ElectricMotorcycleForum.com
Makes And Models => Zero Motorcycles Forum | 2013+ => Topic started by: ChainGun on October 18, 2016, 04:54:00 PM
-
I purchased my Zero S exactly one year ago and have rode about 18K kilometers on it. I love every aspect of it except the situations when it tries to kill me. Over the time I noticed several occasions when I was opening the throttle in Sport mode and started losing grip on the rear wheel. One time when the road was wet I actually lost control and crashed but in other situations the road was dry and I managed to re-gain control. I've been riding for 26 years, this is hardly my first bike but all of my former bikes were heavy V-twins (Suzuki VX-800, Suzuki V-Strom, etc) and this is probably the first time I'm riding such a light and fast motorcycle.
What do you think: Is this a "Zero problem" or a "light and fast motorcycle problem"? Do others here encounter this problem as well? Am I doing something wrong (i.e. opening the throttle in Sport mode isn't a good idea) or is there a problem with the bike?
-
I have taken the Zero SR on a test drive, and was actually stunned that you do not get any "modern" driving aids besides ABS for the price you have to pay for the bike. You would expect that at least traction control would be relatively easy to add since the whole bike is electrical to begin with.
I feel that they have smoothened out the throttle response, in order to keep things easy to control and avoid a lot of accidents. This is probably one of the reasons why the bike won't wheelie (or at least not using the throttle alone).
The absence of modern driving aids was one of the reasons why I did not purchase the bike. Another was the limited range (at least once a week I need about 120 miles of highway range for commuting) and proper brakes with real stopping power.
-
ChainGun the zero S doesn't have enough power to spin the back wheel in the dry (nor does the SR), are you sure you don't have an SR, and were you on dirt when it was dry and you lost control?
-
ChainGun the zero S doesn't have enough power to spin the back wheel in the dry (nor does the SR), are you sure you don't have an SR, and were you on dirt when it was dry and you lost control?
I'm pretty sure I know the model of the bike I'm riding for the last 12 months, yes :) and no, I wasn't on dirt in any of the time I felt like I was going to lose control of the rear wheel, it was always asphalt.
-
When are you losing traction? In turns? Off the line? The only time I've felt my rear wheel step out was in a very tight left turn when I opened the throttle too much with my SR in sport mode the first week I had the bike. I now have no problem controlling the bike.
When the roads are wet I use ECO mode and keep the bike more upright. It sucks, but that's what I do. Luckily it doesn't rain around here much.
-
When are you losing traction? In turns? Off the line?
When the traffic lights change from red to green and I open the throttle all the way in Sports mode.
-
Could be a few things most of which you know. Tire getting old flat section and starting off in a slight lean from the stop, giving less tire road contact area. Maybe a slight front brake grab. Not enough weight over your rear wheel.
I've never had any spin out on my DS which is a bit different tires and spring but just a little more progression on the throttle and not a full pin and your golden.
Eco mode in the rain or crappy roads basically is your traction control.
One of the bike review videos on You Tube had both of the test riders slipping off turns on DSR's when they gave it too much too early out of a turn.
You get a lot of torque much sooner than most ICE bikes but you'll get used to it.
-
I have lost traction and fishtailed multiple times on my 2013 DS in Seattle. My DSR is just as capable of losing traction but I'm also more experienced with it now and I fitted a throttle rocker to smooth out throttle operation.
Traction control would be desirable but difficult to integrate because it works differently from ABS since it requires high speed intervention into the motor controller. ABS only handles brake pressure and is easier to adapt.
My solution is to use Eco mode in wet conditions so that torque onset is smoother with throttle roll on. This also makes recovery safer as you let off the throttle smoothly. I've never gone over on a Zero from this condition; always recovering by holding the bars loosely, easing off the throttle, and shifting weight down through the foot pegs.
-
I spun the rear wheel of my 2014 S once while coming up a freeway on-ramp in the rain. I agree it is pretty scary. The entire rear of the bike shook violently, but I just backed off of the throttle and it hooked up again. However, I still have the hard-compound original IRC Road Winner tires on my bike, the rear is well worn, the on-ramp was oily and I was in sport mode. So it was pretty much my fault. Now I am a little more careful when riding on wet streets and placing the bike in "eco" mode is not a bad idea - especially if you do not have complete control over your right wrist. ;)
-
But would you all agree that it's a shame that the power of the engine is managed in such a way so that it's not using all of it's potential performance?
I mean: if they would not limit the power so much, the bike would even be more fun in sport mode. Traction control would kick in when you need it, but if you don't you could have an amazing acceleration from stand still!
-
When are you losing traction? In turns? Off the line?
When the traffic lights change from red to green and I open the throttle all the way in Sports mode.
I launch at full throttle several times a day on dry asphalt because my commute is short, includes many large intersections, and I can legally filter to the front. This separates me from the cars I was with and gives me time to deal with people turning right on red. I have full control of the bike, able to move side to side at will as I continue to accelerate until I reach the speed limit just before I'm through the intersection and I come out of my crouch. I'm in custom mode, but my torque is set to 100%. I have off-throttle regen set to 45% because I travel in heavy traffic. I've also ridden a few times in sport mode. I don't know if the S is mapped more aggressively than the SR, but I wouldn't expect your bike to react the way it does if everything is okay.
I'd have the bike checked out. Rear wheel alignment, tire wear, caliper alignment front and back, belt tension, etc. If that all checks out, have the shop evaluate the throttle response for a bad throttle or a software re-flash. Maybe you got hit by a cosmic ray ;)
-
Painted areas at intersection stops can be very slippery. Also, hitting small bumps pulling out under full throttle could get the wheel to spin. Debris or slightly oily surface? I can't imagine breaking traction on good dry pavement on my S. I had a 919cc Honda I-4 with no traction controls and relatively speaking that bike was much, much scarier even though it had 'only' 100HP. There is no replacement for rider skill.
-
I've only had my DSR for a couple of weeks now but have "lost control" once upon launch at a stop sign. I saw a little patch of sand/gravel that a construction truck must have left behind, and having just spent the previous weekend learning to push a 140cc dirt bike as hard as I could through tight loose corners, I thought it would be fun to blip the throttle and spin the rear tire in the sand, which turned out to not be fun at all since it caused a violent fish-tail that luckily quickly corrected itself instead of dropping me on the pavement.
I spend most of my urban riding time in Custom mode which I have set to about 80% torque. Sport probably would have dropped me. So yes, I have lost control once when carelessly opening the throttle under less than ideal road surface conditions.
-
The only time I've felt my rear wheel step out was in a very tight left turn when I opened the throttle too much with my SR in sport mode the first week I had the bike. I now have no problem controlling the bike.
I have only been surprised on my FX 5.7 one time, and it was exactly the same as described above (left turn, sport mode, first week on the bike, too much throttle).
-
If I am the first one away from a stop light, I don't jump into the intersection. I always take it easy and look both ways before entering the intersection. Around here, it is quite common for car drivers to blow through stop lights as they are checking their smart phone text messages and don't notice the light turning red. It is better to go slowly when first away from a light and look both ways before taking off. You will live longer that way. :)
-
If I am the first one away from a stop light, I don't jump into the intersection. I always take it easy and look both ways before entering the intersection. Around here, it is quite common for car drivers to blow through stop lights as they are checking their smart phone text messages and don't notice the light turning red. It is better to go slowly when first away from a light and look both ways before taking off. You will live longer that way. :)
To further hijack this thread with a safety tip, I think it's more dangerous to enter an intersection with a existing green light. If my light is red, I have time to check the cross traffic before entering. With an existing green, it's too easy to just go with the flow and not check the cross traffic for cars blowing through the red for whatever reason.
-
ChainGun the zero S doesn't have enough power to spin the back wheel in the dry (nor does the SR), are you sure you don't have an SR, and were you on dirt when it was dry and you lost control?
My SR will definitely spin the rear tire in the dry if I'm not careful coming out of a turn. I have learned after spinning up several times to take it easy if I'm leaned over at all.
-
Seriously, people don't know that sport is full torque and they are blaming the bike for losing control? Just because it has the torque, doesn't mean you use it, especially pulling out, in turns, on gravel and wet roads.
-
This may not be the place for my rant but I wouldn't talk any friend I know into owning a streetbike without buying a dirt bike and getting good riding one. Teaches so many important control skills only encountered on the public road under adverse conditions. When loss of traction, gaining of traction, low speed and high speed "curveballs" are the norm and your reactions are trained to handle them without thinking, all of that transfers to your ability to ride safe on public roads where the obstacles are 200hp,3000lb rubber wheeled boulders rolling next to you ready to smash you.
I have encountered wheelspin without planning on it on the zero but nothing I wouldn't expect the bike capable of, or anything unmanageable.
-
Seriously, people don't know that sport is full torque and they are blaming the bike for losing control? Just because it has the torque, doesn't mean you use it, especially pulling out, in turns, on gravel and wet roads.
I certainly wasn't blaming the bike - just sharing my experience with a new learning curve.
Though it might be a stretch to say it's a "Zero problem", this series of responses has at least validated that the learning curve demands more respect than many of us anticipated, and that wheel spin is one of the watch outs.
With this in mind, when I let friends test ride my Zero I now specifically warn them that the rear will break loose if they don't respect it!
Of course, the same can probably be said for other high performance bikes, RWD cars, etc. With my motocross bike, I typically warn people that dropping the clutch can make the bike flip in a hurry too. When a lot of power is involved, there's always something...
It's a good point that dirt bikes are a good training platform.
-
If I am the first one away from a stop light, I don't jump into the intersection. I always take it easy and look both ways before entering the intersection. Around here, it is quite common for car drivers to blow through stop lights as they are checking their smart phone text messages and don't notice the light turning red. It is better to go slowly when first away from a light and look both ways before taking off. You will live longer that way. :)
I'm 44 years old with three children so I don't jump recklessly into intersections. However, if there's a T-Max or a Harley standing next to me, it's my duty to teach them some humility...
-
The SR will NOT spin the back wheel on a good clean dry tar road going strait. It will spin the back wheel in a turn (wet or dry). It will spin in the wet on tar if you are not careful.
The S has less torque than the SR so there must be oil or something on the road surface to cause this. It doesn't/can't do this on a good road surface in the dry in a strait line.
-
Chaingun, there is something that can help you all the time and make it more comfortable too. And that is weight transfer towards the rear tire offering more traction.
Because the Zero bikes have a heavy battery right up front, we don't have a problem with the front wheel lifting up at all, but we do have an issue with the back end getting loose in less than optimal traction situations (wet, gravel, painted surfaces, bumps). Do you have the powertank? If you do this can place even more weight of the bike on the front. What we all need to do is shift weight back somehow.
There is a seating option that will let you shift 150-250 lbs (what ever you weigh with gear) and shift it back 6-8 inches which is huge for taking weight off the front and putting it on the back. Search Corbin seat and you will see what I mean. It's under $400 and although the main reason to get it is comfort and leg room by being able to slide back a little more, by sliding your rear back and putting more weight on the rear tire might be a very inexpensive way to help save your bacon.
I have a power tank, and a dog I carry on the tank area. My back wheel would spin up sometimes at stoplights splitting lanes when it would turn green if I wasn't in the intersection fully to start. Meaning my back tire needed to be in front of the cross walk paint. If not and I went full throttle as soon as my tire hit the paint it would spin many times, although I didn't mind it too much, I would still rather it not happen. Once I got the Corbin seat it hasn't happened at all, and I attest that to the rearward weight transfer.
Look in the picture below to see how far I sit back now. You can kind of see where it is indented a little. Makes a huge difference. Although I would like to see traction control one day, but like Brian Rice said, the speed of communication will need to improve or the controller take over the duty which I don't think is possible yet. For now the seat is a good insurance policy to have more traction and I am more comfortable accelerating earlier and harder in turns which in a way makes me feel faster and more confident than before with the stock seating position.
-
Are you the first owner? Is it possible someone has messed with the sevcon controller to get more power off the start, I would have the dealer confirm the settings if you are a second owner, just a thought
-
Are you the first owner? Is it possible someone has messed with the sevcon controller to get more power off the start, I would have the dealer confirm the settings if you are a second owner, just a thought
Despite peoples thoughts that power is somehow limited in the controller for a less violent launch and more power can be somehow programmed, this isn't true. The power ramps up because of torque times RPM, and the torque doesn't drop off until about 4000 rpm so the bike will make more power the faster the motor turns up to that point. Then if torque drops faster than RPM's increase, then power will drop off. But there aren't any aftermarket programmable configurations to get more power at a lower rpm in the controller through electronic settings.
I'm guessing he probably has a power tank and weight is biased over the front wheel and he has low traction situations in the intersection. Oil, paint, sand, moisture, or too high rear tire pressure. Shift your weight back with the Corbin seat and drop your rear tire pressure 3-4 psi and see if that fixes it. The sidewall says 41 psi, are you running that? You could take it down to 28 and improve traction. Just sacrifice a little range but it might be worth it. The seat allowing rear weight transfer is the easiest thing to do I would say.
-
Since I am used to lighter, more powerful motorcycles... I cant replicate this problem. I pin it... and the wheel doesnt come up.
I pin it out of corners, and I wish there was more power.
If I rode it like an idiot I could spin up the rear wheel on corner exits, but thats only if I do it intentionally. Ive highsided enough times to know that intentionally drifting a bike that doesnt have full flat-track steering angles is kind of dumb.
That said, its a great mid-low power bike. Just because you cant overpower the wheels doesnt mean its not fun.
-
Despite peoples thoughts that power is somehow limited in the controller for a less violent launch and more power can be somehow programmed, this isn't true. The power ramps up because of torque times RPM, and the torque doesn't drop off until about 4000 rpm so the bike will make more power the faster the motor turns up to that point. Then if torque drops faster than RPM's increase, then power will drop off. But there aren't any aftermarket programmable configurations to get more power at a lower rpm in the controller through electronic settings.
I didn't know that! Thanks Terry I had thought docbass was doing just that, I guess a little information was misinterpreted from doc's drag bike posting,p s no power tank is optional on the 2013, believe me I would have one!
-
I didn't know that! Thanks Terry I had thought docbass was doing just that, I guess a little information was misinterpreted from doc's drag bike posting,p s no power tank is optional on the 2013, believe me I would have one!
No prob! Doc does some great things. He did replace his S controller with an SR controller. so went from 420 amps to 660. I think he also increased his voltage from 66 to 102 (18s to 28s) and he went with a super light weight battery chemistry that is very power dense for drag racing purposes. Doc is a great pioneer with power supplies and all sorts of stuff. But even he couldn't get a stock Zero S to accelerate faster without making a hardware change of some component.
-
It's all about the gearing. One of the great things about electric motors is that they have maximum torque at 0 rpm, as opposed to an ICE, which literally can't even run at 0 rpm. That's one of the big reasons our bikes feel so incredibly responsive, and so much fun to ride. It also makes it possible to use a fixed-gear drivetrain, which literally no ICE vehicle does. That eliminates the gearbox, which is heavy, expensive, requires service, and takes up space on the bike. Eliminating the gearbox is a good thing, but it does reduce the ultimate performance of the machine somewhat.
Think about it...how much performance could you expect out of a Hyabusa if all it had was fourth gear? Your top speed would be reduced, and the performance off the line would be uninspiring at best and require a lot of clutch slipping to do it at all. But the amazing torque of our electric powerplants make the performance off the line surprisingly good, even considering they only have a single, fairly tall gear to give decent top speed. ICEs just can't do that.
-
I took a hard spill in my driveway taking off earlier this summer. I had washed the bike and was going to take it for a "dry off" spin, and hit the throttle a little hard at the top of the drive. I was down so fast I did not even know what hit me (oh yea, the driveway). Anyway I healed and the bike was not damaged, but I really look at conditions before I hit the throttle now.
I've spun the rear wheel on an older ICE bike (Honda 750 Magna) and it never fish-tailed on a straight line. I swear I was going pretty much straight when I lost it on the DSR. Is there something special about the drive or power delivery that makes it swing so hard to the right (at the rear)?
Steve
-
My SR will definitely spin the rear tire in the dry if I'm not careful coming out of a turn. I have learned after spinning up several times to take it easy if I'm leaned over at all.
After having spilled myself into a busy intersection on a damp day and having fishtailed a couple of times, and having even lifted the front wheel cresting a hill a couple of times, I am now more judicious with the use of the full open throttle on my 2014 SR. My Custom is now programmed to 85%, which keeps me safer and still gives me plenty of smile.
-
This may not be the place for my rant but I wouldn't talk any friend I know into owning a streetbike without buying a dirt bike and getting good riding one. Teaches so many important control skills only encountered on the public road under adverse conditions. When loss of traction, gaining of traction, low speed and high speed "curveballs" are the norm and your reactions are trained to handle them without thinking, all of that transfers to your ability to ride safe on public roads where the obstacles are 200hp,3000lb rubber wheeled boulders rolling next to you ready to smash you.
I have encountered wheelspin without planning on it on the zero but nothing I wouldn't expect the bike capable of, or anything unmanageable.
bravo, well said. like i'm looking in the mirror. learn in the dirt, even in AZ i'd rather hit a cacti than a car. ;D
Despite peoples thoughts that power is somehow limited in the controller for a less violent launch and more power can be somehow programmed, this isn't true. The power ramps up because of torque times RPM, and the torque doesn't drop off until about 4000 rpm so the bike will make more power the faster the motor turns up to that point. Then if torque drops faster than RPM's increase, then power will drop off. But there aren't any aftermarket programmable configurations to get more power at a lower rpm in the controller through electronic settings.
thank you. now i got the wheelies.... 8)
laters,
laramie ;)
-
Electric Terry, thanks for your input. I think the combination of sitting little too much towards the front of the bike, keeping the tires (especially the rear) fully inflated per the manual and miniature bumps in the road caused my read wheel to lose traction. I'll try to lose a little air and position my ass closer the rear part of the bike and see how it feels.
-
I reckon Zeros can easily handle grippier tyres. No engine pulse and smooth torque is kinder on them, so you can go soft and still get good life.
-
It's all about the gearing. One of the great things about electric motors is that they have maximum torque at 0 rpm, as opposed to an ICE, which literally can't even run at 0 rpm. That's one of the big reasons our bikes feel so incredibly responsive, and so much fun to ride. It also makes it possible to use a fixed-gear drivetrain, which literally no ICE vehicle does. That eliminates the gearbox, which is heavy, expensive, requires service, and takes up space on the bike. Eliminating the gearbox is a good thing, but it does reduce the ultimate performance of the machine somewhat.
Think about it...how much performance could you expect out of a Hyabusa if all it had was fourth gear? Your top speed would be reduced, and the performance off the line would be uninspiring at best and require a lot of clutch slipping to do it at all. But the amazing torque of our electric powerplants make the performance off the line surprisingly good, even considering they only have a single, fairly tall gear to give decent top speed. ICEs just can't do that.
This is a very EV biased comment, so Im going to break down the parts I disagree with and explain why I think they are a horrible (but common) way to compare an EV to a ICE vehicle that leads to poor examples and performance. This isnt personal agenst you Doug, I just feel the need to clarify incase a EV newbie reads this.
It's all about the gearing.
This is the #1 thing I agree with. The final gearing between what you measure as output power ( taken from the motor shaft on an EV, or the crank of an ICE), and the final gearing of the rear wheel.
One of the great things about electric motors is that they have maximum torque at 0 rpm, as opposed to an ICE, which literally can't even run at 0 rpm.
This is a common misconception. Motor RPM in an ICE is NOT equivalent to Wheel RPM. On the contrary, thanks to the clutch and inertia, the ICE can briefly exceed 100% motor shaft torque output. On a conventional, non-automatic ICE motorcycle, the issue comes down to rider skill. A rider can put down all of the motors output because the ENGINE RPM is NOT RELATED TO WHEEL RPM. So if you wanted to pin the 'busa to its redline (11k) and have the wheel at zero RPM, you could apply over 100% torque by simply releasing the clutch. This of course would flip the bike over, but that is because of the huge power output of the busa. Not really fair to compare it to the zero.
A fair bike would be something like a SV650. Although it would also flip over. Because its gearing allows it several times the torque of the zero.
Meanwhile, the zero is phase amp limited. Until your motor RPMs increase, it doesnt make 100% power... (although it makes a large percentage of it)
in otherwords, your statement was backwards. A clearer and accurate statement would be: The zeros motor cannot make maximum torque at 0 MPH, but can make a large percentage of it. The ICE can make a huge amount of torque through its gearing, but it becomes harder to apply at higher amounts.
It also makes it possible to use a fixed-gear drivetrain, which literally no ICE vehicle does.
Top fuel dragsters all the way down to Gokarts, powerboats, planes, anything where the output is not dependent on engine RPM and will allow for an idle, so tons of hydraulic couplings on most things.
That eliminates the gearbox, which is heavy, expensive, requires service, and takes up space on the bike. Eliminating the gearbox is a good thing, but it does reduce the ultimate performance of the machine somewhat.
This is very debatable, and I'll go into the performance more below... But I have to wonder about the accuracy of the statement. A manual transmission is not heavy. They are not expensive in mass production, This application requires no clutch, They use very little oil or other lubrication, and can be made with 100,000 mile service intervals. Modern designs dont leak, and they rarely require servicing. While a conventional motorcycle transmission would require a full bike redesign, I firmly believe that a 2 speed planatary box (1st-reduction, 2nd straight through) stuck on the end of the zero motor would be ideal. reason is below:
Think about it...how much performance could you expect out of a Hyabusa if all it had was fourth gear? Your top speed would be reduced, and the performance off the line would be uninspiring at best and require a lot of clutch slipping to do it at all. But the amazing torque of our electric powerplants make the performance off the line surprisingly good, even considering they only have a single, fairly tall gear to give decent top speed. ICEs just can't do that.
The busa goes faster than 90mph in 1st gear. so your performance off the line would remain insane, and it would continue until you hit the 11k redline. Clearly not the bike to compare it to.
The zero motor makes similar torque to a literbike AT THE CRANK, but it literally is doing what you say above.. it is starting out in roughly 3.5 gear compared to the literbike sportbikes.
All modern literbikes can exceed 90mph in first gear with their stock gearing. They also all redline around 13,000 RPM.
The ICE motorcycles have their torque multiplied by almost twice what Zero does. Its no wonder they're so much faster.
If you regeared a zero to the same rear wheel torque level (besides having a rear cog larger than the tire) you would be just as quick, but only go 45mph. (when fully charged.)
The power is there, but how its transmitted to the ground is very far from ideal for a performance or efficiency application. The reason ICE motorcycles have multiple gears is not lack of power.. its to lower RPM for efficiency and sanity. The vibration is nuts. Its too loud.. etc.
If the zero had that two speed I mentioned above, you could leave it in 2nd, and there would be no difference than your bike now, other than a shift lever you dont touch and about 10lbs of weight. However if you put it in 1st, you could accelerate using less amps, and assuming you stayed out of the throttle, you would be more efficient around town. Plus the performance when you asked for it. The downside would be an oil change around 70,000 miles or so... and not everyone has the throttle control (or desire) for having literbike torque at the twist of the wrist. Also nigezeros comment about good life would go out the window, as you would shred tires if you used it alot. lol.
-
This is a common misconception. Motor RPM in an ICE is NOT equivalent to Wheel RPM.
I didn't say it was. That's what gearing achieves, in fact it's very much the point.
Meanwhile, the zero is phase amp limited. Until your motor RPMs increase, it doesnt make 100% power.
Nope. The controller's current limit is the HIGHEST limit on an electric motor. At higher speeds, the inductance of the motor windings reduces the peak current available, which reduces the torque output of the motor. Look it up. Highest torque at 0 rpm, pretty much flat until field weakening kicks in at some rpm, ramping down smoothly to zero. Keep in mind that this is not a simple synchronous AC motor like in your refrigerator. Topologically, it's closer to a brushless DC motor, and driven by some very smart electronics.
Which brings up perhaps the biggest mistake you're making, which it seems like you've always made in your posts. You're conflating torque and power, which are very different things. Torque is the ability to accelerate a vehicle; power is the ability to dump energy into a system quickly. It's the difference between a "power lifter", whose immense strength allows him to (fairly slowly) bench press hundreds of pounds, versus a hammer thrower, who doesn't have the ultimate strength of the weightlifter, but can supply energy into a heavy weight much more quickly to throw it a much longer distance. Torque is an earth mover; power is a Formula 1 car. When and if you understand the difference between torque and power, you'll be much closer to understanding vehicle performance. A drag racer needs torque; a NASCAR car needs horsepower.
Okay, you have a minor point concerning transient conditions (fanning the clutch to rev the motor, etc.), but overall, it's about torque at low speed, power at high speed.
Top fuel dragsters all the way down to Gokarts, powerboats, planes, anything where the output is not dependent on engine RPM and will allow for an idle, so tons of hydraulic couplings on most things.
I was referring to commercially available cars and motorcycles, but okay, another minor point conceded. BUT I was also saying the engine cannot run at 0 rpm, and that's absolutely true for an ICE. You can decouple it from the wheels to keep it running, but the motor's not at 0 rpm when you do that. You also seem to have a habit of conflating rpm (engine speed) with road speed, even though you yourself made the point that they're not the same thing.
But I have to wonder about the accuracy of the statement. A manual transmission is not heavy. They are not expensive in mass production, This application requires no clutch, They use very little oil or other lubrication, and can be made with 100,000 mile service intervals. Modern designs dont leak, and they rarely require servicing.
C'mon man...however cleverly they're engineered, they're bulkier, heavier, less efficient, more expensive, and require more service than nothing. What exactly are you trying to argue here?
The busa goes faster than 90mph in 1st gear. so your performance off the line would remain insane, and it would continue until you hit the 11k redline. Clearly not the bike to compare it to.
The zero motor makes similar torque to a literbike AT THE CRANK, but it literally is doing what you say above.. it is starting out in roughly 3.5 gear compared to the literbike sportbikes.
All modern literbikes can exceed 90mph in first gear with their stock gearing. They also all redline around 13,000 RPM.
The ICE motorcycles have their torque multiplied by almost twice what Zero does. Its no wonder they're so much faster.
If you regeared a zero to the same rear wheel torque level (besides having a rear cog larger than the tire) you would be just as quick, but only go 45mph. (when fully charged.)
The power is there, but how its transmitted to the ground is very far from ideal for a performance or efficiency application. The reason ICE motorcycles have multiple gears is not lack of power.. its to lower RPM for efficiency and sanity. The vibration is nuts. Its too loud.. etc.
*Sigh* Yes, one of the reasons ICE motorcycles have multiple gears is because you can't run them at high rpm all day. It's hard on the equipment and very inefficient. But they also need gearing because they don't make torque down low. If they did, you could simply put a single gear on the 'Busa, geared for max speed, and drive it around that way, exactly the way Zero does. If you tried that with a 'Busa, let alone an SV650, it would be an awful (if even possible) riding experience. But it works out very well on the Zero, because the Zero has enough torque down low to pull a fairly high gear right from 0 mph.
-
@MrDude_1
You obviously know your physics! Very well stated and this fully explains why I was not blown away by the Zero SR performance.
The thing is that the Zero makes accelerating so effortless that you are probably quicker than most ICE bikes in normal circumstances. But put a Zero SR next to an R1 (or similar) with an experienced rider and the R1 will definitely beat the Zero.
-
C'mon man...however cleverly they're engineered, they're bulkier, heavier, less efficient, more expensive, and require more service than nothing. What exactly are you trying to argue here?
so is the ABS system, yet people actually want them for some reason.
heavier? not noticeably.
bulkier? no. you could shift the motor over 1" (or however much space there is, and bolt it to the motor, then the trans to the frame. no additional bike bulk.
less efficient? Not extremely or even noticeably. We're talking 1 planetary gearset with an oil bath. at a sustained full 70kw output it will never even get warm. like the weight, you're technically correct, but completely irrelevant to real world riding. that said, I bet there is a speed/rpm and acceleration range where it is more efficient.
more expensive? not really. you could use an off the shelf auto trans gearset, and the only cost would be the custom case and shaft. In a mass production of units, we're talking less than $200 per unit. On a one off basis, probably just under 1k. hardly big money, when you consider both the performance increase, and the costs of other parts.
require more service than nothing? well of course it would be more "than nothing" but it easily could go without service for 5+ years, and after that the "service" is a oil change of less than a quart.
so we're talking about a minor weight/bulk increase that is not noticeable, a cost increase that is less than the battery price drop each year, an efficiency wash, and almost no maintenance.
I dont see what you have against it with that argument.
A better argument would be that the belt drive would disappear. The current belt is already over-stressed, and would not take the additional torque.
I would NOT ditch my belt drive for better acceleration.
-
Nope. The controller's current limit is the HIGHEST limit on an electric motor. At higher speeds, the inductance of the motor windings reduces the peak current available, which reduces the torque output of the motor. Look it up. Highest torque at 0 rpm, pretty much flat until field weakening kicks in at some rpm, ramping down smoothly to zero. Keep in mind that this is not a simple synchronous AC motor like in your refrigerator. Topologically, it's closer to a brushless DC motor, and driven by some very smart electronics.
You're confusing motor theory with the physical reality of how your bike was constructed.
further... the power vs torque argument is kind of irrelevant when you can re-gear. Since gearing is kind of the topic, I think you are the one that is losing what I am saying.... but I admit I might have said power where I ment torque or visa-versa. doesn't change the overall message.
-
I am in the camp that enjoys the "sophisticated simplicity" mission Zero has used for many years. I would rather see the cost, weight and complexity of a gearbox, go towards a controller that could output twice the phase amps.
With a gearbox you can access more battery amps quicker by getting to a higher motor RPM sooner, but with less motor rpm, and more phase amps you can still get the same power from the same battery. So a more powerful controller would not mean any change to the battery system is needed.
When you figure a motor controller that is twice the power, it would be lighter, cheaper, and take up less space than even the smallest 2 speed gearbox. Plus a gearbox is another component that can fail, and offers friction losses, and adds inventory and production line costs.
The motor might benefit from having less turns per tooth with thicker coils, and that would be simple, but perhaps not even necessary. Power will be delivered for a shorter duration to get to 60 mph than before, so it might handle the heat fine and work perfect as is, especially with the new IPM design.
Basically there is no reason in my mind to use a mechanical transmission, when power electronics can do the job so much better.
-
I am in the camp that enjoys the "sophisticated simplicity" mission Zero has used for many years. I would rather see the cost, weight and complexity of a gearbox, go towards a controller that could output twice the phase amps.
With a gearbox you can access more battery amps quicker by getting to a higher motor RPM sooner, but with less motor rpm, and more phase amps you can still get the same power from the same battery. So a more powerful controller would not mean any change to the battery system is needed.
When you figure a motor controller that is twice the power, it would be lighter, cheaper, and take up less space than even the smallest 2 speed gearbox. Plus a gearbox is another component that can fail, and offers friction losses, and adds inventory and production line costs.
The motor might benefit from having less turns per tooth with thicker coils, and that would be simple, but perhaps not even necessary. Power will be delivered for a shorter duration to get to 60 mph than before, so it might handle the heat fine and work perfect as is, especially with the new IPM design.
Basically there is no reason in my mind to use a mechanical transmission, when power electronics can do the job so much better.
While I agree that what you said will work... It reminds me of arguments decades ago about just making engines bigger instead of adding more gears.
Sure you can up the current through the motor.. then it overheats. So now you need a redesigned motor to go along with your controller.
There will be a point where it actually is simpler to have a 2speed transmission than just try to force everything through 1 gear.
Land vehicles dont have multiple gears only because of limitations created by ICE... They have them for multiple reasons.
-
The nice thing about a gearbox is that they require lubrication and that would result in an "oil thread" on this forum. :o And I really miss those. ;D
-
Yes there are economy disadvantages from ICE engines becoming bigger and bigger. A V8 engine will get noticeably worse fuel economy at a constant highway speed than a 6 or 4 cylinder will in the same vehicle. Yet with an electric vehicle getting a bigger motor controller, there is no economy penalty. The only mechanical friction (economy penalty) comes from the gearbox. So when the power isn't needed, and just cruising in the city or at a steady speed on the highway, range would be reduced a little. Right now we need all we can get.
I was thinking if we ever had a top speed of 150 mph I would agree that perhaps a 2 speed transmission makes sense. But the Lightning LS-218 goes 218 mph with a single gear. And is a rocket ship 0-60 mph as well. I think when the conversation goes towards a gearbox, we should look what happened with Brammo, who originally was advertising the Empulse in 2010 without a gearbox, and then by 2011, one person wanted a gearbox where all the engineers didn't. However that one person made the decisions so a gearbox was put in. With added cost, complexity, and less space for battery, we see what happened competing against Zero. It wasn't even close.
-
But the Lightning LS-218 goes 218 mph with a single gear. And is a rocket ship 0-60 mph as well. I think when the conversation goes towards a gearbox, we should look what happened with Brammo, who originally was advertising the Empulse in 2010 without a gearbox, and then by 2011, one person wanted a gearbox where all the engineers didn't. However that one person made the decisions so a gearbox was put in. With added cost, complexity, and less space for battery, we see what happened competing against Zero. It wasn't even close.
Amen. It's not just Lightning, either. Tesla does 0-60 quicker than any other commercially available car, including hypercars, with a single gear that tops out at 150 mph. The motors that provide that level of performance are roughly the size of a watermelon, weighing a couple hundred pounds. This is a luxury car produced for the mass market, not a one-off sports car. Still not enough for you? How about Killacycle? If 0-60 in 0.9 seconds isn't quick enough for you, or its top speed of well over 150 mph isn't fast enough for you, you really need to seek professional help.
-
The nice thing about a gearbox is that they require lubrication and that would result in an "oil thread" on this forum. :o And I really miss those. ;D
BEST QUOTE EVA' !!!!!
about spit my drink out at the computer screen i laughed so hard. ;D
-
This is a common misconception. Motor RPM in an ICE is NOT equivalent to Wheel RPM.
I didn't say it was. That's what gearing achieves, in fact it's very much the point.
Meanwhile, the zero is phase amp limited. Until your motor RPMs increase, it doesnt make 100% power.
Nope. The controller's current limit is the HIGHEST limit on an electric motor. At higher speeds, the inductance of the motor windings reduces the peak current available, which reduces the torque output of the motor. Look it up. Highest torque at 0 rpm, pretty much flat until field weakening kicks in at some rpm, ramping down smoothly to zero. Keep in mind that this is not a simple synchronous AC motor like in your refrigerator. Topologically, it's closer to a brushless DC motor, and driven by some very smart electronics.
Which brings up perhaps the biggest mistake you're making, which it seems like you've always made in your posts. You're conflating torque and power, which are very different things. Torque is the ability to accelerate a vehicle; power is the ability to dump energy into a system quickly. It's the difference between a "power lifter", whose immense strength allows him to (fairly slowly) bench press hundreds of pounds, versus a hammer thrower, who doesn't have the ultimate strength of the weightlifter, but can supply energy into a heavy weight much more quickly to throw it a much longer distance. Torque is an earth mover; power is a Formula 1 car. When and if you understand the difference between torque and power, you'll be much closer to understanding vehicle performance. A drag racer needs torque; a NASCAR car needs horsepower.
Okay, you have a minor point concerning transient conditions (fanning the clutch to rev the motor, etc.), but overall, it's about torque at low speed, power at high speed.
Top fuel dragsters all the way down to Gokarts, powerboats, planes, anything where the output is not dependent on engine RPM and will allow for an idle, so tons of hydraulic couplings on most things.
I was referring to commercially available cars and motorcycles, but okay, another minor point conceded. BUT I was also saying the engine cannot run at 0 rpm, and that's absolutely true for an ICE. You can decouple it from the wheels to keep it running, but the motor's not at 0 rpm when you do that. You also seem to have a habit of conflating rpm (engine speed) with road speed, even though you yourself made the point that they're not the same thing.
But I have to wonder about the accuracy of the statement. A manual transmission is not heavy. They are not expensive in mass production, This application requires no clutch, They use very little oil or other lubrication, and can be made with 100,000 mile service intervals. Modern designs dont leak, and they rarely require servicing.
C'mon man...however cleverly they're engineered, they're bulkier, heavier, less efficient, more expensive, and require more service than nothing. What exactly are you trying to argue here?
The busa goes faster than 90mph in 1st gear. so your performance off the line would remain insane, and it would continue until you hit the 11k redline. Clearly not the bike to compare it to.
The zero motor makes similar torque to a literbike AT THE CRANK, but it literally is doing what you say above.. it is starting out in roughly 3.5 gear compared to the literbike sportbikes.
All modern literbikes can exceed 90mph in first gear with their stock gearing. They also all redline around 13,000 RPM.
The ICE motorcycles have their torque multiplied by almost twice what Zero does. Its no wonder they're so much faster.
If you regeared a zero to the same rear wheel torque level (besides having a rear cog larger than the tire) you would be just as quick, but only go 45mph. (when fully charged.)
The power is there, but how its transmitted to the ground is very far from ideal for a performance or efficiency application. The reason ICE motorcycles have multiple gears is not lack of power.. its to lower RPM for efficiency and sanity. The vibration is nuts. Its too loud.. etc.
*Sigh* Yes, one of the reasons ICE motorcycles have multiple gears is because you can't run them at high rpm all day. It's hard on the equipment and very inefficient. But they also need gearing because they don't make torque down low. If they did, you could simply put a single gear on the 'Busa, geared for max speed, and drive it around that way, exactly the way Zero does. If you tried that with a 'Busa, let alone an SV650, it would be an awful (if even possible) riding experience. But it works out very well on the Zero, because the Zero has enough torque down low to pull a fairly high gear right from 0 mph.
I can walk my Zero up the 45 degree slope up to the back yard of my townhouse with a tiny bit of throttle. Try that with an ICE. Oh, I have, and it's a real pain revving it high enough to make the torque to get it up the hill and harder to control as well.
Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk
-
Amen. It's not just Lightning, either. Tesla does 0-60 quicker than any other commercially available car, including hypercars, with a single gear that tops out at 150 mph. The motors that provide that level of performance are roughly the size of a watermelon, weighing a couple hundred pounds. This is a luxury car produced for the mass market, not a one-off sports car. Still not enough for you? How about Killacycle? If 0-60 in 0.9 seconds isn't quick enough for you, or its top speed of well over 150 mph isn't fast enough for you, you really need to seek professional help.
Doubly impressive is that the Tesla Model S P100D is most certainly far heavier than any of the cars it's being raced against. Drag Times recently discovered that even in the wet it still does 0-60 in 2.7 seconds, only 0.2 slower than in the dry. Part of the reason is AWD. Maybe what we need is a 2WD Zero SR. 😁