Print

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

[protomech]

4. Make the size 6 standard across the line - yes, FX too. It's a minimal cost and weight gain, and significantly improves low end acceleration even on the bikes that will be more quickly limited by battery power (Zero FX, 3 brick S/DS). The bulk cost of the controllers is basically the same for Size 4 and Size 6, and it'll fix the complaints that the bikes are "soft" off the line. Bring the dual-controller powertrain to the SR, and gear it up (25/98) so that there's still a 3s 0-60 and 115+ mph top speed..

2 controllers won't help top speed, the limiter on top speed is the motor by the controller, the motor really needs to spin to 10000 Rpms and be limited to 9000 this would give everyone the speed and cooling they want without using the motor maxed out at full throttle....

Size six on a fx doesn't exist.... And it won't.... It draws to much power for thoes two small batteries, the batteries need to be much stronger maybe by 2017 it will be there maybe with a better smaller controller too

The top speed is improved by a smaller rear sprocket so that motor RPMs are reduced at a given speed. Since you have more battery power and more amps into the motor, you're making more torque so the wheel torque is about the same and the top speed is increased.

Size 6 at low rpm draws less power than size 4 at high rpm. It'll just have to taper faster to limit maximum power draw.

[Cortezdtv]

4. Make the size 6 standard across the line - yes, FX too. It's a minimal cost and weight gain, and significantly improves low end acceleration even on the bikes that will be more quickly limited by battery power (Zero FX, 3 brick S/DS). The bulk cost of the controllers is basically the same for Size 4 and Size 6, and it'll fix the complaints that the bikes are "soft" off the line. Bring the dual-controller powertrain to the SR, and gear it up (25/98) so that there's still a 3s 0-60 and 115+ mph top speed..

2 controllers won't help top speed, the limiter on top speed is the motor by the controller, the motor really needs to spin to 10000 Rpms and be limited to 9000 this would give everyone the speed and cooling they want without using the motor maxed out at full throttle....

Size six on a fx doesn't exist.... And it won't.... It draws to much power for thoes two small batteries, the batteries need to be much stronger maybe by 2017 it will be there maybe with a better smaller controller too

The top speed is improved by a smaller rear sprocket so that motor RPMs are reduced at a given speed. Since you have more battery power and more amps into the motor, you're making more torque so the wheel torque is about the same and the top speed is increased.

Size 6 at low rpm draws less power than size 4 at high rpm. It'll just have to taper faster to limit maximum power draw.

That is true until you change the gearing, then the bigger controller will be pulling more amps than smaller controller to make up for the  higher gearing which will take more amps at the lower speed to overcome the high speed gearing (smaller rear) for higher top speed

you will be going faster with the high speed gearing but you won't be able to accelerate even remotely fast and if you do (had 2 piggybacked controllers) you will drink MORE power than the lower gearing and higher spinning motor....

So a better motor is a much better option than 2 controllers.... 2 controllers still give you the same issue too much heat/ to much current through the motor.....

Putting a 98 tooth rear might get you better efficiency and top speed, but you will draw more power (amps) at lower speeds trying to make up for the [high gearing]


If you had a motor that was bigger it would take more but if it could spin fast that is still a much better option.....



No need to lecture me on size six's I've dabbled.... I'm one of the few who's ridden a size six fx..... So I know what real acceleration is like.   A size six and high speed gearing on a fx is still slow off the line.... Yes it has a much higher top speed but it won't even accelerate as hard as a stop fx, well until 50mph.  Then it comes on strong until 120 ish...


 Don't get me wrong I really wish zero would do exactly what you said put a size six on every fx the reality of the situation is the size  six is actually a very efficient controller and when you put it up with the bigger motor on the FX the bigger motor is supposed to draw more current but it's also much easier for it with 10 extra foot-pounds to get the bike going and I have not found the size 6  to have any less range than a fx. The extra amount of performance though is astounding it goes from riding a 150 four  stroke to riding a 250 2 stroke, the downfall your going to be accelerating like you have huge cahones every time and that will drain your battery decently fast just like flooring the fx will...

[evtricity]

Any of these performance upgrades will require the overheating issues to be resolved. The motor, battery and controller (in that order) are very susceptible to overheating in circuit conditions. Air cooling will never suffice if high performance is required, just like gas bikes.

[Doug S]

Air cooling will never suffice if high performance is required, just like gas bikes.

Actually there's nothing inherently inferior about air cooling. In fact, a "water-cooled" engine simply uses water as a transfer medium to take the heat energy from the motor to the radiator, where it's dumped into the same atmosphere an "air-cooled" engine uses to directly cool the engine. It's demonstrable that an "air-cooled" engine can actually dump heat to the atmosphere faster and more effectively than a "water-cooled" engine.

Water-cooled engines have some advantages: In particular they bring the heat to the airstream instead of the other way around (you can place the radiator right up front in the middle of the air intake of the vehicle), and they offer better temperature control (no over-cooling) because they offer a convenient place to put a thermostat. They can also help quiet an ICE, which isn't an issue for our EVs. But don't buy into the myth that water cooling is inherently superior to air cooling.

[evtricity]

Not buying into any myths just stating that if you want to ride a Zero fast you'll need to go to liquid cooling as the air cooling of the current motor is clearly insufficient for continuous fast riding. Zero might not be able to fix the range limitations of electric bikes but solving overheating issues has been done by Brammo and many others using liquid cooling. Sure there's a small weight penalty but I for one would not buy another Zero until they sort this out.

I believe there are some motor performance improvements coming to the road line for 2016 so we'll have to wait and see whether that includes fixing the overheating issues.

[Cortezdtv]

If you had a motor that spun to 10000, and used it to 9000 this would have never come up,
Instead we use a motor that spins to 6500 unsafely and using it to 6000.   Now if you used your sr at 5500 Rpms instead of 6000 do you think you would ever over heat.... Nope. That's all my point is. When you use roughly 80% of the zeros rpm band you would t have issues so having a motor that could spin that fast and using less of it it solve most of the issues



Designing a motor that actually spins that fast successfully  is the challenge now....

[evtricity]

Fair point but I would not be willing to up the gearing (more heat) or go any slower down the straights than I am at present!

I guess I figured when I bought my SR last year that all the photos on the website of the bike on the track meant that it was track capable. Unfortunately it's barely able to sustain the performance of a Ninja 300 after 10 minutes and shuts down after less than 20 minutes when the battery overheats with 35% charge remaining.

Sorry for going off topic but this issue will impact on Zero's ability to go into the the performance oriented side of the street and dirt markets and therefore should be a priority for the next few years.

[Cortezdtv]

Fair point but I would not be willing to up the gearing (more heat) or go any slower down the straights than I am at present!

I guess I figured when I bought my SR last year that all the photos on the website of the bike on the track meant that it was track capable. Unfortunately it's barely able to sustain the performance of a Ninja 300 after 10 minutes and shuts down after less than 20 minutes when the battery overheats with 35% charge remaining.

Sorry for going off topic but this issue will impact on Zero's ability to go into the the performance oriented side of the street and dirt markets and therefore should be a priority for the next few years.

That's why I say bigger motor over gearing changes,

And I couldn't agree more!


Performance is a massive part of motorcycling in general, and racing and motorcycles go hand and hand... Hard to have a company and not be ALL for racing... At least a small department or a few dedicated bikes  here and there for performance..... I mean that's really all part of r&d and marketing when you can show a cool concept based of what you have or a race bike based of your frame motor battery etc....

[Manzanita]

1. More relaxed frame geometry. Trail needs to be increased to stabilize the bike. I've never ridden a bike that takes so much effort to simply hold a line in a turn.

2. Braking. Without engine braking the front brakes need to be good at gradual modulation. 2014 brakes are like an on-off switch. The caliper/mc displacement ratio is wrong.

3. Better seat.

4. Conti tires (150mm rear) stock. The Pirelli's are good tires, but have a pointy profile that make the bike twitchy.

5. Better riding mode settings. In my opinion, sport mode should have no brake regen (because it kicking in is annoying when leaned over) and max engine regen (to simulate engine braking). Somewhat related, when the battery is close to 100% charged the regen kicks in and out, and this causes the bike to feel erratic. Not exactly confidence-inspiring. 

[ctrlburn]

1. Faster mainstream charging. (accessible location too)
2. Lock-ability.  (helmet lock, brake lock, seat lock, locking compartments in otherwise empty cowlings)
3. More effective cooling "option" (I don't need it when I buy, I don't care how it is done... but the brand needs it)
4. Programability - (Variable regeneration (by brake intensity and speed), "elite" power settings, power curve "sweet spots").
5. Forward looking battery configuration (it is unnerving to risk being left behind as technology and chemistry changes)


Power Curve sweet spots.  User programmable "sweet spot" set at 55mph from which +/- 5 degrees throttle change yields little change, set another at 25.  More programmability than a user needs - because once developed the per unit cost is low.

I don't need traction control as a "top 5" I wouldn't use it 99.99999995% of my riding and frankly I didn't really wish I had it those 6 inches either enough to compel anyone to develop it.

[Kocho]

What, no one wants traction control? Should be standard on a bike at this price, and is an essential safety feature for street riding.

[evtricity]

Traction control would be nice for the wet but there would be very few gas bikes with similar power that have traction control.

[NoiseBoy]

What, no one wants traction control? Should be standard on a bike at this price, and is an essential safety feature for street riding.

Very few dinosaur burners have traction control. In fact many riders avoid buying bikes with it fitted because having a computer controlling the throttle is supposedly emasculating or something.

I believe the Sevcon is already capable of certain forms of traction control and the bike has wheel speed sensors fitted for the ABS so theoretically it would be easy to implement.

Do you not remember the outcry of hate from bikers when Honda first put ABS on a fireblade? TC is just as divisive, especially in the very conservative UK bike scene.

[protomech]

What, no one wants traction control? Should be standard on a bike at this price, and is an essential safety feature for street riding.

Very few dinosaur burners have traction control. In fact many riders avoid buying bikes with it fitted because having a computer controlling the throttle is supposedly emasculating or something.

I believe the Sevcon is already capable of certain forms of traction control and the bike has wheel speed sensors fitted for the ABS so theoretically it would be easy to implement.

Do you not remember the outcry of hate from bikers when Honda first put ABS on a fireblade? TC is just as divisive, especially in the very conservative UK bike scene.

I recall that the 2015 bikes have ABS only on the front wheel, so they're not quite ready for traction control.

[evtricity]

It may be possible to have the Sevcon implement traction control but would require sensing of the rear wheel speed to be fed back to the Controller which could then reduce motor torque if it's outside a certain range ie. it starts spinning up.

I believe that Zero have tried to get traction control working but that the standard Sevcon parameters such as maximum acceleration/ramp rates aren't sufficient because the Sevcon doesn't calculate them in an instantaneous manner.