Poll: range vs charge speed

[protomech]

Important: Please vote a total of 3 times, once per class, for your preferred combination of range and charging speed in each class of bike. This is not asking which bike you would buy today; I'm more interested in what combination of range and charging speed at each price/capability level elmoto customers and would-be customers are interested in.

3 different classes of bikes.

"standard" is much like the current Brammo Empulse and Zero S. Small chargers. Assume weight around 400 lbs.

"touring" is a more touring-focused bike, still unfaired. Larger chargers on some bikes. Assume weight around 500 lbs. Think Brutus.

"vetter special" is a slipstreamed bike, like Terry Hershner's. Assume weight around 550 pounds.

Assume all miles are combined highway/city miles, unless indicated otherwise.

Question arose from our discussions of the Empulse vs Zero with respect to cost, range, and charging speeds.

[protomech]

I'm going to let the poll run through the weekend then discuss.

Thank you all for providing input : )

[Xaero]

Need both.  Not one or the other.  You won't see electrics go mainstream until you can either go 150 miles with a 5 minute charge time or some crazy amount of miles (300+) with an hour charge time.

Electric needs to go mainstream, no if's an's or but's.

[protomech]

You can have both - the 3 kW "touring" bike has both more range and more charging speed than the 110V "standard" bike - but it will cost you in weight, size and dollars.

I see the "no mainstream until gas parity wrt refueling" statement thrown around a lot, and I'm not convinced of its truth. A new technology does not have to be superior in all respects to disrupt an incumbent technology - one only has to look as far back as smartphones overtaking feature phones. Smartphones had much lower battery life, were bulkier, far more expensive, and often not quite as good at the basic function of making a phone call.

Smartphones are beginning to dominate feature phones for a few reasons:
* carrier subsidy hides true cost of the smartphone, and often older smartphones are available at "$0" (despite the carrier paying a ~$200 subsidy vs a ~$30 subsidy to the handset manufacturer)
* smartphone battery life, speed and functionality have seen remarkable improvements over the last 5 years; feature phones have advanced only slightly
* for many people, a smartphone or other slate device also can replace a laptop or other PC

None of this is a terribly good analogy to electric bikes vs conventional gas bikes; but I hope that it illustrates that superiority along every axis is not required.

Personally, I think Brammo or Zero will crack the pricing nut eventually. They're charging $1000/kWh to assemble the batteries; Tesla charges $400-500/kWh for marginal battery pack capacity. Tesla IS selling at rather higher volumes, and the marginal charge rate may not necessarily reflect their cost to assemble the packs.

$400/kWh would put the Zero S ZF11.4 at $9995 and the Empulse E1 at $11415. There are a wealth of factors that go into Zero and Brammo's higher pricing, probably the most significant of which is volume .. but they'll get worked out eventually.

As prices drop and capabilities increase - the $7995 2013 Zero XU offers similar range, much higher acceleration and top speed to the $9995 2011 Zero S - the bikes will find a larger market. As the market grows, Brammo and Zero gain additional price breaks on component orders, get more clout with suppliers, and generally can offer a newer, more improved bike at even lower cost..

At least that's the hope.

[flar]

I am also in the "I want both" crowd and don't see that reflected in the choices.  One of the assumptions that seems to have been made is that someone is willing to spend exactly $X and they can get range or fast recharge.  I don't budget that precisely.  I have a range that I'm willing to spend and it is a soft range. If I can get a long range, but slow charging option for $X, then I can get both for only a little bit more and I'll put in that extra amount.  Right now, the choices aren't so close together that doing so bumps you up into the next bracket.  The brackets are pretty far apart, enough that added charging is still cheaper than the next option on the ladder.  The mission motorcycles that are coming out soon are so much more expensive than an Empulse that I could have it custom rebuilt with more batteries and a DC fast charger and still probably save some money over (but not quite achieve parity with) the Mission bikes.  The Zero S and the Empulse are close enough that they are really in the same bracket, but you can outfit the Zero with faster charging so it boiled down more to how they drove rather than their range.  I would have wanted the longer range of the Zero and would have added the charging options to it, but the end decision was made based on other factors that swamped the difference in range and charging speed.

[protomech]

I am also in the "I want both" crowd and don't see that reflected in the choices.

I tried to capture that in the poll; there are a couple of instances where both charge speed and range improve.

$16k 93 mile range, 110V -> $20k 116 mile range, 3.3 kW J1772
$16k 70 mile range, 3.3 kW J1772 -> $20k 93 mile range, 6.6 kW J1772

The basic idea though is that you don't get anything "for free". Higher amp chargers are physically larger, heavier, and cost more. A larger battery is similarly larger, heavier, and costs more. At some point the bike designers have to choose how much weight, volume, and cost budget they wish to allocate towards each.

Zero's "solution" is a (somewhat) modular onboard charger. You can effectively upgrade the bike's onboard charging system to charge as quickly or more quickly than the Empulse; but doing so is costly, adds weight and bulk and does not integrate cleanly as an onboard charging system.

I think we'll see powerful chargers drop in price, volume and weight over time; eventually it'll make sense to start with a base 3+ kW charger and just drop the lower-power 110V option.

Here's a selection of OEM-quality EV chargers suitable for charging 2013 Brammo/Zero up to 118V:
* Delta-Q QuiQ 1000W IP67-84 10A, 7.6L w/ heatsink, < 5 kg, ~$400 (used by Zero since 2006)
* Elcon PFC2500 2.5 kW IP46 25A, 9.5L w/ heatsink, < 7kg, ~$700
* Eltek Powercharger 3000W IP67-110 25A, 3.6L w/o heatsink, 4.3 kg, $1256

Mission Motors has an example 3.3 kW charger that is a little too high voltage for the 2013 bikes. They have a 4.5 kW application for the 2014 Mission Motorcycles R and RS. I like this charger a lot because it re-uses the motor's liquid cooling system.
* Mission Motors OBC16 3.3 kW IP69 15A, 2.1L, 3.5 kg w/o radiator, $$$

[flar]

I am also in the "I want both" crowd and don't see that reflected in the choices.

I tried to capture that in the poll; there are a couple of instances where both charge speed and range improve.

$16k 93 mile range, 110V -> $20k 116 mile range, 3.3 kW J1772
$16k 70 mile range, 3.3 kW J1772 -> $20k 93 mile range, 6.6 kW J1772

I'd vote for the right hand version over the left hand version, but the voting rules say to vote on one per category which means I'm voting on how I'd spend my $16k and separately on how I'd spend my $20k when actually I'd buy the $20k instead of the $16k...

[flar]

To put my input another way...

It looks like you are asking us to vote on whether we'd vote for more range over faster charging or vice versa.

In reality, I don't make my decision that way.  I eliminate all bikes that don't provide the range that I need.  Then I decide which bike excites me.  Then I buy that bike and max out its battery and charging capabilities.

Never in there is there a choice between buying range "or" charging.

(It's like those Ford Escape commercials - "'And' is better"...

[protomech]

Yes, you're correct flar. I'm looking at this more from a designer's point of view than a customer's point of view. "At a given price point, are there any configurations of battery capacity vs charging power that are overwhelmingly preferred?"

Brammo has never had a variable-capacity bike, but the majority of the 2012 Zero S/DS bikes sold were the larger battery ZF9 configuration. So I'd say that in general the most capable configuration will be the largest seller; I fully expect the 85 kWh Model S vehicles to outsell the 60 kWh vehicles.

[protomech]

However, let me turn this around a bit on you (to a somewhat ridiculous level).

Brammo's battery design doesn't lend itself well to being built with a variable number of modules .. but the modules could be partly filled (or build several different module sizes) to yield variable capacities.

The Empulse uses 7 BPM 15/90 modules. Each module is 4s9p.

Imagine a hypothetical Empulse whose modules were 4s30p, and could be partly filled in smaller capacities. Further, suppose that despite the weight gain it uses the same energy and same frame etc as the shipping Empulse.

* 4s30p, 31.0 kWh, 715 pounds, 257 miles, $37995 E1
* 4s27p, 27.9 kWh, 680 pounds, 231 miles, $34995 E1
* 4s24p, 24.8 kWh, 645 pounds, 205 miles, $31995 E1
* 4s21p, 21.7 kWh, 610 pounds, 180 miles, $28995 E1
* 4s18p, 18.6 kWh, 575 pounds, 154 miles, $25995 E1
* 4s15p, 15.5 kWh, 540 pounds, 129 miles, $22995 E1
* 4s12p, 12.4 kWh, 505 pounds, 102 miles, $19995 E1
* 4s9p, 9.3 kWh, 470 pounds, 77 miles, $16995 E1

Now suppose that you could bolt on multiple additional 3 kW charger for $2000 and add 20 pounds each.

What battery configuration would you buy? Would you also spend the extra money for the charger?

The top configuration would be the BPM 15/300 bike with say 4 chargers @ 12 kW, two J1772 inlets. $44k, 775 pounds.

Unless you would buy the very largest configuration - and I can extend the the options list with this silly hypothetical exercise - then at some point you're making an intrinsic choice between charging and range.

Put another way:

Suppose I look at the options above and really decide the 505 pound 102 mile bike is best for me at $19995. Then I look at chargers and decide that I really want 3 extra chargers, which bumps weight and cost up to 565 pounds and $25995.

Oddly enough, that's very similar to the 575 pound 154 mile bike at $25995.

That's the intrinsic choice between range and charging. It's not always obvious as a consumer because there are a very limited number of bikes available (and of course range and charging speeds are only two factors we use to drive our purchasing decisions).

[flar]

With respect to "how much range would I buy"?  The decision would be based on what I want to do with it, not necessarily "more is always better".

For instance, I wanted to at least make it to work reliably.  The '12 Zeros could not promise that, but I admit that I never took the dealer up on their offer to try.  The '13 Zeroes and Empulse both had the specs for it.  The time to buy had arrived.

Secondarily, I would like to be able to ride the Santa Cruz mountains with the bike.  Both of this year's bikes could do small trips into the mountains, but the holy grail of riding all the way over down into Santa Cruz and get back the same day is probably beyond their capacity.  I haven't tried with my Empulse, though, so I may be pleasantly surprised.  Also, the largest '13 Zero might just make it, but it would take a lot longer to recharge to get back unless I opted for the expensive CHAdeMO (the J1772 socket doesn't add any charge speed so I'd need to buy more charging which I believe would require cases to carry them).  In the end, I bought the better handling bike rather than "the bike that was most likely to meet my secondary riding trip goal".

For work, I only need "all day charging" speed.  For the SC trip, I would need "a couple of hours charging" speed.  The Brammo gave me 3.5 hour charging speed, the Zero could potentially give me 1 hour DC charging speed, but I didn't see any fast chargers down there at the time of my purchase decision and there are still no CHAdeMO stations listed south of Palo Alto as of today.

I would add a larger charger if it fit into the bike.  I find the Brammo "carry your 110 capability in your backpack" solution less than ideal, but it looks like it will diminish over time as more J1772 chargers come on line.  For the Zero additional charger solutions, I would not factor those into my purchase decision unless they fit into an unused space on that bike (and, at that, likely only if they did so with some sort of factory or 3rd party mounts that integrate well - I'm not that much into customizing my rides).

Price also does factor in, but to a practical point.  Currently, the price points for the Zero battery packs would steer me to the largest pack as the differential fits into my concept of "worth it" and the total price of the largest pack is not outside my budget.  Some of your hypothetical bikes are way outside my budget.  Looking at the Mission bikes, they are at the far edge of my comfort zone and probably just outside of it.  But, I'd say that the base model would probably suit me for the range I need and the price differentials on the larger packs and the total money would steer me to the smallest (particularly because I think it would suffice for my "get to SC in the mountains" desire).  At the price, I'd probably add the twin charging if it wasn't a separate unit or a wart on the side of the bike, but the base charging is certainly "adequate" for my needs.  Also, I'm not sure there are many public chargers that can get anywhere near its 9kw dual charger capacity.

The Zero (and Mission it seems) added battery space utilization also fits in well with "remaining a bike".  I'm not sure some of your hypothetical packs would make a very ridable bike (and ridability is near the top of my list of requirements).  As far as weight, I'd probably stick to under 600 lbs, but I am greatly surprised as to how light the 470lb. Brammo feels.  If the 700lb. bike with a huge battery pack feels more like a 550-600 lb. bike then I might not be dissuaded.  I'd have to feel it, though, since the Brammo spec looked intimidating until I threw my leg over one.

[flar]

Put another way:

Suppose I look at the options above and really decide the 505 pound 102 mile bike is best for me at $19995. Then I look at chargers and decide that I really want 3 extra chargers, which bumps weight and cost up to 565 pounds and $25995.

Oddly enough, that's very similar to the 575 pound 154 mile bike at $25995.

That's the intrinsic choice between range and charging. It's not always obvious as a consumer because there are a very limited number of bikes available (and of course range and charging speeds are only two factors we use to drive our purchasing decisions).

Unfortunately existing solutions I've seen for added chargers don't really integrate well.  If they did, then the question would be more relevant, but in your comparison above all I have is the Zero solution in mind and I think "Why would I add more chargers?".

Now Mission doesn't really show their dual charger solution, but since the charging solution integrates with the cooling then I'm hoping it is inboard.  Doubling 4.5kw to 9kw for $1200 sounds good to me, but the 9kw is beyond standard public chargers.

In the end, I would probably look for enough charging to make the stop at the end of a day trip reasonable - around 3 hours at most, and then enough battery to get to interesting places.  Going from 102 to 150 mile range is not as important as getting either bike to be able to recharge in a couple of hours at the end of that range.  I realize that the 150 range bike would open up to possibly doing a partial charge and then banking on its larger capacity to do the 102 mile round trip faster, but not if it came with a slower charger and also you have to factor in the psychological issue of wanting to get a "reasonably full charge" for the return trip.  You can calculate just how much charge you need to get home, but psychologically there is more peace of mind in "I got here coming from a full charge and so I know I can get home on a full charge".

[protomech]

I would assume the Mission charger would be inboard as well. I think they count the charging total as 240V @ 30A (7.2 kW) + 120V @ 15A (1.8 kW). Chargepoint stations typically have both a J1772 gun and a 120V socket.

[flar]

If the single-charger capacity was 5.4kw (3.6kw L2 + 1.8kw L1) then I might be more convinced, but they double the capacity of the charger from 4.5kw to 9kw, so I don't see the math including some sort of additive L1 charging that also fits in with "doubling" something.

WRT expecting 1.8kw off of 110v, most chargers aimed at 110v actually max out much less than 1.8kw as you typically don't want to draw more than about 12A on a standard home circuit, especially if the outlet has a GFCI on it.  The Chargepoint dual public chargers actually provide 2kw (with 120vx16A).  So, the 1.8kw figure isn't something that I've encountered for 110 charging before.

In the Mission specs they list that the charger accepts inputs from 80 to 270v, but it doesn't say multiple inputs.

I should amend my earlier comment about 9kw not being immediately useful.  Any home wired for a Tesla, and many homes wired for a dryer in the garage would have a Nemo 14-50 socket designed for a 10kw charger so it looks like they've aimed at a spec that will let them use most of what those installations would provide.  It would be nice if they provided a 14-50 pigtail with the charger upgrade...

[protomech]

Chargepoints EVSE have a NEMA 5-20 plug.

Courtesy of Nevada EVA.


Yeah. I don't know how they're going to charge from J1772 + 110V at the same time with two 4.5 kW chargers.

At home you'd just use a 40A or 50A outlet, as you say.