Print

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

[rollandelliott]

I know they have power booster battery packs for the 2014 modles, which can increase range, but this chart below look correct for REAL WORLD usage of the Dual Sport Bikes over the years?

2014 ds 71 miles
2013 ds 71 miles
2012 ds 55 miles
2011 ds 43 miles
2010 ds 22 miles

I personally own the 2010 DS and Zero really lied about the range being up to 50 miles. If I had known the real world millage was only around 22 of combined Hwy/ City I probably wouldn't have gotten it.  Too bad there is no easy battery upgrade available either!

[Doctorbass]

All 2011 and previous model are using the Molicells wich have lower calandar life than the 2012+ does.

I measured couples of  2011 and 2010 packs  and these have all about 1.5kWh for the half pack( X, MX and XU)   and 3kWh for the S and DS pack, wich allowed me to do max 60km with my previous DS 2011 and about 30km highway.

From all 2011 and previous pack i never measured imore than 3 to 3.1 kWh measured in DC from the battery ( not measured with the AC meter) The battery is specified to have 3.9kwh normal but on the 1 and 2 years old zero that i neer measured the 3.9kWh

But on the 2012, these great EIG cells are awsome and i measured the specified capacity..

DOc

[Doctorbass]

I know they have power booster battery packs for the 2014 modles,

These are not POWER booster, but are RANGE booster.

In fact the added weight  of the range booster pack is slowering a bit the acceleration.

Doc

[rollandelliott]

what i don't understand is in another post you said that the 2010 and 2011 battery packs are the same. Then how come the 2011 DS gets almost twice the miles accoridng to people on this forum than the 2010?
even the manufacturer, ZERO says the 2011 should only be about 12% more effcient than the 2010, which means a few more miles to the charge not double!

[trikester]

I was getting about 30 miles in city riding on my 2010 DS.

The 2012 DS looks about right on your chart for what I was getting on that one. My 2012 DS and my 2013 FX are almost identical in my mileage experience even though the FX has a smaller battery.

Trikester

[protomech]

The 2010 and 2011 X and MX packs are the same. The 2011 S and DS packs are about 10% larger than 2010.

The EPA UDDS city range test is the only consistent test Zero has used from 2011 on. For 2010 and 2011 they also reported a "maximum" range, which was essentially cruising at a constant 25 mph with limited stops.

2010 DS - 3.6 kWh nominal - 50 miles max, probably 37 miles EPA city
2011 DS - 3.9 kWh nominal - 58 miles max, 43 miles EPA city
2012 DS ZF9 - 7.9 kWh nominal - 112 miles EPA city
2013 DS ZF11.4 - 10.0 kWh nominal - 126 miles EPA city
2014 DS ZF14.2 - 12.5 kWh nominal - 158 miles EPA city

The largest capacity 2014 bike has approximately 3.5x the capacity of the 2010 bike and just over 4x the city range, despite increasing in weight from 277 to 449 pounds.

Going back to the ranges mentioned in your original post - I would say that I would expect the 2011 DS to get approximately half the range of the 2012 bike in similar conditions, so around 27 miles. Otherwise, that looks right for a mix of city and highway riding.

[rollandelliott]

so looking at the weights below
2014   372 lbs
2013   363
2012   297
2011  297
2010   277 lbs.

looks like the bike with the most bang for the buck is the 2012 on the used market.
the 2010 and 2011 have pretty small ranges.

[Burton]

Wait a second here. Doing some quick math the 2012 DS ZF9 got 14.17 miles per kWH and the newer 11.4 / 14/2 both got 12.6

Did the testing change?

[protomech]

I suspect the testing did not change.

I also suspect Zero only tests each class of bikes (S, DS, FX) once and then scales the range for the other bikes according to capacity. This ignores real range effects from different weight as well as different relative discharge rates, and explains why the ranges for the different batteries are exact multiples of each other.

Between 2012 and 2013, the reported city efficiency drops as you note. The 2013 bikes, especially the ZF11.4, are significantly heavier, which will have significant impact on low-speed range. I think the ZF75-7 motor is also slightly more efficient than the modified ME0913 in the 2012 at higher RPMs, but also slightly less efficient at lower RPMs.

If you look at highway efficiency - at 70 mph - the 2012 bikes are much less efficient than the 2013 and 2014.

[Burton]

If you look at highway speeds@ 70mph you get
2012: 7.85 miles/kwh
11.4: 6.2 miles/kwh
14.2: 6.08 miles/kwh

I wonder if the 2012 had the same capacity as the 11.4 if it would get about 78miles per charge @ 70mph. I bought a 2013 because Terry told me the 2013+ are more efficient and get farther range.  But it seems the specs either lie and don't reflect reality or the 2012 really is better :/

[Electric Terry]

Burton, can you show the math you used to come up with numbers indicating the 2013 is not as efficient on the highway?  It does sacrifice a small amount of low speed efficiency but in turn gives much greater high speed efficiency.

Here are some numbers we ran.  The 2014 has the potential to go twice as far on the highway as the largest 2012 did.  And it's not twice the battery.  It's other factors increasing efficiency.  Higher voltage, more efficient motor.

http://electricmotorcycleforum.com/boards/index.php?topic=3539.0

[Burton]

Ok just realized my mistake in thinking the 70mph was a constant not a combined number >_<

[trikester]

My 2013 FX with a 5 kWh battery (Zero specs) gets the same range as my 2012 DS with a 6 kWh batt (Zero specs). It has to be more efficient to do that.

Trikester

[protomech]

2012 ZF6 was 5.3 kWh nominal, not much more than ZF5.7 5.0 kWh nominal. FX weighs 40 pounds less.

[trikester]

So their 6 kWh spec on 2012 DS was bullshit. My iPod tells me that my 2013 FX is 5 kWh (not 5.7) when it is charged. Therefore I was assuming it was 1 kWh less than the 2012 DS but since it doesn't have Bluetooth I didn't have an actual reading on it. If you are correct at 5.3 for the 2012 then I can see why they are similar mileages since the FX is 20 lbs lighter (not 40, 277 vs 297).

Trikester