Print

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

[Crissa]

You've complained that Zeros take more power to charge, perhaps they're not listing battery size but available kwh at highway draw?  There does seem to be a missing top and bottom percent since they don't seem to care about being charged to 100% as much as say, a Leaf, and they don't turn off when you expect them to at the bottom %.

But as batteries go, their draw is non-linear.  The energy you take out of them depends on the amperage load.  Generally lithium is good at being close to all in all out, but the higher a draw, the less you get out, the lower the draw, the more.  With batteries that have consumable charge like lead-acid unsealed, this is a very notable curve.  With lithium, less so.

But every battery composition works differently.

-Crissa

[DonTom]

But as batteries go, their draw is non-linear.  The energy you take out of them depends on the amperage load.

A better way to say it is the KWH rating changes with load with batteries. Perhaps with any type of battery. That's why we have deep cycle and CCA rated batteries, etc with lead-acid. AFAIK, all batteries have the issue of a KWH is NOT a true KWH EXCEPT at the current draw where it is rated, unlike anywhere else, such as a power company where it is exact.  I have said that countless times here. But now lets get to linearity of increased KWH by Zeros' and Energica's own specs.

2019 ZERO S is the bike  I will use for an example here. If you prefer I use another Zero model, just say so, as I now have all the specs in front of me.

2019 Zero S 7.2 KWH battery:

City Range: 89 miles.

Highway range 45 miles

combined range  60 miles.

2019 Zero S 14.4 KWH battery (100% more KWH):

City range= 179 miles (100.66% increase, within a fraction of 1% of a 100% increase).

Highway range=90 miles (100.000% increase just as the battery size increase).

Combined Range =120 miles (100.000%  increase just as with the KWH increase).

That is about as linear as possible. Specs from page 27 of Zero's SB-180924-US year 2019 publication.

Now, let's compare Energica's 13.4 KWH battery to their 21.5 KWH battery:

Increase of 60.5% increase in rated KWH.

Range of 13.4 KWH battery (all models)=

City= 124 miles
Highway=100 miles
combined=80 miles

The 21.5 battery (60.5% more in KWH)

City=249 miles (more than a 100% increase)
Highway =112 miles (only a 40% increase)
Combined=143 miles (a 55% increase).

It's not 60.5% in any of the above examples of Energica's own specs. Not even close. Double to less than half is very non-linear, the opposite of Zero's battery.

Above specs from Energica's 2021MY Manual.

So now see how linear Zero's battery increases are compared to Energica's very non-linear battery increase. By their own specs in writing.

-Don-  Auburn, CA

[DonTom]

You've complained that Zeros take more power to charge,

Not exactly a complaint. More of an observation. If I do have a "complaint" it's that it's not a reverse non-linearity. IOW, I would want the double range on the freeway, instead of at the lower speeds.

But I am glad you brought up charging! I almost forgot about that.

Zero Charge Tank on the same bike (2019 S):

Time to charge the 7.2 KWH battery to 95%  = 1.0 hr.
Time to charge the 14.4 KWH battery to 95%= 2.0 hr.

Same charge time per mile in either case. Exactly double the charge time for exactly double the range. As linear as possible, as the battery is also double KWH.

Now let's do the same with Energica, again using their own specs.

Charge time for the 13.4 KWH battery to 85%=20 min
Charge time for the 60% larger 21.5 KWH battery to 85%=40 min (100% longer to get a 60% more charge).

Not only that, above is only 40% more freeway range with the 100% longer charge.

I see no such time spec for the Energica  OBC, which is 3KW.


Above specs from the same manuals as mentioned previously. I assume the same info. is available on their websites, in case any body wants to double check.

Bottom lines are:

With  Zero, double the KWH and get double the range as well as double the charge times to double the range. Everything is linear with Zero batteries. Range, charge times, everything.

Nothing is linear when you compare Energica's own specs comparing the 13.4 battery to the 21.5 KWH. Everything changes, charge times, speeds, nothing is linear between them.

To the point IMO, that the 13.4 KWH battery at a very high speed could get a better range than their new 21.5 KWH battery. But I assume that will be a speed most of us will not often ride at anyway. Perhaps above 100 MPH, when we look at the curve between the two Energica batteries, unlike Zero's batteries, where you KNOW that will not happen based on their own specs even if they did have a battery rated at 60% higher, as long as they use the same cells.

So if I am wrong about any of this, it's the written specs that have to be wrong. I only  used very simple math with their own specs.

The difference is the technology. There are obvious trade-offs for Energica to use a newly designed battery that has the best range of all electric motorcycles. Or did I hear they have used this battery for a while on a racetrack? Then perhaps more  designed for racing (not range, but speed)?

However, I am more interested in the high speed range. I don't care if their 60% more battery in KWH gives more than 100% more range at city speeds. I care more about the freeway range, which is only 40% better with 60% more KWH at double the charge times.

But the most important spec of all to me, is not listed. That is can I take I-80 from Auburn to Reno as well as Reno to Auburn with only using home charging on the 21.5 KWH battery.  The distance between these houses is 99 miles, door to door. But 99 miles of hills, some uphill some down hill in either direction.

Lawrence is going to try to set that up for me to see if it can make it, he will follow in his van.

Again, all I am saying is that we cannot compare the old Energica battery to the new all that well, as the cells are different inside the battery.

What we will notice on the 21.5 KWH battery is slowing down will be a much larger range gain than before.   With the 13.4 battery that will make less difference (but still a fairly large difference, of course).

-Don-  Auburn, CA

[Crissa]

A better way to say it is the KWH rating changes with load with batteries.

I did say it.  Repeatedly.

The energy you take out of them depends on the amperage load.

-Crissa

[DonTom]

I did say it.  Repeatedly. The energy you take out of them depends on the amperage load.
-Crissa

Okay, I can accept that. But they rate them in KWH as shown in their manuals as well as right on the battery. So to avoid confusion, I use their terms and stick with KWHs.

-Don-  Auburn, CA

[Crissa]

Yeah, until there's a regulation about what the labeling is (see like the labeling law on data drives) we're going to have these weird conversions between manufacturers.

Every formulation and array will react differently, too.

-Crissa

[RedBlock]

I'm only getting 65-70 miles at 65-70 mph.

[DonTom]

I'm only getting 65-70 miles at 65-70 mph.

On what bike? And have you ridden it until the bike is dead?  I am not clear on how far  we can ride at 0 SOC.

-Don-  Auburn, CA

[BigPoppa]

On my 13kw SS9 I've hit 0% SoC a few times and I can at least confirm a couple of miles worth of range. Without a tow truck or portable charger of some kind shadowing me, I don't feel comfortable trying to test exactly how far the bike will go at 0%.

[MVetter]

My 13.4 bike hit empty ~2 miles from home. I limped it there at 15-20mph with the (-) showing for remaining miles.

[DonTom]

I'm only getting 65-70 miles at 65-70 mph.

I looked at your old posts and found "It is a 2020 SS9 with the 13.3 Kw battery".  The same bike I own.

Sounds about right with your range.

-Don-  Auburn, CA

[princec]

Seems the Zeros are a whole lot more efficient than the Energicas?

Cas

[MVetter]

Not really, no.

[Crissa]

Well, Zeros are lighter with less rolling resistance (at least, from the motor's pov) so yes, they're probably 'more efficient'.

But most of the inefficiency of a bike is air resistance and that doesn't change much from one bike to another without fancy bubbles.

-Crissa

[togo]

Well, Zeros are lighter with less rolling resistance (at least, from the motor's pov) so yes, they're probably 'more efficient'.

But most of the inefficiency of a bike is air resistance and that doesn't change much from one bike to another without fancy bubbles.

-Crissa

So far it's looking like Zero's powermosfet controller and belt is about 5-10% more efficient than Energica's igbt controller and gear reduction and chain drive.  I'll do some calibration runs after Shelter In Place blows over.