|
You want tie fighter? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8tkVSKb77Y No electric will ever sound like that. That hell for leather article is horrible for a variety of reasons, which I'm far too lazy to really break down now. But the vast majority of it is just retarded BS. frozenphil posted:That's the thing, though. The one speed transmission on an electric bike is there for a reason, it doesn't need a transmission. Automatic transmissions on an ICE motorcycle are failures because they take away control in a vehicle that requires the user to be in control for stability reasons. Citing a lack of gears on an electric bike as a con is like citing a lack of pistons in a rotary engine as a con. Actually, shifting gears is sort of a big part of the appeal of a motorcycle. It involves you in the operation of the bike, gives you another tool when it comes to how you manage power and engine braking to the ground. There's no backing it in on an electric bike... Finally, how do you track one of these motorcycles? I buy bikes for that alone, and know many other riders that no longer ride on the street. There is no practical, good, electric bike out there. The MotoCzyzc is unobtanium, just like all of his other bikes, and the only other option out there is the Killacycle, which is a drag bike. Cool, don't get me wrong, but not the tool I'm looking for. Hydrogen is loving horrible...your fuel disappears if you let it sit for any significant amount of time? Not to mention how resource intensive getting hydrogen is. Plus they're hideously expensive, their range sucks, they don't have anywhere near the versatility or the power of a modern bike, they require long fill ups, they don't have any sort hop ups or upgrade paths, blah blah blah. Here's my challenge to the electric motorcycle people: If electric engines are so amazing and the future, make one that performs as well as a normal motorcycle. That's it. Just make one that will outperform a normal, ICE bike, by a significant margin. Thus far, the only place it's happened that I'm aware of, is in really low displacement offroad racing (125ccs and under), because the batteries tech is good enough to make it last a race, and the instant power from zero RPM is a significant advantage over the high strung small displacement bikes. Hydrogen is a joke anyways...your fuel goes away if the tank sits, and it's incredibly resource intensive to harvest it. What's the appeal?
|
| # ¿ Dec 31, 2009 07:47 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2013 18:28 |
|
|
frozenphil posted:But that rotary engine doesn't have pistons it's not a real engine! Uhh, you can still trail brake in a right hander with the standard motorcycle setup. If it were such a high priority to have the brake on the handlebars, you'd actually see people using them. The technology is there, it's easily available, but the only people who use thumb brakes are stunters. If this were a big concern, then it'd be the first mod that people do off the showroom floor. The complaints with standard setup are almost always limited to people who haven't had a lot of experience with riding. There are a handful of exceptions, but the vast majority of riders (easily 99.9%) are having zero problems with using the rear brake in any corner. In fact, removing the rear brake and telling people to just lean the fucker would probably save a lot of accidents. The point that I was making that you completely missed is this: Sometimes you don't want max power at zero RPM. I will intentionally shortshift a bike to keep it out of the power if I'm in a situation that demands more finesse. You don't want 90 foot pounds of torque at 35mph coming over the top of T5 at Thill or when you cross over a slick manhole cover. Go ride a CBR1000RR once you feel comfortable with it, and try and get it up to peak power and then ride it around as if that's normal. quote:You track an electric bike just like every other bike. I mean, what's different? You have to carry some spare batteries? Really, what's different? The power is already there with bikes that you can purchase (at a ridiculous price, yeah, the technology is still new) like the Mission One. Track riding is going to destroy battery life. You are essentially either wide open or braking...I believe the Tesla lasted something absurd like 15 miles on the track, and that's with regenerative braking and way more batteries than any motorcycle will ever carry. What happens when you're racing for a weekend or at an open trackday, or you want to ride your bike to and from the track? It's just not going to happen. If you figure a 50% reduction in range due to track riding, I'd need 5 battery packs to make it through one day. At the moment, our electric infrastructure is incapable of holding up to thousands of people plugging in batteries to charge every night, much less people charging multiple battery packs at once. Hell, I'd have to run 5 generators just to power the charging of those 5 battery packs for hours. There'd be something ironic about using gas engines to charge batteries...not to mention the overall inefficiency of it. quote:Your entire argument boils down to something that I previously addressed, you don't like electric bikes because of the current state of the industry. Yes, because the current state of the industry controls what I can and cannot buy. Of course I'm not happy with electrics, they offer absolutely nothing good. If they did offer something good, I'd probably own one. But they don't, and they won't, and it's going to be a decade or more, barring some amazing breakthrough in battery tech, that allows them to become even remotely comparable to ICE bikes. quote:What changes for you when electric bikes are widely available? What changes when electric bikes do perform on an equal playing field with ICE bikes? Does not worrying about your engine maintenance between laps appeal to you? Do you like the idea of being able to position the majority of the bike's weight in the chassis wherever you deem best so the suspension can work to its fullest? You act like electric motors are somehow immune to burning out or failing. You act like it's a superior solution to what we already have, and in most ways, it's simply not. At the moment, I could, on a bicycle, pick a direction and start riding. At the end of the day, I could probably go roughly 100 miles. All of the electric bikes out there would make it that same 40-50 miles, and then stop, and require a 8-12 hour charging cycle before they could go again. That's hilariously pathetic. I can outpace an electric motorcycle on a bicycle. quote:As I've said, don't debate the current state of the industry, look to the future and ask yourself, "what is the potential for these bikes"?. And thus far, the future is bleak. Barring amazing advances in battery tech, electric bikes are going to be heavy, with limited range, and a drat near unusable amount of power when you get to a significantly sized engine. They purposely gear literbikes way high to avoid newbies killing themselves, and they're already insane and more than capable when first gear ends at 105mph. If you gave someone 180hp at zero RPM, you would have a motorcycle capable of backflipping with 20% throttle. quote:I bet someone used this same argument a hundred years ago when gasoline was in its infancy. It probably went something like this: The problem with hydrogen is simple: You are talking about building an entire infrastructure that's going to require new filling stations, new transportation setups, new car tanks, and new engines. Or you have a dozen alternatives that require no change and could piggyback off of existing tech and infrastructure. And we extract oil from the ground for other purposes as well...there's no other purpose in making hydrogen, unless you count the explosive balloon market. quote:Oh, so in order for electric bikes to be viable in your eyes they need to completely revolutionize the sport? Do you not think that sounds like a ridiculously high standard for viability? No, I just want them to compete on even ground. You can whine about unreasonable standards, but if I'm going to buy x over y, it better have a selling point, and "better for the environment" isn't one that lists high on my radar, because me buying and repairing used bikes is far better for the environment than making a new one every time I want a new toy. quote:What's wrong with being competitive? What's wrong with allowing the racing industry to cast off the mantle of wasting resources and adding to pollution in the eyes of many people who aren't in to motorsports? What's wrong with using racing to further developments in electricity for automotive applications, the exact same thing that motorsports did and does for gasoline and ICE? Who's racing with electric engines? No one, because they're loving poo poo for racing. I'd love to see an electric class, but it's not going to happen, because you'd need enough batteries to sink the titanic in order to power a grid of 30 bikes for one race weekend. Electric bikes may be the future, they may not. But we need technological advance, and they had drat well better be equal to normal motorcycles before anyone but those who fap to zero emissions consider buying them. For normal people, a clapped out 500$ scooter will do better, go farther, be faster, and just be superior in every aspect. And it's got the brake on the handlebar. Z3n fucked around with this message at Dec 31, 2009 around 18:20 |
| # ¿ Dec 31, 2009 18:15 |
|
|
Aargh posted:As much as I hate to argue against you because you're always here and a drat good resource, you're starting to sound like an old man. Just because motorcycles have had the rear brake on the right foot for a while now doesn't make it the ideal solution, I'd have to argue that you have more control with regards to breaking on a mountain bike than you do on a motorbike. Ok, sure, I've only been riding for a couple of months now but breaking with your foot is a loving pain in the arse, I don't know but maybe you enjoy hyper extension. I was riding my mountain bike the other day (on city roads, at a decent speed) I could manage my braking a shitload better with two fingers on the brake than I could ever do on my GS500. Don't feel bad about arguing against me on things. I'm failable, I'm just another rider filled with opinions that I've made over years of riding. I do understand where you're coming from and I do get that it does sound like "The current way is good enough, why would anyone change it!?!" that the older generation loves to cite. The thing about it is...I really don't feel like it's a problem. Mick Doohan used a thumb brake after his big crash that he almost lost both of his legs in, but he gave it up once his leg healed. Short of a physical disability, it's a simply non-existent part of the normal riding population that wants a thumb brake. Is it the current setup the absolute ideal for braking? Probably not. But I think it's the best compromise given the configuration of a motorcycle and our limbs. The front brake is obviously very important, that gets a hand control, the throttle is very important, that gets a hand control, and the clutch is very important, that gets a hand control. On modern bikes (last 30ish years), the rear brake is much less important than the front. We have to balance the other aspects of our bike with our braking controls, after all, braking is only part of what you do on a motorcycle. My question is: How long have you been riding bicycles and how long have you been riding motorcycles? I remember very, very well the awkward feeling of learning the controls and feeling like I could do nothing but lock the rear brake on my ninja 250. I spent about 30k on my ZX6E with the rear brake intentionally partially unbled to get the lever to be a bit more plush, but now that I've got some time and experience under my belt, I'm a lot more comfortable with using my foot to handle the rear brake, even combined with hanging off at the track or tight, high lean U turns to the right. I'm not saying that the standard way is better in all aspects. I know I'm quicker and more comfortable with brake on my road bicycle than I am with the one on the motorcycle...but that's a different vehicle with a different set of controls and concerns. ATVs and Scoots put the brakes on the bars for a reason, when you don't have to worry about a clutch, it's better to put them there. But I simply don't see a good solution for this problem when you have to handle a manual transmission. It also sounds like your rear brake system may need a little work. I don't have that much experience with GS500s, but I don't recall the rear braking system being particularly uncomfortable to actuate...maybe there's a problem with it that's requiring way too much force to comfortable to use it. I didn't try and lock it or anything, but I dragged it here and there to smooth out stops and handle low speed stuff.
|
| # ¿ Dec 31, 2009 23:16 |
|
|
Rnr posted:Z3n, do you really think a manufacturer would make an electric bike that would back flip at 20% throttle? Weird argument to make, in my opinion. It can only be a plus that max power is always available - the manufacturer will just find a way for the rider to modulate the output at will (or automatically through an on board computer, tech which is available now). But that's the big advantage that all of the EV guys go on about...how electric motors make full power from zero RPM. What I'm trying to point out here is that full power at zero RPM isn't the huge advantage that people make it out to be (on a bike, at least. Cars are a different story). We're past the days of lightswitch 2 strokes, and it's not like we're burning out clutches trying to get bikes moving. If there's no clutch, and power drops off at high RPM and you have to limit it at low RPM...well, that sounds a lot like an ICE. The point isn't "can you limit it", the point is that it's an advantage of an EV that is essentially useless. quote:In any case it is vastly superior to having max power somewhere high in the power band where most people will never go. If people are buying bikes with power that they're going to never use, they're buying the wrong bikes. A lot of people do that. And if they're riding around and never making it to max power, and they don't feel like they're missing anything, who cares if they never make it to peak HP? I certainly don't ride my bikes around with their peak performance in mind, just what performance I need. Sometimes that's all of it, but a lot of the time it's very little of it. quote:And it is not better placing the rear brake controls some place other than the foot that you will also move, when getting knee down, or shifting weight, on the track? Does not seem logical. The logical thing for racing would be to have no controls operated by foot, thus having complete freedom of movement in the legs at any time. At least, that is how it seems to me. It would be if there was a way to do it without compromising your other controls. At the moment, things are set up so each limb controls 1 control, with the exception of the right hand, which controls both the throttle and the front brake because you don't really use both at the same time. When you do (blipping downshifts) look at how long it takes people to learn how to do it well. There are situations where you clutch and rear brake at the same time, there are situations where you need to shift and clutch at the same time, so I'm not entirely sure where you'd move the rear brake to in order to increase control without sacrificing control somewhere equally or more important. On an EV, you get rid of the shifting and the clutch, so you could move it to a handlebar, but that's like saying that when you're on fire there's the added bonus that you are a walking marshmallow toaster. Sure, it's an advantage but it's somewhat missing the other major downsides of being on fire. quote:As for the sound, I won't miss it that much I think. When I started riding, the rumble was attractive. Now, 6 years later, not so much. It is not essential to my enjoyment, anyway. I run stock exhausts on my streetbikes. With earplugs, I don't even hear most of my bikes at freeway speed, and barely hear them around town. I like the sound of a racebike screaming away, twin, single, 4, whatever, nothing really compares to getting on to the front straight at Thill and hearing my SV spin to 11k or shifting a friend's R6 at 16k. The big thing for me on an electric that'd be neat would hopefully be much reduced vibrations. I got tired of the sound of motorcycles on my streetbikes after about 50k, because you're a dick if you run a proper race pipe on the street, and everything else is just not as good, not to mention that they sound crappy when they're out of the powerband and that's where you spend most of your time on the street.
|
| # ¿ Jan 1, 2010 00:50 |
|
|
frozenphil posted:I know I'm skipping a bunch of poo poo to answer this, but all of the others have been addressed already and are making the same arguments over and over. What is "decent" range and speed? Is it greater than 1/2 of the top speed and range of a stock 600?
|
| # ¿ Jan 1, 2010 06:37 |
|
|
frozenphil posted:"Explosions! In my engine bay? No sir, I'll stick with what I know; safe, reliable steam." You're a fantastic advocate for the future 
Z3n fucked around with this message at Jan 1, 2010 around 19:52 |
| # ¿ Jan 1, 2010 07:45 |
|
|
Zenaida posted:http://www.egrandprix.com/index.php http://www.egrandprix.com/index_nav...ces&sub=results 6 entries, 3 DNFs, and they're running at below half the speed of the ICE bikes. If an electric could break the 100mph/lap mark at the IOM that'd be impressive, but it's just not happening. And these are the best bikes in the world, barely able to complete a ~40 mile course at a speed that'd keep up with traffic on a freeway in the US. I will try and check out the race at infineon though...could be interesting.
|
| # ¿ Jan 1, 2010 19:47 |
|
|
frozenphil posted:You're a fantastic example of a person who resists change and advancement by making completely unreasonable requests of new technology. You're right, it's completely unreasonable to expect that if I'm going to buy a new product, that it measure up to the competition. Instead, I should put my blinders on and simply follow what some dude says will be the future. If you'll excuse me, there's a bum named Elvis Lightning Christ offering me a fantastic deal on a perpetual motion machine. quote:Since when is a new technology expected to be instantly better than the technology it is going to replace? Since when are sportbikes the bar to which other bikes are measured? It's not expected to be instantly better, but if it wants to be THE FUTURE OF MOTORCYCLES, it had better be good at something. Anything would be a start. The thing that I love about the proponents of electric motorcycles is they act like they're good. They may be good one day. They may be very good, one day. But today, asking me to be excited about a turd with wheels because it's an ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLE is totally condescending. Make something worth buying before you start exhorting the FUTURE OF BIKES. At the moment electric motorcycles have delivered about as much as the Phantom has delivered the future of videogames. quote:Electric bikes are currently targeting the commuter market, not the hardcore racer wannabe who puts 100 miles per year on his 200hp race replica. Why in the world would you judge a commuter product against a race replica? Are Bandits considered poo poo because they don't put down the same times around Laguna Seca as a GSX-R 1000? Honestly, it doesn't matter what you compare it to, they still are in a place where they suck immense cock compared to anything. I'm not asking for equality. I'm asking for the bikes to be better than me on a bicycle, or a trail 90, over the course of a day. You can compare it to whatever you want, it doesn't matter, they still simply suck balls. A Trail 90 (or me on a bicycle) would outperform half of the IOM Electric TT grid, by simply finishing the race. That's hilariously bad. We're not talking crashes here, either, we're talking the technology simply doesn't exist for it to reliably make it the length of the course. All you have to do is travel 40 miles, and fully 50% of the motorcycles entered were completely, utterly, incapable. Well done, electric bikes. It's not like these people are scrubs either, they're probably absurdly brilliant, but the tech simply isn't there. quote:When ICE engines came out the steam car companies did indeed run a smear campaign warning people of explosions, fuel that goes bad after sitting for awhile, no distribution network with which you could refuel your ICE equipped vehicle, overly complicated and messy engines, and a complete lack of performance and range compared to steam. And believe it or not, there are still steam engines that are going strong. In the correct place, steam is a valid power source. And in a very, very niche area, with a lot of caveats, electrics are somewhat valid. Kinda. The problem is that in spite of their very limited applications, they're also expensive, underperforming and at the moment, completely unproven. Their reliability so far is not inspiring. What you don't understand is the second that electrics move to the top of the price to performance ratio over a bike's lifetime, I'll buy one in a heartbeat, as will a lot of America. But that's gonna be decades off, if it ever even actually occurs. At the moment, they are fighting simple physics: The energy you can store in a battery is not as dense as the energy that is stored in gasoline. Once they can overcome that, we'll be cooking with...electricity. Z3n fucked around with this message at Jan 1, 2010 around 21:12 |
| # ¿ Jan 1, 2010 21:04 |
|
|
Zenaida posted:Definitely hit me up if you wind up going, I would be all over that. quote:I talked to a dude from Mission Motorcycles at the bike show in San Mateo, and it sounded like they could have done a lot better if they'd had more time and better race organization. I don't know what the story is with the teams that didn't finish, but I would not be surprised to see dramatic improvements the next time these bikes race. I think that's always the case, honestly. But regardless, we're still talking about a fraction of the performance at immense cost, I don't even want to know how much has gone into the motoczyzc IOM electric. I'm sure electrics will be popular for a variety of reasons once they manage to be on equal footing with anything they're competing with. Until then, though, they're just amusing toys, and it'd be nice if the proponents of electrics would understand that at the moment they are simply oddities, not a legitimate means of distance transportation, or a performance vehicle. If you consider that the vast majority of motorcyclists will self identify with one or the other regardless of their skills or distance traveled each year, then it's easy to understand why electrics are, at the moment, completely off the map. Z3n fucked around with this message at Jan 1, 2010 around 21:48 |
| # ¿ Jan 1, 2010 21:45 |
|
|
I'm sorry, but it's loving retarded to be doing 40mph on an oversized bicycle on the freeway. Dead...loving...retarded. The danger in speed isn't in how fast you're going, but how fast you're going relative to traffic around you...a drat near 30mph speed differential to maintain battery life is just dumb.
|
| # ¿ Jan 3, 2010 00:47 |
|
|
Jabs posted:Alas...woman pulls around semi, blindsides rider with a rear-end collision. I don't care what you're on, the outcome is going to be similar to this. Actually, if you're moving with the flow of traffic on a 65mph freeway, it's drat near impossible to be rear ended at 68mph. It's bad riding practice to be moving slower than the speed of traffic. It's loving moronic to ride a bike that cannot achieve the speed of traffic on a freeway. It puts you at extreme risk. Is the woman at fault for rear ending him? By the law, yes. But who was at fault doesn't matter when you're dead or in the hospital.
|
| # ¿ Jan 3, 2010 17:45 |
|
|
frozenphil posted:I guess I'm just being misunderstood since most of you are bringing up the same points again and again. You can be excited for the possibilities of a technology while not being in love with what is currently available. I'm excited for the possibilities of instant power, longer range than currently available on a single "fill up", effortless engine swaps and power upgrades, improved public image due to no longer being a public nuisance and gross sound polluter, etc... Except that half the reason that the hippies hate motorcycles is that they tear up the trails and the land. Sound is definitely a big part of it, but there's a lot of other factors there too. quote:Either way, I got my answer. The majority of CA doesn't give a poo poo about electric bikes until they perform like a super sport, have the range of a cruiser, and can triple the whoops like a supercross bike. Oh, they also need to sound like ICE equipped bikes as well as having a transmission so you can feel like you are a part of the soul and passion. The reason CA doesn't give a poo poo is all of the positives you list are generally a pipe dream. You can already have "instant power", go buy a bike that makes instant power, like a B12 or a Hayabusa, or a big single. It's going to take years if not decades of design and development needed before they can be anything but interesting little commute toys in very limited situations. The fact is: Electric brings a host of disadvantages to the table, and until those are sorted out, you can't expect anyone to take it seriously. Not pictured: 20 minutes later when he has to sit for 4 hours.
|
| # ¿ Jan 5, 2010 18:52 |
|
|
The fact that he can remove the power cell and have it act as a generator all on it's lonesome is pretty cool. Pity that it's hydrogen powered, though...my least favorite alternative fuel. Lotta downsides. Plus those tires seem a little terrifying. It seems more like an overbuilt bicycle than a proper, road going motorcycle. That's the other problem with electrics so far...everything seems underbuilt, even compared to boring, vanilla commuter bikes. The brakes are undersized, the wheels are odd sizes, just make something standard and normal. Then you can take advantage of modern motorcycle tire development, modern motorcycle braking components, etc. Jabs posted:I expect the development of the cycle market to track similarly, considering that there simply *wasn't* an electic cycle to be had 5 years ago. I don't...there's no massive giant bike makers and think tanks dumping money into electric motorcycles. And hybrids are a much different beast than pure electrics...look at how well the Tesla has(n't) turned out. That's the problem...there's a lot of R&D that needs to go into boosting the energy density of batteries before you can say that electricity is viable, or you're simply relying on "alternative power", like hydrogen or something else. Traditional gas hybrids aren't viable on motorcycles either, they're simply not big enough. Z3n fucked around with this message at Jan 5, 2010 around 19:51 |
| # ¿ Jan 5, 2010 19:47 |
|
|
blugu64 posted:gently caress it, I'll say it. I fear change, and am a grumpy 70 year old at heart. I don't fear change, I just want things that are better than what we have now. I'd sign up for Hiro's bike from Snow Crash in a heartbeat. The problem is that electrics have some very fundamental issues that make them poo poo for 99% of riders, and ignoring that is just being blinded by 
|
| # ¿ Jan 5, 2010 19:54 |
|
|
Slim Pickens posted:What downsides are you referring to? Off the top of my head I think of the danger of a pressurized tank in your trunk and the fact that there's not a lot of fuel stations yet, but the latter wouldn't be a problem as fuel stations compete and start supplying it most places. Are they also poo poo for fuel economy? The only other alternative fuels I can think of are either just different forms of fossil fuel or, in the case of ethanol, end up increasing the price of corn. First, the creation of hydrogen is still very expensive and resource consuming. You're just transferring your pollution around, and it requires so much energy as to be arguably just as bad as just driving a car around. We need to have a much more efficient process for making hydrogen before we get too excited about it. These guys also explain it better than I can...basically, the energy density of hydrogen isn't great, and pressurized tanks are needed, which introduces another potentially dangerous element into an already dangerous equation. http://planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html I haven't researched the other alternative fuels enough to really have a good opinion on it. In an ideal world, we'd have awesome batteries and natural power of some sort...but that's a long way off. I'm curious as to where development will go, we obviously can't rely on gasoline and oil forever, we need to develop a cohesive overall strategy where people don't just pick a car, they pick a power source as well. Maybe your commuter will be electric and your pleasure vehicle will be a hybrid. The solution isn't in one fuel system, it's in making them all work together in a fashion that's best for us and the environment. *rides off in a cloud of 2 stroke smoke* Jabs posted:What? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the humming noise those ingenious Tech Support Indians are making over yonder. That is loving awesome. This is what I want to see...you're using the power of gas and electric engines to make something BETTER. THIS IS THE BIKE, PHIL. Cheap, 280MPG (  ), 900$, and basically, it kicks the gently caress out of a CT90, the basic transportation the world over. If it's reliable enough to go head to head with that, this is the future. loving electrics. I'd buy the gently caress out of that just on principal...280mpg. That's loving amazing. Edit: All of this assumes that it's a legitimate 280 miles per gallon. I'd install a 10 gallon tank and drive around Priuses at gas stations, being the smuggest motherfucker on the planet. Edit2: http://members.shaw.ca/cspindler/ho...dieselbike.html Royal Enfield Diesel. 200mpg, no plugs. 
Z3n fucked around with this message at Jan 6, 2010 around 00:08 |
| # ¿ Jan 5, 2010 23:51 |
|
|
Coredump posted:Phil, I'm with you on this, I'm excited about electric motorcycles and I hope to own one in the future. I know people argue about the visceral sensation of riding a motorcycle but for me, the majority of that feeling doesn't come from the engine moving in between my legs or the sound the bike makes. For me riding a motorcycle is about piloting a vehicle you need to use your whole body to move down the road, the fact that as I'm riding down the road I can smell the smells of being outside. If I come to a stop there's not a door I can close or window to roll up to separate me from the environment, I'm a part of the enviroment. I think this is what makes riding a motorcycle unique than driving a car. An electric motorcycle does all this. With a stock exhaust and earplugs, the noise I hear at just about any speed is basically nill. Considering that the vast majority of noise you hear at speed on a (stock) motorcycle is the wind noise, it's not going to be some magically serene ride, you're still going to have shitloads of wind noise, plus if you're riding in the city, the sounds of all the cars around you. quote:An electric motorcycle solves those problems. It carries only one or two passengers, so I'm not driving around extra seats that no one is using. Plus the idea of a bike that I can ride back and forth to work and not have to worry about doing engine maintenance is a big plus. Like Jay Leno was saying in the Honda Clarity video, let me use my electric bike on the grind to work during the week and save my gas bike for the weekend when I want to go to the mountains or out in the country. That means that I would have to own two motorcycles but that's not a problem for me, and really, I don't think its much of a problem for the majority of people on this board. Solves...what problems that a motorcycle or bicycle doesn't already solve? You're still going to have to work on the electric...that instant, constant power is going to chew up chains and tires, you don't drive around any more or fewer seats than you would on a scoot or a bicycle, and chances are you're still going to have to be concerned about doing work on it. After all, you're talking about an early release motorcycle...if the big companies have teething issues with their bikes, you better believe the electric companies are going to as well. quote:Plus there's the part of me that's a geek and gadget nut, and an electric bike is kinda that too. It is neat, definitely. But in order to be game changing or even anything at all, they also need to be practical. quote:Do you really go pick up you dry cleaning and groceries on the way home from work on your bike? Its funny but I can see a lot of arguments you and others make against electric bikes be applied to supermotos. I mean you COULD go the shops, go on a long 500 mile ride on a supermoto, but would you really want to? Electric motorcycles don't make sense for a primary motorbike yet, but I think they make a lot of sense for the day to day commute vehicle. Except that the fact of the matter is you CAN go on a 500 mile ride on a supermoto. On an electric, you're doing 40-70 miles of riding and 430 miles of wishing that the road were more downhill. If you want to or not, it is literally impossible to ride 80 miles on any electric bike at reasonable speed. quote:I saw a lot of other people make arguments along the lines of, "what if I need to go do something after work?" Well, what if 3 people want to ride with you to go get food? You just got to do some smart planning about what you're doing that day with the vehicle you plan to use. I wouldn't help someone move in my little car either. Except that the electric imposes additional restrictions on that planning that any other 2 wheeled vehicle wouldn't. quote:Also, here is another less well known company working on an electric motorbike. And how long are the batteries expected to last? I've put almost 10k on the ZZR1200 in 6 months. Would I be due for a battery replacement soon? How does normal use affect the lifespan and power of the batteries? Will you hit a point when the batteries start to die where your top speed starts to go down as well as your range? What happens when it sits outside for a year? 2 years? How's parts availability in the future? These are all questions that need to be answered before an electric bike is anything but an expensive status symbol and toy. I want transportation and entertainment out of my bikes, and at the moment, the electric market offers very little of both. Unless you count this thread, which is pretty entertaining. 
|
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2010 04:31 |
|
|
Coredump posted:Yes, this is true, but like I said, you plan your day on the vehicle you're going to use. If I were to take your suggestion for a bicycle my range and cargo hauling capacity is going to be less than on the electric bike. Just like I wouldn't move a friend in a Miata. I guess what it comes down to is paying a huge additional cost just to have additional limitations on when and how far I can ride just isn't worth it to me, especially when it comes with no other advantages.
|
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2010 17:04 |
|
|
frozenphil posted:Being able to out-smug Prius owners is an advantage; also all the hippie tail you can handle. I can already out smug prius owners...I bicycle to work. And who wants hippie tail? I went to UC Santa Cruz, the odds are good but the goods are odd. 
|
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2010 17:37 |
|
|
^^^ Don't blame the bicycle because I'm not enough of a badass to push a rickshaw around for 500 miles ^^^^Jabs posted:Was it long enough ago (<2001) to have taken The Nature of Mathematics (i.e. "Math for Tenors") from Tom Lehrer? Nah, the music department was actually really extreme and there was no chance of ever getting into their classes unless you were a music major. Nicholas Cage did come and "teach" a class though. He was totally awesome, it went almost an hour over, and basically turned into "ask Nicholas Cage questions". He fielded some very dick questions with humor and diplomacy, and was just an awesome guy all around. Very cool, and I've been a huge fan ever since. Dude just loves acting and movies. He spent a couple of days teaching classes on campus in exchange for some friend/relative of his who worked at the school being able to take a week or 2 off. Just a classy act all around.
|
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2010 18:11 |
|
|
redscare posted:The correct answer is that Kawasaki needs to make a civilian version of that diesel KLR. I would buy one yesterday. Did you see the Royal Enfield Diesel? You could totally get hipster tail with that.
|
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2010 18:21 |
|
|
Ola posted:It would need at least 7 gears. I'm driving a turbodiesel Merc right now, and while it's nice for mindless winter commuting the narrow powerband would drive me nuts on a bike. I don't think that royal enfield and fast go in the same sentence. redscare posted:I don't want hipster tail or a Royal Enfield. I want my loving diesel KLR. I see this post and I just think of you screaming this as wear the nazi dildo helmet.
|
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2010 18:26 |
|
|
frozenphil posted:So you can have less choices on where to fill up with absolutely no advantages over its gasoline counterpart? Diesel bikes make sense for the military since all of there vehicles run on diesel, but diesel bikes make no sense for civilians. I think it gets the like 120mpg, so with a 5 gallon tank you'd never have to fill up.
|
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2010 18:28 |
|
|
redscare posted:You mean besides diesel being cheaper and the diesel KLR getting almost 100 mpg? Whatever you say pal. It's not an electric so you can't make excuses for it's lower cost and superior performance. Or something like that.
|
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2010 18:35 |
|
|
redscare posted:Also, diesel is diesel no matter what rear end end of the world you're in, as opposed to some of the piss gas you find in some places. Granted, a KLR isn't going to give a poo poo what kind of horrible third world gas you put in it as long as its gas in some form, but that's beside the point. Yes but if you have an electric with solar panels then as long as it's sunny you can gently caress hippie tail for days while your bike recharges and you don't need gas at all!
|
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2010 18:39 |
|
|
frozenphil posted:Where is diesel cheaper than gas? That hasn't been true in this region for a few years now. CA? It seems like diesel here lags about 6 months to 1 year behind pricing of gasoline. There was a point where it was more expensive but now it's cheaper again.
|
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2010 18:45 |
|
|
Ola posted:The electric pace of posting was too fast for me, I was referring to the KLR. Naturally aspirated diesel is one of the most hateful driving experiences you can have unless it's a huge truck and you're doing some trucky trucking (might be a KLR analogy in there). quote:Turbodiesels are great in cars. We went to a festival in the aforementioned Merc, 5 people with lots of luggage, a ski box on the roof (200 lbs overweight in total) and we got an honest, twice measured 45 US MPG. 50-55 MPH. That's what my bike gets with only me on it, and diesel is about 10% cheaper than gas too. Yeah I don't think they'd be too inspiring, but we are talking about KLRs here... 
|
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2010 19:02 |
|
|
Coredump posted:Its not a huge additional cost. And less maintenance than a traditional motorcycle is an advantage. SO THERE. Well, I've never paid over 4500$ for a motorcycle. So even the base model low end electric is hugely expensive. And that savings on maintenance only counts if I never have to replace the batteries...
|
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2010 19:52 |
|
|
Coredump posted:Do you ever buy new? I'm talking new motorcycles here. Also, including replacing the batteries in the maintenance cost is like including replacing the engine in the maintenance cost. Haven't yet...no reason to, as the newer bikes don't offer much that I can't get for many thousands cheaper by buying a few years older. Or in the case of trackbikes, you can get bikes with 20k of work for 1/4th of that. The batteries are going to wear out. Some estimates I've seen are as low as 10k, some are as high as 50k, but if you own the thing for any significant amount of time, you're going to have to deal with that. There's the potential on some bikes for having to replace the batteries as often as you do valve checks. And the batteries are the majority of the cost on an electric bike. A well maintained motorcycle can make it many hundreds of thousands of miles without any significant engine works...the only engines I've seen blown under 100k have had serious abuse/maintenance lapses or had problems from the factory. I had an SV that fragged the transmission at 140k, but the engine was still fine. It also had 2 seasons of racing under the PO on it, plus 2-3 seasons of trackdays. Z3n fucked around with this message at Jan 7, 2010 around 20:07 |
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2010 20:04 |
|
|
frozenphil posted:$25k for a new car? Pfft! Call me when you can make a car cheaper than $500! What standards do I have that even ICE bikes don't live up to? I'm making it worse by comparing used bikes to new bikes, so let's compare like to like: Let's say average cost for a touring bike is 20k, ranging from cheap (B12, strom, etc) to the expensive (full dresser harley) There is no touring electric. There probably never will be. A supersport ICE, let's say average is 15k. Supersport electric: 60k-100k. Offroad/Dualsport ICE - 4k for a cheap one, 10k for an expensive one that also could double as a distance tourer (Vstrom, etc) Offroad electric: 8k+, with the features and power of a 4k ICE bike, and 1/2 to 1/3 the range. I don't mind a premium cost for something if it's going to give equivalent performance. I'd buy an MV Agusta F4 1000 if one came up in a heartbeat, understanding that I'm paying more for essentially a name. It's not gonna outperform a GSX-R1000, especially not if you dumped the money that you saved buying one over the MV into mods. Same goes with Bimota and any of the other oddball brands that I love (Mondial Starfighter, anyone?). But the fact of the matter is, given the choice between spending 60k on an electric supersport and spending that money across how ever many other bikes I could purchase new, electrics aren't even on the radar. When it comes to offroad bikes, I couldn't make it out to the free motocross track and home on a modern electric, much less ride around the circuit. I bought my triumph, it was a distinctly worse bike than my 929, which I paid the same amount for. Get electrics in the same league as ICEs and it'll be a start. A start would be performing in the same class as a scooter....100-200 mile range, 15-30ish HP, 4-8k for the bike, and a similar reliability and maintenance cost over the lifetime of the bike (including battery replacements), and we'll have something. Until then, treating an electric bike like a motorcycle is like treating a power wheels toy like a car. It emulates the experience, but it's not really in the same league. The biggest thing for me is the lack of range and recharge time. How am I supposed to have fun on a motorcycle when I can only ride it for 30-50 minutes every 4-8 hours? Where will I go that's a fun place to ride with that? Z3n fucked around with this message at Jan 7, 2010 around 22:36 |
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2010 22:24 |
|
|
frozenphil posted:You expect a new electric bike to cost the same as a used ICE bike. Also that whole 500 miles before needing a recharge thing since I'm pretty sure no ICE bike has that kind of a range before needing a fill up. Alright, let's put it into terms that are a little easier for you to understand: I want to be able to travel 500 miles in a day. Can an electric do this? No. Can a gas engine do this? Yes. That you have to fill it up doesn't really matter because a fill up on a ICE takes 5 minutes. I prefer bikes that I can go 200 miles at a fill on, but even if I have to fill every 100 miles that's not the end of the world, because it's only 5 minutes. A "quick" (partial) charge on a ICE is still an hour and a half. 45 minutes, I guess, if you're running 220, and then you can still probably only go 20-40 miles. So if you were in a place with 220, if you were on and off the bike instantly and had it instantly plugged in, in the best possible world, it'd take you 2 hours to go 60 miles. It'd take you 16 hours of riding to go 480 miles, at an average speed of 30mph. Truly, the future of touring! Unless we can either pass a number of technological hurdles, such as standardized batteries, and quick change systems being available across the US, or the ability to charge a battery to full in a reasonable amount of time (ie, roughly the time it takes to fill a gas tank), it's going to be a long while before an electric touring bike becomes reasonable. You're also going to need ranges closer to 200-300 miles, as that's more the standard on a touring bike. My ZZR has a 6 gallon tank, gets around 45-55 mpg, and I could make it to 300 miles if I felt like stretching it out. Z3n fucked around with this message at Jan 7, 2010 around 23:27 |
| # ¿ Jan 7, 2010 23:23 |
|
|
frozenphil posted:Why not? If you swap the battery it can. Gasoline used to not have a widespread distribution network in place either. What makes you think that electricity, which already has a leg up on gasoline as the infrastructure is already in place, will never have the distribution that gasoline currently enjoys? The problem is with the quality of that infrastructure. At the moment, if 10% of the cars on the road switched to electricity, the entire infrastructure of CA would collapse. It already did recently under much less demanding situations. In areas with less population density, it's going to be less of an issue, but the fact is our electric infrastructure is vastly outdated and is in need of serious overhaul, before we start using it to deliver huge amounts of power. Do you have any idea how much raw energy is being transported in a fuel truck, and how much pipe it would take to conduct all of that via electricity? It's an order of magnitude higher than what we can support. quote:You don't get standardized batteries until you get a battery worth standardizing. You don't get a battery worth standardizing without R&D money. You don't get R&D money out of thin air. How do you expect these companies to produce anything worth while without selling a product? I know you're a Californian and all so you expect the government to pay for everything, but that's not how it works in the real world. The guys who are making electric motorcycles don't have any of the resources or market control needed to develop and standardize batteries that would approach the energy density of gasoline. All of the current electric motorcycle makers use off the shelf batteries. In the real world, electric motorcycles are a non-existent player in the battery market. quote:Decry the lowly current state of the electric vehicle market if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you're clinging to a dying vehicle. Refusing to believe that alternative fuel will ever be viable shows an extreme lack of foresight on your part and is the chief reason I keep bringing up all of those old steam/gasoline quotes and comparisons from years ago. Actually, it's really not. The car market is moving towards hybrids because that's a solution that allows many of the advantages of both an electric engine and a gas one. At the moment there are no electric cars marketed to the general population. You've got a lot of hybrids and hybrid technology, but no full electric. You're mistaking an increase in hybrid technology for an increase in electric technology, and it's just not the case yet. I don't care what powers my motorcycles as long as they go fast, and I can spend more time riding them that working on them (or waiting for them to charge). Step one is getting an electric that can be used for a day without the majority of that time being spent plugged in. It's also doubly retarded to think that the auto industry drives the motorcycle industry in any fashion. Automatics are the majority of cars on the road but an insignificant % of motorcycles. ABS is standard on all cars, there is no ABS on the vast majority of motorcycles. You may as well be looking at the jet industry for all the good it's going to do to predict trends in the motorcycle industry. What phil doesn't seem to understand, and I've been trying to drive through his thick skull, is that I like the idea of electric vehicles. The tech just isn't there yet. And it's not going to be driven by motorcycles. The future of batteries will be driven by much larger industries, it's just a matter of taking the time to let it develop. Right now, phil's mindset is like claiming that if we shoot enough loads on a pornstars face, she'll get pregnant eventually. It's just not going to happen. You need to have the correct tech in the correct place at the right time to get things moving in any meaningful fashion. Coredump posted:Nah, it'd be me and frozenphil talking to each other. I think there may have been one or two other guys who expressed interest. But really, if anyone else was interested in this sort of thing they wouldn't speak up now due to all the negativity expressed towards these motorcycles from Z3n, phat albert and a few others. Really this conversation has been dominated by 4 maybe 6 people. Actually, I think those people would be happy to speak up if they existed. Motorcyclists are some of the most ruthlessly basic people around, less is more and functionality over all, and the fact of the matter is that electric technology doesn't exist in such a fashion as to jive with the major motorcyclist mindsets. It's not practical for harley riders, ADV riders, supersport riders, and commuters who have to travel more than 40 miles in a day, or use their motorcycle as their primary means of transportation. If you can't own an electric as a primary means of transportation, how can you expect it to be adopted or taken seriously? I mean, I may as well start a thread wishing for smart wheels a la Snow Crash, because those are probably going to be realized around the same time as full electrics become feasible.
|
| # ¿ Jan 8, 2010 17:26 |
|
|
Coredump posted:Well we could talk about new models, new developments, if there's gonna be a new race series with them. Or you guys can talk about range and battery cost over and over again. What new models and what new developments? This is the problem with electrics. There are no new models and there are no new developments because electrics are stuck waiting on the rest of the tech to catch up. There's no real money in motorcycles in terms of the global economy that drives battery development, and the advancements that will move electrics into the future are not going to be made in motorcycles, they're going to trickle down from other areas. There's going to be a race series, I'll go see it, take some pictures, and write up a report on it, but chances are that even in that very insular environment, it's going to be hugely underwhelming even compared to a club race. Phil seems convinced that if we'd just believe hard enough, electrics are going to pop out a viable motorcycle...it's not going to happen. The progression of battery tech is nothing like moore's law, and it's been a slow process for any gains at all...eventually I'm sure the tech will surpass gasoline, but that could be decades or even centuries down the road. Z3n fucked around with this message at Jan 8, 2010 around 17:30 |
| # ¿ Jan 8, 2010 17:28 |
|
|
Coredump posted:Well the Brammo Enteria and the Zero Motorcycle models have only come out recently so we are probably just on the cusp of seeing this stuff hit. If we see two or three new models come out this year I'll be happy. Those companies have had a long lead time though. I think I first heard about brammo and zero 2-3 years ago. There's development time on these things, especially considering the amount of new tech they're having to deal with. If we heard about a new electric tomorrow, I still doubt we'd see anything for 2-3 years. Which in some ways is a bit of a blessing, because if they design it intelligently, you could ideally upgrade batteries as new batteries come out. So when your batteries get worn out, you just buy the upgrade pack and you just upgraded your bike to a 100 mile range or whatever. Until they can get past the dealbreaker of having to wait to ride your bike for it to charge, it's gonna be really hard to get excited about it. My first thought when I get a new bike is either taking a long rear end trip on it or tracking it...it'd be immensely frustrating to buy my new electric supersport and have to limit my trip to any road that's within 30 miles there and back minus the distance that I travel on that road. Or have a single session on the track and then sit out 2-3 to let the bike recharge. Z3n fucked around with this message at Jan 8, 2010 around 17:49 |
| # ¿ Jan 8, 2010 17:46 |
|
|
Coredump posted:Okay, I think its fair to say that you have expectations of a motorcycle that the average motorcyclist doesn't. I shouldn't have said "long rear end". I should have said "150 miles". My typical loop out to ojai, down 33, and back, is roughly 150 miles. That's physically impossible for an electric right now. Even one with a spare battery pack on it. The other issue with putting a second battery pack on is that the extra pack does have size to it as well...all of the electrics I've seen in person have already been packed to the gills with batteries, there's just not enough space to shove more batteries in there. You can put better batteries in, but then costs quickly go sky high, and you're stuck back in the same situation as before...plus a lot of them are banking on that light weight, easy to ride appeal, which is great, because I think that's where an electric can really shine, but when you start building up you have to spend more to get suspension components up to snuff, etc. Honestly, the only reason you're getting the hardcore sort of opposition is because phil's got such an abrasive approach to things...like we're all mindless plebes of the man because we don't see this future that must come to pass. I do really believe that full electrics are a possibility, I'm just not convinced that it'll happen in any reasonable amount of time. There's a bunch of really cool possibilities there...but at the moment it feels like we've got ENIAC and phil's talking about the internet and then calling us idiots for not instantly jumping to configure some token ring networks.
|
| # ¿ Jan 8, 2010 18:23 |
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Which is because the energy density of even the best batteries is still less that 1/10th that of gasoline, and no electric motor will ever be 150% efficient ;-) How long do you think it'll take before we have viable batteries on par with gasoline?
|
| # ¿ Jan 12, 2010 16:56 |
|
|
That would be nice if energy density in that context meant...well, anything at all. They essentially redefined range and electric vehicles, ignored cost, and then claimed that they're superior. Yes, electric engines are more efficient than gas engines. That's not under debate. The problem is that whereas a gasoline engine will maintain that energy density over any distance, the electric car is going to go to zero energy density after 119 miles. I don't think that any of us were arguing that you can't use an electric motorcycle every day. It's that given the cost, the idea of having a motorcycle that's limited at 100 or fewer miles per 8 hour charge cycle isn't reasonable. Yes, most of the time I go riding I travel 10 miles to work and back. But not having the freedom to hop on that bike and go 200 miles is where the problem lies.
|
| # ¿ Jan 14, 2010 19:24 |
|
|
frozenphil posted:This is the exact same excuse that bros and soccer moms use for driving 4x4 trucks and SUVs. I guess we should probably take away your project and replace it with an electric car because it's pretty much never going to be used for anything but short trips either...like the trip from the garage to the front yard and back After all, you pushing that thing around, that can't have great energy density either! Z3n fucked around with this message at Jan 14, 2010 around 19:40 |
| # ¿ Jan 14, 2010 19:38 |
|
|
Coredump posted:Its funny you mentioned they ignored cost because they did another article in the same journal where they addressed cost if you're interested in reading it. The title is; Batteries: Lower cost than gasoline? They don't include the cost of battery pack replacement in their estimates...which is the current nail in the coffin of electric travel. It'd be good if an electric could go 300,000 miles without a battery replacement, but they simply cannot. Estimates range from as low as 20,000 miles to 50,000 miles. And batteries are the majority of the cost of the car. They make a lot of assumptions that simply don't carry out. Also, gas engines are significantly cheaper unless gas prices skyrocket, they don't really address that. Gas has to be 6$ a gallon for the conventional tesla to even approach the cost of electricity plus the initial purchase cost of the electric tesla. For the ebox, things are similarly grim. If you want quick charge, which would theoretically give you similar capabilities to gas engines, it's gonna cost you gas being somewhere in the 20$ a gallon range to get 120 miles of quickcharge out of an electric. That's...not very good.
|
| # ¿ Jan 14, 2010 19:57 |
|
|
Coredump posted:Did this work? You need to open up access to it.
|
| # ¿ Jan 14, 2010 20:37 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2013 18:28 |
|
|
frozenphil posted:I'm not sure why you can't comprehend having an electric for daily commuting and a gas engine for fun on the weekend (until electrics have more parity with gas engines for distance and power). You don't own only one motorcycle so what makes you think you'd only be able to have one vehicle if you bought an electric powered vehicle? Price. The last 4 bikes I've bought combined have been under the price of the cheapest electric. What's the point? Since the 6r has been street legal, I've put more miles on it than physically possible with charge times on an electric.
|
| # ¿ Jan 14, 2010 21:37 |
|
