CuMoCo C1xx vs. Vectrix VX-1

23 replies [Last post]
jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Posts:
Points: 2338

I know that some folks will ignore this because the bike hasn't been delivered to a customer yet. However, some folks find this stuff interesting and I do field questions from time to time asking "so why is your bike better". Here's just such an answer that I sent out today:

While we obviously believe our bike (the C1xx) is more reliable than the VX-1 there's no market data to support this. However, here are some key points as to why we believe our bike will prove to be more reliable (and our testing confirms this):
1) The C1xx uses field proven sub-systems from major vendors for all aspects of the bike. The components selected for our first model are in reliable use elsewhere. Furthermore we've designed the control systems to keep within the operating limits. Other cheaper competitors are far more lax about the operating limits of standard components and folks like the VX-1 and Brammo Enertia use custom, niche products and have to deal with the inevetable field issues that arise (as well as the higher per-unit costs).

2) The C1xx uses LiFePO4 batteries and a per-cell charge balancing BMS. The VX-1 uses NiMH batteries and uses a "blind equalization charge" balancing system. The C1xx actively balances the cells on each and every complete charge, it does this by shunting charge around completely charged cells until all cells are fully charged. No cell is ever stressed by an over-charge or an over-discharge (during bike use we monitor the individual cells for low voltage cutoff). The VX-1 simply overcharges the NiMH cells every 10th charge (or something approximating that) - their basis for doing this is that the NiMH cells that receive full charge first then dissipate the excess charge as heat. However, they've no mechanism to know how long a cell is overcharged for nor if every under charged cell reaches full capacity. Likewise during bike use they have no way of knowing if an individual cell goes beneath the lower limit. Simply put they rely on pack averages, not individual cell monitoring.

As well as reliability here are some other reasons the C1xx is superior to the VX-1:

1) The C1xx is substantially lighter: 390lbs vs. 550lbs for our model with a 4.6kWh battery pack (24 cells) vs. the VX-1's 3.2kWh pack.
2) The C1xx is quicker: 70mph top speed vs. the VX-1's 62mph top speed for our model with 30 cells
3) The C1xx has superior range: 50 "real world" miles vs. VX-1's 30 "real world" miles (for our 30 cell bike which equates to a 5.7kWh pack)
4) The C1xx is less expensive and offers 4 models with different sized packs to allow the customer to select the best fit: C120e (20 x 40Ah) / $5499, C120 (20 x 60Ah) / $5999, C124 (24 x 60Ah) / $6499, C130 (30 x 60Ah) / $7499. Vectrix's approach to serving more cost-conscious customers was to try and introduce bikes with inferior lead-acid based technology. Our bikes are identical apart from the size of the battery pack which we clearly indicate affects both speed and range.
5) The C1xx has better servicability: While CuMoCo certainly plans on being in the EV business for a long time to come (it's a marathon not a sprint) should we not survive, or if the customer simply wishes to maintain their own bike with different choices, the components on our bikes can be replaced with widely available alternatives on a component by component basis. This is not practical with the VX-1 which would require a major engineering effort to replace the powertrain (battery, motor, power controller and bike controller are a more tightly coupled system in the VX - on the C1xx they have more independence).

As well as all of the above CuMoCo has a very open / transparent policy. We'd rather have happy, well-informed customers with realistic expectations than un-happy customers who feel cheated when the bike doesn't meet their expectations. That policy also applies to dealers and distributors. That seems to be another area where Vectrix appears to have failed.

So if you were considering a two-wheel EV but the demise of Vectrix has left you a little gun-shy I'd ask that you consider if the C1xx will meet your needs.

Thanks for reading.

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
Posts:
Points: 29
Re: CuMoCo C1 vs. Vectrix VX-1

John,

What's the acceleration of the C1? 0-50mph ? I know the C1 and VX-1 have a different motor configuration, so I was interested to know if the acceleration is comparable.

David

jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Posts:
Points: 2338
Re: CuMoCo C1 vs. Vectrix VX-1

dshupp wrote:

John,

What's the acceleration of the C1? 0-50mph ? I know the C1 and VX-1 have a different motor configuration, so I was interested to know if the acceleration is comparable.

David

Hi David,

I've been deliberately keeping quiet about that until we get a Vectrix on our dyno. Or more likely a side by side road test (because our inertia dyno would favor the VX because it won't take into account the VX's extra weight). I want to be able to fairly compare and contrast. I've never had any Vectrix owner support the claimed performance - my one shot testing showed it as substantially slower. Also, AFAIK, the latest VX firmware upgrade has downgraded performance to protect the battery pack.

I want to get data on both and then I'll post it. But I don't want to post numbers to be compared to fictitious marketing seconds (marketing seconds are closely related to marketing miles which, in turn, are closely related to pink unicorn horns).

We should be getting our VX-1 in a week or two.

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

kevin smith's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/29/2008
Posts:
Points: 444
Re: CuMoCo C1 vs. Vectrix VX-1

nise ending.kev

knabo's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/18/2008
Posts:
Points: 131
Re: CuMoCo C1 vs. Vectrix VX-1

Great info. I know actual performance is hard to publish accurately since 200 pounders like myself will get less performance than the 115 pound rider, but the above is a good comparison. The Vectrix always felt just a bit sluggish to me even though it had decent pickup across its range. The mere fact that the C1 weights a good 20% less and has more battery power makes it very interesting.

__________________

Luther Burrell, Petaluma, California, USA
Rides: Super Motard electric conversion from ElectricMotorSport.com
ZuumCraft from zuumcraft.com
Previous Rides: Blue Vectrix Maxi scooter

jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Posts:
Points: 2338
Re: CuMoCo C1 vs. Vectrix VX-1

BTW - I rather lazily used "C1" as shorthand for C120e, C120, C124 & C130. I won't be doing that in the future - C1 is registered for automotive use by another owner.

reikiman - any chance you can change the heading to "C1xx" or "C130"?

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

Offline
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts:
Points: 68
Re: CuMoCo C1 vs. Vectrix VX-1

At least you didn't call it a C5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5

kevin smith's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/29/2008
Posts:
Points: 444
Re: CuMoCo C1 vs. Vectrix VX-1

hey there's now't up with the c5.
i had one ok it may be slow but i love it till bike keept over taking me and the pedal fell off but quick fix spanner .
it had poor range and no one told me the batterys needed topping up with water ok i was young back then .kev

Offline
Joined: 01/11/2008
Posts:
Points: 158
Re: CuMoCo C1xx vs. Vectrix VX-1

Hi john,

I've been watching for more news about the C1xx, so thanks for posting the comparison with the Vectrix. I definitely like the approach you're taking much better than the "black box" Vectrix approach, and find this preliminary comparison to be pretty reasonable. A few random questions from a potential customer:

- What is the current status and when do you anticipate filling customer orders?
- Other than price and weight, is there any disadvantage to the models with more battery? Is there a compromise in internal storage space for example? What about handling?
- Do you have the Vectrix comparison data yet?

-= Alan

__________________

EVT Z20b and ZEV 7100 Alpine
Fort Collins, CO

Offline
Joined: 03/25/2009
Posts:
Points: 68
Re: CuMoCo C1 vs. Vectrix VX-1

kevin smith wrote:

hey there's now't up with the c5.
i had one ok it may be slow but i love it till bike keept over taking me and the pedal fell off but quick fix spanner .
it had poor range and no one told me the batterys needed topping up with water ok i was young back then .kev

You had one? I had no idea any were ever sold. You were ahead of your time!!

I think it would be cool to get one and add newer technology to it.

kevin smith's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/29/2008
Posts:
Points: 444
Re: CuMoCo C1 vs. Vectrix VX-1

hi yeh. it cost me £140.00 and they threw in mirrors and indicators it was a store called woolworths the store had been going for aprox 45/50 years.
think they was off.a vw van. i had it over the winter time i never did put them on but it was the last one .
and it was in the washing machine section as it was made in the hoover factory alongside washing machines .
it was a bit weird in the snow.like a sledge. yipee.
when i bought it no body told me how to work it i knew it was electric .but no sales man shoed me how to work it and i was peddling in for hours at 12 pm at .
night and trust me it was hard work to pedal it sinclar c5 the handles are situated under you thighs and the switch is hidden under .
plastic rubber sheth it was a sprise when i accidently pushed the hidden button and yipeeeeeee i cudent belive it
yehh i thiought it was electric i felt a millon dollers .yeh i enjoyed it .people tryed to steel it and my mum was chesed off with me .
as i lent it agenst the wall in my sisters bedroom and belive me it was big aprox 6 feet tall .
owell she made me sell it i had thought about buying on again but there expensive now but my mate converted one and put a 50 cc engine auto
it was nosy ..kev

jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Posts:
Points: 2338
Re: CuMoCo C1xx vs. Vectrix VX-1

astar wrote:

- What is the current status and when do you anticipate filling customer orders?
- Other than price and weight, is there any disadvantage to the models with more battery? Is there a compromise in internal storage space for example? What about handling?
- Do you have the Vectrix comparison data yet?

Hi Alan,

- don't want to give a date out yet - we're still working through solving the motor snafu. It might resolve in the next week or it might take much longer. When I feel confident about a date I'll first communicate it to those customers with pre-orders and then to everyone else.
- with the 30 cell bike you do lose some underseat storage. We put 4 cells across the very back of that space (where it disappears towards the rear light cluster). You still have some storage space remaining. Handling doesn't seem to be impacted very much.
- Vectrix should be hear within a week or two.

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

Mik
Mik's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/11/2007
Posts:
Points: 3710
Re: CuMoCo C1xx vs. Vectrix VX-1

jdh2550_1 wrote:

I know that some folks will ignore this because the bike hasn't been delivered to a customer yet.

You wish!
You will still have to get your facts straight if you hang yourself out of the window this far!

For example, where did you get the the number for the Vectrix' weight that you are quoting?

Quote:

1) The C1xx is substantially lighter: 390lbs vs. 550lbs for our model with a 4.6kWh battery pack (24 cells) vs. the VX-1's 3.2kWh pack.
2) The C1xx is quicker: 70mph top speed vs. the VX-1's 62mph top speed for our model with 30 cells
3) The C1xx has superior range: 50 "real world" miles vs. VX-1's 30 "real world" miles (for our 30 cell bike which equates to a 5.7kWh pack)

Apart from the false weight you quote for the Vectrix, you compare three different setups to the one Vectrix setup. If you want to claim that lower weight is an advantage as well as higher speed and longer range, then you need to pick one of your setups to do the comparison.
And don't forget again to measure acceleration where it really counts, from 60km/h to 100km/h, to enable passing slower vehicles. http://visforvoltage.org/forum/5624-performance-comparisons-vespa-250-vectrix-xm3500-amp-xm4500#comment-34758

Quote:

So if you were considering a two-wheel EV but the demise of Vectrix has left you a little gun-shy I'd ask that you consider if the C1xx will meet your needs.

Only a bike that is actually in the riders possession will ever meet their needs.

Build them, sell them, good luck with it, and then compare them!

You are doing yourself a disservice by making promises you might not be able to keep!

Quote:

However, here are some key points as to why we believe our bike will prove to be more reliable (and our testing confirms this):

The only think your testing has confirmed so far is that BMS and motor hold unexpected surprises and cause delays in production, needing to be changed in the design plan. You can rest assured that will not be the last surprise!

__________________

This information may be used entirely at your own risk.

There is always a way if there is no other way!

PJD
Offline
Joined: 11/22/2006
Posts:
Points: 1221
Re: CuMoCo C1xx vs. Vectrix VX-1

The BMS that will be used in the C1xx is a simple analog circuit design which has been used in a number of amateur-built e-bike and e-scooters for about a year now. The charger will be similar to, and can be replaced by, any of a number of widely used lead-acid battery chargers or even just a simple power supply. I own two early versions of this BMS, charged by the ordinary lead acid chargers that came with the scooter, and the system has been functioning without any problems.

My understanding is that the C1XX will have none of the absurdly complex and completely unnecessary software-driven controls that the Vectrix has. Components will be a battery pack, a "smart" state-of-charge measuring gauge, a charger, BMS, motor controller, and motor. That's it. All of these components can be independently replaced with different replacement components.

The only glitch I see, from my own experience with LiFePO4 cells, is that cold-weather users will probably have problems with the "economy" 60-volt 40AH version. The 2.5C or higher discharge rate that these lower capacity cells will be subject to will lead to unacceptable voltage sag and limited usable range in low single-digits (C) and colder temperatures. If I were John, I would only put the 60AH versions on the market.

jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Posts:
Points: 2338
Re: CuMoCo C1xx vs. Vectrix VX-1

Wow Mik! Glad to see you haven't lost the fire in your belly. Once again you try and color me as some sort of dreamer and or charlatan. That's a bit sad - especially given your experience with the Vectrix company I'd have thought you'd want to encourage openness. Beating up on folks isn't the way to achieve that. However, you know me and that likely isn't going to send me running away with my tails between my legs.

In short - GIVE ME A BREAK DUDE!

And now, the slightly longer version...

Mik wrote:
jdh2550_1 wrote:

I know that some folks will ignore this because the bike hasn't been delivered to a customer yet.

You wish!
You will still have to get your facts straight if you hang yourself out of the window this far!
For example, where did you get the the number for the Vectrix' weight that you are quoting?

Sorry for the one fact that I got wrong by a mere 10%. I quote from the recently demised Vectrix USA FAQ page: "The Vectrix scooter at approximately 500 lbs (227 kg) " (from www.vectrixusa.com/company/faqs) - google it and you'll likely find a cached version you can look at. Sorry for quoting 550 lbs - my mistake. How about a response that says "Hey John, you got the weight wrong it's only X"?

Quote:
Quote:

1) The C1xx is substantially lighter: 390lbs vs. 550lbs for our model with a 4.6kWh battery pack (24 cells) vs. the VX-1's 3.2kWh pack.
2) The C1xx is quicker: 70mph top speed vs. the VX-1's 62mph top speed for our model with 30 cells
3) The C1xx has superior range: 50 "real world" miles vs. VX-1's 30 "real world" miles (for our 30 cell bike which equates to a 5.7kWh pack)

Apart from the false weight you quote for the Vectrix, you compare three different setups to the one Vectrix setup. If you want to claim that lower weight is an advantage as well as higher speed and longer range, then you need to pick one of your setups to do the comparison.

Actually the fact that there are four different battery configurations for the C1x is a major advantage over the VX-1. Folks can choose the setup that suits them - either a bike that's lighter, or a bike that's faster. In all cases it's a bike that's less expensive. The VX-1 doesn't offer the same thing - sure they were trying to introduce VX-1E but that's lead acid based and even heavier (I think!) for a slight price break. I think our solutions are better than that - what do you think?

Quote:

And don't forget again to measure acceleration where it really counts, from 60km/h to 100km/h, to enable passing slower vehicles. http://visforvoltage.org/forum/5624-performance-comparisons-vespa-250-vectrix-xm3500-amp-xm4500#comment-34758

I'll give true acceleration figures based off of real world data where I deem fit. If you want to give a different set of comparison figures then I suggest that you go to the effort of rounding up a set of bikes, instrumenting them with data acquisition capability, doing the tests, downloading the data and posting for others to look at. Oh, and be ready for the negative posts portraying you as some sort of a con-artist from folks who get po'd at you (for what reason you'll never really be sure). Don't color me as a con-man and then "demand" that I go to the effort to provide you the data that you want - let's face it Mik you're never even going to be a customer of mine why should I listen to your demands? (BTW, I may very well do that testing for the benefit of others but it would be so much nicer not to be "challenged" into doing it.

Quote:
Quote:

So if you were considering a two-wheel EV but the demise of Vectrix has left you a little gun-shy I'd ask that you consider if the C1xx will meet your needs.

Only a bike that is actually in the riders possession will ever meet their needs.

Build them, sell them, good luck with it, and then compare them!

I have built them and I am comparing them. If you chose not to believe that then that's fine.

Quote:

You are doing yourself a disservice by making promises you might not be able to keep!

And you are doing a disservice to yourself and this board with your aggressive response to this post. If you wish to disagree that's perfectly fine - you could probably do it in a more straightforward way. How do you expect other manufacturers to engage in discussion if they get "beaten up" by folks? I contend that the only thing I got wrong in this post is 550lbs vs. "approximately 500lbs".

Quote:
Quote:

However, here are some key points as to why we believe our bike will prove to be more reliable (and our testing confirms this):

The only think your testing has confirmed so far is that BMS and motor hold unexpected surprises and cause delays in production, needing to be changed in the design plan. You can rest assured that will not be the last surprise!

Err, this would appear to assume that I had published all the other things our testing showed us and that we've already responded to. Also, would you care to come to our factory and lay eyes on all the parts we have in stock to build these bikes? I've posted some photos elsewhere but you'll probably equate that to some dastardly scheme with Photoshop or some random boxes in some random building somewhere.

As I attempted to say with the first line of the post you took exception to - some folks may choose to wait until the bikes receive independent review by paying customers. Others do appreciate hearing discussion of this bike ahead of time. Also, I make no excuse of the fact that of course I wish to promote the bikes we're building - I do very much take exception to the idea that I do so in a false or misleading way. I'm careful to publish my affiliation on each and every post (remember all those that don't); I'm also careful to post stuff in what I believe is the appropriate forum.

Hey, I'm one of the "good guys" stop treating me as "the enemy".

Or did I simply read your post wrong?

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Posts:
Points: 2338
Re: CuMoCo C1xx vs. Vectrix VX-1

PJD wrote:

The BMS that will be used in the C1xx is a simple analog circuit design which has been used in a number of amateur-built e-bike and e-scooters for about a year now. The charger will be similar to, and can be replaced by, any of a number of widely used lead-acid battery chargers or even just a simple power supply. I own two early versions of this BMS, charged by the ordinary lead acid chargers that came with the scooter, and the system has been functioning without any problems.

PJD refers to the Goodrun / Fetcher design - and that is what we're using. We've been working with Gary and Richard as we test their design in our application. That testing showed us some issues with the "charger throttling" portion of the circuit. So, one of our changes is to go with a charger that has two additional control signals (to switch to low charge rate and to switch off). Unfortunately this means that the BMS as fitted in our bikes won't be able to be used with a different power source (unless that power source can be modified to accept these two additional control signals). We wanted to do the approach PJD describes - but our testing showed it wasn't reliable with the components we wanted to use. We are still planning on producing a version of the board with the charger throttling circuit for those that want to use it.

Quote:

My understanding is that the C1XX will have none of the absurdly complex and completely unnecessary software-driven controls that the Vectrix has. Components will be a battery pack, a "smart" state-of-charge measuring gauge, a charger, BMS, motor controller, and motor. That's it. All of these components can be independently replaced with different replacement components.

Yep, that's about right. One difference is that the "smart SoC meter" is actually more like a "meta controller" to be able to give closer control over the system. For example when temperature thresholds are met we can limit the throttle input rather than simply shutting off power. However, should the worst happen and CuMoCo go the way of the dodo you are absolutely right that all of these components can be independently replaced and the BCU (bike control unit) can be taken out of the circuit. This makes it fundamentally different than the way the VX implemented their control systems.

Quote:

The only glitch I see, from my own experience with LiFePO4 cells, is that cold-weather users will probably have problems with the "economy" 60-volt 40AH version. The 2.5C or higher discharge rate that these lower capacity cells will be subject to will lead to unacceptable voltage sag and limited usable range in low single-digits (C) and colder temperatures. If I were John, I would only put the 60AH versions on the market.

We will monitor this closely and respond appropriately. Customers and potential customers should rest assured that we'll do everything possible to take care of them. I have a track record of supporting my customers.

BTW - at present the 30-cell bike is the most popular with our pre-orderers.

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

Offline
Joined: 06/22/2009
Posts:
Points: 520
Re: CuMoCo C1xx vs. Vectrix VX-1

The comparison I want is this: Weight of a fully equipped, stock (with charger) 30 cell, high speed and range C1xx as compared to a stock, fully equipped, VECTRIX VX-1. Performance, wherein two riders, of identical size/weight-(within 20 pounds and 4 inches of each other) ride the bikes at the same time and speeds, over the same course for distance. Accelleration to 60 mph, both from 30 mph and from zero mph. Also, top speed run, on levl ground, with less than 5 mph wind.
Provide these results, all from the same two vehicles, along with time required to re-charge afterwards.--Bob Curry

__________________

Robert M. Curry

reikiman's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/19/2006
Posts:
Points: 8448
Re: CuMoCo C1xx vs. Vectrix VX-1

Hey Mik, I appreciate your fact-checking of John's post. It's useful to look carefully at a manufacturer product announcement because history has shown manufacturers tend to fudge with numbers. Please remember this is the product announcement section, not the normal discussion area ...

Obviously John has shown himself over the years to be a good conscientious guy .. well, it's possible that as a manufacturer now he may begin to fudge with things. Or maybe not. Hopefully we can keep this a respectful review of his claims. Unless, that is, John does get lured over to the dark side of shady claims.

For myself .. I thought the announcement was pretty clear and good except for the bit of comparing three bikes against one as you said. It is a little confusing ...

__________________

- David Herron, Green Transportation Examiner, Green Transportation Info, The Long Tail Pipe, Torque News, electric race news, davidherron.com, 7gen.com, What is Reiki
- EVT 4000, Charger bike (rebuilt), Vego 600sx (rebuilt), Electrified Electra Townie
- Lectra motorcycle, 1971 Karmann Ghia

Offline
Joined: 04/14/2008
Posts:
Points: 517
Re: CuMoCo C1xx vs. Vectrix VX-1

Ok, despite knowing John's product line pretty well, it still takes me a second or two to make sure I know which bike he's referring to, since they can alternately be described by battery count, kWh pack size, top speed, etc. I propose that it's time for a new 'trimline' name to be attached to each model, something we can easily use and know what we're talking about every time.

Since the company name is nicely abbreviated as CuMoCo, I propose we expand on that:
Cu = Copper -> C120 (20 cell bikes, both varients)
Mo = Molybdenum -> C124 (24 cell bike)
Co = Cobalt -> C130 (30 cell bike)

Also, John, when you next update your company website, check the stats listed for each model. I think the Cobalt bike has a higher top speed and peak power output than your table lists, and that's going to be an important advertising point. You might also add in a column for the weight of each bike, since they will be slightly different.

__________________

My electric vehicle: CuMoCo C130 scooter.

jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Posts:
Points: 2338
Re: CuMoCo C1xx vs. Vectrix VX-1

marylandbob wrote:

The comparison I want is this: Weight of a fully equipped, stock (with charger) 30 cell, high speed and range C1xx as compared to a stock, fully equipped, VECTRIX VX-1. Performance, wherein two riders, of identical size/weight-(within 20 pounds and 4 inches of each other) ride the bikes at the same time and speeds, over the same course for distance. Accelleration to 60 mph, both from 30 mph and from zero mph. Also, top speed run, on levl ground, with less than 5 mph wind.
Provide these results, all from the same two vehicles, along with time required to re-charge afterwards.--Bob Curry

Bob,

That sounds great. It would be even better to have that performance testing done by an independent party.

BTW as a Vectrix owner have you ever found independent performance testing of a VX-1? Have you ever been able to achieve 0-50mph in 6.8 seconds or 0-30mph in 3.6 seconds?

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Posts:
Points: 2338
Re: CuMoCo C1xx vs. Vectrix VX-1

MikeB wrote:

Ok, despite knowing John's product line pretty well, it still takes me a second or two to make sure I know which bike he's referring to, since they can alternately be described by battery count, kWh pack size, top speed, etc. I propose that it's time for a new 'trimline' name to be attached to each model, something we can easily use and know what we're talking about every time.

Since the company name is nicely abbreviated as CuMoCo, I propose we expand on that:
Cu = Copper -> C120 (20 cell bikes, both varients)
Mo = Molybdenum -> C124 (24 cell bike)
Co = Cobalt -> C130 (30 cell bike)

Also, John, when you next update your company website, check the stats listed for each model. I think the Cobalt bike has a higher top speed and peak power output than your table lists, and that's going to be an important advertising point. You might also add in a column for the weight of each bike, since they will be slightly different.

Mike -

Cute names - but we won't be using them, sorry. I think folks would confuse them with battery chemistries (especially seeing as there really is a Lithium Cobalt)

To All -

Point taken - it was confusing to mix and match stats from different versions of the bike. From now on when talking about something common to all four bikes (such as the BCU and BMS) I will use C1x. When talking about something that is unique to a specific bike I will (a) fully qualify the name (such as C130) and (b) stick with one specific bike.

BTW - our lightest bike is actually the C120e (20x40Ah), next the C120 (20x60Ah) I chose to compare our second heaviest bike - the C124 (24x60Ah) because I consider it our "standard" model. Thus it seemed like a reasonable comparison. It is only "standard" because that was the configuration we first decided upon. We later realized there would be benefit to our customers to offer alternatives.

The C130 is our heaviest bike and it is our quickest bike, it is still lighter than a Vectrix (and it has a 1.2kW built in charger, whereas the Vectrix claims a 1.5kW built in charger).

Next time I'll try and be more clear.

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Posts:
Points: 2338
Re: CuMoCo C1xx vs. Vectrix VX-1

Mik wrote:

For example, where did you get the the number for the Vectrix' weight that you are quoting?

All data quoted in the VX-1 column of the table below is from the Specifications section of the Vectrix ZEV Owner's Manual - the PDF form which was publicly available on their website. It was created on 7/23/2008. There is no revision information in the document itself. All information quoted in the other columns pertain to the four models of bike in the C1x line from Current Motor Company. The C1x figures are not yet final - they could go up or down but they are representative of the final figures.

VX-1 C130 C124 C120 C120e
Top Speed 62 mph 70 mph 55 mph 45 mph 45 mph
Weight 515 lbs 423 lbs 390 lbs 368 lbs 328 lbs
Battery Pack Configuration 30 x 60Ah cells 24 x 60Ah cells 20 x 60Ah cells 20 x 40Ah cells
Battery Pack Voltage 125V 96V 76.8V 64V 64V
Battery Chemistry NiMH LiFePO4 LiFePO4 LiFePO4 LiFePO4
Battery Capacity 3.7 kWh 5.8 kWh 4.6 KwH 3.8 kWh 2.6 kWh

While the above table does not answer all your questions I hope it is easy to read and I hope it supports the claim that the C1x is lighter and faster than the VX-1. Because the C130 has a battery capacity of 55% larger than the VX-1 and is 92 lbs lighter it should come as no surprise that the C130 has a larger range than the VX-1. Range is a problematic number to quote because of differences in the way it can be calculated or tested for. As mentioned elsewhere CuMoCo has purchased a VX-1 and will be in a position to do some side-by-side comparisons in the next month.

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

Mik
Mik's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/11/2007
Posts:
Points: 3710
Re: CuMoCo C1xx vs. Vectrix VX-1

jdh2550_ wrote:

Wow Mik!
...
...

Hey, I'm one of the "good guys" stop treating me as "the enemy".

Or did I simply read your post wrong?

It's just a bit of friendly sparring, as usual!

What I wrote is what many would have thought.

You got to get your facts straight when you make claims, or you will get into trouble.

The sandbox trouble here will save you much trouble later on when big business with deep pockets try to sue you for misleading advertising or such stuff!

As usual, in reply to my posts, you got to outline and explain, and a lot more people read your stuff!

It can only be good for you.

__________________

This information may be used entirely at your own risk.

There is always a way if there is no other way!

jdh2550_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2007
Posts:
Points: 2338
Re: CuMoCo C1xx vs. Vectrix VX-1

Mik wrote:
jdh2550_ wrote:

Wow Mik!
...
...

Hey, I'm one of the "good guys" stop treating me as "the enemy".

Or did I simply read your post wrong?

It's just a bit of friendly sparring, as usual!

...
...

It can only be good for you.

Oof! Yeah, OK, you got me!

And you're right - better to take my licks "in here" rather than "out there".

Another public service performed by Mik. I shall remember this lesson!

__________________

John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employer
Remember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas. No Worries." - JDH, CuMoCo || "Make Volts Not War" - anon.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Short URL

Customize This