ElectricMotorcycleForum.com
Makes And Models => Zero Motorcycles Forum | 2013+ => Topic started by: trikester on November 14, 2012, 02:14:49 AM
-
I have placed an order with Hollywood Electrics for what amounts to an FXU model. It will be all FX in power, wheels, tires, etc., but mounted on the XU suspension for low stand-over height. Everything FX except the XU suspension. However, the factory won't build to a dealer's specifications, so Harlan will be making the mods himself. He will be creating the "FXU" for me.
I suggest to Zero that they add an FXU as a standard option. It won't cost them any design time, so it seems like a "no brainer" to me. I have had many happy years, and thousands of miles, of riding the ever popular Yamaha TW 200's, in all kinds of terrain. I'm an older rider (now 77) so I'm a "dirt cruiser" not a "balls out" "catch big air" rider and I don't need the suspension travel of a typical dirt bike. I like to be able to easily dab or tripod with my feet in some nasty situations. To me the FXU would be like an electric TW 200 (without the big tires), but with more power and all the other dirt riding benefits of Zero's electric bikes, including fantastic handling.
A lot of shorter women could go dirt riding with their boyfriends or husbands on this bike and be able to keep up, which the XU alone might have trouble doing, with its reduced power and street tires. The TW 200's have been popular for many years to this category of rider and even tall riders like me (6' 2") who have a relaxed dirt riding style.
Think about it ZERO. Add an FXU to your list of products. 8)
Trikester
-
I think they missed out not giving the XU 5.7 a Size 4 controller. $2500 delta between both the FX 2.8/5.7 and the XU 2.8/5.7, but you get a lot more for the money in the FX.
-
The 2 bikes look very similar. I wonder if the forks and shock are the same, just the spring length and something internal to limit how far they extend. It appears the XU is 15 pounds lighter. Thats a a pretty big difference. I wonder where that comes from.
How do they switch to chain drive because it looks like the rear sprocket for the belt is very large diameter. It doesn't look like the gear ratio will be the same, because typically sprockets don't come that big for chain. The switch to chain is typically for offroad use, but gearing faster is probably not what most offroad people want. Anyone know the gear ratios of the belt verses the chain?
-
How do they switch to chain drive because it looks like the rear sprocket for the belt is very large diameter. It doesn't look like the gear ratio will be the same, because typically sprockets don't come that big for chain. The switch to chain is typically for offroad use, but gearing faster is probably not what most offroad people want. Anyone know the gear ratios of the belt verses the chain?
Belt drive generally uses larger rear AND front sprockets. I assume that this is because a belt cannot bend enough to accomidate a small front sprocket. When they switch over to chain, they use a much smaller front sprocket... and in turn use a smaller rear sprocket. The effective final drive ratio remains the same.
Jose Soriano
-
The forks and shocks are not the same but they fit the same frame. That's why Harlan can make me an "FXU". I get the high power controller of the FX with the lower stand-over height of the XU. I don't know where all of that 15 lb weight saving comes from. Probably a little here and a little there. The tires of the XU are probably lighter but of course I will have the tires of the FX and then probably change those to Kenda K270's.
As to chain conversion. When I changed my 2012 DS from belt to chain I actually geared it a little lower than the belt drive, on purpose. Yes the front sprocket is a lot smaller on the chain drive and so is the rear. I like the smaller rear as it is less likely to hit rocks.
Trikester
-
So Harlan will have a FX frame and a XU motor left over. I'm assuming he'll put these parts together and come up with a XUF bike. A bike that would be great for a tall person who has an aversion to speed. :)
-
:D
XU and FX use the same motor, Zero 75-5.
Primary differences:
* Front forks
* Rear shock
* Size 4 (FX) vs Size 2 (XU) controller
* Wheels (21" and 18" vs 19" and 16")
* Tires
Rear sprocket size looks close to the same. Front sprocket may be different, XU has a lower top speed.
So to make a FXU, you start with a FX then exchange everything on the above list except for the controller (maybe not wheels?). Seems like it'd be easier and cheaper to start with an XU then swap the controller. Perhaps the XU uses finer gauge wiring that is not suitable for the larger controller.. or perhaps the controller simply can't be ordered by itself.
-
No, no no, you guys misunderstood me! I start (Harlan starts) with an FX and just changes the front and rear suspension to those three parts from the XU product line. I said before; everything is FX except the front and rear suspension. That's all. change three parts on the FX. You are making it too complicated. No motors,. controllers, wheels, etc., etc., left over, just 2 front shocks and 1 rear shock extra, taken off the FX
It's an FX with the XU suspension. Get it?
Trikester
-
Ah.
-
Guess there will be a spare 'UXF' then for the tall commuter, the scavenged XU with trikester's discarded FX suspensions ;)
-
There we go! Any tall commuters out there looking for a tall XU? I'll have a suspension for sale ;D
Actually I won't, because Harlan is taking care of the conversion project and he probably has plans on dealing with the unused FX suspension.
Since I have done all of my other various conversion projects on my 2010 and 2012 DS's by myself, it will be pure pleasure to have someone else doing the work this time around. 8) Go Harlan!
BTW - Since I'm a mellow dirt rider (not mellow dirt, mellow rider) some may wonder why I don't save money by putting the FX wheels on a XU instead. Because I often do long slow, steep, climbs, out here in the mountainous (and often hot) west the higher current. more HP, capability of the FX should make it more durable under those conditions. One very steep and rocky climb I did last summer (on my 2012 DS) I probably didn't get over 10 MPH because of constant rocks, fallen tree limbs, and rut dodging. Ten MPH doesn't provide much cooling air. ;)
Trikester
-
You mention those steep hill climbs. This is something that I cannot seem to understand yet about electric. My assumption is that a gas dirtbike 5th gear and the zero have about the same gear ratio because the top speed is basically the same. The gas bike has the torque to pull 5th but you have to get the rpm up around 3000 to get that torque. The electric can pull that gear ratio at 2 rpm.
On a steep hill, my gas bike cannot pull 5th, it bogs down and can only pull 2nd. I would think the gas bike 2nd gear would put more torque on the rear tire than the Zero. So that means the Zero cannot go up that hill that lugs my gas bike down to 2nd? Maybe I need to run real numbers, but I thought someone had said before that their numbers showed the gas bike lower gears have way more torque than electric.
So I am concerned about this hill situation. In all street riding, this condition will not occur, but in dirt riding it does. For example, a hill in the sand dunes. I have actually approached hills topped out in 5th and then on the way up I constantly downshift as the motor lugs out. I actually got down so slow and then just dug in, that vehicle just could not climb that hill. What would electric do on such a hill? Does the e-bike still need gears for hill climbs?
-
Marshm - you're correct, a bike like the Zero is geared for about the same as the top gear on a small bike.
Typically, the torque curve on an electric bike is flat, at least to a point. When you twist your wrist at 0 mph you get the same acceleration force as you get when you twist your wrist at 50 mph, neglecting aero drag.
Gas bikes typically produce very little torque at low RPMs (< 2k rpm?). Their torque curve is not flat, especially at low RPMs. At low speeds you must downshift to bring up RPMs and avoid the low torque hole, even if you don't need the torque multiplication of the shorter gear.
A 250cc gas bike in 2nd gear makes about as much wheel torque as the 2012 Zero DS/X. In 1st gear the gas bike makes more torque. If you find on a gas bike that you need all the torque first gear provides then the electric may be geared too tall. But if you need 1st just to avoid the torque hole in 2nd gear low RPMs, then you may be fine.
The 2013 Zeros will make significantly more wheel torque than a 250cc bike, in any gear. They're probably closer to a 450.
Edit: Look at this post (http://electricmotorcycleforum.com/boards/index.php?topic=1915.msg6326#msg6326) and read a few posts down, where I show wheel power vs RPM at different gears for a Ninja 250 vs a 2012 Zero S. DS is geared a little shorter (more torque) than the S.
-
Ah thanks. That is a nice graph that shows all 6 gears and the Zero plotted as well. I see, the Zero falls somewhere between 2nd and 3rd, closer to 2nd. That is actually quite impressive. It can pull 2nd through 6th the same as that Ninja. So maybe a little gearing change lower, the Zero FX would probably work for me everyplace I go offroad.
I think you are right, I downshift to 1st to get the rpm up to where I have torque. If I lug out 2nd it will just stall at some point. So I don't think I need the torque of 1st gear, I just have no choice if i want to go that slow.
I do notice on tough trails sections I am forced to go a certain speed because that is what my engine will do. If I find myself wanting to go a bit faster, that means revving the heck out of the motor which I hate. If I go up a gear the jump can be too much. I also like to use the higher gear because it accelerates faster if I need a burst. If I am revving the heck out of 1st, a twist of the throttle doesn't do as much. If the Zero will accelerate the same all throught this range of speed, that is a benefit for offroad use. Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.
-
I do notice on tough trails sections I am forced to go a certain speed because that is what my engine will do. If I find myself wanting to go a bit faster, that means revving the heck out of the motor which I hate. If I go up a gear the jump can be too much. I also like to use the higher gear because it accelerates faster if I need a burst. If I am revving the heck out of 1st, a twist of the throttle doesn't do as much. If the Zero will accelerate the same all throught this range of speed, that is a benefit for offroad use. Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.
I didn't realize until I started riding my 2010 DS what a huge advantage electric power is in dirt riding. In riding gas bikes of course I would have to kick it down when hitting a climb. Sometimes I wouldn't go low enough to keep the rpm's up and I'd stall out - as has been said. The thing I love about dirt riding electric is that if I suddenly come on a steep climb, that I couldn't see ahead of time, all I have to do is twist the throttle and go up. Same thing when riding fast in a clean stretch and then coming to a tight, tricky, spot, I just brake and then power through it, not having to take time to shift out of a higher gear, or back up after cleaning it.
I've made this statement here before: It is my judgement that any dirt rider who starts riding electric will not want to go back to gas bikes in the dirt. The torque available at any time is huge advantage. I can see, as some have suggested, the usefulness of a two speed gear, lower for dirt and higher for pavement, on street legal bikes, but I don't know if it would be worth the extra weight and complexity.
I have also said before: Any hill I can't climb on my 2012 DS is a hill I don't want to be on. I'm sure that traction is the thing that would determine the maximum slope to climb on dirt. That's a reason I put the 5.6", K270, tire on the rear. I've been up some pretty steep hills where even that tire was beginning to lose traction (running low pressure), but still made it over the top. Speaking of tire pressure, on dirt I usually (unless its going to be very hard pack) run 10 lbs in the front and 15 lbs in the rear. I've then gone out onto pavement and the bike still handles well even though the pressures are way below what I normally use for street riding.
That's my 2 cents.
Trikester
-
Keep in mind too that the graph is for a 2012 S. 2013 FX will have roughly 50% more power, probably 70-80% more wheel torque (at low speeds).
-
Keep in mind too that the graph is for a 2012 S. 2013 FX will have roughly 50% more power, probably 70-80% more wheel torque (at low speeds).
Whoopie!!!!!!!!!!
Trikester
-
Keep in mind too that the graph is for a 2012 S. 2013 FX will have roughly 50% more power, probably 70-80% more wheel torque (at low speeds).
That's rather optimistic, the new sealed motor may be wound for more torque but the peak current is still limited by the same controller.
-
It is the 400 amp controller.
Trikester
-
It is the 400 amp controller.
Trikester
So does the 2012S. Electric motors have a linear torque curve, for the older motor you get roughly 0.15NM of torque per Ampere of input. The new sealed unit is unlikely to be much different so it won't produce 80% more torque.
-
They list the torque for the 2013 FX at 95Nm (70 ft-lbs). I don't have the number for the 2012 DS (my present bike) at my fingertips, but I think it si quite a bit more than my 2012 DS.
Zero is claiming such a big improvement in efficiency of their new motor that they claim little cooling is needed, compared to the previous motor.
Time will tell ;)
Trikester
-
ME0913 does about 40 ft-lb.
Edit: so approximately 0.23 Nm/A.
-
It is the 400 amp controller.
Trikester
So does the 2012S. Electric motors have a linear torque curve, for the older motor you get roughly 0.15NM of torque per Ampere of input. The new sealed unit is unlikely to be much different so it won't produce 80% more torque.
But with the higher battery voltage of the 2013 bike those 400 amps will deliver more power compared to the 2012!
-
It is the 400 amp controller.
Trikester
So does the 2012S. Electric motors have a linear torque curve, for the older motor you get roughly 0.15NM of torque per Ampere of input. The new sealed unit is unlikely to be much different so it won't produce 80% more torque.
But with the higher battery voltage of the 2013 bike those 400 amps will deliver more power compared to the 2012!
More power yes, but not more torque. Torque wins races.
-
Motor torque is a meaningless metric without RPM.
-
Torque is Ampere/turns. The higher voltage motor is going to have more turns if everything else remains the same (magnetic strength, etc). 400 amps + more turns = higher torque. Or if the magnets are stronger and the turns remain the same it will still be higher torque for the higher voltage. Certainly the higher operating voltage is producing higher torque if the current remains the same.
Trikester
-
Motor torque is a meaningless metric without RPM.
How do you figure that when a motor makes peak torque at 0rpm?
-
P(Watt) = Torque * 2 * Pi * Frequency(Hz)
The KW / PS will increase linear with the RPM => 0 RPM is 0 PS but you have still full torque ???
-
Motor torque is a meaningless metric without RPM.
How do you figure that when a motor makes peak torque at 0rpm?
Torque without movement is not producing any power. So you can have all the torque in the world, but if it is not moving something it is not doing any work and therefore is not producing any power. That is why you need rpm to go with your torque to generate power.
However, having a lot of torque throughout the motor's rpm range is a good thing, especially for street riding. It means that you will have a broad spread of power throughout the rpm range of your motor and will not have to wait for the motor to rev up before being able to use that power to move something (like you) quickly. :)
-
As I said; "torque is a function of ampere turns." When at 0 rpm you have "stall current" (highest current that can be forced through the resistance of the windings by the applied voltage, I = E/R) = max torque. :o
Trikeater
-
Motor torque is a meaningless metric without RPM.
How do you figure that when a motor makes peak torque at 0rpm?
Torque without movement is not producing any power. So you can have all the torque in the world, but if it is not moving something it is not doing any work and therefore is not producing any power. That is why you need rpm to go with your torque to generate power.
However, having a lot of torque throughout the motor's rpm range is a good thing, especially for street riding. It means that you will have a broad spread of power throughout the rpm range of your motor and will not have to wait for the motor to rev up before being able to use that power to move something (like you) quickly. :)
That still doesn't explain how Torque is a meaningless metric. If i am building a new wardrobe and im tightening a screw, when it goes tight im still applying torque to the screwdriver even though it isn't moving. i.e. 0rpm. So if you are half way up a steep slope and you come to a stop, power is irrelevant when you want to start moving again?
A friends 600 screamer makes twice as much power as my KTM but my KTM makes much more torque. In a race from 20 to 60mph my KTM is significantly faster despite the 600 being high in the rev range and a gear lower. Surely the same concept must apply to electric motors.
-
I think that once you, or your wheel, starts to move then you have power. So the power would be calculated by multiplying the torque by the rpm, even if it is only one revolution per minute. The torque gets things moving, but power doesn't happen until you do. At least that is the way I understand things. My last physics course was almost 50 years ago. :o
-
When looking at a PM brushless electric drivetrain you want to know torque, peak torque maximum RPM, and Maximum RPM I have attached a torque vs speed curve from a Remy motor. as you can see, depending on your system voltage you get the same maximum torque, but up to a higher RPM , but at some point that torque starts to drop off (peak torque maximum rpm). That point is where the BEMF of the motor reaches the System voltage (there is also inductance and resistance factored in there as well, but those are just details).
Once you have those numbers you can work out quite a bit. Typically for a direct drive electric motorcycle you want to have your peak torque available up to your regular cruising speed, then go into the reduced torque (which is actually constant power) above that. With a brushless PM controller you can typically get 30% more speed, past your peak torque maximum rpm. so if your torque starts dropping at around 65, you would have a top speed of something like 90 in that gear.
Since the peak torque on an electric drivetrain is available over a wide range of speed starting from 0, people always assume it is available for the entire RPM range, which is not always the case.
There will always be the debate as to what is important, torque or power, but typically what is more important is not peak torque or peak power, but the associated torque/ power vs RPM curves. For a gas engine, a peak torque and power really is useless unless it is accompanied with a power / torque vs RPM graph. An engine with a very peaky torque curve (only produces useful torque for a very small range of RPM) is pretty much useless, unless you have an application where the RPM doesn't change very much, otherwise you will be shifting gears all the time. With today's gas Motorcycle and Car engines, the torque curves are pretty flat, so it is assumed that if you have a peak torque value, that there is a useful range where something near that torque will be available.
I guess my point of view is that Torque and Power are both useless metrics, there is no answer to "what is better torque or power?" because the question doesn't make sense. To actually be useful you need a graph of either Power or Torque vs speed (and it doesn't matter which one you get, because either one contains the same information).
-ryan
-
Torque and RPM alone are both insufficient to tell you how "fast" the motor is.
If for example the 600cc motor produces half the torque at the motor output shaft but is spinning twice as fast, then your two bikes should have identical wheel torque. If the bikes weigh the same, then the two of you should accelerate at identical rates.
If your bike is faster at low speeds - and I don't doubt that it is - then a few things could explain it:
* despite being a gear lower and higher in revs, he may still not have as much mechanical advantage as you do. Sportbikes are geared to ride very fast. And even "higher" in revs means he may still be stuck in a rev range where the sportbike engine produces very poor torque.
* 600cc sportbike may be heavier than your KTM
* he may have to shift an extra time
A windmill produces many hundreds or thousands lb-ft torque. Much better as a motor than say a wimpy electric motor that only produces 70 lb-ft no? It would be a very poor vehicle engine because it does so only at a few RPM; the maximum power output is very low.
As Biff says, ideally you want a graph showing the power curve or the torque curve with RPM markings. But if you have only one number to work with, peak power is more useful than peak torque.
-
Very interesting. Now i just have to work out how to up the voltage on my 2012S!
-
Wow! This thread sure got a long way off from my original posting - the desirability of having all of the FX goodies on a lower suspension for us older dirt "cruisers". In other words, an FXU bike. The low power / torque and small wheel size of the XU doesn't cut it for me and the height of the FX suspension is unnecessary for me. I think there are other dirt riders who would like this combination also.
After I get my custom 2013 FXU from Harlan, I'll let you all know how it works out. Unless of course if I twist the throttle too fast and kill myself. Whee! ;D
Trikester
-
Have you decided to go for the FXU, or did you change your mind?
-
Have you decided to go for the FXU, or did you change your mind?
Glad you asked! After sitting on the stock FX at the Long Beach show I've decided to stay with the stock setup and see how that works for me. What I didn't realize, until then, was what a difference the narrower width of the FX would make in the distance for my feet to the ground. I may change my mind after riding but right now it seems like I could reach the ground easier than on my 2012 DS that I'm riding now.
Also Zero has told me that I will be able to move my low profile Corbin seat to the FX which will lower my seat height some more.
So now the changes that I know I will make as soon as I get the FX are:
Convert to chain drive (to be done by Harlan).
Rear rim to a 2.5" width and tire to K270 5.1 x 18 (to be done by me)
Front tire to K270 3.25 x 21 (by me).
Handlebar switch for Sport / Eco / brake light = momentary selection as I have done on my DS now.
Figure out where to mount a tool box (this has been different between my 2010 and 2012). This is something Zero should have addressed years ago. ::)
That's all I can think of now. I will re-post to this thread if I make any more changes or decide not to do any of these I've listed.
Trikester
-
I have been reading mostly of the thread with a lot of interest...
Have any of you ridden the 2013 FX new model?
I did, and I can guarantee you (without getting into technical discussions)that this thing flies. You actually have to be careful with the throttle if you do not want to end up hitting the ground with your back!!! It accelerates like a rocket and reaches top speed very quickly.
In a way, it reminds me the Tesla Roadster, but with two wheels...
I did raise some questions about the 420A controller limitation also, but after riding it, quite frankly, I do not care ;D
Battery packs main features. FX model
- 102V
- LiPo Battery (Especific chemistry do not disclosed)
- High Quality cells (manufacturer name not disclosed)
- Higher energy density (this obviously goes along with the chosen chemistry) per Kg
- More expensive packs, but lighter ones
- Modular charging/de-charging
- Each pack is easily removable
-
Cycle News revealed the battery manufacturer as Farasis here (http://electricmotorcycleforum.com/boards/index.php?topic=2477.msg10754#msg10754).
Farasis claims (http://www.farasis.com/technology.html) their MnR (Manganese Rich) chemistry provides almost 40% higher energy density than "comparable LiFePO4". A123's pouch cells AMP20 are 130 Wh/kg, so Farasis is around 180 Wh/kg (EIG C020 is 175 Wh/kg). Farasis says they are working on a Gen 2 MnR chemistry which would double (presumably LiFePO4) energy density, or 260 Wh/kg.
I believe each ZF2.8 module in the 2013 bikes is 2.55 kWh nominal. The weight difference between the 2013 fixed-module S bikes is 32 pounds (3 module ZF8.5 350 pounds, 4 module ZF11.4 382 pounds) .. so ~177 Wh/kg at the module level, including per-battery instrumentation and control electronics, module packaging etc.
The ZF3 modules in 2012 are 2.63 kWh nominal. The weight difference between the fixed-module 2012 S bikes is 44 pounds (2 module ZF6 297 pounds, 3 module ZF9 341 pounds) .. so ~133 Wh/kg at the module level.
The 2013 modules appear to be 33% denser than the 2012 modules. Assuming this carries over to the cell level, this would mean 175 Wh/kg (EIG) * 1.33 = 232 Wh/kg. So maybe Zero is using the Farasis Gen II chemistry..
Farasis says their chemistry is "manganese rich". I don't know if this refers to a specific chemistry; Envia also describes their chemistry as manganese rich (Li2MnO3 / LiMO2 composite). Manganese is a pretty cheap metal, so it's possible that Farasis has a lower cost per kWh than EIG.
-
Mmmm...if the anode chemistry is Manganese + X I'm afraid the person that told me about Lipo had no technical knowledge
If they really get to 260Wh/Kg that's a pretty good number (for the used chemistry, I mean)
Price should not be higher then...Let's see
-
Farasis refers to a Manganese-rich cathode.
-
Yes, I understand, which still means is a Manganese cathode with the good and the bad that implies (briefly):
- Less energy density than Lipo
- Safer
- Longer life than Lipo (charging cycles)
- Heavier
- Cheaper
I would be surprised if they have this "second" generation ready to sell (I mean properly field tested), but who knows, if they have had the funding, they may got there already...
There is a lot to do with Lithium and we are in the "infancy" development stage. When you look at all the different available chemistries (each one of them with good and bad things) it makes fairly complex to bet in what the winner will be.
One of the key factor is the anode chemistry storage limitation, and although there are solutions with Nano-technology still the required long life cycles are not there...will see...
-
Since we already are (way) offtopic, again -
One really hopes Zero will be releasing new FX -13 compatible battery packs in the future. Same size, same weight but increased Wh/kg ratio.
-
Tudor,
Do not want to disappoint you, but that is unlikely to be happening...too many companies working in his "own thing" at the moment for Zero to be positioning themselves as "this is the future of our battery packs"
Not good news for us as users, but this is the price you pay for being an early adopter...
-
I would hope along with Tudor's hope, but the reality is probably closer to what Lipo423 said. :(
I don't know at this point how much physically the '13 FX packs differ from the '12 FX packs. Can the '13 plug into, and fit, the '12FX? My "off the top of my head" guess would be that they won't.
Trikester
-
There is no 2012 FX, and the 2012 and 2013 removable battery packs are mutually incompatible.
Tudor:
ttxgpfan @ ESBK interviewed Kenyon Kluge from Zero about the 2013 bikes, and I recall KK saying something like they had designed their battery modules to be independent of the internal battery cells.
http://esbk.co/2012/12/13/esbk-studios-episode-12-interview-with-kenyon-kluge-of-zero-motorcycles/ (http://esbk.co/2012/12/13/esbk-studios-episode-12-interview-with-kenyon-kluge-of-zero-motorcycles/)
To date, Zero has only designed the 2010/2011 X-series bikes to exchange batteries, and those bikes use the same cell type and pack voltage. I'd like to see Zero start to incorporate more cross-year compatibility, possibly even small future pack voltage increases provided that the onboard charger and motor controller are capable.
Imagine buying a 2013 FX now, and in 3-4 years upgrading to a double-density pack and just having to swap out the battery modules. It'd still be a significant expense, but it'd be nice to have that option for personal use.. and probably critical for municipal or fleet use.
-
Do not want to spoil your hopes (remember I also own a ZF9), but do not expect that to happen.
Battery business is changing so rapidily and as I stated earlier Zero would have to follow the manufacturers/new technology, not the opposite way.
Anyway, I hope to be wrong guys, as I do not like throwing money out of the window (investment wise), but I still think this is the price you pay when acquiring new technology -and I knew it beforehand- when I looked at the ZF9, and still went for it...
-
Battery business is changing so rapidily and as I stated earlier Zero would have to follow the manufacturers/new technology, not the opposite way.
But is it not just a matter of fitting these new denser batteries in a case that fit the FX?
-
Provided that the voltage is compatible with the motor controller and the charger. Both support a range of voltages, but Zero would have to design the system to be programmable to work like this. Otherwise they could build a denser battery at the same voltage level.
-
Agreed.
which gets you again to the point that future battery compatibility is unlikely to be happening (this is without getting into a more difficult discussion on the "future" battery chemistries or fuel-cells development)
-
Assume Zero is using a 3.8v 25 Ah cell now, each ZF2.8 module is 27s1p. Pack voltages range from 4.2 volts per cell hot off the charger (114V) down to 2.8 volts per cell (momentary, 76V) under heavy discharge @ low SOC, with a 3.2 volts per cell low voltage cutoff (86V).
Say the motor controller supports input voltages in the range of 60V - 140V, and the motor supports up to 140V at maximum RPM. Charge supports 25A @ max 150V.
Suppose for 2014 they figure out how to shrink their electronics, and can fit 28 cells in a single type-2013 module. Unlikely, but go with me here. BMS probably resides on the individual removable modules; multiple BMS communicate to the MBB their operating voltage (118V down to 78V), MBB okays this as the controller and charger both support it. MBB reconfigures the charger's constant current / constant voltage cutoff points, and works fine.
Suppose for 2015 they get hold of some different-dimension Envia cells (3.7v 20Ah @ $10/ea). Unfortunately the different-dimensions only allow 25s2p (3.7 kWh ea, +45% energy vs 2013) in the type-2013 module, or 25s3p in a slightly resized module for a type-2015 module. Type-2013 modules are used in 6000 bikes 2013 and 2014 bikes, 3000 of which are X-series and can accept a removable module. They figure 1000 unit sales are likely @ $2000/ea over a period of 2 years, $500 of which is marginal profit. $500k isn't a ton of profit, but it covers development expenses, is a revenue boost for Zero and their dealers and generates some community good will.
Now the BMS tells the MBB it operates from 70V-105V, MBB okays this. BMS tells the MBB it needs a slightly different charging profile, MBB okays this. Charging is pretty slow (650W is not going to charge a 7.4 kWh pack very quickly), Zero sells a few more offboard 650W chargers.
Note that the new type-2013 modules drop weight slightly (6 kg less per module) and boost power per module, especially with a single module. At the same discharge ratings, 8C pulse / 5C continuous, a single Envia module 2013 FX @ 100kg has almost as much power (30 kW) as a dual-module 2013 FX @ 125kg (33 kW), and a dual Envia module bike (113 kg) weighs closer to a single module 2013 FX (106 kg).
***
While all of the above is speculation, it seems technically feasible to me.
-
As a person about to take delivery of my 2013FX, I hope you have seen the future. 8)
Did a 33.4 mile (total out and back) PCH ride on my 2012 DS ZF6 yesterday, to my antique motorcycle club annual luncheon. Beautiful day riding along the coastal beaches of SoCal. My speed ranged from 45mph to 60mph (mostly 50 - 55mph) with a fair number of stops at lights along both the out and back rides. Rode in Eco mode all the time. Many stop lights & many times I didn't have to touch my brakes to come to a complete stop behind other vehicles (using my added handlebar switch to activate the brake light to get 25% regen without using brakes).
Back home with the the fourth bar having just gone away. Overnight: total recharge = 4.35kwh.
Trikester
-
4 bars gone should be around 33% discharged. 0.33 * 5.3 kWh / 0.85 = 2.1 kWh to charge, quick ballpark figure. 4.35 kWh sounds high for a third of your pack, although about right for 33 miles @ 45-60 mph.
Edit: Maybe it did a balance cycle at the end? Those seem to use about a kWh or so.
-
I agree with the theoretical assumptions with Envia supplied info...(leaving aside again that compatibility with current battery packs goes out of the window)
Let me be a little sceptical on the performance though...IMHO this is still more a laboratory performance than a real one...stability & charging cycles are probably one of their headaches at the moment, which hopefully they will resolve over time, but not that quickly...
For RC applications might be a good option short term (as other manufacturers have done with nano-tech).
-
Oops! I should have been clearer. I meant that with four bars left showing, the fourth one had just gone away as I was close to home. I had three bars showing when I parked, but I wanted to indicate that it was not deep into the #3 bar. I'm not sure, but I think I was only about a block away when the #4 bar disappeared, leaving three bars showing on the gauge. I wish the gauges had higher resolution than just eleven bars.
Sorry about the confusion. :)
Trikester
-
Ahh, gotcha.
So you left with 11 bars displayed, and you returned home @ 33.4 miles with 3 bars displayed and the 4th bar having just disappeared? (I record this as 8.0 or 8.1 bars discharged on my sheets)
Charge energy estimation then is (8.1 bars / 11 + 1 hidden bar) * 5.3 kWh nominal energy / 85% charge efficiency = 4.2 kWh. Pretty close.
-
It may have been close to 4.2 when it reached full charge but I had it plugged in for about 18 hours before I read the total. I have noticed that the reading keeps creeping up all the time it is plugged in, even for days.
Trikester
-
Yeah. Over a long period of time I average 5W (120 Wh/day).
-
5W is pretty good as standby. My Vectrix does 110W!!!
But I have the ESD charger which is also known as the biggest engineering failure ever.