I was holding off to see the 2016 specs...
So, let me get this straight. The main batter got almost unnoticeable larger, but now costs $3000.
That's one way to look at it. The 2016 bikes have slightly more capacity, and the ZF13 bike has a new heat-resistant motor. At the same price, that's pretty good.
The 2016 ZF9.8 doesn't have the new motor, and it's a little cheaper. So you could look at it as an effective pricecut for a bike that still has slightly more range than the 2015, or you could look at as better equipment for the same price on the larger battery bike.
Or you could look at it as the cost to go between the two bikes has increased further. I don't think this is a fair way to look at it - if Zero further cut the price of the ZF9 - say to $8k ZF9 $14k ZF13 - would this really be a slight? If the larger battery bike did NOT improve the motor but dropped its price by $1000, would that be better? If the ZF9 satisfied your needs, this would be great. If the smaller bike doesn't meet your needs, then why does it matter what it's priced at? Does a sportbike rider eyeing a $10k 600 cc bike complain because $4k 250 cc bikes exist?
Glass half-empty, glass half-full etc.
I can pay extra for a tank accessory to charge better, but then I have two on-board chargers on a very space-limited vehicle that technically doesn't need either of them because the motor controller's regen circuit could be used... and if I do that, I lose the option to pay extra for more battery... Golly, if only I could find a way to give Zero more money for another bad idea...
The idea of controller-based charging is enticing. It makes use of equipment we already have on a motorcycle platform that will always be starved for space.
However, there are really only two shipping production vehicles that have used controller-based charging, and both have moved away from the initial implementation.
Tesla Roadster initially
used controller-based charging, licensing patents from AC Propulsion. They later redesigned the power electronics and switched to a discrete onboard charging system .. and efficiency improved in the process (~104 MPGe in the 1.5, up to 119 MPGe in the 2.5).
Likewise, the Renault Zoe initially supported 43 kW fast AC charging through its controller-based Chamelon charging system. However, it too was
modified in a later version (though kept instead of replaced with a discrete onboard charging system) for efficiency reasons.
This meant that it was possible to charge a ZOE from empty to full in under 40 minutes from a suitable charging station, or just an hour from a 22 kilowatt three-phase charging station. But because the original ZOE was designed with an emphasis on higher rather than lower-power charging, it meant that the on-board electronics were inefficient and slow at charging the car at from a lowly 3 kilowatt domestic charging station.
The result? ZOE owners complained about long charge times, inefficient charge cycles, and reduced usability.
...
The new ZOE motor and power electronics have been designed to make lower-speed charging more efficient and convenient, but as a consequence have dropped support for 43 kilowatt three-phase rapid charging.
In a perfect world it'd be neat to see three charging variations: slow (3-6 kW) onboard charging, high-power AC controller-based charging (20+ kW), and offboard DC quick charging (30-50 kW).
Zero understands that they are a minor player in the EV space; as with gasoline vehicles, motorcycles will necessarily have to use a refueling system build for cars. In general, there is no established network of low-voltage DC quick charging stations spaced 50 miles apart. There is no network of fast AC charging stations in the US, nor cars that could use it if it did exist.
The most common charge point is a single 120V outlet, which supports overnight charging (and barely). And the 3.8 kW Charge Tank allows Zeros to "fill up" at relatively common J1772 charging stations, though it would have been nice to see them adopt a more powerful solution (like the DigiNow Super Charger).
I'd love to see Zero offer a bike someday that can use the Tesla Supercharger or CCS/CHAdeMO charging networks. I think they'll get there eventually .. but the CCS/CHAdeMO networks are still very much in their infancy, and Zero doesn't offer a bike that can travel effectively between the 100-120 mile gaps in the Tesla network.
In March, Tesla announces and begins taking deposits for the Model 3. For the price, it'll be a much, much better deal for the money than the Zero S. Yeah, the Tesla will cost more, but I'll also get a heckuva lot more for it...
Sorry Zero, you really got it all upside-down and backwards, while also costing way more money than it's worth even when compared to a notoriously expensive luxury car company! They have batteries 6x larger that charge in an hour!
I guess the money I was saving for a Zero will be spent on the Tesla instead. By the time it actually ships, I'll be able to buy it outright with cash. I'll just keep riding my busted bobber rat bike until then...
Realistically the Model 3 will not start shipping for at least two years .. possibly three or four years if Tesla continues a pattern of delayed releases. If you're not ready or interested in buying now, or if Zero doesn't meet your particular needs, that's no problem.. you shouldn't buy something that doesn't meet your needs. Just pause and consider why a $35k car to be released in late 2017 (or later) is preventing you from buying a $12-16k motorcycle to be released in early 2016.
Author
Topic: Ruling out the Zero... (Read 2120 times)