Print

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

[lolachampcar]

11.5 DS
I just came from a reasonably long ride of about 55 miles mostly doing 45-60 with a little stop and go.  I was surprised to see consumption around 107 WHr/Mi.  That equates to a 107 mile range which is staggering compared to my 2012 9DS which would probably come in around 70 miles.  A straight capacity ratio of 11.5/9 * 70 miles yields 90 miles, not 107. 

Is anyone else seeing anything like these numbers or having a similar experience?  Larger batteries discharge at a lower C rate for a given acceleration so part of it could be attributed to less demand on the battery.  Is the new motor better?  If so, has anyone heard by how much?

[lolachampcar]

For comparison, my Model S has a rated range of 265 miles which equates to 320 WHr/Mi.  I typically run about 306 or so unless I am giving test rides

[Richard230]

At similar speeds my 2012 Zero S seems to get around 120 watts per mile. Of course your mileage will vary and going up hills and into a stiff wind does affect the power consumption.  Right now it sounds like the new Zero motor may be more efficient than the 2012 motor. 

[skeezmour]

For comparison, my Model S has a rated range of 265 miles which equates to 320 WHr/Mi.  I typically run about 306 or so unless I am giving test rides

Yep all bets are off when the test rides start! 

[benswing]

On my 2012 Zero S ZF9, my average has been 124 Wh/mi so far.

On rides where I'm riding like I'm late it can be around 150-170Wh/mi.

On rides where I'm squeezing out as much range as possible, I've gotten it down to 81Wh/mi.

I think the new motor for 2013's is more efficient since it was designed in house for this specific purpose using a CA technology development grant.

[trikester]

On the two 2013 FX rides I recently reported on I got 118.44 WHr/Mi on the 28.6 moving average mph pavement ride and 118.97 WHr/Mi on the 9.4 moving ave mph dirt ride.

The increase WHr/Mi in the dirt surprised me because I was used to getting better mileage on my 2012 DS when dirt riding vs pavement. However, this dirt tide included a lot of very tight turns (hence the slow ave) and a lot of sand.

Back in Jan I did a 2012 DS combination dirt / pavement 40 Mi ride where I got 107.5 WHr/Mi. I will try to duplicate that ride with my FX to get a comparison. It's possible that the plug-able batteries on the FX have higher internal losses.

Trikester

[lolachampcar]

Larger discharge rates (C rate) on smaller packs for the same operating point will reduce capacity.  Put differently, you get one capacity if discharging a battery at 1/2C and less when discharging at 1C.  It would make sense that the FX would get less range than the DS but the WHr/Mi should not really be a battery discharge related number.

[jazclrint]

{out of lurk mode] I would assume the new motor is a lot more efficient where it can put out that much power in a production bike and still only have to be air cooled and twice the power in something about the same size and weight with the same size 4 controller.  Thank you for the numbers, very interesting!

[trikester]

It would make sense that the FX would get less range than the DS but the WHr/Mi should not really be a battery discharge related number.

Actually I was thinking in terms of the battery's internal series resistance being higher and therefore the loss would be higher for any given power level. Increasing the battery IR loss would increase the WHr/Mi used. WHr/Mi is a result of the sum total of all the losses in the system (including air friction, etc.) when moving the bike down the road.

Trikester

[NoiseBoy]

A PMAC motor is already between 92 and 97% efficient so i doubt that the electrical efficiency of the new motor is significantly different. Perhaps the new motor is wound for more torque given that it runs at a higher voltage and so its driveability is improved, which is where you see the gains.

[lolachampcar]

Trikester,

I guess I was thinking the WHr/Mi was measured as a function of input to the motor.  That is, the controller reports current and voltage while the dash records miles traveled to compute WHr/Mi.  What you are saying is that WHr/Mi is computed using power required to replenish the battery?

Put differently, the exact same drive in the cold and hot should consume roughly the same WHr/Mi (within reason) while the battery's internal resistance or effeciency will be much less when cold.  I'm probably missing something here.

[Richard230]

A PMAC motor is already between 92 and 97% efficient so i doubt that the electrical efficiency of the new motor is significantly different. Perhaps the new motor is wound for more torque given that it runs at a higher voltage and so its driveability is improved, which is where you see the gains.

I imagine that Zero optimized their new motor for motorcycle use.  Previously, electric motors used in motorcycles were slightly modified off-the-shelf units and were likely originally designed and built for other uses than for highly-stressed, high-speed, EV usage. Frankly, it is amazing that off-the-shelf anything works in a motorcycle, considering how they are used and how they are stored and maintained by their owners.   

[trikester]

  What you are saying is that WHr/Mi is computed using power required to replenish the battery?

Yes, that is correct. We are measuring the power used to recharge after a ride and dividing that by the miles ridden. That is the only data most of us have to use and of course it includes the losses in recharging as an error factor. I assume the others are doing it that way also unless they have added instruments to actually measure and calculate the usage while riding (I think Doctorbass has done that).

Now, with the 2013's, we will have that real time information as soon as we equip our bikes with the iPods etc., and it will come from measurement of voltage and current compared to distance, as you stated earlier.

Trikester

[lolachampcar]

That makes sense.  I was going off the statistics from the IPone application which build before charging (meaning they must be consumption based and not replenishment based). 

It is very helpful to know that I am comparing my apples to someone else's oranges.  I'll keep that in mind and remember that my numbers are optimistic.

[trikester]

It is very helpful to know that I am comparing my apples to someone else's oranges.  I'll keep that in mind and remember that my numbers are optimistic.

Also remember that soon (it's on its way from Amazon) I will have my iPod Touch and be looking at real time consumption numbers as well (as soon as I machine a sturdy and secure holder, on the FX, for it).

Trikester