Zero SR

[Adan]

With the price drop, the Zero S 8.5 is now close enough to steal Enertia Plus sales.  I would think the price of the Plus has to go down.  The Plus is an ideal city transport, which is why I can't seem to part with mine.  I think it's better than the Zero S in that regard, but there's no getting around the advantage of being able to ride a pillion once in awhile.  On the other hand, there are lots of folks who never take a passenger.

I think the Plus is brilliant bike but it doesn't seem to be selling well in San Francisco . . . I think only a handfull have sold here, and if it can't make it in the SF market, that doesn't bode well for anywhere else in the US.  But it's probably doing much better in Europe.

I'm still planning to sell my Plus in the spring, but it's going to be a sad day for me when it goes.

[protomech]

Zero killed the XU for 2014. Disappointing, as it was their least expensive bike.

$11k: Enertia Plus, 13 kW, 330 pounds, 1 seat, 80 miles city / 45 miles @ 55 mph, 60+ mph
$12k: Zero FX ZF5.7, 33 kW, 280 pounds, 2 seats, 70 miles city / 44 miles @ 55 mph, 70 mph sustained
$13k: Zero S ZF8.5, 40 kW, 367 pounds, 2 seats, 103 miles city / 64 miles @ 55 mph, 80 mph sustained

Enertia Plus, like the original Enertia, has great components and still trounces the Zero bikes in that department. But it doesn't really hold up in any other metric, given how close it is in price.

[Adan]

Enertia Plus, like the original Enertia, has great components and still trounces the Zero bikes in that department. But it doesn't really hold up in any other metric, given how close it is in price.

True, but for many people, it doesn't have to.  If you have to cover some serious freeway miles, or if you know you'll occasionally ride someone on the back, then there's a pretty compelling argument to pay $2K more and go for the Zero S.  The Enertia should be stealing more scooter riders.  They're not doing much freeway work, and they're probably not doing more than 80 miles a day, ever.  A great many of them probably never ride with a passenger.  The Plus, even with it's sluggish off-the-line performance, can still stay ahead of taxicabs.  And here's an important point . . .  the ergonomics and the suspension make it a far better city mule than the Zero S.

But I think the Plus is still priced too high to tempt many Vespa shoppers.

And actually, you can ride a passenger on the Enertia.  Just this past weekend I rode a 200-lb buddy across town, my feet on top of his on the pegs.  We're old friends, so the physical proximity didn't bother us.

Anyway, we digress . . .

[ttxgpfan]

The 5 year 100k mile warranty is indeed new, and it matches Brammo's warranty. Kudos to Brammo for stepping up to the plate first, and I'm very happy to see Zero matching them.

Actually, Brammo's battery warranty is 5 year/50,000 mile.  So Zero is 1-upping them there too.  What I think is very nice is that the normal S gets all of the same updates (chassis and dash, etc.) as the SR accept for the controller (and motor?).  However, an SR with the booster pack is $500 more than an R, and then add $1800 for the CHAdeMO socket.  43mm inverted forks is a huge step in the right direction, imho.  Now if they'd just put real wheels and tires on it.  And 12.5kWh nom/14.2kWh max is a lot of juice.  Almost hard to believe we're seeing that big a pack in a production bike already.  And 102ft-lb of torque?  Sweet mother of pearl.  But as you owner types know its not a brutal torque.  I'm not too worried about the belt.  Buell used to use belts and they put out massive torque.  Actually, I suspect Buell XBs were directly responsible for the current level of performance current belts have.  But that is a bit of a leap.

[protomech]

2014 S uses the same motor as 2013 S. There are some additional cooling ducts which will slightly improve airflow over the motor (Zero said 8%). This will probably be more helpful for high-speed highway running than track usage.

2014 S also gets 140mm width tires mounted on the same rim width. This is an upgrade 2013 owners can make as well.

I would suggest you throw a leg over the SR before you make judgements about the torque.

12.5 kWh SR has 57% more highway range than the Empulse R and is probably quicker in a straight line. The SR has other significant demerits (like a $19500 price tag and still many generic / cheap feeling bits), but acceleration and range are not among them.

[ttxgpfan]

Hmm, when I said the torque on the SR wouldn't be brutal I didn't mean not powerful, I meant easy to control and not hard on equipment.  And sorry, its 106ft-lb now.  It's the same size rim, just just put a 140 on it like all the racers did.  It's not that big a deal.  I'd like to see a wider rim and a 160 in the back, but I can day dream.  I big deal is that it seems Zero is condoning the use of 140s which you can get in radials, which I think is a big deal.

[Richard230]

My F650GS uses a 140 width tire on its rear 3.5 inch rim from the factory.  I once checked into using a 150mm wide tire on the rim or that bike and discovered that the tire manufacturers don't recommend a tubeless tire larger than a 140 on a 3.5 inch size rim, although you can go up to a 150 size tire if you are running a tube - according to one manufacturer.

[ttxgpfan]

I ask Jim Race who has a lot of experience racing Ninja 250s which run the same sized rear wheel, and he said I was right to be cautious, but I asked Kenyon Kluge directly and he said there were no issues.  Terry and Jeremiah said the same thing.

As far as the torque I had a few other thoughts.  Shelina was the first to talk to me about the expectation of the torque from the numbers and the reality.  She said it didn't come on sharply like on a gas bike.  Now look at any gas powered ICE bike that has that level of torque ad the first thing I think of are the old Buell XB bikes.  They came with fat 5.5" rims with 180 width tires.  However the racers this year had no issue with the radial 140s.  Or at least I didn't hear of any.  So my want of wider tires may just be unnecessary.  But if a 140 tire can handle all of the power the SR can dish out then the belt shouldn't a problem either.  But we'll see.

[Shinysideup]

Not being one to argue with Shelina, I just can't comprehend the statement that EV torque doesn't come on sharply like on a gas bike.

Yesterday a buddy and I went for a ride and found ourselves sitting at the front of line of cars at a stop light that opened out onto a highway (Park Presidio into the MacArthur tunnel out to Golden Gate Bridge). He's got a BMW R1150. I looked over and asked, "Wanna race?" He said sure, so he could try out his new-to-him 1150 against my puny little Empulse. I left him in the dust, of course.

How can that NOT be torque coming on sharply?

[00049 (AKA SopFu)]

There's a lot more going into the equation than just torque.  Yamaha went to "big bang" in the R1 (which means two cylinders firing at once, and why their I4 sounds like a twin) to give the rear tire more time to grip between power strokes. At least that's the theory I heard. I bet the Empulse's torque curve is much less steep than any big bore ICE engine, too. Not that it could be a wall of power, but they mapped it out in the name of drivability. Point being that torque applied through the rear wheel is more than just a number on paper.

And for the record, I went down to a 170 rear on my Empulse. 

[ttxgpfan]

Yamaha's Cross-plane crank simulates a 90 degree V4, not a twin.  But as a long time V4 owner, I don't know how many times people have tried to tell me my bike was a V-twin, so it's a common mistake.  But, better traction between pulses sounds like the right theory.

Yes, many things going on.  I need a thesaurus.

[Shinysideup]

And for the record, I went down to a 170 rear on my Empulse. 

And your comparative experience is....?

[00049 (AKA SopFu)]

And your comparative experience is....?

So far no issues with the 170 on the Empulse after 500 miles. I think I'm getting better range with it, but since the temp has dropped through the floor it is hard to know for sure. I also had a windshield installed at the same time, so that is also playing into the efficiency.

As far as traction goes, I am slipping a lot less than with the OEM tire....but that is probably because the PR3s are just better tires, and I am not pushing it at all while it has been cold.

[skuzzle]

So far no issues with the 170 on the Empulse after 500 miles. I think I'm getting better range with it...

PR3s are just better tires, and I am not pushing it at all while it has been cold.

Note that the 170 will have a different circumference from the 180.  I think the 170 has a larger diameter.

What pressure do you use in your PR3?  The Empulse manual isn't very much help as it gives different amounts for 2013 and 2014, even though the tire sizes are almost the same.  I recently replaced the rear with a PR3 when the old tire developed a 3 lbs. per day leak.

[Shinysideup]

I'm curious as to why one would choose the 170 over the 180.

IIRC, a narrower tires corners more easily?
But the wider tire has more traction (larger contact patch)?
Does the smaller contact patch engender better mileage through less friction?

Hey, we can't have an engine oil thread!