Print

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

[protomech]

Being able to charge in an hour with level 2 charging is even better than l3 in my eyes. Only 15 minutes longer than the Harley level 3 but you can actually use level 2 stations at full power. Much better solution.

The Zero group on facebook is suggesting that the bike will have a single inlet, even if configured with the additional 6 kW charger. You will probably need a single EVSE that can supply 48 amps to see full benefit from the top-end 12 kW charge rate.

HD Livewire only lists a city range of 110 miles and a DC fast charging speed of 192 miles per hour. This means a 0-80% charge in < 30 minutes.

With the Charge Tank, the Zero SRF can charge 0-95% in 1.3 hours. This is an effective charge rate of 118 miles per hour - HD is 63% faster - and that's despite a significant efficiency gap for the HD (110 miles vs 161 miles from similar-sized batteries).

The efficiency gap is probably closer at state highway and interstate speeds - at 70 mph I guess the HD will land around 65 miles, vs 82 for Zero.

At interstate speeds, HD L3 vs Zero L2 is 113 miles per hour vs 60 miles per hour - HD L3 is almost twice as fast as Zero L2.

I'm not sure any of this really matters - very few people will be interested in touring at ~60 miles per leg, and the CCS infrastructure doesn't really support that usage model in most areas.

[DPsSRnSD]

At interstate speeds, HD L3 vs Zero L2 is 113 miles per hour vs 60 miles per hour - HD L3 is almost twice as fast as Zero L2.

I'm not sure any of this really matters - very few people will be interested in touring at ~60 miles per leg, and the CCS infrastructure doesn't really support that usage model in most areas.

Too bad one of these manufacturer's doesn't take Tesla up on their offer to take advantage of the Supercharger network. We'll be waiting many years to see if any other charging network will be comparable.

[Killroy]

I happy with everything Zero did.  Bravo on the great improved styling, ect....

The battery fins look cool - good industrial design, but I'm skeptical of the function.  I don't think they will do much on a hot day.  I would like to see the testing that proves me wrong. How does it do on the track.  I love my 2015 Zero on the race track, but it easily reaches its thermal limit and power is limited.

I was expecting at least a 1 kWh bump in standard battery.

CCS would be nice. It seems like a low hardware solution.  CCS is mostly the connection and software, Right? - as long as the charger supports the system voltage. 

A half fairing and windshield would be nice.  At 70 MPH, wind sucks. 

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

I suspect that CCS support is a planned upgrade path later.

[centra12]

At which minimum battery voltage is a safe function of CCS guaranteed?

[ultrarnr]

The lowest voltage that CCS will support is 200 volts so there is no chance Zero will be able to use it without completely upgrading their drive train.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Charging_System

Zero had been looking at CHAdeMO and offered it back in 2013. It worked well with some systems such as EATON but not so well on others. I had one on order for many months before Zero gave up and canceled it.

The Energica Eva has a voltage range of 280-320 volts. Before tapering starts you can add 50% SOC in just under 14 minutes. Tapering starts at about 67% SOC. I am interested to see how the charging speeds of the  LiveWire and Strike compare with Energica. I realize not everyone here is a fan of faster charging. But I believe the more trips that are practical on an electric motorcycle then the use of ICE will decrease. For trips that may require charging the ability to charge in 20-30 minutes instead of 1-2 hours can make the difference between taking the electric motorcycle or taking the ICE bike.

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

What I suspect is that Zero would support 200V DC charging by reconfiguring the pack dynamically, with each long brick in series. Having a separate 12V battery supports powering the onboard computer systems while performing a relay toggle to safely disconnect and reconnect packs.

Or they may just have the wiggle room in the new platform design to switch to 200V on a future model, without the dynamic switching, but that would require a motor controller change, potentially.

[ultrarnr]

200 volts would need to be the minimum voltage of the discharged pack. The fully charged pack would need to be closer to 250 voltage to allow for voltage drop as SOC drops.

[Richard230]

I guess we now wait on news from Lightning, but I'm expecting their premium Strike, which will be released first, will have significantly higher specs than the SR/F but will come with a significantly higher price as well.  The base model, which we don't have any idea on when will be made, will clearly be much cheaper than the SR/F but what will its specifications be?  At $12,998 it may undercut the Zero SR significantly, but I doubt its specs will match the SR/F.  In the end, the Strike and SR/F may not end up as being true competitors at all as the SR/F might slide in right between the Strike base and the premium.  The different options/levels that Lightning offers between the base and the premium, if any, could be interesting.

I would be extremely surprised if the base model outperforms an SR, definitely not an SRF. I dont see any chance a manufacturer with less volume than zero able to produce bikes at a better performance per dollar ratio.

Unless the Lightning Strike is being subsided in some way during the introductory period.  I am pretty sure that the BMW C-Evolution is loosing money on every U.S. sale, considering that the same model is quite a bit more expensive in the EU. And then we have the 2017 Energicas, which were selling for around $17K last year, when they originally were selling for something in the $30K + range, when first introduced into the U.S. market, before dropping into the mid-to-low $20,000's.

[Richard230]

With all of the talk about how fast the SR/F is, I wonder how it is going to be dealt with by the insurance industry?  I have the slowest Zero model (thanks to its weight of 452 pounds and base motor) and I am still charged more for just liability insurance than I pay for my much faster and heavier BMW RS.

[grmarks]

I am curious about how fast it will accelerate, as it's only 20% more torque. The 2019 SR has a 5:1 reduction whereas the SR/F has a 4.5:1 reduction which will lower the torque to the back wheel consuming some of that 20% extra. The change in 2017 to 2018 SR was 20% extra torque at the wheel and it was only just noticeable according to those that had ridden both.

[flattetyre]

I am pretty sure that the BMW C-Evolution is loosing money on every U.S. sale,

There's no way. Aside from the fact that BMW has no reason to do a strategy like that those scooters are super expensive, they don't cost that much to make and ship and BMW is definitely making money on the ones sold here in USA. The battery is more expensive to build than the rest of the scooter and it probably costs them under $3K.

[grmarks]

I am curious about how fast it will accelerate, as it's only 20% more torque. The 2019 SR has a 5:1 reduction whereas the SR/F has a 4.5:1 reduction which will lower the torque to the back wheel consuming some of that 20% extra. The change in 2017 to 2018 SR was 20% extra torque at the wheel and it was only just noticeable according to those that had ridden both.

Correction, 190 nm as to 146 nm gives 30% more torque from the motor with 20% more at the wheel with the 4.5:1 reduction.
But then that's more than 40% more torque than my 2015 SR, that's got to make a big difference.

[protomech]

I am curious about how fast it will accelerate, as it's only 20% more torque. The 2019 SR has a 5:1 reduction whereas the SR/F has a 4.5:1 reduction which will lower the torque to the back wheel consuming some of that 20% extra. The change in 2017 to 2018 SR was 20% extra torque at the wheel and it was only just noticeable according to those that had ridden both.

The 5:1 reduction is the 75-5 models. 2017-2019 SR all use 4.5:1 gearing, as does the SR/F.

2016 => 2017 gained 9% more torque at the motor and 4% more torque due to the higher gearing, so ~13% total.

[grmarks]

I am curious about how fast it will accelerate, as it's only 20% more torque. The 2019 SR has a 5:1 reduction whereas the SR/F has a 4.5:1 reduction which will lower the torque to the back wheel consuming some of that 20% extra. The change in 2017 to 2018 SR was 20% extra torque at the wheel and it was only just noticeable according to those that had ridden both.

The 5:1 reduction is the 75-5 models. 2017-2019 SR all use 4.5:1 gearing, as does the SR/F.

2016 => 2017 gained 9% more torque at the motor and 4% more torque due to the higher gearing, so ~13% total.

hmmm you are correct, it's 4.5:1, I must be getting old!

2015 SR has 132/30 that's about 4.4:1

So that means an extra 30% more torque at the wheel and more than 43% more than my 2015 SR