Print

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

[DonTom]

I was just looking at the CCS fast charging spec comparison between the two batteries.

The 21.5/ /18.9 KWH battery is 61% more capacity  in KWHs than the 13.4/11.7 KWH battery by Energica's own numbers.

However, the charge time is DOUBLE (100%) more.

And the new battery is obviously  only 40% more in capacity at the higher speeds, however, is really double capacity at the slow city speeds, when we ignore the KWH ratings.

But the charge time is exactly double when charging to 85% SOC.

Energica's own spec for the CCS charge times are "0 to 85% SOC 20 Min" for the 13.4/11.7 KWH battery and 40 min for the 21.5/ /18.9 KWH battery.

This means that you get the same miles added per minute charge at slow speeds, but much less than that if riding at higher speeds when compared to the 13.4/11.7 KWH battery.

IOW, an average of more miles added per minute charge on the older battery.

So if they both charge at 26 KWH max, it seems the older battery is  more efficient than the new.

-Don-  Auburn, CA

[dryhte]

I was just looking at the CCS fast charging spec comparison between the two batteries.

The 21.5/ /18.9 KWH battery is 61% more capacity  in KWHs than the 13.4/11.7 KWH battery by Energica's own numbers.

However, the charge time is DOUBLE (100%) more.

And the new battery is obviously  only 40% more in capacity at the higher speeds, however, is really double capacity at the slow city speeds, when we ignore the KWH ratings.

But the charge time is exactly double when charging to 85% SOC.

Energica's own spec for the CCS charge times are "0 to 85% SOC 20 Min" for the 13.4/11.7 KWH battery and 40 min for the 21.5/ /18.9 KWH battery.

This means that you get the same miles added per minute charge at slow speeds, but much less than that if riding at higher speeds when compared to the 13.4/11.7 KWH battery.

IOW, an average of more miles added per minute charge on the older battery.

So if they both charge at 26 KWH max, it seems the older battery is  more efficient than the new.

-Don-  Auburn, CA

Well, the new battery is already smaller and lighter (at least for the same capacity) than the old one, I hadn't expected it to ALSO be more efficient.

We need some room for improvement for the next generations, right?

[DonTom]

Well, the new battery is already smaller and lighter (at least for the same capacity) than the old one, I hadn't expected it to ALSO be more efficient.

We need some room for improvement for the next generations, right?

Well, the only reason the new battery is lighter is because the older battery was over-engineered with almost 30 lbs of extra casting that Energica decided later wasn't necessary. The cells in the new battery are a different type, but they weight about the same as the older cells.

Yeah, we need room for improvements but I will most likely be dead before any major improvements.  It kinda looks like to me the new battery technology has some trade-offs. One would think a larger  capacity battery would charge  in  proportion to its KWH rating.  By Energica's own specs, the new battery is a bit longer to charge  for the same distance, unless riding very slow.

-Don-  Auburn, CA

[Doug S]

One would think a larger  capacity battery would charge  in  proportion to its KWH rating.

Why would one think that? They're two very different things, both dependent on the exact chemistry of a Li-ion cell. My personal favorite Li-ion chemistry is LiFePO4, which can be charged and discharged with essentially no limit on current -- they're EXTREMELY rugged, with extremely low equivalent resistance. In addition, they can tolerate far higher temperatures than any other Li-ion formulation, and don't have any toxic elements in them at all. The only reason they're not used very often is because they have only half the energy density of some chemistries containing nickel, cobalt and/or manganese.

[DonTom]

Why would one think that? They're two very different things, both dependent on the exact chemistry of a Li-ion cell. My personal favorite Li-ion chemistry is LiFePO4, which can be charged and discharged with essentially no limit on current -- they're EXTREMELY rugged, with extremely low equivalent resistance. In addition, they can tolerate far higher temperatures than any other Li-ion formulation, and don't have any toxic elements in them at all. The only reason they're not used very often is because they have only half the energy density of some chemistries containing nickel, cobalt and/or manganese.

Yes, if they could only stick with the same chemistry with the 20.5 KWH battery. I think we are saying close to the same thing. They changed the cells, so that changed everything when compared to an increase to 21.5 KWH if using  the same old cells.

Notice how with Zeros, the C rate increases in proportion to battery size and doesn't have these type of trade-offs as with the new Energica battery when compared to the older bttery. The more battery KWH on the Zeros allows more Q-chargers, for an example.

-Don-  Auburn, CA

[Demoni]

Just a bit of food for thought regarding charge rates.

In 2016 Energica motorcycles charged at a max 60A with DCFC which translates to around 18kWh. Those same bikes over the years have had improvements in there charge algorithms and can now charge at 75A or 80A if you have a 2019 and newer spec bike.

[DonTom]

Just a bit of food for thought regarding charge rates.

In 2016 Energica motorcycles charged at a max 60A with DCFC which translates to around 18kWh. Those same bikes over the years have had improvements in there charge algorithms and can now charge at 75A or 80A if you have a 2019 and newer spec bike.

Is it expected that the 21.5 battery bikes will have similar improvements in their charge algorithms any time soon?  Or  is there a limitation with the new 21.5 KWH battery and it cannot be charged much faster?


-Don-   Auburn, CA

[togo]

> Is it expected that the 21.5 battery bikes will have similar improvements in their charge algorithms any time soon? 
> Or  is there a limitation with the new 21.5 KWH battery and it cannot be charged much faster?

Is there any expectation that they would not?

I imagine it'll depend on real world degradation stats they'll be presumably be collecting from the fleet.  I imagine they'll look into the outliers and then decide what the safe levels are to push out in the next versions of the firmware.

[DonTom]

Is there any expectation that they would not?

I imagine it'll depend on real world degradation stats they'll be presumably be collecting from the fleet.  I imagine they'll look into the outliers and then decide what the safe levels are to push out in the next versions of the firmware.

With a new technology, that can even back-fire on Energica. They may even discover they have to reduce the charge rate!  But I think that is rather unlikely. But the very non-linear battery specs on the new battery have me curious. Non-linear in speed versus range and charge times, unlike Zero batteries KWH increases where it all stays in proportion as battery KWH is increased.

IMO, there's no way to know for sure what will happen until there are many bikes on the road. That's the only spec that counts!

-Don-    Reno, NV

[togo]

> With a new technology, that can even back-fire on Energica. They may even discover they have to reduce the charge rate!

Learn from Tesla. They did something like that to some early Model S owners and face a lawsuit now.


> But the very non-linear battery specs on the new battery have me curious. Non-linear in speed versus range and charge times, unlike Zero batteries KWH increases where it all stays in proportion as battery KWH is increased.

Can you give me a technical reference for that? Where did you hear it?

[Crissa]

The lawsuit has no merit, since the increase and reduction is within their sold nominal specs.  Leaf owners would kill for the rates those owners are whining about.

Batteries are non-linear.  This shouldn't be a surprise.

-Crissa

[DonTom]

Can you give me a technical reference for that? Where did you hear it?

From Zeros  own specs, which I also have in writing (in Auburn, I can post them here within the next two days). But they also should be on their website.

For an example, compare Zero's 6.5KWH  battery to their 13 KWH battery in the same bike (DS, S, SR, take your pick).

100% more range, 100% longer to charge at the same charge rate (unlike Energica) when their KWH rate is doubled:

1. The 13 KWH  takes EXACTLY twice the time to charge as the 6.5 KWH battery.

2. The 13 KWH battery  gets EXACTLY twice the range at ANY speed in the same frame (DS, SR, S, SR, etc).

The Energica battery when compared, the new battery is 60% larger in KWH, but gets double the range compared to the older battery at slower speeds  but 40% more range at higher speeds. Not 60% higher in either case VERY unlike Zero where it's the same battery 100% larger.

It's a VERY obvious difference.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[DonTom]

Batteries are non-linear.  This shouldn't be a surprise.

-Crissa

Are you saying double the usable battery capacity will NOT give you double the range? If that's what you're saying, tell Zero, because they have not noticed that. Neither have their riders.

If a battery is rated the same and is the same type cells, if you double the cells you get double the  KWH and double the range at ANY speed (but allow perhaps 1% max for the weight difference).

If you have 60% more KWH you get 60% more KWH and 60% more range in the same battery design.

But the Enerigca battery is 60% more KWH and gives 100% more range at slow speeds and 40% more range at higher speeds when compared to their older battery. Not 60% in either case.

But if the battery cells are the same (as with Zero) if they did make a battery 60% larger, it would get 60% more range at any speed, unlike comparing Energica's older battery to their new.

In case you did not realize it, Energica changed to different cells on their 21.5 KWH battery from the batteries they made last year.  That is the only reason why they do not compare well to their older battery and 60% more KWH is NOT 60% KWH more except at the very spot they rate it, which must be at a medium speed. Perhaps at around 50 MPH as rough guess based on the above facts. And perhaps at around 50 MPH you will get 60% more range, but not if much faster  or slower. With  the Energica battery (unlike Zero's batteries) you will get a lot better than 60% range at slow speeds and a lot less  than 60% at higher speeds.

Just look up Zero specs and then look up the specs from Energica on each battery as I have and then do the math yourself. No need to debate with me, it's all very clear in writing from both Zero and Energica specs when you compare the battery sizes.

-Don-  Reno, NV

[Crissa]

Haven't you noticed the Zero speeds are slightly lower, their weights are significantly lower, and that the extra range given by a charge tank isn't that much?

The lighter the bike, the smaller the profile, the better the range calculation.

Batteries aren't gas tanks, either.   The slower the speed, the better the draw.

No, twice the battery will not give you twice the range at highway speed.  It's non-linear.

-Crissa

[DonTom]

Haven't you noticed the Zero speeds are slightly lower, their weights are significantly lower, and that the extra range given by a charge tank isn't that much?

The lighter the bike, the smaller the profile, the better the range calculation.

Batteries aren't gas tanks, either.   The slower the speed, the better the draw.

No, twice the battery will not give you twice the range at highway speed.  It's non-linear.

-Crissa

Okay, tell Zero their specs are incorrect. I will post their specs here in a few hours when I am in Auburn.

-Don-  Reno, NV