Print

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

[Shadow]

After last night's presidential and congressional elections, I have a bad feeling that the EV credit will be fading away next year when the 2017 Federal budget is adopted.  Already, Tesla stock has tanked this morning.     That is not a good sign.  And as you already know, electric motorcycles (and everything that affects California, for that matter) will get the short end of any funding stick.     There goes the high-speed rail project funding, too.  It is going to be an "interesting" four years.   

Idiocracy the movie if you're wondering what's coming next.

[MajorMajor]

The 2017 Zero S has 50% less range but costs the same as the 2016 Zero S?
Am I reading that wrong?

[protomech]

The 2017 Zero S has 50% less range but costs the same as the 2016 Zero S?
Am I reading that wrong?

Yes.

At $11k: the 2017 S ZF6.5 has 2/3 of the range of the 2016 S ZF9.8 - 54 vs 81 combined miles. The 2017 bike is 63 pounds lighter, about 25% quicker, and has additional locking storage .. so that's the tradeoff for the range penalty.

At $14k: the 2017 S ZF13 has the same range as the 2016 S ZF13. The 2017 bike is about 20% quicker, but otherwise similar to the 2016.

The 2016 SR is about 45% quicker than the 2016 S ZF13, so the 2017 bikes split the difference to the '16 SR.. nevermind the 2017 SR, which is likewise appreciably quicker.

All the 2017 bikes gain a stronger belt (except oddly the S/DS ZF13 - perhaps they're getting rid of parts?) and easier remote maintenance, which is appreciated.

[MajorMajor]

I was told that the battery is easily half the cost of the bike though, so it's not so much a trade off as a steep increase in price, no?

So the 2016 Zero S was a much better deal

[protomech]

I was told that the battery is easily half the cost of the bike though, so it's not so much a trade off as a steep increase in price, no?

So the 2016 Zero S was a much better deal

The three-brick 2016 S has more miles per dollar than the 2017 S ZF6.5. But the four-brick ZF13 has more miles per dollar than either.

I suspect Zero ran the numbers and found that most of the people that cared about range bought the four brick bike. The people that had very limited range needs - people with short commutes, or people that can easily charge at home, work, and outside - bought the three brick bike, and would mostly have been similarly well-served by a two-brick bike.

The people that still really need range are still well-served by the ZF13 bike.

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

It would really make a lot of sense if those 6.5 bikes could be upgraded later to 13 by replacing the storage area with another "long brick". That way someone who enters the market with a low range commute and then has a change of plans can just adapt. I'm certainly scratching my head at the lack of an upgrade to balance out the weird tradeoff here.

[protomech]

It would really make a lot of sense if those 6.5 bikes could be upgraded later to 13 by replacing the storage area with another "long brick". That way someone who enters the market with a low range commute and then has a change of plans can just adapt. I'm certainly scratching my head at the lack of an upgrade to balance out the weird tradeoff here.

This is more difficult than replacing a three-brick monolith with a four-brick monolith. In addition to removing the storage component and replacing the long-brick monolith with a four-brick monolith, you're still left with the 46 hp 75-5 motor instead of a 60 hp 75-7 motor, which is now hauling around 95 additional pounds.

You're better off all-round to sell the two-brick bike and buy the four-brick bike, if you decide post-purchase that you do want the additional range.

[kensiko]

They keep improving, unlike a certain Leaf car

I wonder if I'll ever upgrade. This summer my bike was asleep for most of the time, I like to drive it but I also like to drive my Tesla now. I hope it won't degrade the battery too much, being at 100% all the time. I might consider selling it and maybe buy a new one in a few years.

[oobflyer]

Curious about these numbers - my 2015 SR is supposed to go 0-60 in 3.3 sec (I don't know how to go back the the 2015 specs online, but that was what it said when I got my bike).
Is my 2015 SR quicker than a 2017 SR?
I was anxiuosly awaiting the announcement of the 2017's - also hoping for a fast-charging option, but sort of relieved that my bike isn't yet obsolete ;-)

[protomech]

Is my 2015 SR quicker than a 2017 SR?

No, it shouldn't be. The 2015 uses basically the same motor but weighs a little more than a 2014 SR. I've added the 2014 SR to the sheet.

The 2017 SR should be around 3.0 seconds if measured in the same way as their previous claims - but as with the existing 3.3 second claim, most people will see slightly lower acceleration.

[grmarks]

Is my 2015 SR quicker than a 2017 SR?

No, it shouldn't be. The 2015 uses basically the same motor but weighs a little more than a 2014 SR. I've added the 2014 SR to the sheet.

The 2017 SR should be around 3.0 seconds if measured in the same way as their previous claims - but as with the existing 3.3 second claim, most people will see slightly lower acceleration.

As always the weight of the rider is a big factor. The specs don't lie, but do you weigh 70kg? The specs on the spread sheet are more inline with us heavier guys.

[David S]

Id be surprised if the 0-60 is 3 seconds as thats about equal to an energica ego

[kashography]

As always the weight of the rider is a big factor. The specs don't lie, but do you weigh 70kg? The specs on the spread sheet are more inline with us heavier guys.

Yeah the specs did lie (0-60 times)! Exept for a calculation without driver, then it would be possible
Check out this thread http://electricmotorcycleforum.com/boards/index.php?topic=5877.msg43611#msg43611
I haven't seen a anyone getting measured times under 4s with a stock SR < 2017. At 0-60 in 4.25s I was at max 85kg inkl. riding Gear&Helmet, thats 6% heavier overall weight that with a 70kg rider. You can make the calculation for yourself

I think they took the 0-60 times away because they fucked up the old calculation and never actually measured it. And they cant put the same or a slower number for a stronger and shorter geared bike in, because this would show the mistake (although it would be the right thing todo).

Dont get me wrong, i love my SR. But i have a ICE-Bike for comparison that is also ratet arround 3.3s 0-100 and its a damn lot faster at a drag race. Not in everyday use though Electric torque is just the thing to have

[grmarks]

Looking at my 2015 SR manuel specs there is no 0-60 times in it either. Only on the website specs.

[MajorMajor]

As always the weight of the rider is a big factor. The specs don't lie, but do you weigh 70kg? The specs on the spread sheet are more inline with us heavier guys.

I weigh 70kg, my FXS doesn't come close to the 3.8 seconds advertised. Really closer to 5.
I just barely go faster than some scooter, honestly a bit disappointing because I was sold on incorrect figures.