Print

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

[Snafuperman]

I have narrowed my wish-list down to these two models. 

First off, I realize that the DSR is not really an off-road bike and I wouldn't be riding it off-road.  I've owned a couple of dual-sports that I rarely rode off-road but I really liked them on the street due to their more upright seating position and their longer travel shocks smoothed out the rough pavement.  I know there is trade-off in  handling/cornering with the dual-sport config but . . .

Are these differences pronounced between the SR and DSR?

[Snafuperman]

No need to respond.  I looked up the specs on the Zero site.  For the DSR , shock travel is about an inch more, front wheel is 2 in larger, tires are of course slightly more "knobby", seat is higher, wheelbase is a bit longer, and a few other things.

[Shadow]

I would say go and saddle up to make the decision. The DS is tallest and the S is most stable at speed.

[Fred]

If you're trying them out then maybe throw the FXS into the mix - unless the range is a major factor for you.

Edit: I can see from your other post that the FXS doesn't have the range you need. It's a great bike and the IMHO the lower weight (and price) makes up for the lower power on paper over the (D)SR. It is limited to 50 miles if you're having fun though.

[Snafuperman]

Thanks.  The local dealer (pretty lucky with that) told me to "come on down for a test ride".  At the time I spoke with him on the phone, I didn't know one model from another.  I'll let you know.  I have to sell a bike first to make room.

[Kocho]

Educate yourself first, some dealers often have no idea about the more subtle differences between bikes and might tell you things that aren't necessarily true. But a test-ride is important.

The handlebars on the "D" models are wider and taller than these on the "S" models. The seat and seat to footpeg distance is identical, so your legs are in exactly the same position on both bikes while riding (only your body is slightly more upright on the D models due to the taller handlebars). The seat height to the ground is higher due to the larger wheels and taller suspension, and other than the suspension and wheels/tires/front fender I think the S and D models are identical. Any differences in range are due to more air and tire resistance..

The FSX and FX seats are very different than those on the D/S models. If they had more range I'd be on an FSX not an SR...

[Snafuperman]

Thanks Kocho.  I'm reading up on  Zero motorcycles as we speak.  This was interesting stuff about the company itself:

http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/10-years/

[Kocho]

The thing with Zeros is that, while the range may indeed be as advertised, the maximum current and therefore maximum acceleration and speed do noticeably decrease as the charge decreases.

On a full battery my SR is faster and quicker to accelerate than it is on 80%. And by 40% I sometimes wish my battery was full as it feels like a regular S

So, while an FX or FSX may indeed be capable of 50 miles at a certain speed, after the first half of that range it will feel considerably less potent. Might or might not matter for everyone, but it is good to be aware of it.

If you're trying them out then maybe throw the FXS into the mix - unless the range is a major factor for you.

Edit: I can see from your other post that the FXS doesn't have the range you need. It's a great bike and the IMHO the lower weight (and price) makes up for the lower power on paper over the (D)SR. It is limited to 50 miles if you're having fun though.

[MostlyBonkers]

The thing with Zeros is that, while the range may indeed be as advertised, the maximum current and therefore maximum acceleration and speed do noticeably decrease as the charge decreases.

On a full battery my SR is faster and quicker to accelerate than it is on 80%. And by 40% I sometimes wish my battery was full as it feels like a regular S

So, while an FX or FSX may indeed be capable of 50 miles at a certain speed, after the first half of that range it will feel considerably less potent. Might or might not matter for everyone, but it is good to be aware of it.

If you're trying them out then maybe throw the FXS into the mix - unless the range is a major factor for you.

Edit: I can see from your other post that the FXS doesn't have the range you need. It's a great bike and the IMHO the lower weight (and price) makes up for the lower power on paper over the (D)SR. It is limited to 50 miles if you're having fun though.

What model year do you have Kocho? I've got a 2014 DS and have the same experience as you. It must be much more noticeable on an SR model.

I believe 2016 models and above are much improved in this respect due to newer battery tech. I haven't seen anyone do some testing with data from the logs though.

Cold weather has a significant impact. At temperatures around 0C and SoC below 30 the bike has dropped to a top speed of 55mph. That happen a couple of times over winter on my way home on the M25. It's the minimum speed I would tolerate on a motorway. Any slower and its not safe.

Most of the time my bike will get up to 70 or a little over on the last legs of my commute home. It doesn't bother me as I'm just commuting and by then I'm tired and not bothered about riding fast.

[MajorMajor]

The thing with Zeros is that, while the range may indeed be as advertised, the maximum current and therefore maximum acceleration and speed do noticeably decrease as the charge decreases.

On a full battery my SR is faster and quicker to accelerate than it is on 80%. And by 40% I sometimes wish my battery was full as it feels like a regular S

So, while an FX or FSX may indeed be capable of 50 miles at a certain speed, after the first half of that range it will feel considerably less potent. Might or might not matter for everyone, but it is good to be aware of it.

My 2016 FXS at 50% charge loses a lot of top speed.
It will not go over 120 kmh (top speed is 134 kmh).
And the top speed continues to decrease as the SoC declines further.

[grmarks]

Its the same for my 2015 SR at about 50% the top speed is affected (or thats when I first notice it) and continues to drop with SOC. But acceleration to 100kph seems unaffected until the SOC is below 10%.

[Delnari]

In December last year I too had to decide between the DSR and SR; the dealer has both to demo.  I did like the higher seat position of the DSR, but the power delivery on the SR was much better for me commuting on.  I drive 85% HOV (freeway) to work and back and love the higher output motor of the SR.  I drive 37 miles round-trip and have anywhere from 52-58% showing (outside temperature dependant) when I get home (averaging over 70 mph, averaging :-)).  I can charge at work so when I pull in the next day to the garage I have around 42% or lower showing and do a level 2 charge in 1 1/2 hours to 100%.

[Shadow]

In December last year I too had to decide between the DSR and SR
...
and love the higher output motor of the SR.

Pretty sure same motor is in DSR as in SR for each model year?  Does it feel noticeably different?

[Snafuperman]

. . . , but the power delivery on the SR was much better for me commuting on.

I thought the engines were identical.  No?  And any differences in "mileage" are due to the more upright seating position of the DSR causing more air resistance.

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

Both the SR and DSR are listed as having the 75-7R motor with the same power and torque values.

The 2016 DSR belt ratio is 130T/28T where the SR was 130T/30T, which would account for the top speeds being 98 and 102mph respectively. For 2017, they're both 90T/20T and 102mph. 0-60 times for the 2016 SR are listed as faster, and in 2017 they're unlisted.

The SR probably feels faster because of the 0-60 time and putting the rider a tiny bit closer to the ground, maybe.

Maybe the rear wheel diameter makes a difference, and a little lighter suspension etc.

For contrast, I feel unsafe on an SR whereas I feel in control on the DSR, so some of "feel" is subjective.