ElectricMotorcycleForum.com

Makes And Models => Zero Motorcycles Forum | 2012 and older => Topic started by: oobflyer on February 02, 2012, 09:58:14 AM

Title: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on February 02, 2012, 09:58:14 AM
First of all - THERE ARE ELEVEN (11) BARS ON THE FUEL GAUGE - what a strange number.
I thought there were twelve when I first posted. In the owner's manual the diagram shows ten bars. But there are actually eleven. Really.

Real World Riding Range from my experience so far:

70-75 MPH:  34 Miles
At 65 MPH:   39 Miles
At 45 MPH:   55 MPH

I received an email today stating that my windshield has arrived at the dealership - I'm hoping that my range will improve with the increased aerodynamics.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S FZ9
Post by: Brammofan on February 02, 2012, 07:04:33 PM
Maybe they're on to something.

Spinal Tap - 11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY#noexternalembed-ws)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S FZ9
Post by: Richard230 on February 02, 2012, 09:46:03 PM
I like the idea of having the eleventh bar show a little man walking.   ;D
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on February 04, 2012, 08:44:53 PM
I'll keep adding to the list as I make more runs:

70-75 MPH:  34 Miles
At 65 MPH:   39 Miles
At 60 MPH:   50 Miles
At 45 MPH:   55 Miles

And, YES, I charge at work  :)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Biff on February 05, 2012, 12:52:04 AM
That is great real world information.

Is the range based on 11 bars = 1 full battery, and assume that each bar is 1/11 of the pack, or did you ride 55 miles at 45mph from a full charge right until the bike wouldn't go 45mph any more?

I am surprised that the range didn't increase more at lower speeds.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: RickSteeb on February 05, 2012, 01:32:06 AM
Was so busy at work yesterday that I never got around to charging my bike [DS ZF6] so the 29 mile round trip took 4.5 kWh to recharge.  Being Friday, the trip home was a bit less than full-throttle most of the way... guessing an avg speed of 65 for 80% of the way.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 05, 2012, 06:08:12 AM
I just returned from a 30 mile ride, which consisted of about 1/3 freeway, 1/3 expressway and 1/3 residential riding. My ZF9 used 4 bars during the trip in Sport mode.  Once I took the bike up to an indicated 85 mph for a few seconds - but that 85 felt more like 75 to me.  It is now charging at only 7.5 amps. That seems kind of odd as yesterday it was charging at 9.5 amps.  I passed by a couple of electronic speed boards on my trip and the speedometer seems to be reading at least 10% higher than actual.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Biff on February 05, 2012, 08:37:22 AM
That seems kind of odd as yesterday it was charging at 9.5 amps.  I passed by a couple of electronic speed boards on my trip and the speedometer seems to be reading at least 10% higher than actual.

I believe the Delta-Q chargers are constant battery current, so when the battery is low on volts, it charges at less power, so less amps from your wall.  As the battery gets up to 80-90% full you should see the wall current increasing, then decreasing once the battery is almost full.

-ryan
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 05, 2012, 09:13:20 PM
That seems kind of odd as yesterday it was charging at 9.5 amps.  I passed by a couple of electronic speed boards on my trip and the speedometer seems to be reading at least 10% higher than actual.

I believe the Delta-Q chargers are constant battery current, so when the battery is low on volts, it charges at less power, so less amps from your wall.  As the battery gets up to 80-90% full you should see the wall current increasing, then decreasing once the battery is almost full.

-ryan

Thanks Ryan. I think I got my amps mixed up with watts on my Kill A Watt meter. I think I was seeing 950 watts on the meter at the time, which sounds about 7.5 amps at 121 volts.  However, I am sure I was seeing 7.5 amps input last night.  I believe you are right about the charger. When I checked it last night before going to bed the meter was showing 7 watts.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 05, 2012, 09:18:47 PM
OK, here goes nothing. I am going up to Alice's Restaurant this morning. I and the Zero will be up there between 8:30 and 11:00 am.  It is a 80-mile round trip and entails a lot of climbing and it is windy along the coast. Hopefully, they will let me recharge at an outlet for a couple of hours while I am there. Pictures will be posted this afternoon.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 06, 2012, 05:51:57 AM
This morning I stiffened my spine, swallowed my range anxiety, and rode up to Alice's Restaurant on my Zero.  I put the bike in Eco mode and rode slowly where I could. I only rode about 2 miles on the freeway at 60 mph and the rest of the time I was on secondary roads at 35-40 (indicated), passing the occasional bicycle rider.  I rode down the Peninsula to get there, which meant that I froze my butt off on Canada Road, between Hwy 92 and Woodside Road. It must have been close to freezing along that stretch.  Fortunately, it started to warm up to the high 40's by the time I reached the top of the hill (1500 feet above sea level) via Highway 84 (Woodside Road).  I only used 4 bars of the 11 on the energy gauge going the 36 miles to Alice's.

While I was there, I asked the owner if I could recharge from the outlet behind the gas station and he said it would be OK.  I recharged for 2.5 hours and bumped the gauge up to 10 bars. Photo attached of the bike charging behind their "no parking" sign.

On the way home, I rode up Skyline at 45 mph and used up two bars by the time I reached Skaggs Point (about 2500 feet elevation). The rest of the way was downhill to Highway One and back home. That was a shorter route and I used a total of 4 bars riding the 31 miles back home at an average of about 45 mph.  If I had to, I could have ridden the entire 67 mile round trip and still had a little juice left. I estimate that the entire trip used 10 bars, meaning that 70 miles would probably be about the limit.  Of course, it all depends on how smooth you can be with the throttle - you mileage will differ for sure.  The 3-bar top off at Alice's gave me a lot more confidence on the ride home.

I plugged in to recharge at the outlet on the back of the gas station's wall in the distance.

The attached photo is the only one that I have that came in under 600K, but a friend took several email sized photos of my new bike with me standing next to it with his camera and will send them to me. When he does I will post the photos under the "review" thread.  The seat pack only worked so-so, as it slipped around a bit as I moved back on my seat to get a better position while riding.  Note my not-to-elegant helmet locking system.  That needs work, too.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: forgitaboutut on February 06, 2012, 06:02:34 AM
thanks for the post!
I talked to a dealer yesterday,(Surprised he could answer very little about it...I think I had more info just reading a few posts here than he knew...)
And they sure aren't trying to push them out the door! They want MSRP for them!
I told him if I could get it on a 50 mile test ride on a single charge,I would be buying one!
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on February 06, 2012, 07:36:44 AM
Great post. Beautiful bike too. How do you get on the bike with the pack on the back.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 06, 2012, 07:48:10 AM
Great post. Beautiful bike too. How do you get on the bike with the pack on the back.

I have lots of experience lifting my leg with my hands to clear the seat pack.  When I go touring I strap my sleeping bag and tent on the seat.  I used to be able to swing my leg over stuff on the seat if it wasn't piled too high. Then one day I forgot there was stuff there, swing my leg over with the side stand up, my foot hit the stuff, I lost my balance and there goes the bike.   :o

Now, having learned that lesson, I bend my knee and force my foot over the seat with the help of my hands. Not to elegant, but it usually works - without scraping the top of the seat too much.   ;)  I also don't raise the side stand until I get on the bike, now.   :)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on February 06, 2012, 09:44:26 AM
Do you suppose all the bars represent equal amounts of energy. In other words would you get the same range out of the top 5.5 bars as the bottom 5.5 bars. The reason I ask is that my dealer suggested I let the battery run down to the last bar, then run it around my block a few times until it shut off, so I could walk it home if need be.  The idea was to see just how far I could go on empty. Apparently there is a protective mechanism so that the battery does not drain completely and cause damage.  I did come close I think to having the bike stop. I was a mile and a half from home last week when the bars were gone (2011 S, same color as yours) and the gas icon started flashing. I rode home without any problem but didn't continue going around the block to see how far I could go. Perhaps there is like a reserve that gives you more range at the bottom. I mean I was out of bars and still going. For all I know, this could be a significant amount of battery still left, sort of like the reserve tank concept on other motorcycles. What do you think?
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: zap mc on February 06, 2012, 05:38:31 PM
thanks for the post!
And they sure aren't trying to push them out the door! They want MSRP for them!

it may be surprising to find a dealer asking MSRP for their products nowadays but dealer margins on Zero products are slim they used to be only 10% and then the customer had to be signed up directly to purchase the bike from the Zero factory rather than the dealership. So the dealer had to wait for their commission. If you put a demo bike on your showroom floor imagine how many bikes you would have to sell just to make the money back for that despite the fact that demo bike were available to dealers at slightly better rates. I have a lot of sympathy for Zero dealers and can understand why they would want full retail for their bikes. However the recent price hike does not help to put them within the customers reach nor compete with the gas powered bikes.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 06, 2012, 09:50:07 PM
dkw, etc., regarding your question about running the bike down to the bottom of the pack, that is not something that I plan to do. I hear that Li-ion batteries don't really like that type of treatment and would prefer to be charged up at every opportunity.  I have no idea how accurate each bar on the "fuel" gauge is and I prefer to not push my luck and my level of anxiety while riding in order to find out.  Maybe some day I will discover how deep the well is, but I am not going to do that on purpose. I'll let someone else try that and then I hope to read about it.   :)

In any case, the maximum mileage you can get out of the pack is so dependent upon your riding style, environmental conditions and the speed, traffic, stop lights, acceleration from a stop, hills, etc. of every trip, all we can do is to generalize about range and battery capacity and hope that our ride will be similar.  This is going to take time and real-world experience to figure out.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on February 07, 2012, 03:39:56 AM
I don't blame you. I only ran it down the one time cause I wasn't watching, had just bought it and it only had a few bars on it and I ran it hard like any self-respecting sport bike rider would do WOT up a steep hill, then I looked down and saw the flashing gas pump.

I assume the 2012 has a cooling fan too. How do you deal with that when you are finished riding? I just put my kick stand down, hop off the bike, then wait until the fan shuts off before shutting down the bike. I have always done the same thing with radiator fans. Then, since I am home, I wait 20 min or so before plugging in the charger, because I was told not to charge hot batteries. I am guessing about these two things however.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 07, 2012, 05:06:26 AM
If my bike has a cooling fan, I have never seen it nor heard it.  There is certainly nothing obvious like on the 2011 models.  When I get home I just plug in the charger and it starts charging with no noise at all.  Without looking at the charging indicators, you can't even tell anything is happening.  It is a very quiet bike.

Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on February 07, 2012, 10:36:45 AM
Fluke or Significant Improvement?

Today I rode at a steady 55 MPH for 33 miles and used exactly 6 bars. Extrapolating, as I've been doing:

33 miles/6 bars = 5.5 miles per bar

5.5 miles/bar x 11 bars= 60.5 miles.

This is the first long ride I've done with the windshield - and I appeared to get better range at 55 MPH than I did without the windshield at 45 MPH.

I'll repeat this experiment at other speeds and see what happens.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 07, 2012, 09:44:35 PM
Maybe the batteries need some "breaking-in" before they can give their best performance?  I plan to ride to my daughter's home this weekend, a distance of 40 miles, up and over a couple of large hills, with about half of the distance at freeway speeds.  I'll recharge there for a few hours before returning home.  That should give me some real world experience riding as I would my IC motorcycles.  It is going to take a while before I get comfortable with estimating range, as there are a lot of hills where I live and I am constantly going up and down them to get anywhere. That makes estimating range much more difficult for me than if I was riding on level ground.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on February 08, 2012, 01:45:04 AM
Knowing you can always just slow down if the bars disappear too fast should set your mind at ease. I don't think you will be comfortably able to go 20 miles at 75 mph if it is a 40 mile trip though. 65 mph for 20 miles should be no problem though. Let us know.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on February 08, 2012, 01:53:46 AM
20 miles at 65 mph and 20 miles at say 45 mph should use about 2/3 of the pack.. give or take. A few hours charge might get you back up to 2/3 capacity. Sounds like it'll be close.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 08, 2012, 03:48:16 AM
I'll let you know.   ;) 
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on February 08, 2012, 03:57:34 AM
Nothing ventured, nothing gained!
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: paul on February 08, 2012, 07:13:57 AM
There is no need for concern with running the battery so low that it damages the LiPo cells on a Zero.  The battery management system (BMS) watches each cell's state of charge (SOC) and will cut the pack off when they're getting lower than what's the safe minimum (somewhere around 3.7V)

I believe the fuel gauge self-calibrates and should get more accurate over time for 2012 bikes over the first few charges.  I do not know how many charges or how much improvement will be seen off the top of my head. 

I don't think that there is a 1:1 relationship between each bar and a fraction of pack capacity.

The methods employed for SOC determination aren't exact.  A certain margin of error/uncertainty is unavoidable in all currently viable battery SOC measurement strategies.  It's educated guesstimation based upon power in/out, not direct measurement of the charge in the cells.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 08, 2012, 07:53:55 AM
Thanks Paul. That sounds reasonable.   :)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Daveruns on February 08, 2012, 11:57:34 PM
I find this discussion fascinating as I have a 2011 S and am always learning more about the range. I have noticed that on cold days with the temp around 30 degrees, my range drops off markedly. We have had a strange winter and when it warms up, the other day it was 60 degrees and the range went back to what I was getting last summer. Wonder if you notice this difference in your 2012?

Also, there is a problem with the 2011 range indicator related to stopping the bike. I notice that when I stop and turn the bike off for awhile and then turn it back on, I gain two bars. The new reading is wrong and after a few minutes of riding it goes right back to where it should be. This can get you in trouble on trips that are near your range limit. For instance, I rode about 15 miles to attend a meeting and when I arrived, I had half a charge. After the meeting, when I started back, I had two bars above half. Feeling like I had lots of charge, I proceed to open it up and throw caution to the wind. After a couple of minutes, I looked down and I was two bars below half. I backed off and took it slow and managed to limp back home with no bars showing.

In general, I find the range indicator as imprecise and I try not to rely on it too much.

Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Rossi46 on February 09, 2012, 12:02:58 AM
I would recommend the 2012 Sport screen over the summer screen, on my 2012 S ZF6 i found it increased top speed by 3-4 MPH and the summer screen did not.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 09, 2012, 04:58:55 AM
As near as I can tell, the range indicator on my 2012 Zero S seems to be working well and appears to be accurate.  There is no question that warmer weather will result in a longer range, but our temperature here has been all over the map.  Mornings can be in the 40's and afternoons in the 60's. Not a typical February, for sure.  The only time I rode in near freezing temperatures, I was taking it easy on a deserted road and was worried more about cold hands and wind chill than the bike's performance.   ;)

Today I rode 16 miles on residential roads and some collector streets, keeping my speeds down to about 30 mph. I only ate up one bar of the gauge. On the way back, I took the freeway home traveling at 75 mph for 10 miles and the rest of the way was at 30 mph. On the run up a 6% freeway grade for three miles. I was able to maintain an indicated 81 mph up the hill. By the time I got home, I had used a total of 4 bars on the gauge.  I am convinced that I could go over 100 miles if I rode on flat ground at a speed of 30 mph. But riding on the freeway at high speeds will sap the juice for sure.

I might add that the Zero's performance going up that hill (Highway 1, from I-280 to Highway 35 in Daly City, heading west toward Pacifica and the Ocean), matches that of my 38-hp (at the rear wheel) 1978 Yamaha SR500 (when it was new, I no longer own it).
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: liveforphysics on February 09, 2012, 07:48:49 AM
Battery temp has a range impact.   The warmer the pack, the happier it will share it's contained energy.


However, body position has a major impact. 

In highway testing, you could easily see a >30% difference in range between tucked properly and sitting upright like a wall.


Your BMS will protect the pack from over-discharge, and it leaves a healthy margin of room at the top and bottom of capacity to protect itself from overly deep-cycling that would effect the cells lifespan. 

Also, you will find if you reach the blinking last bar of the pack, you have about ~5-10miles left of "get-you-home" capacity at a reduced performance level, but it's way better than walking. ;-)  No more abrupt cut-offs.

You're welcome. :-)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on February 09, 2012, 12:15:38 PM
It helps to be short. I'm 5'7" and just reaching forward to the handle bars puts me in a naturally crouched position, so a sport bike in my hands is faster, more comfortable, more stable, and probably does get better mileage (or range) than when a taller person rides. This is really true at higher speeds.   
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on February 10, 2012, 09:38:09 AM
The 2012 moto has "integrated forced air cooling." I guess that means there's a fan near the motor. You should still be able to hear it if you ride hard then are stopped so there is no road and wind noise.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: liveforphysics on February 10, 2012, 11:16:20 AM
The fan is mounted internally to the shaft of the motor on the backside. 
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Brammofan on February 11, 2012, 12:18:51 AM
The fan is mounted internally to the shaft of the motor on the backside. 
Interesting... does that mean it only turns when (and at the same speed as) the motor is turning?
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: liveforphysics on February 11, 2012, 03:57:26 AM
Yep.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Brammofan on February 11, 2012, 04:23:44 AM
Cool.  One of the beefs that I (and some other Brammo owners) have is that the motor cooling fan (which kicks on at around 150 degrees and doesn't kick off until it gets down to 140 or so) is very loud.  Additionally, there is a fan (I can't recall if it's the same one that cools the motor, or a different one) that comes on after it's been on the charger for about 10 minutes or so.  Likewise, loud.

Is the only cooling fan on the ZF9 the one on the motor shaft, or is there another one somewhere that cools the charger/batteries (or whatever the Brammo charging fan is cooling)? 

Note: I'm one of those turn-the-key guys who doesn't take his bike apart to see how it works - e.g. not mechanically or electrically adept.  So excuse my ignorance with the inner workings.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 11, 2012, 04:48:55 AM
My GPR-S used to have a charger with an integral fan. That thing was loud (and occasionally smelly) when it was working. But the charger on my Zero is completely silent.  :)  The only noise it makes is a small "click" when it gets hooked up to the power.

It is a mystery to me what happens to the energy difference between the input and output of the charger.  Maybe it uses the frame as a heat-sink.   :-\
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: liveforphysics on February 11, 2012, 05:48:07 AM
I also am not a fan of noisy fans disrupting an otherwise almost silent riding experience, so we spent the extra effort to create entirely passive cooling systems for the battery and charger both, and made the motors fan integrated with the shaft so it only spins and makes noise when the motor shaft is spinning. 

Combined with the belt drive and the sine-wave AC drive to the motor, it makes for a really Zen-like quiet riding experience. 

The biggest factor on your riding noise becomes choosing a helmet that has excellent low-wind-noise performance.

It adds a little bit of weight and cost and heat-sink bulk vs having fans, but the silence and simplicity makes it all worth it IMHO. :-)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: RickSteeb on February 12, 2012, 07:58:38 AM
...The biggest factor on your riding noise becomes choosing a helmet that has excellent low-wind-noise performance... :-)
Any recommendations?  My vintage Arai Quantum makes all kinds of whistles, visor up or down...
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: skadamo on February 12, 2012, 08:16:16 AM
I would also like to know but I think it is different for all based on angle of helmet. I found that putting a balaclava around my neck keeps things quieter. But that's not gonna work in the summer.
:D
But I guess a windshield will do the same.... Keep wind off bottom of helmet.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 17, 2012, 07:37:21 AM
I decided to try to compare the 2012 Zero S “Sport” mode with its “Eco” mode to determine if it actually made any difference in energy consumption over a given route.  The one thing I know the Eco mode is good for is winning a slow race at a motorcycle rally and for tooling around congested parking lots full of children and loose shopping carts.  So I decided to ride my bike along the exact same route on two different days, using the same speeds and acceleration away from stops as best I could.  I think my decision to try this experiment might have had something to do with the dry, sunny, relatively warm (for the season) weather today and yesterday.   ;D

My route was 41.4 miles long, traveling out of my hilly subdivision, north along Highway 1 to Sharp Park Road, up to the top of the coast range of hills, south along Highway 35 and then down along I-280, to Highway 92, up to the top of the coast range again and back down to the town of Half Moon Bay (where I saw regular gasoline being sold for $415.9 a gallon at the Chevron station!) and Highway 1 again, turning north and returning to Pacifica and my home back in the Linda Mar Valley.

Yesterday I tried the Eco mode.  Upon returning home, I had used 6 bars on the energy gauge. Recharging the battery pack required 4.70 kWh of power and took 5 hours to complete bulk charging.

Today I rode the identical route in Sport mode, doing my best to duplicate the same speed.  However, this wasn't entirely successful, as I ran into a little traffic that slowed me down in some areas and I was able to go faster in other areas.  I think it sort of averaged out, but it was hardly a scientific test.  The weather conditions were similar, perhaps a little warmer today and a little less windy.

Keeping the Zero in Sport mode resulted in needing 4.6 kWh of power and exactly 5 hours to compete bulk charging, as shown on my Kill A Watt meter. 

Based upon my test, there appears to be no significant difference between the two modes that can not be compensated for by your right wrist. I think I will just keep the bike in Sport mode and let my throttle hand control any need to extend my range.  Sport mode is just a lot more fun.  :)

I might note that I tried Sport mode up a long freeway hill and was able to hold 81 mph.  Trying the same thing in Eco mode got me to 78 mph.  Not a big difference.  The only real noticeable difference is how the bike accelerates between a full stop and about 10 mph.

I know, it is a tough job evaluating a new electric motorcycle, but someone has to do it.   ;D
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on February 17, 2012, 10:05:53 AM
Richard - I have had the same experience. Any difference in range between 'Sport' and 'Eco' mode is negligible - on the longer rides. I imagine that it might make a difference if someone were to ride just around town where there are a lot of stop signs and red lights.

A good reason to stay in the 'Sport' mode is that if you forget that you are in 'Eco' mode and you pull out into traffic expecting to accelerate quickly - it can be a bit scary! Not that I, uh, ever did this....

I repeated runs at 70 MPH and 75 MPH since installing the windshield. I found no real difference in range at these speeds (with or without the windshield):

70 MPH: 36 Miles
75 MPH: 33 Miles

I tested the 'Reserve' capacity of the batteries last night - after riding the 33 miles at 75 MPH the last bar disappeared as I exited the freeway. The freeway off-ramp was 3 miles from my house. I rode at the city speed limits (25-40 MPH) the rest of the way home - without any apparent loss of power. I didn't push the limits any further than that - it was a bit eerie riding without any bars on the fuel gauge..., but it's nice to know that there are at least 3 miles to spare when running on empty.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 17, 2012, 09:56:10 PM
Thanks oobflyer, that is a real public service.   :)  That is good to know.  Frankly, I am range nervous and wouldn't have the guts to give that a try.  I live near the top of a long hill and I really wouldn't want to push the bike home. I did that once with my GPR-S and practically had a heart attack.   :o

Maybe the "fuel" gauge really has 12 bars and they are just hiding the 12th one.   ;)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on February 18, 2012, 04:18:45 AM
In spite of what Zero says, namely that you cannot hurt the battery by running it down, I still have not brought myself to purposely do it, although I did run 1.5 miles or so with no bars when I first brought my Zero home with just a flashing gas pump icon. For all we know, you could go 10 miles on no bars, or maybe even 30 miles like with the low gas light on some vehicles. Hey, maybe that is where the discrepancy between stated range and our own estimated range numbers come from.  I can tell you what happens with an e-bike with a Li battery just before you run out of juice...the bike slows down and becomes sluggish and even then you can ease along slowly a little more at slow speed before grinding to a halt. That doesn't hurt my Amped Bike battery either, but of course if it happens 8 miles out, I just pedal home. It does point out how important speed and weight are though in battery usage, which unfortunately is probably where the 114 mile range comes from for the big battery...bicycle speed.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Daveruns on February 18, 2012, 05:18:28 AM
I have run my 2011 S down all the way twice (unintentionally) . It did not seem to do any damage. However, I did learn something interesting. If it shuts down all the way, and you turn off the key for a few minutes and then turn it back it on, you can go another half mile. Or at least that was my experience the second time it happened. I did not try to go, further but I was half a mile from home and I kept it at about 5 mph all the way home. And the important part is you can't take a breath until you get home.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on February 18, 2012, 05:51:26 AM
Yes, I was going to mention that about the e-bike too. Maybe that is also why when you lose say 2 bars, turn off the bike, then after a few minutes turn it back on, you regain a bar. Something happens with the chemistry. I do wonder though if that is a good idea. Maybe you are screwing with the protective mechanisms by turning a dead battery back on. I have done it on e-bikes several times though without any problems I know of. I really think I could walk my 2011 Zero S home a considerable distance if I took my time though, but I wouldn't. I have AAA. I'd just call them. You know they will cover all your vehicles...cars, scooters, motorcycles.. for up to 100 miles and 4 calls per year for $102 (including the $20 initiation fee) with their Plus membership which you need to cover motorcycles. The service goes by your name, not the number of vehicles you have, unlike other insurance.They will take both you and your Zero to your home instead of a repair shop, no problem. Just make sure your cell phone battery isn't also run down so you can call them.  LOL
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Rossi46 on February 21, 2012, 04:41:35 AM
Hi Guy's

The ride until you run out was a good suggestion, I did it on my ZF9 and I calculated after the bars are gone, I still have approx 10% of my charge. 

HWY one commuting I can get about 85 miles at around 55 MPH at 70 mph I get about 65 miles. It's all about tucking and good throttle control, if you ralley it hard on the brakes and back on the throttle you can see it drop. I always try to carry my corner speed and roll to a stop coasting at traffic lights, this vastly improves my range. Those guys in Moto GP provide a good lesson in tucking, they have 245 BHP beasts if they see value we should too. Here's to the tuck!

Always charging...

Rossi 46
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on February 21, 2012, 05:10:57 AM
Wow. Tucking must make a huge difference.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on February 23, 2012, 11:58:23 PM
Rossi 46 wrote:
Quote
HWY one commuting I can get about 85 miles at around 55 MPH at 70 mph I get about 65 miles

If you are getting that kind of range, then something is wrong with my 2012 ZF9. I have carefully ridden many trips at various speeds to test the range, with/without the windshield, with/without "tucking". The best freeway range I got was about 50 miles at 55 MPH (riding conservatively). 85 miles is in a completely different league. At 70 MPH I can just get 36 miles (again riding conservatively, with a windshield). 65 miles at 70 MPH? That's nearly twice what I'm getting! That sounds too good to be true....

Can anyone else confirm those numbers? Should I contact Zero regarding my range?

Rossi 46 - What is the ambient temperature where you live? Maybe the winter temps are holding me back.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 24, 2012, 12:07:49 AM
Have you ever ridden Highway 1 through the city of Santa Cruz, or south of it, during commute hour?  Speeds are more like 25 mph then.  Also, getting a tail wind along the coast will extend your range substantially.  On the other hand, riding at 60 mph on the Coast Highway against the typical 25 mph afternoon wind will cut into your maximum range significantly. It all depends and your range will vary from one day to the next. I don't think there is anything wrong with your battery pack, oobflyer.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Harlan on February 26, 2012, 06:29:13 AM
oobflyer,

A couple of questions regarding your range.

-Have you checked your tire pressure?
-Is it possible you may be dragging your foot on the rear brake?
-Does the bike appear to roll freely while you are pushing it alongside you?  No brake drag, etc...

Keep in mind the advertised range is in Eco mode.  Also, just because there are no bars left does not mean you have 0 miles.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on February 26, 2012, 12:05:28 PM
Hi Harlan,


The owner's manual recommends 32 and 35 PSI - I will add some air to see if that makes a difference in the range.

Thanks for the advice - I have a question for you - are other ZF9 riders getting better range than I am in your experience?
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 26, 2012, 09:26:07 PM
I wish I had an answer for you about range, oobflyer, but I am just too chicken to run my pack down to its limits.  Plus, it is almost impossible to duplicate one ride against another, due the the hills and wind that I have around here. Also, my guess is that so few 2012 models have been sold since they were introduced to the public, there is probably not enough data around yet to compare notes.

My suggestion for checking the capacity of your battery pack, is to buy a Kill A Watt meter, run your battery pack down as much as you can, put the bike on the charger for the night, with the Kill A Watt hooked up and see what it reads on the kWh setting after the bike has been fully charged. The meter reads power input and the battery charger specs say it is 90% efficient. With that information you should be able to determine the pack's power storage and then you can compare that with Zero's claims.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Lipo423 on February 27, 2012, 03:16:55 AM
oobflyer,

Suitable air pressure is very important for any vehicle in order to reduce fuel consumption (we all know this), in electrical vehicles this is very critical, and has to be watched carefully...I was told by a friend that sells EV that choosing a tire and its pressure is pretty difficult as you can loose 10-15% range easily - Just watch the tire size on the ZF9, is pretty small...
I would definitely check the pressure weekly, and eventually, if you are not an aggressive rider, I would raise the pressure a little on each tire above the recommended one.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on February 28, 2012, 07:00:04 AM
I inflated the tires to their recommended pressures (32 up front, 35 in the rear) - I rode to work today at 70 MPH, using 6 bars to go 22 miles.

Extrapolating: 22/6 = 3.66 miles/bar, so that should get me just over 40 miles using all 11 bars.

This is an improvement - I calculated 36 miles last time I rode at 70 MPH.

I think I will invest in a Kill-A-Watt meter.

Meanwhile - I'm really not concerned. I'm having a blast riding this thing - and I'm comparing it to the Vectrix that I've been riding for 3 1/2 years. The Vectrix also got about 50% of the range claims, so I expected this. When the warmer weather comes I'll ride it on a long, slow ride to see how far it will really go...    :)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: manlytom on February 28, 2012, 04:12:39 PM
yeah --- now u r talking --- it is the fun to ride the stealth bikes. I love it as well -- just about every ride.  :)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on February 28, 2012, 09:29:30 PM
Extrapolating from bars isn't very precise (or possibly even accurate), but "over 40" is close enough to the 43 Zero claims. I'm surprised tire pressure makes that much difference at 70 mph - please update with your range extrapolations at lower speeds as well when you make them : )
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on February 28, 2012, 09:50:09 PM
Regarding the 2012 model Zero "fuel" gauge:  When was the last time you saw an IC motorcycle fuel gauge that was anywhere near as accurate at the Zero gauge? I have a couple of BMW's with fuel gauges. One doesn't move until you have used half of the tank and only then does it start to register.  The other one is better, but still not completely accurate. Both bikes have a system that alerts you when you have 50 miles of fuel left. Then they count down the miles until you reach "0" and are out of gas. Unfortunately, the BMW system tends to end up showing that you have 10 to 15 miles of fuel remaining - just as you coast to a stop out of cell phone range and about 5 miles from the nearest open gas station. BMW tried several computer and fuel gauge updates to correct this little problem, but I hear they finally gave up and now use a system that provides the miles that you have traveled since the fuel tank went on "reserve".

The Zero power gauge may not be perfect, but it is not that bad based upon my observations.  I think it does a pretty good job of providing you with an estimate of how much power is left in your battery pack.   :)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: manlytom on February 29, 2012, 08:17:52 AM
My IC Harley has not even got a gauge, just reserve switch and only a 10litre peanut tank. So that is max range of 80 to 100miles ... Riding it I am always planning way ahead to ensure petrol stations are around or fill up early....
With the 2012 Zero's we just about beat that now. 
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: benswing on February 29, 2012, 11:27:43 AM
Hey, just wanted to add my data to the pile.  Am really enjoying my 2012 Zero S ZF9!

Rode a 40 mile round trip that is exactly half highway, half local roads, in 35 degree weather and used up 6 bars.  Averaged 70mph on highway and 40 on local roads. 

Haven't had an opportunity to test the limits, but I'm pretty pleased to have no range anxiety getting into NYC from where I live.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Lipo423 on March 01, 2012, 12:13:46 AM
Lucky guy  ;D I still do not know when I'm getting mine...the European presentation is by chance in Barcelona in the next few days...I cannot wait!
Hopefully before the end of the month.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: jdh2550 on March 01, 2012, 05:04:18 AM
@liveforphysics - congrats to you and everyone at Zero - seems like you've done a great job.  ;D
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Doctorbass on March 02, 2012, 11:54:30 AM

Real World Riding Range from my experience so far:

70-75 MPH:  34 Miles
At 65 MPH:   39 Miles
At 45 MPH:   55 MPH


So doing some calculations we can get the power demand for driving at those speeds:

70mph during 34 miles is 0.48 hour of run
65mph during 39 miles is 0.6 hour of run
45mph during 55 miles is 1.22 hour of run

battery is 7.9 kWh (nominal capacity wich is probably the usable capacity)

Then:

Spending the entire usable capacity during X hour mean 7.9 / X = the average power in watt

70mph  0.48 hour of run = 15.0kW of power
65mph  0.60 hour of run = 13.2kW of power
45mph  1.22 hour of run =   6.5kW of power.

Interesting... a normal sedan car need around 15kW at 60mph...


Btw... Liveforphysics was the best choice for zero to desing their battery!... Amazing work!

Doc
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: cirrus pete on March 02, 2012, 10:15:41 PM
Hey, just wanted to add my data to the pile.  Am really enjoying my 2012 Zero S ZF9!

Rode a 40 mile round trip that is exactly half highway, half local roads, in 35 degree weather and used up 6 bars.  Averaged 70mph on highway and 40 on local roads. 

Haven't had an opportunity to test the limits, but I'm pretty pleased to have no range anxiety getting into NYC from where I live.
Ben are you in Westchester by any chance? I live in Westchester have a 2011 Zero S (and a 2010 before that).
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on March 03, 2012, 10:24:45 AM
A couple of more Real World Numbers - I rode a little further than usual to work yesterday, so I took advantage of the 70-mile round trip (with a charge at work) to check the range. I rode there at a steady 55 MPH and home at a steady 65 MPH. My tires are fully inflated and I rode with the windshield on - in ECO mode.

At 55 MPH: 53 Miles
At 65 MPH: 46 Miles

Again - these numbers are extrapolated. At 55 MPH I rode 34 miles using 7 bars (34/7 = 4.86 miles/bar x 11 bars = 53 miles). At 65 MPH I rode 25 miles using 6 bars (25/6 = 4.17 miles/bar x 11 bars = 46 miles). Scientific rounding was used in all calculations.

As you can see - these numbers are better than when I first tested the range on the bike. I'm very happy to see the range improving, if not sure exactly why  :)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Lipo423 on March 03, 2012, 03:11:45 PM
Good numbers...
With new batteries there is a process call "break in" . As we all know the pack is made up of several cells connected in series & parallel. When new, the cells do not charge up and discharge at the same rate. At any rate, there is some chemical process going on with new cells that cause them to perform differently when new.  Normally the first thing we do when we get any electrical-powered vehicle is to go out and hammer on it, checking the power and range. Unfortunately that is the worse thing you can do. It is recommended to do 5 to 10 cycles of low discharges followed by charging, preferably over night. A low discharge would be drawing 20-30 Ah or riding 7-10 Km, without heavy loads.
Since the cells will discharge at different rates, the first cell to reach the minimum voltage will trigger the detection circuit in the BMS, which shuts off power. The range would be low and we would think we have a bad pack. By doing short cycles the cells have a chance to equalize and not get far out of balance. The BMS has a balancing circuit but it does not have the ability to bring up a cell that is alot lower than the others (there are quite a few cells in each pack). They have to be kept within a certain range of each other. Leaving the battery pack on the charger over night gives the BMS time to equalize the cells.

Once properly broken in, a lithium battery pack will stay in balance if charged after each use and not left for very long periods without charging. In a perfect world Zero would perform the break-in process before shipping the bikes out. That’s a bit challenging due to the time involved & resources required...(this last statement is based in my perception, so it could be totally wrong)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: zap mc on March 03, 2012, 05:39:52 PM
has the ambient temperature changed as the year has moved on since you first got the bike?
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on March 04, 2012, 12:48:13 PM
Lipo - yes, I'm sure the cell-balancing has something to do with it. The owner's manual doesn't mention anything about initial charging/discharging, but does emphasize that it should be kept plugged-in whenever possible for balancing. I leave it plugged-in all night every night, so maybe it's doing what it's supposed to do.

Zap - the ambient temperature has gone up a bit during the month that I've had the bike, but only a bit. I'm really looking forward to the summmer.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on March 05, 2012, 04:55:14 AM
So I finally gave my 2012 ZF9 S the workout that I bought the bike for. I rode it the 38.4 miles from my home in Pacifica, across the Golden Gate Bridge, to my daughter house located in Marin County, in the town of Fairfax.  Going there in the morning, the temperature was in the high 40's and I had the bike in "Eco" mode. I kept up with traffic in the slow lane and adhered to the speed limit. About 1/4 of my riding was on the freeway at 60 mph and the rest was on collector streets or two-lane State highways, at around 40 mph.

I took my Kill A Watt meter along with me and completely recharged my pack at my daughter's home, which took about 4.5 hours and used 3.95 kWh. When I returned home, via the exact same route as I had taken in the morning, the temperature was in the high 60's and I had the bike in "Sport" mode. Upon recharging the pack, it only took 3.65 kWh.  I have no idea why the power consumption was less in "Sport" mode on the way home, unless 20 degrees warmer made the difference. 

I ran a little calculation to determine my travel cost.  I used 7.6 kWh for the round trip. My power costs (including all taxes and random other charges) amounts to $ 0.137 per kWh. That means that my 76.8 mile trip cost me $1.04 in power consumption.  If I had ridden my Triumph, which gets 42 mpg on 89 octane fuel, the trip would have cost me $8.21, based upon yesterday's fuel price of $4.49 per gallon at my local gas station.  That is a pretty significant difference in traveling cost and when you factor in the almost nonexistent maintenance costs (if you can get past the initial purchase price), you really can save a lot of money riding electric.   :)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: manlytom on March 05, 2012, 01:38:23 PM
Great savings. And even an excuse to stay until fully charged. Cannot be beaten.  :)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: emotofreak on March 06, 2012, 09:05:00 AM
So I finally gave my 2012 ZF9 S the workout that I bought the bike for. I rode it the 38.4 miles from my home in Pacifica, across the Golden Gate Bridge, to my daughter house located in Marin County, in the town of Fairfax.  Going there in the morning, the temperature was in the high 40's and I had the bike in "Eco" mode. I kept up with traffic in the slow lane and adhered to the speed limit. About 1/4 of my riding was on the freeway at 60 mph and the rest was on collector streets or two-lane State highways, at around 40 mph.

I took my Kill A Watt meter along with me and completely recharged my pack at my daughter's home, which took about 4.5 hours and used 3.95 kWh. When I returned home, via the exact same route as I had taken in the morning, the temperature was in the high 60's and I had the bike in "Sport" mode. Upon recharging the pack, it only took 3.65 kWh.  I have no idea why the power consumption was less in "Sport" mode on the way home, unless 20 degrees warmer made the difference. 

I ran a little calculation to determine my travel cost.  I used 7.6 kWh for the round trip. My power costs (including all taxes and random other charges) amounts to $ 0.137 per kWh. That means that my 76.8 mile trip cost me $1.04 in power consumption.  If I had ridden my Triumph, which gets 42 mpg on 89 octane fuel, the trip would have cost me $8.21, based upon yesterday's fuel price of $4.49 per gallon at my local gas station.  That is a pretty significant difference in traveling cost and when you factor in the almost nonexistent maintenance costs (if you can get past the initial purchase price), you really can save a lot of money riding electric.   :)

So you could have made it both ways with a 10% reserve :) A 76 mile trip is nothing to sneeze at. Sounds like you could have gotten around 85miles.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on March 06, 2012, 09:36:18 PM
That would be my estimate also, elmotofreak.  I think 80 miles is a good estimate for the maximum range. But that only works for a specific route, such as a commute to work, visiting relatives, riding to Alice's Restaurant on a weekend, or some other such repeatable route. But it all depends upon winds, hills and the speeds that you ride.  When going somewhere "iffy", I would certainly take it easy on the throttle and the route until I got a feel for the power consumption for the trip.  This is no real problem for someone that understands the limits of the technology, but for a rider who is just out for fun and can't control their right wrist, their range might vary more than they would expect.   ;)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: craigq on March 07, 2012, 03:22:46 AM
FWIW the MIC UDDS test outlines battery preconditioning prior to the actual dynamometer testing, consisting of a number of charge/discharge cycles if the manufacturer determines that it is required to obtain "maximum energy storage capacity". Perhaps Zero's battery packs require this preconditioning, but they don't carry it out at the factory ?
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on March 07, 2012, 04:52:46 AM
I would be surprised if they did. That would take a lot of time at a factory which is trying to get the new bikes out to all of the dealers and customers as soon as possible.  It seems to me that letting the customer perform any "conditioning" by running the bike around should work OK.  Most people that just bought a new EV (of any type) would likely take it easy for the first few rides, until they got a feel for the bike's performance and range. By then any "conditioning" should have been accomplished.  (Keeping in mind that I know nothing about the need for the new Zero Li-ion battery pack to require conditioning before it delivers maximum performance.)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Lipo423 on March 07, 2012, 11:16:51 PM
Richard,
Any pack would need the "conditioning" or "break in" process -whatever we call it- in order to achieve maximum performance...Unless the company that makes the Li-Mn cells (E-one Moli Energy Corp, I believe), have an agreement with Zero and do some charging/discharging cycles...I really question this, and I'm with you that Zero is expecting the customers to take care of this process.
In any case as I mentioned earlier the packs (from Zero specs) last around 3000 cycles, which would mean that advertised maximum capacity -9Kw- might be even lower than the cells real maximum capacity (this is what the life-cycle theory says)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on March 08, 2012, 01:48:27 AM
I have read in the past that there is a time issue with Li batteries, at least some, so that the lifetime of a battery might involve time as well as recharges. In other words, if you had a new bike and battery, never put a mile on the bike, but say kept the battery charged, would it still have 300,000 miles of riding left after say 3 years of sitting idle? Also if you took a battery that had never been charged but was now 3 years old, it would also not have 300,000 miles left on it? Anyone know if this is true? If you put say 20,000 miles on a  Zero S per year (big battery), could you really expect the battery to be working good in 15 years? How about 10,000 miles and 30 years? Seems unlikely.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Lipo423 on March 08, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
That is a fair statemet. The battery ages anyway. Rechargeable Lithium-Ion batteries have a limited life and will gradually lose their capacity to hold a charge. This loss of capacity (aging) is irreversible. As the battery loses capacity, the length of time it will power the product (run time) decreases.
The battery life is a combination of time/charging cycles. Usually a high quality Lithium battery would last 5-6 years before loosing a reasonable capacity (they do not just die)...as soon as you respect a basic things:
- Never charge above 4.2V / cell
- Never discharge below 2.7V / cell, or storage a battery drained
- Avoid charging a heat pack whenever possible
- Charge at 1C
- When storaging for a long period of time keep the pack charged at 30-40% of total capacity
- If you avoid deph discharge, you increase battery life/cycles

One important thing to check is batteries manufacturing date (I guess in Zero's case should not be a problem as they have a nice demand, so the bikes leave the factory right away with fresh battery packs).
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on March 08, 2012, 01:11:32 PM
Thanks, I was afraid of that.  6 years will probably not equate to 308,000 miles for most riders. I think people are expecting longer service since most people will not ride 50,000 miles a year. I will put about 3,000 mi. a year on mine.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Lipo423 on March 08, 2012, 07:51:35 PM
No problem. That's one of the reasons why there are miles, not years on the bike specifications  ;) -and I understand why...each rider has different riding style/habits/requirements, and that would set the battery life expectancy  ;D

One of my electric bicycles (purchased in 2004) has still the same NiMh pack - with only around 30% of capacity left, and I treated the pack really badly  :(

In any case, you would change the bike before reaching such a mileage  :D. Anyone wants to bet?
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on March 08, 2012, 08:38:44 PM
We don't really have 10 years of experience with lithium-battery vehicles, so it's hard to see what the endurance will be. Certainly we've all experienced laptops that had batteries died within 3 years with only incidental use, and cell phones that died within a few years. Those devices aren't really designed for a 10 year lifespan, and typically their batteries are good for a few hundred cycles at best anyhow.

Nissan has a 8 year / 100k mile warranty on the Leaf packs, which protects against outright failure (provided the battery is not abused) but does not cover gradual capacity loss. Nissan claims ~30% capacity loss after 8-10 years but does (edit) NOT guarantee such loss.

Chevrolet has a 8 year / 100k mile warranty on the Volt packs. Since the Volt can use at most 10 kWh of its 16 kWh capacity, it's likely even as the pack gradually loses capacity that a 10 kWh buffer will always be available - at least within the warranty period.

Hyundai warranties the lithium packs on the Sonata Hybrid for the car's lifetime. A hybrid battery pack has significantly different usage patterns from an EV pack, but it's encouraging that the pack is at least warranties against outright failure.

Zero's warranty is much shorter (2 years) but hopefully their packs will last a similar length of time. I'll be happy if I get 10 years of useful life out of the original pack on an e-moto - and I'm planning for a 30% capacity loss after 8-10 years.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Lipo423 on March 08, 2012, 10:17:11 PM
I agree with you. The experience is limited, especially with Lithium
The expected long life-span is based in projected battery chemistry reaction under a "normal use" where normal use is in reallity a super accurate and perfect ideal use (which would never happens, because we are planning in using the vehicles, not "nursering them")
I would be very surprised if the packs last 10 years and still keep 70% (including the ones on E-cars), but hopefully I'm wrong, as I would suffer the consequences when I will get my new ZF9 ;D
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on March 09, 2012, 02:13:12 AM
Given the info of the price of a replacement big battery, which would have the best future resale value? A) a 2012 Zero with 150,000 miles on it in 2014, or B) the same yr. and model Zero with 1500 miles on it in 2016? From what we know now, it would be "A", the Zero with the most miles and newest battery, right? In fact, it looks like mileage is not the important factor here since every other replacement part pales in comparison to the battery in replacement cost if that is even practical to replace a battery. 
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Lipo423 on March 09, 2012, 03:07:02 AM
Yep, I would agree with you that Option A would have the biggest re-sale value; battery aging would be the challenge not mileage...
I'm really curios of electric vehicles re-sale value (in Spain we normally look at Gas vehicle's age in years, not miles)

Concerning future battery packs trends/cost, Lithium prices have been dropping from -30 to -50% in the last few years,  which pushed some of the manufacturers to shift production to China, this should make the packs more affordable over time.

If the fuel prices keep up -or raise more- I'm seeing the new battery technologies coming up in 4-5 years (some car manufactures like Toyota are already investing heavily in developing their own battery cells)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on March 15, 2012, 01:38:18 AM
Maybe I should start a new thread for 2011 Zero S owners who are thinking about upgrading to a 2012 Zero S ZF9, but I'll start by posting here.

I'm a 2011 Zero S owner who is thinking about upgrading to a 2012 Zero S ZF9. It won't be cheap, so I'm trying to figure out if it's worth it.

After reading this thread it appears that users are getting more like 60 mi in real world mixed riding street and highway riding versus 100 mi as advertised. Scanning the posts on the thread, I summarize the data as:

@ ave. 75 MPH:  35 Miles
@ ave. 65 MPH:  40 Miles
@ ave. 60 MPH:  50 Miles
@ ave. 45 MPH:  55 Miles

I'm getting 40 mi out of my 2011 riding at an average of 35MPH and 30 mi at an average of 40MPH.  It appears that the 2012 is approximately 50% better versus 100% as the marketing materials on the Zero site state: 100 mi UDDS vs 50 mi UDDS.

A 50% improvement strikes me as rich for taking a $4,500 depreciation hit in one year. That translates into a cost of $2 per mile.

(http://i40.tinypic.com/10561zo.png)

In the above I compare the Zero S to a Honda 250 for the purpose of comparing depreciation costs.  

Unless I'm missing something, a Zero S 2012 upgrade for a 30% range improvement is a mighty expensive proposition, hardly worth the $4,500 one year depreciation loss. I know it's not fair to compare the Zero to a gasoline bike but it's worth noting that upgrading from a 2011 to a 2012 is more than ten times more expensive from a first depreciation standpoint.

I'm thinking I should wait a year or two for either the price to come down or the performance to improve else I'll be shelling out $14,700 in two years for the use of one Zero S.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on March 15, 2012, 02:02:56 AM
30 miles @ 40 mph vs 55 miles @ 45 mph is just about double.

Some thoughts on depreciation:

1. The bikes start off costing 2.5x - 3x the CBR250's MSRP .. depreciation will generally scale with MSRP. I would expect the CBR250 (with 10% depreciation) to depreciate down to $4500 - $450 = $4050, not $4250. 10% vs 40% depreciation is still much less, of course.

2. The bikes are still rapidly developing. The 2012 bikes are a significant upgrade over the 2011 bikes, where most gas bikes haven't made significant technical progress in the last 10-20 years (at least for a basic 250). The only thing driving down the cost of older 250s is expected deterioration of the bike through age and use, not significant advances in the new bikes.

3. The bikes in 2010-2011 were available with significant rebates. Rebates have an unintended consequence of greatly suppressing the used values of the bikes - if you can get a new Zero for say $10k MSRP less $1k federal rebate and $2-3k in state incentives, then you would expect a used bike that has already qualified for what rebates it may to start its depreciation cycle as if it cost $7k new. We may see the used values of the bikes start to rise now, since the federal subsidy and some of the state subsidies have lapsed.

Bottom line is that you're correct, selling the Zero after a single year to buy new again is likely to result in a bath. A better approach may be to wait for the 2013 bikes and then consider upgrading to a 2012 once they have taken their own depreciation plummet -- and compare that to what you get with the new 2013 bikes.

At some point the field will mature, and the technological advances will start to come less quickly. Prices should start to stabilize at that point. But right now it's sort of like buying a computer, you have to buy it for what you need it to do, not future resale.

It's possible that Zero might do something like an owner loyalty rebate, like Brammo has done with the Enertia and Enertia Plus. You might even ask them about that - can't hurt!
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on March 15, 2012, 02:39:31 AM
Thanks, protomech. Agree 100% that Zero needs to offer computer upgrade rebate type offers as the incremental value improvements are similar to that of computers and not at all like gas bikes. I suggested such based on that exact reasoning to a sales person there who I've been in touch with via email.

Overall not impressed with Zero's marketing. Engineering and customer support are top notch, but product marketing/product management is not so good.  They are making all the classic mistakes of a tech driven start-up company, selling features versus benefits and so on.

Don't get me started on the advertising. Who do they think their target customer is for a motorcycle that costs 3x more than an equivalent powered gas bike but has 1/3 the range? 18 year old skate boarders?

It's frustrating to watch Zero's marketing folks go at it like cubs f'ing a football. Such a great product. Engineering worked hard. What a shame.

After riding the bike 2000 mi since last May i have never once encountered anyone who had ever heard of Zero motorcycles. Small wonder they are having so much difficulty building a dealer network. Dealers count on the manufacturer to create demand. They want buyers walking in the door. The last thing they want is prospects walking in the door to ask, "What's that?"

At the end of the day all dealers care about is margins. Usually that comes from options and maintenance and repairs. As the Zero is virtually maintenance free, they're going to figure out how to get more money into the hands of dealers off the original purchase price, add-ons and upgrades. Run it like a computer company that sells via dealers the way Apple used to. Or go the other way and open Zero retail stores the way Apple did to sell the consumer product differentiation from Win PCs.  
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on March 15, 2012, 03:34:39 AM
I think that Zero is currently focused on supplying new motorcycles to their retail dealers. They are letting their dealers perform all of the customer relation tasks, including setting prices and cutting deals (such as what Hollywood Electrics is doing).  I just found out that the 2012 Zero S that is being reviewed by City Bike was not a factory demonstrator, as I had thought. It is a demonstrator on loan from Monroe Motors in San Francisco (who also sells Ducatis, Moto Guzzi and MV), which, interestingly, is located only about 5 miles from Mission Motorcycles, where I bought my Zero.  (I hope the SF market for Zeros is large enough for two dealers that close together.)

This is nothing new for a factory to not want to talk to an individual customer.  You can't get the time of day out of any of the other motorcycle brand distributors, either.  They all deal directly with their retail dealers and let them deal with the individual customer.  Whether or not you feel Zero is a big enough operation to follow this path at this time in their history I guess is a matter of opinion.  But I can understand the concept from a business standpoint. However, that still doesn't mean that they have to be curt when contacted by a former customer or a future customer.  All they have to do is to be courteous and refer you to a salesperson at their closest retail dealer. That is the way I would have handled ZeroSinMA's inquiry.   
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on March 15, 2012, 03:48:17 AM
Richard230, Yes. Full disclosure, I've been a regional sales manager, national sales director, and run two companies that sold product exclusively through dealers over the years so, yes, you are correct, the sales guys at the factory should refer you to the nearest dealer. However, in my case there's no dealer for 225 miles, so I bought direct. Almost a year later there is still no dealer for 225 miles. I've tried to help. I've approached several local dealers myself, recommended they carry the product, even offer to buy a new Zero S through them if they sign up. They all think it's too expensive for the limited range. So I have to deal with Zero directly.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on March 15, 2012, 04:28:33 AM
After riding the bike 2000 mi since last May i have never once encountered anyone who had ever heard of Zero motorcycles. Small wonder they are having so much difficulty building a dealer network. Dealers count on the manufacturer to create demand. They want buyers walking in the door. The last thing they want is prospects walking in the door to ask, "What's that?"

I rode 5 miles to my local bike shop looking for a license plate kit - they didn't have anything that looked like it would work, but the sales guy had at least heard of Zero.

What are people doing to mount their license plates? It looks like the bolt holes in the AL plate are too wide to mount across the black plastic rear piece. Are people mounting them sideways (long ways up)?

Edit: drilled two holes at the top and mounted the license plate sideways.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on March 15, 2012, 06:49:54 AM
My bike came with (what appears to be) a stock license plate mount fastened with two bolts to the rear fender. My dealer installed their shop's plastic license plate frame on the bracket, which now surrounds my new license plate.  Everything seems to fit perfectly.  Perhaps the bike plate mount is designed for the smaller CA plate?  Although it does have slotted mounting holes that would accommodate different sized license plates. You would think that it would be a DOT requirement that a license plate bracket be installed on the bike from the factory.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on March 15, 2012, 08:18:35 AM
Regarding cost of the Zero. Commuting 50 miles each way 5 days a week, then putting another 500 miles pleasure riding each weekend is the way to get value out of the Zero. If you actually rode it 308,000 miles over 6 years, and the motor, controller and battery hold up 6 years, that would make it pretty economical. Compare that to say a Ninja 250 which is pretty cheap to buy ($4500). You would have to buy probably 3 or 4 of them to go 308,000 mi. with rebuilds and tuneups even then.  Gas alone would cost about $24,000 over 6 years. If you are a casual rider and put just a couple thousand miles a year on the Zero, it will be expensive on a per mile basis.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on March 15, 2012, 11:02:57 AM
I've done about 6000 miles on my first gas bike over the last 2.5 years. About 900 in the last three months (temps in mid 30s-40s). I suspect I'll be riding a lot more now that I have my ebike, but not 60k miles/year : P

Somewhat back on topic:

First real trip, 44.7 miles to a friend's house and back tonight, used about 6.5 bars. Speeds 45-50 mph typically, 55-60 mph for a few miles. About half in sport and half in eco - very noticeable drop in < 10 mph power with eco. Temps around 80 degrees in the day, and 60 ish on the return ride home.

Extrapolating out: 76 miles of range. Not bad, not bad.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Lipo423 on March 15, 2012, 01:12:32 PM
dkw12002,
You need to tell me how you put 500 miles over the weekend on your bike (riding-charging)?
We get 24h/day in Spain, so, I guess you enjoy longer days in where you live  ;D

Just kidding...I understand what you mean, and I agree whith the level of use message/amortization.

In any case, what Zero is (still) offering today is more an "experience", than a real practical/economic vehicle...this will come in 4-5 years when technology & competition will meet together in Zero's office...and yes, I'm buying one now!


Protomech, yes, not bad at all...
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on March 15, 2012, 09:17:33 PM
Well, you can tell by the number of replies to this thread what the main concern is when you buy an EV (no big surprise, of course).

I have managed to put 500 miles on my Zero during the past month just riding around the neighborhood visiting relatives and performing chores and I didn't even work at it.  Unfortunately, I am not putting very many miles on my car (less than 1000 miles last year), or my 5 IC motorcycles (about 2K miles each, except for 6K miles on the two BMWs due to attending rallies in other states during the summer).  I really need to trim my fleet a bit so that I can walk around my garage without bumping into handlebars or having to worry about acids eating away at the bearings in my bikes and my gasoline turning into alcohol-infused carbon-compound sludge.   :o

Riding electric makes life easier.  I wish the rain would stop so that I can go out riding again.   :)

I note that just a few miles from where Zero's factory is located, over 10 inches of rain has fallen since Tuesday.  I have had 4 inches so far at my home and the rain isn't expected to stop until next week.   :'(
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: manlytom on March 16, 2012, 06:18:56 AM
Riding electric makes life easier.  I wish the rain would stop so that I can go out riding again.   :)

I note that just a few miles from where Zero's factory is located, over 10 inches of rain has fallen since Tuesday.  I have had 4 inches so far at my home and the rain isn't expected to stop until next week.   :'(

We are having the wettest summers on record for many years, and flooding everywhere. Updated my raingear and keep riding ! The Zero works fine in the wet. Even managed to bypass a traffic jam on the flooded lane with nearly knee deep water --- the Zero just went through it no problem -- and I know the road well enough without seeing the surface that day -- as in no potholes etc.
So I guess riding in any condition ... and the Zero is much less to clean afterwards than my Harley.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on March 16, 2012, 06:43:14 AM
What I don't like about riding in the rain is the car/truck traffic around me.  Drivers have their heads where the sun don't shine when driving in the rain and a motorcyclist is just another obstacle to drive over.  If I was the only one on the road, I wouldn't mind riding in the rain, but not in an urban area with its fast and congested traffic.

And I agree. The Zero is very much easier to clean after a wet ride, compared with an IC motorcycle. Cleaning exhaust pipes and engine nook and crannies is a real pain when those hot parts are exposed to wet roads, oil emulsion and dirt.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on March 16, 2012, 07:44:34 AM
We are having the wettest summers on record for many years, and flooding everywhere. Updated my raingear and keep riding ! The Zero works fine in the wet. Even managed to bypass a traffic jam on the flooded lane with nearly knee deep water --- the Zero just went through it no problem -- and I know the road well enough without seeing the surface that day -- as in no potholes etc.

Seconded.. started to thunderstorm shortly before I was ready to leave from work .. and then hail. Turns out, the Zero works okay in pretty terrible conditions : P

(if was stuck in the middle of evening rush traffic, I'd have waited that out .. agree about avoiding cars on the road when it's storming)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on April 12, 2012, 07:52:19 PM
While my ZF9 is in the shop next week they are going to "download" the logs from the bike to check for any other problems (besides the throttle 'glitch'). They are doing this at my request to try to explain the discrepancy between Zero's range claims and my "real world" range. However, since I made the request I received an email from Zero with a link to the EPA website that explains how they calculated the range:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/light-duty/udds.htm (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/light-duty/udds.htm)

The average speed is less than 20 miles/hour, which, I think, explains why it's not realistic to expect to ever achieve 114 miles per charge in real-world riding.

I'm not complaining about the bike - I love this thing - but I wonder if EV manufacturers would have better success by advertising the real world range, along with the 'best case scenario' range, to avoid disappointment....
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on April 12, 2012, 08:28:43 PM
I rode my ZF9 to a friend's funeral yesterday. The round trip was 50 miles, with most of the distance traveled at an average of 35 mph and five miles on the freeway at 70 mph. I still had 6 bars left on the "fuel" gauge by the time I had returned home and it took 4.85 kWh to replenish the battery pack from the wall outlet, or 4.37 kWh, if we assume 90% charger efficiency.  That sounds very close to Zero's range and battery capacity claims for the ZF9 to me.

As far as the government range standards go, I think it is about time they developed a more realistic "highway" rating.  It might not look pretty for advertising claims, but it would be more realistic for freeway-capable electric vehicles and more fair for the consumer who is not all that familiar with traveling at 20 mph to get where they want to go.   ::)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on April 12, 2012, 08:39:09 PM
Thanks much for the report and the link to the Zero test. I have a different interpretation of the test. The test posted below looks rigorous enough but the shortness of it means the EPA had to extrapolate the results by more than 15x to arrive at 114. That creates a large margin of error that may explain the differences between the EPA estimate and riders' actual experience.

(http://www.itulip.com/images2/ZeroSTestEPA.png)

The test subjects the bike to 18 starts and stops over a period of 23 minutes over a distance of 7.45 miles.

1. Hard acceleration to 20MPH then acceleration to 30MPH over 90 seconds, then rapid deceleration to zero.
2. Hard acceleration to 37MPH, then again to 56MPH and coast over 60 seconds, then rapid deceleration to zero.
3. Hard acceleration to 35MPH, then rapid deceleration to zero.
4. Hard acceleration to 30MPH, then rapid deceleration to zero.
5. Hard acceleration to 35MPH, cruise for 30 seconds, then rapid deceleration to zero.
6. Hard acceleration to 25MPH, then rapid deceleration to zero.

And so on. So, yes, the average speed was 20 but the way the bike achieved that was via many power-intensive rapid starts, accelerations, and stops. Maybe the test used 5% to 10% of the total charge. If they started with the assumption that the 7.45 mile test consumed 10% of total charge then the total range estimate would have been 75 miles or if they started with 5% then 20 x 7.45 = 149 miles. The 114 mile official estimate implies that the EPA extrapolated total range per the test above consuming ~7% of total charge for 7.45 miles times 15.3 = 114 miles at 100% discharge. The methodology produced a wide range of error.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on April 12, 2012, 11:22:47 PM
I believe the UDDS calls for the driving schedule to be repeated until the battery is depleted.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on April 12, 2012, 11:47:12 PM
If that's the case then if anything you'd expect the average owner to achieve a range in excess of 112 miles. By repeating the 7.45 mile, 23 minute test 15 times to discharge the battery 100% in 112 miles per the standard requires 270 starts and stops over 5.75 hours, including 15 hard accelerations from zero to 55MPH to zero and 45 hard accelerations from zero to 35MPH to zero. Not likely.

Bottom line, I don't see how the EPA gets from the 7.45 mile, 23 minute test schedule reliably to a 112 mile range estimate.

Zero should allow customers to register to the web site and log trips to develop range profiles for their bikes over time. What say we lobby them to do it?
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on April 13, 2012, 01:37:37 AM
The "hard acceleration" from zero to 55 mph takes place over 66 seconds - from 163s - 229s.
http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/methods/uddscol.txt (http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/methods/uddscol.txt)

The fifth acceleration takes you from 0 - 35 mph in 15s (447 - 462s).

Here's the relevant snip from the MIC test protocol (http://www.scribd.com/doc/51555486/Electric-Motorcycle-City-Range-Test#):

Quote
For vehicles subject to the driving schedule in 40CFR86 Appendix I(b), the driving schedule shall be repeated until the vehicle is no longer able to reach a speed of at least 53.9 mph (86.7 km/hr) between second number 226 and second number 254 of the driving schedule or the illumination of a warning light informing the operator that operation should be terminated for safety reasons or to avoid permanent battery damage. Speed variations greater than the tolerances specified in Appendix I that occur during gear changes or braking spikes are acceptable, provided they occur for less than 2 seconds on any occasion and are clearly documented as to the time and speed at that point of the driving schedule.

...

Range Calculation. The range value is determined by measuring the total number of revolutions of the dynamometer roller from the start of the test until the point at which the vehicle is no longer able to maintain the speed and time requirements specified. Based on the distance travelled per revolution of the dynamometer roller and the total number of revolutions, the distance travelled shall be reported in units of miles or kilometers, rounded to the nearest whole number. It is recommended that the calculated value be characterized as “city driving range, starting with a fully-charged battery.”

Emphasis added.

Here's the relevant bit from 40CFR86 Appendix I (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=5b27f5b9d70f968b3f0febcb93202edc&rgn=div9&view=text&node=40:19.0.1.1.1.14.1.11.5&idno=40):

Quote
(b) EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule for Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty Trucks, and Motorcycles with engine displacements equal to or greater than 170 cc (10.4 cu. in.).
(c) EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule for motorcycles with engine displacements less than 170 cc (10.4 cu. in.).

Despite not having a displacement, I believe the Zero S / DS were tested under the driving schedule in 40CFR86 Appendix I(b), which is the UDDS graphed above. The MIC specifies that a "low speed driving cycle ... is used for vehicles with a top speed below 56.7 mph but not less than 20.0 mph.", which I suppose is the driving schedule specified in Appendix I(c).
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on April 13, 2012, 02:04:54 AM
Thanks for digging up the data. Not hard acceleration but exceedingly slow acceleration... unnaturally slow. No one takes 77 secs to hit 57MPH or 34 secs to get to 36MPH. If you're getting on a highway you're going to get hurt doing that. YOu have more like 10 seconds. That may explain why real world riders get less range.

They did this over and over, 14 times 23 minutes for 336 minutes or 5.6 hours. Talk about a boring job.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on April 13, 2012, 02:20:56 AM
Here's a plot of speed vs distance - just another look on the same data.

Total distance traveled at the following speeds:
0-10 mph, 0.21 mi (2.8%)
10-20 mph, 0.91 mi (12.1%)
20-30 mph, 3.52 mi (47.0%)
30-40 mph, 1.25 mi (16.7%)
40-50 mph, 0.46 mi (6.1%)
50-60 mph, 1.14 mi (15.2%)

I believe if the average owner rode a similar route to the EPA UDDS, they would achieve similar (perhaps slightly lower) range. I ride at significantly higher speeds and accelerations than the bulk of the UDDS.

My 12.3 mi commute (each way) has the following nominal breakdowns:
0-10 mph, 0 mi (0%)
10-20 mph, 0.16 mi (1.3%)
20-30 mph, 0.14 mi (1.1%)
30-40 mph, 4.34 mi (35.3%)
40-50 mph, 4.02 mi (32.7%)
50-60 mph, 3.38 mi (27.5%)

I get about 70 miles range if I stick to the speed limits, which seems reasonable.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: flar on April 13, 2012, 03:19:25 AM
Is it defined as "take this long to get to XX MPH"?  Or is it defined as "accelerate hard to XX MPH and if you take longer than this threshold the test is over"?  From their claim about when to stop the test, I could easily believe that those times are the "maximum times", not the benchmark times...
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on April 13, 2012, 07:18:27 AM
I believe the test protocol is to be within 2 mph of the target speed within 1s of when the driving schedule calls for it.

I can't imagine riding the bike for 5 hours on the dyno trying to stay within 2 mph of a test schedule. I can only imagine they automated the throttle and walked off for lunch. And dinner.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on April 13, 2012, 07:27:04 AM
Here is the 7.45 mile EPA UDDS http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/methods/uddscol.txt (http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/methods/uddscol.txt) as applied to all electric bike tests:

(http://www.itulip.com/images2/_EPAUDDSwtmk.png)

Here it is applied to the 2012 Zero S ZF9:

(http://www.itulip.com/images2/_EPAUDDSZeroSZF9wtmk.png)

They repeated EPA UDDS exactly 15 times start to finish.

So, the methodology produces a range estimate with a granularity of 7.45 miles based on an automated, hypothetical stop and go commute in Florida (no hills) with a bit of highway, driven by a very, very laid back rider.

Viola!
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: CliC on April 13, 2012, 09:36:21 AM
oobflyer, I think Zero quotes both the EPA figures as well as a more-realistic 63 mile range at a continuous 70mph (for the ZF9) in their sales literature. I know I saw it somewhere before I bought mine, either in their brochure or on the web site somewhere. Since I'm in a small town/rural area, I figured I'd be a lot nearer that than any EPA "city" cycle, and once I saw that number, I knew it would have the range I needed for my local commuting.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: flar on April 13, 2012, 12:48:46 PM
oobflyer, I think Zero quotes both the EPA figures as well as a more-realistic 63 mile range at a continuous 70mph (for the ZF9) in their sales literature. I know I saw it somewhere before I bought mine, either in their brochure or on the web site somewhere. Since I'm in a small town/rural area, I figured I'd be a lot nearer that than any EPA "city" cycle, and once I saw that number, I knew it would have the range I needed for my local commuting.
On the web site it claims 63 miles at 70mph, but if you read the fine print they say that it is actually assuming 50% at 70mph and 50% at city speeds since you have to get to the highway and back.  You can extrapolate backwards or check the owner's manual (I think) to find out that it is 43 miles at 70mph all the way...
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: CliC on April 14, 2012, 01:07:25 AM
Well then...we will just have to get to the bottom of that (battery gauge)  :)

UPDATE: After work, I took her out on the highway to the next town. 7 miles to and around work on surface streets at mostly 30-50 mph, then 4 miles of 65 mph new highway through town, then 70-75 mph to aforementioned next town, turned around when battery gauge got to halfway point. Came back at 70-75, then another 4 miles of 65, then maybe 3 or 4 miles home on surface streets. I got the 2-bar blinking gauge about 2 miles from the house, and still had 2 bars as I rolled into the driveway. Total trip: about 41 miles. I'll update this again with the Kill-a-Watt reading after she's charged. (Update 2: 6.87 kWh).

So the fine print does apply. No Sturgis on my Zero I'm afraid :)

Other notes: Entire trip was in Eco mode. Top speed in Eco mode is about 75.

Precise speed was difficult to maintain, due to the bike being lightweight and buffeting crosswinds. I ended up listening to the motor pitch at  the speed I wanted to go and and was able to maintain that by targeting that pitch in my ears, like playing an instrument. (I do play an instrument, so maybe that made this method easier for me.)

Those crosswinds beat the crap out of me :) Much more so than I remember on my Road King. I don't have the windshield, but I may get one.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on April 14, 2012, 05:18:08 AM
First of all - THERE ARE ELEVEN (11) BARS ON THE FUEL GAUGE - what a strange number.

http://youtu.be/EbVKWCpNFhY (http://youtu.be/EbVKWCpNFhY)

Quote
I received an email today stating that my windshield has arrived at the dealership - I'm hoping that my range will improve with the increased aerodynamics.

I've gotten another 10% plus range out of my Zero S by adding a windshield. 
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on April 14, 2012, 06:16:27 AM
On I-35, commuting speed is generally 75 mph (speed limit is 70 mph) unless there is heavy traffic. 65 mph would relegate you to the right-hand lane with the heavy trucks, U-hauls and people exiting. I think Oobflyer estimated the range with the big battery would be about 33 miles at 75 mph. 
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: blake on April 14, 2012, 08:20:58 AM
I really appreciate all the posts about range.

I have a 80km (50 mile?) round trip commute to/from work, 90% of which would be at 75mph.

I work at a large university that prides itself on being 'green', but was basically told to buzz off and fahgetaboutit when I inquired about charging at work. Even parking in a corner under the building not taking up anyone else's spot and plugging into an existing 110V outlet was disallowed : I was told I would be served a parking infraction.

So it's looking like if I get the 2012 S-ZF9 that the dealer has put aside for me I couldn't make the trip without diverting myself onto smaller side streets for more of the journey than would otherwise be necessary... Bummer...

blake
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Brammofan on April 14, 2012, 09:12:02 AM
Hi Blake - I, too, made the mistake of asking my employer about charging.  It ignited a shitstorm of red tape.  Instead of waiting for the decisions to go up to the top and come back again, I just quietly started charging it.  My tactic of "ask for forgiveness, not for permission," has worked so far.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: rotoiti on April 14, 2012, 11:12:49 AM
I took delivery of my brand new Zero DS ZF9 today. I rode it back home (32 miles, eco mode) and used only 3 bars of energy (third bar disappeared at 29 miles). I rode along a busy street with 40 mph speed limit and many traffic lights. If the charge indicator is linear that is really good achievement.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on April 14, 2012, 12:46:59 PM
The first bar seems to disappear a little fast, but afterwards the bars SEEM to be linear.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: flar on April 14, 2012, 03:02:10 PM
I took delivery of my brand new Zero DS ZF9 today. I rode it back home (32 miles, eco mode) and used only 3 bars of energy (third bar disappeared at 29 miles). I rode along a busy street with 40 mph speed limit and many traffic lights. If the charge indicator is linear that is really good achievement.
It will be interesting to hear how that changes over the first few charge cycles.  Have we definitively determined if they fully balance the cells and calibrate the meter before they ship the bikes?
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on April 14, 2012, 07:46:57 PM
Blake, consider a Ninja 250. A new one is about $5,000 out the door, gets 55 mpg or so and has a top speed of 95 mph with a bullet proof, tried-and-true engine.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on April 14, 2012, 08:17:24 PM
Blake, consider a Ninja 250. A new one is about $5,000 out the door, gets 55 mpg or so and has a top speed of 95 mph with a bullet proof, tried-and-true engine.

But when it comes time to perform a major service on the little Ninja, including adjusting its valve lash, you will thank your lucky stars that you chose an electric motorcycle.   ;D
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on April 14, 2012, 08:44:40 PM
Blake, consider a Ninja 250. A new one is about $5,000 out the door, gets 55 mpg or so and has a top speed of 95 mph with a bullet proof, tried-and-true engine.

But when it comes time to perform a major service on the little Ninja, including adjusting its valve lash, you will thank your lucky stars that you chose an electric motorcycle.   ;D

The Zero ZF9 costs $8000 more than the Ninja. The Average annual maintenance cost thread on the kawasakimotorcycle.org forum says:

Quote
Assuming 12,000 to 15,000 miles a year, figure (doing the work myself) my 1600 Classic costs me:
Tires: $200 and $400 alternate every-other year (front tire lasts through 2 rear)
Oil: 4 changes at $55 each for full synthetic. 6 changes at $30 each for conventional
Annual relamp: (I don't wait until they burn out, but sometimes they do anyways) about $40
Brake pads: About $100 every 2 years... maybe a touch more often.
Fork oil: About $10 every 2 years
Brake/clutch fluid: About $15 every 2 years
Coolant: About $20 every 2 years
Battery: Figure $100 every 2-3 years.
Fuel: About $1,000/year

And a tub of waterproof grease... it'll last you 10 years or more.

Some things are mileage or riding habit related, such as tires, oil change frequency, brake pads, and fuel, while other things are simply time related and should be done every year or two anyways.

Pretty much anything other than the above is simply adjustments and labor related... only needing parts when something breaks or wears.
Now, if you're having the work done, add $65 to $85/hour for labor... and pray it's done right.

Throw in the occasional valve adjustment and it all adds up to approx. $1500/yr in maintenance and fuel costs that you don't have with a Zero.  You break even on the Zero after 5 years or so, and after that it's gravy.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on April 14, 2012, 08:56:29 PM
Except in California, shop labor rates are $100 an hour and they even tack on all sorts of "environmental waste" costs.   :(

My daughter has a 2003 Ninja 250 that I maintain. That thing is a real pain in the butt to service and it takes a full day to perform a 6K servicing.   >:(
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on April 14, 2012, 09:45:14 PM
I own both a 2011 S Zero and a 2012 Ninja 250, so it will be interesting to compare. I don't keep bikes long enough to need valve adjustments though and don't really keep track of costs, so I still won't know probably. Something tells me they are both going to be expensive. LOL.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: CliC on April 14, 2012, 11:05:30 PM
Instead of waiting for the decisions to go up to the top and come back again, I just quietly started charging it.  My tactic of "ask for forgiveness, not for permission," has worked so far.

Same here. I use an almost-always-unused outlet, and park the bike and route the cord so that it is not a trip hazard.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on April 15, 2012, 03:52:00 AM
Instead of waiting for the decisions to go up to the top and come back again, I just quietly started charging it.  My tactic of "ask for forgiveness, not for permission," has worked so far.

Same here. I use an almost-always-unused outlet, and park the bike and route the cord so that it is not a trip hazard.

If you're creative enough to buy a 100% electric bike you got to be creative enough to keep it juiced up.

Ride into parking garage, find an outlet, park as close to the outlet as possible, avoid blocking doors, fire lanes, etc., and plug in.

Or...

If the lot attendant comments, offer to pay "management" $5 "for the juice." The $5 never makes it to management, naturally. That worked for me twice in a pinch.

Or...

Cut a deal with management directly. Offer 2x the real $.50 cost or $1. I got that deal at 3 garages around town.


Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on April 15, 2012, 10:36:15 AM
I think the problem with the 5 year break-even time though is that you will likely need a new battery at that point...$7,000 or so? Also as difficult as it is to adjust valves, it can be done with common tools and time. If my Zero motor or controller goes out, I would not be able to work on that at this point anyway. Perhaps if I have a step by step service manual I could, but not now. I have a feeling the bike would need to go back to California and that expense would be pretty large. Time will tell though. Anyway, I rode a Ninja 650 today, and it is looking like that Ninja 250 won't be around by 7500 miles when the valves are due for an adjustment. Of course neither will my Zero in 5 years. Next Jan. when the 2013 Zeros come out, I will think about trading my 2011 in on a new one or perhaps a left-over 2012 demo if my dealer still has one.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on April 15, 2012, 08:13:13 PM
I think the problem with the 5 year break-even time though is that you will likely need a new battery at that point...$7,000 or so? Also as difficult as it is to adjust valves, it can be done with common tools and time. If my Zero motor or controller goes out, I would not be able to work on that at this point anyway. Perhaps if I have a step by step service manual I could, but not now. I have a feeling the bike would need to go back to California and that expense would be pretty large. Time will tell though. Anyway, I rode a Ninja 650 today, and it is looking like that Ninja 250 won't be around by 7500 miles when the valves are due for an adjustment. Of course neither will my Zero in 5 years. Next Jan. when the 2013 Zeros come out, I will think about trading my 2011 in on a new one or perhaps a left-over 2012 demo if my dealer still has one.

The 2012 Zero specs are: "Cells last 3,000 full charge-discharge cycles before hitting 80% capacity, yielding as much as 308,000 miles on the original power pack."

At 10,000 mi/yr that's 30 years. Even if it's 1/2 that in the real world, in 2042 you won't be riding around on a 2012 Zero.

I too plan to wait until they figure out how to lower costs. At 100 mi per charge the Zero is finally practical, but at $14,000 it's a rich man's toy and statement, not a substitute for a IC commuter bike.

Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on April 15, 2012, 11:32:42 PM
Isn't there some question about the longevity of the Li battery though? The batteries age whether you use them or not, but nobody seems to know at what degree that will happen with the Zero.  What if they only last 6 years even if you don't use them? The 300,000 miles might apply if you put 50,000 mi. a year on the bike for example, and even that is an estimate, but the aging of the battery might be the limiting factor as opposed to the number of charges or miles. That's my concern anyway.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: zap mc on April 16, 2012, 04:12:38 AM
The 2012 Zero specs are: "Cells last 3,000 full charge-discharge cycles before hitting 80% capacity, yielding as much as 308,000 miles on the original power pack."



[/quote]

They said that the original cells in Zero bikes would do 1000 full cycles but they all died after a short period, how can you trust these figures when their last claims were bunkam?
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on April 16, 2012, 07:24:06 AM
The 2012 Zero specs are: "Cells last 3,000 full charge-discharge cycles before hitting 80% capacity, yielding as much as 308,000 miles on the original power pack."




They said that the original cells in Zero bikes would do 1000 full cycles but they all died after a short period, how can you trust these figures when their last claims were bunkam?
[/quote]

Because they learned from experience?
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Lipo423 on April 17, 2012, 07:06:23 PM
There are different chemistries, packs, ways of wiring/charging/discharging the packs that could change the total number of cycles a lot, from 500 to 2-3.000
Zero's batteries -actually, they do not make the cells- (as any other ones) are also affected by age, in the case of our bikes -except some rare cases of very intensive use- time/age will affect battery life expectancy before total charging cycles.

There are a few words about this subject in page number 5-6 of this thread...
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on April 17, 2012, 08:06:43 PM
They said that the original cells in Zero bikes would do 1000 full cycles but they all died after a short period, how can you trust these figures when their last claims were bunkam?

1000 full cycles in the lab (typically at 0.25 - 1.0C discharge, 25C temps) over a short period of time is a much different scenario than intermittent charging at higher discharge rates in variable temperatures spread over the period of 2-3 years.

I believe Zero used Molicel NMC 26650s for the pre-2012 bikes - they show 81% capacity @ 1C discharge, 74% capacity @ 5C discharge after 300 cycles, 21 degrees C. Real world conditions and calendar aging will take a heavier toll.
http://www.molicel.com/ca/pdf/IMR26700.pdf (http://www.molicel.com/ca/pdf/IMR26700.pdf)

Here's the EIG C020 pouches I think Zero is using in the 2012 bikes. Very little capacity loss (95% remaining) after 1000 cycles @ 1C discharge, 1C charge.
http://www.eigbattery.com/eng/product/3.jpg (http://www.eigbattery.com/eng/product/3.jpg)

Again, real world conditions and calendar aging will take their toll. But hopefully it is a less steep toll.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: dkw12002 on April 18, 2012, 02:48:59 AM
The large print giveth and the small print taketh away. I really cannot complain though. My 2011 performs as advertised. I took it on the interstate a couple of exits today (3 miles or so) and it went right up to an indicated 71 mph. I stay in the right hand lane but I would do that anyway even in a car for 1 exit. The high speed fan is really not an issue with noise because I can't hear it with my helmet, plus the air, tire and road noise is louder. The only time I can hear it is when I stop and take my helmet off. If the new motor needs cooling off for better speed, they might add a fan rather than a radiator which would add lots of weight. I'm sure they are looking into all the possibilities. Bigger and heavier is not the way I would like to see them go. I want lighter and faster, esp faster acceleration. 0-60mph in 3 sec. would make me happy and make me want to buy a new bike.

Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on April 20, 2012, 01:28:42 AM
I started a new runkeeper account to capture GPS logs for test rides. Also so that my main RK account isn't getting credit for riding at 50 mph : )

I went on a ride this last weekend to test state highway speed riding - my eventual goal is to make the trip from my house to mom's house 80 miles away. The direct route is a state highway that is typically 55-65 mph, which means it's not realistic for the Zero to make the trip on a single charge.

43.0 miles as indicated by the GPS, about 45.0 miles indicated on the instrument cluster. The Zero's speedometer is reading about 4% high for me. I rode out until the 5th energy bar disappeared, then turned around to ride back. I used about 3.7 bars on the return trip, which seems oddly non-linear.. I did go up a 700 foot mountain on the trip out and down the mountain on the trip back, so that may account for a portion of the energy difference.

Suspect the saddlebags I installed were either creating additional drag or intermittently touching the tire - the last few days I've been riding without the saddlebags and seem to be doing about 10% better.

The speed logs and elevation logs might be interesting to someone.

http://runkeeper.com/user/protomoto/activity/81568069 (http://runkeeper.com/user/protomoto/activity/81568069)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on April 20, 2012, 04:18:44 AM
Based upon my experience with soft saddlebags, they can really put a drag on your "fuel mileage". I went on a 1000-mile trip last summer with a set of relatively small saddlebags on my BMW and the fuel mileage dropped a good 10% compared with riding "naked". Now I don't use saddlebags unless I really need to. I try to pile stuff on my rear seat and luggage rack and only install the saddlebags if there is an overflow.   ;)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on April 20, 2012, 04:47:26 AM
Based upon my experience with soft saddlebags, they can really put a drag on your "fuel mileage". I went on a 1000-mile trip last summer with a set of relatively small saddlebags on my BMW and the fuel mileage dropped a good 10% compared with riding "naked". Now I don't use saddlebags unless I really need to. I try to pile stuff on my rear seat and luggage rack and only install the saddlebags if there is an overflow.   ;)

Brammo Empulse supposedly ships May 8. Specs here http://electricmotorcycleforum.com/boards/index.php?topic=2043.0 (http://electricmotorcycleforum.com/boards/index.php?topic=2043.0)

Driving Range  City: 121 miles*   (195 km)
Highway: 56 miles**    (90 km)
Combined: 77 miles***  (124 km)

*SAE City Riding Range Test Procedure for Electric Motorcycles (variable speed, 19 mph / 30km/h average)
**SAE Highway / Constant Speed Riding Range Test Procedure for Electric Motorcycles (70 mph / 113 km/h  sustained)
*** SAE Highway Commuting Cycle (.5 City weighting, .5 Highway weighting)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on April 20, 2012, 06:12:32 AM
Based upon my experience with soft saddlebags, they can really put a drag on your "fuel mileage". I went on a 1000-mile trip last summer with a set of relatively small saddlebags on my BMW and the fuel mileage dropped a good 10% compared with riding "naked". Now I don't use saddlebags unless I really need to. I try to pile stuff on my rear seat and luggage rack and only install the saddlebags if there is an overflow.   ;)

Brammo Empulse supposedly ships May 8. Specs here http://electricmotorcycleforum.com/boards/index.php?topic=2043.0 (http://electricmotorcycleforum.com/boards/index.php?topic=2043.0)

Driving Range  City: 121 miles*   (195 km)
Highway: 56 miles**    (90 km)
Combined: 77 miles***  (124 km)

*SAE City Riding Range Test Procedure for Electric Motorcycles (variable speed, 19 mph / 30km/h average)
**SAE Highway / Constant Speed Riding Range Test Procedure for Electric Motorcycles (70 mph / 113 km/h  sustained)
*** SAE Highway Commuting Cycle (.5 City weighting, .5 Highway weighting)

The Brammo Empulse R weighs 100lbs more than the Zero S but gets 10 miles more range? Hmmmm. Maybe so if 20% of the extra weight is the gearbox and 80% of the extra is battery.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: craigq on April 20, 2012, 06:30:25 AM
Brammo Empulse gets more range because it's battery pack is larger (in a kWh sense, no idea of the physical dimensions).

Brammo Empulse - 121 miles on 9.3 kWh
Zero S ZF9 - 114 miles on 7.9 kWh

So for the UDDS cycle Empulse uses 76.9 Wh/mile, S ZF9 uses 69.2 Wh/mile.

It would be interesting to know if the Empulse was tested on the UDDS using all of the transmission's gears or if it was left in one gear. Those Wh/mile figures are quite close, and the ZF9 weighs quite a bit less than the Empulse.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on April 20, 2012, 06:45:30 AM
Brammo Empulse gets more range because it's battery pack is larger (in a kWh sense, no idea of the physical dimensions).

Brammo Empulse - 121 miles on 9.3 kWh
Zero S ZF9 - 114 miles on 7.9 kWh

So for the UDDS cycle Empulse uses 76.9 Wh/mile, S ZF9 uses 69.2 Wh/mile.

It would be interesting to know if the Empulse was tested on the UDDS using all of the transmission's gears or if it was left in one gear. Those Wh/mile figures are quite close, and the ZF9 weighs quite a bit less than the Empulse.

I'll take the 11 miles lower projected range for 100 lbs less weight and greater agility and no gears to deal with. I never ride over 70MPH anyway never mind 88MPH.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Lipo423 on April 20, 2012, 01:33:15 PM
I will be really surprised if the Empulse has better range than the ZF9...making a very light analysis on their recently published specs the bike is 100 pounds heavier, it has very big tires (180 rear on a 17" rim needs a lot of energy to be rolled), but on the positive side -for range- it has less drag as your riding position on the bike is very agressive "R", and around 1,4Kw more of battery capacity, we'll see...

Concerning the bike bags. Have any of you guys tried the OGIO No drag? -It is a backpack, and there are different models, here is a very good review of it.
OGIO No Drag Back Pack review Sportbiketrackgear.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTpjm8SPHUI#)

Let's start by saying I hate backpacks for riding, they move all the time, uncomfortable, etc...but when I read the reviews, I decide to buy one (which was a difficult exercise I must say -availability in Spain-), it works pretty well though
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on April 20, 2012, 09:30:04 PM
Thanks for the bag link. I kind of dig that.. I have a similar profile Intel-branded bag that I picked up at a tradeshow a while back, but it's not nearly as nice and definitely is not waterproof.

Ogio also makes some nice looking tailbags. Hm.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: kingcharles on April 20, 2012, 11:40:17 PM
Brammo Empulse gets more range because it's battery pack is larger (in a kWh sense, no idea of the physical dimensions).

Brammo Empulse - 121 miles on 9.3 kWh
Zero S ZF9 - 114 miles on 7.9 kWh

So for the UDDS cycle Empulse uses 76.9 Wh/mile, S ZF9 uses 69.2 Wh/mile.

It would be interesting to know if the Empulse was tested on the UDDS using all of the transmission's gears or if it was left in one gear. Those Wh/mile figures are quite close, and the ZF9 weighs quite a bit less than the Empulse.

Brammo claim the gears contribute to a longer range. But how big that contribution is they don't say.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on April 21, 2012, 12:07:59 AM
Brammo Empulse gets more range because it's battery pack is larger (in a kWh sense, no idea of the physical dimensions).

Brammo Empulse - 121 miles on 9.3 kWh
Zero S ZF9 - 114 miles on 7.9 kWh

So for the UDDS cycle Empulse uses 76.9 Wh/mile, S ZF9 uses 69.2 Wh/mile.

It would be interesting to know if the Empulse was tested on the UDDS using all of the transmission's gears or if it was left in one gear. Those Wh/mile figures are quite close, and the ZF9 weighs quite a bit less than the Empulse.

Brammo claim the gears contribute to a longer range. But how big that contribution is they don't say.

Brammo Empulse R
Battery Pack Capacity: 10.2 kWh (max)
Driving Range: City: 121 miles
Weight: 440lbs. / 200kg

Zero S ZF9
Maximum capacity: 9.0 kWh
City (EPA UDDS) 114 miles
Curb weight: 341 pounds (155 kg)

BE: 440 lbs / 10.2kWh = 43.14 kWh/lb
Zero S: 341 lbs / 9 kWh =  37.89 kWh/lb

BE has a 12% better kWh/lb ratio than Zero S but has only 6% more range, assuming range is EPA UDDS in both cases.

Maybe the gearbox reduces range?
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on April 21, 2012, 01:12:14 AM
Empulse weighs 100 lbs more and has heavier, probably stickier tires. IET might actually help city range a bit, since the motor won't spend as much time in the inefficient low RPM / high load regions .. but balanced against mechanical losses from the IET.

Also you should probably use the nominal capacities, not the max capacities.. and you're actually flipping the units.

Empulse R is 440 lbs / 9.31 kWh = 47.3 lbs / kWh
Zero S ZF9 is 341 lbs / 7.88 kWh = 43.3 lbs / kWh

You also want to consider rider weight, aero drag, and constant loads (headlight, control systems). I imagine the EPA dyno load has a very simple model for these parameters.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on April 21, 2012, 01:26:12 AM
Empulse weighs 100 lbs more and has heavier, probably stickier tires. IET might actually help city range a bit, since the motor won't spend as much time in the inefficient low RPM / high load regions .. but balanced against mechanical losses from the IET.

Also you should probably use the nominal capacities, not the max capacities.. and you're actually flipping the units.

Empulse R is 440 lbs / 9.31 kWh = 47.3 lbs / kWh
Zero S ZF9 is 341 lbs / 7.88 kWh = 43.3 lbs / kWh

You also want to consider rider weight, aero drag, and constant loads (headlight, control systems). I imagine the EPA dyno load has a very simple model for these parameters.

Always check my math! You are correct. But how can the Empulse have an 8% worse weight/power ratio and 6% better range? Doesn't add up. Throw in the fatter, stickier tires and the extra range over the Zero is a mystery. I didn't see EPA UDDS mentioned in the Empulse range specs. Maybe not apples and apples?
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on April 21, 2012, 02:49:20 AM
A very simple model for power required to maintain a certain speed is basically constant load + rolling resistance * weight * velocity + aero area * (effective air velocity) ^ 2

Energy per mile then is the integral of the power required over the course of the mile .. or assuming constant parameters, power / velocity. (watt / mph = watt-hours / mile)

Energy per mile is then constant load / velocity + rolling resistance * weight + aero area * air velocity


Here's a good calculator to start with:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php (http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php)

Empulse R (http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php?Weight=620&WeightUnits=lbs&CRR=.03&Cd=.65&FrontalArea=0.70&FrontalAreaUnits=m^2&FuelWh=33557&IceEfficiency=0.92&DrivetrainEfficiency=0.85&ParasiticOverhead=100&rho=1.22&FromToStep=5-200-5):
620 lbs w/ rider
0.03 Crr (sticky tires)
0.65 Cd (aero fairing helps a bit)
0.7 A (rider in a bit of a tuck)
0.92 Engine efficiency (really engine + controller)
0.85 Drivetrain efficiency (IET has losses, chain > belt)
100w parasitic overhead (lights)

35 mph: 2.46 kW, 70 Wh/mile, 132 miles
45 mph: 4.02 kW, 89 Wh/mile, 104 miles
55 mph: 6.26 kW, 114 Wh/mile, 82 miles
65 mph: 9.31 kW, 143 Wh/mile, 65 miles
70 mph: 11.2 kW, 160 Wh/mile, 58 miles

Zero S (http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php?Weight=520&WeightUnits=lbs&CRR=0.02&Cd=0.8&FrontalArea=0.8&FrontalAreaUnits=m^2&FuelWh=33557&IceEfficiency=0.90&DrivetrainEfficiency=0.94&ParasiticOverhead=100&rho=1.22&FromToStep=5-200-5):
520 lbs w/ rider
0.02 Crr (less sticky tires)
0.8 Cd
0.8 A
0.90 Engine efficiency (really varies based on speed)
0.94 Drivetrain efficiency (belt is a little worse than chain, still pretty good)
100w parasitic overhead

35 mph: 2.32 kW, 67 Wh/mile, 118 miles
45 mph: 4.21 kW, 94 Wh/mile, 84 miles
55 mph: 7.04 kW, 128 Wh/mile, 62 miles
65 mph: 11.0 kW, 170 Wh/mile, 46 miles
70 mph: 13.5 kW, 193 Wh/mile, 41 miles


Note that these numbers are just for steady state cruising, I could probably tweak the parameters a bit to match Zero's 55 mph (XU) and 70 mph (S/DS) and Brammo's 70 mph numbers. The EPA UDDS city test has a lot of stops and starts, and those will significantly penalize the heavier Empulse.

Note too that in steady state driving, even at 35 mph aerodynamic drag is fully 50% of the power used.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ZeroSinMA on April 21, 2012, 03:15:48 AM
A very simple model for power required to maintain a certain speed is basically constant load + rolling resistance * weight * velocity + aero area * (effective air velocity) ^ 2

Energy per mile then is the integral of the power required over the course of the mile .. or assuming constant parameters, power / velocity. (watt / mph = watt-hours / mile)

Energy per mile is then constant load / velocity + rolling resistance * weight + aero area * air velocity


Here's a good calculator to start with:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php (http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php)

Empulse R (http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php?Weight=620&WeightUnits=lbs&CRR=.03&Cd=.65&FrontalArea=0.70&FrontalAreaUnits=m^2&FuelWh=33557&IceEfficiency=0.92&DrivetrainEfficiency=0.85&ParasiticOverhead=100&rho=1.22&FromToStep=5-200-5):
620 lbs w/ rider
0.03 Crr (sticky tires)
0.65 Cd (aero fairing helps a bit)
0.7 A (rider in a bit of a tuck)
0.92 Engine efficiency (really engine + controller)
0.85 Drivetrain efficiency (IET has losses, chain > belt)
100w parasitic overhead (lights)

35 mph: 2.46 kW, 70 Wh/mile, 132 miles
45 mph: 4.02 kW, 89 Wh/mile, 104 miles
55 mph: 6.26 kW, 114 Wh/mile, 82 miles
65 mph: 9.31 kW, 143 Wh/mile, 65 miles
70 mph: 11.2 kW, 160 Wh/mile, 58 miles

Zero S (http://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php?Weight=520&WeightUnits=lbs&CRR=0.2&Cd=0.8&FrontalArea=0.8&FrontalAreaUnits=m^2&FuelWh=33557&IceEfficiency=0.90&DrivetrainEfficiency=0.94&ParasiticOverhead=100&rho=1.22&FromToStep=5-200-5):
520 lbs w/ rider
0.02 Crr (less sticky tires)
0.8 Cd
0.8 A
0.90 Engine efficiency (really varies based on speed)
0.94 Drivetrain efficiency (belt is a little worse than chain, still pretty good)
100w parasitic overhead

35 mph: 2.32 kW, 67 Wh/mile, 118 miles
45 mph: 4.21 kW, 94 Wh/mile, 84 miles
55 mph: 7.04 kW, 128 Wh/mile, 62 miles
65 mph: 11.0 kW, 170 Wh/mile, 46 miles
70 mph: 13.5 kW, 193 Wh/mile, 41 miles


Note that these numbers are just for steady state cruising, I could probably tweak the parameters a bit to match Zero's 55 mph (XU) and 70 mph (S/DS) and Brammo's 70 mph numbers. The EPA UDDS city test has a lot of stops and starts, and those will significantly penalize the heavier Empulse.

Note too that in steady state driving, even at 35 mph aerodynamic drag is fully 50% of the power used.

Excellent, Protomech. Thanks.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: craigq on April 21, 2012, 03:48:27 AM
A very simple model
*SNIP*

You are a great benefit to the community!
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on December 16, 2013, 08:04:00 AM
I know this is an old topic, but thought I'd check again with other owners regarding their Real World Range. When I re-read some of the posts here I can't help but wonder if I ended up with a defective bike.  There is less than 7K miles on it, it's always been babied, garaged, and charged.

Last week I needed to go to the dealership, which is exactly 66 miles from my house. I rode there on backroads, never exceeding 35 MPH, in ECO mode. The ride took over two hours and I got there with one bar left on the gauge (6.6 miles/bar). This is typical of my experience since I got the bike, but when I see that some people are riding on the freeway for similar distances and make it with the fuel gauge at 1/2 full (5 or 6 bars) it just doesn't make sense to me.

My bike will be out of warranty in one month, so depending on the responses I get I might ask that it be checked again (download the bike logs, etc.).

If folks are making 50 mile trips on 5 bars - that's 10 miles/bar.  Is that what I should be expecting?

Thanks
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Justin Andrews on December 16, 2013, 01:08:37 PM
What are you riding, a ZF9, s or ds?
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: NoiseBoy on December 16, 2013, 04:37:25 PM
Have you tried measuring the power you are putting back in with the charger oobflyer?  A kill-a-watt style meter from Amazon is a useful purchase.  It will give you an idea of how much power you were actually using.

Someone on here with a ZF9 had their dash accidentally reprogrammed for a ZF6 so range looked very poor but there was actually plenty of juice left.

The speed limit here is 40mph so I probably do similar speeds to you and I get 90 miles before reserve in sport mode.  Im confident i could do 150 in eco during the summer if i tried.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ColoPaul on December 16, 2013, 08:05:07 PM
I rode there on backroads, never exceeding 35 MPH, in ECO mode. The ride took over two hours and I got there with one bar left on the gauge (6.6 miles/bar). 
If folks are making 50 mile trips on 5 bars - that's 10 miles/bar.  Is that what I should be expecting?

I see from other posts you have a ZF9.  6.6 miles/bar or a total of ~6.6*11 = 72 miles of range at 35 MPH is not very good.   At 35mph, I'd get about 6-7 miles/per bar.  I have a ZF6 so since you have 1.5x more battery you should see 6-7 *1.5 = 9-10.5 miles/bar at that rate.

I agree with Noiseboy, have you measured how much is going back in?   I may be the guy noiseboy was referring to - I accidentally had my bike reprogrammed to think it was a ZF9.  So for awhile, I was getting the 9-10 miles/bar but it wasn't real.  If for some reason your bike thinks it's a ZF6 that would explain everything.    If you use up 10-11 bars, and then measure how much it takes to charge with a kill-o-watt, and it comes up about 6kWH - then that's the problem.   If it says about 9kWH - you have another issues.

Good luck
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on December 16, 2013, 08:35:22 PM
Thanks - I do have a Kil-o-watt meter - I'll try that.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: benswing on December 16, 2013, 10:14:52 PM
Oobflyer, I get 7mi/bar going 55mi/hr with a couple of heavy chargers on the back of my 2012 ZF9.  When it is cold the range will dip, but I'll still get 6mi/bar going 55mi/hr.  I don't think it makes a difference for steady speeds, but I have a size 6 controller, so my new eco mode is just like the old sport mode with the size 4 controller. 

I agree with measuring how much charge goes back into your battery.  After a long ride with only a bar or two left, I usually get about 6.5-7kW of charge.  The most charge I have put into the bike was about 8.1kWh and that was after depleting all the bars, then riding past the 1.5 invisible bars until the voltage dropped and acceleration decreased.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on December 17, 2013, 08:32:08 PM
There is something wrong! I rode the bike until the last bar disappeared, plugged it in and it only charged 7.4 kW. If I understand correctly, with the 9 kW battery pack it should have charged more than 9 kW. I'll be calling Zero today.

Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on December 17, 2013, 08:45:19 PM
benswing
Quote
The most charge I have put into the bike was about 8.1kWh and that was after depleting all the bars...
You also have a ZF9? Considering the energy loss during charging it should take a little more than the maximum battery capacity to charge up the pack - right? (Help me out here you engineers out there). With a depleted 9 kWh battery pack it should take about 10 kW of electricity from the grid to charge it back up, correct? Likewise - like ColoPaul said, with a ZF6 it should take about 6 kW to charge up a depleted 6 kWh pack (a little more for energy losses during charging). I'm getting exactly the kind of range that ColoPaul is getting on his ZF6.

I'll let you know what they say after talking to someone at Zero.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on December 17, 2013, 09:01:27 PM
Nominal capacity for the ZF9 pack is 7.9 kWh. Likely not all of that is available - for example, the last bar disappears with approximately 12% SOC remaining IIRC.

The most I ever charged in a single charge was 9.05 kWh, from full to well below the final bar disappearing, just before low voltage cutout (6% SOC).

If you started at (say) 97%, the pack "lost" 6.7 kWh (7.9 kWh * (97% - 12%) .. charging with 85% efficiency should take about 7.9 kWh, plus a bit if the BMS balances the cells. So it seems like your capacity is down by around 5-10%.

However, a stock bike should see 9-10 miles/bar at 35 mph. So it sounds like maybe something else is going on too.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: benswing on December 17, 2013, 10:43:15 PM
Looked at my data more closely and 2 or 3 times I pulled 9.2kWh after riding until the low voltage cutout. 

I agree with protomech and have gotten as many as 12-13mi/bar at 25 mi/hr, so getting 9-10mi/bar at 35mi/hr should work.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: NoiseBoy on December 17, 2013, 11:06:07 PM
Have you checked your tyre pressure and belt tension recently?
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on December 18, 2013, 03:15:07 AM
Haven't checked the belt tension, but I keep my tires inflated to recommended pressures (32 PSI front, 35 PSI rear).

I spoke with Ryan at Zero this morning. It sounds like there may be a combination of things wrong - it's not drawing the 9 kW during charging, and it's not getting 10 miles/bar - even at low speeds. I'll be taking my bike to the Zero factory (Scott's Valley, near Santa Cruz) in a few days. It should be interesting to see what they find.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: ColoPaul on December 18, 2013, 04:10:38 AM
FWIW,  On my ZF6,  I have seen 6kWH on the kilowatt a half-dozen times;   Once I saw 6.4 kWH.

7.4 is way more that that however, so the mis-programmed theory is probably wrong.

Good thing you live near Zero!!   Keep us updated.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: BSDThw on December 18, 2013, 11:25:34 PM
Quote
so the mis-programmed theory is probably wrong.

SOC algorithm are complex therefore  the  6 or 9 KW is only one "correction" parameter for the different situation during calculation and recalculation!

If you use the 6KW setting it maybe reduce the calculated results always because "logic" tells "it is to high" => it will be between 6 and 9KW.

It could still be a wrong setting. but it is interesting to learn what the problem will be.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Doctorbass on December 19, 2013, 03:42:37 AM
In the Main Bike Board, the display gauge have a setting  set to 10% pessimistic capacity on my ZF9. The MBB take account of the temperature, blaance state of the cells  and keep a history of the measured capacity to determine the actual capacity.  It also count the coulomb charged to the battery and compare to the dishcarged capacity. I discovered that when i installeld my 6.6kW fast DIY compact charger... When connecting the charger to the battery directly ( thru the controller lead) the battery gauge became unadjusted and was showing a lower charged capacity than reality.

And once i connected the deltaQ cahrger to the plug for just few second the battery bar was readjusted automaticly on the next start up. wich mean that the voltage of the pack  probably have also some effect on the bar.

Doc



Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Electric Cowboy on December 19, 2013, 04:00:49 AM
I think it has a lot to do with riding style.  :o

I have a ZF6 and get the following

without fairings I get the following range :
90-100 mph       30-35 miles depending on wind
80-90  mph        32-38 miles depending on wind
65-80  mph        38-42 miles depending on wind
50-65  mph        40-45 miles depending on wind
don't know slower than this as I rarely go that slow for any duration of consequence.

with my race fairings I get the following range :
90-105 mph       30-35 miles depending on wind
80-90  mph        35-40 miles depending on wind
65-80  mph        40-45 miles depending on wind
50-65  mph        45-55 miles depending on wind
don't know slower than this as I rarely go that slow for any duration of consequence.

-EC
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on December 20, 2013, 08:50:18 PM
Curious - since the top "sustained" speed is limited to 75 MPH - how did you do the range tests at higher speeds?

Again - my range (ZF9) is very similar to your range at 50-65 MPH... I'm dropping my bike off at Zero tomorrow - not sure how long they'll have it, but as soon as I know anything I'll post it here.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: BSDThw on December 21, 2013, 12:38:54 AM
Hope your dealer has the RS232(TTL) cable for the BMS - He only needs to read the info .

He can see e.q.
Quote
*************************************************************
*                    Pack Configuration                     *
*************************************************************

  - Pack Type                 :       S/DS
  - Number of Series Cells    :         18
  - Number of Parallel Cells  :          6
  - Number of Bricks          :          3
  - Theoretical Pack Capacity :  120000000 uAh
  - Estimated Pack Capacity   :  120000000 uAh

and a lot more

Therefore he sould be able to make a quick check if it is a ZF9 or ZF6 setting - my BMS is new and I could never see the data of an used board but I guess/hope the "Estimated Pack Capacity" will change during the battery use and will let us know what the BMS found out about your battery (will see it when winter is over) maybe someone has more experience with the BMS data? and let us know how his values are!
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on December 22, 2013, 11:41:14 AM
I dropped my bike off at the Zero Factory in Scotts Valley today. It was fun to meet some of the guys that are building these cool rides.
The plan is to leave the bike there for awhile (a week or two) so they can run all the necessary tests and make any necessary repairs.
I'll post whatever I learn here as soon as I can.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Electric Cowboy on December 22, 2013, 11:45:59 AM
Curious - since the top "sustained" speed is limited to 75 MPH - how did you do the range tests at higher speeds?

Again - my range (ZF9) is very similar to your range at 50-65 MPH... I'm dropping my bike off at Zero tomorrow - not sure how long they'll have it, but as soon as I know anything I'll post it here.

This is how :
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10201140674899936.1073741832.1261517185&type=1&l=62a1487ccc (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10201140674899936.1073741832.1261517185&type=1&l=62a1487ccc)

They are fun guys there.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: evdjerome on December 22, 2013, 08:34:54 PM
I just did my first range test on my 2012 DS ZF9.  I went 74 miles at 34 mph average.  Temperature was about 62 F.  I had 1 flashing bar remaining.  Started fully charged.

Elevation profile below.  Profile is missing about 1.5 miles because I forgot my GPS and had to go back and get it.

(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2260/y9fp.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/y9fp.jpg/)

Jerome
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Electric Cowboy on December 23, 2013, 02:59:57 PM
I just did my first range test on my 2012 DS ZF9.  I went 74 miles at 34 mph average.  Temperature was about 62 F.  I had 1 flashing bar remaining.  Started fully charged.

Elevation profile below.  Profile is missing about 1.5 miles because I forgot my GPS and had to go back and get it.

(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2260/y9fp.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/y9fp.jpg/)

Jerome

So if you had one bar left that means you had a bunch more range. I always consider their to be one bar more when you have no bars left. I have run out of battery on 2010, 11, 12 and 13s and this feeling seems to hold true.

Not bad with the elevation profile.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Justin Andrews on December 23, 2013, 03:58:52 PM
1 flashing bar, you've got about 20-15% of your battery left. The rule of thumb is that after the last bar drops you still have the equivalent of another bar remaining. Basically there are 12 bars in the battery but only 11 are displayed. Zero have heavily hinted that this was designed this way to give the bike the electric equivalent of a reserve tank.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on December 27, 2013, 10:58:35 AM
Quote
Zero have heavily hinted that this was designed this way to give the bike the electric equivalent of a reserve tank.

I wonder if their advertised range is based on this "reserve". It would be hard to rely on that since there is no way to tell how much of the reserve capacity has been used....
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Justin Andrews on December 27, 2013, 05:15:01 PM
Dunno, oobflyer.

I mainly do 40 mile round trips on my ZF9 which at 50-45mph use about 5-7 bars depending on hard I hammer the throttle.

The longest run I did without charging was an 80 mile (40 miles each way with a 3 day break between no charging) I did this run at a fairly consistent 45mph an this pretty much used all 11 bars. At the end I when I was close to home, and still had 2 bars left I opened up to 60mph and drained the battery a bit faster. So had I been a bit more conservative at end I might have ended the run on 1 bar.

So I expect that from personal experience the Zero advertised range is not entirely based on the reserve.

Bear in mind that the trip above was done at the height of summer, I strongly doubt I could do that trip in the current cold.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on December 27, 2013, 08:43:00 PM
The range tests are performed by running the bike until it can no longer reach the requested speed at the appropriate time.

So for the 70 mph test, it'll run until it can no longer maintain 70 mph, even if it could limp along for a while at a lower speed.

For the city test, it'll run until it can't accelerate to the requested speed in the requested length of time. The UDDS acceleration requirements are pretty low though; typically something like 5 mph delta over 5 seconds iirc. There's one acceleration up to 55 mph, and it takes something like 20 or 30s (again iirc).
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Electric Cowboy on December 28, 2013, 07:54:09 AM
The "reserve" is quite reliable. After you run out once, you will know how long it lasts. Just takes balls to ride on reserve.

TIP
Your reserve reading is most accuar=te after you have charged the bike. Meaning if you go somewhere, stop for 2 hours and don't charge the bike, your energy reading will rise a bar or so, and your reserve will have less in it as a result.

I have on 2-3 occasions done this and has WAY less reserve than I thought. I will make up for this by riding slower when needed. Which is painful for me.

-EC
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Justin Andrews on December 28, 2013, 04:20:22 PM
The "reserve" is quite reliable. After you run out once, you will know how long it lasts. Just takes balls to ride on reserve.

TIP
Your reserve reading is most accuar=te after you have charged the bike. Meaning if you go somewhere, stop for 2 hours and don't charge the bike, your energy reading will rise a bar or so, and your reserve will have less in it as a result.

I have on 2-3 occasions done this and has WAY less reserve than I thought. I will make up for this by riding slower when needed. Which is painful for me.

-EC

That's really useful info to know.
I've seen the power gauge rise by a bar a few times (including the big 80 mile round trip I talked about above) and its useful to know how that relates to the "reserve"
Is this a feature of the chemistry of the batteries? If so I suppose that Zero engineered in the "reserve" to allow for that sort of behavior.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Electric Cowboy on December 29, 2013, 04:27:56 AM
That's really useful info to know.
I've seen the power gauge rise by a bar a few times (including the big 80 mile round trip I talked about above) and its useful to know how that relates to the "reserve"
Is this a feature of the chemistry of the batteries? If so I suppose that Zero engineered in the "reserve" to allow for that sort of behavior.

I am not 100% sure myself, but I attribute it to the BMS balancing the cells out as the bike sits without any load.

Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: BSDThw on December 29, 2013, 11:34:36 AM
The point is how to calculate a SOC.

If you have the possibility to discharge and recharge a battery completely -like old NiCad has to be charged- you can just add up current and it will work pretty well.

If you have a system like ours you will not completely discharge but recharge where ever your SOC is - you will get a big offset error very soon. Therefore a SOC algorithms has a lot of  "fixing" parameters e.q. if your battery stays without current for a while it will adjusted the SOC to a Voltage to SOC table/math in the algorithm.

So if you stop for a certain time the SOC will be recalculated! It is only a feeble attempt to try how it really works. ;)
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Justin Andrews on December 29, 2013, 03:35:53 PM
I remember from my little standalone solar installation that a Lead-Acid batteries SOC is also a bit of a pain to calculate for similar reasons...
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: evdjerome on May 05, 2014, 03:23:24 AM
I rode 90.6 miles on a single charge today. Wish I had brought my GPS to see the elevation - went over a lot of hills. Also wish I had tracked the time to determine average speed. Temp was in low 70's F. My guess at average speed is 35 mph.  I did have it over 60 mph for a short bit on a fast road.

Anyway, bike has almost 8k miles on it and range doesn't seem to be dropping yet.  Loving my 2012 DS.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: mikeisted on July 30, 2014, 09:03:49 PM
I've had my ZF9S for a few months and ridden around 1,400 miles.  I love the bike!  However, I have twice now been caught out with the range on long journeys.  Both times I got down to two bars, then the bike cut out within 8 miles.  Last time the overall range achieved was 77 miles at around 45mph on average.  The first time it was raining, so I wondered if it was an electrical fault, but since then I have worked on waterproofing...  The last time it was a lovely summer afternoon.  Fortunately I ran flat right outside a garden centre where they were very happy to help recharge while I sat eating a baguette and drinking tea.  The Zero has that effect on people... 

So is it normal for the range to be so low on two bars?  Any advice gratefully received, as we are rather on our own here in Blighty..
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: Richard230 on July 30, 2014, 09:30:02 PM
When I ran my 2012 ZF9 down to two bars, they started flashing.  The bike would then run another 20 miles, or so (at around 35 mph) before the last bar would disappear.  After that is was good for another few miles before slowing down to 20 mph and then creeping along just enough to keep you from pushing.  My maximum range when riding at an average of 50 mph was around 100 miles.  If I would have kept the speed under 35 mph, I am sure it would have gone at least 120 miles.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: mikeisted on July 30, 2014, 10:01:31 PM
Thanks Richard.  It seems my bike is a little low.  I'm considering getting Cycle Analyst to get better diagnostic data and a power later on mains side to see how much charge the bike is taking...  Thanks again.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: protomech on July 30, 2014, 10:15:38 PM
mike,

The dash energy display appears to recalculate the remaining energy every time the bike is switched on. I've found if riding from 100% down to near empty in a single session that the energy remaining estimate can be a little inaccurate; if the bike is switched off and back on at lower energy, you may find that it turns on with one bar fewer displayed. This newer estimate is more accurate IMO.

I've been caught out before by this on a longer ride (~75 miles), though fortunately I was close enough to limp home.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: mikeisted on July 30, 2014, 11:16:15 PM
Thanks protomech.  I've taken a look at the offload voltage on full charge, which seems to a healthy 75.7V.  The BMS seems to be indicating the cells are balanced and the charger in maintenance mode.  So all looks good.

I've put the CA on my birthday list, so hopefully I can start getting more data from early September!
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on July 31, 2014, 03:14:44 AM
In warm weather, riding at "real world" speeds (on/off the freeway, at or above the speed limit with the flow of traffic) - I get about 5 miles/bar for the first 9 bars. The last two "flashing" bars seem to have less capacity - at least in my experience. I've seen as few as 2 miles per bar on the last two bars. But when the last bar disappears there is a little "reserve" capacity, which I haven't tested to the end. The longest I've ridden after the last bar disappeared was about three miles and that was at 35 MPH. This would make a "real world range" of about 52 miles for a ZF9.

Hypermiling is a different story - I've ridden slowly , in ECO mode, on back roads to increase the range to a maximum of about 70 miles.

This may not seem like much, but compared to just a few years ago there has been great progress.
For comparison - my '07 Vectrix had an advertised range of 48 miles/charge, but when I got it home I found myself stranded after just 30 miles of riding (I later updated from the 3kWh NiMH battery pack to an 8 kWh Li-ion pack).

I still think one of the biggest problems for EVs in general is the maximum advertised range (with a vehicle sitting on a dyno with no wind resistance running at 25 MPH) compared to "real world" travel which includes starts/stops/wind resistance, hills, etc.
Chelsea Sexton recommends calculating 70% of the advertised range on EVs to get a realistic idea of what to expect.
With the 2012 ZF9 advertised range of 114 miles/charge... 70% would be 80 miles. I've never seen that on my bike, but that's much closer to reality.

Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: godscountry on August 21, 2014, 01:24:39 AM
I see you mentioned windshield as a means of increasing the range.I'm by no means a expert but I have seen some incredible results,with partial and full streamlining.Allert Jacobs streamlined Honda Innova 125 cc which you can Google,went from around 130 mpg to a a best of 221,he averages about 199 mpg with the streamlining[the top and bottom are open]He claims ,they're are no adverse handling problems in crosswinds as high as 40 mph.[Seems like design of the body,c and g, alignment,tires etc all have a effect on crosswind stability]The body and hardware added about 88 lbs and the only other mods are ,a manual clutch and sprocket change]So its faster and he almost doubled the range.He said he thinks it will go 1 liter per 100 Km / 235 mpg usa amazing in my book.So I see no reason,with proper streamlining ,your range at cruise couldn't come close to doubling.You could build your own if your equiped to do so,but I know Craig Vetter has a few do itself fairing kits and believe he modified a electric which came close to doubling its range?,but if you go to www.airtech-streamlining.com (http://www.airtech-streamlining.com) they have some really awesome looking fairings,some of the vintage one are incredible,complete with cut outs ,lights.But my point is ,your barking up the right tree,aerodynamics are the holy grail for motorcycles,period.I could talk for hours on why we don't see them as of 2014,why they were banned in the 1950's,but the truth is they work.I would hope all of you work together on a setup,body work that could increase the range,I really think you can come close to doubling the range and also to increase the top speed of these bikes.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on August 21, 2014, 04:30:03 AM
Yes - I would love to double my range by making my bike more aerodynamic. This is what Terry Hershner did on his world-record-setting-cross-country trip, with the help of Craig Vetter.
I haven't looked into it, but I just might check it out.
Title: Re: Real World Range 2012 S ZF9
Post by: oobflyer on August 26, 2014, 10:00:57 AM
Quote
go to www.airtech-streamlining.com (http://www.airtech-streamlining.com) they have some really awesome looking fairings

I called them - they are located near San Diego, CA. I spoke with a gentleman named, "Dutch" - he said they didn't have any fairings for the Zero bikes, nor any experience with them - darn.

I just read Terry Herschner's post on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/lifeoffthegrid (https://www.facebook.com/lifeoffthegrid) - wish I had his range!