Print

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

[Straightedg4lif]

dkw12002,

About the other bikes you mentioned...I like the weight of them but I do not like to shift, so I would not like them for that reason. I like the automatics and that is one of my main reasons for liking the Zero.

[Straightedg4lif]

$17,153.70 was my quote for the 2015 Zero S 12.5 and was quoted $19,273.70 for the 2015 Zero SR. Now I have a decision to make on which one I want more. My dealer only  stocks the SR because they sell more of them than the S. What would you do? Go for the faster bike?!

[dkw12002]

Provided they could lower both bikes satisfactorily, personally, I would probably go with the one I could get the best deal on. To me both are fast bikes, but neither is as fast as a super sport bike. Since there is no shifting, the acceleration is effortless and very user friendly though. The thing that limits my take offs on my Zero S is that the rear tire will skip and slide if I just open the throttle (stock tires), so that's pretty good acceleration off the line. You will be able to get out way ahead of all traffic on either bike. I can't really answer the question from your point of view, because I like to shift and go fast and owned a Gixxer 1000 which is much faster than either of the Zeros, so to me, both are fast, but neither would be fast enough if I was looking for acceleration and top speed. Most women are not into that kind of speed though, so I suspect either Zero would be plenty fast enough for you.

I think you will have to test ride at least one of the bikes to make a decision if you can safely ride one at 5'3".

[MichaelJohn]

Provided they could lower both bikes satisfactorily, personally, I would probably go with the one I could get the best deal on. To me both are fast bikes, but neither is as fast as a super sport bike.

I can't really answer the question from your point of view, because I like to shift and go fast and owned a Gixxer 1000 which is much faster than either of the Zeros, so to me, both are fast, but neither would be fast enough if I was looking for acceleration and top speed.

Would you say that your literbike was faster than the SR in midrange acceleration, say 30-70? I can understand from a standing start where a geared ICE bike can get more torque to the pavement with a good launch but once the SR hits 20 or 30 it is mighty quick. I have let a few friends ride my Zero, one who has a 180 hp R1, and he thought that the SR's acceleration was comparable to the Yamaha's. Obviously top speed goes to any high-end ICE bike.

[Electric Terry]

If you're trying to get a bike that will last you a few years, I would definitely say get the SR over the S. 
As you grow in your riding experience it is natural to feel more comfortable with a faster and faster bike, not that you need it all the time, but when you need to avoid a car, its nice to have the power if you need it.   If its too fast for you to start with, you can always keep it in ECO mode for a few months, or even set a custom torque amount in CUSTOM mode, turning up the power a little more and more over time.

You can get your plastics custom painted from red to whatever color you like if it turns out you really don't like the red and say would like "electric blue" for instance instead.  I would wait until next winter to paint them so you don't have any down time from riding when the weather is nice.

Call Cherry Hill, tell them you are a serious potential buyer, and have them slide the forks up in the triple clamps for you, and reduce the preload using the red 17 mm nut on top of the forks to let it sag as much as possible, and have them remove the preload on the rear shock as well before you get there.  Then test ride it and I'll bet you'll come back with a huge smile on your face and get the SR right there on the spot!

Good Luck!  I hope to see pics of you test riding the bike or taking it home soon!

[dkw12002]

The Gixxer is faster than the SR in low, mid, and top range. The Gixxer would require reving the bike, popping the clutch, keeping the front wheel down, and shifting properly if you drag race it. If you did all that, it would be much faster than the SR. Of course top speed of the SR is just over 100, and the Gixxer top speed is 186 mph, so it is just waking up when the SR tops out. Almost nobody rides the Gixxer that way though. If you were stopped on an SR or S next to a Gixxer, he would have no idea you were about to take off like a bat out of hell when the light changed. You would also know if he planned to race by whether he reved the engine or not. If he didn't rev the engine, you would get out ahead of him and by the time he realized what was happening (that you were racing), you would both either be going way over the speed limit or have had to slow down for the next traffic light. You can only trick him once though. The SR is much easier to accelerate fast than the Gixxer. You wouldn't shift out of 1st until about 90 mph in a drag race and 2nd gear would take you to 122 mph or so, so you would really only shift once if you were racing an SR on a Gixxer 1000. In a quarter mile, you would probably shift into 3rd. The Gixxer 1000 quarter mile is about 142 mph in 10 seconds. The SR would be at a huge disadvantage because of the low top end. Gears make all the difference.

[Doug S]

Almost nobody rides the Gixxer that way though.

Personally, I have "zero" (sorry) interest in racing, including taking anybody by surprise so I can beat him. I've been known to engage in some playful street tag, and I do enjoy showing people that this rig is FAR from a two-wheeled golf cart, but if I actually wanted to RACE, I'd do it on the track. And the Zero wouldn't be a great choice; it's got very little top end, and can be out-dragged in slower sections easily by bikes with better (lower) launching gears.

But I don't do that, I ride in the real world, and I think the SR's brand of performance can be more useful on the street. Suppose you're cruising on the freeway, and you realize your off-ramp is coming up, and there's a truck in your way. On the SR, twist the throttle hard and you're around the truck in the blink of an eye. On an ICE bike....well, first, if you want to accelerate hard, you need to kick down at least a couple of gears. Then there's some throttle lag, and many bikes have a lean stutter or two to deal with, and when all's said and done, the SR makes the off-ramp more often than just about any other bike.

The more I ride my SR, the more I realize it's not the brute torque I appreciate most, it's the extreme smoothness of the power delivery, and the instantaneous responsiveness the bike exhibits overall.

[Straightedg4lif]

If you're trying to get a bike that will last you a few years, I would definitely say get the SR over the S. 
As you grow in your riding experience it is natural to feel more comfortable with a faster and faster bike, not that you need it all the time, but when you need to avoid a car, its nice to have the power if you need it.   If its too fast for you to start with, you can always keep it in ECO mode for a few months, or even set a custom torque amount in CUSTOM mode, turning up the power a little more and more over time.

You can get your plastics custom painted from red to whatever color you like if it turns out you really don't like the red and say would like "electric blue" for instance instead.  I would wait until next winter to paint them so you don't have any down time from riding when the weather is nice.

Call Cherry Hill, tell them you are a serious potential buyer, and have them slide the forks up in the triple clamps for you, and reduce the preload using the red 17 mm nut on top of the forks to let it sag as much as possible, and have them remove the preload on the rear shock as well before you get there.  Then test ride it and I'll bet you'll come back with a huge smile on your face and get the SR right there on the spot!

Good Luck!  I hope to see pics of you test riding the bike or taking it home soon!

Thanks for your reply and it is so funny that you mentioned the electric blue because that is the color that I love on bikes.
I think that I might just go with the SR because the price difference isn't that much more, and I know I would love having more torque over the long haul. I hope to have some pics soon as well!

[Richard230]

Plus, my guess is that the SR will command a higher price on the used-bike market, perhaps as much as $2K more than the S.

[dkw12002]

The 2015 SR accelerates way faster than the 2014. I read an article in the Sep 2014 issue of Motorcycle Consumer News today that said the SR for 2014 has a zero to 60 time of 4.5 seconds (vs. 3.3 for 2015). The 2014 SR turned a quarter mile in 11.4 seconds with a speed of 98.94 mph. Anyone know the quarter mile figures for the 2015 SR? Something tells me the next iteration will be below 3 seconds zero to 60. At that point, I will have to buy one myself. I think the forte of the SR and S are fairly similar. They are outstanding easy-to-ride commuters and street bikes.

I don't race either, and never took my Gixxer to the track, nor did I ever go faster than 145 mph or so, which is crazy fast...too fast for me, and after 11,000 miles, I decided I really didn't need a super sport race bike, so I traded it in on a Ninja 300.

One other thing to think about is riding position. I think the riding position is more upright on the S compared to the SR. If a person is short, they will have to do more stretching to get to the handlebars too which puts you more into a racing position. Some people like that, some don't, which is another reason to test ride an SR and an S if possible. If not possible, at least have the salesman hold the front of the bike steady so you can get on it and assume the riding position to see what you think. More than once, I have bought bikes I hadn't ridden only to find out within the first 30 seconds there was something I did not like about it.

[MichaelJohn]

The 2015 SR accelerates way faster than the 2014. I read an article in the Sep 2014 issue of Motorcycle Consumer News today that said the SR for 2014 has a zero to 60 time of 4.5 seconds (vs. 3.3 for 2015). The 2014 SR turned a quarter mile in 11.4 seconds with a speed of 98.94 mph. Anyone know the quarter mile figures for the 2015 SR? Something tells me the next iteration will be below 3 seconds zero to 60. At that point, I will have to buy one myself. I think the forte of the SR and S are fairly similar. They are outstanding easy-to-ride commuters and street bikes.

I test rode a 2014 SR before I bought my 2015 and frankly I thought they accelerated the same. I don't believe that there is any power difference between them and the 2014 is even a few pounds lighter. Where did you find that quarter-mile time for the 2014 SR? With the SR's low top speed I don't think that 11.4 is anywhere near possible.

[Straightedg4lif]

One other thing to think about is riding position. I think the riding position is more upright on the S compared to the SR. If a person is short, they will have to do more stretching to get to the handlebars too which puts you more into a racing position. Some people like that, some don't, which is another reason to test ride an SR and an S if possible. If not possible, at least have the salesman hold the front of the bike steady so you can get on it and assume the riding position to see what you think. More than once, I have bought bikes I hadn't ridden only to find out within the first 30 seconds there was something I did not like about it.

Good point about riding position, I really didn't think of that since they look so much a like. Can anyone else clarify this? Is the riding position more in a racing position on the SR compared to the S? I am a short person and would have to stretch more if that were the case.

Also I am in the same boat as you with finding stuff you didn't like about your previous bikes. That is why I am looking for something that I love! Hopefully that is the 2015 Zero!

[Doug S]

The 2015 SR accelerates way faster than the 2014. I read an article in the Sep 2014 issue of Motorcycle Consumer News today that said the SR for 2014 has a zero to 60 time of 4.5 seconds (vs. 3.3 for 2015).

I find that hard to believe, given that all the relevant numbers are the same. Weight is the same, it's the same motor, current put out by the motor controller is the same, torque and horsepower are the same, etc. That 4.5-second number you quote has been repeated way too often; it was done by a heavy, non-professional rider on a power tank-equipped bike, so it was considerably heavier than it should have been for a comparison run. The factory number, 3.3 seconds, is the same for either year.

[KenMac]

One other thing to think about is riding position. I think the riding position is more upright on the S compared to the SR. If a person is short, they will have to do more stretching to get to the handlebars too which puts you more into a racing position. Some people like that, some don't, which is another reason to test ride an SR and an S if possible. If not possible, at least have the salesman hold the front of the bike steady so you can get on it and assume the riding position to see what you think. More than once, I have bought bikes I hadn't ridden only to find out within the first 30 seconds there was something I did not like about it.

Good point about riding position, I really didn't think of that since they look so much a like. Can anyone else clarify this? Is the riding position more in a racing position on the SR compared to the S? I am a short person and would have to stretch more if that were the case.

Only real difference is the engine.  Riding position is the same between S & SR.

[protomech]

The 2015 SR accelerates way faster than the 2014. I read an article in the Sep 2014 issue of Motorcycle Consumer News today that said the SR for 2014 has a zero to 60 time of 4.5 seconds (vs. 3.3 for 2015).

I find that hard to believe, given that all the relevant numbers are the same. Weight is the same, it's the same motor, current put out by the motor controller is the same, torque and horsepower are the same, etc. That 4.5-second number you quote has been repeated way too often; it was done by a heavy, non-professional rider on a power tank-equipped bike, so it was considerably heavier than it should have been for a comparison run. The factory number, 3.3 seconds, is the same for either year.

I don't know that I'd call the rider non-professional: he gets paid to review motorcycles. He may not be a professional racer, but I imagine it doesn't take that much raw talent and training to turn out repeatable 0-60 times on an electric direct-drive bike.

The MCN review mentions that the rider was 240 pounds.

On top of the ~460 pound Zero SR + Power Tank, that brings the total vehicle weight to 700 pounds. Maybe a bit more, if the rider's weight does not include gear.

Tested performance is 4.58 seconds 0-60, 12.82s quarter mile @ 98.94 mph.

Generally speaking 0-60 time will be proportional to weight, so the 3.3s 0-60 claim for the ZF12.5 bike would require about a 500 pound SR + rider combination, or a ~100 pound rider. That's a few standard deviations below typical American male weight, a ~200 pound rider will be closer to 3.9s for the ZF12.5.