the SOC calculation is not helping anyway e.g. you if you are heading to the mountains.
To me the bad SOC calculation is not a major problem, but it pains me every time when I see a working system fail because of an update 

Range estimate is useless, SOC is useful.


-Don-  Auburn, CA

[HoodRichOG]

OP, any updates on your range issue? Are you actually getting less range or is it just the displayed range?

How much does it cost to upgrade the fw at the dealer?

[jotjotde]

Update was free of charge - my Ribelle is less than one year old.

I had the chance to squeeze in another ride last weekend, but the situation with range estimation has not improved.
Moreover, some displayed infos during charging are also fu**d up.

Arriving home with 46% SOC I plugged the bike in with a 13 A (3.0 kW) charger limit. Look at the attached screenshot.
- Finished my ride with quite a lot of urban traffic, so the residual range should have been well above 100 km.
- Estimated time left to X% SOC is way too short
- Charging power kW is displayed higher than actually true
- Charging current A is displayed higher than actually true and even higher than pre-set current.

Unneccessary as these faults are, neither performance nor battery capacity seem to be compromised in any way. So I regard these errors as secondary.
Nevertheless it annoys me a lot! I will prepare a detailed e-mail for my dealer with pictures that he can forward to Energica and ask for advice.
Still it might be that the situation improves after some more charging cycles as indicated by Valen, but I don't have much hope. I will keep you posted.

[chisquare]

Those values of est. time left for 100% SOC  .
Thanks for this report. I guess I'll pass fw42 and hope for a more competent later version.

[Valen]

So here is the final update. I spent a day at the dealer and we spent a day exchanging with the factory on the phone. When they plugged my bike on the computer it showed a lot of error codes. We did a freeze frame and the factory took control remotely on the bike to check everything.

My diminished range (real one not just the estimate) was probably related to a bug on the software of the battery management, it was not related to the FW so it was bad luck. They did a file verification and now the bike has the right consumption, did 50km to check it and it's fixed.
The bike shutting down wasn't also related to the firmware, the above bug probably put the bike in emergency shutdown mode. It was fixed and the bike is again working perfectly. So this part is solved for now.

About the range estimate:
My dealer updated a press Ribelle RS yesterday before i arrive. After the update it showed 21 miles estimate for 71% battery which isn't great as the bike was supposed to do a range test for the press today
While they were working on my bike, I took the press bike for a spin to make sure that real consumption wasn't fucked up and when i came back bike was at 51% and i did 26 miles in sport mode riding agressively. The bike showed 49 miles after the spin. The instant and average consumption were perfectly accurate. So real life range isn't affected.

Bottom line as other stated, despite the funny figures on the range estimation, the real range and battery capacity aren't affected. I could test in on 2 bikes (mine, the press one) and an Experia that was delivered the same day had the same "issue" (range estimate was like 65 miles at 100%)
The FW does mess up the range estimate at first for sure. I had the same issue with my Taycan as the vehicule has to "relearn" to guess the range. However, on the Energica the starting numbers are just.... embarassing
With every charging cycle it gets more accurate (tested that). Doing a cell balancing helps (but doesn't magically solve the issue) and the more you ride the better it gets (tested that on both bikes)

Even if the issue is annoying i've to say that i was pretty impressed by the efficiency of the staff (at my dealer) but also at the factory to solve my issue yesterday.

[jotjotde]

Thank you for this post!
That makes me sleep better, knowing it's a FW f*ckup instead of the bike being faulty.

If weather stays dry for a reasonable time I will try to have a ride on the weekend to see if the numbers really improve on my bike.

[wadejesu]

jotjot

are you saying you did the FW update?  also does the display show which firmware you have, I can't remember.

[SBK74]

Thanks for the information shared. Makes me definitely want to postpone the update, despite my craving for a more accurate speedo. Looking at the data, my impression is that the bike 'thinks' there is a small (useable 10kWh) battery installed: that's more or less in line with the remaining charging time and range estimate. Range is estimated by dividing available battery capacity by average consumption over the last 10km. This(FW) is the achilles heel of Energica, I have had a lot of these bugs introduced in 5 years of FW updates that needed fixing later. Embarrassing that they don't have this under control.