Print

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

[Richard230]

The August 2019 issue of Motorcycle Consumer News has published a compete test of the SR/F.  They gave it their highest rating in their Evaluation chart for all areas of the motorcycle.  Oddly though, the comments in the text didn't seem quite that positive in some aspects.  Also, no power/torque curve was included as they say that their their "dyno is currently challenged in reporting accurate EV numbers."

One big negative was the short range of the SR/F. They experienced a maximum city range of 130 miles and a low of 46 miles when ridden aggressively on mountain roads and at high speeds on the freeway.  Their average range was 88 mph under typical riding.

Their bike seemed to have an issue with the Bosh Advanced MSC system. With the system on their braking from 60 to 0 mph distance was 135 feet. However their braking distance from 60 mph with the system turned off was 121.5 feet.

The bike sure accelerates hard. 0-60 mph took 3.6 seconds, while the quarter mile was covered in only 11.72 seconds at a speed of 119 mph.

The editors said that the SR/F has "excellent suspension" and then went on to say that the Showa Big Piston forks had harsh valving and was difficult to adjust because the adjustment screw was obstructed by the handlebars. They felt that the 24.5 degrees of fork rake was too aggressive and produced some oversteer at hard lean angles. They would like to see the fork trail increased to 3.7 inches and would also like to have a 10% larger chassis as they felt that the riding position was somewhat cramped.

One big improvement over previous Zero models was that they only experienced battery overheating, which generated a dash warning, when the SR/F was ridden extremely aggressively.  Under normal conditions the battery temperature was listed as "medium".

The article said that: "The gauges reported inconsistently, especially those measuring range and state of charge. These need to be precise, since riders can't pull over just anywhere to quickly refuel. When range is off by as much as 20 miles, it could leave EV riders stranded."

The editors said that they "also experienced many random trips of the ground-fault interrupt circuit (GFI) in the garage, which interrupted the nine-hour charge cycle."

No mention was made of the gap in the front of the "tank".

Their maintenance chart shows just one routine service at 20,000 miles, requiring 1.25 hours of labor and $135 for parts.

The article ends with the following comments:  "The Zero SR/F will meet the needs of more riders than its predecessors. It seems expensive up front, but long-term costs are comparable or even favorable to many gas motorcycles. Performance is amazing, about 50 percent better than previous Zero models in both top speed and range (?). However, range is still limited by the inconvenience of recharging. Electric is the future, though it's not yet as convenient as its traditionally fueled competition."

[alko]

One contradiction after another in that review.😅

[NetPro]

And why bring up the GFI tripping in his garage without troubleshooting it? This is unintentionally misleading.
If he had replaced the outlet with a new one it would have stopped tripping and it would have been evident there is nothing wrong with the charger.
People not familiar with the issue would assume these chargers don't work well on a standard outlet (with or without GFI) which is definitely not the case.

GFI outlets do go bad after a number of years specially in a high humidity location.

I charge my SR/F on one that I replaced last year because it was tripping for no reason with just about anything connected to it and sometimes even without a thing on it.
The replacement has never tripped -- not once since installed.

[daniels1216]

All good news to my ears 

[Jarrett]

a low of 46 miles when ridden aggressively on mountain roads and at high speeds on the freeway. 

The bike sure accelerates hard. 0-60 mph took 3.6 seconds, while the quarter mile was covered in only 11.72 seconds at a speed of 119 mph.

I'm surprised at those numbers.  I thought it would hit at least 60 miles when ridden aggressively, but 46, whew. 

I also thought it would be quicker than that.  Sure feels quicker when you are on it.  My much lower torque ICE bike can beat those numbers.

The battery overheating thing was a bummer to hear as well.  I was kind of hoping that was history with the SR/F.

[alko]

a low of 46 miles when ridden aggressively on mountain roads and at high speeds on the freeway. 

The bike sure accelerates hard. 0-60 mph took 3.6 seconds, while the quarter mile was covered in only 11.72 seconds at a speed of 119 mph.

I'm surprised at those numbers.  I thought it would hit at least 60 miles when ridden aggressively, but 46, whew. 

I also thought it would be quicker than that.  Sure feels quicker when you are on it.  My much lower torque ICE bike can beat those numbers.

The battery overheating thing was a bummer to hear as well.  I was kind of hoping that was history with the SR/F.

Makes me wonder if he meant motor overheating.

[Bill822]

I'm surprised at those numbers.  I thought it would hit at least 60 miles when ridden aggressively, but 46, whew. 

I was able to use 40%SOC in 20 miles of very questionable riding, about 5 miles of that was at a modest pace. 46 is very believable. Our 80kW motors will eat 12kW/hr in 7 1/2 minutes at full power.

Choosing our battles, picking the times and places we go to full power, and always being mindful of our burn rate will be key to enjoying this bike. If you want to go full hooligan all the time I would recommend Triumph's Speed Triple R, but then, I am biased

[flattetyre]

None of this stuff should be surprising. People don't (and shouldn't) buy these bikes to ride fast.

My much lower torque ICE bike can beat those numbers.

Except your ICE bike isn't lower torque. Torque at the WHEEL is what moves you, and if you do the math you'll discover your ice bike (with higher power to weight ratio) has more torque at the wheel at any given speed if you're in the powerband.

[Richard230]

a low of 46 miles when ridden aggressively on mountain roads and at high speeds on the freeway. 

The bike sure accelerates hard. 0-60 mph took 3.6 seconds, while the quarter mile was covered in only 11.72 seconds at a speed of 119 mph.

I'm surprised at those numbers.  I thought it would hit at least 60 miles when ridden aggressively, but 46, whew. 

I also thought it would be quicker than that.  Sure feels quicker when you are on it.  My much lower torque ICE bike can beat those numbers.

The battery overheating thing was a bummer to hear as well.  I was kind of hoping that was history with the SR/F.

Makes me wonder if he meant motor overheating.

It appears that the editors were really hammering the bike to achieve a range of only 46 miles.  They said that the SR/F was much improved when it comes to battery temperature compared with the previous models and they only hit a temperature warning once under what apparently was extreme conditions. So it appears that battery heating is not a major issue for the SR/F from what I gleaned from the article.

Their issue has always been with battery heat and not motor temperature. During their testing of the SR last year they constantly hit a battery temperature of 130 degrees F, which would shut down the motor and the recharging of the battery pack.  So they were happy with the SR/F battery cooling improvements.

[DonTom]

Except your ICE bike isn't lower torque. Torque at the WHEEL is what moves you, and if you do the math you'll discover your ice bike (with higher power to weight ratio) has more torque at the wheel at any given speed if you're in the powerband.

True, for that 500 RPM range that you must keep on shifting  to get to. Now, let's talk about the torque that will let an ICE bike go from 0  to 100 MPH with no shifting. I would prefer that comparison, as that is why I love the EVs. I cannot even use my cruise control on the hills on an ICE vehicle, but an EV doesn't even notice the  hills.

So go fix that flat tire!

-Don-  Reno, NV

[MichaelJohn]

I was also a little surprised by the 3.6 0-60 time. That’s not much better, if any better at all, than my SR. I’m not sure I completely buy it because when I test-rode the SR/F a week and a half ago I did a few 0-60 runs it was definitely quicker than my SR. I had it at 3 seconds flat. I am 155 lbs in gear so that helps. The quarter mile time of 11.72 is not bad but it is nowhere near a fast liter bike which can run low 10’s or even high 9’s with a good  launch. I think the reason Zeros impress people so much with their acceleration is that ithey are sneaky. We are used to a roar along with the rush of acceleration. I have ridden a couple of 180+ hp bikes and it is a total visceral experience. When you pin it the engine howls and you expect to be thrown back. It’s thrilling, but it’s not really a surprise. When you pin a Zero the lack of much sound and the suddenness of the response is a different experience. The silent rush doesn’t fit the normal paradigm. It’s shocking (no pun intended). I’d take a liter bike in a quarter mile race but a Zero (no downshift, no nothing, just go) on the road. Since I don’t do quarter mile races the choice is easy.

I should have never ridden the SR/F. Does anyone want to buy a ‘15 SR?

[Jarrett]

If you want to go full hooligan all the time I would recommend Triumph's Speed Triple R, but then, I am biased

I like the way you think

[Jarrett]

None of this stuff should be surprising. People don't (and shouldn't) buy these bikes to ride fast.

People do though.  Zero's marketing flat out says this is a serious performance bike.

Under certain circumstances and during a small window of time (like a test ride) it is a pretty amazing bike in terms of performance. 

But 46 miles down the road, things change.

[MVetter]

People forget how capable the SR is. I think of the SR/F as a more elegant refinement of the SR, not so much a major technical advance. Yes, the new controller helps a lot, but I suspect Zero was fairly conservative in their tuning of it.

[Jarrett]

We are used to a roar along with the rush of acceleration. I have ridden a couple of 180+ hp bikes and it is a total visceral experience. When you pin it the engine howls and you expect to be thrown back. It’s thrilling, but it’s not really a surprise.

Here's something I didn't expect from Zero ownership, I miss the noise...

Not all the time, but in certain situations, I miss the noise.  Most of the time the heat and vibration and noise and all that jazz kinda sucks by comparison, but when you go down to your favorite curvy road with you favorite ICE bike with a good exhaust note, its nice to hear the engine ebb and flow through the corners.  Rev up, rev down, hear it wind out and smooth shift into another gear, etc.

I miss that sound/feeling when I'm doing the same with a Zero.

Here's an example of what I mean.  This is my new bike and this is one of the video's that sold me on it.   Start at the 3:30 mark and watch a while.  Hit mute on the sound, then turn it back on.  Tell me which way you like better:

https://youtu.be/ZJyL0Gi0FlU?t=212