Print

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

[DonTom]

You can't get 100% better at high speeds by doubling the battery size.

That's not how batteries work.

-Crissa

If a KWH was always a KWH, why would you NOT get twice the time (range) at any given steady speed when the KWH is doubled?

IMO, the only possible answer is that a KWH is not always a KWH because of how they spec each battery. Is there anything else I could be missing?

-Don-  Payson, AZ (RV)

[SebfromBE]

@SebfromBE if you manage 170km on 10,6 kWh nominal as an average, kudos for your wrist discipline. Are you from Belgium Btw?

Thanks for the feedback and insight on the new model!

Yes I am from Belgium and the 170 figure is mostly because I use it as commuter mostly on national road... So more or less perfect conditions to get most range out of the battery for sure.

With all these advices... Sounds more and more reasonable to spend the extra bucks and go directly for the updated modeL... Let's sleep on it for a week. I will also need good arguments for my wife :-)

Thx all!

[wavelet]

@SebfromBE if you manage 170km on 10,6 kWh nominal as an average, kudos for your wrist discipline. Are you from Belgium Btw?

Thanks for the feedback and insight on the new model!

Yes I am from Belgium and the 170 figure is mostly because I use it as commuter mostly on national road... So more or less perfect conditions to get most range out of the battery for sure.

With all these advices... Sounds more and more reasonable to spend the extra bucks and go directly for the updated modeL... Let's sleep on it for a week. I will also need good arguments for my wife :-)

Thx all!

Tough call, since presumably you can't put off the decision until you (and others) can actually test the difference between the old & new batteries.

[wavelet]

You can't get 100% better at high speeds by doubling the battery size.

That's not how batteries work.

-Crissa

But isn't that exactly how a kWh is defined?
Let's say battery A's capacity, p, in kWh is whatever energy is needed to travel k miles at speed v (meaning the battery can deliver some instantaneous rate of kW r for t time) -- as the bike vendor defined it, meaning they chose some dvantageous-to-them value for v.

If battery B has 2p capacity (twice the capacity in kWh that A does), assuming all other test conditions are equal, by definition it can sustain that rate r for 2t time, and so cover 2k distance at speed v.

If it can't, whoever is providing the numbers is misusing the definitions.

Sure, I'm ignoring some stuff here, like battery thermal management etc.
The key point still holds. Any sag, internal resistance etc. issues have to be taken into account and discounted in advance, because the definition of kWh is functional; what matters is what the system (battery) can observably deliver.

[Crissa]

But isn't that exactly how a kWh is defined?

No.  It's defined as a load at a certain amperage over time.  So lead-acid batteries are rated by how long (Amp hours) they can draw one amp.  But if you do it all at once, you don't get that number of amps.  And wattage is amps x volts.

When the bike is going 60 mph, you're drawing much higher than that amount, and hence, get less from the battery.

-Crissa

[DonTom]

No.  It's defined as a load at a certain amperage over time.

  Try telling that to PG&E or any other electric power company. There, a KWH is exactly a KWH regardless of load, as in MOST (all?) cases other than batteries.

But all batteries have ways to cheat on specs, and perhaps should not even be rated in KWH, but something more useful, depending on how actually used.

IMO, Zero is constant in their ratings. Get a  Zero battery exactly twice the KWH rating and you will get very close to double the range at any speed. Perhaps a mile less at some speeds because of the extra weight, but Zero is very reasonable when you compare their battery KWH sizes. They stay consistent. Very simple, get twice the KWH with Zero and expect twice the range well within reason at ANY speed.

Such is NOT the case when comparing Energica's two batteries. It gets double the range at slow speeds but less than 40% at higher speeds. The KWH rating is 62% better.  It should get very close to 62% better range at ALL speeds just as do the Zeros for their KWH increase. Zero motorcycles  are constant with how they rate and compare their batteries on the same model bike, unlike Energica.   

For EVs, I like the way  Tesla does it. They tell you all the info. reasonably  possible, 75KWH of battery and then there is a chart available to give  the range at any speed it is capable of on level ground at 70F. They use 65 MPH as their main spec. I wish electric motorcycles would do the same. I would rather ONLY see a spec at 65 MPH on all bikes than all that "city, urban, mixed" BS which really tells us almost nothing in everyday riding. I would find a freeway speed range at 70 MPH to be more useful to compare between bikes.

So lead-acid batteries are rated by how long (Amp hours) they can draw one amp.  But if you do it all at once, you don't get that number of amps.

That depends on the plate spacing in a lead-acid battery. You will get more "than that number of amps" by draining an engine starting battery "all at once". More CCA as it is designed for "all at once".

With true (not the cheap "Marine Deep Cycle") deep cycle batteries (like in the house section of this RV) it also uses lead acid. The spacing of plates is much farther apart, so the batteries are designed the opposite than the engine starting batteries. They are also larger, more expensive, and a lot heavier but have much LESS CCA "Cold Cranking Amps" and they also last a very long time (usually more than ten years) as with these, they will drain VERY fast with a heavy load and VERY slow with a small load, the opposite of an engine stating battery.

-Don-   in  rainy Payson, AZ

[Crissa]

No.  It's defined as a load at a certain amperage over time.

  Try telling that to PG&E or any other electric power company. There, a KWH is exactly a KWH regardless of load, as in MOST (all?) cases other than batteries.

No, that's literally dependent upon load.

If there's no load, there's no kilowatts.

Their formula is load (amps) x supply (volts) = watts.

More CCA as it is designed for "all at once"

That's merely instantaneous draw.  You can't go a mile on it because it's an amount of time measured in thirty seconds.

Different batteries have different curves, which I already said.  Zeros are closer to 'true' because of their demand curve is near their supply curve - but Energicas use more power and so can't be near the demand curve of standard batteries.

-Crissa

[DonTom]

No, that's literally dependent upon load.

If there's no load, there's no kilowatts.

Which proves my point. Zero KWHs is exactly zero KWH, just like a thousand  KWH is exactly a thousand  KWHs. Load makes NO difference, as a KWH is exactly a KWH to the power companies regardless of  load, even if the load is zero. Then you get no charge for the amount of juice used, which was zero KWH (not counting if they have a minimum usage charge, of course).

Are you sure you understand the difference between a KW and a KWH?  A  watt  and a watt-hour?     A watt needs a load to be a true watt. Watt is a unit of power.  KWH is not.  KWH a measurement of power used over  a period of time and the load can be zero or anything else. Same with the amount of time.

A WH does NOT need a  load to count the WHs. Zero WH is zero watts for even  a million hours at a zero KW load.  A  billion KWH is  a billion KW for an hour (or two billion KWs for a half hour, or a half billion KWs  for two hours, etc), no exceptions in any case other than with batteries (AFAIK).   

With any battery,  the KWH changes with a different draw. IOW, A KWH is only a KWH at the load they decide to measure it at, unlike from the power company where a true KWH is always a true KWH regardless of load.

So a battery can be spec'ed where they get the very best KWH reading, even if it is NEvER used at that load in the real world.

But to be fair to Energica, there is no real way to compare their old battery to the new one, as it is a totally different design. But their own specs well prove a KWH is NOT a KWH when the load is changed. The older battery has less KWH difference with speed gains than does the new and it would not surprise me if at very high speeds the older battery really has the best range.  It certainly will be a lot closer to the same, as shown by their own specs. But we will  soon find out, which will stop all  my guessing by having the facts.

And FWIW, I hope there is a large increase with the newer battery at higher speeds, but I have my doubts.

-Don-  in raining HARD Payson, AZ (RV)

[SBK74]

But to be fair to Energica, there is no real way to compare their old battery to the new one, as it is a totally different design. But their own specs well prove a KWH is NOT a KWH when the load is changed. The older battery has less KWH difference with speed gains than does the new and it would not surprise me if at very high speeds the older battery really has the best range.  It certainly will be a lot closer to the same, as shown by their own specs. But we will  soon find out, which will stop all  my guessing by having the facts.

Don't forget they skimmed 15kg. With start-stop urban use, that will make a difference where the motor operates in  the -inefficient- low revs. Maybe they also tweaked eco-mode. For highway I don't know, could it be that the battery voltage has also changed which could be shifting the operating area of the engine (volts-amps) to a bit less efficient area. As we all know, highway range >60mph is so dependant on a few miles faster/slower, head wind/tail wind etcetera, that I am not worried with not getting exactly 60% more above 60 mph. It's still an EV...

[DonTom]

I am not worried with not getting exactly 60% more above 60 mph. It's still an EV...

Of course it will depend on how it's ridden, but I am mainly concerned about range at around 75 MPH (~120 KMH) on the new SS9 battery and that could be perhaps as low as no gain over the older battery.  IAC, I have decided to wait and see what happens at 75 MPH before making any decision if I want the new battery.

-Don-  in rainy Payson, AZ (RV)

[dryhte]

@SebfromBE if you manage 170km on 10,6 kWh nominal as an average, kudos for your wrist discipline. Are you from Belgium Btw?

Thanks for the feedback and insight on the new model!

Yes I am from Belgium and the 170 figure is mostly because I use it as commuter mostly on national road... So more or less perfect conditions to get most range out of the battery for sure.

With all these advices... Sounds more and more reasonable to spend the extra bucks and go directly for the updated modeL... Let's sleep on it for a week. I will also need good arguments for my wife :-)

Thx all!

Hi Seb, I'm from Belgium too and I recently bought an Esseesse9. You must be very disciplined to get these numbers... Expect less on the Energica because it really teases you to misbehave even in rain mode I tend to find myself over 130km/h on 90 roads. It's the noise that made me do it, officer

[DonTom]

even in rain mode I tend to find myself over 130km/h on 90 roads. It's the noise that made me do it, officer

What is your max speed in rain mode? Is it different than USA models?  I don't think my 2020  SS9 can go 130 KMH (81 MPH) in either the rain or eco modes.

-Don- in snowy Payson, AZ (RV).

[dryhte]

even in rain mode I tend to find myself over 130km/h on 90 roads. It's the noise that made me do it, officer

What is your max speed in rain mode? Is it different than USA models?  I don't think my 2020  SS9 can go 130 KMH (81 MPH) in either the rain or eco modes.

-Don- in snowy Payson, AZ (RV).

I think only Eco mode is speed limited to 90km/h. Rain mode is only torque limited. In fact it pulls quite eagerly around 90km/h

I just bought the bike, and the weather has been really bad here so I've don't have much experience yet with other riding modes than rain. Though my first commute was in sport mode, and it felt fine

[DonTom]

I think only Eco mode is speed limited to 90km/h. Rain mode is only torque limited. In fact it pulls quite eagerly around 90km/h

I just bought the bike, and the weather has been really bad here so I've don't have much experience yet with other riding modes than rain. Though my first commute was in sport mode, and it felt fine

Perhaps I never tried rain mode. I normally just keep it in the "urban" mode, which is fast enough for me. I tried eco the day I bought the bike and never tried that again. Eco was rather useless, IMO.

-Don- in rainy & snowy Payson, AZ (RV)

[MVetter]

Rain mode severely limits torque which is especially useful for models pre-traction control.