Print

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

[Richard230]

On page 50 of the June issue of Cycle World magazine is a very short review of the Zero FX ZF5.7.  They call the FX "the world's most entertaining electric bike", but say that its short range is an issue.  The review said that they typically got around 40 miles on a charge.  Charge time is listed as being 8 hours.  Power is listed at 44.1 hp at 4042 rpm, while torque is said to be 74.3 lb.-ft. at 1150 rpm.  Those numbers are precise enough to appear to have been derived from a dyno, although dyno testing is not mentioned in the article.  Weight is listed as 280 pounds.

The FX review is part of a longer article titled "Characters: bikes that move your soul".

[bigd]

On page 20 of same magazine is a review of the 2014 Sr. Very positive review.

[Israel]

You sure this is in the MAY 2014 issue.  Overseas, just received, not found one mention of ZERO and page 52 is an article titled Class Warfare.

[Israel]

found it online - June 2014

[firepower]

http://www.ebook3000.com/Cycle-World-USA---June-2014_220857.html

[protomech]

They reviewed the SR ZF14.2.

Tested performance metrics are slightly lower than Zero's claims.

Best 0-60 mph time was 4.3s. Zero claims 3.9s (not 3.3s, that's for the ZF11.4).

Quarter mile time was 13.07s / 98.6 mph.

Top speed was only fractionally higher, 98.7 mph. Zero claims 102 mph for short periods, 85 mph sustained.

They tested maximum range two times. Once in Eco mode with "mixed freeway and urban use" at "a normal pace" yielded 93.1 miles. They also tested in Sport mode, "repeatedly accelerating very aggressively and made a couple of top-speed runs" returning 68.4 miles.

For comparison, Zero claims 88 miles at a steady 70 mph and 116 miles with 50% city miles and 50% 70 mph miles. A normal pace for Cycle World is probably a little bit more aggressive than Zero's tests .. and that's fine.

Last year, Cycle World tested the 2013 Zero S ZF11.4 versus the 2013 Brammo Empulse R. Take the range results with a small grain of salt, as Brammo's Brian Wismann claims the Brammo battery was loaded with incorrect firmware that was reporting 0% early. Maybe they'll repeat a comparison test between the 2014 SR ZF11.4 and the 2014 Empulse R.

Anyways, here's all the test metrics put together. The range was not tested in exactly the same way, but I think it's close enough for comparison - CW claims the 2013 test used "half surface streets and half freeway cruising", which is close enough to their "mixed freeway and urban use" test in the most recent magazine.

	2013 Empulse R	2013 Zero S ZF11.4	2014 Zero SR ZF14.2
0-60 mph	4.8s	5.2s	4.3s
Quarter mile	13.97s @ 90.19 mph	14.01s @ 89.65 mph	13.07s @ 98.6 mph
Top speed	103 mph	90 mph	98.7 mph
"Mixed" range	45 miles	62 miles	93.1 miles

[Richard230]

Opps.  That is the June issue of Cycle World.  I just received it last night and must have been falling asleep.   

[Burton]

I wonder if these test were done by Zero to indicate best performance by modifying the default settings via the phone app, something not mentioned in your summary. I have been told by EC Turbo as is right now is faster off the line and top speed than the 2014SR but it has everything unlocked and programmable outside the zero app.

I also wonder if they accounted for environment in their scores. Was the area they test in completely flat, was it humid, was it raining, was it the optimal temperature for best performance, were the tires warmed up? A lot of factors can go into the reason why their testing isn't reflected well against the advertised specs.

[ultrarnr]

As far as top speed on a stock SR 11.4 goes I still say 102 MPH is an accurate number on a slight upgrade. The additional weight of the Power Tank may effect top speed.

[NoiseBoy]

As far as top speed on a stock SR 11.4 goes I still say 102 MPH is an accurate number on a slight upgrade. The additional weight of the Power Tank may effect top speed.

The only effect of weight on top speed would be fractionally more resistance in the bearings and tyres as they compress more.

More likely a bigger rider in less of a tuck and tyre pressures that weren't perfect.