Print

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

[frank_b]

Interesting

I drive the Energica always the same: Powersetting: max, Regen 1 speed: legal limit +20 km/h 
Range was quite accurate, mostly because I always drive consistent.

On my way to the dealer: also correct.
On my way from the dealer (bike had the s/w update) -> estimate a lot lower.
Nothing else changed, still the same driver, same drive style, same charging (90% of the time AC load before drive to 100% and balancing) 10% Fast DC loading.

So my conclusion: software introduced.
Now I drive on the SOC not the estimate range.

[jotjotde]

My dealer phoned me regarding the FW.042 issue.

Originally they wanted me to come in and have it re-uploaded. Now not anymore, my dealer explained as follows.
The update deleted all long-term data the bike had stored for calculation of range. That should redeem itself after riding the bike for some distances.
So, when the weather turned better, I will see if the number get to the known ranges again.

The wrong charge estimation when charging AC might be caused by some other issue. The cooling fan of my internal charger does not switch off after finish, so both could point toward a defect in the charger. My dealer will forward this issue again to Energica.

[chisquare]

Thanks jotjotde for confirming the assumption that the problem wasn't with wrong calculations but with the need to build up new data on actual energy consumption and range due to memory purge.
I hope there's an straightforward solution for your charging time estimation issue.

[frank_b]

My dealer phoned me regarding the FW.042 issue.

Originally they wanted me to come in and have it re-uploaded. Now not anymore, my dealer explained as follows.
The update deleted all long-term data the bike had stored for calculation of range. That should redeem itself after riding the bike for some distances.
So, when the weather turned better, I will see if the number get to the known ranges again.

Nice, will see if it corrects in time. 

The wrong charge estimation when charging AC might be caused by some other issue. The cooling fan of my internal charger does not switch off after finish, so both could point toward a defect in the charger. My dealer will forward this issue again to Energica.

I don't have this problem, so it looks like the dealer is correct and the problem is caused by the charger.

[joesedroid]

I got my 2023 Dec 20. They had charged it up to 98% and unplugged it while balancing. Had 5 total miles on the odometer. Range showed 41 miles I got home going 75ish miles for 55 miles at 36%. I now have 1300 miles on it and never seen a range greater than 70 miles. I charge to 80% and I have a scenic route of 82 miles that I take a few times a week. Average about 50mph and get back with about 20ish% The entire time, every time it starts out at 42mile range and get home with about 30 mile range. I picked it up with .042 FW. I do hope it gets a better estimate.

[SBK74]

As long as I can remember, the predicted range has always been based on the battery capacity divided by AVG consumption of last 10km times SOC. On FW 41 I have seen the following figures in one day, 3 hours in between:

(193 x 8,0)/ 100% =15,4 kWh (last 10km easy traffic)
(73 x 15,3) / 73% = 15,3 kWh (head wind)

(range x AVG_cons)/SOC = kWh available

It is totally not in Energica's interest to have displayed range take so long to come to accurate values; newbies would have nervous test drives and sub optimal rental experiences. For the ones who experience the low range, it's interesting to do the math and see what capacity is the outcome. Unfortunalety none of the pictures in this thread show the consumption screen.

[Specter]

It is totally not in Energica's interest to have displayed range take so long to come to accurate values; newbies would have nervous test drives and sub optimal rental experiences. For the ones who experience the low range, it's interesting to do the math and see what capacity is the outcome. Unfortunalety none of the pictures in this thread show the consumption screen.

Your comment has merit, maybe they should have an option where the user can set how the bike determines this.  Range based on average consumption over the last  10 / 25 / 50 / 100 miles type thing.  OR the bike even just does this in the background and says, ok he's all over the place, we better stick with last 10, or.  ok he's pretty consistent over the last 50 miles so lets go with this as a solid for the rest of the trip.

Aaron

[DonTom]

Your comment has merit, maybe they should have an option where the user can set how the bike determines this.  Range based on average consumption over the last  10 / 25 / 50 / 100 miles type thing.  OR the bike even just does this in the background and says, ok he's all over the place, we better stick with last 10, or.  ok he's pretty consistent over the last 50 miles so lets go with this as a solid for the rest of the trip.

Aaron

The big problem with "range" is the return trip when conditions are the opposite. Such as first going downhill with the wind and then needing to come back the same distance but in the opposite direction.  Even SOC will not be accurate for such, but it will be a lot closer than the "range" that was displayed on the way down.


-Don-  Borrego Springs, CA

[Specter]

But once you have made that 'round trip' a few times and it's in memory, then it knows that for the 100 miles or whatever the trip is, THIS is about where you should end up at.  So it may be a bit low on the down side but even out on the back up side.  Although that would be a lot to ask for, lets say you did have a varied trip like that, BUT it is going to be a very frequent trip, THIS is the trip I make 5 days a week, for the next 10 years type thing.  Being able to tell the bike. Ok this next profile I am going to put in, is the entire trip charge to charge. calculate it and figure it out.

To be honest though if you do have the same trip over and over, you really don't need the bike to tell you how much is left, you should already know

Aaron

[BigPoppa]

Another artifact of the 42 update I found this morning on my commute into work. The ambient temp was about 10 degrees Fahrenheit high this morning. Temps were definitely in the 30's this morning and my ambient temp never dropped below 44 degrees. Maybe I hit a bottom limit on the new firmware or it's actually off. I'll double check it on the way home this afternoon.

[Dryer667]

My SS9 came on .42 firmware and has always been about 10 degrees above ambient. We traded a more accurate speedo for a less accurate temp gauge. 

[DonTom]

Now I drive on the SOC not the estimate range.

As you should anyway. If there was a way to turn off the range in the display, I would do such. It is the most useless thing on the bike. Less than useless, the way it works on Energicas. It can get one in trouble if they rely on it.  It recalculates around every 10 KM. That makes it less than useless. In that 10KM you could be going mostly downhill with uphill being next. Your range left will be shown to be great going downhill and extra poor when going uphill. Best to not have it at all. Use SOC times whatever your average range is in km and you will be MUCH more accurate than the less than useless range display.


IMO, range should be based on SOC and nothing else. Tesla does such. Range (in miles) is always three times my SOC no matter where I am, going downhill or uphill.


One possible exception: Better could be the way the "range" works in my Chevy Bolt. At all times, it shows "max range" "average range" and "min range" at all times.  That is the only time a "range estimate" on an EV is somewhat useful. So when I am getting the "max range" going downhill with the wind, I know to use the "min range" to get back.



-Don-  Auburn, CA

[BigPoppa]

Personally I just want the speedo accuracy improved at realistic freeway speeds (70mph-80mph) and the key fob recognition range drastically improved. Even after putting in a new battery (3.3v) just a couple of weeks ago, I already have to keep the fob close to the receiver antenna under the left front side panel again, not to mention the annoying key not in range message.

[ultrarnr]

My ambient temp readings have always been way off. I haven't seen any indications that it is worse now with Fw 42.

[smithy]

Personally I just want the speedo accuracy improved at realistic freeway speeds (70mph-80mph) and the key fob recognition range drastically improved. Even after putting in a new battery (3.3v) just a couple of weeks ago, I already have to keep the fob close to the receiver antenna under the left front side panel again, not to mention the annoying key not in range message.

A change of front, (or rear sprocket), will help with speedo accuracy....changed the front 15t sprocket to a 16t sprocket on my Experia, sorted the speedo error, it's now +/- 1kmh of GPS now.

Smithy.