Hmm, realistic for 2017.
What we probably won't see1. Factory supported aerodynamic option. We all know improved aero has huge advantages. Zero's engineering team
knows. Either the engineering and styling folks haven't completed the aero fairings - possible, good aero is hard - or the business folks haven't figured out how to sell it.
I also suspect they may be waiting for a viable DCQC option to really focus on a touring bike. Without DCQC, aero improvements would really only offer a very small benefit to existing customers that are already buying their bikes.
In order to see huge growth, Zero needs to attract the tech-curious mainstream biker. A debatably goofy-looking aero shell ($2000?) and $3000 in aftermarket, heavy equipment to charge at RV parks is cool to us, but it's not going to pull in the mainstream biker.
Time to charge 1 hour of highway riding @ 70 mph, or highway miles charged per minute (mpm):
Tesla Model S 90D @ 310 Wh/mile, 100 kW 1.1C charge 0% to 50%:
14.0 minutes, 5 mpmZero 6 brick 29 Ah, moderate aero @ 120 Wh/mile, 34 kW 2C charge to 80%:
14.9 minutes, 4.7 mpmTesla Model S 70 @ 310 Wh/mile, 80 kW 1.1C charge 0% to 50%:
16.3 minutes, 4.3 mpmZero 5 brick 29 Ah, moderate aero @ 120 Wh/mile, 28 kW 2C charge to 80%:
18.4 minutes, 3.8 mpmNissan LEAF @ 50 kW CHAdeMO: 35 minutes, 2 mpm
Zero, Vetter streamliner @ 100 Wh/mile, DigiNow 10kW from 14-50: 44 minutes, 1.6 mpm
Zero, moderate aero @ 120 Wh/mile, DigiNow 7kW from 32A J1772: 70 minutes, 1 mpm
Stock 2016 @ 140 Wh/mile, 3.8 kW Charge Tank: 140 minutes, 0.5 mpm
Note that the six-brick Zero S is
five times as fast (!) as the DigiNow bike, assuming the same level of aero treatment.
I think the magic number is somewhere around 4 minutes of riding / driving per minute spent charging .. and I think we'll see a real tipping point once this can be done affordably (ie not the $30k price points Lightning and Energica sell at).
2. More power. Zero just introduced the IPM motors. Don't expect to see a change here.
3. Significantly more energy. Zero could build a 17-18 kWh 6 brick bike today, which would boost range by about 25% vs a 2016 PT bike with only a very small weight penalty. Like the aero tweaks, I think this may wait until the DCQC wars settle out.
Realistic Wishlist1. Power Tank using the same cells as the rest of the bike. Obvious. Small improvement in energy - would push the city range over 200 miles for a big marketing win - but also I think improve reliability re: mismatched cell chemistries.
2. Possibly a higher energy density, lower power density cell. The
29Ah cell seems to be an amazing cell, but even for the SR has far more power density than required. I wonder if Farasis could apply a similar set of refinements to the 29 Ah cell and produce a 30-31 Ah cell in the same form factor. A 4 brick 31 Ah bike would have about 7% more energy, and a 5 brick 31 Ah bike would have about 10% more energy (15.5 kWh nominal).
Zero has increased capacity every year from 2010 to 2016, save 2014. To do so in 2017 they will need a more energy-dense chemistry or to significantly reconfigure the bike architecture, and all the indicators they're sending are that they're not ready to reconfigure yet.
3. Full LED lighting. Something as advanced as the Zero should have similarly advanced lighting. These are expensive bikes, let's give them appropriate headlights
4. Ditch the ridiculously heavy, failure-prone on-board charger. Integrate the 2.5 kW charger and J1772 from the Charge Tank as standard. This will be a big win for those with 240V domestic circuits, and help keep charge times from further inflating.
5. Offer a low-cost 5 year extended warranty. Either the bikes are reliable and this is easy money for Zero or they're not, and it isn't. Zero has been very good about "making it right" for owners even out of warranty (see MY13 power pack replacement), but I think we'd all like to hope that's the last major recall Zero has to do.
6. Further price cuts. I would not be surprised to see the $1000 April promotion become permanent.
7. The 3 brick 2016 S has about 90% as much range as the 4 brick 2013 .. and the 2016 cell chemistry has a lot of power. What about a 3 brick SR? It'd cost Zero almost no engineering time to make, it'd make splashy headlines (< 3s 0-60? race a Zero vs P90DL?), and I think it'd draw a lot of interest from people that eventually buy 4 brick bikes anyways.
My secret wishValidate the existing 29 Ah cell technology for 2C charging, add some thermal transfer material or whatnot for better cooling, and
partner with Tesla for Supercharger network access. Then we can go full-steam ahead on a six-brick aero-tweaked bike.. 150 miles of highway range will make the 100 mile hops between Superchargers easy, and it'll take only 30 minutes to get enough range for 90 minutes of riding.
This is great for Zero. The Tesla superchargers claim to go down as low as 60V, and can push a couple hundred amps. Perfect for the ~100V technology Zero uses today. Even if CCS eventually beats CHAdEMO in the US and the EU, the higher voltage and 100-125A maximum limitation reduce the effectiveness.
This is great for Tesla. It validates their strategy of openness to other manufacturers. Zeros will sip electricity compared to cars, so Tesla's electricity bill will barely budge. Good publicity for both Tesla and Zero.
